in the same key, the day will not be far distant when the people will speak of you with the withering scorn of the disillusioned son for his garrulous father'."
We say again, in order to avoid malicious misinterpretation, that we are criticising the conduct of the Workers' Group, not to reproach its members, but to assist the political development of the Russian proletariat and peasantry.
And with the same object in view, we must point to a serious mistake made by Nevskaya Gazeta. "We cannot regard the incident over the address," writes that paper,
"as an excuse for stopping the activities of the Duma". . . . "We see no ground for putting the question bluntly just now" (No. 6). This is the wrong tone. It is unseemly for Social-Democrats to pose as people who can in any way be responsible for the Duma. If the Social-Democrats had a majority in the Duma, the Duma would not be a Duma, or else the Social-Democrats would not be Social-Democrats. Let the Cadets bear all the responsibility for the Duma. Let the people learn to cast off constitutional illusions at their expense, and not ours.
You yourselves say, comrades: "The proletariat will not agree to the Milyukovs being left free to strike a bargain with the old regime." Well spoken. But what, in substance, are the bargains struck by the Cadets? Not personal acts of treachery, of course. Such a crude opinion is utterly alien to Marxism. The substance of the bargains is (and is only) that the Cadets don't abandon, and don't want to abandon, their stand for preserving the old regime and for obeying the commands of this regime. The Cadets, so long as they remain Cadets, are quite right when they say: to abandon this position means putting the question bluntly, providing an excuse for stopping the activities of the Duma.
It is unseemly for Social-Democrats to argue in a way that might give the people cause for seeing in their arguments a justification of the Cadets. It is not our business to justify their hypocritical statements that it was all a question of the Duma's "politeness" and Trepov's "rudeness" (Struve in Duma ). We must expose that hypocrisy, and show that the "first lesson" which the Cadets have received is a result of the intrinsic duplicity of their whole position, of their entire address. We must not appraise the revolutionary situation in the country from the standpoint of what goes on in the Duma. On the contrary, we must appraise questions and incidents that arise in the Duma from the standpoint of the revolutionary situation in the country.
 Count Heyden's group -- the "Left" wing of the Octobrist group in the First Duma; it included several Right Cadets. At the Duma session on May 5 (18), 1906, during the discussion of the reply to the address from the throne, the Heyden group refused to vote for the text of the reply, couched by the Cadets in constitutional-monarchist terms, for it considered the text too radical, and left the session. Following the dissolution of the Duma the group organised itself into the Party of Peaceful Renovation, which stood close to the Octobrists. Lenin gave a political characterisation of Heyden and his group in the article "In Memory of Count Heyden" (see present edition, Vol. 13.)
 The words in quotation marks are a paraphrase of the closing lines of Lermontov's poem "Meditation" (Duma in Russian) (see M. Y. Lermontov,
Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1934, p. 7).