be　abolished　at　once；　strengthened　the　expectations　of　those　who
  thought　that　the　new　reign　would　inaugurate　an　era　of　wide　social
  and　political　reform。　Although　the　Governor…General　of　Moscow；
  Zakrevsky；　did　his　best　to　persuade　the　nobility　that　all
  projects　concerning　the　abolition　of　serfdom　were　laid　aside；　it
  very　soon　appeared　that　such　was　by　no　means　the　intention　of
  the　Czar；　for　during　the　coronation　the　Home　Secretary；　Lanskoy；
  by　the　direct　command　of　Alexander；　entered　into　communication
  with　those　noblemen　who　were　present　in　Moscow；　in　order　to
  ascertain　what　were　their　opinions　as　to　the　best　means　of
  bringing　about　an　amelioration　in　the　actual　condition　of　the
  serfs。　These　negotiations　left　no　doubt　as　to　the　animosity　with
  which　the　nobility　of　Great　Russia　considered　every　plan　tending
  to　the　emancipation　of　the　peasant。　This　induced　the　Minister　to
  turn　his　eyes　to　those　provinces　in　which　the　idea　of　liberating
  the　serfs　had　taken　root　at　the　time　when　personal　servitude　had
  been　abolished　by　Napoleon　I　in　the　neighbouring　districts　of
  Poland；　particularly　the　Governments　of　Vilna；　Kovno；　and　Grodno。
  The　Lithuanian　nobles　were　already　favourable　to　the　idea；　and
  were　easily　induced　by　the　Governor　General　Nasimov　to　present　to
  the　Czar　an　address　asking　for　the　abolition　of　bondage；　but　at
  the　same　time　demanding　exclusive　possession　of　the　land　for　the
  nobility。　You　therefore　see　that　the　conditions　on　which　the
  Lithuanian　nobles　wanted　to　see　the　enfranchisement　carried　out
  were　the　same　as　those　on　which　it　had　been　already　carried　out
  in　Poland　and　the　Baltic　provinces。　Seeing　the　difficulty　of
  preserving　for　their　own　profit　the　unpaid　services　of　the
  peasant；　they　were　anxious　to　secure　to　themselves　the　monopoly
  of　the　soil。　The　serf　was　to　be　allowed　to　become　a　free　person
  only　on　condition　of　remaining　a　proletarian；　living　exclusively
  on　the　wages　he　earned。　Carried　out　on　such　conditions；　the
  emancipation　would　hardly　have　met　with　the　approval　of　those　who
  were　most　directly　concerned。　As　far　back　as　the　reign　of　the
  Empress　Catherine　the　peasant　had　plainly　declared　that　he　wanted
  not　only　liberty；　but　land。　He　was　mindful　of　his　ancient　state；
  previous　to　that　of　bondage；　which；　as　we　have　already　shown；　was
  the　state　of　an　owner　in　common　of　the　ground　he　made　fruitful　by
  his　work。　No　power　on　earth　would　have　been　strong　enough　to
  break　the　ties；　centuries　old；　which　united　him　to　the　soil。　It
  was　no　doubt　in　the　interests　of　the　nobility　to　see　these　ties
  broken；　for　who　could　be　the　gainers　in　a　scheme　which　promised
  enhancement　of　the　mercantile　value　of　the　soil　and　cheap　labour；
  if　not　those　who　had　secured　to　themselves　the　monopoly　of　the
  property　in　land？　What；　on　the　other　hand；　was　the　liberated
  proletarian　to　become　if　not　a　labourer；　given　up　to　eternal　toil
  on　the　estates　of　a　land…monopolising　nobility；　and　bound　to
  receive　from　their　hands　those　bare　wages　which　would　cover　the
  expense　of　his　existence？　The　Emperor　and　some　persons　in　his
  confidence；　were　conscious　of　the　social　evils　which　the
  execution　of　such　a　plan　would　produce。　It　will　be　to　the　eternal
  glory　of　Alexander　to　have　answered　the　request　of　the　Lithuanian
  nobility　by　a　decree　by　which；　whilst　allowing　the　establishment
  of　local　committees　for　the　elaboration　of　measures　which　might
  achieve　the　emancipation　in　view；　he　plainly　declared　that　the
  liberated　serfs　ought　to　be　secured　at　least　in　the　possession　of
  their　homesteads　and　of　the　land　belonging　to　these　homesteads
  （the　so…called　homestead…land　　ousadebnaiia　zemlia）。　This
  expression　was　obscure　and　ambiguous；　for　it　was　not　easy　to
  establish　the　limits　of　the　so…called　homestead…land。　Was　it　to
  be　considered　as　a　compound　of　all　the　various　communal
  privileges　of　which　the　peasant　was　possessed；　or　to　mean　only
  the　ground　directly　surrounding　his　habitation？　This　question
  remained　unsettled。
  In　the　winter　of　1851　the　nobility　of　Petersburg；　not　wishing
  to　remain　behind　that　of　Lithuania；　presented　to　the　Emperor　an
  address　very　like　the　one　just　mentioned。　This　address　and　the
  decree　it　provoked　deserve　to　be　mentioned；　for　they　show；　on　one
  hand；　the　desire　of　the　aristocracy　to　preserve　not　only　all　the
  advantages　of　a　land…owning　class；　but　also　to　a　certain　extent
  the　social　dependence　under　which　the　peasant　had　lived　towards
  them　during　the　preceding　centuries；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　the
  firm　decision　of　the　Government　to　secure　to　the　peasant　at　least
  his　property　in　the　homestead　he　occupied；　and　in　the　land　which
  surrounded　it。　The　decree　is　curious　too　as　a　precise　statement
  of　the　conditions　on　which　the　Government　intended　at　first　to
  accomplish　the　difficult　task　of　emancipation。　They　are；　as　you
  will　soon　perceive；　very　different　from　those　on　which　the
  emancipation　was　actually　performed。　No　question　is　made　of　the
  direct　interference　of　the　State　in　order　to　buy　back　from　the
  nobleman　the　plots　of　ground　occupied　by　the　serfs。　This　end　is
  to　be　alone　attained　by　way　of　free　agreement　between　the
  parties。　As　long　as　this　agreement　has　not　taken　place　the　serf
  is　to　continue　to　perform　the　agricultural　labour　and　make　the
  money　payments　fixed　by　law。　The　nobleman；　on　the　other　hand；
  exercises；　as　in　the　past；　a　kind　of　feudal　justice　and　police。
  The　ground　of　the　whole　manor　is　declared　to　be　his　property；　the
  peasant　is　to　receive　no　other　endowment　but　that　of　his
  homestead。
  The　nobility　of　Nijni…Novgorod；　that　of　Moscow；　and　of
  several　other　provinces；　soon　after　this　presented　demands　not
  very　unlike　those　already　mentioned。　They　were　answered　in　the
  same　way；　and　local　committees；　imposed　of　noblemen；　were
  accordingly　formed；　in　order　to　elaborate　the　outlines　of　the
  intended　reform　in　accordance　with　the　views　of　the　Government　as
  already　stated。　These　outlines　were　to　be　sent　for　further
  examination　to　a　central　board；　which　was　first　appointed　on
  January　8；　1858；　and　was　known　under　the　name　of　the　〃Principal
  Committee　on　the　Peasant　Question。〃　They　were　also　to　be　the
  subject　of　careful　study　on　the　part　of　a　newly　opened　section　of
  the　Board　of　Statistics。　Men　of　radical　ideas；　such　as　Nicolas
  Miliutine　and　Soloviev；　were　included　among　its　members。　The
  reactionary　party；　on　the　other　hand；　counted　more　than　one
  member　in　the　〃Principal　Committee　on　the　Peasant　Question〃；　a
  fact　which　induced　the　Government　to　detach　from　this　Committee
  two　especial　sections；　the　so…called　〃Committee　for　the
  Drawing…up　of　the　Reform　Project；〃　and　that　of　〃The　Elaboration
  of　Financial　Measures；　needed　to　secure　the　Execution　of　the　Plan
  in　View。〃　The　guidance　of　both　Committees　and　the　election　of
  their　members　were　entrusted　to　General　Rostovzov；　an　avowed
  friend　of　the　intended　reform。　An　important　change　was　introduced
  into　the　working　of　the　bureaucratic　machinery　by　the　fact　that
  some　elected　members　of　the　provincial　committees　were　allowed　to
  have　a　seat　at　the　meetings　of　the　central　bodies；　and　to
  exercise　there　the　functions　of　experts。　Among　the　persons　so
  appointed　we　find　several　well…known　Slavophiles；　such　as　Samarin
  and　Tcherkasky。
  The　work　the　central　committees　had　to　perform　was；　first　of
  all；　the　drawing…up　of　a　concise　statement　of　the　results
  attained　by　the　deliberations　of　the　local　committees；　next；　the
  discussion　of　the　different　opinions　which　these　latter　had
  expressed；　and；　finally；　the　drawing…up　of　the　conclusions　to
  which　the　members　of　the　central　committees　themselves　had
  arrived。　The　members　of　the　committees　enjoyed　the　hitherto
  unknown　freedom　of　expressing　their　opinion；　and　of　consulting
  all　sorts　of　papers　and　books；　not　excluding　even　those　published
  by　Russian　emigrants。　One　of　the　members　protesting　against　the
  idea　of　drawing　information　from　the　Kolokol；　a　Russian　newspaper
  published　in　London　by　the　political　refugee　Herzen；　the
  President　said　that；　according　to　his　opinion；　truth　was　to　be
  taken　into　account；　whoever　might　have　expressed　it。　The
  formalism　and　official　subordination　so　much　observed　by　our
  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　Imper