History of the World/History of the World (Bureau Development, Inc.)(1992).BIN/dp/0120/01206.txt

Text File | 1992-10-11 | 8KB | 133 lines

$Unique_ID{how01206}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Emancipation Of Russian Serfs
By Nikolai Turgenieff}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Turgenieff, Nikolai}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{peasants
committee
land
proprietors
emancipation
every
law
rent
government
}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       Emancipation Of Russian Serfs
Book:        By Nikolai Turgenieff
Author:      Turgenieff, Nikolai

By Nikolai Turgenieff

     In 1857 the Emperor Alexander II first raised the question of
emancipation, and declared it was time for it to be accomplished.  As might
have been expected, the idea of emancipation met with great opposition from
different sides.  Yet the opposition was directed not so much against the
personal emancipation of the serfs as against the appropriation to them, when
liberated, of the land they held.  The proprietors, assembled in different
committees which were established all over the empire to discuss the matter,
ended even by giving up their right of possession in the person of the serf,
and, mentioning only their right to the land occupied by the peasants, claimed
pecuniary indemnities if that land were delivered to them.  The honorable
gentlemen whom the Emperor intrusted with this important task, forming a
committee ad hoc, declared from the first as a principle that the emancipated
peasants must have land, about in the same quantity as they had hitherto,
occupied, on condition of a pecuniary indemnity to be paid to the proprietors.
That principle prevailed, thanks to the Emperor's firmness.

     During the discussion of that question in Russia, I published several
writings on the matter.  My chief purpose and warmest desire being to secure
to the peasants as soon as possible their personal freedom and complete
liberty of labor, I proposed a method of emancipation, claiming the entire
property of their homes; that is to say, cottages and orchards and a small
quantity of arable land, and that without the slightest indemnity from them to
their masters, which was to be left to the Government.  A sum of about two
hundred million dollars, according to my calculation, would have been
sufficient for it.

     Meanwhile I inherited a small landed property, inhabited by about four
hundred persons of both sexes.  I hastened to put in practice my method.  I
abandoned one-third of the land, including their houses, to the peasants, and
let them the two remaining thirds for a certain sum of money.  In my agreement
with them it was settled that, if the emancipation which the Government was
preparing (1859) turned out more advantageous to them, they were to accept it
in preference to mine.  It is needless to add that, when the official
emancipation was proclaimed, the peasants and I found it more advantageous and
adopted it.  If I were to compare the two methods, I should say that mine
tended chiefly to the liberty of the peasants' person and labor, and that of
the Government to give them a quantity of land sufficient for their
subsistence.

     The great inconvenience of this last method was that it obliged the
peasants to pay a heavy rent to redeem their land, and that during forty-nine
years!  Nevertheless, their passion to possess land was so strong that they
cheerfully submitted to such hard conditions.  The redeeming rent (rente de
rachat) was to be paid by the peasants, either in money, according to an
estimate fixed by law, or by work done for the proprietor, i.e., by corvees.
This last mode of payment, sanctioned by law only for a short period,
disappeared more and more every day, so that the majority of the peasants no
longer worked for the proprietors, but paid their rent in money.

     I can say more: About two millions of peasants were entirely liberated
with regard to the proprietors, thanks to an immediate payment of the
redeeming rent.  In such cases their annual rent (redevance) was capitalized,
and the Government gave the proprietor an obligation for the amount of the
capital, which bore five per cent. interest, and was to be redeemed in the
course of forty-nine years by annual drawings (tirages); the peasants then to
pay their redeeming rent to Government, and thus become free and independent
proprietors.  For some time both peasants and proprietors seemed to find this
proceeding the most profitable, and agreements of this kind became more and
more frequent every day.

     I can hardly say how happy I was when I saw for the first time my dear,
beloved, and deeply respected Russian peasants free at last, and proprietors
of the land they had till then cultivated as serfs!  What a change!  The same
creatures, serfs yesterday, became men, conscious of their human dignity;
their aspect, their language, are those of free men.  In the mean while, in
getting rid of their serfdom, they preserved their usual good sense, wisdom,
and bonhomie; no impertinence, no arrogance whatever can be detected in them;
they are full of self-respect, yet polite.  I saw them discussing with the
authorities some business of theirs.  They maintained their new rights, and,
when wrong, never hesitated to acknowledge it.

     Every district and every chef-lieu had every year an assembly of deputies
who named a permanent committee for three years.  This committee was charged
with the municipal administration, under the control of the assembly. Everyone
was called by law to the election of the deputies.  It happened in many places
that the peasants were the more numerous and could therefore dispose of all
the places in the administrative committee.  They were so informed.  "No," was
their answer; "we want one or two members of the committee taken from among
ourselves; they will watch over our interests.  As for defending them, as for
action, the nobles we name will do it better than we, for they are more
learned than we are." In one of the assemblies the nobles, moved by the tact
and moderation of the peasants, insisted and almost forced a peasant to become
president of the administrative committee of the district.  When the salary of
the members of the committee had to be decided, the peasants usually
considered it too high for them, and, letting the nobles and the merchants
have it, got it diminished by one-half for themselves.

     All the district assemblies, after voting for the formation of the
administrative committee, named the deputies for the larger assembly in the
chief town in the province, which in its turn chose among its own members the
members for the provincial administrative committee.  The central committee
seemed to interest the peasants less than those of the districts, and this too
is owing to their modesty and moderation.

     Another field was offered by the new law to the activity of the peasants
in the local or municipal tribunals.  The law united several rural communes in
one canton (volost).  Each canton, each commune, chose an ancient, assisted by
a conseil.  In every canton was a tribunal to judge the peasants' affairs.
Ancients and judges were elected by peasants; noblemen were not submitted to
these tribunals, but it has happened that some of them preferred having their
difficulties with peasants settled by municipal judges rather than by the
usual tribunals.  This jurisdiction, established merely for peasants, had
great importance, owing chiefly to the privilege of deciding not only
according to general law, but also according to local customs. Opportunities
were not wanting for the good sense of the peasants to show itself in these
municipal tribunals and councils, and the success of the institution was clear
to everyone.