CHAPTER II.

POLITICAL ABSOLUTISM ANTAGONISTIC TO SOCIAL WELL-BEING.

THERE are, therefore, two principles at work in the government of States, the one or the other of which may be clearly predominant. The one is the principle of repression, which is the result of conquest; the other, the principle of freedom, which is the result of commerce. In the States where the first is predominant, it may be said to shut out largely, often unnecessarily and harshly, the possibility of the existence of the other, for freedom. is not allowed where the people are regarded by the government with fear or suspicion, the main object of the government, which has established itself by force, being to keep order by force, even though that order is the order of stagnation. The principle of liberty, indeed, is one which grows up gradually, not from the establishment of States, but from the increase in the material interests of individuals, which become united together for the prosecution of commerce. Liberty is a necessity to the growth of wealth, comfort, and refinement, and it must be invariably associated with commerce. Repression is a necessity to the maintenance of force and arbitrary government on the one hand, and necessitates serfdom or slavery on the other, wherein the lives and interests of the masses are sacrificed to the convenience and enjoyment of a few.

In this and the succeeding chapter, we shall devote some consideration to the characteristics of the working of the two principles as exhibited in Europe, during the

CH. II. AUTOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND OLD FRANCE.

29

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so that we may clearly apprehend the nature and tendency of the changes that have occurred, and discern also the character of the present movements.

There can be no doubt that the emancipation of the peasantry of Europe, which has taken place within the last one hundred years, has placed the masses, as a whole, in a better position as regards opportunities for individual exertion and improvement than formerly. But the method of the emancipation has greatly affected that position, and in the degree in which the process has been due to natural causes rather than to autocratic legislation, will be the amount of solid security, and the resulting well-being.

But there is a necessary antagonism between political absolutism and social well-being. Wherein, then, does that antagonism consist?

In replying to that question, we shall refer to the two best known instances of modern times. There is a remarkable similarity between the condition of Russia of to-day, and of France before the Revolution of 1789. In both there is a great centralised autocratic power, administering throughout the country by means of a widespread ramification of place-seeking and venal bureaucratic officials. According to the personal character of the autocrat, will be, for the time, the character of the administration. It will be either hard and relentless, as under the military régime of Louis XIV., or the iron Czar Nicholas; or it will be humane and full of reforms, as under the mild rule of Louis XVI., or the present Emperor of Russia, Alexander II. When it is severe, the spirit of repression will weigh heavily upon the people, and the privileged classes will prove that they are, as is said, well-intentioned' towards the government, by favouring all its plans, and glorifying the wisdom of the ruler. The result of this behaviour will be to intensify the character

6

of the administration. While generally the tendency of a despotic government is towards military aggression, rather than commercial extension, is to favour the arts and increase the instruments of war, rather than to foster peaceful internal development-that tendency is intensified when a sovereign, whose character is competent to carry out a repressive system, finds his every wish gratified, and it only receives a check when the results of foreign war are disastrous.

The whole of Russia was held by Nicholas in the sternest bonds of absolutism. Men were forbidden everywhere to deal with any matters of a social or political kind. If they possessed active minds, should they desire to extend their energies beyond the immediate sphere of their everyday business, they must find employment for them in the arts or belles-lettres. Thus an intellectual lethargy, a perfect indifference to political and social measures, laid hold of the educated minds of Russia during the reign of Nicholas. It was only when the disasters of the Crimean war proved to everyone the rottenness of the whole system, which had been so rigidly adhered to, that an intellectual awakening took place; and many who had never before dreamt of criticising, vigorously denounced, though in secret, the governmental measures that had been the means of procuring such a catastrophe. Everything, indeed, had been sacrificed to the military power and grandeur of the State, and it could not fail to be galling to awakening patriotic feeling to find that the sacrifice had been made in vain.

Thus a natural revulsion took possession of the mind of the nation, and the new Emperor shared it along with his people. The reign of Alexander II. has been characterised by the mildness of the individual ruler. It has been one of humane reforms, dictated by compassion for the miseries of the people, and considerations for the

CH. II. LIMITS TO AUTOCRATIC REFORMS IN RUSSIA. 31

necessity of internal development. The emancipation of the serfs has immemorably signalised the present reign, and that step has been followed by the institution of a new and a higher kind of administration to supplement that of the commune, as well as a complete reform of the law courts. While, however, the character of the government has changed for the better, and the harassing and narrow restrictions placed upon the lives and energies of the people have been largely removed, there is no letting down of the Imperial authority. Local administration must in no case trench upon the position occupied by the central government. Though the bureaucracy may be, in some measure, a reformed one, and less amenable to gross bribery, and less given to glaring injustice, it is there still, equally necessary to dispense the will of the government. Though the gendarmerie may be less cruel and capricious in its actions than heretofore, yet it is there still to spy upon the behaviour of individuals whom the government may regard with suspicion. The machinery is still in active exercise, the intimate connection that existed between the numerous officials and the central bureaucratic office exists unchanged; and the manifold reports and documents that flow from the extremities to St. Petersburg, and the ukases, regulations, and circulars that flow back again from St. Petersburg to the extremities, have not ceased: there is, indeed, no more approach in Russia of to-day towards an extension of political power amongst the people, than there was in the days of the repressive rule of Nicholas.

In thus describing the course of feeling and of action that has taken place in Russia, we describe at the same time the history of France under the old régime. It is true that there are some notable differences that might be recorded between the positions of the two countries under the rule of absolutism. Thus while in Russia the masses

of the agriculturists were serfs, in France they were, for the most part, free men, and the free peasantry had, to a large extent, become owners of the ruined estates of the nobility. But the actual condition of the people scarcely differed on that account; indeed if there was a difference, it was in favour of the Russian serf, who, when under a humane master, which was not unseldom the case, was able to lead a comfortable and easy life. The French peasantry, upon the other hand, were one and all ground down to the dust by the exorbitant and ruinous pressure of taxation, so that it was scarcely profitable to cultivate the land; much of it lay waste, and the people died of misery and starvation.

Under Louis XIV., the country was exhausted by the extravagant expenses of the government, chiefly incurred in foreign wars. Everything was sacrificed to military glory and drawing-room display, and a reign of hard and unscrupulous repression prostrated the energies and the spirit of the people. When the tide of fortune in war, however, turned, a public opinion began to manifest itself against the continuance of a system that was at last found to lead to ruin, and that opinion ultimately took possession of the court. No one could have proclaimed more loudly and clearly against the monstrous cruelty of his predecessors and the system that had been handed down to him than did the amiable and unfortunate Louis XVI. ; indeed his expressions were only too well fitted to rouse the spirit of the nation against the continuance of such a system any longer. But it was not easy to change everything at once, for men had been long accustomed to certain modes of life, certain ways of action, and certain means of living. A great part of the better classes were intimately connected with the government, and derived their incomes from it. The military officers, the clergy, and bureaucratic officials, whose numbers included almost everyone of any position, could not be stripped of their