Very different is the attitude of the great mass of the population, as the following incident shows:  The president of the Abo Hofgericht, declining to follow the instructions of the party hostile to Russia, was, on his arrival in Helsingfors, subjected to a variety of insults from the mob gathered at the railway station.  On his return to Abo he was, on the contrary, presented with an address from the peasantry and local landowners, in which the following words occur:  “We understand very well that you have been led to your patriotic resolve to continue your labors in obedience to the government by deep conviction, and do not require gratitude either from us or from any others; but at the important crisis our people is now experiencing it may be of some relief to you to learn that the preponderating majority of the people, and especially in broader classes, gratefully approve of the course you have taken.”

It will scarcely be known to any one in the West that when signatures were being gathered for the great mass-address of protest dispatched to St. Petersburg in 1899, those who refused their signatures numbered martyrs among them.  There are some who for their courage in refusing their signatures suffered ruin and disgrace and were imprisoned on trumped-up charges.  Moreover, the agitators aimed at infecting the lower classes of the population with their intolerance and their hatred of Russians, but, it must be said, with scant success.

With regard to the essence of the question, I repeat that in matters of government temporary phenomena should be distinguished from permanent ones.  The incidental expression of Russian policy, necessitated by an open mutiny against the Government in Finland, will, undoubtedly, be replaced by the former favor of the sovereign toward his Finnish subjects as soon as peace is finally restored and the current of social life in that country assumes its normal course.  Then, certainly, all repressive measures will be repealed.  But the realization of the fundamental aim which the Russian Government has set itself in Finland—­i.e., the confirming in that land of the principle of imperial unity—­must continue, and it would be best of all if this end were attained with the trustful cooperation of local workers under the guidance of the sovereign to whom Divine Providence has committed the destinies of Russia and Finland.

SERGIUS WITTE

When we talk of the means requisite for assimilating Finland we can not help reckoning, first and foremost, with this fact, that by the will of Russian emperors that country has lived its own particular life for nearly a century and governed itself in quite a special manner.  Another consideration that should be taken to heart is this:  the administration of the conquered country on lines which differed from the organization of other territories forming part of the empire, and which gave to Finland the semblance