the danger of increasing the congestion which it is the object of all to disperse.

We have, however, entered on the experiment, and it will be carried through; but the results should be carefully watched. The admissions of the Unemployed Fund Report are most valuable; they provide a touchstone by which the success of the experiment can be tested. The most that its framers hope is to give permanent assistance to a limited number of selected cases. Will this content the enthusiast? On the other hand, there is the danger that those who regard the Unemployed Workmen Act as a recognition of the workman's right to work will press their interpretation of the Act, and that we shall see a repetition of the disaster which overtook the national workshops in Paris in 1848.

Sir Robert Peel, when called on to defend the Poor Law of 1834, which had been passed by the opposite party, remarked that this reform could not have been carried through except by a Liberal Government. The new Premier has appointed a strong man to the Local Government Board; and, if Mr Burns can be brought to see that the socialist millennium and the universal employment of labour by the State are not practical politics, he may conceive it his duty to bid the country rest content with the guaranteed maintenance which the Poor Law gives to destitution, to repress sternly, not only labour colonies, but also all other opportunities for dependence, and to endeavour the framing of practical measures for developing the mobility and efficiency of labour, and for increasing the absorbent properties of the normal channels of industry. He, at least, sees the hopelessness of devising new forms of dependence. Will he see that the curtailment of those which already exist is the first step towards reform? We are entering on a new phase of this controversy; and perhaps, as Sir Robert Peel hinted, it is fortunate that the responsibility rests on the popular party. It was the Radical wing of that party that saved the country in 1834; we can only hope that the subject will be handled with equal firmness in 1906.

Art. XII.-DISINTEGRATION IN RUSSIA.

1. Russia. By Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace. New edition. Two vols. London: Cassell, 1905.

2. L'Empire des Tsars. By A. Leroy-Beaulieu. Third edition. Three vols. Paris: Hachette, 1897-8. 3. Histoire de la Russie.

Paris: Hachette, 1900.

By A. Rambaud. Fifth edition.

4. Russian Affairs. By Geoffrey Drage. London: Murray, 1904.

5. Sixteen Years in Siberia. By Leo Deutsch. Translated by Helen Chisholm. London: Murray, 1905.

6. L'Empire Russe et le Tsarisme. By Victor Bérard. Paris: Armand Colin, 1905. English translation by G. Fox-Davies and G. O. Pope. London: Nutt, 1905. 7. The Russian Revolutionary Movement. By Konni Zilliacus. London: Alston Rivers, 1905.

8. Russia from Within. By Alexander Ular. London: Heinemann, 1905.

9. Russia in Revolution. By G. H. Perris. London: Chapman and Hall, 1905.

IN July 1883, in an article in this Review on The Races of European Russia,' we endeavoured to draw attention to the very heterogeneous ethnical elements composing the population of that country; we referred to the 'remarkable want of cohesion among the different classes of the people'; we pointed out the grave danger which would threaten autocratic government in the event of Russia engaging in an unsuccessful war; and we asked, 'if the throne be shaken, the army demoralised, and the nation convulsed, what force is to hold together all the heterogeneous nationalities, races, and peoples' whose position we had described? The autocracy has now waged war unsuccessfully; and the results emphasise the importance of the question which, twenty-two years ago, we ventured to indicate as likely to arise.

Liberal sentiments have often been temporarily popular in Russian society; but to-day liberal and even radical ideas have been generally embraced by the mass of the growing middle classes, by professional men and traders; whilst exaggerated doctrines grading downwards to the

most violent socialism and anarchism have permeated the urban proletariat. The political importance of the middle classes was infinitesimal half a century ago, and the urban proletariat was non-existent. To-day these classes represent a great political force; and they have discovered their strength. But even this new force will be swept aside, as by an irresistible avalanche, if the wide-spread discontent and unrest among the great mass of the peasant population should lead to a general development of the agrarian disorders reported from many provinces of European Russia and Poland, and also from the Caucasus. The present generation of peasants have had no experience of the discipline of serfdom; and the unquestioning submission to authority, which circumstances rendered a matter of habit to the serf, can no longer be reckoned upon to control those to whom such circumstances are but a tradition.

To facilitate a study of the causes leading to the present situation, and the rapid development and violent manifestation of ultra-liberal ideas, it is desirable briefly to trace the history and growth of Liberalism in Russia. In so doing we shall have frequently to refer to the new edition of 'Russia' by Sir D. M. Wallace, a remarkable book for which every serious student of Russian affairs must remain indebted to its competent and conscientious author. The bulk of recent publications professing to enlighten the world on the political situation in Russia is no more informing than would be a compilation of thoughtless and exaggerated statements culled from the columns of sensation-seeking journals. The great majority of even would-be serious books bear strong internal evidence of having been put together with hasty incompetence to meet the requirements of an ignorant public.

In connexion with the present situation, it must be remembered that the Russian Slavs have for centuries been familiar with both democratic and communistic ideas and practices. As Sir D. M. Wallace shows in his chapter on the Mongolian domination, the establishment of the autocracy was due to conditions which arose during the supremacy of the Khans. It is probable that, in leading resistance to the invading hordes, the power of the Slav princes increased; and it is certain that, in order to facilitate the collection of tribute, the Khans, when

they had established their own supremacy, favoured the absolute authority of the rulers of the Russian principalities. The process, which began by confirming the authority of individual princes, culminated in establishing the supremacy of the most powerful among them, the Grand-Prince of Muscovy. But all the influence of the Mongolian domination failed to eradicate those fundamental democratic principles which have survived to this day in certain forms of village local self-government, in the communistic system of land tenure, and in the artel system of labour cooperation.

Liberal ideas of the modern type are no new thing among the upper classes in Russia; but, as Sir D. M. Wallace shows, any display of enthusiasm for such ideas has in former times been more or less a matter of fashion; and, when the Tsar and his ministers thought things were going too far and decreed a conservative reaction, the servile crowd was not slow to drop what they suddenly discovered to be foreign theories unsuited to Holy Russia. Under the Empress Catherine II, and encouraged by her, extreme Liberalism was for a time much in vogue, and Voltaireanism was quite fashionable in St Petersburg. The Reign of Terror in France produced, however, a hasty reaction; and, the Empress setting the example, St Petersburg became decidedly reactionary. Towards the close of the reign of Alexander I, another wave of Liberalism upset the mental balance of Russian society. In 1825 there was an attempt at a military insurrection in St Petersburg, with the idea of overthrowing the autocracy and proclaiming a republic; but the reformers were rudely brought to their senses by the stern hand of Nicholas I. The liberal movement in western Europe, which culminated in the revolutionary disturbances in 1848-49, affected St Petersburg; but the actual outbreak of revolutions in France and elsewhere alarmed the Tsar and many of the leaders of society. A spirit of strong conservatism speedily reasserted itself, and held the field until the disasters of the Crimean war again threw doubts on the perfection of the political system, and led to a fresh national awakening. Alexander II, on succeeding to the throne, had to face a new situation, and to deal with a widespread and serious demand for practical reforms.

It is needless here to follow closely the political events

of the earlier years of the reign of Alexander II, the 'Tsar Liberator.' It is sufficient to note that, while the emancipation of the serfs was accomplished with general goodwill and much self-sacrifice on the part of the great landowners as a body, a small minority remained opposed to such reforms. After the first enthusiasm of the reformers had subsided, the influence of this minority steadily increased. Serfdom could not be re-established; but the powers of local government bodies could be restricted; the Press could be held in complete subjection; and all who ventured publicly to express disapproval of reactionary measures could be promptly silenced or rigorously dealt with if they proved recalcitrant. Public sentiment accepted the reaction; and, during several years, Liberalism in Russia, if not asleep, showed no signs of vital energy. The awakening came with the war of 1878, the disasters at Plevna, and the unsatisfactory results of the Russo-Turkish war.

The great moral and social effect of bringing together the masses of men composing the Russian armies in the Balkan Peninsula does not appear to have been generally perceived. The peasant soldiers were often unfavourably impressed by the contrast between their own squalid homes and the comfortable homesteads of the Bulgarians, who had been represented to them as unfortunate brethren struggling with adversity under the cruel yoke of the Turk. Never had the Russian soldier dreamed of such substantial comfort for himself as that which he saw enjoyed by his persecuted brethren. The reflection was obvious that, if the Turkish system of government was bad, that in Russia must be infinitely worse. The Nihilist young women who flocked to the military hospitals as nurses, and the apothecaries' assistants, many of whom came from the same class, enforced the object-lesson by their teachings, and encouraged discontent. The soldiers, coming from all parts of the empire, had opportunities of comparing notes; and the more coquent among them, who had lived in the towns or had received some education, spread radical and socialistic ideas among the rest.

The effects of the agitation begun in the Balkan Peninsula were soon felt when the army returned home. They manifested themselves in a rapid increase in the ranks of the Nihilists, and in increased boldness on the