the group are a good deal in advance of its bulk in their political viewssome of them are downright Socialists. But all are bent on an agrarian reform which would give the land to those who till it; and a radical reorganization of labor is bound to follow on this. The group is even more important on account of the interests and influences it represents, than of the part it takes in the debates and divisions of the Duma. It stands in direct touch with the rural population, and is frequently approached by the lower classes in the provinces as to their grievances and claims. The weak point in this case is the uncertainty of the dispositions of the majority of the peasants in regard to Constitutional questions. Many of them are disinclined to adopt any course which would lead to a breach with the Tsar, and care more for economic concessions than for political rights. Yet the Socialist leaders have succeeded hitherto in manoeuvring their host according to their plans, and of placing it in position considerably to the left of the cadets.

One more combination has to be noticed-the so-called Autonomist group, composed of the representatives of all the minor nationalities of the Empire, and of a good many Russians; Poles, Lithuanians, Baltic Letts and Esths, Jews, Ukraïna Russians, join to further their divers national aspirations; the Caucasian and Siberian deputies are expected to enter the combination; and even Great Russians, inclining towards the widest decentralization and federalism, will support it. The political and social creeds of the members of this club are entirely diverse. Some are Social Democrats, others Radicals of the cadet type, others again Conservatives; all remain more or less connected with the fractions representing their different opinions in the Duma, and would speak and vote against each other on many vital questions. The one link

uniting them is the pledge to serve the development of autonomous institutions for the nationalities of the Empire. In this case again the club, though lacking in cohesion, draws its importance from the ties which unite it to the populations it represents. Its action will have to be reckoned with, not only when the time comes for framing provincial administrations, but also in all the questions in which the nationalities of the Empire present a considerable variety of conditions-and this is saying a great deal.

Besides all these more or less clearly defined groups, there is a large floating population of independent members, "Savages" as they are styled in Germany, who flock to the right or to the left according to the inspirations of the moment-again a characteristic feature of an incipient political assembly, in which the dividing lines are not yet sharply drawn, and feelings come to play a greater part than settled convictions.

Such are the main lines of existing parties and groups. Some modifications are likely to ensue, and announce themselves already in the distance. A cleavage in the Constitutional Democratic party is always threatening, if the bulk of the party has to effect a marked evolution either to the right or to the left; in fact, the agrarian discussion has already caused the secession of a couple of members, who, being convinced individualists, do not approve of the line taken by the party. Eventually such secessions may lead to a strengthening of the Octobrists by the right wing of the cadets. On the other hand, in the yet remote eventuality of the Constitutional Democrats being enlisted as a Government party, they would probably have to give up some of their advanced people to the Extreme Left. On the other hand, the Socialists of the Extreme Left are much too strong in their views and

methods to continue very long in their alliance with the peasants, and are bound to form an independent faction. But the more attentively one watches the course of events in the Duma, the clearer it gets to be to what extent its debates and decisions are determined by outside influences-by the action of the Court and of the officials in one sense, by the action of the street and of the rustics in another sense. The hatred of officials, the fear of the army, the outbreaks of agrarian disorders and strikes, terroristic outrages and coercion, react much more on the Duma than such events and feelings would have done in a parliament with a settled standing, a secure existence, a direct participation in the work of government, and established parties conscious of their aims and past. This fact makes prognostics, based chiefly on programmes and numbers, exceedingly fallacious. It would not do to ignore the pressure of pent-up energies which are likely to give the decisive impulses to the political evolution of the next months. Suppose agrarian disorders spread over the greater part of the country, as is confidently predicted, or a general strike of the kind experienced in October breaks out again, or a mutiny in the army takes place on a large scale. It is evident that such facts would force the hands of the parties concerned; and, of course, the longer the double-headed system continues, the more likely it gets to be that such events will happen. The monotonous dialogue between the Duma and the Ministry is sure to be converted in that case into a much more impassioned drama. Still, what has already been said and done in the Tauris Palace is not without profound meaning; and I may be allowed to dwell on some of the inferences to be drawn from the first month of the Duma's activity. Four main points have to be taken into account by any one reviewing this stage

of Russian parliamentary history: the amnesty question, the Address of the Duma to the Emperor, the Ministerial declaration, and the agrarian debates. These last are the most important of the manifestations which have taken place in the course of the last month; but they are still in progress, and it would be impossible to do them justice in a paper which has to treat of so many other things. I shall refer to them only in so far as is necessary to understand other points. As it is, we shall have more than enough material to talk about.

The first words of free speech that resounded from the tribune of the Duma were dedicated to the liberation of political offenders, of men who had committed actions deemed criminal in the old order of things, but meant to open the way for a new order. The impulse which dictated the impassioned appeals for an amnesty, and prompted educated Russia to demand an abolition of capital punishment, was certainly a noble one; and it is sad to notice that it did not find any response in the hearts of the monarch's official advisers. And yet, in judging of the real and implied meaning of these measures, one cannot simply take stock of natural feelings and humanitarian demonstrations. There can be no doubt that the amnesty problem is a wider one than the majority of Russian Radicals would perhaps be willing to acknowledge. There were two ways of making the claim of amnesty unobjectionable and irrefutable. The Assembly could draw the line between crimes and misdemeanors suggested by political idealism, and culminating in revolutionary propaganda, in unlawful publications, associations, and strikes, even in open riots and hand-to-hand fighting on the one hand, and premeditated murders and terroristic deeds on the other; absolving the first, and perhaps pleading for some mitigation of

punishment in the case of the latter. Such a course would have amounted to an admission of the principle that there are certain means which no end can justify, that it would be wrong to grant impunity for acts which strike at the foundations of society itself, which place the public at the mercy of passion and fanaticism. Such an estimate would have been reasonable; but it was prevented by the state of excitement to which public opinion had worked itself up. There was another possibility of making the amnesty claim unassailable on higher ground: it might have been directed to a complete oblivion of all excesses committed in the struggle, coupled with a reprobation of all the motives suggesting such excesses. This would certainly have covered all the transgressions of the revolutionaries, even wilful murder, pillage, mutiny, bomb-throwing; but then the same curtain of oblivion would have had to fall over the excesses of the authorities and of their agents, committed for the sake of repressing disorders, the misdeeds of punitive expeditions, of over-zealous police officers, of misguided "Black Hundreds."

And

as the abolition of the death penalty was all along advocated in conjunction with amnesty, as a guarantee against irretrievable punishment, the Duma might have directed its emphatic protest against political assassination as well as against cruel executions. As a matter of fact, such a course was suggested in the Duma and in the Press. But the decision of the Duma fell out otherwise. It was exclusively directed against the murders of coercion, while terrorism and revolutionary brigandage were studiously overlooked, or explained away as excusable symptoms of excitement. Indeed declamations about the high moral standard of assassins, the difficulty of drawing the line between a criminal and a "saint," were by no means confined to the

speeches and writings of the more violent among the Radicals. Nor do the persons to be amnestied behave in the least like culprits seeking oblivion for their acts. It is in a spirit of defiance and triumph that their release is demanded. No wonder, under these circumstances, that the monarch and his advisers are not anxious to conform to the imperious demands addressed to them. And one may well ask oneself whether such an agitation is more calculated to achieve the rescue of the oppressed and the condonation of offences, or to envenom civil strife and to render all compromise impossible. The formation of a committee to investigate into the misdeeds of the administration is another step in the same direction. It would be difficult not to notice in all these facts the dependence of the progressive parties in the Duma revolutionary antecedents and forces. They are unable and unwilling to sever themselves from revolutionary agitation, because they consider it as their main source of power, as the steam wanted to fill the cylinders of their engine. And yet they ought to know that, by working at such high pressure, they run the risk of blowing everything and everybody to pieces.

on

The Address in answer to the Emperor's speech is open to another kind of objection. It was meant to embody a comprehensive statement about reforms. Two questions arise at its perusal. Was it wise to put forward a kind of summary, the real meaning of which could certainly not be fathomed in the course of the three days devoted to its discussion? Are the demands put forward in the Address worded in a cautious and adequate manner?

As to the first of these questions, it seems clear that the form of the document was suggested by the revolutionary temper pervading the nation and the Assembly at the moment. It would

have been out of place to urge considerations which in other moods and times might have been self-evident enough. As the Temps very properly put it, it would have been more to the purpose, instead of drawing up a general "Table of Contents," formidable and vague at the same time, to insist on two or three vital points, especially on the right of unfettered legislation and the responsibility of Ministers. By concentrating its efforts on these points, the Duma might have carried them, and would have thereby won the strategical key of the whole position. All the particular measures required would have followed in their time. And one can quite fancy that if the Octobrists had made a resolute stand on the point that it was impossible to discuss adequately all the subjects included in the projected Address, and on the mischievous effect of hastily assumed pledges, they would have gathered a very respectable minority around them, and might have appealed to their forethought on many a subsequent occasion. But they did nothing of the kind, either because they were too much hypnotized by their successful opponents, or else because they were themselves under the delusion that a general statement of claims was useful and necessary. As for the cadets, who took the uncontested lead on this occasion, their object was not only to satisfy that craving for wide, bright perspectives, which is one of the psychological instincts of every revolution. They were also anxious to connect political and administrative reforms with the agrarian and legal claims of the peasants. During the first days of its activity, the new legislative assembly was not sure how far it would find support among the rural class constituting the enormous majority of the Russian people; and the leaders of the progressive parties deemed it expedient to impress on the more backward members

the intimate connection between the different parts of their reform programme. These features of the political situation, the wish to recruit allies and to strike at enemies, gave the Address its specific character.

When we turn to its contents, we find that most of the points it touches certainly demand attention, and that, although commonplace enough in Western countries, they require definite action on the part of Russian legislators. Russia certainly wants limitations of the powers of its bureaucracy, civic liberties, equality of all citizens before the law, an improved electoral system, popular education, a reform of income and expenditure, constitutional rights for its Parliament. But, when such points are broached, they ought to be embodied in definite laws, in order to avoid ambiguity and false hopes. Reduced to abstract professions, they are open to objections from all sides. Is it really a settled thing that Russia is to have, not only manhood suffrage, but women's franchise? Are the people ready for it? The wording of the Address has the inconvenience of suggesting this radical solution, although it was not discussed on its own merits, and, at the same time, of making it doubtful whether women's suffrage is actually included. The removal of all disabilities arising from sex is proclaimed; but the mention of women in the electoral paragraph is avoided. Is it a loophole or an oversight? Is the declaration against the Council of the Empire aimed against an Upper House as such, or against a defective institution, as framed at the present time? In the section about civic rights, these are enumerated as inalienable attributes, after the fashion of the French "Rights of Man." Bentham's famous objections to abstract fallacies hold good in this case. Is the Duma sure that, for instance, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or a Repression

of Crimes Act, will never be needed? That exceptional powers under a state of siege will never be called into existence? Such a conviction would be Utopian in the light of what happens frequently in countries other than Russia; and it is especially dangerous to speak ambiguously on such points in Russia, because it is constantly maintained there that no exceptional measures of coercion are ever needed. Anyhow, the mere enumeration of the Rights of Man may mean too much or too little, according to circumstances. They get to be alive in their definite setting.

An agrarian reform based on the expropriation of land belonging to the State, the Imperial Family, the Church, the monasteries and private owners, is announced. Surely a tremendous responsibility has been assumed on short notice in these few words. Are the needs of the peasantry everywhere so urgent as to necessitate the reversal of all the existing conditions of property? How far is private ownership to survive such a reform? What legislative limitations and administrative guidance are to be provided, in order to ensure the proper use of the facilities afforded by such a reform? Are the peasants to receive merely the clods of soil, or also the capital necessary for their exploitation? What standard of fairness can be used in fixing prices in the purchase of land? Can the country bear the financial burden of such an operation? What allowances will be made for the differences of conditions and views existing between various parts of the Empire in regard to the agrarian problem? All these, and many other questions, arise of themselves, and are being hotly discussed even now. On this or the other settlement of every one of them depend entirely different conceptions of the projected reform. This being so, it would surely have been more appropriate to take note of the calamitous position of the rural classes in many

parts of Russia, and to demand a thorough settlement of the agrarian difficulties, without committing oneself to bare promises of expropriation. In this one-sided form, people see the menace to property without seeing the urgency of such a treatment, or the specific remedies which will have to be employed.

Again, what definite meaning is attached to the clause relating to the military establishment: "Mindful of the great hardships which the Army and Fleet of Your Majesty have to endure, the Duma will take care to strengthen both in the Army and in the Fleet the principles of justice and law . . ."? To venture on such dangerous ground in order to offer such a hazy pronouncement, is characteristic of the more sentimental than practical way in which the Address has been conceived and elaborated. As in the case of the "Rights of Man," the Address of the Duma is an introduction to revolution, rather than to peaceful legislation. It contains nothing intrinsically false; in fact, all its maxims are noble abstractions. The great and real problem is to provide them with flesh and blood, to embody them in working institutions.

One thing has certainly to be said in explanation and defence of the action of the Duma. It was directly instigated by the Government. The position of the latter was defined in the Statute of March 5th, and the Fundamental Laws of May 6th; and it was reasserted in the Ministerial Declaration of May 26th. This last concerns us more immediately, as it was framed as a direct rejoinder to the Address of the Duma. Even compared with Count Witte's speech in the Council of the Empire, it was a most pitiable performance. The cardinal questions of unfettered legislation, of the repeal of the Fundamental Laws, of a Responsible Ministry, were simply brushed aside by a mere reference to these same Fundamental Laws. As to the agra