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！
bureaucracy were for the first time laid aside； and each member
frankly expressed his views； however much they might be opposed
to those of the President。 The committee even went so far as to
accept on certain points decisions which were not in accordance
with the Imperial decrees。 The local committee appointed by the
nobility of Tver was the first to express the opinion that the
peasants ought to be endowed with land beyond that which
surrounded their homesteads。 This opinion was endorsed by the
central committee； which maintained that； although it was
contradictory to the letter of the Imperial decrees； it was in
perfect correspondence with their spirit。
On another occasion the 〃Committee for the Drawing…up of the
Scheme of Reform〃 showed the same independence by adopting the
view first put forward by members of the press； that it was
necessary that the Government should come forward to buy up the
land which the nobleman was called upon to surrender to the
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 fou