When people ask whether these men are capable of managing State affairs, the question seems to me to be rather this: Are they less or more capable of managing affairs than a man like M. Durnovo?
One of the most prominent members of the October Party is M. D. Schipov, who was not elected to the Duma—a Zemstvoist of great capacity.
Now let us look at the Cadets. The practical leader of the party is Professor Milioukov, the President of the Union of Unions—the founder of the party which he still directs. The Government excluded him from the elections. But although he is not in the Duma, he is a man of first-class ability, practical and moderate; he possesses a complete grasp of the political situation. His colleague, M. Hessen, a lawyer of great ability, was also excluded from the elections.
In the Duma itself we have M. C. A. Muromtseff: Educated at Moscow and Göttingen, a professor of law, he was obliged to abandon his professorship in 1864 and take to private practice. He is now the President of the Duma, and there is not a dissentient voice in Russia, from the Court downwards, as to the superlative manner in which he fulfils his functions. He combines suave urbanity with rigid firmness, and has at present a complete hold over the Duma. M. I. Petrunkevitch: “The father of the Zemstvo,” a strong Constitutionalist; one of the best speakers in Duma, in my opinion the best, and master of dry sarcasm. He corresponds to an English Liberal member of the House of Commons. M. F. F. Kokoshkin: A privatdocent of Moscow University, a Constitutional expert. His speeches are well composed and reasoned. M. V. D. Nabokov: Son of an ex-Minister of Justice; an expert in criminal law. He was dismissed from being Kammerjunker for his opinions. He is an excellent Parliamentary tactician and a good, clear speaker. M. F. I. Rodichev: A barrister, of Iver; one of the most prominent Zemstvoists; he presented to the Emperor the famous address of the Zemstva at the beginning of the reign asking for reforms, and received in answer the command to put away these senseless dreams. He was forbidden to live in St. Petersburg for two years. A rhetorical speaker, rather like a rocket, sometimes bursting into stars, at others falling flat like a stick. M. L. Petrajitski: Professor of the Philosophy of Law. A lawyer and a writer. He speaks the soundest common sense; the temptation to listen to him can be resisted easily. M. Hertzenstein: A Russianised Jew. Privatdocent of Moscow University; took his degree in law; and was employed in the Moscow Agrarian Bank. An expert on financial and agrarian questions. M.N. Kareev: A prominent historian. M. Vinaver: An authority on civil law. M. N. N. Lvov: Educated in Switzerland, and took his degree in jurisprudence; a Zemstvoist and a large landed proprietor. Prince Dolgoroukov: The bearer of a historic name. These are, I think, the most prominent of the Cadets.
Together with the Cadets there is another small party who vote with the Cadets, called the Party of Democratic Reform; it contains two of the most capable men of the Duma. Professor Kovolievski: A scholar and an unrivalled authority on Parliamentary traditions. An eloquent speaker, who by the charm of his personality has become the most popular member of the Duma. M. B. V. Kousmin Karavaieff: A Zemstvoist, educated at the Academy of Military Law, at which he afterwards became a professor, until he was obliged to resign in 1904. At the request of General Kouropatkin he went to the war, where he held a responsible position; he is one of the best, if not the best, speaker in the Duma; quiet, persuasive, logical, and eloquent. Prince Urussoff, formerly employed in the Ministry of the Interior, also belongs to this party.
On the left is the Labour Party. M. Anikin: A village teacher; a social revolutionary, opposed to violence; he speaks eloquently. The abilities of this party seem to me entirely destructive and in no way constructive. M. Zhilkin: A peasant by extraction; subsequently a journalist; a tall man with big features, light hair, and spectacles. The tactical leader of his group. He speaks well and clearly. M. Aladin: Of peasant extraction, but educated at the University of Kazan, who emigrated to England. A violent and talented speaker; too violent to have influence in the Duma. His speeches are sometimes interrupted by cries of “Enough.” One of the most interesting revolutionary figures.
The peasants either belong to no party at all or to the Labour Party. Those who belong to no party consider the Labour Party to be foolish. One of them said to me that they were anxious to meet the proprietors halfway, but the Government thwarted them by being so uncompromising. A great many of these peasants are exceedingly sensible. The Labour Party is utterly and fundamentally opposed to the Cadets, whom it despises. The situation of the Duma as regards the Government, by which it is practically ignored, continues to be abnormal; for this reason, and owing to the fact that any active move on the part of the Government unites the whole Duma in unanimity against it, the creation of further parties is rendered difficult. The level of speaking in the Duma is high; a competent English Judge here says it is considerably higher than the English level. Time has certainly been wasted in talk; but the Right, and neither the Cadets nor the Labour Party, have been to blame for this, and also the abnormal situation of the Duma.
As to the current of opinion outside the Duma. The attitude of the Government, that the Duma is merely a revolutionary meeting from which nothing serious can be expected, is reflected in Conservative circles with this difference: that, while holding this opinion, they blame the Government for its action. Analogies with past history may be misleading, but, however different the revolutionary element here may be from that which made the French Revolution, the Conservative element here is startlingly like the Conservative element in France in 1789.
Professor Aulard writes as follows about Louis XVI.: “Ce n’était pas un esprit supérieur. Les royalistes le disaient bête, parce qu’ils le voyaient physiquement épais ... dormeur, mangeur, ... mais il ne manquait pas d’intelligence, et sa proclamation aux Français, qui est bien son œuvre personnelle, offre une critique de la Constitution de 1791 beaucoup plus fine que celle que, de nos jours, Taine en a écrite. Voici en quoi son intelligence fut inférieure à sa tâche: c’est qu’il ne comprit pas qu’avec le système nouveau et le droit populaire, il pouvait être un roi tout aussi puissant, tout aussi glorieux, tout aussi roi, qu’avec le système ancien et le droit divin.”
This last sentence explains the whole attitude of the Conservatives here. They do not understand that if you have constitutional institutions you must have a constitutional Government. A man who calls himself a Monarchical Liberal said to me the other day that the Duma did not represent the majority of Russians, who were moderate, and that the elections were to blame because the Government had not taken the necessary steps to influence them in the right direction, as was always done in other countries, including England. This view, which is largely shared here, revealed to me the truth of what some one else said to me not long ago: that Russians of the upper classes here are often more cultivated than the upper classes of other countries; but they have no more idea of the nature of constitutional government than the Turks.