and many other
new institutions in Russia--at first, enthusiasm and inordinate
expectations; then consciousness of defects and practical
inconveniences; and, lastly, in an influential section of the public,
the pessimism of shattered illusions, accompanied by the adoption of
a reactionary policy on the part of the Government. The discontent
appeared first among the so-called privileged classes. To people who had
all their lives enjoyed great social consideration it seemed monstrous
that they should be treated exactly in the same way as the muzhik; and
when a general who was accustomed to be addressed as "Your Excellency,"
was accused of using abusive language to his cook, and found himself
seated on the same bench with the menial, he naturally supposed that the
end of all things was at hand; or perhaps a great civil official, who
was accustomed to regard the police as created merely for the lower
classes, suddenly found himself, to his inexpressible astonishment,
fined for a contravention of police regulations! Naturally the justices
were accused of dangerous revolutionary tendencies, and when they
happened to bring to light some injustice on the part of the tchinovnik
they were severely condemned for undermining the prestige of the
Imperial authority.

For a time the accusations provoked merely a smile or a caustic remark
among the Liberals, but about the middle of the eighties criticisms
began to appear even in the Liberal Press. No very grave allegations
were made, but defects in the system and miscarriages of justice were
put forward and severely commented upon. Occasionally it happened that a
justice was indolent, or that at the Sessions in a small country 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