for imperial legislation.  At the same time, neither the fundamental laws of the Swedish period of rule in Finland, which were completely incompatible with its new status, nor the Statutes of the Diet, introduced by Alexander II., and determining the order of issue of local laws, touched, or could touch, the question of the issue of general imperial laws.  This question arose in the course of the legislative work on the systematization of the fundamental laws of Finland.  This task, undertaken by order of the Emperor Alexander II. for the more precise determination of the status of Finland as an indivisible part of our state, was continued during the reign of his august successor, the Emperor Alexander III., and led to the question of determining the order of issue of general imperial laws.  The rules drafted for this purpose in 1893 formed the contents of the manifesto of 1899.  Thus we see that during six years they remained without application, there being no practical necessity for their publication.  When, however, this necessity arose, owing to the lapse of the former military law, the manifesto was issued.  It was, therefore, the finishing touch to the labor of many years at the determination of the manner in which the principle of a united empire was to find expression within the limits of Finland, and remained substantially true to the traditions which for a century had reigned in the relations between Russia and Finland.  It presented a combination of the principle of autocracy with that of local self-government without any serious limitations of the rights of the latter.  Moreover, while preserving the historical principle of Russian empire-building, this law determined the form of the expression of the autocratic power within the limits of the Grand Duchy in a manner so much in accord with the conditions of life in Finland that it did not touch the organization of a single one of the national local institutions of the duchy.

This law, in its application to the new conscription regulations, has alleviated the condition of the population of Finland.  The military burden laid on the population of the land has been decreased from 2,000 men to 500 per annum, and latterly to 280.  As you will see, there is in reality no opposition between the will of the Emperor of Russia as announced to Finland in 1899 and his generous initiative at The Hague Conference.  But, you ask me, has not this confirmation of the ancient principles of Russian state policy in Finland been bought at too dear a price?  I shall try to answer you.  The hostility of public opinion toward us in the West in connection with Finnish matters is much to be regretted, but hopes may be entertained that under the influence of better information on Finnish affairs this hostility may lose its present bitterness.  We are accustomed, moreover, to see that the West, while welcoming the progressive development of Russia along the old lines it, Europe, has followed itself, is not always as amicably disposed toward the growth of the political and social self-consciousness of Russia and toward the independent historical process taking place in her in the shape of the concentration of her forces for the fulfilment of her peaceful vocation in the history of the human race.