liberty。　Such　was　the　case　of　those　so…called　〃silver…men　from
  the　oldest　times；〃　viz。；　starinnii　serebrenniki；　who　during　the
  sixteenth　century　were　already　deprived　of　the　right　of　free
  removal　from　no　other　cause　but　the　want　of　money；　so　that　the
  only　condition　on　which　they　could　withdraw　from　the　manor　on
  which　they　were　was　that　of　finding　some　other　landlord　willing
  to　pay　the　money　they　owed；　and　thereby　acquiring　the　right　to
  remove　them　to　his　own　manor。
  So　long　as　the　Russian　power　was　geographically　limited　to
  the　possession　of　the　central　provinces　in　the　immediate
  neighbourhood　of　Moscow；　and　so　long　as　the　shores　of　the　Volga
  and　Dnieper　suffered　from　almost　periodical　invasions　of　the
  Tartars；　the　Russian　peasant　who　might　wish　to　leave　a　manor
  could　not　easily　have　procured　the　land　he　required；　but　when　the
  conquests　of　Ivan　III　and　Ivan　the　Terrible　had　reduced　to　naught
  the　power　of　the　Tartars；　and　had　extended　the　Russian
  possessions　both　to　the　East　and　to　the　South；　the　peasants　were
  seized　with　a　spirit　of　migration；　and　legislation　was　required
  to　put　a　stop　to　the　economic　insecurity　created　by　their
  continual　withdrawal　from　the　manors　of　Inner　Russia　to　the
  Southern　and　Eastern　steppes。　It　is；　therefore；　easy　to
  understand　why　laws　to　prevent　the　possibility　of　a　return　of
  peasant　migration　were　first　passed；　at　least　on　a　general　scale；
  at　this　period。　It　is　no　doubt　true　that；　even　at　the　end　of　the
  fifteenth　century；　to　certain　monasteries　were　granted；　among
  other　privileges；　that　of　being　free　from　the　liability　of　having
  their　peasants　removed　to　the　estates　of　other　landlords。　A
  charter　of　the　year　1478　recognises　such　a　privilege　as　belonging
  to　the　monks　of　the　monastery　of　Troitzko…Sergievsk；　which　is；
  according　to　popular　belief；　one　of　the　most　sacred　places　in
  Russia。　The　financial　interests　of　the　State　also　contributed
  greatly　to　the　change。　The　fact　that　the　taxpayer　was　tied　to　the
  soil　rendered　the　collection　of　taxes　both　speedier　and　more
  exact。　These　two　causes　sufficiently　explain　why；　by　the　end　of
  the　sixteenth　century；　the　removal　of　peasants　from　manor　to
  manor　had　become　very　rare。
  The　system　of　land　endowments　in　favour　of　the　higher　clergy
  and　monasteries；　and　also　of　persons　belonging　to　the　knightly
  class；　had　increased　to　such　an　extent　that；　according　to　modern
  calculation；　two…thirds　of　the　cultivated　area　was　already　the
  property　either　of　ecclesiastics　or　of　secular　grandees。　It　is
  therefore　easy　to　understand　why；　during　the　sixteenth　century；
  the　migratory　state　of　the　Russian　agricultural　population　came
  to　be　considered　as　a　real　danger　to　the　State　by　the　higher
  classes　of　Russian　society。　The　most　powerful　of　the　nobles　and
  gentry　did　their　best　to　retain　the　peasants　on　their　lands。　Some
  went　even　farther；　and；　by　alleviating　the　burdens　of
  villein…service；　and　securing　a　more　efficient　protection　for
  them　from　administrative　oppression；　induced　the　peasants　who
  inhabited　the　lands　of　smaller　squires　to　leave　their　old　homes
  and　settle　on　their　manors。　It　was　in　order　to　protect　the　small
  landowners　from　this　sort　of　oppression　that　Boris　Goudonov；　the
  all…powerful　ruler　of　Russia　in　the　reign　of　Theodor　Ivanovitch；
  promulgated　a　law；　according　to　which　every　one　was　authorised　to
  insist　on　the　return　of　a　peasant　who　left　his　abode；　and　that
  during　the　five　years　next　following　his　departure。　This　law　was
  promulgated　in　1597。　As　no　mention　is　made　in　it　of　the　right
  previously　enjoyed　by　the　peasants　of　removing　from　one　manor　to
  another　on　St。　George's　Day；　this　law　of　1597　has　been　considered
  by　historians　as　the　direct　cause　of　the　introduction　of　the
  so…called　〃bondage　to　the　soil〃　（krepostnoie　pravo）。　Such　was
  certainly　not　its　object。　The　right　of　migration　on　the　Day　of
  St。　George　was　openly　acknowledged　by　the　laws　of　1601　and　1602。
  The　bondage　of　the　peasant　to　the　soil　became　an　established　fact
  only　in　the　year　1648；　when　the　new　code　of　law；　the　so…called
  Oulogienie　（chap。　xi）；　refused　to　any　one　the　right　to　receive　on
  his　lands　the　peasant　who　should　run　away　from　a　manor；　and
  abolished　that　limit　of　time　beyond　which　the　landlord　lost　the
  right　to　reclaim　the　peasant　who　had　removed　from　his　ancient
  dwelling。
  The　number　of　serfs　rapidly　increased　during　the　second　half
  of　the　seventeenth　and　the　eighteenth　centuries；　owing　to　the
  prodigality　with　which　the　Czars　and　Emperors　endowed　the　members
  of　the　official　class　with　lands；　in　disregard　often　of　their
  previous　occupation　by　free　village　communities；　the　members　of
  which　were　forced　to　become　the　serfs　of　the　persons　who　received
  the　grant。　It　is　in　this　way　that　Catherine　II；　for　instance；
  during　the　thirty…four　years　of　her　reign；　increased　the　number
  of　serfs　by　800；000　new　ones；　and　that　Paul　I；　in　a　period　of
  four　years；　added　600；000　to　the　number；　which　was　already
  enormous。
  Before　the　reign　of　Catherine；　serfdom　was　almost　unknown　in
  Little　Russia；　where　it　had　been　abolished　by　Bogdan　Chmelnitzky；
  soon　after　the　separation　of　Little　Russia　from　Poland；　and　in
  the　Ukraine　（the　modern　Government　of　Kharkov）；　where　it　had
  never　before　existed。　In　1788　she　revoked　the　right　hitherto
  enjoyed　by　the　peasants　of　these　two　provinces　to　remove　from　one
  manor　to　another。　The　same　right　of　free　removal　was　abolished　a
  few　years　later　in　the　〃Land　of　the　Don　Kossacks〃　and　among　the
  peasants　of　the　Southern　Governments；　called　New　Russia
  （Novorossia）。
  But　if　the　second　part　of　the　eighteenth　century　saw　the
  territorial　extension　of　serfdom　over　almost　all　the　Empire；　it
  was　also　the　period　in　which　first　began　the　movement　which　led
  to　emancipation。　From　France　came　the　first　appeals　for　the
  liberation　of　the　serfs。　In　1766　the　Society　of　Political
  Economists　founded　in　Petersburg　on　the　model　of　the　agricultural
  societies　of　France　was　asked　by　the　impress　to　answer　the
  question：　〃Whether　the　State　would　be　benefited　by　the　serf
  becoming　the　free　owner　of　his　land？〃　Marmontel　and　Voltaire
  considered　it　to　be　their　duty　to　express　opinions　in　favour　of　a
  partial　abolition　of　serfdom。　Marmontel　thought　that　the　time　was
  come　to　supersede　villein…service　by　a　sort　of　hereditary
  copyhold。　Voltaire　went　a　step　farther；　inviting　the　impress　to
  liberate　immediately　the　serfs　on　the　Church　lands。　As　to　the
  rest；　free　contract　alone　ought　to　settle　the　question　of　their
  emancipation。　Another　Frenchman　much　less　known；　the　legist
  Bearde　de　l'Abaye；　gave　it　as　his　opinion　that　the　Government
  should　maintain　a　strict　neutrality　towards　the　question　of
  serfdom。　It　ought　to　be　abolished　only　by　free　contract　between
  landlords　and　serfs；　the　former　endowing　the　latter　with　small
  parcels　of　land。　In　this　way　the　serf　would　become　a　private
  owner；　so　that　in　case　he　should　rent　any　land　from　the　squire；
  the　squire　would　be　able　to　seize　the　peasant's　plot　in　case　of
  non…payment　of　his　rent。　Diderot　was　the　only　Frenchman　who
  acknowledged　the　necessity　of　an　immediate　abolition　of　personal
  servitude；　but　in　his　letters　to　the　Empress　he　does　not　say　a
  single　word　about　the　necessity　for　securing　to　the　liberated
  serf　at　least　a　small　portion　of　the　manorial　land。
  Although　Catherine　II　was　willing　to　be　advised　by　the
  Encyclopedists　as　to　the　way　in　which　serfdom　might　be　abolished；
  she　took　effectual　means　to　prevent　the　expression　of　Russian
  public　opinion　on　the　same　subject。　A　memorial　presented　to　the
  Petersburg　Society　of　Political　Economists　by　a　young　Russian
  author　called　Pelenev　was　not　allowed　to　appear　in　print；　for　no
  other　reason　than　that　it　contained　a　criticism　on　the　existing
  system　of　serfdom。（1*）　The　author　of　the　memorial　did　not　demand
  the　immediate　abolition　of　this　old　wrong；　he　only　wanted　to　see
  it　replaced　by　a　sort　of　perpetual　copyhold。　The　Government　was
  more　severe　towards　another　Russian　writer；　Radischev；　who　was
  the　first　to　advocate　not　only　the　personal　liberty　of　the　serf；
  but　also　his　endowment　with　land。　The　work　of　Radischev　（2*）
  appeared　in　1789；　several　years　after　the　suppression　of　the
  insurrectionary　movement　of　Pougachev；　but　it　was　regarded　as　a
  sort　of　commentary　on　the　demand　for　〃liberty　and　land；〃　which
  the　Russian　peasant　had　addressed　to　that　leader；　who　had
  answered　it　by　a　solemn　promise　that　he　would　make　the　serf　free
  and　prosperous。　Catherine　not　only　ordered　the　immediate
  suppression　of　the　work　of　Radischev；　but　brought　the　author
  before　the　Courts　of　Justice；　accusing　him　of　being　a　traitor　to
  his　country。　Radischev　was　condemned　to　death；　but　this　penalty
  was　commuted　to　perpetual　banishment　to　Siberia。
  It　was　not　till　the　reign　of　Alexander　the　First　that　the
  Russian　Government　began　to　take　effectual　measures　to　ameliorate
  the　social　condition　of　the　serf。　According　to　the　account　given
  by　those　immediately　around　him；　and　especially　by　Adam
  Czartorysky；　Alexander　was　an　avowed　friend　of　peasant
  emancipation。　He　gave　his　firm　support　to　the　proposed　law　giving
  the　landlords　the　right　to　liberate　their　serfs；　and　even　to
  endow　them　with　shares　in　the　open　fields　if　they　paid　for　them。