¹ See, for example, Al-Sayyid, Afaf Lutfi, Egypt and Cromer (London, 1968), p. 28, ‘The British government's aim [in 1882] was to he counted in terms of establishing a paramount influence in Egypt, and safeguarding British interests in the Suez Canel. Occupation of Egypt, in the sense of annexation, was out of the question.’Google Scholar

² Even Song Pyông-jun, leader of the reformist group, the Ilchinhoe, and cabinet minister (1907–09), while using the terms ‘honke’ and ‘bunke’ (main house, branch house), remained deeply suspicious of Japan. Komatsu Midori, foreign affairs chief in the Residency-General, recounts a visit by Song to Resident-General Itō one evening. Getting down to matters most on his mind, Itō asked why Korea had no beautiful women. Song bitterly replied that Hideyoshi had taken them all in the invasion of 1592–96, and seemed unpersuaded by Itō's logical rebuttal.Google ScholarKomatsu, , Meiji Gaikō no Hiwa (Secret Stories of Meiji Diplomacy) (Tokyo rep. 1937), p. 161.Google Scholar

³ Tsunego, Baba, Kiuchi Jūshirō-den (Biography of Kiuchi Jūshirō) (Tokyo, 1937), p. 161.Google Scholar

⁴ This is accepted by Shigenori, Moriyama, Kindai Nikkan Kankeishi Kenkyū (Research on the History of Recent Japanese—Korean Relations) (Tokyo, 1987), p. 201, when he states that Itō and other Japanese leaders viewed annexation as ‘an extreme goal’ (kyūkyoku no mokuhyō).Google Scholar

⁵ Komatsu, Midori (ed.), Itō Kō Zenshū (The Itō Collection), 3 vols (Tokyo, 1927), vol. 2, pp. 455–9, speech of 28 July 1907.Google Scholar

⁶ Kim, Chŏng-myŏng (ed.), Nikkan Gaikō Shiryō Shūsei (Collected Materials on Japanese—Korean Diplomacy) (Tokyo, 1964), vol. 6–1, pp. 19–27, Itō to Emperor Kojong, 15 Noember 1905.Google Scholar

⁷ Kim, (ed.), Nikkan Gaikō Shiryō, vol. 6–1, pp. 482–3.Google Scholar

⁸ Kim, , Nikkan Gaikō Shiryō, vol. 6–1, p. 484.Google Scholar

⁹ Moriyama, Nikkan Kankeishi, p. 210, quotes Yi telling Itō, ‘When you give up your post, I will leave the cabinet’.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Chae-ŏn, Kang, Chōsen Kindaishi Kenkyū (Research on Recent Korean History), 2nd edn. (Tokyo, 1982), p. 442;Google ScholarP'yŏnch'an, Wiwŏnhoe Kuksa (ed.), Yun Ch'i-ho Ilgi (Yun Ch'i-ho Diary), 6 vols (Seoul, 1973), vol. 6, pp. 227–8, entry for 6 05 1906.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kang, Chōsen Kindaishi, p. 444.Google Scholar

¹² Sang-il, Han, Nikkan Kindaishi no Kūkan (The Gap in Recent Japanese—Korean History) (Tokyo, 1984), p. 201.Google Scholar The origins of the Ilchinhoe are covered in the author's ‘Of “Collaborators” and Kings: The Ilchinhoe, Korean Court, and Japanese Agricultural-Political Demands During the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05’, Papers on Far Eastern History, 38 (09 1988), pp. 103–24.Google Scholar

¹³ Kokuryūkai, , Nikkan Gappō Hishi (The Secret History of the Annexation of Korea), 2 vols (Tokyo, 1930), rep. 1966, vol. 1, pp. 269–70. Also, British Foreign Office Records, F.O. 410/52, Cockburn (Seoul) to Foreign Secretary Grey, 4 June 1908. Itō told Cockburn that the Ilchinhoe had a rather primitive view of progress but were nonetheless genuinely liberal in outlook. Moreover, he was convinced of their patriotism and had warned Tokyo ‘that if any proposals were made for the annexation of Korea, the whole body of the Ilchinhoe would join their fellow countrymen in determined resistance’ as they aspired to Korean development, not loss of independence.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For example, Song letter to Prime Minister Katsura, Tarō, 3 October 1908, Katsura Papers 73–12, Kenseishiryōshitsu, National Diet Library Tokyo; and Song speech to the Tōyō Kyōkai, Tokyo, 23 December 1907, inGoogle ScholarTōyō Kyōkai Enkaku (History of the Tōyō Kyōkai), 2 vols, unpub., Takushoku University Library, vol. 2, pp. 315–28.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gaimushō, (ed.), Nihon Gaikō Bunsho (Japanese Diplomatic Documents), vol. 37–1, p. 485, Foreign Minister Komura to Hayashi Gonsuke (Seoul), 30 12 1904.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For example, P'yŏnch'an, Wiwŏnhoe Kuksa (ed.), Kojong Sidae'sa (History of the Kojong Era), 6 vols (Seoul, 1972), vol. 6, p. 664; North China Herald, 13 and 20 December 1907.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Komatsu, , Itō Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 438, Itō memo. 30 01 1906.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gaimushō, (ed.) Nihon Gaikō narabi Shuyō Bunsho (Chronology and Major Documents of Japanese Diplomacy), 2 vols (Tokyo, 1965), vol. 1, pp. 224–8, gives the cabinet decision on Korean policy, 31 05 1904.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tōyō Jihō, 31, May 1908;Google ScholarKazuhiko, Kimijima, ‘Tōyō Takushoku Kabushiki Kaisha no Setsuritsu Katei’ (On the Establishment of the Oriental Development Company), Rekishi Hyōron, 282, 11 1973, p. 42.Google Scholar

²⁰ The Nagamori scheme is discussed in Lone, ‘Of “Collaborators” and Kings’, pp. 109–16.Google Scholar

²¹ Kojong Sidae'sa, vol. 6, pp. 722, 809, Taehan Maeil Shimpo, 7 January 1909. In January 1904, the Hwangsōng Sinmun in Seoul had warned that Japanese army coolies were plotting to stay on and take over Korean land after the war.Google Scholar

²² North China Herald, 15 December 1905.

²³ Komatsu, , Itō Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 444, speech of 5 02 1906. See also p. 437, speech in Seoul, 28 November 1905.Google Scholar

²⁴ The Keijō Shimbun, 12 December 1908, commented that Japanese arriving in Korea saw no difference between a protectorate and a colony, and, critical of Itō's policies, demanded stability through resolute action i.e. annexation. See the report by British Consul Arthur Hyde Lay (Seoul) to Grey, F.O. 371/645, 23 December 1908;Google Scholar for Itō's views, see Inazō, Nitobe, Ijin Gunzō (A Group of Great Men) (Tokyo, 1931), pp. 307–10.Google Scholar

²⁵ The full text of the agreement is given in Gaimushō, , Nihon Gaikō Nempyō, vol. 1, pp. 276–7.Google Scholar

²⁶ Kim, C. I. Eugene / Kim, Han-kyo, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876–1910 (Berkeley, 1968), p. 201;Google ScholarKojong Sidae'sa (Seoul, 1972), vol. 6, pp. 660, 665.Google Scholar

²⁷ F.O. 371/383, undated, no. 34377, McKenzie telegram to the Daily Mail, 21 September 1907. The paper did not print the report out of consideration for the Anglo-Japanese alliance. See also Kojong Sidae'sa, vol. 6, p. 675.Google Scholar

²⁸ F.O. 371/383 above.

²⁹ F.O. 410–53, MacDonald (Tokyo) to Grey, 6 December 1908.Google ScholarShinobu, Ōe, Nichi-Ro Sensō to Nihon no Guntai (The Russo-Japanese War and the Japanese Forces) (Tokyo, 1987), pp. 394–5, produces slightly different figures. There were some Korean prisoners, but the ratio was considerably unbalanced. For example, Ōe notes that in 1908, 11, 562 Korean insurgents were killed, and only 1,417 captured.Google Scholar

³⁰ Kojong Sidae'sa, vol. 6, p. 681.Google Scholar

³¹ Katsura Papers, 18–38, Itō letter, 6 December 1908.Google Scholar

³² F.O. 410–53, Hyde, Lay Arthur (Seoul) to Grey, 1 March 1908; Baba, p. 215. This further suggests that the positions of the two groups were not so distant.Google Scholar

³³ Terauchi Masatake Papers, Kenseishiryōshitsu, National Diet Library, Tokyo, 38–30, Hasegawa letter, 27 January 1908.Google Scholar

³⁴ Kokuryūkai, , Hishi, vol. 1, pp. 369–78;Google ScholarConroy, Hilary, The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868–1910 (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 428–9, Itō letters to Katsura, 5 and 6 10 1908;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRyūhei, Hatsuse, Dentō-teki Uyoku Uchida Ryōhei no Kenkyū (Study of Traditional Rightist Uchida Ryōhei), Fukuoka 1980, p. 104. Sone letter to Uchida, 9 12 1907.Google Scholar

³⁵ Katsura Papers, 18–38, Itō letter, 6 December 1908.Google Scholar

³⁶ The Keijō Nippō found itself repeatedly banned in 1908 for its criticisms of Itō's policy.Google Scholar

³⁷ Kokuryūkai, , Hishi, vol. 1, p. 610, Uchida letter to Katsura, 28 06 1908; vol. 2, p. 10. In view of the general understanding that Uchida dominated the Ilchinhoe, it should be stressed that the Ilchinhoe platform was fixed long before Uchida first met Song Pyŏng-jun in October 1906. Moreover, the actions of Itō and the Japanese government were not significantly altered by Uchida or his supporters. For details of the early Ilchinhoe, see Lone, ‘Of “Collaborators” and Kings’, pp. 117–20.Google Scholar

³⁸ Itō Hirobumi Kankei Monjo, Kenkyūkai (ed.), Itō Hirobumi Kankei Monjo (Letters Relating to Itō Hirobumi) (Tokyo, 1978), vol. 6, p. 84, Vice Resident-General Sone Arasuke letter, 23 02 1909. Sone accused Kiuchi of providing the ammunition for Diet member Otake Kan'ichi, a proponent of annexation, to launch a two-hour assault on Itō, and the material for unfavourable articles in the Hōchi Shimbun.Google Scholar

³⁹ Edition of 6 June, 1908.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Itō Kankei Monjo, vol. 3, p. 374, Katsura letter, 12 05 1908.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hirofumi, Yamamoto et al. , Kindai Nihon Keizai-shi (Economic History of Recent Japan) (Tokyo, 1980), pp. 88–9.Google Scholar

⁴² For one relieved observer, see Oka, Yoshitake et al. , (eds), Ogawa Heikichi Kankei Monjo (Papers relating to Ogawa Heikichi), 2 vols (Tokyo, 1973), vol. 2, p. 382, Ogawa draft letter to Katsura, 16 07 1908.Google Scholar

⁴³ Tokutomi, Sohō (ed.), Kōshaku Katsura Tarō-den (Biography of Prince Katsura Tarō), 2 vols (Tokyo, 1917), rep. 1967, vol. 2, pp. 373–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Sunjong was perhaps not well placed to convince anyone. It was said of him that he was not really of slow intellect, merely that he was in need of exercise having not taken a step for the past fifteen years. Report from Henry Bonar (Seoul) to Grey, 13 February 1910, Grey Papers, F.O. 800/68.

⁴⁵ Komatsu, , Itō Zenshū, vol. 2, pp. 485–90.Google Scholar For details of the tour, see also, Kojong Sidae'sa, vol. 6, pp. 809–11; Arthur Hyde Lay (Seoul) to Grey, 15 01 1910, F.O. 371/645.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Both letters are in Kentarō, Kaneko, Itō Hirobumi-den (Biography of Itō Hirobumi), 3 vols (Tokyo, 1940), vol. 3, pp. 811–14, 821.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Kojong Sidae'sa, vol. 6, pp. 813–17.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Quoted in F.O. 371/645, Lay (Seoul) to Grey, 11 February 1909.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The Asahi Shimbun of 16 February 1909 had reported Song's comment that US missionaries were provoking unrest in Korea through their converts. The US Minister in Tokyo, O'Brien, protested and Itō was considerably embarrassed. See the report by Lay to Grey, 1 March 1909, F.O. 410–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Edition of 9 April, quoted in Lay to Grey, 1 May 1909, F.O. 371/646. The same report quotes Itō's speech on unity from the Seoul Press of 29 April 1909.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Gaimushō, , Komura Gaikōshi (History of Komura Diplomacy) (Tokyo, 1966 edn), p. 835.Google Scholar

⁵² Jumpei, Shinobu, Komura Jutarō (Tokyo, 1942), p. 300.Google Scholar

⁵³ Tokutomi, , Katsura-den, vol. 2, p. 465.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Tokutomi, , Kalsura-den, vol. 2, p. 454. For reasons of his own. Tokutomi censored the phrase ‘To have the Korean emperor and government commit an indiscretion’.Google ScholarKentarō, Yamabe, Nikkan Gappo Shōshi (Brief History of the Japanese Annexation of Korea) (Tokyo, 1966), p. 219, restores the omission.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ F.O. 410/54, Lay to Grey, 25 September 1909.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Itō Kankei Monjo, vol. 6, p. 85, Sone letter 18 March 1909 already shows Sone as wary of Uchida who had just resigned from the Residency-General to work full-time for annexation.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ F.O. 371/645, Lay to Grey, 30 April, 7 September, 18 October 1909, 25 January 1910.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Reported in the North China Herald, 27 March and 1 May 1909.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Yūsuke, Tsurumi, Gotō Shimpei, 4 vols (Tokyo rep. 1965), vol. 2, pp. 955–73.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Matsui, Masato. ‘The Russo-Japanese Agreement of 1907: Its Causes and the Progress of Negotiations’, Modern Asian Studies, 6–1 (1972), pp. 42–4. Itō was particularly concerned to avoid British anxiety over the Russo-Japanese talks and specifically asked Komura to brief the British ambassador. Itō letter to Katsura, 1 October 1909,Google ScholarTokutomi, , Katsura-den, vol. 2, p. 466.Google Scholar

⁶¹ In December 1897, Vice Chief of the Army General Staff Kawakami Sōroku had sent an army mission to Viceroy Chang Chih-tung in Wuchang. The mission urged China to unite with Japan and Britain against the threat from Russia.

⁶² Yōtarō, Nishio, Yi Yong-gu Shōden (Brief Biography of Yi Yong-gu) (Fukuoka, 1978), p. 112, quotes Sugiyama's memoir to the effect that he was initially unwilling to accept Yi's invitation, but Katsura and Komura had persuaded him saying, ‘You are right to refuse but, depending on the conditions, it may prove very useful’. Sugiyama was appointed Ilchinhoe adviser on 17 August 1909.Google Scholar

⁶³ Kang, Chōsen Kindaishi, p. 445.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Katsura Papers, 52–17, Sone letter, 14 September 1909.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Baba, Kiuchi-den, p. 220.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Shih-k'ai, Hsu, ‘Itō Hirobumi Ansatsu jiken’, (The Itō Assassination) in Wagatsuma, Sakae, ed., Nihon Seiji Saiban Shiroku: Meiji Go, (Historical Record of Japanese Political Trials: Late Meiji) (Tokyo, 1969) pp. 530–1. One of the unanswered questions is how the assassin got through to Itō when according to Katsura, the Japanese had long been watching the Koreans in China.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ F.O. 410/54, MacDonald to Grey, 28 October 1909.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gaimushō, Komura Gaikōshi, p. 844; Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, p. 267.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Katsura Papers, Terauchi to Katsura, 16 December 1909, includes a telegram from ōkubo to Terauchi dated 15 December. These letters are translated in Conroy, Japanese Seizure of Korea pp. 432–3. My note on Ōkubo's letter differs with that of Professor Conroy on one point. Where he translates, ‘Ishizuka (Eizō) feels it will cost too much money to reverse opinions in Seoul with regard to annexation or to weaken the anti-Ilchinhoe arguments’, I have ‘taikin o yō sezaru’—‘It will not require a lot of money….’

⁷⁰ This was the interpretation of Arthur Hyde Lay, Acting British Consul in Seoul, F.O. 410/55, Lay to Grey, 7 February 1909.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Kokuryūkai, , Hishi, vol. 2, pp. 572–73; Hatsuse, Uchida Ryōhei, p. 108, Katsura memo., 2 02 1910.Google Scholar

⁷² Quoted in Ichikawa, Masa'aki (ed.), Nikan Gaikō Shiryō 8: Hogo oyobi Heigō (Materials on Japanese–Korean Diplomacy 8: Protectorate to Annexation) (Tokyo, 1964), rep. 1980, p. 318.Google Scholar

⁷³ Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, p. 266.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See for example, Kim, C. I. Eugene/Kim, Han-kyo, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, p. 213.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Conroy, Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 431.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ F.O. 410/55, MacDonald to Grey, 17 December 1909; Bonar, Henry (Seoul) to Grey, 31 December 1909. Further confirmation came from Japan's vice minister of the Korean Imperial Household, Komiya, in a conversation with Bonar in February 1910, F.O. 800/68, Grey Papers, Bonar to Grey, 13 February 1910.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ F.O. 371/471, February 1908 Foreign Office memo. on MacKenzie King conversation with Roosevelt. Roosevelt angrily noted, ‘The Japanese must learn that they will have to keep their people in their own country.… We have allowed these people to go too far through being too polite to them, and I made up my mind some time ago that they were simply taking advantage of our politeness’.

⁷⁸ Esthus, Raymond, Theodore Roosevelt and Japan (Seattle, 1966), pp. 240–1.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Quoted in Hunt, Michael, Frontier Defence and the Open Door (New Haven, 1973), p. 205.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Nish, Ian, ‘Great Britain, Japan and North-East Asia, 1905–1911’, in Hinsley, F. H. (ed.), British Foreign Policy under Sir Edward Grey (Cambridge, 1977), p. 364, quotes Grey's view that Knox and his advisers had, ‘totally disregarded the legitimate interests of both Russia and Japan as expressly confirmed by the Treaty of Portsmouth’.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Kunaichō, (ed.), Meiji Tennō-ki (Annals of the Emperor Meiji) (Tokyo, 1975), vol. 12, p. 341, gives Komura's interpretation of American policy to the emperor on 13 01 1910.Google Scholar

⁸² Gaimushō, Komura Gaikōshi, pp. 820–2.Google Scholar

⁸³ The 1907 agreement is discussed in Shinobu, Seizaburō (ed.), Nihon Gaikōshi (History of Japanese Diplomacy), 2 vols (Tokyo, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Tokutomi, , Katsura-den, vol. 2, pp. 440–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ F.O. 410–56, Grey to Arthur Nicolson (St. Petersburg), 6 July 1910.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ F.O. 410–55, MacDonald to Grey, 19 and 22 May 1910, Nicolson to Grey, 12 May 1910. Iswolsky told Nicolson that whenever he warned Motono against annexation, the Japanese minister took on ‘a bulldog expression’ and changed his tone completely.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Kokuryūkai, , Hishi, vol. 2, pp. 616–17;Google ScholarBaba, Kiuchi-den, pp. 229–30; Conroy, Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 434. For evidence of their campaign,Google Scholar see Yamamoto, Shirō (ed.), Terauchi Masatake Nikki (Terauchi Masatake Diary) (Kyoto, 1980), pp. 475–86, entries for 6, 10, 22 01 1910.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Katsura papers, 52–19, Sone letter 17 January 1910. Item 52–20, Sone to Katsura, 1 March 1910, reveals Sone's continuing concern over the preparations for annexation.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Yamamoto, Terauchi Nikki, p. 499.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Hara, Keiichirō (ed.), Hara Kei Nikki (Hara Kei Diary), 6 vols (Tokyo, 1965), vol. 3, pp. 23–6, entry for 12 05 1910; Yamamoto, Terauchi Nikki, p. 505, entry for 4 May 1910; Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, p. 268.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Hara, , Hara Nikki, vol. 3, p. 22, entry for 3 05 1910. Hara thought a gradual policy of assimilation far safer, and believed, ‘Katsura's haste stems entirely from his wish for glory for himself’. This was rather different from the resolute policy towards Korea advocated by Hara during the Russo-Japanese war.Google Scholar

⁹² Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, p. 271.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid., pp. 269–70.

⁹⁴ Before Terauchi's departure, Song had repeatedly contacted him, offering to establish a cabinet if Yi Wan-yong proved troublesome. See, Yamamoto, Terauchi Nikki, pp. 500–2, 11, 14, 21 April 1910; Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa p. 269.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, pp. 274–5.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Sakeda, Masatoshi et al. , (eds), Tokutomi Sohō Kankei Monjo (Letters Relating to Tokutomi Sohō), vol. 2, 1985, p. 71.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ F.O. 371/878, MacDonald to Grey, 22 July and 15 August 1910.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, p. 280.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid., pp. 280–4; Kunaichō, Meiji Tennō-ki, vol. 12, pp. 453–6, Terauchi report; Yamamoto, Terauchi Nikki, p. 518, entry for 16 August 1910.

¹⁰⁰ Komatsu, Meiji Hiwa, pp. 289–91.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Quoted ibid, p. 292.

¹⁰² Quoted in Tetsuo, Horikawa, Chūgoku Kindai no Seiji to Shakai (Recent Chinese Politics and Society) (Tokyo, 1981), p. 90.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ This was the reason given by Miura Gorō in Paris in 1884 for not joining France in her war against China, Miura, , Meiji Hankotsu Chūjō Ichidai-ki (Memoirs of Lt-General Miura) (Tokyo, 1926, rep. 1981), p. 121.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ F.O. 410/56, MacDonald to Grey, 10 October 1910.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Tokutomi, , Katsura-den, vol. 2, p. 490, letter to Yamagata, 15 09 1910, ‘Only Chinese feelings seem to have been raised [by the annexation] but, looked at from another point of view, this was to be expected and cannot be helped for the moment’.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ F.O. 371/878, Muller (Beijing) to Grey, 20 September 1910, quoting The National Review (Shanghai), 3 September, The Shanghai Mercury, 30 August, and Peking Daily News, 30 August.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Yoshio, Imamura, ‘Nikkan Heigō to Chūgoku no Nihon-kan’, (The Annexation of Korea and the Chinese View of Japan), Shisō, no. 537, March 1969, pp. 388–9, quoting Kirin Jihbao, 27 August, Liaotung-bao, 27 August, Shanghai Jihbao, 29 August 1910.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ F.O. 371/878, MacDonald to Grey, 4 October 1910. O'Brien was pessimistic of Japanese law and justice in the new territory, remarking acidly, ‘There's precious little of that in Japan and therefore we cannot expect much in Korea’.Google Scholar