Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Get Luck of The Paw Paranormal Dating Agency Book 77 1st Edition Milly Taiden PDF Full Chapter
Get Luck of The Paw Paranormal Dating Agency Book 77 1st Edition Milly Taiden PDF Full Chapter
https://ebookmeta.com/product/settling-the-paw-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-48-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/paw-letter-word-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-72-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/paw-letter-word-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-72-1st-edition-milly-taiden-2/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/paw-or-less-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-69-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
Beast of Eden Paranormal Dating Agency Book 75 1st
Edition Milly Taiden
https://ebookmeta.com/product/beast-of-eden-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-75-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/flame-of-mind-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-38-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/beast-of-eden-paranormal-dating-
agency-book-75-1st-edition-milly-taiden-2/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/roar-of-the-worlds-paranormal-
dating-agency-book-34-1st-edition-milly-taiden/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/roar-of-the-worlds-paranormal-
dating-agency-book-34-1st-edition-milly-taiden-2/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
well as abroad minimise the pretensions of the Cadets because they
are unaware of the existence, or rather of the nature, of the middle
class in Russia. This is not surprising, because the middle class,
besides having been denied all access to political life, has produced
no startlingly great men in the branches of production which obtain
popular fame. The great Russian writers and artists came nearly all
from the aristocracy or from the peasantry. Men who have
contributed much to modern science have abounded in the middle
class, but the fame of such men is rarely popular. But now the work
which the Cadets have so far accomplished politically is a work which
needs not a few great men, but a compact mass of men who are
agreed.
To go back to the French Revolution. It is striking to read
sentences such as the following, describing the opening of the States-
General: “Dès le 2 mai tous les députés furent présentés au roi; le 4,
ils se rendirent en procession solennelle à l’église de Saint-Louis....
L’étiquette avait assigné aux députés du Tiers un modeste vêtement
noir; ils furent couverts d’applaudissements. Les habits brodés de la
noblesse passèrent au milieu du silence.... Le 5 mai s’ouvrirent les
États.... Le roi était sur son trône, entouré des princes du sang; sur
les degrés se tenait la cour. Le reste de la salle était occupé par les
trois ordres ... le roi exprima, en quelques nobles paroles, ses vœux
pour le bonheur de la nation, convia les États à travailler, en les
engageant à remédier aux maux, sans se laisser entraîner au désir
exagéré d’innovations, qui s’est emparé des esprits.” The powers
which were conferred upon the States-General were similar, both as
regards their extent and their limitations, to those of the Duma, and
the spirit in which they were given then was just the same as that in
which they have been given here. The members of the States-General
cheered the King. And the silence with which the members of the
Duma met the Emperor recalls the phrase of the Bishop of Chartres
to the National Assembly, after the taking of the Bastille, “Le silence
du peuple est la leçon des rois.” Unhappily the lesson is not generally
learnt.
The Duma worked hard last week to finish the debate on the reply
to the Speech from the Throne. The third reading was passed at three
o’clock in the morning last Friday. It must be noted that the majority
of the Duma seem to have made a grievous mistake in refusing to
add a clause to their address deprecating the murder of policemen by
anarchists; only five members of the Right supported this clause.
Later on Friday morning the President of the Chamber asked for an
audience of the Emperor, and it was thought that no time would be
lost in letting him present the address, since all Russia was waiting
breathless for the event. Friday passed, Saturday also, and Sunday,
and conflicting rumours as to the reception of the President by the
Emperor were continually spreading in the city.
Late on Sunday night it became known that the Emperor had
refused to receive the President and his deputation, and it was
ordained that the address should be presented through official
channels. The news was not believed at first. The blunder seemed too
great. Somebody had prophesied to me on Sunday that such a course
would be adopted, as a joke, never dreaming that it would really be
the case. On Monday morning it was announced in the newspapers,
and when I arrived at the Duma, I found that the place was in a state
of agitation. “The Government is defying us,” was the general
expression. An official remarked that the farce was over; that the
Duma would proceed to make a fool of itself by some explosion of
violence, and discredit itself for ever. This did not occur. A short
meeting of the party was held in one of the Committee rooms, and
Professor Milioukov, in an eloquent speech, pointed out the extreme
folly of any policy of violence, and his party agreed with him
unanimously. This lasted about three-quarters of an hour. Then the
debate opened; the President announced the intimation he had
received as regards his audience. M. Aladin made a speech in which
he gave expression to the general resentment at the way in which the
Duma had been treated. Professor Kovolievski analysed the
situation, and illustrated it with parallels from the procedure of other
countries, and then the House went on to the business of the day
with unruffled serenity.
Considering the intense bitterness of feeling created by the action
of the Emperor, the behaviour of the Duma was miraculous in its
good sense and moderation. But the fact that this action was received
quietly does not wipe out its effect as an irreparable blunder. The
peasants were more incensed than all, even the most conservative of
the peasants. One of them said to me: “The Emperor would not
receive our delegates,” in a tone of deep resentment, and this evening
the telegrams tell us that the feeling created in the provinces where
the news has arrived is alarmingly bitter. It is a melancholy fact that
if a course is fatal it will probably be taken. I have begun to think that
the higher authorities here are destined to take no single step which
is not fatal. When one reads the history of France, one understands
people making the mistakes they made, as they had not the glaring
example of the past before them; but it is hard to imagine how people
who have read the history of France can persist in making the very
same mistakes over again. Probably the Government relies—and
perhaps rightly—on the troops when the inevitable struggle comes. I
asked a peasant member of the Duma yesterday what he thought
about that; he said that he had talked with many soldiers, and that
they would refuse to fight if it was to be against the Duma. The
peasant may be mistaken; he may be cherishing an illusion. But what
is undeniable is the fact that the existence of the Duma entirely
changes the situation of the Army in the event of a great rising.
Because the soldiers now know that, if the Duma falls, the struggle of
the peasants for land and liberty is lost, and the cause of peasants is
their cause, because they are peasants. In 1789 Paris was full of
troops for the purpose of keeping order. Paris was like an armed
camp. Eleven soldiers of the Guard were arrested in July for their
opinions. The National Assembly demanded the dispersal of the
troops, “dont la présence irritait les esprits,” and Mirabeau,
commenting on the line of conduct adopted by the advisers of the
King, put the following question: “Ont-ils observé par quel funeste
enchainement de circonstances les esprits les plus sages sont jetés
hors des limites de la modération, et par quelle impulsion terrible un
peuple enivré se précipite vers des excès, dont la première idée l’eût
fait frémir?”
May 24th.
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.
June 20th.
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.
CHAPTER XX
CURRENT IDEAS ON THE DUMA
There can be no doubt that the political atmosphere has in the last
two days become sultry. The tension of feeling in the Duma has
ominously increased, and the feeling of the country has manifested
itself in increasing disorders. Even among the troops mutinies have
been reported from five different towns, and the sailors at the
various ports are said to be in a dangerously excited state. It is now
little more than a month since the Duma met, and by looking back
one can judge to a certain degree of the effect its existence has had on
the nation at large. Some people say the Duma has done nothing but
talk. It seems to me it would be rather difficult for a Parliament,
especially a new one, to pass measures of a complicated and
important nature in dumb show. Even the House of Commons, after
centuries of experience, has not arrived at this. There are four Bills in
committee at this moment. The agrarian question is, it is true, being
discussed at length before the committee has drafted the Bill. But it
should be borne in mind that the situation of the present Duma is
abnormal. It proposes to elaborate measures based on certain
principles which the Government have declared to be inadmissible.
The Government morally deny the existence of the Duma. A
Minister goes so far as to request a newspaper correspondent to state
in the influential organ he represents that the Parliament which has
been summoned by his Sovereign is no better than a revolutionary
meeting, and that it is the result of the revolutionary machinations of
his immediate predecessor in office. Besides this, the official organ of
the Government publishes telegrams—which, even if they are not (as
there is strong reason to suppose) manufactured in St. Petersburg or