¹ Of 300 members of the 29 cabinets from Yamagata (1889–91) to Saitō (1932–34), 104 were from the House of Peers, 71 from the House of Representatives. Taking only the so-called era of party cabinets from Hara (1918–21) to Inukai (1931–32) inclusive, of 138 ministers there were 49 from each house. Even after those figures have been appropriately discounted for other less obvious, but more important, political affiliations, they suggest that the plums for which the political groups in the House of Peers may hope are both numerous and attractive. (Figures compiled from a table in Seihyō Hakuhyō, or “Green Ballots White Ballots,” No. 4, Oct. 20, 1933, p. 18.) For a further discussion and criticism of the power which the Kenkyū-kai wields through the House of Peers, compare a passage by Tatsukichi, Minobe in his Gendai Kensei Hyōron, or “Critique of Contemporary Constitutional Government,” (Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1930), pp. 148–149.Google Scholar

² Fragmentary accounts appear in various books and articles on the reform of the House of Peers, notably Kizoku-in Kaikaku Mondai, or “The Problem of the Reform of the House of Peers,” published in the Aaahi Seiji Keizai Shū, or “Asahi Series on Politics and Economics” (Tōkyō, Asahi Shimbun Sha, 1931). The article “Kenkyū-kai Seisui-ki,” or “Chronicle of the Vicissitudes of the Kenkyū-kai,” by Toshimi, Nagakawa, in Chüō Kōron, or “The Central Review,” Vol. 44, pp. 183–188 (Nov., 1929)Google Scholar, is neither documented nor sufficiently detailed. By far the most helpful source is the monthly periodical Seihyō Hakuhyō, or “Green Ballots White Ballots” (the allusion is to the system of voting in the House of Peers) which has been published privately in Tōkyō since 1933 by a group of members of the House of Peers who maintain a research institute for the study of its problems and possible reform.

The only other discussion of these questions at any length in English is contained in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Japanese House of Peers, prepared by the author under the direction of Professor Kenneth W. Colegrove at Northwestern University in 1933.

³ Thanks to this development, semi-official statistics on group membership have been available to the press since the 43rd Diet (June, 1920), and are published by the Secretariat of the House of Peers in the Kizoku-in Yōran, or “House of Peers Handbook.” Figures for earlier dates are less reliable.

⁴ For further clarity, the twenty-four political groups discussed in this article are listed below with their dates:

⁵ Japanese call these senkyo botai, or “election mother-bodies.” They are rarely mentioned by the press. The eight referred to in this article follow:

⁶ Only two such blocs, the Saiwai Club and the Shōwa-kai, will be discussed. Others may have functioned from time to time, but their status cannot now be authenticated.

⁷ The minimum age was raised from twenty-five to thirty in 1925.

⁸ During the feudal period, the huge were attached to the court of the Emperor at Kyoto, where they perpetuated the families and traditions of pre-feudal days. The daimyō, on the other hand, were the actual military rulers of the country, owing allegiance to the Shōgun. The two groups were amalgamated in the new nobility created in 1885.

⁹ The number and distribution of titled members have been changed from time to time as indicated in the following table:

¹⁰ See comments on voting by proxy in “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 221.

¹¹ Cf. “Shishaku Giin,” or “ Viscount Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 221. A somewhat unfriendly account of the economic and political status of the nobility is given by Kanichirō, Kamei in his “Kazoku no Botsuraku to sono Seiji Seiryoku,” or “The Decline of the Peerage and Its Political Influence,” in Kaizō, or “Reconstruction,” Vol. 11, No. 2, Feb., 1929, pp. 140–146.Google Scholar

¹² Originally 45, the number of higher taxpayers in the House was increased in 1918 to 47 and in 1925 to the present number.

¹³ The Kizohuin-rei originally provided that the appointees, including high taxpayers, should not exceed the total number of titled members. The limit of 125 exclusive of the high taxpayers was introduced by an amendment in 1905.

¹⁴ “Chokusen Giin no Kazu to Ninmei no Jiki,” or “The Number and Time of Appointment of Appointed Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 2, Aug. 20, 1933, pp. 6–7.

¹⁵ An analysis of appointed members by group affiliation, age, cabinet under which appointed, and previous occupation is given in “ Chokusen Giin,” or “ Appointed Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 1, June 30, 1933, p. 2.

¹⁶ Cf. comments in the Japan Weekly Mail, Aug. 16, 1890, p. 147; Sept. 13, 1890, p. 247; Nov. 22, 1890, p. 508.

¹⁷ “Gikai Kaikai Zen no Kaigo,” or “Associations Prior to the Opening of the Diet,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 26, Aug. 20, 1935, p. 194; No. 27, Sept. 20, 1935, pp. 202–203.

¹⁸ “Dai Ikkai Haku-shi-danshaku Senkyu no Moyō,” or “The Pattern of the First Election of Counts, Viscounts, and Barons,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 28, Oct. 20, 1935, p. 207.

¹⁹ There were further group changes between the first and second Diets, but it is difficult to secure accurate information regarding them today.

²⁰ Japan Weekly Mail, March 19, 1892, p. 378; April 23, 1892, p. 546; April 30, 1892, p. 578.

²¹ The characters for Chawa-kai may also be read Sawa-kai, and early English language sources sometimes employ the latter reading.

²² “ Chokusen Giin,” or “ Appointed Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 230.

²³ “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” ibid., No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 221.

²⁴ “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” ibid., No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 221. Cf. the report on the strength of the Shōyū-kai, in Japan Weekly Mail, July 24, 1897, p. 82.Google Scholar

²⁵ See the letter of Kiyoura to Yamagata reproduced by Iichirō, Tokutomi in his Kōshaku Yamagata Aritomo Den, or “Biography of Prince Yamagata Aritomo” (Tōkyō, Yamagata Aritomo Kō Kinen Jigyō Kai, 1933), Vol. III, pp. 328–330.Google Scholar

²⁶ “Chokusen Giin,” or “ Appointed Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 230.

²⁷ This paragraph and the preceding one are based on a comparative analysis of membership lists contained in an unpublished “Kizoku-in Giin Kakuha Betsu ni Kansuru Chōsa,” or “Investigation Regarding the Division by Groups of the Membership of the House of Peers,” compiled by the research organization which publishes Seihyō Hakuhyō. For reports of further attempts, apparently unsuccessful, to form groups of high taxpayers, see Japan Weekly Mail, May 14, 1892, p. 639, and Japan Weekly Chronicle, Oct. 29, 1925, p. 557.

²⁸ “Danshaku Giin,” or “ Baron Members,” in Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 223.

²⁹ See Iichirō, Tokutomi, Kōshaku Yamagata Aritomo Den, Vol. III, pp. 435–459Google Scholar, but particularly the letters of Kiyoura Keigo to Yamagata reproduced on pp. 448–450 and 454–456; “Chokusen Giin,” or “ Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 230; “Gikai ni okeru Kizoku-in Kikō no Kaisei,” or “Revision of the Organization of the House of Peers in the Diet,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 16, Oct. 20, 1934, p. 113; see also a quotation in Zoku Itō Hirobumi Hiroku (Private Records of Itō Hirobumi, Continued. Edited by Hiratsuka Atsushi. Tōkyō, Shunjūsha, 1930, pp. 134—135) from the diary of Prince Konoe Atsumaro, then president of the House of Peers, to the effect that he considered party cabinets incompatible with the Japanese polity (kokutai) and particularly objected to the appointment of Hoshi.

³⁰ “Shishaku Giin,” or “ Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 221.

³¹ “Chokusen Giin,” or “ Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 230. Tokutomi Iichirō says that Katsura made a special effort to gain the support of the peers at the time of his first cabinet. (Kōshaku Katsura Tarō Den, or “Biography of Prince Katsura Tarō.” Tōkyō, Ko Katsura Kōshaku Kinen Jigyō Kai, 1917, Vol. II, p. 10.)

³² “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members”, Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 231.Google Scholar

³³ “Haku-shi-danshaku Giin,” or “Count, Viscount, and Baron Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 29, Nov. 20, 1935, p. 216.Google Scholar

³⁴ “Danshaku Giin,” or “Baron Members”, Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 223.Google Scholar The details of this controversy are very involved. Cf. “Gikai ni okeru Kizoku-in Kikō no Kaisei,” or “Reform of the Organization of the House of Peers within the Diet,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 17, Nov. 20, 1934, pp. 120–122. Tokutomi denies that the reform bill was aimed against the barons, but admits that it was presented to satisfy the Kenkyū-kai and that Katsura's compliance in this regard strengthened his support in the House of Peers, Kōshaku Katsura Tarō Den, Vol. 2, pp. 386–389.Google Scholar

³⁵ “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 222.Google Scholar Also “Seiji Jōsei to Kizoku-in Kaikaku,” or “Political Conditions and Reform of the House of Peers,” Ibid., No. 22, April 20, 1935, p. 160; No. 23, May 20, 1935, pp. 171–172.

³⁶ “Danshaku Giin,” or “Baron Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 223.Google Scholar

³⁷ “Haku-shi-danshaku Giin,” or “Count, Viscount, and Baron Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 29, Nov. 20, 1935, p. 216.Google Scholar

³⁸ “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 231.Google Scholar

³⁹ See a letter from Hirata to Yamagata and accompanying text in Kōshaku Yamagata Aritomo Den, or “Biography of Prince Yamagata Aritomo,” by Iichirō, Tokutomi, Vol. III, pp. 839–840.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 231.Google Scholar

⁴¹ “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 1, June 30, 1933, p. 2Google Scholar; No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 231.

⁴² “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 31, Jan. 20, 1936, p. 231.Google Scholar Also “Jōsei, Seiji to Kaikaku, Kizoku-in,” or “Political Conditions and Reform of the House of Peers,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 24, June 20, 1935, pp. 178–179.Google Scholar

⁴³ Takeshige, Kudō, Taishō Kensei Shi, or “Constitutional History of Taishō” (Tōkyō, Yuhikaku, 1927), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ “Haku-shi-danshaku Giin,” or “Count, Viscount, and Baron Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 29, Nov. 20, 1935, pp. 216–217.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 222.Google Scholar “Danshaku Giin,” or “Baron Members,” ibid., p. 223.

⁴⁶ “Gun, Shishaku,” or “Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, Nov. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 222.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ “Haku-shi-danshaku Giin,” or “Count, Viscount, and Baron Members,” Seihyo Hakuhyō, No. 29, Nov. 20, 1935, p. 217.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Japan Weekly Chronicle, June 26, 1919, p. 976.

⁴⁹ “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 222.Google Scholar “Danshaku Giin,” or “Baron Members,” ibid., pp. 223–224.

⁵⁰ Japan Weekly Chronicle, Nov. 20, 1919, p. 774.

⁵¹ “Chokusen Giin,” or “Appointed Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 1, June 30, 1933, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. Seitoku, Itō, Katō Kämei, or “Biography of Katō Kōmei.” (Tōkyō, Katō Haku Denki Hensan Iin-kai, 1929), Vol. II, pp. 454–457.Google Scholar

⁵³ See “Gikai ni okeru Kizoku-in Kikō no Kaisei,” or “Revision of the Organization of the House of Peers within the Diet,” Seikyō Hakuhyō, No. 20, Feb. 20, 1935, pp. 141–142.

⁵⁴ “Danshaku Giin,” or “Baron Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 224.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kizoku-in Yōran, or “House of Peers Handbook” (Tōkyō: House of Peers Secretariat, December, 1935), Vol. III, table opposite p. 54.

⁵⁶ For reference to the appeals of Viscounts Mizuno and Aoki of the Kenkyü-kai and of Baron Fujimura of the Kōsei-kai to the Seiyū-kai, the Minister of Finance, and the Bank of Japan, see the Tōkyō Asahi, July 26, 1927, 26–6. All citations to the Asahi in this article employ the dating and pagination of the Shukusatsu Han, or monthly “Reduced Size Edition” for reference use.

⁵⁷ The Katō cabinet is reported to have attempted to effect an amalgamation in 1925, but without result. Japan Weekly Chronicle, Oct. 29, 1925, p. 567.

⁵⁸ Tōkyō Asahi, Oct. 1, 1927, 1–6; Oct. 15, 1927, 15–6; Jiji Shimpō, Oct. 15, 1927, p. 2 (morning edition); Toshimi, Nagakawa—”Kenkyū-kai Seisui Ki,” or “Vicissitudes of the Kenkyū-kai,” in Chüō Kōron, Vol. XLIV, No. 11, Nov., 1929, pp. 183–188.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For the by-laws of the Shōwa Club, see Jiji Shimpō, Oct. 28, 1927, p. 3Google Scholar, or Tōkyō Asahi, Oct. 26, 1927, 26–6.

⁶⁰ Cf. Jiji Nenkan, or “Jiji Yearbook,” 1929, p. 111.

⁶¹ Tōkyō Asahi, Oct. 26, 1927, 26–6; Nov. 13, 1927, 13–6; Asahi Nenkan, or “Asahi Yearbook,” 1929, p. 232.

⁶² Cf. Kizoku-in Kaikaku Mondai, or “The Problem of the Reform of the House of Peers,” p. 89.

⁶³ Tōkyō Asahi, Nov. 29, 1927, 29–6; Nov. 30, 1927, 30–1; March 14, 1928, 14–6; March 17, 1928, 17–1.

⁶⁴ Cf. Jiji Nenkan, or “Jiji Yearbook,” 1929, p. 111; Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 2, 1928, 2–1.

⁶⁵ Cf. Kizoku-in Kaikaku Mondai, or “The Problem of the Reform of the House of Peers,” p. 89; Tōkyō Asahi, Feb. 2, 1928, 2–1.

⁶⁶ The degree of “boss” control over individual count or viscount members varies, of course, with the time and the individual. It was weakened, for example, in the period 1927–29, which we are discussing, because of rivalry between “bosses” and followers.

⁶⁷ Article 10 of the by-laws of the Kenkyū-kai (Kenkyü-kai Kisoku). Article 11 provides that members seeking exception from this rule in a given case may petition the Board of Directors. Such a petition must be acted upon by the Boards of Directors and Councillors jointly, but cannot be refused except by a two-thirds vote of those present. An escape is thus provided where caucus rule would work individual hardship, although control is still firmly held by the Directors.

⁶⁸ Cf. “Tohyō, Kimei to Tohyō, Mumei,” or “Signed and Unsigned Balloting,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 25, July 20, 1935, pp. 183–185.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. Tōkyō Asahi, July 7, 1936, p. 102. Such bureaus may also function as lobbies for special interests. For example, the special committee for the study of the bill for nationalization of the power industry which was set up by the Kōsei-kai in 1936 included the president of the Japan Economic League (concurrently chairman of the board of the Shōwa Fertilizer Company), the president of the South Seas Development Company (concurrently a director of the Ōsaka Shōsen Kaisha), a former director of the Töyö Electric Company, an adviser to the Mitsubishi Gōshi Kaisha, and directors or ex-directors of a number of other important corporations. (The membership of the committee is given in the Tōkyō Asahi, July 14, 1936, p. 204.)

⁷⁰ For accounts of the reform movement, see Jiji Shimpō, Oct. 18, 1927, p. 3; Ōsaka Mainichi (English edition), Oct. 23, 1927, p. 2; Oct. 30, 1927, p. 1; Tōkyō Asahi, Dec. 16, 1928, 16–7.

⁷¹ Tōkyō Asahi, Dec. 13, 1928, 13–6; Dec. 21, 1928, 21–1. See also Mainichi Nenkan, or “Mainichi Yearbook,” 1930, p. 67.

⁷² “Shishaku Giin,” or “Viscount Members,” Seihyō Hakuhyō, No. 30, Dec. 20, 1935, p. 222.Google Scholar

⁷³ Tōkyō Asahi, April 27, 1929, 27–6.

⁷⁴ Ibid.

⁷⁵ Nagakawa, Toshimi, “Kenkyū-kai Seisui Ki,” or “Vicissitudes of the Kenkyū-kai,” p. 188; Mainichi Nenkan, 1931, pp. 70–71; Tōkyō Asahi, July 4, 1929, 4–6; June 12, 1929, 12–6; June 14, 1929, 14–6; Jiji Shimpō, July 4, 1929, p. 1; Jiji Nenkan, 1930, p. 119.

⁷⁶ Tōkyō Asahi, July 22, 1932, 22–6; Sept. 11, 1932, 11–6.

⁷⁷ There was even a premature report that the Dōsei-kai, would dissolve. See Tōkyō Asahi, Sept. 18, 1932, 18–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Figures for 1932 from the Kizoku-in Yōran, Vol. III, table facing p. 54; those for 1937 from the Tōkyō Asahi, Dec. 24, 1937, p. 378.

⁷⁹ Tōkyō Asahi, July 24, 1937, p. 401.