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！
peasants of his manor。 Now this view was quite the reverse of
that expressed by the Imperial decrees we have previously cited。
In the whole of the movement the large and important part
played by the public press is most striking。 No doubt can be
entertained that at its beginning the officials to whom was
entrusted the elaboration of the plan were profoundly ignorant of
the bearings of the question。 The President of the Committee；
General Rostovzov； frankly acknowledged this ignorance； and in
his private correspondence with the Czar betrayed his fears of a
national bankruptcy as the certain result of the Government
taking on itself the redemption of the lands which were to be
ceded to the peasants fears which seem almost ludicrous now
that this redemption has been effected； and the financial
interests of the State have not suffered even for a moment。
A well…known Russian economist； Professor Ivanukoff；（3*） has
tried to show to what extent the press shared with the Government
the difficult task of elaborating the scheme； according to which
the serfs were to obtain 〃freedom and land。〃 He is quite correct
when he says that； with the exception of a single paper called
the Journal of Landed Proprietors； the whole Russian Press
unanimously declared itself in favour； not only of the abolition
of personal servitude； but also of the endowment of the peasants
with land。 Such writers as Katkof； the well…known editor of the
Moscow Gazette； a man who has lately played so prominent a part
in the reactionary movement； were then the open friends of
Liberalism； and rivalled the most advanced reformers in their
defence of civil freedom。 The opinions of Katkof were so greatly
at variance with those of the Government at the beginning of the
movement； that he was obliged to bring to a close a series of
articles on the social condition of the serfs which he had begun
in his periodical； the Russian Courier。 Another eminent
publicist； Koschelev； who was the author of one of the numerous
private schemes of emancipation （their number amounted to
sixty…one）； was obliged at the same time to abandon the further
publication of a journal called the Welfare of the Country； on
account of the strong language in which he advocated the
endowment of the liberated serf with those portions of the land
already in his possession。 A Russian magazine of great renown；
the Contemporary； was at the same time on the point of being
suppressed on account of an article written by Professor Kavelin；
expressing his views as to the opportuneness of redeeming the
lands actually possessed by the peasants； and that； too； with the
direct help of the State。 The Minister of Public instruction；
Evgraf Kovalevsky； was even asked to issue a circular； by which
the censorship was entrusted with the power of suppressing any
article； pamphlet； or book； dealing with the question of
enfranchisement； that had not previously been approved by the
central committee。 This untimely warfare against public opinion
and the liberty of the press； fortunately enough； did not last
long。 The circular was printed in April； 1858； and seven months
later the Government relaxed the restrictions imposed； and that
because of the complete change in its own views as to the
outlines of the reform。 The opinions recently suppressed became
those of the Government； and the prosecuted writers were
considered； for a while at least； its surest allies。 I insist on
these facts； because I know of no instance which better
characterises the ordinary proceedings of the Russian
bureaucracy。 It begins； as a rule； by suppressing all that lies
in its way； and then； finding no other issue； it adopts the line
of conduct which it has recently condemned。 A foreigner who has
no notion of this mode of procedure must find great difficulty in
understanding how it happens that in a country where no freedom
of the press is recognised； in which generals and high officials
seem alone to have the right of professing opinions on public
matters； the press； nevertheless； has more than once exercised a
decisive influence on the course of politics。 The all…powerful
bureaucracy is very often but an empty…headed fool； anxious to
accept the ideas of the despised and prosecuted journalist。 In
Russia； as well as everywhere else； the true and lasting power is
that of public opinion； and of those who know how to influence
it。 Periods in which the Government acts contrary to public
opinion occur from time to time。 They are very harmful to those
who dare to remain faithful to their opinions。 For a while
nothing is heard of but the need of suppression both of opinions
and of those who publicly profess them。 But time passes and the
Government begins to reap the fruits of its own sowing。 At every
step it takes； it finds on the part of those it governs nothing
but ill…will； a hidden but profound mistrust。 As soon as it feels
that it is losing all hold on the minds and hearts of the people；
it is the first to condemn what it has recently praised。 Some
fine morning everybody is stalled by learning that the very men
who had done their best to render impossible the public
expression of certain ideas are now drawing their inspiration
from these same ideas。
But I feel that I have made perhaps a necessary； but at all
events a too long； digression from the direct line of my
inquiries。 I will therefore return to them at once； and begin by
pointing out those points on which the committee appointed to
elaborate the law of enfranchisement carried out in their scheme
the opinions of the press。
It was the press which first advocated the notion that the
liberated peasant ought to become the owner of the land actually
in his possession。 Schemes for realising this idea had been
already worked out in the reign of Nicholas by some patriotic
scholars and publicists。 Among them was Professor Kavelin； whose
project was published by the Russian contemporary； at the head of
other articles； on the impending reform。 It was on Kavelin that
first fell the responsibility of expressing ideas in opposition
to the views of the Government。 His opinion as to the necessity
of endowing the peasant with land soon found an echo in the
debates of the nobility of Tver； who petitioned the Czar to
extend his promise concerning grants of land to the enfranchised
serf； not only to his homestead and the ground surrounding it；
but also to the shares the peasant possessed in the open fields
of the village。 In giving an account of the different opinions
expressed by the provincial nobility； the central committee
referred to this scheme proposed by the nobility of Tver； and
recommended it to the Government。 Thus we see how prominent a
part the press played on this occasion。
Its influence was no less powerful in the question on what
principle should be based the future ownership exercised by the
peasants。 Two schemes； widely differing from each other； were at
the same time proposed by the press。 The one （chiefly supported
by economists such as Vernadsky； and publicists like Katkof）
recommended the immediate acceptance of measures favourable to
the development of private property； the other （supported by the
majority of the Slavophile and Radical press） was in favour of
the strict maintenance of the village community system； with its
periodical redistribution of land。 On this question； Slavophiles
such as Samarin and Koschelev went hand in hand with the
Socialist Tchernishevsky； the author of the very remarkable essay
on the 〃Prejudices of Political Economists against the Common
Ownership in Land；〃 an essay which forms the base of the social
creed of the so…called Nihilists。
The project of emancipation elaborated by Government
officials is a sort of compromise between these contradictory
opinions。 It starts with the idea of a temporary maintenance of
the common ownership in land； but advocates certain measures
favourable to the development of private property。 A new
redistribution of the shares is allowed only when it is demanded
by two…thirds of the persons voting at the village Assembly。
Every person paying back to the Government the money advanced to
him； in order to remunerate the landlord for the ground he has
been obliged to yield； is immediately acknowledged to be the
private proprietor of his share。 The scheme of the Slavophiles
and the Radicals required a simple majority to make legal the
village decision concerning a new re…distribution of the land；
they were； and are still； opposed to the recognition of private
property on the part of the peasant who has bought back his share
in the common land。
Very important； too； was the service rendered by the press on
the important question of the amount of land which the feudal
lord should be required to leave in the hands of his liberated
serfs。 Most writers were in favour of leaving to the peasants the
quantity of land they actually occupied； 〃for；〃 said they； and
not without reason； 〃this amount must； no doubt； correspond to
the necessities of their existence； as the amount has been
accorded to them by the landlord for no other purpose but that of
merely supporting life。〃 Few advocated the desirabil