town it was impossible to form a quorum on the appointed day.  Overlooking the good features of the institution and the good services rendered by it, the critics began to propose partial reorganisation in the sense of greater control by central authorities.  It was suggested, for example, that the President of Sessions should be appointed by the Government, that the justices should be subordinated to the Regular Tribunals, and that the principle of election by the Zemstvo should be abolished.

These complaints were not at all unwelcome to the Government, because it had embarked on a reactionary policy, and in 1889 it suddenly granted to the critics a great deal more than they desired.  In the rural districts of Central Russia the justices were replaced by the rural supervisors, of whom I have spoken in a previous chapter, and the part of their functions which could not well be entrusted to those new officials was transferred to judges of the Regular Courts.  In some of the larger towns and in the rural districts of outlying provinces the justices were preserved, but instead of being elected by the Zemstvo they were nominated by the Government.

The regular Tribunals likewise became acclimatised in an incredibly short space of time.  The first judges were not by any means profound jurists, and were too often deficient in that dispassionate calmness which we are accustomed to associate with the Bench; but they were at least honest, educated men, and generally possessed a fair knowledge of the law.  Their defects were due to the fact that the demand for trained jurists far exceeded the supply, and the Government was forced to nominate men who under ordinary circumstances would never have thought of presenting themselves as candidates.  At the beginning of 1870, in the 32 “Tribunaux d’Arrondissement” which then existed, there were 227 judges, of whom 44 had never received a juridical education.  Even the presidents had not all passed through a school of law.  Of course the courts could not become thoroughly effective until all the judges were men who had received a good special education and had a practical acquaintance with judicial matters.  This has now been effected, and the present generation of judges are better prepared and more capable than their predecessors.  On the score of probity I have never heard any complaints.

Of all the judicial innovations, perhaps the most interesting is the jury.

At the time of the reforms the introduction of the jury into the judicial organisation awakened among the educated classes a great amount of sentimental enthusiasm.  The institution had the reputation of being “liberal,” and was known to be approved of by the latest authorities in criminal jurisprudence.  This was sufficient to insure it a favourable reception, and to excite most exaggerated expectations as to its beneficent influence.  Ten years of experience somewhat cooled this enthusiasm, and voices might be heard declaring that the introduction