Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern QuestionInagaki, Manjiro
History
Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Inagaki, Manjiro
Eastern question (Balkan); Europe -- History -- 1871-1918; Japan -- Politics and government
“The objections of detail taken by the English Cabinet to the Berlin
Memorandum were at once met by Prince Bismarck by the declaration that
these points were entirely ‘open to discussion, that they might be
modified according to circumstances, and that he, for one, would
willingly entertain any improvement which Her Majesty’s Government
might have to propose.’... France implored Her Majesty’s Government to
reconsider its decision, and declared that persistence in it would, at
such a momentous crisis, be nothing short of a ‘public calamity.’ She
‘could not conceal the apprehensions for the future to which this
refusal have given rise.’ Italy did the same. The position was, that
England objected to everything proposed by others, and had nothing to
propose herself. Continued trust in the Turks was her only suggestion”
(The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. pp. 202, 203).
Footnote 81:
“At the first meeting of the Congress (June 13, 1878) Lord
Beaconsfield made his concerted objection to the advanced position of
the Russian troops at the gates of Constantinople. Count Schouvaloff
replied that this advanced position had been taken up by the Russian
army in consequence of the entry of the English fleet into the
Bosphorus. Prince Bismarck, the President of the Congress, expressed
himself satisfied with the Russian reply” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The
Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 144).
Footnote 82:
“Truth about Russia,” p. 282.
Footnote 83:
Lord Beaconsfield’s speech, April 8, 1878.
Footnote 84:
“The topics regulated by the three Treaties of Paris, London, and
Berlin are:—
“(i.) The admission of the Porte to the concert of Europe (P. Art. 7).
“(ii.) The agreement as to resort to mediation (P. 8).
“(iii.) Religious equality in Turkey (P. 9; B. 62).
“(iv.) The navigation of the Straits (P. 10; L. 2).
“(v.) The navigation of the Black Sea (P. 12; L. 3).
“(vi.) The navigation of the Danube (P. 13–19; L. 4–7; B. 52–57; L.
1883).
“(vii.) Roumania (B. 43–51).
“(viii.) Servia (B. 34, 40–42).
“(ix.) Montenegro (B. 26–31, 33).
“(x.) Bulgaria (B. 1–12).
“(xi.) Eastern Roumelia (B. 13–21).
“(xii.) Bosnia and Herzegovina (B. 25).
“(xiii.) Other European provinces (B. 23).
“(xiv.) The Armenian provinces (B. 61).
“(xv.) Cessions to Greece (B. 24; Cons. of 1881).
“(xvi.) The Russian boundaries (B. 45, 58–60).
“(xvii.) The Persian boundary (B. 60).”
(Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question”).
Footnote 85:
In the House of Lords, July 18, 1878.
Footnote 86:
See Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question.”
Footnote 87:
At the ninth meeting of the Congress “the Greek delegates asked the
Congress to sanction the annexation to the Hellenic Kingdom of the
island of Crete, and the province of Thessaly and Epirus” (The Duke of
Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 167).
Footnote 88:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account