CH. I. SERF-EMANCIPATION IN EUROPE. 23 In Germany, also, a similar arrangement for the commutation of services was carried out. In the year 1836, the Grand Duchy of Hesse led the way, the State undertaking to advance to the great lords a sum equivalent to eighteen years' purchase of the rent-charge of the lands in occupation, a precedent which was afterwards followed by almost every State throughout Germany. Again, so recently as the year 1847, the Austrian peasantry were serfs, and by their forced labour the estates of the great lords were cultivated. By the land laws of 1848-49, they were emancipated, and from serfs they became proprietors. This was accomplished in the following manner :-A valuation of the whole properties which were occupied by the peasantry in name of feudal service was made by the State, one-third of the value was declared to be cancelled, another third formed a tax upon each province, and the remaining third was provided for by a tax levied exclusively upon the peasant proprietors, which was regarded as the price payable by them to the State, for the free and unrestricted ownership of the land that had been formerly held under imposed services. There was thus a great revolution effected, which produced direct and indirect results of immense importance. One of the direct results was the comparative impoverishment of the landlords, who to escape ruin were compelled to adopt a more scientific method of agriculture, and a more extended employment of machinery; while the indirect results have been recognised in the creation of a class of thriving peasant proprietors, and an increase in the value of land to the extent of over one hundred per cent. But the most remarkable instance of definite legal emancipation proceeds from Russia. In that country, natural causes have operated neither in the enslavement nor in the liberation of the peasantry. The condition of serfdom in Russia was not created by a necessity for the existence of feudalism, with its correlative rights and duties, as was the case in other countries. Serfdom was introduced in Russia Proper by the sovereigns of Moscow, who conferred upon the lord the right of property in the cultivator of the soil. The peasantry were prohibited from their customary migrations on the day of the festival of St. George, in the year 1592. From that date the mass of the people of Russia was composed of villeins bound to the soil, and owned by the landed aristocracy and gentry, by the Crown, and by the Imperial Family. In Little Russia and Lithuania, again, serfdom was intro: duced in the reign of the Empress Catherine, who distributed serfs among the nobility. It was thus that as many as 30,000 male serfs became the property of some favourites.1 In the reign of the Emperor Nicholas, the subject of emancipation began to occupy the attention of the government of Russia; and in 1826 a secret committee was appointed to inquire into the entire organisation of the empire. It was not, however, till the year 1861 that the Act of Emancipation was passed into law. This act had the effect of conferring freedom on 22,000,000 of individuals, who formed the serf population of Russia Proper. It also affected indirectly the peasantry of the Crown, numbering 23,000,000, and of the appanages, numbering 3,000,000. To understand what was the full effect of this act, it is necessary to consider first what the previous condition of the serf actually was. Each male serf, of whatever age, enjoyed the usufruct on an average of from eight to ten acres of land. The rent levied by the lord varied greatly. The necessities of the proprietor caused him not unfrequently to mortgage his land and serfs in 1 Reports on the Tenure of Land in the several Countries of Europe. See Report by Mr. Michell on the System of Land Tenure in Russia, part ii. pp. 22, 23. CH. I. SERF-EMANCIPATION IN RUSSIA. 25 order to obtain a loan from the government, and it generally happened that the interest on the loan had to be added to the amount of the quit-rent. In this way the serf was taxed not so much according to the value of the land, as according to his lord's necessities. It was impossible for the serf to resist any claim that might be made upon him, for the law heard no complaint, and it gave no redress. He might be flogged with impunity, enrolled in the army, sent off to Siberia, or stripped of all his possessions, just according to his lord's good pleasure. The condition of the peasantry belonging to the Crown and the appanages was, however, in some degree different from this; for though they were not at liberty to leave the soil, they were free from the more grievous kinds of oppression. Most of the lands-about three-fourthswere held for service only, which service was bestowed upon an equivalent extent of lands occupied by the lord. In the industrial provinces, however, where there were other sources of income than that from land, the holdings of the serf were increased, so as to increase the amount of the quit-rent. Besides payment to the lord in money and service the serf was bound at all times to supply horses and carts to transport his produce, to supply poultry and other contributions in kind, and in giving numerous other services. The Emancipation Act, as regards the serf, decreed the right to commutation of personal services, the right to the homestead on terms fixed mutually or by law; the right to purchase the lands under his cultivation at eighty per cent. of their estimated value, or at the lord's option, the free gift of one-fourth of such lands with the homestead; also the privilege of communal and cantonal selfgovernment.1 But what the Emancipation Act did not provide for was the individual right to freedom of locomo 1 System of Land Tenure in Russia, p. 29. tion, for since the government held the village communes as corporate bodies, responsible for the payment of the quit-rents, taxes, and redemption dues,' the communes were in a manner placed in the position which the lords had formerly occupied as landlords. They accordingly, becoming responsible to the State, were compelled to make their individual members responsible to them, and there was generally no more practicable way of securing that responsibility, than by keeping the peasant chained to the soil and to his commune. In this cursory survey of the circumstances in which the emancipation of the masses of the people in Europe has taken place, we may discern clearly the preponderating influence which the towns have exerted. In Britain, where the towns were most numerous and prosperous, the rural population became free at an early date. In France, the emancipation of the masses of the peasantry was undoubtedly effected at an early period, but their well-being was retarded, and ultimately destroyed, through the enslavement of the towns by the despotic central power. In Italy, again, the towns were the centre of European civilization and freedom, when other countries adjoining had scarcely emerged from barbarism, but unfortunately while their commercial interests were severed by lofty physical barriers, their military interests, if we may so say, were in the hands of the inhabitants of these barriers the lords and their followers. The consequence was a mutual weakening to such a degree, that the various independent republics became the prey for centuries of foreign powers. In the eastern parts of Europe, again, the States which border upon the natural highway -the sea-have possessed the greatest natural advantages for commerce, and they have preceded the more landward States in the freedom of their peoples, and progress in civilization. Russia, above every other country, the most CH. I. GENERAL SURVEY OF PROCESSES OF FREEDOM. 27 dependent upon its own resources, from the absence of facilities of intercommunication, has only a few years since, by authoritative decree, proclaimed freedom to the serfs; but unfortunately conditioned in such a way as to render the boon, if it is one, of an entirely problematical character. Generalising, therefore, from the more prominent facts, we may conclude that whatever influence the presence of a peculiar government may have on the immediate future condition of a people emerging from barbarism, the over and ever ruling influence consists in those physical circumstances which admit of a ready interchange of goods and ideas with the remainder of the world. Indeed, the process of development cannot be forced on from above, cannot be superinduced by the artificial means of legislation. What legislation alone can accomplish is the removal of all the obstacles to natural growth, which the selfish interests, or the blinded prejudices, of others may have imposed. The establishment and maintenance of an enlightened self-interest, as the actuating and freely-acting power, among the masses, ought surely to be one of the first objects of government, and that object will be best accomplished by affording the most ample field for the unrestricted operation of natural law, by the unshackling of all fetters, and the abolition of all privileges. We shall in the next chapter consider more attentively the evils of political absolutism, and its attendant, overlegislation. |