In the 6th month of Ansei 5 (1858), at the Mito domain residence in Edo, Tokugawa Nariaki was revising a petition to the shogunate. Though he agreed to the rewrite, in an accompanying letter he wrote that this matter was a great crisis for Japan. Sohō comments that ordering the rewrite instead invited criticism that struck at a sore point for the shogunate.
On the 19th day of the 6th month, the so-called provisional treaty was signed. The shogunate had not yet made it public. On the 21st day of the 6th month, Nariaki sent a letter to Tokugawa Yoshikumi of Owari. What he sought was not rejection of the treaty itself, but the halting of 4 articles. Not approaching the Kinai, not entering inside the Kitan, direct trade conducted through resident diplomats, and the building of Christian temples. If that could not be granted, his thinking was to postpone matters by years and use the time to prepare military defenses.
At this stage Nariaki was still on the moderate side, Sohō comments. But on the single point that the signing had gone ahead without waiting for the emperor’s permission, his attitude suddenly hardened. That same night, he also wrote to Matsudaira Yoshinaga in disordered handwriting, saying that his neck ached from continuing to write. The memorial dated the 21st day of the 6th month was addressed to Ii Kamon no kami and others, signed “a Mito recluse.” Saying that later calamity lay right before their eyes, he stated that if consent could not be given, it should be postponed 15 or 20 years.
And he wrote that to dispense with consulting Kyoto would mean defying the emperor’s command. Sohō records that these 3 characters later became proof of the guilt of Ii and others. Sohō’s comment is that this was like warning a guest already drunk that drinking would bring disaster. On the same day, Tokugawa Yoshiatsu, the head of Mito, also submitted a memorial saying that, as a member of the Gosanke, he could not silently overlook the matter. The 22nd day of the 6th month was also the day the shogunate publicly announced the signing of the Japan-US treaty.
In the first half of Ii’s reply, he accepted Nariaki’s points one by one as reasonable; the latter half was excuses and rebuttal. He said that steamships had made distant places like next-door neighbors. His explanation was that, because keeping the old system would give rise to great troubles, he had provisionally concluded the treaty. Sohō points out that the word “provisionally” was ambiguous. Article 14 of the treaty set its implementation from the 5th day of the 6th month of Ansei 6.
It was merely, he said, that the formal exchange had not yet been completed. Ii replied that he intended to decide quickly on an envoy to Kyoto. Meanwhile, within the Mito clan, moves arose to directly press for accountability. Nakane’s Sakumu Kiji records that Tokugawa Yoshinobu of the Hitotsubashi house was strongly angered and urged his father as well to submit a memorial. Sohō views it as Yoshinobu himself who first proposed this.
To dismiss the great elder and those below him, and apologize to the court on the shogunate’s behalf. Ajima Yajirō, a trusted retainer of Nariaki, secretly reported that this was his lord’s thinking. Sohō views it as likely that there was an understanding among Ajima, Hiraoka, and Nakane to put forward Matsudaira Yoshinaga as the shogun’s guardian. On the 22nd day of the 6th month, Ii wrote to Date Munenari, noting that even he himself had been astonished at how unexpectedly early the signing had taken place. Hotta Masayoshi and Matsudaira Tadakata were relieved of their posts, and Manabe Akikatsu, Matsudaira Noriyasu, and others—3 men in all—joined as senior councilors, completing the new lineup. Sohō records that the two sides were approaching a head-on collision, and the morning of the unannounced appearance at the castle was already close at hand.
From Nariaki’s memorial, Ii Naosuke’s reply, and Nakane’s Sakumu Kiji, one can trace the days surrounding the signing.
The Ninth Day of the Sixth Month: An Inquiry Document on State Deliberations
At the Mito domain residence in Edo, Tokugawa Nariaki was making corrections to an inquiry document.Original
It was a reply.OriginalOriginal
此れは井伊が衷情を訴へたるところ、其心事諒とす可きものがある
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryHe agreed to rewrite it.
But in the letter he attached, Nariaki wrote, “This matter is a great affair for Japan.”Original
This meant that the matter at hand was a great affair for Japan.Original
He then wrote down, as he put it, “the matters that my humble mind cannot rest easy about,” and submitted them as follows.Original
He had written down, below, the articles that gave him no peace of mind.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi Sohō writes that ordering the rewrite had, on the contrary, “stirred up a hornet’s nest.”Original
Tokutomi’s assessment is that, though called an inquiry document, it was in fact nothing other than “a criticism thrust without hesitation into the shogunate’s sore spot.”Original
It is said that the senior councilors, upon seeing this, exchanged glances and uttered not a word.OriginalOriginal
Ten days later, on the nineteenth day of the sixth month.Original
The so-called provisional treaty was signed.Original
The shogunate had not yet made it public.Original
But Tokutomi writes that there was no way Nariaki could not have heard of it.OriginalOriginal
The Night of the Twenty-First of the Sixth Month: Hasty Writing by Lamplight
The twenty-first day of the sixth month.Original
Nariaki sent a letter to Tokugawa Yoshikumi of Owari.Original
That was how Nariaki saw it.OriginalOriginal
What Nariaki demanded in this letter was not rejection of the treaty itself.Original
Keeping them away from Kinai, not letting them come within the Kitan Strait, direct trade through the stationing of a minister, and the building of Christian temples.Original
These four articles he wished “by all means to check and stop.”Original
He meant that he wanted, at all costs, to block them.
If that could not be achieved, then delay by extending the term of years, and in the meantime prepare military defenses.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi assesses that, seen from the Kyoto side, Nariaki at this stage was “about what one might call a member of the moderate faction.”Original
This was the view that his opinion amounted merely to attaching restrictions or a time limit to the treaty.Original
However, on the single point that the treaty had been signed without waiting for imperial sanction, his attitude “suddenly hardened.”Original
This meant that, as of today, the great cause of reverence for the court upheld through the generations had been abandoned.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi’s view is that Nariaki must have known the fact that the treaty had already been signed.Original
Since the shogunate had not made it public, he supposes that Nariaki wrote of an already-accomplished fact as though it were a fact yet to occur.Original
A postscript to the letter reads, “should the matter be settled within five to seven days.”OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryThat same night, Nariaki also wrote a letter to Matsudaira Yoshinaga.Original
“On the matter of the barbarians, I have kept writing continuously these past days, until my neck aches as though it might come off.”Original
It was hasty writing, done by lamplight with aged eyes.OriginalOriginal
The Three Characters “Violation of the Imperial Command”
Nariaki submitted a petition dated the twenty-first day of the sixth month to the shogunate authorities.Original
The addressee was written as “Lord Ii, Kamon no kami, and others,” and it was signed “the Recluse of Mito.”OriginalOriginal
Articles within the treaty that should be refused were listed.Original
Nariaki writes that these were “future troubles before one’s eyes,” meaning that calamities to come were visible right before them.Original
If they would not consent, then it should be delayed, “fifteen years, or twenty years,” until the hearts of the people had settled.OriginalOriginal
And then one sentence.Original
In any case, if the matter were settled without inquiring of Kyoto, it would amount to a violation of the imperial command, he said.Original
Tokutomi writes that here the three characters “violation of the imperial command” appeared.Original
This became, down to later ages, the “charge of guilt” against Ii and others.OriginalOriginal
而して彼等三人の中には、當時の所謂る正議派中の通り文句の薦賢に就て默契があつたらしい
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryThis petition, feigning ignorance of the fact that the treaty had already been signed, gives its warning as though of a thing yet to happen.Original
It was, Tokutomi says, “the same as warning a drunken guest that it would be a terrible thing should he happen to drink.”Original
This meant it was like warning a guest already drunk that it would be terrible if he drank.Original
Tokutomi writes that being scolded directly for not having inquired of Kyoto before signing might, for the one who had to hear it, have been easier to bear.OriginalOriginal
On the same day, the head of the Mito domain, Tokugawa Yoshiatsu, also submitted a petition.Original
“Given the standing of the Three Houses, this cannot be passed over in silence.”Original
The gist was that, as one of the Gosanke, it could not be silently overlooked.Original
Tokutomi writes that father and child had rendered the judgment of “violation of the imperial command,” and that the bewilderment of the shogunate authorities is easy enough to imagine.OriginalOriginal
And this twenty-second day of the sixth month was also the day on which the shogunate made public to the realm the fact that it had, out of necessity, signed the treaty with the United States.OriginalOriginal
The first half repeated Nariaki’s letter as it stood, responding, “Each point is, we consider, entirely reasonable.”Original
This meant, one by one, that each point was considered reasonable.OriginalOriginal
The second half consisted of excuses and rebuttal.Original
The state of the barbarians differed from times past; with the invention of the steamship, “even the ends of the earth had become like neighboring houses.”Original
It meant that even the distant edge of the heavens had become like the neighborhood next door.Original
If they remained rooted in the old system, greater troubles than the present might arise.
Therefore, “a treaty was made provisionally” — that is, the treaty had been concluded as a provisional measure.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi Sohō points out that the phrase “provisionally concluding the treaty” is “extremely ambiguous.”Original
Those who did not know the content might mistakenly believe it could be changed through further consultation.Original
The view is that the authorities, even if they did not intend to mislead, may rather have found it “fortunate” to do so.Original
In fact the matter was not so light.Original
Article fourteen of the treaty stipulated that it would take effect from the fifth day of the sixth month of the coming year of the sheep, Ansei 6 (1859), that is, July 4, 1859.Original
Even if the exchange of ratifications could not be completed by the deadline, the treaty would take effect from that date.Original
Tokutomi writes that it was called “provisional” merely because the exchange of ratifications had not yet taken place.OriginalOriginal
Ii continues that none of the daimyo’s written opinions had argued that a dispute should be opened.OriginalOriginal
Regarding the envoy to Kyoto, “I intend to settle the matter urgently.”Original
He meant that he intended to settle it quickly.
Tokutomi writes that, from the standpoint of Ii and the others, no further excuse could be made.Original
Only the dispatch of an envoy to Kyoto, he adds, should not have been delayed for even a moment.Original
For pressure soon came not only from Nariaki but also from the Kyoto side.OriginalOriginal
Yoshinobu’s petition movement
It was not only a matter of written documents.Original
A movement arose among the Mito clan to directly confront and question the authorities.OriginalOriginal
Tokugawa Yoshinobu of the Hitotsubashi house, on hearing that the provisional treaty had been signed in violation of the imperial edict, was said to be “extraordinarily enraged.”Original
Yoshinobu urged his father Nariaki to submit a petition as well, and Hiraoka went as a messenger to Ajima Yajirō, Nariaki’s trusted retainer.Original
It was said that Nariaki intended to consult with Owari and submit the petition on either the twenty-first or twenty-second day.Original
Nakane’s Sakumu Kiji records this.OriginalOriginal
From this account, Tokutomi concludes that Yoshinobu himself was the instigator.Original
Yoshinobu had “a character in which reason prevailed,” and he was constantly worried about his aged father’s erratic behavior.Original
In Ansei 4 he was twenty-one years old.Original
Tokutomi writes that he was mature beyond his years.Original
Even in his reply to the inquiry on the treaty, he had given an inoffensive answer.Original
That Yoshinobu should be the instigator of a direct protest was “utterly unexpected,” but Tokutomi judges that the fact was indeed so.OriginalOriginal
Nariaki had until then been worried that there might be a violation of the imperial edict, and today it had become manifest.Original
He wished to promptly “dismiss” the great elder and all those who had been involved in the matter, and to apologize to the court on behalf of the shogunate.Original
Ajima secretly conveyed that this was Nariaki’s wish, to have those involved removed.Original
Hiraoka happened to be present as well, and they agreed that Yoshinobu shared the same intention.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi views Ajima and Hiraoka as being “badgers of the same den,” and supposes Nakane to be the same.Original
The three of them apparently had a tacit understanding about “recommending a worthy man.”Original
That is, to recommend Matsudaira Yoshinaga as an aide to the shogun.OriginalOriginal
Tokutomi notes that in Nariaki’s letter to Yoshinaga, the real point lay in the postscript rather than in the main text.Original
The three houses and the related houses must be on close terms, and he asked Yoshinaga also to become intimate with Owari.Original
“My old self and my son,” that is, he and his son, would tomorrow submit a joint document to the great elder and others.Original
Yoshinobu would presumably submit one as well.Original
He would have Yoshinobu consult with the Tayasu house.Original
Yoshinaga came from the Tayasu house, and its head, Tokugawa Yoshiyori, was Yoshinaga’s elder brother.OriginalOriginal
此れは追伸であるが、書翰の本旨は、寧ろ此の追伸にありと知る可し
Open the original page at the National Diet Library“I too was astonished”
What of Ii, the target of the impeachment?Original
On the twenty-second day of the sixth month, Ii wrote a letter to Date Munenari of Uwajima.OriginalOriginal
He said that he had been shut up indoors since the evening of the twenty-first.Original
Munenari, while wishing Matsudaira Tadakata removed, apparently wished Hotta alone to remain in office.Original
Tokutomi reads that Ii too had for the time being wished Hotta to stay on, but by the shogun’s command was unavoidably compelled to dismiss him at the same time.Original
Ii writes that Hotta was a man necessary for dealing with foreigners, but if he were “truly ill” he could not be employed.OriginalOriginal
“I am concerned solely and entirely for the sake of my superior.”Original
He meant that he was worried only about the shogun’s interest.Original
Here Ii was expressing his true feelings, and Tokutomi acknowledges that “there is something in his state of mind that deserves to be understood.”Original
To plan for the sake of one’s lord, he says, is an act of loyalty.Original
And then one more phrase.Original
“Moreover, the signing came unexpectedly soon, and I too was astonished.”Original
He meant that the signing had come unexpectedly early, and that he himself was amazed.Original
Tokutomi writes that this was probably Ii’s true feeling.Original
Though there is a touch of excessive flattery in telling Munenari, “I rely on your loyal devotion.”OriginalOriginal
Date Munetada and his son Munenari were on good terms with Ii, Nariaki, Matsudaira Yoshinaga, and Shimazu Nariakira alike, being “unobstructed in every direction.”Original
Tokutomi surmises that Ii found them useful as a “moderating agent.”Original
But Ii’s hostility toward Nariaki dated from before he took office, and grew more intense with each passing day.Original
He regarded Nariaki as “the very source of conspiracy” and had concluded that all of his actions were disadvantageous to the shogunate.OriginalOriginal
Please consult the original page images for this source.
Open the original page at the National Diet LibraryThe night before the unscheduled visit to the castle
Hotta Masayoshi and Matsudaira Tadakata were dismissed, and Manabe Akikatsu, Matsudaira Noriyasu and one other—three men in all—entered as senior councilors.Original
The lineup of the Ii cabinet was at last complete.OriginalOriginal
That same afternoon, Nakane brought Nariaki’s reply to Ajima’s residence.Original
Ajima was out, so it was handed to Chinone Iyo no suke.Original
In yesterday’s proclamation from the government it was said, “The old lord cannot bear his bitter indignation.”Original
The old lord could not bear his bitter indignation, it said.Original
Tomorrow he would go to the castle, reproach the great elder and the others, and press for the worthy to be recommended to assist in shogunal government—this he had discussed with Owari.Original
Ajima had gone to the residence of Tamiya Yatarō, a close retainer of Owari.Original
There was also private talk of inviting Yoshinaga to join them.OriginalOriginal
To “recommend the worthy” meant putting forward Matsudaira Yoshinaga.OriginalOriginal
The man who had written the three characters “violation of the imperial edict” was now about to head for the castle.Original
Reproach by letter, and interrogation face to face.Original
For Nariaki, these may have been one continuous act.
For Ii, it may have looked like a continuation of “too many words.”Original
“The two sides had come to a point where a head-on clash was unavoidable,” Tokutomi Sohō writes.Original
Three days had passed since the disordered brushwork by lamplight.Original
The morning of the unscheduled castle visit was now close at hand.OriginalOriginal
此處御違勅の三字を捻出し來つて、此れが後世迄、井伊大老等の罪案となつた
Open the original page at the National Diet Library| Source text | Kinsei Nihon kokuminshi, vol. 39: The Administration of Ii Naosuke (1935). National Diet Library Digital Collections (PDM). PID 1223976 |
| Checked against | Ishin shiryō kōyō, vol. 2. PID 1046669 |
| Dates and names | All 2 dates in the text exist in the calendar for their year, and the Western years given alongside them agree. Of the 15 people named in the text, 14 also appear in Ishin shiryō kōyō, vol. 2. |
| English gates | 137 of 137 sentences passed the checks on the English text. |
This article is a reading of Kinsei Nihon kokuminshi, vol. 39: The Administration of Ii Naosuke. Tokutomi Sohō’s views are those of the 1920s and 1930s and may differ from current scholarship. The source text is a century old and may differ from current scholarship.
