374 THE FAR EAST. 



official was led in his jubilation to exclaim, " We knew 

 very well that England would solemnly protest, but 

 we also knew as well that she would also solemnly do 

 nothing," or that the same individual candidly confessed 

 that that was the reason why, " from the day of her last 

 statesman Disraeli until now, we have not counted, and 

 do not count, on real opposition from England." 



Russia was of course accused of bad faith, and rightly 

 too, when it was discovered that Port Arthur was to be 

 a closed port. But Russian aims were made perfectly 

 clear — if indeed they had not been long before — by the 

 statement of Count Muravieif to Sir Nicholas O'Conor 

 on March 13, that he had received the Emperor's orders 

 to tell him that " Talienwan would be open to foreign 

 trade, but that his Imperial Majesty had told him at 

 the same time that Port Arthur would be regarded 

 strictly as a military port." Under stress of British 

 importunity it became necessary that this clear lan- 

 guage should be modified, pending negotiations for the 

 acquisition of the ports in question, and on March 15 

 the British ambassador was informed that " both Port 

 Arthur and Talienwan would be open to foreign trade." 

 Article vi. of the convention already quoted is of 

 course in direct contravention of these assurances ; 

 but surely British statesmen should have been suffi- 

 ciently well acquainted with Russian diplomatic 

 methods by this time to realise that Count Muravieff 

 would find little difficulty in asserting — as in fact he 

 did — that "the ideas" which he had expressed "very 

 confidentially" on March 16, with regard to the pro- 

 posed lease of Port Arthur and Talienwan, " ought 

 never to have been interpreted as assurances, and 

 could not in reality have had such a significance." 



It is natural to seek for some explanation of the 

 extraordinary vagaries of British diplomacy at this 



