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
of the jury was a mistake. The Russian people, it was held, was not yet
ripe for such an institution, and numerous anecdotes were related
in support of this opinion. One jury, for instance, was said to have
returned a verdict of "NOT guilty with e