[467]. The Kokumin.
[468]. China, No. 2 (1904), Nos. 78, 81, 127.
[469]. Perhaps on April 21.
[470]. China, No. 2 (1904), Nos. 79 and 80 (April 23).
[471]. Ibid., Nos. 81, 82 (April 24).
[472]. China, No. 2 (1904), Nos. 83, 85 (April 26 and 27). Cf. No. 82.
[473]. Ibid., No. 89 (April 28). It does not appear that this instruction was carried out, for when Count Lamsdorff gave to the American Ambassador a positive denial of the truth of the current reports, the British Ambassador deemed it unnecessary to repeat the inquiry. See ibid., No. 91 (April 29).
[474]. Ibid., No. 90, Lansdowne to Herbert (April 28).
[475]. Namely, M. Plançon. The same M. Plançon stated the next day to Prince Ching that the delay in the evacuation was due to the military party in Russia.—China, No. 2 (1904), No. 95. The statements of the two diplomats are not necessarily contradictory to each other.
[476]. For the interview between MacCormick and Lamsdorff, see ibid., Nos. 91, 92, 103.