The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 21

254 The zemstvo deputation decided to present a report on the Peterhof reception of June 6 to the congress, and for this reason the next congress was arranged for July 6.1 If hopes had been rekindled at the reception that agreement could be reached between the state and society as represented by the zemstvo circles, this was quite clearly shown to be an illusion only four weeks later, at the July 6 congress. The Ministry of the Interior resolved to ban this congress and, to prevent it, sent a police inspector on its opening day to Prince Dolgorukov’s house, where the participants had gathered. It was quite incomprehensible that a congress whose deputation had been received by the tsar should be treated in this way. It was also contrary to the February 18 ukaz, which had permitted meetings to be held to discuss issues to do with the forthcoming reform of the state. Apparently, however, the Ministry of the Interior had attached credence to some absurd rumors that the zemstvo congress intended to turn itself into a constituent assembly and set up a revolutionary provisional government.2 This attempt to prevent the congress from meeting failed, as the police officers dispatched there were very hesitant when faced with men who only a few weeks before had leave to speak to the tsar in person; they restricted their activities to taking notes. The congress could thus proceed unhindered. Thus, the police did just enough to make the chapter 21 further Zemstvo congresses and the aggravation of the Revolutionary Situation The zemstvo congress of July 6–8, 1905— differences between Trubetskoy and Petrunkevich —The conference of the radical group of zemstvo representatives on July 9–10, 1905—The government project for a consultative chamber, the so-called bulygin duma—The august 6 laws—The fundamental laws drafted by Liberation and zemstvo representatives—The further escalation of the revolutionary situation and the ukaz of february 18, 1905—The revolutionary situation leads to the constitution zemstvo congresses and the revolutionary situation • 255 situation of those congress participants who were prepared to compromise difficult in the extreme. The majority at the congress, however, were not interested in reconciliation with the state or in cooperating with it to implement reforms. This is unequivocally confirmed both by reports that were published in Liberation immediately after the congress and by Petrunkevich’s memoirs, which he wrote many years later, as an émigré in Prague. This uncompromising attitude was not so much reflected in the decision to approve the draft constitution published a short time before by a group of constitutionalists, mainly zemstvo representatives, and to contrast it with the government’s draft,3 nor even in the fact that some toyed with the idea of boycotting the consultative chamber (the Bulygin Duma). This intransigence was mainly reflected in the decision to make an appeal to the people, as well as the resolution that was intended to call for passive resistance from the zemstvo institutions in particular but also the people in general. The congress delegates were themselves aware of this. A “Letter from a Congress Delegate” appearing in Liberation reads: “What characterized the whole congress was the recognition that it was impossible to obtain satisfactory reform from above without the moral pressure of the broad mass of the people. That we are now turning to these masses and that we are no longer placing our hopes on the state or our own strength, but on the masses, marks a significant change in the history of the Russian opposition’s development.”4 This correspondent was of the opinion that, compared to earlier congresses, the mood of opposition had not just hardened , but could even be described as revolutionary. This mood, however, was not shared by all. A minority found this revolutionary sentiment completely alien, did not wish to abandon the previous approach, and was sharply critical of the resolution calling for an appeal to the people. Even among those who declared their agreement in principle with an appeal to the people, there were many for whom Petrunkevich ’s plan was not feasible because of the harshness of its tone and its radicalism. After stormy debates, which lasted until two in the morning, two lawyers, Muromtsev and Nabokov, were asked to work on a new version of the proposal. They were able to complete the task by half past four that morning. They were, however , not the only ones who stayed up. Petrunkevich and Trubetskoy spent the whole...