No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
The Chung-hua min-kuo tzu-yu tang or tzu-yu tang 
was named after the Japanese Jiyūtō which was conventionally known as the ‘Liberal Party’. However, in both Japanese and Chinese the word Jiyū/tzu-yu retained strong connotations of ‘liberty’ which have been lost by the word ‘Liberal’. It seems best therefore to leave the title untranslated.
1 See Scalapino, R. A., Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan, Berkeley, 1953, p. 65.Google Scholar
2 See the list of supporters attached to the ‘simple constitution of the Tzu-yu tang’ included by Ming-tung, Ch'en
in ‘Tzu-yu tang ts'ai-liao hsuan-chi’, Chin-tai-shih Tz'u-liao, No. 17, 1957; No. 6, p. 143.Google Scholar
3 Min-li pao, 12 Jan. 1912, p. 6. ‘The activities of the Tzu-yu tang’ and Min-li pao, 21 Jan. 1912, p. 8. Ch'en Ming-tung's deduction that the Party was founded in April (p. 340) may come from a reference to the date of a formal inaugural meeting which took place in that month. However, the Party had been active for at least three months before that.
4 Shina gendai jinmyo kan, Tokyo, 1924.Google Scholar
5 Tzu-yu, Feng
, Chung-kuo ke-ming yun-tung er-shih-liu nien tsu-chih shih quoted in Chung-hua min-kuo k'ai-kuo wu-shih nien wen-hsien (K'ai-kuo wen-hsien), Series I, vol. xii, Taipei, 1964, p. 593:Google ScholarFeng, , She-hui chu-i yü chung-kuo, Hongkong, 1920, p. 5Google Scholar, refers to the paper as popular and vulgarly socialist.
6 T'ien-hsi, Ch'en
, Tai Chi-t'ao hsien-sheng pien-nien ch'uan-chi, Taipei, 1958, p. 14.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., pp. 1–13.
8 Min-kuo ming-jen t'u-chien, Nanking, 1937, ch'uan xiv, p. 75.Google Scholar
9 A third figure was Chou shao-heng 
Chou Hao 
. Pin, Hsieh
Min-kuo cheng-tang-shih 1927 re-issued Taipei, 1962, p. 43Google Scholar. Tien-tuo pao and Min-ch'üan pao may have overlapped for a time. See Min-li pao, 20 03 1912, p. 1.
10 Min-li pao, 1 February 1912, p. 1, and 3 March 1912, p. 5.
11 Tu-hou, Yen
. ‘Hsin-hai ke-ming shih-ch'i Shanghai hsin-wen-chieh tung-t'ai’ in Hsin-hai ke-ming hui-i lu, vol. iv, Peking, 1963, p. 80.Google Scholar
12 Min-li pao, 21 January 1912, p. 6.
13 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 141.
14 Min-li pao, 17 January 1912, p. 6.
15 Ibid., 20 April 1912, p. 10.
16 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 141.
17 Min-li pao, 20 April 1912, p. 10. Cheng tang could be used in the sense ‘Governmelt Party’ and Min tang as ‘opposition party’, but here the meaning is quite clear.
18 Shina Gendai jinmyo kan, p. 504.
19 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 146.
20 Ibid., p. 142.
21 Min-li pao, 15 January 1912, p. 6, and 17 March 1952, p. 16
22 Ibid., 9 April 1912, p. 8.
23 Ibid., 11 March 1922, p. 8, and The China Republican, 21 February 1913, p. 4.
24 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 143.
25 Ibid., p. 154.
26 The branches so far identified were Shanghai, Nanking, Soochow, Chenchiang, Wuchiang, Yangchow, Changchow and Chiht'ang in Kiangsu, Hangchow, Ningpo and Hsiaoshan in Chekiang and Foochow in Fukien. There were branches at Wuchang, Hankow Shasi, Wuhsueh and Chiangling in Hupei. However, this is disproportionate as Ch'en Ming-tung has published documents concerning the Tzu-yu tang in that province (pp. 145–154). There were probably no other branches in Hupei. There were also branches at Peking, Ts'unhua and Tungling in Chihli. Li Yuan-hung reported that the Party was flourishing ‘particularly in Kiangsu and Chekiang’. There is also the analogy of the area of influence of the Chung-kuo she-hui tang. See my Socialism in China to 1913, unpublished thesis, Cambridge, 1966.Google Scholar
27 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 141.
28 Ibid., pp. 147 and 154.
29 Min-li pao, 16 March 1912, p. 8.
30 Ibid., 21 January 1912, p. 6.
31 Lu Hsun hsuan-chi, Peking, 1959, vol. 1, p. 78.Google Scholar
32 Ch'ao-chun, Ma
, Chung-kuo lao-kung yun-tung shih, Taipei, 1959, vol. 1, p. 64.Google Scholar
33 K'ang-hu, Chiang, Hung-shui chi, San Francisco, 1914, p. 58b.Google Scholar
34 See Ma Ch'ao-chun, vol. 1, pp. 73–79.
35 The Republican Advocate of China, 18 January 1913, p. 1642.
36 Ch'en T'ien-hsi, p. 17.
37 Chi-t'ao, Tai, Tai T'ien-ch'ou wen-chi, published as Yü-fu T'ien-ch'ou wen-chi, Shanghai, 1913, reprinted Taipei, 1962, Section II, p. 1.Google Scholar
38 Scalapino, R. A. and Yü, G., The Chinese Anarchist Movement, Berkeley, 1961, p. 37, and Min-li pao, 27 February 1912, p. 8.Google Scholar
39 Ch'en T'ien-hsi, p. 17.
40 Ibid., p. 17.
41 Min-li pao, 2 May 1913, p. 10, and Chiang k'ang-hu, p. 112. The pure socialists were an anarchist influenced breakaway from the Chinese Socialist Party. See Socialism in China to 1913, pp. 328–330.
42 Ch'en T'ien-hsi, p. 18.
43 Min-li pao, 20 April 1912, p. 8.
44 See the attitude of the authorities in Ts'un-hua, Ch'en Ming-tung, pp. 143–144.
45 See his execution of fifty strikers at the Han Yang arsenal. China Republican, 4 July 1913, pp. 13–16.
46 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 4.
47 Ibid.
48 Ch'en Ming-tung, pp. 140–141.
49 Ibid., p. 141. Yen Fu 
, in his translation of On Liberty, accepted the Utilitarian and Social Darwinist rejection of natural rights. Schwartz, B. I., In Search of Wealth and Power, Yen Fu and the West, Cambridge, Mass., 1964, p. 145.Google Scholar
50 Kametaro, Hayashida
, Nihon Seitōshi, Tokyo, 1927.Google Scholar Quoted in Scalapino, R. A., Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan, Berkeley, 1953, p. 69.Google Scholar
51 ‘Lun hsueh-shu chih shih-li tso-yu shih-chieh’ in Yin-ping-shi wen-chi, reprinted Taipei, 1960, vol. iii, ch. 6, pp. 112–113Google Scholar, quoted in Levenson, J. R., Liang ch'i-ch'ao and the Mind of Modern China, London, 1959, p. 107.Google Scholar
52 J. J. Rousseau, ‘The Social Contract ’, Book I, Section VII. Liang ch'i-ch'ao saw this contradiction: ‘Rousseau's proclamation of the social contract begins by stressing everybody's complete freedom of thought, but when he discusses the provisions of social contract he turns round and stresses the state and does not concern himself with the individual. It is almost against Rousseau's true meaning.’ ‘Lu-sao hsueh-au’, Yin-ping-shih wen-chi, vol. III, ch. 6, p. 102.
53 Yen Fu translated Mill's ‘On Liberty’ in 1899 and published it in 1903 under the title Ch'un-chi ch'üan-chieh lun (Discourse on the Rights of the Group and the Individual). Ts'ai Yuan-p'ei stated that by 1903 Yen was so reactionary that he wanted to avoid using the word ‘liberty’. Ts'ai Yuan-p'ei hsien-sheng i-wen lei-ch'ao, Taipei, 1961, p. 196. See also Schwartz, p. 144.Google Scholar
54 Liang's translation of the introduction to ‘On Liberty’ stopped just before Mill reached this topic. ‘Lun cheng-fu yü jen-min chih ch'üan-hsien,’ Yin-ping-shih wen-chi, vol. iv, ch. 10, p. 4.Google Scholar
55 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148. Ernest Young p. 148. in his ‘Ch'en T'ien-hua’, Harvard Papers on China XIII, 1959, p. 144Google Scholar, refers to very similar statements from Ch'en and suggests their relationship to Rousseau.
56 Yuan-p'ei, Ts'ai, ‘Tzu-yu yü fang-ts'ung’, Ts'ai, pp. 421–3.Google ScholarCh'i-ch'ao, Liang, ‘lun Tzu-yu’, Yin-ping-shih ch'üan-chi, Shanghai, 1916, vol. ii, p. 386.Google Scholar Translated by Wieger, L., Chine Moderne, Tome I, Prodromes, Hsienhsien, 1931, p. 59Google Scholar. Schwartz, p. 144, Young, p. 145, and Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148.
57 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148.
58 Ibid., p. 146. This concept was not restricted to the Tzu-yu tang. Yen Fu wrote: ‘Liberty can be enjoyed only by those whose power of self-mastery is already great.’ See Schwartz, p. 146.
59 Ibid., p. 148
60 Tai, II, p. 136.
61 Yin-ping-shih ch'üan-chi, vol ii, p. 16Google Scholar, translated Wieger, p. 75.
62 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148.
63 Liang, Yin-ping-shih ch'üan-chi, vol. ii, p. 4, Wieger, p. 71, and Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148.Google Scholar
64 Liang, Yin-ping-shih ch'üan-chi, vol. 1, p. 38, Wieger, p. 58. This theme is one of Schwartz's main topics.Google Scholar
65 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 145.
66 Ibid., p. 145.
67 The first Japanese party was the small and shortlived Aikoku koto, formed in 1874 by Itagaki and others. For its foundation and that of the Jiyūtō, see Scalapino, pp. 40–92, and Ike, Nobutaka, The Beginnings of Political Democracy in Japan, 1950, pp. 60–72.Google Scholar
68 Hayashida, p. 153.
69 The Kaishintō was formed under Okuma Shigenobu 
in 1881. Its intellectual centre was Keiō University, run by the famous Fukuzawa Yūkichi 
which specialized in English political thought. Mill's On Liberty was translated in 1871 and was immensely popular until it was largely superseded by Social Contract, which was translated in 1877 by Hattori Toku 
and again by the brilliant Nakae Shōmin 
in 1885. Meiji Bunka zenshū reprint, Tokyo, 1957, vol. ii. Jiyū Minken hen, pp. 512 and 514.Google Scholar
70 Hironaka, Kono
in Kono Banshu den Tokyo, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 186–7, quoted in Ike, p. 112.Google Scholar
71 Scalapino, p. 76.
72 Minken Jiyū Ron. Jiyū Minken hen, pp. 188–9, translated Scalapino, p. 69.
73 Meji seishi (Political History of Meiji) by Sashibara Yasuzō 
came out in 1893. Itagaki's own Jiyūtōshi was published in 1910; a Chinese translation of this appeared in 1911.
74 ‘Jih-pen yü-pei li-hsien shih-tai chih jen-min’ appeared in Hsin-min ts'ung-pao, 4, 11, pp. 1–19; 4, 12, pp. 23–40; 4, 17, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Wilson, George Macklin It is analysed by in ‘Politics and People: Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's view of constitutional developments in Meiji Japan before 1890’. Papers on Japan, vol. 1, Cambridge, Mass., 1961, pp. 189–227.Google Scholar
75 Wilson, pp. 202–3.
76 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 148.
77 Ch'en Ming-tung, p. 149.
78 Ibid., p. 141.
79 Brandt, Conrad, Stalin's Failure in China 1924–27, Cambridge, Mass., 1958, p. 57Google Scholar. The belief in the primacy of economics over politics and the importance of popular prosperity is a major strand in the orthodox Confucian tradition which Tai clearly realized, section II, p. 47.
80 Tai, II p. 38.
81 Ibid., p. 39.
82 Ibid.
83 Tai, III, p. 1.
84 Tai, II, p. 115.
85 Ibid., pp. 135–8.
86 Ibid., pp. 42–3.
87 Tai, II, pp. 40–1.
88 Ibid., p. 43.
89 Ibid., p. 42.
90 Ibid., p. 44.
91 Tai, II, pp. 44–5.
92 Ibid., pp. 25–26.
93 Sakawa Hideichi 
, Tai, II, p. 23.
94 Tai, II, pp. 23–24 and 26.
95 Ibid., p. 45.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid., pp. 46–7.
98 Tai, II, p. 58.
99 Ibid., p. 55.
100 Ibid., p. 59.
101 For a map of Sun's scheme see yun, Chang Ch'i (Ed.), National Atlas of China, vol. iv, South China, C. 37.Google Scholar
102 Tai, ii, p. 63.
103 Ibid., p. 61.
104 Tai, ii, p. 63.
105 Ibid., p. 52.
106 Ibid., p. 60.
107 Ibid., p. 63.
108 Ibid., pp. 49–50.
109 Tai, ii, p. 51.
110 Ibid.
111 Ibid., pp. 50–1.
112 Ibid. p. 52.
113 After 1913 Tai worked closely with Sun and was sympathetic towards many radical movements including communism. By 1923, however, he had serious reservations about the Kuomintang Reorganization, especially concerning the toleration of the Communist party. In the months following Sun's death in 1925 he wrote two influential pamphlets which created official Nationalist Sun Yat-senism. He also played a part in persuading Chiang K'ai shek to turn against the Communists. After 1927 he held important supervisory, administrative and educational posts under the Nationalist Government until his death in 1949. See T'ien-hsi, Ch'en and Schwartz, B. I., Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao, Cambridge. Mass., pp. 32–3 and 54.Google Scholar