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！
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 desirability of
establishing in each province a certain maximum and minimum of
land donation。 The members of the central committee were
favourable to the first scheme； and if the last prevailed； and
found its expression in the law； the explanation is to be found
in the opposition which the first plan met with on the part of
the nobility and their chief supporters in the higher official
circles。
One important question arose； whether the landlord should
still keep a certain executive authority within the limits of the
township； or whether the inner life of the village was
thenceforth to be subject to no other rules than those issued by
the village Assembly and put in force by its elected chiefs； the
elders or starostas。 The press almost unanimously expressed its
desire to see the realisation of the latter plan。 The country
people； said the press； required complete liberty； or； to use the
popular expression； 〃pure liberty。〃 Now this liberty was
inconsistent with the maintenance of rights such as those
exercised by the German noblemen in the Baltic provinces or the
junkers of Eastern Prussia。 The only way to render any revival of
personal servitude impossible was to establish the system of
peasant self…government。 Opinions differed on the question as to
whether the landlord ought to be a member of the township or not。
The Radicals were against it； and the Slavophiles did not attach
great importance to it； thinking that the landlord would feel
himself quite isolated amid the crowd of his former subjects。 The
Liberals alone were favourable to the idea of increasing the
number of township members by admitting all residents； without
distinction of class； to vote in the village Assembly。 Their
advice did not prevail； and the commune became a class
institution； to the great disadvantage both of the peasants and
of the whole State。
One of the most difficult points was undoubtedly that of
fixing the amount of remuneration which the landlord ought to
receive； not for the loss of his right over the person of his
former serf； but for that of the land he was obliged to cede in
his favour。 The question was the more difficult because the land；
in more than one part of Russia； had really no market price at
all； the nobility and gentry being alone allowed to bid for it。
The press； reasonably enough； insisted on the necessity of
establishing a correspondence between the revenue the peasant got
from his share and the amount of remuneration paid for it to the
landlord。 But such was not the opinion； either of the central or
local committees； and we must lay on their shoulders the
responsibility of the fact； that it was the amount of payments in
kind and the quantity of villein…service performed by the
peasant； which were selected as the base of valuation。 This
certainly was against the interests of the peasant； highly
overcharged as he was by the manorial lord； who obliged him to
pay rents much surpassing the revenue of the land he cultivated。
By not adopting on this point the views entertained by the press；
the reformers； as you easily see； did a great social injustice。
It was the press also which first agitated the question of
the desirability of the direct interference of the Government； in
order to facilitate the expropriation of the nobleman in favour
of the peasants。 The head of the central committee； Rostovzov； as
we have already seen； thought the financial difficulties of such
a measure insurmountable。 Such was not the opinion of the press；
which predicted that the issue of 〃rentes；〃 or Government bonds；
securing to the landlord a certain percentage on the capital
which he should cede to the peasant in the form of land； would
not lower the value of the paper money already in circulation。 It
was fortunate that in the end this method was adopted； for the
prophecy was not only realised； but the interests of agriculture；
and consequently of the country generally； were considerably
advanced by the capital paid in the form of these bonds to the
expropriated landlords。 More than one great landowner