Tokugawa Nariaki’s Campaign to Remove the Corrupt ―― Eight Years of Mito Domain Politics, from Kōka 1 to Kaei 5

A single letter arrived at the residence of the senior councilor Abe Masahiro from the Mito domain’s secondary residence.OriginalOriginal

It was dated the sixteenth day of the eleventh month of Kaei 2 (1849).Original
Its title was “Matters Heard Concerning Okitsu Kurōdo, Naitō Tōichirō, and Imamura Kizaemon.”OriginalOriginal

This meant the various matters heard concerning these three men: the chief retainer Okitsu Kurōdo, the junior councilor Naitō Tōichirō, and the personal steward Imamura Kizaemon.Original
Its contents enumerated, one by one, private improprieties on their part.OriginalOriginal

The sender was Tokugawa Nariaki.Original
He was the former lord of Mito domain, who had been reprimanded by the shogunate in the fifth month of Tenpō… wait, Kōka 1 (1844), forced into retirement, and kept away from domain politics.OriginalOriginal

Regarding this letter, Tokutomi Sohō writes that, setting aside whether the facts were true, it “was by no means a means of showing Nariaki’s greatness.”Original
It was, he says, not conduct that made him appear large of character.Original

Domain Politics Still in the Hands of the Opposing Party

Nariaki began exchanging letters with the senior councilor Abe Masahiro from the seventh month of Kōka 2.Original
From then on he continued, almost without interruption, to press his complaints about domain politics.Original
At times he brought his case to Abe’s fellow senior councilors as well.OriginalOriginal

In the third month of Kaei 2, an order came down from the shogun lifting the ban on Nariaki’s involvement in domain affairs.OriginalOriginal

Even so, domain politics remained in the hands of the opposing party.OriginalOriginal

Tokutomi Sohō gives two reasons for this.Original
First, the current domain lord Tokugawa Yoshiatsu was, if anything, the opposite of Nariaki, and trusted the current Mito officials who formed Nariaki’s opposing party.Original
Second, for the shogunate’s senior councilors as well, maintaining the status quo appeared relatively safe and relatively moderate.OriginalOriginal

To begin with, the lifting of the ban on Nariaki’s political involvement had come with conditions attached.Original
A directive was appended stating that men such as Toda and Fujita, who had been the agents of Mito’s Tenpō reforms, must not be reappointed.Original
Tokutomi Sohō views it as neither the shogun’s nor the senior councilors’ true wish to let Nariaki wield free rein.OriginalOriginal

Nariaki’s Lack of Magnanimity

Tokutomi Sohō writes that the factional strife within Mito itself was not something Nariaki had created.Original
It was, he says, an inheritance handed down from the previous generation.OriginalOriginal

But even if Nariaki alone could not be blamed for enlarging that inheritance, the fact that he fostered it, Sohō says, is “a fact impossible to explain away.”Original
Sohō adds that even Fujita Tōko, whom Nariaki trusted closely, corroborates this.OriginalOriginal

Yet Nariaki was extremely severe in blaming others for their past faults.Original
He tended to regard even his own child or his own retainers as enemies the moment they failed to follow his wishes.Original
Moreover, against those who opposed him, he often devised scheming, dark stratagems.OriginalOriginal

Those stratagems were, Sohō says, far too blatant.OriginalOriginal

The magnanimity to swallow even the murky along with the clear, the largeness of spirit to turn enemies into allies—though a man of many arts, many abilities, many talents, and much strength, these, Sohō says, were things Nariaki sorely lacked.Original
His habitual petty schemes only pushed those already not close to him further away, and those already distant even further still.Original
Thus, Sohō concludes, during Nariaki’s lifetime the factional strife of Mito advanced from a bad state to a worst state.OriginalOriginal

The account is harshly written, but one might also read it as saying that having many talents and being able to accommodate others are two different things.

Nariaki’s Letters and the Shogunate’s Response

In Nariaki’s letters there is a passage enumerating the favors that had come down upon him.Original
First mentioned is that he had been permitted his restraint order lifted, whereby the whole domain was set at ease.Original
In the winter of Kōka 3, two or three of his retainers—Toda, Imai, and Fujita—were pardoned.Original
In the third month of Kaei 2 he was released from guardianship duties, in the seventh month an informal notice came, and in the ninth month, after a long interval, he was permitted an audience.Original
On top of this, Nariaki writes as follows.Original
The officials’ calculation, he says, is that it was precisely because they had, over six years, completely overturned and managed Nariaki’s governance that Nariaki came to receive these favors.Original
They impress this upon Yoshiatsu day and night, and believe it to be the way of filial duty to continue rejecting Nariaki’s wishes and to uphold their six years of management even further.Original
He continues, “The months and years flow on like a stream, and this year too has grown short”—that is, the year was flowing by and little of it remained.Original
If the year passed like this, he urged, the corrupt practices would grow worse and the number of offenders would increase, and so he pressed for a decision to be handed down before the year’s end.Original
Tokutomi Sohō views the fact that Nariaki went so far as to trouble the shogunate’s council in order to remove his own retainers as the very reason the factional strife grew even larger afterward.OriginalOriginal

The Shogunate’s Hesitation and Fears of Poisoning

The shogunate hesitated to comply with this demand to “remove the corrupt.”Original
Tokutomi Sohō writes that this was because they feared that granting Nariaki’s demand might touch off fresh disturbances within the domain.Original
He adds that whether this fear was entirely groundless is not something that can easily be stated with certainty even now.Original
Nariaki, trying one approach after another, brought this demand before Abe Masahiro and the other senior councilors.Original
To the shogunate’s answer that reassigning one or two men could be left to his own discretion, but that a larger number required patient deliberation, Nariaki objected as follows.Original
For one who had retired without incident, he said, it would be easy for father and son to consult together and deal with one or two retainers; but he himself was a man under punishment, and the officials, acting under the shogunate’s orders to assist his son, held strong authority.Original
Nariaki insisted that going against his own wishes served the officials better in their dealings with the shogunate, and that they believed this actually accorded with his son’s filial duty.Original
Regarding precautions over food as well, Nariaki gave his reasons to the senior councilors.Original
Tokutomi Sohō remarks that suspecting one’s own retainers to this degree is hardly the way to place a sincere heart within another’s breast.Original
Nariaki also defended himself over the fact that his inquiries to his mother Hōjuin—his adoptive mother, and the wife of his late elder brother Narinobu—had grown infrequent, and that he had few opportunities to meet Yoshiatsu.Original
As long as one or two corrupt men kept father and son apart, he said, even a meeting between them would remain superficial, with no true communication of hearts.Original
Once the corrupt men were removed and matters made clear, he said, the ways of filial piety and affection could be fully carried out.Original
Tokutomi Sohō writes that the shogunate’s council of the time must have found dealing with Nariaki exceedingly troublesome.Original
The senior councilors gave no response at all to the petition of the eleventh month of Kaei 2 until the third month of Kaei 4.Original
During this time, the rivalry between the two factions grew even more severe, and the Tokugawa Yoshinobu-kō den records that suspicions of assassination and poisoning even damaged the affection between parent and child, and between friends.Original
Nariaki repeatedly urged a decision, and at times went so far as to declare vehemently that he had no choice but to abandon all household affairs.OriginalOriginal

The shogunate’s conciliatory measures and Nariaki’s victory

The shogunate’s council finally acted.Original
Whether they had simply worn down under Nariaki’s ceaseless demands, or had come to recognize the reason in his claims, or judged that conciliating Nariaki and keeping his favor was necessary for the Tokugawa shogunal house at this juncture, is unclear.Original
Tokutomi Sohō lists these three possibilities.Original
The shogunate’s council told Nariaki that, since Nakayama Bingo no kami was displeased, they had discussed the matter with Okitsu Noto no kami, and wrote as follows.Original
Nariaki had said that there were wicked persons in the upper residence, but: “as previously stated, matters involving many people cannot easily be dealt with.”Original
This meant that, as had been said before, dealing with a large number of people all at once could not be done easily, but that once suitable successors for the two men were found, matters would gradually be set right.Original
And then they gave a warning.Original
Henceforth, Nariaki should not consult the senior councilors lightly, but should handle all matters in consultation with Yoshiatsu and the chief retainers.Original
Sohō views this as a preemptive warning meant to close the matter there, so that Mito’s internal affairs would not thereafter be reformed with the shogunate’s help.Original
The document handed by the senior councilors to Okitsu Noto no kami, the chief retainer of Mito, instructed that Yoshiatsu be told to transfer Okitsu Kurōdo and Naitō Tōichirō to posts unrelated to household administration, to select their successors, and to make the appointment in consultation with Nariaki as well.Original
It was added, however, that this was not an official directive but only something that had reached the level of rumor, and that it should be arranged promptly entirely at Mito’s own discretion.Original
It was not an order but an admonition.Original
Even so, Sohō writes, it must be called a great victory for Nariaki.OriginalOriginal

The thirteenth day of the eleventh month of Kaei 5 (1852): a visit to the castle after ten years

Nariaki argued that this would raise Naitō’s family rank and contradict precedent, but the decision had already been settled.Original
He said it was distressing that every time one man’s appointment or dismissal came up, father and son fell into dispute, and harmony between them was naturally lost.Original
The tide turned in the first month of Kaei 5 (1852).Original
Ōta Tanba no kami, the chief retainer at Edo, was ordered down to Mito for a six-month posting, and Okada Shintarō came up to Edo in his place.Original
Sohō notes that the former was not of Nariaki’s faction, while the latter was.Original
Nariaki wrote that as soon as Ōta’s transfer down was announced, word came that the retainers had begun to apply themselves to both scholarship and military training.Original
Naitō, who had been transferred to guard captain and given permanent residence in Edo, was also sent down to Mito at the end of the second month.Original
On the nineteenth day of the intercalary second month, the confinement of Toda Ginjirō and Fujita Toranosuke, who had been punished at the same time as Nariaki in the fifth month of Kōka 1 (1844), was lifted.Original
However, since an order had been given that they were not to be reemployed, they still spent their days in idleness.Original
Sohō views this not as a result of harmony between father and son, but as something Nariaki forced through with high-handed pressure.Original
On the thirteenth day of the intercalary second month, when his mother Yoshiko visited the Koishikawa residence, Yoshiatsu confided his true feelings.Original
If he followed his father’s wishes, it was inconvenient for the shogunate; if he followed the words of the shogunate and the chief retainers, he went against his father’s wishes.Original
He said there was nothing left for him to do but stop attending the castle and request retirement.Original
Then, on the thirteenth day of the eleventh month, Abe Masahiro summoned the chief retainer Nakayama Bingo no kami and conveyed the order for Nariaki to attend the castle.Original
It had been ten years since his visit to the castle on the eighteenth day of the fifth month of Tenpō 14 (1843).Original
A postscript to Nariaki’s letter states as follows.Original
Regarding the matter of the black ships briefly discussed within the castle, whether they request trade or territory, or take advantage of the treacherous schemes of the Dutch barbarians, if it is settled with a stopgap decision, later trouble will surely follow — this, he said, was for the sake of the realm.Original
On the fifteenth day of the twelfth month, Itonomiya, the princess of Arisugawa no Miya, was married into the Koishikawa residence.Original
Sohō writes that the shogunate’s censure of the fifth month of Kōka 1 (1844) was, by the twelfth month of Kaei 5 (1852), completely restored to its original state.OriginalOriginal

This article is a reading of Kinsei Nihon kokuminshi, The Situation before Perry’s Arrival. 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.