MOTION FOR A RETURN. (Hansard, 8 March 1872)

§ MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN

, in rising— To inquire of the Government, by what Treaty or Convention this Country has acquired the right of maintaining a military force in Japan; what number of troops, if any, are now stationed there; and to move for a Return of the number of Troops and Marines stationed in Japan during 1721 each year from the ratification of the Treaty with Japan in 1859 to the 31st day of December, 1871, together with the sums expended in conveying such Troops to and from Japan, and maintaining them in that Country;"— said, those who had watched the history of England from the reign of Queen Anne must have been struck with the gradual diminution of our importance as a military Power. Since the wars which arose out of the French Revolution, he believed that we had diminished our prestige in Europe as a military Power by acquisitions of territory in various parts of the world; and, though it was our interest, as far as possible, to keep aloof from all European complications, it was of the greatest importance we should note the weakening effect produced upon our military power by these acquisitions of territory. It was little more than 50 years since the British nation annexed a large portion of the Burmese territory. A quarter of a century ago they annexed the province of Scinde; and since then we had annexed the Punjaub, and obtained dominions at Hong Kong, in China. Now, whether we had obtained compensating advantages or not, it was held by many that these acquisitions had weakened our position as a European Power, and that we ought to put a stop to all further acquisition of territory. He believed it was admitted that the necessity of providing troops for India was one of the greatest obstacles to the establishment of our Reserves as a means of filling up the Regular Army. He thought it would be admitted that on every account it was of very great importance that we should not increase our possessions abroad, or acquire territory by treaty, as we had recently done on the West Coast of Africa, where we had by treaty with the Government of Holland acquired a considerable amount of territory, for which we had to pay £24,000, and to incur responsibilities in the shape of providing for additional garrisons. Just previously to the great Mutiny in India, a considerable Expedition was sent to China for the purpose of obtaining redress for wrongs received from the Chinese Government. After matters had been settled in China, and things had been brought to a successful termination, upon the Mutiny in India breaking out, Lord Elgin, who had been sent to China, at once adopted the only course 1722 open to him, by despatching a considerable force to India to assist in suppressing the Mutiny; with his naval force left behind without employment, he proceeded to Japan, and negotiated a treaty—a treaty said to have been entered into by the Government of Japan, but which he (Mr. Aytoun) considered to be a treaty entered into by that Government under the pressure of an overwhelming force. However that might be, a treaty was entered into by which certain commercial privileges were secured to the people of this country. It was negotiated in 1858, and it was ratified in 1859. In that treaty he could not find any stipulation to the effect that the Government of this country should possess a right of raising any military force in Japan. The only stipulation in that treaty which bore reference to territory was that which secured to Her Majesty's subjects the power to acquire buildings in Japan, and a stipulation that no such building should be used as fortifications or places of military strength. He had put the Question of which he had given Notice on the Paper, with a view of ascertaining on what treaty it was that the Government founded their right to maintain a military force in a country still regarded as independent? Eight years ago a Question was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen to the noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then Under Secretary for "War, whether the force, then consisting of marines and infantry, stationed in Japan, was to be considered as temporary only, or was to be kept there permanently? and the answer was that it was shortly to be withdrawn; but he (Mr. Aytoun) had been informed that ever since that time a military force had been stationed in Japan, and, what was worse, no information had been given to the people of this country with regard to the matter—the expenses incurred with respect to it being found under the head of charges for the garrison of Hong Kong. He wished to ask whether that military force was still to continue in Japan, and whether it was intended that it should remain there permanently? This was of importance, for wherever England had military forces stationed, war had occurred eventually, and the result had been acquisition of territory by the British. Not many years ago England bombarded a port in 1723 Japan, and it must be evident to everyone that if we were to continue in the course in which we had embarked, that continuance would be fraught with great mischief, and it would be exceedingly likely to lead us to a military settlement in that country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Return.

§ VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, there would be no difficulty in supplying the hon. Member with the Return he wished for, but it would be as well to explain the circumstances under which a British force had been stationed during 10 years in Japan. That force, which had varied very much, was not there owing to any treaty or convention with Japan, but simply for the protection of British lives and property, and to see that the treaty concluded in 1859 should be fairly and impartially carried out as regarded British interests. In 1862 and 1863 attacks, which were originated by parties hostile to foreigners and to the existing Government of Japan, had been made upon British subjects, as well as other foreigners, and Earl Russell empowered Sir Rutherford Alcock to appeal to the Admiral on the station, and to the military authorities at Hong Kong, to land a force only in the case of British lives and interests being exposed to danger, simply as a protective measure, and not with any desire to occupy the country. For that purpose three or four companies of the 20th Regiment were sent from Hong Kong to Japan; and in November, 1863, the British and French Admirals, acting in concord with the Tycoon, occupied Yokohama. Shortly after other troops followed, and barracks for their accommodation were provided 1724 by the Japanese Government. In 1865 a better state of things existed, and the force was reduced; but in 1868 a revolution broke out, and the British force was reinforced by the marines of the American, Dutch, and Prussian vessels in Japan, for the purpose of aiding in the defence of Yokohama. In 1869, owing to attacks committed on foreigners, all the foreign representatives in Japan—namely, American, Italian, Prussian, and Dutch—requested the English and French force again to take measures with the Japanese Government for the protection of the foreign community at Yokohama. Since that date, however, affairs had improved, and reductions were made in the forces there, which remained as follows:—A small marine battalion of 300 English, and a regiment of 250 French Marines. The force was stationed in Japan solely for the protection of the lives of British subjects and in the interests of commerce, and if, as he had reason to believe, the present peaceful state of affairs should continue, he had hopes that the entire force would be shortly withdrawn. During the whole period of its presence in Japan, British lives and the interests of British commerce would never have been safe without that force, which had never been greater than for the purpose required. There would be no objection to produce the Papers if the hon. Gentleman moved for them.