This alienated both houses of the Duma including the majority of the Octobrists
48 STOLYPIN’S ASSASSINATION
On 1 September 1911, Stolypin went
Could tsarism have survived? 1906–1917
to the opera in Kiev at which Tsar
Nicholas was also present. During
the interval a young man, a Socialist
Revolutionary but also a police
informer, came up to him and shot
him twice. It is reported that Stolypin
turned to the Tsar and made the sign
of the cross, saying, ‘I am happy to die
for the Tsar.’ It took him five days to
do so. It was the eighteenth attempt
on his life.
FOCUS ROUTE
As you work through sections B–F keep a
running list of:
• points at which Nicholas repulsed
moves to constitutionalism in favour of
maintaining the autocracy
• mistakes and misjudgements by
Nicholas.
Draw up a chart to record what happened
in the four Dumas under the following
headings:
• dates of each duma, e.g. First Duma,
April–June 1906
• composition (main parties or groupings)
• main achievements (if any)
• key events
• notes and comments (anything else you
want to add)
who had hitherto supported him.
The Left condemned Stolypin for his policy of repression while the Right
considered that his dangerous reform policies undermined the principles of
autocracy or, in the case of the land reforms, the power of the gentry in the
countryside. He proposed a series of reforms to extend civil rights, reform local
government and local justice, and improve education. In the event, he was only
able to implement his programme of agrarian reform using emergency laws.
The enmity which confronted him from all sides demonstrated the difficulty
of taking a middle road in Russia. By 1911 his star was waning and had he not
been assassinated, it is likely that he would have been dismissed.
Stolypin was a man of contradictions. On the one hand he supported the
autocracy, using fierce and relentless repression to deal with dissidents; on
the other he championed reform. In 1906, he commented to Bernard Pares, a
British historian: ‘I am fighting on two fronts. I am fighting against revolution,
but for reform. You may say that such a position is beyond human strength and
you may be right.’ He wanted citizens to participate in political life and build a
state based on the rule of law. However, some of his actions contradicted this
– particularly his field court martials, his coup d’état and the use of Article 87.
Perhaps this expressed the problems of trying to modernise Russia within the
framework of an autocracy.
Whether Stolypin could have saved tsarism is a matter for conjecture but it
is probably fair to say that he was the Tsar’s last, best hope. Abraham Ascher
argues that he had a vision for the transformation of Russia and that his reform
proposals were ‘more feasible and more likely to lead Russia out of the abyss
than any other’. Other historians, however, would maintain that there was no
hope of reforming the archaic regime and he was bound to fail. But in failing
to support Stolypin, Nicholas showed his stubborn opposition to reform. After
Stolypin he made a series of disastrous appointments to the government –
people at best inefficient, at worst incompetent.
B The constitutional experiment
The October Manifesto had offered the chance of political change. The setting
up of an elected duma was a major step towards some sort of constitutional
government. Was the Tsar willing to take up the constitutional challenge?
The initial signs were not good. The Tsar made it clear in the Fundamental
Laws, issued in April 1906, that the autocracy was still in the ascendancy:
‘The Sovereign Emperor possesses the initiative in all legislative matters . . .
The Sovereign Emperor ratifies the laws. No laws can come into force without
his approval.’ It seemed that the Duma was to have little real power to initiate or
enact legislation. This was confirmed when it was announced that there would
be a second chamber, the State Council, with equal powers to the Duma. Half of
the State Council’s members would be chosen by the Tsar. Only if both agreed to
a legislative proposal would it go forward to the Tsar for approval. Also, Article
87 of the Laws gave the Tsar the right in ‘exceptional circumstances’ to pass his
own laws without consulting the Duma at all. The Tsar also retained control of
the military, foreign policy and the appointment of ministers. To many liberals it
seemed the Tsar had reneged on his promises in October.
The elections for the Duma employed a complicated system of electoral
colleges designed to represent the different social classes. It was profoundly
weighted towards the upper classes. For instance, 2000 landowners were
represented by one deputy and 90,000 workers were represented by one
deputy. Despite this, the elections returned the Kadets as the largest party
and there was significant representation on the Left despite the fact that the
revolutionary parties had boycotted the elections. The home of the Duma was
the Tauride Palace.
 New Liberal parties
49

Could tsarism have survived? 1906–1917

The kadets – The Constitutional Democrats – were
formed in October 1905 just before the October
Manifesto was signed. The Kadets were not a liberal party
in the Western sense. They called themselves ‘the Party
of Popular Freedom’ and saw themselves as a national
party, not a class party, although they did draw support
mainly from the liberal intelligentsia – academics, lawyers,
progressive employers, doctors and zemstvo employees.
The leader of the Kadets was Paul Milyukov, a professor of
history. They wanted a democratically elected assembly, full
civil rights for all citizens, the end of censorship, recognition
of trade unions and free education. There were tensions
in the party between the right wing, which supported
monarchy, and the left wing, which wanted Russia to be
turned into a republic.
The Octobrists took their name from the October
Manifesto, which they saw as the definitive statement
of reform – it should go no further. They were more
conservative than the Kadets and did not want full
constitutional government. They wanted the Tsar to
exercise strong government and were nationalists who
supported the maintenance of the Russian Empire. They
were more an association of different groups rather
than a defined political party. Their support came from
industrialists, landowners and those with commercial
interests. Two key leading members were Mikhail
Rodzianko, a powerful landowner, and Alexander Guchkov,
a factory owner.

First and Second Dumas

When the First Duma met in April 1906, there was immense hostility towards
the Tsar (see Source 3.2). The deputies demanded that the powers of the Duma
should be increased and that elections should be universal and secret. They
also wanted guarantees of certain freedoms, e.g. speech and assembly. There
followed two months of bitter disagreement. The Tsar, horrified by the hostility
and lack of respect, dissolved the Duma. It is reported he said: ‘Curse the Duma.
It is all Witte’s doing.’ Two hundred Kadet and Trudovik deputies went to Vyborg
in Finland from where they urged the Russian people not to pay their taxes.
Later they were arrested and disbarred from re-election.
In the elections for the Second Duma, which met in February 1907, the Kadets
and the moderates lost out to increased representation on the Left. There were
over 200 left-wing deputies, partly because the revolutionary parties had ended
their boycott. It was much more radical than the First Duma and was called ‘The
Duma of National Anger’. The Second Duma was riven by division and deputies
made fierce attacks on the government (see Source 3.2). As a result it lasted only
three months. You can see a more detailed description of the work of the dumas in
Chart 3A, page 51.

n Learning trouble spot

You need to consider the early dumas in the context of the times to make
sense of what was going on and of the regime’s response. Russia was still very
unsettled in 1906. There was a major upsurge in peasant disturbances and, to a
lesser degree, industrial unrest among workers. Also, 141 mutinies took place in
the armed forces from May to July 1906. What was worrying for the regime was
that much of this was political. The peasants were very aware of the First Duma
and sent in a large number of petitions. The Kadets felt there was a chance of
winning concessions on key issues and were pitting themselves against the
government. After the First Duma, the government cracked down hard on the
Kadets, closing down their offices and dismissing members of the party from
government service. However, the peasants and workers had confidence in and
great hopes for the Second Duma and flocked to the polls in huge numbers. In
St Petersburg over 70 per cent of eligible workers voted.
 ACTIVITY
50
Use the information in this section and
Could tsarism have survived? 1906–1917
Source 3.2 to answer the questions
below:
1 Do you think the hostility in the
Duma was more the fault of the Tsar
or the deputies?
2 Why was it unlikely that the First
and Second Dumas would be able to
collaborate with the government?
ACTIVITY
Why might Stolypin have approved of
the future British Prime Minister Lord
Liverpool’s statement of 1793: ‘We
ought not to begin first by considering
who ought to be the electors, and who
ought to be elected; but we ought to
begin by considering who ought to
be elected, and then constitute such
persons, electors, as would be likely to
produce the best elected.’
SOURCE 3.2 Lionel Kochan, Russia in Revolution, 1890–1918, 1971, pp. 120–1 and 128–9
On the First Duma
The Duma was solemnly opened by the Tsar in the throne room of the Winter Palace.
Had its walls ever enclosed such a strange scene, one ministerial onlooker wondered
to himself. To one side stood the uniformed members of the Imperial Council and the
Tsar’s retinue, the ladies of the court liberally bedecked with pearls and diamonds.
To the other stood the members of the duma, dressed overwhelmingly in the garb of
workers and peasants. Prominent among the latter stood a tall workman named
Onipko; he surveyed the throne and those about it ‘with a derisive and insolent air’
. . . So threatening was his mien already that one minister turned to his neighbour,
whispering: ‘I even have the feeling that this man might throw a bomb.’ The dowager
empress also felt herself surrounded by enemies, ‘so much did they seem to reflect an
incomprehensible hatred for all of us,’ she confessed.
On the Second Duma
(quoting Bernard Pares, 1923–4, SEER 11, 48–9)
Right-wing members were openly provocative. They told an English liberal,
Bernard Pares, that ‘they aimed at dissolution and the curtailment of the franchise’
. . . Shulgin introduced a cleverly worded mock bill for the socialization of all
brains and once began a speech by asking the Socialist Revolutionaries if any of
them happened to have a bomb in his pocket . . . On the other hand, ministers
speaking in the duma were interrupted by the lefts; sometimes at unsatisfactory
answers to abuses of official or police authority . . . A genuine thrill ran through
the house when an old SR peasant, Kirnosov (from Saratov), with flaming eyes
and shaggy hair and beard, intervened in a debate which touched on the rights of
property. ‘We know all about your property,’ he said, ‘we were your property. My
uncle was exchanged for a greyhound.’
Third and Fourth Dumas
For the Third and Fourth Dumas, Stolypin decided to change the electoral
system to favour the upper and propertied classes. The peasants and workers
were virtually excluded and non-Russian national groups much reduced. As a
result, the Octobrists and right-wing parties predominated. Even so, the Third
Duma was not subservient and questioned the government hard, particularly on
state finances. Stolypin was able to work with the more moderate centre parties
to achieve progress in his social and economic reforms. However, this time he
found that it was the right-wing groups and nationalists who tried to put a brake
on his reforms, probably with the support of the Tsar. At least it showed the
Duma could work positively with the government and it did provide a training
ground in constitutionalism.
The Fourth Duma was interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War and
met intermittently during the war. Before the war, it attempted some reform
of the Orthodox Church and supported the law of 1908 providing for universal
education – but progress was slow. It was also critical of the government’s
handling of increasing social unrest, especially the Lena Goldfields Massacre
(see page 55). On the outbreak of the war the Duma threw itself behind the Tsar
and the national war effort. It agreed to suspend itself for the duration of the
war. However, when it became apparent that the government was managing
the war very badly, the Duma pressurised the Tsar into recalling it in July
1915. It offered the Tsar one last opportunity to agree to limited constitutional
government (see pages 62–63).
 n Learning trouble spot
51
It is difficult to work out exact numbers for the various parties and factions

Could tsarism have survived? 1906–1917

in the dumas. In the First Duma around 112 deputies did not join a party for
various reasons. The groupings were fluid and deputies moved between them.
Other significant groupings included:
• The Trudoviks or Labour Group was a loose grouping whose main aim
was agrarian reform. Since the SRs had boycotted the elections, it was
the party for the peasant deputies, although other socialists supported it
at various times. A prominent member in the later dumas was Alexander
Kerensky.
• The Rightists were not a party. The name represents a variety of groups on
the Right with views ranging from moderate to extreme.
• The national parties represented the national minorities like the Poles and
Lithuanians.

n 3A The dumas

First Duma
Duration: April–June 1906 (2 months)
Representation: Of the 478 seats, the Kadets
with 185 seats and the Trudoviks (left-wing
labourists) with 94 were dominant along with
moderate business interests. 112 were non-
partisans, generally sympathetic to the liberals.
Main events/achievements
• Deputies demanded increased powers.
• Little in practice achieved though there
were fierce debates on a range of issues,
such as civil rights, amnesty for political
prisoners and land ownership.
• Tsar claimed Duma unworkable and
dissolved it.
Second Duma
Duration: February–June 1907 (4 months)
Representation: The number of Kadets halved to under a 100 but they were still significant. The
Trudoviks were the largest group with 104 deputies. Also, there were 47 Mensheviks and 37 SRs
who joined the elections for the first time. In all there were well over 200 deputies on the Left. The
National parties had 93 deputies. However the right-wing groupings had also increased their number
with over 60 deputies from various factions; the Octobrists had increased their number to 44.
Main events/achievements
• Left- and right-wing deputies attacked each other, debates frequently ending in brawls.
• Left-wing deputies made fierce attacks on Stolypin and his land reforms.
• The Duma co-operated with the government over famine relief.
• The government claimed Menshevik and SR deputies were subversive and, amid scenes of
disorder, the Duma was dissolved.

Third Duma
Duration: November 1907–June 1912 (four and a half years) Fourth Duma
Representation: Electoral system changed restricting franchise; peasant and working class vote radically Duration: November 1912–August 1914,
reduced (only one in six able to vote). As a result the parties on the Right dominated: the Octobrists suspended but also met in 1915 and 1916.
with 154 deputies and the Rightists with 147 out of a total of 441 seats. The Kadets had been cut Representation: Similar to Third Duma.
down to 54, the national parties to 26 seats and the Trudoviks to 14. Main events/achievements
• This was a period of some tension as
Main events/achievements the Lena Goldfields Massacre heralded in
• Relations with the government were more harmonious now that the Duma was biased towards industrial unrest and strikes.
the Right but it was by no means servile. • Some reform of Orthodox Church
• Stolypin was able to work with it and put through his land reforms although he faced a lot of reducing state control and broadening
opposition. education in church schools.
• A law on universal education was passed aiming at a minimum of four years compulsory primary • Progress in education, supporting 1908 law
school education. which had provided for universal education;
• Steps were taken to modernise the army. increased spending on teacher’s salaries.
• Justices of the Peace were restored, replacing the hated land captains. • Discussion of the health of people, in
• The Duma developed a progressive national health insurance scheme for workers to cover particular ways to reduce drunkenness.
sickness and accidents.