The Rise and Rivalry of Prince Gong
The political landscape of Qing China in the 1860s was dominated by two formidable figures: Empress Dowager Cixi and Prince Gong (Yixin). As the younger brother of the Xianfeng Emperor and uncle to the young Tongzhi Emperor, Prince Gong had emerged as a crucial power broker during the tumultuous years following the Second Opium War. His leadership during the 1861 Xinyou Coup that brought Cixi to power earned him the prestigious title of “Prince-Regent,” making him the most powerful man in the empire next to the empress dowagers.
Prince Gong’s modernizing reforms and his ability to negotiate with Western powers had stabilized the Qing government during its most vulnerable period. He established the Zongli Yamen (Office for General Management), China’s first foreign affairs office, and promoted the Self-Strengthening Movement that sought to blend Western technology with Chinese values. However, his very success planted the seeds of conflict with Cixi, who grew increasingly wary of his influence as her own political acumen developed.
The Fateful Accusations of 1865
On March 30, 1865 (Tongzhi 4, 3rd month, 4th day), the imperial diarist and lecturer Cai Shouqi submitted a memorial accusing Prince Gong of four grave offenses: corruption, arrogance, power monopolization, and favoritism. This document would trigger one of the most dramatic political confrontations of the late Qing period.
When Cixi presented the accusations to Prince Gong the following morning, his reaction proved disastrous. According to Wang Kaiyun’s “Qixiang Stories,” Prince Gong failed to show proper contrition and instead questioned the credibility of his accuser, exclaiming “Cai Shouqi is no good man!” This defiant response gave Cixi the opening she needed to act against her increasingly independent regent.
The Imperial Decree and Its Consequences
On April 2, Cixi issued a remarkable handwritten edict (notable for its numerous errors that revealed her limited formal education) stripping Prince Gong of all his positions. The decree accused him of “looking down upon the young emperor,” “acting willfully,” and “creating discord,” though it notably admitted these charges lacked concrete evidence. The language reflected Cixi’s growing resentment of Prince Gong’s perceived arrogance during their daily audiences, where she felt he dominated discussions with his superior education and experience.
The political fallout was immediate. Prince Gong’s brothers, Prince Dun and Prince Chun (the latter being Cixi’s brother-in-law), rallied to his defense. Dozens of high-ranking officials signed petitions urging reconsideration, creating an unprecedented show of support that forced Cixi to moderate her stance. By April 11, a compromise was reached: Prince Gong was restored to some positions but permanently lost his “Prince-Regent” title, marking a significant reduction in his authority.
The Cultural and Political Implications
This episode revealed several critical dynamics in late Qing politics. First, it demonstrated the precarious position of even the most powerful officials when facing imperial displeasure. The Confucian system demanded absolute loyalty to the throne, making any perceived slight potentially career-ending.
Second, the incident highlighted the growing tension between Manchu conservatism and pragmatic reform. Prince Gong represented the modernizing faction that recognized the need to engage with the West, while Cixi increasingly saw these reforms as threatening traditional power structures.
Third, the affair exposed the fragility of the post-coup alliance between Cixi and Prince Gong. What began as a partnership of necessity had degenerated into a rivalry that would shape China’s response to modernization for decades.
The Lasting Legacy of the 1865 Crisis
The demotion of Prince Gong marked a turning point in Qing governance. While he remained influential in foreign affairs, his political wings had been clipped. Cixi’s victory established her as the undisputed power behind the throne, setting a precedent for her later domination of Chinese politics.
Historians debate whether this consolidation of power helped or hindered China’s modernization. Some argue Prince Gong’s marginalization slowed critical reforms; others suggest Cixi’s centralized control provided stability during a period of immense change. What remains undeniable is that the 1865 crisis established patterns of court politics that would persist until the dynasty’s fall in 1911.
The episode also offers fascinating insights into Qing political culture—the importance of ritual humility, the dangers of appearing too competent, and the delicate balance between imperial authority and ministerial expertise. These dynamics continue to resonate in studies of Chinese political behavior even today.