ing. These assertions, transparently false as they must appear to everyone who knows anything of the facts, are clearly disproved by Dr. Eckhardt. He says with perfect truth: The declaration of war against Turkey in April 1877 was the act, not of the Government of St. Petersburg, but of the Russian people' (p. 297). Again he says: The war was the work of the national party and the Socialistic revolutionists. It was delayed for nearly a year by the Government and its immediate adherents. The Court and higher bureaucracy were against the war from the beginning' (p. 299). Again: Those who were behind the scenes knew well enough that the Emperor himself had not wished for war. His most experienced advisers had shared the Czar's disinclination to embark in this adventure. As to the motives with which the national party made the war, Dr. Eckhardt misrepresents the facts; but at present it is sufficient to point out that he bears out to the full the accuracy of the statement so persistently denied by the Russophobists, that the war took its rise in a spontaneous popular movement, and that it was forced by the nation upon an unwilling and pacific Government. The second point which the author makes plain is the absurdity of those who, determined to discredit Russia, now seek to minimise the incalculable benefits conferred upon humanity by the emancipation of the serfs. Only the other day Mr. J. Cowen 3 declared the advantages of emancipation had been more apparent than real, because the Russian freemen pay heavier taxes than did Russian serfs. In order to discredit Russians, Dr. Eckhardt tells the story of the oppression practised by Major-General Ismayloff, the Russian Legree fifty years ago. The state of things which prevailed on the estate of that madman was exceptional in the extreme; but even such exceptions are horrible enough to make the Act which renders their repetition impossible infinitely more important than a mere transfer of charges from landlord to Government. A third point which may be easily overlooked is conclusively demonstrated in this book, although, as is not unusual with him, the author ignores it more than once; that is, that the Nihilists, the assassinating revolutionists of Russia, whatever may be their destructive activity, form a very small party, utterly opposed to the popular convictions on almost every point, and therefore, we firmly believe, in spite of all, doomed to political impotence. Even as pourtrayed by Dr. Eckhardt, they are totally lacking in the moral and mental qualities indispensable to those who would achieve a great work of national reform. They have never been able to thrill the national heart or to fire the popular imagination; they are as much out of sympathy with the nation as with the Government. Even A. Herzen, an amiable enthusiast and idealist, as far as possible removed from the Nihilists, supported the unwarrantable claim of the 2 On this particular point Dr. Eckhardt is quite wrong: the Socialistic revolutionists' are too small a body to have had any influence over our national policy. Poles to our north-western provinces. Bakunin urged the Western Powers to invade his own country, and prepared himself to take part in a descent upon Russia. Beside Bakunin Mazzini was a Conservative, and Karl Marx an upholder of law and social order. Between the atheistic anarchists of the Nihilist conspiracy and the submissive and religious masses of the people yawns a great gulf, across which not even the bridge of Al Sirât has yet been thrown. Another matter of great importance, which even Dr. Eckhardt cannot ignore, may be learned from his book; that is, that the Russian nation has now a vigorous, a self-conscious and independent existence. As Dr. Eckhardt himself says: "The new-born energies of Russian nationality have been roused by the abolition of serfdom.' It is no longer possible to speak of Russia as merely a 'devouring political mechanism' without betraying the grossest ignorance. Even this book bears witness to the working of a steady national opinion by no means always in agreement with the bureaucrats of St. Petersburg. The outburst of patriotic indignation at the insolent demand of the Poles for the surrender of Western Russia took even the Government by surprise. The national feeling was also strongly manifested in the conflict which ended in the emancipation of the serfs, more particularly in relation to their settlement as owners on their own land—a most beneficent measure, solving the problem of the proletariat in a way which may some day be a factor of the first importance in continental politics. Cavour justly remarked: The equal rights which every Russian peasant has in the soil are more dangerous to us Westerns than all her armies.' 6 The outburst of enthusiasm which was the real cause of the recent war was, as Dr. Eckhardt admits, frowned on by the Government, but in the end it overcame all obstacles, and secured the liberation of Bulgaria. The criticisms of the shortcomings of the administration, during the war, have been so outspoken, and sometimes even so fierce, as to lead the author to imagine, quite absurdly, that Russia is on the verge of a revolution. Nations do not make revolutions merely to punish army contractors or blundering officials. It is noteworthy that in all these cases, not St. Petersburg, but Moscow, led the public opinion of Russia, and that the true exponents of the national convictions have been Mr. Katkoff and Mr. Aksakoff, and not the Nihilists, nor even the Germans of the Baltic provinces. There is dissatisfaction in Russia as in other countries, not excepting England, but to say that Russians generally approve, even tacitly, of the horrible crimes of the Nihilists, is perfectly preposterous. Russian good-nature is sometimes carried to foolish extremes, and mistaken mercy occasionally saves offenders whom it would be more just to punish. But in these manifestations of our national soft-heartedness there is no complicity, even in sentiment, with the men who are making war upon society by assassination and incendiarism. The Russian Government is denounced by men like Dr. Eckhardt, 2 ing. These assertions, transparently false as they must appear to everyone who knows anything of the facts, are clearly disproved by Dr. Eckhardt. He says with perfect truth: The declaration of war against Turkey in April 1877 was the act, not of the Government of St. Petersburg, but of the Russian people' (p. 297). Again he says: The war was the work of the national party and the Socialistic revolutionists. It was delayed for nearly a year by the Government and its immediate adherents. The Court and higher bureaucracy were against the war from the beginning' (p. 299). Again: Those who were behind the scenes knew well enough that the Emperor himself had not wished for war. His most experienced advisers had shared the As to the motives Czar's disinclination to embark in this adventure. with which the national party made the war, Dr. Eckhardt misrepresents the facts; but at present it is sufficient to point out that he bears out to the full the accuracy of the statement so persistently denied by the Russophobists, that the war took its rise in a spontaneous popular movement, and that it was forced by the nation upon an unwilling and pacific Government. 3 The second point which the author makes plain is the absurdity of those who, determined to discredit Russia, now seek to minimise the incalculable benefits conferred upon humanity by the emancipation of the serfs. Only the other day Mr. J. Cowen declared the advantages of emancipation had been more apparent than real, because the Russian freemen pay heavier taxes than did Russian serfs. In order to discredit Russians, Dr. Eckhardt tells the story of the oppression practised by Major-General Ismayloff, the Russian Legree fifty years ago. The state of things which prevailed on the estate of that madman was exceptional in the extreme; but even such exceptions are horrible enough to make the Act which renders their repetition impossible infinitely more important than a mere transfer of charges from landlord to Government. A third point which may be easily overlooked is conclusively demonstrated in this book, although, as is not unusual with him, the author ignores it more than once; that is, that the Nihilists, the assassinating revolutionists of Russia, whatever may be their destructive activity, form a very small party, utterly opposed to the popular convictions on almost every point, and therefore, we firmly believe, in spite of all, doomed to political impotence. Even as pourtrayed by Dr. Eckhardt, they are totally lacking in the moral and mental qualities indispensable to those who would achieve a great work of national reform. They have never been able to thrill the national heart or to fire the popular imagination; they are as much out of sympathy with the nation as with the Government. Even A. Herzen, an amiable enthusiast and idealist, as far as possible removed from the Nihilists, supported the unwarrantable claim of the 2 On this particular point Dr. Eckhardt is quite wrong: the Socialistic revolutionists' are too small a body to have had any influence over our national policy. Poles to our north-western provinces. Bakunin urged the Western Powers to invade his own country, and prepared himself to take part in a descent upon Russia. Beside Bakunin Mazzini was a Conservative, and Karl Marx an upholder of law and social order. Between the atheistic anarchists of the Nihilist conspiracy and the submissive and religious masses of the people yawns a great gulf, across which not even the bridge of Al Sirât has yet been thrown. Another matter of great importance, which even Dr. Eckhardt cannot ignore, may be learned from his book; that is, that the Russian nation has now a vigorous, a self-conscious and independent existence. As Dr. Eckhardt himself says: "The new-born energies of Russian nationality have been roused by the abolition of serfdom.' It is no longer possible to speak of Russia as merely a 'devouring political mechanism' without betraying the grossest ignorance. Even this book bears witness to the working of a steady national opinion by no means always in agreement with the bureaucrats of St. Petersburg. The outburst of patriotic indignation at the insolent demand of the Poles for the surrender of Western Russia took even the Government by surprise. The national feeling was also strongly manifested in the conflict which ended in the emancipation of the serfs, more particularly in relation to their settlement as owners on their own land--a most beneficent measure, solving the problem of the proletariat in a way which may some day be a factor of the first importance in continental politics. Cavour justly remarked: The equal rights which every Russian peasant has in the soil are more dangerous to us Westerns than all her armies.' The outburst of enthusiasm which was the real cause of the recent war was, as Dr. Eckhardt admits, frowned on by the Government, but in the end it overcame all obstacles, and secured the liberation of Bulgaria. The criticisms of the shortcomings of the administration, during the war, have been so outspoken, and sometimes even so fierce, as to lead the author to imagine, quite absurdly, that Russia is on the verge of a revolution. Nations do not make revolutions merely to punish army contractors or blundering officials. It is noteworthy that in all these cases, not St. Petersburg, but Moscow, led the public opinion of Russia, and that the true exponents of the national convictions have been Mr. Katkoff and Mr. Aksakoff, and not the Nihilists, nor even the Germans of the Baltic provinces. There is dissatisfaction in Russia as in other countries, not excepting England, but to say that Russians generally approve, even tacitly, of the horrible crimes of the Nihilists, is perfectly preposterous. Russian good-nature is sometimes carried to foolish extremes, and mistaken mercy occasionally saves offenders whom it would be more just to punish. But in these manifestations of our national soft-heartedness there is no complicity, even in sentiment, with the men who are making war upon society by assassination and incendiarism. The Russian Government is denounced by men like Dr. Eckhardt, cratic, fraternal, and orthodox. The Government, recognising and acting upon these principles, benefits the million, but offends the handful of aristocratic feudalists, who, whether Lutherans or Roman, in the Baltic provinces or in Poland, regard recent Russian legislation very much as Orange landlords contemplate the agrarian proposals of Mr. Parnell. But laws which benefit the immense majority, even at the expense of the more loudly vocal few, may result in literary clamour, but not in revolutions. There are abuses and mistakes in our administration-we admit with sorrow, but not with despair. Things are not so bad as Dr. Eckhardt paints them, and there are many redeeming features, ignored by him, which encourage us to labour with cheerful confidence. in the future. The good sense and capacity of the communal organisations, that germ of all governments, prove that Russia is not devoid of self-governing capacity. The heroism and self-sacrifice, the patient endurance and indomitable valour of our troops, renew our faith in the destinies of our country. Education is making progress, and it is evident that, as Mr. Aksakoff declared, the abolition of serfdom, and of many legal class distinctions, have caused the intellectual horizon of our people to expand. In fact, these painful revelations of our shortcomings are causes, not for despair, but for hope. The light has been turned with unflinching hand upon the darkest places of our administrative system, and the light which reveals the evil will lead to its removal. The establishment of the liberty of the press, the abolition of the absurd system of the censure-which, by encouraging literary smuggling, aggravates the mischief it was established to prevent-is one of the reforms which Russia awaits from the hands of her Emperor. As a complement to that reform, the restoration of the Zemskie Sobory (or National Assembly) would enable the Emperor to grapple with many abuses which now baffle his utmost efforts to remove. In one respect Russia has an advantage over some of her continental neighbours. The central power is strong and undisputed. There are no rivals to our Emperor. From Lapland to the Amour his word is recognised as supreme, and he is the incarnation of the principle of authority. Space does not permit a detailed examination of all the scandals and mistakes of this misleading volume. If a sketch of morals and manners of England were to be compiled from your Society journals, if Protectionists were set to write a history of the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette ' were to write the biography of Mr. Gladstone, the result might be amusing, but it would not convey to the inquiring Russian much more accurate views of England and the policy of the Liberal party than are provided for Englishmen in Dr. Eckhardt's sketches of Russia Before and After the War.' But there is one point which is so mischievous and so false that before concluding I must allude to it :-the impression is left upon the |