enters upon the work of reform. . . . . The evils which were endured with patience so long as they were inevitable, seem intolerable as soon as a hope can be entertained of escaping from them.'1

It would appear, from one point of view, that of all the various kinds of reforms upon which any government could embark, there is none more likely to affect the masses of the people beneficially than the abolition of serfage, particularly when the serfs to be emancipated enjoy neither civil rights nor domestic independence. But then, from another point of view, the very depth and extent of the reform make it dangerous; for a great proportion of the people are to be placed in a position of independence and responsibility to which they have never been accustomed, and for which the vices inseparable from their former condition unfit them. A large step is to be made, a gigantic experiment in social science' is undertaken. The necessary ingredients have been put together, but natura naturans has not yet played her part in the operation.'2

But will Nature play her part at all in the operation so as to produce the desired results? or will the new conditions of human existence in Russia defy the soluble powers of natural operation?

These questions are of immense importance to Russia; and, so far as she has answered them, the answers appear to be, upon the whole, disappointing. Let us inquire what the new conditions are, and what has already been their effect upon proprietors and serfs. First, then, the landed proprietors have been stirred up suddenly from a life of apathetic ease to exert themselves to procure a revenue independently of the labour of their serfs, upon

1 On the State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789, by Alexis de Tocqueville, pp. 323, 324.

2 Russia, by D. Mackenzie Wallace, M.A., vol. ii. p. 312.

which till hitherto they had always exclusively relied. Second, the serfs themselves, having been relieved from forced labour, devote their time as much as possible to the cultivation of their own land, unless necessity compels them to labour additionally upon the lands of their former masters. Third, the serf, being also relieved from the government of the patriarch of the family, has set up a home of his own. And, fourth, the peasant shares now in the administration of the affairs of his commune, in which the proprietor has no voice.

What has been already the effects of these new conditions? These effects appear to be very various according to the very various circumstances in which the proprietors and serfs had formerly been placed. All over Russia it is now the complaint of the proprietors that it is impossible to induce their former serfs to work so as to produce a fair return, and they are, it is alleged, too often inclined to show their independence in much the same way as tradesmen of more favoured countries not unfrequently do-namely, in choosing the most urgent period of work as that in which they shall cease their labours. Thus the harvests which are upon the point of being saved are sometimes seriously imperilled by the action of the free labourer; and the former master, while exerting himself in a way he has never been accustomed to, is thereby threatened with ruin. The landed proprietors of the northern and of some of the central provinces have suffered most heavily. The reason of this partly lay in the fact that in these portions the rural population was most injured by the Emancipation. There the soil was chiefly worn out, and not worth the dues put upon it. The proprietor had formerly received a tax from his serfs, which they paid while being allowed to work at some other occupation than agriculture. The individual serf might dwell in a town at a great distance off, or he might

enrol himself as a member of one of the artels, or travelling companies of workmen who band themselves together, and engage in different kinds of industrial occupation. When, however, the Emancipation Act became law, this tax was payable to the government in another form through the commune. The commune was and is in many cases a harder master than the proprietor, and could not or did not allow the same degree of liberty to its subjects. This partly arose from the fact that the more worthless members of it frequently had a good deal of voice in the amount of liberty granted, and it would not be to their advantage to confer too much freedom on the more industrious members. The misery of the peasantry who were tied by the redemption process and the communal system to unproductive tracts of land, affected the circumstances of the landed proprietors. This peaBantry sold much of their stock for rent and taxes, and Consequently did not require the lease of pastures and meadows. A want of enlightenment, combined with careJess management, favoured the spread of murrain among their enfile. From the village the rinderpest spread to the manors. Penury led to want of seed, and want of ed to short crops, and, in many provinces, to famine. The sensons were unfavourable, and there was no provion against such an emergency. The communal reBorvos of corn placed under the special care of the peasant sell government were in too many cases found empty. Provinces after province was called upon to feed the hungry The charges on land consequently increased in the very provinces in which agriculture was pursued le got qd, untageously. The inevitable emigration of the pantry from those provinces in large numbers-not in , for they are yet too firmly attached to the soil, but the government shall have become convinced necessity of allowing them to employ their labour

more productively elsewhere-will finally accomplish the ruin of a great proportion of the proprietors of the northern and central provinces.' 1

Many of the proprietors, indeed, have abandoned the country and betaken themselves to official life in the towns, or have engaged in industrial or commercial pursuits. Thus, particularly in the northern agricultural zone, the houses in which the proprietors lived-many of them as grand seigneurs-are for the most part deserted, and left exposed to the ravages of time.'" In this way, therefore, the restraining influence of the proprietor over his former serf, as regards whatever moral force his presence might exercise, has been so far lost, and the two great classes of the nation are more effectually separated from each other in position and sympathies than before.

But what have been the results of the new conditions so far as they affect the peasantry? In the northern agricultural provinces we have seen that they are in a miserable condition, and that there appears to be no relief from impending ruin. The peasantry are compulsorily attached to the soil that is taxed at a rate above its value, so that the Imperial taxes, which amount to about 31. per peasant family, are only a portion of the burden. of taxation to be borne by those peasants who belong to the most unproductive districts, and who possess the fewest resources.

But the misfortunes of a declining condition are seriously aggravated by the fact that the members of the commune are jointly responsible for the payment of the taxes. Although the most industrious individuals may have paid their proportion for the year, yet their stock may be seized to pay the debts of their less fortunate or

1 Report by Mr. Michell on the System of Land Tenure in Russia, p. 58. 2 Russia, vol. ii. p. 328.

It thus follows that, if there decline, there is a positive

more worthless neighbours. be any marked tendency to darger that every industrious peasant shall cease his toil, for there is no certainty that the fruits of it shall be secure from the demands of the tax-gatherer. The consequences of such conditions must often be disastrous. Thus where a member of a commune, perhaps after a life of toil in a distant part of the country, has amassed riches, his wealth is not secure, for he may be called upon to pay at any moment for those members of his commune who are defaulters, mayhap to subsidise the whole com

The uncertainty of such a position is also aggravated by the fact that it is no uncommon occurrence to see the most vicious man at the head of the village community. He is generally a greater drunkard than the rest a quality which admits of his being propitiated. . . . . It cannot be denied that, as a rule, the despotism of such an utterly uncivilized democracy exercises a most baneful influence on the moral and material development of the people, and that that development is at present subservient to the paramount interests of the Exchequer and the War Department.'1

The journals are full of cases in which the industrious members of the communes are ruined for the benefit of their brethren. One day, it is a rich peasant whose brickworks are seized and sold for a tenth of their value, in order to make good the communal arrears; the next, it is a peasant woman in despair at seeing her cottage sacked, the distraining officer leaving her but one garment-her gown."

It therefore appears that, at any rate in large portions of Russia, the condition of both proprietors and peasantry has been very seriously and prejudicially affected by the Emancipation Act. But has there been any general 1 Report by Mr. Michell, p. 52.

• Ibid., see note, p. 51.