merely　supporting　life。〃　Few　advocated　the　desirability　of
  establishing　in　each　province　a　certain　maximum　and　minimum　of
  land　donation。　The　members　of　the　central　committee　were
  favourable　to　the　first　scheme；　and　if　the　last　prevailed；　and
  found　its　expression　in　the　law；　the　explanation　is　to　be　found
  in　the　opposition　which　the　first　plan　met　with　on　the　part　of
  the　nobility　and　their　chief　supporters　in　the　higher　official
  circles。
  One　important　question　arose；　whether　the　landlord　should
  still　keep　a　certain　executive　authority　within　the　limits　of　the
  township；　or　whether　the　inner　life　of　the　village　was
  thenceforth　to　be　subject　to　no　other　rules　than　those　issued　by
  the　village　Assembly　and　put　in　force　by　its　elected　chiefs；　the
  elders　or　starostas。　The　press　almost　unanimously　expressed　its
  desire　to　see　the　realisation　of　the　latter　plan。　The　country
  people；　said　the　press；　required　complete　liberty；　or；　to　use　the
  popular　expression；　〃pure　liberty。〃　Now　this　liberty　was
  inconsistent　with　the　maintenance　of　rights　such　as　those
  exercised　by　the　German　noblemen　in　the　Baltic　provinces　or　the
  junkers　of　Eastern　Prussia。　The　only　way　to　render　any　revival　of
  personal　servitude　impossible　was　to　establish　the　system　of
  peasant　self…government。　Opinions　differed　on　the　question　as　to
  whether　the　landlord　ought　to　be　a　member　of　the　township　or　not。
  The　Radicals　were　against　it；　and　the　Slavophiles　did　not　attach
  great　importance　to　it；　thinking　that　the　landlord　would　feel
  himself　quite　isolated　amid　the　crowd　of　his　former　subjects。　The
  Liberals　alone　were　favourable　to　the　idea　of　increasing　the
  number　of　township　members　by　admitting　all　residents；　without
  distinction　of　class；　to　vote　in　the　village　Assembly。　Their
  advice　did　not　prevail；　and　the　commune　became　a　class
  institution；　to　the　great　disadvantage　both　of　the　peasants　and
  of　the　whole　State。
  One　of　the　most　difficult　points　was　undoubtedly　that　of
  fixing　the　amount　of　remuneration　which　the　landlord　ought　to
  receive；　not　for　the　loss　of　his　right　over　the　person　of　his
  former　serf；　but　for　that　of　the　land　he　was　obliged　to　cede　in
  his　favour。　The　question　was　the　more　difficult　because　the　land；
  in　more　than　one　part　of　Russia；　had　really　no　market　price　at
  all；　the　nobility　and　gentry　being　alone　allowed　to　bid　for　it。
  The　press；　reasonably　enough；　insisted　on　the　necessity　of
  establishing　a　correspondence　between　the　revenue　the　peasant　got
  from　his　share　and　the　amount　of　remuneration　paid　for　it　to　the
  landlord。　But　such　was　not　the　opinion；　either　of　the　central　or
  local　committees；　and　we　must　lay　on　their　shoulders　the
  responsibility　of　the　fact；　that　it　was　the　amount　of　payments　in
  kind　and　the　quantity　of　villein…service　performed　by　the
  peasant；　which　were　selected　as　the　base　of　valuation。　This
  certainly　was　against　the　interests　of　the　peasant；　highly
  overcharged　as　he　was　by　the　manorial　lord；　who　obliged　him　to
  pay　rents　much　surpassing　the　revenue　of　the　land　he　cultivated。
  By　not　adopting　on　this　point　the　views　entertained　by　the　press；
  the　reformers；　as　you　easily　see；　did　a　great　social　injustice。
  It　was　the　press　also　which　first　agitated　the　question　of
  the　desirability　of　the　direct　interference　of　the　Government；　in
  order　to　facilitate　the　expropriation　of　the　nobleman　in　favour
  of　the　peasants。　The　head　of　the　central　committee；　Rostovzov；　as
  we　have　already　seen；　thought　the　financial　difficulties　of　such
  a　measure　insurmountable。　Such　was　not　the　opinion　of　the　press；
  which　predicted　that　the　issue　of　〃rentes；〃　or　Government　bonds；
  securing　to　the　landlord　a　certain　percentage　on　the　capital
  which　he　should　cede　to　the　peasant　in　the　form　of　land；　would
  not　lower　the　value　of　the　paper　money　already　in　circulation。　It
  was　fortunate　that　in　the　end　this　method　was　adopted；　for　the
  prophecy　was　not　only　realised；　but　the　interests　of　agriculture；
  and　consequently　of　the　country　generally；　were　considerably
  advanced　by　the　capital　paid　in　the　form　of　these　bonds　to　the
  expropriated　landlords。　More　than　one　great　landowner　was　deeply
  in　debt　at　the　time　emancipation　took　place；　very　few　had　the
  capital　needed　for　the　economic　arrangements　required　for　the
  substitution　of　the　paid　work　of　the　free　peasant　for　the　unpaid
  work　of　the　serf。　They　obtained　it　by　selling　or　mortgaging　the
  〃rentes〃　or　bonds　paid　to　them　by　the　Government。
  We　therefore　find　that　on　all　points　the　press　was　the　guide；
  the　authoritative　adviser；　the　sure　ally　of　the　Government。　This
  last　character　plainly　appeared　in　the　struggle　which　the　central
  committee　had　to　maintain　with　the　delegates　of　the　provincial
  Committees。　These　bodies　were　composed　exclusively　of　members　of
  the　local　nobility；　and　were　empowered　to　present　their　opinions
  on　the　impending　reform。　Unconscious　of　the　alteration　which　had
  taken　place　in　the　intentions　of　the　Government；　they　expressed
  ideas　in　complete　accord　with　those　at　first　entertained　by　the
  Emperor。　The　majority　in　each　committee；　seeing　that　it　was
  impossible　under　present　circumstances　to　maintain　their　old
  rights　over　the　person　of　the　serf；　consented　to　recognise　his
  freedom；　and　that　without　pay。　They　were　anxious　about　one　thing
  alone　　to　retain　as　far　as　possible　in　their　own　hands　the　land
  actually　possessed　by　the　peasant。　This　feeling　was　the　stronger
  where　the　soil　was　rich；　as　was　the　case　in　the　Central　and
  Southern　Governments；　where　the　black　soil　prevails。　It　was　less
  so　in　the　west　and　north；　where　the　ground　yielded　but　a　small
  rent。　We　find　a　complete　unanimity　between　the　utterances　of　the
  central　and　southern　nobles；　both　insisting　on　the　necessity　of
  limiting　the　expropriation　of　the　land　in　favour　of　the　peasants
  to　that　occupied　by　their　homesteads；　whilst　in　the　north　more
  than　one　committee　consented　to　extend　this　to　the　arable　land
  and　the　undivided　common。
  The　provincial　committees　were　almost　unanimous　（I　speak　of
  course　only　of　the　majority　of　their　members）　in　their　request
  that　the　individual　shares　of　each　peasant　household　should　be
  readjusted　according　to　a　certain　maximum　and　minimum　fixed　for
  each　province。　Many　a　committee　insisted　on　the　maintenance　of
  feudal　police；　if　not　of　feudal　justice；　and　all　showed　an　equal
  interest　in　the　suppression　of　the　uncontrolled　power　of　the
  bureaucracy　in　matters　of　provincial　administration。
  The　minorities　of　almost　every　committee；　who　were　more　or
  less　influenced　by　the　press；　approached　much　more　nearly　in
  their　request　to　the　views　entertained　by　the　majority　in　the
  central　committee。　They　gave　their　consent　to　the　plan　of
  expropriating　in　favour　of　the　peasants　a　part　of　the　noblemen's
  lands；　they　insisted　on　the　participation　of　the　Government　in
  the　act　of　redeeming　the　area　formerly　allotted　by　the　landlords
  to　the　serfs　of　their　respective　manors；　they　strongly　opposed
  the　scheme　of　a　transitory　state　in　which　the　peasant；　unable　to
  buy　back　the　land　he　owned；　was　condemned　to　continue　his　villein
  service　and　his　feudal　dues　or　payments　in　kind。　At　the　same　time
  they　put　forward　certain　general　demands　which　went　much　beyond
  the　promises　already　given　by　the　Government。　They　made　requests
  for　a　general　change　in　the　existing　system　of　provincial
  administration。　According　to　these　bureaucracy　should　give　place
  to　a　system　of　local　self…government。　They　insisted　on　the
  necessity　of　amending　the　deficient　judicial　organisation。　They
  demanded　trial　by　jury　and　liberty　of　the　press。　Some　of　the
  members　went　even　so　far　as　to　draw　up　a　resolution　in　favour　of
  the　general　representation　of　the　people　and　the　revival　of　the
  ancient　system　of　National　Councils；　the　Sobors。
  We　must　not　lose　sight　of　these　political　requirements　if　we
  wish　to　understand　why　it　was　that　the　Government；　as　soon　as　the
  deputies　both　of　the　majority　and　the　minority　of　provincial
  committees　were　assembled　in　Petersburg；　hindered　their　general
  meetings。　It　was　but　separately　that　each　of　the　delegates　was
  admitted　to　put　forward　his　requests；　and　to　give　oral　advice　to
  the　members　of　the　general　committee。　This　mistrust　on　the　part
  of　the　Government　embittered　more　than　one　of　the　delegates
  against　the　members　of　the　central　committee；　and　threw　them　into
  the　arms　of　that　minority　which；　in　the　central　committee　itself；
  defended　the　interests　of　the　nobility。　It　was　chiefly　composed
  of　the　〃Marshal〃　of　the　Petersburg　nobility；　Count　Peter
  Schouvalov；　Mr　Aprakasin；　who　occupied　the　same　post　in　the
  Government　of　Orel；　and　Mr　Posen；　the　delegate　of　Pultawa。　These
  three　gentlemen　insisted　on　the　desirability　of　keeping　the　land
  in　the　hands　of　the　nobility；　and　of　granting　to　the　peasantry
  only　a　sort　of　soccage…tenure；　or　〃censive；〃　on　the　land　they
  occupied。　Whilst　the　majority　of　the　committee　insisted　on　the
  direct　interference　of　the　Government　in　the　redemption　of　the
  noblemen's　land；　and　the　propriety　of　putting　an　end　to
  villein…service；　at　any　rate　after　a　period　of　twelve　years；
  these　gentlemen　were　in　favour　of　leaving　to　a　free　contract；
  entered　into　by　the　manorial　lord　and　his　former　serfs；　the
  diffi