[302]. Ibid., Nos. 2, 7, 9.
[303]. China, No. 7 (1901), Nos. 11, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 35, 36, 57, 60, 103.
[304]. Ibid., Nos. 24, 27, 37, 38, 43, 50, 54, 55, 66, 68.
[305]. Ibid., Nos. 39, 77.
[306]. Ibid., 40, 78.
[307]. The British Parliamentary Papers, Treaty Series, No. 1, 1900.
[308]. On November 1, Lord Salisbury wrote to the British Chargé at St. Petersburg in unusually outspoken language, as follows: “In the event of the Russians making any complaint of our having concluded the Anglo-German Agreement without previously consulting them, you should dwell on the fact that the conduct and language of Russian officers in the Far East, in respect to the Chinese railway from Niu-chwang to Peking, and the way in which the property of British subjects on that railway has been dealt with by the Russian military authorities, has caused much perplexity to Her Majesty’s Government. The Russian Government have given us many satisfactory assurances with respect to their intentions in these matters, but the little attention paid to the avowed policy of the Russian Government by officers on the spot has deterred us from fuller communication.”—China, No. 7 (1901), No. 45.
[309]. See, for instance, the explanation offered in Tokushu Jōyaku, pp. 384–386.
[310]. China, No. 5 (1901), Nos. 4 and 7, inclosure 2.
[311]. Ibid., Nos. 6, 8, and 9.