Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:34:09.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ōkuma Shigenobu and the 1881 Political Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Get access

Extract

Of major significance both to the political history of the Meiji period and to the career of Ōkuma Shigenobu was the series of events known as the 1881 political crisis. This upheaval involved principally the problems of establishing a national parliament or Diet, of selling government colonization properties in Hokkaido, and of dismissing Okuma from the government. Although the crisis concerned nearly everyone in the government at some point and shook the political world, Ōkuma was more closely connected with these issues than any other single individual in the government. The crisis presents many problems which are still being debated by Japanese historians, and no concensus has emerged.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Other signatories were Etō Shimpei, Gotō Shōjirō, and Soejima Taneomi. Nihon kensei hiso shiryō [Basic Historical Materials on the Japanese Constitution], ed. Miyakoshi Shin'ichirō (Tokyo, 1939), pp. 170–171. Sidney Brown, “Kido Takayoshi (1833–1877): Meiji Japan's Cautious Revolutionary,” PHR XXV (May 1956), 158.

2 Miyakoshi, Kensci shiryō, pp. 15—17. For a detailed discussion of early political associations and the government's reaction to them, see Ike, Nobutaka, The Beginnings of Political Democracy in Japan (Baltimore, 1950)Google Scholar, and Scalapino, Robert A., Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan (Berkeley, 1953)Google Scholar.

3 Takeshi, Osatake, Nihon kensei shironshū [Collected Historical Essays on Japanese Constitutional History] (Tokyo, 1937), pp. 381384Google Scholar. Miyakoshi,Kensei shiryo, p. 17.

4 Miyakoshi, Kensei shiryō, p. 19. The circumstances surrounding the Genrō-in draft and the constitutional views of government leaders are treated in detail in Beckmann, George M., The Maying of the Meiji Constitution, The Oligarchs and the Constitutional Development of Japan, 1868–1891 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1957)Google Scholar.

5 Hattori Shisō, Meiji no seijikatachi [Meiji Politicians], II (Tokyo, 1954), 3. Gorai Kenzō classifies Ōkuma as a “radical” at this time, and Itō and Inoue as “gradualists,” in Ningcn Ōptima Shigenobu [The Human Ōkuma Shigenobu] (Tokyo, 1939), p. 271. Hugh Borton considers Ōkuma the only progressive, surrounded by conservatives: see Japan's Modern Century (New York, 1955), p. 120.

6 Ichijima Kenkichi, Ōkuma kō hachijūgonen shi [Eighty-five Year History of Marquis Ōptima], 3 vols. (Tokyo, 1922), I, 698–700. Gorai, Ningen Ōkuma, p. 257.

7 Ikujirō, Watanabe, Ōkttma Shigenobu, shin Nippon no kensetsusha [Ōkuma Shigenobu, Builder of New Japan] (Tokyo, 1943), p. 51Google Scholar. Kaneko and Suzuki erroneously report Kuroda rather than Inoue as third conferee, in Kaneko Kentarō, comp., Itō Hirobumi den [Biography of Ito Hirobumi], 3 vols. (Tokyo, 1940), II, 202; and Yasuzō, Suzuki, Itō Hirobumi (Tokyo, 1944), p. 131Google Scholar.

8 Yamagata Aritomo, Kuroda Kiyotaka, Yamada Akiyoshi, Itō, and Inoue had all presented their memorials. Yano Fumio, who accompanied Okuma to Atami as secretary, was not taken into full confidence by Ōkuma, and the details of the discussions consequently were not recorded.

9 Watanabe, Ōkuma Shigenobu, pp. 52–53.

10 Ishikawa Mikiaki, Fukuzawa Yukichi den [Biography of Fukuzawa Yukichi], 3 vols. (Tokyo, 1932), III, 52–57.

11 Watanabe, Ōkuma Shigenobu, p. 54, and Ōkuma Shigenobu kankei monjo [Documents Relating to Okuma Shigenobu], 6 vols. (Tokyo, 1932), IV, 16 ff. Ishikawa, Fukuzawa Yukfchi, III, 46–47.

12 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 231–236. Ōkuma later stated that there were eight items in his proposal, but the extant texts include only seven. Ōtsu Jun'ichirō, Dai Nihon k'nsei shi [Constitutional History of Japan], II (Tokyo, 1928), 469.

13 Suzuki Yasuzō, Kempō no rckjshitcki kenkyū [Historical Study of the Constitution] (Tokyo, 1933), p. 192. Miyakoshi, Kensci shiryō, pp. 330 ff.

14 Miyakoshi, Kensei shiryō, pp. 285 ff., 294 ff. Suzuki, Itō Hirobumi, pp. 120–121, 134. Iwakura also relied on Inoue Kowashi for advice on constitutional government as late as June 1881: see Ōkubo Toshiaki, “Meiji jūyonen no seihen,” [“The Political Crisis of 1881”], in Meiji seiken no kakuritsu katei [The Process of the Establishment of Meiji Political Power], comp. Meiji shiryō kenkyū renrakkai [Joint Association for the Study of Meiji Historical Materials] (Tokyo, 1957), p. 68.

15 Ikujirō, Watanabe, Meiji shi kenkyū [Studies in Meiji History] (Tokyo, 1944), pp. 180183Google Scholar.

16 Itagaki, possibly Okuma's closest rival in this respect, saw only short terms of office after 1873 for a total of two years, while Ōkuma appeared in four later cabinets, for a total of close to five years. On those occasions when he did enter the government, Itagaki was not as voluble on the subjects of liberty and equality as was the Jiyūtō platform.

17 Watanabe, Mciji shi kenkyū, pp. 206—207.

18 Ōkuma haku sekijitsutan [Reminiscences of Count Ōkuma], comp. Enjoji Kiyoshi (Tokyo, 1895), p. 439.

19 Anon., Ōkuma Shigenobu (Minyūsha: Tokyo, 1896), p. 44. Meiji hunka zenshū [Collected Works on Meiji Culture], ed. Yoshino Sakuzō, III: Meiji seishi [Meiji Political History] (Tokyo, 1938), 6.

20 Osatake, Nihon kensei shi taikō [Outline of Japanese Constitutional History], 2 vols. (Tokyo, 1939), II, 569. Yoshino, Meiji seishi, p. 6.

21 Fukuzawa zenshū [Collected Works of Fukuzawa], comp. Jiji Shimpōsha, 5 vols. (Tokyo, 1898), V, 2–7.

22 Osatake, Nihon kensei shi no kenkyū [Studies in Japanese Constitutional History] (Tokyo, 1943), p. 293.

23 According to Kaneko, Ōkuma apologized to Itō in July, stating that he had no intention of managing affairs alone. Kaneko, Itō Hirobumi, II, 208–209. There is no corroboration in biographies of Ōkuma for Beckmann's statement that Ōkuma withdrew his opinion; Beckmann, Meiji Constitution, p. 56.

24 Itagaki Taisuke, jiyūtō shi [History of the Liberal Party], 2 vols. (Tokyo, 1913), I, 478.

25 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 252, quotes from [wakura's diary of July 6, 1881. Baba Tsunego, Ōkuma Shigenobu den [Biography of Ōkuma Shigenobu] (Tokyo, 1933), p. 186.

26 Gorai, Ningen Ōkuma, p. 274.

27 Tsuchiya Takao, Nihon shihonshugi no keiei shiteki kenkyū [Historical Study of the Development of Japanese Capitalism] (Tokyo, 1954), pp. 100–103; and Nishimura Shinji, Ono Azusa den [Biography of Ono Azusa] (Tokyo, 1935), p. 12, asserts that 380,000 yen was the sum offered. Osatake, Nihon kensei shi taikō, II, reports the sum as 387,082 yen.

28 Yomiuri Shimbun, Mar. 18, 1956.

29 Nishimura, Ono Azusa, p. 126. Kaneko, Itō Hirobumi, II, 216–217. Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 314, and Monjo yori mitaru Ōkuma Shigenobu kō [Marquis Ōkuma Shigenobu Viewed through Documents] (Tokyo, 1932), p. 246.

30 Nishimura, Ono Azusa, pp. 134–136.

31 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 332–333, 342 ff., 348, 356.

32 Osatake, Nihon kensei shi taiō, II, 579, 583, and Meiji seiji shi tembyō [Highlights of Meiji Political History] (Tokyo, 1938), p. 149.

33 Tanaka Sogorō, Iwasaki Yatarō (Tokyo, 1940), p. 247.

34 By “head of the cabinet” or “leading sangi” Yano apparently refers to the fact that sangi Ōkuma was head of two of the six sections in the Dajōkan. Ōtsu, Dai Nihon kensei shi, VI, 483.

35 Okuma kō sckijitsntan [Reminiscences on Marquis Ōptima], comp. Matsue Yasuji (Tokyo, 1922), p. 277.

36 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 387–388. Kaneko, Itō Hirobumi, II, 221–261.

37 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, II, 407. Ichijima, Hachijūgonon shi, I, 863.

38 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 372.

39 Watanabe, Kankei monjo, IV, 474. Osatake, Kensei shi taikō, pp. 590–591. Kōno Binken, Mudaguchi Gengaku, Komatsubara Eitarō, Nakano Buci, Shimada Saburō, Tanaka Kōzō, Morishita Iwakusu, Maejima Mitsu, Kitabatake Harufusa, and Baba Takuzō completed the list. Significantly, none of these men was from Saga. Other than Ōkuma, the only Saga man in the government in 1881 was Ōki KyŌnin.

40 Osatake, Nihon kensei shi [History of the Japanese Constitution] (Tokyo, 1930), p. 299.

41 This view is shared by Oka Yoshitake, Abe Shunnosuke, Baba Tsunego, Osatake Takeshi, Tokutomo Iichirō, and Watanabe Ikujirō, among others.

42 Ōtsu, Dai Nihon kensei shi, II, 479–480.