Changes

In his account, Matsudaira chastises his own men for failing to protect the Dutch agents, who were officially under the protection of the shogunate, from their abduction at the hands of the British. He then also rebukes Saga han for its failure to have enough men actively stationed in the harbor. It would seem, however, that even at the time it was unclear whether policy or precedent called for Saga troops to require permission from the Nagasaki ''bugyô'' to withdraw from their posts. Rather, it was standard for troops to withdraw - without explicit permission from the ''bugyô'' - after the Dutch ships left for the season; no Dutch ship had arrived nor was expected that summer.

In his account, Matsudaira chastises his own men for failing to protect the Dutch agents, who were officially under the protection of the shogunate, from their abduction at the hands of the British. He then also rebukes Saga han for its failure to have enough men actively stationed in the harbor. It would seem, however, that even at the time it was unclear whether policy or precedent called for Saga troops to require permission from the Nagasaki ''bugyô'' to withdraw from their posts. Rather, it was standard for troops to withdraw - without explicit permission from the ''bugyô'' - after the Dutch ships left for the season; no Dutch ship had arrived nor was expected that summer.

Matsudaira also argues that those in the position of Nagasaki ''bugyô'' should not be ''[[hatamoto]]'', as he was, with no forces of his own to call upon, but should instead be ''daimyô'', with their own armies, however small, upon which they could rely. It was the disparity between his rank or position and that of the ''daimyô'' of Saga and Fukuoka that exacerbated ambiguities in the command hierarchy of the defense of Nagasaki harbor. Nagasaki ''bugyô'' had initially been ''daimyô'', but this practice had come to an end quite early in the Edo period, as the result of misconduct on the part of [[Takenaka Shigeyoshi]], Nagasaki ''bugyô'' from 1629-1633, and ''daimyô'' of [[Funai han]].

Matsudaira also argues that those in the position of Nagasaki ''bugyô'' should not be ''[[hatamoto]]'', as he was, with no forces of his own to call upon, but should instead be ''daimyô'', with their own armies, however small, upon which they could rely. It was the disparity between his rank or position and that of the ''daimyô'' of Saga and Fukuoka that exacerbated ambiguities in the command hierarchy of the defense of Nagasaki harbor. Nagasaki ''bugyô'' had initially been ''daimyô'', but this practice had come to an end quite early in the Edo period, as the result of misconduct on the part of [[Takenaka Shigeyoshi]], Nagasaki ''bugyô'' from [[1629]]-[[1633]], and ''daimyô'' of [[Funai han]].

Some sources argue that fiscal difficulties on the part of Saga han were to blame for an inability to muster sufficient forces; yet, while Saga may have indeed been experiencing financial difficulties, other sources argue that complacency borne out of the extreme rarity of incidents in which martial defense was called for, was truly to blame for chronic shortfalls in manpower.

 

Some sources argue that fiscal difficulties on the part of Saga han were to blame for an inability to muster sufficient forces; yet, while Saga may have indeed been experiencing financial difficulties, other sources argue that complacency borne out of the extreme rarity of incidents in which martial defense was called for, was truly to blame for chronic shortfalls in manpower.

 

 

Though the incident exclusively concerned samurai responsibilities, all residents of Saga, including peasants and merchants, were subjected to a variety of punishment measures, including temporary bans on shaving one's forelocks (''[[sakayaki]]''), and having travelers from elsewhere stay at inns or the like within Saga. Merchants were required to shutter their shops, and the people of Saga were forbidden from leaving the domain and traveling, for a time.

==References==

==References==