According to the plan of P. A. Stolypin, the agrarian reform was to be accompanied by a number of other transformations, which he first outlined in the government declaration of August 24, 1906.1 These reforms were and could not be anything other than "bureaucratic regulation of the unfreedom and enslavement of the masses." 2 On this basis, the government wanted, following the example of Austria and Prussia, "to complete the revolution by a direct deal between the old government and the landlords and the largest bourgeoisie." 3 Having received the approval of the Octobrist-cadet majority of the Third Duma, these reforms failed, however, to pass through the State Council, which in 1906 was transformed into an institution on an equal footing with the State Duma, but in fact became the upper house of the Russian "parliament". Thus, Stolypin's attempt to solve the objective problems of the bourgeois revolution from above failed. The question arises: who and why did they stand in the way of implementing the reforms they planned? To answer this question, it is important to find out the composition of the State Council, as well as to study its activities. Until now, researchers have only focused on the period from 1906 to 1907.4 . As for its subsequent history, Soviet historiography has nothing but summary characteristics. The purpose of this article is to find out the causes and nature of changes in the composition of the State Council in 1907-1914.
As is well known, the third June bloc was based on counterrevolution, but this did not exclude contradictions and struggles between its constituent elements. The fact is that tsarism, on the one hand, under the influence of socio-economic development, was forced to make concessions to the bourgeoisie, and on the other, it wanted to preserve its omnipotence. In this desire, he relied not only on the support, but also on the pressure of the local nobility, who saw in the preservation and consolidation of the autocracy the only way to keep the land and privileges in their hands. "The feudal landowner rallied and finally "recognized himself" in the revolution"5 and the government's intention to rely on
1 "Novoe vremya", 25. VIII. 1906.
2 V. I. Lenin. PSS, Vol. 16, p. 170.
3 Ibid., p. 59.
4 A.D. Stepansky. Reform of the State Council in 1906." Trudy " Moskovskogo istoriko-archivnogo instituta [Proceedings of the Moscow Historical and Archival Institute], vol. 20, Moscow, 1965. Political groupings in the State Council in 1906-1907 "History of the USSR", 1965, N 4; E. D. Chermensky. Bourgeoisie and Tsarism in the First Russian Revolution, Moscow, 1970, pp. 224-232.
5 V. I. Lenin. PSS. vol. 15, p. 20. In May 1906 in St. Petersburg, at the first congress of commissioners from 29 noble societies, the All-Russian noble organization was created, the administrative body of which was the congresses of commissioners of the Far Eastern Federal District-
page 56
He also saw an immediate threat to the bourgeois strata of society .6
Even in Stolypin's agrarian policy, some of the united nobles saw undesirable aspects for themselves .7 All other parts of the program proclaimed by Stolypin seemed completely unacceptable to the landlords, who were trying to maintain their dominant position in the state. Therefore, criticism of the reform program as a whole took place at almost all congresses of the united nobility .8 Defending their own class privileges, the united nobles declared through the mouth of their head, gr. A. A. Bobrinsky: "A heavy sword has been drawn from its scabbard, and this sword will have to be reckoned with by both external enemies of the class, and the government ,and internal detractors." 9
The struggle against the reforms was launched by the united nobility in all spheres of public and state life, but it focused its main attention and efforts on gaining positions where the fate of reforms was directly decided. These are the supreme power, the Government, the State Duma and the State Council. The latter's position as the" upper house " made it the most important position in this struggle. The united nobility first of all establishes very close relations with the "upper house": members of the State Council, elected from noble societies, according to art. I of the charter of congresses of authorized noble societies, are included in the composition of congresses with a casting vote; some members are appointed by the Permanent Council as "knowledgeable persons"; in addition, many members of the" upper chamber "for elections from provincial zemstvo assemblies and from landowners' congresses participate in the work of noble congresses as representatives of provincial noble assemblies. Thus, already in the first session of the reformed State Council, out of 196 of its members, 34 were somehow connected with the activities of the noble congresses. Most of them belonged to the right - wing group, including the two comrades of the President of the Permanent Council and three of its members, who, together with the court Camarilla's henchmen, determined the position of this group. The rightists in the State Council can therefore be regarded as representatives of the united nobility. This is how it looked at them, and how the members of this group considered themselves to be 10 .
However, the right-wing group was a minority.
The Executive Council is the Permanent Council, more commonly referred to as the Council of the United Nobility. The main task of the organization was to protect the autocracy, landowning and noble privileges. From the very beginning, the activities of the united nobles took on a sharply militant character.
6 "Proceedings" of the Third Congress of authorized noble Societies of 32 provinces, St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 266.
7 "Proceedings" of the second Congress of authorized noble Societies of 31 provinces, St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 98-100, 125; "Proceedings" of the IV Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 32 provinces, St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 138, 371; "Proceedings" of the V Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 32 provinces, St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 25, 87 - 88, 108, 163, 169 - 170, 193, 306.
8 See: "Proceedings" of the Third Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, pp. 27, 283; "Proceedings" of the Fourth Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, p. 53 - 57, 95, 105, 237 - 238, 262; " Proceedings of the V Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, pp. 131, 148, 186-190, 195-196; Proceedings of the VII Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 37 Provinces, St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 229-230; Proceedings of the VIII Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 37 Provinces, St. Petersburg, 1912, pp. 17-18, 251, 283.
9 "Proceedings" of the Third Congress of authorized Noble Societies, p. 67.
10 See: "Proceedings" of the Second Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, p. 127; "Proceedings" of the Fourth Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, p. 127. 198, 208- 209, 216, 323; " Proceedings of the VI Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 33 provinces. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 49, 57, 59 - 60, 64 - 65; "Proceedings of the VIII Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, p. 145, 146 - 147, 148 - 150;" Proceedings of the IX Congress of Authorized Noble Societies of 39 Provinces, St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 192.
page 57
the majority belonged to the members who supported the platform of the manifesto of October 17, 1905 and, therefore, were liberal enough to approve the planned reforms. 12 Of course, such a situation could not satisfy the right. As early as October 1906, the Kharkiv Provincial Assembly of Nobles initiated a petition to the highest name for the right of each provincial assembly of nobles to directly elect one member of the State Council. A similar demand was contained in the most comprehensive note of the Kursk Noble Assembly 13 . However, the united nobility, while clearly expressing no confidence in the "upper chamber" 14, did not make demands to change its composition either in 1906 or 1907; they considered it "more important and serious to touch upon the question of the imperfection of the electoral law in relation to the State Duma"15 .
In March 1908, at the first meeting of the IV Congress of noble Commissioners, a question was raised about the method of electing members of the State Council from noble societies. In essence, the united nobility raised the question of the composition of the "upper chamber". This is explained by a number of circumstances. First, it was a logical next step for the right to strengthen its position. "We are acting quite consistently," S. S. Bekhteev, a member of the Permanent Council, assured the Commissioners, " when we have expressed our opinion on the organization of representation in the State Duma in a timely manner and have not met with a rebuff in our application ...we are now ...We touch upon the question of the incorrectness of organizing elections for the nobility's representation in the State Council. " 16 Secondly, by this time the intention of the Duma and the government to reform the zemstvo was revealed, and "here is the question," said one of the most active figures of the united nobility, V. L. Kushelev, " which representatives from the zemstvos will then be elected to the State Council. ...Who can guarantee that under the expected reform, all the representatives of the zemstvos in the Soviet will not be liberal, let alone extreme, but liberal, and will meet with all the innovations that might destroy us. To avoid this, we need to immediately take care of the solution under-
11 "All of us 'rightists' were then about 50 people, " testified T. Butkevich, a member of the State Council for Elections from the clergy (TSAOR USSR, f. 1463, op. 2, d.382, p. 3885).
12 The reformed State Council consisted of three groups: the "left" (Cadets and those close to them), the "center" (Octobrists and Octobrist elements), and the right. In the first session, the left party had 17 members, the center party increased from 60 to 102, and the right party decreased from 53 to 20-25. With the formation of the Stolypin government, the center began to play the role of a government party: "the policy pursued by Stolypin corresponded to the views of the center group," which included a number of Stolypin cabinet ministers. "A full understanding was reached between the government and the center's group" (A. D. Stepansky. Political groupings in the State Council in 1906-1907, pp. 61-62).
13 "Proceedings" of the IV Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, pp. 16-17. This requirement is due to the fact that in the reformed State Council, noble societies were granted 18 seats; the local nobility saw this as a violation of their rights (A. N. Naumov. From surviving memories. Book 2. New York. 1955, p. 67).
14 The statements of the members of the Permanent Council and at the same time the State Council, A. A. Chemodurov and gr. D. A. Olsufyev, are typical in this regard. The former suggested that the State Council might approve the reform of local government, which the united nobles were fighting bitterly against at that time (Trudy of the Third Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, pp. 28-29), while the latter put it this way: "Thanks to the confusion that prevails in our country, with a precocious institution created, perhaps, insufficiently thoughtfully I think that the nobility will have to play the role of a political brake, which is too risky to count on from the institution to which the legislative power is entrusted "(ibid., p. 26).
15 "Proceedings" of the IV Congress of authorized Noble Societies, p. 38.
16 Ibid.
page 58
the mentioned question " 17 . This second circumstance was used by the united nobles to represent their estate interests as state ones. However, in some speeches, the real desire of the serfs was also revealed:"...The lack of a conservative element in the State Council hinders correct (from the point of view of the united nobility - A. B.) legislation"18. Third, the united nobles were well aware that if the planned reforms did not materialize, then objective socio-economic development would inevitably change the political physiognomy of the zemstvo assemblies, for even now, they said, they would not be able to do so . , "in the zemstvo elements there is a current opposing [the united nobility]" 19 . Therefore, it would be very timely, from the point of view of the local nobility, to strengthen their positions in the State Council, which is not just a legislative body, but also an institution that establishes the corporate organization of the nobility through the basic laws .20
The debates on the question raised at the congress revealed both the attitude of the united nobles towards the appointed half of the State Council and their well-founded hopes of strengthening the position of the right with the help of the supreme power. When the commissioner of the Pskov nobility, A. N. Bryanchaninov, supported the demand for the right of the nobles of each province to elect one member of the State Council, he proposed to reduce the number of appointed members accordingly (by 12) in order to paralyze the formation of a "group of representatives of fraudulent members by appointment", which, he believed, could be formed in the State Council in order to " slow down all progressive initiatives that seem highly desirable " 21-all other participants of the congress strongly opposed, considering themselves not entitled to interfere with the prerogatives of the monarch. Apparently, by this time the mood in the ruling spheres already fully corresponded to the intentions of the united nobility, and the leaders of the latter refused to apply for the highest name, not so much because they did not want to put the tsar in a difficult position by demanding to change the basic laws, but because they were confident of the possibility of changing the composition chambers" precisely by manipulating the appointed members. This is probably why the Congress, having unanimously recognized the system of elections from the nobility to the State Council as unsatisfactory, left the Permanent Council to determine how to resolve the issue .22
At the same congress of authorized noble societies, the issue of the procedure for electing members of the State Council from the nobility of nine provinces of the Western Krai was raised .23 The fact is that only Poles were elected from the congresses of landowners in these unearthly provinces, who in the State Council (mainly for reasons of national character) were attached to the "center"group. The Sixth Congress of Commissioners heard and discussed a special report by a member of the State Council from the landowners of the Vitebsk Province, the only Russian among the representatives of the Western Region, Y. N. Ofrosimov, where it was proposed to grant the Russian nobles of these provinces "the right to choose their electors to the State Council, who will join the All-Russian nobility and
17 Ibid., p. 22.
18 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
19 Ibid., p. 20.
20 Ibid., pp. 48-51.
21 Ibid., pp. 18-20.
22 Ibid., p. 336.
23 Ibid., p. 25.
page 59
members of the State Council will be chosen together." But in order to ensure that the 41 provinces that were already elected "were not diminished in their rights," Ofrosimov considered it necessary to increase the number of elected members of the State Council from the nobility accordingly. At the same time, the speaker stressed that this is not an innovation, and even more so an invasion of the basic laws. "This," Ofrosimov specifically stipulated, "does not entitle either the commercial and industrial class or others to demand or even ask for an increase in the number of their representatives, because they are given a certain number of members for the whole of Russia without any restrictions on its borders." 24 Obviously, even in this case, the main goal was to strengthen the right-wing group of the "upper house". Raising this issue, which was then transformed into a draft law on the western zemstvo, turned out to be not useless for the united nobility: in the summer of 1913, the zemstvo assemblies of the Kiev, Minsk and Podolsk provinces gave members of the "right center", and Volyn and Vitebsk - the right ones; the "center" group lost five seats, respectively.
The liberal-monarchist wing of the third June bloc, which was interested in implementing reforms, naturally tried to prevent the onslaught of the serfs. It is characteristic that even during the development of the reform of the State Council, the bourgeoisie, when petitioning for an increase in the number of its representatives, insisted that the satisfaction of its request go at the expense of the number of members from the nobility .25 However, a special meeting to develop changes in the current State Council institution, chaired by Count D. M. Solsky, taking into account the results of the future reform of zemstvo self-government, decided to give 18 seats to noble societies in the State Council ,and 12 seats to commercial and industrial organizations.
Later, the head of the government, Stolypin, met with resistance from the right, stubbornly seeks to secure support in the State Council. After clashing with a right-wing group on the issue of the maritime department staff, he won (to the anger of the right) the right to express an opinion on candidates for the number of members of the Council of State appointed to attend the general assembly .27 At the end of 1910, the chairman of the State Duma, A. I. Guchkov, complained to Nicholas II about the State Council hindering the liberal initiatives of the Duma, and asked to fill up the" upper house " with Octobrists by appointment. This caused alarm among the united nobility, which, however, turned out to be in vain (as the appointments of January 1, 1911 showed) .28 In the spring of 1911. Stolypin seeks consent from Nicholas II to appoint 30 members of the State Council at his discretion. This meant that the right was losing the battle over the reforms: they could not expect that the tsar would decide on issues that did not concern his prerogatives to conflict with both "chambers".
24 "Proceedings" of the VI Congress of Authorized Noble Societies, pp. 164-165.
25 This fear of the suppression of the interests of the bourgeois development of the country by representatives of the noble class dictated the petition of the St. Petersburg Stock Exchange Committee to the Minister of Trade and Industry of January 2, 1906, and the letter of the Chairman of the Moscow Stock Exchange Committee N. Naidenov to D. M. Solsky of October 29, 1905, and the memorandum on the representation of industry and trade in the State Council of Representatives advisory institutions on industry addressed to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of December 29, 1905 (TsGIA of the USSR, Scientific Reference Library. Printed notes. Folder N 30).
25 "Memoirs of the meeting for the development of changes in the current institution of the State Council". In the same place.
27 TsGIA USSR, f. 1148, op. 10, 1909, d. 3, ll. 1-1 ob.; A. A. Polivanov. From the diaries and memoirs of the Minister of War and his assistant. 1907-1916 Vol. I. M. 1924, p. 71.
28 "Diary of gr. A. A. Bobrinsky". "Red Archive", 1928, N 1 (26), p. 141.
page 60
After Stolypin's assassination, the right was able to gain a majority in the "upper house". If Stolypin and later I. L. Goremykin, referring to the will of the monarch, demanded that the chairman of the State Council enter into a "preliminary agreement" with them regarding the list of members of the State Council appointed to attend, then the new head of government V. N. Kokovtsov apparently did not find the opportunity to insist on this 29. The absence of Kokovtsov's letter on this subject, similar to the letters of Stolypin and Goremykin, makes us think so.
Thus, the right was able to shuffle the appointed half of the "upper chamber" 30 . "The establishment of the State Council "provided for the right of the supreme power to appoint half of its members; a peculiar (in the opinion of many liberal-minded members of the State Council, incorrect) interpretation of Article 11 of the "Institutions" allowed the tsar to turn the publication of the list of members appointed to attend into an appointment and, thanks to this, on January 1 of each year, "clean up" half of the State Council 31 . At a time when the autocratic mood at the top increased, appointments to the State Council could not but become the work of the court Camarilla and the united nobility .32
As the right gained a foothold in the State Council and gradually transformed it from a "life-saving brake" to a "ruinous dam," criticism of the "upper chamber"is becoming more frequent and more harsh in the liberal press. Not only in the Duma, but also in the State Council, speeches are beginning to be heard from its "left" seats against the role of militant reaction that the "upper house" has increasingly played in the social and political life of the country .33 Finally, on February 27, 1913, 53 Duma members introduced a legislative proposal to change the "Establishment of the State Council". It accumulated all the discontent of the liberal-monarchist wing, which had previously broken out in isolated outbreaks on the pages of newspapers, in the Duma, and at various meetings. In the explanatory note of the initiators, it was noted that the State Council "has clearly shown that the task of its activities is not to equalize the legislative movement, but to completely stop it and even return our legislation to the system condemned by the manifesto of October 17 and subsequent ones." "Thanks to this trend," it went on, " our upper house has lost the character of a conservative institution that is common to all upper chambers. It is clear that under such conditions, all the initiatives of the lower house, and even government bills approved by the State Duma without significant changes, are fundamentally paralyzed by the action of the upper house, even if the composition of the lower house was so undoubtedly moderate and even conservative-
29 TsGIA of the USSR, f. 1148, op. 10, 1909, 3, ll. 1-1 ob.
30 On December 22, 1911, the Chairman of the State Council, M. G. Akimov, reporting to the tsar "A Certificate on the appointment of persons who held subordinate positions as members of the State Council", proved the inadmissibility of such facts (TsGIA of the USSR, f. 1162, op. 2, 1910, d. 20, ll.9-11 vol.). Undoubtedly, this concern for the prestige of the Council of State was dictated by the desire to prevent it from being recruited by members dependent on the government, which still has not given up its intention to implement reforms.
31 N. S. Tagantsev. The experience. Issue I. Ptgr. 1919, pp. 148-149.
32 See, for example: V. N. Kokovtsov. From my past. Memories. 1903-1919. Vol. 2. Paris. 1933, p. 6; S. Yu. Witte. Memoirs, vol. 3. Moscow, 1960, p. 588; " Behind the scenes of Tsarism. Archive of the Tibetan doctor Badmaev", L. 1925, pp. 35-36; A. A. Polivanov. Op. ed., pp. 44-46.
33 See, for example: "State Council. Verbatim reports". 1911-1912. Seventh session, St. Petersburg, 1912, stb. 3096.
page 61
servative character, which distinguished the State Duma of the third convocation. With this direction of activity of the State Council, a harmful and painful phenomenon of suspension of legislative activity has been created." Turning to the reasons for this, the authors of the note rightly pointed out that "the most important and closest is the very composition of the members of the State Council." The essence of the proposed change was as follows. First, independence from the supreme authority of members by appointment: they had to " resign both from their presence and from their position only at their request." Secondly, the destruction of the special noble representation and the introduction of representatives of the 29 largest cities of the empire and 9 provinces of the Caucasus. Third, lowering the property qualification for persons elected to the State Council 34 .
However, the Duma and the forces behind it were powerless to implement this reform. The project was sharply criticized by the right as a "personal petty party whim":"The practice of the State Council did not give the slightest reason to raise the question of changing the laws on it." 35 The government, by this time considerably weakened, refused to support the Duma proposal: the Minister of Justice I. G. Shcheglovitov, in response to Kokovtsov's inquiry, stated that these assumptions were "absolutely unacceptable" 36, and the Minister of Internal Affairs N. A. Maklakov also found them "completely unacceptable"37. On 25 April 1913, the Council of Ministers agreed with these conclusions .38 It is very characteristic that the right-wingers were nevertheless outraged by the government: by discussing this suggestion, it allegedly recognized the Duma's right to take the initiative in revising the institutions of the Duma and the State Council. In their opinion, this was also dangerous from a political point of view: recognition of the right of legislative institutions to such an initiative may, in the event of an absolute majority of any party in the chambers, serve as a tool for fighting both political opponents and the existing system .39
At the meeting of the "Union of October 17" in November 1913, the question of the composition of the State Council was raised again. The leader of the Octobrists, A. I. Guchkov, in his report qualified the right wing of the "upper chamber" along with the united nobility as the official stronghold of reaction .40 According to the meeting, " the government is obliged to take care that the State Council does not become an artificial brake on legislative activity."41 . However, these were "terrible, but completely innocent reproaches" 42 .
Aging as the main trend of changes in the composition of the State Council was obvious to contemporaries. This is evidenced by the press of those years, which closely followed his activities and recorded any change in the ratio of his groups; this is also noted by memoirists of various political beliefs. Of course, the testimony of people who are far from indifferent to the activities of the "upper chamber" requires comparison with more objective material, first of all with official data on the personnel of the State Council and its distribution into groups. Should be used when
34 TsGIA USSR, f. 1276, op. 9, d. 848, ll. 1-2 vol.
35 "Citizen", 1913, N 10, p. 18.
36 TsGIA USSR, f. 1276, op. 9, d. 848, l. 18.
37 Ibid., l. 28 vol.
38 Ibid., l. 51.
39 Novoe vremya, 19. V(I.VI). 1913.
40 Novoe Vremya, 9 (22) XI. 1913.
41 TsGAOR USSR, f. 102, DP 00, op. 243, 147, l. 108.
42 Novoe Vremya, 12 (25). XI. 1913.
page 62
It should be borne in mind that the actual influence of individual groups of the State Council cannot be judged by their absolute number. The fact is that not all of its members actively worked and regularly visited the Mariinsky Palace; the usual number of those present ranged from 100 to 140 members.
With this in mind, and taking into account that the elections to the 43 commissions (permanent and special) were based on the proportional representation of individual groups of 44 , we made calculations that reflect, by year, both the absolute number of members of each group present and their specific weight at the time of running for the group lists for the years 1907-1914. Since special commissions were formed as draft laws were received from the Duma, it is possible to determine the trend of changes in the composition of the State Council during each of its sessions and several consecutive sessions. Of course, fluctuations in the specific weight of the group were caused by changes in the number of members not only of the group, but also of other groups, but the number of group members present allows us to see the real reason for the change in its specific weight. Thus, we were able to determine the working composition of the State Council for the following sessions: the third (November 1907 - June 1908), the fourth (October 1908 - May 1909), the fifth (October 1909 - May 1910), the sixth (October 1910 - May 1911), and the seventh (October 1911-June 1912 the eighth (November 1912-July 1913) and the ninth (November 1913-June 1914) 45 .
When assessing the position of the "left" party, it should be borne in mind that the size of the group itself was less than the number of votes cast for its list. The fact is that liberal-minded non-party members also voted for him, and there was also a transfer of "extra" votes to the center group .46 The size of the group during this period was as follows: in the third session - 16 members, in the fourth - 15, in the fifth - 10, in the sixth - 10, in the seventh - 9, in the eighth - 12, in the ninth - 12. In the third session, the group averaged
43 Draft laws approved by the Duma were submitted through the State Chancellery for consideration by the general meeting of members of the State Council, where the matter was decided by a simple majority vote. If the general assembly did not find it possible to resolve the issue immediately, the draft law was submitted for preliminary consideration to permanent or special temporary commissions elected by the general assembly from among its members. (Standing committees were created at the beginning of the session or at the end of the previous one; there were three of them: personnel and internal regulations, financial, and legislative assumptions. Special commissions were created, as a rule, to consider a single draft law from those whose discussion was not within the competence of the permanent ones.) From the commission, the bill was returned again to the general assembly, but this time accompanied by a detailed report of the commission and its proposed decision. If a bill was passed by the general assembly of the State Council in the Duma version, it was submitted to the tsar for approval; if the general assembly, without rejecting the bill, made changes to the Duma version, the bill was returned to the Duma or submitted to a conciliation commission created for this case from an equal number of members of the Duma and the State Council. From the conciliation commission, the case, with its conclusion, went to the Duma and then proceeded in the established order.
44 According to articles 31 and 34 of the decree of the State Council, a group of members of at least 10 persons had the right to propose a list of members of the commission; the composition of the latter was determined by the formula:
x=a*n/s
where x is the number of members of the commission due for each list, a is the number of elected members of the commission, n is the number of votes cast for this list, and s is the number of those who participated in the voting.
45 It is significant that the autocracy also judged the ratio of groups of the State Council by the results of the election of members of the commissions. See, for example, the all-important report of the State Secretary named after Yu. A. Ikskul of November 7, 1907 (TsGAOR USSR, f. 543, op. 1, d. 539, l. 3).
46 Votes turned out to be "superfluous" in the form of the remainder of the quotient when dividing the number of group members present by the number of votes required to appoint one member to the commission.
page 63
10.5% of the number of people present, in the fourth-10%, in the fifth-8%, in the sixth-8.4%, in the seventh-7.4%, in the eighth-7.8%, in the ninth-9.5%. Thus, two changes are obvious: a reduction in the size of the group during the transition from the fourth session to the fifth, and an increase in the number of members starting from the eighth session; both changes were associated with the regular election of members of the State Council from zemstvos.
In December 1910, a circle of non-party associations was formed as an independent group. A small (12-14 members) and motley 47 , this group had no influence, and when running for office, it split up, voting with different groups. Although they disagreed with the main groups on various issues of program and tactics, the members of the circle united mainly because otherwise none of them could get into either the permanent or special commissions.
The main groups of the State Council were the "center" and the right; the predominance of one or the other determined the nature of the activities of the "upper chamber". The share of the "center" is steadily decreasing (in the third session, its members averaged 52.1%, in the fourth - 50.7%, in the fifth - 47.3%, in the sixth - 40.7%, in the seventh - 35.7%, in the eighth - 33.9%, in the ninth-32.6%), and the right - wing parties are increasing (in the third - 37.2%, in the fourth-39.4%, in the fifth-44.5%, in the sixth-39.1%, in the seventh-36.5%, in the eighth-42.7%, in the ninth-42%). Already in the fifth session, the favorable outcome of the State Council's discussion of Stolypin's draft laws became doubtful: the predominance of the "center" (together with the "left") it was 10-11% of the vote, and the independent vote of the "Neidgartites" already gave the right a preponderance. At the end of 1910, the share of the right was 5-10% higher than that of the "center" 48 .
In March 1911, the "Neidhartites" left the "center" group, forming an independent group of the "right center" 49, as a result of which the share of the "center" decreases to one third. At the end of the sixth session, "left" and "center" together do not make up even half. Thus, the more fragmented grouping of members of the State Council, which was established by the end of the sixth session, also indicated the establishment of the "upper house". At the end of the sixth and during the seventh session, the " center "and the right balance each other; the" right center " takes on a decisive role: with its votes, it ensures the preponderance of those with whom it joins in voting. In the eighth and ninth sessions, the advantage of the right over the "center" group was already 9-10% 50 . Thus,
47 It included such people of different political orientation as, for example, the well-known judicial figure and writer A. F. Kony and an active participant in the noble congresses of the far-right V. I. Gurko.
48 "The most numerous and influential group in the State Council," Novoe Vremya noted, "has become the right, which now has 75 members - more than the main group of the center, kolo and left combined" (20. X (2. XI) .1910).
49 "Right Center" until March 1911 was an autonomous group within the "center", it consisted of 3 members by appointment, 3 zemtsy, 1 from landowners and 4 from the nobility. When separated into an independent group, he also included 3 zemstvos from the right group. The moderate-right views of the group were characterized by two features: first, it "firmly adhered to Russian national principles" and was closely associated with the nationalist faction of the State Duma; and, second, it shared the idea of a constitutional monarchy, defending the need for " peaceful and friendly cooperation in state-building of public forces and government power "("New Government"). vremya", 5(18). XI. 1913). An interesting feature in terms of describing the political physiognomy of the group is that all its members on elections are active participants in the congresses of the united nobility as authorized and invited; the leader of the group, A. B. Neidgart, was a member of the Permanent Council throughout its existence; members of this council were also V. N. Polivanov-2 and kn N. B. Shcherbatov, who were members of the right center group. It was distinguished by its cohesiveness and factional discipline.
50 At the beginning of the eighth session, Novoe Vremya predicted that "the right-wing group with 75 members will dominate this session; the center group has lost its primacy, it consists of 63 members. But since in it
page 64
by the autumn of 1910, the right had ended the predominance of the "center" group, and by the autumn of 1912, they had secured the preponderance that allowed them to turn the State Council into a graveyard of reforms.
An analysis of changes in the personnel composition of groups allows us to determine both the time when the right was most strengthened, and the ways in which they achieved this. Already in the second session (February-June 1907), in connection with Stolypin's declaration and the transformation of the center group into a "government party", the right-wing group became sharply active .51 At the same time, in addition to the consolidation of the group's former membership, there was also an influx of new members .52 By the end of the third session, the number of rightists had increased to 70, by almost 17%.53 By the end of the fourth session, the size of the group had increased by 5.7%54 . By the end of the fifth session, it already had 81 members (an increase of 11%) .55
In the sixth session, there were major changes among the right-wingers .56 By the end of it, the group had shrunk by more than 12% to only 71 members. However, the "center" group was further reduced in this session-by almost 18% - and consisted of 75 members. Thus, the predominance of the "center" continued to decline. The formation of an independent "right center" indicated a significant shift of this part of the members of the "upper chamber" to the right, which was a great gain from the point of view of the feudal reaction. During the seventh session, the number of rightists remained the same - 71,557 . By the end of the eighth session, the right-wing group consisted of 77 members of the "upper house "(UIC).-
If the Party of Commerce and Industry and the Polish Kolo are included, which will run independently or with other groups on certain issues, this circumstance greatly detracts from the significance of the center groups as a governing body" (Novoe Vremya, 6(19)XI.1912).
51 A.D. Stepansky. Political groupings in the State Council in 1906-1907, p. 62.
52 Of the newly appointed four (V. V. von Wahl, F. V. Dubasov, D. I. Pikhno, Prince A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov) joined the right, and the Samara zemstvo, instead of leaving the State Council in protest against the dissolution of the First Duma of the cadet N. A. Shishkov, gave the right A. N. Karamzin. By the end of the second session, according to our calculations, the right party had 60 members (40 by appointment, 5 from the clergy, 8 from the zemstvo, and 7 from the nobility).
53 The group was joined by 2 members of the "center", 1 non-party member and 4 newly appointed members; 2 zemstvo members were added (instead of the members of the "center" who left the State Council, Kn. N. S. Volkonsky-2 and M. V. Rodzianko, the right - wing ones were elected: V. A. Drashusov - Ryazan Zemstvo and M. I. Miklashevsky-Ekaterinoslavsky) Two rightists were elected from the nobility (V. I. Karpov instead of the murdered "left" I. G. Chavchavadze and V. P. Meshcherinov instead of N. A. Khomyakov, who resigned the title of a member of the "center"). The group lost only one seat: a member of the group who was assigned to it died.
54 By May 1909, the right had lost 4 seats (2 by appointment and 1 Zemstvo member had died, and F. D. Samarin had renounced the nobility), new appointments gave the group 8 new members.
55 In the summer of 1909, new elections to the State Council were held in connection with the end of the first three-year term. The rightists, having completely retained their positions, managed to push out their opponents: 1 place for noble societies and 2 zemstvo societies was given to them by the "center" and 1 zemstvo - by the "left". The group's losses for the 5th session among members by appointment (3 dead) were covered by new appointments (5 right). Instead of Prince N. F. Kasatkin-Rostovsky, who died in the 4th session, the Kursk Zemstvo elected the right-wing M. Ya. Govorukho-Otrok.
56 The group included 5 new members (3 of the newly appointed, 1 from the clergy, who was elected to replace the deceased member of the "center", and 1 from the landowners of the Vitebsk province, who previously sent a member of the "center"), but the losses were more significant: the number of rightists by appointment decreased by 11 (2 died, 2 were dismissed, 1 went to the "center", 6 - to the circle of a non - party association), 3 zemstvos went to the" right center "and 1-to the"center" group.
57 This, however, conceals remarkable facts: first, all losses (2 appointed members and 1 Zemstvo member died, 3 were transferred to non-attendance) were compensated by new appointments; second, four months after Stolypin's death, out of 11 appointed to the presence since January 1, 1912, only 1 joined the group "center", and to the right-6, and among them such pillars of the united nobility as Count A. A. Bobrinsky, A. P. Strukov, A.D. Samarin.
page 65
increase by 11%) 58 . At the ninth session, the Commission still had 77 members .59
In this steady progress of the State Council, the following detail is remarkable: there were 34 persons more or less closely connected with the activities of the united nobility in the "upper house" in the first session, 37 in the second, 42 in the third, 44 in the fourth, 47 in the fifth, 48 in the sixth, and in the seventh - 50, in the eighth-58, in the ninth-59; at the same time, leading figures of the noble organization were appointed. According to the Bolsheviks ' apt remark, the "perelitsovka of the council of the united nobility" was successfully carried out: the noble class organization was given the opportunity to act on behalf of the highest state institution. 60
In this way, the reaction of the nobility seized the State Council, acting from two flanks: the alliance with the autocracy provided it with almost exclusively right-wing appointments all this time; in the noble societies and provincial zemstvo assemblies, the right successfully pressed the liberals. From a" saving brake " that corrects the draft laws approved by the Duma, the State Council, in the context of the growing state division within the third June bloc, 61 turns into an instrument of militant feudal reaction; the policy of maneuvering therefore inevitably goes bankrupt, and the government's right-wing course turns out to be the only possible one.
58 Among the appointed members of the group, 3 died, and 4 of the newly appointed ones joined; the right-wingers were given by the landowners of the Don and Orenburg provinces in the elections in the summer of 1912 (in the previous three years their representatives were part of the center group), 3 people were given by noble societies instead of 2 members of the center and 1 member of the right center".
59 48 by appointment, 6 from the clergy, 9 zemstvos (1 went to the circle of a non-party association, 2 were given new zemstvos of the Vitebsk and Volyn provinces), 2 from landowners and 12 from the nobility.
60 Pravda, 14 (27). VII. 1912.
61 See V. I., Lenin's PSS. Vol. 22, pp. 321, 325-326.
page 66
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2019-2025, LIBRARY.MD is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Moldova |