Britain and Japan Vol II

Biographical Portraits

Ian Nish

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134246779
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This second collection under the 'Biographical Portraits' title, incorporates a further 20 studies of key personalities, including Edmund Morel, pioneer railway builder in Meiji Japan, Alexander Shand, an important figure in the development of Japanese banking, Lafcadio Hearn, the great interpreter of Japanese culture, Rev. Dr. John Batchelor whose work with the Ainu people of northern Japan is legendary and, more recently, Shigeru Yoshida, Japan's first post-war prime minister and Christmas Humphreys, founder of the Buddhist Society.

1
Sir Rutherford Alcock, 1809–1897

SIR HUGH CORTAZZI

SIR RUTHERFORD ALCOCK was the first British Minister to Japan from 1859-1864. I first attempted a reassessment of his career in Japan in a paper which I gave to the Asiatic Society of Japan in 1994.¹ It was not possible in the space available to cover Alcock’s personality and performance in Japan in depth. In this essay, therefore, I propose to cover some of the aspects omitted from, or dealt with too cursorily in, my earlier evaluation. It may be helpful, however, to readers of this volume if before doing so, I summarize the key points and conclusions made in the original study.

Rutherford Alcock, who was born in 1907, was the son of a London doctor and studied medicine from the age of 15. He developed an early interest in art, learnt Italian and French, studied for a year in Paris. At 21 he obtained his diploma in surgery. In the following year he joined an Anglo-Portuguese force supporting the Queen of Portugal. Alcock then joined the Spanish Legion. On his return to England in 1838 Alcock resumed his medical career. But he had contracted rheumatic fever at the siege of San Sebastian and, losing the use of his thumbs, had to give up his career as a surgeon.

In 1844 Alcock was chosen as a consul in China. He served in Amoy, Foochow, Shanghai and Canton. One of his young subordinates in China was Harry Parkes who later succeeded him as minister in Japan. They got on well. Both believed in taking a firm line. Alcock declared that: ‘a salutary dread of the immediate consequences of violence offered to British subjects… seems to be the best and only protection in this country for Englishmen’,² but he did not believe in pushing things too far. His philosophy in relations with oriental peoples was one of firmness and determination combined with patience and persistence. He also had strong ethical principles and did not approve of the unruly and often unscrupulous behaviour of the British business adventurers in China. This was to be a source of trouble in Japan. One fault which he displayed in China and which was also to cause problems in Japan was his wordiness and the lack of clarity in his lengthy despatches.

Alcock’s Arrival in Japan

Alcock was appointed British Consul General in Japan in accordance with the terms of the Treaty concluded between Great Britain and Japan by Lord Elgin in 1858. In June 1859, he arrived in Japan by a Royal Naval ship (HMS Sampson). He decided that, to be an effective representative, he needed a higher rank and assumed the tide of ‘Plenipotentiary. The Foreign Office accepted this self-promotion and made him ‘Minister Plenipotentiary’. After a few days in Nagasaki Alcock went on to Edo bay where he arrived on 26 June 1859 in time for the opening of trade on 1 July, as specified in the Treaty of 1858. Despite obstruction from the Tokugawa Bakufu authorities he insisted on taking up residence in Edo and established his legation at Tozenji, a temple in the suburb of Shinagawa. One of his first acts was to arrange for the exchange of ratifications of the 1858 treaty to be carried out with due pomp.

The treaty specified that the ports of Nagasaki, Kanagawa and Hakodate were to be opened for trade. The Bakufu (camp government) authorities were reluctant to open Kanagawa as it was on the Tokaido, and they feared trouble from anti-foreign elements among the followers of the daimyo travelling on what was at that time the most important of Japan’s highways. They accordingly began to develop facilities for traders at Yokohama, a fishing village across the bay from Kanagawa. Yokohama was cut off by canals and foreigners there could be largely isolated as the Dutch had been at Dejima in Nagasaki Bay during the past two hundred years. Alcock fought hard against this deliberate attempt to pervert the terms of the treaty, but British traders found the facilities at Yokohama acceptable. One of the first British merchants to establish himself in Yokohama was William Keswick of Jardine Matheson and Company in premises which came to be known as Ei-Ichiban (i.e England Number One).

Alcock had to deal with other problems affecting the British merchants. One of these was the currency to be used by the traders. Under the treaty all foreign coins ‘shall pass current in Japan’ for one year after trade began and the Japanese authorities were to provide Japanese coin weight for weight (silver and gold). Unfortunately they had grossly underestimated the demand for Japanese coins and in consequence of their scarcity Japanese silver coins were at a premium. Another major difficulty was that the relative value of gold and silver in Japan was five times whereas in the world outside it was some fifteen times. The foreign business community, and in particular the British, put in huge demands for Japanese coins whose supply had to be rationed. This led to ever increasing demands, often on behalf of obviously fictitional people including such imaginary individuals as Snooks, Doodledo, Nonsense and Is-it-not. This infuriated Alcock who considered some of the requisitions for coins were ‘a positive disgrace to anyone bearing the name of an Englishman’. Alcock’s criticisms of the merchants were resented not least because of the special privileges given to foreign officials who were able to augment their salaries by up to 40% as a result of the favourable rate available for transfers of salary.

Another cause of friction was the restriction on visits from Yokohama to Edo which was outside the limits set in the treaty. The ministers had very limited accommodation in Edo and there were no hotels where merchants could stay. British subjects had to get special permits for visits to Edo as well as invitations from their diplomatic representative whenever they wanted to go there.

One case which aroused a furore among the merchants was that of Michael Moss, a British merchant who was arrested by the Japanese in November 1860. Having been out shooting, he stayed the night in a farm-house outside the limits set in the treaty. While he and his servant who was carrying a wild goose were travelling back to Yokohama on the Tokaido his servant was arrested. Moss drew his gun and demanded the release of the servant. In the subsequent affray a Japanese official had half his arm blown off. This led to Moss being bound hand and foot and carted off. At first the authorities denied any knowledge of Moss’s whereabouts but eventually delivered him up to the consul who under the extraterritorial provisions of the treaty arraigned Moss in the Consular Court. Moss was found guilty by the consul and two assessors and sentenced to be deported and fined $1000. Alcock, to whom the sentence had to be referred, thought that Moss was getting off too lightly and added a sentence of three months imprisonment to be served in Hong Kong. The business community considered Alcock’s decision wrong and unfair. Moss, on arrival in Hong Kong, took out a writ of habeas corpus and an action for damages against Alcock for wrongful imprisonment. He won his case and was awarded $2000 in damages. Although British officials enjoyed shooting, Alcock had some justification in believing that Moss’s behaviour (if repeated) could greatly exacerbate relations with the Japanese and that an exemplary sentence was called for, but he had exceeded his authority and did not take adequate account of the feelings of the merchant community.

It is clear from other evidence that members of the British merchant community in Yokohama in those days often behaved badly and arrogandy. Their sexual behaviour was also flagrantly different from those of the Victorian moralists. Alcock disapproved of the Gankiro, the foreigners’ brothel in Yokohama, where syphilis and other sexual diseases were rife.

Dr William Willis, the legation doctor, who commented on the prevalence of sexual disease among the foreign community also condemned their general behaviour. In a letter dated 15 February 1863 he wrote; ‘The English…are more hated than any other foreigners…We have all the air, if not insolence, of a dominant race; the facility with which we use our hands and feet in support of argument may elicit respect but not esteem–We may disguise it as we like, we are a set of tyrants from the moment we set foot on Eastern soil.’³ A.B.Mitford, later Lord Redesdale, who was a member of Alcock’s staff thought that his minister’s criticisms of the British merchants, though bitter, were ‘not more than the facts warranted’.⁴

Despite the bad blood between Alcock and the merchants in the early years, by the time he finally left Japan in 1864 the merchants paid a handsome tribute to his endeavours on their behalf. Certainly, it is clear from Alcock’s despatches that he was never in doubt about the fact that the development of British trade was a, if not the, major objective of his mission.

When Alcock arrived in Japan all official communications had to be translated twice through the Dutch language. This left infinite possibilities of misunderstanding and caused vexatious delays. Alcock realized that he must have staff capable of communicating in Japanese and he ensured that high priority was given to the training of student interpreters in the consular service. Thus began the Japan Consular Service. He also made strenuous endeavours despite his age (he was 50 when he arrived in Japan) to learn Japanese. He and members of his staff collected each morning with ‘our unfortunate teacher in the midst…bewildered and sore distraught, under a searching crossfire of questions for equivalents to English parts of speech’.⁵ He found the written language particularly difficult. The almost total absence at that time of dictionaries, grammars and primers induced Alcock to produce two books devoted to the Japanese language. These were Elements of Japanese Grammar for the Use of Beginners which was published in Shanghai in 1861. The second was Familiar Dialogues in Japanese with English and French Translations for the Use of Students which was published in London and Paris in 1863. Neither book can be commended for use by the student today! But Alcock deserved high marks for effort, even if he only deserved a lesser one for achievement.

Alcock’s Journeys in Japan

Alcock visited Nagasaki on a number of occasions. In September 1859 he went to Hakodate to install Pemberton Hodgson as the first British consul there. His main problem was to secure accommodation, the Russians having got there first. Eventually, the Japanese agreed to allocate the British consul a temple which they had been preparing for the new governor.

In September 1860, after the climbing season had ended, Alcock managed, despite strenuous opposition from the authorities, to arrange for himself and a small British party to climb Mt Fuji.⁶ They were the first foreigners to make the ascent. On his way back to Edo Alcock stayed a few days at Atami. Alcock did not find Atami ‘gay as a place of residence. Beyond the interests attaching to the study of village life in Japan, there is nothing whatever to amuse or give occupation’.

In May 1861, Alcock travelled with de Wit, his Dutch colleague, by land and sea to Edo.⁷ He was not impressed by the miserable hamlets he saw in the Inland Sea. He noted at Osaka, in what today would be considered at the very least politically incorrect, that he had ‘long given up looking at temples in Japan; for after seeing one or two, it is like looking at successive negroes – nothing but a familiarity of acquaintance, which you do not desire, can enable you to distinguish any difference between them’.

The Bakufu and the Safety of Foreigners and Foreign Missions

Alcock found dealing with the Bakufu authorities was at best frustrating; at worst they seemed to him to be deceitful and obstructive as well as insulting and threatening. As early as 9 August 1859 he sent a note to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in which he complained that his officers could not walk outside their missions ‘without risk of rudeness, offence and…violence of the most determined and wanton character…These outrages can only be considered as a reproach and scandal’. Alcock’s protests had no effect. The first of many murders of foreigners occurred in Yokohama on 25 August of that year when a Russian officer was killed in the street. In November Alcock’s servant was attacked before his eyes. In his note of 8 November to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs he gave a graphic account of the encounter with some drunken, armed samurai. Alcock became so frustrated that on 14 December he addressed a note to the authorities which contained a threat of armed retaliation. This earned a rebuke for Alcock from Lord John Russell, the Foreign Secretary: ‘Time and patience may remove many of the difficulties of which you complain…You should endeavour rather to soothe differences than to make and insist on peremptory demands. Our intercourse is but duly begun; it should not be inaugurated by war.’ Lord John’s view from the safety of London inevitably differed from that of his minister enduring the threats and risks to life in Japan at that time.

On 14 January 1861 Heusken, the Dutch interpreter to Townsend Harris, the American minister, was waylaid and murdered on his way back from a visit to the Prussian legation in Edo. This led to an acrimonious quarrel between Alcock and Townsend Harris. The quarrel began after the funeral which the diplomatic corps against the advice of the Bakufu authorities had all attended. Alcock invited his colleagues to discuss what action they should jointly take. Alcock who took charge of the proceedings urged that, because of the failure of the authorities to provide for their security, they should all withdraw to the comparative safety of Yokohama. The other diplomats concurred but Harris demurred declaring that Heusken had exposed himself to attack by going out at night against the advice which had been given him. He failed to attend a second conference called by Alcock, telling him that, by withdrawing to Yokohama, the diplomats were playing into the hands of the Japanese authorities who would be thus relieved of ‘anxiety, responsibility and expense’ and they would never be able to return to Edo. The lengthy and bitter correspondence resulting from this quarrel was duly published in London and Washington. Both ministers appear to have behaved intemperately and neither was blameless, but Alcock who had been exposed to danger in many places and occasions cannot justifiably be accused of cowardice.

In fact, the Ministers were able to return to Edo in March 1861 following discussions with Bakufu officials in Yokohama. However, their safety had by no means been assured. In July 1861, shortly after he returned to the legation following his journey overland from Nagasaki with de Wit, the legation was attacked in the middle of the night by ronin (masterless samurai). Ten of their guards were wounded and two killed. The next morning the legation ‘looked as if it had been sacked after a serious conflict⁸. Alcock was provoked by the appearance after the incident of a Japanese official who called to congratulate him on his escape and prayed him ‘to accept a basket of ducks and a jar of sugar in token of amity’. Alcock rejected this peace offering and demanded ‘justice and redress, not ducks or sugar’.

Alcock’s task in these days was complicated not only by the fact that it still took some four months to get a reply from London but also by the inability of the foreign secretary to understand the situation on the ground. This was partly Alcock’s own fault because his meaning was often clouded by his emotions and verbosity. Alcock also could not easily call for assistance from HM ships in Far Eastern waters. These were limited and communications with them were subject to frustrating delays.

Home Leave 1862/3, and Return

In March 1862 Alcock, having arranged for a Bakufu mission to Europe to travel in one of HM ships, departed on home leave. By this time he had come to the conclusion that Britain should not insist on the opening on 1 January 1863 of additional ports as specified in the treaty but should accept the Japanese proposal to defer the opening of these ports until 1 January 1868. He accepted that a refusal to agree to postponement could provoke civil war and anarchy. (For further comments on this and the discussions leading up to this recommendation see below.) Although Alcock recommended this concession, his own attitude subsequently hardened, as did that of Lord John Russell who was clearly irritated by the attempts of the Japanese envoys to extract further concessions from the British during their stay in London. By the time of his return to Japan Alcock had determined that he would insist on the fulfilment by the Japanese of the terms of the treaties and that he would, if necessary, use force for this purpose. The British Government, however, still seemed to believe in a conciliatory approach despite the Namamugi incident of September 1862 in which Richardson, a British merchant from Shanghai, had been murdered by Satsuma samurai while he was riding on the Tokaido near Yokohama. This led in due course, after the British had failed to get redress from Satsuma, to the bombardment of Kagoshima. This retaliation was criticized in parliament and may well have been one factor in the government’s preference for conciliation over force.

Alcock who had just returned to Japan made it clear in a despatch of 31 March 1864 that he regarded the protocol signed in London as ‘the culminating act and fitting end of the conciliatory policy’. All in authority in Japan ‘should clearly understand that we intend to enforce respect’ for our Treaty rights and will ‘resist with arms, if need be, all attack’.

On 6 May, he declared that as the Bakufu had failed to take effective action against the daimyo of Choshu who had closed the straits of Shimonoseki to foreign shipping firm action would have to be taken to reopen the straits. Foreign Secretary Russell did not agree, but his instruction arrived too late to prevent the action which Alcock had engineered. Alcock was at this time much concerned about the position of the community in Yokohama as the Bakufu had declared their intention of closing the port of Yokohama to foreign commerce. He and his colleagues had by now begun to get a better appreciation of the relationship between the Shogun, the Daimyo and the Mikado. Thei...