The sun., 1902-03-09

obligati IN 10 defend their country increase
materially, Int even among those who
did pres, ut them selves AZ the muster mora
than one would a ppear with n band INSULT
| ciently eq uipped badly trained Tho
squire would no hpger spend the money
needed for a complete equipment, nor
would he kee b his pea SAINTS from the plough
long enough 70 famhiarize them with tho
military drill. The result was that in the
power of resi- stence TO foreign invaders
Russia Jagged beh ad other European
States, and grt dually found herself COM
PEELED TO substitute n standing army for
the old ferdal levies
II Is well lmown that, a. soon as the Peace
of Paris put an end 10 the Crmean War,
Alexander ii. devoued himself TO the diff
cult task OF loosenihg the bonds OF serf-
dom. As early as 1850 he had declared
that -the exif-ing mode OF owning men
cannot remain unaltered; d is better 10
abolish serfdom from above than wait
for the time wh,n IL shall be disturbed
from below" Tho chief difficulty consisted
in determining what was 10 become Of the
land occupied by the serf. Was 1t to 10
restored TO the mauorial lord or To remain
In the hands OF the pea,ant? Hthe peasant
were 10 have the apd. how and by whom
was the proprietor 10 be remunerated'
The simplest mode OF sumdering the bonds
| which kept the peasant in hereditary de-
pendenoe on the soil he was cutivatinG
would be TO declare him free to go whore he
liked. This was the met hod of enfranchise-
| Inent which had been followed in France,
in England and in Germany. The obvious
objection To this m sthod was that it did not
concede to the enfrtnchised serf any equit-
| ,hl IL he g., h. III x.hi ba kia
fathers bad titled for generations. A
precedent for more equitable arrangement
had been furnished before the French Revo-
luton In the Duchy Of Savoy. Here the
! liberated serfs were settled on the parcels
Of ground they had previously occupied.
| The Savoy Government regulated the price
| of the plots, which price having been paid
| by the liberated serfs In initallments cover.
ing a number of years, the plots were ulti-
mately owned outright by them In order
to obtain the necessary funds for the pay
| ment Of the installments dadgnated. tho
peasants were authorized to barrow money
or to sell a part Of their commons OF undi-
vided lands. The Savoyard scheme, which
was int ntroduced in the year III, vas so sue
cessful that French writer's OF the last quar-.
ter Of the eighteenth century recommended
the application Of a like system to France.
1t was the Savoyard precedent which. to .
considerable extent, was followed In the
emancipation of the Russian serfs-
In the eighth chapter Of this volume
the author considers at some length the
organs of local self-goverrrnent, or, in other
words, the district and provincial assem-
blies, established by Alexander III. The
regulations, however, which these assem-
bics have the power 10 make, are only
provisional and do not have the force
OF law until they are confirmed by the
Governor OF the province. who, since
1890. must take the advice of u board COM
posed chiefly OF Government officials. The
reform Of the judicial organization of Russia
is usually spoken of as the third of the great
regenerative measures adopted in the reign
Of Alexander ii. The jury system was
introduced. but the government soon
showed itself anxious TO limit tho sphoro
OF tho jury's action. From the outset tho
jury was not authorized 10 deal with cases
Of high treason OF murder committed on
the person of the Gar Subsequently,
after tho sensation caused by ne acquittal
of Vera Zasonlitch DIETER known In English
speaking countries as Sassul. tch) all trials
in which the victim should be an official,
and the offence should have the appear
ance Of a political act, were declared 10 be
beyond the competence of an ordinary
| jury, and were TO be tried either by military
courts or by courts Of appeal. Another
| reform introduced by Alexander ii. was
that Of the universities, but this has already
become a thing of the pas.
The authors view of the state of Russia.
under Nicholas H. is pessimstic. The sub
jects Of the Gar possess neither Habeas
Corpus act in the Anglo-American sense.
nor the right OF Free sme citing, nor Of COLLEGE
tive petitions, though an exception Is made
In favor Of the assemblies of the mobiles.
which have the right to address written
requests TO the Emperor, provided theso
contain nothing against the fundamental
laws Of the empire. Recent events have
dcmonstI ated that Russian gentlemen and
even ladies are not exempted from brutal
assaults on the part of the pokce and Cos
sacks, in case they should wish TO exhibit
their sympathy for prosecuted students,
, even in peaceful way. II is also evident
10 anyone, who has read the lEImble pett
ton to the Gar attributed TO Prof. Milukov.
and who has learned that for this act alone
the professor has been imprisoned. that
no right Of petitioning exists in Russia.
II, TO the want Of personal liberty. be aidod
the intolerable position created for the press
and the practice Of opening private corre-
.pondence and interfering with tho choice
OF books and newspap pers, IL will he recog-
nized that the one-headed bureaucracy
Of Russia has deprived the people not
only Of their political rights. but even a
that amount Of freedom which was conceded
70 Englishmen by their Magma Chara
more than six hundred years ago.
In a chapter on the position OF Poland
In the Russian Empire. the author points
out that, from a Pan -Slayist point Of view.
the Russian Government II making a mis-
take in proving 10 the Poles that. even
under a German Government like that OF
Austria. their religious and national in
terests are more likely 10 be preserved
than under the rule Of their Slavonic kins-
men. Compare, says Prof. koyalevsky.
the state Of things existing in Galicis-
where the Poles have their own universe
ties. their own secondary and primary
schools and where they enjoy not ohv
local self-government. but even ia" rGh'
of discussing the general inter-, u, 49,