Vasily Maklakov. On the abolition of courts-martial. Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov from the memoirs of Maklakov cadet

V.A. Maklakov

Memories. The leader of the Moscow cadets about Russian politics. 1880–1917

PREFACE

The real Memoirs require some explanation, if not justification. Under this general subtitle, three of my books have already been published, bringing the story of events in Russia to the dissolution of the 2nd State Duma and the coup of June 3, 1907. Reflecting the mood of that time, I saw only its harmful sides in this revolution, which I cannot deny even now. The date June 3 has become for us the same common and derogatory name as December 2 was for France. But after what we have experienced since then, such a judgment would be one-sided. If this coup forcibly ended the acute period of the fierce struggle of the historical authorities with representatives of the progressive public (Liberation Movement, 1st Duma, 2nd Duma), then at the same time it began a short period of “constitutional monarchy”, that is collaboration authorities with representatives of society within the framework of the occupied constitution. This change of position immediately began to produce beneficial results. If the European war had not occurred in 1914, Russia could have continued to recover gradually, without shock. And therefore, the coup of June 3, with all its illegality and associated consequences, perhaps helped us then avoid two worst outcomes: either such a complete victory of the autocracy and its extreme supporters, which could lead to the abolition of the “constitutional system” and the return of the previous autocracy, which would force us to start the fight against it all over again, or - what could be even worse - to the fact that the complete collapse of power that occurred in 1917 would have come ten years earlier in a situation not at all better for peaceful recovery.

I remember how in 1917 the war was considered by many to be a positive factor for such recovery. Instead of these two extreme and opposite outcomes, we received a respite that could be used for the benefit of Russia. When in 1942 I was going to continue my “Memoirs”, during the era of the 3rd and 4th State Dumas, I wanted to trace both of these processes, that is, the symptoms of Russia’s recovery, and what delayed it or deviated from it. I could not fulfill this intention, since I was not able to find in Paris then all the materials needed for this, and even verbatim reports of the last two State Dumas; but I didn’t want to write only from memory.

And if I have now written my memoirs again, their character will inevitably be different. I do not continue the previous story, but start it from an even earlier time, changing its content. Previously, I talked about what I had to observe from the sidelines, fortunately my generation combined two opposing properties: we observed life as its contemporaries and eyewitnesses of events, and now we remember as about things that have long passed. The enormity of the changes that have taken place in Russia since then has turned the “recent past” into “history.” This helps us more impartially revise our previous assessments. In the previous “Memoirs” I, like general rule, avoided talking about himself; this was not necessary for the story, since my personal role in the events of that time was small. Now my life becomes the axis of the story. But I will talk not so much about what I did in my early years, but about how the life of that time raised and shaped the generation that lived then, including me. Of course, the same living conditions could affect us differently. But these will only be different results of the same process, that is, educating people with the impressions of the life around them. This process, as it affected me, will be the main content of this book. All of us, in complete contrast to each other, were equally the heirs of our past, just as October 1917 unexpectedly turned out to be the brainchild of the autocracy. Of course, I not only cannot exhaust this topic, but I never bring it up. It is only the point of view from which I remember the past and which determines the choice of material that I will talk about in this book.

The generation that is now dying out, but began to live an active life during the Liberation Movement, with its in my youth came close to the era of the Great Reforms. And if we remember our life and what it did to us, we must start from this time, that is, from our fathers and grandfathers. We inherited a lot from them.

My mother's grandfather was an important (civilian) general Pavel Stepanov; I have never seen him and only vaguely remember his family portrait hanging on our wall. His wife was born Tatarinova; According to family legends, she was in some way related to the famous Tatar era of Alexander I. P. Stepanov had three daughters: Alexandra, Marya and Raisa. Alexandra, my own grandmother, married an official of the diplomatic department in Bukhara, Vasily Vasilyevich Cheredeev. Mother was their only daughter. I remember this dear grandmother, Alexandra Pavlovna, much less than her sisters: she died before them. All that remains in my memory is the sickly yellow face she had shortly before her death and her funeral. I remember her sisters, Raisa and Marya, much better. Raisa married an officer, Yegor Aleksandrovich Mikhailov, who served in Khiva under Kaufman; in my time he was a retired colonel with a completely bald head, a member of the English Club, where he spent every evening playing cards; he and Raisa had a lot of children, almost eighteen people, and although they were all from the same parents, some of them were called Dmitrievichs by their patronymics, and some Egorovichs. They explained something to us about this, but it was very unclear. All their children served somewhere. Their mother, Raisa, was as rich as her sisters, but her fortune could not be maintained, and the children had to earn their own living.

The third sister, Marya, remained unmarried; was a relic of an old era. Lived in own home in Moscow, near Karetny Ryad. The house had a very large undeveloped area of ​​land: a yard, a garden and a vegetable garden. In the right hands, this property could be of great value. But the owner not only did not receive income from it, but also did not try to extract it. This is not enough. She donated a large piece of her land to a neighboring church, with the verbal condition not to build on it. The condition was violated; the church was first built there big apartment building, with windows directly into the windows of the donor’s house, then closed the passage through the donated land, and the donor had to drive to her place in a roundabout way through another lane, which devalued the property. For M.P. herself It didn’t matter to Stepanova. She didn't go anywhere; lived in the mezzanine, top floor I rented it out to friends, and the bottom floor, the basement, was a warehouse for family goods, unnecessary things that had nowhere to go. At her house there were barns and stables; out of habit, she kept a coachman and horses that she did not need at all. I was her godson and until her death I had to go to dinner with her on Saturdays. She got out of bed at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and only then went out to the dining room. She was surrounded by some old women who kept her company at night (she went to bed in the morning), played cards with her or read religious books to her. Twice a year, on her birthday and name day, she had receptions. Relatives, nephews and grandchildren gathered, for whom she sent her carriage; there were several old acquaintances (of whom I remember Professor F.I. Buslaev). They sat down at a long table and drank champagne to her health; hired waiters served at the table; In general, everything was like with people. Only these days the peculiar structure of her life was disrupted.

Society is actively discussing the cruelty of the authorities - towards Oleg Sentsov and other political prisoners, towards Anya Pavlikova and other defendants from the “New Greatness”, torture in prisons, police departments, courts when being transported from a pre-trial detention center. It is appropriate to recall the speech of one of the leaders of the Cadet Party, Vasily Maklakov, delivered in 1907 at a meeting of the State Duma. It talked about the use of military courts by the Stolypin government to curb the revolutionaries. Maklakov turned out to be right: the success of these punitive actions was, as history has shown, an appearance. 110 years have passed, and many in the corridors of power still have not understood that the repressiveness of the state, which goes far beyond the law, does not extinguish, but exacerbates extremist sentiments in society. Moreover, the state itself becomes an extremist, losing the right to judge anyone.

Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov(1869-1957) - lawyer and politician, a supporter of conservative liberalism. As a lawyer, he organized free legal consultations for the poor, defended Tolstoyans and defendants in political trials, and in 1913 he was one of the defenders of Mendel Beilis in the high-profile trial of “ritual murder.”

In 1905 he joined the Cadets Party. He was elected a member of the State Duma of the Russian Empire of the II, III and IV convocations and a member of the Central Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party. He was a great speaker. Vasily Maklakov’s performances aroused general interest. On March 13, 1907, Prince Georgy Lvov’s assistant for the Zemstvo Union, Grigory Alekseev, wrote to his father, dean of the Faculty of Law at Moscow University and member of the Moscow City Duma, Alexander Alekseev, that, by general admission, “not only in the current, but also in the First State Duma there was no such thing.” speaker like Maklakov”: “I followed Stolypin. Usually calm, impassive, without changing his face, he turned all red and bent over: it was clear that he was suffering.”

After the February Revolution, Maklakov was a commissioner of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma in the Ministry of Justice and a member of the Commission on Elections to the Constituent Assembly. While in France, where he was sent by the Provisional Government as an ambassador, he was elected a member of the Constituent Assembly. In emigration, he represented the interests of Russian emigrants in France and was engaged in literary activities, published works on the history of Russian socio-political life of the early 20th century.

On the bill on the abolition of courts-martial (from the transcript of the meeting on March 13, 1907)

Execution by court martial in 1906, Nikolai Shestopalov

I would like, gentlemen, to return to the discussion of the present issue and therefore I will leave unanswered the criticism that one member of the Duma considered himself entitled, based on some documents unknown to us, to make regarding an entire part of the meeting. I return to the courts-martial, and, speaking about them, I would like to take the point of view of our opponents, or, moreover, the point of view of the authors of this court. On the first day, when the declaration of the Council of Ministers was read, as the speaker rightly noted, nothing was said about courts-martial; everyone had the hope that they would die a natural death.

But in passing, in this declaration and even more so in the response speech of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the point of view from which he justified this sad, exceptional and even, in his opinion, only temporary measure was indicated. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers said: “Power is the guardian of statehood; striking at the revolution, we had to spare no private interests.” I completely agree with the first point. Yes, the government is truly the guardian of statehood, and I salute the government that does not forget this. But I turn to those who uttered these words, and to those who applauded them then, and ask: don’t you see that military courts in the formulation that you gave them are a deeply anti-state institution, that they are only nominal the existence of this law, even if it were not applied, destroys the state as a legal phenomenon, turns it into a simple competition of physical forces, into maximalism from above and below?

You want to fight the revolution with strict repression. From my point of view, I would say that this is an unreliable path that has already been tried and led nowhere. But I will take your point of view and ask the speaker who has just left this podium, who pointed to the examples of England and France, countries of strict criminal repression, and sees salvation in this: do they act in these countries the way we do?

What does increased repression mean? What does a state that wants this have the right to do? It can publish new law, i.e., issue a general rule, increasing the criminal punishment for everyone who commits a certain offense. Yes, you could rule that not only the assassination attempt official, but even verbal insult to him is punishable by death. It would be ferocious, it would be cruel, but it would be a legal phenomenon, it would be the same as in England, when, as Mr. Purishkevich says (Vladimir Purishkevich - monarchist and Black Hundred member, opponent of parliamentarism, leader of the nationalist party Union of the Archangel Michael - SPJ), for 12 pence they were punished by death, this would be something that did not allow arbitrariness, a general rule, the same for everyone, and although fierce, the court was the same for everyone.

Gentlemen, there is something that our government is always afraid of, and that is the common law. This is not the path our government took when back in 1881 the sad Regulations on enhanced and emergency security were issued. Our common law has not been repealed; on occasion we are proud of it in front of Europe; we point to England, where they can be hanged for theft; we did it differently: we gave administrators the right to break the law. This was the case in the provisions on security, and this happened to a monstrous degree in relation to the military court.

Do you know Article 17 of the Security Regulations, which is a harbinger of what was later done by the courts-martial? Governors-General, this article says, are given the power to refer individual cases of crime to military courts when they consider it necessary. This is the right that the provision of protection gave to governors general - the right to transfer to a military court when he wants it, to judge a person not according to a new, more strict general law, but according to a special one, when he wants it!

When there is not one general law, when there are three laws, then there is no law at all. I see in this a denial of general rules of law, a denial of legality itself.

And then we received that practice of our repression, which is a mystery for us, for Europe and especially for lawyers: for the same crime, committed under the same conditions, for the murder of a minister, in one case they are tried by a military court and hanged, in another - the judicial chamber and do not hang. In the same year they were hanged for the murder of a policeman and not hanged for the murder of a minister, and this was not according to the law, but at the simple discretion of the minister and even just the governor-general. There was complete arbitrariness permitted by law, arbitrariness introduced by Article 17, which stated that it is not a general law, the same for everyone, not a court, equal for everyone, that decides the fate of a person, but governors-general do as they want.

And so the field justice took the next step in the same spirit: in those cases, says the position, when for the Governor General the act is so obvious that, in his opinion, there is no need to investigate it, he transfers the case to a military court. Gentlemen, what laws do we live by, what law does the criminal fall under now? Under any: he can be tried in the House of Estates Representatives under one law, by a military district court - on another, by a military court - on a third, and all this is at the discretion of the Governor-General, as he pleases - this way, that way or that way!

When there is not one general law, when there are three laws, then there is no law at all. I see in this not what the deputy who just left this podium was talking about - not strict repression, but a denial of general norms of law, a denial of legality itself. And the first thing I say against military courts is that in our country, where respect for the court and the law is already undermined, they gave the right to governors-general to openly and clearly say that they are above the law, that they have three laws in their pockets, that for each defendant they have three different benches, and that it depends on them, the governors general, which one to put him on and by which law to judge him. Military field justice is the denial of the law and its binding force for everyone, the denial of the main pillar of statehood, is a blow to the state itself.

But this is not enough: not only the law is humiliated by this justice, the court is also humiliated by it. I join the words of the deputy who said that, as a lawyer, he is offended by the need to call a military court a court. In the strictest court there is one element - freedom of judicial conscience, judicial opinion: judges are given the criminal law into their hands, but they are given the right, within the limits of the law, to impose the punishment that, in their opinion, is fair. This right does not exist in military courts; it has not existed since 1881, with the Regulations on Enhanced and Emergency Security, of which the military court was a logical continuation.

Military laws are strict: Article 279 of the Military Regulations states that robbery, robbery, arson and murder are punishable by death; but this law, although strict, is still a law, is a legal phenomenon, and when military judges judge people according to this law, they are still judges - they have Article 906 of the Military Judicial Charter, which gives the right according to the individual guilt, reduce the punishment. The provision on protection changed all this: again, at the discretion of the governors general, instead of Article 279, another, stricter, bloodier one was applied - Article 18 of the provision on protection, according to which the punishment is death not only for murder, but for attempt, not only for deprivation life, and for simple wounding, under Article 18, it can be punished by death even for careless murder.

But this is not enough, it limited the court in its legal rights: Article 906, which speaks of the right to reduce punishment, has not been repealed, it exists, but in 1887 a secret circular was issued, which the Minister of War reported to the judges for guidance and execution, namely secret The highest order is that judges should not use Article 906. This is how this deeply anti-state phenomenon took place, according to which the law was not repealed, but the judges, the guardians of the law, did not dare to apply it. Then those terrible sentences began to appear, against which the conscience of the judges protested, which they did not want, when pronouncing which they, the judges, were not judges, but a toy in the hands of governors-general. There was indignation about these judges, they were branded with the name of executioners; I don’t want to blame them, pathetic performers of a harsh duty, but to call such a court a court is blasphemy for a lawyer!

But the military court went even further. The military district court had only one option left - to admit, in the case where it was conceivable, that there was no crime, that the robbery was not over, that the robbery was only intended, to reject the aggravating feature, but even this right was not left to the military court. The decree of August 19 says that courts-martial are tried only when the crime is so obvious that there is no need to investigate it. These words predetermine the court's verdict.

Where will you find subordinate officers who will dare to say to the Governor General: “You find that the crime is so obvious that there is no need for the trial itself, but we find that this is not true - there was no crime.” In order to answer this way, you need to have that civic courage that is impossible to demand, and even if such people are found, it is still such violence against the judicial conscience that it is impossible to call such a court a court.

What kind of order is this that has deliberately left human life to the uncontrolled discretion of people prone to abuse of power? This order not only violates the rule of law and compromises the court, it breeds the atmosphere of lawlessness that constitutes the plague of Russia and gives rise to sad consequences from below.

Look, gentlemen, what you are doing! There are two state foundations: the law as a general rule, mandatory for everyone, and the court as the protector of this law. When these principles are intact - law and court - statehood itself stands strong, and you must defend them: you are the guardians of statehood. And you undermined the law, you trampled the court into the mud, you undermined the very foundations of the state - and all this was done to preserve statehood!

You said: while striking at the revolution, we could not spare private interests. How small is this slip compared to what you have done! Now we are not talking about interests, neither the authorities nor the maximalists really spare them, but there is something that should have been spared, something that you should protect, this is statehood, court and law. When you hit the revolution, you hit not at private interests, but at what protects us all - the court and the rule of law.

I think it is a wrong path to hit the revolution to stop it. No less than the authorities, I want the end of the revolution, I am waiting for the moment when Russia leaves that path of despair and lynching of its offenders, in the words of Deputy Shulgin (Vasily Shulgin - monarchist, one of the leaders of the moderate party of Russian nationalists - the All-Russian National Union, accepted abdication from the hands of Nicholas II during the February Revolution - SPJ) which she still follows today. I am waiting for the moment when the revolution ends and peaceful prosperity begins. I am looking forward to this, but I am sure that we will not achieve this in these ways.

But I will also tell you who think differently that by striking at the revolution with military courts, you are striking at us, peaceful citizens, at all those who want justice and legality. If you finish off the revolution in this way, then you will finish off the state at the same time, and on the ruins of the revolution there will not be a legal state, but only wild people - just chaos of state decay! (Deafening applause left and center.)

And this is not enough. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers told us here that “the authorities sometimes make mistakes.” People tend to make mistakes, and even, as he said openly and honestly, to abuse power. And the military court opened up wide scope for this abuse of power. And what measures have you taken to ensure that these abuses of power do not occur, at least in those cases where gallows are erected as a result of such abuses?

I do not know this, I only know that a circular was sent out on October 10th, which pointed out to the governors general the abuses that they were doing. This is a terrible circular - it certified that death penalty is not used where possible, that courts-martial are being abused. He acknowledged the existence of the terrible fact that when there were courageous people who said: “We, the judges, admit that you, the administration, were mistaken,” then the governors-general began to overturn the sentences, and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers sent out a circular in which he said, that they do not have this right, that the verdict of a military court is a final verdict and that no one dares to change it.

By striking at the revolution with military courts, you are striking at us, peaceful citizens, at all those who want justice and legality. If you finish off the revolution in this way, then you will finish off the state at the same time, and on the ruins of the revolution there will not be a legal state, but there will be only savage people - just chaos of state decay.

But doesn’t the Chairman of the Council of Ministers know that this circular has not been implemented? If he doesn’t know, then I will tell him, as a Muscovite, that a few days after the publication of this circular, in Moscow, Governor General Gershelman canceled the sentence that did not send Tarakanov and Koblov to the gallows, and ordered them to be hanged. This was announced in the press. I could ask why a person who abuses his power to such an extent remains at the head of the department, but we will ask about this in a timely manner, and now I will say: what kind of order is it that made this possible, which has knowingly left human life uncontrollable? the discretion of people prone to abuse of power?! This order not only violates the rule of law and compromises the court, it breeds the atmosphere of lawlessness that constitutes the plague of Russia and gives rise to sad consequences from below.

And so the defenders of these courts come to us with a naive or poisonous question and say: “You condemn field courts, but why is a revolutionary underground tribunal better? Condemn the murders on the left, and then everything will stop.” Gentlemen, the time will come, and I will answer this question from this rostrum with all frankness, but now I want, taking into account your point of view, to ask: don’t you see that, justifying military courts by reference to the revolutionary tribunal, which is hidden underground, do you thereby give the most murderous characteristic of your courts - do you liken them to that revolutionary tribunal, which you yourself execute in the name of the law?

By imitating them, you think to save the statehood - but will the statehood become more integral if you follow the path of your enemies, learn both the techniques and the method of action from those whom you punish? But I will say more: if you want to compare yourself with them, then think that no matter how terrible what terror does from below is, it is less terrible than your terror of courts-martial. I am against death, I understand the horror of people who are shot on the street, who are torn to pieces by bombs, I understand how terrible it is, but this is nothing compared to what military courts do: after all, there is nothing more disgusting than legal rite of execution.

With those murders, there is still a possibility, there is a hope of salvation, even if it is in vain, but what do you do with these countless executions? They bring in a man, caught, disarmed, tied up, and tell him that in a few hours he will be killed; they admit relatives who say goodbye to him, dear and close, young and healthy, who, by the will of people, must die. He is led to the gallows, like a beast to the slaughterhouse, he is dragged to the place where the coffin has already been prepared, and in the presence of the doctor, the prosecutor and the priest, who are blasphemously called upon to look at this matter, he is calmly and solemnly killed. This horror of legal murder surpasses all the excesses of revolutionary terror. Record for oblivion human nature The authorities have defeated and surpassed the revolution here! (Applause.)

I'm back where I started. I understand that state power defends himself, I understand that severity is sometimes necessary, but there is something that must not be forgotten - this is that the state must live according to the law, that the court must be a court, that arbitrariness cannot be sanctified. Field courts in this sense are so shameful that even if they were no longer used, their mere possibility is absolutely incompatible with what the Chairman of the Council of Ministers said about statehood. I will say that if his declaration is not just words, not just promises, then the ministry will join us on this issue and, without waiting a month, will itself say: there will be no more shame of military killing in Russia! (Stormy applause.)

Family

  • Father - Alexey Nikolaevich Maklakov (-) - a hereditary nobleman of the Moscow province, professor at Moscow University, ophthalmologist, well-known practicing physician in Moscow.
  • Mother - Elizaveta Vasilievna, nee Cheredeeva (died in), came from a noble family.

Before the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and France, he served as de facto ambassador. From 1924 he headed the Emigrant Committee, which took upon itself to represent the interests of Russian emigrants in France and issued certificates to Russian emigrants. He was chairman of the committee until his death, with a break during the Nazi occupation, when this body was dissolved by the German authorities. S - chairman, then honorary chairman of the Moscow Community in Paris. He was a member of the Committee of Russian Lawyers Abroad, a member of the Council of the Russian Higher Technical Institute, a member of the Society of Friends of the Russian people's university. S is the chairman of the committee of the Franco-Russian Institute.

In emigration he was engaged in literary activities, the author of works on the history of Russian socio-political life of the early 20th century, and a memoirist. Supporter of conservative liberalism.

It is interesting that after the Bolsheviks seized power, Vasily Alekseevich organized a secret transfer to Stanford (USA) of part of the archives of the Security Department (before 1917) of Russia - the “secret police” - the body of the Police Department in Russia, which was in charge of political investigation. These documents are currently housed at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. This archive contains thousands of documents from the Tsarist Police Department dating back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Proceedings

  • Maklakov V. A. Power and public at the decline of old Russia (memoirs of a contemporary) / In 3 parts. - adj. to “Illustrated Russia”, 1936. - 120+157+225 pp.
  • From memories. New York, 1954.
  • “Completely personal and confidential!”: B. A. Bakhmetev - V. A. Maklakov. Correspondence. 1919-1951 In 3 vols. M., 2001-2002.
  • First State Duma: Memoirs of a contemporary. April 27 - July 8, 1906. M., 2006
  • Second State Duma. Memoirs of a contemporary. February 20 - June 2, 1907. M., 2006.
  • Memories. Leader of the Moscow Cadets about Russian politics 1880-1917. M., 2006.

Literature

  • Dedkov N. I. Conservative liberalism of Vasily Maklakov. M., 2005.
  • Serkov A.I. Russian Freemasonry. 1731-2000 (encyclopedic dictionary), 2001.
  • Adamovich G. Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov. Politician, lawyer, person. Paris, 1959.
  • Khodyachikh S. S. The Norman conquest in the historical and legal discourse of V. A. Maklakov: interdisciplinary synthesis in the socio-humanitarian dimension // Materials of the All-Russian scientific conference"Community of Historians high school Russia: scientific practice and educational mission.” M.: IVI RAS, 2009. pp. 224-226.
  • Ivanova M. A. The role of V. A. Maklakov in the socio-political life of Russia. Author's abstract. dis. uch. Art. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 1997.

Notes

Links

  • 3rd convocation of the State Duma: portraits, biographies, autographs. - St. Petersburg: published by N. N. Olshansky, 1910.

Categories:

  • Personalities in alphabetical order
  • Born on May 22
  • Born in 1869
  • Born in Moscow
  • Died June 15
  • Died in 1957
  • Deaths in Switzerland
  • Cadets
  • Graduates of the Fifth Moscow Gymnasium
  • Graduates of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University
  • Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Empire
  • Lawyers of the Russian Empire
  • Participants Civil War in Russia
  • Persons:White movement
  • Russian emigrants of the first wave in France
  • Masons of Russia
  • Freemasons WWF
  • Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly
  • Memoirists of the Russian Empire
  • Lawyers by alphabet

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

  • 1982 British Grand Prix
  • Isachenko

See what “Maklakov, Vasily Alekseevich” is in other dictionaries:

    Maklakov Vasily Alekseevich- Maklakov, Vasily Alekseevich, an outstanding lawyer and politician, the son of the previous one. Born in 1870. He attended a course in the natural history and historical and philological faculties at Moscow University. I published an essay about... ... Biographical Dictionary

MAKLAKOV VASILY ALEXEEVICH - Russian political figure, lawyer, memoirist.

Since 1887, he studied at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, then at the Faculty of History and Philosophy of Moscow University (graduated in 1894 year); in 1896, he passed ex-term ek-za-me-ny to the Faculty of Law. An active participant in the student movement. Maklakov’s worldview was greatly influenced by L.N. Tolstoy, with whom he hung out in other places (Maklakov is the author of a number of memoirs) -kov and articles about him).

Since 1896, he has been a verified juror. In the early 1900s, together with N.K. Mu-rav-yo-vym, P.N. Ma-lyan-to-vi-chem, N.V. Tes-len-ko and others created the association “Mo-lo-daya ad-vo-ka-tu-ra”, members of which led the defense -tu under-su-di-my in political processes throughout Russia; after a number of high-profile processes with his participation, Maklakov became one of the most popular Russian hell-raisers.

In the early 1900s, he participated in the zemstvo movement, secretary of the circle of liberal zemstvo “Be-se-da” (1904 year). One of the os-no-va-te-lei (1905), member of the Central Committee and the Moscow Committee (since 1906) of the Kon-sti-tu-tsi-on-no-de-mo-kra-ti-che-par -tii (KDP), the leader of her right wing. De-pu-tat of the State Duma of the 2nd-4th convocation (1907-1917). During the period of the bi-rational campaign in the Du-mu of the 2nd convocation of the ru-ko-vo-dil of the children's party school ora- to-rov, together with A.A. Ki-ze-vet-te-rom under-go-vil ru-ko-vo-dstvo for the party-or-to-ditch “Attack-ki on the Party on-their own -bo-dy and v-ra-zhe-niya on them" (1906). Together with O.Ya. Per-ga-men-tom Maklakov co-wrote “Na-kaz” (reg-la-ment) for the State Duma (1907), which was not accepted by the official -but, but fact-ti-che-ski de-st-vo-val.

Maklakov believed that the Basic State Laws of 1906 had reached a hundred times, but it was possible -stations for the improvement of the social and political structure of the country, and in contrast to most va other li-de-rov KDP on-la-gal not-about-ho-di-my co-operation with the government. With approval from the strength of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers P.A. military courts and practical Comrade in circulation of the State Duma and the State Council. He spoke out against the program requirements of the KDP about the forced acquisition of some of the private lands in the benefit of the Christian faith, as well as the introduction of everything in general, direct, equal and secret from the bi-rational right -va, skeptically evaluate the right-to-knowledge of the masses.

In 1908, you stood up for the defense of no one at the trial in the case of former members of the State Duma, under the Vy-Borg Appeal , although he didn’t approve of the calling himself. In 1913, together with O.O. Gru-zen-ber-gom and N.P. Ka-rab-chevsky's defense attorney at the Bei-li-sa de-lu trial; Maklakov’s speech, in the opinion of modern times, played a decisive role in the op- eration of M. Baylis.

From the beginning of the 1st World War, Maklakov actively participated in the activities of the Land Union, workers -talked in one of the re-forming ranks of the Russian Red Cross Society. In 1915, he became a member of the “Pro-gres-siv-no-go bloc”. In 1915-1916, he was considered op-po-zi-tsi-ey as a desirable candidate for the post of Minister of Justice. The sensation was caused by his article “Tra-gi-che-lo-zhe-nie” (newspaper “Russian news”, 1915, September 27 ), where Maklakov, in an al-le-gorical form, depicted Russia in the form of pass-sa-zhir-ki av-to-mo-bi-la, which ve - an incompetent chauffeur is walking along a mountain road (reminiscent of Emperor Nicholas II), not wanting to hand over the steering wheel to others. Refused the request of Prince F.F. Yusu-va to assist in the organization of the murder of G.E. Ras-pu-ti-na with the help of members of any revolutionary organization, believing that it should be the most but pre-sta-vi-te-la-mi ari-sto-kra-tii, otherwise murder still has a political meaning.

During the February Revolution of 1917, Commissioner of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma in the Ministry of Justice (before the appointment of the Minister of Justice A.F. . Ke-ren-sko-go); Chairman of the Legal Council under the Provisional Government (March). Member of the Special Council for the preparation of the project on elections to the Establishment Council -ra-nie. Extremely skeptical from-but-strength to per-spec-ti-you whether-be-ral-but-de-mo-kra-ticheskogo pre-ob-ra-zo-va- niya of Russia in the conditions of the world war and the unpreparedness of the former op-position for statesmanship sti. Participated in the State Council (Moscow, August 1917), at which you made a call for national recognition -re-nu. Member of the Pre-par-la-men-tha (September - October).

Not long before the October Revolution of 1917, he was appointed Russian Ambassador to France by the Provisional Government, and arrived in Paris next the next day after Bolshevikov came to power in Petrograd and you did not present your credentials; November 17 (30), 1917, under the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs L.D. Trots was dismissed from duty, despite this, retained his diplomatic status until the recognition of the USSR by France. to her in 1924.

During the Civil War of 1917-1922 for the financial and diplomatic support of the White movement . On the initiative of Maklakov in 1918, in the Pa-ri-same ob-ra-zo-va-no Council of Russian words (Maklakov was elected his pre-se-da- te-lem). Member of the Russian Political Council (1918-1919) and the Russian Political Council (1919-1920) in Paris , representing the White movement beyond the border. Without-us-on-foot, I tried to beat the representative of the Russian Federation at the Paris Peace Conference 1919-1920 years. In 1924-1957 (from 1940 to 1944), he headed the Office for Russian Refugees in France, which under the double jurisdiction of the League of Nations and the French Foreign Ministry, which provided legal and ma- te-ri-al assistance Russian emig-ran-tam. At one time, chairman of the Emigration Committee (1924-1957, with a re-occurrence in 1942-1944).

In the 2nd World War, he took over the an-ti-na-tsi-st-si-tion, in 1942, are-sto-van ge-ta-po, after a few month o-god-day. In 1945, I tried to find an opportunity to reconcile with the Soviet government, hoping that it would change its political position -ku after the war. At the invitation of the Soviet ambassador to France, Maklakov visited his residence at the head of a group of Russian emigrants (February 12, 1945), Consequently, I considered this visit a mistake.

Author of a number of me-mu-ar-no-pub-li-ci-stical co-chi-non-nies - “From the Past” (magazine “Modern Records” -ki", 1929-1936; re-from-yes-but with-me-not-mi in the book "Power and society in the old days of Russia" -sii", vol. 1-3, 1936), "First Go-su-dar-st-ven-naya Du-ma" (1939), "Second Paradise Go-su-dar-st- ven-naya Du-ma" (without a year), "From the Vo-po-mi-na-niy" (1954). In them, Maklakov cri-ti-che-ski ras-smat-ri-val on the KDP and the activities of its li-de-ra P.N. Mi-lyu-ko-va, was responsible for the ka-ta-st-ro-ficheskie events on the ka-de-tov.

Comments:

L.N. Stand tall, like a public figure. M., 1912;

Some-to-half-not-to-re-po-mi-na-ni-yams of Pu-rish-ke-vi-cha and the book. Yusu-po-va about the murder of Ras-pu-ti-na // Contemporary notes. 1928. Book. 34;

1905-1906 // M.M. Vi-na-ver and Russian society in the 20th century. Paris, 1937;

On the eve of revolution // New journal. 1946. Book. 14;

Heresy thoughts // Ibid. 1948. Book. 19-20;

Speeches: court debates, Duma and public lectures. 1904-1926. Paris, 1949;

“Bolshevism is mis-happiness, but mis-happiness is due to service”: Re-written by V.A. Mak-la-ko-va and A.A. Ki-ze-vet-te-ra // Is-toch-nik. 1996. No. 2;

“Os-ta-vim sacred topics and pass-dem to the Jewish question”: (From the re-write of V.A. Mak- la-ko-va and V.V. Shul-gina) // Jews and Russian revolution. M.; Ye-ru-sa-lim, 1999;

“So-ver-shen-but personally and do-ve-ri-tel-but!”: B.A. Bakh-me-tev - V.A. Mak-la-kov: Pe-re-piss-ka. 1919-1951: In 3 vols. M.; Stanford, 2001-2002;

From the correspondence of V.A. Mak-la-ko-va and V.V. Shul-gi-na // Is-to-riya and is-to-ri-ki. 2006. Is-to-rio-gra-fi-che-sky vest-nick. M., 2007.

Maklakov Vasily Alekseevich born on May 10, 1869 in Moscow in the family of a successful doctor, professor at the Faculty of Medicine at Moscow University.

Graduated from the 5th Moscow Gymnasium with a silver medal, Maklakov V.A. entered the faculty natural sciences Moscow University. However, he was expelled in his 3rd year due to “political unreliability,” as he was convicted of participating in student riots. However, later still Maklakov V.A. entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1884. At the same time, he independently mastered a course in legal sciences and passed the exam as an external student, receiving a diploma of a candidate of law.

In 1886, he linked his fate with the legal profession, becoming an assistant to a sworn attorney, first A.R. Lednitsky, and later F.N. Plevako. After completing a five-year legal internship, Maklakov V.A. passed the exams and became a sworn attorney for the district of the Moscow Judicial Chamber.

Maklakov V.A. quickly became one of the best Moscow lawyers thanks to his decency and conscientiousness while conducting assigned cases. He stood out for his resourcefulness and intelligence and, according to his contemporaries, he competently built defense arguments, focusing the attention of listeners on the essence of the issue.

Maklakov V.A. acted as a defense attorney in high-profile political and criminal cases. Pavlovsky took upon himself the defense of sectarians, participants in the Vyborg uprising, the then famous Bolshevik N.E. Bauman, and took part in many other sensational cases.

In 1905 he acted as one of the organizers of the Union of Lawyers.

In 1906 Maklakov V.A. together with his former patron, F.N. Plevano, took part in the St. Petersburg court in the case of A.A. Stakhovich. against the newspaper “Grazhdanin”, owned by Prince V.P. Meshchersky. In this trial, both lawyers acted as the prosecution. As a result, they achieved that Prince Meshchersky V.P. Stakhovich A.A. was found guilty of slander, and the court sentenced him to two weeks of arrest in the guardhouse and this verdict was met with applause from the general public.

Also, the speech of V.A. Maklakov is considered a “masterpiece of oratory.” at the trial to defend the instigators of the Vyborg uprising of 1908. Deputies of the First State Duma were put on trial, who, after the dissolution of parliament, called on the population to show civil disobedience to the authorities, not pay taxes and refuse to serve in the army.

In addition, Maklakov V.A. made a great contribution to the acquittal of Beilis, who was accused of the ritual murder of a boy. The matter was very confusing. Beilis was put on trial twice: in January 1912, after which the case was sent for further investigation due to gross violations of the investigation process. The case returned to court in September 1913 and was heard for five months in the Kiev District Court with the participation of jurors. Beilis was defended by Maklakov V.A., Karabchevsky N.P. and Guzenberg O.O., despite the fact that the defense was very difficult, the lawyers were still able to achieve an acquittal. Despite the public outcry, the authorities never found the real killer.

Maklakov V.A. studied. active and political activity, took an active part in the creation of the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets) and was elected to the State Duma three times on party lists.

IN State Duma Maklakov V.A. I remember how fiery the speaker was, sharply criticizing the government, while he also opposed universal suffrage, due to the illiteracy of the majority of the population.

In the period between the February and October revolutions of 1917, Maklakov V.A. reacted to the developing events with great skepticism. He criticized the Provisional Government for the lack of consolidation in the country, which could lead to death.

In early October, Maklakova V.A. unexpectedly appointed ambassador to Paris, where he arrived on October 11th on the second day October Revolution. Naturally, he did not accept the revolution, becoming an ardent opponent of the Bolshevik government.

In Paris, he will head the emigrant committee involved in supporting Russian refugees. Maklakov V.A. actively followed events in Russia and believed that Bolshevism would quickly exhaust itself. However, he later lost faith in this, taking the position that Bolshevism “although it is a grief for the Russian people, it is still the power that represents Russia.”

During the Second World War Maklakov V.A. was an ardent supporter of the anti-Hitler coalition, for which he was imprisoned in a concentration camp. At the end of the war, Maklakov moved to Switzerland, where he published his book “From Memories”; the statesman and public figure died on June 15, 1957.