Part 15

In 1839 the trouble between Turkey and Egypt recommenced when Great Britain, anxious to preserve Turkey's integrity, entered into an agreement with Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was signed at London in July, 1840. There was some danger of a war with France but England, fearing Russia's designs, returned to her former ally. By the Convention of July 13, 1841, Russia's designs upon old Czargrad were postponed until a more favorable opportunity. In 1844, Nicholas visited England, but his reception in London was cool. He, however, entered into an agreement whereby the Khanates of Central Asia should remain neutral ground between Russia and India.

In 1846, trouble broke out in Gallicia, where the Poles rose against Austria; but as the nobles had to subdue a revolt of their own (p. 213) peasants, order was quickly restored. The free city Cracow was the resort of the Poles. Russia, Austria, and Prussia sent troops against it, and Cracow was annexed by Austria notwithstanding a protest from England and France.

The year 1848 will long be remembered for the blows bestowed upon the divine right of kings, and the privileges which the sovereigns were compelled to concede to the people. The Emperor Ferdinand of Austria was expelled from his capital, and the King of Prussia was subjected to humiliation by his own people. France proclaimed the republic, and Nicholas proclaimed himself the champion of the right divine. He dispatched an army into Hungary, which was soon "at the feet of your Majesty," and felt the wrath of the frightened Ferdinand.

Notwithstanding this cooperation, the understanding among the three powers, Russia, Austria and Prussia, was giving way before individual interests. When, in 1852, Prussia attempted to seize the German provinces of Denmark, it was Nicholas who compelled her to withdraw. On the 8th of May of that year, the independence and integrity of Denmark were recognized by the Treaty of London.

In the same year Louis Napoleon made an end to the French Republic by the notorious Coup d'Etat. This gave great satisfaction to the czar who was heard to remark: "France has set an evil example; she will now set a good one. I have faith in the conduct of Louis Napoleon." The new emperor of France did not seem to appreciate this condescension, or else he showed gross ingratitude when France and Austria, (p. 214) without even consulting Nicholas, settled some troubles in Turkey. The czar sent Menzikoff as special envoy to Constantinople to demand a new treaty whereby Russia's rights as Protector of the Greek Christians should be recognized. Supported as he was by France, the sultan refused. Nicholas then had a plain talk with Sir Hamilton Seymour, the British Minister at St. Petersburg, wherein he revealed his designs upon Turkey. As to Constantinople, he said, he might establish himself there as a trustee, but not as a proprietor. Sir Hamilton, as in duty bound, notified his government, and England hastened to join France in opposing Russia.

Pretending that all he wanted was a recognition of his rights, Nicholas, on the 3d of July, 1853, sent an army under Gortchakof across the Pruth. At this an allied British-French fleet took up a position near the threatened point, but did not cross the Straits, which would have been a violation of the treaty. Nicholas stormed; he declared that "This was a threat" and would lead to complications. Austria proposed a conference at which Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria and Prussia assisted. It seemed as if peace would be secured, when the sultan demanded that the Russian forces should withdraw, whereupon Admiral Nakhimof, on the 30th of November, 1853, destroyed the Turkish fleet at Sinope. The British-French fleet then sailed into the Black Sea, and the Russian ships sought shelter in the ports.

In January, 1854, Napoleon III made a last attempt at maintaining peace, but Nicholas was thoroughly angry at the publication of Seymour's dispatches, claiming that the conversation with the (p. 215) British Minister was entitled to secrecy as between "a friend and a gentleman." Austria and Prussia resented the contempt which the czar had expressed for them, and on the 10th of April England and France entered into an offensive-defensive alliance. Ten days later Austria and Prussia arrived at a written agreement providing for the possibility that the Russians should attack Austria or cross the Balkans. Nicholas had aroused all Europe against him.

The Russian fleet was unable to cope with that of the allies, and thus condemned to inactivity in the ports. After heroic efforts, the Russians were compelled to raise the siege of Silistria, and to retire from the Danube, while Austria occupied the evacuated territory. But Nicholas was dismayed when, after a conference on July 21, 1854, the allied commanders resolved to attack the Crimea. Russia was unprepared. It was the assault upon Russia's vaunted "holy soil," which gave a severe blow to the arbiter of Europe, at home as well as abroad. Still with clogged energy the Russians worked to construct defenses. On the 14th of September 500 troopships landed the allied armies, and on the 20th, the Battle of the Alma opened the road to Sebastopol. The port of Balaclava was captured by the allies, and three bloody battles were fought, at Balaclava on the 25th of October, at Inkermann on the 5th of November, and at Eupatoria on the 17th of February, 1855.

It seemed as if the knowledge that an enemy was in Russia, aroused the Russians from a torpor. Pamphlets and other publications denouncing the government in withering terms, seemed to spring up from the pavement. "Arise, Oh Russia!" says one unknown writer, "Devoured (p. 216) by enemies, ruined by slavery, shamefully oppressed by the stupidity of tchinovnik and spies, awaken from thy long sleep of ignorance and apathy! We have been kept in bondage long enough by the successors of the Tartar khans. Arise! and stand erect and calm before the throne of the despot; demand of him a reckoning for the national misfortunes. Tell him boldly that his throne is not the altar of God, and that God has not condemned us to be slaves forever."

The feeling among his people was not unknown to Nicholas. Whatever may be said of him, he was not weakling, fool, or hypocrite, and it was no disgrace that he felt as if the ground were giving way under his feet. He was upright and sincere, and had lived up to his convictions. There is no doubt that when these convictions grew dim, his strength vanished. He was heard to exclaim "My successor may do what he will: I cannot change." The sincerity of this man of iron showed in his losing his courage when doubts arose. Life ceased to have any value for him. One day, in February, 1855, while suffering from a severe cold, he went out without his overcoat. To the physician who tried to restrain him, he said: "You have done your duty; now let me do mine!" A serious illness followed, and he sent for his successor to whom he gave some instructions. As a message to his people, and a last cry for sympathy, he dictated the dispatch "The emperor is dying," which was sent to all the large towns of Russia. On the 19th of March, 1855, Nicholas I was dead.

Under his directions wealthy merchants were classified as "chief (p. 217) citizens," which procured for them exemption from poll-tax, conscription, and corporal punishment. They might take part in the assessment of real estate, and were eligible to the offices to which members of the first class were entitled. The same privilege was extended to all who were entitled to the degree of Master of Arts, and free-born and qualified artists. It was he who built the first railway in Russia, by drawing a straight line between Moscow and St. Petersburg. He also joined the Volga and the Don by a canal. His reign is also noted for the progress of Russian literature. The works of Ivan Tourguenief are known throughout the civilized world.

(p. 218)

XXIV—ALEXANDER II, THE LIBERATOR. (p. 219)

Alexander II was thirty-seven years old when he succeeded to the throne. The war oppressed Russia, and he felt that peace must be concluded. But Russian diplomacy loves the tortuous path. The first proclamation of the czar announced that he promised "to accomplish the plans and desires of our illustrious predecessors, Peter, Catherine, Alexander the Well-beloved, and our father of imperishable memory." It was hoped that this would cause the other powers to propose peace, on account of the expense of the war. Indeed, a conference was proposed and took place at Vienna, but the demands of the allies were not so modest as Russia expected; hence the war continued, and with it the siege of Sebastopol.

The Danube territory was lost to Russia since, on the 2d December 1854, Austria had undertaken to defend it, and Prussia had agreed to help Austria. But Sebastopol was stubbornly defended. In the latter part of August 1855, 874 guns vomited death and destruction upon the doomed city where the Russians lost 18,000 men. The French had dug fifty miles of trenches during the 366 days of the siege, and 4,100 feet of mines before a single bastion. In one day 70,000 bombs and shells were fired into the town. On the 8th of September the (p. 220) assault was ordered, and Sebastopol fell.

Again Russia tried what boasting would effect. Gortchakof declared to whoever chose to believe him that he would not voluntarily abandon the country where Saint Vladimir had received baptism, and the official newspaper announced that the war was now becoming serious, and that Sebastopol being destroyed, a stronger fortress would be built. This meant that Russia was anxious to secure favorable terms. The war had cost 250,000 men, and Russia's credit at home was in a bad condition. Austria offered the basis of an agreement which was accepted by Russia, and on the 25th of February, 1856, a Congress met at Paris. Five days later the Treaty of Paris was signed. Russia renounced the right of protecting the Christians in the Danubian principalities, and restored the delta of that river. The Black Sea was opened to merchant vessels of all nations, but closed to all warships, and no arsenals were to be constructed on its shores. The sultan agreed to renew the privileges of his Christian subjects, but with the understanding that the powers should not find cause to interfere. It was a hard blow to Russia's prestige, and indefinitely postponed the execution of making of Russia the restored Eastern Roman Empire.

Alexander, in many respects, was the opposite of his father; he seemed more like his uncle in his younger days when he earned the surname of Well-beloved. It may be, however, that Alexander was but the executor of his father's instructions, after doubt began to torture him. It is known that Nicholas had seriously considered the emancipation of (p. 221) the serfs. Alexander took it up in earnest. There were two serious difficulties, namely, the compensation to be allowed to the serf owners, and the extent of the soil to be allotted to the serfs. It must be remembered that, although the peasant had become resigned to serve the landowner, his proverb: "Our backs are the owner's, but the soil is our own," showed how stubbornly he held to the conviction that it was his own land which he cultivated, however little profit he derived from his toil. For once the tchinovnik dared not interfere; public opinion had so strongly condemned their incompetence and dishonesty that the Russian official was glad to efface himself; the landowners, on the other hand, showed little enthusiasm. They knew what their revenues were, but not what they would be under altered circumstances.

Soon after the Treaty of Paris had restored peace, Alexander addressed his "faithful nobles" at Moscow, inviting them to consult about the proper measures to be taken with the view to emancipation. When this produced no results, he appointed a Committee, "for the amelioration of the condition of the peasants." The nobles of Poland, seeing what was coming, declared themselves ready to emancipate their serfs. The czar gave his consent and the ukase containing it was sent to all the governors and marshals of the nobility "for your information," and also "for your instruction if the nobles under your administration should express the same intention as those of the three Lithuanian governments."

The press supported the czar, and for that reason was allowed an unusual freedom of expression. The plan was formed to reconstruct (p. 222) and strengthen the national mir. This was favored by a number of large landowners who saw in this plan the beginning of constitutional liberty. The czar directed that committees be appointed to examine the scheme.

There were at this time 47,000,000 serfs, of whom 21,000,000 belonged to private landowners, 1,400,000 were domestic servants, and the rest Crown peasants who possessed greater privileges and enjoyed some degree of self-government. Their local affairs were administered by the mir and an elected council with an elder as executive. They were judged by elected courts, that is juries, either in the mir court or in that of the volost (district).

Forty-six committees composed of 1,336 land and serf-owners, assembled to discuss the future of 22,500,000 serfs and of 120,000 owners. These committees declared in favor of emancipation, but could not agree upon the allowance of acreage or the indemnity to the owners. Another committee of twelve was appointed, presided over by the czar, but there Alexander met considerable passive opposition. The czar made a journey through the provinces, where he appealed to the nobles, warning them that "reforms came better from above than below." After his return another committee superior in authority to the one existing and composed of friends of emancipation was called. Its members, inspired by the czar, drafted laws whereby emancipation was to proceed at once, and stringent laws were made to prevent the free peasant from again becoming a serf, and to make of him a proprietor upon payment of an indemnity. On the 3d of March, 1861, the emancipation ukase was published.

The scheme, as is evident, was fraught with difficulty. A stroke (p. 223) of the pen by the hand of the czar could set free millions of serfs, but all the czar's power stopped short of endowing the serf with the dignity and responsibility, which are the freeman's birthright. For more than a century and a half, the moujik had been a beast of burden, toiling as he was bid, and finding recreation only in besotting himself with strong drink whenever he could find the means to indulge. Mental faculties, save such as are inseparable from animal instinct, had lain dormant; moral perception was limited between the knout on one side, and gross superstition on the other. Could such a being be intrusted with life and property? When the serf, brutalized by generations of oppression, should come to understand that he was free to do as he pleased, and that the hovel where he and his brood were styed was his to do with as he pleased, what could he be expected to do? Would he not seize the opportunity to indulge in his favorite craving, and, having sold his property, swell the army of homeless vagabonds?

The mir was the only means to prevent this, and mir meant serfdom under another name. The landowners disposed of their land, or of so much as was required to support the peasants, not to individuals but to the mir. To indemnify the owners, the mir could secure a loan whereby the debt was transferred from the owner to the government, and the mir was responsible for its payment as well as for the taxes. The moujik, as part of the mir, was responsible to the community for his share of the debt, and was not allowed to leave his village without a written permission from the starost or elder. He was, therefore, (p. 224) in a worse position than before the emancipation because in time of distress it was his lord's interest to support him, whereas after it he had to deal with a soulless government that demanded the taxes regardless of circumstances. The mir might succeed so long as the peasant remained in a state of tutelage; education only could lift him out of this,—but this means was not considered by the government.

But whatever may have been Alexander's intentions, the men charged with their execution had no sympathy with the moujik. The question never occurred to them: How shall we raise the peasant from his degradation? The problem before them was, how he should be made to support the State, as he had done before. The Russian statesmen had no conception of the truth that the wealth of a State is gauged by the prosperity of the people.

As to the serf, he did not consider that a boon had been bestowed upon him. The soil and the hovel were his, descended to him from his forbears! Why, then, should he pay for them? He clung to this idea with all the stubbornness implanted by a sense of justice upon a limited intelligence. It had been hammered into his head that the Little Father at St. Petersburg was conferring a favor upon him, and this was within his limited conception; but when he heard what the favor was, the only solution which his cunning brain could devise was that the nobles had cheated the czar, or that there had been some juggling with the ukase. Thus grave disturbances occurred. In one district, that of Kazan, 10,000 men rose at the call of the moujik Petrof, who promised them the real article of liberty. Troops were called out and a hundred peasants besides Petrof were shot. (p. 225) Similar disturbances occurred in other provinces. The poor moujik did not know that he was saddled with a debt which neither he nor his children could hope to pay; but he did know that he was charged with a debt which he had not incurred.

Nevertheless, the emancipation was a step forward. Under the liberal impulse then rushing irresistibly over Russia's broad level the upper classes clamored for reforms. They asked for the re-establishment of the douma as the beginning of a constitutional government, but the czar was not prepared to grant this, and he was right because under existing circumstances the peasants would have to be disfranchized,—and there is small choice between an autocracy and an oligarchy.

It is to be regretted that the reforms in the judicial system, introduced by Alexander in the ukases of 1862 to 1865, have since been rescinded. Secret examinations were displaced by open sessions of the courts, and criminal cases were decided by juries; the police was forbidden to examine the accused, which duty was placed into the hands of a qualified judge. Appeals could be taken to a higher court, and the Senate acted as a Supreme Court in the last resort. Apart from this system was the justice of the peace who adjudged ordinary police cases, acted as an arbitrator, and decided civil suits when the amount involved did not exceed 500 rubles ($250). No appeal could be taken in cases involving less than thirty rubles in civil suits, or fifteen rubles or three days' prison in police offenses. If an appeal was taken the case was brought, not before a higher court, but before the collective justices of the peace of the district, whose verdict (p. 226) could be set aside only by the Senate.

The Russian goubernii, governments, were divided into districts (ouiezdi). The imperial ukase of 1864, created zemstvos or district assemblies composed of representatives of the landed proprietors or gentlemen; or rural communes or mirs, and of the towns. These representatives were elected every three years. The assembly appointed an executive committee which is in permanent session, but the zemstvo assembles once a year. Its duties are strictly limited to local affairs, such as keeping roads and bridges in repair; to watch over education and sanitation, to report on the condition of the harvest, and to guard against the occurrence of famine. Above the district zemstvo is the goubernkoe zemstvo or provincial assembly, whose members are elected from the district zemstvos. Its duties embrace the estimate of the provincial budget, and a general supervision over the districts.

Alexander was kindly disposed and meant to do well. He showed it by removing the barriers erected by his father between Russia and western Europe. Foreigners in Russia were granted civil rights, and Russians were allowed to travel abroad. The universities were relieved of restraints and Jews who had learned a trade could settle where they pleased. All these reforms were so many promises of a new era for Russia.

Alexander soon found out that his concessions only served to create demands for more. The trouble began in Poland, where the news of Nicholas' death was received with relief, if not with joy. Great hopes were entertained from the new czar; besides, the Europe of 1855 (p. 227) was very different from that of 1825: monarchs had learned the lesson that the people possessed inalienable rights. Italy had shaken off the encumbrance of a number of princelings,—and was the better for it; Austria had been compelled to grant self-government to its Hungarian subjects; why, then, should Poland despair of recovering its independence?