Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/208

182 The life of the first duma lasted barely three months, and from July 10, 1906, to February 20, 1907, Russia was without a duma.

The reactionary measures of the government had disastrous results. Whilst political revolutionary sentiment increased and spread throughout the country, there spread in addition an unpolitical anarchy, manifesting itself in murders and in the theft of public and private moneys. Thereby political agitation was rendered extremely difﬁcult, above all for the revolutionary parties.

Courts martial were instituted by the government as a protective measure. These courts acted promptly, but with great injustice. It is known that in quite a number of cases innocent persons were executed.

Military justice was, of course, blind on suitable occasions. It proved impossible to discover the assassins of Herzenstein, a member of the duma, although it speedily became known that the deed had some criminal association with the League of the Russian People.

The disorders among the peasantry continued. The harvest of 1906 was a very bad one, and in consequence of hunger, the mužiks' ancient enemy, the countryfolk became profoundly discontented. Owing to the extremity of need, political demands were forgotten. The political agitation carried on by the radical and revolutionary parties secured but little attention, more especially seeing that the government, desiring to forestall the next duma, undertook on its own initiative to deal with the agrarian problem. Consequently, after the harvest of 1906, the ukase was promulgated which exercised decisive influence upon the organisation of the communes and upon the position of the peasant as landowner. By the ukase of October 5, 1906. the peasants were placed upon the same footing as other classes in respect of the subdivision of family property and in respect of freedom of residence, the power of the mir over the individual peasant being thereby broken. By the ukase of November 9, 1906, every head of family was empowered to claim from the mir his share of land, to be held as private property. To carry out these decisions "committees for supplying the peasants with land" were established, and upon them officials and landowners held a decisive majority (ten votes as against three peasant representatives). By the labours of the committees, with the assist-