strange that, in the opinion of Lord Lansdowne, the “Agreement most unquestionably extended to Manchuria, which is part of the Chinese Empire,”[316] while, from Count von Bülow’s point of view, “The Anglo-German Agreement had no reference to Manchuria.” “I can imagine nothing,” he added, “which we can regard with more indifference” than Manchuria.[317] Evidently Germany had entered into the Agreement with different motives from those of Great Britain, and perhaps also with less zeal, if zeal there was. ----- Footnote 300: _China, No. 7 (1901)_, Nos. 21, 76, 81, 84, 86, 95, 103, 149, 153, 154, 174, 187, 189. Footnote 301: _Ibid._, Nos. 1 and 7. Footnote 302: _Ibid._, Nos. 2, 7, 9. Footnote 303: _China, No. 7 (1901)_, Nos. 11, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 35, 36, 57, 60, 103. Footnote 304: _Ibid._, Nos. 24, 27, 37, 38, 43, 50, 54, 55, 66, 68. Footnote 305: _Ibid._, Nos. 39, 77. Footnote 306: _Ibid._, 40, 78. Footnote 307: The _British Parliamentary Papers_, _Treaty Series_, No. 1, 1900. Footnote 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. Footnote 309: See, for instance, the explanation offered in _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 384–386. Footnote 310: _China, No. 5 (1901)_, Nos. 4 and 7, inclosure 2. Footnote 311: _Ibid._, Nos. 6, 8, and 9. Footnote 312: The 56th Congress, 2d Session, _Home Documents_, vol. i. p. 355. Footnote 313: The italics are the author’s. Footnote 314: _China, No. 5 (1900)_, No. 5. Footnote 315: Also see the debate in the House of Lords, on August 6, 1901, between Earl Spencer and the Marquess of Lansdowne. The _Parliamentary Debates_, Fourth Series, vol. 98, pp. 1351–1365. Footnote 316: At the House of Lords, on August 6, 1901. The Japanese Government, also, in its reply to a question of a member of the National Diet, interpreted the Agreement to apply to the whole of the Chinese Empire.—_Tokushu Jōyaku_, p. 389. Footnote 317: