peasants　of　his　manor。　Now　this　view　was　quite　the　reverse　of
  that　expressed　by　the　Imperial　decrees　we　have　previously　cited。
  In　the　whole　of　the　movement　the　large　and　important　part
  played　by　the　public　press　is　most　striking。　No　doubt　can　be
  entertained　that　at　its　beginning　the　officials　to　whom　was
  entrusted　the　elaboration　of　the　plan　were　profoundly　ignorant　of
  the　bearings　of　the　question。　The　President　of　the　Committee；
  General　Rostovzov；　frankly　acknowledged　this　ignorance；　and　in
  his　private　correspondence　with　the　Czar　betrayed　his　fears　of　a
  national　bankruptcy　as　the　certain　result　of　the　Government
  taking　on　itself　the　redemption　of　the　lands　which　were　to　be
  ceded　to　the　peasants　　fears　which　seem　almost　ludicrous　now
  that　this　redemption　has　been　effected；　and　the　financial
  interests　of　the　State　have　not　suffered　even　for　a　moment。
  A　well…known　Russian　economist；　Professor　Ivanukoff；（3*）　has
  tried　to　show　to　what　extent　the　press　shared　with　the　Government
  the　difficult　task　of　elaborating　the　scheme；　according　to　which
  the　serfs　were　to　obtain　〃freedom　and　land。〃　He　is　quite　correct
  when　he　says　that；　with　the　exception　of　a　single　paper　called
  the　Journal　of　Landed　Proprietors；　the　whole　Russian　Press
  unanimously　declared　itself　in　favour；　not　only　of　the　abolition
  of　personal　servitude；　but　also　of　the　endowment　of　the　peasants
  with　land。　Such　writers　as　Katkof；　the　well…known　editor　of　the
  Moscow　Gazette；　a　man　who　has　lately　played　so　prominent　a　part
  in　the　reactionary　movement；　were　then　the　open　friends　of
  Liberalism；　and　rivalled　the　most　advanced　reformers　in　their
  defence　of　civil　freedom。　The　opinions　of　Katkof　were　so　greatly
  at　variance　with　those　of　the　Government　at　the　beginning　of　the
  movement；　that　he　was　obliged　to　bring　to　a　close　a　series　of
  articles　on　the　social　condition　of　the　serfs　which　he　had　begun
  in　his　periodical；　the　Russian　Courier。　Another　eminent
  publicist；　Koschelev；　who　was　the　author　of　one　of　the　numerous
  private　schemes　of　emancipation　（their　number　amounted　to
  sixty…one）；　was　obliged　at　the　same　time　to　abandon　the　further
  publication　of　a　journal　called　the　Welfare　of　the　Country；　on
  account　of　the　strong　language　in　which　he　advocated　the
  endowment　of　the　liberated　serf　with　those　portions　of　the　land
  already　in　his　possession。　A　Russian　magazine　of　great　renown；
  the　Contemporary；　was　at　the　same　time　on　the　point　of　being
  suppressed　on　account　of　an　article　written　by　Professor　Kavelin；
  expressing　his　views　as　to　the　opportuneness　of　redeeming　the
  lands　actually　possessed　by　the　peasants；　and　that；　too；　with　the
  direct　help　of　the　State。　The　Minister　of　Public　instruction；
  Evgraf　Kovalevsky；　was　even　asked　to　issue　a　circular；　by　which
  the　censorship　was　entrusted　with　the　power　of　suppressing　any
  article；　pamphlet；　or　book；　dealing　with　the　question　of
  enfranchisement；　that　had　not　previously　been　approved　by　the
  central　committee。　This　untimely　warfare　against　public　opinion
  and　the　liberty　of　the　press；　fortunately　enough；　did　not　last
  long。　The　circular　was　printed　in　April；　1858；　and　seven　months
  later　the　Government　relaxed　the　restrictions　imposed；　and　that
  because　of　the　complete　change　in　its　own　views　as　to　the
  outlines　of　the　reform。　The　opinions　recently　suppressed　became
  those　of　the　Government；　and　the　prosecuted　writers　were
  considered；　for　a　while　at　least；　its　surest　allies。　I　insist　on
  these　facts；　because　I　know　of　no　instance　which　better
  characterises　the　ordinary　proceedings　of　the　Russian
  bureaucracy。　It　begins；　as　a　rule；　by　suppressing　all　that　lies
  in　its　way；　and　then；　finding　no　other　issue；　it　adopts　the　line
  of　conduct　which　it　has　recently　condemned。　A　foreigner　who　has
  no　notion　of　this　mode　of　procedure　must　find　great　difficulty　in
  understanding　how　it　happens　that　in　a　country　where　no　freedom
  of　the　press　is　recognised；　in　which　generals　and　high　officials
  seem　alone　to　have　the　right　of　professing　opinions　on　public
  matters；　the　press；　nevertheless；　has　more　than　once　exercised　a
  decisive　influence　on　the　course　of　politics。　The　all…powerful
  bureaucracy　is　very　often　but　an　empty…headed　fool；　anxious　to
  accept　the　ideas　of　the　despised　and　prosecuted　journalist。　In
  Russia；　as　well　as　everywhere　else；　the　true　and　lasting　power　is
  that　of　public　opinion；　and　of　those　who　know　how　to　influence
  it。　Periods　in　which　the　Government　acts　contrary　to　public
  opinion　occur　from　time　to　time。　They　are　very　harmful　to　those
  who　dare　to　remain　faithful　to　their　opinions。　For　a　while
  nothing　is　heard　of　but　the　need　of　suppression　both　of　opinions
  and　of　those　who　publicly　profess　them。　But　time　passes　and　the
  Government　begins　to　reap　the　fruits　of　its　own　sowing。　At　every
  step　it　takes；　it　finds　on　the　part　of　those　it　governs　nothing
  but　ill…will；　a　hidden　but　profound　mistrust。　As　soon　as　it　feels
  that　it　is　losing　all　hold　on　the　minds　and　hearts　of　the　people；
  it　is　the　first　to　condemn　what　it　has　recently　praised。　Some
  fine　morning　everybody　is　stalled　by　learning　that　the　very　men
  who　had　done　their　best　to　render　impossible　the　public
  expression　of　certain　ideas　are　now　drawing　their　inspiration
  from　these　same　ideas。
  But　I　feel　that　I　have　made　perhaps　a　necessary；　but　at　all
  events　a　too　long；　digression　from　the　direct　line　of　my
  inquiries。　I　will　therefore　return　to　them　at　once；　and　begin　by
  pointing　out　those　points　on　which　the　committee　appointed　to
  elaborate　the　law　of　enfranchisement　carried　out　in　their　scheme
  the　opinions　of　the　press。
  It　was　the　press　which　first　advocated　the　notion　that　the
  liberated　peasant　ought　to　become　the　owner　of　the　land　actually
  in　his　possession。　Schemes　for　realising　this　idea　had　been
  already　worked　out　in　the　reign　of　Nicholas　by　some　patriotic
  scholars　and　publicists。　Among　them　was　Professor　Kavelin；　whose
  project　was　published　by　the　Russian　contemporary；　at　the　head　of
  other　articles；　on　the　impending　reform。　It　was　on　Kavelin　that
  first　fell　the　responsibility　of　expressing　ideas　in　opposition
  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　desirabil