Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T12:55:41.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Significance of Emergency Legislation in Late Imperial Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Jonathan W. Daly
Jonathan W. Daly*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Illinois at Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Not one inhabitant is shielded from the proizvol [arbitrary power] of gendarmes.

—St. Petersburg Governor, 1906

We are incapable of imagining a governor who cannot, according to his discretion and without a trial, summarily arrest, exile and impose ruinous fines.

—Vladimir Gessen, 1908

Commentators on the imperial Russian polity have regarded the Security Law of 14 August 1881, which invested administrative officials with broad discretionary powers, as the keystone of the developing Russian police state, the virtual cause of the 1905 revolution, even “Russia's de facto constitution.” In truth, it merely codified and, in many respects, actually limited the powers granted by emergency measures adopted in the late 1870s, at the height of the terrorist campaign to murder Alexander II. The Judicial and Zemstvo Reforms of 1864 had marked the beginning of the development of the rule of law and a respect for civil rights in Russia, and the emergency legislation adopted between 1866 and 1881 was an only partially successful attempt by administrative Russia to return to traditional patterns of arbitrariness, or proizvol. Late imperial Russia's emergency legislation, in other words, was not a turning point on the path toward a modern “police state“ but a sign of that country's uneasy transition from an absolutist to a constitutional order.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , Fall 1995 , pp. 602 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to Theodore Taranovski, Edward Thaden, James Cracraft, Dominic Lieven, Scott B. Smith and Scott Lyden for generous and insightful criticism. Research for this article was supported in part by grants from the Campus Research Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago and from the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the United States Information Agency. None of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed.

1. Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974), 305 Google Scholar; Gessen, V. M., lskliuchitel'noe polozhenie (St. Petersburg: Pravo, 1908), 171 Google Scholar; V.I. Lenin, “Tri zaprosa” (December 1911), Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 5th ed., 55 vols, [hereafter: PSS] (Moscow: Cos. izd. politicheskoi literatury, 1958–65), 21: 114. See also N.I. Faleev, “Rossiia pod okhranoi (istoricheskii ocherk),” Byloe 2 (October 1902): 5; Zaionchkovskii, P.A., Krizis samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870—1880-x godov (Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta, 1964), 407.Google Scholar

2. This issue will receive thorough treatment in my study forthcoming.

3. Theodore Taranovski furnishes a brilliant analysis of these bureaucratic cleavages in “The Politics of Counter-reform: Autocracy and Bureaucracy in the Reign of Alexander III, 1881–1894” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1976).

4. Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 1.

5. For a penetrating examination of the Polizeistaat, see Raeff, Marc, The Well-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven; Yale University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

6. “Uchrezhdenie Ministerstva vnutrennikh del,” Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii [hereafter SZ], vol. 1, part 2, art. 314.

7. See Szeftel, Marc, “Personal Inviolability in the Legislation of the Russian Absolute Monarchy,” American Slavic and East European Review 17 (1958): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Ustav ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [hereafter: UUS], SZ, vol. 5, part 2, arts. 1000, 1030–1065; cf. arts. 249–314.

9. LeDonne, John, “Criminal Investigation Before the Great Reforms,” Russian History 1 (1974): 102–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 9th ed. (N. Y.: Macmillan, 1948), 202.Google Scholar

11. See Wortman, Richard S., The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 75–85, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii [hereafter: PSZ], series 2, vol. 41, part 1, no. 43501 (22 July 1866).

13. PSZ, series 2, vol. 46, part 1, no. 49615, art. 24 (19 May 1871).

14. Lopukhin, A. A., Iz itogov sluzhebnogo opyta. Nastoiashchee i budushchee russkoi politsii (Moscow: Tip. V.M. Sablina, 1907), 15.Google Scholar

15. Burtsev, Vladimir, comp., Za sto let (1800–1896): Sbornik po istorii politicheskikh i obshchestvennykh dvizhenii v Rossii (London: “Russian Free Press Fund,” 1897), 2: 78.Google Scholar

16. PSZ, series 2, vol. 47, part 1, no. 50956. The law also empowered the emperor to create at his discretion a special ad hoc court (verkhovnyi ugolovnyi sud) for any statecrime case. The reform of 1864 had permitted trying behind closed doors only persons accused of insulting the tsar and his family (UUS, art. 1056).

17. PSZ, series 2, vol. 49, part 1, no. 53606. Membership in secret societies had been made illegal on 27 March 1867 (ibid., vol. 42, part. 1, no. 44402).

18. Burtsev, Za sto let, 2: 84, 91–2; Venturi, Franco, Roots of Revolution, trans. Haskell, Francis (New York: Knopf, 1960), 501–6.Google Scholar

19. Burtsev, Za sto let, 1: 137–40; Venturi, Roots, 600–7.

20. PSZ, series 2, vol. 53, part 2, nos. 58488 and 58489.

21. PSZ, series 2, vol. 53, part 2, no. 58778. Military courts occasionally had tried civilians beginning in the 1830s (see LeDonne, John, “Civilians Under Military Justice During the Reign of Nicholas I,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 7 [Summer 1973]: 171–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar). On military judicial procedure, see Fuller, William C. Jr., “Civilians in Russian Military Courts, 1881–1904,” Russian Review 41 (July 1982): 288–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Probably only coincidentally a law of 8 August authorized police and gendarme officials to enter any factory at any time in order to search or arrest any person (PSZ, series 2, vol. 53, part 2, no. 58777).

22. Faleev, “Rossiia pod okhranoi,” 5.

23. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 76–77.

24. Catherine II had created the position of governor general in 1775 as “ministers in the field” to oversee her new governors. Partially abolished by Paul I, the office became limited to the borderlands and, occasionally, the imperial capitals (Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [St. Petersburg: Brokgauz i Efron, 1893], 9A: 840–1).

25. Aware that the decree essentially overturned the principle of the rule of law, in an attempt to justify the act, a lengthy preamble was attached (PSZ, series 2, vol. 54, part 1, no. 59476). On the procedure for such transfers, see ibid., no. 59491 (8 April).

26. PSZ, series 2, vol. 54, part 1, no. 59531; Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 87n.

27. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 91–98, 113, 124.

28. Burtsev, la sto let, 1: 151–54.

29. Venturi, Roots, 637–39. The attempts occurred on 18 and 19 November 1879, 5 February 1880 and 1 March 1881. Three others attempted regicide: Dmitrii Karakozov (4 April 1866), Anton Berezovskii (Paris, 25 May 1867) and Aleksandr Solov'ev (2 April 1879) ( Troitskii, N. A., “Narodnaia volia” pered tsarskim sudom, 1880–1891 gg. [Saratov: Izd. Saratovskogo universiteta, 1971], 202n Google Scholar).

30. In Russian: Verkhovnaia Rasporiaditel'naia Komissiia po okhraneniiu gosudarstvennogo poriadka i obshchestvennogo spokoistviia.

31. Burtsev, Za sto let, 2: 103; PSZ, series 2, vol. 54, part 2, no. 60492, art. 9. The future Alexander III supported him fully (see Heilbronner, Hans, “Alexander III and the Reform Plan of Loris-Melikov, “Journal of Modern History 33 [December 1961]: 384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

32. PSZ, series 2, vol. 55, part 1, no. 61279. The department of state police merged with the department of executive police and was renamed the Departament politsii in 1883.

33. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samederzhaviia, 80; I.V. Orzhekhovskii, Samoderzhavieprotiv revoliutsionnoi Rossii (1826–1880) (Moscow: Mysl', 1982), 173.

34. Heilbronner, “Alexander III and the Reform Plan of Loris-Melikov,” 385–86.

35. See, for example, Miliutin, D. A., Dnevnih DA. Miliutina, ed. Zaionchkovskii, P.A. (Moscow: Gos. biblioteka SSSR imeni Lenina, 1950), 4: 25–26 Google Scholar; Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 284–85.

36. Burtsev, Za sto let, 2: 102–6; Venturi, Roots, 685; Troitskii, Narodnaia volia, 17.

37. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 291.

38. Although most legislation came before the state council, “politically sensitive” acts were sometimes promulgated by the committee of ministers (Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 19–20).

39. PSZ, series 3, vol. 1, no. 350, or SZ, 1892, vol. 14, addendum 1.

40. Fundamental Laws, SZ, vol. 1, part 1, arts. 53 and 70.

41. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 305–13, 392.

42. Miliutin, Dnevnik, 4: 54.

43. It is true that the security arrangements were extensive (see K.P. Pobedonostsev i ego korrespondenty. Pis'ma i zapiski [Moscow: Gos. izd., 1923], vol. 1, part 1, p. 91).

44. Peretts, E. A., Dnevnik E.A. Perettsa (1880–1883) (Moscow: Gos. izd., 1927), 82, 84–85Google Scholar. See also Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 301, 407; Hans Heilbronner, “The Administrations of LorisMelikov and Ignatiev, 1880–1882” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1954), 285.

45. Peretts, Dnevnik; Miliutin, Dnevnik; Valuev, P. A., Dnevnik (1877–1884), eds. V.Ia. Iakovlev-Bogucharskii, and Shchegolev, P.E. (Petrograd: Izd. “Byloe,” 1919), 171 Google Scholar. It is true that each of these members of the State Council might have voted against the bill, which is presumably why the government submitted it to the committee of ministers for approval.

46. Valuev, Dnevnik, 171.

47. Michael Aronson, I., Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990), 164–66, 173Google Scholar; Wynn, Charters, Workers, Strikes, and Pogroms: The Donbass-Dnepr Bend in Late Imperial Russia, 1870–1905 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 110.Google Scholar

48. Poland was the single exception.

49. Aronson, Troubled Waters, 50–54.

50. Fuller, “Civilians in Russian Military Courts,” 294.

51. “Obzor deiatel'nosti Departamenta politsii za tsarstvovanie v Boze pochivshego Gosudaria Imperatora Aleksandra III … 1 marta 1881—20 oktiabr'ia 1894,” GARF, f. 102, op. 253, d. 98, 1. 5.

52. Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii pravitel'stva, izdavaemye pri Pravitel'stvuiushchem senate [hereafter: SU], 9 September 1881, no. 94, art. 616, 1554–1555.

53. Donald Rawson's chart indicating year-by-year declarations of the Security Law is useful, but contains a few errors, stops in 1912 and lists only provinces, whereas numerous districts, towns and regions were also affected (“The Death Penalty in Late Tsarist Russia: An Investigation of Judicial Procedures,” Russian History 11 [Spring 1984]: 44–45). See also L.I. Tiutiunnik, “Departament politsii v bor'be s revoliutsionnym dvizheniem v Rossii na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov (1880–1904 gg.)” (Kand. diss., MGIAI, 1986), 283–88.

54. SU, 9 September 1881, no. 94, art. 616. According to Russia's Fundamental Laws, no act, not even an imperial ukase, had force of law without publication by the senate (SZ, vol. 1, part 1, art. 56). As the unpublished imperial act of 1 September 1878 demonstrated, however, this rule was not always observed.

55. In Russian, Pravila dlia mestnostei, neob “iavlennykh v iskliuchilel'nom polozhenii.

56. Officials could detain prospective exiles while awaiting the committee's decision (art. 33, note). It seems unlikely that police or gendarmes would have frequently elected to use this provision as a mere substitute for detention, since it meant presenting a reasonably solid case for exile.

57. See the unpublished elucidation of the Security Law: police circular, 5 September 1881, RGIAgM, f. 46, op. 1, d. 1374, 11. 127–133 ob: from a typed copy furnished to me by Iu.F. Ovchenko.

58. A law of 13July 1876 had permitted administrative officials to impose binding orders but limited fines to fifteen rubles (PSZ, series 2, vol. 51, part 2, no. 56203).

59. Dokladnaia zapiska direktora departamenta politsii Lopukhina, rassmotrennaia v Komitete Ministrov … ianvaria 1905 g., preface by N. Lenin (Geneva: Izd. Vpered, 1906), 3.

60. One must distinguish this from exile to a specified place.

61. PSZ, series 2, vol. 54, part 2, no. 59947.

62. Or, in jurisdictions not subordinated to governors general, specially appointed commanders-in-chief (glavnokomanduiushchie).

63. Of course, legal distinctions between the Security Law and the preceding emergency legislation constitute only part of the story, especially since the powers granted by the former were so vaguely defined. Only further archival research will permit the thorough illumination of this issue.

64. On this see Raeff, Marc, Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia (Boulder: Westview Press: 1994), esp. chs. 7, 8, 17–20 Google Scholar; idem., The Well-Ordered Police State.

65. See Taranovski, “The Politics of Counter-reform. ”

66. This language is imprecise. “Exile” should be rendered as ssylka, since vysylka means “banishment” (or “exile from ”).

67. A law of 11 July 1887 (PSZ, series 3, vol. 7, no. 4651) extended this to include all “persons harmful (vrednyi) to state and public tranquility. ”

68. Gessen, lskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 161–65.

69. Pipes, Richard, The Russian Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1991), 75.Google Scholar

70. Mulukaev, R. S., Politsiia v Rossii, XIX v.—nach. XX v. (Nizhnii Novgorod: n.p., 1993), 46–47.Google Scholar

71. Tiutiunnik, “Departament politsii,” 51.

72. Small towns were likewise empowered to request the exile of their undesirable inhabitants until a law of 10 June 1900 restricted this prerogative to the villages (see Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 42–47). This practice of “grass-roots” administrative punishment has unfortunately not attracted scholarly attention.

73. Police circular, 5 September 1881, RGIAgM, f. 46, op. 1, d. 1374, 11. 132–33.

74. Mulukaev, Politsiia v Rossii, 46.

75. The number of political banishments must have been greatly inferior.

76. On this case, see Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 232–44.

77. PSZ, series 3, vol. 15, no. 12223.

78. This restriction apparently applied only to persons banished for non-political reasons.

79. Fuller, “Civilians in Russian Military Courts,” 293, 297–305; “Obzor deiatelnosti Departamenta politsii,” GARF, f. 102, op. 253, d. 98, 1. 41; Szeftel, “Personal Inviolability,” 19n.

80. P.A. Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontse XIX stoletiia (Politicheskaia reaktsiia 80-x—nachala 90-x godov) (Moscow: Mysl', 1970), 158; “Obzor deiatel'nosti Departamenta politsii,” 1. 7.

81. Dokladnaia zapiska … Lopukhina, 7. For more examples of binding orders regulating non-security matters, see Penkin, B.N., ed., Pamiatnaia knizhka Moskovskoi gubernii na 1909 god (Moscow: Gubernskaia tip., 1908), 149–51Google Scholar. On this broadly, see Gessen, Iskliuchitel'rwe polozhenie, 218–32.

82. Faleev, “Rossiia pod okhranoi,” 24–28. See also Fuller, “Civilians in Russian Military Courts,” 292.

83. Taranovski, “The Politics of Counter-reform,” 270–81; Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie, 217–33.

84. SU, 9 September 1881, no. 94, art. 616.

85. On the “counter-reforms” see Taranovski, “The Politics of Counter-reform,” chap. 5; Vilenskii, , Sudebnaia reforma i kontrreforma v Rossii (Saratov: Privolzhskoe knizhnoe izd., 1969)Google Scholar, chap. 5; Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie, 218–25.

86. Reinforced security was rescinded in five provinces in 1882 and 1889 and declared in part of Turkestan in 1894 (Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie, 156).

87. Miliutin, Dnevnik (21 April 1881), 4: 57; Sol'skii cited in Peretts, Dnevnik (14 March 1881): 47–48.

88. Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 2–3, 276–77, 370–72; Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia, 187.

89. See, for example, police department [hereafter: DP] to gendarmes, 26 June 1887, GARF, f. 102, op. 260, d. 257, 1. 4.

90. Bel'chikov, N., ed., “Zapiska Murav'eva o politicheskom rozyske,” in Russian SFSR, Glavarkhiv, Sbornik materialov i statei (Moscow: Gos. izd., 1921), 1: 180–84.Google Scholar

91. Correspondence, DP and Moscow Okhrana Bureau, 6 June 1898, GARF, f. 102, OO, 1898, d. 2, ch. 1. lit. a, 11. 132–3; 4 February 1899, ibid., 1899, d. 564, 1. 18; Zubatov to Rataev, 19 December 1899, ibid., 1898, 00, d. 2, ch. 1, lit. b, 1. 109.

92. Zubatov to Rataev, 14 October 1900, GARF, f. 102, op. 316, 1908, d. 538 11 279–80.

93. Taranovski, “The Politics of Counter-reform,” 189.

94. It was canceled in 1902 in the last five cities (Tiutiunnik, “Departament politsii,” 287–88).

95. PSZ, series 3, vol. 24, part 1, no. 23958. Gessen cites 6 such cases in 1904, 7 each in 1905 and 1906, and 21 in 1907 (Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 210–11).

96. See, for example, PSZ, series 3, vol. 24, part 1, 25599 (31 December 1904).

97. PSZ, series 3, vol. 24, part 1, no. 24732 .

98. Dokladnaia zapiska … Lopukhina, 12.

99. Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 270–77. A later (1 February 1906) MVD directive echoed this concern (GARF, f. 280, op. 5, d. 5000, ch. 12, 1. 21).

100. PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, part 1, no. 25642. The post was abolished on 10 November (ibid., no. 26893).

101. PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, nos. 25802, 25819, and 25929.

102. DP-7 (7th Bureau) directive, 20 October 1905, RGIAgM, f. 46, op. 17, d. 88, 1.1. DP-5 directive, 26 October 1905, Paris Okhrana, Hoover Institution Archives, XIII(d)l, 9.

103. See Ascher, Abraham, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 275–78.Google Scholar

104. PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, pt. 1, nos. 25802, 25819, 25292, 26065, 26173, 26758, 26759.

105. When the Russo-Japanese war began in February 1904 (n.s.), much of eastern Siberia fell under martial law, as did, several months later, a few strategic localities in European Russia (e.g. Kronsladt, Sevastopol and Kurland) (“Mestnosti, sostoiashchiia na voennom polozhenii,” GARF, f. 102, op. 302, d. 4, 11. 1–3).

106. “Pravila o mestnostiakh, ob” iavlennykh sostoiashchimi na voennom polozhenii,” in SZ (1892 ed.), vol. 2, part 1, art. 23, append. See also Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 205–6.

107. PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, part 1, no. 26899.

108. “Memoriia ob otmene voennogo polozheniia v Tsarstve Pol'skom . .. ,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 1905–1906gg.: Dokumenty i materialy (Leningrad: Nauka, 1990), 65–67.

109. PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, part 1, no. 26984. Even where the links had been restored, the council of ministers often extended reinforced security ( “Memoriia ob ostavlenii v sostoianii usilennoi okhrany nekotorykh gubernii i gorodov Rossii,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 351–52; ibid., 410–11, 415–16).

110. “Vsepoddanneishii doklad S.Iu. Vitte o sluchaiakh nepravomernogo vvedeniia iskliuchitel'nogo polozheniia v guberniiakh Tsentral'noi Rossii mestnymi vlastiami,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 238–39.

111. Minister of justice to MVD, 29 November 1905, GARF f. 102, op. OO, 1905, d. 2495, 11. 1; DP directive, 30 November 1905, ibid., 1. 8.

112. “Spiski mestnostei, nakhodiashchikhsia na voennom polozhenii i na polozhenii chrezvychainoi okhrany,” GARF, f. 102, op. 302, d. 4, 11. 31 ob, 58–9. See also Pravo, 12 March 1906, no. 10, cols. 909–916; PSZ, Index, “Okhrana,” series 3, vol. 25, part 2; vol 26, part 2; vol. 27.

113. See PSZ, series 3, vols. 26 and 27, part 2, index, “Okhrana. ”

114. PSZ, series 3, vol. 29, part 1, no. 31968; ibid., vol. 30, part 1, no. 33676.

115. “Vsepoddanneishii doklad S.Iu. Vitte o sluchaiakh,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 238–39

116. “Memoriia o neobkhodimosti srochnoi zameny voennogo polozheniia vo vnutrennikh guberniiakh Rossii polozheniem usilennoi ili chrezvychainoi okhrany,” and “Osoboe mnenie ministra vnutrennikh del po memorii Soveta ministrov 5 marta 1906 g.,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 315–19.

117. “Osoboe mnenie,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 318.

118. St. Petersburg governor to MVD, December 1906, GARF, f. 102, op. OO, otd. 2, 1906, d. 9, ch. 1, 11. 139–40.

119. “Dokladnaia zapiska Sankt-Peterburgskogo gubernatora Ministru vnutrennikh del,” 11 January 1906, GARF, f. 102, op. OO, otd. 2, 1906, d. 9, ch. 1, 11. 9 ob-10, 12–13.

120. Weissman, Neil B., Reform in Tsarist Russia: The State Bureaucracy and Local Government, 1900–1914 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1981), 11.Google Scholar

121. “Izlozhenie ‘vysochaishego poveleniia’ ob usilenii sudebnykh repressii protiv uchastnikov revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 68–70; PSZ, series 3, vol. 25, part 1, nos. 27162, 27165, 27166 and subsequent numbers.

122. MVD directive, 1 February 1906, GARF, f. 280, op. 5, d. 5000, ch. 12, 1. 21.

123. On this, see Fuller, William C., Civil-Military Conflict in Imperial Russia, 1881–1914 (Princeton.: Princeton University Press, 1985), 173–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124. “Memoriia o poriadke uvol'neniia gosudarstvennykh sluzhashchikh, podderzhivaiushchikh antipravitel'stvennoe dvizhenie,” in Sovet ministrov Rossiiskoi imperii, 12–13, 134–38, 142n.

125. SU, 23 April 1906, no. 603, art. 8.

126. The emperor's viceroy (namestnik) in the Caucasus repeatedly declared martial law on his own authority (“Spisok mestnostei Kavkazskogo kraia, ob” iavlennykh … , “ GARF, f. 102, op. 302, d. 4, 11. 14–14 ob).

127. DP circular, 19 November 1906, cited in Moscow Okhrana Bureau circular, 14 December 1906, RGIAgM, f. 475, op. 19, d. 127, 11. 129–129 ob.

128. “Spiski mestnostei, nakhodiashchikhsia na voennom polozhenii i na polozhenii chrezvychainoi okhrany,” GARF, f. 102, op. 302, d. 4, 11. 31 ob., 58–9, 71; “Per echen’ gubernii i oblastei evropeiskoi i aziatskoi Rossii (krome Kavkaza i Turkestana), s pokazaniem gde i kakoe imenno deistvuet iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie,” 191 1–1913, ibid., d. 8, 11. 1–10 ob, 21–28.

129. Rawson, “Death Penalty in Late Tsarist Russia,” 37, table 1.

130. See, for example, D-5 circular, 25 February 1909, GARF, f. 280, op. 5, d. 5000, ch. 12, 11. 21–2; Moscow governor to DP, 8 November 1910, ibid., f. 102, op. 316, 1910, d. 353, 11. 1–2 ob.; D-5 circular, 27 March 1911, ibid., f. 280, op. 5, d. 5000, ch. 12, 1. 67; DP report, 19 December 1913, ibid., f. 102, op. OO, 1915, d. 5, ch. 46, 1. 83.

131. “Perechen’ gubernii i oblastei,” GARF, f. 102, op. 302, d. 8, 11. 1–10 ob., 21-28. See also, SU, 30 August 1911, no. 169, art. 1598, pt. 6; ibid., 7 September 1912, no. 192, art. 1647; ibid., 3 September 1913, no. 193, art. 1806.

132. See Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 268–300.

133. SU, 20 July 1914, no. 189, art. 2053.

134. SU, 25 July 1914, no. 199, art. 2075. This law was renewed every six months until 1916. A state of siege was declared in Kronstadt on 8 August 1906 (SU, no. 193, art. 1289).

135. Rech’ (7 March 1917): 7; SU, 7 March 1917, no. 55, art. 346.

136. V.I. Lenin, PSS, 31: 106.

137. Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 171.

138. “Dokladnaia zapiska,” 11 January 1906, GARF, f. 102, op. OO, otd. 2, 1906, d. 9, ch. 1, 1. 11. See also Dokladnaia zapiska … Lopukhina, 10–11; Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 272.

139. Gessen, Iskliuchitel'noe polozhenie, 134–35.

140. On this see Lidtke, Vernon L., The Outlawed Party: Social Democracy in Germany, 1878–1890 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966.Google Scholar

141. See, for example, Townshend, Charles, “Martial Law: Legal and Administrative Problems of Civil Emergency in Britain and the Empire, 1800–1940,” in The Historical Journal 25 (1982): 167–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142. For deep insight into the character of the last Romanov, see Lieven, Dominic, Nicholas II: Emperor of all the Russias (London: John Murray, 1993.Google Scholar

143. “Zapiska, naidennaia v bumagakh N. Kh. Bunge,” in Materially i zapiski, razoslannye chlenam Komiteta ministrov na zasedaniiakh 15, 22 i 23 marta, 5 i 6 aprelia 1905 goda (St. Petersburg: n.p., n.d.), 12.