sentative form of government, and that if the Tzar would summon a national assembly, to be elected by the people, they—the 'Terrorists'—'would submit unconditionally to the decisions of such an assembly, and would not allow themselves to offer violent resistance to any government that such an assembly might sanction.' Men and women who make declarations of this kind can be called 'Anarchists' only by those who are grossly ignorant of their character and aims. In conclusion, I can only say again what I have already said elsewhere, that, morally, the Russian revolutionists whom I met in Siberia would compare favourably with any body of men and women of equal numerical strength that I could collect from the circle of my own acquaintances. I do not share the opinions of all of them, but it is my deliberate conviction, nevertheless, that, tested by any moral standard of which I have knowledge, such 'Nihilists' as Volkhovsky, Chudnofski, Alexander Krapotkin, Kogan-Bernstein, Charoushin, Klements, Natalie Armfeldt and Anna Pavlovna Korba, represent the flower of Russian young manhood and young womanhood. General Strelnikof may say that they are 'fanatics' and 'robbers'; secret agents of the Russian police in London may call them 'Anarchists'; Mr. Galkine-Wrasskoy may describe them as 'wretched men and women whose social depravity is so great that it would shock the English people if translated into proper English equivalents'; but among these men and women, nevertheless, are some of the best, bravest and most generous types of manhood and womanhood that I have ever known. I am linked to them only by the ties of sympathy, humanity, or friendship; but I wish that I were bound to them by the tie of kindred blood. I should be proud of them if they were my brothers and sisters, and so long as any of them live they may count upon me for any service that a brother can render."
