The First State Duma I: In the Duma

I. IN THE DUMA

S.-Petersburg, 27 April, 1906

It has happened!… Proudly and with confidence, with a serene awareness of the strength of its entitlement - the first free speeches by the first popular representatives in the first Russian parliament were heard… These speeches repeated the call that accompanied the deputies from the moment they left the Winter Palace, walked past the lines of military and police cordons and found themselves in the midst of a huge crowd of exultant people that stretched all the way to the entry gates of the State Duma. Demands for full political amnesty, calls for freedom — these shook the air around the delegates and followed them into the State Duma, continuing to burst through the open windows of the Tauride Palace… And when the almost universally acclaimed chairman of the Duma, S. A. Muromtsev, took his place, the tried and tested warrior I. I. Petrunkevich approached the rostrum and those popular demands were presented… The people and their representatives shared a single thought, a single idea and yearning…

Everyone who had the good fortune to hear Petrunkevich’s and Muromtsev’s speeches in the Duma felt the deep joy of this great historic moment.

“Great undertakings demand great deeds” the first Chairman of the State Duma said in his opening speech. And his audience acknowledged that these deeds would be achieved, no matter what awaits us in the near future. But a return to the darkness and horror of the past? — no. The road to freedom is open, and freedom will be won, no matter what the cost! The calm and majestic certainty in the tone of the first parliamentary speeches filled the spirits of those who heard them with a lively happiness and joy in the face of something new, still uncertain, and great!… The abandoned path of peaceful struggle in the interests of the people, for the benefit and gainful employment of the labouring masses, demanded justice for those who offered their own freedom and often their lives in their struggle to realize this path. The demand for amnesty was an act of statesmanship and an impulse of high feeling, a striving for justice: it showed that the hearts of the national delegates were beating in time with those of the people, it sanctified the Duma and should bring it the confidence of the nation. “Victory is yours!”… And if it is true that coming events are throwing a shadow on the present, the freedom of the future is already dawning on us. Through all of these immediate and perhaps not too distant opportunities, we are moving forward with confident steps into the light and joy of freedom achieved…

_____________________

The city had been decorated with flags early in the morning. Members of the State Duma and the State Council, as well as those who had been invited to attend the ceremony, began gathering at the Winter Palace at 1:00 pm. From early in the day, the bridges (Nikolayevsky and Dvortsovy) were raised. Tight crowds of people covered all the embankments. A large number of delegates left the Palace in boats. A welcoming “Hurrah!” filled the air as the public waved handkerchiefs and hats, answered by greetings from the boats. There are no words to describe the exaltation of the crowd. They make a huge impression on me. Many are moved to tears. “Hurrah!”, “Welcome freedom!”, “Grant the amnesty!” can be heard from all sides. Extraordinary military preparations were undertaken, as if “they were intended for defence” and not for “marking the great celebration inaugurating our first popular government.”… (“Rech’”) Around 4:00, the members of the Duma gathered in the Tauride Palace. Before the session was opened, a prayer was offered. Two sections of seats were reserved for the press. Among the representatives of the press is Vladimir Galaktyonovich Korolenko. Members of the State Council and Ministries, led by Goremykin, were accommodated in the loggia to the left and right of the chairman. Members of the public were in the stalls on the upper tier in quite small numbers. Among the delegates to the Duma, I recognize the Kharkiv professor N. A. Gredeskul who arrived only yesterday from Archangelsk. At precisely 5:00, State Secretary Frish opened the session.

After the text of the solemn oath was read, the members of the Duma sign it. Then the delegates begin the process of electing a Chairman for the Duma, noting their preferences on pieces of paper. 426 of these notes supported S. A. Muromtsev while other candidates received 3, 2, or 1 note. The Duma agrees almost unanimously that a formal ballot is not necessary, and Muromtsev takes his place as Chairman. I. I. Petrunkevich is given the floor and says that the first free speech must be spoken on behalf of those who sacrificed themselves in order to free our motherland. “All the prisons in this country are overcrowded, a thousand hands reach out to us to avail ourselves of our official standing and come to their aid. We will return to this subject when discussing our response to the Speech from the Throne, but right now we cannot but express the general feeling - that a free Russia demands the freeing of those who sacrificed themselves to the struggle.” Unanimous applause drowned out the speech, making a strong impression on me. After this, Muromtsev said: “I bow to the State Duma and cannot find sufficient words to express my gratitude for the honour it has granted me. Choosing a chairman is the first step toward organizing a government. A great feat is being accomplished: — the will of the people is taking on a form of expression through the institution of representation. Great undertakings demand great deeds. The long task of benefitting the people who elected us must be based on grounds that support respect for the prerogatives of a constitutional monarchy (applause) and the full development of the rights of the State Duma, founded on the very essence of popular representation..” (Unanimous applause.)

After this, Muromtsev announces a break in the session until Saturday due to the necessity of presenting the sovereign with the results of the subsequent vote.

The vote began at the set time of 11:00 in the morning, after Muromtsev sent the members of the State Council, who had been standing along the walls, out of the room. As the members of the Duma left the Tauride Palace they were met with ovations. A huge crowd gathered in the Constitutional Democrats’ club. Speeches were given from the balcony of the club: Vinaver, Rodichev, Kareyev and others spoke. The mood was heightened.

S.-Peterburg, 28 April

The 28th of April was taken up with the unveiling of the renewed State Council Statute of 20 February. By 2:00 the Hall of the Assembly of Nobles started to fill up with members of the State Council, with shining stars, ribbons and gilded dress coats. The familiar names are noted: — here comes von-Val’, the former vice-regent of the Caucasus Prince Golitsyn, Stishensky, Count Ignatieff; Count Witte found a place in the back row and his skeptical smile did not leave his face for a moment. A group of professors carries on a sharp dispute with general “magnificence”… After the prayer, the chairman’s place was taken by a very old man, Count Sol’sky, who shifted himself with some difficulty, with Frish on his right hand side. The entire “Cabinet” is in the Ministry loggia with Goremykin at its head. The State Secretary read out the Imperial Decrees regarding the opening of the State Council and the appointment of the presidium. Then Count Sol’sky delivered his opening speech in a weak, aged voice, his head bent low over his notes. Not one word of his speech could be heard in the journalists’ box. After this, the solemn oath was read out and the signing of it began. Count Sol’sky’s speech was dictated to the journalists. The procedure of signing the oath took up one and a half hours. And then the meeting was resumed, in order to declare it closed…

After the lifting of such high spirits in the State Duma yesterday, lifelessness and deathly pallor wafted through the meeting of this supreme legislative body, created to counteract the State Duma in its great pursuit of renewing this miserable country…

S.-Petersburg, 30 April

Party affiliations within the State Duma have not yet been defined with enough clarity to draw any conclusions or to predict how they might be established. It can, however, be maintained with certainty that there are either no supporters of the current regime within the Duma, or that they are rare. Yesterday’s unanimous vote in the Duma is very significant in this regard since, in answer to the Throne Speech, it felt it necessary to insist upon the urgency of a full political amnesty and the early suspension of capital punishment, before its full abolition by law. The first two sessions of the Duma do not yet give us any data by which to judge the parties within the Duma. The elections to the presidium showed, of course, the influence of the People’s Freedom Party, supported by the “labour group.” The latter, in its membership, is almost exclusively made up of peasants so obviously it treats any demagogic influences, coming from various sides, with great caution. There is no basis on which to expect a break between it and the People’s Freedom Party, and with this solidarity between the workers’ group and the People’s Freedom Party a distinct democratic majority arises in the Duma. The workers’ group already displayed its tact during the choosing of a vice-chairman. When it could not find a candidate among its own ranks who would be technically suitable for the post of vice-chairman and who would have been supported by a majority of its members, the group organized the selection of its own candidate from among the members of the People’s Freedom Party. The People’s Freedom Party readily agreed to the offer made by the workers’ group to the candidate N.A. Gredeskul, even though another individual had stood for election for this position earlier. The People’s Freedom Party and its parliamentary faction refrains from attempts to impose its own views onto the workers’ group or to influence its decisions. It may be expected that very soon the workers’ group will gain value in the eyes of the Chairman of the People’s Freedom Party as a true, sincere, and devoted friend of the people. It follows that several members of the People’s Freedom Party have taken up membership in the workers’ group. National groups are also beginning to organize themselves within the Duma. There is talk of the formation of Polish, Jewish, and Ukrainian groups. Membership in a national group will not stand in the way of one’s party membership. The Ukrainian group will be made up of a significant number of peasants. Prof. Maxim Kovalevsky has joined this group.

A section of the Petersburg press treats the Duma with hostility, but among the residents of the capital one can feel an enthusiastic mood: ovations are organized in the streets for members of the Duma. The Social-Democrat-Bolsheviks (publication “Volna”) hold to their doctrinaire uncompromising position, not realizing that in creating dissension in society, they reduce the chances for victory. But, nonetheless, one can still feel their sincerity and devotion to popular freedom in taking this stand.

—————————————————————————————

S.-Petersburg, 1 May

The amnesty has not yet been declared, and this is causing some nervous tension both within the Duma and outside of it: every day large crowds, greeting deputies as they arrive at the Tauride Palace, or accompanying them on their departure from it, or coming together in the Constitutional-Democrats’ club, shake the air with their cries of “amnesty!” Every day, this call tears from the exhausted hearts of those popularly elected to the Duma. During the third session of the Duma on 30 April, the question of amnesty was raised anew through a proposal by two deputies representing peasants and workers, demanding that the Duma agree to the urgency of this most burning question. During the debate, the moral burden of this issue was made clear, arising from the fact that the peasants’ and workers’ deputies, on leaving the Tauride Palace, have no answer to the avid questions of their comrades - what about the amnesty? After the debate was closed,

the Duma resolved not to raise the issue of amnesty separately, without connection to its response to the Throne Speech. The proposal by M. M. Kovalevsky - that the Chairman of the Duma inform the sovereign of the Duma’s unanimous desire that the amnesty be brought about as soon as possible — was rejected by a large majority. A pithy speech by the deputy from Odessa, E. N. Shchepkin, had a strong impact. In it, he argued that demands for an amnesty lose their meaning outside of other program postulates. “We ask for amnesty not as an all-forgiving gesture, but as a freeing of those who fought against an order which no longer exists. We are joined to them by moral ties. The response to the Throne Speech should not appeal to the heart of the Monarch, but offer a programme for government, supported by a majority in the Duma.” It was for this reason that the orator stated categorically that the question of amnesty must not be separated out, and that it take its place among the other burning questions included in the response to the Throne Speech. “It is unnecessary to replace constitutional considerations with some sort of near-mystical associations. The question of amnesty should not force us to put sugary smiles on our suffering faces” (loud applause). A commission of 33 members was chosen to undertake the drafting of a response to the Throne Speech, 11 of whom were members of the Peoples’ Freedom Party.

A commission of 19 members was also elected to undertake an examination of electoral procedure. At a meeting of the members of the State Council, the question of how to respond to the Throne Speech was also discussed. D. N Shipov’s draft answers the public mood best; N. S. Tagantsev’s draft yields to [the Throne Speech] significantly and, in the event that it is adopted, is capable of arousing fair criticism about a lack of understanding of the spirit of the times and its requirements.

S.-Petersburg, 2 May

One day, arriving at the Tauride Palace, we met a familiar coach at its very gates, with its sides lowered, completing its regular run from Tverskaya to Shpalernaya…

“On the face of the young man, a moustache like a sabre”… It was 7 years ago that I first saw the Tauride Palace from behind the lowered sides of a coach, passing by from Shpalernaya

along Tavricheskaya.

Seven years! The Tauride Palace, once an occasional shelter for exhibitions, has now been changed into a shrine of popular government and, as always, the coaches with lowered sides

complete their routes from Shpalernaya along Tavricheskaya, and back. The jails are more overcrowded than before…

Anyone who was present at the first sessions of the State Duma, who saw and heard how every delegate approached the question of amnesty with such nervousness, would have left with the unshakeable conviction that, until a full amnesty is granted, the Duma’s calm work cannot proceed. “The spectre of blood threatens us even here.”, as Rodichev expressed it so well. “This must be removed so that we can work!” Conversations in the hallways of the palace strengthen this conviction even further. And you involuntarily ask yourself, has it not entered into someone’s plan to deprive the Duma of the tranquility necessary for its work? Otherwise, why hasn’t the amnesty been proclaimed?

S.-Petersburg, 4 May

The debate over the response to the Throne Speech has become protracted since many of the orators want it to include a fully elaborated and detailed programme. In vain, Mr. Nabokov, the spokesman for the Commission that drew up the draft response, explains that these types of debates will be appropriate only during discussions pertaining to the drafting of laws, but are now premature. To many, it seems that in not expressing their programmes’ wishes fully, with detailed elaboration, they may appear to have changed their demands and, to a lesser degree, they may end up on the slippery slope to compromise. As soon as discussions and voting on sections of the response to the Throne Speech began at 9:00 pm yesterday evening, it became evident that this mood was shared by a significant number of Duma members. Where the draft response indicated that the Duma will submit, for the Sovereign’s approval, “a law addressing popular representation based on the principle of universal suffrage”, this was immediately declared insufficient and a vigorous debate broke out about “direct, equal and secret” — without any discrimination based on gender, faith, or nationality. No one called this elaborated formula into question, but the speakers who stepped forward to defend it reached the heights of strained inspiration, and Mr. Zabolotny, the famous elected demagogue from Kamenets-Podol’sky, even claimed “the interests of the Russian people were in peril.” Regrettably, Mr. Anikin, a leader in the workers’ group, could also not refrain from these demagogic methods, announcing that such an omission in the response was “criminal.” Several of the speakers from the Kadet party declared that in order to remove any misunderstanding it made sense to agree on adding an amendment or supplement (Miklashevsky, Lomshakov). Then, on behalf of the Commission, its spokesman announced that if the Commission’s wording of the draft response was accepted, they gave their promise that, in the near future, they would introduce a bill on the organization of a popular government founded on universal, direct, equal, and secret voting without discrimination based on gender, faith, or nationality. After this, Mr. Aladin, another leader of the workers’ group, made the recommendation that, given this proposal, he would invite a vote on the Commission’s draft. The atmosphere had become so heated that this suggestion was met with catcalls. But the Commission’s draft was passed by a huge majority. Quite an interesting debate then erupted when Stakhovich proposed an amendment to the draft response that expressed the desire that government ministers remain responsible only to the Emperor, with well-organized control and the right of inquiry into the Duma. T. Stakhovich, referring to the authority of Bismarck, compared the present Duma to a field of water which does no work; the sails of the mill will only start to move when the river has entered its banks. It will only be possible to establish the responsibilities of the ministers before the Duma in the more or less distant future. All the heavy artillery was aimed against Stakhovich’s argument; those who spoke included Vinaver, Prince D.I. Shakhovskoy, Kareev, M.M. Kovalevsky, among others. It felt as if cannons were firing at sparrows, for no support for Stakhovich’s views were found. Professors Kareev and Kovalevsky delivered lectures on history and state law so that, in the corridors of the palace, they quipped: “today we have a public university; too bad so few of the public were there”… An even stronger impression was created by Prince D.I. Shakhovskoy’s speech which, by the way, claimed that Stakhovich’s views contained a lack of respect for both the people and the present Duma. Kovalevsky claimed that it is presently impossible for a monarchy to exist without its Ministers being politically responsible to a representative institution. “This is the best means by which to peacefully bring a constitutional monarchy into existence.” The debate on this question was closed by the deputy from Kursk, Shaposhnikov, who stated that Stakhovich’s opinions showed evidence of a lack of understanding about the foundations of popular government. Many said that without the responsibility of the Ministers to the Duma, its entire role would be reduced to nothing. When the vote on Stakhovich’s amendment was taken, it was rejected by the majority of the Duma, apart from 11 votes. It was noticed that Count Geyden voted against Stakhovich’s amendment.

_____________________________

S.-Petersburg, 5 May

The Historic Session of May 4th

The May 4th session of the State Duma began listlessly: it was evident that the paragraph by paragraph discussion of the Address in response to the Throne Speech would continue for some time. In vain, several orators called for limits on the debate, trying to convince the others that, with the response, “we need to hurry.” After the lunch break, during which we wrote the last letter, Deputy Kyrilenko brought forward a motion — to remain in session without any breaks until the entire address was approved paragraph by paragraph. This motion was unanimously passed. Formless, verbose debates, especially on the agrarian question, took up some time: over twenty amendments to the corresponding section of the response were suggested. There were repeated appeals that the orators be curtailed, but Count Geyden invariably spoke against this, saying that it was impossible not to allow a full expression of views on such an important question. According to the rules adopted by the Duma, if a motion to curtail the number of speakers is opposed by 50 Duma members, it is considered overturned. Geyden’s opinions were always supported by 50-60 members and… the debate continued. In the corridors they began to speak of filibustering, of a desire to prolong the approval of the response for as long as possible. The endless torrent of words becomes unbearable, the hall begins to empty, deputies are wandering about in the gardens, filled with indignation over what is happening. Occasionally, someone suggests that they take a break, but the majority votes against this. In the end, all of the amendments regarding the agrarian question are turned down except for the supplemental clause which explains that in addressing land shortages, church lands must also be taken into account. Stakhovich, complaining about the heat, asks for a 30 minute recess. A 15-minute break is granted. After this, things proceed with more liveliness. During the debate over the question of nationality, a small “incident” occurred. The priest Kontsevich from Volyn province offers an amendment, stating that, in the process of distinguishing so many unique nationalities, the Duma will attempt to eliminate the very name of Russia. Petrazhitsky asks that Mr. Kontsevich be called to order, since his “irony insults the Duma.” The Chairman announces that he will raise a preliminary question: does the Duma consider it possible to enter into a discussion of Kontsevich’s statement? The Duma, amid thunderous applause, decides to ignore Kontsevich’s proposal. The labourer Aladin, with a passionate appeal to “comrade-workers”, calls for a vote on the address as a whole, pointing out that according to the statement made that morning by the worker Ilyin, the workers need to establish a commission and, because of this, they protest against the entire address: “There are things that are not asked for, which are not demanded, but are simply put in place. The Constituent Assembly is one of these things.” “Our goal is that workers and peasants take their affairs into their own hands, and we will move closer to achieving this goal if everything that is mentioned in the response comes true.” The worker Mikhailichenko speaks in typical fashion of the aims of social-democracy and of the class struggle. Lastly, the point regarding the amnesty, the final point in the response, is read. Stakhovich brings forward an amendment to convey censure against political assassination. Stakhovich’s speech, a shining example of the highest oratorical art, full of passion and feeling, creates the impression of a parliamentary “event” but its effect is less than convincing. He is answered by Lomshakov, Rodichev, Shrag. They all say that, while they do not defend assassins, the blame for “these crimes lies with the government.” Rodichev begins his stormy, ardent speech with the assurance that he “listened to those fine words with enthusiasm” and he understands “the sincere impulse which inspired the orator’s loving words” but he cannot agree with the “political content of this emotional impulse.” “If here was a rostrum for sermonizing, a church pulpit, then Stakhovich’s speech would have been understood. But we are law-makers and as witnesses to daily murders from one side or another, we must pose the question: do we step forward with words of moral condemnation if our job is to determine why such occurrences have become possible? We are invited to express our condemnation of murder. Tomorrow, they will suggest that we censure the embezzlement of state property. There are many worthy causes for censure. But here censure is out of place.” With strong strokes, the orator paints a picture of Russia’s inner life. “The whole country knows that orders to carry out pogroms against peaceful villagers came from Petersburg. It was “they” who sewed the seeds of murder and crime!”

“The day when there are no undisclosed murders will come only when they know that there are no offences that will go unpunished, that those who are disgraced will not hold power in their hands.” “Russia has suffered through something that has not happened since the time of [the Khan] Batu and today we must speak the naked truth.” Shrag argues that, in his opinion, the Duma would make a mistake, take the wrong path if it adopted Stakhovich’s amendment. The killings, which no one defends, need to be understood. One cannot blame people who sacrificed themselves in the name of an ideal. In order to illustrate what grounds can lead to murder, the speaker related the “theoretical and practical” activities of Admiral Dubasov in calming the terror in the province of Chernigov. In answering his opponents, Stakhovich stressed that he did not support the state’s powers and he does not censure the people, but their acts, and is thinking not of the past, but of the future. “In the renewed Russia there will be no murderers!” The speeches of Stakhovich, Rodichev, and Schrag created a “great parliamentary day!” out of the evening’s session. Geyden asks for a vote by roll call on Stakhovich’s amendment. The Duma rejects a vote by roll call. Stakhovich’s amendment is rejected by a huge majority. All of the paragraphs of the response to the Throne Speech are approved. At one o’ clock in the morning, the session closes and the next order of business, the third reading of the draft response, begins at 2:00 am., (after one hour.) The Commission needs to add all of the approved amendments. The Commission has much work to do; the session opens after 3:00 am. During the break, a number of delegates carry on lively conversations about what will come next and what they might expect from it. A few peasant delegates cannot fight their fatigue and sleep peacefully, leaning against the windows…

Nabokov reads the draft of the response. Petrazhitsky proposes that a single vote be held, forgetting about the disagreements that arose after the second reading. Disagreements will arise again when those very issues are discussed during the drafting of bills, but for now a communal impulse is needed. Count Geyden, speaking for those who share his views, announces that while they are in agreement with much of the text of the response, they cannot in good conscience support it in its entirety. In order not to upset the unanimity of the vote, they will leave the hall before the vote is taken. Count Geyden, Stakhovich, Prince Volkonsky, Gagarin, Sposobny and a few others - 6 men in all - remove themselves from the meeting hall. After that, the Address in response to the Throne Speech is passed unanimously. Everyone rises from their seats and bursts into sustained, stormy applause.

All that remains is to deliver the address to the Sovereign through the presidium of the Duma.

Muromtsev says that at the end of the meeting, this decision will immediately be reported to the Emperor. “We will request an audience with His Majesty and, if it is granted on May 5, then we will return that day without fail. We will continue to work for the remainder of the night; the address will be printed by the Duma’s printers.”

The next session will be held without fail on Monday, May 8th. The current session was formally ended at 3:30 am.

It is already light out. As deputies depart, there is talk of the historic “night of May 4th”.

But on that same night, very different speeches were delivered in the “renewed” State Council. Witte, Durnovo, Akimov, and Naryshkin all spoke there.

Future events throw their shadows onto the present…

Events approach, but who can guess the future?

The Historic Night

(May 4th to May 5th)

The third day of discussions regarding the response to the Throne Speech approaches its end, but an end to the debate is not expected… And all the while, the Duma is seized with the rising conviction that it must hurry to approve a text of its response today. A peasant-delegate proposes that no breaks are taken in the session until the entire response has been discussed, paragraph by paragraph. The Duma took its seats at 11:00 in the morning and already the short, light, northern spring night has shrouded the world in semi-darknesss. The Duma hurries to complete its historic work… Discussion regarding the final point in the r esponse concerning the amnesty reaches the highest degree of tense, agitated emotion and anxious thought. All of the pain, all of the horrors of Russian life appear before the mind’s eye and the terrible question is posed: Is there a way out? The Duma believes, it still believes, that there is…

The historic task is done. Who knows; perhaps the Duma has already accomplished everything in which its meaning and eternal significance lie? Perhaps, practically, there will be nothing left for it to do? Who knows? The “serpent’s hiss” has already resounded… The collective will of the people has been given expression, this fact will not be erased from Russian history by bayonets or machine guns! And regardless of what becomes of the Duma, it has already taken its place in history!

The short, light night has ended, a bracing, joyous morning dawns! Great things have been achieved this night, eternal things…

Night still lies darkly over the Russian land. When will a light and joyous morning dawn for this unhappy country?..

With the clear conscience of a duty fulfilled, with an awareness of the historic importance of the moment, the delegates dispersed from the Tauride Palace where they had spent the night, dispersing under the light of a joyful morning… And one wanted to believe that this past night, spent in such intense work, and that this happy day, met so cheerfully — were great symbols…

____________________________

Let Us Follow Them!

An extraordinarily difficult and historically crucial mission has fallen upon the State Duma — to make the most of this last chance for a peaceful conclusion to the great struggle that has broken out between the people’s freedom and the blind folly and criminal stubbornness of the ruling bureaucracy, unwilling to part with its own absolute power. We speak of a peaceful conclusion, for no matter how much we close our eyes to the bloody horrors of revolutionary conflict, each day now brings victims from both sides. If this, the State Duma’s mission, proves to be beyond its strength, the horrors of the past and the present will pale before that which will come from the abyss on whose edge we now stand… The consciousness of this huge responsibility should unite all of society’s elements, rising to the creative effort, to the national heroic deed — sharing a single keen aspiration, we will come together to support the demands the Duma will make, to uphold these demands with all the strength of organized public opinion. Without the implementation of these demands, there is no way out; there is failure at the precipice. Without social solidarity there is no way to achieve them; the abyss gapes… The other day in the Duma there was talk of the insufferable moral burden which arises for its members as they leave the Tauride Palace and are beset by those who, avidly longing for light and freedom, torment them with questions: What have they decreed? What practical results have they achieved? In the absence of any practical results after three days of work by the State Duma, some are already prepared to lay blame, already inclined to attribute this to the Duma’s “moderation.” Prof. Gredeskul certainly understood the nature of this moral burden when, during the debates concerning the amnesty, he added: “If we had the means at hand to quickly free all the prisoners from their prisons, I would support those means, no matter what they were.” But it is far from everyone who understands the phrase that was spoken sadly, immediately after this: “We do not have such means in our hands.” For, if this were understood, they would not reproach the Duma for its “error” in suspending its meeting for one day so that the elected Chairman could attend discussions with the Sovereign. Such a reproach is frivolous and not serious. They would not speak of the need to shift the Duma to the “left”. Instead, trusting in the Duma’s sincere determination to establish democratic constitutional reforms that facilitate social creativity in this country, they should see to the organizing of public opinion under the banners of slogans put forward by the Duma. To attest to one’s own radicalism on account of the Duma’s “moderation” is very easy, since it commits to nothing, it imposes no responsibility. Every step the Duma takes is exceedingly crucial. We will not increase the moral burden that weighs upon the peoples’ delegates, we will regard their civic deeds with good faith and will lovingly shift their burden, at least to a small extent, onto ourselves. We, too, are crucial to history, we have been called upon to walk with them, behind them, but not against them…

Democracy or Demagogy?

On the evening of 3 May, the Duma entered into a paragraph by paragraph discussion of its response to the Throne Speech. Long and utterly meaningless debates were spurred by a proposal to “disclose” the entire formulation of the desired electoral law (that is, mentioning the necessity of direct, equal, and secret ballots without discrimination based on gender). The opinion published in “Nasha Zhizn” (printed in № 435) found its defenders in the Duma, pointing out that since there is mention of a law that will be submitted for consideration by the Duma, then the clause referring to universal suffrage requires more specific and definitive wording. The view was also expressed in the Duma that the absence of a detailed formulation of the law in its response to the Throne Speech revealed a “Kadet-like” inclination for compromise. But the demand for “more specific and definitive wording” in the response, taken to its logical conclusion, can come to the same thing as a demand to include the entire text of the law on popular government. Why not follow the demand for a “specific and definitive” draft to its logical conclusion? It was vexing to listen to the banal defence of the necessity for “direct, equal, and secret”, a necessity which no one opposed. Forgetting that approval of the response to the Throne Speech must be hurried, something everyone had earlier agreed to, a series of orators enthusiastically defended that which needed absolutely no defence. In vain, Nabokov, spokesman for the Commission which drafted the response, explained its point of view, in which there was not a grain of compromise. Mr. Anikin spoke of the “criminality” of omitting “without distinction based on gender” from the formula for universal suffrage. Mr. Zabolotny, having successfully exercised his demagoguery during the elections in Kamenets-Podol’ski, sounded the habitual demagogic note and declared that “the interests of the Russian people are in peril.” Whether due to its inexperience with political life, or through a lack of tact, the Duma met Mr. Zabolotny’s speech with thunderous applause.

This likely seduced several members of the Peoples’ Freedom Party who declared that, in order to avoid any accusations of compromise, the proposed amendment should be accepted. Then Nabokov, speaking for the Commission which composed the response, announced that in the very near future a draft of the law pertaining to popular government will be brought before the Duma, based on universal, direct, equal, secret ballots without discrimination based on gender, nationality or religion.

The demagogic speech of Mr. Zabolotny was not withdrawn: the Commission’s draft was approved by an overwhelming majority.

The Response to the Throne Speech and the Peoples’ Freedom Party

The open letter from A.R. Lednitsky to P.N. Milyukov (“Rech’”, № 66) brings to light a very widespread misunderstanding which is already being broadly used to raise a clamour about the “treason of the Kadets.” Lednitsky writes, “Keeping in mind that one third of the members of the Commission formed to respond to the Throne Speech were members of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, that the influence of this Party in the chamber is considerable, and that the editing of the response was also taken on by the Peoples’ Freedom Party, this raises the question of the relationship between the response to the Throne Speech and the Party’s programme.” The question regarding the relationship between the response and the Party’s programme needs to be clarified, for Mr. Lednitsky further states: “The failure of the response to mention the autonomy of the Polish lands may be construed as a rejection by the Party of the promise made in its programme to grant the Polish Region autonomy.” If Mr. Lednitsky is correct, then so is Mr. F. Dan’, who saw in the response approved by the Duma evidence of “the treason of the Kadets”, true not to their own programme but to “popular demands” (“Nevskaya Gazeta”, № 5), and Mr. Bogdanov was also correct when, the other day, he accused the Peoples’ Freedom Party of “deceiving the electorate”, by not declaring in the Duma the demands which it displayed on its banners during the election campaign. They are all correct, if we agree that the failure to mention something or other in the response to the Throne Speech “may be construed” as a “rejection” of that which has not been mentioned. But, if we follow this line of reasoning, it should be required that the response to the Throne Speech include a detailed account of every party platform. Every omission, you see, “may be construed” as “a rejection of a promise” and, when given sufficiently energetic and strong expression, also as “treason”, and as “deceiving the electorate.” Should, or could, the parliamentary faction of the Peoples’ Freedom Party have seen their task in drafting the response to the Throne Speech as a detailed account of their party programme? We answer categorically and without wavering: they neither could have nor should have. Doubtless, this would have simplified the drafting of the response: they would not have needed to even search out the form for its expression, needing only to write: “Your Imperial Highness!”, and then copy out the 57 paragraphs of the party programme with a point about amnesty added at the end. The response to the Speech from the Throne would have been ready. This, of course, would not spare the Party from reproaches of “treachery against popular demands” for, as is common knowledge, according to the doctrines of the Russian Social-Democrats, the programme of the “bourgeois” Peoples’ Freedom Party contains such “treachery” but, in return, all conversations about “the rejection of a promise”, about “deception” would be senseless…

By making very different demands on the parliamentary response to the Throne Speech, if we see a number of shortcomings in the “response” approved by the Duma, then they consist, in our view, not of omissions, but of unnecessary details. The answer to the Throne Speech must contain, in the most general and necessarily concise form, what is, in the eyes of the Chamber, a directive for the government indicating what is, in the Chamber’s opinion, most important and essential to carry out in the near future, the pursuit of which will be the immediate work of the Chamber. Burdening the response with details and the minute exploration of individual issues could only weaken rather than strengthen its effect. The Peoples’ Freedom Party had to seek out such a general format through which to express its “desiderata” in the response, one which would include their Party’s solution and, at the same time, be acceptable, as far as was possible, to the entire Duma. If there is no mention of the autonomy of the Polish Region in the response, then in its place we read: “The State Duma considers it necessary to also point out that, amongst its own urgent tasks is resolving the issue of satisfying the long-standing demands of separate nationalities.” And when the question of “satisfying the long-standing demands of separate nationalities” is brought before the Duma, the Peoples’ Freedom Party will have the opportunity to fight for the autonomy of the Polish Region by demonstrating that satisfying the long-standing demands of Polish nationality is possible only in the form of autonomy… If, in the response, there is no mention of the necessity for “universal, direct, equal suffrage without discrimination based on gender, religion, or nationality”, in its place is included: “The State Duma, for its part, will exert its efforts to advance the beginning of popular government and to bring for Your Majesty’s approval a statute regarding popular government, founded on and in agreement with the unanimous manifestation of the people’s will, along the principles of a universal electoral law.” When the Duma holds its discussions regarding the drafting of a statute on popular government, then the Peoples’ Freedom Party can defend its view that it is necessary for the electoral law to be not only universal, but also direct, equal, and secret without discrimination against gender, religion, or nationality. Discussions examining all of these matters on their merits during the course of the debate were a completely useless waste of time since not one of them, in their essence, was included in the response. This was not understood then and, to this day, many still do not understand. A concise and general formulation was necessary not only so that it made a stronger impression, but also because, as we already stated above, it was necessary to find a formulation that was, as far as possible, acceptable to the whole Duma. Even those who oppose Polish regional autonomy could still agree to the above formulation of the “response” concerning the question of nationalities since they can propose different measures to satisfy the urgent needs of Polish nationality.

The clause referring to the law of popular representation could have been voted on even by opponents of, say, the right to a direct vote. Rejecting the extreme importance of finding this general formulation, one that was acceptable to the entire Duma and expressed the universal point of view that that which is urgent and cannot be put aside must be put into practice, can only be done by those who do not understand the historic task of the State Duma, and thus do not appreciate the significance of unanimity in its method of response to the Throne Speech. Unanimity was only possible if a general formulation was found. What was of most value in the “response” was the unanimity with which it was ratified. Differences of opinion will be appropriate during discussions when each question is considered separately. Then, the Peoples’ Freedom Party can defend its programme, its judgements and conclusions. The efforts of the Peoples’ Freedom Party to achieve unanimity before voting on the Commission’s draft of the “response” were a success and it is not for nothing that the night of the 4/5 of May is already being called historic. The withdrawal of the 6 October group before the vote does little to spoil the picture of that “unity” which was reached because of the draft “response”. For Mr. Dan’, this “unity” appears “notorious”: — to each his own. But, before this, when Mr. Dan’ announced that this “unity” was, for the Kadets, only a wished-for pretext to disguise their own treachery against “the demands of the people”, then we, calling things as we see them, must acknowledge this insinuation. The Peoples’ Freedom Party, with quite proper timing and method, aspired to achieve the unification of the whole Duma. It was difficult to foresee to what extent this would be achievable. The withdrawal of the 6 October group was not the Party’s responsibility in the least and was essentially unimportant. In striving for “unity” the Party did not sacrifice anything, did not refuse anything, and did not change anything. The struggle for its own programme’s postulates — this still lies ahead, and in this struggle the Party, we have little doubt, will prove its programme’s staunchness.

During the debate concerning the “response”, members of the Peoples’ Freedom Party were sometimes heard to say, “we can agree to the proposed amendment, in order to avoid accusations from those who do not understand and who are unscrupulous.” We found this position to be quite striking: in any case this was an especially harmful “extraneous consideration”. The anxiety over avoiding such accusations was an equally “extraneous consideration.” The “response” only needed to include that which was necessary, everything superfluous to this could have turned out to be not only unhelpful, but harmful. It was said that the vote against the “direct, equal, etc.” amendment could have been seen as a rejection of its necessity. It was said that they may not understand the formulation of the question and thus think that it was decided on its own merits.

But it is always necessary, in every circumstance, to take into account those who do understand, and not those who don’t. In any case, bad faith does not hold its tongue… The relationship between the response to the Throne Speech accepted by the Duma and the Peoples’ Freedom Party programme is so obvious to our eyes, that in the conversations about a complete “encroachment” on the purity of the programme, about the “treachery” (Social-Democratic club, during a meeting on the women’s question), we can barely draw a boundary line between those who did not understand and those who were acting in bad faith. The waves on the turbulent sea of demagoguery heave high and those already caught by them do not pose themselves the question “cui prodest?”… [tr. ”whom does it profit?”]

In the exceptional importance of this historic moment, when the Duma — the child of revolution, called forth with the support of every living member of the nation to become its agent and to secure its achievement of democratic constitutional institutions, — there can be no slogan more revolutionary than “down with the Duma, down with the Kadets!”.. It is difficult to overstate the tragic absurdity that is taking place, threatening the unfortunate people and the tormented nation with new trials. It is the duty of everyone to give themselves a clear account of the true meaning of these events, to staunchly and courageously resist the pressure of the turbid waves of demagoguery. We must calmly fulfill our duty, following the motto:

“Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti”! (tr. “Follow your own course, no matter what the people say.”)

In the struggle for ideals, we need not be afraid of “being out of fashion”…

During discussions in the State Duma about the “response”, the Peoples’ Freedom Party did not step away from its programme in any way, or by a single inch: one cannot cite a single paragraph, a single point in the “response” which can be interpreted as a compromising bargain, as an “encroachment on the purity of the programme”. We must not forget that working out the response to the Throne Speech did not result in a word for word repetition of the Peoples’ Freedom Party’s entire platform.

“Also Champions of Ideology”

It is said: they “are also champions of ideology”. “In the struggle to maintain order”, — as was said of them in the State Council’s response to the Throne Speech, — they “violated boundaries that had been set by the law.” Mr. Durnov, the former Minister of Internal Affairs, spoke of them in the senate more decisively: they acted according to “the appearance of a government”… As far as the latter is concerned, by the way, no one ever had any doubts.

Mr. Samarin, an elected member of the State Council, declared that, ideologically, they led “a struggle against revolutionary movements”. And the State Council, supported by Mr. Ushakov, Mr. Naryshkin, and others, agreed with Mr. Samarin’s views. In vain, Mr. Manukhin argued that “ideological champions” of the existing order do not and cannot exist, that there are thugs and arsonists, there are people who tolerate the neglecting or exceeding of authority, but all of this has nothing to do with amnesty or with ideology… “Champions of ideology” triumphed in the State Council all along the line. It seems that there are many former “also champions of ideology” in the State Council!..

S.-Petersburg, 6 May

As is well known, a workers’ parliamentary group has formed in the State Duma whose membership is made up primarily of peasants. The number of members in this group is significant enough to carry great influence in the Duma. Thus, the peasants have their own representation standing in defence of their own interests. Perhaps this group will succeed in producing a programme and tactics which will give it an opportunity to unite the peasants ideologically and create a large peasant political party. This will mark a major step in the political development of the nation. But now, at this critical moment in our political history, a formidable question must be resolved in the near future. Will it be or not? Will the political renewal and liberation of our country be accomplished, or will we move forward, shaken by our new path, perhaps to political disintegration and anarchy? Our attention is riveted not by questions of future political classifications but by the alarming problems of the urgent present. A fundamental mission stands before the State Duma, before the nation — to provide for the further peaceful cultural progress of the people through free institutions based on democratic constitutional systems. The Duma will become capable of fulfilling this mission only when it is supported by the sympathies of organized public opinion. Therefore, any tactics adopted by the Duma in calculating the steps of its political development must be in accord with the actual mood of the nation. It is precisely here that the question arises: can the speeches and declarations, the programme and tactics of those representing the workers’ group be counted on as a reliable expression of the actual mood and political progress of the peasants? We believe that the workers’ group, having just renounced several of its members for their inclination to cheap demagogic effects, will only find fitting guidelines for its own parliamentary conduct by acting in agreement with the Peoples’ Freedom Party faction in the current political moment. With a sense of satisfaction, we note that during the debates about the response to the Throne Speech, one of the more visible workers, Aladin, displayed a keen and sensitive understanding of the political problems of the moment…

S.-Petersburg, 7 May

The Political Situation

While historic events are taking place in the State Duma, so entertaining scenes are playing out in the State Council. The distance between the right and the left in the Duma still permits mutual understanding. Rodichev says that he is essentially ready to sign under every one of Stakhovich’s words. Stakhovich responds in kind: — in essence he is wholly in agreement with Rodichev. Messrs. Akimov, Durnov, Samarin haven’t a single point of contact with Messrs. Vernadsky, Shakhmatov. Akimov can only taunt “the esteemed Professsor Vernadsky, that connoisseur of revolutionary affairs.” If, in the Duma, Petrunkevich says that the first free word must be spoken in favour of those who fought to free the country from its bureaucratic absolutism, so in the State Council Mr. Samarin demands an amnesty for those who were transgressors of the law in their fight against revolution — they are, after all, also “champions of ideology.” If in the Duma, the defence of the death penalty by Mr. Sposobny “from the gastronomical point of view” (Nabokov’s expression) brings forth disdainful laughter, so in the State Council they sympathetically agree with Prince Kasatkin-Rostovtsev that talk of amnesty is — “a living reproach against their Excellencies.” In order to understand the contemporary political situation it is necessary to lend an attentive ear to what is being said in the “renewed” State Council. Listening to these conversations, one begins to understand that there will be no compromises, that conflict will be the issue for the more or less immediate future. And the nearest perspectives are drawn in the most sombre, gloomy light, when one looks closely at what is going on outside the Duma’s walls. In the Duma, popular representatives, sparing no effort, worked to give expression to the popular will, to national postulates. Outside of the Duma, they know of no greater revolutionary slogan than “down with the Duma, down with the Kadets!” Representatives of the far-left parties shout about “change” at a time when, more than anything else, the Duma needs the public’s support so that it can consolidate the achievements of the emancipation movement through democratic, constitutional institutions. The thrusts which must be directed at the still powerful bureaucracy fall to the Duma as it fights against this bureaucracy for the peoples’ freedom. The Duma finds itself between two fires and the politically blind do not see that new horrors, new cataclysms are in store for the country. The palace camarilla will take this demagogic agitation against the Duma into account to its own advantage, and the tender shoots of Russian freedom will drown in torrents of blood… Every true friend of those who are exhausted by brute force will cry out, “This will never be!” But this can only be averted by a national movement of universal solidarity. Those who are working to break up the yearning for this solidarity do so as reactionaries, no matter how progressive the slogans they write on their banners…

The next sitting of the Duma (8 May) will open with a discussion of an inquiry into the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the disclosure of publications related to the organization of the October pogroms. And from a whole list of places (Vologda, Simbirsk, Murom, and others) there is already news of new horrors, in which the guiding hand can be seen…

The Duma Chairman’s petition for an audience with the Sovereign, to deliver the response to the Throne Speech, was sent through a state courier. An answer to that petition has just now been received: “We suggest that Muromtsev send his response through a palace department”…

———————————————————————

S.-Petersburg, 8 May

Nervous excitement reigned in the halls before the opening of today’s meeting of the Duma. Rumours were circulating that plans to move on to the next order of business, formulated by the Peoples’ Freedom Party faction on the grounds that the Duma deputation, with its response to the Throne Speech, had been refused an audience, did not satisfy the workers’ group and that they would bring forward a more decisive and strongly-worded proposal… At the opening of the session, Muromtsev reported that, in answer to his petition that the Duma deputation be admitted as part of the Duma presidium, he received the following letter from the Chairman of the Council of Ministers: “On the highest authority, I have the honour to inform you that the Emperor would be pleased if the Duma’s response to His Majesty’s words of welcome could be sent to Your Majesty, Emperor Over All Your Subjects, as a memorandum.” Novgorodtsev, speaking on behalf of the Peoples’ Freedom Party faction, proposed that the way in which the Duma’s response to the Throne Speech is presented is insignificant, and that the Duma accept the following transitional statement: “Believing that the meaning of the response to the Throne Speech is contained in its contents, and not in the means of its presentation, the State Duma now passes on to the next order of business”… Novgorodtsev ended his speech by saying: “Our next order of business is of paramount importance, the Russian land has long cried out to the heavens about it, and for this important cause, without further debate and without worries about form, we must move on to our historic immediate business.”… The tension reached an extraordinary intensity when Aladin stepped up to the podium. But Aladin offers no practical suggestions and only pauses at an appraisal of “the meaning of the fact itself”… Aladin considers it essential to tell the crowd that his representatives will carry on with their work, but at every step they will be met with obstacles against which, perhaps, all of their energies will break apart… Aladin’s appraisal is very close to the truth; all of this was perfectly agreed on by everyone even before he spoke. But the problem that lay before the Duma was not one of “appraisal” but of “moving on to the next order of business.” After the speeches of M. M. Kovalevsky and V. D. Nabokov, during which the latter disputed some of Aladin’s arguments, the plan for moving forward, proposed by Novgorodtsev on behalf of the Peoples’ Freedom Party faction, was accepted almost unanimously. The accumulated electricity began to dissipate… After this, the Duma secretary read a proposal, signed by 42 members, addressed to the Peoples’ Freedom Party. The proposal contained the foundations upon which the future bill on the land question should be formulated, a bill about which the Duma was obligated to decide without delay. The proposal will be printed and distributed to the Duma members, after which debate will begin regarding its future direction…

S.-Petersburg, 12 May

The political situation remains extremely uncertain and vacillating. At the moment, just prior to the opening of this session of the Duma, two contradictory, mutually exclusive rumours are spreading throughout the corridors. Each, so they assure us, is based on a completely reliable source. One asserts the formation of a cabinet under the leadership of D. N. Shipov, along with Timiryazev and Prince Urusov. The other speaks of a resolution to disperse the “impudent” Duma. It is highly likely that neither of these rumours will be corroborated and that no decisions along these lines will be reached for some time.

In any case, there is no doubt that the current political situation is highly unstable and that in the near future, one way or another, it will undergo some major changes. No one believes in the longevity of Goremykin’s cabinet. And, if the rumour that has been circulating stubbornly since 8 May about the dismissal of the cabinet has not yet been corroborated, this may still happen at any moment.

One can hardly doubt that the entire future depends mainly on the strength of society’s unity, on its solidarity in defending the rights of the people. But, regretfully, things are not going well in this respect. At huge meetings, it is openly declared that the most pressing task of the moment is to discredit the Duma and the Peoples’ Freedom Party. Yesterday, in the Peoples’ Freedom club, discussions began regarding the current reality. And, after Mr. Koliubakin had spoken, representatives from the so-called extreme parties stepped forward with their speeches. We would not normally mention these debates. Up until this point they were banal and ordinary, if not for the following incident: a young worker began to speak of the fact that the workers demand amnesty, they demand freedom, but the Peoples’ Freedom Party places obstacles in the way of realizing these demands. This was still more or less normal. But the speaker went on to declare: “I am starving, I ask for food, but they say — become a member of a legal party or the Peoples’ Freedom Party, and then they will feed you.” Regional representatives protested after hearing these words, claiming that aid organizations for the unemployed pay no attention to party affiliations. When the worker was asked where he had heard that admission to the cafeteria was dependent on whether one had signed up for the Peoples’ Freedom Party, he answered — “at meetings”…

It is by such means that the “task of the moment”, the discrediting of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, is carried out.

In today’s meeting of the Duma, they are going over departmental reports to verify whether voting is being carried out correctly. For many, this again seems to be a boring formality but the Duma cannot move ahead without it and strains with all its might to move on quickly to its real business.

A bill upholding the protection of freedom of conscience was introduced today.

S.-Petersburg, 13 May

One of the “Accusations”

Among other accusations against the Duma that were brought to our attention and which, of course, did not carry any degree of credibility, was the following: The Duma only occupies itself with formalities while taking breaks from formality. In a broad attack, it is possible to lay blame wherever one likes. We are willing to believe in the tirelessness of the accusers, but can’t help but think that they are scarcely working harder than the members of the Duma have been from the day that it opened. Duma members’ work is comprised not only of what occurs during a sitting of the Duma; this makes up what may be an insignificant part of the work carried out by various deputies… The work of commissions, factions and groups absorbs most of their labours and time, and a lot of nervous energy. Besides, is the proper progress of the Duma’s work even possible without the necessary preparatory work which is done by commissions, factions, and groups?

This is all so simple and so obvious that its truth remains misunderstood and inscrutable perhaps only to that criticism which has made its motto:

“I ride, I ride without a whistle,

When we collide I won’t get down”…

The intention “not to get down” distinguishes all the criticism made by such accusers, but one may well ask whether this increases the value and the merit of “criticism”?

They’ve Left…

On 10 May, P. N. Durnovo left for a trip abroad. “As far as the border,” the newspapers reported, “he was accompanied by members of the Security Department”. We think that they travelled with him even beyond the border… On 14 May, Count S. Yu. Witte followed after Durnovo, it must be supposed also with “accompaniment”. We trust that the departure abroad of these recent arbiters of this poor country’s fate, a fate that, in the opinion of the deputy Anikin, will soon become inescapable, will not be mistaken for “the sending away of people who no longer have anything to do in Russia”. It is also hard to believe that these retired Ministers wished for some rest. If they currently have nothing to do in Russia then, obviously, some “work” was found outside of Russia, of course not for Russia, but against Russia or, more precisely, for official, bureaucratic Russia against the peoples’ Russia. They are still filled with confidence that their hope of standing anew at the head of official Russia to complete their work against the peoples’ Russia is not yet lost.

In Memory of Deputy A.P. Andreyanov

When the sudden death of the peasant-deputy A.P Andreyanov was announced in the Duma, an image of this person came to our mind’s eye. We did not know him personally but his name already resonated with us.

We heard the calm, quiet Andreyanov speak twice in the Duma, and both times he said little. The first time, after the stormy speeches about needing “not to ask, but to demand”, that “behind us there are 100 million people” etc., Andreyanov humbly and thoughtfully began by saying that the tone of these speeches surprised him “since the Duma was not a mass meeting and that which can be said at a rally is not appropriate in the State Duma”… For many, certainly, suspicions were raised that one of the “Erogin peasants” had spoken… We did not know to which party Andreyanov belonged, but his words left an impression of serious thoughtfulness, regardless of which party they spoke for… The sincerity of the orator was without doubt.

His words reminded us of an election meeting made up almost entirely of peasants. When someone spoke of the prospect of the Duma being dispersed, a speaker from the peasants responded in front of the entire sympathetic auditorium: “If the Tsar calls on us to tell him what it is the people want, then we should choose those who work humbly: then no one will be angered”… And it seemed to us that Andreyanov was guided by a similar peasant frame of mind which he surely knew very well. On another occasion, Andreyanov stepped forward ‘pro domo sua’: the day before, he, along with some “eroginists”, had signed a proposal about delaying the debates regarding the text of the Duma’s response [to the Throne Speech.] He did not understand that, having signed the declaration, he had landed in a trap… Plainly and humbly, without unnecessary words, Andreyanov announced from the rostrum that he signed the declaration for delaying the debate because he wished that the important question be considered most thoroughly, but asked that no one think for a moment that he holds views in solidarity with Mr. Erogin… Again, the restrained and correct words of Andreyanov left us with an image of his deep seriousness, his thoughtfulness…

They say that during his final days, Andreyanov suffered from the knowledge that certain newspapers had published the news that he seemed to have sided with the “eroginists”…

After his death, we found out that he was exposed to persecution for membership in the Peasant Union, that he became a member of the Peoples’ Freedom Party and of a workers’ group. Without doubt, the departed was someone sincerely and passionately devoted to issues of the people — himself a son of the people — a thoughtful and steadfast, humble, helpful worker.

His parliamentary influence was short-lived, but the name of Andreyanov was not a hollow sound for those who closely followed the first steps of the State Duma. And this is already something. May he, departed too soon, rest in peace!

S.-Petersburg, 13 May

They have met! The people, in the form of their first representatives and obstinate in their deadlock met with the reactionary ruling bureaucracy in the form of the Goremykin cabinet — face to face… To the persistent, energetic, and determined demands of the people — “land and liberty!”, the government answered — “no land, no liberty”… The meeting took place during today’s historic sitting of the State Duma. Already yesterday evening, the newspapers had reported the essence of the government’s response, and today it was read to the Parliamentary Tribunal by representatives of Mr. Goremykin’s Council of Ministers. The passionate debates that were called forth by the government’s declaration were entered into by the greatest oratorical powers in the Duma. The first to approach the podium was Mr. Nabokov and his strong, pleasant voice began to resound with barely contained indignation. He concluded his exemplary speech by proclaiming the founding principle of popular representation — the executive power must submit to the will of the popular government. Nabokov was replaced by Rodichev and just like strikes of a hammer, sharp, metallic sounds fell, powerful and decisive. Anikin, Aladin, Lednitsky and Kokoshkin also spoke. The strings sounded more and more taut, the waves were rising higher and higher, irony was replaced by sarcasm, anger turned into hatred… During a short break, Goremykin left the Duma. There were more speeches — Shchepkin, Kovalevsky and many others, and the common demand made in every speech was — the ministry must resign! The Minister of Justice Mr. Shcheglovitov rose from the Ministry bench in order to clear up the “misunderstanding”. His performance was even less successful than Mr. Goremykin’s had been. Shcheglovitov was answered by Gredeskul. The speeches continued, but long before they came to an end there was no one left on the Ministry’s bench… The speech by the Tambov peasant Losev was strong and original, comparing the Russian people to Samson, deprived of his powers by Delilah’s insidious cunning. He related Samson’s demise in graphic detail and, with expressive gesticulation, concluded: “Friends, I appeal to you and I say — the entire working peasantry has been placed in such a critical position, that it resembles pitiful, blind Samson… I must say one thing to you, I do not warrant whether our unhappy Samson will withstand this, or whether he will falter and say: “die, my soul, together with the philistines!”…

The final blow was delivered by the universally respected right-wing leader, Count Geyden. He began his speech by saying, “When I entered the State Duma, I thought that we would be given the opportunity to work peacefully and beneficially; I thought that we would be met with complete sympathy from the government on this peaceful path. Today’s declaration by the Ministry has, regretfully, convinced me to the contrary”… Further, Geyden underlined the fact that the Ministers did not even stay until the end of the speeches. Geyden’s speech made a huge impression and was met with much stormy applause. Distrust of the Ministry was expressed almost unanimously (only 11 individuals stood against it, M. A. Stakhovich among them). The immediate resignation of the entire Ministry was recognized as the only means of calming the state and giving the Duma a chance to carry on its work… “The Duma is moving on to the next order of business”… No matter what lies ahead, Goremykin’s Ministry has grown anxious that the Duma has the country’s recommendation…

The peasant delegates hurried to send telegraphs in all directions “home”, quoting from the Ministry Declaration’s response to the land question. “Unconditionally unacceptable” flew into the depths of Russia… What effect might these words have there?…

At 7:30 in the evening, with the words “The Duma is moving on to the next order of business”, this historic session came to an end… The next meeting will be on Monday…

All feel that nothing big was accomplished, nothing historic, but that some boundary had been established beyond which is — either a concession to popular will, or… an abyss…

S.-Petersburg, 14 May The Right Wing of the Duma

The right wing of the Duma is not large but, even so, for the moment it is impossible to establish the exact make-up of its membership: groupings according to parties cannot yet be determined conclusively. The far right, if we judge according to the results of their militant voting, does not amount to more than 10, 12, or 15 individuals. The leader of the right wing appears to be the deserving and widely respected public figure, Count Geyden. He is without doubt on the far left of the right wing. By conviction, an absolute constitutionalist, and a completely proper gentleman, Count Geyden is one of the progressive members of the “Union of 17 October”. It is apparent that the Count, in his heart, considers himself called to protect the interests and rights of minorities: this is his idée-fixe, often putting him in a curious position. Now and then, when the atmosphere is flushed with fervour, Count Geyden’s speeches even bring forth a few catcalls from the less restrained elements, but more often his speeches are met with friendly applause from the entire Duma. Above all else, according to his own admission, the Count honours deeds and is indifferent to words. He defends his own position stoically and consistently. Stahovich is another visible member of the right wing, a friend of Geyden’s from the “Union of 17 October” but of a very different type. His cultured intellect is also sickened by the arbitrariness and force of politics, but his own political views are foggy, inconsistent, and full of a metaphysical haze with snatches of slavophilism. Stahovich possesses a significant oratorical talent but, it must be said, the abundance of “tears” in his tone and his manner leaves an unpleasant impression. He votes with the far right. Geyden and Stahovich — these are the generals of the right, an army which, with only two or three exceptions, has not yet proved itself. Its main influence has been “behind the scenes” where, by the way, Mr. Erogin gained his reputation. As for the “exceptions”, we made note of them at one time: the famous performance by the Ekaterinoslav deputy Sposobny in defence of the death penalty “from the gastronomic point of view” and the notorious “amendment” by the priest Kontsevich from Volyn on the national question: “The Duma seeks to develop the particular ways of life among the various nationalities that inhabit the empire, finally destroying the distinctiveness of Russia and even its very name…”

The “Union of 17 October” has such dissimilar figures in the Duma, such as Count Geyden, Stahovich, Sposobny… If the first, in essence, has moved only a little way from the right wing of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, then the last is fully suited to the right-wing order of a “provincial type”… The far right does not have the courage to step forward in the Duma or, perhaps knowing the hopelessness of the task, does not want to waste its words. It does not attach any importance to either defining or strengthening its principal position, and displays no particular “adherence to principles”.

The Chairman of the Duma

It is as if the popular government’s authority and dignity are symbolized by the striking, majestic figure of its unanimously chosen Chairman. The Chairman laid out his own constitutional theories in aphoristically concise form during his first speech. He wished that the work of the Duma — for the benefit of the people, for the benefit of the motherland — will be accomplished “on foundations of due respect for the prerogatives of a constitutional monarch, and on the basis of a full realization and implementation of the State Duma’s rights, rights which emanate from the very nature of popular government.” Both parts of this formula were met with thunderous applause by the entire Duma… During one of the Duma’s early days in session, one of the deputies said — “I read some reproaches against the State Duma in the press”… The Chairman calmly stopped the speaker and uttered: “No one can cast reproach against the Chair of the State Duma for any resolutions it has made. The Duma’s authority is higher than our individual authority.” There was laughter from both the right and left wing press that the Chairman had established the Duma to be infallible… One needed not a little calm and less passion to understand that the Chairman of the Duma did not have infallibility in mind… In the heat of passion, his remarks are sometimes found to be irritating, but passions become calmed and the passion-less Chairman has proven that he stands on guard for the dignity and the authority of the young popular government. The first steps that the State Duma took to begin its work under the Chairman’s leadership have been laid on noble and restrained foundations, full of merit and winning respect for constitutional traditions… During the “historic night” when the response to the Throne Speech was passed (4 May) someone among the peasant delegates named the tireless Chairman — “the sturdy old man”. It thus became firmly established in parliamentary circles to call S. A. Muromtsev by this fully respectful name — “The Sturdy Old Man”…

A Cabby Speaks of the Duma

Several days ago, when I left the Duma and got into a cab, the driver addressed me with the following words: “Good things are being said in the Duma, all as it should be for the people, — all of it is right, and even pleasant to read”… I asked him what in particular he liked? “Everything is well said, I read all of it with pleasure” … “And, about the land question, what was there to like?” “And about the land question, they were right, and about rights, and about equality, it was good… Just today I was driving an officer. He says — “Whip the horse!”, and I said “What should I whip her for? She runs all day long”… And he says, “Because”, he says, “she is a horse and was created to be whipped… Just like you”. He says, “If someone were to strike you then it would hurt, but if I, an officer, were struck, it would hurt twice as much”… “Now, no”, I said, “that isn’t right, Your Lordship, you are an officer, you profit by your rank and your salary, they are yours and no one will take them from you but, as far as being given a blow, no matter who is struck, whether an officer or just a common person, all are children of one God and all would feel the pain equally… And there must be equal rights”… The officer did not like this. My words made him angry “You” he said, “should be locked up”… “What”, I asked, “should I be locked up for?” “Well, the jails are full of people like you.” he answered. The officer had become really angry, so I didn’t speak with him any more… So, that’s the way it was; but the Duma — the Duma is right, reading all those speeches gladdens my heart, they are saying good things!… God help them!”

S.-Petersburg, 16 May Article 129 and Elections

The necessity of putting several public figures on trial who, inadvertently, became editors of newspapers and journals was lifted on 15 May as P. N. Miliukov, I. B. Gessen, P. B. Struve, and V. G. Korolenko were acquitted by the Court. Being brought to trial under Article 129 played its part. Despite how thorough it was, the meaning of the trial was none the less clear to the Russian public even before the Court delivered its verdict of not guilty. Thanks to it, such undeniable representatives of the people as Miliukov and Gessen now no longer enter the meeting hall, but sit in the journalists’ gallery. It is said of Miliukov, a member of the Peoples’ Freedom Party Central Committee and a huge influence on that party and its parliamentary faction, that he resembles Marshall Oyama, not taking part in the battle directly but observing it from above and giving his orders from there. This is one of the witticisms from the corridors…

S.-Petersburg, 17 May

Questions

After the Duma had formulated its first question for the Minister of Internal Affairs, he repeatedly showed up in the Ministry’s loggia in the Duma and every time the rumour spread throughout the corridors that “today the Minister will respond to the question that was sent him.” For the time being, Mr. Minister has not answered… In the meantime, the Duma has found time to formulate a series of new questions, usually decided on unanimously. Only one of them was followed by an “answer”, if one can consider a bureaucratic form letter from Mr. Chairman of the Council of Ministers, № such-and-such, as an answer to a question posed by a representative institution… This was yesterday, when Mr. Muromtsev, opening the session, read “Memorandum № 26, dated 12 May.” (An “answer” given the very same day the question was raised!) This Memorandum stated: “You have deigned to inform me that the State Duma, during its session on 12 May, unanimously adopted an application, filed by its Chairman on the basis of Article 40 of The Founding of the State Duma, and signed by 66 members of the Duma, requesting that the Chairman of the Council of Ministers clarify the subject mentioned in the said Memorandum. In consequence, I have the honour of informing you that the Memorandum, a copy of which was forwarded to me, along with an attached copy of a telegram from N.D. Sokolov addressed to Mr. Nevolin, has been passed on to the Minister of War.” Correct, according to all the rules of officious craftsmanship!… And by this time, as this official memorandum was being communicated to the Duma, its members already knew that “the irreparable had occurred”: eight youths who had been sentenced to death in Riga — it was about this verdict that the question had been raised — had already been shot… What point is there in the Duma’s questions, if they elicit these kinds of answers? This agonizing problem is raised by many, but the Duma continues to formulate questions. It sees the purpose of doing so absolutely correctly: if not for practical results, then for the novelty and the new revelation of the ideological abyss between official Russia and the peoples’ Russia. In formulating its questions, the Duma seeks to lead Russian life within a lawful framework and underscores the whole of that abyss which exists between the practices of government and sugary speeches about establishing lawfulness like those addressed to the Duma by the Minister of Justice — Shcheglovitov. Yesterday, the Duma once again posed a question to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers: was it with his consent that, day after day, telegrams similar in tone and often overlapping in content are published in His Imperial Majesty’s Name in the “State Newsletter,” in which the highest legislative institution is insulted and one part of the population is pitted against another? The Duma also wants to know, to what purpose is this being done?

Whatever the official memorandum of Mr. Goremykin, it was made evident before the entire country that the Duma counted the publication of telegrams such as these in the official press as “unprecedented” (in the words of Nabokov.) The country will draw its own conclusions…

S.-Petersburg, 17 May More About Tactics

The tactics of the Peoples’ Freedom Party continue to be the whetstone against which all who wish to can sharpen the point of their own radicalism successfully. Recently, “Nasha Zhizn” (№ 439), in connection with the Duma’s response to the Throne Speech, found that the Peoples’ Freedom Party tactics displayed “an unnecessary partiality for concentrating on the right.” Mr. Smirnov (“Nevskaya Zhizn”, № 4) found this opinion to be completely incongruous with “Kadet” criminality and he took a stand against “bourgeois democrats” because he did not find “a single word of reproach” among them against the response [to the Throne Speech] of the K-Ds [Constitutional-Democrats]. And “Nasha Zhizn” found this accusation so unbearable that it hurried to reclaim its honour with proof of its own “reproaches against the response of the K-D”. It is not only the lazy who make reproaches against the K-D’s response. Incidentally, stern reproaches against the party were made by the member of the Duma, Mr. Galetsky, when he announced to the Central Committee that he was leaving the party. We are not concerned with the arguments that Galetsky considers necessary in order to justify himself against accusations of violating the moral commitments he took on during the election campaign. Although, we must state that any reference to an allegiance to a programme put forward prior to the elections has very little to do with the matter at hand. In politics, it is not only the programme but the tactics that carry great significance; that is, the means by which the realization of a programme is achieved. It is for this reason that parties are created, in order to work out a uniform method of action in the name of their shared goals so that their actions might be concentrated and powerful. By staying loyal to a programme, tactics may be chosen which only bring failure to the programme. And if an election under the flag of some party or another imposes obligations, then these pertain not only to one’s loyalty to the programme, but to how one conforms to the party’s tactics. “But, what can be done?” writes Mr. Galetsky, and here we shift our attention over to the essence of his accusation. “I do not possess that degree of political flexibility which is necessary for an unhindered and quick transition from the revolutionary emotions of Mr. Koliubakin or Rodichev to the tactical opportunism even of Mr. Nabokov, from tragic language to peaceful practice and performance in a real parliament.” (Nasha Zhizn”, № 445). We will not complicate the question with further hints by Mr. Galetsky that the party desires to appear to be something that it is not. These were needed by Mr. Galetsky to justify his departure from the party. Instead, we concentrate our attention on the “duality”, so little understood by Mr. Galetsky, as the essential issue. That which appears to “Nasha Zhizn” as “a partiality for concentrating on the right”, and to Mr Galetsky as “performance in a real parliament” and “tactical opportunism”, so incompatible with an aptitude for “emotions”, is only the steadfast and carefully considered foresight of that tactical plan which was approved during the last three delegates’ meetings of the the Peoples’ Freedom Party. By the way, among the resolutions of these meetings was the following: “The Party will strive to fulfill its stated goals, and will not be stopped by the possibility of an open break with the State, but it is obliged to take measures in order that the full weight of blame and responsibility for this conflict, if one occurs, falls on the government.” “Revolutionary emotions” may be effective, but political tactics built on those emotions hardly prove to be advisable. Supporters of this effect are ready to cause conflict with every question, depending only on their mood. The amnesty or, better to say, the absence of an amnesty, rejected by the Duma deputies must still, according to their reckoning, compel engagement in conflict. If one disagrees with them, then it means that one has betrayed one’s own moderate conscientiousness… The Peoples’ Freedom Party, certain of the truth of its chosen path, could have listened calmly to these attacks. Events are proving the correctness of their adopted tactics. On 13 May, the Party did not evade conflict, it accepted the challenge thrown down to the nation by the Council of Ministers and even “Dvadtsaty Vek”, on this occasion, did not deny it a “sincere national debt”, “a spiritual connection with the nation.” The moment arrived when “the full weight of the blame and responsibility” fell upon the government, and the Peoples’ Freedom Party demonstrated that its “duality” is only a fabrication of poor politicians, imagining that their “revolutionary emotions” stand in irreconcilable conflict with the Party’s “tactical opportunism”. What is of value in politics is not words, but the essence of its deeds. “Tactical opportunism”, due to its expediency may, in fact, turn out to be much more revolutionary than those “revolutionary emotions” which rarely achieve any practical results. “Tactical opportunism” may turn out to be such a magnet for “revolutionary emotions” that all accusations levelled against opportunism will become pitiful lamentations. In essence, the tactics of the Peoples’ Freedom Party do not have a shadow of opportunism or compromise, and do not display any predilection for “a concentration on the right”. In its tactics, the Party has found itself. These tactics may not be understood, but a lack of understanding is not an argument. Events have already justified and will continue to justify these tactics. They will bring victory.

Man muss nicht nur kämpfen, sondern auch siegen wollen! (tr. One does not only have to fight, one must also win.) This maxim must be the guiding principle of practical politics. It is laid down in the foundations of the tactical plan approved by the Peoples’ Freedom Party Convention and is now being carried out by its parliamentary faction in the Duma.

S.-Petersburg, 19 May

While the blindly doctrinaire continue to reproach the Duma that it “is accomplishing nothing” and because of this, it seems, does not have any connection with the nation, thousands of voices from the depths of Russia reach us daily, clearly proving that the popular government’s ties with the people are growing and becoming stronger… While the Duma was charged with “betrayal” for approving the Peoples’ Freedom Party’s Response to the Throne Speech, we are informed, from the depths of Russia, that the Response is being learned by heart… Of the thousand various messages received by the Duma and its individual delegates, very few end up being published in the press.

A typical note was received today from the Nezhinsky district by Ya. A. Guzhovsky, the Deputy from Chernigov:

“To the members of the State Duma elected by the Province of Chernigov.

We, the electors from the Dremaylovsky District Assembly, thank you for speaking for the good of the people in the response to the Sovereign Emperor’s Throne Speech and wish that you might obtain rights, land, and liberty for us. Our ways of thinking are aligned with yours: if necessary, we are all for you”.

This was followed by 76 signatures.

Debates regarding the agrarian question have been going on in the Duma for three days. The order to proceed with the memorandum on the land question was submitted by 42 Duma members. Those who signed up to speak add up to nearly 100 more, and the Duma rejected the proposal that the list of orators be suspended. The speech by N. N. L’vov, the deputy from Saratov, made a strong impression today, criticizing the memorandum and calling the project for agrarian reform a bare formula, the result of work done in a Petersburg office that did not take the lives, the habits, or the opinions of the people into consideration. Only a dictatorial power could bring such a project to life. L’vov speaks in support of additional allotments for the agrarian population who are constrained by rights of way and privately owned lands, but he categorically opposes the principle of nationalizing the land. In the corridors, it is said that Mr. L’vov gave up his membership in the Peoples’ Freedom Party due to his disagreement with their land reform project… State Ministers have once again shown up in the Duma and today Mr. Stishinsky and Mr. Gurko even stepped forward with criticisms of the memorandum submitted by the 42 Duma members on the land question. The overly familiar tone of the “critique” recalled the caustic and sarcastic rebuke of Mr. Gertsenshtein. Mr. Gurko, in turn, wanted to answer, but the Duma decided to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday. The Duma member Onipko asked if he could speak on a point of order and, referring to the early end to the debate, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that “outsiders” come to the Duma and take up time with their talking. The Chairman P.D. Dolgorukov noted that he had not given the outsiders permission to speak. Tomorrow there will be a meeting of the commission that is drafting a law for the complete abolition of the death penalty. Today’s meeting stretched on listlessly, only enlivened by the episode of the Ministers’ appearance.

The corridors also lacked their usual liveliness. The agrarian debates, or, as it is quipped in the corridors, “agrarian disorders” will continue for a few more sessions. Although the question is still beside the point and only an order of business, the Duma does not consider it possible to curtail the debate.

The Birth of Truth

The Goremykin “Cabinet” came before the State Duma with its “Declaration”… The popular government responded to it with a storm of indignation…

“The Executive Power will submit to the Legislative Power.” Nabokov said.

“You must step down and let others take your place.” Rodichev said.

“Resign!” Orators repeated, one after another, from every party, every group. Count Geyden approached the podium and the Duma pricked up its ears…

A storm of applause drowned out the Count’s first words. The founder of the “Union of 17 October”, pollice verso [tr. turning his thumb down], … gave the final blow to the Ministry. The Ministry was unembarrassed: it heeded the advice of “Novoye Vremya” — “Spit!”

But — “Honny [sic] soit qui mal y pense!” (tr. Shame on him who evil thinks) …

The Ministry fulfills “its patriotic duty”… It does not cling to its power with convulsive efforts, it does not tremble for its portfolios. It aids the “birth of truth”. “From every clash of opinions,

truth will be born.” So said Mr. Shcheglovitov.

The Duma, having expressed its “complete mistrust”, became occupied with its order of business. The very difficult and complex agrarian question was discussed. And the Ministry decided

to “help birth the truth.”

“From every clash of opinions, truth will be born!” as Shcheglovitov said.

Mr. Stishinsky and Mr. Gurko prepared to birth the “agrarian truth” through a clash of views. And only in order to ease the birth of the truth, they tried to clash in every measure.

“With allotments of land, the peasants grow poorer, and will become enslaved anew. Without land, they will flourish,” Gurko said.

“And why is it that the peasants cannot be convinced that they are better off without land?” Professor Gertsenshtein asked with surprise.

“The truth is born from clashing opinions.” Thus spoke Shcheglovitov and Mr. Gurko did not forget the Zarathustra of the Goremykin Cabinet.

The truth, unexpectedly, was born.

“And why is it that strangers come to the Duma and take away our valuable time?” puzzled Onipko, the deputy from the workers’ group.

“From any clash of opinions, truth will be born.” Thus spoke Mr. Shcheglovitov, the Zarathustra of the Goremykin Cabinet. Mr. Gurko heeded Zarathustra-Shcheglovitov, and helped

Mr.Onipko. On 18 May, after 7:00 in the evening, at the end of that day’s session of the State Duma, Mr. Gurko aided in the “birth the truth”…

S.-Petersburg, 20 May Also Tactics

However mistaken, or at times even overtly destructive, the tactics of those who know of no other revolutionary cry than that of “Down with the Duma, down with the Kadets” may seem to us, however doctrinaire and prejudiced their criticism might be, we cannot deny them their moral right to criticize; we cannot, at least to a certain extent, fail to understand the psychological source of their perhaps fatal errors. Only the person who does nothing can avoid being mistaken, and they have a selfless devotion to their task and must work under absolutely unbearable conditions. A completely different impression is produced when criticism resorts to verbal radicalism in the name of emptily shaking the air with a drumbeat of torrential words. An example of this kind of “criticism” is offered almost daily in “Dvadtsaty Vek”. This paper tirelessly takes liberties, castigating the “principled avoidance of conflict” with which the Kadets ruin the work of the State Duma, the work of the Russian people: “There is much strength, but decisiveness and initiative are lacking” [“Dvadtsaty Vek”, № 48]. Urging itself on with hysterical shouts, the paper maintains that in the Duma they occupy themselves with words rather than with deeds, and draws the conclusion that “from the point of view of “pure constitutionalism” there is, of course, no difference between Mr. Shcheglovitov and Rodichev, who raised objections against him!” [№ 49]. Exposing the “Kadets’” indecisiveness, proclaiming the slogan “periculum in mora!” [tr. “There is danger in delay”], “Dvadtsaty Vek” typically concludes its accusations with the observation that “the jails and prisons are, as always, full to overflowing…” And it turns out that if anyone is to blame for the jails not yet being opened, it is only the “Kadets” with their “principled avoidance of conflict”. And of course such energetic accusers, such outspoken supporters of “quick and forceful” systems, have their own tactics guaranteeing victory, but do they have the means to “open the prisons”? Of course they do. Listen to “Dvadtsaty Vek”. It does not hide its “inventor’s secret” but offers it so frequently and tirelessly that it reminds us of the figure in the Ukrainian proverb who “makes a great song and dance” over something. “What is needed is a “declaration” of the supreme power undertaken by the Duma on its own initiative…” [№ 47]. This heap of accusation, carried out “in vehemence and irritation”, has given birth to a mouse, and not even a mouse but such a pitiful little mouseling, that one unwittingly asks the question, is it possible that “Dvadtsaty Vek” seriously admits and confides that it actually believes in the means of escape offered by the expediency of its own tactics? Why then does every accusation this paper makes of “principled avoidance of conflict” always conclude with “Dvadtsaty Vek”… “making such a great song and dance”? “The declaration is not a plea, it is not an appeal to the heart of the Monarch and his judgement. It is an indication of the timeliness, the extreme imperative of the changes being referred to”…[№ 48]. The next day, another “song and dance”: “You must go to the Monarch and say that the country is done with suffering, that its patience is at an end, and what is needed is a quick change of regime” [№ 49]. The “Kadet” tactic is criticized to such extremes, and what is offered in its place? — “A song and dance”… In truth, “also a tactic”. We will not attempt to find logical arguments in the campaign led by “Dvadtsaty Vek.” We will limit ourselves to one example: 13 May in the Duma, nothing tangible was accomplished, only words were uttered. However, this time “Dvadtsaty Vek” did not deny that the Kadets “were in heartfelt sympathy with the sufferings of the people”, “in a spiritual communion with the nation.” What elicited the paper’s approval? Did 13 May actually open up the prisons?… The matter is very simple: 13 May was a very loud day and could not be muffled even by the howls of “Dvadtsaty Vek”. The tactics of “Dvadtsaty Vek” are, in any case, quite simple. A “song and dance” is invented in order to rend the air. The method they use to accomplish this is most fitting. Not everyone will make out the emptiness of the content, the decisiveness of the tone, the easy criticism, the large-print “And in our prisons”… all of this deafens the unsophisticated man in the street. Those who accuse others of indecision and lack of innovation themselves appear to be decisive and full of initiative. Verbal radicalism is triumphant, rending the air. Meanwhile — all of its initiative focusses on a “song and dance”, all of its decisiveness on a torrent of words.

S.-Petersburg, 20 May

The Duma Cannot Disperse.

…”Either with your shields, or on them!…”

Goremykin’s response to the State Duma’s question regarding the 8 death sentences in Riga — a bureaucratic form letter, followed by hastily carried out sentences for each of those convicted, among whom there were minors — cannot be construed as anything but an open challenge to the Duma, a challenge to the nation… This was how this “response” was interpreted during the 18 May session of the Duma. And, naturally, the question was raised: “What next?” That is, how should the Duma respond to challenges that are thrown its way daily? It already appears to many that all State Duma activity has been reduced to zero and nothing else is left but to once more, clearly and definitively, formulate the nation’s demands, offer the choice: with the people or against them, set forth those demands and, in the case that the petition fails, to disperse. Without question, everything that is happening in our country is echoed by the suffering of the peoples’ representatives. For those chosen to bring the country out of the terrible situation in which it finds itself, it is obvious that much self-possession is needed to maintain equilibrium and carry on with the work, despite the fact that its visible, immediate results truly amount to nothing… And yet, the peoples’ representatives must, of necessity, maintain their balance, for an immense, historic task has been laid on their shoulders, the fulfillment of which is their duty to the present and the future. The State Duma is reproached for its slowness and indecisiveness which have, supposedly, already caused the severing of all ties with the nation. But the State Duma is moving steadily towards its goal. We maintain that, as far as impatient, exacting demands that speak of the Duma’s futility may be understood psychologically, the ties between the Duma and the nation are only getting stronger and deeper as the eyes of the nation are being opened wider and wider to the reasons for the Duma’s lack of results… It seems to us that those who believe that the Duma is called upon — to come, to see, and to conquer — carry a naive hope; a crowning victory such as the one the Duma should gain is only achieved through a stubborn and more or less lengthy struggle. This victory, which the Duma is called upon to achieve, is such that, in its name, the Duma must resort to every means that can promise success. But who has said, who has proved that some definitive means exist which promise and guarantee victory? There are those who claim that, if the Duma’s response to the Throne Speech had been written in a different language, a different style, we would already have crossed the Rubicon, but are they being sincere?.. If we admit that they are sincere, we must also admit that they are naive. Prof. Gredeskul, during his speech about the amnesty, had mentioned that if popular demands were not carried out in some other way, the people would fulfill them “through the action of despair”… And, yes, we believe in the great words of Ludwig Berne: “Freedom does not die in the grave!…” But even if victory is achieved “through the action of despair”, the present work of the Duma does not amount to nothing. Only the blind do not see this… Criminally, they want to deprive the State Duma of the calm that is necessary for its work, of the very ethic that makes working possible. But to every provocation, the Duma will answer with the steadfast fulfillment of its duty, for it carries responsibility for all of Russia’s future. Those who have lost their composure because of the horrors of every-day life and the excessive moral anguish which our first popular representatives endure may suggest that their demands be formulated once more and, in the case that they are rejected — to disperse. The Duma must answer that, perhaps, the moment will come when it will be forced to accept such a radical solution, one that can only be carried out with the support of the nation. But this will be a different kind of decision. The Duma simply cannot disperse!.. Its deputies were given an order — “either with your shields, or on them!..”

S.-Petersburg, 21 May

In the Corridors

The debates over the agrarian question threaten to stretch on for some time: the list of orators who have signed up to speak is extremely long and the speakers’ list has not yet been closed. In view of this, a suggestion has arisen: that half of every session be devoted to debating the land question, while the other half will be for the discussion of all other current business. Most of the Duma is extremely dispirited by the agrarian question debates which proceed extraordinarily listlessly and are only occasionally enlivened by a bright and thoughtful speech or an incident like the performance by the Ministers during the 19 May session. In the corridors, one is forced to listen to irritated voices raised against long speeches which contribute very little to the settlement of the question under debate. It is said that there are many such orators, listened to only by the stenographers. A number of these orators openly admit that it is their duty to express their opinions, over the heads of the peoples’ representatives, before the nation. At times there are no more striking speeches than those that, begun at the parliamentary rostrum, flare up in the corridors. Here, the publicist Menshikov is in conversation with a peasant-deputy: they are surrounded by a crowd of listeners. “Is there nothing,” — the deputy is becoming excited, — “in the additions made by the Kadets that the peasants will be satisfied with?!” “Well, and what will those accomplish?!” “They will demand all the land” “But what if they won’t give it?” “Then they will go to their deaths under bullets.” “So where is the good in that?” “And where is the good in dying of hunger on the stove? If anyone manages to remain on the stove, but at least they won’t be in pain, since the stove is cold!..”

Cheerful laughter resounds around the deputy-peasant from Kiev, Grabovetsky. He is the favourite of those behind the scenes. His Ukrainian humour, and his keen, graphic figures of speech enjoy great success. In the Duma, he stepped forward for the first time against the Eroginist group who proposed to delay the debate on the response to the Throne Speech. “Having taken the reins, don’t say that they aren’t strong” was how Grabovetsky concluded that speech. “And he who doesn’t understand this, let him tend to the horses.” Grabovetsky is intelligent, sensible, and experienced. He has his own agrarian programme which he develops in the corridors. Land purchased after 1861, before the opening of the peasant bank, must be redeemed at the redemption price; land bought after the opening of the peasant bank must get a fair price, not determined by market value. “And that which was granted, cannot be returned.” All land must belong to those who work it, in accordance with the rights to private property… Grabovetsky signed up to speak about the land question and will probably expand on this programme from the parliamentary rostrum in the next few days.

S.-Peterburg, 22 May

The Accusers’ Zeal

“Dvadtsaty Vek”, citing an excerpt from a letter by Mr. Plekhanov to “comrade-workers” that was featured in the “Kurier”, makes a sortie against the “publicists of “Duma”, “Rech’” and other organs of the K-D party”. According to the newspaper, these publicists, “whenever the Constitutional-Democrats are reproached for their indecision, inertia, compliance and procrastination, immediately make a volte face and cry that the Duma is being “undermined”, having learned this lesson from our bureaucracy which sees an urge to “overthrow the current order” in every critical remark… Regarding such fabrications, one may say: “Keep grinding out your nonsense, no one is listening”, for there is hardly any need to seriously object to the assertion that the “publicists of “Rech’”, “Duma” and other organs of the K-D party” count all critical remarks as an “undermining” of the Duma. But “Dvadtsaty Vek” goes even further and asserts that, in general, “no one is preparing to undermine the Duma, not even the Social-Democrats.” And in evidence, it brings forward excerpts from G.V. Plekhanov’s letter. The “publicists of “Duma”, “Rech’”, and other organs of the K.-D. party”, as it turns out, simply fabricated the “undermining”, seeing it in “every critical remark”. It is curious, though, why Mr. Plekhanov would now suddenly try to convince his “comrade-workers” that “the entire nation must, with one voice, support the Duma” and warn them against attacks on the Duma endorsed by Mr. Goremykin? Can it really be that G.V. Plekhanov, together with the “publicists of “Rech’”, “Duma” and other organs of the K.-D. party” has become infected with the insidious spirit of our bureaucracy?

It is utterly obvious that all of these phrases about “being schooled” in our bureaucracy are absurd nonsense, needed by the accusatory zeal of “Dvadtsaty Vek” publicists in their campaign against the “Kadets”. On the other hand, in his interesting letter Plekhanov is fighting against those dangerous methods which seek to discredit the Duma at all costs. These methods, unfortunately, have been more than enough and it is against these that the publicists of “Duma” and Rech’” have always struggled. Plekhanov’s letter was recognized as such a sign of consolation that both “Rech’” and “Duma” printed it in its entirety. And only “Dvadtsaty Vek” saw new evidence in it of the “Kadet” publicists’ insidiousness.

To each his own! By the way, in that same edition of “Dvadtsatyi Vek” (№ 53), which contains entire stockpiles of “sorties” against the “Kadets”, we read, “We need to present every Kadet with his own copy of Cervantes’ “Don Quixote”. They have earned this gift. They are fine, intelligent people, but bad politicians!” Have the publicists of “Dvadtsaty Vek” perhaps read too much of Cervantes’ “Don Quixote”? In their “decisiveness” they bear little resemblance to the child Heine who would later remember his early impressions thus: “I was a child and did not know irony, which God created and placed in the world and which the great poet imitated and placed in his printed little world, and I wept bitter tears when the noble knight, for all his valour, received only ingratitude and blows.”…

The noble knight “of the mournful countenance” seduced the decisive publicists of “Dvadtsatyi Vek” with his valour. Is it not due to this that they are so zealous in their warlike ardour?…

S.-Petersburg, 23 May

“Resign!”

Messrs. Gurko and Stishinsky continue to help with the birth of the truth, according to Shcheglovitov’s recipe — that is, “from a clash of opinion”. Their appearance at the parliamentary rostrum, however, brings on feelings of irritation for a significant number of deputies. Quite energetic cries of “Resign!” greet them and send them off, but they are “brave” people and are rarely disturbed by this. Today, Mr. Gurko wanted to “clarify a number of misunderstandings” provoked by Gertsenshtein’s speech. The Duma wanted none of his clarification, and shouted “Resign!”. P. D. Dolgorukov rang the bell and called for order. And Mr. Gurko “elucidated”… still on that same theme. The leader of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, I. I. Petrunkevich, began his response by standing up for and defending the Ministers. Their appearance, their speeches, in no way hamper the Duma from carrying on with its own business, and may even help it… Petrunkevich clarifies the political importance of the agrarian question and says “we will not leave until we have come to a decision” (thunderous applause). Petrunkevich concludes his speech by repeating the slogan “Resign!” in a more parliamentary manner.

“The ministers”, Petrunkevich says, “teach us patriotism. I would like this word to be less abused… If they understood what patriotism was, they would have left these benches long ago.” To each his own! Mr. Gurko believes that patriotism makes it incumbent that we hold onto the land. Mr. Petrunkevich thinks that patriotism should prompt the entire Goremykin cabinet to “dismiss their presence”, as one of the characters in the vaudeville “Under Inspection” expresses it. And Mr. Shcheglovitov, surely, is waiting for the truth to be born again. We believe that, under such circumstances, both for Mr. Shcheglovitov and for many others, some unexpected surprises may come from this “newborn”…

S.-Petersburg, 25 May

The Ministers Are In No Hurry…

Mr. Goremykin continues to believe that the best answer he can give to any question from the State Duma is — an official form letter. He responded with such a letter again in answer to a question regarding telegrams by the Black Hundreds, printed in “Pravitel’stvenny Vestnik”. Finding that, according to the Articles upon which it was founded, the State Duma can address the Ministers with inquiries relating to subjects under discussion in the Duma, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers sent a letter to the Duma Chairman expressing his bewilderment as to which order of business under discussion in the Duma related in any way to an inquiry regarding telegrams printed in “Pravitel’stvenny Vestnik”. Muromtsev, as Chairman, informed the Duma of this letter and also let them know his response. In his very dignified answer, he stated that “defending the dignity of the highest legislative institution in the country is a constant theme in the ongoing work of the State Duma.” It was then suggested by I. I. Petrunkevich that the Duma, with the approval of its Chairman, move on to its regular order of business. Long, passionate debates were prompted by the Ministers of Justice, War, and the Navy who, upon learning that the Duma will begin discussing its draft law to abolish the death penalty on May 26, pointed out the extreme complexity and difficulty of an immediate discussion of this law, insisting on observing the “legal” monthly deadline. In the name of the Peoples’ Freedom Party parliamentary faction, Nabokov suggested a transition to the regular order of business which they would justify by indicating that the Duma, while legally bound, condemns executions and will regard them as ordinary murders. The representatives of the workers’ group insisted that an immediate examination of, and vote on, the law abolishing the death penalty was necessary. In the debate it was pointed out that, practically, the passing of a law under these conditions would be equivalent to passing an ordinary resolution. Defending the necessity of an immediate discussion and passing of a draft law abolishing the death penalty, Aladin concluded his speech by declaring that the representatives of the workers’ group have too much self-respect to agree to any other resolution. Replying to the workers, Nabokov said that, having brought forward the suggestion in the name of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, he expected some objections but the form that some of these objections took was an unpleasant surprise. None of the parliamentary parties have the right to lay claim to a monopoly in understanding what is or is not in keeping with the dignity of the State Duma. The Peoples’ Freedom Party also has the right to make judgements regarding the Duma’s dignity and, without undermining any party’s or group’s feelings of self-respect, considers that appeals to these feelings should have no place in solving the current question. Misunderstandings between parties which, until now, have walked arm in arm are bad for business. These misunderstandings do not gladden those who sit in the Duma, but those who sit in a different place. Not more than 30 - 40 individuals voted for the immediate passing of the law. Nabokov’s formula was favoured by a huge majority of voters… During the course of the debates, it again felt as if “bloody apparitions hang over the Duma” and impede its work…

S.-Petersburg, 26 May

The Campaign Continues…

“Dvadtsaty Vek’s” daily quixotic campaign continues — against ‘Kadets” in general, and especially against the ‘Kadets” in the Duma. Reason and argument are the weapons of publicists, but those who write for “Dvadtsaty Vek” are so lacking in these that, when they feel the need not to limit themselves to one way of stunning the “readers and voters”, they turn even to Mr. Gurko for their reasoning and arguments… (№ 54). “Dvadtsaty Vek’s” “campaign” appears to us to be, technically speaking, such a “futile attempt” that we would pay it no mind if, in the midst of this beating of drums, new and, what’s more, highly surprising themes and motifs did not resound. The newspaper, obviously having decided to “enliven” its Letters to the Editor section, appeals to “readers and voters”, shaking out its “bag of tricks” in front of them with a “presentation” or “appeal” to the Monarch, and asks whether this “appeal” might be a “timely and necessary step in ending the country’s ongoing calamities?”

According to the newspaper, “the work of creating draft laws” only expresses the peoples’ desires in precise terms, while “appeals” are already “an active step” toward the “quick and practical realization” of those desires. But we, belonging to the category of “reader and voter”, do not intend to examine the question “Dvadtsaty Vek” has posed to those fond of writing “letters to the editor.” We want to turn our attention to a small article which was printed immediately above the appeal to “readers and voters” (№ 54). Here, surprising motifs surfaced with reference to Mr. Gurko’s authority. This article contends “how imprudent it is to now delve into a general solution for the agrarian problem”… And this “imprudence” was perpetrated by the “Kadets”. “The Kadets”, in the words of “Dvadtsaty Vek”, “were too carried away with their desire to lure the peasants with conversations about land”… An astonishing reference to this work of the Duma which the publicists of “Dvadtsaty Vek” perhaps find dull, this “conversation about land.” But all of peasant Russia is listening keenly to every word of these “conversations”.

Their “radical” newspaper can only see a “desire to lure the peasants”. The Peoples’ Freedom Party and its representatives in the Duma have a different attitude to these “conversations”; their approach was not at all “in hopes of” “luring” anyone. Clearly and distinctly realizing all of the difficulty and complexity of the agrarian question, foreseeing even the greatest disagreement over this question which, in other cases, has led to a loss of membership, the Party did not have the right to organize itself around “a broad formula” which would fully satisfy the publicists of “Dvadtsaty Vek”, but which says very little to the peasants. The Party must demonstrate that it not only has a “broad formula” but the determination to give this formula concrete content and the ability to not only produce slogans, but to carry them through into real life… For the parliamentary faction of the Peoples’ Freedom Party, and for the Party as a whole, submitting the agrarian question for the Duma’s consideration was a necessary step, both politically and morally. And doing so, the Party remains in complete agreement with the objectively urgent tasks of the historical moment. This step was not prompted by Party plans and calculations, but by a full understanding of the governmental and political problems of the day. We cannot dispute the idea that finding solutions, or even holding proper, calm discussions of economic and social reforms in the Duma would be impossible without “lasting political reform”. But to conclude that it is now possible to ignore socio-economic problems, ridding ourselves of them through “broad formulas”, would be an unforgivable error. Lived experience does not divide itself into categories where the political exists outside of any connection with the social. The Russian political revolution coincided with a revolution in the sphere of social relations and herein lies all of the difficulty and complexity of the current moment. Reality must be looked at straight in the face and not oversimplified. If raising the agrarian question causes a reorganization of the parties, their differentiation or even their disintegration, this still should not stop us. In place of unified parties, a unified people is created. In the end, parties exist for their work and it is namely in their work that their viability, their true understanding of life’s demands is revealed. We believe that, with the agrarian question, the Peoples’ Freedom Party will prove its viability and its “critics”, already laughing at the prospect of the party’s disintegration, will see that their “merriment” was premature. The position of the party is currently quite distressing, but this distress is just an expression of the distress which lies across the country and acts as proof that the party really does represent the nation. The Party’s historic mission is to free the country from this distress and, to fulfill this mission, the party hopes to overcome every great obstacle that stands in its path. In the midst of these obstacles, the prejudiced fault-finding that calls itself “criticism” does not arouse any fears.

The Peoples’ Freedom Party is doing its work before the eyes of the entire nation so no one should find it difficult to duly assess those who “criticize” with the beating of drums, with the arguments made by Mr. Gurko, and with protests, saying that the People’s Freedom Party was carried away with the desire to “lure the peasants”…

S.-Petersburg, 27 May

During yesterday’s session of the Duma, after the debates prompted by the Ministers’ delay in examining the draft law to abolish the death penalty, a “misunderstanding” between the Peoples’ Freedom Party and the workers’ group once more threatened to gladden those who “do not sit in the Duma, but in a different place”… 35 members of the workers’ group brought forward a statement outlining the main provisions of a Bill on the organization of local committees which would prepare the information needed for land reform. Non-parliamentary friends and mentors of the workers’ group, long dissatisfied with the way the group had thus far, in one way or another, marched “arm in arm” with the Peoples’ Freedom Party in the Duma, secretly pinned their hopes on this project of quickly forming “local committees” to finally break the workers’ “dependence” on the “bourgeois” Kadets… Fortunately, Aladin and other leaders of the workers’ group proved to be more far-sighted than their non-parliamentary friends and did not find it possible to bring the matter to an open rupture between their group and the Peoples’ Freedom Party. Their non-parliamentary friends, of course, will not praise them for this… The statement by the 35 workers pointed out that debates in the Duma regarding land reform were dragging on and cannot help but do so, that the land question was not only complex and important but, more so, it was urgent. They noted the necessity of moving forward with land reform without any delay. It was with such a mandate that the workers’ group members had been sent to the Duma by the people. According to those who had signed the statement, it was because of this that the Duma must not cease its work; it must begin the necessary preparatory work in the provinces. It was vital to create committees in the provinces without delay, chosen based on the four-term formula, for preparatory work. Therefore, it was suggested that the general debate on the agrarian question be temporarily interrupted in order to choose a 33-member commission which would work out the draft resolution for organizing these provincial committees. Aladin supported and thoroughly justified this suggestion. Kokoshkin and Kotlyarevsky subjected the suggestion to no less thorough but damning criticism. Kokoshkin stated that the proposal cannot achieve its goal: — it will not speed things up, will not make the Duma’s work any easier, but will instead put the brakes on it. Given the current stage of discussions about the agrarian question, the Duma should not seek help from the people which they cannot provide… Kotlyarevsky even claimed that accepting such a decision now would run counter to the demands of the people and the demands of state security. Answering his opponents, Aladin replied with irritation: “I know that, at least on our side, there are strong arguments and we would win the argument over whether local committees are needed or not. However, we will not win the dispute over votes… Because of this, as people who understand their own circumstances, we are joining with those who advise that our statement be given to a general commission on the agrarian question”… Aladin’s speech emphasized the necessity of organizing the people so that all conversations and inclinations to “disperse the Duma” would be unthinkable. The Peoples’ Freedom Party does not deny this necessity, but it is not the projected local committees that are needed, committees which Aladin openly admits must bring “not hundreds, but thousands of Dumas” to the provinces. What is needed is the reform of local self-government. S. Kotlyarevsky pointed this out in passing during his speech. Reforms to local self-government are urgent reforms; there are rumours that plans for these reforms are actively being worked out by the parliamentary faction of the Peoples’ Freedom Party. It is said that things slowed down a little after I. I. Petrunkevich’s illness… But in any case, the question of the democratic reorganization of local governments is a top priority. Popular government without a solid foundation of local self-government, based on broad democratic principles, always remains a structure built on sand…

Today marked one month of work by the Duma… A month, already a whole month that the Duma is in session, and what has it achieved?, where is the promised victory? — this is what observers shout from every side. Yet, no matter how familiar and well-understood this impatience may appear to us, appraising the situation, we say: Yes, a month, only one month has gone by, but so much has already been achieved!..

And with heartfelt hope, we look to the future…

S.-Petersburg, 28 May

Eloquence in the Duma

From the day that it opened, the State Duma was introduced to what may be two of the most striking oratorical talents amongst its members. We refer to the speeches of I. I. Petrunkevich and S. A. Muromtsev. I. I. Petrunkevich has aged significantly over the past several years, but his voice still resounds with the confidence and strength of a warrior. The beauty of his speeches lies not in sparkles and fireworks, but in calm certainty, and a depth and energy of thought. Their content is in perfect harmony with their polished and elegant form. The orator does not rely on verbosity and conventional ornamentations; simplicity distinguishes the structure of his speeches, producing a profound impression of deep thought and strong emotion. The warrior’s temperament breaks through Petrunkevich’s outward calm and reserve and makes a stronger impression on the listener than the stormy onslaughts of many fiery orators. The eloquence of Muromtsev is of a somewhat professorial type but without its negative traits. His laconic and concise formulations are pushed to the utmost limits. In places, the speaker offers only formulas, each one of which may be written down and cited, like a proverb. His tone is one of olympic calm, majestic, solemn, and ceremonial. His style of speaking is not for the everyday, and even if Muromtsev had not been chosen as Chairman, he would nonetheless only step forward under extraordinary circumstances. In his role as Chairman, he separates himself completely from the melee of debate and the clashing of views, but from his position as Chairman, his voice resounds with even greater authority. I. I. Petrunkevich also rarely appears at the parliamentary rostrum. The wise, mephistophelean smile on his face indicates that he is not inclined to waste words. Petrunkevich only has to step up to the podium to show that something important, something exceptional is happening. After the first few sessions, I. I. fell ill and, while he now attends the Duma, he has not yet fully recovered. I. I. appears to be the leader of the Peoples’ Freedom Party’s parliamentary faction. F. I. Rodichev’s stormy oratorical talents are of a completely different type. This fiery orator throws himself headlong into the war of words. His best speeches are those that are delivered impromptu. He searches for words and expressions and, now and then, unexpectedly bursts into an entire cascade of effective phrases, like strikes from a hammer. A dry, metallic voice, fragmentary sharp blows which, one after the other, fall and deafen. He is extremely nervous before such first-class orators. On occasion his speeches can leave his audience cold, but at times they are captivated. Even those who are not advocates of Rodichev’s talents do not deny that, now and then, his speeches are irresistible. For example, no one could ever forget the impact of what Rodichev said during the amnesty debate: “Bloody apparitions threaten us even here, and we must remove them so that we can work”! At times, this speaker goes as far as screaming; his nervousness is passed on to his audience. A less successful speech by Rodichev can irritate, but a successful one can be thrilling. In one and the same speech, there can be parts that are weak, and others that are strikingly brilliant: often a single phrase saves the entire speech…

Lovers of comparisons and analogies have named Rodichev “the Russian Mirabeau”.

Without doubt, we must add V. D. Nabokov to the list of outstanding Duma orators. His voice has a strong and pleasant timbre, and he is able to defend a given position calmly and confidently, with tact and the deftness of a parliamentarian. He often performs as a lecturer, delivering explanations of draft laws which have been brought before the Duma by the Peoples’ Freedom Party faction. On 13 May, when the decisive struggle with Goremykin’s cabinet arose, Nabokov was the chosen skirmisher and his speech was one of the most successful that day. “Executive power must submit to legislative power” — this concluding phrase of Nabokov’s has already been added to the parliamentary “figures of speech”… There is no doubt that Nabokov is fated to play a prominent role in future popular governments. While not in possession of apparent oratorical skills, Prince D. I. Shakhovksy commands attention. He has a fairly weak voice, but the content of his speeches is always deep and distinguished by thoughtful reflection. Gredeskul’s speeches are unique; he approaches questions with originality of thought and speaks rationally. The debates on the agrarian question revealed the enormous political talent and oratorical gifts of the Moscow deputy, Gertsenshtein. The strength of his speeches lies in their malice, their angry sarcasm, their fine, devastating mockery. With undivided attention, the entire State Duma listened to his long speech which demolished the Ministry’s critique of the draft law on land, while defending the draft’s principles with all the brilliance of specialist knowledge. This speech opened up broad socio-philosophical perspectives. In Lednitsky, we sense an exceptional oratorical talent and a strong temperament. The “professorial” eloquence of Kuzmin-Karavayev and M. M. Kovalevsky is able to blend into the parliamentary vein. On the right, the famous M. A. Stakhovich is, without any argument, a pre-eminent orator of striking talent, combining energetic and passionate speech with a graphic and eloquent form. Of the speakers on behalf of the workers’ group, the thoughtful and reserved speech of Zhilkin makes the strongest impression. When he says: “we tremble with indignation”, his voice sounds toneless, but his feelings are passed on to his audience. Aladin possesses a loud voice and can speak with a certain informality: this is a typical “meeting-ish” orator. They say, in jest, that he is a speaker of the “Rodichev type”… But the copy is far from the original.

We cannot deny Aladin’s serious oratorical talent but his eloquence leaves us cold; one cannot sense any sincere, immediate emotion in it. All of the effects of his stormy speeches appear to have been thought out beforehand. When the chairman stops Aladin for using an “unparliamentary expression”, which happens fairly often, one cannot shake off the impression that the “unparliamentary expression” was thrown in with careful consideration in order to be stopped and display some quick wit… Aladin has courage, but often, — we are using his own words here, spoken during discussions on 13 May regarding the address to the Ministers, — “this word does not express everything, there is another word, — it stands alphabetically a little closer to the letter s.”… The strength of an intensely bitter and merciless bluntness can be felt in Anikin’s speeches, but he cannot in any sense be called an orator.

S.-Petersburg, 29 May

More Bloody Apparitions…

More bloody apparitions, — to use Rodichev’s graphic expression — “hung” over the Duma today during debates prompted by an inquiry into 7 new death sentences, carried out by the military court in Riga. The debate was stormy; indignation boiled through the speeches. By the way, Aladin said: “I am wholly persuaded that our Ministers enjoy their role as murderers so much that, this time too, we will not snatch from their hands those victims whom they can send on to the next world. However, I stand by this inquiry, not hoping to save lives, but hoping that sooner or later, we will show the nation that, in the souls of our Ministers, there lives only the desire to kill”… The Chairman wanted to say something to the speaker, but the latter, in agitation, had already left the rostrum…

Members of the State Duma receive a large quantity of greetings daily from various groups and individuals, often including a list of questions regarding the business of the Duma, its political position, etc. Unable to answer every question they receive in writing, deputies from different provinces are anxious to establish closer ties with their constituents. A proposal has arisen to put together short accounts of the Duma’s work — with explanations of its separate steps, the motivation behind its tactical position, and a general characterization of the situation — for wide distribution among the village population. The deputies from Chernigov are also working out the means to establish regular ties with their constituents. They meet together periodically to discuss current issues. It is suggested that trips by deputies to their home regions be organized so that they may have first-hand, personal contact with their voters.

S.-Petersburg, 31 May

The Agrarian Swamp

It is not without cause that the wits in the corridors say the Duma is running the danger of getting stuck in an “agrarian swamp”, the term they use for the endless, slow-moving debate on the agrarian question and its direction. These discussions have already been going on for a whole week, but “a happy outcome” cannot yet “be seen amongst the waves”, since nearly 100 speakers have signed up. Several speak for an hour or more, often repeating their own ideas in a systematic summary, even though they have already elaborated on them in the Duma more than once, as did Sub-Baltic Region Deputy Tenison yesterday. Deputy Rodichev’s attempt to shorten the debate in the name of patriotism was futile; in vain did he call upon the deputy’s courage to hold himself back and stop speaking. He received thunderous applause, but afterwards… the debates carried on in the same spirit: only 2-3 deputies had the fortitude to “hold themselves back.” Fairness, however, requires us to mention that in the cheerless quagmire of the “agrarian swamp”, two interesting speeches were delivered yesterday: one filled with Ukrainian humour by the Kievan peasant Grabovetsky, and the other a fiery, pithy speech by Deputy Aladin. Grabovetsky, by the way, depicted his impression of the “famous” speeches of Mr. Gurko thus: “Gurko maybe thinks that a piece of sugar simply falls out of a beet”… Aladin cited a collection of peasants’ letters from various provinces which testified to the impact the notorious Ministerial Declaration had made on the public. Incidentally, Aladin said the Ministry could be thanked for their successful campaign. The Ministry stopped at nothing; it even dragged our exalted church into this business. In one province a declaration-flyer had been nailed to a church door: “They apparently expected that the words of the Declaration would benefit from the intercession of the Holy Spirit” (the chairman stops the speaker, applause). The speaker pointed out that the people have begun to shift their dissatisfaction from the Ministry bench to a much higher place. He quoted from the peasant letters regarding that higher place: “If the Duma does nothing, there will be trouble. Let those… (followed by a word that the Chairman does not permit me to read) know that they will be shown no mercy. Be so kind as to tell us, where is the Sovereign? Why don’t they turn to him? Can it be that the rumour is true, that he…. then, all is lost.” Aladin asks: “How did the Ministers serve even the one whom they recognize as the highest power, as the ruler of destinies? How did they serve? — As statesmen, or as liveried footmen?” (thunderous applause).

Aladin concluded his speech with the affirmation that, if the people believe that the agrarian question is moving toward a solution by the time of the harvest, then it would not be at all difficult to make them wait for a few more months, or even a year or two. “But if, by that time, we are unable to bring the agrarian question to the point where the people are convinced that it is solvable, then it might happen that the people will interrupt our work and take on solving the agrarian question themselves.” After this brilliant speech, it began again… “the swamp”.

The Mood of the Country in Letters

The State Duma can fulfill its historic mission only through lively communication, through constant, active, reciprocal interaction with the nation — this truth is simple and obvious to the point of banality.

It’s not for nothing that gentlemen, wishing to discredit the Duma, intrigue against it by falsifying the country’s opinion and by organizing addresses and telegrams of the Black Hundreds to be printed in “Pravitel’stvenny Vestnik”. The mood of the nation must be studied with utmost attention and thoroughness: we cannot doubt that the entire country is filled with yearning to free itself from the chains of bureaucratic tyranny, from the smothering, nightmarish atmosphere which crushes it. What does the nation hope for? Does it believe in the State Duma? How does it regard the Duma’s work? Answers to these questions lie before us in many letters received from various out-of-the-way corners of the provinces: among them are also collective appeals by voters to their Deputies and letters from villagers who pass on their reactions to news about the Duma read in local papers… Not all of them intended that their letters be published, but we consider it of interest to extract several characteristic quotes from them. “We villagers,” one letter states, “follow the progress of the Duma every day and, as we see in the newspapers, the government does not concede to the Duma’s demands so our sentiments are against the government to the utmost degree.” “The broad masses” writes a townsman, “after the response to the Declaration, stretched out their hands to the Duma in hope, and fixed their gaze upon it.” “What will happen” one correspondent asks, “if they begin to ignore the Duma, if the Ministers remain, continuing with their repression and passing their laws?” He answers the question himself: “No, this cannot be; it could not last for long. In any case, a single blindly obedient army is not enough here. What has been slavishly silent until now has been stirred up in the most remote corners. All of Russia has fallen away from them. If they attempt to organize pogroms, then it will be obvious to everyone who is to blame. When you look around, you do not even believe that a repetition of the pogroms is possible.” “No one believes the rumours of a military dictatorship. This would be madness. Has too little blood been spilled? God grant — as peaceful a path as possible! God grant success to the Duma!” “The Duma may still have to struggle with the Ministers who cling to power, but all of us, the entire country is behind the Duma.” “We are of like mind” — as regional voters wrote to their deputy after the response to the Throne Speech — “and if need arises, we are all behind you.” “We see our leaders in the Deputies, every one of their words resounds across the country.” “It doesn’t matter if the Ministers still occupy their seats. They will have to leave if the Duma is persistent. With every passing day the blind recover their sight and see whose side the truth is on.” “We believe in the Duma, we bless it, and if it turns out that the Duma is powerless, terrible things will begin. But still, there is no returning to the past.” Villagers write: “We are extremely interested in good newspapers, but no one wants to read those that write for the rich and the powerful. The peasants do not believe in police agitation.” This letter from Ukrainian peasants was interesting: “The workers’ group proposes a system for moving forward, but many of us don’t want it. If the Duma adopts it, then the peasants here will divide up over who is for it, and who against. If land is taken from the church, the state, from private or large estates, albeit with compensation, then these demands will be supported favourably throughout Ukraine and the whole of the peasantry will move forward arm in arm. This is the opinion of our entire region, everyone agrees to this. God forbid that the peasantry is crushed, even the police intervene — even now they do not sleep — a blunder would be irreparable.” And from another village, they write, “Here, they learn the State Duma’s response to the Throne Speech by heart; they are very pleased with it. Everyone says, God help our Duma!”

We suggest that these few eloquent excerpts speak to the genuine mood of the country.

S.-Petersburg, 1 June

A Stormy Session

Until two o’clock today, the session was taken up with continuing debate over the agrarian question and it proceeded listlessly enough. After the break, an electric tension started to build up and, in the end, when the head Military Procurator, Mr. Pavlov, rose to give his response to a question for the Ministry, the thunderstorm burst. The Procurator announced that military courts carry out death penalties legally, that the carrying out of these sentences does not depend on the Minister since the approval or mitigation of a sentence is the right of the Governor-General, and meddling in this law would be illegal. This was met with an eruption of indignant cries: “Get out, executioner!” The Chairman’s bell rang, and Mr. Muromtsev cautioned: “If this is repeated, I will be forced to suspend the session”… The Military Procurator withdrew as stormy debates began in the Duma; an entire hurricane of indignation poured out in passionate speeches. The first to speak was Kuzmin-Karavayev who argued that intervening in sentences passed by the military courts happened quite often when it was seen to be politically necessary. “With its response, the Ministry of War has shown an attitude toward the Duma which I am not able to call by name”… this is how Kuzmin-Karavayev concluded his masterful speech, which had been filled with restrained indignation and dignity. Lednitsky’s fiery speech was a cascade of angry words. He concluded by pointing out that, maybe, the abolition of the death penalty will prove to be in the interests of those who, “from these benches” (the speaker indicated the Ministers’ loggia) today refuse it. “We live in a time when no predictions can be made; what the future is preparing for us is uncertain!” The priest Afanasev spoke passionately and with ardour. Aladin, stopped as usual by the Chairman for expressing himself in a non-parliamentary manner, ended with the words: “We will discuss legalities with the Ministry of War when it sits in its place, that is — in the dock.” In conclusion, two formulas were suggested for returning to the proper order of business. The first of these (tabled by the leader of the workers’ group, Zhilkin) asked that the Ministry of War’s response be handed over to a committee of inquiry that would investigate criminal acts by the administration. The second (suggested by Vinaver) expressed indignation at the form and content of the response. A huge majority of the voters accepted Vinaver’s formula.

“Indignation” — this word is too weak to express those feelings which overcame the deputies today. In the corridors, restraint abandoned even the most even-tempered and all around, it could be heard in various ways, they repeated: “Things cannot go on this way!” “They’ll play it out!” was sounded with menace and warning. But there, where all politics are reduced to provocation, warnings are useless: were there not enough of them already? Quem Deus perdere wult [sic], dementat [tr. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad]… William Bryan [William Jennings Bryan], the American Democratic Party leader and presidential candidate, was present during today’s Duma session. While speaking to some journalists, he expressed his approval of the State Duma’s steadfastness and reserve. Today he saw with his own eyes that, underneath the Duma’s steadiness and reserve, there is a hidden volcano of passion and justified rage. In addition, he would have been able to form an immediate and truthful idea of the “statesmanship” possessed by the current arbiters of wretched Russia’s destiny…

S.-Petersburg, 3 June

Yesterday the Duma was made anxious by the news that, on 1 June, a bloody Jewish pogrom was begun in Belostok. An inquiry was brought forward, its urgency acknowledged. Levin (Vilna) began his speech with agitation: “For me, as a representative of the Jews, it is too difficult to speak from this rostrum in such a moment, while the corpses have still not been removed from the streets of Belostok”… He ended his speech with a quote from a private telegram: “pass along our telegram to the Duma, and save us”… Aladin made the suggestion that one or two representatives from the Duma be sent to Belostok… “When the blood of the people is spilled, the place of popular representatives or, at least, their delegates, is to be with the people as quickly as they can”… “We are threatened with the decay of our country.” Rodichev stated with passion. “Either these shameful events must stop, or Russia will cease to exist. It raises the question — to be, or not to be?… The government does not want to step down and casts the motherland into peril while it remains in power. The motherland is in peril as long as they are in power!”… It was decided unanimously to move on to the usual order of business: “Taking into account the declaration regarding an inquiry into the events at Belostok, and charging a commission to look into the illegal actions on the part of various officials, and to review their findings in a meeting without delay, the State Duma now moves on to its regular order of business”…

During the discussion of events at Belostok, Ryzhkov said, “Let this government resign, and we will see that there are no more pogroms!”. As they left the Duma yesterday, many surely thought, “Can it be that we will see this soon?”… And there was no answer to this question… Here lies the tragedy of Russian life! A terrible and inescapable tragedy… Impotent tears squeeze the throat, indignation boils in the breast! A popular government is not only obliged to obtain the necessary freedoms for the people, it must also defend the right to life. This was well-expressed by M.M. Kovalevsky in his speech. Not all Russians subjects, not all Russian citizens enjoy a protected right to life…

S.-Petersburg, 5 June

Several of today’s speeches on the agrarian question would have drawn attention if not for the weariness that has been created by these prolonged discussions… We will note the speech by the Kievan peasant, Zubchenko who, incidentally, declared, “It seems to me that the notion of property managed by a system of land tenure is schooled in old feudal laws”… In raising his objection to the opinion that, if land returns to peasant ownership, there will be a degrading of culture, Zubchenko said: “I contend that the culture of the manor house — a false culture — leads the people to poverty. And we see the reality: immeasurable luxury, gilded palaces and, on the other side, an impoverished people and starvation… Those who are dying of hunger belong to that class of people who, with their labour, create the palaces, the cities, the railroads, the universities, and academies, but have no schools for their own children… Can this really be a true culture?”… M. A. Stakhovich delivered an ornate speech in the “high style”. He “categorically and without wavering” declared himself on the side of increasing the amount of land being worked under peasant ownership. But he felt it necessary to note that, for him, this necessity did not result from those “events of which we were often reminded with the cheerful word ‘illumination’, or from those threats which were directed at us with a sort of smugness as persuasive reasons”… Stakhovich admitted the strong impression that the Tambov peasant Losev’s speech had made on him on 13 May, comparing the condition of the Russian peoples’ spirit with the despair of Samson. The comparison confused the orator but, having read the relevant chapters from “The Book of Judges”, he cheered up for now he clearly understood that Samson perished giving way to the seduction of a temptress and atheist, thus transgressing the law that was given to him from above…

S.-Petersburg, 6 June

Yesterday, the entire Duma sighed with relief when the Chairman announced: “The preliminary debate concerning Memorandum 42 is closed”… The Duma unanimously decreed that a commission be formed to work out a bill on the agrarian question. During today’s session, the members of this commission were chosen, and the results of the vote were published…

With the debate on the agrarian question now closed, it was proposed that the discussion turn to a statement by 151 members of the Duma suggesting fundamental laws for civil equality. Kokoshkin opened the debate with a thorough speech, expounding on the basic principles of the proposal. Kokoshkin concluded his speech by pointing out that the nation is the necessary foundation of the rule of law. “We do not have a people, a nation in the political sense of the word… We need to create a nation, but in our time this can only happen through a union of free and equal citizens.”… Kokoshkin’s speech was met with applause and Count Geydin, speaking in opposition, began his speech with these words: “The thankless lot has often fallen to me to approach this rostrum after loud applause for the previous speaker, and then speak against him”… With great insistence, Count Geydin emphasized that the proposal by the 151 members of the Duma bears a negative tone — “repeal and repeal.” “And what do they offer us instead? What kind of basic principles for future legislation? On this question, 151 individuals remain modestly silent”… In turn, Kokoshkin answered with these questions: “But what can be done, if the main work regarding equality is, by its very nature, negative? What can be done if a great mass of laws, in essence useless rubbish, exists and needs to be eliminated?” The debates regarding civil equality continued through today’s session. Petrazhitsky’s speech in defence of women’s rights was interesting. “The interests of the common good and of culture demand that we grant women political rights and responsibilities.” The Voronezh peasant, Kruglikov, stood in opposition to equal rights for women, asserting that “learned people do not know the peasant way of life, and are completely ignorant of peasant family life.” Citing the apostle Paul (“a wife should fear her husband!”), Kruglikov declared: “Peasants completely disagree with granting rights to the female sex, but are in total agreement with the man being in charge”… Kruglikov’s speech was interrupted by laughter and applause, and it must be mentioned that they applauded not only from the right, but even from the left…

But the highlight of today’s debate was the insightful and beautiful speech by I. I. Petrunkevich who asserted that all of Russia lives on the basis of inequality and that those who speak of eradicating the class system in our time “are at odds with the truth.” Speaking of “peasant privileges”, where Count Geydin had stopped, Petrunkevich stated that these privileges contain “an element of contempt” for the peasants… The principle must be established: everything that makes up privilege, everything that makes up the rights of one, but is not the same for others, must be abolished. It is only on these grounds that Russian civil life can be recreated. Petrunkevich finished his speech by defending his urgency: “We cannot tolerate any delay in the settling of this question”… “Prince Volkonsky tells us that, for him, even the Jewish question is unclear, and seems not to have been settled even in the West.” “Yes!” — cried Petrunkevich — “There they have not settled the question because they have nothing to settle. This accursed question stands only before us!”… In the very moment when cries of horror are reaching us from Belostok, to say that this question demands some elaboration, some evidence, is the same as someone saying that the proposed bill in two articles repealing the death penalty needs some more work… “After the pogrom in Belostok, many more pogroms may take place. We don’t know how this will end, but we know our government system; we can foresee that this bloody ink can deprive us of our freedom, and cross out our entire constitution”…

Listening to Petrunkevich’s speech, we kept thinking that the State Duma should pass a resolution making parliamentary speeches of notable significance available to the whole country.

Discussions regarding the question of equal civil rights should come to an end during the next session; that is, the question will be passed on to a committee.

S.-Petersburg, 7 June

At the end of yesterday’s session, 33 members announced a resolution suggesting the pressing need to discuss measures that might be taken to curtail how much time in the Duma was spent unproductively and to open each session punctually, at the appointed hour. Grammatchikov, from the province of Perm, remembered the saying — “Punctuality is the courtesy of kings”, and put it to the Duma that, as a law-making institution fulfilling “a rather kingly function”, it should adopt this kingly courtesy and gather exactly at the appointed time. Count Geydin proposed an “energetic” measure: if a quorum has not been established within a quarter of an hour after the designated time, then the session will be closed until the following day. “One cannot close a session that has not been opened.” the Chairman observed. Count Geydin corrected himself: “Postpone the session until the following day.” The Chairman invited Geydin to submit his proposal in writing. “I will pass it on to the Committee for Instructions to the Duma,” Geydin answered. After this, the whole issue of “punctuality” was given over to the Instructions Committee.

After this, an urgent declaration was made regarding the bloody events in the Caucasus. In light of the impossible situation that has been ongoing in the Elizavetpolsk and Erivansk provinces for more than a year, claiming a thousand human victims and ruining the economic region, the authors of the declaration suggested that the following question be put to the governor: “What measures are being taken for the lasting protection of people and the safety of property in the provinces of Erivansk and Elisavetpolsk?” In view of the controversial nature of the question and some uncertainty as to how it should be submitted, given that it needed to be addressed to the Governor of the Caucasus, the authors of the proposal agreed to have it passed on to a commission.

Question after question — each day several are presented, but do they achieve their goals?… Whatever the practical results of these inquiries or, better to say, even if these inquiries achieve no practical results, their moral and political significance is enormous… Those who have ears — will hear! Hear, hear… the entire nation sees and hears!…

S.-Petersburg, 8 June

The Masks are Thrown Off

Mr. Stolypin, the Minister of Internal Affairs, finally decided to answer the State Duma’s first question regarding the role played by the government in organizing counter-revolution (the events of October). He began his speech by indicating that he regards the Duma as being within its terms of reference only relative to events that took place after the opening of the Duma session (27 April) but he was willing to make an exception in this case and answer the first question fully and without reservations. This “full” answer amounted to placing blame on individual minor officials, gendarme officers, etc., who violated their duties by intervening in political life. Those blamed were reprimanded. With regards to more recent events (Vologda, Tsaritsyn, etc.), these were still under investigation and the guilty would be punished. The Minister intends to firmly protect the rule of law but, at the same time, he considers it the duty of the authorities to firmly maintain order… It was possible to believe in the Minister’s sincerity but, even with such trust, the poignant question - could the country be guaranteed that horrors like the shameful events of October would not be repeated - was given no answer… But life had already given its answer - in Belostok. After Stolypin, the Deputy Prince Urusov (a one-time friend of the Minister of Internal Affairs) spoke. His speech revealed the administration’s terrible ulcer, continually threatening the country with newer and newer nightmares. Knowing the secrets of those torture chambers where terrible schemes were born to stain the country with blood, Urusov unveiled the true picture of the counter-revolutionary epic. It is vital that this speech be read in the Duma transcripts. The orator finished his speech by pointing out the complete weakness of the state which, even with its good intentions, cannot in its current condition guarantee the people domestic peace and safety. This weakness will continue as long as irresponsible people have an influence over domestic affairs: people who “are cavalry sergeant majors and townspeople by upbringing, but by conviction — pogromshchiks”. Nabokov, Vinaver, and Rodichev also spoke, and their speeches were full of substance and brilliance. But, in essence, there was nothing that could be added to Urusov’s speech. It is doubtful whether the 14 orators the Duma will listen to tomorrow will add anything either. The Duma applauded Prince Urusov long and loudly, and it was better for Mr. Stolypin not to reply… His assurance that he had “absolute authority” at his disposal and that no interference would be permitted did not sound convincing. Cries broke out over his reply: “And Belostok?” The temperature began to rise and Muromtsev was forced to declare a one-hour break in the session… Unflattering calls were heard from above, directed at the government’s address and its representatives; calls which, it must be admitted, were fully deserved…

S.-Petersburg, 9 June

As we predicted, further debate did not, in essence, add anything to the frightful impression made by Urusov’s speech which had been so restrained in form and so destructive in content. Prince Urusov lifted only a corner of the curtain, but one doesn’t need an especially lively imagination in order to see, clearly and in detail, the larger dimensions of the picture in its widest scope. A picture in which horror envelopes the fate of this wretched, long-suffering country. Through the will of those “townsmen and cavalry sergeant majors by upbringing, pogromshchiks by conviction”, what new trials are coming to our ravaged people? This question is raised involuntarily, it torments and allows no peace, for its terrible answer lies in Belostok — a promising answer… The Duma, in a more or less harsh formulation, will once again condemn tyranny and lawlessness, will once more express the peoples’ will — and move on to the next “order of business.” The Duma does not possess any actual means to support the people in their suffering! Today, in his speech, Sheftel said: “We understand why those against whom clear and categorical accusations were formulated yesterday remain free and not under prosecution.”… The Duma will return to its “order of business” and the cavalry sergeant majors, “pogromshchiks by conviction” will also get busy with their “order of business.” Whose turn is it after Belostok? Through Prince Urusov’s speech — in truth, a historic one — the masks have been thrown down, the mainsprings of internal politics are laid bare. A dumb-founded world may be certain that the truth about the Russian government is worse than any lie.

S.-Petersburg, 10 June

Political Positions

In addition to the unmasking, Prince Urusov offered a highly persuasive explanation for why the commanding “sergeant-major-pogromshchiks” oppose the formation of a normally functioning parliamentarianism with such seemingly incomprehensible stubbornness. The matter is not about blindness, but lies in the fact that they understand perfectly the consequences which threaten them with the establishment of a constitutional regime. That is, the inevitable dock for the accused, and the disclosure of all of their dark dealings: there can be no doubt that Urusov did not reveal even one tenth of their “exploits”… From the gratifying perspective of the court of popular conscience, each clings to power with convulsive efforts, preferring “the deluge” to come after him… And “the deluge” may not be that far off, as it seems to more and more of our contemporaries. Time and again, political positions continue to remain uncertain and we are little inclined to believe the rumours that the majority of the Duma is ready to reconcile with the Ministry. At the moment, this Ministry might perhaps still have a few chances to calm the country, but the history of recent times convinces us that consenting to the demands of life always comes too late. If Goremykin’s cabinet does fall, then in all probability, before we can move over to a Ministry with a majority of Duma members, responsible to the Duma, a number of other compromising combinations will be tried. These will satisfy no one, will irritate everyone, and will only bring the start of the “deluge” nearer. In any case, we must suppose that the days of the Goremykin cabinet are numbered… The “cavalry sergeant-major-pogromishchiks” will not save it…

S.-Petersburg, 8 June*

[*) The second half of the letter from 8 June, detached since the letters from the 9th and 10th of June formed a single unit with the first half of the letter from 8 June.]

The sensational disclosures by the Deputy Prince S. Urusov absorbed everyone’s attention so much that the characteristic debates that followed, provoked by a new project for land reform submitted to the Duma, were hardly noticed. The first article of the new “Draft of a Basic Land Law” stated: “All private ownership of land within the boundaries of the Russian State is henceforth completely abolished.” The sponsors of this “draft” (33 members of the workers’ group) suggested to the Duma that their declaration be passed along on paper to the already existing Agrarian Committee. Petrunkevich rose to speak against this proposal. He found it impossible to agree to sending the draft to the Committee without any discussion. If the draft were to go directly to the Committee without discussion, it would appear that the Duma was giving the principles contained in the draft its silent approval. The draft, as submitted to the Duma, proposes a deep social revolution, not only affecting the issues of land ownership and use being passed on to the Agrarian Committee, but fundamental social issues as well. Allowing the draft to be passed on to the Committee would be, to a certain extent, predetermining a bias for the point of view which the 33 authors of the draft support. The Chairman of the Agrarian Committee, A.A. Mukhanov, also spoke against moving the draft law on land reform directly to the Committee, saying: “The Agrarian Committee is not mandated to oversee general social reform by the Duma, and the Committee would be hard-pressed to the extreme if it was to receive this draft which, in essence, had not been discussed by the State Duma!”… Prince Shakhovsky mentioned that among the 33 authors of the draft, 6 were members of the Agrarian Committee. If they wanted their ideas to be discussed in the Committee, they could lay them out and defend them there. Frenkel, the deputy from Kostroma, observed that passing the draft on to the Committee would only give the MInistry bench more material for demagogic agitation, in the style of Minister of Internal Affairs Gurko when he had appeared before the Duma. Prince P.D. Dolgoruky offered that the authors of the draft could pass it on to the Committee for discussion purely as a matter of form. These expressions of opposition to the proposal, for some reason, caused some nervous agitation among a few of its sponsors. Zhilkin even claimed that refusing to pass the proposal on to the Committee after submitting it to the Duma showed disrespect for the work of one’s colleagues. “In the case of any work, presented in the name of those colleagues who completed the work, the Duma must treat it with respect, and must pass it on to the corresponding committee.” Kokoshkin stood in energetic opposition to this point of view: “Questions should not be raised on the grounds of whether these or any other members of the Duma are personally respected.” Whether a draft is passed on to committee or not, the person who proposed it is not affected. Apart from that, Kokoshkin expressed his bewilderment at the aims the authors of the draft pursued in insisting that it be passed on to the Committee through the State Duma without fail… The Duma voted, by a huge majority, not to send the submitted draft to the Agrarian Committee. The Duma’s decision brought on a petulant dissatisfaction among the workers… Clearly, they had hoped to obtain that “predetermined approval” from the Duma of which Petrunkevich spoke. But it is completely obvious that a decision like this without preliminary discussion in the Duma is impossible. The Duma has too much other pressing business for it to return to the agrarian question anew, having just completed a general debate on this issue… It would be stranger still to renew this debate before the many-sided membership of the Agrarian Committee, assuring the defence of any number of views. And, truly, the insistent desire that this group project be passed on to the Agrarian Committee through the Duma — excites nothing but perplexity, no matter how one regards its content…