Reform of the Domain Government

Japanese: 藩政改革 - はんせいかいかく

This refers to political reforms carried out by feudal domains, which had aspects of individual territorial ownership, under the feudal lord system.

The finances of the feudal lords were basically based on tribute (product rent) collected from honbyakusho (real peasant businesses) that were based on the natural economy. From the perspective of the feudal lords, the number of self-employed farmers, or honbyakusho, was of the utmost importance in determining their power. Therefore, the creation and maintenance of honbyakusho businesses was the most fundamental policy of the feudal lords' power. During the Edo period, each feudal domain periodically carried out reforms of their domain governments, but the basic policy of these reforms was always based on the creation and maintenance of honbyakusho businesses.

The direct cause of the reforms of the domain government, which became especially periodic from the mid-Edo period onwards, was always the problem of financial difficulties in the domain. This meant the collapse of the principle of product rent, which was based on peasant management, the core of the shogunate-domain system. Although peasant management was based on the principle of natural economy, it could become the basis for the development of a commodity economy through the development of productive forces. The development of this peasant commodity economy, on the one hand, brought about the disintegration of peasant management, which was the basis of the domain finances, and on the other hand, brought about an expansion of monetary expenditures in the domain finances. Gradually, urban merchant capital intervened in between. In short, the reforms of the domain government in each domain during the Edo period were basically oriented towards the creation and maintenance of peasant management, but they unfolded while incorporating secondary factors such as the disintegration of peasant management, the development of a peasant commodity economy, and connections with urban merchant capital or lateral pressure. Therefore, the nature of the reforms differed in each period in response to the economic and social developments of the Edo period.

[Masahiro Izumi]

initial

In many cases, the direction of reform in each feudal domain was primarily to promote the creation of genuine peasant management. In the small, hereditary domain of Shinano, Suwa Domain (Takashima Domain), this direction was pursued as the form of control over vassals was changed from local control (local chigyo) to the stipend system (kuramai chigyo). In April of the leap year of 1675 (Enpo 3), the third feudal domain lord, Suwa Tadaharu, promulgated the eight articles of the "Goju Moushi Watashi," the first article of which clearly stated the reasons why the domain was changing the stipend peasants to peasants directly under the daimyo. In other words, it was a declaration of the prevention of arbitrary control of peasants by stipend recipients, and a change to a domain government based on the preservation of small farmers. This shift was not limited to small fudai domains, but was also a central issue in early domain government reforms. In the large, outside domain of Kaga Kanazawa Domain, under the direction of the third domain lord, Maeda Toshitsune, the reform law that was enacted between 1651 (Keian 4) and 1656 (Meireki 2) also aimed to separate stipendants from peasants, in other words, to promote the creation and maintenance of true peasant management by placing peasants directly under the domain lord.

Incidentally, from the beginning of their establishment, each domain's finances were heavily pressured by large amounts of monetary expenditures due to alternate attendance and residence in Edo, and the domain was constantly plagued by financial deficits. It was only natural that domain government reforms always began with thrift edicts, and domains managed to overcome financial difficulties by borrowing money from merchants in the three capitals, but this led to the domain's financial collapse. The encouragement of new land development and the forcing of industrial development were all directly meaningful as part of measures to address financial difficulties.

[Masahiro Izumi]

Mid-term

The development of productivity in the peasant management, which was the economic foundation of the Tokugawa Shogunate and feudal domain system, left the peasants with a surplus. In other words, the gradual transformation of the natural economy into a commodity economy, on the one hand, made it impossible for the feudal lord to absorb the fruits of the peasants' commodity production through the principle of product rent, i.e., in the form of tribute, and further expanded monetary expenditures in the feudal domain's finances. On the other hand, this development of peasant commodity production led to the formation of a new national market. This gave rise to the advancement of urban merchant capital. Therefore, each feudal domain was forced to make a qualitative transformation of the feudal domain system that could respond to such a situation. The reforms carried out in each feudal domain from the Genroku to Kyoho period (1688-1736) onwards were of this nature. Therefore, there was an attitude of adapting to the development of the commodity economy, along with the strengthening of the principle of product rent, i.e., the increase in tribute. Its core policies were the establishment of product inspection offices (domestic product kaisho) and the implementation of a domain monopoly system.

Feudal domain monopolies were centered on local specialty products suited to the conditions of each region. There are many examples, such as paper and wax in the Choshu domain, indigo in the Awa and Tokushima domains, cotton and salt in the Himeji domain, paper in the Tosa domain, camphor and brown sugar in the Satsuma domain, and silk textiles in the Shinshu Ueda domain. However, in many cases, this monopoly policy ended up plunging ordinary farmers into poverty because the feudal domain's power colluded with wealthy farmers and privileged merchants and imposed strict controls on the production and distribution of specialty products, and it did not lead to the strengthening of the feudal domain's economy.

Another problem that must be taken into consideration in the mid-period reforms of feudal domains is the reforms of feudal domains in underdeveloped regions by so-called "wise rulers." Typical examples include the relationship between the 6th Hosokawa Shigekata, who inherited the Higo-Kumamoto domain with 540,000 koku, and his chief retainer Hori Katsuna; the relationship between the 5th Matsudaira Katanobu, who inherited the Mutsu-Aizu domain with 280,000 koku, and his chief retainer Tanaka Gensai; and the relationship between the 10th Uesugi Harunori (Yozan), who inherited the Dewa-Yonezawa domain with 150,000 koku, and Takemata Masatsuna, who represented the reform faction. In these underdeveloped domains with a lagging commodity economy, the heavy burden of feudal tributes and the exploitation of merchant capital from developed regions made it impossible to even reproduce traditional peasant management. In this situation, the re-creation of true peasant management became an important direction for reform.

[Masahiro Izumi]

Late Period

The mid-term reforms ultimately brought about a further disintegration of traditional peasant management, while the linking of feudal domain power with merchant capital led to the corruption of feudal domain government. In response to these crises, reformist ideas grew, but the immediate problem they addressed was the financial difficulties of the feudal domain and the disintegration of traditional peasant management.

The financial difficulties of the domains led to criticism of the domain government, which was corrupted by its ties with merchant capital, and also gave rise to a sense of crisis about the dismantling of peasant management, which was the economic foundation of the shogunate-domain system. This, combined with the former, transformed into a consciousness of expulsion of merchant capital, and led to the advancement of lower-class reformers into domain politics. For example, the Tenpo Reforms of the Choshu domain were started in 1838 (Tenpo 9) under the leadership of Murata Seifu, but Seifu was nothing other than a lower-class middle-class samurai with a stipend of 91 koku.

Thus, reforms in the various feudal domains during the Tenpo period clearly took two directions: the re-creation of traditional peasant management and the breaking away from merchant capital, with the lower-class reform faction taking control of the domain's political power.

There was also another important issue in the Tenpo Reforms. This was the issue of responding immediately to the situation in which an external crisis was finally looming around Japan. In other words, coastal defense assumed great importance, and military reform was begun. This kind of domain government reform with a focus on coastal defense began in earnest during the Ansei period, when the external crisis became more serious after the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 (Kaei 6). Domain government reform was no longer just an issue for the domain itself, but was very directly linked to national issues.

After the ports were opened, the finances of each domain became increasingly impoverished, and especially in the Meiji period leading up to the abolition of the domains and the establishment of prefectures, the debts of each domain exceeded those of the end of the Edo period. The financial impoverishment of the domains at the end of the Edo period is shown by the accumulation of loans from the major merchants of the three major cities and wealthy merchants within the domains. In addition to the impoverishment at the end of the domains' lives, in the four years between the Restoration of Imperial Rule and the abolition of the domains and the establishment of prefectures, rising prices contributed to the rapid accumulation of domain debt. As a result, even domains with relatively strong financial foundations found it impossible to maintain their finances. Thus, the domains were abolished and prefectures were established, and the domains disappeared.

[Masahiro Izumi]

"A Study of Domain Government Reforms" by Eiichi Horie (1955, Ochanomizu Shobo) " ""Dominion Government Reforms and the Meiji Restoration" by Junya Seki (1956, Yuhikaku)" " "Dominion Government Reforms at the End of the Tokugawa Shogunate" by Akira Tanaka (1965, Hanawa Shobo)"

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

幕藩体制のもとで、個別領有制の側面をもつ藩が実施した政治的改革をいう。

　幕藩領主の財政は、基本的には、自然経済に立脚する本百姓(ほんびゃくしょう)経営から徴収される貢租＝生産物地代を、その基盤にしていた。幕藩領主にとってみれば、自営農民、すなわち本百姓の数が権力を左右するのに、もっとも重大な意味を有するのであった。したがって、本百姓経営の創出・維持が幕藩権力のもっとも基本的な政策であった。江戸時代には、各藩で相次いで周期的に藩政の改革が繰り返されるが、この改革の基本方針は、つねに本百姓経営の創出と維持を政策の基調にもつものである。

　江戸時代中期以降、とくに周期的にまでなった各藩の藩政改革の直接原因は、つねに藩財政の窮乏の問題にあった。このことは、幕藩体制の中軸である本百姓経営を基底とする生産物地代原則の破綻(はたん)を意味する。本百姓経営は自然経済を原則にしながらも、生産力の発展により商品経済の展開の基礎になりうるものだった。この農民的商品経済の展開が、一方では藩財政の基礎である本百姓の経営の間に分解をもたらし、他方では藩財政における貨幣支出の膨張をもたらすものである。そして、その間にしだいに都市商人資本が介在してくる。要するに、江戸時代の各藩における藩政改革は、本百姓経営の創出・維持を基本的方向としながら、それをめぐる本百姓経営の分解、農民的商品経済の展開、都市商人資本との結合、ないしは側圧など、副次的なものを絡ませながら展開していく。したがって、改革の性格は、江戸時代の経済的・社会的発展に対応して各時期において異なってくる。

［泉　雅博］

初期

各藩における改革の方向は、本百姓経営の創出の方向を一義的に推進している場合が非常に多い。その方向は、信濃(しなの)国の譜代(ふだい)小藩諏訪(すわ)藩（高島藩）では、家臣団の統制形態を地方(じかた)支配（地方知行(ちぎょう)）から俸禄(ほうろく)制（蔵米(くらまい)知行）へと切り替えていくなかで追求されていた。1675年（延宝3）閏(うるう)4月、第3代藩主諏訪忠晴(ただはる)は「郷中申渡(ごうじゅうもうしわたし)」8か条を公布しているが、その冒頭の条には、藩が給所百姓を大名直轄の百姓に切り替えていく理由が明記されていた。すなわち、給人による百姓の恣意(しい)的支配の抑止であり、小農維持を基調に置く藩政への転換が、そこで宣明された内容であった。この転換は、譜代小藩にとどまらず、初期の藩政改革の中心的な課題となっていた。外様(とざま)の大藩加賀金沢藩において、第3代藩主前田利常(としつね)の計らいのもと、1651年（慶安4）から56年（明暦2）にかけて施行された改作(かいさく)法も、その骨子は給人と百姓の分離、つまり百姓を藩主直属とすることによって、本百姓経営の創出・維持の方向を推進していこうとするものであった。

　ところで、各藩ともその成立当初から、参勤交代、江戸在府などによる大量の貨幣支出によって、藩財政が強く圧迫され、絶えず財政の赤字に悩まされていた。藩政改革がつねに倹約令をもって始まるのも当然であり、三都の商人に借財することにより財政窮迫を乗り切っていたが、それは藩財政の破綻に結び付くものだった。新田開発の奨励、殖産興業の強行もすべて、直接的には財政窮乏への対応策の一環として意味をもっていた。

［泉　雅博］

中期

徳川幕藩体制の経済的基礎である本百姓経営における生産力発展によって、本百姓の手元に剰余部分が残るようになる。つまり、自然経済を徐々に商品経済にかえていく事態は、一方では領主が立脚する生産物地代原則、すなわち貢租という形では農民の商品生産の成果を吸収することを不可能にさせるとともに、藩財政の貨幣支出をさらに膨張させる。他方、このような農民的商品生産の展開は、新しく国民的市場形成の方向へと結実していく。このことは都市商人資本の進出を生み出してくる。したがって各藩は、このような事態に即応しうる藩体制の質的な転換を迫られる。元禄(げんろく)～享保(きょうほう)期（1688～1736）以降、各藩で行われる改革は、このような性格を帯びていた。だから、そこでは生産物地代原則の強化、すなわち貢租の増徴と相まって、商品経済の進展に順応する姿勢がとられていく。その中核的な政策が、産物改所（国産会所）の設置と藩専売制の実施であった。

　藩専売は、各地の条件に応じた特産物を中心として取り組まれている。長州藩の紙・蝋(ろう)、阿波(あわ)徳島藩の藍(あい)、姫路藩の木綿・塩、土佐藩の紙、薩摩(さつま)藩の樟脳(しょうのう)・黒砂糖、信州上田藩の絹織物など多くの例を数えることができる。しかし、この専売政策も多くの場合、藩権力が豪農層や特権商人と癒着し、特産物の生産・流通過程に厳しい統制を加えたため、かえって一般農民層を窮乏に陥れるという結果を招き、藩経済を強化する方向には結び付かなかった。

　また、中期の藩政改革において注意しなければならないもう一つの問題は、後進地帯における、いわゆる「名君賢宰」による藩政改革である。その典型としては、肥後熊本藩54万石を受け継いだ第6代細川重賢(しげかた)と家老堀勝名(かつな)との関係、陸奥(むつ)会津藩28万石の第5代松平容頌(かたのぶ)と家老田中玄宰(げんさい)との関係、そして出羽米沢(でわよねざわ)藩15万石の第10代上杉治憲(はるのり)（鷹山(ようざん)）と、改革派を代表する竹俣当綱(たけまたまさつな)との関係をあげることができるだろう。商品経済の遅れている後進地帯のこれらの諸藩では、封建貢租の過重と先進地帯の商人資本の収奪とが相まって、本百姓経営の再生産さえ不可能にしていた。こうした事態にあっては、本百姓経営の再創出こそが重要な改革の方向となっていた。

［泉　雅博］

後期

中期の改革が、結果的には本百姓経営のいっそうの分解をもたらし、他方、藩権力の商人資本との結合は、藩政の腐敗をもたらした。こうした危機に即応して革新思想が成長してくるが、それが直接問題にしているのは、藩財政の窮迫と本百姓経営の解体である。

　藩財政の窮迫は、商人資本と結んで腐敗する藩政への批判を呼び起こすとともに、幕藩体制の経済的基礎たる本百姓経営解体に対する危機意識を胎生する。これは前者と相まって商人資本排撃の意識へ転化し、下士改革派の藩政への進出をみていく。たとえば、長州藩の天保(てんぽう)改革は、1838年（天保9）に村田清風(せいふう)の指導のもとに開始されるが、清風は91石取の中士下層の出身にほかならなかった。

　こうして天保期の諸藩における改革は、下士改革派による藩政実権の掌握下、本百姓経営の再創出と商人資本との絶縁という二つの方向を明確にした。

　また、天保の改革には、もう一つの重要な問題があった。それは対外危機が、ようやく日本の周囲に迫ってきた事態に即応する問題である。すなわち、海防のことが重大な意味をもつようになり、軍備の改革に手がつけ始められた。こうした海防を焦点に据える藩政改革が本格化したのは、1853年（嘉永6）のペリー来航以後の対外的危機が深刻化した、安政(あんせい)期における各藩の改革であった。もはや、藩政改革は自藩のみの問題ではなく、きわめて直接的に全国的問題と結び付いていた。

　開港以後、各藩とも財政窮乏が進み、ことに明治に入って廃藩置県に至る間に累積した各藩の債務は、幕末期を上回るものとなった。幕末期での藩財政窮乏は三都大商人、あるいは領内豪商からの借財の累積に示されている。藩末期の窮乏に加え、王政復古以後廃藩置県に至る4年間は、さらに物価騰貴が手伝って急速に藩債が累積した。ここに、比較的財政基盤の強固な藩でも、藩財政を維持するのには無理な状態に陥った。かくて廃藩置県に至り、藩は消滅した。

［泉　雅博］

『堀江英一著『藩政改革の研究』（1955・御茶の水書房）』▽『関順也著『藩政改革と明治維新』（1956・有斐閣）』▽『田中彰著『幕末の藩政改革』（1965・塙書房）』

[参照項目] | 改作法 | 蔵米知行制 | 地方知行制 | 藩 | 藩専売制 | 本百姓

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Antipsychiatry - hanseishinigaku (English spelling)

>>: Sex-linked inheritance