M. Nabokov spoke first. He spoke clearly and calmly, without rhetoric or emphasis, and gave expression to the universal feeling of bitter disappointment. He was listened to in silence until he reached the question of amnesty, and then, when he said that the House considered this question to be one between itself and the Crown, and did not admit the interference or mediation of any third party with regard to it, the pent-up excitement of the House found release in tumultuous and prolonged applause. Likewise when he said that the House regarded the declaration of the Ministry as a direct challenge of defiance, and that they accepted the challenge, he could not continue for some time owing to the applause and the cheering. It was admitted on all sides that M. Nabokov’s speech was dignified and masterly, and expressed what everybody felt. He was followed by M. Rodichev, who indulged in elaborate and effective rhetoric. Too elaborate and too rhetorical, some people said; psychologically, however, I think it was wise to let M. Rodichev’s tempestuous rhetoric follow immediately after M. Nabokov’s cool decisiveness; because when a body of people finds itself in a tumultuous frame of mind, the tumult must find expression. M. Rodichev’s speech reads exceedingly well; and judging by its result it was successful. M. Anikin spoke for the peasants, and M. Aladin gave vent to the feelings of the more violent members of the House. As an orator, he made a grave mistake in pitching his key too high; he began at the top of the pitch, so that when he wished to make a crescendo he overstepped the limit, and the whole house cried out “Enough! Enough!” After some moments of disorder he was allowed to finish his speech. The general impression was that he had gone too far. He would be twenty times as effective as an orator if he would curb his passion. The _Novoe Vremya_ remarks to-day that it is said that M. Aladin’s oratory is considered to be English in style. M. Aladin has spent eight years in England. The most successful speech of the day, judging from its reception, was that of Professor Kovolievski, who pointed out that for the Government to speak of the impossibility of expropriation was an insult to the Emperor Alexander II., who had carried out the biggest act of expropriation the world had ever seen. His speech was at the same time extremely sensible and passionately eloquent. He said, like Mirabeau of yore, that the Duma would not go until it was turned out by force, and that in reminding the House that an act of amnesty was the prerogative of the Crown, the Ministry were, as a constitutional body, offending the Monarch by giving the impression that should no amnesty be given it was the Emperor’s will, and that therefore not they, but the Emperor should insist on their resignation. The House adjourned at 7.30, after having passed their momentous vote of censure.