What is less obvious, but still more important, is—it is questionable if there is in the entire range of Japan’s national life another point less understood abroad but more essential for an insight into the present and future of the Extreme Orient than this—the increased enthusiasm of Japan in her ardent effort to strengthen her position in the world by basing her international conduct upon the fairest and best-tried principles of human progress. The effort is not free from occasional errors, but the large issue grows ever clearer in Japan’s mind. A study of her past would seem to convince one with overwhelming evidence that her historic training has produced in Japan moral and material characteristics eminently fit for the pursuit of such a policy. However that may be, the subsequent evolution of her interests at home and abroad seems, by a fortunate combination of circumstances, to have irrevocably committed her to this course; for not only does a common policy along these lines draw her and the Anglo-Saxon nations closer together, but it is therein also that the vital promise of her future seems to lie.[139] And it may be added, the consciousness of this powerful unity of moral and material life seems to have infused a thrilling new force into that historic love of country of the Japanese nation.[139] It is to the intervention of 1895 and the situation that ensued that Japan owes the hastening of all these results. ----- Footnote 117: See the negotiations of 1852, 1859, and 1862, and the treaties of 1855 and 1867, between Russia and Japan, regarding the Kuriles and Sakhalien. The _Tō-A Kwankei Tokushu Jōyaku Isan_ (a collection of special treaties relating to Eastern Asia, compiled by the Tō-A Dōbun-kivai, Tokio, 1904. Cloth, 4^o, xiv + xii + 812 + 70; hereafter abbreviated as _Tokushu Jōyaku_), pp. 1–8. This work, which is in Japanese and Chinese, is by far the most complete collection of the treaties and conventions concluded between Japan, China, and Korea, and other Powers. It also contains historical notes explaining the origin and nature of many important agreements. Footnote 118: Treaty of Aigun, May 16, 1858, Article I.—_Ibid._, pp. 200–202 (Chinese); W. F. Mayers’s _Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers_, 3d edition, Shanghai, 1901, p. 100 (French). Footnote 119: Treaty of Peking, November 14, 1860, Article I.—_Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 202–203 (Japanese); Mayers, p. 105 (French). Footnote 120: See p. 51, note 1, above. Footnote 121: See _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 5–14. See a Russian view of these affairs in the _Dōbun-kwai_, No. 50 (January, 1904), pp. 25–30. See also Z. Nakamura, _Chishima Karafuto Shinryaku-shi_ (history of Russian aggression in the Kuriles and Sakhalien), Tokio, 1904. Footnote 122: _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 78–79, 719. Footnote 123: See, for instance, the London _Times_, November 7, 1894, p. 5. Footnote 124: _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 79–80.