monument in honour of the memory of the poet, but Prince Ukhtomsky and the Polish novelist Sienkiewicz pointed out that this would be an unpardonable waste of money at a time when thousands of Russians were perishing from starvation, and the latter started a penny subscription for their relief. Puschkin was the friend of the Polish poet Mickiewicz, and the Poles, both in Russia and abroad, manifested their admiration and sympathy on the occasion by speeches and newspaper articles.

In September a step was taken by the Russian Government towards conciliating the Poles by allowing the teaching in all classes of the middle-class educational establishments to be carried on in the Polish language and by making that language one of the main subjects in the educational curriculum of the higher forms. Unfortunately, as is habitually the case in Russia, the officials generally neglected to carry out in their entirety the instructions they received from St. Petersburg, and in many of the educational institutions of Russian Poland the teaching continued to be given in Russian as before.

Finland was this year in a very disturbed condition owing to the evident determination of the Russian Government to reduce it to the status of a second Poland. The rescript issued in September of the previous year (see ANNUAL REGISTER, 1898, p. 276) was the preliminary to a series of measures for the complete Russification of the province, which had enjoyed an autonomy since its incorporation with the Russian Empire in accordance with the solemn promises of successive Czars. A bill was laid before the Finnish diet for subjecting the inhabitants of the province to the general obligation to military service in all parts of the empire by which all other Russian subjects are bound. Hitherto Finland had had an Army of her own which cost her about 400,000l. a year; under the bill she would have to furnish to the Russian Army four times the number of recruits which she had hitherto raised for her own Army, and to pay an annual contribution to the Imperial Treasury for military purposes amounting to about 800,000l. a year. This bill was laid before the diet not for its decision, but for any suggestions it might wish to make for the consideration of the Imperial Council of State. This was a flagrant violation of the constitution, which places the legislative power in the hands of the diet, and does not recognise the Imperial Council as having any lawful authority in Finland. Representations were accordingly made to this effect, and in reply to them a manifesto was issued on February 15, curtly informing the Finnish people that although owing to the "peculiar conditions of life" prevailing in Finland they were "by gracious consent " permitted to enjoy certain "special institutions," yet in effect the Czar was autocrat over the whole empire, including the Grand Duchy of Finland, and had the sole right to decide on all matters "of general interest and importance to the empire"; and further,

that it was for him alone to decide what matters were of interest to the whole empire and what were of interest to Finland separately. This manifesto produced a general feeling of alarm among the people, as it seemed to foreshadow the withdrawal of all the constitutional privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed. They had a regularly graduated and autonomous system of administration, of taxation, and of justice. With the exception of the governor, no Russian official had legal power in Finland; and no official, administrative or judicial, could be deprived of his office, except for misconduct proved in legal form. Similarly no Finlander could be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except in due course of law. He could not, as in Russia proper and Russian Poland, be arrested by "administrative decree" and deported to Siberia; nor could his house be entered and his papers and property seized without lawful warrant.

All these rights and privileges were, it was felt, imperilled by the high-handed action of the Government in the question of the new military law, and a commission was accordingly appointed by the diet to report upon the whole subject both from a military and a constitutional point of view. In its report the commission declared that the proposed treatment of the Finnish Army was inadmissible alike in substance and in form, but suggested that the diet should as far as possible accept the new military burdens now sought to be imposed, by raising the Finnish Army from its present peace footing of 5,600 to 12,000 men. The Russian demand was for 36,000 men with a service of five years with the Colours, whereas the commission recommended that the present three years' service should be retained. It was part of the Russian plan to draft the men into the Russian Army for service in distant parts of the empire under Russian officers, whereas the Constitution declares none but Finnish citizens to be eligible as officers, and prescribes their retention at home for the defence of Finland, except when in time of war their services may not be required at home and may be called for to aid in general defence. It was also part of the Russian plan to garrison Finland with Russian soldiers who would in fact be an army of occupation and an instrument for stamping out the Finnish nationality; and the commission accordingly reported in strong terms against these features of the scheme, which was finally rejected by the diet. Deputations from the diet and numerously signed petitions protesting against the violation of Finland's constitutional rights were sent to St. Petersburg, but in vain, and a deputation of eminent foreigners who came to the Russian capital in June with this object was refused an audience. The result was that a very large proportion of the inhabitants emigrated to Canada, Australia, and the United States, most of the newspapers of the country were suppressed on account of articles on the constitutional rights of the Finns, and the right of public meeting

was abolished. The British vice-consul at Wiborg was compelled to resign his post on account of his sympathy with the Finns, and seven other British vice-consuls in Finland also resigned.

In accordance with the scheme of a Peace Conference started by the Czar in the preceding year (see ANNUAL REGISTER, 1898 p. 281), invitations were issued by Count Muravieff to the Powers to send delegates to a conference-not to sit in the capital of one of the great Powers-to consider the best means of putting a stop to the progressive increase of military and naval armaments and the possibility of preventing armed conflicts by diplomacy. The Count at the same time suggested that the following proposals should be submitted to the conference :

1. An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the present effective of the armed military and naval forces, and at the same time not to increase the budgets pertaining thereto; also a preliminary examination of the means by which a reduction might even be effected in future in the forces and budgets above mentioned.

2. To prohibit the use in the armies and fleets of any new kind of firearms whatever, and of new explosives, or any powders more powerful than those now in use either for rifles or cannon.

3. To restrict the use in military warfare of the formidable explosives already existing, and to prohibit the throwing of projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any similar means.

4. To prohibit the use in naval warfare of submarine torpedo-boats or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction; to give an undertaking not to construct vessels with rams in future.

5. To apply to naval warfare the stipulations of the Geneva Convention of 1864, on the basis of the articles added to the Convention of 1868.

6. To neutralise ships and boats employed in saving those overboard during or after an engagement.

7. To revise the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which has remained unratified to the present day.

8. To accept in principle the employment of the good offices of mediation and facultative arbitration in cases lending themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations; an understanding with respect to the node of applying these good offices, and the establishment of a uniform practice in using them.

9. All questions concerning the political relations of States and the order of things established by treaties, as generally all questions which do not directly fall within the programme adopted by the Cabinets, to be absolutely excluded from the deliberations of the conference.

The conference met at the Hague on May 18. The principal

States represented were Russia, France, Turkey, Germany, the United States, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Holland, China, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro and Siam. M. de Staal, the Russian Ambassador in London, was chosen as president of the conference. It was decided to deal with armament, whether naval or military, as one question, and to consider the subjects laid before the conference in three sections -disarmaments, humanitarian measures and arbitration. As regards the first point, the general feeling of the conference was that any reduction of armaments would be impracticable. The most remarkable of the speeches made on this subject was that of the German delegate, Colonel von Schwarzhoff. In reply to the Russian delegate's remarks as to the burdens of obligatory service, the colonel said that the German people is not overburdened and overtaxed, is not being dragged towards an abyss, and is not drifting towards exhaustion and ruin. Far from it. Public and private wealth is increasing, and the common welfare and the standard of life are annually improving. "With regard to obligatory service, which is closely associated with these questions, the German does not regard it as a heavy burden, but as a sacred and patriotic duty, to the accomplishment of which he owes his existence, his prosperity, and his future. The question of effectives cannot be considered by itself apart from a number of other questions to which it is almost subordinate. Such are, for instance, the standard of public education, the term of service in the ranks, the number of officers and non-commissioned officers, the effective of battalions, squadrons, and batteries, the number and duration of trainings with the Colours-that is to say, the military obligations of discharged soldiers, the localisation of the troops, the system of railways, and the number and position of fortified places. In a modern army all these things hold together and constitute in their entirety the national defence, which has been organised by each people in accordance with its character, its history, and its traditions, taking into account its economic resources, its geographical position, and the duties incumbent on it. It would be very difficult to put an international convention in the way of this eminently national work. The limits and proportions of any one part of this complicated machine cannot be fixed. It is not possible to speak of effectives without taking into account the other elements above enumerated. Moreover there are territories that do not form part of the mother country, but which are so near that the troops stationed there would certainly co-operate in a continental war. And how about countries across the sea? How can they consent to a limitation of their forces if the colonial armies, by which alone they are threatened, remain outside the convention?"

"In Germany," continued Colonel von Schwarzhoff, "the figure

of the effectives is the result of an understanding between the federated Governments and the Reichstag. In order not to renew the same debates every year it has been agreed to fix that figure, first for seven years, and then for five. . . The army law at present in force does not stipulate any fixed and invariable strength of the effectives. Provision is, on the contrary, made for a constant increase until 1902 or 1903, when the reorganisation, begun in the course of this year, will be complete. Until then it would, therefore, be impossible for us to maintain, even for two years running, the same strength of effectives."

The disarmament commission eventually adopted by acclamation, without putting it to the vote, a motion to the following effect: The commission considers-first, that it would be very difficult to determine, even for a period of five years, the figure of effective forces without regulating at the same time the other elements affecting national defence. Secondly, that it would be no less difficult to regulate by an international convention the elements of that defence as organised in each country according to very different views (d'après des vues très différentes). Thirdly, that the restriction of those military burdens which at present weigh upon the world is greatly to be desired for the material and moral welfare of humanity.

On the humanitarian question there was considerable difference of opinion. During the debate on the use of different gunpowders the American military delegate, Captain Crozier, pointed out that a prohibition of the use of powders of greater explosive power than those at present employed might prove to be inconsistent with economy, which was one of the principal objects of the Russian proposal. Entire freedom to use new sorts of gunpowder was carried unanimously. Two motions. suggesting restrictions on explosives used by artillery were negatived, and a large majority decided that there was no reason for the States represented at the conference to pledge themselves not to modify their guns by excluding the adoption of new inventions. The Swiss delegate, Colonel Kunzli, proposed the interdiction of explosive bullets, including the dum-dum bullet in that category of projectiles. The Dutch delegate, General den Beer Poortugael, supported the motion and condemned the use of the dum-dum bullet. He entered into particulars of the effects it caused, and represented it as producing enormous ravages in the human body. The Austrian delegate, Colonel Khunpach, moved that it would be sufficient to prohibit bullets that caused unnecessarily cruel wounds without specifying anything further, particularly as it was not possible altogether to prevent mutilation. The British delegate, Sir John Ardagh, supported the Austrian motion. It would have been absolutely impossible for him to support the motion condemning the dumdum bullet, as the allegations against it had not been proved. Certain foreign Governments had applied to the English military authorities for specimens of the dum-dum bullet, but were