sharing all its foreign relations, and by the Act of Assurance of 15-27 March, 1809, he declared that:

Providence having placed us in possession of the Grand Duchy of Finland, we have desired hereby to confirm and ratify the religion and fundamental laws of the land, as well as the privileges and rights which each class in the said Grand Duchy in particular, and all the inhabitants in general, be their position high or low, have hitherto enjoyed according to the constitution. We promise to maintain all these benefits and laws firm and unshakable in their full force.

By this treatment Alexander disarmed the opposition which the Finlanders had maintained against his invading forces. The Diet which he assembled at Borgo on the old lines

swore

To have and to consider as their lawful authority the great puissant prince and lord Alexander I, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, and to keep inviolable the fundamental laws and the constitution of the land, such as they are now adopted and in force.

And not until he had thus acquired the title to the allegiance of the Finlanders which he preferred, did Alexander, on 17th September, 1809, conclude the peace with Sweden, by which the international title to the territory was ceded to him.

The constitution mutually guaranteed by the Grand Duke and the Diet is chiefly to be found in the two great Swedish fundamental laws of the preceeding century, the Form of Government of 1772 and the Act of Union and Security of 1789. These two documents were mentioned in the report of the constitution made by M. Rehbinder to Alexander before he signed the 'act of Assurance. They were mentioned again in a report made to Alexander in

1811 on some instructions not conformable to them, which he had given, and which he withdrew in consequence. And in 1869 Alexander II referred to them emphatically when he gave his sanction in the following form to the law concerning the Diet passed by that body:

Reserving for ourselves our right as it is defined in the Form of Government of 21st August, 1772, and in the Act of Union and Security of 21st February and 3rd April, 1789, and remains without express modification in the present organic law of the Diet, we approve and sanction this organic law of the Diet as an inviolable fundamental law.

Resting on these bases the constitution may be described in general terms as reserving the powers of legislation and taxation, otherwise than by the imposition of export or import duties to the Diet in conjunction with the Sovereign, and confiding to the latter the supreme judicial and executive authority, to be exercised in conformity with the laws, but not shackled by any responsibility of himself or his Ministers to the Legislature. The Sovereign, however, was assisted by certain central bodies, in the place of which the Diet of Borgo created a single body with the title of Council of Government, changed in 1816 to the Imperial Senate of Finland, which consequently is a supreme council, both judicial and administrative. And the power of legislation for which the concurrence of the Diet is necessary must not be understood quite as we should understand it in England. It is limited to such enactments as are called in Swedish lag, etymologically "law," while in "cases of order and economy" the Sovereign with the proper assistance, now in Finland that of the Senate, can make what in Swedish is called an administrativ förordning, usually translated "ordinance."

There is no express enumeration of the cases which may be treated as belonging to order and economy, and which, therefore, fall legally within what is often styled the Grand Duke's economic or administrative legislation; but in practice that power includes police and sanitary matters, the press, the university and other educational establishments, insurance business, the post office, and, of course, the organization and conduct of state departments, and the administration of the domains, railways and canals of the state. No ordinance, however, can conflict with or involve an alteration in the provisions of any law passed by the Diet, even although such law may deal with a matter which could have been originally regulated by ordinance; and the fundamental laws provide that whenever "a new legislative question arises" it shall be dealt with by the Diet and not by ordinance.

Lastly, Section 45 of the Form of Government of 1772 allows the Sovereign to impose levies for military service and new taxes, in case of "such disaster as that the realm were attacked by armed force . . . but as soon as the war ceases the estates must meet and the new charges imposed on account of the war must cease immediately."

From this sketch it will be seen that the Finnish constitution closely resembles what the Tudor Sovereigns understood to be that of England, or tried to get accepted as such. It gives a measure of liberty which, before the nineteenth century, was rarely surpassed except in republics, but not one incompatible with the Grand Duchy's cooperating cordially with the Empire for the best development of both, and for the international interests which the

1 The word "empire" is used in this article in the narrower sense, which would have been expressed by "kingdom" if the sovereign of Russia had been a king. The Finlanders do not hesitate to describe their country as forming part of the

great Empire was charged with managing on behalf of both. For that purpose nothing was needed but loyalty on both sides, and on the side of Finland a hearty loyalty was aroused by the generous conduct of Alexander I, and has continued down to the present Emperor's manifesto of February, 1899, unshaken even by the sufferings which were caused to the Grand Duchy by the operations of the allied fleets on its coast during the Crimean War. How, in late times, a want of loyalty has been displayed by Russia, will be told later. To recount, first, how the compact was observed by a series of Tsars will serve as additional testimony to their being nothing unworkable in it.

a

In 1810 Alexander I drew up secret rescript for the guidance of a new governor, Count Steinheil, who was a stranger to the country, and wrote in it: "My object in organizing the situation in Finland has 'been to give to the people a political existence, so that they may not regard themselves as subject to Russia, but as attached to her by their own evident interests; and for this reason, not only their civil laws, but also their political laws have been retained." In 1811 he voluntarily restored to Finland the province of Viborg, which Russia had held under cessions made by Sweden to Peter the Great and the Empress Elizabeth; and in one of the documents connected with that restoration, a secretary having inscribed it as made to the Grand Duchy of Finland, "incorporé à notre empire," Alexander, with his own hand, struck out those words.

The Empresses Elizabeth and Catherine had sanctioned the scheme of an independent Finland as a buffer state between Russia and Sweden, but the discontent of the Finlanders at their coun

Russian Empire in the larger sense, analogous to that in which we speak of the British Empire. The distinction could be expressed in Germany by reich and kaiserthum, for which there is but one word in English.

try being so often made the theatre of war had never ripened into any active steps for realizing that scheme. The freedom granted by Alexander I fell, therefore, to a considerable extent within the lines of traditional Russian policy, a circumstance which must have helped to carry it successfully through the period of political reaction which followed that of his liberal impulses. No Finnish Diet was assembled for more than half a century after that of Borgo, the laws at that time not providing for any stated summoning, but leaving it to be summoned by the Sovereign at his discretion. Nicholas I, however, repeated on his accession his brother's guarantee of the constitution as all succeeding Emperors have done. And when, in 1827, he made an ordi nance admitting persons of the orthodox religion, naturalized in Finland, to hold office there, contrary to Section 1 of the Form of Government of 1772, which reserved the service of the state exclusively to Lutherans, he recognized in the preamble that a law passed by the Diet would have been required, but said that he judged it indispensable not to delay the reform until a Diet could be assembled. Nor is it now on this ordinance that the matter rests, but on the law of June 11th, 1889, regularly passed by the Diet, which opened all public functions to Christians of all denominations. Again, when a committee, appointed by Nicholas in 1835, on the civil laws and procedure of Finland, reported that certain amendments were desirable in the code of 1734, which had been passed by a Diet and therefore could only be altered by one, he directed that the code should be left untouched, and that only the administrative ordinances should be revised. It is true that some of the ordinances made by some of the Grand Dukes are difficult to reconcile with a limitation in cases of order and economy, but such occasional deviations in ill-defined

detail cannot outweigh the repeated acknowledgements that the Sovereign's power of enactment is not unlimited.

The Diet was recalled to active existence by Alexander II, and its power enlarged. By the Form of Government of 1772 the estates could originate bills as well as deliberate on those presented to them by the Sovereign, but their initiative in legislation was taken from them by the Act of Union and Security of 1789. In his speech on opening the Diet of 1863, the Emperor Grand Duke announced his intention of restoring it, except for changes in the fundamental laws, the initiative of which he reserved to himself. And this was effected by Section 71 of the law of 15-27 March, 1869, duly passed by the Diet and sanctioned by Alexander, which is called the Law of the Diet, and regulates it at some length. The old division into four estates-nobles, clergy, burghers and peasants-is retained, but

It is expressly declared in the Law of the Diet of 1869 that the members of the different Houses represent not the interests or privileges of their Order, but those of the Finnish nation. Members duly elected may not decline to serve or to attend the Diet except on the ground of old age or ill heaith. There is no direct payment of representatives, but the elected members are entitled to claim from the district they represent an allowance to cover their travelling expenses and the expenses of living while attending the sittings of the Diet. A member neglecting his duties may be punished not only by the withholding of this payment, but by fine. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and since 1886 each member has the right to bring forward for discussion in proper form, by motion or petition, subjects of public interest. Representatives who are not members of the National Church are not permitted to take part in any proceedings relating to the affairs of that Church.2

2 Fisher's Finland and the Tsars, page 139.

The estates must be summoned to meet in ordinary session, according to the Law of the Diet, at least once in every five years. The Emperor may also summon a special Diet at any time. . . There is a special election for each Diet. . . The House of Burghers is now composed of the representatives of the towns. Originally representation was confined to members of the trade guilds, but by the Law of the Diet in 1869 the franchise was extended to all householders; and ten years later it was still further extended to all urban ratepayers, except nobles, clergy, soldiers, sailors, and so forth. The town representatives are elected directly, in the proportion of about one member for six thousand inhabitants. In the Peasants' Order, on the other hand, the elections are indirect, as is the case in many Continental countries. Each commune chooses one or more electors, according to population, and these electors assemble in each district to elect a representative on the Diet.

The rural

franchise is still somewhat restricted, being confined to landowners and the tenants of the Crown lands and domain lands. As, however, the vast majority of the peasants own their farms, the number excluded is not great. Every Finnish citizen of twenty-five years and over, and belonging to a Christian Church, is eligible for election in the Order to which he belongs.

The concurrence of all four Orders is required for the alteration of a fundamental law, the imposition of new taxes, or fresh expenditure; for ordinary legislation a majority in three Orders is conclusive. And in certain cases "the committee whose report is in danger of falling through is strengthened by the addition of sixty fresh members" (Mr. Fisher should have said "brought up to the number of sixty members"), "fifteen from each House, and this 'strengthened committee,' as it is called, is empowered to decide

136.

Fisher's Finland and the Tsars, pages 135,

the question without debate, and without its being referred back to the estates." It appears that for this purpose the majority in the strengthened committee must be one of two-thirds if the concurrence of all four Orders would otherwise have been necessary, but that a bare majority suffices where only three Orders would have been required. And it scarcely needs to be added that the work of the Diet requires the sanction of the Emperor Grand Duke, who, however, cannot alter it, just as is the case with the British Parliament and the Queen, except that in Finland the sanction is not always given, and has in any case, to be delayed for that examination of the matter which the presence in Parliament of the responsible advisers of the Crown renders unnecessary in England at so late a stage.

Such is the body on which is now laid the burden of defending the Finnish constitution, and a word must be said of the people whom it represents. The character of Finlander or Finnish subject, as distinct from that of Russian subject, is known to the laws both of the Grand Duchy and of the Empire, and even Russians who desire to possess it must be formally naturalized if they do not acquire it by domicile. This is in accordance with the fact repeatedly recognized in official documents, that Finland is a state and not a province, and with the language of Alexander I, who, writing in French, as he was accustomed to do, spoke of his new subjects as citoyens de la Finlande.

It was early seen that legislative questions must arise interesting both the Empire and the Grand Duchy, and in Article 218 of the Russian Statute of 1826 on the Ministries, while no attempt was made to detract from the legislative autonomy of either country, provision was made for mutual comFisher's Finland and the Tsars, page 138.

munication in such cases between the authorities of the respective countries in preparing the legislation for each. This system, which was completed from the Finnish side by an ordinance of 1891 to a similar effect, has been applied, and has never been found insufficient. But when the military legislation of Finland, which, of course, furnishes a striking example of common interest, and was settled under Alexander I by the Diet of Borgo, required remodeling in consequence of the great military changes throughout Europe, General Miliutin proposed to deal with it in an autocratic manner. Alexander II rejected the advice, and the result was the Military Service Law of 1878, duly passed by the Diet, and of which several sections were directed to be regarded as sections of a fundamental law. "Later," says Mr. Fisher, page 151, "when further changes were being made in 1891, General Vannoffski, Minister of War to Alexander III, made a somewhat similar suggestion [to that of his predecessor], which met with the same fate." These proofs, however, that whatever was really necessary could be obtained by legal and constitutional means from the loyalty of a free people, failed, as we shall see, to satisfy the spirit of Russian military autocracy.

Before the next trial was made that spirit had been reinforced by the equally baneful one of racial and religious bigotry. The, leading controversialist of that school on the Finnish question, Mr. Fisher tells us, was the late M. K. Ordin, whose book, "The Subjugation of Finland," was published in two volumes at St. Petersburg in 1889. His thesis, scarcely conceivable in the face of the express testimonies quoted in this article, was that there was never a guarantee to Finland of her political, but only of her civil laws, and especially of the Swedish code of 1734. And of his arguments, so far as Mr. Fisher de

tails them to us, which is at considerable length, the least bad are, that in the Act of Assurance, which has been quoted above in a translation from the Swedish version, the Russian version has "subjects" instead of "inhabitants," and "constitutions" instead of "constitution!" And this while the Tsar, with his own hand, substituted habitans for sujets in the draft of the speech with which he was to close the proceedings of the day on which he signed the Act, and in several later documents, in Russian, used "constitution" in the singular!

The present Diet was opened on January 24th, 1899, and on the 26th it had before it two government bills, prepared in pursuance of the desire of extorting a complete army corps from Finland, one on obligatory military service, and the other on the organization of the troops. They were sent without discussion to committees, that course being prescribed by the law of the Diet for bills which affect fundamental laws, as these did. The committees had not reported, and consequently it did not appear how the bills would be dealt with, when the imperial manifesto of 3-15 February, with annexed statutes profoundly altering the Finnish constitution, was issued. These had been prepared by a commission presided over by the Grand Duke Michael Nicholaie witch, and of which General Bobrikoff, the Russian governor of Finland, and M. Pobiedonostseff, the well-known campaigner for Russification, and for the propaganda of Eastern orthodoxy, were members. Though dealing, with matters of common interest to the Empire and the Grand Duchy, they were not even prepared in accordance with the statute of 1826 for such cases, the regular Finnish authorities not having been consulted about them. They create a class of laws entirely new, "laws which are applicable throughout the whole Em