Sir H. Parkes to the Earl of Derby.-(Received May 11)

(No. 58)
Yedo, March 27, 1876

My Lord,

IN continuation of my despatch No, 55 of the 25th instant, which was sent via America, and in which I forwarded without comment a copy of the Treaty recently concluded between Japan and Corea, as. communicated to me by the Japanese Foreign Minister, I have now the honour to inclose a duplicate copy, and to offer .the following observations.
In my despatch No. 57 of this date, I explain why this Treaty runs in the name of the’ Governments of Japan and Chosen (Corea) instead of in the names of the respective Sovereigns of those countries.
Article I acknowledges the independence of Corea, and the equality of the two Contracting Powers. I learn that this Article, which was naturally acceptable to the Coreans, is also valued by the Japanese (by whom it was suggested) as denoting that Corea is independent of China.
Article II gives to each Power the right of establishing a Legation at the capital of the other, a right which it is believed the Coreans will not be eager to avail themselves of.
Articles IV and V open three ports to Japanese trade. One of these, namely Sorio or Fusan, where the Japanese have hitherto had their settlement, is to be opened at once, and the two other ports, which have yet to be chosen, in twenty months’ time. By this arrangement the Japanese are relieved of the highly vexatious and derogatory restrictions under which they have hitherto traded at Sorio.
Article VI opens all Corean ports to Japanese vessels in want of supplies or repairs, or needing shelter from stress of weather, and makes special provision for the careful and hospitable treatment of ship-wrecked crews.
Article VII provides, in view of the highly dangerous character of the Corean coasts, that “any Japanese mariner” may take soundings and make charts and surveys of those coasts. This task, however, will naturally devolve upon the Japanese Government.
Article VIII gives Japan the right to appoint officers (or Consuls) to protect Japanese trade and interests at the open ports.
Article IX provides that trade shall be carried on between Japanese and Coreans without interference on the part of the officers of either Government, who are not to place any limitation or prohibition upon trade. The respective Governments are to do their best to enforce payment of debts, but are not to be held responsible for the recovery of them.
Article X is specially noteworthy as showing that the Japanese Government, who have lately complained of the extra-territorial clauses of the foreign Treaties with Japan, have been careful to stipulate for the right of jurisdiction over their own people in Corea. They have also imitated those Treaties in not making this right reciprocal, as the foreign Minister has explained to me that this Article does not give the Coreans jurisdiction over their people in Japan. It is, in short, almost a repetition of Articles IV and V of the British Treaty of 1858 with Japan.
Article XI stipulates that all rules necessary for the regulation of trade, and any other provisions that may be required either to explain the. meaning of the present Treaty or to facilitate its observance shall be negotiated by special Commissioners appointed by both countries, who shall meet for this purpose within six months, either at the capital of Corea or at Kok'wa.
Article XII provides for the Treaty coming into immediate operation.
The resemblance between this Treaty and the British Treaty of 1858 with Japan is remarkable. The omissions or differences are almost entirely confined to those. Articles in the last-named Treaty, which relate to the exchange of coin, Custom-house control, and similar subjects. It has been explained to me that the Japanese Commissioners omitted mention of these matters on finding that the Corean Commissioners were wholly uninformed about them, and unable to discuss them intelligently, and they therefore inserted instead the XIth Article, which secures the due consideration and the management of all such details within six months.
No allusion is made in the Treaty to any other nation.
As a criticism on this Treaty, which may be regarded as coming from the Japanese side, I beg to inclose an article from the “Japan Gazette” of the 25th instant. It states that, as the Corean Treaty contains extra-territorial clause which the Japanese Government have been trying to expunge from the foreign Treaties with Japan, they delayed its publication until they saw they could not gain the latter object. It congratulates Japan on having avoided a war, with its contingent conquest, which Russia might not have allowed her to enjoy, enlarges on the great concessions she has obtained for herself, and observes that other foreign nations seeking relations with Corea must, as Japan has had to do, make their own terms, and that they cannot do better than imitate, although they may not hope to equal, the firmness and power of persuasion shown by Kuroda, the Japanese High Commissioner.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HARRY S. PARKES