著者

高橋 秀直

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.76, no.5, pp.p673-709, 1993-09

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり本稿は、最近研究が活発化している征韓論政変について、その実態と歴史的意義の解明を試みるものである。 留守政府期において、急速な近代化を目饗し野放図に開化政策を拡大しようとする諸省と、それを一定の枠内に抑えようとする大蔵省(これは木戸派が支配していた) との間で、激しい対立が生じた。さらに明治五年後半になると、木戸派を除く政府の大勢は対外強硬論に傾き、台湾への出兵を主張するようになり、これを阻止しようとする木戸派大蔵省と厳しく対立した。大蔵省は征台の阻止には成功した。しかし明治六年五月の政府改革で江藤新平らにより木戸派の大蔵省支配が打倒されると、対外強硬論への政府内の歯止めは失われてしまう。こうした中で朝鮮より広津報告が到着すると、留守政府の対外強硬志向は朝鮮に向けて噴出し、八月一七日、戦争につながる可能性の極めて高い、西郷隆盛の朝鮮への使節派遣が「内決」された。 一方外遊より帰国してきた岩倉使節団のメンバー、岩倉具視・大久保利通・木戸孝允らは、江藤ら留守政府に反発し、政府改造を期した。また岩倉ら使節団派は、内治優先の立場より戦争は避けるべきと考えており、西郷の派遣に反対であった。このように権力闘争・朝鮮政策の両次元で使節団派と留守政府は対立した。しかし一〇月一一日西郷が自らの派遣の正式決定について強硬な意向を表明すると、逆に、朝鮮問題での政府の分裂を避けようとする妥協的な動きが、両者の間に生まれることになる。しかし一四、一五日閣議で西郷の固執により妥協は成立せず、両者は朝鮮政策について決定的に対立することになった。そして結局、三条実美の決断で西郷遣使が決定した。 敗北した使節団派は、閣議直後より逆転に向けて動き三条に圧力をかけた。このため一八日、三条は発病した。一九日、留守政府派を中心とする閣議は、岩倉の太政大臣代理就任と朝鮮問題再評議のための閣議開催を決定する。しかし天皇側近に対する工作により秘密のうちに天皇の支持をとりつけていた、岩倉らは、再評議を行わずこのまま先の閣議決定に反対する上奏を行うことを決めた。これに対し留守政府派は二二日岩倉を訪れ詰問するが、彼の意見を変えることはできなかった。二二日岩倉は上奏を行い、翌日裁可、使節団派は勝利をしめたのである。明治五年後半以降の留守政府内の対外強硬論の高まりは、開化政策の強行により生じた社会各層の不満をそらそうとする意図をもつものであり、明治四年以降の開化への競合の帰結と言えるものであった。 明治六年の一連の政変の結果、政府の中枢は大久保派がしめることになったが、これは明治二年以降続いていた行政における木戸派の優位の終焉、木戸派から大久保派への主導権の移行を示すものであった。This article attempts to elucidate the actual conditions and historical significance of the political changes surrounding the debates on the Expedition to Korea, an issue which has recently been the object of much research. During the fifth and sixth years of the Meiji period, fierce opposition developed between those ministries which attempted to enlarge haphazardly an "enlightened policy (開化政策)" in order to modernize rapidly and the Ministry of Finance, controlled by the Kido group, which tried to restrict This policy. During the latter of the fifth year of the Meiji, except for the Kido group, most people in government tended towards a hard line towards foreign countries and came to advocate an expedition to Taiwan. The Ministry of Finance firmly opposed this tendency and prevented the expedition. In the governmental reform of May, the sixth year of the Meiji period, the Kido group's control over the Ministry of Finance was broken by Eto Shinpei. As a result, this brake on taking a hard line towards foreign countries was lost. It was under these conditions that the Korean issue came to a head, and the government decided to dispatch Takamori Saigo, a man extremely likely to escalate matters to war, to Korea on August 17th. Members of the Iwakura Mission such as Iwakura Tomomi, Okubo Toshimichi, and Kido Takayoshi who returned from abroad opposed the Eto group and hoped to reform the government. The Iwakura group did not approve of sending Saigo, believing that domestic affairs should be given first priority and that war should be avoided. In this way, the opposition between the two groups took form on two levels of a struggle for power and a policy towards Korea. Thus, in August, whether or not to approve dispatching Saigo, who had been''decided upon informally (内決), " became a critical issue for the government. When Iwakura had returned in September, the government was faced with a number of outstading problems, the Korean issue being only one of them. However on October 11, Saigo demanded a formal decision as to whether ha was to be dispatched. The Korean issue having become so prominent, there arose a movement towards compromise between the groups to avoid splitting the party. Because of Saigo's intransigence in the cabinet session of October 14th and 15th, compromise was not possible and opposition between the two groups became absolute. By the decision of Sanjo Sanetomi, Saigo was dispatched to Korea. Immediately afetr the cabinet session, the defeated group began work to reverse the situation, applying pressure to Sanjo. On October 18th, Sanjo fell ill. On October 19th, the Eto group-led cabinent session decided to hold a cabinent session in order to appoint Iwakura to acting Prime Minister and to discuss the Korean issue once more. However, the Iwakura group secretly gained the Emperor's support, maneuvering matters to the close advisors of the Emperor. Iwakura decided not to discuss the issue and instead addressed a memorial directly to the throne in which he objected to the previous decision reached by the cabinet. In response, on October 22nd, the Eto groups cross-examined Iwakura, but he did not change his opinion. The same day, Iwakura addressed a memorial to the throne which was approved the next day, and the victory of the Iwakura group was clear. The rise of a hard-line stance towards foreign countries within the government from the latter half of the fifth year of the Meiji period onwards was to divert the discontent of various social strata which had emerged from the forced implementation of the enlightned policy. In a sense, it was the end of the competition for enlightenment begun in the fourth year of the Meiji era. As a result of a series of political changes in the sixth year of the Meiji era, the Okubo group occupied the heart of the government. This brought an end to the control of the Kido group in the administration which had lasted from the second year of the Meiji era and ushered in a shift in political initiative from the Okubo group to that of the Kido group.