Reaction of the British press to The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order of October 17 (30), 1905

Petrukhin Aleksei Mihailovich ORCID: 0009-0008-6396-8568 Assistant; Department of Scientific Research Coordination; State University of Management 99 Ryazansky Prospekt str., Moscow, 109542, Russia ikarus9494@gmail.com

In January 1905, the First Russian Revolution began in the Russian Empire. The impetus for mass demonstrations was the so–called "Bloody Sunday" - the shooting of a peaceful demonstration of workers on January 9 (22) in St. Petersburg. Subsequent events forced Emperor Nicholas II to make concessions. Among these concessions, several important legislative acts should be highlighted that contributed to the transformation of the Russian political system and the emergence of a new authority in the empire – the State Duma. These acts primarily include the Manifesto on the Establishment of the State Duma of August 6 (19), 1905 and the Supreme Manifesto on the Improvement of State Order of October 17 (30), 1905. Both documents aroused interest from the British public, which viewed the attempt to create the State Duma as the birth of parliamentarism in the Russian Empire. The view of the English press on this event deserves special attention, since it was in the UK that the very concept of "parliamentarism" originated.

The Manifesto of August 6 (19), 1905 was based on the never-implemented draft of the legislative council of the people's representative office, developed by a commission headed by the Minister of Internal Affairs Alexander Grigoryevich Bulygin. This project was popularly called the "Bulygin Duma". The attitude of the British press to the Manifesto of August 6 (19), 1905 is described in more detail in our article ^[1].

Since the unrest in the country did not stop after the publication of the August Manifesto, the emperor had to make new concessions. Granted on October 17 (30), the Supreme Manifesto proclaimed a number of civil liberties (personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and unions) and significantly expanded the rights of the supposed popular representation.

Unlike A.G. Bulygin's project, in the new Manifesto, the Duma was no longer legislative in nature, but legislative, since the document noted that "... no law could take effect without the approval of the State Duma ..." ^{[2, p. 41]}.

"Those classes of the population who are now completely disenfranchised" were now allowed to vote ^{[2, p. 41]}. As a result, representatives of the Russian working class were allowed to participate in the election procedure. In connection with these innovations, the Manifesto on October 17 attracted special attention from the British press.

The correspondent of the liberal English edition of The London Daily News was delighted with the tsar's Manifesto. In an article titled "The Triumph of the Revolution," he called the day of the Manifesto's promulgation on October 17 (30) nothing less than "the greatest day in the history of mankind." The author saw in the document the tsar's complete rejection of autocracy and the beginning of Russia's movement towards a constitutional monarchy ^{[3, 1 Nov. 1905]}. In his opinion, the Manifesto "marked the complete victory of the revolution and the rebirth of the Russian people." The journalist claimed: "Nikolai finally realized that it is impossible to maintain the existing regime by force."

In addition, the correspondent admired the Russian people, who, as he believed, "did not strike a single blow at the tsar." The crowds of citizens," the author writes, "despite their terrible situation, were able to refrain from violence and riots," and thus "defeated the army of the tsar." The journalist hoped that in the future State Duma "representation will turn out to be real, not illusory," and the system of indirect elections "sooner or later will give way to direct elections based on broad suffrage." According to the author, what happened in Russia "will have far-reaching consequences" and will probably serve as a lesson for neighboring states in which the army is used to oppress the people ^{[3, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

The correspondent of the conservative "The Morning Post" had a different opinion about the Manifesto on October 17. He suggested that the emperor's new legislative act was necessary primarily to stop the unrest in the country, and not for the sake of limiting autocracy. The manifesto, according to the journalist, was able to divide society: "More moderate circles are likely to accept the proposals set out in the document and will consider them as a step in the right direction, while radical groups will see the manifesto as only an attempt to save the autocracy and will prevent its recognition" ^{[4, October 31, 1905]}.

The correspondent rightly believed that the political rights granted by the emperor "cannot have practical value until they are enshrined in the legislation of the country." In the "very limited legislative assembly with expanded suffrage," the author saw only an attempt to comfort the exhausted and suffering people.

In addition, the author resorted to the narrative of the Great French Revolution of 1789, arguing that Russia is in circumstances similar to those in which a century earlier Louis XVI decided to convene the States General. In the preamble to the Manifesto, he notes "a note of philanthropic or humane feelings, reminiscent of the sentiments that dominated among the advisers of the French king" ^{[4, October 31, 1905]}. Subsequently, similar parallels will be found more than once in articles by British correspondents describing events related to the activities of the State Duma of the Russian Empire of the I and II convocations. The attitude of the British press to the work of the "Russian parliament" is discussed in more detail in our other publications ^{[5, 6, 7, 8, 9]}.

The correspondent of The Morning Post also suggests that if all the provisions of the Manifesto are actually implemented, then the consequence of this may be the establishment of "such a constitutional or parliamentary government as currently exists in Germany." But the author does not reveal this idea in any way, because for him, as a contemporary, such a comparison was quite understandable.

On our own behalf, we add that in the German Empire, since its unification in 1871, the constitution has been in force. The emperor (Kaiser) was given extensive powers in it. As noted by a number of researchers, both executive and legislative power was exercised on behalf of the Kaiser, he appointed officials of the empire, primarily the chancellor, but there was no system of separation of powers in practice ^{[10, pp. 491-492]}. Thus, it can be assumed that the author of the article did not build high hopes for the establishment of a constitutional system in Russia similar to the one that existed at that time in the British Empire.

Despite the very liberal nature of the Manifesto, the correspondent notes that the spirit of autocracy still dominates it. The author confirmed his opinion with the phrase "our inflexible will", which concluded the preamble to the Manifesto. On the other hand, the reporter draws attention to the fact that the emperor characterizes the "current turmoil" as "unheard of." From this, he concludes that "the autocracy has finally begun to recognize the true state of affairs."

Despite the correspondent's extremely distrustful attitude towards the Manifesto, at the end of his article he noted that if everything stated in it is fulfilled, then "the revolution can go on without great upheavals." But the author also had doubts about this, since "nations are not born without suffering" ^{[4, 31 Oct. 1905]}.

Another conservative publication, The Pall Mall Gazette, also reacted with a degree of skepticism to the tsar's Manifesto. According to the newspaper's journalist, even after the publication of the document, "the leaders of the Russian revolution will probably continue to demand the establishment of a constitutional system capable of displacing the bureaucratic element" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}. The author also mentions a telegram from a correspondent of the publication published in the conservative "The Times", which begins with the words: "The Constitution adopted yesterday is too late." The journalist of The Pall Mall Gazette did not rule out that the publication of the Manifesto should have happened earlier, and perhaps the chance to stop the revolution had already been missed. However, the author of the article noticed several signs that, in his opinion, indicated that "the tsar has definitely done away with the old regime." Among those, he names, for example, the resignation of the statesman of conservative views K.P. Pobedonostsev from the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. As the Russian historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.Y. Polunov notes in his work, it was the establishment of legislative representation in Russia, provided for by the Manifesto of October 17, which Pobedonostsev opposed throughout his political career, and forced him to resign ^{[12, p. 298]}.

It is also interesting what characterization the British correspondent gives to the former chief prosecutor: "He was an ardent supporter of patriarchal tsarism and the most fanatical enemy of all reforms emanating from the Russian people. He openly advocated ignorance and despotism, considering them the only guarantees of the existence of the monarchy. Steadfastly adhering to the medieval norms of government, he feels nothing but unconditional distrust of the steps of Western civilization. What we call a constitutional government, in the eyes of this high priest, is a systematic evil, a simple cover for anarchy" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

Such reports by the journalist clearly formed a very negative impression on the British reader about the mentioned statesman of the Russian Empire.

Another sign indicating the real intentions of the Russian emperor to change the existing system, the author found in a telegram published in the French edition of Éclair. According to the journalist, the telegram reported that the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, D.F. Trepov, "surrendered after the tsar."

It should be noted that when a general political strike began in October 1905, which threatened street unrest, Trepov ordered an order for troops to be posted on the streets of St. Petersburg, which contained the famous phrase: "do not spare cartridges" ^[13]. Thus, the leaders of the revolution clearly saw Trepov as an enemy.

Continuing his thought, the correspondent of an English newspaper noted that if the information about the Governor-general of St. Petersburg is reliable, then "revolutionaries can hope that the tsar will stop relying on armed force as the main argument in his policy" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

In the article, the journalist also discusses who can get the portfolio of the Minister of Internal Affairs in the cabinet of S.Y. Witte. Referring to the reports of the British "The Times" and the French "Éclair", the correspondent noted that the forecasts regarding the new minister in these publications vary. The first newspaper claimed that the position would be taken by Prince Alexei Obolensky, who previously served as a comrade of the Minister of Finance. In fact, in the Witte government, the prince will take the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. In the French edition, preference was given to "the well–known moderate liberal and editor of the publication Rus - Kuzmin-Karavaev" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}. However, the future member of the first and second Duma from Tver province, V.D. Kuzmin-Karavaev, will not join the Witte government. In addition, the author of the article calls him the editor of Rus, which is a mistake, since Kuzmin-Karavai was only published in this newspaper, and its publisher at that time was A.A. Suvorin ^{[14, p. 468]}.

The correspondent of The Pall Mall Gazette, for example, would like to see an outstanding judicial figure, under whose chairmanship the jury acquitted the revolutionary V.I. Zasulich in 1878, A.F. Koni, as Minister of Public Education of the Russian Empire ^[15]. The author of the article wrote that such a decision "could serve as some guarantee of the positive dynamics of the development of the state in this direction" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

But despite all the above, the journalist of the British edition considered all these hints of change "insufficient to demonstrate all the good faith of the new regime, which so far only protests against its own honest intentions and deliberately refrains from any guarantees for the creation of an elected assembly" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

The correspondent saw the main mistakes of the tsar and his entourage in the fact that martial law in the country was still in effect and "there were no hints of amnesty for political prisoners."

In turn, the author of the publication suggests an "effective way" to resolve the current situation, resorting to which and at the same time declaring amnesty, "his Majesty would be able to convince even the Russian proletariat of his sincere desire to satisfy all reasonable demands." According to the journalist, the tsar should have returned to St. Petersburg and personally, without protection, appeared before the people, having listened to all petitions and proposals. "The case is highly suitable to demonstrate moral courage and determination," the author of the article believed. The correspondent also notes that if the tsar had already been known as a strong personality, the Manifesto "would have had the desired effect" ^{[11, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

The journalist's recent reflections give reason to believe that he had a low opinion of the Russian monarch, considering him a rather weak ruler. The correspondent doubted that Nicholas II would "have the guts" to go out to the people. The provisions of the Manifesto, in his opinion, could be implemented only if there was a strong man on the throne, or, in the absence of such, a large-scale revolution would complete what had been started.

Thus, the journalist of The Pall Mall Gazette, although he pinned his hopes on a successful outcome of the Russian events, was more inclined to believe that the tsar would not be able to implement what was stated in the Manifesto, and the revolution that began in January 1905 would continue.

Another conservative British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph & Courier, adhered to similar sentiments ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. At the beginning of the article, the correspondent of the publication described the jubilation of St. Petersburg on the occasion of the publication of the Manifesto: "people marched through the streets of the city all day, singing "La Marseillaise" and "God save the Tsar!", stopped in squares, prayed in churches, while not knowing what they want and what they got." "Letting off steam" is how, according to the author, some called the "rude antics of a huge crowd" that filled the streets of the Russian capital on October 17. The correspondent himself was also inclined to adhere to this definition of what was happening. Already in these few quotations, one can catch some of the author's disdain for the jubilant representatives of the Russian people. In his opinion, the enthusiasm of the society was about to end. "The wind that has died down now threatens to be replaced by a hurricane, and a bloodless revolution will be followed by a bloody and senseless riot," the journalist believed. In addition, he paid great attention to the opinion of Russian socialists who remained dissatisfied with the Manifesto. The author asked a question to some Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries (the author does not specify names) about what conditions will satisfy them or encourage them to cooperate with the authorities. The journalist received different answers, but, as he noted, "everyone agreed on one thing – the fight should continue." Relying, probably, on the opinion of revolutionary-minded socialists, the correspondent did not exclude the possibility of a civil war in Russia, since "freedom is abstract, agitators are aggressive, the population is restless, soldiers suffer from provocations." The author concluded his message, like journalists of other English newspapers, with the hope that "common sense and self-control of the Russian people will still win" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}.

Special attention should be paid to the reports of correspondents of The Daily Telegraph & Courier from different countries about how the Manifesto of October 17 was received in these countries. So, in a telegram from Paris, it was reported about the hopes of the French public that "the concessions that the tsar finally publicly agreed to will restore order in Russia." However, it was noted that "it will take some time to calm the country, and the fruits of this important step will not be immediately noticeable." In the French capital, it was also believed that the drafting of the Manifesto "is the full and exceptional merit of Count Witte" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. Such messages were published in The Morning Post, the Paris correspondent of the publication in his telegram briefly recounted an interview with a liberal politician and editor of the newspaper "Liberation" – P.B. Struve, who was in exile in Paris at that time. In an interview, the politician claimed that "the efforts of his party will henceforth be aimed at achieving universal suffrage" [October 4, 31, 1905], which, in his opinion, was also the main condition for the complete pacification of the people. Struve believed that sooner or later the government would give in on this issue and "the Democrats would be able to continue their work on new legal grounds." By mentioning "his party", the journalist most likely meant the Cadet party, since after returning from emigration in 1905, after October 17, Struve would join the membership of this political organization ^[17]. In the same issue of The Morning Post, it was briefly described what characterization the Parisian Le Temps gave to the Manifesto. The newspaper called the legislative act under consideration "not completely clear and incomprehensible." It was argued that actions taken by any Government under such external pressure could not inspire much confidence. The author believed that it would be possible to judge the tsar's new concessions only when they were implemented. An extremely frank article ends with the remark that "Russia has already been given enough promises, and it's time to start acting" ^{[4, 31 Oct. 1905]}.

In Berlin, the reaction to the event in question was less optimistic. The correspondent of The Daily Telegraph & Courier wrote: "All segments of the population greeted this news with satisfaction, the degree of which varied depending on belonging to one or another political trend" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. As the journalist noted, "official circles took the manifesto very cautiously." In addition, there were concerns that "the complete collapse of the last pillar of autocracy in Europe may in some indefinite way affect the persistent monarchical institutions of Germany," but even in ultraconservative circles this point of view has not been widely disseminated. According to the author, the official point of view of the German establishment contained approximately the following beliefs: "political freedoms will make the Russian people a friendlier neighbor, less dangerous in times of international unrest and a better buyer of German products" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. Greater enthusiasm, in connection with the "fall of absolutism," prevailed in liberal circles and among socialists.

In Vienna, the Manifesto was greeted with "an almost indescribable feeling of relief and joy" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. The correspondent noted that no political event had made such an impression here for many years. Austria's political circles pinned high hopes "on the advent of a new era in Russia." The Austrians also highly appreciated the Manifesto itself, believing that it represented "a real, quite relevant and undisguised constitution." This message is complemented by a telegram from the Vienna correspondent of The Morning Post, which highly appreciated the creation of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire in a new form, which was "the surest sign of the reality of future progress." It was argued that it was "the anarchy that prevailed in Russian government departments that was the biggest obstacle to reform" ^{[4, October 31, 1905]}. In addition, the event of October 17, 1905 was perceived in Vienna as "Russia's entry into the ranks of constitutional states", which, in turn, was a "victory for European civilization" ^{[4, October 31, 1905]}.

Similar sentiments prevailed in Italy. As the correspondent of The Daily Telegraph & Courier reported, Rome hoped that this event would mark the beginning of a new era for Russia – "an era of tranquility, progress and prosperity" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. The author of the telegram associated such sincere wishes with the fact that Italy at that time had "significant common interests with Russia, especially in the commercial sphere and in foreign policy." It was also noted that King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, upon learning about the Manifesto, did not hide his pleasure. Even Pope Pius X "was very pleased when he was informed of this good news."

In New York, the largest city in the United States, official circles called the Manifesto "amazing" and also called it "the new Magna Carta, opening up a new Russia." It was recognized that the people had won a huge moral victory, which would serve as a guide for the future. The American public expressed great hopes that people would be able to cope with the task set before them, and in this regard it was noted that "Russians have already gained some experience of self-government in rural administrations and in provincial affairs." Most likely, the correspondent was referring to the experience of zemstvo institutions.

The Manifesto was ambiguously received in Toronto, Canada. As the correspondent of The Morning Post reported, the Canadian press expressed satisfaction that "Count Witte was able to persuade the emperor to freedom" ^{[4, October 31, 1905]}. However, there were concerns that this step was taken too late, and now "Russia is facing significant upheaval and suffering that could have been avoided if the Manifesto had been made public a few months earlier." At the same time, it was noted that numerous Russian settlers from Canadian cities "received the news of the liberation of Russia with great enthusiasm."

It is worth noting separately that The Daily Telegraph & Courier, like many other major British publications, provided information, among other things, about the impact of the Manifesto in question on Russian securities. The newspaper published data from the stock exchanges of Berlin, Vienna, New York and Paris. There was widespread growth in Russian stocks. For example, shares of the Russian Bank for Foreign Trade increased by 10%. The special optimism of German manufacturers was noted, who believed that "a new era of prosperity was opening for German trade with Russia" ^{[16, 1 Nov. 1905]}. At the same time, financiers of the New York Stock Exchange believed that it was still too early to assess all the consequences of events in Russia for securities, but the general mood, as the correspondent noted, was quite optimistic.

As you can see, the opinions of British correspondents regarding the events of October 17 differ in accordance with their political and ideological preferences and, in part, personal political experience. The journalist of the liberal "The London Daily News" expressed much higher hopes for the implementation of the provisions of the Manifesto than his colleagues from the conservative "The Morning Post", "The Pall Mall Gazette" and "The Daily Telegraph & Courier". However, all correspondents, although with varying degrees of optimism, did not abandon hopes that a constitutional system could be established in the Russian Empire. These views on the events taking place in Russia are typical for other British journalists who observed everything that was happening on the spot.