The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY
,14, 1864:

produce that original despatch nent from the Foreign Office
with the sanction 43f the queen, signed by the Secretary of

State, but whicli was afterwards withdrawn and altered.
Rir li. CAIRNS said—l wish also to ask a question
relative to papers we had printed this morning, some
papers on American affairs containing despatches, some

from the other side of the water, some from the American
Minister here. But there has been one despatch of very

goat importance and of a peculiar character which has
been printed in America, and reprinted in the ordinary

channels of information in this country. It was dated, I

think, 11th July last year. If I understand, this despatch,
coming flora the American Minister of Foreign Affairs,
was to be read to Earl Russell and a copy of it left with
him, and it is evidently far more material than any yet laid
on the table. I wish to ask her Majesty's Government
whether they are prepared to communicate that despatch to
the House of Commons, and at the same time the answer
that was returned either to Lord Lyons or sent directly,
or whether they are prepared to state that no answer was
sent. (Cheers.)
Mr. LAYARD—When that despatch is comeauni-

cated to her Majesty's Government it will be published.
It was never presented t. her Majesty's Government, and

her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such
despatch. I do not quite understand to what despatch the
other hon. gentleman alludes to in reference to Poland. If
there is such a despatch—and I think there is not—if he
will communicate with me privately on the subject it shall
be produced.
Lord R. CECIL—Do I understand the secretary to
say that no despatch from Mr. Adams to the Foreign-office,
conveying the demands which Mr. Seward made, has been
forwarded to the Foreign-office, and if thereis no despatch,
is there any memorandum of any verbal application con-
veying the same insolent demands ?
Mr. LAYAR D—l have stated that although that de-
spatch appeared in the newspapers, we have no knowledge
of it ; it was never communicated, and we cannot pro-

ing have been in dealing with the Government of Japan.

(Cheers.)
Admiral WALCOTT supported the amendment, and ex.
pressed an opinion that the papers on the subject justified
him in declaring that no blame could be imputed to Admi-

ral Kuper.
Lord R. MONTAGU argued that the Government had
no course before them but to enforce the demand for redress
for the murders and acts of violence committed by the

Japanese on British subjects.
Sir F. CROSSLEY lamented the great loss of life that

had ensued from the bombardment of Kagosima, and con-
demned the adoption of such a high-handed policy in our
communications with Eastern nations. The time had
arrived when it behoved the Foreign-office to endeavour to
uphold the honour of the country, without resorting to these
wholesale sacrifices of human life.
Mr. LIDDELL deprecated the system of hastily con-

eluding treaties, under tho gins of our ships, with cations

of whose habits, customs, and laws we had no knowledge.
How. we could expect a treaty to be faithfully observed which
had been obtained under such circumstances passed his com-
prehension. Our proceedings in Japan had been marked
by a violence that was deeply to be deplored, and he held
that the treaty made g ith that country ought to be revised,
if possible, in conjunction with those who were acquainted
with the laws and customs of Japan.
Mr. KINGL AKE reminded the house that when the
official account of the bombardment of Kagosima reached

England, Earl Russell at once wrote a dispatch to Colonel.
Neale, expressive of the regret he felt at the destruction of
that town. He did not believe that the noble earl had given

an imperative order to destroy the residenc3 of the Prince
of Satsuma, whether it were situated on a bare hill or in
a populous city ; but he hesitated not to say that our treaties
had broken up the political system of the state in Japan,
In the present state of their information with regard to the
details of the late engagement at Kagosima, he thought it
would be unjust to throw any blame or seeming blame upon
Admiral Kuper.

Mr. LAYARD said no one who had attended to his hon.
friend the member for Maidstone would bo surprised that
he considered it his duty to submit to the house the question
which he that evening brought before them. (Hear.) His
hon. friend's well 'known sympathy with the human race

every one who knew him would agree in acknowledging,
and all would be ready to do him justice in feeling that he
he was right in bring the question before the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.) If he could not agree in all that his
hon. friend had said, it was not that he could not agree in
the principles whioh he had laid down, but in the manner in
which he had tried to establish his facts. Ho entirely
agreed with his hon. friend that it was most deplorable and
deeply to be regretted that a town should be bombarded and
laid in ruins, as Kagosima was reported to have been.
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with him, that nothing but the
greatest, the most extreme provocation could justify such a
course ; and he entirely agreed with him that it was a ter-
rible sight to witness the condition to which the inhabi-
tants were reduced, and upon those matters there was no
difference of feeling and opinion between himself and his
hen. friend, who, he was sure, would not charge him with
want of sympathy with Eastern nations. He (Mr. Layard)
was known to have expressed his regret on several occa-

alone at the manner in which those races had been treated,

port.
town.

Now, such being the general principles laid down, let him
see whether they applied to the present instance. But be-
fore he did so he must say be could not concur in the blame
cast upon so gallant and meritorious an officer as Admiral
Kuper. (Hear, hear.) And here he must say that it had
been too much the habit of some parties in this country to
blame officers In their absence for alleged transactions before
inqui'y had taken place to ascertain whether the charges
were correct. (Hear, hear.) He must say that he did not
think Admiral Kuper could be charged with shedding
blood wantonly; and he must further say of that gallant
officer that a more humane man could not be than he had
always shown himself to be. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member here proceeded to draw a sketch of the relations of
this country with Japan previous to the occurrence in ques-
tion. This country was not the first, he said, to enter into
a treaty with Japan. An American commodore was the
first, and having made the American treaty, Russia then
stepped in and made a treaty with the Japanese on ber own
account. Was it, then, matter of surprise—seeing that Ame-
rica and Russia, two great commercial nations, had made
treaties to advance their commercial interests, and thus
opened up new markets for themselves—that England, on
her part, followed the example, and with a view of availing
herself of the now markets, made a treaty:of commerce with
the Japanese. (Hear, hear.) They were condemned for, and
charged with, having forced a treaty upon the Japanese,
which the authorities of Japan, it was said, had no power to
make. They understood the Tycoon to be the head autho-
rity of Japan at the time, and they entered into the treaty
with him. They ascertained that there were three parties
in Japan at the time, and that a great part of the natives were
ill-treated and kept in a state of Slavery by the Daimios. Of
the three parties one of them, he understood, was known by
the name of " Toree"—(laughter)—and that party were
most hostile in their acts and feelings against foreigners,
particularly against the Eoglieh. Another of those parties
was called " Liberal Torees"—(laughter)—and the third
were known as the party who were for keeping to themselves
all the good places, and sticking to them. (Great laughter.)
There was also a party who were for the maintenance of
the " connexion between Church and State." (Laughter.)
Much outrage and injustice had been committed against
foreigners, particularly those from England, and the re-
monstrances of the Government against those outrageous ex-
cesses were not attended to. It had been said that the Eri-
tish Government was unfriendly to and did not like the
Japanese. Now, so far from that being the case, they had
in this country made great concessions to the Japanese, and
not only did they do so themselves, but they actually in-
duced other Powers to make concessions to them, (Hear,
hear.) He could assure the house that in Mr. Richardson's
case neither be nor his friends were in fault. He (Mr.
Layard) was not in the habit of defending the excesses of
his countrymen; and he was sorry to say that they were
often guilty of excesses that no man ought to defend. (Hear,
hear.) In Mr. Rhhardson'ts case that was not so. A most
unprovoked murder had been committed on that gentleman
and other members of his party by a number of men who
had been ea on to commit it by their leaders. Mr. Richard-
son and his party were proceeding quietly along a high read
that was open to them by treaty, and were most wantonly
and without any provocation whatever attacked. Murder
was committed, and the party, when remonstrated with,
tried to excuse themselves by saying that it was a "casual',
murder. He had never before heard of a casual murder.
A more deliberate murder, he repeated, never was com-
mitted. The English Government remonstrated, and de-
manded satisfaction, but their remonstrances were disre-
warded, and their demand was treated with contempt. Was
it then to be a matter of surprise that they insisted upon
proper redress being given by the Japanese Government for
such an outrage ? (Hear,) The Government made demands
upon the Tycoon Government and also upon Satsuma. In
the first place they demanded £lOO,OOO from the Japanese
Government—not for the murder, but for allowing the mur-
der on a road which was open by treaty, on a road on which
it was their bounden duty to protect lite. (Hear.) That was
entirely irrespective of the murder. Then they had de-
manded from the person who committed the murder what
they considered to be a fair sum to be divided amongst those
who were sufferers. That sum was £25,000. Some might
think that sum too much, others might consider it too little.
Mr. Richardson, who was murdered, was a wealthy mar-
chant, and his death was a serious blow to his family. He
did not, therefore, consider that the sum was an unreason-
able one. The other persons concerned were merchants in a
good position in life, and for them the turn demanded he
could not consider was too much. Besides that, her Ma-
jesty's Goves nment asked for the execution of those who had
been concerned in the affair. Now, it had been stated that
evening as a matter of fact, that her Majesty's Government
had asked for the execution of Satsuma's father. So far
from that being the case, they had stated over and over
again that nothing of the sort was done. In the first place,
they did not know that it was Satsuma's father who had
committed the murder. Their first impression was that it
was his uncle. (Laughter.) They asked for the trial and
punishment of the retainers of the chief who had committed
the act. If hon. gentlemen would refer to page 94. of the
Blue-book they would find that the Government demanded
the speedy arrest and bringing to capital punishment the men
among the Prince's retinue, and not the Prince himself.
Satsuma had stated that no order had been given for this
attack. If no order had been given them surely the Govern-
ment had a right to ask for the punishment of those who
had committed so grave an offence without an order, and
that was all they did ask for. (Hear, hear.) He thought it
would be admitted that those demands, under the circum-
stances, were perfectly just; but if they had accepted the
excuse of the Tycoon, that Satsuma was beyond his power,
and that he had no control over his retainers, the Daimios,
under the shelter of that excuse, would have committed all
sorts of outrages. If, on the other hand, they had exacted
the punishment of the Daimios alone, in all future cases the
Tycoon would have said that the crimes had been perpe-
trated by the Daimios, and that they alone were responsible.
So that the Government had no alternative but to make a
double demand, and be thought that was the right course
to pursue. Was the English Government alone amongst
those who had punished the Daimios for outrages against
foreigners? If hon. gentlemen would turn to the Blue-
book they would find that joint representations had been
made by the English, French, Dutch, and American Mi-
nisters, that they held a Prince who had fired upon a ship
responsible for that act, and would proceed to punish it if
the injury were not redressed. They did punish him by
destroying his batteries and forts. Now, Admiral Kuper,
on receiving his instructions, proceeded to can y them out,
It had been stated that the instructions of her Majesty's
Government were not sufficiently explicit, and that i t was on
that account that the admiral committed the act ho
and that consequently the responsibility must fall upon the
Government. Now, vhen the instructions were sent out,
her Majesty's Government had not the slightest knowledge
of the palace in whisb. Satsuma dwelt, or of its position.
They had heard that be had a palace near the shore, that he
was a powerful Princa having vessels of his own, and that
the fl.et could get to those vessels and carry them off. The
Government gave instructions to the admiral founded upon
this imperfect knowledto, Eearl Russell, in his instructions,
stated that he had heard that Satsuma's territory was a
peninsula, but that the admiral would be able to form a bet-
ter judgment whether it would be possible to take his port.

The Government did not even know that there was a large
town there. (Laughter.) He was at a loss to understand
why hon, gentlemen laughed. He repeated that in England
here was no knowledge of that town. The fleet arrived
here on the 11th, and cast anchor at the entrance of the
Next day they went further and anchored before the
What was the first thing the Japanese did ? They

invited Admiral Kuper and Colonel Neale to go on shore to
conduct negotiations with them. Many gentlemen who had
great confidence in the Japanese might think that they
ought to have done so; but Admiral Kuper and Colonel
Neale thought they had better not run any risk of being led
into a trap, and very wisely declined the invitation. (Hear.)
On the following day a person calling himself a chief, with
his retainers, approached Admiral Kuper's ship and asked
to,be allowed to come on board. There could not be a moral
doubt that these persons, having little knowledge of the at.:

rangements of an English man-of•war, thought they could
capture the ship by a coup de main, and when the Japanese
official found that he was outwitted he became speechless,
and went off with great rapidity. No doubt these were two

attempts to entrap the Britieh officers; the first to entrap
the officers on shore, and the second to capture the ship.

All this time the batteries were being manned. Colonel

Neale, finding that it was no use to withhold any longer
ordered Admiral Kuper to take possession of the ships

belonging to Satsuma, and the Admiral did every-
thing ho could to carry out his instructions with the least
possible harshness. A statement had appeared in some of
the papers which he regretted to find the hon. member for
Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had endorsed, that after captur-
ing the ships Admiral Kuper needlessly kept them for a
long time under the eyes of the Japanese. The truth was,
that the admiral could not have taken the vessels out of the

bay without passing under the fire of the batteries. So far
from the admiral having kept the vessels under the eyes of
the Japanese in order to draw down their fire, he took them
as far as possible to the opposite side of the bay. No sooner
were the vessels taken than the Japanese opened fire. He

did not deny that the Japanese had a perfect right to do so,
but 7hat he did deny was, that it was the duty of the British

admiral to allow himself to be fired upon without returning
it. If he had done so, what would have been the result ?
There would have been a cry throughout the whole of Japan
that our fleet had been defeated, our settlements would have

been plundered, and probably every foreigner in the coun-
try would have been murdered. (Hear.) It was, then, the
clear duty of the admiral to return the fire. The hon. mem-
ber for Wakefield had stated that it would have been impos-
sible for Admiral Kuper to have returned the fire without

burning the town, and upon the high authority of that gal-
lant gentleman he was content to rest the admiral's excul-
pation. It had been said that shells had been thrown in the
town, but nothing was saidabout such a circumstance in the
reports, nor was anything said about bombardment, with the
exception of the second day,when shells were thrown intothe
palace of Satsuma. On the first day no shell was thrown
into the town; on the contrary, the return of the firs from
the batteries led to the firing of the town. Let hon. mem-
bers consider what a Japanese town really was. It was
built simply of thin laths and paper—very little timber
indeed. Fires wero constantly occurring in these towns,
The people constantly lived in fear of life, and were always
ready to move, He had spoken with several officers on the
subject, being anxious to ascertain the truth on the point,
and he found that firee in Japanese towns:were the commonest
possible occurrences. The officials had four days' notice of
the operations against them, and during that time they were
preparing to attack the British fleet. If, therefore, the
people suffered injury, it was the duty of the officials to
warn them to remove, and he had every reason to believe
they did so. It was possible that there was loss of life there.
If so, no one more sincerely deplored it than himself ;
but, at the same time, it would be some consolation to think
that the loss of life was very small indeed amongst the
peaceable inhabitants. (Hear, hear) lie (Mr. Layard)
had resided some time in a town which was peculiarly liable
to fires; he meant Constantinople. In that town there was
a fire almost every month, consuming as many residences as
at Kagosima, although the area over which they extended
was not so great, as the houses were higher. In Constan-

tinople a fire raged with extraordinary rapidity, destroying
many houses in the course of a few hours, and yet he never
heard of a single loss of life by fire there. The people lived
in c ,nstant readiness to move, and loss of live from fire was
consequently hardly known. These considerations led him
to hope that few lives of innocent persons were lost at
Kagosima. No doubt there was a considerable loss of lite
amongst the retainers of the Daimio. They fought against
the British fleet, they manned their batteries, and they
consequently ran all the risks which men engaged in war
were bound to run, but of the quiet peaceable inhabitants
he very much doubted whether any, or a very few, at all
events, met their death. On the second day it was neces-
sary, according to the admiral's view, to destroy the palace
of Satsuma. Could he, after the destruction of the pro-
perty of the poor, leave the palace of the chief malefactor
untouched? lie (Mr. Layard) thought not, and the admiral
very properly threw shells into the palace. There was no
proof that shells went into the town. It might be assumed
that they did, but there was not the slightest evidence of
the fact. The hon. gentleman the member for Maidstone
(Mr. Buxton), in the early part of his speech, said that he
would call evidence in support of his views, and he (Mr.
Layard) thought that he would have called witnesses of
some standing. The first was a picture in the Illustrated
Neu's. Now, he did not wish to say anything against that
admirable paper. Those who were in the secret would en-
tertain doubts whether that paper had on board the Euryalus
a correspondent who witnessed the town of Kagosima in
flames. Then another portion of evidence on which he
relied was a statement which had appeared in the Aylesbury
papers. Now, he had a great respect for the Aylesbury
pacers, but he could not take evidence second-hand from
their columns, the hon, gentleman himself not having seen
the paper from which his information was derived.
Mr. BUXTON—It was the statement of a sailor who was
an eye-witness of what he described.
Mr. LAYARD—WeII, he should like to know the sailor's
name, or what authority there was for the statement. In
the absence of that information he preferred to take the
statement of a British Admiral. (Hear, hear.) What ho
had now stated was a short history of what took place at
Kagosima. The house would now perhaps allow him for a
few moments to call attention to the motion of his hon.
friend. As regarded Admiral Kuper's judgment there was
no wish on the part of the Government to cast blame upon
him. On the contrary, it was the duty of the Govern-
ment to support him, because he was entitled to support.
It was asked why the Government had not given him the
same honorary distinctions which they had conferred upon
Colonel Neale. The distinctions given to Colonel Neale
were not on account of what took place at Kagosinea, but
for the judgment and tact which he had displayed in
conducting most difficult negotiations. Why they were not
conferred upon Admiral Kuper was because there had been
for a time a strong feeling in the country. (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition benches.) Her Majesty's Government
thought it only reasonable Admiial Kuper should be enabled
to give explanations, and he had no doubt some explana-
tions would be perfectly satisfactory. It would be unwise
and ungenerous to pass such a resolution as this, which
would be tantamount to a vote of censure, before those ex-
planations could be received. He had no doubt about the
explanations, and that it would be shown that Admiral
Kuper would not have burnt down the town if he could have
avoided it. Then it had been insinuated that her Majesty's
Government had felt no regret at this occurrence. The first
think they did on hearing the news was to write a despatch
in which they expressed their regret. That regret had been
embodied in the Queen's Speech, had been re-echoed by the
house, and deeply felt throughout the country. Not only
had they expressed regret, but her Al ajesty's Government
had done everything they could to prevent a recurrence of
ouch disasters, (The hon. gentleman read extracts from
the despatches in proof of the assertion.) Not only had her
Majesty's Government and the house expressed their regret
for what had occurred, but every precaution had been taken
to prevent such a calamity in future. The resolution said
that what had been done was " contrary to those usages of
war which prevail among civilised nations." He would ven-
ture to say that this was not so. It was not contrary to
the usages of war to bombard a town provided with batte-
ries as a means of defence against ships brought into col-
lision with it. The case was otherwise where a town had
no defences. We did not in the Crimean war bombard
Odessa because it had no batteries to attack our fleet. Of
towns that had been bombarded by civilised nations he
might mention Algiers, which was bombarded in 1816,
Ant werp in 1830, Beyrout by the Turkish fleet, Acre in
1840 by the English, and Barcelona, by the Spanish Go-
vernment. The French bombarded Tangiers, a peaceful
town, and the private property of the Emperor of Morocco,
and allowed the Rabyle barbarians to come down upon it
and sack it. Rome was bombarded in Juno and July, 1848,
and in 1854 the Americans bombarded Greytown and
burned it to the ground. Here there were no batteries to
protect the town, yet the ships fired on it. In defence of
this conduct the President of America said the arrogant
contumacy of the inhabitants lett no alternative but to break
up their establishments, or leave them under the impres
sion that they might pursue a career of lawlessness and
plunder. What was taking place now in America ? Charles-
ton was being bombarded. (Hear.) That town had batte-
ries, certainly, but then the Federals were constantly throw-
ing Greek fire and missiles into the town, We heard of
women and children being killed there, yet some persons
justified this mode of assault. (Disapprobation.) These
bombardments were not merely carried on by sea. Last
year we heard of the bombardment of Port Jackson, and
the New York papers described, with apparent satisfaction,
how the houses and public buildings were destroyed.
(Hear, hear.) That was justified. (Opposition cheers.) He
quoted these cases to prove that civilised nations considered
the bombardment of towns as coming within the usages of
war. (Hear, hear.) When our ships were fired on at
Kagosime it was our duty to return the fire. (Hear.)
No British admiral could avoid doing so. (Hear, hear.)
In this affair the papers would show that the admiral's
conduct had met with the approval of the French. It was
stated that the English had not been sufficiently concilia-
t The papers showed that the Americans had suffered
severely by icing too conciliatory. In the papers laid before
Congress the American Minister at Japan said, " I have not
been anxious until recently for the presence of a naval force,
but my opinion has undergone a great change," and then he
recommended the sending a naval force to Japan ue neces-
sary for some time to preserve to the world what had been
gained. He stated also that it was the presence of the Lri-