Sir. H. Parkes to Earl Granville.—(Received August 25)
(No. 92)
Tôkiô, July 24, 1882

My Lord,

I WISH to report briefly, as time will not permit me to do more by this opportunity, that the Japanese Foreign Minister has proposed to the Conference that the new Treaties, when revised, shall continue in force―the commercial clauses for only eight years, and the other clauses for only twelve years from the date of ratification; and that after the lapse of the said periods of eight and twelve years, any one of the new Treaties may be terminated in whole or in part by either of the Contracting Parties on twelve months’ notice.
This proposal was made at a meeting held on the 19th instant, and although it has not yet been finally formulated, I have been assured by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs that his Government will make it a sine quá non of any revision. He has also observed to me that, if the Governments of the Treaty Powers should not accept it, his Government would regard the refusal as denoting a want of confidence on their part in the progress and good intentions of Japan, and in that case they would prefer to maintain the present order of things under the existing Treaties until the justice of their claim, which would not be lost sight of, should be recognized by the Treaty Powers.
On hearing this proposal made at the Conference, I at once observed that it so seriously affected all the work in which we had been engaged during the last six months, that I could have wished that it had been brought forward at the earliest instead of at the final stage of those proceedings. When the Conference commenced its sittings the Minister for Foreign Affairs had himself proposed that the Austro-Hungarian Treaty should be taken as the basis of the preliminary negotiations. That Treaty, like all the others, was permanent, and not terminable in its character, it was open to revision but not to abrogation, and―the knowledge that the Treaties could be so revised from time to time, and amended as experience should prove desirable, but without being annulled―had given a stability to foreign relations with Japan which had proved of great value to all concerned, and could not be lightly relinquished. The present proposal of the Japanese Government was in effect a proposal to abrogate the Treaties, and, if it should prove unacceptable to the Treaty Powers, and be adhered to by Japan, then all the proceedings of the Conference would prove useless. I added that all that I could do would be to submit it to Her Majesty’s Government, if the Japanese Government so desired, but that I should find it difficult to recommend to the former any basis for the revision of the Treaty between Great Britain and japan that contained a condition for the abrogation of that Treaty.
The French Minister marked his disapproval of the proposal as strongly as I did, but it was warmly supported by the American Minister. The German Minister observed that he believed his government wished the permanent character of the existing Treaties to be maintained, but that much would depend upon the exact wording of the proposal, which he would submit to his Government with the President’s explanations. Most of the other Representatives, who seem at a loss to speak on the subject, expressed concurrence in the rather indefinite views of the German Minister. The Russian Chargé d’Affaires stated that he was in favour of the termination of the commercial clasuses of the Treaties, though this does not accord with the action of his Government in their recent Treaty with China.
I have reason to think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would not be disappointed of this proposal were to have the effect of postponing the revision of the Treaties. He is charged, I believe, by his colleagues in the Government, with having made overtures of too liberal a nature, and he has only reconciled them to his offer to open the whole country to foreigners by assuring them that he would satisfy national pride by recovering in return entire jurisdiction over the latter. He now sees that it is doubtful whether the Governments of the Treaty Powers will accept the above offer on such terms, and he probably wishes to retreat from a position which he feels he may not be able to successfully maintain.
He has another reason, however, for that desire in the great dissatisfaction which has been occasioned to his Government by the recent Corean Treaties, the conditions of which they regard as far more favourable to Corea than those of the existiing Treaties are to Japan. They consider that whatever Corea has gained should be conceded to Japan; or, rather, that the latter, as being a more advanced nation, and having long held relations with Western Powers, is entitled to conditions superior to those which have been granted to Corea at the very outset of her foreign intercourse.
The Minister for Foreign Affaris{Affairs} has exprressed this feeling in unmistakable language to the German Minister, and it clearly appears in the following passage in the “Japan Mail” of the 22nd instant, which is reported to be the foreign organ of the Government, and has evidently been made acquainted with the discussions of the Japanese Government, observes: “So long as Japan’s twelve years of progress―rapid enough to excite the admiration of the world―avails her so little that our very first Treaty with Corea accords to that semi-barbarous and bigoted coutry rights which to this day we refuse to Japan, so long as her adoption of our own Codes and ger appointment of our own experts to be her Judges fail to obtain any relaxation of a system which no free people could tamely endure, and which, moreover, has been extended beyond the utmost limits contemplated in the Treaties: so long, we say, as all this obtains, not mush prescience is needed to foresee the sentiments that are likely to influence Japan’s behaviour toward us. There can no longer be any mistake about her policy. She will grant us no new commercial privileges until we, on our side, practically demonstrate our faith in the reality of her progress.”
I notice a considerable resemblance between this language and that used to me by the Foreign Minister on the day when he made the above-mentioned proposal to terminate the Treaties. He then mentioned that his Government and people attached the utmost importance to that condition (possibly for this region, among others, that Corea has not obtained it), and that. If it was refused to Japan, and the existing Treaties could consequently not be revised, such an unfortunate result might create a reactionary feeling in the public opinion of this country, which the Government would be obliged to respect by closely adhering to the conditions of those Treaties, and by strictly maintaining all the restrictions on the trade and liberties of foreigners, which may be imposed under their provisions.

I have, &c,
(Signed) Harry S. Parkes