THE DISSOLUTION OF THE DUMA.
[TO THE EDITOR Of THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sm,—Your leader under the above title in the Spectator of July 28th caused me no little surprise. You therein speak of the Girondins having fallen, and regret apparently that the "moderate majority in the Duma, who have hitherto displayed great self-control," should have been dismissed by the Czar. Now I have followed very carefully the proceedings of the Puma, and if there is one thing borne in on my mind it is this,—namely, that the Duma has been captured by the Social Democrats, and that it is not the Girondins, but the "Moun- tain," who have fallen, the extreme revolutionaries, who have shown such a conspicuous lack of moderation. Of course, if you consider the chief demand of the Duma—namely, compul- sory expropriation of landowners without adequate compensa- tion—a moderate demand, I cannot agree with you. Such a demand, if made now in England, would, I feel sure, not receive the support of the Spectator. Indeed, by all Liberal Unionists and moderate men it would be regarded as Socialistic and revolutionary. Why, then, should moderate Liberals approve of principles in Russia of which they disapprove in England ? That seems to me a dangerous course to pursue. It may be popular, but at any rate it is not consistent, nor is it one which many old readers of the Spectator will, I think, find to their taste. Revolution by due course of law is one thing, but revolution by due course of anarchy, bombs, *violence, assassination, and denial of the right of free speech is another; and with revolution of the last-named kind it is surprising to see the Spectator showing such unqualified and indiscriminate sympathy.—I am, Sir, &c.,
FRIEND OF RUSSIA.
[The Constitutional Democrats, who formed the chief party in the Duma, advocated a Land Bill with adequate compensa- tion which was not distinguishable in principle from the Government's measure. It is true that the extremists went further, but the Duma is to be judged by its dominant element.—En. Spectator.]