也谈张之洞对立宪的态度
|
摘要
在相当长时间里,学界基本认定张之洞对立宪态度消极。1993年,孔祥吉先生根据新发现的两条史料提出相反的见解。而2016年发表的侯宜杰先生的论文,则通过重新解读那两则史料,认为张之洞对立宪一事,一直态度消极。侯先生对孔文两则史料的驳难能够成立,但不能据此认为张之洞对立宪消极。1904年,张謇游说关注宪政问题时,有细节显示,张之洞做出了积极的姿态。从1905年与袁世凯、周馥联衔奏请立宪起,张之洞对宪政改革一事,一直有一个基本的认识,即需要有一个预备阶段,这个阶段,若从1905年算起,是12年。1907年初讨论外官制改革时,张之洞虽然提了很多意见,但是,其本心并非反对宪政改革。1908年颁布的九年筹备清单,虽然抽去了召开国会的关键内容,但还是在一定程度上尊重了张之洞等人的意见。并且,就发生在军机处的争论来看,张之洞是力主宣布开设国会年限的,他在这个问题上,态度是积极的。九年清单颁布之后,张之洞一直遵循这一清单,这是稳步推进改革的表现。总之,张之洞对立宪的态度,可以用稳健积极一语概括,他是立宪的稳健积极派。
For a long time,scholars thought that Zhang Zhidong had a negative attitude towards constitutionalism.In 1993,Kong Xiangji put forward an opposite view based on two newly discovered historical materials.And Hou Yijie's thesis published in 2016 thought that Zhang Zhidong's attitude towards constitutionalism was negative through re-interpretation of the two historical materials.Mr.Hou's refute on the two historical materials can be reasonable,but the conclusion of Zhang Zhidong holding negative attitude towards constitutionalism should be discussed.When being lobbied about the constitutional issue by Zhang Jian in 1904,there are details showing that Zhang Zhidong held a positive attitude.Since 1905,Zhang Zhidong has had a basic understanding of the constitutional reform,that is to say,apreparatory stage was necessary,which was 12 years after 1905.At the beginning of 1907,Zhang Zhidong put forward a lot of views discussing the reform of the system,but he didn't oppose the constitutional reform.In the nine-year preparatory list published in 1908,although the key content of holding the Congress was deleted,the views of both Zhang Zhidong and others were still respected to some extent.And according to the debate occurring in the Grand Council,Zhang Zhidong urged the opening of the Congress,and his attitude was positive.After the publication of the nine-year list,Zhang Zhidong has been following the list,showing his attitude of steadily promoting the constitutional reform.In short,Zhang Zhidong's attitude towards constitutionalism can be summed up in the terms:steady and positive.
For a long time,scholars thought that Zhang Zhidong had a negative attitude towards constitutionalism.In 1993,Kong Xiangji put forward an opposite view based on two newly discovered historical materials.And Hou Yijie's thesis published in 2016 thought that Zhang Zhidong's attitude towards constitutionalism was negative through re-interpretation of the two historical materials.Mr.Hou's refute on the two historical materials can be reasonable,but the conclusion of Zhang Zhidong holding negative attitude towards constitutionalism should be discussed.When being lobbied about the constitutional issue by Zhang Jian in 1904,there are details showing that Zhang Zhidong held a positive attitude.Since 1905,Zhang Zhidong has had a basic understanding of the constitutional reform,that is to say,apreparatory stage was necessary,which was 12 years after 1905.At the beginning of 1907,Zhang Zhidong put forward a lot of views discussing the reform of the system,but he didn't oppose the constitutional reform.In the nine-year preparatory list published in 1908,although the key content of holding the Congress was deleted,the views of both Zhang Zhidong and others were still respected to some extent.And according to the debate occurring in the Grand Council,Zhang Zhidong urged the opening of the Congress,and his attitude was positive.After the publication of the nine-year list,Zhang Zhidong has been following the list,showing his attitude of steadily promoting the constitutional reform.In short,Zhang Zhidong's attitude towards constitutionalism can be summed up in the terms:steady and positive.
引文
(1)(3)孔祥吉:《张之洞与清末立宪别论》,《历史研究》1993年第1期。
(2)李细珠:《张之洞与清末新政研究》,上海:上海书店出版社,2003年,第331-336页。
(4)(10)(15)侯宜杰:《张之洞对立宪的态度---与孔祥吉先生商榷》,《近代史研究》2016年第6期。
(5)中国第一历史档案馆编:《光绪朝朱批奏折》(第33辑),北京:中华书局,1995年,第163页。
(6)彭剑:《清季预备立宪九年清单并未宣布开国会年限》,《近代史研究》2008年第3期。
(7)侯宜杰:《清廷宣布了召开国会年限》,《近代史研究》2008年第6期。
(8)余元启:《清季预备立宪九年清单没有宣布开国会年限吗---与彭剑博士商榷》,《近代史研究》2008年第6期。
(9)继侯宜杰、余元启之后,陈照亚、唐论两位先生也撰文讨论了此问题,他们的观点,则基本上认为,九年筹备清单没有宣布开国会期限。陈照亚:《光绪三十四年八月初一日颁布开国会年限解读》,《历史档案》2010年第2期;唐论:《也谈预备立宪中的国会年限问题》,《近代史学刊》第11辑,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2014年。
(11)(13)《柳溪草堂日记》(光绪三十年三月二十八日),李明勋、尤世玮主编:《张謇全集》(8),上海:上海辞书出版社,2012年,第583页。
(12)实际上,如论者所已指出,早在戊戌年出版的《劝学篇》中,张之洞就表现出对议院等立宪政治中的关键问题有相当真切的了解,而在1901年发给刘坤一等人的一封电报中,他还提出过“仿行”上议院的主张。李细珠:《张之洞与清末新政研究》,第287-292页。
(14)17日,日记中就留下了“与礼卿定稿”数字。次日,张謇又记道:“以稿示聚卿、菊尊、少亮、蕃实诸君,属各以所见磨勘之。”到20日,“稿已三易”,张謇乃将其“抄送邵阳”,送给魏光焘过目。《柳溪草堂日记》,李明勋、尤世玮主编:《张謇全集》(8),第583页。
(16)《湖广总督来电》(十一月二十日午刻到),侯宜杰整理:《清末督抚答复厘定地方官制电稿》,《近代史资料》(总第76号),北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989年,第81-82页。
(17)《湖广总督来电》(十二月二十五日辰刻到),侯宜杰整理:《清末督抚答复厘定地方官制电稿》,《近代史资料》(总第76号),第87-88页。
(2)李细珠:《张之洞与清末新政研究》,上海:上海书店出版社,2003年,第331-336页。
(4)(10)(15)侯宜杰:《张之洞对立宪的态度---与孔祥吉先生商榷》,《近代史研究》2016年第6期。
(5)中国第一历史档案馆编:《光绪朝朱批奏折》(第33辑),北京:中华书局,1995年,第163页。
(6)彭剑:《清季预备立宪九年清单并未宣布开国会年限》,《近代史研究》2008年第3期。
(7)侯宜杰:《清廷宣布了召开国会年限》,《近代史研究》2008年第6期。
(8)余元启:《清季预备立宪九年清单没有宣布开国会年限吗---与彭剑博士商榷》,《近代史研究》2008年第6期。
(9)继侯宜杰、余元启之后,陈照亚、唐论两位先生也撰文讨论了此问题,他们的观点,则基本上认为,九年筹备清单没有宣布开国会期限。陈照亚:《光绪三十四年八月初一日颁布开国会年限解读》,《历史档案》2010年第2期;唐论:《也谈预备立宪中的国会年限问题》,《近代史学刊》第11辑,北京:社会科学文献出版社,2014年。
(11)(13)《柳溪草堂日记》(光绪三十年三月二十八日),李明勋、尤世玮主编:《张謇全集》(8),上海:上海辞书出版社,2012年,第583页。
(12)实际上,如论者所已指出,早在戊戌年出版的《劝学篇》中,张之洞就表现出对议院等立宪政治中的关键问题有相当真切的了解,而在1901年发给刘坤一等人的一封电报中,他还提出过“仿行”上议院的主张。李细珠:《张之洞与清末新政研究》,第287-292页。
(14)17日,日记中就留下了“与礼卿定稿”数字。次日,张謇又记道:“以稿示聚卿、菊尊、少亮、蕃实诸君,属各以所见磨勘之。”到20日,“稿已三易”,张謇乃将其“抄送邵阳”,送给魏光焘过目。《柳溪草堂日记》,李明勋、尤世玮主编:《张謇全集》(8),第583页。
(16)《湖广总督来电》(十一月二十日午刻到),侯宜杰整理:《清末督抚答复厘定地方官制电稿》,《近代史资料》(总第76号),北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989年,第81-82页。
(17)《湖广总督来电》(十二月二十五日辰刻到),侯宜杰整理:《清末督抚答复厘定地方官制电稿》,《近代史资料》(总第76号),第87-88页。