HC Deb 21 July 1863 vol 172 cc1186-98
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that he would not, at that period of the Session and in the then state of the House (less than twenty Members being present), enter at any length into the state of their relations with Japan. Still it was desirable that Parliament should not separate without receiving from Her Majesty's Government some explanation as to their relations with Japan, which seemed to assume a menacing character. If they were not actually at war with that State, no one could say that war was unlikely, and he wished to elicit from responsible authority a declaration whether Her Majesty's officers were justified in assuming a hostile attitude in that country, and, probably, in declaring war, without instructions from home. In tracing their relations with Japan it was not necessary to go back as far as his noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) had done in bringing forward his able and comprehensive speech with regard to China. Their relations with Japan originated so recently as 1854. Previous to that year little was known of that interesting country, and when their commercial relations with it commenced it was calculated to excite great curiosity. The country was known to be highly civilized, and there were in its Government many things from which civilized nations might have taken lessons. In 1853 the Americans concluded a treaty with Japan, and in 1854 Admiral Stirling obtained similar concessions for this country, but they led to but slight results until the year 1858, when Lord Elgin visited Japan. Now, when they were on the verge of a war, the House ought to know what were the real facts of the case—how far their conduct had been justified, what demands they had made on the Japanese, what were likely to be the results of the war, and how that war was to be conducted. If not, they might find themselves involved in immense difficulties and in an enormous expenditure. One of the conditions of the concessions granted to Admiral Stirling, and which he had accepted, was that no man of war should anchor within a certain distance of Yeddo. Lord Elgin violated that condition. His excuse was that he had a yacht to present to the Tycoon—certainly a most extraordinary thing to give to a man who never left his palace, which was at once his abode, his prison, and his tomb, except once a year, when he went to visit the Mikado. It was about as appropriate a present as if the Sultan were to send a wife to the Pope of Rome. The Government of Japan was peculiar. The Mikado was the spiritual head and the Tycoon the temporal sovereign, and overruling and almost overriding them was a great aristocracy, consisting of the Daimios, who were the controlling power of the country. Until they could exercise some influence on them, their treaties would be of but little avail. Lord Elgin, in spite of the remonstrances of the great council and the high officers of state, who said that they had been very happy since they got rid of the foreigners two hundred years before, and that they mistrusted merchants and missionaries, because they had always found that their entrance into a country was followed by war and rapine, insisted upon the signature of a commercial treaty. It was very hard that they should compel, induce, or bribe—for the Japanese said that the treaty smelt very much of ham and champagne—a people to conclude a treaty, and then, when they saw that the state of the country would not allow them to carry it out, declare war against them. It was the fashion to talk of the Japanese as a set of barbarians, but Sir Rutherford Alcock, Mr. Oliphant, and all who had written about them, said that they possessed a high degree of civilization and prosperity. Sir Rutherford Alcock, speaking of the power and state of the Daimios, said, that in witnessing the pomp of their processions and the evidences of their power, the spectator seemed to be transported to the Europe of the sixteenth or seventeenth century. The important point, however, was as to the feeling of the people. When Sir Rutherford Alcock arrived in Japan, the people showed no indisposition to carry out the Treaty of 1858. They were not ungenerous or violent, but quite the reverse; nor did they commit any outrages upon the English. Sir Rutherford Alcock made a journey to the sacred mountain, passing through many villages in which a European had never been seen before; and in his despatches he bore testimony to the kindness and good disposition of the people, and to the case with which order was preserved among them. In a despatch to the Earl of Malmesbury, Sir Rutherford Alcock stated that nothing could be more prompt, obliging, or seemingly straightforward than the action of the Japanese Government. Were these, then, a savage, brutalized, rough, and discourteous people? Exactly the reverse. In that very despatch of Sir Rutherford Alcock's he touched upon the important point which bore on the issue which might lead to war. If, for the sake of commerce, they were to force themselves into a country against the wishes of the people, surely it would be wise to take the advice of the people as to the best mode of carrying out their views. When Sir Rutherford Alcock went out, he found that the Japanese were forming an establishment for the reception of foreigners, not at Kanagawa, but at Yokohama, about three miles up the bay of Yeddo, where workmen were busily employed in constructing a granite pier, and that the Japanese were making every effort to lead foreigners to that place. Sir Rutherford Alcock objected to the Consul being located there, and insisted on his going to Kanagawa. The authorities explained to him the reason why they did not wish him to go to Kanagawa, stating, that that place was on the royal road, along which the Daimio princes passed, and that confusion and hostile encounters might arise with those great princes, who had been opposed from the first to the commercial treaty. What had been the result? Just what the Japanese authorities had predicted. The principal demand which they made for reparation from the Japanese Government arose out of an encounter which took place between the attendants of one of the great Daimios, the Prince of Satsuma, and an English riding party, in which one of the latter was killed. They had, however, it should be borne in mind, been warned of what would happen. Sir Rutherford Alcock admitted the obstacles with which the Japanese Government had to contend. He stated, in 1859, that in point of facility of access from the bay the advantage on the side of Yokohama admitted of no question, and that the real notion of the Japanese Government had been to remove foreigners from the line of the route of the Princes to the capital. The Japanese had, in fact, been forced into treaties; their relations with foreign nations had been imposed upon them; and although the Government were willing enough to carry out those treaties as far as it was practicable for them to do so, such was the prejudice of the people that it could not be done without causing the greatest possible disasters. The Japanese Government, which was composed of very intelligent people, had urged the matter strongly on the consideration of the English Government, and he confessed, that when he read the appeal of those men to the good feeling of this country, he felt ashamed of the way in which they had conducted themselves towards them. Sir Rutherford Alcock pointed out, that in allowing free intercourse to foreigners they were reversing all the traditions of their country, and that since then nothing but troubles and dangers had been the result. Was that the civilization which they desired to carry into Japan? But almost every despatch of Sir Rutherford Alcock bore evidence to the justice of the view which he wished to submit to the House. Writing on the 23rd of November 1859, Sir Rutherford Alcock said— That the Japanese Government look upon all foreign treaties, trade, and relations as so many unmitigated evils, I have already informed your Lordship there is every reason to believe. How far it can be hoped that time and experience may bring other feelings and wishes. I will not stop to inquire; but speaking of the present aspect of affairs, and the manifest repugnance of the ruling classes to all intercourse with foreigners—only too well justified by the want of discretion and conduct on the part of many at the different ports, and more especially at Kanagawa, in the immediate vicinity of the capital—I confess it seems to me the future before us is one of little promise. Now, Mr. Oliphant admitted that they compelled the Japanese Government to enter into the treaty, and if the English, who boasted that they were a highly civilized nation, forced their commerce on that country, they were, he thought, bound to see that those whom they sent out there conducted themselves properly. He was, however, sorry to be obliged to say, that although there were many honourable men among the merchants who went to reside there, one of their number being Mr. Moss, who had been somewhat hardly dealt with, there were instances in which their conduct was open to objection. And these were the gentlemen on whose account they were about to go to war, and to add next year 2d. or 3d. in the pound to the income tax; for the House might depend upon it, that if a war with Japan were once entered upon, it would be found to be a most expensive undertaking. Such a war could not be carried on merely on the sea board, but the employment of troops in the interior would be necessary, and he understood that a force had even at that time been ordered from India to Japan. He had papers in his hands which referred to the currency question, in relation to which Sir Rutherford Alcock said— I have only to add, in conclusion, that every effort must be made to allay the irritation and alarm of the Japanese Government at the shipment of their gold currency. It was this, I believe, even more than religious quarrels and encroachments, which led, 250 years ago, to the total expulsion of both Spanish and Portuguese, and the long isolation of Japan from Western nations. We are threatened with the same dangers now, by persons wholly regardless of what may happen, if they can only secure their own temporary advantage. But it is the business and the duty of all foreign representatives to prevent a few individuals thus endangering the relations and damaging the permanent interests of nations. It is better that there should be no trade than a trade carried on under such conditions as those which it has been attempted to impose. It is better that there should be no intercourse than relations of ill-will and conflict, threatening only war as a final result. They actually went the length of burning down the palace of the Tycoon, in the hope that an excuse would be furnished for stopping the currency, expecting that it would be found impossible any longer to carry on the exchange. Sir Rutherford Alcock thus wrote of the demands on the Treasury by persons supposed to be British merchants— In presence of the insane demands pressed upon them, often with menace and violence, for such beyond doubt is the fact, and for sums which not only the applicants could not produce in dollars, but which could not be expressed otherwise than by a long line of figures, while a lifetime would not suffice to count many of the sums claimed in itzebous, it is difficult to say whether the indecent levity and bad taste which mark many of the requisitions now under my eye, or the disregard of all treaty conditions and national interests or repute equally manifested are most worthy of reprehension. Some are a positive disgrace to any one bearing the name of an Englishman, or having a character to lose. There was appended in the blue-book some of these demands, made in the names, for example, of Mr. Doodledoo, Mr. Nonsense, Mr. Is-it-not, Mr. Snooks, Mr. Bosche, Mr. Cock, Mr. Eyeall, Mr. No Nose, Mr. Jack Ketch, and, most appropriate of all. Mr. Swindlepipes. Such conduct met with a severe reprimand, though not so severe as it should have been. The Secretary to the East India and China Association wrote on February 16, 1860, in these terms— I am to convey to you the expression of their deep regret that the painful occurrences to which Mr. Alcock alludes have taken place to such an extent as to cause the stoppage of trade by the Japanese. They concur with Her Majesty's Government in their reasonable expectation, that after having made great and successful exertions to open and extend a commercial intercourse with Japan, all persons resorting to that country for commercial purposes ought to abstain from violent and irregular conduct, which may give just cause for offence and resentment on the part of the Japanese. I am to add the assurance that influential parties here will not fail to urge upon those with whom they are connected in Japan the utmost care and caution in refraining from all conduct which might lead to disputes and personal altercations and violence. And Earl Russell wrote thus— I feel very strongly that we must be very careful that none of the clerks or agents of British merchants out there should commit any offence against the customs of the Japanese; for, unless they abstain from behaviour of that kind, we cannot justly complain of outrages against us, and it will be impossible to maintain satisfactory relations between the two countries. He agreed with Earl Russell that they could not justly complain of the outrages against them, and he did not think that the Government was justified in the course now being pursued towards the Japanese. The Government might doubt his statement that thirty of these Daimios could bring into the field no less than 766,000 men, and that Prince Satsuma derived a revenue of 200 chests of silver annually; but the Japanese had a stronger weapon than men or money, they had justice on their side. If England had been insulted, it would not so much matter what sum was expended in a war, but they ought to know in that case the precise grounds upon which the Government were proceeding, and whether those who represented England were directed to terminate the present state of things as soon as possible. He had no objection to a treaty of commerce with Japan if it could be carried out without violence, and without offending the feelings of the Japanese, but he would rather see it torn in pieces if it could only be observed by shedding the blood of a happy and contented people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for papers.

MR. LIDDELL

, in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to elicit some statement from the Government before the Session closed, because in a very short time Englishmen might be asking one another, "Why are we quarrelling with Japan?" and "With whom are we about to fight?" The answer to the first question was more easy than the reply to the second. We were quarrelling with Japan because we had hastily and inconsiderately signed a treaty with that country, which was a revolution in itself. The news of our victory in China was conveyed by an American ship to Japan, and it was under the prestige of that victory that we obtained power over the authorities in Japan. The American Minister first obtained concessions, and then Lord Elgin concluded our treaty, which was a revolution, and which was extorted by force, and by operating on the fears of the Japanese. The motive, which was to satisfy national pride, and not to be behind America, was a bad one, and a treaty extorted by fear rested on a dangerous and unstable basis. It was not only an ill-considered treaty but a treaty hastily drawn, and Sir Rutherford Alcock, probably the best authority in the world on Japanese politics, stated that that treaty never obtained the sanction of the sovereign, and was illegal, as far as Japan was concerned, because the Mikado's authority was required to make it binding on his subjects. As in the case of a previous treaty of humanity with Japan, having reference only to shipwrecked persons, the Japanese authority who signed it was murdered, so the Tycoon who signed Lord Elgin's treaty was secretly murdered. A distrust of foreign presence was a feeling that had, for a long series of years, prevailed in Japan; and did the history of Japan, he would ask, furnish no reasons why the Japanese should be suspicious and distrustful? Were not the intrigues of the Jesuits, the commercial frauds of the Portuguese, and the miserable servility of the Dutch, enough to create feelings of distrust? Those feelings were hardly extinct when this country ventured on the ill-advised attempt of obtaining a commercial treaty under the influence of alarm. The Japanese thought and believed we were about to force them to sign it, and to employ our navy against them for that purpose. Fear involved humiliation, and the great mistake we had invariably made in our political dealings in the East lad been, that in obtaining trading concessions we had destroyed that which the people had regarded as the central authority. According to the laws of Japan the treaty was binding only on the Tycoon who signed it, and in the limited space under his jurisdiction—namely, the five ports opened by the treaty. It was in no way binding upon the oligarchy of the Daimios, who were feudal and hereditary barons, and whose power, perhaps, exceeded that of the barons who extorted Magna Charta from King John, nor upon their subject serfs. Sir Rutherford Alcock said that according to the laws of Japan we were outlaws in that country, and any retainer of these powerful chieftains the Daimios might legally take the life of an Englishman. He contended, then, that this country was going to war with Japan on account of a treaty the concession of which was tantamount to a revolution in that nation, and he did not think that such a step was justifiable. The next question was, with whom was this country going to quarrel? Was it with the Tycoon? If so, he was the only friend this country had in Japan. Was it with the Mikado—that mysterious Sovereign of whom we knew literally nothing, and the extent of whose power and privileges were alike unknown to us, and whose assent to the treaty had never been obtained? But if, on the other hand, England was going to quarrel with those who hated the intrusion of foreigners—namely, the great nobles or Daimios, then he said that the extent of their power was not known, though this was well ascertained, that they were powerful chieftains, who could call out the population, which was in a state of serfdom, to defend the laws and oppose foreign intrusion. This was an alarming thing to undertake to do at the other side of the globe, and we could effect nothing without a standing army. Every one of the Japanese who were required to reside at Yeddo had deserted it, and had retired to the country, and we had reason to believe that they were preparing for an obstinate conflict. On our part war would be for "an idea," we did not know whom with or what for. Silk was the only product we obtained from Japan, and for a few bales of silk more or less we were not justified in involving the taxpayers of the country in an expenditure of which we could not see the end. Neither were we justified in plunging that country into a civil war. He trusted that the Government would furnish to the House before it separated some further explanation on this most interesting subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be preseneed to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Papers concerning our present Relations with Japan."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)

MR. LAYARD

said, he did not exactly understand the object of the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. B. Cochrane). He lamented, as much as any one, the necessity under which we were placed of making demands upon the Government of Japan which might possibly—though the certainty was not so great as had been represented by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite—lead us into hostilities with Japan. At the same time, he contended that our present position was unavoidable, that we were placed in it against our own desires, and that the Government were simply discharging a duty. Up to 1854 we had scarcely any connection with Japan. A convention was made about that time limited to objects of humanity and securing good treatment for crews which happened to be wrecked on the shores of that country. The American Government had a convention of a similar nature. In 1858 an American Minister made a commercial treaty. Russia also concluded a similar treaty of commerce. Unfortunately, British commerce extended over all the world, wherever there was anything to be bought or sold Englishmen were sure to go; and unfortunately, too, if there was anything unfortunate in the matter—though to that spirit of commercial enterprise undoubtedly much of the greatness of England was due—wherever British commerce went it required protection. If Her Majesty's Government had remained inactive while the two Governments of Russia and the United States were thus developing and extending the commercial resources of the country, if English traders when they went there had been expelled and outraged, would not they have been denounced by the merchants of this country, and also in that House, for not also concluding a commercial treaty with Japan; and would they not have been reproached for not following the example of Russia and the United States? The hon. Gentleman denounced the Government for having made the treaty, but he seemed to forget that in making the treaty Lord Elgin was acting under instructions from the Earl of Malmesbury. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I never denounced the treaty at all.] The hon. Gentleman said that all the misfortunes which had occurred were owing to the treaty, but it was made in the Earl of Malmesbury's time, and in the papers would be found a despatch from that noble Earl eulogizing Lord Elgin's conduct in making that treaty. Again, if the provisions of that treaty had been of so objectionable a character, why did not hon. Members denounce it at the proper time? When the present Government came into office, it was not their duty to overthrow the treaty. What they had to do was to see that its stipulations were carried out. The hon. Gentleman said that that treaty was forced upon the Japanese, but Sir Rutherford Alcock stated he found the people most inclined to trade with foreigners, and receiving them with the greatest kindness. In Japan, unfortunately, there existed a party—the Conservative party—opposed to all reform and progress, and opposed to all intercourse with foreigners. A great number of the wealthy Daimios were connected with that party, but it did not contain all of them. The Tycoon himself, chosen from a great Daimio family, had shown every disposition to enter into relations with foreign countries; and though his policy had created a strong opposition, he was supported in it by some of the most powerful Daimios. Her Majesty's Government had been asked, with whom was it concluded? His answer was that it was concluded with the authorities they found existing in Japan, the same with whom the Russians and Americans had treated, and who were believed to have complete power to make treaties with foreign nations. He quite agreed, with the hon. Gentleman that the conduct of some of the British merchants who first began to trade there had been most discreditable, but he was surprised to hear his hon. Friend make so singular an exception in favour of the man who had committed the greatest outrage on the Japanese. That person went out to shoot within prohibited limits, he shot a bird held sacred by the Japanese; and when he was stopped, he shot at and dangerously wounded a policeman—accidentally it was said, but, as he believed, by design. Sir Rutherford Alcock endeavoured to punish him, but, unfortunately, exceeded his powers, and the man went to Hong-Kong, instituted an action there, and actually got damages against Sir Rutherford Alcock. The hon. Gentleman had read the paper which had been laid on the table of the House, and which contained a statement of the demands put forward, in the most extravagant and disgraceful manner, on the Japanese Government, by some of our traders. The moment the Government heard of these things they wrote to some of the leading merchants engaged in the Japan trade, asking them to use their influence to put a stop to such acts. They replied, promising that they would do all in their power to put a stop to them; and it was to be hoped that these persons, intimidated by what had taken place, would leave the country, that a more respectable class would grow up, and that we should in future be rid of these men, who had been a great source of our difficulties with Japan. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted our conduct with that of the American Minister, and had led the House to believe that we alone were exposed to these outrages. He seemed to forget that the first outrage which took place was the barbarous murder of a Russian officer and two seamen, for which no redress had ever been obtained. That was soon followed by the murder of the American Secretary of Legation in the street. Then followed in succession the murder of one of Sir Rutherford Alcock's interpreters at the door of his own house; the attack on the British Legation, in which Mr. Oliphant was wounded, and the assassination of two Marines on guard at the Legation. Up to that time we had shown every consideration to the Japanese Government, and had made it apparent that we did not desire to press hardly upon them. Our demands for redress were of an exceedingly mild and moderate character. The Japanese Government sent over an embassy which was received with the utmost kindness in this country. The object of the mission was to induce Her Majesty's Government not to insist on the immediate opening of all the treaty ports. It was represented to them, that surrounded as the Tycoon was by a hostile party, and jealous as the Japanese princes were of foreigners, in accordance with the traditions of their country, it would be an act of consideration to the Tycoon to postpone for a time the demand for the opening of the ports. Her Majesty's Government at once agreed to that request, and, moreover, obtained the acquiescence of the French, Dutch, and other Governments which held similar rights. That was a proof that we did not wish to deal harshly with the Japanese Government. At the very time the Embassy was in England the murderous assault on Mr. Richardson and his three companions took place, not, as had been erroneously stated, arising out of a quarrel, for there had been none, nor occurring on a high road from which Europeans had been excluded, for it was one to which they were expressly admitted by an arrangement with the Japanese authorities It was a most outrageous and uncalled for attack. What could the British Government do under the circumstances? They were bound to ask for reparation. If they had done nothing, they would have have been justly exposed to the animadversions of hon. Members in the House. It was their duty to demand redress for these unjustifiable outrages on unoffending British subjects, and they had made a claim both on the Japanese Government and in the Prince whose retainers were engaged on the attack on Mr. Richardson. Their demands, however, were not preposterous. They simply demanded compensation for those who had suffered. His hon. Friend asked upon whom we were going to make war? He trusted we should not have to go to war at all. By the latest accounts it would appear that the struggle between the Tycoon and the opposition party was still going on. The Tycoon had not yet returned to Yeddo; but there was a reasonable hope that the reparation sought by the British Government would be conceded. He believed he might state that the Tycoon personally did not think our demands were unreasonable. As for the Prince, whose retainers assailed Mr. Richardson, he lived near the coast, and could easily be got at. He could not say whether the Prince would be held responsible by the Tycoon, or whether the British Government would have themselves to deal with him. He could not assent to the production of the papers asked for by his hon. Friend, because it was contrary to all rule to publish instructions not yet carried out. He deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had been forced to take the course they had followed with Japan, but he could not see how it was possible for them to have acted otherwise. They had treated the Japanese Government with great consideration, and had manifested a friendly spirit in every possible way. His hon. Friend had omitted to point out what other course they could have pursued. Engaged as England was in commercial relations with the whole world, it was necessary that our merchants should be protected, and in protecting them we were exposed to such contingencies as these. One of the first things, however, which we ought to do was to induce our subjects out there to behave better. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend in his condemnation of some of our countrymen in Japan. There was a class of merchants and adventurers who were always getting into trouble with the native authorities, both in China and Japan, and who were the first to turn against their own Government when it interfered. If these persons would behave in a manner more consistent with the character of English gentlemen, we should be better able to maintain amicable relations with Japan.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he did not intend to make any attack on the Government, but merely to express his anxiety that every facility would be afforded to the Japanese Government for granting redress, and that war would be avoided. He begged to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.