Nationality → Elements of citizenship → Aliens and the Constitution

Kim et al v Osaka, 1995

Constitution does not prohibit local suffrage for aliens, but . . .

By William Wetherall

First posted 23 April 2007
Last updated 15 August 2009

Summary A number of Korean resident of several wards (ku 区) in Osaka city (Osaka-shi 大阪市) attempted to register their names on ward election rolls. The ward election boards refused because suffrage laws did not permit them to register non-Japanese. The Koreans filed suit in Osaka District Court in 1990 and by 1993 the court had dismissed their request to nullify the ward refusals. The Koreans directly appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 1995 dismissed their appeal but left the door open for the state to permit local entities to allow alien residents some rights of suffrage in local matters.

The case of Kim et al

The 1990s saw a rush of lawsuits by aliens residing in Japan contending that they should have the right to vote and the right to run for office in local if not also national elections. All such lawsuits have been dismissed because the constitution clearly guarantees such rights only to Japanese.

The case of Kim et al v Osaka, which originated in 1990, is arguably the most important because, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that, while the constitution gives suffrage only to Japanese, it does not prohibit local polities from giving suffrage to aliens. This decision has encouraged a number of local polities throughout Japan to extend some degree of suffrage to alien residents.

In Kim et al v Osaka, 1995, the Supreme Court reiterated the conventional legal wisdom that the 1947 Constitution gives rights of suffrage only to Japanese. The court also ruled that Chapter VIII of the constitution -- titled 地方自治 (Chiho jichi) or "Local self-government" (Local autonomy) -- guarantees that residents of local polities have the right, within limits, to decide what is best for them.

The ruling went on to declare that providing measures for aliens to vote in local polities is not itself prohibited by the constitution. It then immediately qualified this by stating that whether such measures are ever taken is entirely a matter of the legislative policies (立法政策 rippo seisaku) of the state (国 kuni).

In other words, the extent to which local bodies are allowed to extend suffrage to their alien residents is subject to deliberation and approval by the national legislature. While the Diet has not yet warmed to the idea of revising national election laws, the state has not objected to the initiatives taken by some local polities to allow resident aliens some degree of suffrage.

Osaka District Court (1st instance)

Case 1990 (Gyo-U) No. 69-79
Decision 29 June 1993

Plaintiffs Kim Chong Gyu and ten others
Defendants Chairperson of Election Board of Osaka-shi, Kita-ku, and the chairpersons of four other Osaka city ward election boards

Ruling Dismissed Kim et al's claims. Plaintiffs to bear litigation costs.

Supreme Court (Final instance)

Case 1993 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 163
Decision 28 February 1995

Appellants in final appeal
Kim Chong Gyu and eight others
Appellees in final appeal
Osaka-shi Kita-ku election board and three others

Ruling Dismissed Kim et al's appeal. Apellants to bear litigation costs.

Top

"Ethnic Koreans" exist only in English

One interesting feature of most English reporting on Koreans in Japan, from about the 1980s, is the use of "ethnic Koreans" when speaking of Koreans in Japan. In fact, "ethnic" is an English embellishment having no foundation in Japanese reporting on the legal issues involving Koreans in Japan.

The use of "ethnic" in English reflects the common practice of people who write in English on minorities to racialize people even when they are not racialized in law. When reporting on issues involving nationality, descriptive labels like "Nihonjin" (Japanese) and "gaikokujin" (alien) refer only to nationality, not race or ethnicity. This is not say that writers, and readers, do not imagine these to be "racial" or "ethnic" labels -- but merely that the statuses of "Japanese" and "alien" are civil status, not racial or ethnic descriptions.

If a person is Korean, as opposed to being Japanese, they are Korean because of their nationality, not because of their putative race or ethnicity, which are private matters. Because the laws that affect the status and treatment of aliens in Japan have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, court rulings also describe aliens only in terms of their nationality.

Top

1995 Supreme Court ruling in Kim et al v Osaka
Japanese summary, English version, and commentary

Source and reformating

The following Japanese summary, and the English version, have been taken from the database accessible from the Japanese government's Courts in Japan website. A summary of the Japanese ruling is displayed on screen and the complete text is on a pdf file. An English version of the ruling is available only on screen.

For presentation here, I have somewhat reformated the Japanese and English texts as posted by the Japanese government. I have divided the ruling into sections of a table, blocked subsections, inserted a few spaces, and otherwise made adapted the layout to faciliate reading here.

Highlighting and commentary

I have marked in green the passages that shed the most light on the limits to which Japan's highest court is willing to recognize the constitution as an instrument which protects the civil rights of foreigners in Japan. I have marked some words and phrases within these passages in bold.

My own comments appear in boxes below related paragraphs.

Received Japanese summary

The Japanese summary is shown in black as posted.

I have marked in blue all text I have added to the Japanese summary in order to clarify comments in the English version that do not have counterparts in the Japanese summary.

Received English version

The English version is shown in black as posted. The English version, while a replica of the Japanese summary, is not an especially close or complete translation, and contains phrasing not reflected in the Japanese version.

My own translations of parts of the Japanese version not included in the English version are shown in plain purple text.

Though not my purpose here to present a closer translation of the judgment, in places I have modified the English version to reflect certain details in the Japanese version.

I have shown all changes in the English version, and marked related Japanese phrasing, in bold purple.

Note that the English version refers to the appellant, though a male, as "she".

上告人：
金正圭、外8名

被上告人：
大阪市北区選挙管理委員会、外3名

一審受訴裁判所：大阪地方裁判所

ニ審受訴裁判所：なし

Appellants in final appeal:
Kim Chong Gyu [Kim Jeong Gyu] [Kim Jong Kyu] [キム・チョンギュ] and eight others

Appellees in final appeal:
Osaka-shi, Kita-ku Election Board chairpersons and three others

Court of first instance: Osaka District Court

Court of second instance: None

選挙人名簿不登録処分に対する異議の申出却下決定取消請求事件

Case seeking rescission of decision to dismiss objection to refusal to register [names of appellants] on voter name rolls

The received English version describes the ruling as follows. Judgment upon case of claim for the rescission of the decision to dismiss the objection by Korean sojourners against the decision to refuse the registration on the voter's list This seriously misrepresents the received Japanese summary, in which there is no foundation for characterizing the appellants as "Korean sojourners". The translators appear to be "Koreanizing" an issue the court regarded as simply a matter of whether the constitution and other laws would permit non-Japanese, of any nationality, from voting in local elections. That the plaintiffs and appellants may have been "Koreans" by nationality may be of social interest in this case, but their nationality is of no legal consquence in the Supreme Court's ruling.

事件番号：平成5(行ツ)163

事件名：選挙人名簿不登録処分に対する異議の申出却下決定取消

裁判年月日：平成7年02月28日

法廷名：最高裁判所第三小法廷

裁判種別：判決

結果：棄却

判例集巻・号・頁：第49巻2号639頁

原審裁判所名：大阪地方裁判所

原審事件番号：
平成2年(行ウ)第69ないし第79号

原審裁判年月日：
平成5年06月29日

Case number: Heisei 5 [1993] (Gyo-Tsu) 163

Case name: Rescission of decision to dismiss objection to refusal to register [names of appellants] on voter name rolls

Date of judgment: 28 February 1995 [Heisei 7]

Court name: Supreme Court, Third Petit Bench

Type of judgment: Ruling

Results: Dismissed

Hanreishu [Court Reports] Volume, Number, Page:
Volume 49, Number 2, Page 639

Court of original instance: Osaka District Court

Original instance case number:
Heisei 2 [1990] (Gyo-U) 69-79

Date of original decision:
29 June 1993 [Heisei 5]

判示事項

Findings

日本国民たる住民に限り地方公共団体の議会の議員及び長の選挙権を有するものとした地方自治法一一条、一八条、公職選挙法九条二項と憲法一五条一項、九三条二項

裁判要旨

Summary of the Judgment

日本国民たる住民に限り地方公共団体の議会の議員及び長の選挙権を有するものとした地方自治法一一条、一八条、公職選挙法九条二項は、憲法一五条一項、九三条二項に違反しない。

Names of laws in question are better translated Local Autonomy Law and Public Offices Election Law.

Articles 11 and 18 of the Law on Local Self Government and Article 9, para. 2 of the Law on Public Election which provide that only those inhabitants with Japanese nationality have the right to vote for the members of the local councils and the chief executive of the local self government are not against articles 15, para. 1 and 93, para. 2 of the Constitution.

The phrase highlighted in the Japanese summary actually reads as follows. 日本国民たる住民に限り only to residents who are nationals of Japan 日本国民 (Nihonkokumin) are people affiliated with Japan because they possess its nationality or 国籍 (kokuseki). Note also that 住民 (jumin) is a legal term meaning "residents" -- not just "inhabitants" but "registered inhabitants" of a local polity. Affiliation with a prefecture and with the state derive from one's legal status as a resident of a local municipality. The Alien Registration Law requires foreignerin Japan to register as residents of the municipality in which they reside. Alien registration is the legal equivalent, for foreigners, of residence (family, domicile) registration for nationals.

参照法条

References

憲法15条1項，憲法93条2項，地方自治法11条，地方自治法18条，公職選挙法9条2項

Constitution Article 15 Paragraph 1, Constitution Article 93 Paragraph 2, Local Autonomy Law Article 11, Local Autonomy Law Article 18, Public Offices Election Law Article 9 Paragraph 2

憲法15条1項

第15条　公務員を選定し、及びこれを罷免することは、国民固有の権利である。
２　すべて公務員は、全体の奉仕者であつて、一部の奉仕者ではない。
３　公務員の選挙については、成年者による普通選挙を保障する。
４　すべて選挙における投票の秘密は、これを侵してはならない。選挙人は、その選択に関し公的にも私的にも責任を問はれない。

Article 15, para. 1 of the Constitution [official translation]

The people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them.

There are many instances where the "official translation" misrepresents the Japanese text. The phrase "have the inalienable right" is in fact a carryover of wording from GHQ's 13 February 1946 draft constitution that was later modified in Japanese. "The people . . . have the inalienable [uncedeable] right to . . . " was first translated 人民は・・・する不可譲の権利を有す (jinmin wa . . . suru fukajo no kenri o yu su). The Japanese was later rephrased ・・・することは、国民固有の権利である (. . . suru koto wa, kokumin koyu no kenri de aru" -- which presumably means ". . . is a right nationals inherently / particuarly have". Whereas 不可譲の権利を有す does not exclude non-nationals, 固有 is used to mean both "inherent, intrinsic, natural possession" and "particular, unique possession" of a trait or property. Hence 固有 might limit suffrage to nationals as an essential and exclusive right of nationality. In any case, when the 1947 Constitution was being written, as still today, most states regard suffrage as a privilege of nationality.

憲法93条2項

第93条　地方公共団体には、法律の定めるところにより、その議事機関として議会を設置する。
２　地方公共団体の長、その議会の議員及び法律の定めるその他の吏員は、その地方公共団体の住民が、直接これを選挙する。

Article 93, para. 2 of the Constitution [official translation]

The chief executive officers of all local public entities, the members of their assemblies, and such other local officials as may be determined by law shall be elected by direct popular vote within their several communities.

Here it is clear that 地方公共団体 (chiho kokyo dantai) reflects "local public entities" or "local public bodies" as a legal term for semi-autonomous polities in Japan.

地方自治法11条

日本国民たる普通地方公共団体の住民は、この法律の定めるところにより、その属する普通地方公共団体の選挙に参与する権利を有する。

Name of law in question is better translated Local Autonomy Law -- not Local Self-Government Law.

Article 11 of the Law on Local Self Government

Inhabitants of local self governments of the ordinary type with Japanese nationality have the right to vote in the election for the said local self government in accordance with the present Law

The highlighted phrase is a clumsy attempt at interpretation rather than translation. While the Japanese is clear, the syntactic ambiguity of the English version allows one to read it as "inhabitants . . . of the ordinary type". The Japanese phrasing should have been rendered something like this. 日本国民たる普通地方公共団体の住民は、 Residents of ordinary local public bodies, who are Japanese nationals, So-called "local public bodies" (地方公共団体 chiho kokyo dantai) include "ordinary local public bodies" (prefectures, and villages, towns, and cities within prefectures) and "special local public bodies" (most notably wards and other "special districts" within municipalities). All such bodies, as "local autonomous [self-governing] entities" (地方自治団体), are polities in their own right. As such they are to some extent independent of the larger entities in which they are nested as affiliates, including the state. The point of the Supreme Court's decision is that while the constitution and other laws give Japanese nationals the right to vote in national and local elections, the constitution does not disallow the state from permitting local autonomous bodies from extending certain rights of suffrage to alien residents.

地方自治法18条

日本国民たる年齢満20年以上の者で引き続き３箇月以上市町村の区域内に住所を有するものは、別に法律の定めるところにより、その属する普通地方公共団体の議会の議員及び長の選挙権を有する。

Article 18 of the Law on Local Self Government

Those who are Japanese nationals, are 20 years or over of age and have had residence in the city, town, or village for 3 months or more without interruption have the right to vote for the members of the local assembly and the chief executive of the local self government in accordance with the law.

公職選挙法9条2項

日本国民たる年齢満20年以上の者で引き続き３箇月以上市町村の区域内に住所を有する者は、その属する地方公共団体の議会の議員及び長の選挙権を有する。

Article 9, para. 2 of the Law on Public Election

Name of law in question is better translated as Public Offices Election Law.

主文

Main Text of the Judgment

本件上告を棄却する。
上告費用は上告人らの負担とする。

The appeal is dismissed.
The cost of appeal is to be borne by the appellant.

理由

Reasons

上告代理人相馬達雄、同平木純二郎、同能瀬敏文の上告理由について

憲法第三章の諸規定による基本的人権の保障は、権利の性質上日本国民のみをその対象としていると解されるものを除き、我が国に在留する外国人に対しても等しく及ぶものである。そこで、憲法一五条一項にいう公務員を選定罷免する権利の保障が我が国に在留する外国人に対しても及ぶものと解すべきか否かについて考えると、憲法の右規定は、国民主権の原理に基づき、公務員の終局的任免権が国民に存することを表明したものにほかならないところ、主権が「日本国民」に存するものとする憲法前文及び1条の規定に照らせば、憲法の国民主権の原理における国民とは、日本国民すなわち我が国の国籍を有する者を意味することは明らかである。そうとすれば、公務員を選定罷免する権利を保障した憲法一五条一項の規定は、権利の性質上日本国民のみをその対象とし、右規定による権利の保障は、我が国に在留する外国人には及ばないものと解するのが相当である。そして、地方自治について定める憲法第8章は、九三条二項において、地方公共団体の長、その議会の議員及び法律の定めるその他の吏員は、その地方公共団体の住民が直接これを選挙するものと規定しているのであるが、前記の国民主権の原理及びこれに基づく憲法一五条一項の規定の趣旨に鑑み、地方公共団体が我が国の統治機構の不可欠の要素を成すものであることをも併せ考えると、憲法九三条二項にいう「住民」とは、地方公共団体の区域内に住所を有する日本国民を意味するものと解するのが相当であり、右規定は、我が国に在留する外国人に対して、地方公共団体の長、その議会の議員等の選挙の権利を保障したものということはできない。以上のように解すべきことは、当裁判所大法廷判決（最高裁昭和三五年（オ）第五七九号同年一二月一四日判決・民集一四巻一四号三０三七頁、最高裁昭和五０年（行ツ）第一二０号同五三年一０月四日判決・民集三二巻七号一二二三頁）の趣旨に徴して明らかである。

Translation too free The received translation is unreliable as a reflection of the syntactic and semantic texture of the Japanese. There are different schools of thought about what constitutes good translation. Translators of legal matter and quality literature should cut as close as possible to the bone of the original texts. Some sentences in this Supreme Court ruling are long, but their structures are clear and could have been more faithfully captured. Not only have the translators unnecessary restructured too many phrases, but they have played loose with a number of key terms they should have rendered consistently.

このように、憲法九三条二項は、我が国に在留する外国人に対して地方公共団体における選挙の権利を保障したものとはいえないが、憲法第8章の地方自治に関する規定は、民主主義社会における地方自治の重要性に鑑み、住民の日常生活に密接な関連を有する公共的事務は、その地方の住民の意思に基づきその区域の地方公共団体が処理するという政治形態を憲法上の制度として保障しようとする趣旨に出たものと解されるから、我が国に在留する外国人のうちでも永住者等であってその居住する区域の地方公共団体と特段に緊密な関係を持つに至ったと認められるものについて、その意思を日常生活に密接な関連を有する地方公共団体の公共的事務の処理に反映させるべく、法律をもって、地方公共団体の長、その議会の議員等に対する選挙権を付与する措置を講ずることは、憲法上禁止されているものではないと解するのが相当である。 しかしながら、右のような措置を講ずるか否かは、専ら国の立法政策にかかわる事柄であって、このような措置を講じないからといって違憲の問題を生ずるものではない。以上のように解すべきことは、当裁判所大法廷判決（前掲昭和三五年一二月一四日判決、最高裁昭和三七年（あ）第九００号同三八年三月二七日判決・刑集一七巻二号一二一頁、最高裁昭和四九年（行ツ）第七五号同五一年四月一四日判決・民集三０巻三号二二三頁、最高裁昭和五四年（行ツ）第六五号同五八年四月二七日判決・民集三七巻三号三四五頁）の趣旨に徴して明らかである。

以上検討したところによれば、地方公共団体の長及びその議会の議員の選挙の権利を日本国民たる住民に限るものとした地方自治法一一条、一八条、公職選挙法九条二項の各規定が憲法一五条一項、九三条二項に違反するものということはできず、その他本件各決定を維持すべきものとした原審の判断に憲法の右各規定の解釈の誤りがあるということもできない。所論は、地方自治法一一条、一八条、公職選挙法九条二項の各規定に憲法一四条違反があり、そうでないとしても本件各決定を維持すべきものとした原審の判断に憲法一四条及び右各法令の解釈の誤りがある旨の主張をもしているところ、右主張は、いずれも実質において憲法一五条一項、九三条二項の解釈の誤りをいうに帰するものであって、右主張に理由がないことは既に述べたとおりである。

以上によれば、所論の点に関する原審の判断は、正当として是認することができる。論旨は採用することができない。

よって、行政事件訴訟法7条、民訴法四０一条、九五条、八九条、九三条に従い、裁判官全員一致の意見で、主文のとおり判決する。

最高裁判所第三小法廷

裁判長裁判官　可部恒雄
  裁判官　園部逸夫
  裁判官　大野正男
  裁判官　千種秀夫
  裁判官　尾崎行信

On the grounds of appeal by the representatives of the appellant, Tatsuo Soma, Junjiro Hiraki, Toshibumi Nose

Guarantee of fundamental rights by the provisions of Chapter Three of the Constitution also extends to foreign nationals on sojourn in Japan except for those rights that, by their nature, are intended for Japanese nationals only.　Whether or not the right to elect and dismiss public officials as guaranteed by Article 15, para. 1 extends to foreign nationals on sojourn in Japan should be considered in the following.　These provisions of the Constitution are understood to have declared that the ultimate power of electing and dismissing public officials lies with the people based upon the principle of people's sovereignty.　Judging from the preface and Article 1 of the Constitution which declares that sovereignty lies with 'Japanese nationals', it is obvious that 'people' in 'people's sovereignty means' Japanese nationals, i.e. those with Japanese citizenship.　Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Article 15, para. 1 which guarantees the right to elect and dismiss public officials, by its nature, addresses Japanese nationals only and that the guarantee of this provision does not extend to foreign nationals on sojourn in Japan.　Furthermore, Chapter Eight of the Constitution which covers local self government, in Article 93, para. 2, provides that the chief executive of the local self government, members of the local assembly, and other officials provided by law should be elected by the inhabitants of the said local self government.　In the light of the above-mentioned principle of people's sovereignty and Article 15, para. 1 of the Constitution which is based upon this principle, and taking into account that local self governments are an integral part of the ruling system of Japan, it is reasonable to understand 'inhabitants' as provided in Article 93, para. 2 of the Constitution to mean Japanese nationals who have residence in the territory of the said local self government.　This provision cannot be construed to have guaranteed the right to vote for foreign nationals on sojourn in Japan in the election for the chief executive of the local self government, members of the local assembly, and others.　The justifiability of this conclusion is obvious in the light of the Judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 1960 (O) Case No. 579; Judgment of December 14, 1960, Minshu 14-14-3037; Supreme Court, 1975 (Gyo-Tsu) Case No. 120, Judgment of October 4, 1975, Minshu 32-7-1223).

Here is another of several examples of how the received English version fails to reflect the finer legal texture of the Japanese summary. The bold phrase in the highlighted sentence should have rendered as follows. 日本国民すなわち我が国の国籍を有する者 the people [nationals] of Japan, that is, those who possess the nationality of our country There is in fact no foundation in Japanese law for rendering 国籍 as "citizenship". Japan's 国籍法 is called the Nationality Law for a reason. Even in the United States, which differentiates between "citizens" and "nationals", both are such because they possess the "nationality" of the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Making a clear distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality" is vital, for aliens residing in Japan are in fact "citizens" to the extent they are able to exercise various civil rights in the country. This decision in fact rules that the constitution does not prohibit aliens from voting in the municipalities and prefectures in which they are domiciled -- i.e., it is possible for aliens to have rights of suffrage in local elections.

Thus, Article 93, para. 2 of the Constitution cannot be construed as guaranteeing the right to vote in the election for local self governments.　However, in the light of the significance of the local self government in a democratic society, provisions on local self government accommodated in Chapter Eight of the Constitution are designed, to institutionally guarantee a political system in which public administration closely related to the day-to-day life of the inhabitants is handled by the local self government of the territory based upon the will of the inhabitants.　Therefore, as regards foreign nationals on sojourn in Japan, it is reasonable to understand that the Constitution does not prohibit taking measures to grant voting rights to those permanent residents and others who have come to have an especially close relationship with the local self government in the area of residence in elections for the chief executive of the local self government, members of the local assembly, and other officials by law. However, whether or not such measures should be taken is exclusively a matter of the legislative policy of the state, and even if such measures are not taken, it is not a matter of unconstitutionality.　This is evident from the substance of judgments of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court (supra, judgment of December 14, 1960; Supreme Court, 1962 (A) Case No. 900, judgment of March 27, 1963, Keishu 17-2-121; Supreme Court, 1974 (Gyo-Tsu) Case No. 75, judgment of April 14, 1976, Minshu 30-3-223; Supreme Court, 1979 (Gyo-Tsu) Case No. 65, judgment of the Supreme Court, April 27, 1983, Minshu 37-3-345).

Based upon the above, Articles 11 and 18 of the Law on Local Self Government and Article 9, para. 2 of the Law on Public Election which limit the right to vote for the members of the local councils and the chief executive of the local self government to those inhabitants with Japanese nationality cannot be regarded to be against articles 15, para. 1 and 93, para. 2 of the Constitution.　Other parts of the original judgment which upheld the decisions in question have not erred in the interpretation of the above provisions of the Constitution.　The appellants also argue that Articles 11 and 18 of the Law on Local Self Government and Article 9, para. 2 of the Law on Public Election are against Article 14 of the Constitution, and that even if this is not the case, the original judgment which upheld the decisions in question has erred in the interpretation of Article 14 and the above-mentioned laws.　However, these arguments are, in substance, arguments on the errors in the interpretation of articles 15, para. 1 and 93, para. 2, and, as has been discussed above, are without grounds.

Thus, the judgment of the original instance on the above arguments can be recognised as justifiable.

Therefore, the justices unanimously rule as the main text of the judgment in accordance with Article 7 of the Law on Administrative Litigation and articles 401, 95, 89, and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Presiding Judge, Justice
          Tsuneo Kabe
Justice   Itsuo Sonobe
Justice   Masao Ohno
Justice   Hideo Chikusa
Justice   Yukinobu Ozaki

* Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University College, University of London

The Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law was established at the University College, University of London in 1989, in honor of Sir Ernest Mason Satow (1843-1929), who was an undergraduate at the University College London from 1859 to 1861. Five Chōshū men, including Itō Hirobumi (1841-1909), studied at UCL from 1863 to 1964. Satow was known in Japanese as Satō Ainosuke (佐藤愛之助), though the "sa" in his name is pronounced as in "say" rather than "saw". A British scholar and diplomat, he witnessed much of the radical change in Japan during the late Edo and Meiji period. He was a prolific writer, as well as a translator and interpreter, and helped found the Asiatic Society of Japan in Yokohama in 1872. He served as British Minister to Japan from 1895 to 1900, in which post he saw the end of extraterritoriality in 1899.

Top