Murder, Misunderstandings, and Might. Mid-Nineteenth Century Confrontation Between Britain and Satsuma
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
鹿児島純心女子短期大学研究紀要 第３４号 ，１４３－１５４ ２００４ Murder, Misunderstandings, and Might. Murder, Misunderstandings, and Might. Mid-Nineteenth Century Confrontation between Britain and Satsuma. Andrew Daniels This short paper is an attempt to give reasons for some of the discrepancies in the literature in English on two important events in Anglo-Japanese relations that occurred in the mid- nineteenth century. Accounts of and reactions to the Richardson Affair and Great Britain’s 1863 bombardment of the city of Kagoshima in Southern Kyushu, are surprisingly conflicting. I will look at newspaper cuttings of the time, diary entries, and articles connected with the event, which in some instances, are written by people who witnessed things firsthand, and in others written long after. I intend to show how facts and figures have been distorted over time in attempts to reconfirm hegemony in two relevant spheres of influence; namely, the feudal base of Satsuma ruled by the Shimazu clan on one hand, and Victorian belief in British supremacy, particularly in terms of its Royal Navy, on the other. Key words：［Satsuma］［Bombardment］［1863］［Reparations］［Richardson］ （Received September ２4 , ２００3 ） It is exactly 140 years since seven vessels under the command of Vice Admiral Kuper entered the waters of Kinko Bay, intent on forcing the powerful Shimazu clan of Satsuma into accepting their terms for reparations after the murder of a British merchant, Charles Lennox Richardson, a year earlier. Much of the literature concerning the event emphasizes how the destruction of the city helped bring about the fostering of cordial relations based on mutual respect between Satsuma and Britain, relations that have continued ever since. This viewpoint is certainly oversimplified if comments by both sides are scrutinized carefully. In order to understand the various reactions both at the time of the bombardment and in the important context of the years just after, leading up to the Meiji Restoration in 1868, it is necessary to place the bombardment in historical perspective. This is best achieved by concentrating firstly on the death of Richardson. Kagoshima Immaculate Heart College, English Department, ４-２２- １ T o s o , Kagoshima-shi ８９０-８５２５, J apan －１４３－ 鹿児島純心女子短期大学研究紀要 第３４号 （２００４） Background to the events of August 1863 In 1845 the British opened a settlement in Shanghai and from that year in particular they showed growing interest in opening up new ports in Japan by securing trading treaties with a country which was seen by many to be the key to a highly lucrative monopoly in global trading routes. Leaders in Japan were only too well aware of this and had noted with anxiety China’s semi-colonization by foreign powers. Many of the local fiefdoms, sensitive to the threat of foreign invaders, had steadily increased their defenses and armaments in the years between 1840 and 1860. Satsuma was no exception, and under the directions of its Daimyo Shimazu Nariakira (1809-1858), had pursued an aggressive policy of Western learning which was implemented in the knowledge that the key to future self-determination lay in the modernization of the fiefdom, so that it could compete militarily and industrially with the powers that were seen as such a threat (Kadota and Jones 1990:5) In this sense Nariakira, as Sakai points out, was far more enlightened than many of his peers, and certainly in direct contrast to his own father who was content to concentrate on internal Satsuma affairs. Nariakira‘was a realist who recognized that some trade concession must be made to minimize Western aggressiveness.’ (1970:210-16). He also attempted to bring Satsuma up to date by building gun batteries in strategic places close to Kinko Bay in order to defend the town from a naval attack. Other developments implemented by Shimazu Nariakira, including iron smelting, armaments, ceramics and glassmaking, certainly helped in assuring Satsuma a vital part to play in national policy at this important juncture of Japanese history. According to Sakai (1963:55) it‘was the dynamic energy exemplified by these various enterprises, which enabled Satsuma to lead the Restoration’. However, after the death of the Lord of Satsuma in 1858, a number of key men in the province started to embrace the ideals of the movement known as“Sonno Joi,” which meant literally to‘Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians’. They saw clearly that their future lay in taking a stand against the growing number of foreigners trading in the treaty ports, and in particular against the ineffective rule of the Tokugawa Bakufu government which seemed intent only on appeasing the foreigners. The Sonno Joi adherents acted from a belief that the only way to secure their power bases for the future was to expel the foreigners and keep in place Japan’s isolationist policy. It has been suggested (Naito 1964) that“poor common people who were thrown into sudden distress created by a serious shortage of commodities” were among this movement’s most vocal supporters. This flawed view follows the argument that excessive exports of Japanese staple goods had caused anti-foreign feeling, stirring up resentment in the lower samurai class and those classes further down the hierarchical system in Japan. This firstly fails to note that the lower strata of society was very often short of daily necessities and that －１４４－ Murder, Misunderstandings, and Might. at intervals throughout Japanese history, famine was widespread (MacFarlane 2003:70-76), and secondly, that Sonno Joi was in particular a movement designed and orchestrated from above, not below. The most conservative elements among the outlying daimyo such as Shimazu Hisamitsu, who had taken over the helm of the Shimazu clan after Nariakira’s death in 1858, were staunch supporters and attempted to consolidate their power by undermining the Tokugawa Bakufu’s attempts to placate foreign powers through the opening of further trading ports. “The Namamugi Incident” It was into this complicated political arena that Charles Lennox Richardson set foot in 1862. A recently retired trader from Shanghai, he was visiting Japan before intending to return home to England. His death at the hands of Satsuma men on September 14th 1862 turned out to be the key event that led in August 1863 to the destruction of at least one third of Kagoshima City. As to the exact details of what happened on that day, the literature available is surprisingly inconsistent, considering the fact that there were numerous eye witnesses and many reports sent across the world to various newspapers within hours of the event happening. What is certain about the“R ichardson Affair” as it became known in English, or the“なま むぎ事件” in Japanese, is that Richardson was murdered while out riding with three companions, Mr. Clark, Mr. Marshall and Mrs Borrodaile. The two other men were wounded, but survived, and the lady had a lucky escape and was unharmed. What is also certain is that his assailants came from the retinue of the Daimyo of Satsuma, whose procession the British party came across on the road near the small hamlet of Namamugi. After this, the reports become unusually conflicting if more than one or two sources are scrutinized carefully. The reasons for this lie in cultural and historical misunderstandings every bit as careless as the one committed by Richardson himself. The pro-imperialist views expressed as late as 1963 by Commander W.B. Rowbotham, a retired Royal Navy man, are perhaps a good place to start the investigation into the depth of miscommunication concerning the bombardment of Kagoshima. The commander was clearly a man who appreciated a healthy bit of gunboat diplomacy. In his view, the bombardment stemmed from the fact that Satsuma had refused to punish the killers and a‘that for that’ policy (in other words, revenge for Richarson’s murder) was a sensible and justified reaction. He went on to state that perhaps one of the problems with the world as it was in 1963, a hundred years after the event, was that this policy was rarely adhered to anymore, regretting the fact that“humanitarians today....display similar tendencies; their sympathies often appear to be more with the killer than with his unfortunate victim” (1963:273). So to his mind, －１４５－ 鹿児島純心女子短期大学研究紀要 第３４号 （２００４） Richardson was an‘unfortunate victim’, not least because according to Rowbotham he was cut down“ before he had a chance to withdraw” (1963:275). The insinuation is that the attack was cowardly, not quite sporting, and certainly not the kind of violence that a true British subject could ever commit. The fact that in all likelihood a command to retreat was given by the Japanese retinue as a warning, but not understood by Richardson, since he knew no Japanese and was unfamiliar with Japanese protocol, are ignored completely in Rowbotham’s version of events. It is worthwhile comparing Rowbotham’s views on Richardson with those of a Japanese journalist, Hiroshi Naito, writing at a similar time. Naito explains that Richardson and his party paid dearly for their ignorance of local customs. It was imperative for people not only to get out of the way of the procession, but also to prostrate themselves on the ground, and if on horseback, dismount and to pay respect. Naturally, a British subject of Victoria’s Empire would have never thought of such behaviour, and although Richardson belatedly turned his horse around, he got caught up in the procession on the narrow road. To the samurai his action was seen as grossly insulting and so he was cut down (1964). It is crucial to point out however, that this was not a racist attack in any sense. Any Japanese subject getting caught in the same situation would have suffered the same fate, to which Ryoma Sakamoto, a heroic figure in nineteenth century Japan could have attested only too readily.