them into domestic servants, and disposing of them by sale and will. The sale of serfs became at length, as it were, sanctioned by law; to such an extent had custom taken the lead of law, which was forced to acknowledge a state of things that had engrafted itself on the life of the people by the force of circumstances. Serfs were bought and sold even without the land, and families were broken up and dispersed without the slightest hesitation or remorse. That these practices were not at all uncommon is evident from the ukaz of Peter the Great, issued in 1721.1

At the commencement of the eighteenth century this second phase of serfdom assumed a more definite form under the radical changes which the genius and determination of Peter effected in the whole social system of Russia. In order to ensure a due collection of taxes, and a regular levy of recruits, Peter, in 1718, introduced a new plan for enumerating the people. With the commencement of this system the former mode of assessing taxes according to estates, and fixing the extent of military service by tenure, was superseded by a general personal or poll tax. At the same time the landowners were held strictly responsible by law for any irregularity in the payment of imposts, or non-conformity to their military engagements, on the part of the serfs attached to their estates, whether agricultural or domestic. One of the consequences of this was the elevation of the domestic serf to a greater degree of importance, as being liable to be summoned into the service of his country, whereas he had previously been only regarded as a mere chattel, appurtenance, or article of possession. But, nevertheless, on the whole, the civil position of the serf was remarkably lowered. Up to this time he had enjoyed and retained many privileges, such as embracing the military career of his own free will, acquiring immovable property, and trading and trafficking in towns and villages.

A law was passed forbidding the sale of serfs at the country fairs so late even as 1808.

The attachment of each serf individually, instead of by tenement collectively, gave the landowner a firmer hold over him. Although this was done in the form of a financial and military administrative measure, yet it was in reality the first legal enactment securing the peasant personally to the proprietor of the soil. Peter, moreover, with the view of promoting mining and manufacturing enterprise, permanently attached some of the serfs to certain mines and factories, on the condition that they should revert to the crown in case the undertaking was abandoned. This class, who were called possession-serfs, are landless, and now number 21,813 persons of both sexes. The Emperor Nicholas did all he could to reduce their number which in his time had reached 100,000, for their condition was most deplorable, and they were positively slaves.

In the reigns of Anne and Elizabeth, the serfs were still more firmly bound to the landowners; and domestic serfs, who until then had only been looked upon as temporary bondsmen, were reduced to a state of unconditional servitude by an ukaz of the 26th of March, 1729. This ukaz also deprived them of their privilege of entering the army of their own free will. Another ukaz, in October, 1730, deprived them of their privilege of inheriting and possessing land. This was followed by a third, in 1736, which granted to the proprietor the right to punish his serfs,-a power hitherto only vested in the state. June, 1742, these edicts were solemnly confirmed. In 1760 an ukaz was promulgated by which any proprietor was empowered to send those serfs with whom he was displeased or dissatisfied to work in the mines of Nerchinsk in Siberia-the Government, with the most tender solicitude for the interests of the nobles, undertaking to make an allow ance for all serfs so disposed of, in the quota of recruits to be furnished by such proprietors.

In

There now remained but little to be done towards despoiling the unfortunate peasant of the last vestiges of his liberty, but what little did remain was most

effectually accomplished by the sovereign

"whom glory still adores."

Catherine II. believed that her safest policy lay in conciliating the nobles; and to their aggrandisement every other class was ruthlessly sacrificed. The nobles had been altogether exempted from compulsory service under the crown by an ukaz of Peter III. in 1762; and, although temporarily suspended, this decree was afterwards confirmed by Catherine. By a charter granted to the nobles in 1765, among other privileges ceded to them, the hitherto conditional right of possessing crown-lands with serfs attached to them became free and absolute, and those serfs passed fully and entirely into the power of the proprietor. Catherine, moreover, in 1783, reduced the Cossacks of the Ukraine, who had still retained their liberty, to the same miserable state of servitude as the other peasants of her empire.

This state of things continued with but little change until the deposition of the Emperor Paul, when some spasmodic unconnected efforts were made to check the increase of serfdom. During the reigns of Alexander and Nicholas no fewer than eight commissions were appointed to inquire into the condition of the serfs; but their proceedings were conducted in secret, and eventually failed to produce any practical result. True it is that certain enactments were made from time to time in favour of the serf; but these measures either fell through altogether from being left to the option of the proprietors to carry them out, or were only productive of partial good from being called forth by particular circumstances, and confined to limited localities. Thus, in 1803, the Emperor Alexander I. issued a decree containing rules for the cultivation of the soil by free labour, and in 1804, another, which granted to the serfs of the Baltic provinces the free power to enter into contracts with the proprietors for the cultivation of the soil, the right to acquire and possess land, and, lastly, their personal freedom.

Meanwhile, great dissatisfaction had

been springing up among the general body of the serfs, and risings had not unfrequently taken place. This discontent dates from the manifesto of Peter III. in 1762, liberating the nobles from their compulsory service to the crown. It has been already shown that this decree was suspended by Catherine, and not confirmed until 1765. The chief cause of this temporary suspension was the commotion among the serfs, who believed that a similar decree had been issued by the emperor at the same time, freeing them from their compulsory allegiance to their proprietors. This feeling has

never died out in Russia among the peasantry, who are accustomed to look up to the Tsar as their father and friend, while they regard the nobles as their enemies and persecutors.

The Emperors Alexander I. and Nicholas are well known to have had the good of the serfs at heart, and to have originated, as has been already shown, many measures for their benefit; but the determined opposition they met with in some quarters, the lukewarm support or indifference in others, and the distraction caused by wars and other external circumstances, prevented their accomplishing any decided and general reforms. Alexander II., who certainly has a much greater right to vaunt "L'Empire c'est la Paix" than his brother-potentate, may, therefore, well say in his manifesto, that he regards the work of thoroughly ameliorating the condition of the peasantry as a sacred legacy devolving upon him. from his ancestors.

Ever since he ascended the throne, Alexander has been incessantly working. towards the fulfilment of those purposes which he publishes to the world in the decree of the 19th of February (March 3d). To this end, committees of the nobility have been organised in the various provinces, for the purpose of examining into, and collecting, all the facts and circumstances that could be brought to bear upon the question. After a protracted investigation, these committees drew up certain proposals

deduced from the data thus collected. These proposals necessarily differed very much; but they were compared and harmonised by the supreme committee constituted for that purpose, and finally examined and amended by the council of the empire.

It is not to be supposed that all this was done without a great deal of opposition; but the emperor has remained firm and decided throughout, and has carried all obstacles before him. The severe and dignified rebuke he administered to the nobles at Moscow, and elsewhere, during one of his provincial tours, shows how completely his heart was in the work, and was doubtless not without its effect upon the progress of the measure.

By the regulations thus carefully considered and determined on, the peasant is guaranteed the possession of his house and the plot of ground attached to it. He is also permitted to acquire additional lands, on the payment of a fixed sum to the proprietor. The quantity of land assigned to the peasant varies according to the locality and quality of the soil. As this grant of land would have the effect of entirely stripping some of the smaller proprietors of their possessions, it is proposed in such cases to provide for the serfs out of the crown lands. The peasants are compelled to pay a rent to the proprietor for these additional lands; but they are, at the same time, permitted to redeem them by fixed and consecutive payments, and thus raise themselves to the rank of small landed proprietors.

The communal system, which obtains so extensively in Russia, will probably undergo a great change. A village community, having cleared off all the payments for the land assigned to it, will be permitted to make its wishes known for the distribution of the land, ceded to it as a whole, amongst its members. The

Government reserves to itself the right to decide upon the proposed division, which, if approved, will necessarily do away altogether with the communistic principle hitherto prevailing.

In all cases, when the stipulated payments have been completed, the "obrok,"

or tax which the peasant pays to the proprietor for temporary exemption from labour, or for the purpose of hiring himself out to another master, will finally

cease.

A certain term is fixed over which the payments will extend, and this is called the transition period. The plots of ground ceded to the peasants are not transferable until this transition period is at an end, and the purchase-money complete. These payments will be collected by the Government from the peasants in the same way as taxes; while the proprietors will be paid in full at once by Government bonds of one thousand roubles each.

It is evident that such great changes as these could not take place all at once; and therefore two years from the date of the imperial manifesto has been assigned as the limit for their accomplishment. It is also evident that many difficulties and disputes will take place in carrying them out. To adjudicate upon these difficulties and disputes, justices of the peace will be appointed in each district; while a special court will be constituted in each province for the same purpose. Until these authorities and tribunals are established, the proprietors will continue to exercise their rights of jurisdiction and police; while the peasants and domestics are ordered to remain in their present state of subjection to their proprietors, and to fulfil unmurmuringly all their old obligations to them.

Such is a brief history of the rise and fall of serfdom in Russia. It will now be desirable to examine its probable results. So sweeping a measure must of necessity work much good or ill to Russia, and birds of ill-omen have not been wanting to predict all kinds of evils, among the least of which are the ruin of the landed proprietors, and a general revulsion to a chaos of barbarism.

The provinces in which serfdom existed at the date of the imperial manifesto contained, at the last census in 1858, a population of 59,000,000. Of these, 48,000,000 were engaged in the cultivation of the soil, and were divided as follows:

Agricultural produce forms the great staple of the Russian empire, and at certain seasons of the year attracts almost the entire labouring population. The very fact of each labourer becoming entitled to a plot of ground of his own, or to a share of the lands ceded to the commune to which he belongs, is of itself sufficient to cause a permanent determination of the emancipated serfs to the villages, where each, with little toil, may raise on the land he now owns sufficient for the scanty wants of a primitive state of society. Freedom will be realized in sluggish vegetation, in the contented simplicity of the earliest ages of nations.

The manufacturing interests of the country must also suffer greatly, owing to the withdrawal of labour which will follow. It appears almost like an anomaly to state that there is no artisan class in Russia; but such is the fact. Skilled labour is obtained with the greatest difficulty, and at a relative cost which evidences the high appreciation in which it is held. With a population at a great disproportion to the extent of territory, there is necessarily no surplus labour in Russia. In spring and summer, when every arm is wanted for the plough and the reaping-hook, almost every factory labourer sets his face homewards, and, little heeding the value of the time he loses in traversing, most frequently on foot, the hundreds of miles before him, returns to his native village and his family. On the return of winter, he again leaves his wife and children to seek the means of subsistence, during five or six months, at one of the seats of manufacturing industry. At this season, therefore, these manufactories have no lack of cheap labour, though of no very skilful description. Were not the labour thus obtained extremely cheap, the manufacturer could not exist, for the produce during the winter months must manifestly be at a rate of profit sufficient to cover the loss he sustains in summer by the closing of his works.

Some manufactories are, indeed, continued the whole year round; but these

are

either establishments conducted by landed proprietors with serf-labour drawn from districts where the land is least fertile, or factories pursuing the higher branches of industry, and able to afford, under a protective system, the employment of the comparatively small amount of skilled labour which the country affords. In the first of these cases, the manufactory must either be closed altogether on the emancipation of the serfs, or be conducted with considerably less advantage in the winter months; and, in the second, the cost of production must be greatly enhanced by the increased demand for factory labour.

The tendency of these remarks is to show the antagonism that must ensue between the agricultural interests and the manufacturing industry of the country. The labour-market, unfettered, will necessarily return to a legitimate and natural state, supplying those channels of wealth which will best repay pursuit and development. The prohibitory duties levied on foreign cotton, woollens, hardware, &c., sufficiently show that similar native manufactures can add but little to the wealth of Russia; whilst, on the other hand, the extensive exportation of grain, tallow, wool, and hides, &c., clearly demonstrates the agrarian resources of the country. The struggle, therefore, between the two interests must be instantaneously decided in favour of agriculture. Moreover, manufacturing industry on the European system is not suited to the character of the Russian people; and it cannot compete, under the conditions of free, and, therefore, dear labour, with agriculture, pursued at a decided profit by labourers who are at the same time independent proprietors.

This is a part of the question in which England is commercially interested; for by it will be consummated the triumph of British industry in the disputed fields of Central Asia and China. Russia, from the causes already enumerated, will no longer be able to produce, at anything like their former prices, the manufactures she now sup