than in many other countries. Snellman, who had been able to study the progress in other countries, had found cause for some admonition, and the later leader of the Finnish movement, YrjöKoskinen, had pleaded, from the viewpoint of his own times, pointing out inequalities in land ownership provisions, for equality for land laborers. But neither Snellman nor Yrjö-Koskinen had been able to fully comprehend the instability that tenants faced. Not until Bobrikov's stooges went about the countryside and promised land to the dispossessed, if only the "Emperor's Law" were made the law in Finland, were the dangers clearly seen. The socially-minded politicians were spurred on to prepare land reform proposals, which were later realized, in almost every particular. It was against this same patriotic background that the cooperative movement was born, in the belief that cooperation would teach the people to act thriftily, even ethically. Finally, the February Manifesto even brought an interim solution to the language question. The quarrels of Finnish versus Swedish had hindered development for decades, and although even in educated families there were some who considered themselves Finns, others Swedes, the February Manifesto made pro-Swedes feel closer to the Young Finland movement, which in turn was prepared to delay solution of the language problem as long as the very existence of the country was at stake.

The anxious state of mind in 1899 demanded exceptional initiative from the entire population. It was decided to prepare a huge petition for which, in fact, 522,931 signatures were collected within just ten days. A group of some five hundred citizens elected in the various communities were to deliver the petition to St. Petersburg, but the Czar refused to receive them. To bolster the attempt of the Finns, leading citizens in western European countries signed another petition, and a group of internationally famous intellectuals set out to deliver it, but the Czar also refused to receive this committee. After this, the russification activities continued in even swifter tempo.

The reaction to these attempts split the Finnish people in two, and two opposing political parties were born: the Constitutionalists and the Pro-Finns. The former took the stand of passive resistance, refusing frequently, even at the cost of losing their own official positions, to cooperate in carrying out illegal demands, while the latter considered such resistance unwise : since little Finland did not possess the capabilities of successfully carrying out a policy of civil disobedience against its big neighbor, it ought to try to salvage something of Finland's special status by a resilient attitude.

20