cussed among other questions that of freedom of conscience. The first tangible concession on the part of the theocracy was the ukase concerning toleration promulgated on April 30, 1905. The theocracy recognised clearly enough that certain renovations in the Uvarovian foundations were essential, but this matter, however characteristic, cannot be discussed here. My concern is to describe the disputes that ensued among the dignitaries who were discussing the necessary reforms. Information upon this subject is afforded by a recent publication containing the correspondence between the liberals and the reactionaries (Historical Correspondence concerning the Destiny of the Orthodox Church, 1912).
The leaders on the two sides were Witte for the liberals and Pobědonoscev for the theocrats. Witte admits that the church has been bureaucratised and subjected to hierarchical control, that the dioceses have lost their ancient right of electing bishops, that the congregations are decaying. He deplores that the clergy should lend themselves to misuse as police agents and detectives; he recognises the inadequacy of the lifeless church schools; he shares the views of those who have regarded Peter's reforms as uncanonical, and who have demanded that the church be rendered independent of the state, this independence being secured (above all) by the reestablishment of the patriarchate. He is aware that the congregations have lost their liberties owing to political centralisation and owing to serfdom (Uvarov, likewise, had recognised this connection). Witte eloquently defends the freedom of the church and of religion, advocates local self-government in ecclesiastical matters as against centralisation, and suggests the revival of the conciliary principle.
Antonii the metropolitan, who dreads the autonomy of the sects, prudently defends the freedom of his church; whereas Pobědonoscev is all fire and fury when he defends the existing order against the onslaughts of Witte. To the procurator, the synod is a permanent council; the centralisation of the church and the establishment of hierarchical authority have been essential; independent congregations are now impossible; and so on. In a word, all is for the best in the best of all possible churches.
It seems strange to find Witte defending the liberty of the church. It was Witte who had fought against freedom for the zemstvos, on the ground that such freedom would be
