eory, not only
the officials, but even the Tsar himself, must obey the laws he has
sanctioned, like the meanest of his subjects. This is one of those
cases, not infrequent in Russia, in which theory differs somewhat from
practice. In real life the Emperor may at any moment override the law
by means of what is called a Supreme Command (vysotchaishiye povelenie),
and a minister may "interpret" a law in any way he pleases by means of
a circular. This is a frequent cause of complaint even among those who
wish to uphold the Autocratic Power. In their opinion law-respecting
autocracy wielded by a strong Tsar is an excellent institution for
Russia; it is arbitrary autocracy wielded by irresponsible ministers
that they object to.

As Englishmen may have some difficulty in imagining how laws can come
into being without a Parliament or Legislative Chamber of some sort,
I shall explain briefly how they are manufactured by the Russian
bureaucratic machine without the assistance of representative
institutions.

When a minister considers that some institution in his branch of the
service requires to be reformed, he begins by submitting to the Emperor
a formal report on the matter. If the Emperor agrees with his minister
as to the necessity for reform, he orders a Commission to be appointed
for the purpose of considering the subject and preparing a definite
legislative project. The Commission meets and sets to work in what seems
a very thorough way. It first studies the history of the institution in
Russia from the earliest times downwards--or rather, it listens to
an essay on the subject, especially prepared for the occasion by some
official who has a taste for historical studies, and can write in a
pleasant style. The next step--to use a phrase which often occurs in the
minutes of such commissions--consists in "shedding the light of science
on the question" (prolit' na dyelo svet nauki). This important operation
is performed by preparing a memorial containing the history of similar
institutions in foreign countries, and an elaborate exposition of
numerous theories held by French and German philosophical jurists.
In these memorials it is often considered necessary to include every
European country except Turkey, and sometimes the small German States
and principal Swiss cantons are treated separately.

To illustrate the character of these wonderful productions, let me give
an example. From a pile of such papers lying before me I ta