Imperial Authority—Privy Council—Local Self-Government—Promulgation of
Constitution—Imperial Prerogatives—The Two Houses of Parliament—Features
of Constitution and First Parliamentary Elections.
The Peace Preservation Regulations provided, as we have seen, amongst
other things, for the removal of persons suspected of designs to disturb
the public peace from areas in the Capital, and its suburbs, within a
radius of seven miles from the Imperial Palace. This mention of the
Imperial Palace shows how strong the force of habit was, and still is,
in Japan. The maintenance of “the security of the Throne,” a phrase
borrowed from the Chinese classics, was for centuries a leading idea in
Japanese administration. The expression, usually to be found in
association with another classical phrase, “the tranquillity of the
people,” recurs from an early date in all official literature, in
Decrees, Memorials and Manifestos. As remarkable as the continuity of
the dynasty, of which the nation is not unnaturally proud, this constant
solicitude for the Imperial welfare, this manifestation of what to
foreign eyes may seem a somewhat excessive degree of reverence for the
Throne, was often in inverse ratio to the authority it wielded. We have
seen, for instance, how the policy of the founder of the Tokugawa line
of Shōguns was to increase the outward respect paid to the Court by
surrounding it with an enhanced semblance of dignity, while at the same
time its authority was sensibly diminished. At no time was the
ceremonial governing relations between what was left of the Court and
the Shōgunate more elaborate than under the rule of the Shōguns of this
line; never, perhaps, was the authority of the Throne less effective.
This was, however, the effect of deliberate policy, in which may be
traced a desire to hoodwink the nation, and conceal the ambitious
designs of its rulers. When in the closing years of Shōgunate rule its
prestige declined, the reassertion of Imperial authority was accompanied
by a tendency to lay additional emphasis on the immemorial respect due
to the Throne. It was this feeling which led the Court party before the
Restoration to insist on no “treaty port” being opened in the five “home
provinces” because of the vicinity of Kiōto, where the Emperor resided.
When the opening of the port of Hiogo could no longer be withstood, the
same feeling inspired the narrowing of “treaty limits”—the name given to
the area in the neighbourhood of a “treaty port” in which foreigners
were allowed under the treaties to make excursions—in the direction of
the old Capital; now, several years later, after the personal rule of
the Sovereign had, in name at least, been re-established, we notice the
same anxiety for the security of the Throne still closely connected with
the maintenance of public tranquillity. And evidence of the same exalted
respect for the Throne will be seen in the Constitution which was
shortly to be promulgated, and in the official “Commentaries” which
accompanied its promulgation. But the unusual context in which the
indirect allusion to the Throne appeared in the Peace Preservation
Regulations showed that a further reason lay behind this mention of the
Imperial Palace. It was customary then, as now, for the official
measurement of all distances from the new Capital to be taken from a
central point in the city. This was the _Nihonbashi_, or Bridge of
Japan, situated in the centre of the old town. It being generally
understood, however, that all distances were measured from this centre,
it was considered unnecessary to mention the point. The fact that in the
present instance the point from which distances were to be measured was
mentioned at all, coupled with the substitution of the Imperial Palace
for the bridge in question, could not fail to attract attention. The
public was thereby reminded both of its duty in the matter of solicitude
for the security of the Throne, and of the Imperial authority that
supported the course adopted by the Government. Throughout the stormy
times which followed the establishment of parliamentary institutions in
Japan, the invocation of the Imperial authority, either directly or
indirectly, served as a political barometer by which the seriousness of
a political crisis might be definitely gauged.
In April, 1888, two months after the return of Ōkuma to the Ministry
with the title of Count, the Privy Council (_Sūmitsu-in_) was
established. The decree announcing its creation stated that the Emperor
found it expedient “to consult personages who had rendered signal
service to the State” in regard to important matters, thus making it
clear that the functions of the Council would be of a purely advisory
nature—a point confirmed later on by the Constitution—and that its
members would be chosen from officials of wide experience. The scope of
its duties, as defined in the rules governing its organization, covered
a wide field, including, amongst other matters, the drafting and
consideration of new administrative measures, the revision of existing
laws, amendments to the Constitution, the presentation of its views on
treaties with foreign countries and financial questions.
With functions in some few respects similar to those of the
corresponding body in Great Britain, the Japanese Privy Council fills a
larger place in the political machinery of the State and takes a more
active part in legislation, though it has no judicial functions. Even
more so than with us is it the final goal to which all public servants
aspire, and where their services are still available for the State. But
it is something else, too. It has a political influence which does not
exist in the case of our own institution of the same name; its members
are eligible for re-entry into the Ministry or for other State
employment; and they are in constant and close touch with public
affairs.
The need for something of the kind in Japan was far greater than in
Europe. To realize its necessity it must be remembered that the same
tendencies in Japan which encouraged the system of figure-head
government favoured the existence of advisory councils, whose duties
were to suggest or offer an opinion on administrative policy, the
carrying out of which was entrusted to executive officials. When the
whole system of government was reorganized on a Western basis, the
opportunity of introducing this feature of Western administrative
systems was eagerly seized, as it was felt that it would in some sense
fill the embarrassing gap caused by the disappearance of the groups of
advisers which had played so leading a part under the old _régime_.
Prompt use was made of the services of the new Council. The Constitution
had by this time been drafted, and was ready for the consideration of
the Privy Council. Accordingly, within a fortnight of its coming into
existence the new Privy Councillors were, in accordance with the duties
assigned to them, discussing the draft Constitution at a series of
meetings, to which the attendance of the Emperor gave an increased
importance.
The year 1888 was marked by the enactment of another important measure.
This was the local Self-government Act, known as the Law of Cities,
Towns and Villages (_Shi-chō-som-pō_). The first step in the reform of
local government, by which a representative character was given to it,
had been taken in 1878, when drafts of the “Three Great Laws,” as they
were popularly called, were prepared by the Conference of Prefects. One
of these, the law creating Prefectural Assemblies, came into force, as
we have seen, two years later. The operation of the other arrangements
drafted at the same time, and affecting smaller areas of local
administration, had been postponed. These now came into force in the
spring of 1889, some changes having in the meantime been made. In the
following year these arrangements, as well as the whole system of local
government, underwent further revision. The revised system then
introduced is now in operation in forty-five of the forty-six
prefectures into which Japan proper is divided, the exception being
Loochoo, known since its annexation as the Okinawa prefecture. The basis
of the present system is the separation of local administration into two
main branches, urban and rural. Each of these prefectures—three of which
(Tōkiō, Kiōto and Ōsaka) have a separate status as urban prefectures
(_Fu_), the rest being rural prefectures (_Ken_)—is now divided into
urban districts, or “cities” (_Shi_), and rural districts, or counties
(_Gun_). A rural district, or county (_Gun_), is again subdivided into
towns (_Chō_) and villages (_Son_). The classification of a town as an
urban district, or “city” (_Shi_), or a “town” (_Chō_), depends on its
population. Unless otherwise determined by the Minister of the Interior,
with whom the final decision rests, all towns of over 25,000 inhabitants
have the status of “cities,” enjoying as such a somewhat larger measure
of self-government than those not in this category. In each prefecture
there is a prefectural assembly (_Kenkwai_ or _Fukwai_, as the case may
be), and an executive council (_Sanjikwai_). Similar assemblies and
executive councils exist in each rural district and “city,” but towns
and villages, though they are provided with assemblies, have no
executive councils, the duties of these latter bodies being entrusted to
the mayors.
[Illustration:
MARQUIS MATSUGATA.
Took an active part in the Government formed after the Restoration. As
Finance Minister he carried out specie resumption on a silver basis
in 1886, and introduced the present gold standard in 1897.
]
[Illustration:
FIELD-MARSHAL PRINCE ŌYAMA.
Rendered distinguished services in the war with China, and was
Commander-in-Chief in the Russo-Japanese war.
]
The system of election to local administrative bodies is more or less
the same in each administrative unit. In prefectures where the
population does not exceed 700,000 an assembly has thirty members. Where
the population is larger another member may be elected for each
additional 50,000 inhabitants. “City” assemblies contain more members,
the number varying from thirty to sixty, the latter number being the
maximum. The _Sanjikwai_, or executive council, of a prefecture consists
of ten councillors chosen by the assembly from amongst its members. The
prefect presides, and is assisted by two prefectural officials. In rural
districts the presiding official is the _Gunchō_, or district
administrator, who, as in the case of prefects, is appointed by the
Minister of the Interior. In “cities” the mayor of the city presides,
being assisted by a deputy, or deputies, as the case may be. The chief
duty of all these assemblies is to regulate expenditure, and apportion
the taxation required to meet it. In the scheme of local taxation the
_corvée_ still occupies a prominent place, though, except on occasions
of emergency, substitutes may be provided, or money payments made in
commutation. In the election of members voting is by secret ballot. The
property qualification for electors, and for those eligible as members,
is determined by the annual amount of national, or Imperial, taxes paid
by an individual. The age qualification is fixed at twenty-five years,
the legal age at which majority is attained. The possession of civil
rights is also necessary.
The legislative activity displayed in the series of administrative
measures above mentioned shows how wide an effect was produced by the
decision to create a Parliament, to which a Constitution became under
the circumstances an essential corollary. In some cases this legislation
was the direct offspring of that decision. The new peerage, the
reorganization of the Ministry, the Privy Council, all had their
separate places in the scheme of the Constitution. In other cases the
connection, though not so close, was still obvious; for it was not
possible to make a Constitution and fit it into the existing framework
of government, put together, as the latter had been, piece by piece,
without some sensible alterations of administrative machinery. From this
point of view it will be seen that the reform of local government, and
even the institution of Court Councillors, who might be chosen to sit in
the Upper House, had a definite, albeit indirect, bearing on the
Constitution, and on the National Parliament about to be established.
The Constitution having been considered and approved by the Privy
Council, to whose deliberations on the subject an increased dignity had,
as we have seen, been given by the attendance of the Sovereign, was
promulgated by the Emperor in person on the 11th February, 1889. The
ceremony took place in the Throne Room of the newly built palace in
Tōkiō, a building of Japanese architecture, modified in some of its
features by a slight admixture of foreign designs. The Emperor and
Empress occupied daises of unequal height at one end of the hall, which
was filled with the dignitaries of the Empire, and officials of senior
grades. Seats outside the Court circle were arranged according to the
new rules of precedence. The three first places were assigned to the
ex-daimiōs of Satsuma and Chōshiū and to the new head of the Tokugawa
family, in the order named, all three having the rank of princes in the
new nobility. The head of the Tokugawa House was the cousin and adopted
heir of the ex-Shōgun Kéiki, and succeeded to the headship of the family
on the enforced retirement at the close of the civil war of the last of
the Shōguns. The dignitaries and officials present all wore modern Court
costume of European style, with the marked exception of Prince Shimadzu
of Satsuma, whose appearance in Japanese costume, with hair dressed in
the old-fashioned cue, bore witness to the ingrained conservatism of the
clan he represented. Never before in the country’s history had a scene
more impressive occurred, nor, indeed, one less in keeping with Japanese
traditional ideas. Great as had always from time immemorial been the
reverence felt by all classes of the people for the Crown, it was a
reverence tinged with political expediency, which showed itself in the
fixed policy of screening from public view the object of veneration. The
atmosphere of mystery and seclusion which surrounded the monarch had
naturally extended to the palace and its precincts, and in a still
greater degree, for reasons common to all Oriental countries, to the
person of the Imperial Consort. Now for the first time the palace was
thrown open to a gathering so large as to deprive it of any very select
or exclusive character, and the tradition of centuries was broken in a
manner contrary, not to say repugnant, to all previous ideas by the
attendance of the Sovereign and his Consort in person, the former taking
an active part in the proceedings. The ceremony, therefore, in a certain
sense symbolized the new spirit which inspired the nation, ushering in a
different order of things. Apart from the pomp and magnificence of its
surroundings, it set the seal on the new departure in State policy, and
represented the final bridging of the gulf between old and new Japan.
The speech read by the Emperor on this occasion was couched in the vague
and grandiloquent style common to all utterances from the Throne. It
spoke of the Constitution as “an immutable fundamental law,” and
described the foundations of the Empire as having been laid by the
Founder of the Imperial House and other Imperial ancestors, with the
help of their subjects, on a basis that was to last for ever, an
achievement due to the glorious virtues of the Imperial ancestors and
the bravery and loyalty of the people; and it expressed the hope that
the same loyal co-operation between Sovereign and subject would for ever
secure the stability of the fabric of State bequeathed by the Imperial
ancestors.
The Imperial Decree, or Rescript, issued on the same day as that on
which the Constitution was promulgated, and bearing the sign-manual of
the Sovereign and the signatures of the nine Ministers of State, appears
as a Preamble in the official English text of the “Commentaries on the
Constitution,” though it is not found in the original Japanese text. It
provided that the Imperial Diet (the name given to the new Parliament)
should be convoked for the first time in 1890, and that the date of its
opening should be that on which the Constitution should come into force.
The date thus fixed was the 29th November, 1890. In this Decree, which
contained a reference to the promise of a Parliament made in 1881, the
Emperor stated his intention to exercise his Sovereign rights in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, for the execution of
which the Ministers of State would be responsible. Stress was also laid
on the important condition that any proposal for the amendment of the
Constitution in the future must proceed from the Throne, and that in no
other way would any attempt on the part of the Emperor’s descendants, or
subjects, to alter it be permitted.
Additional solemnity was given to the promulgation of the Constitution
by an Oath taken by the Emperor in the Shintō Shrine (called the
“Sanctuary” in the English official text of the “Commentaries”) attached
to the palace. In this Oath—the second of its kind, the first having, as
we have seen, been taken in 1869—the Emperor bound himself “to maintain
and secure from decline the ancient form of government,” and, while
acknowledging the help received from the Imperial ancestors in the past,
implored the continuance of their support in the future.
The Constitution, as promulgated, consisted of seventy-six articles
divided into seven chapters, dealing, respectively, with the position
and prerogatives of the Sovereign, the rights and duties of the people,
the functions of the Diet, the relations between the Cabinet and the
Privy Council, the judicature and finance; and one of the supplementary
rules attached to it provided for its revision, a point reserved, as we
have seen, for the initiative of the Crown. Simultaneously with its
promulgation various accessory laws were enacted. These were the
Imperial House Law, mentioned in the Imperial Oath, the Imperial
Ordinance concerning the House of Peers, the Law of the Houses, the Law
of Election of the members of the House of Representatives and the Law
of Finance.
The general lines of the Constitution follow those of the Bavarian
Constitution, which was taken as the model. Its leading principles are
the small limitations placed on the Imperial prerogative and the
independence of the Cabinet, which is responsible to the Sovereign
alone, and not in any way to the Diet. No mention either of the Cabinet,
or of the Minister President, occurs in the Constitution, though they
are referred to in Prince Itō’s “Commentaries.” But Article LXXVI of the
Constitution provides that all existing enactments, in so far as they do
not conflict with it, shall continue in force. The enactment of 1885
reorganizing the Ministry comes under this rule. Consequently the
position of the Minister President, and of the Cabinet over which he
presided, remained unaltered after the Constitution came into operation.
The enumeration of the Imperial prerogatives occupies much space in the
Constitution. The chief points to be noted are that the Sovereign
exercises the legislative powers with the consent of the Diet; that his
sanction is necessary for all laws; that he is empowered on occasions of
emergency which arise when the Diet is not sitting to issue “Imperial
Ordinances” which have provisionally the force of law, but which require
the approval of the Diet at its next session, when, if not approved,
they cease to be operative; that he determines the peace standing of
both army and navy; and that the authority to declare war, make peace,
announce a state of siege and conclude treaties rests with him. All of
these matters are removed from the control of the Diet, which has also
no voice in any future modifications of the Law of the Imperial House.
The remarkable reverence for the Throne which is characteristic of the
people is illustrated by the declaration, in one of the early articles,
of the sacredness and inviolability of the person of the Emperor. This,
we are told in the “Commentaries,” is a consequence of his divine
descent. He must, indeed, it is explained, “pay due respect to the law,
but the law has no power to hold him accountable to it”—a statement
which seems to involve a contradiction in terms, for it is difficult to
understand how a Sovereign who is not accountable to law can be bound to
respect it.
Among the duties of Japanese subjects, as defined in the Constitution,
is liability to service in the army or navy. It should be explained,
however, that whereas service in the army is based on conscription
alone, recruiting for the navy is, in practice, based on the volunteer
system, supplemented by conscription. Their rights include immunity from
arrest, trial or punishment, except in accordance with the provisions of
the law; similar immunity in the matter of the entry or search of
houses, and as regards private correspondence; and freedom of religious
belief. With regard to the omission to place on record the fact that
there are two officially recognized religions, Shintō and Buddhism, one
may, after reading the explanations on this point given in the
“Commentaries,” be tempted to think that the last word has not been said
on the subject. At the same time it will be recognized that the course
adopted represents the simplest solution of the question.
The Diet, or Parliament—for Japanese writers, when writing in English,
use both terms indifferently—comprises two Chambers, a House of Peers
and a House of Representatives. The House of Peers is composed of
members of five different categories: (1) Members of the Imperial family
who have attained majority, fixed in such cases at twenty years; (2)
princes and marquises who have attained legal majority, namely,
twenty-five years; (3) other members of the nobility chosen by their
respective orders; (4) distinguished persons specially nominated by the
Emperor; and (5) persons (one for each urban and rural district) elected
by and from the highest taxpayers. Those coming under the first, second
and fourth categories are life members; those coming under the third and
fifth categories are elected for seven years. The number of members of
the House of Representatives, as originally fixed by the Constitution,
was 300, and there was a property qualification for membership. They are
elected by voters who have attained legal majority, and pay annually
direct national taxes amounting to about £1. Under the revised Electoral
Law which came into force in 1902 there is no longer any property
qualification for membership, the only conditions now being an age limit
of thirty years and the possession of civil rights. The same law reduced
both property and age qualifications in the case of electors, this
extension of the franchise resulting in the number of electors being
increased to 1,700,000; substituted the secret ballot for open voting;
and raised the number of members of the Lower House to 381, urban
districts returning 73 and rural districts 308. The large majority of
members in this Chamber have always belonged to the agrarian class. The
natural term of the House of Representatives is four years. Dissolution,
which is one of the Imperial prerogatives, applies only to the Lower
House. When it occurs, the Upper House (or House of Peers) is prorogued.
New elections must take place within five months from the date of
dissolution, the next session of the Diet becoming what is known as an
Extraordinary Session.
The Imperial House Law contains various provisions relating to the
succession to the Throne, which is limited to the male line; the
appointment of a Regent, for which post in certain circumstances the
Empress, Empress Dowager and other ladies of the Court are eligible,
and, during the minority of the Sovereign, of a governor, or guardian;
and the age (18) at which a Sovereign attains majority. A point to be
noted is the restriction of the custom of adoption in the case of the
Imperial Family, no member of which is allowed to adopt a son.
In concluding this brief sketch of the Constitution and accessory laws,
it may be well to mention a point which has an important bearing on the
practical working of the Japanese parliamentary system, namely, the
control exercised by the Diet over the Budget. This to some extent
remedies the weakness of parliamentary opposition parties—as compared
with similar parties elsewhere—which arises out of the fact that the
Cabinet is independent of the Diet. When conflicts over the Budget take
place, the Diet may by withholding supplies force a dissolution. In
these cases by the terms of the Constitution the Government is obliged
to substitute, in place of the rejected Budget, the Budget of the
previous financial year passed in the preceding session. Any new
financial programme, therefore, to which the Government may have
committed itself in the rejected Budget is consequently held up, and
cannot be proceeded with until a fresh Budget has been passed in a
subsequent extraordinary session of Parliament. This means a delay of at
least several months. The Government is, however, not necessarily always
the sufferer financially thereby, for, as Marquis Ōkuma points out in
his book already referred to, the effect of dissolutions occurring
through this cause has usually been to reduce expenditure rather than
revenue.
The first parliamentary elections were held in the summer of 1890, the
first session of the Diet taking place in the following autumn.