years in which the movement for popular rights reached its zenith. Roesler looked at this movement with distrust and apprehension. To him, who was in principle opposed to the individualistic conception of freedom advocated by radical liberalism, the goals of this movement, taken over from the writings of the radical French and English Liberals, were nothing more than deplorable aberrations from the path to true social freedom, and its leaders mere doctrinaires, who, beguiled by ideas they hardly understood, were ignorant of the law of organic historical progress. In his eyes, the movement for popular rights was the agitation of an immature intelligentsia, not a true popular movement which reflected the true spirit of the nation. He perceived clearly that the aims of the liberal movement went to undermine the sovereign position of the Emperor. His views on the institution of the Emperor must have been formed by his daily contact with the government leaders, Sanjō, Iwakura, Itō, Yamagata6 and a score of others. Although not blind to their personal weaknesses and ambitions, he came to respect these men as the elite of the nation. For these men the idea of the imperial dynasty was the fundamental faith, the real spring of their political activity. They considered their work as service in the cause of the Tennō and the dynasty as the ground pillar of the national life. The absolute convictions and aspirations of these men must have impressed Roesler deeply and formed his judgement as to what the vital forces of Japan's national life really were. In his eyes the vital forces of new Japan were not reflected in the slogans of the liberal intelligentsia, but in the convictions and aspirations of the conservative government leaders. In daily contact and collaboration with these men, he came to hold the view that loyalty to the imperial house was the life spring of the new era, and the monarchy, in fact, the very foundation of national life and the only institution on which the new political order could be built. Consequently, the institution of the Emperor had to be the center of the new constitutional system.
In no way does Roesler show himself in his German publications to be a narrow-minded conservative monarchist; in his sociological views he appears rather to be a liberal, a liberal, however, with a historical sense for the organic in cultural growth.7 Immediately before his coming to Japan he had still advocated, in his criticism of Bismarck's federal constitution, parliamentary government as the ideal.8 Taking stock of the political forces he met on the Japanese scene at the beginning of the second decade of the Restoration era, he became a determined advocate of a strong monarchical rule for new Japan. But he was never an advocate of patriarchal or absolute monarchy. He wanted a constitutional monarchy—a true and substantially constitutional monarchy, not a constitutionalism which was a mere façade. The synthesis of imperial sovereignty and constitutionalism, the organic modernization of the Emperor's rule by adopting into it the universally valid elements of a true constitutionalism— this was for him the guaranty of the healthy development of the new Japanese state.
The basic tenets of a monarchical constitutionalism he found in the constitutions of the German monarchies. For the particular articles, the Prussian Constitution of 1850, which was the latest and most highly developed legal expression of monarchical constitutionalism, presented the most usable material of reference. But he was in no way a mere imitator of the Prussian Constitution. The most essential feature of his constitutional conception, the stress on the social administrative role of the state, goes beyond the horizon of the authoritarian monarchical constitutions of the 19th century.9
Roesler's memoranda helped to shape very substantially the constitutional program of Iwakura which was adopted by the government in 1881 and remained the guide for the framing of the constitution. Iwakura's constitutional program is contained in three documents written by his mentor, Inoue Kowashi,10 who was in fact the inspiration of Iwakura's program. These documents are truly remarkable for their clear grasp and adequate formulation of all essentials of a constitutional system according to the monarchical principle. Inoue's teacher was Roesler: Inoue had his expert knowledge from Roesler's memoranda, as a comparison between them and Inoue's writings shows.11 The cardinal point of Roesler's memoranda is his incisive analysis of the English system of parliamentary government. He characterizes this system as the absorption of state power by the rule of the majority party, in which the cabinet is an executive committee of the party and the monarch excluded from any real governing.
From 1881 on, Roesler was continuously and intimately connected with the preparation of the constitution and the buildup of a state system in line with the projected constitution. He became a close collaborator of Itō Hirobumi, who was entrusted with the task of preparing the constitution. Many writers stress the influence of the German scholars Rudolph von Gneist and Lorenz von Stein, from whom Itō received instructions on constitutional matters during his study journey to Europe in 1882 and 1883. But Roesler's influence on Itō's constitutional ideas was much more fundamental. All that Itō received from Gneist and Stein was in the nature of deepening and confirming the ideas which he had already formed under the influence of Roesler. Certain ideas of Gneist and Stein, especially on the relative independence of the administrative power from the legislative, are indeed realized in the Meiji Constitution. But those were ideas which were approved and constantly urged by Roesler. Roesler alone had an immediate share in the preparations of the constitution, which were carried on in strict secrecy during the years 1884 to 1888 and which were chiefly in the hands of Inoue Kowashi. An immense labor went into the preparation of the constitution. Every point of the draft was most thoroughly studied and discussed. Roesler's advice was sought on every single point. Seventy-five memoranda of his which are directly concerned with the draft of the constitution are preserved in Japanese translation. Every one of them is written with great care and ability. Generally they give an entire historical and systematic conspectus of the question under discussion, presenting extensive material as substantiation. They testify to his immense legal knowledge and his considered political judgement. There were in the course of years several drafts of the constitution successively worked out. Roesler submitted one of his own. Comparing the successive drafts, it is very interesting to note how closely the final draft approximates Roesler's proposal. In fact, the promulgated constitution follows, with only one essential exception—the bansei ikkei,12 'by aline of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal' of Article 1—in its material content and to a great extent in the formulation and order of the articles, Roesler's proposal.13
I do not want to give the impression that the constitution is Roesler's work alone. The circle around Iwakura had decided on a monarchical constitution before it sought Roesler's advice. Inoue had already translated the Prussian Constitution in 1874 and had a good knowledge of European constitutional law. He displayed his own ideas in the framing of the constitution, always kept the lead in the deliberations, and gave the constitution its definitive form. Nevertheless, Roesler's contribution was fundamental and was much more than merely submitting reference material for the deliberations and assisting technically in the formulation of the articles. What the fathers of the constitution owe to Roesler was the deeper understanding of its basic principles, the working out of the ground scheme, the insight into the rationale of the particular articles, the shaping of the elements into an integrated constitutional system, and, finally, the precise formulation of the articles. Above all, the Meiji Constitution owes to Roesler its most distinctive feature, the synthesis of the imperial authority and the rights of the people: that is to say, in consistently carrying through the principle of sovereignty of the Emperor into all functions of government it leaves intact the fundamental principles of a liberal constitution, i. e., government according to laws consented to by the people.
Footnotes
6 三条実美, 岩倉具視, 伊藤博文, 山県有朋
7 Monumenta Nipponica, 1962, XVII 2ff.
8 Hermann Roesler, Gedanken über den konstitutionellen Wert der deutschen Reichsverfassung, Rostock, 1877, pp. 25-6: 'In der parlamentarischen Regierung liegt diejenige Fülle, Macht und Lebensfähigkeit der politischen Aktion eines Staates, welche aus der wirklichen Einheit zwischen dem Souverain und der Nation entspringt.'
9
