had a very prejudicial effect on the relations between Germany and Austria-Hungary. The serious injury which would be caused to Austrian and Hungarian agriculture by the high duties on agricultural products laid down in the proposed tariff led even the Austrian Germans and the Hungarians, hitherto the most steadfast advocates of the alliance with Germany, to the conclusion that Germany alone reaped any benefits from that alliance, while the Austrian Slavs, who form the majority of the population, were deeply irritated by the Pan-German agitation and the speech of the German Emperor at Marienburg (see p. 283). In Hungary, too, it was seen that Pan-Germanism was a far greater peril to the Monarchy than Pan-Slavism, as the latter was losing much of its influence in consequence of the growing recognition by each Slavonic nationality of its own political traditions and aspirations apart from those of the othersand did not attempt any propaganda in non-Slavonic countries, while Pan-Germanism had, in every country where Germans had settled, a nucleus for spreading its propaganda among the other populations. The renewal of the Triple Alliance was accordingly received with some dissatisfaction, and when Count Bülow came to Vienna in April to make the preliminary arrangements, the complete absence of the enthusiastic demonstrations of friendship for Germany which took place on former similar occasions was very striking. "Our Monarchy and Italy," said one of the leading Hungarian papers on this occasion, "have nothing to show for this alliance but enormous material sacrifices and no profit." On the other hand, if the Triple Alliance had not been renewed, the Austro-German Alliance concluded in 1879 for an indefinite period would have remained in force, and even the Triple Alliance was considered a better arrangement for Austria-Hungary than that she should be left alone in alliance with Germany. As the relations with that Power became cooler, those with Russia grew more cordial. The visit paid by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand to the Tsar, and the conference held at Vienna between Counts Lamsdorf and Goluchowski in December, on the Macedonian question (see p. 325), were regarded as a revival of the Austro-Russian rapprochement effected by Count Goluchowski at the time of the Emperor Francis Joseph's visit to St. Petersburg in 1897 (see ANNUAL REGISTER, 1897, p. 297), which had been somewhat disturbed by the present of arms and ammunition from the Tsar to Prince Nicolas of Montenegro and the return of King Milan to Belgrade. With Italy, on the other hand, AustriaHungary's relations were somewhat strained by the Italian agitation in Albania and the disorders at Trieste, by the disappointment produced in Austria by her having been omitted from the round of visits made by King Victor Emmanuel to St. Petersburg and Berlin, and by the withdrawal at the end of the year of the clause in the commercial treaty with Italy providing for a specially low duty on Italian wines.

Count Goluchowski made his annual statement on the foreign affairs of the Monarchy in May. Referring to the Triple Alliance, he said it would "continue to pursue the pacific end to which it owed its origin," and that it would do this" with all the greater confidence as according to the declarations repeatedly made by the competent authorities as to the no less pacific objects of the Dual Alliance it must regard the latter as a highly valuable complement and assistance in the fulfilment of its own task." The idea which had given rise to these political arrangements had, he continued, proved very valuable in its practical application, and had promptly succeeded in developing into a system which was extended to extra-European questions.' As an example of this he cited the treaty between England and Japan, "which had followed in the footsteps of the understanding between Russia and AustriaHungary, both of them constituting agreements dominated by the same conservative spirit as had led to the Triple Alliance.' The advantage of these international arrangements "was emphasised by the fact that they did not exclude in the slightest degree special agreements between individual Powers as to specific interests which affected them alone," as was shown "by the confidential relations now existing between Italy and France and by the thoroughly satisfactory development of Austria-Hungary's relations with Russia in consequence of the St. Petersburg agreement of 1897 "—a development which was "one of the most satisfactory features that had of late appeared in the political sphere, as it had checked perils which caused permanent anxiety on the Continent." The so-called prestige policy in the Balkans," the Minister said, had been put an end to by the St. Petersburg agreement, "the principal stipulation of which was that neither party should undertake or tolerate anything calculated to disturb the mutual equality of their positions in the Near East. All interference in the internal affairs of the various Balkan States was, therefore, to be carefully avoided, with a view not only to depriving them of all prospect of playing off Austria-Hungary and Russia against each other, but also, as far as possible, to preventing the creation of spheres of influence which would only increase the sources of friction between the two Powers." The "warning given to the Balkan States by Austria-Hungary and Russia with regard to the troubles in Macedonia "had so far greatly contributed to prevent the danger from becoming acute," but the situation in that part of the world still "bore a very unpleasant aspect, and had to be constantly dealt with by the two Cabinets chiefly interested, those of Vienna and St. Petersburg, in order that it might not lead to a catastrophe." As regarded Turkey the Minister recognised her preparedness to deal with the difficulty, but solemnly warned her against pursuing the repression of disturbances beyond what might be required for the restoration of order, and he dwelt "on the necessity of substituting for the present maladministration a system based on justice and humanity, which

alone would render the population proof against agitation coming from outside." Representations to the Porte in that sense had been "repeatedly and even recently made in agreement with the Russian Government," and "a somewhat similar warning" had been addressed to Servia and Bulgaria, "who were urged to keep their turbulent elements in check in order not to lay themselves open to the suspicion of wanting to create complications.'

CHAPTER III.

I. RUSSIA.

THE year 1902 was chiefly remarkable in Russia for the alarming spread of the revolutionary movement, by which it became clear that a considerable part of the whole social, economic, and political fabric of the Empire was undermined. No disturbances, indeed, occurred which could not be easily suppressed by the employment of soldiery if the latter were entirely to be relied on. But, on the one hand, there began to be symptoms of indisposition on the part of existing Russian troops to use their weapons for the suppression of popular movements; and on the other hand it was evident that the classes from whom the Army was for the most part annually replenished were becoming increasingly subjected to revolutionary influences. The principal active agents in the diffusion of those influences were university students and the members of the liberal professions-teachers, doctors, barristers and the like; but also, as was pointed out in a circular issued in June by M. Plehve, the recently appointed Minister of the Interior, much use was made of clever and energetic peasants, who were first trained in courses of instruction in sociology and in such subjects as the history of political and economic movements and then sent forth to carry on an anti-Governmental propaganda among their fellows. How widely diffused the revolutionary leaven was among persons with a moderate amount of education was curiously illustrated by a statement made by the same Minister to the Tsar, setting forth the serious amount of mischief done by persons temporarily engaged by the Zemstvos, or provincial representative assemblies, for the purpose of collecting agricultural and other statistics. Many such persons, it was said, used their opportunities of intercourse with the peasantry for the very injurious object of spreading aspirations for the subversion of the existing order of things. This statement so much impressed the Emperor that he sanctioned the issue of orders forbidding the collection of statistics in twelve provinces and also in any other rural districts where the governors might consider that the work of the statisticians was undesirable in the interests of public order. It must be added that even the clergy, the strongest bulwark of Russian autocracy, were be

ginning to be penetrated with revolutionary opinions. These were found to be prevalent in various ecclesiastical seminaries, and that at Odessa was in consequence closed.

With regard to the numerous disturbances of a revolutionary character which occurred only a few representative examples can be here recorded. In February some 400 students of the University of Moscow, many of whom were armed with knives and revolvers, seized the academic buildings, singing revolutionary songs and waving red flags, and erected barricades to oppose the troops sent against them. They were all captured and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In March a demonstration took place in the Nevsky Prospect, the main street of St. Petersburg, which had been organised by committees of students and working-men acting in co-operation. They had circulated thousands of proclamations, inviting all who approved of the demand for freedom of speech, of the Press, of association, and for individual freedom, to assemble in front of the Kazan Cathedral. In notices sent by the committees to the officers of troops quartered in the capital, requesting them not to order the soldiers to use their weapons against the demonstrationists, it was stated that the gathering was designed merely as a peaceful expression of national demands, but at the same time the officers were urged to follow the example of the "Decabrists," the officers who attempted by an armed rising to secure a constitution at the accession of the Tsar Nicholas I. The demonstration was dispersed by the police, many of the people being wounded and some killed. Similar demonstrations took place in other towns, and-which was of very grave significance at the small-arms factory at Tula soldiers who were ordered to fire on some strikers refused to do so, and mutinied when the officer in charge attempted to secure obedience by cutting down one of the non-commissioned officers. From Moscow also a Grenadier regiment was removed because it was said it could not be trusted to fire on the people in case of need. The earlier months of the year were also marked by several murderous attacks on high officials. The life of M. Trepoff, the chief of the Moscow police, was twice unsuccessfully attempted in the spring. M. Sipiaguine, the Minister of the Interior, was murdered by an ex-student of Kieff. He had been one of the chief opponents of the policy of conciliation towards the students recommended by General Vannovsky, the Minister of Public Instruction (see ANNUAL REGISTER, 1901, p. 296), and his assassination excited little public indignation and was even openly rejoiced over by many persons. He was succeeded as Minister of the Interior by M. de Plehve, Secretary of State for Finland, an official with a high reputation for energy, tact, and strength of character, and at the same time General Vannovsky resigned his post.

Serious agrarian riots took place in April in the provinces of

Poltava and Kharkoff, the workmen on some of the estates there combining with the peasantry to sack the houses of some of the proprietors before the troops could be brought in to restore order. In these regions the disorders were ingeniously stimulated by the circulation of absurd rumours that the Tsar had commanded the distribution among the peasants of the lands left to the nobles after the emancipation of the serfs. These reports obtained so much credence among the peasantry that in several cases they formed committees under the communal officials, who required the landowners to vacate their land, which they proceeded to redistribute, leaving fifteen to twenty acres to each proprietor. Considerable and destructive rioting occurred on the authoritative denial of the reports which had led to these proceedings. Economic causes, however, were to a very great extent responsible for the spread of the revolutionary agitation. A series of bad harvests had produced a grave contraction of the means of livelihood among the masses of the rural population, and in the course of 1902 an industrial crisis, advancing in severity as the months went on, was felt all over the Empire. Once prosperous firms were compelled to reduce their output and discharge many of their workmen and, in the south and south-east particularly, numerous industrial undertakings, which had been partly financed from abroad, either closed altogether or came into the hands of official administrators.

The difficulties of the Government were great indeed, and it must be acknowledged that they by no means sought to meet them by merely repressive measures. In Moscow, for example, the police adopted a friendly attitude towards the mill hands and ironworkers. They were encouraged not only to form friendly societies, but to discuss their grievances among themselves, and the Governor, the Grand Duke Serge, promised a deputation of working-men to do all in his power for the improvement of their conditions of labour, and even himself attended an open-air meeting which they held. The authorities also sought to induce the masters to make various concessions to their employés. This policy of conciliation, however, had only a temporary appearance of success. The workmen pressed plainly impossible demands, and the masters were little disposed to make even moderate concessions. The former fell back under the influence of revolutionary agitators, and conspiracies and numerous arrests ensued.

To mitigate the distress in the rural districts the Council of State remitted a very large amount of the arrears of taxation due from the peasants, and sanctioned a law freeing the village communes from their joint responsibility for the taxes of their members. A Government commission was issued to investigate the causes of the protracted depression of agriculture. It obtained many more or less plausible explanations from persons of greater or less authority. The indolence and ignorance of the