“You mean,” said the landlord, “that one set of men, including some bright intellects and a number of average, that is to say, mediocre men, have been replaced by another set of men containing exactly the same proportion of capacity, mediocrity, and incompetence. By what miracle are they to govern the country better or worse than their opponents? Have they shown that they could do so in the past? And I would apply this argument to the situation here. Do you imagine that a Ministry composed of intellectuals would be radically different from a Ministry composed of Bureaucrats? The intellectuals will be merely Bureaucrats who have not learnt their business, and when they have learnt their business they will be Bureaucrats; that is, perhaps, why the Zemstvo leaders were reluctant to enter the Cabinet.” “The Zemstvo leaders were reluctant to join Count Witte because they disapproved of his programme,” said the student, “and, whether they become Bureaucrats or no, they will be under the control of society.” “The Bureaucrats are blamed for lawlessness,” said the landlord, “but the revolutionaries seem to me so entirely incapable of controlling themselves that they do not lead one to believe in their capacity for controlling other people. The fact is that we Russians are all a mixture of lawlessness and apathy. We are blamed for our apathy, for our want of co-operation, but I thank Heaven for it, for did it not exist, the lawlessness would lead to excesses of a dangerous character; as it is, there is no country where an individual can enjoy such a degree of personal freedom as in Russia. Russia is the only country where the words liberty, fraternity, and equality have any reality. These things are facts in Russia. But they are not facts in England. First, as regards liberty. There is no liberty either of thought or _mœurs_ in England. Liberty of thought flourishes under an autocracy; in the reign of Nero, Renan tells us, ‘la liberté de penser ne fit que gagner. Cette liberté-là se trouve toujours mieux d’avoir affaire à un roi ou à un prince qu’à des bourgeois jaloux et bornés.’ I do not consider my liberty of thought to be violated if I can only read an eclipsed version of the leading articles of the English and French halfpenny Press; but I do consider it violated if I am forbidden to witness a masterpiece full of thought and moral import, such as Ibsen’s ‘Ghosts’ or a beautiful play like Mæterlinck’s ‘Monna Vanna.’ This is the case in England. The English fetter themselves with convention, and ostracise those who revolt against the convention. You cannot smoke in a railway refreshment room in England. You must dress for dinner. You cannot have supper after 12.30 a.m. at a restaurant. You cannot go to a theatre on Sunday. You cannot admire anything unless it is the fashion, and once it is the fashion you must admire it. As to equality, the whole of English life is a struggle to belong to the layer of society immediately above your own,