118 исторических миниатюр и 108 авторских текстов на 13 иностранных языках. Сборник (СИ)

- In the manifesto on abdication, dated March 2, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II wrote, in particular: "... In agreement with the State Duma, we recognized for the benefit of abdicating the Throne of the Russian State and resigning from the supreme authority. ... Instruct our brother to rule affairs by state in full and inviolable unity with representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, bringing in that inviolable oath. "

There was an uneasy silence.

Correspondents switched to Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov. He was somewhat more talkative, although he was also laconic:

- The State Duma did not try to open a formal meeting, despite the demand of MP M. Karaulov. (...) A private meeting of the members of the Duma instructed the Council of Elders to elect the Provisional Committee of the Duma members and determine the further role of the State Duma in the events that had begun.

- A strange statement, - one of the correspondents said quietly to the other. - First, what is this "Council of Elders" for the "private meeting"? Secondly, the "demands of a deputy (deputies)" - this is not "an attempt to open a formal meeting"? Logic is not docking ... And, thirdly, how easily disappears-appears the word "members" ... Maklakov: "The Provisional Committee of the State Duma". Milyukov: "Provisional Committee of MEMBERS of the Duma". It's not a rabbit in a magician's hat ...

P.N. Miliukov added:

- It was neither a meeting of the Duma, - Duma had just been closed, - nor a meeting of any of its commissions. This was a private meeting of the members of the Duma. Individuals wandering along other corridors joined the grouped members of the Duma. I do not remember Rodzianko presiding there. The meeting was formless. There were hot speeches in the central small crowd. Proposals were put forward for the return and resumption of the official meeting of the Duma, disagreeing with the freezing of the work of the Duma (M. Karaulov), declaring the Duma the Constituent Assembly, transferring power to the dictator (to General Manikovsky). It was suggested that the members of the Duma assembled at that moment should take power and that they create their own body. At least not to leave Petersburg. I made a proposal to wait until the character of the movement was clarified. I made a proposal to create an interim committee of Duma members "to restore order and to communicate with individuals and institutions."

- The Provisional Committee of the members of the Duma! - with pleasure said one of those standing nearby. - How many members? How did the ballot go?

P.N. Miliukov clarified:

- The proposals to immediately take all power into their hands and organize the ministry from members of the Duma or even declare the Duma a Constituent Assembly - were rejected, as, in part as untimely, in part as fundamentally wrong.

-Again it's not clear, - the correspondent whispered to his colleague. - If the State Duma at the time of the February 1917 events was the only more or less legitimately elected, representative, legislative body, then why the proposals to use its "democratic potential" were called "fundamentally wrong"? About "untimely" ... When was it possible to use the democratic potential and authority of the Duma, if not in the disastrous days of February 1917?

The most informative was Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky:

- On Monday, February 27, 1917, my first thought was: at any cost to continue the Duma session and establish close contact between the Duma and the armed forces. (...) Upon reaching the Duma, I immediately went to the Catherine Hall, where I met Nekrasov, Efremov, Vershinin, Chkheidze and several other opposition deputies. They agreed with my proposal to hold an official meeting of the Duma. (...) Representatives of the Left Opposition - Nekrasov, Efremov, Chkheidze and I - made an offer to the Council of Elders to immediately hold an official session of the Duma, not taking into account the tsar's decree. The majority, including Rodzianko and, somewhat unexpectedly, Milyukov, spoke against such a step. No arguments were given.

A.F. Kerensky, with an element of political passion, began to convince the correspondents and the readers who were standing next to him: