"The serf of the Crown was to till the land, build his house, pay his taxes, and serve as a soldier whenever wanted; the private serf existed under very nearly the same conditions, with the difference that his life might be more oppressed under a cruel master, and more free under a kind one, than that of the serf of the Crown. This was what happened in many instances; and as the masters were more likely to be cruel than kind, and their tendency was to make as much as possible out of their possessions, the Crown serf was generally better off than the private one.
ESTHONIAN PEASANTS.
"In the beginning the system was really the reform which was intended, but very soon it was subject to many abuses. Year by year things grew worse: owners violated the law by selling serfs away from their estates; the masters exacted from their serfs every copeck they could earn, flogged them if they lagged in their labor, and often caused them to be severely punished or exiled on the merest caprice. Peter the Great introduced some changes with the best intentions, but they only made matters worse. He stopped the sale of serfs from the estates, which was an excellent step; at the same time he ordered that all taxes should be collected in a lump from the master, who should have the power in turn to collect from the serfs. The evil of this enactment was very soon apparent; Peter's successors struggled with the problem, but none made much headway until Alexander II. came with his act of emancipation, which you have just mentioned.
"There were several conditions attached to the freedom of the serf under Alexander's decree," the Doctor continued, "which are not generally understood. To prevent the peasant resuming again the nomadic life which serfdom was intended to suppress, it was ordered that no peasant could leave his village without surrendering forever all right to the lands, and he was also required to be clear of all claims for rent, taxes, conscription, private debts, and the like. He was to provide for the support of any members of his family dependent upon him whom he left behind, and also present a certificate of membership in another commune, or exhibit the title-deeds to a plot of land of not less than a given area.
"These requirements were found an excellent restriction, as under them only the thrifty and enterprising serfs were able to clear off all demands upon them and pay the amount required for entering another community. Men of this class found their way to the cities and larger towns, where many of them have risen in wealth and influence, while the quiet, plodding peasants who remained on the estates and tilled their lands have generally prospered. A gentleman who has studied this question wrote recently as follows:
"'Opposite and extreme opinions prevail as to the results of emancipation; yet, on massing and balancing his observations on the whole, a stranger must perceive that under emancipation the peasant is better dressed, better lodged, and better fed; that his wife is healthier, his children cleaner, and his homestead tidier; that he and his belongings are improved by the gift which changed him from a chattel to a man. He builds his cabin of better wood, and in the eastern provinces, if not in all, you find improvements in the walls and roof. He paints the logs, and fills up the cracks with plaster, where he formerly left them bare and stuffed with moss. He sends his boys to school, and goes himself more frequently to church.... The burgher class and the merchant class have been equally benefited by the change. A good many peasants have become burghers, and a good many burghers merchants. All the domestic and useful trades have been quickened into life. More shoes are worn, more carts are wanted, more cabins are built. Hats, coats, and cloaks are in higher demand; the bakeries and breweries find more to do; the teacher gets more pupils, and the banker has more customers on his books.'"[3]
