V. I.

Lenin

Wepublish below the full text of another mass petition by means of which the
Finnish people express their strong protest against the policy of the
government, which has violated, and continues to violate, the constitution of
Finland, thus breaking the oath solemnly taken by all the tsars, from
Alexander I to Nicholas II.

Thepetition was presented to the Finnish Senate on September 17 (30),
1901, for submission to the tsar. It is signed by 473,363 Finnish men and
women of all strata of society, i.e., by nearly half a million
citizens. The total population of Finland is 2,500,000, so that this
petition veritably expresses the voice of the entire people .

Thetext reads in full:

“Mostpuissant, most gracious Sovereign, Emperor and Grand Duke! Your Imperial Majesty’s change of the law on military service
in Finland has aroused general alarm and profound sorrow throughout the
territory.

Theorders, the Manifesto, and the law on military service, confirmed by
Your Imperial Majesty on July 12 (June 29) this year are in complete
violation of the fundamental laws of the Grand Duchy, and of the precious
rights belonging to the Finnish people and to all the citizens of the
country by virtue of its laws.

“Inaccordance with the fundamental laws, regulations governing
citizens’ duties to defend the region may be issued only with the consent
of the Diet. This was the procedure by which the Military Service Act of
1878 was passed, in accordance with a joint-decision of the Emperor
Alexander II and the Diet. During the reign of Emperor Alexander III,
numerous specific changes were made in this Law, but none without the
consent of the Diet. Despite this, the Law of 1878 is declared annulled,
without the consent of the Diet, and the new orders issued in place of the
old Law are at complete variance with the decision of the deputies to the
Extraordinary Diet of 1899.

“Oneof the most important rights vested in every Finnish citizen is
the right to live and act under the protection of the Finnish laws.

Today, thousands and thousands of Finnish citizens are deprived of this
right, for the new Military Service Act compels them to serve in Russian
units and converts military service into suffering for those sons of our
country who will he forcibly drafted into these units, alien to them in
language, religion, manners, and customs.

“Thenew regulations abolish every legally fixed limitation of the annual
contingent. Moreover, they contain no recognition of the right granted by the
fundamental laws for the Diet to participate in drafting the military budget.

“Inviolation of the fundamental principle of the Law of 1878, even the
militia has been made entirely dependent upon the discretion of the Minister of
War.

“Theimpression created by such regulations is not modified by the
measures of relief referred to in the Manifesto, which are to operate for
a transitional period as yet undefined, because the temporary reduction in
the number of recruits will be immediately followed by unlimited drafts
for service with Russian units.

“The Finnish people have not asked for any relief of the military
burden they have carried. The Diet, which expresses the opinion of the
people, has proved Finland’s readiness to increase its share in the
defence of the state as far as it is in its power, on the condition that
the juridical position of the Finnish troops as a Finnish institution is
preserved.

“Contraryto this, the new regulations state that the majority of the
Finnish units are to be abolished and Russian officers permitted to enter
the service of the few remaining units; that even the non-commissioned
officers of these units must know the Russian language, which means that
Finnish-born citizens mainly of peasant strata will be prevented from
filling these posts; that these troops are to come under Russian
administration and that they may, even in peace-time, be stationed outside
of Finland.

“Theseorders, which do not constitute a reform but merely pursue the
aim of abolishing the national troops of Finland, are a sign of distrust
which the Finnish people throughout almost a century of union with Russia
have done nothing to deserve.

“Thenew military service regulations also contain expressions, the
implication of which is that the Finnish people have no fatherland of
their own and that the rights of Finnish citizenship to those born in the
country are denied. These expressions betray aims that are incompatible
with the inalienable right of the Finnish people to preserve, in their
union with Russia, the political position firmly guaranteed to Finland in
1809.

“Agrave misfortune has beset our region during the recent
years. Time and again it has been demonstrated that the established
fundamental laws of the region are ignored, partly in legislative measures
and partly in the assignment of Russians to important posts. The region
has boon administered in a manner to suggest that the aim was to disturb
peace and order, to hinder useful pursuits, and to cause friction between
Russians and Finns.

“Thegreatest misfortune that has befallen the country, however, is
the introduction of the new military service regulations.

“Inits humble response of May 27, 1899, the Diet described in detail
the order which, according to the fundamental laws of Finland, must be
observed in the promulgation of a law on military service. It was pointed
out that if a new law on military service is passed in any other way, that
law, even if put into operation by force, cannot be recognised as a legal
measure, and in the eyes of the Finnish people will be nothing more than
an act of violence.

“Everythingthe Diet indicated continues to be the Finnish people’s
unchanging sense of justice, which cannot be changed by violence.

“Seriousconsequences are to be feared from regulations not in accord
with the laws of the country. The conscience of officials in government
institutions will come into grave conflict with their sense of duty, for
conscience will urge them to refuse to be guided by such regulations. The
number of able-bodied emigrants compelled to leave the country from fear
of the threatening changes will increase still more if the regulations
announced will be put into effect.

“Thenew military service regulations, like every other measure
directed against the rights of the Finnish people to a separate political
and national existence, must inevitably sow distrust between the monarch
and the people, as well as give rise to growing discontent, to a sense of
general oppression, to uncertainty, and to enormous difficulties for
society and its members in the work for the welfare of the region. These
evils cannot be avoided except by the substitution of the aforesaid
regulations by a military service law passed jointly with the Diet, and in
general by the strict observance of the fundamental laws on the part of
the government authorities of the region.

“The Finnish people cannot cease to be a separate people. United by a
common historical fate, by juridical conceptions and cultural work, our
people will remain true to its love of the Finnish fatherland and to its
traditional liberty. The people will not deviate from its aspirations to
occupy worthily the modest place fate has destined for it among the
nations.

“Firmin the conviction of our rights and in the respect for our laws
which are our mainstay in our social life, we are no less firmly convinced
that the unity of mighty Russia will suffer no damage if Finland continues
in the future to be administered in accordance with the fundamental
principles laid down in 1809, and in this way to feel happy and peaceful
in its union with Russia.

“Thesense of duty to their country compels the inhabitants of all
communities and social strata to submit to Your Imperial Majesty a true
and unembellished record of the state of affairs. We pointed out above
that the recently promulgated military service regulations, contradicting
as they do the solemnly guaranteed fundamental laws of the Grand Duchy,
cannot be regarded as a legal act. We consider it our duty to add that the
military burden in itself is not nearly so important to the Finnish people
as the loss of firmly established rights and of legally founded
tranquillity on this most important question. We therefore humbly pray
Your Imperial Majesty graciously to give the matters referred to in this
petition the attention their seriousness calls for. We are, etc,”

Wehave little to add to the above petition, which represents a people’s
indictment of the gang of Russian official law-breakers.

Weshall enumerate the principal facts of the “Finnish question”.

Finlandwas annexed to Russia in 1809, during the war with
Sweden. Desiring to win over the Finns, who were formerly subjects of the
Swedish King, Alexander I decided to recognise and confirm the old Finnish
constitution. According to this constitution, no fundamental law can be
made, amended, interpreted, or repealed without the consent of the Diet, i.e., the assembly of representatives of all social-estates.
Alexander I, in a number of manifestos, “solemnly” confirmed
“the promise sacredly to preserve the separate constitution of the country ”.

Thissacred promise was subsequently confirmed by all succeeding Russian
monarchs, including Nicholas II, who, in the Manifesto of October 25
(November 6), 1894, “promised to preserve them [the fundamental
laws] in their inviolable and immutable force and operation

Withinfive years the Tsar of Russia had broken his solemn oath.
Preceded by a campaign of vilification, conducted by the venal and servile
press, the Manifesto of February 3 (15), 1899 was promulgated, introducing
new regulations, according to which laws might be passed without the consent of the Diet “if these laws concern the requirements of
the Empire as a whole or are part of imperial legislation”.

Thiswas a glaring violation of the constitution, a veritable coup d’état , because every law can be said to concern the
requirements of the Empire as a whole!

Thiscoup d’état was brought about by violence: Governor
General Bobrikov threatened to call troops into Finland if the Senate
refused to publish the Manifesto. According to the statements made by
Russian officers, ball cartridges were distributed to the Russian troops
stationed in Finland, and horses were saddled, etc.

Thefirst act of violence was followed by innumerable others. Finnish
newspapers were suppressed one after another, the right of assembly was
annulled, Finland was flooded with swarms of Russian spies and despicable
provocateurs, who incited the people to rebellion, etc., etc. Finally, the

Military Service Act of June 29 (July 12) was passed, without the consent of the Diet. This law has been dealt with sufficiently in the
petition.

Boththe Manifesto of February 3, 1899 and the Act of June 29, 1901 are
illegal . This is the violence of a perjurer acting with a horde
of bashi-bazouks called the tsarist government. It would be futile, of
course, for 2,500,000 Finns to think of an uprising; but we, all Russian
citizens, should ponder over the disgrace that puts us to shame. We are
still slaves to such an extent that we are employed to reduce other
peoples to slavery. We still tolerate a government that suppresses every
aspiration towards liberty in Russia with the ferocity of an executioner,
and that further more employs Russian troops for the purpose of violently
infringing on the liberties of others!