General Commanding, the manner of his choice, and the powers to be placed in Lis hands. Tue rest of the telegram throws little ligt on this s.bject.

Cant Lamsdorf contemns without hesitation the plan of selecting suin a Commander in deference to superior rank, or to the greater size of the contigent he commands.

I entirely concur with Count Lamsdorff in thinking that the appointment of a General Commanding in pursuance of these considerations would not be satisfactory.

The observations made in the two last sentences of the telegram appear to be intended to bear on this question. But I am not able to trace the deduction which Count Lamsdorff means to draw from them.

You should place these observations before Count Lamsdorf, and request further explanations of the points raised in them, urging especially the importance of some definite understanding as to the nature, scope, and object of the military operations which he coutemplates.

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir H. Rumbold.*

(Telegraphic.)

Foreign Office, July 20, 1900. FROM inquiries addressed to me, I gather that the Russian communication, recorded in my telegram of the 15th July to Sir C. Scott, has been made to all the Powers.

You should communicate to Minister for Foreign Affairs the substance of my reply, recorded in the same telegram, explaining that nothing has passed between the Russian Government and Her Majesty's Government in any way justifying the statement that any European Mission to Japan has been suggested or contemplated by

us.

We shall be glad to know what view is taken by other Powers of the fundamental principles proposed by the Russian Government. We are in agreement with the desire to avoid anything which may tead to the partition of China; but it seems altogether premature, in our present ignorance of the condition or intentions of the authorities at Peking, to speak of the re-establishment by the joint efforts of the Powers of a Central Government, by which order and tranquillity can be guaranteed.

Also to Sir E. Monson (Paris), Lord Currie (Rome), Viscount Gough Berlin), and Lord Pauncefote (Washington).

Sir C. Scott to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received July 21.)

(Telegraphic.)

St. Petersburgh, July 21, 1900.

IN conversation to-lay I submitted to Count Lamsdorff the observations on the Russian communication contained in your Lordship's telegram of 20th July, and I invited further explanation on the points which they raised.

His Excellency said that the communication had as its object to provoke an exchange of opinion between the Governments concerned as to the necessity of the general command and direction of the international detachments being concentrated in one hand. In Paris this necessity seems to be felt, and here and at Berlin the arguments in support of it are appreciated.

It was meant to apply only to the present field of combined action in Pechili, aug Count Lamsdorff gathers that, in the opinion of the military authorities on the spot, although hitherto the operations have proceeded successfully and without friction, the time has come to determine the responsibility for general direction by some agreement between the Governments.

His Excellency cannot possibly indicate what ulterior measures may be necessary or their eventual scope, the rescue and protection of foreigners being the primary common aim.

It is his personal view that if the Governments are in agreement that it is essential for the success of the effort that there should be a single general direction, then the views of their military authorities on the spot as to the most satisfactory and practical way of giving effect to it, and as to the Lature and scope of the military measures which can be undertaken, should be ascertained by each Government by telegraph.

These were points on which the Russian Government had not yet been able to form any definite opinion.

Acting Consul-General Warren to the Marquess of Salisbury.

(Telegraphic.)

(Received July 22.)

Shanghae, July 22, 1900. A MEMORIAL from various Viceroys and Governors, praying that the foreign Ministers might be protected, has been submitted to the Throne by the Governor of Shantung. The following translation of an Imperial Decree, dated 10th July, is in reply to it :

"It is written in the Confucian work Spring and Autumn,' that Envoys shall not be killed. How can it then be supposed that

the Throne's policy is to connive at allowing the troops and populace to vent their wrath upon the foreign Ministers? For a month past, excepting the murder of the German Minister by the riotous people, which offence is being vigorously investigated, the other Ministers are being protected by the Throne with a ceaseless energy, and fortunately have suffered no harm."

Shêng received a telegram on Friday from the Governor of Shantung, transmitting a message in cypher to the United States' Government from their Minister. This message was undated, but purported to have left Peking on 18th July. It was to the effect that the United States' Minister was in the British Legation under fire from shot and shell. The date given by the Chinese to the United States' Minister's telegram is, your Lordship will observe, the same as that of the above-quoted Decree, and the assurances given in the latter are not borne out by the former.

I telegraphed yesterday to the Governor of Shantung, asking why we had had no message from Sir C. MacDonald, and how it was that a message from Peking could reach Chinan-fu in two days. He assures me, in reply, that there is no telegraphic communication, but that the United States' Minister's telegram was sent by the Tsung-li Yamên by a messenger travelling 600 li (roughly 200 miles) a-day. He cannot explain why Her Majesty's Minister has not telegraphed. He begs me not to be anxious, as he has already had several reliable messages to the effect that the Ministers and others are all living and unharmed.

Sir C. Scott to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received July 22.) (Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 22, 1900. THE object of the message communicated on the 13th instant by the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, and reported in your Lordship's telegram of the 15th July, has been explained to me by Count Lamsdorff.

His Excellency said that it was in order to clear the Russian Government at once from the odious and entirely undeserved charge that they had hesitated to accept Japan's assistance, and had thereby assumed the grave responsibility of hindering the prompt relief of the Legations; this charge had been insinuated in the press and other quarters.

His Excellency admitted that in the message which I communicated to him no mention had been made of any European mandate to Japan for independent action, and that co-operation was indicated in the arguments used by me; but he said that at Berlin your Lordship's

question had been understood to imply an European mandate, and that it was possible to so interpret the words used "an expedition to restore order at Peking and Tien-tsin, if Japan is willing to undertake the task."

Although the misunderstanding had been promptly cleared up, unjust deductions had been drawn by the public press, and it ought to have been made quite clear by the instructions sent to the Russian Minister at Tôkiô that all available prompt assistance from Japan, equally with the Powers concerned in meeting the common danger, would be gladly welcomed by Russia.

I had, I said, no reason to believe that any doubts on this point had been entertained by Her Majesty's Government.

Paris, July 21, 1900.

Sir E. Monson to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received July 23.) MY LORD, I HAVE the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith copy of a Memorandum which I have to-day left with the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, by the communication of which I hope to have carried out your Lordship's instructions.

I have, &c.,

The Marquess of Salisbury.

EDMUND MONSON.

(Inclosure.)-Aide-Mémoire

LE 13 Juillet dernier le Chargé d'Affaires de Russie a transmis à Lord Salisbury une communication du Comte Lamsdorff d'après laquelle le Ministre de Russie à Tôkiô avait fait savoir à son Excellence que le Gouvernement Japonais était prêt à envoyer des troupes en Chine pour collaborer avec celles des autres Puissances à la protection des Légations et des étrangers.

Le Gouvernement Russe a répondu qu'il ne désirait entraver en aucune façon la liberté d'action du Japon, mais que, dans son opinion, cette action ne devrait impliquer aucun droit à une solution indépendante, ni aucun privilège au delà d'une indemnité pécuniaire plus élevée, dans le cas où les Puissances seraient d'accord pour en exiger une plus tard.

Le Comte Lamsdorff déclare avoir reçu presque simultanément une communication du Gouvernement de Sa Majesté dans laquelle allusion est déjà faite non pas à une décision spontanée du Cabinet de Tôkiô de s'associer à l'action collective des Puissances, mais plutôt à un mandat que donnerait l'Europe au Japon pour l'envoi en Chine

d'une armée considérable dans le but non seulement de sauvegarder les Légations et les étrangers mais également de supprimer le mouve ment révolutionnaire et de rétablir l'ordre à Pékin et à Tien-tsin.

Cette façon d'énoncer la question constituerait, dans l'opinion du Gouvernement Russe, une infraction des principes fondamentaux de l'action collective acceptés par la majorité des Puissances comme base de leur politique, savoir, le maintien de l'accord entre les Puissances, le maintien du système de gouvernement tel qu'il existe en Caine, l'écartement de tout ce qui pouvait amener la partition de l'Empire Chinois, bref, le rétablissement par l'action collective des Puissances d'un Gouvernement Central légitime capable d'assurer l'ordre et la sécurité. Lord Salisbury a répondu que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté n'a jamais fait de proposition qui ait pu faire supposer que l'action du Japon dût lui conférer des droits à une solution indépendante, ou aucun autre privilège. Le Gouvernement Britannique n'a jamais fait mention au Gouvernement Russe d'un mandat donné au Japon par l'Europe. Les principes fondamentaux dont parle le Comte Lamsdorff n'ont jamais été agréés par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté, qui n'a même pas discuté jusqu'à présent avec les autres Puissances les circonstances auxquelles pourraient s'appliquer ces principes. Le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté ne s'est jamais exprimé en faveur d'aucune action sauf celle qui amènerait la délivrance des Légations et des autres étrangers.

Le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté attacherait le plus grand prix à savoir les vues du Gouvernement de la République sur les principes fondamentaux qu'a proposés le Gouvernement Russe. Il partage le désir d'éviter tout ce qui pourrait amener une partition de la Chine, mais il lui semble prématuré de parler du rétablissement par l'action collective des Puissances d'un Gouvernement Central en Chine capable d'assurer l'ordre et la sécurité, étant donuée l'ignorance absolue qui existe au sujet de la situation des autorités à Pékin et des intentions qui les animent.

Paris, le 21 Juillet, 1900.

Sir H. Rumbold to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received July 24.) (Extract.)

Vienna, July 22, 1900.

I CALLED Upon Count Szécsen yesterday by appointment and communicated to him the substance of the reply returned by your Lordship to the communication made to you on the 13th instant by the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, as recorded in your Lordship's telegrams to me of the 20th July.