Read Online Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852’1912 by Donald Keene - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Donald Keene
Tags: History/Asia/General
Ads: Link
Soejima, was to question the wisdom of His Majesty. If one were to believe everything that appeared in the newspapers, how many of the cabinet would escape being removed? If Kuroda’s self-serving proposal to get rid of Soejima were adopted, this action would surely be widely criticized; but if Kuroda, annoyed that his proposal was rejected, asked to be relieved of his post and permission were granted, would anyone question this decision by the emperor? 5
The emperor, not rushing into a decision, conferred several times with Motoda, whose opinions he highly valued. Motoda answered with increasing bluntness. He attributed to personal rancor Kuroda’s urging that Soejima be removed from his position. There was no fault to find with Soejima; even if 10 million people hated him, the emperor should continue to employ him. Soejima had been employed as the emperor’s tutor for only seven months and had not even completed his lectures on the Great Learning . How could anyone propose that he be sent abroad at this stage? Even if Kuroda resigned as councillor, there would still be nine other councillors, but if Soejima left, not only would it deprive the emperor of one of the rare people who could contribute to his learning, but it would encourage dissident elements to attack the government, resulting in incalculable harm. In the end Motoda’s eloquence carried the day: the emperor decided not to allow Soejima to be sent abroad. Kuroda, who had threatened to resign if his advice was not heeded, remained in office. 6
At this distance from the events, it seems clear that some personal (or domain-based) enmity was behind the insistence of Kuroda and other Satsuma men that Soejima be removed from his post. But the incident is noteworthy for another reason. One sometimes gets the impression that all the Meiji government’s decisions were made by consensus, but this is an instance when the emperor, relying on Motoda, a man above political factionalism, made a decision that differed from the opinions of the majority of his ministers.
About the same time the emperor abolished the office of jiho , or adviser, which had been created a little more than two years earlier. 7 Although the jiho included extremely distinguished men—Tokudaiji Sanetsune, Sasaki Takayuki, and Motoda Nagazane—from the first they were prevented from carrying out their assigned duty of counseling the emperor, by members of the government who accused them of craving power. It ō compared their would-be meddling in the government with the evils of the eunuchs in China and predicted that this would confuse the functions of the palace and the government. In the end the frustrated jiho , angered over being compared with the notoriously corrupt eunuchs and equally angered over Kuroda’s attempts to get rid of the jiho Soejima, requested that their office be abolished, providing that the ministers and councillors would carry out the functions of jiho in addition to their prescribed duties. The cabinet eventually decided to abolish the jiho and assigned ministers and councillors to palace duties similar to theirs.
The emperor seems not to have welcomed this decision. On October 20, a week after the office of jiho was abolished, he summoned Tokudaiji, Sasaki, Motoda, and the others and informed them that even though the jiho had been abolished, if ever they had something to tell him, they should do so without reserve. He personally presented them with bolts of silk and invited them to lunch with the prime minister and the minister of the right. This was not the only instance of a decision by the politicians that displeased Meiji, although they always insisted that their actions were intended to carry out the imperial will.
The principal subject of debate during the latter part of 1879 was education. Meiji’s Oath in Five Articles had promised that the Japanese would seek learning throughout the world in order for their country to catch up to the advanced countries.
The emperor, not rushing into a decision, conferred several times with Motoda, whose opinions he highly valued. Motoda answered with increasing bluntness. He attributed to personal rancor Kuroda’s urging that Soejima be removed from his position. There was no fault to find with Soejima; even if 10 million people hated him, the emperor should continue to employ him. Soejima had been employed as the emperor’s tutor for only seven months and had not even completed his lectures on the Great Learning . How could anyone propose that he be sent abroad at this stage? Even if Kuroda resigned as councillor, there would still be nine other councillors, but if Soejima left, not only would it deprive the emperor of one of the rare people who could contribute to his learning, but it would encourage dissident elements to attack the government, resulting in incalculable harm. In the end Motoda’s eloquence carried the day: the emperor decided not to allow Soejima to be sent abroad. Kuroda, who had threatened to resign if his advice was not heeded, remained in office. 6
At this distance from the events, it seems clear that some personal (or domain-based) enmity was behind the insistence of Kuroda and other Satsuma men that Soejima be removed from his post. But the incident is noteworthy for another reason. One sometimes gets the impression that all the Meiji government’s decisions were made by consensus, but this is an instance when the emperor, relying on Motoda, a man above political factionalism, made a decision that differed from the opinions of the majority of his ministers.
About the same time the emperor abolished the office of jiho , or adviser, which had been created a little more than two years earlier. 7 Although the jiho included extremely distinguished men—Tokudaiji Sanetsune, Sasaki Takayuki, and Motoda Nagazane—from the first they were prevented from carrying out their assigned duty of counseling the emperor, by members of the government who accused them of craving power. It ō compared their would-be meddling in the government with the evils of the eunuchs in China and predicted that this would confuse the functions of the palace and the government. In the end the frustrated jiho , angered over being compared with the notoriously corrupt eunuchs and equally angered over Kuroda’s attempts to get rid of the jiho Soejima, requested that their office be abolished, providing that the ministers and councillors would carry out the functions of jiho in addition to their prescribed duties. The cabinet eventually decided to abolish the jiho and assigned ministers and councillors to palace duties similar to theirs.
The emperor seems not to have welcomed this decision. On October 20, a week after the office of jiho was abolished, he summoned Tokudaiji, Sasaki, Motoda, and the others and informed them that even though the jiho had been abolished, if ever they had something to tell him, they should do so without reserve. He personally presented them with bolts of silk and invited them to lunch with the prime minister and the minister of the right. This was not the only instance of a decision by the politicians that displeased Meiji, although they always insisted that their actions were intended to carry out the imperial will.
The principal subject of debate during the latter part of 1879 was education. Meiji’s Oath in Five Articles had promised that the Japanese would seek learning throughout the world in order for their country to catch up to the advanced countries.
Similar Books
