I cannot help the feeling that with the climate of the earth currently hanging in a precipitous balance, with every indication that if nothing is done to mitigate the effects of human-induced climate change then large sectors of the earth with become uninhabitable to all forms of mammal and plant life, that a lot of these problems are the logical conclusion of activities unleashed during the nineteenth century.  In other words, the modern world, for all of its technical achievements, has yet to escape the debilitating effects of a world built on the subjugation and industrialisation of nature and its resources.

The nineteenth century, carrying on the ethos of the industrial revolution as it was practiced in the United Kingdom from the eighteenth century onwards, regarded nature as a thing to be tamed, codified, and exploited for the betterment of the nation and for humanity as a whole.  This was to be achieved by a naked form of capitalism, of exploitation for the sake of profit, with the means of production and distribution to be ever thus refined and improved so that those profits could be distributed faster and wider than before.

To realise this goal, the United Kingdom (and then other European states) needed to control resources and subjugate those who held them so that both could then be put to use for the sake of the industrial state. Hence the development of imperialism, and with it militarism, which would in time be followed by mercantilism and commercialism. It created the basis for the concepts of destiny and superiority that were central to nineteenth century theories concerning race.  These forces would continue to hold sway over Europe, and its colonial branches, for over a century as the drive to achieve “prosperity” sent government and commercial entities to every corner of the globe in the search for more resources to exploit.   

Such ideology, which believed in eternal progress and industrialization as the key to “prosperity”, only occasionally considered the ramifications of what such activity would do to the natural world.  Adjustments would not begin to be made until the effects of industrialisation and commercialisation became blatant to large sections of society, thus initiating movements (from the late 1960s onwards) aimed at trying to mitigate some of the damage created over the previous century.  Yet the fundamental ideology underpinning the industralisation and commericalisation of Western and later Eastern societies – exploitation of resources for the scientific betterment of society and humanity as a whole – did not change.  It continued to hold sway over government and business thinking, and dictated how such bodies would react to changes in the natural world.

Those forces that the nineteenth century thought admirable and aspirational have, over time, proven a curse to the modern world.  This naked desire for “prosperity” has ruined the very ecological systems that allowed human society to thrive in the first place. If human society is to have a future, it must learn that “sustainability” is crucial not only to humans but to all forms of life.  “Sustainability” means rejecting those forms of industralisation which cause the greatest harm to the largest number of species. It, at its very core, means finding ways to live which do not damage the threads by which life itself is sustained. 

Humans have within their means the ability to change their society to make it sustainable.  It means moving away from the destructive technology of the nineteenth (and, to a great extent the twentieth) century and the exploitative ideology that drove such destruction.  Yet the time for change is running out before irreparable harm is done that will diminish humanity and condemn it to a future plagued by nightmares.

(The punishment of Nezumi Kozōjiro Kichi), 3rd year of Tenpō, 1832
Nezumi Kozōjiro Kichi was born in the vicinity of Nihon-bashi. His father was said to have been a doorman belonging to the Nakamura theatre, although many theories exist regarding his occupation. When he was 16, Nezumi became an apprentice to a furniture maker under the patronage of Matsudaira Sanuki no Kami, but did not continue in this role.  After a brief stint as a retainer to a samurai household, Nezumi became a footman for a firefighting company, and through that liaison fell in with gamblers who made their living along the Fukugawa river area. (pg.171)

Around the 6th year of Bunzei (1823), Nezumi began his career as a burglar in earnest. On the 8th day of the 5th month of Tenpō 3 (1832), at the age of 27, Nezumi was arrested after sneaking into the residence of Matsudaira Kunai no Shōyū near Hama-chō. It was only the investigate skill of the attending magistrate to the case, Sakakibara Tadayuki, who was able to discern that the prisoner brought in front of him was in fact the renowned thief Nezumi Kozōjiro. According to his deposition, Nezumi avoided robbing residences of merchants, whose security was often quite comprehensive, and instead focused on samurai households who, while outwardly might appear to be secure, were in fact quite lax when it came to protecting their wares.  Over the course of 10 years, Nezumi had broken into the 99 or so major samurai residences of Edo 120 times, and anything he had stolen had later been used to obtain funds which were spent on women, sake, and gambling. (pg.171)

On the 19th day of the 8th month of Tenpō 3, Nezumi was paraded through the streets of Edo before being taken to the Kozukatsubara execution ground, where he received his sentence of execution by crucifixion.  After his death, legends arose surrounding Nezumi, particularly his generosity in providing money to the poor. This “noble bandit” thus underwent a transformation in the minds of the commoners of Edo, becoming a hero to young and old alike. (pg,171)

(The Tenpō Reforms), 12th year of Tenpō, 1841

 In the 5th month of the 12th year of Tenpō, a senior retainer to the Tokugawa Bakufu by the name of Mizuno Tadakuni announced a series of reforms. Thereafter, bans were placed in rapid succession on adult entertainment and displays of ostentatiousness.  Festivals, theatre, and outdoor exhibitions were banned, thus forcing smaller theatres to move to the Asakusa area.  In the following year, published works by popular writers such as Ryūtei Tanehiko and Tamenaga Shunsui were banned, and the 7th generation head of the Ichikawa Kabuki theatre, Ichikawa Danjurō, found himself forced to leave Edo on account of his profession and his opulent lifestyle. (pg.171)

The official responsible for enforcing these bans was Torii Yōzō, otherwise known by a pun on his name as “the monster”. He was not averse to framing citizens with false charges, and so the people of Edo tried to keep a low profile while Yōzō was in charge. Two years later Mizuno was removed from his position, an event that was marked by around 1,000 or so townspeople gathering outside his residence and throwing stones at it. (pg.171)

(The Coming of the Black Ships), 6th year of Kaei, 1853

In 1841 the Opium War (Ahen Sensō) came to an end, with European and North American powers vying with each other for control of and trade with China. The United States in particular had thrown itself into the task of opening up Pacific trade routes with vigour, and so came to make demands on the Tokugawa Bakufu for the provision of water and other supplies for its ships as they moved from East to West and back again.  In the 6th month of the 6th year of Kaei (1853), the commander of the US East India Fleet, Commodore Matthew Perry, led four frigate vessels (part steam, part sail driven) on a mission to Japan, weighing anchor offshore from Uraga.  Perry then proceeded to negotiate with the Tokugawa Bakufu, although perhaps threaten might be a more apt description of the talks between both sides. (pg.171-172)

The Bakufu had the four US frigates surrounded by smaller official boats and fishing vessels, yet obviously these were no match for the frigates. After presenting Bakufu officials with a list of demands on behalf of the US government, Perry departed Japan, telling his hosts that he would return in the following year to receive their answer. One year later, and true to his word, Perry returned. After receiving the Bakufu’s response, which essentially rejected the demands made by the US, Perry gave orders for his vessels to move to the seas off Shinagawa and from there make a show of force by firing their (unloaded) cannon. For the people of both Edo and the surrounding areas, who had never seen such black ships before, the thundering of the cannon gave them an awful fright. (pg.172)

In the following year, the Bakufu gave in to the US demands and signed the Convention of Peace and Amity between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan (also known as the Treaty of Kanagawa), thereby bringing the 200-year old policy of isolation of Japan from the world to an end. (pg.172)

(The Sakurada Gate Incident), 1st year of Man’en, 1860

On a cold and snowy 3rd day of the 3rd month of the 1st year of Man’en (1860), just outside the Sakurada Gate leading into Edo Castle, senior retainer to the Tokugawa Bakufu, Ii Naosuke, and his retinue were attacked by 18 samurai hailing from Mito province. Naosuke himself was killed during the assault.   Naosuke’s crime, if it can be called that, was to have ratified the Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between the United States and the Empire of Japan without waiting for Imperial approval. Not only this, Naosuke had been active in suppressing and imprisoning many members of the Jōi (‘Expel the Barbarian’) faction and Bakufu reformists. (pg.173)

The death of Naosuke was officially kept secret, yet news of it soon spread throughout Edo, with Naosuke himself being referred to as “the patient without need of a pillow” (Naosuke’s head had been removed by his attackers). On the 30th of the 3rd month, the Bakufu dissolved Naosuke’s position, and one month later finally announced his death. (pg.173)

The ‘Sonnō-Jōi’ (Revere the Emperor and Expel the Barbarian) movement soon spread throughout the country, causing innumerable difficulties for Bakufu authorities in attempting to keep the peace and prevent anti-Bakufu sentiment from gaining a strong hold on the populace. Meanwhile Edo itself fell into a state of unease, with the latent threat of violence between anti and pro Bakufu forces simmering beneath the surface. (pg.173)

(The ‘relatively’ bloodless surrender of Edo castle), 4th year of Keiō, 1868

Members of the Eastern Imperial Army, upon receiving orders to expel by force the 15th Shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu from his position in Edo Castle, proceeded to surround the castle on the 15th day of the 3rd month of Keiō 4 for the express purpose of launching an attack on the Bakufu forces still holding out there.  One day before the scheduled assault, Army leader Saigō Takamori, together with Imperial faction ally Katsu Kaishū, met with Bakufu officials at Takanawa in Edo, and there discussed and agreed upon the surrender of Edo castle to Imperial forces without resistance. (pg,174)

In the background to this decision lay the negotiations undertaken by the British Consul in residence Townsend Harris to ensure that Edo did not descend into a bloodbath, which in turn would spark revolts and rioting throughout the Kantō region and seriously jeopardize public order.  In the 4th month, Yoshinobu retired from Edo to Mito (modern Ibaraki Prefecture). Some 2,000 or so former Bakufu retainers, calling themselves the Shōgitai, withdrew to Ueno where they proceeded to continue their resistance to Imperial rule. However they eventually found themselves outgunned by the modern weapons wielded by the Imperial army, and were defeated. (pg.174)

(The Great Fire of Meireki), 18th day of the 1st month of the 3rd year of Meireki, 1857

 On the 18th day of the 1st month of Meireki 3, a fire started that Honmyōji temple in Edo, and over the next two days would spread throughout the town, earning the somewhat peculiar name of ‘the sleeve fire’.  According to legend, the sleeves of garments belonging to three daughters, all of whom died when they were 17 years old, were taken to the temple and were to be thrown into a fire there while reciting the Nembutsu sutra in memory of the girls. As soon as this was done, the sleeves, accompanied by a tornado, moulded themselves into pillars of fire resembling the deceased girls, and climbing to a height of 80 shaku (or around 24 metres) proceeded to burn ferociously throughout the town, eventually consuming much of it including the main keep of Edo castle. (pg.175)

The number of deceased were calculated by Asai Ryōi as totaling over 100,000, and on the border between Musashi and Shimōsa provinces a four sided pit was dug that was 108 metres in width. Only one building was erected to the memory of the victims, which was later recorded as serving as a funeral parlour for both provinces. (pg.175)

(The Eruption of Asamayama and the Great Famine of Tenmei), 3rd year of Tenmei, 1783

From the 4th to the 7th month of Tenmei 3 (1783),  Asamayama (located in modern Nagano and Gunma Prefectures) was rocked by a series of loud explosions, thus heralding what would become the largest volcano disaster of the pre-modern Japanese period.  The scale of the eruption can be measured by the modern-day presence of the ‘Oni-oshidashi’ area in Gunma Prefecture (itself made from lava expelled by Asamayama).  The destruction caused by the dislodging of massive quantities of volcanic rock and pyroclastic flows was extensive.  The victims of the disaster numbered over 20,000, and in the Tonegawa and Sumidagawa rivers and its tributaries, bits and pieces of bodies were found floating in the water. (pg.176)

The volcanic ash thrown up by the volcano covered an extensive area that had recently been cultivated, and by blocking out much of the sunlight, this caused a number of failed harvests over the following years. Those provinces lying to the north of the Kantō region were particularly hard hit by bad harvests, thus compounding the tragedy.  In Tsugaru province some 80,000 people starved to death, while in Nambu province the dead numbered 60,000.  It was said that the number of victims in Sendai province was as high as 400,000, and certainly it gave rise to a range of desperate behaviour including cannibalism. (pg.176)

According to a record of the period titled “Toen Shōsetsu” by Takizawa Bakin (written around 1825), a majority of the victims of the famine were peasants and the poor, not samurai, which gives some indication as to where the worst effects of the famine hit. (pg.176)

(The Great Ansei Earthquake), 2nd year of Ansei, 1855

Speaking of earthquakes, recent years have kept these natural disasters foremost in the minds of the residents of Japan, particularly following the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011. Yet what is truly frightening about these disasters is the fact that while the quake is bad enough on its own, what follows them can be much, much worse. (pg.176)

Such was the case on the 2nd day of the 10th month of the 2nd year of Ansei (1855).  From 10 o’clock in the evening until the following morning, Edo was struck 33 times by earthquakes of varying sizes. These in turn led to fires breaking out throughout the city, until many areas were wrapped in pillars of flame. The “Bukō Nenpyō” recorded the events of the time by stating “Screams and the howling of voices filled the void of night, so much so that listening to it chilled one to the bone and robbed one of any courage”. The famous maxim – “If things start to shake, keep no fire awake” remains as true today as it was back then. (pg.176)

(Taken from Ogi Shinzo, “Zusetsu Ō-Edo, Shireba shiru hodo”, Jitsugyō no Nippon-sha, Tokyo, 2003)

(The Keian Incident, or the Revolt of Yui Shōsetsu)  4th year of Keian, 1651

In the 4th month of the 4th year of Keian (1651), the third Shogun of the Tokugawa Bakufu, Iemitsu, died of illness. His successor, the 11 year old Ietsuna, had only just been appointed to that position when in the 6th month of the same year, Yui Shōsetsu, a military scholar of the Kusunoki school who had opened his own academy in the Kanda district of Edo, conspired with Marubashi Chūya, who himself had opened a school teaching spear techniques at Hōzōin (located near Yui’s academy), and other rōnin (masterless samurai) to overthrow the Bakufu. (pg.166)

Marubashi, together with his supporters, would set fire to a Bakufu saltpeter warehouse at Koishikawa and set about lighting spot fires through the city in an attempt to create a major conflagration. While this was underway, Marubashi would infiltrate Edo castle while pretending to be Tokugawa Yorinobu, the head of the Kii branch of the Tokugawa household (one of the three major branches of that family), and if successful in his deception, would then abduct the young Shogun.   In the meantime Yui Shōsetsu would attack a Bakufu vault located at Kunōzan in Sumpu (Suruga) province. After making off with the million or so ryō (gold or silver ingots) stored there, Yui would head to Sumpu castle and there wait for the arrival of Marubashi with the young Shogun in tow. (pg.167)

This would then provide the impetus for revolts to break out in both Kyoto and Osaka. Some 230,000 rōnin would then assemble, the largest such gathering since the battle of Sekigahara 51 years earlier, and together they would bring about the downfall of the Tokugawa.

However there was an informant in their midst. Marubashi soon found his school surrounded by agents of the Bakufu and was taken prisoner. Meanwhile Yui Shōsetsu, while lodging at the Umeya, a tea house located in Sumpu, was himself also surrounded by Bakufu agents. However he managed to commit suicide before he could be taken prisoner.  In all, around 100 or so people were implicated in the plot, and an even greater number were subject to punishment.  (pg.167)

The Bakufu used this incident as the impetus for the introduction of a system whereby they would acknowledge the adoptees of daimyō and hatamoto (the most trusted of retainer) families in danger of dying out, and thus put an end to the increase in rōnin that would accompany the death of the last heir of a dynasty. (pg.167)

(The crucifixion of Hirai Gonpachi at Suzugamori)   7th year of Enpō, 1679

Hirai Gonpachi was a samurai of Tottori province, and the eldest son of Hirai Shōzaemon.  He was particularly renowned in the province as both a swordsman and jujutsu practitioner. However when he turned 17 he had a falling out with his father and absconded, eventually ending up in Edo.  Gonpachi was attractive, and was quite proficient at the ‘Kaga’ style of singing that was popular at the time.  In time he became a member of the household of a more prominent samurai family, and often visited the pleasure quarters of Yoshiwara. It was during one of these visits that Gonpachi fell head over heels for a Tayū (or high class courtesan) by the name of Ko-murasaki of the Miura establishment (i.e., brothel). Obviously Gonpachi was not a wealthy man, hence in order to raise enough funds to meet with Ko-murasaki he decided to hire himself out as a “hitman” of sorts, carrying out assassinations for money.  It was said that over the seven years that he was active in this role, he was responsible for the deaths of 132 people. (pg.167)

Gonpachi’s luck ran out in the 6th year of Enpō (1678), when he was found guilty of having murdered a silk merchant at Musashino-Kumaya for the sum of 100 ryō.  He was sentenced to die by crucifixion.  Gonpachi was executed in the 11th month of the 7th year of Enpō at Suzugamori, and his remains were later buried in secret at Tōshōji temple located in the Meguro-ward.  After a while, Gonpachi’s grave was visited by a woman of around 21 years of age, where she donated her 5 ryō in wages. She did this a number of times, praying before the grave, before one day committing suicide at the same spot. It was Ko-murasaki of the Miura establishment. (pg.167)

This (tragic?) love story proved very popular among the commoners of old Edo, and it was later depicted in various art forms, including Kabuki theatre and puppetry.  (pg.167)

(The declaration of the ‘Edict Forbidding Cruelties to Living Things’ – Shōrui-awaremi-no-rei), 4th year of Jōkyō, 1687

Tsunayoshi, the fifth Tokugawa Shogun, had no further children after the death of his son Tokumatsu (whom he expected to inherit his position). According to the monk Ryūkō of the Shingon sect, to whom Tsunayoshi’s mother Keishōin was particularly devoted, Tsunayoshi’s lack of heirs was a direct result of his having killed a large number of living beings in a previous life. This message was reiterated time and again to Tsunayoshi by Ryūkō, particularly the fact that many of those life forms had been born during the Year of the Dog. This had a profound impact on Tsunayoshi’s psyche, so much so that he began to take pity on dogs, and would in turn issue an ‘edict forbidding cruelties to living things’.  

The edit stated that all dogs were to be referred to as “My lord dog” (O-inu sama), and a number of kennels were established in the suburbs of Edo where dogs could receive the very best of care. On the other hand, a samurai who shot a sparrow with an arrow in order to use it in medicine for his sick son was executed at Kozukatsubara together with his son, while those who merely witnessed the act were themselves sentenced to exile on Hachijōjima island. (pgs.167-168)

Tsunayoshi was cursed with a paranoid personality, so much so that his retainers, fearing that they might be put to death on a whim, would read as much as they could into his orders, and so exercised all sorts of cruelties on their subordinates. For 24 years, until his death in the 6th year of Eiroku (1709), Tsunayoshi was the source of great hardship to his subjects, and tens of thousands of people were either put to death or otherwise punished during his reign. (pg.168)

(The revenge of the rōnin of Akō province – aka Chūshingura, aka The 47 Rōnin, aka The 47 Loyal Retainers), 15th year of Genroku, 1702

In the early hours of the 15th day of the 12th month of 15th year of Genroku (1702), 47 rōnin retainers from Akō province (now part of Hyōgō prefecture) fought their way to the centre of the principle Edo residence of Kira Kōzuke no Suke Yoshinaka. After two hours of fighting Kira’s own retainers and searching high and low, they eventually found Yoshinaka, and cut off his head. (pg.168)

The spark that ignited passions to such an extent that it would result in Yoshinaka’s death occurred during the 3rd month of the previous year.  The lord of Akō province, Asano Naganori, was visiting Edo in order to pay his annual respects and partake in rituals associated with his position as an imperial messenger.  However, it was while he was resident in Edo castle that he fell into an argument with Yoshinaka, himself a highly placed official of the Bakufu, and confronting Yoshinaka in the Matsu no Rōka hallway, drew his short sword and wounded Yoshinaka.  (pg.168)

Drawing weapons without permission within Edo castle was strictly forbidden, hence Naganori soon found himself ordered to commit ritual suicide (seppuku) on the day after the incident with Yoshinaka. The name and property of the Asano family of Akō was thereafter confiscated, and disappeared from Edo altogether.

However, one of the Asano’s principle retainers, Ōishi Kuranosuke Yoshio, together with others from Akō province spent a year and nine months undergoing various hardships as all rōnin did following the death or disbandment of their lord and his household. They also practiced theatre and puppetry during their time in exile, all this while secretly planning to take revenge against Yoshinaka for causing the death of their lord. The people of Edo, seeking to find some outlet for the distaste they felt for Tokugawa Tsunayoshi’s reign, upheld the rōnin of Akō as the pinnacle of the ideal of the “loyal retainer”, whose act of assassination was justified and, in time, glorified by the common folk. (pgs.168-169)

(The Ejima – Ikushima Incident), 4th year of Shōtoku, 1714

In the 1st month of the 4th year of Shōtoku (1714), a retainer of the mother of the seventh Tokugawa Shogun, Ietsugu, who went by the name of Ejima of the Ō-oku (aka the ‘Great Interior’, basically the female quarters within Edo castle), was assigned as keeper of the mausoleum to Shogun Ienobu at Sōjōji.  While on the way there, Ejima stopped at the Yamamura theatre located in the town of Kobiki, where she booked out the entire top floor of the theatre in order to watch plays. Ejima soon imbibed the hospitality of Ikushima Shingorō, a Kabuki actor who would keep guests happy in between performances as an employee of the theatre.  Ejima enjoyed Ikushima’s company so much that she eventually arrived back at Edo castle far later than originally scheduled. (pg.169)

While going to watch theatre while engaged on official duty was a violation of the “Regulations for the Great Interior”, it was often silently permitted.  However the continuing disruptions to the discipline of the Ō-oku, the continuing feud between the legal spouse of Ienobu, Teieiin, and his concubine Gekkōin, and the frequent meddling by members of the Ō-oku in the affairs of state with their demands for relatives or favours from merchants irked the Bakufu’s senior retainer Ii Naomori and others so much that they decided to use Ejima’s transgression as an opportunity to clamp down on the Ō-oku’s activities. (pg.170)

While Ejima bore many responsibilities, she was found guilty of having spent too long in the company of actors at the theatre and sentenced to death. This penalty was later lessened to that of exile on Hachijōjima. The intervention of Gekkōin eventually saw Ejima exiled to Takatōri in Shinano province.  For his part, Shingorō was exiled to Mitakujima, while the Yamamura theatre was abolished. Ejima’s elder brother, the hatamoto retainer Hirai Heiueimon, was executed by beheading. Next to 70 women of the Ō-oku were banished from the castle, while another 150 were assigned to assist the medical officials of the Ō-oku and clothes merchants of the Bakufu’s capital. (pg.170)

Fujiki Hisashi, “The commoner’s battlefield: raising troops and capturing slaves during the medieval period”, Asahi Shimbun, Reprint 15 March 2007
 
(My reasons for choosing this particular book for translation are fairly straightforward. The subject matter expressed by Professor Fujiki is extremely interesting, given that it dealt with the lot of common soldiers (who were by and large peasants drafted into serving their local lord, with some exceptions) and the reality of living in a world where the threat of violence was never far away.  Another fascinating point is that it examines the practice of capturing and selling slaves, something that was highly prevalent during the era of the warring states in Japan but is not a subject examined in most popular media that depicts that period in Japan’s history.  Presumably the idea of Japanese selling other Japanese into slavery is abhorrent to modern Japanese sensibilities, yet the practice was common, and really only petered out once the country began to be subject to more stable, centralised rule from the early seventeenth century onwards.  
 
It’s this phenomena that Professor Fujiki illustrates in detail, in a manner accessible to most Japanese readers (itself a welcome development in a field that tends to be dominated by archaic discussions about the certain use of words in historical documents.  Of great interest to the academic, but of little to no consequence to the general reader).  By undertaking this translation, I hope that I might too be able to bring a bit more of this period of Japan’s history to the attention of a broader audience, and spark some curiosity among those for whom the era of the warring states (Sengoku Jidai) remains a mystery). (Note: the numbers at the end of paragraphs refer to pages of the original text). 
 
Prologue
 
“Plunder, before armies were nationalised, lay at the very heart of the formation of an army and its existence, with merchants serving as intermediaries”, Yamauchi Susumu, “A History of the Legal Concept of Plunder”
 
Fighting in order to eat
 
“We wage war in order to seize the wealth of the land, towns, and villages.  The campaigns that take place in Japan are mostly concerned with seizing wheat, rice and barley.”
 
This comparison of causus belliwas made by the Portuguese missionary Luis Frois (1532 – 1597), who bore witness to many battles that took place in Japan towards the end of the era of the warring states.  For Frois, the wars that took place in Europe during the Middle Ages occurred in order to expand territory, whereas in Japan they occurred in order that people might eat. (2) 
 
“War to expand territory” or “war in order to eat” – a comparison of both of these phenomena is undoubtedly fascinating, but it also presents problems. (3) At the same time that Frois was making these comments, Toyotomi Hideyoshi was calling for a halt to all private conflict throughout the island of Kyushu, using phrases such as “territorial border disputes between provincial rulers are to cease” and “I personally shall be the judge of any disagreements over the division of territory in Kyushu”.  In other words, Hideyoshi, who himself had stood at the centre of conflict during the era of the warring states, was a product of both the Japanese way of war and of the seizure of territory. (4)
 
However what I would like to pay particular attention to is the fact that from his arrival at Yokosenoura bay in Nagasaki in the seventh month of the sixth year of Eiroku (1563) until his death at Nagasaki in the fifth month of Keicho 2 (1597), Luis Frois spent over 30 years living both in Kyushu and in the Kinai area of Japan. His record of that time was written right in the middle of the era of the warring states, as a so-called “true depiction of war”.  The escalation in conflict that he witnessed was, to his mind, undoubtedly “war in order to eat” or “war in order to live”.  Hence I have taken this to mean that for Frois, “war in order to eat” and “war in order to live” involved a fight to the death. (4)
 
Frois said the following in relation to “war in order to eat” that he saw on a daily basis throughout Kyushu;
 
“The people captured in Bungo(province) by the army of Satsuma(Shimazu) were then taken to the province of Higo and sold off.  In that year, the residents of Higo suffered a terrible famine and much hardship, and so fell into a state where they were unable to fend for themselves. Since there was no way they would be able to care for the captives(from Bungo), they took them to ‘Takaku’(Takaki, located on the Shimabara peninsula) where the captives were sold off, much like they were selling off a family heirloom.” (4)
 
Frois then continued. The fate of those taken by the Shimazu army was that they either ended up as prisoners of war, died from the effects of war and illness, or wasted away from starvation. Both sides engaged in killing and plundering one another.  Those who had been taken as prisoners of war by the Shimazu army “after being taken back to Satsuma and Higo, led around to various markets like a herd of sheep, where they were sold.  Many of those taken were sold off for cheap prices of one or two “toston” (or bun, a small amount of money)”.  (5)
 
All 12 volumes of Frois’ “History of Japan” are replete with continuous conflict and the buying and selling of both people and goods seized through violence, all set against a backdrop of unremitting starvation. (5)  Frois’ opinion of war was very much founded on the raw experience and observations that he made of the battlefield, particularly those in Kyushu. (5)
 
This “true depiction of war” lay at the bottom of many of the more familiar, more colourful studies of warring state era armies and tales of battle. It speaks of the reality of fighting for the many foot soldiers (or ‘militia’) who faced starvation, and so fought either in order to live or in order to be able to eat. It also reverses many of the conceptions that we might have about warfare of that period.  Hence it is my intention here to overturn the depiction of war in the Sengoku era from one of “battles between heroes” to that of “battles between commoners”, and so depict the society of the era of the warring states from the ground up.  (5)
 
‘Militia/foot soldiers’ usually refers to “lowly ranked soldiers”.  The armies of warlords of the era of the warring states might have had one hundred soldiers in them, however only 10 or so of those soldiers might be mounted on horses.  The other 90 would be placed into one of three different categories. 1) Officially sanctioned warriors, who went by the name of kasemonoor wakatoor ashigaru– samurai, in other words, who fought together with their lord. 2) Those of lower rank, known as either chugenor komonoor arashiko, who acted as aides to their lord on the battlefield, handling horses or carrying their lord’s spear – in other words, genin(trans.note = literally “lower people”). 3) Those known as either buor bumaru, “peasants” in other words, who had been drafted in from villages to serve as porters, transporting goods etc.  (5)
 
Those wakatoand ashigaruincluded under item 1) were the main military force permitted to engage in fighting on the battlefield. Those included under item 2) and 3) were ostensibly excused from participating in the fighting because of their rank (or kenzen, the gap between samurai and those of lower ranks). However in the heat of battle, such distinctions were often ignored.  It is my intention to shed some light on these soldiers, which I refer to as zohyobut were otherwise known as wakatoor komonoor fujin, along with many other merchants, bandits, and pirates whose characteristics are unknown but who also appeared on the battlefield. (6)
 
It is particularly challenging to tell the story of the most commonly known battles from a different point of view to the ‘heroes’ of such tales, however my main purpose in writing “the commoner’s battlefield” is as follows;
 
I. A world in chaos
 
The annual records that Luis Frois wrote as part of his public duties for the Society of Jesus have proven useful to the study of Japan’s history, yet Frois himself was described by one of his superiors as “prone to boastfulness and idle gossip”.  This then beggars the question whether or not the “true depiction of war” that Frois wrote was based on fact?
 
First, let us take a look at the battlefields of the era of the warring states, to those conflicts that lasted over a century, starting with the battlefields of Kyushu that Frois himself witnessed. What actually took place in a “war in order to eat”? We must try to venture into the cruel centre of conflict to determine what is otherwise commonly referred to as “a world beset by chaos”. (6)
 
At the end of the Middle Ages period, following the peace imposed by Toyotomi Hideyoshi (and unification of the nation), the battlefields of Japan fell silent. Thereafter an army numbering some one hundred and fifty thousand arrived in force on the battlefields of the Korean peninsula. When examining “war in order to eat”, one must not ignore this state of affairs either.
 
When these invasion battlefields too finally fell silent, the final battles to determine the ruler of Japan were contested at Sekigahara and Osaka.  So what actually happened during such conflict? (6,7)
 
II. The common soldier
 
The commoners that served as soldiers on these battlefields played the main role in this “world of chaos”. So from where did they come?  The world of the era of the warring states was beset by poor harvests and famine.  For the commoner, try as he might to plow his fields yet still face starvation, the only option was to join a group of militia and head off to the battlefield. Once there, he might seize a little food, or property, or even a man or woman. With this meagre asset in hand, he might be able to survive the winter.   For common soldiers, the battlefield in the period between winter and the following summer, in which starvation was rampant, was the only miserable available means of support. (7)
 
Those left behind in the villages, say two or three other youths who couldn’t find enough to eat, would be joined by vagabonds, bandits, buccaneers and merchants. The chaos that battle spread – or rather the violence and plunder that accompanied it - appears to have occurred as a consequence of “war in order to eat”. (7)
 
III. The village battlefield – the village as a castle
 
On the other hand, in the wars that were part of the “world of chaos”, both villages and towns found conflict an important test of the extent to which they were willing to defend their property. The more traditional symbols of power in the regions, the castles of a lord or landowner, became evacuation centres for the people at some time in their history. Yet for villages located far from a castle, a mountain that they knew nearby might contain huts or a mountain castle that could serve as their own evacuation centre.   Villages located on the border between provinces would pay tribute to both sides and maintain their neutrality, or else they would pay a large amount of gold to the invading army and thus guarantee their safety.  Villagers would also arm themselves, and if they found anyone from a defeated army trying to retreat, they would descend from the village and attack them to steal their remaining goods. (7)
 
In order to protect themselves from the fires of war, both towns and villages adopted a number of self-defence measures during the era of the warring states.  
 
IV. From the battlefields to the cities – the wanderings of common soldiers
 
People of the era of the warring states announced their resolution to forego the world of chaos through their acceptance of “Hideyoshi’s peace”, which brought an end to conflict throughout the land.  For common soldiers, who made their living off of the spoils of battle and who without it would face starvation, they could either head overseas to participate in the invasion of the Korean peninsula or they could make their way to large scale castle construction projects or numerous “gold rushes”. These ‘projects’ provided new avenues of revenue for common soldiers, and they flocked to join them. The spirit of the age of “Hideyoshi’s peace” can be seen in the impetus to shift from the battlefield (the medieval world) to the city (the early modern world). (8) These large scale public projects, they be battles, or castles, or gold mines, acted as a kind of “survival system” amidst the continuous bad harvests and famines of the age. (8)
 
 
 
Epilogue
 
For those people taken as prisoners and sold over and over again, and for common soldiers who lost their means of livelihood, where did they eventually end up? Frois does not address this in his writing, yet evidence exists of many powerful ships from around the world, starting with the Portuguese and Japanese pirates operating in league with them, loading up many prisoners of war and common soldiers at many ports throughout Kyushu and taking them to battlefields in Southeast Asia. It is in investigating this phenomenon that I wish to conclude my study into the “commoner’s battlefield”. 
 
What drew me to such a title as “the commoner’s battlefield” was my discovery of the hugely influential work by Yamauchi Susumu, titled “A history of the laws and attitudes towards plunder and abduction”.  In Europe of the Middle Ages, the abduction of people from the battlefield, set against a stubborn continuation of famines, was closely entwined to the creation of an army as far as common soldiers and merchants were concerned. Another lesson came from Hiraki Shosuke (an expert on German medieval history).  The Frankish peasantry found that since their level of production was nowhere near adequate to feed themselves and they were not really suited to merely be farmers. So they became warriors in order to eat, and headed for the battlefield to seek fame and glory.  For them, war became a basis for everyday life, an important supplement in their calculations and an economic act of convenience. (8-9) 
 
Yet the agrarian revolution of the middle ages dramatically increased the levels of production among the peasantry, and thus it became possible for peasants to produce enough for themselves to eat. They became ‘professional’ agrarian workers, no longer reliant on fighting for a livelihood, which brought about a clear distinction between themselves and professional soldiers.  It’s this aspect to “the commoner’s battlefield” in particular that caught my eye. (9) 
 
This “reverse” explanation of the division of soldiers and peasants by Hiraki came as a shock to me. Until I read this, I had always looked at the issue of when warriors of the era of the warring states chose to become warriors from the point of view of “the creation of a professional warrior class”.  However Professor Hiraki’s thesis asked when peasants chose to remain peasants (without relying on warfare), thus looking at things from the point of view of the creation of a “professional agrarian class”.  It was the complete opposite of commonly held views on the division of peasant and warrior. (9) 
 
The works of early modern Japanese historian Takagi Shosaku also highlighted the fact that the plunder and abduction of people and goods on the battlefield were regarded as legitimate activities, with the main perpetrators of these acts being “samurai, chugen, komono, or arashiko”; in other words the common soldier. (9-10)   Using words that associated ‘samurai’ with soldiers of lower social rank indicated that they were not regarded as warriors, and that fact itself expanded my views on what constituted a common soldier. (10) I also learned a lot from the works of Asao Naohiro and his explanation of the late sixteenth century as the “high point of the social climbers”. (10)
 
A longstanding scholar of folk history and pursuer of studies into the traditions of plunder, Chiba Tokuji, also revealed the ‘origins of conflict’ lay in fighting between people and beasts, and thus revealed the true nature of warfare in Japan from the depths of folk belief.  This also influenced my thinking on warfare in a range of different ways. (10)
 
I should add that a majority of Japanese scholars of the era of the warring states (myself included) are well aware of the cruelties that war creates.  Recent studies by Kobayashi Seiji, which has raised many questions among scholars of the field, have admirably broken new ground on this front and I myself have been influenced by them. However, a good many scholars up until now (again, myself included), when reading of the plunder of people and goods from the battlefield, are influenced by (modern) practices of taking prisoners of war and accounting for them, and thus ascribe to the plunder of women and children and the seizure of goods the moniker of ‘crimes’. We also refer to the seizure of crops and burning of villages in the era of warring states as “harvesting” and “burning”, thus attempting to downplay the tactics adopted by warlords at the time. We only pay attention to acts meant to preserve the security of villages without examining what it was like for villages caught up in the cruelties of war.  While we might debate human trafficking, we see no problem in the taking of slaves from the battlefield. (10)
 
There are many records stating that the people were always the victims of war. Yet such works suffer from a lack of urgency compared to actual specific examples from history. They regard the people as little more than poor unfortunates. I myself am guilty of making this mistake, and I deeply regret it. (10) 
 
Until the beginning of the 21stcentury, for almost half a century Japan has known peace and has had ample food supplies.  While we are currently bathed in such joyful hues, we forget about the starvation and war that has affected many others abroad, and regard the so-called “era of war and famine” that was Japan during the Middle Ages as a period without rhyme nor reason nor any semblance of peace. As a result, when we come to read works about the war and famine in Japan in the Middle Ages, we have virtually no frame of reference from which to draw.  My thoughts on this have become even stronger since witnessing the changes in the environment going on around us. (10-11)
 
About twenty years ago I wrote a thesis which questioned the meaning of the large scale social changes that occurred at the end of the sixteenth century, otherwise known as the “unification of the nation (or the transition from war to peace)”, and that “Hideyoshi’s peace” contained within it a meaning of escaping from the cruelties of a society forced to defend and protect itself. Yet despite attempting to focus on aspects of society of the era of the warring states, I realize that I wasn’t able to shed light on anything about either the cruelties of a society at war or the realization of a life of peace. (11)
 
So gradually I began to examine things from the point of view of the common soldier rather than the “hero”, and was able to slowly enjoy immersing myself in the “social history of war and peace”.  The results of all of this detective work are contained in this work that I have titled “The commoner’s battlefield”. (11)    
 
I     A world in chaos
I.  The battlefields of the era of the warring states
 
The Shimazu army captures prisoners on the battlefield
 
First, let’s begin by paying a visit to the battlefields of Kyushu that Frois would have seen and which he described in his “History of Japan”.  Are we in fact certain that his descriptions of “war in order to eat” and “war aimed at plunder” were correct? What can we find to back up such assertions? (14-15)
 
One of the leading players on the battlefields of Kyushu at the end of the sixteenth century was the Shimazu clan of Satsuma.  The army of the Shimazu had made its way relentlessly northward, so much so that by Tensho 14 (1586) one could call the Shimazu the “absolute rulers of five provinces” of Kyushu. They continued to press the Otomo clan, the sole remaining ruler of Bungo province, and had almost completed their conquest of the entire island. As part of the central cog in this army, Shimazu retainer Uwai Kakuken had led troops north and very soon entered the province of Higo. Taking in the scenery around him, Uwai noted down what he witnessed in his diary. (15)
 
According to the diary’s editor, Uwai wrote that “The wounded returned (to Satsuma), along with the women and children captured along the way, so much so that they clogged up the roads.” Hence the roads leading back to Satsuma were filled with wounded soldiers belonging to the Shimazu army, along with some tens or so women and children captured as spoils of war.  The line of people that Kakuken saw were a group belonging to the Otomo and taken as plunder on the battlefields in the north, and were being led back to captivity in Shimazu held territory in the south.  This description perfectly backs up what Frois wrote in his own record. (16)
 
Moreover, four years earlier, at the end of Tensho 10 (1582), when moving to aid the Arima clan, Kakuken wrote a report on the siege of the castle of Chijiwa held by the Ryuzoji clan, where he noted that “two or three hundred of the enemy had been captured”, “countless people were captured”, and “there was an excess of captured people”. (16)
 
Frois wrote the same thing about the activities of the Shimazu clan at that time.  According to Frois’ record “They killed a large number of enemy soldiers, or took them prisoner. They devastated that land and plundered it.  However the commanders and soldiers who observed matters from their mountain camp strongly desired to take their spoils and return home. Unable to wait an extra day to complete their destruction of the enemy, they abandoned the castle of Saiga (that had been captured) and withdrew without meeting their objective.” (16)
 
There are no contradictions between Frois’ and Kakuken’s records.  Amid the soldiers of the Shimazu army, there were some who had no interest in meeting that day’s objective (of capturing Chijiwa castle) and wanted “return home as early as possible with their spoils” and that there were “commanders and soldiers” whose only interest was plunder, which means that the army clearly included organised groups of plunderers.  The line of people that Kakuken had met on the road were most certainly taken by those same plunderers. (16)
​
The reports, diaries, and military tales of the Shimazu are replete with many examples of the Shimazu army capturing people or livestock or else devastating crops.  I’ll quote here from three diaries whose records only describe the capture of people.
 
(The diary of Hongo Tadasuke)
 
(1st Month of Tenbun 15 – 1546). 50 or more people killed, and countless men, women, cattle and horses taken.
(4th Month of Tenbun 18 – 1549) 236 heads taken, and many captured. 
 
(The diary of the Yamamoto of Gamou)
 
(8th Month of the 1st year of Kouji – 1551) Three enemy killed, and one other captured.
(10th Month of the 1st year of Kouji) Two enemy killed, in addition to 15 or 16 children and one adult being captured.
(3rd Month of Kouji 2 – 1552) 7 ashigaru went out and captured around 4 commoners.
(2nd Month of Kouji 3 – 1553) Chased after 10 or so enemy, and after a while captured 3 of them.
(3rd Month of Kouji 3) Took one adult captive at the base of Kitamura. (17)
 
(Diary of Hongo Tokihisa)
 
(5th Month of the 8th year of Eiroku – 1565) 28 killed, 40 captured, 700 items seized.
(4th Month of the 9th year of Eiroku) Fighting between boats, the Ito group killed 29, took 9 alive, over 63 killed in total, 5 boats seized.
(5th Month of the 12th year of Eiroku) 107 heads taken, of which only 1 taken alive, 5 generals killed, for a total of 170 killed.
(Same month) Departed Shonai, 3 people abducted.
(4th Month of the 3rd year of Genki – 1572) Villages were destroyed, and many horses and people were taken.
(9th Month of the same year) A castle was captured, 3 of the Ijichi family were killed, along with over 70 others, countless numbers of people seized.
(1st Month of the 2nd year of Tensho – 1574) 60 killed, and over 400 taken by skilled retainers.
 
Amid these records of the military exploits of the Shimazu army, one thing that particular stands out are the numerous references to “taking people” or “capturing people alive”. As seen from the examples of “3 enemies killed, and 1 taken alive”, taking prisoners on the battlefield (as opposed to killing them) appears to refer to the capture of enemy soldiers. However the plunder of countless numbers of men and women, as evidenced by the references to “countless numbers of men, women, cattle and horses were taken” and “over 400 people taken (by skilled retainers)”, in addition to those records stating “1 child taken” and “3 people abducted” makes it unlikely that they were taken as prisoners of war. When we see records that state “the lower classes took one captive” and “7 ashigaru went out and captured around 4 commoners”, this indicates that the main perpetrators of taking prisoners on the battlefield, as well as those who fell victim to such practices, were lower order soldiers or their affiliates.(18)

The battlefields of southern Higo province 
 
Even in the territory of a minor daimyo like the Sagara clan in southern Higo, the taking of people went unabated.  The annual record of the Sagara, known as the “Yatsushiro Diary”, speaks of this.  
 
(3rdmonth of the 9thyear of Tenbun – 1540) Over a thousand of the enemy killed, and up to 2000 taken prisoner.
(10thmonth of the 16thyear of Tenbun) A soldier by the name of Yo Shichihyoe carried out a night attack and took one enemy captive. 3 days later he captured two retainers from Izumi. (19)
 
(10th month of the 19th year of Tenbun) Broke through defences, killed 4, captured 11 alive, and took numerous cows and horses.
(9th month of the 2nd year of Kouji – 1556) Broke through the defence of Takado Daido, killed 6, took 20 captive.
(11th month of the 2nd year of Kouji) 5 killed, 53 taken captive, cattle and horses taken.
(11th month of the 3rd year of Kouji) From Inekari to Fusekusa, 2 killed, 2 captured.
(3rd month of the 2nd year of Eiroku – 1559) In sumover 20 men and women killed, and 38 or so captured. 
(9th month of the 2nd year of Eiroku) At Fusekusa, headed down to the sands near the sea, 3 killed, 8 taken captive. 
(Lunar 3rd month of the 4th year of Eiroku) A night attack carried out from Ikeura and Sashiki, 1 killed, 2 captured. 
(12th month of the 7th year of Eiroku) Some underlings, while out gathering firewood, took 7 persons captive. (19)

Continuing a trend that I started last year of reviewing, and occasionally posting, information related to the experience of Westerners in the first years of interaction with Japan following the Treaty of Kanagawa (1854) and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between the United States and the Empire of Japan (1857, otherwise known as the Harris Treaty), I thought it best to post below some of the significant developments that led to the opening of the Port of Yokohama and events of note in the six years that followed. 

The opening of Yokohama as a treaty port was a significant event in the gradual modernisation of the Japanese state, and transformed the political, economic and social mores of mid nineteenth century Japanese society. The port would influence every foreigner that ventured ashore in search of fame or fortune, and they in turn would use their experience to try to explain Japan and its people to a world curious to know more of this island state on the fringes of the Asian continent. 

In its first ten years of existence, Yokohama would witness the rise of Japan’s trading sector, the first adoption of Western technology by Japanese citizens,  the introduction of Western culinary trends, fashion, religion, sports, entertainments and ethics into Japan, and the first incidents of anti-Western and anti-foreign terrorism in Japan. It would see the establishment of some familiar companies, the emergence of new commercial relationships, and stimulate debate on Japan’s place in the world and how it should develop as a nation.  It was an age of great activity and excited anticipation, and will fascinate anyone willing to explore the roots of modern Japan.

Notable Events
1856

• July - US Consul Townsend Harris arrives at Shimoda.

 
1857

• In October, Harris is granted an audience with Shogun Tokugawa Iesada at Edo, and in November negotiations begin between the US and Japan on a new treaty – the Treaty of Amity and Commerce.
• By year’s end, no resolution had been reached on a treaty, and a number of daimyo had voiced their objections to Japan signing such a document. In order to unify the opinions of the nation, the Bakufu would need the approval of the Emperor for the treaty to proceed.

1858

• January – Bakufu retainer and principal minister Hotta Masayoshi is dispatched to Kyoto to speak with the Emperor, however he is unsuccessful in gaining Imperial approval for the new treaty. As the treaty remains unsigned, Harris leaves Edo and returns to Shimoda.
• Hotta appointed Iwase Tadanao to lead the negotiations with Harris. While he was wary of the destabilizing impact of a foreign presence in Japan, Iwase clearly recognized the potential benefits of international trade, and he went against many of his colleagues in arguing that Japan should agree to open a port in or near Edo.  Iwase argued that the economic stimulus of trade might help the shogunate’s finances, and technology flowing into the country from abroad would arrive first in Edo and not near the domains of potentially hostile daimyo. 
• Iwase was particularly aware of the relative power of Osaka, which was still Japan’s major commercial center.  If Osaka were also to benefit from trade under the new treaty, then Edo and the rest of the country would wither, and only Osaka would prosper.  Iwase felt that opening a new port for trade near Edo might help shift Japan’s center of economic gravity more towards the shogun’s power base in the east.
• 3 May 1858 – The US warship USS Powhatan arrives off the coast of Shimoda, and relays news of the success of the British and French forces attack on Canton against Chinese forces. Harris moves quickly to exploit this news, going onboard the Powhatan and making his way to Shibamura to have the treaty signed. On the 19th of May, the Japan US commercial treaty is signed on board the Powhatan off the coast of Kanagawa. The Bakufu is led by Consul Harris to understand that the US will intervene in any attempt by a combined British-French force to use the threat of military force to pressure Japan, and so agrees to sign the treaty without the approval of the Emperor. This then leads to a wave of signings of further commercial treaties with Holland, Russia, Britain and France.  
• 29 July 1858 – The Treaty that was signed on this date designated Kanagawa as one of three ports that would open to foreign trade.  The others were Hakodate at the southern tip of Hokkaido and Nagasaki in the far west.  Hakodate was already open as part of the Perry treaty of 1854, but only for resupply of foreign ships, not for trade.  Nagasaki had been a centre for trade for centuries. So although all three ports would be covered by the provisions of the treaty, the opening of Kanagawa was its most significant feature.
• 30 December 1858 – Notice released by Edo granting permission for Yokohama to become an open port.

1859

• 12 January 1859 – Notices are issued to all senior retainers of the Bakufu for transmission to their respective provinces, detailing the application procedures for any person from those provinces who wished to move to Yokohama to trade with foreigners and the circumstances under which they would be able to do so. Permits would then be issued to those deemed acceptable who could then rent land in Yokohama to engage in their business. Such was the amount of interest that by mid March nearly all of the land made available for this purpose had been rented. One particularly notable renter was Iseya Zenshirō, a dyer from Muramatsu-chō in Edo.  In February Kitamura Hikojirō, Enshūya Seijirō, and another 15 merchants from Suruga province applied for and received permission. These merchants had good ties to traders in Shimoda, and so they knew that the crews of foreign vessels that visited that town were particularly fond of dyed cloth and tea.
• April 1859 – The “Foreigners Official” from the Bakufu orders the famous merchant Echigo-ya Mitsui Hachirō Uemon to apply for a permit to open a business in Yokohama. This was less about Mitsui wanting to trade with foreigners as it was the determination of the Bakufu to have the presence of a trading house of adequate size and prestige. The same official also made arrangements for food and beverage stores to open branches in Yokohama to meet the demand expected after foreigners begin to arrive in the town. By May around 9 major merchant houses had established themselves in Yokohama, who were then lined up on the northern side of Ōdori Go-chō-me.
• In all, seventy one merchants were approved to open business in Yokohama.  Of these, thirty four were from Edo, eighteen from Kanagawa, and other neighboring districts, and only nineteen from more distant places.
• 3rd of June 1859 – US Warship Mississippi and the SS Wanderer of the Heard Trading Company leave Shimoda and weigh anchor off Yokohama.  On board the Mississippi is the recently promoted Consul Townsend Harris, Consul Doore, and Joseph Heko (or Hamada Hikozō), who has returned to Japan after an absence of 10 years.  On the 1st of July Doore went ashore at Yokohama and negotiated for the establishment of consular residences there. The Bakufu had already prepared residences at “Cross Beach” (literally Yokohama), however the US negotiators, in keeping with the treaty made earlier, insisted on residences within and around Kanagawa They later chose a Soto Zen temple, Honkakuji, located on a high plateau overlooking the Yokohama area.  At around 4 in the afternoon on the same day, Dutch trading ship the Schiller landed at Yokohama. A trader on board negotiated with Bakufu authorities to rent the accommodation already prepared in the village itself, and on the 5th were granted access to the buildings. From the 16th a trading shop was opened, making it the first foreign trade business established in Yokohama. The trader concerned is believed to have been a German sailing under the protection of the Dutch, L (Louis) Kniffler. (From Saito Takio, “The Story of the Origins of Yokohama”, Yūtai Shinsho, 2017).
• 30 June 1859 – Arrival of US Trading Ship Wanderer, first trading ship with traders to land at Yokohama.
• 2 July 1859 – Arrival of British Trading Ship Carthage. First arrival of a postal vessel at Yokohama.
• 16 July 1859 – Start of trading by L Kniffler. First foreign business established at Yokohama.
• 25 August 1859 – Servant of the Russian Consul assassinated at Yokohama. First instance of an attack against foreigners in Yokohama.
• 24 October 1859 – Dr Richard Duggan establishes the Kanagawa Hospital. This is the first foreign operated medical facility in Yokohama. (An Irishman from Galway, believed to be of questionable character).
• 1 November 1859 - American Missionary James Curtis Hepburn establishes the first meteorological observations in Yokohama, and Japan in general.
• Western style wharves established, the first such facilities in Yokohama.

1860

• 3 January 1860 – Fire breaks out in the foreign residential quarter of Yokohama. This is the first large fire in the city’s history.  An interpreter assigned to the British legation by the name of “Breckman” described it as thus.  Breckman, at 1pm on the afternoon of the fire, was travelling from Kanagawa to Yokohama by boat. He noted that there was a column of white smoke emerging from the foreign quarter, which soon turned to thick black smoke.  The fire appeared to break out in a warehouse belonging to ‘Turel” and Carter, before spreading to a thatch warehouse belonging to the De Koninck company. It was the Japanese residents, of course, who did everything they could to extinguish the fire. Some of them were injured while doing so, to which the legations paid a gratuity.
• 22 January 1860 – The First Bakufu delegation leaves for the United States from Yokohama.
• 24 February 1860 – Dutchman Huffnagel (a former ship captain) establishes the Yokohama Hotel, the first Western style hotel in Japan.  The hotel itself featured a billiards room and a bar, the first of either of these amenities in Japan. 
• 26 February 1860 – Assassination of a Dutch ship captain at Yokohama.
• March-April 1860 – Roasted meat party held at the Yokohama Hotel.  This signaled the start of the consumption of meat in Yokohama.
• 1 September 1860 – Formation of a racing society by Western residents. This was the start of Western-style horse racing in Japan.
• 1860 - John Eisler and Martindell establish the first butcher shop in Yokohama.
• 1860 – American photographer Orrin Erastus Freeman establishes the first photography studio in Yokohama, and Japan in general.
• In this year, Utsumi Heikichi establishes the first bakery in Yokohama.

1861

• July 1861 – Foreigner’s cemetery established between the slopes and the foothills located near the town.
• 23 November 1861 – First publication of the “Japan Herald” newspaper.
• December 1861 – Eugene van Reed publishes the “Shoyō Kaiwa”, the first book detailing business phrases in English.

1862

• Start of the year – Shimooka Renjō establishes a photography studio in Yokohama. This is the first photography studio to be operated by a Japanese citizen in Yokohama.
• Start of the year – American missionary Jonathan Goble establishes the first English language training school in Yokohama. 
• 21 January 1862 – Foundation of the Yokohama Tenshudō (cathedral). This is the first Catholic church created since the opening of Japan to foreign influences.
• 27 April 1862 – The Dutch Consulate moves from Kanagawa to Yokohama, thus starting the practice of moving consulates to Yokohama.
• Late April – Early May 1862 – Charles Wirgman publishes “Japan Punch”, Japan’s first comic serial magazine.
• In the same year, Watanabe Zenbei starts a laundry business, thus founding Japan’s first cleaning enterprise.
• July 1862 – James B. Macaulay founds the Royal British Hotel in Yokohama, and installs a coffee room inside the hotel.  This is the first hotel to feature such a room. 
• September 1862 – The Namamugi Incident takes place, resulting in the stationing of naval vessels off Yokohama and the installation of British and French garrisons near the town.
• October 1862 – A bowling green is established at the Royal British Hotel, thus starting the sport of bowling in Japan.
• 1 December 1862 – The Golden Gate Restaurant opens in Yokohama. This is the first restaurant of its type in Japan. 
• This year also saw the establishment of a hospital in the Chinese ward, the first such public hospital. 

1863

• 23 February 1863 - Establishment of the Yokohama Uniting Church. This is the first Protestant church to be founded in Yokohama after the opening of the port.
• March 1863 – Founding of the West Indian Central Bank. This is the first foreign bank to be established in Yokohama. 
• April 1863 – Opening of the Yokohama Hospital.  This marks the beginning of operation of a public comprehensive hospital by Western residents in Japan.
• 18 May 1863 – The Bakufu approves the use of barracks in Yokohama by British and French forces to protect the foreign resident enclaves.
• June-July 1863 – Local residents and crew members from a visiting British warship engage in cricket matches, marking the start of cricket in Japan.
• 4 September 1863 – The Dutch Consulate holds its first evening meeting. 
• 5 and 6 October 1863 – The holding of the inaugural Grand Yokohama Regatta. This was the first such event held in Japan.
• 18 October 1863 – Founding of the Christchurch Cathedral. This is the first Protestant cathedral located in Yokohama. 
• October 1863 – The practice of illusionism gains popularity.  This heralds the arrival of magic and illusion by professionals in Japan.
• 7 November 1863 – British woman R.C Pearson opens the first Western dress shop, thus starting the practice of dress making in Yokohama.
• 6 December 1863 – German Radage Werke (Welke) establishes Yokohama’s first tailor shop.
• 12 December 1863 – Murder of foreign baker “Frankeyo” (Frank Jose). This is the first instance of a murder carried out by one foreigner against another foreigner.
• 22 December 1863 – Establishment of the German Club. 

1864

• 1 January 1864 – Establishment of the Foreign Residential Area Firefighting Squad.
• At the beginning of the year – The restaurant “Three Brothers of Provence” establishes the first Western confectionary store in Yokohama. 
• 1 February 1864 – Lowell begins operations in Japan, thus creating the first steel works in Yokohama.
• 5 March 1864 – Hairdressing and shaving salon established in Yokohama, the first such Western hairdressing business in Japan.
• 6 March 1864 – Visit by touring horse troupe, marking the first visit to Japan by a foreign circus performance group.
• 6 March 1864 – Completion of the eastern (or French) wharves at Yokohama.
• 26 March 1864 – The Hua Brothers (originally from Shanghai) start their trade in purified and distilled water, and begin the manufacture of lemonade in Yokohama.
• 28 March 1864 – The Café du Arie (run by a Frenchman known as Renault) commences business, the first such café in Yokohama.
• Around March – Formation of the Yokohama Medical Hall.  This was the first chemist shop to be operated by foreigners in Yokohama.
• 5-6 May 1864 – Start of the Yokohama Field Sports, the first major competition involving athletics in Yokohama.
• September 1864 – The British Army in Yokohama establishes a Pox hospital.  It is the first such medical establishment for the prevention of communicable diseases in Yokohama.
• 5 November 1864 – American Richard R “Professor” Risley opens his amphitheatre (a circular performance theatre), the first such Western theatre in Yokohama and Japan.
• 21 November 1864 – The “Record of Yokohama Residential Areas” (Yokohama Iryūchi Kakusho) is completed.
• 31 December 1864 – Briton Alexander Shillingford establishes the first construction office in Yokohama, making him the first Western carpentry and construction engineer present in the town.
• In the same year – The British P&O shipping company establishes the first fixed route from Shanghai to Yokohama. 
• Also in the same year – The French Naval hospital is established.  This is the first foreign naval hospital in Yokohama and Japan in general. 

1865

• 4 March 1865 – T.S Smith begins his sign writing business in Yokohama, the first such Western painter to do so.
• 18 April 1865 – Dutchman Le Marchant starts his shoe making business, the first such business in Yokohama.
• March 1865 – A rifle range is established at Negishimura for use by the British Army to practice their shooting.
• 1 May 1865 – The beer and concert hall are completed.
• 13 May 1865 – American Richard R. “Professor” Risley starts selling Amazu ice, and soon follows this up by selling ice cream.  It marks the first time ice cream has been made and sold in Japan.
• 5 August 1865 – Swimming competition held using ocean going boats. This is the first swimming competition to take place in Yokohama. 
• August 1865 – Chisholm starts his piano tuning business, the first of its kind in Yokohama.
• 17 September 1865 – Yano Mototaka (Ryūzan) is baptized by American James Ballagh. He thus becomes the first ever (recorded) Japanese Protestant.
• 9 October 1865 – Dental surgeon Eastluck arrives in Yokohama and sets up business. It is the first such business to be undertaken in Japan.
• 8 November 1865 – The Yokohama Rifle Association holds its first competition.
• In the same year – the Swiss Rifle Club is formed, marking the start of shooting clubs in the settlement.

1866

• 24 February 1866 – Risley imports dairy cows to Japan from America, and establishes the first such farm in Japan.
• 7 April 1866 – Ban lifted on Japanese citizens going abroad. 
• 26 June 1866 – The Yokohama Lodge of the Freemasons is established.
• August 1866 – Kishida Ginkō establishes his eye medicine business known as “Sei-ki-sui”.
• 20 October 1866 – The Great Fire of Yokohama. Two-thirds of the Japanese residential area, and one-fifth of the foreign residential area are burned to the ground. 

This year, 2018, was a year of achievements in the Japan-Australia relationship, although many of those achievements have yet to bear fruit. We saw the 2+2 visit in October, followed by the visit to Darwin by PM Abe in November. Not only this, we saw the annual Japanese participation in Exercise Southern Jackaroo, the first ever involvement by Australian minesweeping craft in a trilateral exercise in Japan together with the United States, and the postponed (but soon to be held) Exercise Bushido Guardian, the first ever fighter training exercise involving the RAAF and the JASDF to be held in Japan. While the Reciprocal Access Agreement (which is essentially a Status of Forces Agreement) has yet to be completed, despite a number of opportunities to do so, it does look as though both sides will aim to have that piece of bilateral legal history shored up by the time Australia heads into yet another federal election in mid May (or early March, depending on with whom you talk).

2019 will be one of signature years for Australia-Japan relations (in a way that 2007 and 2014 were) if there is a change in government in Australia, and equally if both sides do get the RAA done and dusted. While Labor has always maintained a fairly healthy relationship with Japan, and is committed to continuing the momentum built up over the past few years, whether it remains as enthusiastic about the relationship remains to be seen.

The topic of parliamentary party relations with Japan is something that has become an interest to me, and prompted me to take a look at some of the agreements made between both countries over the past 40 years. The end result of that is the list below:

July 2014
Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA)
Coalition

July 2014
Agreement Concerning the Transfer of Defence Equipment and Technology
Coalition

March 2013
Information Sharing Agreement
Labor

January 2013
Defence Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement
Labor

December 2011
Memorandum of Understanding on International Development Cooperation
Labor

February 2008
Convention on Taxation
Labor

March 2007
Japan-Australia Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation
Coalition

February 2007
Australia-Japan Social Security Agreement
Coalition

August 1997
Australia-Japan Partnership Agenda
Coalition

May 1995
Joint Declaration on the Australia-Japan Partnership
Labor

March 1982
Australia-Japan Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement
Coalition

November 1980
Australia-Japan Scientific Research Cooperation Agreement
Coalition

June 1976
Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (the Nara Treaty)
Coalition

November 1974
Australia-Japan Cultural Agreement
Labor

July 1957
Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce
Coalition

 
While the above chart presents a fairly simplified visual key to the course of bilateral relations (as some of the agreements were initiated under Labor only to be finalized under the Coalition, while the same could be said about the Democratic Party of Japan and the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan), what is evident is most of the historical agreements between both countries have been reached under a Coalition/LDP government alignment.   The question then arises as to why this is the case. Is the Coalition more ideologically aligned with the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, thus leading to the higher level of agreements created when both of those governments have been in power, or have other factors played a role in this state of affairs? Note that of the above agreements, the only one that was reached without the LDP was that in December 2011, when the DPJ briefly ruled in its own right before being removed in December 2012. 

This question really goes to a broad range of factors affecting the bilateral relationship, but also to the nature of political parties in both countries.  It also points to the political leadership in both countries and the ideology of the individual leaders or members of cabinet.  To get to the root of this issue, it would be necessary to delve into the background of negotiations behind the agreements, to see how they were regarded by either side at the time.  Another issue of note is to examine whether the agreements themselves substantially impacted on the bilateral relationship, leading, for example, to greater levels of co-operation, which itself would indicate how dedicated either side was to promoting bilateral ties. 

Of particular note (from an Australian perspective) is how the relationship was regarded by successive Japanese governments. While Japan and Australia have co-operated with one another for over 60 years, most of this co-operation was concentrated in the trade arena, which until recently was the dominant factor in bilateral relations. It is only the emergence of China as a regional power and the relative stagnation of the US commitment to this part of the world that has prompted the new enthusiasm for security ties between both countries.  

Another factor that would need to be considered is the history of political attitudes to labour relations in both countries, which could be another factor that has determined how closely each government felt it could work with either their Japanese or Australian counterpart.  While the immediate postwar period saw an increase in union representation in Japan, that was superseded by the ‘boom years’ in which corporate interests were given priority in exchange for job security, with the gradual loss of influence in corporate decision making that came with this development.

One further matter is that of environmental concerns. Labor was, of course, the party that decided to take Japan to the ICJ in order to have its scientific whaling program declared illegal under international law, a point that has not been forgotten in the halls of Nagata-chō. While Japan is still reliant on Australian exports of raw materials to meet its energy needs, particularly coal and gas, the gradual social movement towards renewable energy in Australia, and Labor’s enthusiastic embrace of that technology, might impact on the trading relationship, especially if Labor decides to use legislation to curb gas exports to (rather optimistically) lower electricity prices in Australia. While there is little indication that Labor would follow through with this, it has been raised by Labor leader Bill Shorten in the past, and there is every reason to think that the policy could be revisited if Labor win power and find themselves being hemmed by electricity concerns.

So there is much to expect in 2019, and hopefully it will mean an enhanced rather than a diminished bilateral relationship.  What will be assured is the continued need of both countries to keep the US focused on this region, and on that there will be no let-up in consultation and joint action. In the meantime all I can offer is to wish you, the reader, the very best in the year to come.

Last Friday’s visit to Darwin by Prime Minister Abe was one of those “blink and you’ll miss it” moments in bilateral relations.  Shoved between the East Asia Summit in Singapore and the APEC Leaders’ Summit in Port Moresby, PM Abe managed to find the time to swing by northern Australia in order to conduct discussions with Prime Minister Morrison on matters of mutual importance, primarily the situation with China and its aid efforts in the Pacific along with discussions on the long-awaited Reciprocal Access Agreement. 

The fact that this agreement has not yet been finalized has been a source of some frustration for those watching the progress of Australia-Japan strategic relations. Perhaps the best way to regard the slow pace in developments might be to remember that “good things come to those who wait”. 

Nevertheless, both sides still had plenty to talk about over the 20 or so hours of the visit.

One particular item that was kept under wraps but later revealed during APEC was the Australia, the US, and Japan trilateral joint initiative on infrastructure funding for the Pacific.  PM Abe also took the time upon arrival in Australia to travel to the Darwin Cenotaph to pay his respects and lay a wreath in memory of those who perished during Japan’s air raids on the city in February 1942. As was highlighted during the visit, this gesture followed on from a similar one he made at Pearl Harbour in 2016. Given Abe’s political background and heritage, he is perhaps the most qualified of any of Japan’s recent leaders to make this gesture, which was generally well received by both the Darwin community and Australia at large.  Abe (or more correctly his wife Akie) also visited the memorial to the Fujita Salvage Operation of 1959 to 1961, located out the front of the Darwin Uniting Memorial Church, while the prime ministerial couple laid wreathes at the memorial to the crew of the I-124 submarine that was sunk outside the Port of Darwin one month before the air raid on the city. 

The visit was certainly more memorable for the above events than for the equally as important but perhaps less attention-grabbing visit to PM Abe to the Ichthys LNG project, Japan’s largest overseas investment. This mammoth project, which is expected to continue to supply LNG to Japan for the next 40 years, is the figurehead of the Australia-Japan economic relationship at present, and has been vigorously promoted by the governments of both countries since the announcement of the project in 2012. 

The only other event of note during the visit was a quick trip by PM Abe to greet the crew of the Japan Coast Guard Vessel “Echigo” during their inaugural training exercise with the Australian Border Force, along with anti-piracy maneuvers in Southeast Asian waters.  This is an extension of similar visits that Japanese Coast Guard vessels have made around the region, and marks a welcome expansion in Japan’s security apparatus to reinforce the sovereignty of regional states.

The visit itself will primarily be remembered for the Darwin reconciliation gesture, and certainly had more to offer than a visit to Tokyo made earlier in the year by former PM Malcolm Turnbull (a visit that also promised a major announcement, only for it to turn into a standard PR opportunity replete with a visit to an SDF base, a first by an Australian PM, if I recall correctly). While it might be a while before the leaders of either country undertake any bilateral visits (given that Australia is expected to have a federal election by mid-May, the results of which could see a change in government) it was a good reminder of just how close the bilateral ties are between both nations and how these “middle powers” are acting on behalf of their own and partner nation interests to bring some stability to this part of the world.

Right now Japan is going through a period of introspection (albeit mostly in a political context) in relation to what kind of society it wishes to be and how it might retain something of its labour strength in the face of dwindling population and productivity statistics. On Tuesday, debate began in earnest in the Lower House on proposed changes to immigration laws to expand the range of professions allowable in order to increase the number of foreign workers permitted to work in Japan.  Up until now, most professions involving foreign workers have been limited to those at the higher end of the income curve, most notably lawyers, traders, university professors and the like, with a separate program for foreign ‘students’ in industries that are more reliant on physical labour, notably fishing and farming (this program has, however, been somewhat controversial, for while it is ostensibly about teaching foreign students to acquire agriculture and technical skills, it has often been used as a simple means of finding staff without regard for adequate wages or good working conditions).  

Debate this week has mostly focused on the number of workers that will be allowed into the country. Under the proposal put forward by the government, the range of permitted professions will expand to 14 in number, with a first intake of between 3,300 to 4,700 workers starting in April 2019. By 2023 the government predicts that between 260,000 to 340,000 foreign workers will have been employed in Japan’s domestic industries. The problem here, however, is that according to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan will have a shortfall in workers of around 1,300,000 to 1, 350,000 by 2023. The Ministry of Justice initially anticipated that Japan would need to admit 40,000 workers in the first year of the new program, which would then expand to 250,000, although these figures were never made public.

Hence the disparity in numbers will need to be met either by increasing the intake of foreign workers or changing regulations governing employment in Japan.  Opposition parties in Japan are demanding that the government reveal how it intends to overcome the worker gap, particularly if it wants to boost worker numbers. The government itself has said that it is examining the prospect of a greater intake, although details of its policy have yet to be made public.  

The issue of foreign labour in Japan is a contentious one for a number of reasons. Despite Japan benefiting from large influxes of immigrants from South America from the 1960s onwards, immigrants who were by and large of Japanese ancestry with some form of tangible link to the country, these immigrants still experienced difficulty in integrating with Japanese society. Japan, unlike other developed countries, does not have programs in place to deal with large scale immigration, and there aren’t enough NGOs available to cope with the needs of diverse immigrant communities. Japanese society itself is not in favour of an expanded immigration regime (although somewhat paradoxically a majority of Japanese also believe that immigrants help society by contributing their labour and skills).

Japan is coming to this issue somewhat late, given that declining productivity and the drop in the domestic working age population has been debated at length for over a decade. It is also competing against other countries around the region and world who have large scale immigration programs targeting manual labourers from developing countries, with some of these offering better working conditions and wages than can be found in Japan. 

It is to the credit of PM Abe that he has been at the forefront of this initiative, and that he is using his renewed authority within the LDP to push for increased immigration. This policy, which is primarily aimed at insuring against any sharp downturn in Japan’s productivity over the long term, could have added benefits for Japan’s renewed focus on regional leadership as well.  Since a majority of workers will be drawn from developing nations in the region, their acceptance will provide evidence of Japan’s desire to contribute to the well-being and technical progress of the region as a whole. While many challenges lie ahead, not least of which is getting a majority of Japanese society to accept the presence of larger numbers of foreign labourers in their midst, it opens the door to a potential resolution of Japan’s labour woes and a greater integration of Japan into the global labour market.   

In a long litany of posts in which I apologise for the lack of updates, this won’t be one of them. I’ve been busy. And I’ve been trying to juggle various responsibilities while thinking of a subject about which to write. Today, amidst news of the attempts by Tokyo Medical University to wind back the clock and reduce the number of women entering the university by doctoring (no pun intended) their entrance scores, this gem of a story came to my attention during the week and deserves a mention on this blog.

As most readers would know, Japan is scheduled to host the Olympics in two years’ time. While this fact itself has been reported almost to death, what has not received quite as much exposure has been articles talking of cost blowouts, potential fatalities from running a marathon in the middle of Japan’s summer, and the churn in ministers responsible for keeping the Olympic schedule on track. After the recent LDP leadership election and subsequent reshuffle in responsibilities, it has fallen upon the rather obscure figure of Sakurada Yoshitaka to assume the mantle of minister responsible for this logistical and PR behemoth.

On Monday Sakurada did not exactly cover himself in glory when he fronted the Upper House Budget Committee to answer questions about his portfolio.  The questions were, admittedly, pretty straight-forward; namely what was the vision for the Olympics, what were the key concepts involved in the Olympics, and how much were the Olympics likely to cost. The problem was that Sakurada was not able to answer these questions straight away, and on a few occasions proceedings had to be brought to a halt as Sakurada received some quick briefings on his portfolio by senior bureaucrats. On the following day, Sakurada fronted the media to explain his performance, claiming that because the opposition had failed to provide the government will a list of its questions beforehand (a unique aspect of the Diet system much commented on by other countries where parliamentary debate is less scripted) he had been unable to provide answers in a more ‘timely’ manner (the opposition claim that they did inform Sakurada’s staff ahead of time, which the LDP itself confirmed on Wednesday).

The problem was then exacerbated on Friday when Sakurada once again fronted the media, this time to withdraw his comments made to the Committee, saying that they were “somewhat different to the truth”, but against reiterating his claim that “if only the opposition had provided detailed questions ahead of time, then I could answer them in full”. 

Naturally the opposition parties have been zeroing in on this performance, for the absence of anything else with which to berate PM Abe they have to take what is available.  Questions were raised about Sakurada’s suitability to serve in cabinet, with past examples of his gaffes raised for good measure, most notably his comments while serving as Deputy Minister for Education in which he said any radioactive waste from the Dai-ichi nuclear plant should stay in Fukushima Prefecture “where nobody wants to live”, and when he described comfort women as “engaged in prostitution as a profession”.    

Sakurada is probably not going anywhere in the time being – after all the reshuffle was only two months ago, and there is still time for Sakurada to gain more knowledge of his portfolio. Moreover he is a factional ally of Nikai Toshihiro, Secretary General of the LDP, and Nikai wanted one of his men in cabinet in exchange for support during the LDP leadership election. So Sakurada will most likely survive this round of scrutiny, however he will be closely watched, and any subsequent gaffes could bring his ministerial career to an abrupt (but possibly welcome) halt. 

One of the things that you often encounter while working at the coalface of diplomacy is correspondence claiming to have an exclusive rights to technology that the writer, usually independently, has discovered and who wishes to sell to either the embassy or the government concerned.  The explanations for this technology can vary from detailed blueprints to sketches done, literally, on the back of a napkin.  It appears that this phenomenon is by no means recent, for it was during a routine search for information on the Australia-Japan relationship that I came across a rather unique piece of historical evidence of Australia’s entrepreneurial spirit and the desire to forge a link with Japan’s nascent naval fleet.

In December 1898, Japan’s consulate in Melbourne, which was an honorary position at the time, wrote a dispatch to Tokyo concerning letters received from one Thomas Carter of Scottsdale, Tasmania, pertaining to an invention that Carter claims to have created and was willing to sell to Japan. In the correspondence, honorary consul Alexander Marks (himself a former British trader who migrated to Melbourne from Yokohama in the late nineteenth century) explained that Mr Carter, a coal and chemical engineer, had approached the consulate with an offer to sell the plans for a “submerged torpedo boat” named “Annihilator”. In his explanation for making this offer, Mr Carter stated that in his view, Japan had been treated “unfairly” in its dealings with China compared to European powers, and so wanted Japan to manufacture equipment that would allow it to successfully resist attempts by these powers, particularly Russia, to impose “unjust concessions on China” (with the implication that these could later be imposed on Japan). 

To reinforce the validity of his offer, Mr Carter enclosed a letter written and signed by the mayor of Launceston and officers from the Tasmanian military forces attesting to Mr Carter’s plan and revealing that it was of “sufficient importance to command the attention of the British Naval Authorities”.  Mr Carter followed this up with another letter a month later, in which he claimed that one of the authors of the above letter had already written to the British Admiralty and urging them to “lose no time or opportunity of securing the exclusive right of the invention”.  As such, in Mr Carter’s view, he was being “pushed for time” on whether to go ahead and sell his patent to the Royal Navy or pursue his original plan of selling the invention to Imperial Japan.

Needless to say, Consul Marks took these claims with something more than a grain of salt, mentioning in his letter that “his (Carter’s) ideas are very extravagant like all inventors” but informing Tokyo of the matter and requesting its opinion on how to proceed.   

All these details were discussed in Tokyo in February the following year. In a cable from Naval Secretary Ito Shunkichi to Ministry of Foreign Affairs Secretary Takahira Kogorō, dated for 14th day of February 1899, the Imperial Navy stated that it “had no desire” to purchase the plans for a submersible vehicle, which pretty much brought an end to the entire matter. 

Although only a minor episode in the early interaction between both countries, it is an interesting window into diplomatic correspondence as it was conducted some 119 years ago, particularly between Australia’s various colonies and the recently unified nation of Japan. One can only imagine what might have resulted if Japan had gone ahead and purchased Mr Carter’s “Annihilator”, but perhaps it came to some good use in the service of the Royal Navy.