明治以後｢小栗は四国を担保に・・・」あるいは「北海道を担保にして、フランスから借金をしようとした・・・｣という説が語られ､幕府を守るためになんでもする男のように見られてきました。

しかし、小栗上野介は、

遣米使節の任務を果たした帰途、アフリカ・ロアンダで奴隷の売買を見、香港がアヘン戦争によってイギリスに借り上げられ、中国が手を出せない島になっている状況を見てきた。さらに、1861文久元年､外国奉行として対馬事件で､居座ったロシア軍艦ポサドニクを退去させるのに、たいへんな苦労をしている。
こうした経験を持つ小栗上野介が､国土を担保にするという話は､どうにもつじつまが合わない。

Since the Meiji era, a theory has been told that "Oguri tried to borrow money from France by mortgaging Shikoku or Hokkaido..." and he has been seen as a man who would do anything to protect the shogunate.

But…
On his way back from his mission to the U.S., Kozukenosuke Oguri saw the slave trade in Loanda, Africa, and the situation in Hong Kong, where the Opium War had rented the island to the British and made it an island that China could not touch. Furthermore, in 1861, as a foreign magistrate, he went to great pains to evacuate the Russian warship Posadnik, which was sitting on the Tsushima Island during the Tsushima Incident. With such experience, Kozukenosuke Oguri's story of using the land as collateral does not seem to add up.

１、四国を担保説は・・・歴史学者・中村孝也氏説
1. A theory by historian Takaya Nakamura that Shikoku was used as collateral

「先年、天皇中心主義の最高潮期に、当年の有名な史家、中村孝也氏は当時発表した論文の中に、
『小栗は時勢を理解する明が欠けていた。そして、四国を担保として、仏国から資金を借り入れようと企てた。それは、日本のために危険なことであった。』
私は果たしてそんな事実があったものかを知りたいとの研究心から、一書を中村氏に呈して、氏の論述の根拠となっている文献を教えられたいと、丁寧に同氏に願い出て見た。
それに対して、中村氏は『文献はない。ただ自分のノートの端に書き記してあるのみである』との返書を私に送られた。」
（蜷川新『開国の先覚者・小栗上野介』Ｐ２０４・昭和２８年）

Regarding this theory, Arata Ninagawa wrote the following:

In an article published at the height of the emperor-centered movement in 1949, Takaya Nakamura, a well-known historian of the time, wrote "Oguri lacked the clarity to understand the times. He planned to borrow money from France, using Shikoku as collateral. It was a dangerous thing for Japan."

I was eager to find out if such a fact existed, so I presented a copy of the book to Mr. Nakamura and politely asked him to provide me with the documents on which he based his argument. In response, Mr. Nakamura replied, "I have no references. I only have a note in the corner of my notebook.

(Arata Ninagawa, "Kozukenosuke Oguri, Pioneer of the Opening of Japan," p. 204, 1953)

｢四国を担保｣説の出処は勝海舟の言葉から

この説は勝海舟の言葉から始まっていると思われる。
勝海舟は、小栗上野介から江戸で聞いたフランスからの借款話を、大阪城に出向くと老中に説いて
｢国（の）財宝空費し尽くるを以って､地を質して、払郎西(フランス)より・・・金幣を借る」（『海舟日誌』）
このようなことは私は大反対だ､と勝海舟が語ったことになっている。

国どうしの借款は今ふつうの話で､誰も驚かない。問題はその中に国土を担保にした話が含まれているかである。　

The "Shikoku as collateral" theory seems to have originated from the words of Kaishu Katsu.

This theory seems to have originated from the words of Kaishu Katsu: After hearing about the loan from France from Kozukenosuke Oguri in Edo, Kaishu Katsu went to Osaka Castle, where he is said to have told a chief senior councilor of the Shogunate, "Since the country's treasures are exhausted, we will pledge the land and borrow money from France..." ("Kaishu Nisshi"). It is also reported that Katsu said, "I am against this kind of thing."

Loans between countries are common nowadays, and no one is surprised. The question is whether or not the loans include loans secured by national land.　

経済学者･坂本藤良説・・・｢担保の話は､小栗は無関係｣

坂本氏は次のように述べている､
「少なくとも小栗の交渉に関する限り､担保の話など皆無であり､ほかにも密約は一切なかったことが､明らかにされている｣（『小栗上野介の生涯』坂本藤良・講談社･１９８７昭和６２年)
として、つぎの大塚武松氏の著作を参照している。

Economist Fujiyoshi Sakamoto's theory ... "The collateral story is irrelevant to Oguri."

Sakamoto stated as follows:
"At least as far as Oguri's negotiations are concerned, there was no mention of collateral, and it is clear that there were no other secret agreements of any kind."
("The Life of Kozukenosuke Oguri," by Fujiyoshi Sakamoto, Kodansha, 1987, Showa 62)

Sakamoto then refers to the following book by Takematsu Otsuka.

歴史学者・津田左右吉は
「さてカツ（勝海舟）はその日記において幕府の当局者を断えず罵倒しているが、それにどれだけの確実な根拠があったのか。当時の勘定奉行オグリ（小栗上野介）を”大邪”といっているのはフランスから金を借りようとしたためのようであるが、起債を外国においてするのはヨーロッパの一般の例であるから、カツがその方策に賛成しないならばそれは意見の違いであって、オグリの人物を邪とする理由にはならぬ。”その見るところが狭小で天下の大勢に通じない”ともいっているが、これもまた同様であって、人によっては、オグリの遠大の識見と有為の気象（＝気性）とトクガワ氏に対して抱いていた熱情とを賛美している。この方が彼の経歴と功績から見て当たっているようである。・・・」　
（”太字”は勝の言葉の引用）　　（津田左右吉『明治維新の研究』毎日ワンズ）

Historian Sokichi Tsuda wrote the following about the words of Kaishu Katsu:

In his diary, Katsu (Kaishu Katsu) unceasingly abused the authorities of the Shogunate, but on what solid basis did he do so? Katsu calls Oguri (Kozukenosuke Oguri), an accounting magistrate at the time, a "great evil" because Oguri tried to borrow money from France. However, it is a common practice in Europe to issue bonds in foreign countries, so if Katsu does not agree with this policy, it is a difference of opinion, not a reason to call Oguri's character evil. Katsu also said, "Oguri's viewpoint is too narrow to be understood by the majority of people in the world." However, this is a similar story and some people praise Oguri for his far-reaching insight, his useful temperament, and his passion for Tokugawa. This seems to be more accurate in light of Oguri’s background and accomplishments...　

(Sokichi Tsuda, "A Study of the Meiji Restoration," Mainichi One's)
(Bolded words are quotations from Kaishu Katsu’s words)

２、樺太を担保にする説は…「ロッシュの提案だけ」

「ロッシュは、・・・(慶応３年２月６，７日に大坂で徳川慶喜と会見した後２４日間滞在して)・・・しばしば老中板倉勝静･外国奉行･平山敬忠らと会見し､その間､財政確立のために､英仏両国より５百万ドルの借款を起こし､その担保として､樺太島における鉱山採掘権の譲渡を提案している。」（『幕末外交史の研究』大塚武松･宝文館･昭和２７年)

2. The theory of using Sakhalin as collateral... "only Roches's suggestion"

Léon Roches, consul general of France in Japan, met with Yoshinobu Tokugawa in Osaka on February 6 and 7, 1898, and stayed in Osaka for 24 days. During the time, he often met with Katsukiyo Itakura, a chief senior councilor of the Shogunate, and Yoshitada Hirayama, the foreign magistrate. In the course of these meetings, he proposed that Japan borrow $5 million from Britain and France in order to establish its finances and transfer its mining rights on Sakhalin Island as collateral.
(“A Study of the Diplomatic History of the End of the Edo Period,” by Takematsu Otsuka, Hobunkan, 1952)

３、淡路島を担保にした説…｢人心動揺の時機の根無し草｣

ついでに「フランス公使が淡路島の租借を要請」という話についても、大塚武松氏の著に触れておこう。
「かの仏国公使(ロッシュ)が､淡路島の租借を幕府に要請したりと言へる説のごときは､この説の行われし当時に､大坂において､樺太島鉱山の採掘権を担保に､英・仏二国より借款を募集するといふ議が行われたことの、世上に漏洩訛伝したものなることが明らかのと同じく､非常時局に際し､人心の動揺の折からの根無し草と見るべきもの・・・」（『幕末外交史の研究』大塚武松･宝文館･昭和２７年)

・・・と、淡路島の租借､樺太の担保の話、ともに実体のない根無し草の話が､一人歩きして当時の世相から疑心暗鬼を生み､誇張されたものと見ている

3. The theory that Awaji Island was used as collateral... "Rootless at a time of unrest in the hearts and minds of the people"

I would also like to mention the story of the French Minister's request for the lease of Awaji Island, written by Takematsu Otsuka. "The theory that the French Minister (Roches) asked the Shogunate for a lease on Awaji Island is a rootless story, based on the unrest of people's minds at a time of emergency, just as the fact that a proposal was made in Osaka at the time of this theory to solicit loans from Britain and France for mining rights on Karafuto Island, was obviously leaked and misrepresented."
("A Study of Bakumatsu Diplomatic History," by Takematsu Otsuka, Houbunkan, 1952, Showa 27)

Thus, the author believes that the stories of the lease of Awaji Island and the collateral for Sakhalin, both rootless stories with no substance, were exaggerated as they walked alone and created suspicion and anxiety from the public at the time.

マリアス・ジャンセンの著『坂本龍馬と明治維新』からも、

｢１８６５年・・・１月はじめには､小栗忠順のもとで特別の経済計画が作成されている､それはヨーロッパ向けのあるもの､とくに蚕の種板と繭についてフランスに事実上の独占権を与え､その代わりフランス側は資金と技術援助を提供し､・・・｣(『坂本龍馬と明治維新』マリアス・ジャンセン･時事通信社･１９６５昭和４０年)

・・・と、フランスからの資金援助に、蚕の種板と繭の買い入れ独占権を与える以外の担保の話は出ていない。

In the book "Sakamoto Ryoma and the Meiji Restoration" by Marius Jansen, it is written as follows:

In 1865...at the beginning of January, a special economic plan was drawn up under (Kozukenosuke) Tadamasa Oguri, which gave France a virtual monopoly on certain items for Europe, especially silkworm seed boards and cocoons, in return for which the French side provided financial and technical assistance..."
("Sakamoto Ryoma to Meiji Restoration," by Marius Jansen, Jiji Press, 1965, Showa 40)

Thus, there is no mention of collateral for the financial aid from France other than the granting of exclusive rights to buy silkworm seed boards and cocoons.

『坂本龍馬と明治維新』マリアス・ジャンセン･時事通信社･１９６５昭和４０年 "Sakamoto Ryoma to Meiji Restoration," by Marius Jansen, Jiji Press, 1965, Showa 40

これらを総合して考えると､勝海舟の言葉をそのまま鵜呑みにして､小栗上野介を単純な佐幕論者に仕立て上げるための｢四国」あるいは「蝦夷担保説｣に思われてくる。

Taken together, the theory of Awaji Island as collateral seems to be similar to the "Shikoku or Ezo collateral theory," which is taken straight from Katsu Kaishu's words to make Kozukenosuke Oguri out to be a simple sabaku theorist (people supporting the Shogunate).

４、新しい｢北海道売り渡し」説・・・２００２年１月追加

　最近また「北海道を売り渡そうとした小栗上野介」と書いている本がでましたので紹介します。

『封印の近現代史』渡部昇一･谷沢永一著・ビジネス社･２００１年８月発行
｢小栗上野介はなぜ処刑されたか｣(ｐ１７０）で次のように対談形式で語っています。

4. New "Hokkaido Sellout" Theory... added in January 2002

A new book has recently been published on "Kozukenosuke Oguri's attempt to sell Hokkaido to a foreign country."
"Fuin-no Kingendaishi (Sealed Modern History)" by Shoichi Watanabe and Eiichi Tanizawa, published by Business-sha in August 2001.

In "Why was Kozukenosuke Oguri Executed?" (p. 170), the two men discuss the following in the form of a dialogue:

渡部｢勤皇軍により本当に処刑になったのは､近藤勇と小栗上野介の二人である。あとは戦死で､処刑されてはいない。この二人が処刑されたのは､それだけ憎まれたからである。近藤勇は新撰組の大ボスで､新撰組のために維新の志士たちがどれほど苦しんだかを考えれば､当然のことである。それから､小栗上野介は彼のプランに従えば､官軍は負けるはずだったのである。だから憎まれて殺されたのである。」

谷沢「小栗上野介は､すうーッと幕府の主流をのぼってきた､それはもう頭のいい純粋な官僚である。その幕府官僚が､フランスから金を借りて､その代わり北海道を渡して､横須賀に軍需工場を作って軍艦を作るという構想を持っていた。そうして､徳川の新しい政権を作ろうというわけだが､これは実にぞっとする構想である。結局はフランスの属国のようになることだから。」

渡部「それで、まだ北海道を売り払う前に攻めてきたら､箱根の山で一応食い止めて､軍艦で大坂にも逆上陸しようとも考えていたようである。･・・・(以下略)･・・

谷沢「(略)・・・昔から､落城のときには､相当な英雄が出るものだが､小栗はそれに値する。彼は､最後に横須賀に大きな溶鉱炉かなんか建てるのだが､そこでやむを得ず家を売り渡すが､蔵をつけて売り渡すところがせめてものプライドだといっている。あくまでも徳川の権威を重んじたわけである。」

Watanabe: The two who were really executed by the Imperial Army were Isami Kondo and Kozukenosuke Oguri. The rest were killed in battle and were not executed. The reason these two were executed was because they were so hated. Isami Kondo was the boss of the Shinsengumi, which is not surprising considering how much the revolutionaries suffered for the sake of the Shinsengumi. Then there was Kozukenosuke Oguri, who, if his plan had been followed, the government forces would have lost. That is why they hated him and killed him.

Tanizawa: Kozukenosuke Oguri was a pure bureaucrat with a good head who had quickly risen through the mainstream of the shogunate. This bureaucrat had a plan to borrow money from France and give Hokkaido in exchange, and to build a munitions factory in Yokosuka to build warships. In this way, they would create a new Tokugawa government, a truly horrifying scheme. After all, it would be like becoming a vassal state of France."

Watanabe: So, if the west forces attacked before he had sold out Hokkaido, he was thinking of stopping them at the Hakone Mountains and then using his warships to land back in Osaka...

Tanizawa: ... From the old days, when a castle falls, a considerable hero emerges, but Oguri deserves it. He built a big blast furnace or something in Yokosuka in the end and said, "We have no choice but to sell our house, but the fact that we sell it with a warehouse attached is at least prideful. He was respectful of Tokugawa's authority.　

｢封印の近現代史」（ビジネス社２００１年）より
From "Fuin-no Kingendaishi (Sealed Modern History)" (Business-sha, 2001)

「小栗上野介が殺されたのは憎まれたから・・・｣とは、なんとも子供じみた非論理的な話で恐れ入る。ともかく、
｢小栗上野介が北海道を売り渡す｣話の根拠出典を､出版社編集部を通して両著者に問い合わせたところ､（留守中伝言で）｢いろいろな本を読んでいるからすぐ返事できないが､とにかくそういう認識を持っている｣というご返事を編集部を通して電話でいただいた〈２００２年１月末〉。やむなくこれからこのページをコピーしてお送りし､誤りがあったら指摘していただくことにします。
(2002/平成１４年１月)

I am afraid that "Kozukenosuke Oguri was killed because he was hated..." is a very childish and illogical story. Anyway, I inquired through the editorial department of the publisher about the source of the story that "Kozukenosuke Oguri was trying to sell out Hokkaido" to both authors. In response, I received an answering machine message from the editorial department stating that they had read various books and could not respond immediately, but that they were aware of such a story.
(End of January, 2002).

I have no choice but to send them a copy of this page and ask them to point out any errors in the page now. (January 2002, Heisei 14)

＊追加＊

「フランスから金を借りて､その代わり北海道を渡して､横須賀に軍需工場を作って軍艦を作るという構想」・・・この部分の論拠と思われる誤りが見つかりました。下記のページをご覧ください。

　　　　　　「小栗の濡れ衣・横須賀製鉄所の借款説」：造船所建設の借款話は芝原拓自『開国』の古文書の読み違いから。

「軍需工場」…横須賀造船所は「蒸気機関を原動力として何でも造り、船も造る総合工場」で、軍用品だけ造る単なる軍需工場ではあリません。
「横須賀に大きな溶鉱炉かなんか建てる・・・」・・・「製鉄所」としてスタートした横須賀ですが、明治四年までの「製鉄所」は「鉄製品を造る所」ですから、岩鉄から鉄を作る意味の溶鉱炉はありませんでした。下記のページ「横須賀明細一覧図を読む」をご覧ください。

*Additionnal information*

We have found an error that we believe is the basis for the argument regarding the part "This bureaucrat had a plan to borrow money from France and give Hokkaido in exchange, and to build a munitions factory in Yokosuka to build warships." Please see the following page:

"Munitions factory": The Yokosuka Shipyard is a "general factory that builds everything and ships with steam engines as the driving force," and is not just a munitions factory that only builds military equipment.

"He built a big blast furnace or something in Yokosuka...": Yokosuka started as an "ironworks," but there was no blast furnace in the meaning of making iron from iron ore because the "ironworks" was "a place to make iron products" until the 4th year of Meiji. Please refer to the following page "Read Yokosuka Detailed List Chart".