Chapter 32 Lectures on Political Science (September 2, October 16, 1902)

The conditions stipulated in the constitutions and other laws of modern European and American countries have largely applied the latest and most accurate theories.Looking at it at a glance, his words don't need to be chattered.People in my country, those who know this hope that they will not be presumptuous, and because they have dabbled in it, they will extend the following explanation.One to one, without the beginning and the end, it is not enough to be called a writing, so it is called Yanyan. Monarch irresponsibility The constitution of every constitutional monarchy has a special article that says: The monarch has no responsibility, and the monarch is sacred and inviolable.What is the meaning of this?Said: This is the wonderful method of the transitional era, and the most important way to prevent revolution.

The monarch is the head of a country, and he is also the one who acts as the head of the administrative organs.All administrators must not be irresponsible.If the administrator is irresponsible, even if there is a legislature, it will be in vain. The public law will eventually be trampled one day, and there will be no harmony between the ruler and the ruled. Ji also.However, the monarch, who is the head of the executive, makes it clear that he has no responsibility, so that he can be free, isn't it contradicting the constitutional spirit?And who knows that the reason why the constitutional government is so beautiful lies in this.

The mother of constitutional government is Britain.The British have a constant saying: "The monarch cannot do evil." It can be said to be extremely unreasonable in terms of superficial appearance.Husbands and monarchs are still human ears, and human nature can be made to be unkind, so how can there be differences when they perform this nine-five-year plan.Although, considering the actual situation in Britain today, this statement is sound.Where can I prove it?The so-called evil of the monarch is to appoint ministers who are not popular with the people to sicken the people, not to promote the good governance that the people want, and to force the three to enforce the bad governance that the people hate.What about the UK?The British Constitution is unwritten, so the growth and decline of various powers must be recorded in history.Considering the British practice of appointing ministers today, William III Nathan Darren's words in 1689 ordered the leader of the party with the most majority in the House of Commons to organize the government, and it has been established since then.Anyone who does not have the consent of the majority of the House of Representatives shall not be in the government.In the post-an era, the rules are fixed.At that time, the Prime Minister Marbolo, the leader of the Conservative Party, and the war started. Although the Conservative Party opposed it, the Progressive Party supported it.And James third, although he wanted to take power by himself and appoint private individuals, he was resisted by the parliament and could not carry out his aspirations.In the fourth period of James and the fourth period of William, the restrictions on royal power became more and more strict. In the sixty years since the arrest of the former emperor Victoria, this case was as iron as a mountain and could not be moved.Afterwards, in the era of the two heroes of Granston and Taxisley, whenever the general election was held, the ruling party inspected the parliament and the majority of the enemy party was not as good as that, that is, they resigned without waiting for the opening of the parliament.From this point of view, the ministers of the British government are not appointed or dismissed at the will of the monarch, and the power of appointment and dismissal rests with the people.It is the monarch who cannot appoint ministers who are disappointed by the people to sicken the people.In England, in the era of Charles II and William II, the monarch was also present at any government meeting, regardless of whether it was acceptable or not.After James became the first, this regulation was abolished, and all political strategies were carried out by ministers, and the monarch never intervened.The handling of government affairs by the husband and the minister cannot be implemented without the promise of the monarch. Although, if the minister wants to resign because he cannot implement his political strategy, and the Congress agrees with the minister, he must demand its implementation, and even all electoral districts If he agrees to the request of the Congress, the monarch cannot refuse it.Therefore, Anson, a famous scholar, once said: "Since the year 1714 in England, the monarch and the ministers have actually changed positions of power; "So.From this point of view, the British monarch cannot prevent the good governance that the people want to do, there is a decisiveness, and he cannot do evil.Since the eighth reign, the monarch has been arbitrarily arbitrarily engaged in diplomatic affairs.After the third James, as of today, when the monarch introduces foreign envoys, he must be accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The letters and correspondence between him and the foreign monarch cannot be issued unless they are reviewed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the freedom of the monarchy is almost lost. .It is not only for diplomacy, but also for internal governance.In the fourth period of James, there was an Irishman who was sentenced to death. The king wanted to prescribe his own privilege and ordered the Governor of Ireland to pardon him. Prime Minister Robert Beale objected, saying that this power could not be exercised without the hands of the responsible minister. end.Since then, the king has never dared to let himself go.From this point of view, the British monarch cannot force the people to hate the government. There are three things that he cannot do evil.In essence, the British monarch can only do evil, even if he is good, he can't do it.Those who call this and not that, evil will belong to the ministers, and good will belong to the king.Although, since the monarch is willing to delegate his power to the ministers trusted by the people without competing with them, he is the one who is good, but even if it is said that the British monarch can do good but not evil, who would say it is inappropriate!

As for Madam, if she can't do good or evil, then she has no responsibility for everything, don't ask me!Therefore, British citizens, no matter noble or base, rich or poor, old or young, male or female, are all responsible, but the monarch is really not responsible.British constitutionalism is the mother of constitutionalism in all countries. Therefore, every constitutional country with a monarch uses the phrase "no responsibility" as its constitution.Although the scope of its privileges is not without differences, the spirit of it all comes from England.The so-called monarch without responsibility is just as it is, so it is.

What is the reason why the monarch must make it irresponsible?Said: Avoid revolution too. (This meaning is very simple, and everyone has it. Scholars in constitutional monarchies are mostly unwilling to expose it. The Japanese are especially jealous, so they euphemistically say that the monarch is sacred, so there is no responsibility, and privileges, so there is no responsibility. Responsibility.) Anyone who has a responsibility, if he does not fulfill his responsibility, he will go, and if he does not fulfill his responsibility and does not leave, then the husband will stand in the position of supervisor, for example, he will be punished and exiled. This is the common meaning of heaven and earth.Confucianism says that a monarchy is a responsible monarch, so it is said: "A man who is a thief is called a husband. He has heard that a husband is punished, but he has never heard of killing a king." Treat the monarch as a bandit and an enemy." Therefore, it is said: "The revolution of Tang and Wu follows the heaven and responds to the people." The meaning of responsibility is not exhausted. Mencius said that the meaning of responsibility is especially clear. His words Qi Wang said: "What if a friend freezes and starves his wife? What if the judges cannot manage things? What if there is no cure within the four realms It’s all to awaken the concept of responsibility. It also says: “If you ask for pasture and grass but don’t get it, then you will turn it on to others, or will you stand up and see your death?” It’s also the meaning of responsibility.) Those who use their husbands to supervise others The rights that should be exercised.A husband who represents a country and is in the charge of administration, his responsibilities are not the usual responsibilities of a husband.And the monarch, who will spend his whole life in this charge, the short ones are a few years, and the elders are decades, even if Shun and Yu are resurrected, how can they be free from all mistakes?If there is such a thing, the people will tolerate it. Today they can tolerate one thing, and in the future they can tolerate a hundred, while the government is in chaos and the country is in decline.If there is something and the people do not bear it, it means that the revolution will never end.The body of a husband alone lasts for decades, and his responsibilities are difficult to fulfill, which is the case. What's more, in the world and as a courtesy, the world can be estimated to be tens of years, and the age to be estimated to be hundreds?If so, monarchy and responsibility cannot go hand in hand.To attach importance to the monarch, one must sacrifice responsibility, and to attach importance to responsibility, one must sacrifice the monarch. Confucius and Mencius wanted both benefits to coexist. Therefore, the monarchs in China for thousands of years have the name of responsibility, but the reality of no responsibility. , It is also endless in history.

The people of Thailand and the West know this, and think that those who hold the real power of a country's administration are irresponsible;The so-called real power is either in the head of state, or in the assistant of the head of state.If there is a head of state, the head of state must not be appointed for an indeterminate term, and can be replaced by a certain period of time, such as the "Kongsu" in ancient Rome, and the "Berry Xi Tiande" in the United States and France today; In fact, the power must not be transferred to one of the heads of state, which is the so-called responsible minister in today's constitutional monarchy.Therefore, the head of a country, only those who have no real power can have a position, and only those who have no position can have real power. Either one of the two can be used to establish a country; if they are mixed together, the country cannot be established if there is no one who can establish it. , there is no one who can survive for a long time in today's natural selection field.A good monarch has no responsibility, and a shrewd monarch has no responsibility!

The monarch has no responsibility, so the responsibility lies with the ministers.Every law of the monarchy, published once, cannot be implemented without the countersignature of the minister (the deputy is also signed by the monarch).Therefore, those laws and decrees that are not satisfactory to the people will be attacked by the people, saying: "My lord can't do evil at all, but now he is doing evil, and the vice-signer will meet him."Therefore, although criticizing his government is not disrespectful, and abolishing his people is not a crime.And the countersigner has to be cautious under ten eyes and ten hands, and use self-examination and self-criticism, and the government affairs of a country are over.The best is the best, and the monarch has no responsibility to make it so.

Or say: The Han system, if there is a disaster, the three princes will be exempted. (Confucius's meaning is that all monarchs are responsible to the sky, so if there are disasters, the monarch should be afraid of repairing provinces.) Is it the meaning of the responsible minister!It will not be the same as the current European system.Said: No.The monarch must have no responsibility, and then the ministers can be blamed.If the system of the Han Dynasty is against the laws of the sons of the world, it is also like Boqin.The Duke of Zhou assists the king, and if the king has faults, he will slander Boqin. The husband Boqin is not powerful enough to stop the king's faults.In the Han system, the monarch was dictatorial, and the prime minister was only the mouthpiece of the cashier and his uncle, and the power of the cashier was transferred to Shangshu and Zhongshu, and the three princes were as stiff as Li Daitao.If the responsible minister is a constitutional state, the monarch is not allowed to accept him, nor can he help him.It doesn't matter whether the UK has the most perfect constitutional government, even Germany, where the monarchy is stronger (the German judge does not regard the majority and minority as advancing and retreating), and in August 1882, Prime Minister Bismarck asked Germany The emperor issued an imperial edict to consolidate his position, and the leader of the opposition party, Poin, reprimanded him in the parliament for shirking responsibility and took the royal family as the house of grievances. Afterwards, Bismarck was disappointed by the public and had to avoid the road of virtue.Japan prides itself on the imperial system, and the people have the most respect for the king. In February and March last year, the Ito cabinet begged for the emperor's hand letter to persuade the House of Nobles because of its opposition to the House of Representatives bill. Self-supporting, Ito begged for bones soon.It is a common practice that all monarchs are not allowed to help ministers.If the British House of Representatives is not allowed to use the name of the monarch, it is disrespectful to state the meaning of the monarch in order to decide a case of justice.If it is not as good as it is, then there is no one who can raise the actual effect of the responsible minister.

Said: If so, the monarch of a constitutional state is a virtual weapon.Why are you still hanging on here and don't change?Said: It is true in the transitional era.The world is the public, and the selection of the virtuous and capable is the great scripture of the century.Although, the nature and situation of the various nations are not uniform, some are suitable for democracy, and some are not suitable for democracy.If it is not appropriate, then the ruler cannot fail to stand. If the ruler is established, he wants to be safe and not dangerous, and he wants to be orderly and not chaotic.What's more, the system of responsible ministers is sometimes better than democracy! (I have another discussion.)

The monarch has no responsibility, and the monarch is sacred and inviolable. The two have different names and the same reality.But it has no responsibility, so it can not be violated; but it is inviolable, so there can be no responsibility. (Yi Wenyan)'s interpretation "Kanglong" said: "Great but no position, high but no people, so there is regret because of action." It is also the image of a constitutional monarch. If there is no action, there will be no regrets, and if there is no responsibility, there will be no Infringement is also true, otherwise, if the king is not sick, the country will be sick, and if the country is not sick, the king will be sick.Hey, it's dangerous!

greatest happiness The so-called civilizations in Europe and America today are all civilizations of the transitional age.The evidence is different. If the most popular political theory, the so-called "greatest happiness for the greatest number" is also at one end. Just like the Buddha said the greatest happiness of all living beings, like Kong and Ye said the greatest happiness of all human beings, it is not enough, it is not possible.As Rousseau's predecessors said, the greatest happiness of the nation as a whole, or the second, is not feasible today.Today's world is a world of contradictory interests, and what is good for one must be detrimental to the other, or if the benefit of one increases, the benefit of the other will have to be sacrificed.So the two parties often fight each other, and the victor only relies on power.In barbaric times, power is always reserved for a few people, so happiness is always for a few people, and the majority of people who achieve happiness are in direct proportion to the difference in civilization.Therefore, looking at the fortunes of the world for thousands of years, the scope of happiness is constantly becoming more competitive and wider, from the fewest to the second few, from the second few to the second majority, from the second majority to the majority, and from the second majority to the majority, to the next few. most.In the future, will there be a day when all the people and all mankind can achieve the greatest happiness?I dare not forget.If it is today, most of the words, I believe it is impossible to change. Day by day, it tends to be in the majority, and it is an inescapable rule of heavenly evolution.Although, it also relies on manpower.Therefore, if the academic theory is clear, its progress must be fast, and if the academic theory is wrong, its progress must be slow, or it may be stagnant.Westerners only understand this theory, so for hundreds of years, they have always followed the natural fate.At the end of the Middle Ages, nobles competed with kings for political power, with the majority of nobles and the minority of kings. (The British Constitution was originally won by the nobles and the king.) In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the people and the church fought for power, and the people were in the majority and the church was in the minority.Since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commoners and nobles have struggled for power, with the majority of the commoners and the minority of the nobles.From now on, laborers have to compete with capitalists for political power, with laborers in the majority and capitalists in the minority.Where the majority competes with the minority, it must be dismissed at the beginning, and it must be extended at the end. Although this is not inevitable due to the principle of evolution, it often depends on academic principles.Based on academic theory, the weak in the majority dare to fight, while the strong in the minority have to give in.The governance of Europe and the United States today is the result of this competition and one concession. In the future, those who can expand the scope of happiness and tame the fate of world harmony will also be the result of one struggle and one concession. There are religious words to persuade, there are philosophers to persuade disputes, the two complement each other, and the fortune of the world is advancing day by day.The rule of Taixi is really quite dependent.The words of Chinese Confucianism are all words of giving way.Those who have power above their words teach them to protect the people, teach them to nourish them, and teach them to benefit them. To teach obedience is also to guide them to give in and not to be the vanguard of power.Isn't it good that the husband and the upper and lower can give in to each other?And if there is no such thing as giving in but not fighting, the weak will become weaker and the strong will become stronger, and the world will never be equal.I used to write "Book of Freedom in the Ice Drinking Room", one of which discussed the crime of giving up freedom. It said: "The natural selection of the husband and wife, the superior wins and the inferior loses. This is also the common law of natural performance. Everyone strives to survive If you want to win, you must strive for victory. If you strive for victory, you must be the best. If you are the best, you will expand your own freedom without being satisfied. The freedom of others is the limit. Why is there a limit to the freedom of the husband? For example, there are two people here, each striving to win, each striving to be the best, each expanding his own freedom and not being satisfied, and their lines of force are stretched outward. Stretch endlessly, and the two lines meet, and the two forces are not equal, so the boundary emerges. If there is a weak one in the strength of two people, the line stretched by the strong will invade the boundary of the weak, and this will inevitably happen. There is no need to shy away from it." Therefore, if the majority of the weak can fight well, the few strong will have to give way.If it is said that it is all about giving in, the weak give in and the strong don't, what will happen?Then its power and happiness are bound to be snatched away by those who refuse to give up.Therefore, although the Chinese doctrine aims at the happiness of all human beings, the result of its politics is actually to make the powerful and the people thieves and monopolize happiness, all for this reason. Happiness is born of power, and power is born of wisdom.Therefore (the poem) says: "Seek much happiness for yourself." A happy person must seek it for himself and get it for himself, not for others.In a group of people, if there are a few wise people, few will enjoy happiness; if there are many wise people, then many will enjoy happiness; if there are most wise people, then most people will enjoy happiness.The proportion is almost certain, but there is no difference.Therefore, those who talk about governance must not just say casually: I give the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.If you want to make the people unable to have their own source, but want to be strong and give it to them, there is no one who does not suffer from its disadvantages.Therefore, the German sacrificial record Ai Shijin recently wrote that the fools of the majority suppress the wise few, which is the disease that is cured by the masses today.And the Russian religious director, Pobie Nasdev, also wrote about the disadvantages of extremely aggressive political parties and parliamentary politics.And how can such dissent be tolerated?How can it move people?If the degree of wisdom is not as high as that of the majority, but the degree of desire for happiness is higher than that of the majority, there is no one who does not have a lot of disadvantages, and those who oppose it will justify it.Taixi is still the same, let alone in China today!However, the vast majority of our citizens want to achieve the greatest happiness, and they also think about it. The scholar Bolius wrote a book called "On the State of the Present Age", which also refuted the disadvantages of the representative government system, and its purpose and virtue Nai's and Po's in Russia are different.The meaning of wave flow is that those who represent politics are the autocracy of the majority.It is absolutely impossible for the minority to tyranny over the majority, nor for the majority to tyranny over the minority; it is absolutely unacceptable to sacrifice the happiness of the majority for the happiness of the few, and it is also wrong to sacrifice the happiness of the few for the happiness of the many.This solid statement of Taiping Datong is also true, but the level of civilization in the world today is not enough to speak of it.In the power of two evils, the lesser is chosen, but why give up the greatest happiness for the greatest number?Therefore, the so-called civilization in Europe and the United States today is also the civilization of the transitional era. If it is China, it is also the transitional era and has not been able to achieve it.Husband!