lecture vi-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


servitude；　but　in　his　letters　to　the　Empress　he　does　not　say　a
single　word　about　the　necessity　for　securing　to　the　liberated
serf　at　least　a　small　portion　of　the　manorial　land。
　　　　Although　Catherine　II　was　willing　to　be　advised　by　the
Encyclopedists　as　to　the　way　in　which　serfdom　might　be　abolished；
she　took　effectual　means　to　prevent　the　expression　of　Russian
public　opinion　on　the　same　subject。　A　memorial　presented　to　the
Petersburg　Society　of　Political　Economists　by　a　young　Russian
author　called　Pelenev　was　not　allowed　to　appear　in　print；　for　no
other　reason　than　that　it　contained　a　criticism　on　the　existing
system　of　serfdom。（1*）　The　author　of　the　memorial　did　not　demand
the　immediate　abolition　of　this　old　wrong；　he　only　wanted　to　see
it　replaced　by　a　sort　of　perpetual　copyhold。　The　Government　was
more　severe　towards　another　Russian　writer；　Radischev；　who　was
the　first　to　advocate　not　only　the　personal　liberty　of　the　serf；
but　also　his　endowment　with　land。　The　work　of　Radischev　（2*）
appeared　in　1789；　several　years　after　the　suppression　of　the
insurrectionary　movement　of　Pougachev；　but　it　was　regarded　as　a
sort　of　commentary　on　the　demand　for　〃liberty　and　land；〃　which
the　Russian　peasant　had　addressed　to　that　leader；　who　had
answered　it　by　a　solemn　promise　that　he　would　make　the　serf　free
and　prosperous。　Catherine　not　only　ordered　the　immediate
suppression　of　the　work　of　Radischev；　but　brought　the　author
before　the　Courts　of　Justice；　accusing　him　of　being　a　traitor　to
his　country。　Radischev　was　condemned　to　death；　but　this　penalty
was　commuted　to　perpetual　banishment　to　Siberia。
　　　　It　was　not　till　the　reign　of　Alexander　the　First　that　the
Russian　Government　began　to　take　effectual　measures　to　ameliorate
the　social　condition　of　the　serf。　According　to　the　account　given
by　those　immediately　around　him；　and　especially　by　Adam
Czartorysky；　Alexander　was　an　avowed　friend　of　peasant
emancipation。　He　gave　his　firm　support　to　the　proposed　law　giving
the　landlords　the　right　to　liberate　their　serfs；　and　even　to
endow　them　with　shares　in　the　open　fields　if　they　paid　for　them。
In　1803　this　law　was　passed；　and　47；000　serfs　were　soon　after
enfranchised；　and　became　a　separate　class　under　the　name　of　the
〃free　agriculturists。〃　Sixteen　years　later　（in　1819）　the
enfranchisement　of　the　serf　became　an　accomplished　fact　in　the
three　Baltic　provinces；　the　peasant　obtaining　the　free　disposal
of　his　person　on　condition　of　abandoning　to　his　landlord　the
parcels　of　ground　previously　in　his　possession。　This　reform　was
accomplished　in　the　same　manner　as　that　carried　out　in　1812　by
Napoleon　in　the　Kingdom　of　Poland。　In　the　thoroughly　Russian
provinces　no　direct　measures　were　at　this　time　taken　to　abolish
the　legal　servitude　of　the　peasant；　but　the　question　was　more
than　once　debated　in　private　circles　and　by　learned　bodies。　In
the　year　1812；　for　instance；　the　Petersburg　Society　of　Political
Economists　declared　that　it　would　give　2000　roubles　to　the　author
of　the　best　treatise　on　the　question　of　the　relative　advantages
of　free　and　servile　labour　in　agriculture。　This　question　by
itself　shows　the　influence　which　Adam　Smith's　〃Wealth　of
Nations；〃　which　had　been　translated　into　Russian　in　1803；　was
beginning　to　exercise　on　Russian　thought。　Nine　treatises　were
forwarded　to　the　Society；　of　which　three　only　were　in　favour　of
the　further　maintenance　of　servile　labour。　But　the　greater　number
expressed　the　opinion　that　the　enfranchisement　of　the　serf；
provided　that　he　was　allowed　to　keep　the　land　he　occupied；　would
be　of　great　advantage　to　the　landlord　himself。　This　idea；　in
conformity　to　which　serfdom　had　been　abolished　in　the　Baltic
provinces；　was　the　expression　of　a　fact　quite　familiar　to　the
student　of　economic　history。　The　work　of　an　enslaved　labourer　is
never　so　productive　as　that　of　a　free　labourer。　So　long　as　rent
is　low；　as　certainly　was　the　case　in　Russia　in　past　centuries；
the　work　of　the　serf　is　by　no　means　fairly　recompensed　by　the
land　he　owns。　But　in　the　first　quarter　of　the　nineteenth　century；
when　Russia　began　to　be　considered　as　the　granary　of　Europe；　on
account　of　the　vast　exports　of　wheat　from　her　ports；　rent　rapidly
rose；　and　this　rise　produced　a　complete　change　in　the　relative
value　of　servile　work　and　the　land　which　was　in　the　possession　of
the　peasant。
　　　　The　question　put　by　the　Society　of　Political　Economists　could
not；　therefore；　possibly　have　received　any　other　answer　than　that
given　to　it　by　the　majority　of　the　authors　who　sent　in　papers　to
the　Society。　Serfdom　was　rapidly　becoming　a　burden　on　the
manorial　lords　themselves；　as　many　of　them　began　to　be　conscious。
The　barons　of　the　Baltic　shore　were　the　first　to　understand　the
advantage　which　the　liberation　of　the　serf；　followed　by　a
resumption　of　the　ground　he　owned；　would　have　on　their　class
interests。　The　nobility　of　Toula　and　Riasan；　as　well　as　that　of
Dinabourg；　Petersburg；　and　Czarskoie　Selo；　seemed　also　to　become
conscious　of　this　fact；　for　they　petitioned　the　Emperor　Nicholas
to　establish　local　committees　who　might　prepare　the　outlines　of　a
new　emancipation　act。　Among　the　nobles　immediately　surrounding
the　Czar；　Prince　Mentchikov　expressed　his　opinion　of　the
desirability　and　advantage　of　freeing　the　peasant　and　at　the　same
time　of　enriching　the　landlord　by　leaving　in　his　hands　all　those
shares　in　the　common　ground　which　had　been　held　by　the　peasants。
The　interests　of　the　nobility　certainly　required　the
establishment　of　a　class　similar　to　that　of　the　English
labourers；　but　the　peasants　were　naturally　averse　to　any　change
which　would　lessen　their　hold　on　the　soil。　In　1812　a　peasant
rising　took　place　in　the　Government　of　Pensa；　the　revolted　serfs
expressing　their　wants　by　the　old　motto　〃liberty　and　Land。〃　In
1826　again　the　same　motto　was　the　watchword　of　another　rising；
this　time　provoked　by　a　rumour　that　land　and　liberty　would
shortly　be　secured　to　the　serfs。
　　　　Under　the　influence　of　this　clear　expression　of　the　people's
wants；　the　Government　of　Nicholas　abandoned　all　idea　of
emancipation　which　was　not　to　be　followed　by　the　endowment　of　the
peasant　with　land。　Not　daring；　as　he　openly　acknowledged　to　lay
hands　on　the　sacred　rights　of　private　property　by　liberating　the
serfs　and　making　them　free　owners　of　the　soil；　Nicholas　proposed
to　alter　the　existing　condition　of　the　serf　by　making　him　a　sort
of　copyholder　or　perpetual　tenant　of　small　parcels　of　manorial
ground；　on　condition　of　the　payment　of　perpetual　rent。　In　the
Polish　provinces；　such　copyhold　tenures；　very　like　the　French
censives；　were　already　in　existence。　The　Government；　therefore；
only　extended　a　system　which　already　existed　when；　in　1842；　they
ordered　the　preparation　in　each　manor　of　a　sort　of　registry；
called　〃inventory；〃　in　which　the　amount　of　payments　in　kind　and
money；　made　by　the　serfs　to　the　landlord；　were　to　be　inscribed；
in　order　that　in　future　no　other　levies　might　be　made。
　　　　Neither　of　these　two　schemes　for　amending　the　untenable
position　of　the　serf　was　good　enough　to　obtain　the　approbation　of
those　to　whom；　at　this　time；　actually　belonged　the　guidance　of
pubic　opinion。　It　will　be　to　the　eternal　honour　of　the　Russian
press　that　it　constantly　preached　in　favour　of　a　reform　which
would　at　once　liberate　the　serf　and　make　him　legal　owner　of　the
shares　of　manorial　ground　which　were　already　in　his　possession。
Among　the　persons　directly　implicated　in　the　insurrectionary
movement　of　the　24th　of　December　1825；　two；　Pestel　and
Jakoushkine；　had　already　declared　themselves　to　be　supporters　of
such　a　scheme。
　　　　The　diffusion　of　socialist　ideas　greatly　contributed　to
strengthen　among　the　literary　class　the　persuasion　that　it　would
be　impossible　to　liberate　the　serf　otherwise　than　by　endowing　him
with　land。　The　well…known　plot　which　was　organised　by
Petroschevsky；　among　its　other　aims；　had　that　of　allotting
parcels　of　ground　to　the　liberated　serf。　The　great　exile　Herzen；
in　a　Russian　newspaper　then　published　in　London；　openly　expressed
his　opinion　that　the　common　ownership　of　the　land　should　be
retained　in　the　hands　of　the　enfranchised　peasant；　and　among　the
many　schemes　of　emancipation；　which　cir