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 introduced 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.

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-fourths— were 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 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

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.

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