quence of the defects of an institution which they supported and recommended.

The facts which I have noticed only confirm the views put forward in my former paper. The divided responsibility of management between the government and the trustees, and the limitation of liability of the managers are both fatal to the security of the depositors; so that there is not in charitable savings' banks, as now constituted, that reasonable amount of security that any honest man can advise his poor neighbour to trust to them.

The object of providing a perfectly safe place for the deposits of the poor, is a matter of such importance in our present state of civilization, as to demand our best exertions to have the requisite means adopted for securing it. For this purpose, there are two two measures which seem to be indispensable.

The first is, to extend to all joint-stock banks the facilities for repaying deposits to minors, married women, and the representatives of deceased depositors, now conferred on the savings' banks. The importance of this change is shown by the number of persons in some of the classes to which I have referred, who are depositors in savings' banks. Thus it was ascertained at Manchester, in 1842, that one-fourth of the depositors are minors; and one-fourth, women-servants, milliners, dressmakers, and needlewomen.

The next measure is to extend the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a considerable portion of the public debt, and to have it so arranged as to be a convenient investment for the poor. There is no reason why the whole business of registering the public debt should be monopolized by the Banks of England and Ireland, and transacted in London and Dublin only.

The example of the subscriptions to the recent loan raised by the Emperor of the French, shows how ready the poorer classes are to invest in government security; and the money order office in our Post-office shows that a large part of the business of banking for the poor can be cheaply and efficiently conducted by the officers of a public department.

The first step towards the adoption of such measures is to produce a conviction in the public mind, of the utter instability of savings' banks as now constituted, and that conviction I have endeavoured to create.

III.-Russian Serfs and British Laborers.-By Henry Wynne, Esq. [Read 19th March, 1855.]

Ar the present period any inquiry into the social resources of that vast country which is carrying on a stupendous struggle with the bulk of the civilized nations of Europe, must possess peculiar interest, and a comparison of the state of its peasantry with that of our own country may be suggestive of many hints of practical importance. And if this be, as I believe it to be, one of the most valuable uses of the study of history, or the investigation of the

circumstances of other countries at distant periods of time, the same principle may be expected to hold good when applied to a country co-existent in time, but distant in position, and equally differing in social institutions. Indeed, an inquiry into the political institutions of Russia has peculiarly this character of an historical research, as, though not absolutely stationary, she is a laggard in the race of civilization; and the condition of her peasantry is to a great extent similar to that which once had existence in most of the continental states of Europe, and from which we have risen by the gradual advance of civilization and progress to our present improved state; as, with all its faults and all its hardships, the condition of the free laborer must be admitted to be when compared with that of the serf. The latter is, as I shall shew, deprived of the exercise of the highest, and what ought to be the most inalienable privilege of our nature, the free exercise, direction, and consequent improvement of whatever faculties each individual may have been blessed with.

All men are not equal, and never will be equal, but it is one of the most essential prerogatives of humanity to possess a capability of improvement. To better his own condition, or the principle of self-love, is one of man's strongest instincts; and to be allowed free scope in the application of his energies for that end should not only be his privilege, but is proved by reason and experience to be one of the most powerful agents in advancing the civilization and progress of that aggregate of human beings which forms the society of each country.

The relative position of the higher and inferior classes of society in Russia is not very different from what it was in Europe formerly, and is that which will naturally obtain wherever right has not been recognized as at least a co-ordinate element in government with might. One class owns the land, and possesses besides a right over the labor of the class below them.

There are two forms which this command over the labor of others assumes wherever existing in the world. The one is what we call slavery, a word unknown in our constitutional vocabulary, but with the horrors of which we have been made but too well acquainted, as it prevails among our transatlantic brethren. The other is the qualified and milder form of serfdom.

Though now to be found only among the nations of Sclavonic race in Europe, it is not of peculiarly or exclusively Sclavonic origin. Up to the period of the French revolution, there remained traces of prædial servitude in France; and though it sooner disappeared among us, our earlier histories, in classifying the ranks of the nation, make mention of two grades of serfs, the one mere personal chattels of their masters, while the other were said to be "adscripti glebæ," and could only change masters with the soil to which they and their labor were attached. We find formal acts of manumission in the reign of Henry VIII., and serfdom did not fall into disuse till the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.*

In the second class above mentioned, the serfs of Russia are to be numbered. Every proprietor of land estimates his possessions not

*

Barrington's Observations on Ancient Statutes, 273 et seq.

according to the number of acres, but according to the number of souls on his estate. Each of these (which only include the males) is bound to labour three days in the week for the benefit of his master. By law, the serf cannot be sold without the land to which he is attached; but this provision is often evaded. The master can exercise corporal discipline over his serfs, but he cannot, as in the slave states of America, sunder nature's holiest ties by separating families. A serf sold apart from the land becomes a crown peasant, and his master loses dominion over him. The serf cannot own immoveable property. In absolute principle, indeed, the whole property of the serf, moveable or otherwise, belongs to the master. In practice, however, no master in this manner robs his serf. Public opinion, that great law of nations, even in Russia will not allow of this; and above public opinion is suspended the fear of assassination. The master can hire out the services of his serf. And while the serf cannot live in any town without the consent of his master, he can, even when furnished with a passport, be at any time recalled, and must give notice of his whereabouts to his master. And whatever trade he may be able to carry on, he must pay to his master an arbitrary rent, called in Russian "obrok," proportioned to his earnings.

I have stated enough to shew how burdensome and galling are the restrictions imposed on the wretched lower order in Russia.

The rights they have are partly imposed by law, and have partly crept in with custom. Thus, by custom one-half of the land is allotted to the laborer in return for the labor of three days in the week. However, even with this amount of land and labor for their own uses they are not a thriving or hard-working set. Badly furnished as the country is with roads and means of transit, they sometimes cannot sell the surplus produce of their land at any price, and therefore have no motive to increase the produce beyond what will supply themselves, their families, and cattle with food; while the state of ignorance in which they are kept prevents them from having that foresight which would compensate, by the reserve of good harvests, for the dearths which bad harvests bring upon them. A picture is drawn by a very intelligent traveller in Russia, himself connected by family ties with the country, of the populace whom he saw, under favorable circumstances, at a village fete:-" These people," he says, 66 were not oppressed. They were under a kind and considerate master, and wanted for none of the necessaries of life. They, therefore, as individuals, were not to be pitied, and, knowing no better, were probably contented with their lot. But the chain of slavery was on their minds, as of the Russian peasantry at large. They know they can do nothing to change or improve their condition, and therefore have no stimulus to energy-no habit of thinking and acting for themselves, and are, in fact, mere grownup children, and as such they are treated by law and custom."* The masters, indeed, are bound to support their house slaves, but the effect of this regulation has none of the beneficial results of the

*Rev. R. Venables.

system under which the relation of master and servant is governed by the laws of mutual contract, which may be determined by either of the parties. Under this system, so long as they can succeed in escaping punishment, their object naturally is to work as little instead of as much as possible. They know they cannot get a better situation by the exertion of greater industry and obtaining a high character for efficiency; while, however dirty or lazy, the master cannot get rid of them. The benefit of their additional exertions would be gain to the masters alone; and as every one is urged to overcome the disagreeability of work (which is in itself an evil), with a view to his own advancement, it would be contrary to natural principle to find them more industrious than is necessary to avoid the opposite sanction of the law of labour-punishment.

The burdensome nature of the Russian restrictive rules, even in the class above the serfs,-that to which it might be hoped their industry might raise them by enabling them to buy their freedom— is illustrated by the envied position of the foreign residents, who, as Mr. Kohl states in his account of Russia, possess all the privileges of the subject without sharing his burdens. "Without paying taxes, without furnishing recruits, not subject to any guild or corporation, they may work and trade freely from city to city throughout the whole empire. The Russian Government naturally seeks to incorporate the ' inostranzi' with the subjects of the empire. Now and then there appears an edict that all foreigners who have been settled a certain period in any part of the empire shall, without ceremony, swear allegiance to the Russian flag; which puts them all in a fright. As a merchant or artizan who has not obtained any particular rank (tschin) by service to the state, could not register himself in any class but that of merchant or citizen, and as such would be liable to military service, the discipline of the stick, and other pleasures of the same kind, every device is tried of course to avoid the sentence. Some leave the empire for a while, and come back with new passports as newly arrived foreigners; others contrive to procure them without leaving the country, or slip through in some other way, and so manage to transmit their privileges to their children, who are also registered as foreigners."

The great evil of any forcible interference with natural liberty (beyond, of course, what may be necessary for government) is shewn by the fact, that the arbitrary regulations made from time to time, by way of palliating the great original wrong, are often productive of mischief in other directions, and in other ways quite unlooked for. The description given by Mr. Kohl of the condition of the Esthonians and Lettes of the Baltic provinces well illustrates this proposition. After many fruitless attempts at insurrection, the Lettish serfs were partially emancipated by the Emperor Alexander I. Mr. Kohl thus sums up his sketch of them :

"The condition of the peasant of the Baltic provinces is now about as follows. He is no longer bound to the soil, but may, after half a-year's notice to his lord, quit the estate. In the same way

the lord may, after half a-year's notice, force the peasant to leave the place of his birth. This alteration can be but a small benefit to the serf. His situation must become quite intolerable before he

resolves on leaving the spot on which he was born, and where he has passed all the days of his life-the home of his fathers, his relatives, and his friends, to take advantage of a right of self exile. Besides, the noble has always a hundred ways by which, if he wish it, he can detain the peasant. Difficult as it is for him to gain subsistence, he is continually needing little helps and loans from his landlord, of which payment can at any time be demanded in a way to make departure impossible. Though the right which the peasant has thus obtained is so frequently useless to him, the counter right of his master of banishing him from his native place is very often turned against him. Formerly, a noble could not get rid of his serfs; and whenever they were in want, he was bound to support and maintain them. At present, the moment a serf becomes useless or troublesome, it is easy to dismiss him; on account of which the serfs in some parts of the provinces would not accept of the emancipation offered them, and bitterly lamented the freedom, as it was called, which was forced upon them. The Lette often mournfully complains that he has lost a father and kept a master; and the lord often refuses the little requests of his peasants, saying,' You know you are not my children now.' No lasting good effect can be expected from the emancipation law, till the further step shall have been taken of granting the peasant the right of acquiring property in land. Only then will he manifest a wish for improvement; only then will he struggle to raise himself from his present abasement."

Yes! because it is a slavery and a badge of slavery not to be allowed to possess the fruits of accumulation, and abstinence, and labor, in any form in which these fruits may be realised. Because, only when this restriction shall have been removed will he be really free. Because, only then will the increased productive powers of the lands of the smaller holders afford a field for the labor which, under the circumstances, is superfluous on the estate from which the serf has been dismissed.

All over Russia, as we learn from other sources, the master must support his serf; and if the serf becomes a beggar, the master may be fined. Here again we may trace how imperfectly arbitrary regulations can afford relief. In the case of the agricultural peasantry, indeed, this responsibility, as well as the gradually improved tone of public opinion, has led to the custom of making a competent allotment to the serf. But in the case of the house serfs or domestic servants, it leads to galling restrictions, especially restrictions on marriage; as the increase of this class of unproductive laborers beyond a certain amount, instead of being beneficial may be the ruin of the master. Indeed, in many cases the serfs are felt to be such a burden; but their emancipation is as yet delayed from several causes. In some instances, from the pride of the lords-who have been known to refuse permission to purchase their freedom to serfs, who by commerce had attained to wealth immeasurably beyond their lords. In some, from the ignorance and carelessness of the peasants; and in some, from a deep-rooted feeling on the part of these latter, that there is a connection which must always subsist between them and the soil; that as they have so long belonged to the soil, the soil shall yet belong to them; and that they will