The content of the tsar's manifesto October 17, 1905. The highest manifesto on the improvement of the state order

36. Manifesto of October 17, 1905. “On the improvement of the state order” History of development, legal nature and political significance

Early 20th century - the time of the emergence of political parties, the official basis for the emergence of which appearedManifesto October 17, 1905,proclaimed freedom of speech, assembly and association.

In October, a strike began in Moscow, which swept the whole country and grew into the All-Russian October Political Strike. The government and Nicholas II were faced with the need to make a choice: restore order with an "iron hand" or make concessions. Count Sergei Witte, soon appointed head of the government, vigorously defended the second possibility. At the beginning of October 1905, Witte submitted to the tsar a "most submissive report", in which the task of the Government was proclaimed "the desire to implement right now, pending legislative sanction through the State Duma," civil liberties. It was immediately emphasized that "establishment of law and order" is a long-term matter. Here, Witte called the unification of ministries and the transformation of the State Council the most important measures to resolve the situation. this report was too moderate, and so it seemed even to Nicholas II. As a consequence, on October 14, he ordered Witte to draw up a manifesto for freedoms. Witte, in turn, instructed the Minister of Finance A.D. Obolensky. On October 17, Nicholas II signed the manifesto in the form in which A.D. Obolensky and N.I. Vuchetich under the leadership of Witte. The Supreme Manifesto on the improvement of the state order was promulgated on October 17, 1905. The historical significance of the Manifesto was in the distribution of the sole right of the Russian Emperor to legislate between, in fact, the monarch and the legislative (representative) body - the State Duma. Thus, a parliamentary system was introduced in Russia. The State Council (the highest legislative body of the Russian Empire, existing since 1810) became the upper house of parliament, the State Duma - the lower house. Sectors of the population that had previously been deprived of voting rights were involved in parliamentary elections. Without the approval of Parliament, no law could come into force. At the same time, the Emperor retained the right to dissolve the Duma and block its decisions with his right of veto. Subsequently, Nicholas II used these rights more than once.

Also, the Manifesto proclaimed and granted civil rights and freedoms, such as: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form associations. Thus, the manifesto was the forerunner of the Russian constitution.

The liberal public greeted the manifesto with jubilation. The goal of the revolution was considered achieved, the formation of the party of the Cadets was completed, the "Union of October 17" and other parties arose. The left circles, the Social Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries, were not in the least satisfied and decided to continue the struggle to achieve their programmatic goals. The publication of the manifesto also led to the most massive Jewish pogroms in the history of the Russian Empire.

October 30 (October 17 old style) 1905 Russian autocrat adopted the Manifesto for the Improvement of State Order. The manifesto distributed the formerly sole right of the Russian emperor to legislate between the monarch himself and the legislative (representative) body - State Duma ; introduced a number of civil rights and freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form unions and public organizations, freedom of conscience were proclaimed; suffrage was granted to those segments of the population that previously did not have it.

We talk with historian Fyodor Gaida about how events developed in Russia after the adoption of the manifesto and how the Church reacted to the manifesto, why such a phenomenon as the revolutionary priest G. Gapon became possible, about the responsibility of power and the lessons of history.

Fedor Alexandrovich, 110 years ago, a manifesto was adopted, which went down in history as the Manifesto of October 17th. Almost all history textbooks, reference books and many studies say that the manifesto was adopted by Nicholas II in order to stabilize the situation in the country. The essence of the manifesto was to make concessions to the workers and fulfill a number of their demands: to give civil rights and freedoms, thereby ending the chaos in the country. How did events develop in the country after the adoption of the manifesto? In what realities did Russia begin to live?

The manifesto, in principle, could not lead to the stabilization of the political situation in the country

It is an exaggeration to think that the October 17 Manifesto was adopted in order to calm the unrest in the country, that this is a concession to the workers. So thought the main initiator of the manifesto - the newly minted Count Sergei Yulievich Witte, who had just concluded the Peace of Portsmouth. He believed that the wave of strikes that swept through Russia could be brought down by creating a new government on new principles, which he was supposed to lead - and led. But let's see the text of the manifesto. It refers to the creation of a legislative body - the State Duma, that is, the limitation of autocracy. It was also said that broad sections of the population would be involved in the elections to the State Duma. But nothing was said about the main work requirements, and the main work requirements were of a socio-economic nature. First of all, of course, this is a reduction in the working day and an increase in wages. This, above all, had to be worried about, if the main task is to appease the workers.

Witte, by and large, used the labor movement for his own purposes and for the purposes of the opposition intelligentsia. He assumed that he would achieve this manifesto, then form a coalition government together with radical liberals, become prime minister and thus be the main political figure in Russia. He received support from the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, who had great influence on his nephew, Emperor Nicholas II. Together they were able to achieve the signing of the Manifesto. But no appeasement, as you know, did not come.

- But what really happened?

The manifesto came as a surprise to the whole country. The local authorities did not know that it was being prepared, for almost several days they did not interfere in any events at all, because they did not understand how to respond to them.

After the signing, the manifesto was distributed throughout the country, entered into force from the moment of publication - and immediately demonstrations with red banners appeared on the streets. The intelligentsia rejoiced - celebrated "freedom". A few days later, equally numerous demonstrations appeared, but with banners that advocated unlimited autocracy. Street clashes began, and the authorities did not interfere in any way, because they did not know what they should do. She had no instructions on this score: freedom had come. Later, in December, armed uprisings were attempted in a number of cities. The most famous is the uprising in Moscow, on Presnya. And only after the Moscow events a special act was adopted, according to which it was the workers who received several seats in the State Duma and could choose their representatives. But the significance of their votes for the State Duma was very small.

We must be aware that the Church did not have any organizational independence. She was part of the state apparatus. The Church was subordinate to the Synod, and the Synod was a body of state administration, and the Church could not take any independent steps without any state sanction. That's when the revolution of 1905 began, the Church, represented by the Synod, at the state initiative, issued an appeal condemning revolutionary manifestations, excesses, and violence. And how could the Church react to the events of October 1905? She couldn't criticize the tsar's manifesto! And his support was not required.

The opposition to the autocracy took advantage of the manifesto, and in fact it was an attempt to redistribute the state structure of Russia, the transformation of an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. Have the hierarchs of the Church spoken about this?

The conservative-minded hierarchs of the Church perceived everything that was happening with great skepticism. Of course, someone could hope in their hearts that the proclaimed rights and freedoms would positively influence the mood in the country.

Among the clergy were representatives of a variety of political views - from supporters of unlimited autocracy to explicit socialists

It is impossible to say that the clergy, including the episcopate, had a consolidated political position. At the beginning of the 20th century, among the Russian clergy there were representatives of a variety of political views - from supporters of unlimited autocracy, from those who actively supported the "Union of the Russian People", to obvious socialists. Everything was extremely difficult. And to a large extent - this is a consequence of the position that the Church had in the state and society. We see a complete lack of freedom, the ability to act independently, because the Church is included in the state mechanism. But there is also what is usually called a spiritual crisis. This is a complex phenomenon, which does not really mean purely. The processes took place in different directions. There was after all in part of society and spiritual revival.

Precisely because spiritual life was by that time in a kind of transitional state - new questions were raised, the intelligentsia was very keenly interested in religious problems, and therefore many of the hierarchs tried to establish a dialogue with the intellectual part of society - and so, due to these complex processes within the Church sentiments were very different. Basically, of course, conservative, but not all.

Speaking about the Church, about her reaction to the Manifesto of October 17, I would like to recall the event that preceded it - about January 9, 1905, "Bloody Sunday". Georgy Gapon, a former priest, was an active organizer of the procession to the Winter Palace. There are many myths around this historical figure. So who was Gapon - a provocateur or a convinced revolutionary? What did he want? Did he understand the consequences of his activities?

Georgy Gapon was a fairly sincere person, but, as often happens with people who are carried away, he turned out to be subject to the play of passions. He was vain. Despite his humble origin (he is from a simple family, originally from the Poltava province), he, thanks to his abilities, ended up in St. Petersburg, was able to establish relations with the capital's authorities. He had the gift of an orator, he could inspire his views to the common people - on this he tried to make a career.

The city authorities noticed him and attracted him to the so-called. "Zubatov movement".

- Please remind our readers what kind of movement this was.

The authorities, in order to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas among the workers, tried to carry out their policy among the workers. Such communities were organized, headed by people who enjoyed authority and influence among the workers and at the same time were secretly connected with the police apparatus. It was the idea of ​​the head of the Moscow security department of the Police Department Sergei Zubatov. These workers' societies organized the leisure of workers and mutual funds, were engaged in education, fought against drunkenness ... The movement had a large scope. But when the smell of revolution was in the air, the authorities began to curtail the movement, because they feared that they would no longer be able to control the workers' associations. In 1903, Zubatov was removed from this activity. But many of his associates continued their activities in the working environment.

Gapon believed: if sacrifices are needed, let there be sacrifices. The most important thing is to achieve “good” goals

One of them was Father Georgy Gapon, who immediately, as soon as the police ceased to control workers' associations, removed all agents from his organization. He made contacts with the opposition, imagined himself as a significant figure who could influence politics. In fact, he used the workers in the interests of the political struggle. They were given such demands that the authorities simply could not satisfy in principle. And the calculation was to organize a huge demonstration, to try to break through to the Winter Palace, and then ... He hoped that the authorities would make concessions, and if they did not, then blood would be shed - and then the authorities would be forced to make concessions. And what will happen to the workers, it did not interest him too much. He believed: if victims are needed, let there be victims. The most important thing is to achieve "good" goals. What are the good intentions? Universal suffrage, limitation of autocracy, land for peasants, 8-hour working day for workers. Such is the revolutionary program. And he was convinced that by fighting for the interests of the workers, they can be used in their own interests.

The revolution did not start on January 9 - it started earlier. There have already been attempts to make concessions to the liberal movement. And it was clear that these concessions must be about The great thing is that the opposition does not compromise, that it is behaving completely destructively. Interior Minister P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who was just advocating for these concessions, realized that his policy had reached a dead end. He resigned. By January 9, the country actually did not have a specific person responsible for ensuring security in the state. Gapon took advantage of this confusion of power. The situation was hyped by the liberals, but he fit in well with the general stream, brought the workers out into the street. Human lives were sacrificed for the revolution. And this was done completely consciously.

How did the Church react to such activity of a clergyman? And why do you think the clergyman became such a zealous revolutionary?

The Church condemned the revolutionary movement - the Synod condemned it. There was an appeal in which the flock was called upon not to participate in revolutionary excesses. Gapon was defrocked, while he declared that he was defrocking himself. He fled abroad, and for about a year the revolutionary emigration considered him the leader of the revolutionary movement in Russia - he had such colossal authority in the revolutionary environment. He wanted to unite all revolutionary parties in the struggle against the autocracy.

Why did the priest join the revolution? Because such a person will have influence in a wide popular environment. After all, the working environment did not really accept professional revolutionaries. And a persecuted spiritual shepherd could have influence. All revolutionaries understood this. Even Lenin understood and wrote about it.

Who can make demands on the king, God's anointed, sacred figure? - Representative of the clergy

Russia of that time was an illiterate and religious country. Who could lead the broad masses of the people? Priest! A person who seriously claims not only political, but also spiritual authority. He can lead to death. And the political struggle was then perceived as a religious struggle. After all, who can make demands on the king, God's anointed, sacred figure? - Representative of the clergy. All others simply will not have such charisma to speak with the king. Here's what to consider.

Gapon said: "My goal is holy - to lead the suffering people out of the impasse and save the workers from oppression." Many see in these words of his, and in other statements, a claim to messianism.

Quite right: the man imagined that such a prophetic ministry was assigned to him, that he, like Moses, would lead the people out of the darkness of Egypt and lead them to the promised land. In this case, the promised land was understood as a socialist future, where everyone will be full, satisfied, happy. He thought of himself in this way.

It is known that shortly before his death he became an opponent of the revolution and, if not quite a monarchist, then a man who understands how important autocracy is for Russia, for the people. Has his views really changed? Or was it some kind of political game?

I have already said above that, once abroad, he became at first a popular personality in a revolutionary environment. Then many of the revolutionary leaders began to be afraid of him, to perceive him as a competitor, to believe that he was playing some kind of game of his own. And Gapon himself became disillusioned with revolutionary activity. Gash. He had a mental crisis. And since the government also had its own agents in the revolutionary environment abroad, Gapon's change of mood became known in Russia - in certain circles. Witte, having become prime minister, made an attempt to negotiate with Gapon that he would return to Russia, would lead the workers' movement, which would be loyal to the authorities.

Another question is how serious Gapon's disappointment in the revolution was and whether he really wanted to play politics according to Witte's rules. It's a mystery. I'm afraid we won't be able to figure it out. We do not know what was going on in the soul of this man. But he arrived illegally in Russia, declared that he was ready to lead such a labor movement, but as soon as this became clear, the Socialist-Revolutionaries killed him.

They say that we should be grateful to the enemies - they teach us a lot. Lenin assessed the October 17 Manifesto as “a certain moment when the proletarians and peasantry, having wrested the manifesto from the tsar, are not yet able to overthrow tsarism, and tsarism can no longer control only the old means and is forced to promise in words civil liberties and a legislative Duma.” How would you comment on these words? And what does this historic event teach us - the adoption of the Manifesto on October 17?

The main historical lesson of this event is this: government is a huge business. What happened in October 1905? In the highest echelons of power, it was considered that if such a serious concession was made, then the revolution could be curtailed. Once - and everything will be arranged at once.

The opposition regarded the concessions of the authorities as the weakness of the authorities. And continued the attack on power

Indeed, the concession was serious: the manifesto limited the autocracy, a new political system was being established in Russia. But in the end, what happened? All oppositional forces, including liberals, seeing such a concession, considered: if the autocracy takes such serious measures, this means that further concessions can be demanded. The manifesto of October 17 caused a fit of stormy enthusiasm, but as soon as the euphoria passed, the opposition launched new offensives.

Witte thought that after the adoption of the manifesto, he would immediately come to an agreement with the liberals - but nothing of the kind happened. He invited the liberals to enter the government - they refused. They said: “You must organize elections to the Duma, and after the deputies are elected, you will transfer all power to the State Duma. And the State Duma will decide what kind of constitution to write for Russia, whether to give land to the peasants, etc. The Duma will already carry out all the necessary reforms, but we don’t need you. The old order must go after the elections to the Duma.” And when the First Duma was elected, the Cadets won there, that is, the radical liberals, who dreamed of turning the Duma into a battering ram against tsarist power. And that is why the government was forced to dissolve the Duma. The government changed, Stolypin became Minister of the Interior, Goremykin became Prime Minister; they came to the conclusion that - there's nothing to be done - such a Duma should be dissolved.

Then there was the Second Duma, which also had to be dissolved; then it was necessary to change the electoral law, the procedure for elections, to make the Duma more conservative in terms of social composition. And besides, to carry out reforms. For example, the Stolypin agrarian reform. And only when the authorities pulled themselves together and began to restore order, but at the same time carry out reforms, the revolution ended.

It's about who takes responsibility for the further development of the situation. If no one takes responsibility, then the situation starts to get out of control - and this is a revolution.

- So what should we conclude?

Those opposition forces that wrested the Manifesto from the hands of the tsar on October 17 counted on the fact that after that they would receive everything about big and b about big concessions. And therefore, in a situation of political crisis, one must always make very important decisions for oneself: what concessions to make. If these concessions are perceived as weakness, they will only worsen the situation.

The main historical lesson is this: running a state is a huge responsibility

Remember how events unfolded in March 1917. The emperor signs the renunciation manifesto because he believes that with this step he will stabilize the situation in the country. In the manifesto, he directly states this: if I am an obstacle to victory in the war, if my figure can cause a civil war, then I am leaving. But did those who sought renunciation act responsibly? This concession is perceived as a weakness of the authorities, and then the collapse begins. In 1905-1906, the authorities were able to bring the situation back under control. In 1917, no more. Politics is a responsible business, and it must be carried out responsibly.

Topic 27. THE FIRST RUSSIAN BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION (1905-1907)

Plan:

Background of the revolution 5. Formation of liberal parties

Revolutions in Russia (Moscow armed uprising)

Main events of the revolution 7. Decline of the revolution

1. The main prerequisites for the revolution of 1905-1907. there was the preservation of feudal remnants in the economic (landownership, peasant community, striped, labor system) and political (tsarist autocracy, preservation of class privileges, lack of democratic rights and freedoms) system of the country. The accelerator of the revolution was the Russo-Japanese War, unsuccessful for Russia.

2. The revolution wore bourgeois-democratic character, since its main task was the elimination of the remnants of the feudal system. However, unlike similar revolutions in the West, it had a number of features:

The main driving forces were the proletariat, the peasantry and the liberal bourgeoisie. Moreover, the main and most consistent political force in the revolution was not the bourgeoisie (in Russia it was indecisive and weak), but the proletariat, ready to go to the end in achieving its goals.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that the revolution took on a national tinge in the outskirts of the country, where representatives of the national bourgeoisie and the working class declared their own interests;

In addition, the political parties had a different idea of ​​the revolution that had begun: the Bolsheviks set the stage for the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one, while the Mensheviks believed that this was out of the question until the proletariat became the majority of the country's population;

Revolutionary events developed through the interaction and struggle of three political camps: government, liberal and revolutionary.

3. Revolutionary events began on January 9, 1905, when an organized peaceful demonstration of St. Petersburg workers, led by priest Gapon, moved to the Winter Palace. They carried a petition to the tsar asking for an 8-hour day and a minimum wage, but in response they were shot by the troops.

The construction of barricades began in the capital, and a wave of indignation swept across the country. The king was nicknamed "Bloody". Mass demonstrations began in various regions.

Two main stages can be distinguished in the revolution: the stage of the growth of the revolutionary struggle (January - December 1905) and its decline (end of December 1905 - June 1907).

At the first stage, one should single out the 72-day strike of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk workers, who for the first time put forward, in addition to economic, radical political demands (the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the introduction of political freedoms, etc.). Here the first in Russia Council of authorized deputies was formed.

On June 14, 1905, an uprising began on the battleship Potemkin (Black Sea Fleet), the participants of which raised the red flag and counted on the support of other ships of the squadron. The battleship Potemkin sailed the Black Sea for 11 days - from June 27 to July 7, 1905.

In Łódź, the general strike of workers in June 1905 developed into an armed uprising.

In August 1905, the first mass organization in the countryside arose - the All-Russian Peasant Union, in which the leading positions belonged to the Social Revolutionaries and liberals. They proposed declaring the land the property of the whole people, but opposed violent forms of struggle.

Bottom line: over 2 million people took part in the all-Russian political strike in October 1905. Along with the workers, students, teachers, doctors, employees of state institutions also became its participants. The main demands of the strikers were the establishment of an 8-hour working day, the proclamation of democratic freedoms, and the convening of a Constituent Assembly.

4. In the conditions of an acute revolutionary struggle, the tsar was forced to sign the manifesto “On the Improvement of the State Order” compiled by S. Yu. Witte, in which he proclaimed political freedoms of speech, conscience, assembly and unions and announced the convocation of the legislative body of the State Duma. The liberal opposition perceived this document as the end of the revolution and the beginning of the constitutional order in Russia. With his manifesto, the tsar, in fact, won the liberal camp over to his side.

5. The process of forming a legal multi-party system in the country began. Two large political parties were created - the "Union of October 17" (the leaders of which were the large breeder A. I. Guchkov) and the Constitutional Democratic Party (its leader was the famous historian Professor

P.N. Milyukov). The programs of both parties were aimed at the formation of a constitutional-monarchist system.

6. Despite the adoption of the Manifesto, the unrest did not stop. In November, the leadership of the Peasant Union, dissatisfied with the fact that the agrarian question had not yet been resolved, announced that they were joining the general strike of workers. The performances in the army did not stop either. In November, there was an uprising on the cruiser "Ochakov" under the leadership of Lieutenant P.P. Schmidt.

The apogee of the revolution was the December armed uprising in Moscow (December 6-19). Presnya became the center of the struggle. But the forces were too unequal. On December 19, the uprising was stopped by order of the revolutionary council. Thousands of hanged, shot and arrested workers became victims of this struggle, doomed to defeat. By order of the new Prime Minister P.G. Stolypin, about 4 thousand gallows were installed on Presnya, which were immediately called "Stolypin's ties."

Armed demonstrations also took place in Sormovo, Krasnoyarsk, and Chita. All of them were crushed by the troops. There were no other major armed uprisings by the workers. However, peasant uprisings not only did not stop, but even intensified (in April 1906 there were 47 of them, and in June - already 739). It was urgent to carry out agrarian reform.

7. The elections and the beginning of the work of the State Duma largely contributed to the calming down of revolutionary activity. But the 1st State Duma began its work in April 1906 and lasted 72 days (it was dissolved in July 1906). The 2nd State Duma existed from February to June 1907 and was also dissolved by the tsar. Both Dumas did not suit the tsar because they put the main question for consideration - the question of land, the allocation of land to the peasants without redemptions and payments, the transfer of landowners' land to public ownership. The adoption by the tsar of the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire, which limited the power of the monarch and therefore was perceived in the circles of the liberal public as the first Russian constitution, also served as a reason to calm the rebels.

8. Results of the revolution: The first Russian revolution was unfinished, because. she could not solve all the problems that gave birth to her. But, nevertheless, the authorities were forced to make concessions. The proletariat managed to achieve a reduction in the working day to 9-10 hours, a certain increase in wages. For the peasants, the redemption payments that they had made since 1861 were canceled. Workers were given the opportunity to create trade unions, insurance organizations in case of injury and death. The king granted some democratic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, inviolability of the person, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. The right to convene the first legislative body, the State Duma, was obtained

The revolution drew large sections of the population into active political life.

Revolution 1905-1907 was of great historical importance. she showed the authorities that their choice in pursuing policy lies between reforms and revolution, and in case of delay, this threatens with a social explosion. In 1905-1906. under the pressure of popular discontent, the tsarist government made serious changes in the political and economic system of the country, which created an opportunity for the progressive and relatively calm development of Russian society.

Questions for knowledge control

1. What were the causes of the first Russian revolution?

2. Determine the nature and driving forces of the revolution.

3What social strata took part in the revolution? What demands did they make to the authorities?

4. Track how the behavior of the authorities changed in the first period of the revolution.

5. Is it possible to agree with the traditional definition of the October strike as an All-Russian political strike?

6. Analyze the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. What concessions did the tsar have to make and why?

7. Why do you think the Cadets and Octobrists were satisfied with the results of the revolution?

8. How did the system of public authorities change during the revolution? Is it possible to agree with the definition of the political system in Russia, given in one of the German newspapers: "A parliamentary empire with an autocratic tsar"?

Similar information.

Defeat of the revolution.

The manifesto of October 17, 1905 became the second after the reforms of the 60s. 19th century the biggest step along the path of political transformation of the Russian state.

Under the influence of the October strike, the government was forced to make concessions. On October 17, 1905, the emperor signed the Manifesto, according to which it was promised:

• - convene the State Duma, endowed with legislative powers;
• - provide the population with democratic freedoms - speech, assembly, press, conscience;
• - introduce universal suffrage;

Many questions remained unresolved: how exactly the autocracy and the Duma would be combined, what were the powers of the Duma. The question of a constitution was not raised at all in the Manifesto.

The forced concessions of tsarism, however, did not weaken the intensity of the social struggle in society. The conflict between the autocracy and the conservatives supporting it, on the one hand, and the revolutionary-minded workers and peasants, on the other, is deepening. Between these two fires were the liberals, in whose ranks there was no unity. On the contrary, after the publication of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, the forces in the liberal camp became even more polarized.

In the autumn and winter of 1905, the revolutionary movement culminated in Moscow, where the political strike began. The workers demanded an 8-hour working day, higher wages. On October 6, the workers of the railway workshops went on strike. And on October 15, the strike turned into an All-Russian political strike under the slogans: "Down with the autocracy!", "Long live the popular uprising!" Demands for democratic freedoms and the convening of a Constituent Assembly were also put forward. The October political strike was led by Soviets of Workers' Deputies, formed following the example of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Soviet. 2 million people took part in the political strike: workers, engineers, doctors, teachers, journalists, actors, students, and others.

Peasant uprisings covered 1/3 of the counties of Russia. Nicholas II was forced to issue a decree on the termination of the collection of redemption payments from the peasants.

The system of representative institutions was introduced in Russia by a number of state acts, starting with the Manifesto on August 6, 1905, and ending with the Fundamental State Laws on April 23, 1906. According to the original draft (August 6, 1905), the State Duma was supposed to be a "legislative institution" elected by on the basis of qualified representation from the three curiae. The aggravation of the political situation soon required a revision of the project.

On December 11, 1905, after the defeat of the armed uprising in Moscow, a decree “On changing the situation on elections to the State Duma” was issued, which significantly expanded the circle of voters. Almost the entire male population of the country over the age of 25, except for soldiers, students, day laborers and some nomads, received voting rights. The right to vote was not direct and remained unequal for voters of different categories (curia).

Deputies were elected by electoral assemblies, consisting of electors from each province and a number of large cities. The electors were elected by four separate elector curiae: landowners, city dwellers, peasants and workers. Landowners with a full land qualification (150 acres) directly participated in district congresses of landowners who voted for electors from the province. The small landowners elected delegates to the uyezd congress, one for each full qualification.

Peasant elections were four-staged: first, representatives were elected to the volost gathering, then to the county congress of representatives from the volosts, “at the congress, electors were elected to the provincial electoral assembly. The workers elected a congress of their representatives, at which electors were elected to the electoral assembly of the provinces or a large city.

By the beginning of the XX century. national and national-religious contradictions intensified in Russia. Social tension was growing: the labor movement was expanding, large-scale peasant uprisings were taking place.

Defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. contributed to the growth of revolutionary sentiment.

On the way to constitutional construction in Russia, the most important documents were the Manifesto of August 6, 1905 “On the establishment of the State Duma” and the Regulations on elections to it, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 “On the improvement of the state order” and the Fundamental Laws of April 23, 1906.

According to the August Manifesto and Regulations, the State Duma was a representative body elected for five years on the basis of qualification and estate suffrage. Elections were held in three curiae: county landowners, urban and peasant. The system of qualifications deprived workers, farm laborers, the petty and middle bourgeoisie, and other categories of the population from voting rights. The competence of the Duma included: the development and discussion of laws, the discussion of the state budget, etc. The revolutionary events of 1905 disrupted the convocation of the State Duma.

On October 17, 1905, the manifesto "On the improvement of the state order" announced the transition of the country to a new system - a constitutional monarchy. The manifesto proclaimed basic civil rights and freedoms (inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly, unions, etc.), granted voting rights to the general population, and also expanded the rights of the State Duma, declaring it a body that limited monarchical power.

The Basic Laws established a bicameral parliamentary system and retained fairly broad powers of imperial power.

The constitutional concessions made by the government were due to the strengthening of the revolutionary movement, and not to the influence of liberal ideas and programs.

The fundamental laws consolidated such civil rights and freedoms as the inviolability of home and property, freedom of movement, choice of profession, speech, press, assembly, religion, etc.

From the Fundamental Laws, the characterization of the emperor's power as unlimited power was eliminated, but all the main prerogatives of the imperial power were preserved: "The Emperor of All Russia owns the supreme autocratic power."

The power of management belonged to the emperor in its entirety. In accordance with Art. 7 the emperor exercised legislative power "in unity with the State Council and the State Duma." In general, the Basic Laws enshrined the principle of separation of powers.

The Fundamental Laws gave the State Duma and the State Council the right to initiate legislation, they received the right to approve, reject or rework bills submitted by the government.

The king had an absolute veto. However, the Duma could reconsider the issue rejected by the tsar, and thereby put pressure on him.

On February 20, 1906, a new regulation on the State Duma was adopted. This act determined its competence: preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals, approval of the state budget, discussion of issues on the construction of railways and the establishment of joint-stock companies. Bills adopted by the Duma were subject to approval by the State Council and the emperor.

The Duma was elected for a term of five years. The removal of deputies of the State Duma could be carried out by the Senate. The emperor, by his decree, could dissolve the Duma ahead of schedule.

On February 20, 1906, simultaneously with the establishment of the State Duma, a new Regulation on the State Council was approved.

The State Council became the upper house, which had the same rights as the State Duma. The bills adopted by the State Duma were submitted through the State Council for approval by the emperor.

The composition of the Council was formed as follows: half of the members were appointed by the emperor, the other half were elected by noble societies, provincial and zemstvo assemblies, large industrialists and merchants, the synod, the Academy of Sciences and universities. Members of the Council were elected for 9 years, and every three years 1/3 of the composition was renewed. The State Council was headed by a chairman and vice-chairman appointed by the emperor.

More on the topic 39. Manifesto of October 17, 1905: general characteristics, meaning .:

1. October 17, 1905 "The Highest Manifesto" on the granting of "unshakable foundations of civil freedom."
2. MANIFESTO ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE STATE ORDER OCTOBER 17, 1905 BASIC STATE LAWS 1906
3. Meeting to consider the proposals of the Council of Ministers on the means of implementing the highest precepts announced in paragraph 2 of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905
4. October 19, 1905 Reforming the activities of the Council of Ministers.
5. CHAPTER 9. The Soviet state and law in October 1917 - 1953 General characteristics of the state-legal policy of the Bolsheviks in 1917-1953.