fancy the Panslavonic party in Russia hold that the territorial expansion of the country cannot reach its proper limits except under the autocracy.’
‘Then how comes it,’ asked Mr Bristley, facing her full, ‘that constitutional and democratic England has accomplished her territorial expansion all round the globe? It has come to pass because the faculty of such expansion depends upon the character of a people, and not upon its form of government. But you mistake me if you imagine I am inveighing against the Russian autocracy. On the contrary, I believe there is very much to be said for it, or would be, if only the despotic monarch sat enthroned above a European constitution, instead of above a barbarous and corrupt bureaucracy. ‘The imperial prerogative and veto might be the final appeal from the laws even of a thoroughly republican constitution; and a good despotism of this sort would have many and obvious advantages over a simple republic. But the links of a constitution are indispensable, in order to connect the monarch with his people. The Russians themselves, I believe, have a saying, ‘Heaven is high, and the Czar is far off.’ He ought not to be far off; and the practical way of bringing him near is to create a constitution whereby genuine, not manufactured, public opinion may reach his ear.’
‘Meanwhile, I wonder how this will affect the foreign policy of Russia,’ said Lady Humnoddie thoughtfully. ‘Will it make for peace or war?’
‘For war, I fear,’ said Lesbia, to the surprise of both the others. ‘Murder does not bring good, and perhaps the Conservative party in Russia may prefer the risks of war abroad to those of revolution at home.’
‘Yes, if they can choose between them,’ said the Marchioness. ‘But they might get both.’
‘So might we,’ rejoined Lesbia.
