The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 20

242 The ukaz of December 12, 1904, was based, as we have seen, on the liberal program drawn up by the zemstvo congress. Through this ukaz, the Committee of Ministers was charged with preparing legislation to secure the freedom of the press, free speech, and religious tolerance, as well as a guarantee of legality in administrative affairs. The powers of local self-government were also to be extended, the recourse to emergency powers curtailed, and unnecessary restrictions on nonnationals abolished. In addition, the Committee of Ministers was instructed to continue the work of the Special Advisory Committee on the needs of the rural economy and to propose legislation for a liberal solution to the peasant question. The role of ministers, however, was limited to outlining the basic principles of these laws. Special advisory boards, whose members and chairmen were appointed by the tsar himself, were to be set up to do the detailed work on individual issues.1 The special advisory committee set up to prepare the legislation to ensure legality in administrative affairs was meant, in particular, to deal in depth with the question of reform of the Senate as well as administrative law. In a relatively short time, the committee, which included the most eminent lawyers in Russia, such as Koni and Tagantsev, submitted some valuable material to the Committee of Ministers. Yet until the Duma was convened, no legislation based on this work chapter 20 The Zemstvo congresses Legislative work to put into practice the principles proclaimed in the ukaz of december 12, 1904, and public reaction to it—further zemstvo congresses: the february and april congresses in 1905—The split between the Shipov group and the majority— The may 1905 “coalition congress”—The reception of zemstvo deputies by the tsar at the Peterhof Palace on June 6, 1905—Trubetskoy’s speech the zemstvo congresses • 243 was enacted. Nor did the Duma, to which the material was subsequently submitted , make very much use of it.2 The advisory committee (soveshchnanie) to revise the emergency-powers legislation proved less successful. Although some members of the bureaucracy who otherwise kept their distance from liberalism, such as P. N. Durnovo, supported the revision of these laws (in Durnovo’s case, his experience as director of the Police Department led him to the view that these laws did more harm than good in Russia),3 this committee produced no draft legislation before October 17, 1905. Later the material from this committee was handed over to the Ministry of the Interior and was probably used by Stolypin for his draft legislation on the same issue, which he submitted to the Duma. Kobeko, a member of the State Council and director of the Public Library,4 was appointed to chair the advisory committee on the press. The liberal Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, president of the Academy of Sciences, also participated in the work of this committee, to which the academy also made some material available. This committee drafted a law on the press that formed the basis for the press law passed in 1905, when Witte was chairman of the Council of Ministers.5 The question of religious toleration was initially handled by the Committee of Ministers itself, although the metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Anthony, and individual members of the State Council were also consulted. The committee prepared a decree on religious toleration that was ratified on April 17, 1905. This decree regulated the situation of non-Christians and non-Orthodox Christians, that is, members of other denominations and sects. Witte writes: “This decree is of the same genre as the Manifesto of October 17, 1905; that is, it constitutes an act that cannot be implemented at first, but that no one is able to quash. They (both decrees) are more or less engraved on the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the people making up Great Russia.”6 As the decree, however, only set out general principles, the details remained to be worked out, and an advisory committee was set up for this purpose. It is interesting to note the approach taken by the metropolitan of St. Petersburg on this committee. He did not oppose granting freedom to non-Christian religious communities and to non-Orthodox Christians. He did stress, however, that it would be unfair to grant others a freedom that was denied to the Orthodox Church. At that point, Witte, who shared the metropolitan’s views, argued in a report to Nicholas II that the principles that ought...