CHAPTER XIX

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here are succeeding one another with such rapidity that by the time what one has written reaches England it is already out of date.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.

##