servants who after a time returned with bread; at the worst it was only an
inconvenience, but the workman had no servants to run his errands. In
the morning, the laborer left his home for his work with little or no
breakfast, at noon there was no luncheon for him because his wife was
standing in the bread or sugar line, and when he returned in the evening
there may have been bread enough but little else. The wife was tired and
discouraged, the children crying and hungry, and life became a burden.

We may say that the conditions in Russia were no worse than in France or
Germany. This is doubtless true, but there is this difference: the people
of France and Germany had confidence in their leaders and realized that
they were doing the best that they could, while the Russians knew they
could put no trust in their Government, that the suffering was unnecessary
and was due to corruption, favoritism, and incompetency. The Russians have
as much patriotism and patience as any other people, but when they saw
themselves abused and imposed upon they had a right to complain.

In addition to the criticism of the Government the other favorite topic of
conversation was the revolution that would come after the war. This was
discussed as openly as the problems of war; the two were bound up together,
first a successful ending of the war, and then a change in government.

This public denunciation and open discussion of a _coup d'etat_ came as a
shock to me, for I remembered quite vividly how the same people cheered the
Emperor when he declared war. Three years ago no one would have dared to
talk like that. To be sure enough was said then of the desirability of a
more liberal government, but it was a far-off question, one that the
next generation might have to deal with. Now the talk was of an overturn
immediately after the war.