'Much however, was to happen before this dénodment was reached, and the' Diplomatic Body was much criticized for its apparently vacillating tactics. The Chinese Government too, seeing that no high official in Peking appeared. likely to suffer any inconvenience, rapidly, lost all interest in the offal and that devoted itself once more to the enthralling pursuit of political intrigue. By May 16 we find it actually' attempting to put the blame on the Diplomatic Body for the continued detention of the prisoners by alleging that they had Yied the Government's hands by sisting that there must be no hostilities which would endanger the prisoners' lives. Whether the Diplomatic Body had done this is not clear.' On May 20 they did request that the cordon of troops drawn about the brigands' stronghold should cease firing. But it is fair to remember that some days earlier they had warned the Government that for every day's delay in releasing the prisoners the Penalties ultimately exacted would grow progressively heavier. 'The weak part of the foreign Powers' attitude would seem to" be that. they did not at this time make any particular Chinese official a scape-Goat for the offence. A general in-dietment of the Government worried nobody. It might cha any day, as in point of fact it did fon June 6 when President Li Yuan-hung resigned, at the compulsion of the Tsao Jui (brother of Tsao Kun clique and fled from Pekin
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.