The 1905 October Manifesto

SOURCE: Alpha History, “The October Manifesto”. [Online]. http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/october-manifesto/. Accessed:

18 July 2017.

The October Manifesto was a document promising political reforms, issued by Tsar Nicholas II at the height of the
1905 Revolution. It came after ten months of popular unrest, strikes, violence and political debate about the future of
Russia. The manifesto promised the formation of a State Duma: a national parliament, elected by the people of
Russia, to participate in the formulation and passing of laws. It also outlined improvements to individual rights and
freedoms. The October Manifesto was met with approval by most reformists, particularly liberals and moderate
socialists. With a large number satisfied that change was imminent, many of the revolutionary forces of 1905 began to
disperse or fade away, allowing the tsarist regime breathing space to recover.

The manifesto was borne from the unrest of 1905. With Russia in crisis and the collapse of the tsarist government a
distinct possibility, Nicholas II – still holed up behind palace walls for his own safety – equivocated about what action
to take. The assassination of his uncle and brother-in-law, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, in February 1905 forced
Nicholas to respond. He did so by attacking those he believed were responsible for the unrest, coupled with vague
promises of reform. On 5 February, Nicholas issued a statement that condemned the “ill-intentioned leaders” of the
revolution, who wanted to “create a new government for the country, based on values alien to our fatherland”. He also
called on Russians to “stand firm around the throne [and] support the autocracy”. But he also decreed one of his
ministers (Bulygin) would investigate proposals for an elected legislature, to be made up of the “worthiest people”. A
letter from the tsar to his mother, written later in 1905, explains his conflicted thinking:

There were only two ways open … To find an energetic soldier and crush the rebellion by sheer force. There
would be time to breathe then but, as likely as not, one would have to use force again in a few months; that
would mean rivers of blood and in the end we should be where we had started [and with] no possibility of
progress achieved. The other way out would be to give the people their civil rights, freedom of speech and
press, also to have all laws confirmed by a State Duma [and] a constitution.

The tsar’s proclamation opened the floodgates for debate on political reform in Russia. Over the coming months,
newly formed and existing political groups met to formulate proposals for change. All of Russia’s major political parties
drew up manifestos indicating their position on how the government should be reformed. The tsar’s ministers and
departments were inundated with letters and petitions containing ideas for reform. In June the tsar met a liberal
delegation from the association of zemstvos. Nicholas renewed his commitment to an elected legislature, telling them:

“The tsar’s will to call together representatives from the people is unswerving. Attracting them to the work of the
state will be done in orderly fashion. I concern myself with this matter every day.”

But the sincerity of this statement was cast into doubt two weeks later, when Nicholas met with and listened
approvingly to conservative delegations who argued for the retention of the autocracy.

The debate over reform continued until August, when the tsarist regime issued its own plan, the so-called ‘Bulygin
project’. Under this model, the State Duma would be elected by persons of property and leaders of the peasant
communes; ordinary Russians would not be directly involved in its election. The Bulygin system was clearly
designed to create a Duma dominated by conservative elements, particularly the nobility. Almost every socialist and
liberal political group rejected the Bulygin plan; they viewed it as a continuation of the autocracy, evidence
that Nicholas’ commitment to reform was insincere. Not only did the strikes, unrest and violence of 1905 fail to abate,
they became more radical. This culminated in the formation of the St Petersburg Soviet and the organisation of a
massive general strike, both in early October.

1
With Russia now at risk of a full-scale revolution, some of the tsar’s advisors urged him to agree to more meaningful
reforms. Leading this call was Sergei Witte, the great economic reformer of the 1890s who in 1905 was chairman of
the tsar’s ministerial council. But Nicholas refused to make further concessions and attempted to quash the rebellion.
He ordered Trepov, governor of St Petersburg, to deal with strikers and protestors firmly, “not stopping at the
application of force” (Trepov ignored this directive). The tsar also considered imposing martial law. He attempted to
recruit his cousin, Nicholas Nikolaevich, as a military dictator; to Nikolaevich’s credit he refused, telling the tsar that he
would commit suicide rather than accept such a mission.

By mid-October Nicholas had no option but to relent and agree to further political reforms. Under the guidance of
Witte, government advisors drafted the Manifesto on the Improvement of State Order, it was endorsed by the tsar
and publicly released on October 17th. The October Manifesto, as it became known, had no constitutional effect and
was not legally binding; it was simply a statement of promise or intent, to be followed and replaced by a binding
constitution. But it contained enough detailed promises to satisfy the demands of most Russians. The manifesto
suggested reforms in three core areas: the civil rights and freedoms of all people; elections for a State Duma with a
universal franchise; and the operation of the Duma as the body through which all state laws must pass.

“Whether or not you see the October Manifesto as a genuine policy of conciliation, or an attempt to ‘buy off’ the
revolutionary movement, it served to split the opposition. It proved too much for conservatives and too little for
the Social Democrats, who continued with their agitation… Liberals were also divided between moderates who
professed satisfaction with the concessions, and ‘progressives’ (Kadets) who continued to demand further
parliamentary reforms.”
— David Welch, historian

The response to the Manifesto was varied. With its seemingly heartfelt preamble, apparent concern for the plight of
the Russian people and wide-ranging reforms, Russian liberal groups like the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets)
welcomed it. So too did Russia’s middle classes, who viewed the promised reforms as a great opportunity. A painting
by Ilya Repin, shown to the right, shows wild celebrations on the day the manifesto was issued. On the political
margins, however, the manifesto was viewed as a
concession rather than a serious reform. For
Marxists it marked the gradual transition from feudal
tsarism to bourgeois parliamentary democracy. The
newly-formed Soviets condemned it as doing little or
nothing for impoverished and exploited factory-
workers; it was a document of high talk and
abstractions that would do nothing to alleviate the
suffering of the proletariat. Some dismissed it as a
tsarist ploy, an attempt to stave off the revolutionary
forces of 1905 while the autocracy regrouped. As it
turned out, the last of these assessments was
probably the most accurate.

SUMMARY POINTS:
1. As Russia was gripped by the 1905 Revolution, there were widespread demands for political reform.
2. In February 1905 the tsar agreed to consider proposals for State Duma to participate in government and law-
making.
3. The first proposal, a Duma elected on a limited franchise, was widely rejected and stimulated more unrest.
4. In October the tsar agreed to a more expansive set of reforms, after his calls for military repression were ignored.
5. The October Manifesto promised the introduction of a State Duma elected by all Russians, along with
improvements to individual civil and legal rights.

2
Nicholas II and the Dumas

The first duma met in 1906. No Marxists were part of the first duma as they had boycotted the election, but the duma
included many members of the Social Revolutionaries and they made radical demands for land reform. These
demands sparked peasant disorders in the countryside and in July the government dissolved the duma. Two hundred
deputies fled to Finland and demanded passive resistance and a tax strike, but there was little response from the
workers whom they had abandoned the previous November. A few attempted strikes were quickly repressed. A
‘mopping-up’ operation in the rural areas continued throughout 1906 and 1907, revolutionaries were arrested, and
2,390 were executed for their part in peasant revolts.

The second duma was more radical in its composition than the first, for the Marxist Social Democrats participated in
the election and sent delegates. The second duma was dissolved in June 1907. The same day Peter Stolypin issued
Article 87, a new law that changed voting rights and severely restricted the electoral influence of all but the
landowners and rich bourgeoisie. Although this was illegal, what became known as ‘Stolypin’s coup’ raised little
protest. It was clear from this move by the government that the political reforms of 1905 were being eroded.

The third duma met in November 1907. The moderate Octobrists were in a majority and the Tsar was no longer faced
with the radical demands of the socialist parties. By 1911, however, even the Octobrists deputies were alienated. In
that year, Stolypin was assassinated, but again, the unperceptive Nicholas was not particularly concerned. Nicholas
lacked the ability to transform Russia: He was unable to build coalitions through concessions and his survival was at
least partly the result of the cultural and economic gulf that existed between the elite and the workers and peasants.
This prevented a united opposition forming against the Tsar in the years between 1906 and 1917.

In the years after the 1905 Revolution, Stolypin had introduced a number of land reforms with the dual purpose of
increasing agricultural yields and creating a more politically loyal and stable peasant class. Redemption payments had
already been cancelled. As a result of his ‘wager on the strong’ agricultural policy, peasants were able to abandon the
commune and enclose their land. A Peasant Land Bank lent money to enterprising peasants. But change came too
slowly. By 1915, only 22% of peasants had gained private ownership. The transformation was patchy and exits from
the commune slowed after 1910. Yields did increase, but so did the population.

Despite the new legal status of trade unions and working class political parties, the proletariat had made few gains
since 1905 and in 1912 western Europe was shocked at the shooting by police of 200 strikers on the Lena goldfield.
By 1914 the Tsar’s government remained isolated and insecure. The political reforms of 1905 had been deliberately
undermined, agricultural reforms were moving very slowly and Russia’s foreign policy had led to her involvement in an
entente with Britain and France against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Her ambitions in the
Balkans were thwarted as Austria-Hungary continued to expand, seizing Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908.

3
The Duma
SOURCE: “The Duma”. Spartacus Educational. [Online]. http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSduma.htm. Accessed: 3 July 2017.

In 1905 Nicholas II faced a series of domestic problems that became known as the 1905 Revolution. This included
Bloody Sunday, the Potemkin Mutiny and a series of strikes that led to the establishment of the St. Petersburg Soviet.
Over the next few weeks over 50 of these soviets were formed all over Russia.

Sergi Witte, the new Chief Minister, advised Nicholas II to make concessions. He eventually agreed and published the
October Manifesto. This granted freedom of conscience, speech, meeting and association. He also promised that in
future people would not be imprisoned without trial. Finally he announced that no law would become operative without
the approval of a new organisation called the Duma. Paul Miliukov now returned to Russia and established the
Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets) and represented it in the State Duma. He also drafted the Vyborg Manifesto
that called for more political freedom.

As this was only a consultative body, many Russians felt that this reform did not go far enough. Leon Trotsky and
other revolutionaries denounced the plan. In December 1905, Trotsky and the rest of the executive committee of the
St. Petersburg Soviet were arrested.

The First Duma (May 1906 — July 1906)

The First Duma was elected on the basis of indirect universal male suffrage. The peasants, the townsmen and the
gentry all elected their own representatives. Delegates from all the provinces met in the provincial town and chose the
members of the Duma.

The first meeting of the Duma took place in May 1906. However, several changes in the composition of the Duma had
been altered since the publication of the October Manifesto:
• Tsar Nicholas II had also created a State Council, an upper chamber, of which he would nominate half its
members.
• He also retained for himself the right to
• declare war
• control the Orthodox Church
• dissolve the Duma
• Finally, he also had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers

The First Duma had a left majority consisting of Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Octobrists and
Constitutional Democrat Party. At their first meeting, members of the Duma put forward a series of demands including
the release of political prisoners, trade union rights and land reform. Nicholas II rejected all these proposals and
dissolved the Duma in July 1906.

The Second Duma (February 1907 — June 1907)

Elections for the Second Duma took place in 1907. The Tsar's chief minister, Peter Stolypin, used his powers to
exclude large numbers from voting. This reduced the influence of the left, but when the Second Duma convened in
February 1907 it still included a large number of reformers. After three months of heated debate, Nicholas II closed
down the Duma on the 16 June 1907. As a result Pavel Milyukov drafted the Vyborg Manifesto. In the manifesto,
Milyukov called for passive resistance, non-payment of taxes and draft avoidance.

Nicholas did not, however, abolish the Duma altogether, as some of his advisers wished. Instead, together with his
chief minister, Peter Stolypin, the Tsar now made changes to the electoral law so that the electoral system favoured
landowners, wealthier townsfolk, and Russians. Clearly, this was to the detriment of peasants, workers, and non-
Russians. Moreover, it excluded national minorities and dramatically reduced the number of people who could vote in
Poland, Siberia, the Caucasus and in Central Asia. Changes were also made to the voting in towns and now those
owning their own homes elected over half the urban deputies.
4
The Third Duma (November 1907 — June 1912)
The Third Duma met on 14 November 1907. Elected on the new voting system, was conservative, and the former
coalition of Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Octobrists and Constitutional Democrat Party, were
now outnumbered by the reactionaries and the nationalists. It generally supported the government’s agrarian reforms
and military reorganisation. Finally, although it criticised bureaucratic abuses and government advisers, it survived its
full five-year term, unlike the previous Dumas.

The Fourth Duma (November 1912 — October 1917)

The Fourth Duma was elected under the same terms as the Third Duma. The reactionaries and the nationalists were
still in the majority but there had been an increase in the number of radicals (Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks,
Bolsheviks) elected.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Duma continued the policy of the Third Duma. Soon after the outbreak of the First World War
the Duma voted to support Nicholas II and his government. When the Bolshevik deputies voted against the
government on this issue, they were arrested, had their property confiscated and sent to Siberia.

Members of the Duma, including its leader, Michael Rodzianko, became increasingly critical of the way Nicholas II was
managing the war. In 1916 Rodzianko (Chairman of the Sate Duma) tried to persuade the government to introduce
reforms and to appoint a Duma government. In February 1917, he sent a series of telegrams explaining the dangers
of revolution.

After the Tsar's abdication in March,1917, Michael Rodzianko, helped to form the Provisional Government led by
George Lvov. The Duma was closed down after the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917.

5
The Dumas: Revision Notes

Initial promises withdrawn: the constitution of 1906

• Despite the liberal promises of the ‘October manifesto’, 1905, Nicholas went back on some of his concessions
in the ‘Fundamental Laws’ of 1906, which re-asserted the supreme power of the tsar as autocrat (in
contradiction of the manifesto).  These laws limited the power of the Duma before it had even started by
stating that the Tsar, and not the Duma, would appoint ministers, conduct foreign affairs, have the right
to rule by decree whenever the assembly was not in session — furthermore, the Duma could not pass laws
without the Tsar’s agreement, making it dependent on his approval for any action! 
 
The composition of the Dumas
• The first Duma (1906) was made up largely of liberal and centrists — Kadets and Octobrists — as left-wing
groups refused to participate.  However, this first Duma was also hostile to the government and made major
demands for reform in terms of land reform and releasing political prisoners.  It was therefore dissolved by
the Tsar after just 73 days.
• The second Duma (1907) was more representative, in that in included more members from both the extreme
right and left.  However, this led to these extremists using the Duma for their own propaganda, making it a
loud and disruptive session of three and a half months before the government closed it down. 
• After 1907 the Tsar and Stolypin had recovered enough from 1905 to retreat further from the reforms of the
October Manifesto and thus rigged the electoral system further in favour of the conservative forces of
landowners at the expense of industrial workers.  Landowners had 50% of the vote, while workers had
just 2%, which led for a much more conservative assembly.  The third and fourth Dumas therefore
represented mainly the propertied and middle classes, and hovered between reform and reaction.  Even
though Nicholas was reluctant to co-operate with the Duma they managed to achieve some successes in
this period in terms of social reforms.
• Faced with the immense challenges of WWI Nicholas still refused to allow the Duma an active role in the
war effort.  This led to a virtual alternative government emerging, and eventually a Duma plot to overthrow
the Tsar!  Nicholas II's rejection of the ‘Progressive Bloc’s’ call for a new government in 1915 also played an
important role in encouraging liberals to oppose tsarist rule and in politically isolating him in the lead
up to the February revolution.
 
Evaluating the Dumas: were they an important break with autocracy? 
 
Yes, they represented an important constitutional step forwards because:
 
• political parties were legally established for the first time In Russia, and even if Nicholas II did not allow
a truly representative body to be formed, open political debate was tolerated and printed in the press -
unimaginable in 1904!
• The Dumas were also able to pass some legislation for social progress: i.e. 1912, compulsory insurance
for industrial workers, and 1908 universal primary education introduced (which was 50% completed by 1914).
 
However, against this view, the Dumas should not be seen as a step forward because:

• Fundamentally, Nicholas still regarded the institution of the Duma with contempt, and not something that
he should have to co-operate with.  This did not fit in with his worldview of autocratic rule!
• The government and Nicholas were still able to block any legislative issues proposed by the Dumas that
it disliked. 
• The representative nature of the Dumas was severely limited both by the Fundamental Laws (1906), and
altering the electoral laws (1907).  Conservative groups, esp. landowners, were over-represented, and
peasants and especially industrial workers were severely under-represented. 
 
6
Did the Dumas help to strengthen Nicholas’ position after 1905, or did they contribute to his downfall in 1917?  How far
did the institution solve the long-term political problems of Russia?

• On the one hand, granting the Duma after 1905 helped put the Tsar in a stronger position.  The Duma
provided an arena in which the various political groups (liberals, SD, SR) could argue and become more
divided.  This, together with Stolypin’s ruthless suppression of opposition, helped to marginalise the
opponents of the regime’s position after 1905. 
• On the other hand, though, the Tsar’s negative attitude towards the Duma — as shown in the Fundamental
Laws, the alterations to the electoral system, failure to co-operate in dealing with WWI — would have
disastrous long-term effects for the Romanov dynasty.  Nicholas’ lack of commitment to the transition to
constitutional government meant that the political parties of the Duma remained largely unreconciled to
the regime.  In the final analysis, a stubborn and reactionary commitment to autocracy on behalf of
Nicholas II prevented progress towards a more modern Russia, contributing directly to the February
revolution.