To this momentous question I do not profess to give a categorical answer.  If it be true, even in ordinary times, that “of all forms of human folly, prediction is the most gratuitous,” it is especially true at a moment like the present, when we are constantly reminded of the French proverb that there is nothing certain but the unforeseen.  All I can hope to do is to throw a little light on the elements of the problem, and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Between the present situation and the early part of Alexander II.’s reign there is undoubtedly a certain analogy.  In both cases we find in the educated classes a passionate desire for political liberty, generated by long years of a stern, autocratic regime, and stimulated by military disasters for which autocracy is held responsible; and in both cases we find the throne occupied by a Sovereign of less accentuated political convictions and less energetic character than his immediate predecessor.  In the earlier case, the autocrat, showing more perspicacity and energy than were expected of him, guides and controls the popular enthusiasm, and postpones the threatened political crisis by effecting a series of far reaching and beneficent reforms.  In the present case . . . the description of the result must be left to future historians.  For the moment, all we can say is that between the two situations there are as many points of difference as of analogy.  After the Crimean War the enthusiasm was of a vague, eclectic kind, and consequently it could find satisfaction in practical administrative reforms not affecting the essence of the Autocratic Power, the main pivot round which the Empire has revolved for centuries.  Now, on the contrary, it is precisely on this pivot that the reform enthusiasm is concentrated.  Mere bureaucratic reforms can no longer give satisfaction.  All sections of the educated classes, with the exception of a small group of Conservative doctrinaires, insist on obtaining a controlling influence in the government of the country, and demand that the Autocratic Power, if not abolished, shall be limited by parliamentary institutions of a democratic type.

Another difference between the present and the past, is that those who now clamour for radical changes are more numerous, more courageous, and better organised than their predecessors, and they are consequently better able to bring pressure to bear on the Government.  Formerly the would-be reformers were of two categories; on the one hand, the Constitutionalists, who remained within the bounds of legality, and confined themselves to inserting vague hints in loyal addresses to the Tsar and making mild political demonstrations; and on the other hand, the so-called Nihilists, who talked about organising society on Socialistic principles, and who hoped to attain their object by means of secret associations.  With both of these groups, as soon as they became aggressive, the Government had no difficulty