In short, the form of government of a country is usually the natural and only result of its circumstances.  The reasons for such an outcome are many, but the principal one is Force.  If we study the monarchical countries we will find that usually a dynasty is created by a person who is capable of controlling the force of the entire country and overthrowing other persons opposed to him, working towards his goal with an undaunted spirit.  If this man is capable of ruling the nation and if he is a rare genius of the day, and the conditions of the country are suited for a monarchical government, he as a rule creates a new dynasty and his descendants inherit the same from generation to generation.

If this is so, then the solution of a difficult position of a country is to be found in a monarchy rather than a republic.  For on the death of a monarch no doubt exists as to who shall succeed him, and there is no need of an election or other procedure.  Englishmen say, “The King is dead, Long live the King.”  This expresses the point.  But in order to attain this point it is necessary that the law of succession be definitely defined and publicly approved; otherwise there will not be lacking, on the death of the monarch, men aspiring to the throne; and as no one is qualified to settle the dispute for power, internal disturbance will be the result.

Historically speaking no law of succession is so permanently satisfactory as that used by the nations of Europe.  According to this system the right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the monarch, or failing him, the nearest and eldest male relative.  The right of succession, however, may be voluntarily surrendered by the rightful successor if he so desires; thus if the eldest son declines to succeed to the throne the second son takes his place.  This is the rule of Europe.

If instead of this law of a succession a system is adopted by which the successor is chosen by the monarch from among his sons or relatives without any provision being made for the rights of the eldest son, disturbance will be the inevitable result.  There will not be a few who would like to take possession of the throne and they will certainly plot in the very confines of the palace, resulting in an increase of the sufferings of an aged monarch; and, even if the disaster of civil war be avoided, much dispute will arise owing to the uncertainty of the successor—­a dangerous situation indeed.

Such is the lesson we learn from history.  The conclusion is, speaking from the viewpoint of the problem of transmission of power, that the superiority of the monarchical system over the republican system is seen in the law of succession,—­that is the eldest son of the ruler should succeed to the throne.

Leaving out the nations of ancient times, the majority of countries in Europe and Asia have adopted the monarchical system.  There are, however, exceptions such as Wen-ni-shih (Venice) and Switzerland, which adopted the republican form of government; but they are in the minority while most of the great nations of the world have adopted the monarchical form of government.