Turkey and Egypt. The Egyptian army was victorious and threatened
Constantinople, when the sultan appealed to the powers. Russia
responded at once by sending two armies, but a strong protest from
England and France caused the withdrawal of the troops of Russia as
well as those of Egypt. Baffled, Nicholas on June 3, 1833, entered
into an offensive-defensive alliance with the sultan, which really
placed Turkey and with it Constantinople in Russia's power. Another
sharp protest from England and France prevented the consummation of
the alliance.
In 1839 the trouble between Turkey and Egypt recommenced when Great
Britain, anxious to preserve Turkey's integrity, entered into an
agreement with Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was signed at London
in July, 1840. There was some danger of a war with France but England,
fearing Russia's designs, returned to her former ally. By the
Convention of July 13, 1841, Russia's designs upon old Czargrad were
postponed until a more favorable opportunity. In 1844, Nicholas
visited England, but his reception in London was cool. He, however,
entered into an agreement whereby the Khanates of Central Asia should
remain neutral ground between Russia and India.
In 1846, trouble broke out in Gallicia, where the Poles rose against
Austria; but as the nobles had to subdue a revolt of their own (p. 213)
peasants, order was quickly restored. The free city Cracow was the
resort of the Poles. Russia, Austria, and Prussia sent troops against
it, and Cracow was annexed by Austria notwithstanding a protest from
England and France.
The year 1848 will long be remembered for the blows bestowed upon the
divine right of kings, and the privileges which the sovereigns were
compelled to concede to the people. The Emperor Ferdinand of Austria
was expelled from his capital, and the King of Prussia was subjected
to humiliation by his own people. France proclaimed the republic, and
Nicholas proclaimed himself the champion of the right divine. He
dispatched an army into Hungary, which was soon "at the feet of your
Majesty," and felt the wrath of the frightened Ferdinand.
Notwithstanding this cooperation, the understanding among the three
powers, Russia, Austria and Prussia, was giving way before individual
interests. When, in 1852, Prussia attempted to seize the German
provinces of Denmark, it was Nicholas who compelled her to withdraw.
On the 8th of May of that year, the independence and integrity of
Denmark were recognized by the Treaty of London.
In the same year Louis Napoleon made an end to the French Republic by
the notorious _Coup d'État_. This gave great satisfaction to the czar
who was heard to remark: "France has set an evil example; she will now
set a good one. I have faith in the conduct of Louis Napoleon." The
new emperor of France did not seem to appreciate this condescension,
or else he showed gross ingratitude when France and Austria, (p. 214)
without even consulting Nicholas, settled some troubles in Turkey. The
czar sent Menzikoff as special envoy to Constantinople to demand a new
treaty whereby Russia's rights as Protector of the Greek Christians
should be recognized. Supported as he was by France, the sultan
refused. Nicholas then had a plain talk with Sir Hamilton Seymour, the
British Minister at St. Petersburg, wherein he revealed his designs
upon Turkey. As to Constantinople, he said, he might establish himself
there as a trustee, but not as a proprietor. Sir Hamilton, as in duty
bound, notified his government, and England hastened to join France in
opposing Russia.
Pretending that all he wanted was a recognition of his rights,
Nicholas, on the 3d of July, 1853, sent an army under Gortchakof
across the Pruth. At this an allied British-French fleet took up a
position near the threatened point, but did not cross the Straits,
which would have been a violation of the treaty. Nicholas stormed; he
declared that "This was a threat" and would lead to complications.
Austria proposed a conference at which Russia, Great Britain, France,
Austria and Prussia assisted. It seemed as if peace would be secured,
when the sultan demanded that the Russian forces should withdraw,
whereupon Admiral Nakhimof, on the 30th of November, 1853, destroyed
the Turkish fleet at Sinopé. The British-French fleet then sailed into
the Black Sea, and the Russian ships sought shelter in the ports.
In January, 1854, Napoleon III made a last attempt at maintaining
peace, but Nicholas was thoroughly angry at the publication of
Seymour's dispatches, claiming that the conversation with the (p. 215)
British Minister was entitled to secrecy as between "a friend and a
gentleman." Austria and Prussia resented the contempt which the czar
had expressed for them, and on the 10th of April England and France
entered into an offensive-defensive alliance. Ten days later Austria
and Prussia arrived at a written agreement providing for the
possibility that the Russians should attack Austria or cross the
Balkans. Nicholas had aroused all Europe against him.
The Russian fleet was unable to cope with that of the allies, and thus
condemned to inactivity in the ports. After heroic efforts, the
Russians were compelled to raise the siege of Silistria, and to retire
from the Danube, while Austria occupied the evacuated territory. But
Nicholas was dismayed when, after a conference on July 21, 1854, the
allied commanders resolved to attack the Crimea. _Russia was
unprepared._ It was the assault upon Russia's vaunted "holy soil,"
which gave a severe blow to the arbiter of Europe, at home as well as
abroad. Still with clogged energy the Russians worked to construct
defenses. On the 14th of September 500 troopships landed the allied
armies, and on the 20th, the Battle of the Alma opened the road to
Sebastopol. The port of Balaclava was captured by the allies, and
three bloody battles were fought, at Balaclava on the 25th of October,
at Inkermann on the 5th of November, and at Eupatoria on the 17th of
February, 1855.
It seemed as if the knowledge that an enemy was in Russia, aroused the
Russians from a torpor. Pamphlets and other publications denouncing
the government in withering terms, seemed to spring up from the
pavement. "Arise, Oh Russia!" says one unknown writer, "Devoured (p. 216)
by enemies, ruined by slavery, shamefully oppressed by the stupidity
of tchinovnik and spies, awaken from thy long sleep of ignorance and
apathy! We have been kept in bondage long enough _by the successors of
the Tartar khans_. Arise! and stand erect and calm before the throne
of the despot; demand of him a reckoning for the national misfortunes.
Tell him boldly that his throne is not the altar of God, and that God
has not condemned us to be slaves forever."
The feeling among his people was not unknown to Nicholas. Whatever may
be said of him, he was not weakling, fool, or hypocrite, and it was no
disgrace that he felt as if the ground were giving way under his feet.
He was upright and sincere, and had lived up to his convictions. There
is no doubt that when these convictions grew dim, his strength
vanished. He was heard to exclaim "My successor may do what he will: I
cannot change." The sincerity of this man of iron showed in his losing
his courage when doubts arose. Life ceased to have any value for him.
One day, in February, 1855, while suffering from a severe cold, he
went out without his overcoat. To the physician who tried to restrain
him, he said: "You have done your duty; now let me do mine!" A serious
illness followed, and he sent for his successor to whom he gave some
instructions. As a message to his people, and a last cry for sympathy,
he dictated the dispatch "The emperor is dying," which was sent to all
the large towns of Russia. On the 19th of March, 1855, Nicholas I was
dead.
Under his directions wealthy merchants were classified as "chief (p. 217)
citizens," which procured for them exemption from poll-tax,
conscription, and corporal punishment. They might take part in the
assessment of real estate, and were eligible to the offices to which
members of the first class were entitled. The same privilege was
extended to all who were entitled to the degree of Master of Arts, and
free-born and qualified artists. It was he who built the first railway
in Russia, by drawing a straight line between Moscow and St.
Petersburg. He also joined the Volga and the Don by a canal. His reign
is also noted for the progress of Russian literature. The works of
Ivan Tourguénief are known throughout the civilized world.
[Illustration: Alexander II] (p. 218)
XXIV--ALEXANDER II, THE LIBERATOR. (p. 219)
Alexander II was thirty-seven years old when he succeeded to the
throne. The war oppressed Russia, and he felt that peace must be
concluded. But Russian diplomacy loves the tortuous path. The first
proclamation of the czar announced that he promised "to accomplish the
plans and desires of our illustrious predecessors, Peter, Catherine,
Alexander the Well-beloved, and our father of imperishable memory." It
was hoped that this would cause the other powers to propose peace, on
account of the expense of the war. Indeed, a conference was proposed
and took place at Vienna, but the demands of the allies were not so
modest as Russia expected; hence the war continued, and with it the
siege of Sebastopol.
The Danube territory was lost to Russia since, on the 2d December
1854, Austria had undertaken to defend it, and Prussia had agreed to
help Austria. But Sebastopol was stubbornly defended. In the latter
part of August 1855, 874 guns vomited death and destruction upon the
doomed city where the Russians lost 18,000 men. The French had dug
fifty miles of trenches during the 366 days of the siege, and 4,100
feet of mines before a single bastion. In one day 70,000 bombs and
shells were fired into the town. On the 8th of September the (p. 220)
assault was ordered, and Sebastopol fell.
Again Russia tried what boasting would effect. Gortchakof declared to
whoever chose to believe him that he would not voluntarily abandon the
country where Saint Vladimir had received baptism, and the official
newspaper announced that the war was now becoming serious, and that
Sebastopol being destroyed, a stronger fortress would be built. This
meant that Russia was anxious to secure favorable terms. The war had
cost 250,000 men, and Russia's credit at home was in a bad condition.
Austria offered the basis of an agreement which was accepted by
Russia, and on the 25th of February, 1856, a Congress met at Paris.
Five days later the Treaty of Paris was signed. Russia renounced the
right of protecting the Christians in the Danubian principalities, and
restored the delta of that river. The Black Sea was opened to merchant
vessels of all nations, but closed to all warships, and no arsenals
were to be constructed on its shores. The sultan agreed to renew the
privileges of his Christian subjects, but with the understanding that
the powers should not find cause to interfere. It was a hard blow to
Russia's prestige, and indefinitely postponed the execution of making
of Russia the restored Eastern Roman Empire.
Alexander, in many respects, was the opposite of his father; he seemed
more like his uncle in his younger days when he earned the surname of
Well-beloved. It may be, however, that Alexander was but the executor
of his father's instructions, after doubt began to torture him. It is
known that Nicholas had seriously considered the emancipation of (p. 221)
the serfs. Alexander took it up in earnest. There were two serious
difficulties, namely, the compensation to be allowed to the serf
owners, and the extent of the soil to be allotted to the serfs. It
must be remembered that, although the peasant had become resigned to
serve the landowner, his proverb: "Our backs are the owner's, but the
soil is our own," showed how stubbornly he held to the conviction that
it was his own land which he cultivated, however little profit he
derived from his toil. For once the tchinovnik dared not interfere;
public opinion had so strongly condemned their incompetence and
dishonesty that the Russian official was glad to efface himself; the
landowners, on the other hand, showed little enthusiasm. They knew
what their revenues were, but not what they would be under altered
circumstances.
Soon after the Treaty of Paris had restored peace, Alexander addressed
his "faithful nobles" at Moscow, inviting them to consult about the
proper measures to be taken with the view to emancipation. When this
produced no results, he appointed a Committee, "for the amelioration
of the condition of the peasants." The nobles of Poland, seeing what
was coming, declared themselves ready to emancipate their serfs. The
czar gave his consent and the ukase containing it was sent to all the
governors and marshals of the nobility "for your information," and
also "for your instruction if the nobles under your administration
should express the same intention as those of the three Lithuanian
governments."
The press supported the czar, and for that reason was allowed an
unusual freedom of expression. The plan was formed to reconstruct (p. 222)
and strengthen the national mir. This was favored by a number of large
landowners who saw in this plan the beginning of constitutional
liberty. The czar directed that committees be appointed to examine the
scheme.
There were at this time 47,000,000 serfs, of whom 21,000,000 belonged
to private landowners, 1,400,000 were domestic servants, and the rest
Crown peasants who possessed greater privileges and enjoyed some
degree of self-government. Their local affairs were administered by
the mir and an elected council with an elder as executive. They were
judged by elected courts, that is juries, either in the mir court or
in that of the volost (district).
Forty-six committees composed of 1,336 land and serf-owners, assembled
to discuss the future of 22,500,000 serfs and of 120,000 owners. These
committees declared in favor of emancipation, but could not agree upon
the allowance of acreage or the indemnity to the owners. Another
committee of twelve was appointed, presided over by the czar, but
there Alexander met considerable passive opposition. The czar made a
journey through the provinces, where he appealed to the nobles,
warning them that "reforms came better from above than below." After
his return another committee superior in authority to the one existing
and composed of friends of emancipation was called. Its members,
inspired by the czar, drafted laws whereby emancipation was to proceed
at once, and stringent laws were made to prevent the free peasant from
again becoming a serf, and to make of him a proprietor upon payment of
an indemnity. On the 3d of March, 1861, the emancipation ukase was
published.
The scheme, as is evident, was fraught with difficulty. A stroke (p. 223)
of the pen by the hand of the czar could set free millions of serfs,
but all the czar's power stopped short of endowing the serf with the
dignity and responsibility, which are the freeman's birthright. For
more than a century and a half, the moujik had been a beast of burden,
toiling as he was bid, and finding recreation only in besotting
himself with strong drink whenever he could find the means to indulge.
Mental faculties, save such as are inseparable from animal instinct,
had lain dormant; moral perception was limited between the knout on
one side, and gross superstition on the other. Could such a being be
intrusted with life and property? When the serf, brutalized by
generations of oppression, should come to understand that he was free
to do as he pleased, and that the hovel where he and his brood were
styed was his to do with as he pleased, what could he be expected to
do? Would he not seize the opportunity to indulge in his favorite
craving, and, having sold his property, swell the army of homeless
vagabonds?
The mir was the only means to prevent this, and mir meant serfdom
under another name. The landowners disposed of their land, or of so
much as was required to support the peasants, not to individuals but
to the mir. To indemnify the owners, the mir could secure a loan
whereby the debt was transferred from the owner to the government, and
the mir was responsible for its payment as well as for the taxes. The
moujik, as part of the mir, was responsible to the community for his
share of the debt, and was not allowed to leave his village without a
written permission from the starost or elder. He was, therefore, (p. 224)
in a worse position than before the emancipation because in time of
distress it was his lord's interest to support him, whereas after it
he had to deal with a soulless government that demanded the taxes
regardless of circumstances. The mir might succeed so long as the
peasant remained in a state of tutelage; education only could lift him
out of this,--but this means was not considered by the government.
But whatever may have been Alexander's intentions, the men charged
with their execution had no sympathy with the moujik. The question
never occurred to them: How shall we raise the peasant from his
degradation? The problem before them was, how he should be made to
support the State, as he had done before. The Russian statesmen had no
conception of the truth that the wealth of a State is gauged by the
prosperity of the people.
As to the serf, he did not consider that a boon had been bestowed upon
him. The soil and the hovel were his, descended to him from his
forbears! Why, then, should he pay for them? He clung to this idea
with all the stubbornness implanted by a sense of justice upon a
limited intelligence. It had been hammered into his head that the
Little Father at St. Petersburg was conferring a favor upon him, and
this was within his limited conception; but when he heard what the
favor was, the only solution which his cunning brain could devise was
that the nobles had cheated the czar, or that there had been some
juggling with the ukase. Thus grave disturbances occurred. In one
district, that of Kazan, 10,000 men rose at the call of the moujik
Petrof, who promised them the real article of liberty. Troops were
called out and a hundred peasants besides Petrof were shot. (p. 225)
Similar disturbances occurred in other provinces. The poor moujik did
not know that he was saddled with a debt which neither he nor his
children could hope to pay; but he did know that he was charged with a
debt which he had not incurred.
Nevertheless, the emancipation was a step forward. Under the liberal
impulse then rushing irresistibly over Russia's broad level the upper
classes clamored for reforms. They asked for the re-establishment of
the douma as the beginning of a constitutional government, but the
czar was not prepared to grant this, and he was right because
under existing circumstances the peasants would have to be
disfranchized,--and there is small choice between an autocracy and an
oligarchy.
It is to be regretted that the reforms in the judicial system,
introduced by Alexander in the ukases of 1862 to 1865, have since been
rescinded. Secret examinations were displaced by open sessions of the
courts, and criminal cases were decided by juries; the police was
forbidden to examine the accused, which duty was placed into the hands
of a qualified judge. Appeals could be taken to a higher court, and
the Senate acted as a Supreme Court in the last resort. Apart from
this system was the justice of the peace who adjudged ordinary police
cases, acted as an arbitrator, and decided civil suits when the amount
involved did not exceed 500 rubles ($250). No appeal could be taken in
cases involving less than thirty rubles in civil suits, or fifteen
rubles or three days' prison in police offenses. If an appeal was
taken the case was brought, not before a higher court, but before the
collective justices of the peace of the district, whose verdict (p. 226)
could be set aside only by the Senate.
The Russian _goubernii_, governments, were divided into districts
(_ouiezdi_). The imperial ukase of 1864, created _zemstvos_ or
district assemblies composed of representatives of the landed
proprietors or gentlemen; or rural communes or mirs, and of the towns.
These representatives were elected every three years. The assembly
appointed an executive committee which is in permanent session, but
the zemstvo assembles once a year. Its duties are strictly limited to
local affairs, such as keeping roads and bridges in repair; to watch
over education and sanitation, to report on the condition of the
harvest, and to guard against the occurrence of famine. Above the
district zemstvo is the goubernkoé zemstvo or provincial assembly,
whose members are elected from the district zemstvos. Its duties
embrace the estimate of the provincial budget, and a general
supervision over the districts.
Alexander was kindly disposed and meant to do well. He showed it by
removing the barriers erected by his father between Russia and western
Europe. Foreigners in Russia were granted civil rights, and Russians
were allowed to travel abroad. The universities were relieved of
restraints and Jews who had learned a trade could settle where they
pleased. All these reforms were so many promises of a new era for
Russia.
Alexander soon found out that his concessions only served to create
demands for more. The trouble began in Poland, where the news of
Nicholas' death was received with relief, if not with joy. Great hopes
were entertained from the new czar; besides, the Europe of 1855 (p. 227)
was very different from that of 1825: monarchs had learned the lesson
that the people possessed inalienable rights. Italy had shaken off the
encumbrance of a number of princelings,--and was the better for it;
Austria had been compelled to grant self-government to its Hungarian
subjects; why, then, should Poland despair of recovering its
independence?
It was Poland's greatest misfortune that her best sons were always
divided in opinion; many of them, moreover, thought that Poland's
cause should command the sacrifices of every people. They forgot that
their country owed its downfall to itself and that, whereas people
might express their sympathy, it cannot be expected that they shall
neglect their own business for the sake of other people. Some of the
leaders expected that the czar would grant them self-government, and
Alexander might have done so after some time; but others demanded not
only independence but that Russia should restore the parts which she
had owned for so many years that they had become parts of the empire.
The czar dared not grant such a request, because it would have
produced a revolution in Russia, besides a war with Austria and
Prussia, since those powers owned part of Poland. He was, however,
willing to grant important concessions and did so. In February 1863,
an insurrection broke out, and Russian troops were dispatched to
subdue it. The Russians acted with great cruelty, so that England,
France, and Austria protested on the 17th of June. Russia, knowing
that Prussia would come to her assistance paid no attention, and in
1866, Russian Poland became a part of Russia. The Russian language (p. 228)
displaced the Polish, and Poland is no longer even a name; it is a
memory and a warning,--nothing more.
Quite different was Alexander's treatment of Finland. In 1863, he
convoked the Diet of that grand dukedom, where nobility and people
appreciated the degree of liberty which they enjoyed. The government
did not interfere with the national language or religion, but took
measures that neither should spread in Russia.
Alexander's concessions raised the expectation of a constitution among
those who knew what the word implies, including the students at the
universities. These institutions were closed. The provincial zemstvos
exceeded their authority. That of Tver demanded the convocation of the
three Estates; that at Toula discussed a national assembly. Was it
Alexander or his court and ministers who bore the responsibility for
the suppressive means that were employed? It may be that the attempts
upon his life, by Karakozof in 1866, and by the Pole Berezofski at
Paris in 1867, embittered him. But his kindly feeling and love for his
people, taken in conjunction with a later event, warrant the belief
that he was ignorant.
XXV--GREAT EVENTS DURING ALEXANDER'S REIGN. (p. 229)
NIHILISM.