L ETTE RS TO THE E DUO It.

MR. PARES AND DR. DILLON.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.'

SIR,—A personal attack covering nearly two columns of the Spectator (August 24th) requires some answer. Besides, I carry the card of the Spectator's correspondent in Russia. But if I reply in detail, my object is something more im- portant than defence of myself.

Dr. Dillon has had three conversations with me. In each case only English was used ; each time other persons were of the party. We have also had about us many occasional exchanges of remarks in the Duma. I was introduced to Dr. Dillon by Mr. Percy Bunting under my own name ; I never use any other. I asked him his opinion on current Russian politics, but I never "asked him to help me to form a coherent view" on this subject. I recognised his knowledge of Russia; but I never said that "my own very imperfect knowledge of the language and politics of Russia rendered me liable to make mistakes upon matters concerning which I was writing a book or books for the English market." This is all Dr. Dillon's phrasing, not mine. I do not remember using the words " Grand-Ducal Party." Of this particular. conversation I remember that I suggested that whenever even mild Octobrism prevailed over reactionary views round the throne a very great step would have been made towards a peaceful solution. I understood .Dr. Dillon to say that he agreed with this, but that at the moment everything was unfortunately going the other way. After careful thought, I cannot remember another point on which I had any actual information from Dr. Dillon ; and this negative piece of news I had already received from many other quarters. As to the " grotesquely exaggerated diffidence," " profuse thanks," and "embarrassing superlatives," Dr. Dillon has either flattered himself, or else abused the respect which I paid to his age and experience. I think it was twice that I sat next to him in the Puma. Certainly not more than twice did he give me the gist of any remarks from the tribune which I did not catch. 1 may add that the House, and especially the Press box, was not favodrable to hearing, and that I have more than once seen some of the nearer members straining to

listen with both hands to their ears, whilst others, who were further off, left their seats to stand as close to the tribune as possible.

I have now dealt with all the facts concerning me on which Dr. Dillon can speak at first hand. He has twisted every one of them. Dr. Dillon's letter does not recognise my presence in Russia before 1907, nor any work of mine on the subject except one article. For myself, I will not trouble your readers by dwelling upon my fourteen years' study of nineteenth- century history, my nine years' study of Russia in particular, my journeys in ten provinces of Central Russia, my conversa- tions with a very large proportion of the most prominent representatives of- every party in Russia, and my presence at nearly all the sittings both of the first and of the second Dumas.

Dr. Dillon makes a peculiarly insulting suggestion as to " the patient quadruped at the wedding feast." It-is insulting

both in general to the spirit of Russian country hospitality, and in particular to one of the most revered of Russian Liberals, Mr. John Petrunkevich, who took the leadership only in the days of persecution, and gave it up during the days of triumph. Mr. Petrunkevich is at least no more of " a politician with an axe to grind" than Count Witte or Mr. Pikhno. I had travelled for some days exclusively amongst the peasants of his district before I ever stayed at his house. In none of my three visits was he himself present.

As it happens, his family and I have very warmly debated the

politics of the Cadet Party, which I have also freely criticised in the Press. On the occasion described in my Times article I saw the peasants, not through his spectacles, but face to face by the light of his burning house which they had fired. Why did Dr. Dillon raise an entirely personal question of which he knew nothing ? He might indulge his fancy just as well over my visits to the strong Conservative, Count Paul Sheremetyeff, or to the Octobrist, Prince VolkOnsky, or over my being entertained to a rural lunch by the peasant members of a cantonal meeting.

The rest of Dr. Dillon's charges are all generalisations, or even what I may call expletives, such as : " the incipie0 historian," " haste to make a name," " not one to whom I should seriously think of applying for light on matters ethical, historical, or political," " Mr. Bernard Pares is, of course, not obliged to read my articles. But an honest, self- respecting critic of my journalistic work is." I will only notice one such expression,--" the cacoethes scribendi." Ou my first visit to Russia I resolved to write nothing about the country for five years. I adhered to this resolve, with the exception of a feuilleton in Russian in a Russian newspaper. I do not object to the far greater amount of Dr. Dillon's own literary output. In general I have only mentioned these vehemences because they show beyond all doubt the rancour with which Dr. Dillon sometimes writes. But that point, however obvious, is important to my present explanation.

Dr. Dillon employs another series of expressions, such as : "he lectures me," "magisterially," "dogmatically"; he

"gives unsolicited advice" ; he "is ready to teach the fish to swim." I give no advice, solicited or unsolicited ; I criticise. And I claim to use the same right which Dr.

Dillon has applied so freely to his " politicians with axes to grind." I cannot see that newspaper men, who criticise so freely, should themselves be exempt from criticism. Dr. Dillon can of course criticise me; and I shall not object if he does so in the spirit of his letter.

As to my claiming to speak "in the name of the Russian people," that is again a pure invention of Dr. Dillon. As to my saying that " Professor Martens had in my opinion done a great deal of mischief," I said much less than the leading article in the number of the Times which published Professor Martens's letter. As to the question of terrorism, I think I have made my opinion sufficiently clear in my letters to the Spectator and to the Westminster Gazette on that subject. It is the opposite of that which Dr. Dillon seems inclined to attribute to me.

I have trespassed on the, patience of your readers ; but it takes less time to tie knots than to untie them. The rest of

my task has been made exceedingly easy by Dr. Dillon himself. Certainly he , has misrepresented me in the most thbroogligoing way, and has strained the very slightest expression beyond all bearing to make me out incompetent and untrustworthy. But that is not my case against him. My case against him is that he has treated the second Dun= as he has treated me, and that he has turned on me with the same weapons only when I objected to his treatment of the second Duma. Since be very suddenly became a strong supporter of Count Witte he. has hardly found a good word for the Russian Liberals. The picture which be gave of the second Duma was, in my opinion, in fiat contradiction with what I had before my eyes day after day. His articles became a practical factor in the political situation. I did not consider that they were immune from criticism: Dr. Dillon has replied in such a way as to give the very best example of the methods to which I thought it necessary to

object.—I am, Sir, &C., BERNARD PARES. District of Balashoff, Province of Sarcitor, September 5th.

[Mr. Pares's reply to Dr. .Dillon's strictures is, in our opinion, entirely satisfactory, and shows that Dr. Dillon's com- plaints against him were not well founded.—En. Spectator.] :