of them when he came home translated a part of Montesquieu's book into the Japanese language. The translation emphasized particularly those parts in which Montesquieu treats of the organization of government.

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person," says Montesquieu, "or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were the same men or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the cases of individuals."1

Having inspired the statesmen of the Restoration, the principle of tripartite government found its expression in the programme of 1868, which declared that the functions of the ministry or central government should be divided into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments, and that legislative officers should not hold any executive office, and vice versa. It must be noticed that the application of the doctrine of the French jurist and historian was by no means thoroughgoing. It was only applied to the central government. Neither was it declared anywhere that executive or legislative officials should not perform judicial functions. Thus, the vital principle set forth in the Spirit of the Laws was manifestly evaded. It is needless to say that what Montesquieu had in mind was not merely the division of departments, but the independence of persons in different departments.

This principle of the separation of powers was, however,

1 Spirit of the Laws, Vol. I, p. 163.

either consciously or unconsciously violated by the pioneers of the new government. In fact the early government of New Japan may be compared, so far as the division of power is concerned, to the republic of Venice, where, although the legislative power was in the council, the executive power in the pregadi, and the judicial in the quarantia, these tribunals were composed of magistrates all belonging to the same body which constitute almost one and the same power.1

Despite all its defects and incompleteness, the form of tripartite government which was adopted was pregnant with salutary effects, which, though unforeseen, were none the less influential in turning the minds of the statesmen and of the people to a new stratum of political thought. As expounded by Montesquieu, the distribution of power among several departments aimed to guarantee liberty; and the motive of Japanese statesmen in adopting the theory evidently was not that of merely dividing labour among governmental employees. Certainly they took the promotion of liberty and justice into consideration as an important factor of the new theory. They were fully aware that absolute monarchy is one of the worst forms of government, and that a constitutional monarchy like England, where the king reigns but does not govern, is salutary and adaptable to Japanese soil. It is true that the tripartite government encountered many vicissitudes and alterations during the early period of New Japan, and often sank into obscurity. But its moral influence and significance has never faded, ending finally in the establishment of a constitutional government in 1890.

$53. Before leaving this chapter, let us add a few words in regard to the organization of the ministry. I have stated elsewhere that, in the middle of the seventh century, eight departments were placed under the Council of State, which consisted of the Chancellor of the Empire, the Minister of the

1 Spirit of the Laws, Vol. I, p. 164.

Cf. supra, Ch. IV.

Left, the Minister of the Right, and the First Adviser of State. With the Restoration this organization of the government, which had been long obsolete on account of the military magistracy, was restored with more or less modification.

In 1871, four years after the Restoration, the Council of State was reëstablished in conjunction with the eight departments, viz., Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Treasury, Department of War, Department of Education, Department of Industry, Department of Justice, Department of Imperial Household, and Department of Religion. Over the eight Departments the Council of State retained a controlling and supervising power. The Council was composed of the Chancellor of the Empire, the Minister of the Left, the Minister of the Right, the Councillors of State, together with the Ministers and vice-Ministers of State in different departments. Thus, it can be seen that the organization of the Ministry was a very complicated one. The ministerial system in its modern sense was still unrealized by the founders of the new government. The functions of the Ministers of State were simply to carry out the orders and notices issued by the Council of State. Whereas, according to the present system of our government, Ministers of State are the sole components of the Cabinet they were simply a part of it in the early government of New Japan. Such a peculiar form of government was maintained until 1885, when the offices of the Chancellor of the Empire and of Councillors of State were abolished and the eight Ministers of State which I have just mentioned were replaced by the newly established ten Ministers of State who made up the Cabinet directly responsible to the Emperor.

54. Such was the political condition of Japan for several years succeeding the Restoration. Such were the effects which the influence of western thought wrought upon the organization of government. Feudalism still existed by the side of professed centralization. Executive, legislative, and judiciary functions were often vested in one and the same person under an apparent tripartite government. The Legis

lative body was composed of the great officials of the central government, and members appointed by the feudal nobles, without a single member elected by the people. Indeed, confusion of occidental with oriental ideas revealed itself clearly in the governmental organization of rejuvenated Japan. With the total abolition of feudalism in 1871, however, centralization was completely realized, and the Insular Empire advanced a step further in the direction of political reformation.

Let us proceed, in the next chapter, to observe what changes took place in the ideas of the people in regard to Politics, while the improvement just mentioned was going on within the government.

CHAPTER IX

GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF FREEDOM

$55. With the advent of western political ideas Japan at length came into her inheritance. With a rapidity without parallel she has sprung from feudalism to modernity, from despotism to liberalism. The idea of freedom which was exhilarating Europe and America since the great French Revolution and the American Emancipation finally made its way into the Far East. The proclamation that all men are equal which went forth from Independence Hall and from Versailles at length found her disciple in the "child of the world's old age."

Absorbingly interesting in the history of the political development of the world at large is an event such as this. It is a milestone upon the path through which the grand idea of humanity marches on to carry her mission into the remote corner of the world.

While the government was, as we have noted in the previous chapter, eagerly engaged in reforming its organization, the people were no less earnest in their inquiry into western thought in regard to the right and liberty of subjects. They became acquainted, though vaguely, with the idea of representative government which prevailed in the occidental countries. The information, that beyond the Pacific Ocean there lies a country where the chief executive, or sovereign, as the islanders understood it, is elected by the vote of the people and does not ascend to the throne by virtue of hereditary right this information was borne in with force upon the nation which had just emerged from feudalism. They were still more surprised when told that in some countries the people had often pulled the king down from the throne, which to our