Chapter LXXIII: Section 3: of this law of 1903 recites ‘that whenever the (3)

The most serious of the revolutionary outbreaks of the year
was that of mutiny in the navy. "Already in February the
sailors of the Black Sea fleet, instigated by the
revolutionary propaganda, had burned down the barracks at
Sebastopol and assaulted their officers, and on June 27 the
crew of the ‘Kniaz Potemkin,’ the principal battle-ship of the
Black Sea fleet, mutinied at sea while the squadron of which
it formed part was manoeuvring, and killed nearly all its
officers. The mutineers were in league with the working men at
Odessa, who at the same time invaded the harbor, and,
accompanied by a riotous mob, plundered and burnt in all
directions. Property of immense value was consumed, and some
of the troops refused to fire on the rioters. Ultimately fresh
troops were brought up, the ‘Kniaz Potemkin’ sailed away to
the Roumanian port of Constanza, where it was surrendered to
the Roumanian authorities, who gave up the ship to the
Russians, and the crew was landed and disarmed. The crew of
another battle-ship, the ‘Georgei Pobiedonosets,’ took part in
the mutiny, but surrendered to the Russian authorities at
Odessa. Riots also took place at the same time at the seaports
of Reval, Riga, Libau, and Kronstadt, where the dockers were
joined by the navy men and struck for an increase of wages. …
On July 10 Count Schouvaloff, Prefect of Police at Moscow, was
assassinated, and a general strike was proclaimed at Minsk. …
In the Baltic provinces the peasants, who are Letts,
constantly attacked the landed proprietors, who are German in
race and speech; many of the latter were killed, the municipal
buildings at Reval, Riga and Mittau were sacked. … In
September the conflict which had been going on between the
Tartars and the Armenians in the Caucasus culminated in a
series of horrible massacres, accompanied by much destruction
of property. At Baku most of the naphtha wells were destroyed
by incendiary fires, and very much of the oil industry was
ruined. The Tartars, carrying green banners, proclaimed a holy
war against the Armenians, many thousands of whom were killed.
… On November 25 an organized revolt took place of the
soldiers, sailors and workmen of Sebastopol. There was no
rioting, but several officers were killed, and for some days
the town was in the hands of the rebels. The revolt was only
suppressed on November 30, when a regular battle took place
between the rebels and 20,000 troops that had been brought up
against them. Forts and loyal ships fired on mutinous ships,
and the barracks held by the rebels had to be bombarded before
they were forced to surrender. … Other mutinies of troops took
place at the same time at Warsaw and in other places."

_The Annual Register 1905,
pages 313-323._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (April-August).
The Tsar’s Decree of Religious Liberty.
Minister Witte’s enlightened Memorial.
The Emptiness of Results.

Early in May, 1905, there was announcement that the Tsar, on
the morning of the Russian Easter Day, had published a decree
proclaiming absolute religious liberty to all his subjects.
Previous tolerance of all religions in Russia had been subject
to important limitations. No member of the state church could
leave it to enter another without losing all his civil rights,
and no church other than the Orthodox could proselyte.
Furthermore, when members of the Russian Church and those of
any other church married, it was necessary to have the
ceremony performed by an Orthodox priest, and the law insisted
that the children of such marriages be brought up in the
Orthodox faith. These restrictions were particularly hard on
the Old Believers, as they are called,—a body which separated
from the Orthodox Church two and a half centuries ago and has
suffered all kinds of persecution. The new ukase recognized
the various orders of priesthood among the Old Believers, and
gave them the right to celebrate marriage. To all the
dissenting sects—Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, and
others—is accorded the right to erect houses of worship
without restriction.

{572}

The Tsar’s decree of entire religious freedom was known soon
to have been the fruit of a remarkably broad minded memorial
addressed to him by M. Witte, the President of his Council of
Ministers, and a translation of that memorial was published in
the May issue of _The Contemporary Review_. It pictured a
state of paralysis in the Russian Church, consequent on its
bondage to the State. "Both the ecclesiastical and the secular
press," said the writer, "remark with equal emphasis upon the
prevailing lukewarmness of the inner life of the Church,—upon
the alienation of the flock, particularly of the educated
classes of society, from its spiritual guides; the absence in
sermons of a living word; the lack of pastoral activity on the
part of the clergy, who in the majority of instances confine
themselves to the conduct of divine service and the
fulfillment of ritual observances; the entire collapse of the
ecclesiastical parish community, with its educational and
benevolent institutions; the red-tapism in the conduct of
diocesan or consistorial business, and the narrowly
bureaucratic character of the institutions grouped about the
Synod. It was from Dostoyevski that we first heard that word
of evil omen, ‘The Russian Church is suffering from
paralysis.’"

This condition M. Witte attributes to the position in which
the Church was placed by Peter the Great. "The chief aim of
the ecclesiastical reforms of Peter I. was to reduce the
Church to the level of a mere government institution pursuing
purely political ends. And, as a matter of fact, the
government of the Church speedily became merely one of the
numerous wheels of the complicated government machine. On the
soil of an ecclesiastical government robbed by bureaucratism
of all personal elements the dry scholastic life-shunning
school arose spontaneously. This policy of coercing the mind
of the Church, though it may have been attended for the moment
by a certain measure of political gain, subsequently inflicted
a terrible loss. Hence that decline in ecclesiastical life
with which we now have to deal."

The wise President of the Tsar’s Council made so much
impression on the mind of his master as to draw from him the
ukase of general religious freedom; but three months later, in
the August number of _The American Review of Reviews_,
Dr. E. J. Dillon, whose intimate knowledge of Russian affairs
is well known, described how effectually the decree had been
smothered by the bureaucracy, which is stronger than the Tsar.
He wrote: "The most welcome of all the concessions emanating
from the throne was that which Nicholas II. bestowed upon his
subjects last Easter Sunday. Inspired and drafted by M. Witte,
it was at first spoken of as liberty of conscience, but was
soon afterward seen to amount to nothing more than religious
toleration. And since then the bureaucracy has touched and
killed it."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (June-October).
Ending of the War with Japan.
Mediation by the President cf the United States.
The Peace Treaty of Portsmouth.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
The Recent Russian Political Parties.

As explained by Mr. Maurice Baring in his interesting book
entitled _A Year in Russia_, the crystallization of
political parties in Russia began after the issue of the
Manifesto of October, 1905. The most important was that of the
Constitutional Democrats, nicknamed the "Cadets," a name
formed from the letters "K. D." Similarly the party called
Social Revolutionaries are nicknamed "S. R’s." and the Social
Democrats "S. D’s." The party of the Constitutional Democrats
was the product of a combination of Zemstvo members who had
previously been united in a "League of Liberation" with the
professional classes, whom Professor Milioukov had brought
together in a "Union of Unions," which represented the great
mass of educated Russia—the "Intelligenzia." This combination
of the professional class with the Zemstvoists, who had more
political experience than others could enjoy in Russia, was
mainly the important work of Professor Milioukov.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
The First Duma.
Election of Representatives.
Its Conflict with the Government and its Dissolution.
Rise of M. Stolypin.
The Instigated Massacres (Pogroms).

In January, 1906, when the Duma promised by the Tsar on the
19th of the previous August should have met, the conditions in
the country were such that the Government dared not permit the
meeting to be held, and it was postponed without date. After
some weeks a more submissive state of order was restored, and
the meeting was appointed for the 10th of the following May.
The elections were held in March, and Ambassador Meyer
described the system on which they were conducted in an
extended despatch to the State Department at Washington, from
which the following is borrowed:

"The total number of members of the Duma, when the elections
shall have finally been completed, will be 501. The elections
are, however, not carried on the same day throughout the
country. Governors and vice-governors, prefects of cities and
their lieutenants cannot vote in their departments, nor can
members of the army or navy who are on active service, or
persons doing police duty in governments or cities when
elections are taking place.

"The voters are divided into classes, and that it may be
more clearly shown I have made the following table;

------------------------------------------------------------ Peasants.

Clergy Cities not in special list Volosts Workmen -------------------------> Delegates -> Electors -> Duma Members

Landed proprietors and special cities. -------------------------------------> Electors -> Duma Members

------------------------------------------------------------

{573}

"From this it will be seen that the peasants are in a class by
themselves and, as a matter of fact, in the present elections
are not given an opportunity of expression, as it is the volosts
(elected at the mir, in most instances, before the Duma was
even granted) that choose the delegates. The volosts, workmen,
clergy (not lauded proprietors), voters of cities (not in
special list), and class C of lauded proprietors, all choose
delegates. These delegates, in turn, select electors, as do
also landed proprietors, and qualified voters of cities on the
special list. The electors vote for Duma members in their
appropriate electoral college, and their choice is confined to
a member of their own body. Therefore in every instance, in
order to become a member of the Duma, a candidate must be an
elector and previous to that a delegate, except in the case of
landed proprietors and voters of special cities. …

"It is noticeable that the large cities in European Russia are
limited to one member of the Duma, with the exception of
Moscow and St. Petersburg, the former having an allotment of
four and the latter of six.

"There is an exceptional provision with regard to the
procedure of the peasant electors. … Elections to the Duma,
with the exception cited as to the privilege of peasant
electors, are finally effected in the governments and
territories by the government electoral college, and in the
cities by the municipal electoral college."

Mr. Meyer reported further that an imperial manifesto had
announced that the Council of the Empire would in future
"consist of an equal number of elective members and members
nominated by the Emperor. It will be convoked annually by an
imperial ukase at the same time with the Duma. The two
assemblies will have equal legislative powers, and each can
exercise the same initiative in introducing bills or
interrogations. Every bill must be passed by both houses
before being sent to the Tsar for his signature and approval.
The elected members of the Council will be eligible for nine
years, a third being reelected every three years." Of the 98
elective members of the Council (one half of the body), 18
were to be chosen from the nobles, 50 from the zemstvo of each
government, 6 from the Orthodox Church, 6 from the
universities, 12 from the representatives of the Council of
Commerce and Industry, and 6 from representatives of the
Polish landed proprietors.

On the 7th of April Ambassador Meyer wrote to Washington
concerning the result of the elections: "The success of the
Constitutional Democrats has made a great impression on the
Government and created considerable nervousness. Witte is
really anxious to resign and go out of the country for a
much-needed rest. But he assured a mutual friend that he would
stay and serve the Emperor as long as His Majesty desired. The
elections so far have impressed upon his mind the want of
confidence which exists among the people as to his
administration. As he is without any supporters among the
elected members of the Duma, it is difficult to believe that
the Emperor will be able or even desirous of having him
continue to serve as premier after the Duma is organized."

This anticipation proved correct. M. Witte had withdrawn from
the ministerial premiership when the Duma assembled on the
10th of May, and M. Goremykin had taken his place.

There was conflict between the Duma and the Government from
the moment that the former adopted its reply to the opening
speech of the Tsar. With unanimity it demanded general amnesty
for past political offenses, abolition of the death penalty,
suspension of martial law, full civil liberty, universal
suffrage, abolition of the council of the empire, a review of
the fundamental law, responsibility of ministers and right of
interpellation, a forced expropriation of land, and a
guarantee of rights to trade unions.

M. Stolypin, Minister of the Interior, now coming to the front
of ministerial leadership, made his first speech in the Duma
on the 21st of June, and was assailed with cries of "Murderer"
and "Assassin" when he defended illegal acts of police officials
and provincial governors, in the suppression of disorder, and
declared his determination to maintain order. Among the
replies to him was one by Prince Urussoff, former Assistant
Minister of the Interior, who made a powerful attack on the
sinister methods of the Government—the "policy of massacre,"
as he named it—declaring that massacres were always organized
by secret forces. "Any investigation," he said, "of the
so-called ‘pogroms’ (massacres) will bring the investigator
face to face with the following certain symptoms; they are
identical in all cases; Firstly, a massacre is always preceded
by reports of its preparation, accompanied by the circulation
of appeals exciting the population and of one constant kind in
form and substance. They are accompanied by a certain kind of
stormy petrels in the person of little known representatives
of the dregs of the population. Then, too, the cause of the
massacre as officially announced is afterwards always without
exception found to be false. Furthermore, in these massacres
there is always to be found a certain similarity of plan which
gives these actions the character of chance. The murderers act
on the assumption of some kind of right, as though conscious
that they will not be punished, and only continue to act as
long as this confidence remains unshaken—after which the
massacre stops extraordinarily quickly and easily."

What Prince Urussoff had intimated, as to the instigation of
the massacres from high circles was declared most distinctly
and positively, three years later, by Prince Kropotkin, in a
letter to the London _Times_ of July 29, 1909. He wrote:
"Something which never has happened anywhere in Western Europe
happened then in Russia, as M. Obninsky, a member of the first
Duma, says in a terrible book of statistics he has published
in 1906 at Moscow, under the title, ‘A Half-Year of the
Russian Revolution.’ In a hundred different cities men of the
so-called ‘Black Hundreds’ came together on some public
square, received there the benediction of the clergy, sent
telegrams to the Palace circles in St. Petersburg, received
answers from them, and then went on killing the Jews, the
Armenians, the Poles, the Russian members of the Zemstvos, and
Russian ‘Intellectuals’ altogether, under the protection of
the military, the local police, and the local governors.

{574}

"For some time I could not believe that such _pogroms_
could have been organized from St. Petersburg by the
authorities. Now the evidence is overwhelming. We know that
proclamations inciting to _pogroms_ were printed by the
gendarmes in the Secret Police offices, we know from the
revelations of these gendarmes themselves that men and
officers were sent to the provinces with proclamations and
arms to organize the pogroms; and we know how the leaders of
the Union of Russian Men were petted and given money by the
Tsar and how they organized murders, wholesale and retail,
with the aid of members of the Secret Police; and here is the
net result which I have before me in a long, very long, list
compiled by the Law Review _Pravo_.

"This list is simply horrifying. The Constitution manifesto
was signed on October 30. The same day took place the
_pogrom_ at Tver; the Zemstvo house was burnt, and 24
persons were wounded. At Moscow, November 2, 30 wounded;
Odessa, October 31-November 3, more than 1,000 killed and
5,000 wounded; Kieff, October 31, 150 killed, 100 wounded;
Tomsk, November 3, 150 killed and burned, 76 heavily wounded
(all these, by the way, and many others are Russian towns);
Minsk, 100 killed, 400 wounded; Tiflis, November 2, more than
100 killed; and so on, and so on. … The result of similar
campaigns in different parts of Russia for twelve months only
in 1905-1906 was—killed, more than 14,000; executed, about
1,000; wounded and partly died from wounds, about 20,000;
arrested and imprisoned, mostly without judgment, 75,000. This
last figure was given in the Duma by Professor Kovalevsky on
May 2, 1906, in the presence of M. Stolypin, who did not
contest it."

On the 22d of July the Duma was dissolved by imperial command,
and the following manifesto to the people was published by the
Autocrat on the following day:

"Persons selected by the people were called to the
legislature. Trusting in the goodness of God, believing in the
happy and grand future of our people, we were expecting from
their labors the happiness and interest of the country. Great
reforms had been indicated by us in all that concerns the life
of the people, and our greatest care, which is to substitute
education for the ignorance of the people and to lessen the
difficulties of its life by improving the conditions under
which it cultivates the ground, was foremost. A painful ordeal
was reserved to our hopes. The elected of the nation, instead
of turning their attention to legislative labors, have entered
a field that was closed to them, and have begun to investigate
the doings of authorities established by us, to indicate to us
the imperfections of fundamental laws that can only be altered
by our imperial will, and to commit illegal acts, such as the
appeal addressed to the people of the Duma.

"The peasants, dazed by these disorders, without waiting for
the legal improvement to their position, gave themselves up,
in a great number of governments, to pillage and theft,
refusing to submit to the law or to legal authorities. …

"By dissolving the actual Duma of the Empire we testify to our
unalterable intention of maintaining, in all their force, the
laws concerning the establishment of that institution, and,
consequently, we have fixed, by our ukase given to the ruling
Senate on the 8th July instant, the convocation of the new
Duma on the 20th of February, 1907."

About two hundred members of the dissolved Duma went
immediately from St. Petersburg to Viborg, in Finland, and
held a meeting there, from which they published an address to
the "Citizens of all the Russias," signed by one hundred and
sixty of their number, protesting against the opposition which
the Duma had encountered from the Government in all its
undertakings, and practically refusing submission to its
dissolution. "In the place of the present Duma," they said,
"the Government promises to convoke a new one in seven months.
… For seven months the Government will act as it likes, will
wrestle with the movement of the people in order to obtain a
submissive and desirable Duma, and if it succeeds in entirely
crushing the movement of the people it will not convoke any
Duma at all. Citizens, stand firmly by the trampled rights of
the representatives of the people. Stand for the Duma of the
Empire. Russia must not remain one day without representatives
from the people. We have the means of obtaining this. The
Government has not the right without our consent to collect
taxes from the people, nor to call the people to military
service, and therefore, now, when the Government has dissolved
the Duma of the Empire, it is your right to refuse to supply
it with soldiers or money. If the Government, in order to
secure resources, makes loans, such loans, made without
consent of the representatives of the people, will henceforth
be invalid, and the Russian people will not recognize them and
will not pay for them. Consequently, until the representatives
of the people are convoked, do not pay a kopeck into the
treasury nor send a man to the army. Be firm in your refusal;
stand for your rights, all as one man. Against the united and
absolute will of the people no power whatever can resist.
Citizens, in this compulsory but inevitable struggle your
representatives will be with you."

This proved to be futile action. The Government was prompt in
arresting and imprisoning most of the signers of the appeal to
the people, and none of them was allowed to be returned to the
Second Duma when the new elections were held. Pending that
election, some very substantial gifts of imperial favor were
made to the peasants, to win their good will, but nothing
appears to have been remembered of the October injunctions of
the Tsar concerning the "confirmation of civil liberty." In
August, 4,500,000 acres of crown lauds were transferred by an
imperial ukase to the Peasants’ Bank, for sale to the peasants
on easy terms; and on the 18th of October another ukase
released them to a large extent from the restraints of the
communal system, and decreed the equality of all citizens
before the law. The following is part of the text of this
important decree, as communicated in translation to the
American government by Ambassador Meyer, and published in the
report of 1906 on Foreign Relations.

"The Czar orders, on the basis of the fundamental law of 1906,
that the following reforms be made:

"1. To accord all Russian subjects, without distinction of
origin, with exception of the aborigines, equal rights with
regard to the state service with persons of noble blood, and
at the same time to abolish all special privileges of dress
due either to official position or to the origin of the
wearer.

{575}

"2. Peasants and members of other classes formerly taxable are
freed (a) from the presentation of discharge papers on
entering an educational institution or the civil service;
further, from personal payment in kind and the performance of
communal duties during the whole time the persons in question
may be either in the educational institution or civil service;
(_b_) from the necessity of demanding for entry into holy
orders or a monastery the permission of the commune.

"3. The compulsory exclusion of peasant and other classes
formally taxable from the following ranks and careers is
abolished;
(_a_) From entering the civil service;
(_b_) from receiving rank;
(_c_) from receiving orders and other distinctions;
(_d_) from attaining learned grades and honors;
(_e_) from completing educational courses and
particularly from winning higher class rights.

"In all these cases the persons in question are allowed to
retain all the rights arising from their connections with
their commune, as well as the responsibilities thereof, until
they have freely withdrawn from the commune or entered into
other corporations of standing. With regard to the legal
standing of the persons in question, there shall serve as a
basis the regulations of the rank or profession which these
persons have won."

See, also, below,
RUSSIA: A. D. 1909 (APRIL).

Meantime, extensive plans of insurrection, with naval and
military mutiny, in five cities, had been formed and had
miscarried. The outbreak was premature at Sveaborg, late in
July, and the sailors who started it were quickly overcome.
The same failure occurred at Kronstadt, where the
revolutionists and mutinous troops took Fort Constantine and
the arsenal, but found no ammunition in the latter, and were
defenseless when surrounded by loyal forces. At Libau, Odessa,
and Sevastopol the intended rising was given up.

On the 25th of August a desperate plot of wholesale murder,
intended to include M. Stolypin among its victims, was carried
out by the explosion of a horribly destructive bomb at the
country house of that Minister, on Aptekarsky Island. M.
Stolypin was holding a reception, and the rooms were crowded
with officials and others, when four conspirators, three of
them dressed as gendarmes, drove up boldly, and were able,
either to enter the house with a bomb or to throw it through a
window. The effect of the explosion was so horribly
destructive that the house was torn to pieces and thirty
people were killed outright or injured mortally, besides an
equal number that received curable wounds. Two of the
Minister’s children were among the latter, and he himself
received slight injuries. The Governor of Penza, M. Koshoff,
who stood near him, was instantly killed. Two of the assassins
were among the killed and the other two were wounded and
captured. On the following day a young woman of the terrorist
organization slew General Min, at Peterhof railway station, by
shots from a revolver. He had been active in suppressing the
insurrection at Moscow.

In October Ambassador Meyer, after a trip into Poland and to
Odessa, reported as the result of his observations:

"On the whole, the revolutionary movement, for the time being,
has lost its momentum. A year ago it was on the crest of the
wave. Then a strike could be ordered and put in force without
any difficulty, but now the workmen refuse to be used for
political purposes or respond to the whims of the agitator.
The present conditions are liable to continue until the next
Duma, March 5. Yesterday, which was the first anniversary of
October 17 (Russian Style), it had to be given out by some of
the revolutionists that there would be strikes, uprisings, and
agitations throughout the country. But the day passed off
quietly. Mr. Stolypin is facing with much courage and
resolution the stupendous task which confronts him. He is
endeavoring to deal fairly, while at the same time it is
necessary to reestablish law and order."

On the 21st of December Count Alexei Ignatieff was
assassinated at Tver, while attending a meeting of the
provincial zemstvo, the assassin stating that he had acted
under orders of the Socialist revolutionary committee.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1906 (April).
Invitation of the Nations to a Second Peace Conference
by the Tsar.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST; A. D. 1907.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1906 (April).
At the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco Question.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE A. D. 1905-1906.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1907 (August).
Convention with Great Britain containing Arrangements on
the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.

See EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1907.
The Second Duma and its Early Dissolution.
Increase of Radicalism among its Members.
The New Electoral Law, under which a "Workable" Third Duma
was elected.
M. Stolypin’s Policy.

The promise that a second Duma would be summoned to meet in
March, 1907, was fulfilled. Between the 21st of January and
the end of February elections were held, with results that
were exceedingly disappointing and irritating to the imperial
government. It strove hard, by arbitrary measures and vigorous
working of its police, to suppress the Constitutional
Democrats,—the party which it fears the most. It pursued their
leaders into exile or imprisonment, broke up their meetings,
harassed them so in the canvass and the election that the
return of deputies by the party was reduced from 185 in the
First Duma to 108; but, on the other hand, the Socialist
representation in the Second Duma was raised above that in the
First from 17 to 77, and the Octobrists elected 31 deputies,
gaining 18 more seats than they had filled before. On the
whole, as a consequence, the Second Duma held more radicalism
in its make-up, with less intelligence, than the First.

Its meetings were opened on the 6th of March, and soon gave
evidence that the antagonisms in the body were too extreme for
any influential political work. In June M. Stolypin accused
most of the Socialist members of being parties to the
revolutionary propaganda in the army and navy, and demanded
their suspension by the Duma. It refused to suspend them
without an investigation of the truth of the charge, and
appointed a committee to receive such evidence as the
government could bring. Thereupon the Tsar, by a manifesto
published on the 16th of June, dissolved the Second Duma as
summarily as he had dissolved the First, ordered new
elections, to begin on the 14th of September, and summoned the
Third Duma, then elected, to meet on November 14th.

{576}

At the same time a new electoral law was proclaimed, in
flagrant violation of the so-called Constitution of October
30, 1905, which had declared, as an "immutable rule,"
established by the "inflexible will" of the Tsar, that "no law
can ever come into force without the approval of the State
Duma." The new law was planned carefully and skilfully to
disfranchise great numbers in the classes of people which
autocracy fears; to add weight to the votes of the classes on
which it leans; to diminish the representation of industrial
cities, as well as of non-Russian districts,—Poland, Siberia,
etc.,—and, generally, to make a farce of the pretended
concession of representative and constitutional government
which the autocratic court had been playing for the amusement
of the country during the past two years.

The new electoral law accomplished its purpose of securing a
Duma that would keep workable relations with M. Stolypin. A
very intelligent English publicist, Dr. Dillon, who discusses
Foreign Politics every month in the _Contemporary
Review_, whose views are broadly liberal as a rule, and
whose acquaintance with Russian affairs seems to be specially
intimate, inclines to justify the measure on this practical
ground, or, rather, to accept it as approved by this result.
When the make-up of the Third Duma had become known he wrote,
in the _Contemporary Review_ of December, 1907, as
follows:

"M. Stolypin’s electoral law has been criticised severely.
And, to be frank, one must admit that from the point of view
of men who advocate universal manhood suffrage it is a mere
mockery. For it suspended the right of election in some
places, arbitrarily lessened the number of representatives in
certain provinces, created groups of electors, and authorised
Government officials to decide how they should be formed; in a
word, it is a means of manipulating the elections for the
avowed purpose of having a certain stamp of men returned and
another type of men eliminated. To say that the Chamber which
has resulted from these expedients is not the elect of the
nation is, of course, a truism. It is not, and was not, meant
to be this. … The data respecting the intellectual and social
status of the newly elected are still very defective and
untrustworthy. But so far as they go, they show that among the
men who are about to rescue Russia from ruin there are:—

Members of the nobility 157
Priests 51
Merchants 22
Peasants 77
Petty tradesmen 6
Working-men 15
Honorary burghers 8
Ex-officers 20
Officials 56
Zemstvo workers 27
Employees of municipalities 23
Marshals of nobility 36
Cantonal elders and secretaries 21
Men who have been educated in high schools 167
Men who have been educated in intermediate schools 82
Men who have been educated in primary schools 61
Members educated at home 23
Between the ages of 25-30 19
Between the ages of 30-40 81
Between the ages of 40-50 87
Between the ages of 50-00 47
Between the ages of 60-70 13
Between the ages of 70-80 l
Members of the Second Duma 59
Members of the First Duma 7
Members of the Council of the Empire 3

A month later the same writer said:

"The Third Duma is already a month old, and has as yet done no
work, has not even organised itself. Festina lente is
evidently its maxim, with the accent on the second word.
Debates there have been not a few, but they were as the noise
of sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. The first discussion
took place on the motion to thank the Tsar for the October
Manifesto, which created the Legislative Chamber. A great
majority of the deputies—including the Constitutional
Democrats, who are adjusting themselves to their
environment—were in favour of expressing their gratitude, but
they could not agree how to call the institution for which
they felt grateful. Some wanted to name it a Constitution,
others ‘a renovated order of things.’ If it is a Constitution,
then there is no Autocrat, the Octobrists argued, and
consequently that title of the Emperor must be dropped. ‘If we
are bent on thanking the Tsar,’ replied the Conservatives,
‘let us do it with a good grace. Whatever name we may give to
the present _régime_, the title of the ruler has
undergone no change. He was an Autocrat when he ascended the
throne, and he is an Autocrat to day. Proofs? They are as
plentiful as blackberries.’ …

"But the Constitutionalists—and among them the Octobrists
favoured by M. Stolypin—insisted. ‘By the Manifesto,’ they
argued, ‘the Tsar limited his authority and curtailed his
prerogatives. Thus it is no longer in his power to issue laws
without the approval of the Duma; neither can he abrogate any
of the Organic Statutes.’ ‘You are mistaken,’ answered the
Monarchists. ‘Have the Organic Statutes not been already
altered? Has the "immutable" electoral franchise not been
changed?’ … But the Octobrists stood their ground, and the
address was voted with a flaw in the Tsar’s title. That was
the work of one whole day and part of a night—an unlucky
day—the 13th November Russian style. In this way the Duma
offered the Sovereign a pot of honey mingled with wormwood.
The Premier was upset, the Tsar offended, and the Monarchists
indignant. ‘This, then,’ the Monarchists exclaimed, ‘is M.
Stolypin’s Duma, the areopagus which is to prescribe remedies
for the Russian nation now at death’s door?’

"Three days later came the Premier in a _quos ego_ mood.
And he was at his best. Ever since his first appearance as a
public orator, M. Stolypin has kept the high place he then
won. His eloquence, like his character, is manly, and his
utterance impressive. His look, his accents, his gestures,
betoken sincerity, and his manner is warm with the heat of
subdued enthusiasm. On this historic day he simply electrified
the House, captivated his adversaries, and extorted applause
from his bitter enemies. And yet he was battling with the
Duma, swimming against the current. He spoke of the Autocratic
power and of the Autocratic Sovereign, and had the
satisfaction of being interrupted by enthusiastic cheers. …

{577}

"Happily M. Stolypin is a man of steadfast purpose rather than
brilliant intellect, for his moral qualities may stand him in
better stead, during the revolutionary crisis than would rare
mental gifts. At bottom his temper is Liberal rather than
Conservative, and mainly for that reason he would seem to have
been chosen to be sexton of the old epoch and harbinger of the
new. …

"No fair-minded man can doubt the sincerity of M. Stolypin’s
Liberalism. It has withstood the test of time and the pressure
of unfavourable circumstance. His faith in Liberal specifics
is so firm that he declines to diagnose any diseases that call
for more drastic remedies. … M. Stolypin is at present the
only influential politician in Russia who is working
efficaciously for the Liberal cause. He is systematically
removing hindrances to Constitutionalism which are most
formidable at the outset. …

"But the greatest service which any Minister could render a
cause was performed by M. Stolypin for Liberalism at a time
when it depended on him either to lay the groundwork for a
Constitutional fabric or to establish firm Monarchical
government. And for that service he deserves, and may yet
receive, a public monument from Democratic Russia. He advised
the Tsar to summon the Third Duma soon after the Second, and
to issue no laws in the meanwhile. That was really the turning
point in the history of Russia’s Constitution, the _magnum
opus_ of M. Stolypin’s political life. And he followed it
up with a step more extraordinary and decisive still. He
himself had recourse to the Autocratic power which it is the
tendency of his policy to annihilate, and he used it for the
purpose of destroying Autocracy. That surely was a _coup de
maître_ which entitled the Minister to the undying
gratitude of all Liberal Russia. But not a Liberal uttered a
word of thanks. This deadly blow was struck at the Autocracy
in the following way:

"The Electoral Law opened the portals of the Duma chiefly to
Democrats and other irreconcilable enemies of the Monarchy,
and so long as it remained in force, no Duma acceptable to the
Government was possible. Yet it could not be abrogated. For,
together with the Organic Statutes, it had been declared part
of the unchangeable Constitution. The Tsar’s hands, therefore,
were tied, his word was pledged, and the result was a
deadlock. Autocratic power could not be wielded anew without
effecting a perilous _coup d'état_. Well, the Premier
advised the Crown to seize once more the sword of the
Autocracy, and with it to hew off the branch on which the
Autocrat was sitting. That was the true significance of the
measure against which the enemies of the Autocracy still cry
out. For the object directly aimed at and immediately attained
by this _coup d'état_ was the creation of the Octobrist
Party, whose first work in the Duma was to declare that the
Autocracy had gone forever."

_E. J. Dillon,
Foreign Affairs
(Contemporary Renew, January, 1908)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, France, Germany, and Norway,
guaranteeing the Integrity of Norway.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
Action in Persia during the Constitutional Revolution.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908.
Evasion of the Conscription.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1908.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908.
Proxy Parliamentary Vote given to Women of Property.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908.
Policy of Prussia in her Polish Provinces dictated by
her relations to Russia.

See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (JANUARY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908 (September).
Withdrawal from Intervention in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude toward the Austrian Annexation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
Was the Government coerced by German Threats?

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
Exercise of Disputed Authority in Northern Manchuria.
The Kharbin question.

See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1909 (MAY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
Measures for the Destruction of the Constitutional Autonomy
of Finland.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1908-1909.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1909.
Oppressions continued.
Executions, Imprisonment, Exile, Torture, Persecution.

On the 1st of August, 1909, a letter was addressed to the
British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by one hundred
and eighty men of distinction in Great Britain,—Members of
Parliament, Peers, Bishops and other clergymen, University
professors, authors, editors,—asking the Government to exert
such influence as might be possible with that of Russia, to
induce a relaxation of the system of repression still
maintained in that unhappy country, and to ameliorate the
dreadful barbarities which go with imprisonment there. "We
know," said these memorialists, "how slow has been our own
progress in the past, and how many points in our present
condition are open to independent criticism. We are conscious
of the difficulties that attend all reforms, and we desire
that no feeling of impatience should cause us to withhold our
sympathy from every sincere attempt to promote good government
among a friendly people.

"It is in no spirit of ungenerous remonstrance that we are
constrained to observe that for four years a system of
repression has been maintained in Russia, which has not
relaxed its severity though the evidences of any organized
revolutionary movement have dwindled and disappeared. There
has recently been an announcement of some relaxation in
particular districts, but the greater portion of the Empire
remains, in time of peace, under some form of martial law. The
number of capital sentences on civilians for the period
between October, 1905, and December, 1908, has reached 4,002,
and the number of executions was officially stated to be
2,118. These sentences were passed, moreover, not by ordinary
civil process, but by exceptional military Courts. The number
of persons in exile in Siberia and Northern Russia, mostly
punished without trial by administrative process, under a
system of exile, which involves much physical suffering and
privation, was officially reckoned in October last at 74,000.

{578}

"The number of persons exiled without trial under
administrative decree cannot be realized without a serious
protest, but the evidence which has reached us through the
Press, from trustworthy witnesses, and above all from the
reports of the debates in the Duma, has persuaded us that the
sufferings of those who remain in prison justify, nay,
require, a stronger remonstrance. Over 180,000 persons—a total
which has more than doubled since 1905—criminals and political
offenders, are crowded together in prisons built to hold
107,000. In most of these prisons epidemic diseases, and
especially typhus, are prevalent; the sick and the whole lie
together—their fetters even in cases of fever are not removed.
In some prisons the warders systematically beat and maltreat
the sick and the whole alike. There is also evidence of more
deliberate tortures, employed to punish the defiant or to
extract confession from the suspect.

"Such excesses would move our indignation were all the victims
ordinary criminals. We desire to base our protest on the
ground of simple humanity; but it is none the less important
to remember that many of these prisoners, if guilty at all,
are suffering for acts or words which in any constitutional
country would be lawful, or even praiseworthy.

"Our object in addressing you is to draw your attention to
these facts and to place on record the impression which we
have formed of them. That no direct intervention is possible
we fully realize, nor do we wish to enlarge the area of
international controversy. But there are probably means by
which a friendly Government may exert an influence to
ameliorate the lot of those who are suffering under the evils
which we have described. The infliction of such wrongs upon
Russians and the indignation which they excite among
ourselves, are relevant and important factors in our mutual
relations, of which the two Governments should be fully
informed."

Later and more specific facts, illustrative of the arbitrary
and barbarous oppression under which the Russian people are
still suffering, were given in _The Outlook_ of October
9, 1909, from which the following is taken:

"In the first seven months of 1909 military courts sentenced
841 persons to death in Russia and up to the 1st of August 381
of the persons so sentenced had been hanged or shot. Nearly
all were civil or political offenders, who, in a
constitutional country, would have been tried with proper
legal forms and guarantees in the regular civil tribunals. In
these same seven months the publishers of 109 periodicals in
Russia were fined in the aggregate sum of 54,425 rubles for
publishing news or expressing opinions obnoxious to the
Government, and in addition to these pecuniary punishments
whole editions of papers and magazines were seized and
destroyed, printing offices were closed, editors were arrested
and employees were exiled—all by administrative process. In
the month of June, 1909, three newspapers were suppressed
altogether, and in August, 1909, the St. Petersburg journal
Reitch (Speech), the organ of the Constitutional Democrats,
was fined 500 rubles for printing a signed article entitled
‘Suicide in the Army,’ which was based wholly on reports of
the Ministry of War.

"On the 28th of May, 1909, Mr. Selden, a St. Petersburg
publisher, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in a
fortress for publishing one of Count Tolstoy’s books, and on
the 17th of August, 1909, the Count’s private secretary, Mr.
N. N. Gusef, was exiled by administrative process to the
province of Perm for distributing the venerable author’s
brochure entitled ‘Thou Shalt Do No Murder.’ In July, 1909,
Mr. W. Bogoras, author of Volume eleven of the Memoirs of the
American Museum of Natural History (one of the Volumes
containing the scientific results of the Jessup North Pacific
Expedition), was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for
describing the beating of citizens of Tver by dragoons in
1905, a thing that he had personally witnessed. …

"In August, 1909, the ‘Authors’ and Scientists’ Mutual Benefit
Society,’ a benevolent organization which had been in
existence for eighteen years, which had eight hundred members,
and which included most of the writers and scholars of Russia,
was suppressed by order of Premier Stolypin, for the
ostensible reason that it had given pecuniary aid to an
indigent author named Vitashefski—a man of advanced age who
had once, twenty years earlier, been sent to Siberia for
political crime. It is believed, however, that the real reason
for the suppression of the Society is the fact that most of
its members are liberals. The existing Government is extremely
intolerant toward social organizations that take an
independent or critical attitude toward the reactionary policy
now in force. On the 21st of July, 1909, the severest form of
martial law, the so-called ‘law of extraordinary defense,’ was
proclaimed in St. Petersburg for the seventh consecutive time.
The city has been under some form of martial law ever since
the assassination of Alexander II. in 1881. Almost the only
encouraging feature of the present situation in Russia is the
fact that the members of the Duma are still allowed to talk,
and the newspapers are still permitted to publish verbatim
reports of the debates. The lower house of the so-called
Parliament has no independent power, and no real control even
over the finances of the Empire; but it can criticise,
interpellate the Czar’s Ministers, and promote to some extent
the political education of the people.

"Three years ago Premier Stolypin defined his policy as
‘progressive reform, with the restoration of order.’ He has
partly restored order, by hanging, imprisoning, or exiling to
Siberia a large part of the disorderly population; but his
reforms have ‘progressed’ as the land-crab is popularly
supposed to walk—backward. Whether he is wholly to blame for
the reactionary policy that he is enforcing, or whether he
acts more or less under compulsion, we shall not know,
perhaps, until he retires from office and follows the example
of General Kuropatkin and General Linevitch by writing his
memoirs."

On the trial, in May, of M. Selden, for publishing and
distributing Count Tolstoi’s pamphlets, "Thou shalt not Kill,"
"A Letter to Liberals," "Christianity and Patriotism," the
venerable writer addressed a note to the court, challenging
the prosecution of himself, instead of the publisher. "As
these pamphlets," he wrote, "were written by me and published
by one of my friends, not only with my consent but at my
desire, M. Selden taking a purely passive part in the affair,
all the measures which are being taken against M. Selden
should logically and in equity be directed against me,
especially because I have repeatedly declared, and now declare
again, that I consider it my duty to my conscience to
disseminate, so far as lies in my power, the pamphlets in
question as well as my other works, and shall continue doing
so as long as I am able. I feel constrained to inform you of
this, and ask you to take whatever measures may devolve from
my present statement."

{579}

But the magistrate did not venture to institute proceedings
against the principal in the offense, and the Government took
no notice of the challenge.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1909.
Revived Censorship of the Press.
Its Stupidity.
Gains for Free Speech notwithstanding.

"At the present time, the liberties granted less than four
years ago are mutilated. The censor is busy once more. The
Russian journalist is again compelled to practice the arts of
half-meaning, insinuation, and innuendo, which made his
predecessors of a generation ago marvels of subtle expression.
But that is only when a writer would say everything he wants
to say. Undoubtedly, the range of the permissible has grown
immensely since the early days of even Nicholas II. To write
of labor wars, of conspiracies, of constitutional liberties,
Russian newspapers need no longer confine themselves to
telegraphic reports of foreign strikes, conspiracies, and
constitutions. They need only print what the radicals in the
Duma utter. Not even the full Duma’s reports may be privileged
at present, but, after all, the Russian censor is a stupid
fellow. The censorship, like the autocracy in general, is
inefficient, spasmodic, allowing to-day what it prohibited
yesterday, or even allowing in one column what it strikes out
from another. St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1890 had eleven
daily papers, and twenty weeklies. In 1900 the number had
risen to twenty-four dailies and thirty-three weeklies. In all
Russia there were then 287 periodical publications. In August,
1905, the number had risen to 1,630, of which St. Petersburg
alone had 534. There were fifty daily papers at St. Petersburg
and twenty-five at Moscow in those short days of freedom, when
the pent-up speech of ages burst out in Russia. This, of
course, was inflation. Periodicals were born and died with the
rising and setting of the sun. The numerical strength of the
press must be far smaller now. But much that was gained for
freedom of speech in those stormy days has not been lost."

_New York Evening Post,
March 23, 1909._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1909 (January-July).
Dark Secrets of the Russian Police and Spy System brought
to Light.

The first in a series of startling disclosures of the dark
secrets of the Russian espionage and police system was made in
January, 1909, when it came to public knowledge that the head
and front of the Revolutionary Socialists of the Empire, one
Azeff by name, had been discovered by his associates to be a
secret agent of the police; had been tried and condemned by a
tribunal of their party, at Paris, and had escaped into some
hiding place, with avenging emissaries in pursuit, to take his
life. A little later it appeared that a former Director of the
Police in the Department of the Russian Ministry of the
Interior, M. Lopukhin, had been arrested for treason, on the
charge of having betrayed Azeff to the Revolutionists, by
making known to them the double part that the latter played,
as a so-called _agent provocateur_, drawing them into
criminal plots of which he kept the police informed.

The preliminary trial of Lopukhin occurred in April, and it
was stated in the indictment then published that Azeff had
penetrated into the very centre of the Social Revolutionary
machinations, and that part of his great services to the
Secret Police were rendered during the period that M. Lopukhin
occupied the post of Director of the Police Department in the
Ministry of the Interior—_i.e._, from May, 1902, to
March, 1905. It was affirmed that M. Lopukhin not only knew of
the existence and activity of Azeff, but met the latter more
than once both at his (M. Lopukhin's) house and at one of the
conspiratorial headquarters in St. Petersburg. The indictment
paid a warm tribute to Azeff’s ability in so long maintaining
his connexion with the police without awakening the suspicions
of the Social Revolutionaries as to his true character. It was
eventually remarked, however, that the plots in which Azeff
was concerned invariably failed, whereas many of the others
succeeded, and accusations of treachery began to be levelled
against him. In October, 1908, a commission of inquiry was
appointed by the Social Revolutionaries in Paris to inquire
into the charges brought against Azeff. Burtzeff, editor of a
revolutionary organ, stated before this tribunal that he had
seen M. Lopukhin, who had informed him of Azeff’s relations
with the Russian police.

M. Lopukhin, on his trial, admitted having given this
information to Burtzeff, but explained that it was in
consequence of what the latter had told him of the
revolutionist designs, including a pending plot against the
life of the Tsar. He then felt it his duty to unmask Azeff,
lest the murders which might otherwise have followed should
lie on his conscience, and when the revolutionaries came to
him for confirmation of what he had told Burtzeff he found it
impossible to retract his words. He was convicted, however, on
the 13th of May, and sentenced to five years of imprisonment
at hard labor, with the loss of civil rights. The sentence was
mitigated subsequently, and he was sent to exile at
Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, his family being allowed to accompany
him.

Prince Urussoff, whose bold speech in the First Duma on the
instigation of massacres is quoted from above (A. D. 1906), is
a brother-in-law of M. Lopukhin, and derived from him, no
doubt, the information on which he spoke.