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.
Pages:
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240