THE DEADLOCK
ST. PETERSBURG, _May 27th_.
Events here are succeeding one another with such rapidity that by the
time what one has written reaches England it is already out of date.
Yesterday was the most important day there has been up to the present in
the history of the Russian Parliament. We had been more or less prepared
by the Press for the contents of the Address of the Prime Minister to
the Duma; nevertheless, its uncompromising character, once it was
revealed in black and white, was of the nature of a shock, even to the
pessimistic. There are certain things in which one prefers not to
believe until one sees them. The strangers’ seats in the Duma were
crowded yesterday, some time before the proceedings began at 2 p.m. The
Ministers’ bench was occupied. There was a feeling of suspense and
repressed excitement in the air. While the Prime Minister was reading
his declaration the silence was breathless. One felt that a year ago the
declaration would have seemed an excellent one for an autocratic
Government to have made. But now, as the expression of the views of a
Constitutional Ministry, it was like a slap in the face. One wondered,
if these were the views of the Government, why it had taken the trouble
to convene a Parliament. Ever since I have been here I have always
derived one and the same impression from Government and Conservative
circles: that they do not seem to reflect that it follows, if you
convene a Parliament, that the result must be Parliamentary government.
Their ideal seems to be Parliamentary institutions and autocratic
Government. So far, all attempts that have been made in the history of
the world to reconcile these two irreconcilable things have met with
failure. In no wise discouraged by the example of the past, the Russian
Government has made a further attempt in this direction. It is to be
feared that it will be grievously disappointed, judging from the
reception with which the Ministerial declaration was met yesterday
afternoon.
M. Nabokov spoke first. He spoke clearly and calmly, without rhetoric or
emphasis, and gave expression to the universal feeling of bitter
disappointment. He was listened to in silence until he reached the
question of amnesty, and then, when he said that the House considered
this question to be one between itself and the Crown, and did not admit
the interference or mediation of any third party with regard to it, the
pent-up excitement of the House found release in tumultuous and
prolonged applause. Likewise when he said that the House regarded the
declaration of the Ministry as a direct challenge of defiance, and that
they accepted the challenge, he could not continue for some time owing
to the applause and the cheering. It was admitted on all sides that M.
Nabokov’s speech was dignified and masterly, and expressed what
everybody felt. He was followed by M. Rodichev, who indulged in
elaborate and effective rhetoric. Too elaborate and too rhetorical, some
people said; psychologically, however, I think it was wise to let M.
Rodichev’s tempestuous rhetoric follow immediately after M. Nabokov’s
cool decisiveness; because when a body of people finds itself in a
tumultuous frame of mind, the tumult must find expression. M. Rodichev’s
speech reads exceedingly well; and judging by its result it was
successful. M. Anikin spoke for the peasants, and M. Aladin gave vent to
the feelings of the more violent members of the House. As an orator, he
made a grave mistake in pitching his key too high; he began at the top
of the pitch, so that when he wished to make a crescendo he overstepped
the limit, and the whole house cried out “Enough! Enough!” After some
moments of disorder he was allowed to finish his speech. The general
impression was that he had gone too far. He would be twenty times as
effective as an orator if he would curb his passion. The _Novoe Vremya_
remarks to-day that it is said that M. Aladin’s oratory is considered to
be English in style. M. Aladin has spent eight years in England.
The most successful speech of the day, judging from its reception, was
that of Professor Kovolievski, who pointed out that for the Government
to speak of the impossibility of expropriation was an insult to the
Emperor Alexander II., who had carried out the biggest act of
expropriation the world had ever seen. His speech was at the same time
extremely sensible and passionately eloquent. He said, like Mirabeau of
yore, that the Duma would not go until it was turned out by force, and
that in reminding the House that an act of amnesty was the prerogative
of the Crown, the Ministry were, as a constitutional body, offending the
Monarch by giving the impression that should no amnesty be given it was
the Emperor’s will, and that therefore not they, but the Emperor should
insist on their resignation. The House adjourned at 7.30, after having
passed their momentous vote of censure.
The situation is, therefore, now an impossible one. Matters have come to
a complete deadlock. The Emperor has promised by his Manifesto of
October 17th, and has ratified his promise in his Speech from the
Throne, that no laws shall be passed without the consent of the Duma.
The Government has made a declaration that it will take legislation into
its own hands, and the Duma has replied by demanding its immediate
resignation. Therefore, the Government will pass none of the Duma’s
laws, and the Duma will have nothing to do with the laws proposed by the
Government. What can be the way out of this situation? The Government
does not believe that the Duma is representative of Russia. The Duma
believes that it is representative. The Government, I suppose, relies on
the troops. They say the troops can be depended on for another two
years.
ST. PETERSBURG, _May 28th_.
The following is the translation of a speech made by a peasant deputy
named Losev in the Duma on Saturday last. It was the speech which was
certainly the most appreciated by the peasants:—
“Until to-day I was moved by a feeling of deep joy. I thought that the
moment had come when the resurrection day of our tired-out country would
dawn. I thought that the voice of our distressful country would sound
throughout the land, and would reach the ears of our Monarch. He had
said in his graciousness that it was necessary to learn the needs of the
country. I have the good fortune to be a representative of the people.
Until to-day my heart felt joy. Now, I thought, we shall do without that
hour of ruin which threatens the whole country; now, I thought, has come
the happy time when the worn-out and suffering eyes of the peasant shall
smile through his tears, the time which shall see the bettering of his
country and of his life, when he shall no longer fear the threats of a
Police Government, when he shall no longer live in poverty and famine.
But now I will say that my joy was not of long duration. To-day it
disappeared. To-day from this tribune I heard the terrible words
pronounced by the Prime Minister. In clear and brief words he said that
the solution of the land question proposed by the Duma was altogether
out of the question. What did the Prime Minister pronounce to be out of
the question? The contentment of the starving country? It is that
Ministry in whose hands we are like dumb animals. And that offended me
deeply, and I think that not I alone, but the whole country, was
offended.
“I was glad when I heard the answer to the speech of our Sovereign the
Emperor from the Throne about the resurrection of the country. But I
repeat that my joy lasted only until to-day. To-day, my dears, I again
look upon our distressful country. She is once more threatened by a
menacing cloud of gold uniforms. We see that a whole population, a
hundred millions strong, lies under the yoke of a few individuals and
can do nothing. Many express their sympathy for us on paper, but nobody
can help us. They tell us that the fulfilment of our demands is
impossible. I again put myself in the company of the poor peasantry,
who, it is true, possess great strength. One can liken the peasantry to
Samson, who possessed exceeding strength. By cunning they discovered
what was the secret of his strength, and bereft him of it. They took us,
too, by cunning, and by cunning they blinded us. I once more repeat
therefore that it is a duty not to play tricks with a people a hundred
million strong. When Samson felt the power of all the mockery of the
Philistines he then said: ‘Lead me; let me uphold the columns which
support the building,’ and, taking hold of one pillar with his right
hand and one with his left, he said: ‘Perish, my soul, together with the
Philistines!’ Who forced him to do this? If wicked Dalila had not
blinded him, and had his strength not been impaired, he would not have
wished to do this. They made a laughingstock of him, and he said:
‘Perish, my soul, together with the Philistines!’ And then what? Those
who played with him perished beneath the crashing building.
“All the labouring peasantry is in even such a critical situation. They
treat it like a toy; but, my friends, I cannot guarantee that the
unhappy Samson will support it. He will say: ‘Perish, my soul, with the
Philistines!’”
THE COMPOSITION OF THE DUMA
_June 20th._
There are in the Duma thirty-five so-called “Moderates,” a hundred and
seventy-six Cadets, eighty-one belonging to no party (mostly peasants,
with one or two independent gentlemen), about a hundred and twenty
belonging to the Extreme Left, who now call themselves the Labour Party.
Besides these there are the Autonomists, consisting of twenty-six Poles,
six Lithuanians, four Esthonians, four Letts, two Ukraine, and ten
Musalmans. If we look into these parties we see that the most prominent
members of the Moderates are Count Heyden, a Constitutional Monarchist,
who corresponds more or less to an English Whig, and has all his life
played a prominent part in the Liberal movement, and especially in the
Zemstvo meetings last year, and M. A. Stachovitch, also a Constitutional
Monarchist, a member of the noblesse and a prominent Zemstvoist and
champion of the Liberal movement.
Besides these two there are prominent men such as Prince Volkonsky, also
a Constitutional Monarchist.
When people ask whether these men are capable of managing State affairs,
the question seems to me to be rather this: Are they less or more
capable of managing affairs than a man like M. Durnovo?
One of the most prominent members of the October Party is M. D. Schipov,
who was not elected to the Duma—a Zemstvoist of great capacity.
Now let us look at the Cadets. The practical leader of the party is
Professor Milioukov, the President of the Union of Unions—the founder of
the party which he still directs. The Government excluded him from the
elections. But although he is not in the Duma, he is a man of
first-class ability, practical and moderate; he possesses a complete
grasp of the political situation. His colleague, M. Hessen, a lawyer of
great ability, was also excluded from the elections.
In the Duma itself we have M. C. A. Muromtseff: Educated at Moscow and
Göttingen, a professor of law, he was obliged to abandon his
professorship in 1864 and take to private practice. He is now the
President of the Duma, and there is not a dissentient voice in Russia,
from the Court downwards, as to the superlative manner in which he
fulfils his functions. He combines suave urbanity with rigid firmness,
and has at present a complete hold over the Duma. M. I. Petrunkevitch:
“The father of the Zemstvo,” a strong Constitutionalist; one of the best
speakers in Duma, in my opinion the best, and master of dry sarcasm. He
corresponds to an English Liberal member of the House of Commons. M. F.
F. Kokoshkin: A privatdocent of Moscow University, a Constitutional
expert. His speeches are well composed and reasoned. M. V. D. Nabokov:
Son of an ex-Minister of Justice; an expert in criminal law. He was
dismissed from being _Kammerjunker_ for his opinions. He is an excellent
Parliamentary tactician and a good, clear speaker. M. F. I. Rodichev: A
barrister, of Iver; one of the most prominent Zemstvoists; he presented
to the Emperor the famous address of the Zemstva at the beginning of the
reign asking for reforms, and received in answer the command to put away
these senseless dreams. He was forbidden to live in St. Petersburg for
two years. A rhetorical speaker, rather like a rocket, sometimes
bursting into stars, at others falling flat like a stick. M. L.
Petrajitski: Professor of the Philosophy of Law. A lawyer and a writer.
He speaks the soundest common sense; the temptation to listen to him can
be resisted easily. M. Hertzenstein: A Russianised Jew. Privatdocent of
Moscow University; took his degree in law; and was employed in the
Moscow Agrarian Bank. An expert on financial and agrarian questions.
M.N. Kareev: A prominent historian. M. Vinaver: An authority on civil
law. M. N. N. Lvov: Educated in Switzerland, and took his degree in
jurisprudence; a Zemstvoist and a large landed proprietor. Prince
Dolgoroukov: The bearer of a historic name. These are, I think, the most
prominent of the Cadets.
Together with the Cadets there is another small party who vote with the
Cadets, called the Party of Democratic Reform; it contains two of the
most capable men of the Duma. Professor Kovolievski: A scholar and an
unrivalled authority on Parliamentary traditions. An eloquent speaker,
who by the charm of his personality has become the most popular member
of the Duma. M. B. V. Kousmin Karavaieff: A Zemstvoist, educated at the
Academy of Military Law, at which he afterwards became a professor,
until he was obliged to resign in 1904. At the request of General
Kouropatkin he went to the war, where he held a responsible position; he
is one of the best, if not the best, speaker in the Duma; quiet,
persuasive, logical, and eloquent. Prince Urussoff, formerly employed in
the Ministry of the Interior, also belongs to this party.
On the left is the Labour Party. M. Anikin: A village teacher; a social
revolutionary, opposed to violence; he speaks eloquently. The abilities
of this party seem to me entirely destructive and in no way
constructive. M. Zhilkin: A peasant by extraction; subsequently a
journalist; a tall man with big features, light hair, and spectacles.
The tactical leader of his group. He speaks well and clearly. M. Aladin:
Of peasant extraction, but educated at the University of Kazan, who
emigrated to England. A violent and talented speaker; too violent to
have influence in the Duma. His speeches are sometimes interrupted by
cries of “Enough.” One of the most interesting revolutionary figures.
The peasants either belong to no party at all or to the Labour Party.
Those who belong to no party consider the Labour Party to be foolish.
One of them said to me that they were anxious to meet the proprietors
halfway, but the Government thwarted them by being so uncompromising. A
great many of these peasants are exceedingly sensible. The Labour Party
is utterly and fundamentally opposed to the Cadets, whom it despises.
The situation of the Duma as regards the Government, by which it is
practically ignored, continues to be abnormal; for this reason, and
owing to the fact that any active move on the part of the Government
unites the whole Duma in unanimity against it, the creation of further
parties is rendered difficult. The level of speaking in the Duma is
high; a competent English Judge here says it is considerably higher than
the English level. Time has certainly been wasted in talk; but the
Right, and neither the Cadets nor the Labour Party, have been to blame
for this, and also the abnormal situation of the Duma.
As to the current of opinion outside the Duma. The attitude of the
Government, that the Duma is merely a revolutionary meeting from which
nothing serious can be expected, is reflected in Conservative circles
with this difference: that, while holding this opinion, they blame the
Government for its action. Analogies with past history may be
misleading, but, however different the revolutionary element here may be
from that which made the French Revolution, the Conservative element
here is startlingly like the Conservative element in France in 1789.
Professor Aulard writes as follows about Louis XVI.: “Ce n’était pas un
esprit supérieur. Les royalistes le disaient bête, parce qu’ils le
voyaient physiquement épais ... dormeur, mangeur, ... mais il ne
manquait pas d’intelligence, et sa proclamation aux Français, qui est
bien son œuvre personnelle, offre une critique de la Constitution de
1791 beaucoup plus fine que celle que, de nos jours, Taine en a écrite.
Voici en quoi son intelligence fut inférieure à sa tâche: c’est qu’il ne
comprit pas qu’avec le système nouveau et le droit populaire, il pouvait
être un roi tout aussi puissant, tout aussi glorieux, tout aussi roi,
qu’avec le système ancien et le droit divin.”
This last sentence explains the whole attitude of the Conservatives
here. They do not understand that if you have constitutional
institutions you must have a constitutional Government. A man who calls
himself a Monarchical Liberal said to me the other day that the Duma did
not represent the majority of Russians, who were moderate, and that the
elections were to blame because the Government had not taken the
necessary steps to influence them in the right direction, as was always
done in other countries, including England. This view, which is largely
shared here, revealed to me the truth of what some one else said to me
not long ago: that Russians of the upper classes here are often more
cultivated than the upper classes of other countries; but they have no
more idea of the nature of constitutional government than the Turks.
On the other hand you have the revolutionaries outside the Duma, who
have no real notion of constitutional government either, attacking the
Cadets with unbridled violence every day, because they say that they are
the only bulwark against revolution. Therefore between these two dismal
extremes we have only the Cadets; capable and well organised it is true;
the question is, How long can they remain masters of such a situation?
_June 2nd._
To-night I had a long talk with M. Aladin, the Radical deputy. He gives
me a totally different impression from the usual Russian “Intelligent.”
He has been Anglicised. I don’t mean to say this has made him superior
to his countrymen, but it has made him different. He complained of the
want of practical energy among the Russians. They had not got, he said,
enough to satisfy an English child.
A friend was sitting with him—a musician, and at one moment they
compared pistols, when the musician began gesticulating with a revolver.
I felt nervous because Russians are so careless with firearms. M. Aladin
said that in England there were precedents and prejudices about
everything; here they were fighting in order to establish their
precedents and their prejudices.
I asked him whether, since he knew England well, he thought political
liberty was really a great advantage, and whether the great _liberté de
mœurs_ enjoyed by Russians did not compensate for the _habeas corpus_.
He said he wasn’t certain whether political liberty was worth having,
but he was convinced it was worth fighting for.
Nobody can possibly accuse this man either of talking nonsense or of
being a _doctrinaire_, but he seems to me a square peg in a round hole,
as Kislitzki was in the war.
He does not seem to evaporate in talk. His manner is mild, almost
gentle, and you at once feel he has unlimited energy. That is to say, he
is just the opposite of the ordinary “Intelligent” revolutionary, who is
all words and no deeds.