the German nationalists and Vice-President of the Reichsrath, even went so far in a speech to his constituents at Troppau as to declare that if the Germans in Austria failed to obtain a sufficient number of seats in the new Parliament "they will know how to find another Fatherland," and a resolution to that effect was unanimously passed; while the Pan-Germans took every opportunity of proclaiming their desire to exchange the Hapsburg rule for that of the Hohenzollerns. Their colleagues in Germany did their utmost to foster this sentiment. When the Vienna Choral Society went to Berlin in the autumn, the Burgomaster of that city referred to the feeling in both countries in favour of union; but the president of the society replied that neither his colleagues nor his fellow-countrymen generally gave any thought to such a union, and that any disloyal Germans who tried to talk in Austria of such new political formations would be very badly received.

On the question of the relations of Austria-Hungary with Italy, it was stated by the semi-official Fremdenblatt, on December 20, that "if the maintenance of the present state of things should prove impossible in Albania, autonomy on a national basis would take its place, as both Powers had come to an understanding that neither of them should endeavour to obtain an increase of territory there."

The visits of representatives of British municipalities to Hungary in June, of the Eighty Club in September, and of the British Chambers of Commerce in October, were marked by enthusiastic speeches on both sides expressive of the sympathy between the two nations, but mainly by exhortations from M. Kossuth, the Minister of Commerce, to invest English capital in Hungarian undertakings. German capital, he said, hitherto their chief support, had been almost completely withdrawn ; Austrian capital was hostile, and French was restricted almost entirely to mortgages on land. These visits, that of the Eighty Club especially, caused some ill-feeling in Austria in view of the recent conflict between the Emperor and the Coalition, by whose leading members the club and the other deputations had been invited and received.

The tariff war with Servia (p. 340) produced considerable resentment in Austria-Hungary towards that little State, though but little loss was suffered in the former country, nearly 90 per cent. of the total exports of Servia having hitherto come to Austria-Hungary while only 2 per cent. of Austro-Hungarian exports had gone to Servia; the estimated value of the former was 2,500,000l., of the latter only 1,500,000l.

CHAPTER III.

RUSSIA, TURKEY AND THE MINOR STATES OF EASTERN EUROPE.

I. RUSSIA.

THE Condition of Russia showed little improvement during 1906. Murders and robberies, political and other, were frequent; but the increased vigilance of the Government prevented large revolutionary movements like those of 1905. The suppression of the rising at Moscow inspired the authorities with greater confidence in the loyalty of the troops and stimulated them to more energetic efforts; stringent repressive measures were enforced all over the Empire, and the revolutionary organisations in the Baltic provinces, the Caucasus and the Kingdom of Poland were broken up; but this did not prevent isolated acts of vengeance or terrorism, which were generally regarded with indifference, and sometimes even with sympathy. During January seventyeight newspapers were suspended and fifty-eight editors arrested, thousands of political offenders were exiled to Siberia or detained in prison, nearly the whole of the Empire was placed under martial law, and although in his manifesto of October 30 the Emperor had declared it to be his "inflexible will" and an "immutable rule" that no law can come into force without the approval of the Duma (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1905, p. 320), numerous repressive laws were issued and carried out before that body met, which were such as no Duma could approve. The Liberals agreed in condemning these laws, which placed all political societies and public meetings practically under police control; but the wealthy members of that party who had subsidised the revolutionary propaganda ceased to do so, and the Revolutionists now began to rob banks, Government offices and State brandy shops in order to procure funds.

On March 5 an Imperial manifesto laid down regulations for the Duma and the Council of the Empire. The latter was to consist of an equal number of elected members and members nominated by the Emperor, and, together with the Duma, was to be convoked and prorogued annually by Imperial Ukase. The Assemblies were to have equal powers in initiating and passing legislation and in questioning Ministers. Every measure before being submitted for the Imperial sanction must be passed by both bodies and both might annul the election of any of their respective members. If, while the Duma was not sitting, an emergency should arise calling for legislation, the Council of Ministers might lay the matter before the Emperor for immediate decision. The measure thus decided upon must not, however, involve any change in the fundamental laws of the Empire, the regulations governing the procedure of either House, or the conduct of the elections; and it would be provisional, pending embodiment in

the Duma within the first two months of its next session. But should no such law be passed the provisional measure would remain in force.

Ukases published with the manifesto promulgated the new constitutions of the Council of the Empire and the Duma. The elective members of the Council would be eligible for nine years, one-third retiring triennially. Each Zemstvo of each Government would elect one member. Six members would be returned by the Synod of the Orthodox Church, six by the representatives of the Academy of Sciences and the Universities, twelve by those of the Bourses of commerce and of industry, eighteen by those of the nobility, and six by those of the landed proprietors of Poland. These latter would meet for the election at Warsaw, the representatives of the other bodies concerned at St. Petersburg. In those provinces of European Russia which have no Zemstvo, a congress of representatives of the landed proprietors was to assemble in the chief town of each province to elect one member for each province to the Council of the Empire.

All members of the Council must have attained their fortieth year and have an academical degree. The President and VicePresident would be appointed by the Tsar. The elective members would receive an honorarium of twenty-five roubles (21. 10s.) a day during the session. The sittings of both Assemblies would be public. A debate might be closured by a bare majority. Neither Assembly might receive deputations or petitions. Ministers would be eligible for the Duma, and, if elected, would be qualified to vote.

Laws voted by the two Houses would be submitted for the Imperial sanction by the President of the Council of the Empire. The members of both Houses would have personal immunity during the session, and they would only be liable to arrest with the permission of the respective Houses, except in cases of flagrant offences or offences committed in the exercise of their duties. Bills rejected by the Tsar could not be reintroduced during the same session, nor could Bills rejected by one House without the Imperial consent.

The elections for the Duma continued through the months of March and April. Notwithstanding the efforts of the police, they resulted in an overwhelming majority for the Constitutional Democrats, popularly known as the "Cadets," the initial letters of the Russian name of the party being "K. D." On May 2, just before the opening of the Duma, Count Witte resigned the Premiership. He had insisted on the immediate promulgation of new organic laws so as to leave him a free hand and deprive the Duma of all initiative in matters concerning the future government of the country, but as the Emperor would not consent, he had no alternative but to resign. He had striven throughout to make the promised reforms illusory, maintaining all the power of the autocracy, and giving the Duma merely the form without the reality of a Parliament. This manoeuvre

66

could only have been successful if a reactionist majority had been elected for the Duma. But it was now clear that this body would insist, if possible, on its right to participate in the government. The Tsar, in thanking Count Witte for his services, laid special stress on his having secured the success of a new loan for 92,000,000l., of which 50,000,000l. was taken in France and 30,000,000l. by the Russian banks. He was succeeded by M. Goremykin, whose first act as Prime Minister was the promulgation on May 8 of new organic laws which, though not going so far in restriction of the Duma as Count Witte's proposals, considerably modified the existing laws as to the legislative powers of and elections to the Council of the Empire. The Constitutional Democrats protested that the Duma should have been asked for its sanction. It was opened on May 10 with much ceremony in St. George's Hall, in the Winter Palace. But it at once became evident that the Tsar and the people were not reconciled. The Speech from the Throne was received in stony silence. It merely stated that the Tsar would watch over the stability of the institutions he had granted, declared that "order based on right," as well as liberty, was essential to the welfare of the State, and concluded with a prayer that the Almighty might help him and the Duma so that he might see his people happy," and "bequeath to his son as his inheritance a firmly established, well-ordered and enlightened State." The deputies then proceeded to the Tauris Palace, where they were to hold their sittings, and were received with great enthusiasm by the populace. They at once elected. as their President, M. Muromtseff, the senior deputy for Moscow. The first motion was made by M. Petrunkievitch, one of the oldest combatants for Russian freedom, who declared that "the first thought at the first assembly of the representatives of the Russian nation should be for those who have sacrificed their freedom for their country"; the Duma should claim an amnesty for the victims of freedom, and should insist on its right to initiate legislation, and to substitute for the autocracy a constitutional monarchy. This speech was received with rapturous applause; the demand for an amnesty was supported unanimously; the other demands were dissented from only by the small group of some thirty Conservatives who upheld the autocracy, and by the Octobrist party, which opposed any extension of the privileges granted by the Imperial Manifesto of October 30, 1905 (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1905, p. 319). The proposed amnesty was advocated at the second meeting of the Duma by deputies of all shades of opinion, among them several peasants. It was also demanded by the Council of the Empire, except for persons guilty. of homicide. The Address of the Duma in reply to the Speech from the Throne, unanimously passed on May 18 after four days' debate, laid stress on the necessity of universal suffrage and of the abolition of the old forms of government, invoked the promises of the Manifesto of October 30, severely censured the subsequent

repression, recommended Ministerial responsibility as the only method of impressing upon the nation that the Monarch is not answerable, and urged that without a Ministry chosen from the majority there could be no tranquil or regular work in the Duma. Before everything it was essential to cancel the state of siege throughout the land. The Council of the Empire in its existing form should be abolished, laws should be introduced guaranteeing the freedom and equality of all classes before the law, the abolition of all privileges based on class, religion or race, and of capital punishment, and the Duma should be granted the right of petition and of controlling loans.

The most important part of the Address dealt with the agrarian question. The Duma, it said, would fail in its duty if it did not issue a law satisfying the acute needs of the peasants by means of the lands belonging to the State, the Crown and the monasteries, and by the compulsory expropriation of private landed property. The Address further dwelt on the necessity of labour legislation, free education, economy in expenditure, and redistribution of the burden of taxation, of wide measures of local government, of satisfaction of the just claims of the various races and nationalities, and of women suffrage, and demanded "a full political amnesty as a pledge of mutual understanding and agreement between the Tsar and his people." The tone of the debate was, on the whole, moderate, and perfect order was maintained; several of the speeches were of a high order of eloquence, but as was to be expected from men without political experience, many crude and impractical ideas were expressed. All agreed that the land question, the most urgent of all, could only be practically solved by compulsory expropriation, though the Polish deputies pointed out that in the Polish provinces the peasants were sufficiently provided with land, and the land problem had consequently never become acute. Count Heyden, leader of the Right, and himself a large landowner, declared that under the circumstances "the rights of property must give way to the necessities of the State. This measure is in no sense revolutionary; it is simply a measure of pacification." As to Ministerial responsibility, only one of the deputies, M. Stakhovitch, dissented, arguing that Russia was not ripe for such a change. The Socialists wished to include the demand for an eight hours' day in the Address, but this was not approved by the majority, nor was the proposal of the Poles to include the demand for Polish autonomy, though it met with a good deal of sympathy. A deputation of the Duma was appointed to present the Address to the Tsar, but as the President was informed that the deputation would not be received, the document was sent to Peterhof by messenger.

In the Council of the Empire, after much desultory talk, mainly on the proposed amnesty, an Address was passed reaffirming the principle of autocracy, and recommending an