of our position as an Asiatic Empire. It showed not only that we had no intention of surrendering the great commercial interests bound up with the preservation of China as a field of industrial enterprise open to all comers, but also that we realized the fundamental unity of the Asiatic problem, whether it be looked at from Teheran or from the North-West Frontier, from Peking or from Seoul. It cannot be rightfully alleged that either Great Britain or Japan have sought to deny to Russia an ample sphere of expansion in Asia. The conciliatory spirit in which we have negotiated with her in regard to a whole series of Central Asian questions, and the conspicuous moderation of the proposals put forward by Japan in St. Petersburg before the outbreak of war, bear conclusive evidence to the contrary. Neither in England nor in Japan has the desirability of a general understanding with Russia on a broad and liberal basis lacked recognition. But it takes two to make an understanding, just as it takes two to make a quarrel, and Russia never exhibited any genuine disposition to respond to the advances made to her. Had she listened to the overtures of Lord Salisbury, even after the Port Arthur episode in 1898, or to those of Marquis Ito, when he travelled to St. Petersburg at the end of 1901, the Anglo-Japanese Agreement might never have come to pass. But she chose on both occasions to reject the proffered hand, and the methods and purpose of her public policy from Persia to Korea were more and more openly directed towards the goal which some of her most influential spokesmen have repeatedly proclaimed—namely, that of exclusive domination in Asia, which is held to be her appointed destiny or mission.
That is a claim which Great Britain and Japan are equally bound in self-defence to traverse. Eastern Asia being the point of most urgent danger, it was there that the alliance of Great Britain and Japan first took effect. That it did not suffice to avert war is no reflection upon the foresight and statesmanship of those who
