As to Portugal it is true that the change from the monarchy to republic has not stopped internal disturbance; but is it not a fact that Portugal became a republic as a result of internal disturbance and was it not during the existence of the monarch that the disturbance started? It is ridiculous to suppose that a republic will surely court disturbance while a monarchy will surely ensure peace and order. Is not Persia a monarchy? Is not Turkey a monarchy? Is not Russia a monarchy? Read their history in recent decades and see how many years of peace they have had. There have been no election of presidents in these countries. Why then such unrest? Again, why was the state of affairs during the Sixteen States of the Five Dynasty-Period and the Ten States of the Five Successions as deplorably miserable and disastrous as the state of affairs now prevailing in Mexico, although there was no election of Presidents then? In quoting objective facts as illustrations the critic should not allow his choice to be dictated by his personal like or dislike. Otherwise he will not be deceiving others than himself. Soberly speaking, any form of state is capable of either ensuring a successful government or causing rebellion. And nine cases out of ten the cause of rebellion lies in the conditions of the administration and not in the form of state. It cannot be denied, however, that the chances of rebellion and dissension are more frequent and easier when the form of state does not suit the conditions of the people. That is why I did not advocate republicanism; and even now I am not a blind believer in republicanism. In this I agree with you, the Chou An Hui people.