The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-28 00:00:00

THE BRI2IrBR IN JAPAN.

The following is Consul Vyse's reply to the
remonstrance of the British merchants in Japan :
British Consulate, Kanagawa,
Dec. 13, 1860.

Gentlemen,—l have to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 10th inst., protesting against the terms
of a notification issued from this consulate on the sth of
this month.

I have given careful consideration to ali you have seen
fit to urge; and although I do not feel called upon to
enter into a long discussion on points of law with those
under my jurisdiction, I am quite willing to show that
the action taken in all that concerns your interest or secu-
rity is just and reasonable, and that I am not leas bound
than you are yOurselves to act in accordance with• the law,
and the treaties under which all foreigners reside in Japan.
Your observations bear chiefly on two points, in which you
conceive erroneously—as I hope to satisfy you—firstly,
that I have misconstrued the obligations of the law as it
affects you, under the treaty of Yeddo and the Queen's
Order in Council; and secondly, that your interests and
security are damaged by the requirements made upon you
in the notification.

Quoting the Order in Council, you state that no act
done by a British subject can be taken to be a crime,
misdemeanour, or offence, which if done in England
would not be punishable by law ; and then apparently you
draw the inference that you may violate any laws of Japan
with impunity, provided the particular act or law violated
could not be shown to be contrary to the law of England.
To carry out this argument to its legitimate conclusion, it
would follow that the Government of Japan has made a
treaty, by which foreigners are privileged to come within
their territory and outrage or trample under foot all laws
and customs of the country which may not happen to be
in accordance with those of another race or nation; and
to do so wholly regardless of the obvious inconvenience
and danger to society, by an immunity which not
only would expose the laws of the State to continual
infraction, but must unavoidably expose its Government
to degradation in the eyes of their own subjects, to the sub •
version of all order.

Can it for a moment be supposed that the high contract-
ing parties on either side ever contemplated this as the
necessary or legitimate consequence of the treaties ? Is
there any nation on which such an obligation could be im-
posed, except as the result of utter defeat and conquest ? or
would any Government listen to proposals for a treaty de-
clared to have this object, or by any possibility calculated
to have this effect ?
The monstrous nature of the result to which such a
claim as you now put forward would necessarily lead
is enough to negative it. It is one which in effect
woull leave the Japanese Government not only power-
less against the infraction of their laws and customs,
but make the presence of foreigners one continued outrage
to those feelings of self-respect and independence which a
high-spirited people, long isolated from the rest of the
world, like the Japanese, are most prone to exaggerate.
It is quite clear such a position would be wholly unten-
able, and nothing could possibly be more disastrous to
foreigners than a pretension to maintain it.

Let us rather turn to the consideration of what is the
position of Christians in infidel countries. Such as it
is, we owe to a concession, on the part of their ruler,
of a sovereign and absolute right of jurisdiction within
their own territory, and this by a fiction of exterri-
torality. It is, in a word, what that of a duly accredited
Public minister of a foreign State at the present day is
in all Europe. I presume you will scarcely desire that
your privileges should be greater, or your immunities from
local jurisdiction more ample. Still less can you suppose
it was the aim of the British treaty to place you in any
higher position, in furtherance of its declared objects of
amity and commerce.
What is the position of such a Minister in Europe ?
He is not justiceable to the tribunals of the country in
which he resides, whatever crime or offence he may be
charged with. Neither are you. By the tribunals and
laws of his own country alone can he be made amenable
to justice. This also is your case. But do you from
this infer that a Minister is at liberty to violate the laws
and outrage the customs of the country in which he is
permitted to reside, because these may have no counter-
part in his own? If he escaped being stoned or slain in
the streets by the people he thus outraged, it would
simply be that the Government of the State would
require and enforce his immediate departure out of the
country, as incompatible with the public peace, and refuse
to allow him to return. And they would do this in th.
exercise of a right which has never been disputed between

This is the remedy against the abuse of a privilege con-
ceded only for just and reasonable ends.
So, if even a Minister in Europe, with all his recognised
immunities, is found risking the lives of native subjects, or
endangering the peace, his arrest, however temporary, is a
liability he will assuredly incur by reason of his own acts;
for the law of self-preservation confers rights upon States
as well as individuals. The laws and customs of !apan,
then, even when not similar to our own, must be respected
when they involve no sacrifice of treaty rights or interests.
You can claim no right wilfully to violate them, to the
prejudice and contrary to the remonstrances of the Govern-
ment; and if you do, it is impossible to deny their right in
return to demand redress, and, if persevered in, your de-
portation ; because such conduct would be manifestly the
abuse, and not the proper use, of the privileges conceded
by treaty for quite other objects.
To apply this to shooting at this port, and riding of
Chinese servants—the one is contrary to the dictated law,
and the other to the custom of Japan. The first is no
less contrary to the law in England, where no one is
permitted b shoot without a Government license. To do
so is to commit a punishable offence. Here the Govern-
ment refuses, for reasons which it deems good and suffi-
cient, to give such license. So also, as you must be aware,
no one can trespass over the land of another in England
without committing an actionable offence. Yet both these
acts, I repeat, have been deliberately committed by divers
foreigners, British and others, in spite of distinct warnings
in official notifications. The riding of Chinese servants is
precisely one of those sumptuary laws to which you refer
(and which law, be it observed en passant), the Japanese
have not hitherto at least expressed any desire to enforce.
Two Japanese have been only lately, in successive days,
ridden over and either killed or grievously injured. Are
such things to be tolerated ?—and if not, where is the
remedy? You will s 9 y, arrest the offenders and punish
them. Who is to arrest them ? Foreign Powers keep no
police in Japan. And the servants' masters will not, it
seem, exercise proper control, or they never would have
suffered them to career about on horseback.
Both the oft'enden in the recent cases have'escaped inden-
tification and punishment. And so it will be in 9 cases out of
10, even if the Japanese were urged to be more vigilant and
resolute. So it was with shooting. How were the offenders to
be identified ? Reiterated complaints were made by the
Japanese Government that guns were levelled at the offi-
cers by foreigners, when the former sought the means of
identification, At last the attempt to secure them led to
an event which does more to endanger the security of life
and property than any of the acts of which you show
yourselves so sensitive, and so anxious lest they should cur-
tail your legitimate freedom of action. But, in point of
fact, what you are really contending for is the right to put
aside all effective effort on the part of the authorities of the
enutry to maintain respect for their laws, as the foreign