habitations of the capital of every rank and name, from the marble palace of the Anicii, with a numerous establishment of freedmen and slaves, to the lofty and narrow lodging-house, where the poet Codrus and his wife, were permitted to hire a wretched garret immediately under the tiles. If we adopt the same average, which, under similar circumstances, has been found applicable to Paris, and allow but twenty-five persons to each house of every degree, we may fairly estimate the inhabitants of Rome at 1,200,000; a number which cannot be thought excessive for the capital of a mighty empire.*

RUSSIAN SLAVERY.

"THE ancient Slavonians and Russians," says Karamzin, "suffered neither despotism nor slavery to exist among them, and considered unfettered liberty the chief happiness of man. The landlord was the head of the family; the father ruled over his children, the husband over his wife, the brother over his sisters; every family built its hut apart from all others, in order that they might live peaceably and in security; hence each family found a kind of miniature republic, in which ancient usages had the force of a code of laws." But as their acquaintance with the civilized and luxurious Greeks increased, and they learned something of the advantages of social life, they gradually became willing to forego part of their savage liberty, in order to secure new sources of gratification.

The Russian population from the earliest ages, appears to have been divided into three classes-Boiars or nobles, similar in rank to the ancient Scottish Barons; Ludi, consisting of warriors and freemen, and classified according to their occupation and service; and lastly, Rubi or slaves. The latter were prisoners taken in war, their descendants, and persons who had forfeited their freedom by breaking the laws. Such, however, as had conditionally sold themselves or their children into slavery, were called Halops; for, according to their usages, fathers, in their free condition, had power, by a deed called kabala, to sell their own children into slavery, either for a certain number of years, or during the life of the purchaser. Debtors, also, who could not satisfy their creditors, became their slaves until their debts should be discharged by their labor. Others, again, being unable to support their families, and desirous of living under the protection of a boiar, enrolled themselves among his vassals. These conditional slaves were also styled yakuprice, “purchased," or kabulnie ludi, "vassals by contract ;" and they differed from the rabi in this, that they could not be sold or otherwise disposed of; for they, like bondmen for a limited time among the Jews, had the prospect of again returning to freedom; whereas the rabi possessed no rights whatever, and were in all respects, the property of their masters, who had over them the power of life and death.

The Russian historians say, that this distinction between partial and complete slavery continued to be respected until the beginning of the eighteenth century, and that, with the exceptions above specified, the great body of the Russian peasantry were free; the proprietors of the lands on which they were settled had no power either to sell them, pawn them, leave them by will to their posterity, or give them in dowry, as is done at the present day. They were at full liberty to remove from the lands of

* Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, iii. 251. Brotier's edition of Tacitus, ii. 380.

one lord, and settle on those of another, after having paid the rents agreeably to law and usage. In 1550, however, the time of this change of residence was limited to the week before and the week after St. George's day, in the autumn. But in the year 1597, Tzar Theodor Ivanovitch issued a ukaz, prohibiting the free migration of the peasantry, and commanding them to be registered and kept upon the lands which they had occupied. This statute was, however, revoked in 1602, and the peasantry regained their former freedom. The deliverance, nevertheless was of short duration. The power and turbulence of the minor nobles were such as to oblige Tzar Gudonoff to renew the enslaving act by which a great part of the people were deprived of their right of free migration. In 1607 this act was confirmed by the Tzar, and sanctioned by both the civil and ecclesiastical courts.

In 1622, Tzar Michael Feodrovitch, by ukaz, commanded all the peasantry to be registered on the lands belonging to the crown and nobles ; and the latter were strictly forbidden to receive such as had been already inscribed on the rolls of their neighbors. In Chap. ii. of the Code of the father of Peter the Great, it is enacted, "That the peasantry shall be judged according to the register-books; and in case any man be found to have removed from the place where he has been enrolled, he shall be compelled to return." From this same chapter it is also evident, that the peasantry were already sold with the lands which they cultivated, yet still these edicts, which gradually reduced the poor peasants of Russia into bondage, did not describe the extent of the landholder's power over his vassals, until, in the succeeding reign of Peter the Great, the following enactments were made.

In the census, taken in 1718, by order of this emperor, all the existing degrees of vassalage were set aside, and the people were reduced to one common rubric, that of rabi, (slaves). By two other edicts, he commanded the lord of the manor to pay the capitation-tax for the peasantry living on his lands, and to furnish the required levies of recruits. In executing these decrees, the lord of the soil necessarily assumed unlimited power over his tenants, and at this time the practice was tolerated of selling them not only in families but also individually.

"From this period," says the Russian historian, Boltin, "the nobles began to exercise the same power over the lives and property of their hulops and peasants, as had been exercised, in ancient times, only over prisoners taken in war. There is, indeed, no law by which the peasant, as an individual, is made the slave of his landlord. Custom introduced them by degrees to serve in the palaces of the nobles, in direct opposition to the laws on this subject; and under the denomination of domestics, they came to be sold individually; and this, being tolerated at the commencement, has, by length of time and usage, obtained the power of law." Thus, with one hand, Peter did much to civilize the Russians, while, with the other, he counterbalanced this benefit, by riveting the chains of slavery.

The emperor Alexander felt deeply for the degraded state of the common Russians, and by various edicts, sought to meliorate their condition, and to ease the weight of their chains, but such was the power and influence of the nobles, that his autocratic power was nearly powerless.

At the present time, the Russian slaves compose the most numerous class of subjects. They may properly be divided into two orders-slaves belonging to the crown, and slaves belonging to the nobles. In the former division, are included, first, the peasants who are settled on crown lands,

and therefore considered national property. Next, the slaves who formerly belonged to the bishops, monasteries, and churches, but were appropriated to the use of the government in 1764. These enjoy greater privileges than those belonging to the nobles; because they have full power over the fruits of their own fields and labor, and can dispose of their movable property as they please. By an edict of Alexander, in 1801, they are permitted to hold lands, but not slaves; and with the consent of their stewards, to carry on trade of any kind, to become merchants, manufacturers, etc. They generally live in large villages, and are governed by their own elders or starosti, who collect the taxes, ballot for recruits, and regulate the common affairs of the village community. But though, in this division, the great body are possessed of superior privileges, yet the lot of vast numbers is very severe; for, of the peasantry belonging to the empire, many thousands belong to the mines, others to the government manufactories, many even to those of private individuals. All the various establishments in Russia, known under the name of fabrics and zavods, are worked by slaves. For instance; two or three hundred are sent to some cloth manufactory, to become weavers and dyers; an equal number to some foundery, to become engineers, smiths, carpenters, etc.; though totally unacquainted with these trades. Nor is it uncommon to make grants of the labor of the crownpeasantry to foreign speculators in different branches of foreign manufactures, which the government are desirous of encouraging among their subjects. Frequently the vassals experience unfeeling treatment. In these institutions, they and their children are compelled to labor for a sorry subsistence in order to enrich some needy foreigner whom the government thinks proper thus to favor. The greater number of the manufactories belonging to the crown are likewise under the direction of foreigners, each of whom has for workmen, his troop of slaves; varying in number, from a hundred to many thousands, according to the extent of their works. The merchants, who have manufactories, are generally supplied with workmen from the slaves of the nobility; as few of them are permitted to hold slaves on any condition themselves, and free workmen are not to be obtained. The slaves attached to the mines, manufactories, and public works of government, or of individuals, have scanty means of subsistence, are subjected to hard labor, and the almost total neglect of their moral and religious improvement. But the desire to promote commerce, the revenues of the crown, and the political influence of the nation close up both eyes and ears to the miseries endured by more than 250,000 slaves thus employed throughout the empire. The English operative is a freeman; has his choice both of labor and master, and a full power over his earnings; the Russian workman is a slave, and is deprived of these invaluable blessings. Catharine II. gave tens of thousands of these poor creatures, not only as rewards to the able men who had served her armies, and in her councils, but to enrich her favorites! The usual method adopted by Alexander was, to limit his grants from the crown lands and peasantry, in reward of services rendered to the country, to twelve years. This kind of benefice is called arende. The person receiving such grant has the revenues of the villages for the period specified; after which they revert to the crown, though sometimes the time is prolonged by a renewal of the grant. In writing to a nobleman, to whom he had granted an arende, the emperor says: "The peasants of Russia are for the greater part slaves; it is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon the degradation and misery of such a I have sworn, therefore, not to increase the number of these wretched beings; and have laid it down as a principle not to dispose of

state.

peasants as property. The estate is granted to yourself, and to your posterity, as a tenure for life; which is a tenure differing from those generally granted in this point alone, that the peasants cannot be sold or alienated, as beasts of burden. You know my motives; I am convinced you would act in the same manner, were you in my place."

We come now to speak of the slaves belonging to the nobles. Those belonging to the crown are not above fourteen millions, while those belonging to the nobility are estimated at more than twenty-one millions, male and female.

A nobleman's property is not estimated by his land, but by "the number of souls he possesses." According to Alexander's ukazes of 1808 and 1812, they are not in future to be individually sold, or separated from the lands they cultivate, yet there are, practically, many ways of frustrating these edicts. By an ukaz of 1782, the slaves may be removed, with their families, from one part of the empire to another; which kind of colonization has been much practised since the conquest of the Crimea, Besarabia, and the northern parts of the Caucasus, where numerous villages of peasantry, from the interior of Russia are now settled.

Uspenskoy further affirms, that, according to the 2d and 22d chapters of the Russian code, and the ukazes of 1767 and 1797, the slaves have no right in law against their masters; for every complaint of the slave against him is considered an act of rebellion. Consequently, such of the nobles as employ their own slaves in their manufactories, etc., work them as they please, being under no restrictions. Until 1811, the nobles had power to send their refractory slaves into exile to Siberia; but this power was taken from them by Alexander; and at present they can only be exiled after judgment has been regularly passed upon them in the common courts of justice.

The Russian slave has, strictly speaking, no rights, and can possess no property; himself, his wife, his children, and all he possesses, are the property of his lord; on whose will, also, his entry into the matrimonial state entirely depends. And though the laws of the church do not allow marriage unless with the willing consent of both parties, yet it frequently happens, that marriage is brought about by the interest of the lord, or the caprice of his stewards, and not by the mutual affection of the parties chiefly concerned. How can agriculture, or any other national interest prosper, where the laborer has, in law, no personal possession, no personal freedom, no excitement to industry?

66

Many of the nobles are very ingenious in inventing apologies for the system. "The slaves," say they, are as free as we are; for the Tzar has as much power over us as we have over them; we, our children, and our property, are as entirely at his disposal as the persons and property of our vassals are at ours." Some of the nobles, however, earnestly wish to see the peasantry restored to their ancient freedom, and to have an equitable system of law introduced for all classes. Dr. Pinkerton remarks, that he is acquainted with many noblemen who govern their peasantry upon truly paternal principles, and take great pains to promote the prosperity, health, and comfort of their slaves. Certain advantages are, doubtless, connected with the system, but what we complain of is, that an irresponsible power should be lodged in the hands of so many over the great body of the subjects. In point of law and privilege, there is a very great difference between these slaves and the poor in some other countries. plentiful supply of what is required to mere animal subsistence is not to prejudice us in favor of bondage.

A

Alexander had a great desire to see the poor Russian mujik raised from his servile vassalage into the rank of a freeman; but his plans for bringing this about met with the determined resistance of the principal boiars. Since his death, nothing effectual has been attempted to accelerate the event. Alexander restored liberty of migration to the serfs of Esthonia and Courland, and placed them, with the consent of the nobles, in the condition of freemen.

The slaves of rich nobles generally enjoy a much greater degree of freedom than those of the poorer nobles. The former are left to cultivate their own land, to engage in traffic, and to follow trades in the towns; though others are obliged to work for their masters three days in the week, and have only the remaining days to cultivate their own fields, and gain a support for their families. But the peasantry belonging to the poor nobles are compelled to work for their masters the greater part of the time. In consequence of these petty lords possessing little property, or living above their income, their agricultural peasants are burthened while their domestic slaves drag out a life of idleness, scanty subsistence, and misery. The number of these petty nobles is constantly increasing, first, from the subdivision of the Russian property in every generation, by the Russian law, the estates of the father being divided among his children; and, secondly, from the constant augmentation of the nobility, through rank obtained in the civil and military services; as every one, on attaining the rank of captain is thereby ennobled.

Many of the nobles pass a great part of the year on their estates, and themselves direct the agricultural employments of their vassals. But the great majority entrust the government of their villages to stewards, who live among the peasantry, superintend the cultivation of the estate, sell the corn at the neighboring market, and remit the revenue to the family resident at Moscow, or some other town. The estate is often let a certain number of years to farmers, who are left at full liberty to work the peasantry and land as they please.

The greater part of the domestic slaves, male and female, are unmarried, and form a distinct class of themselves. Their numbers are so great, that free scope is given to idleness, and to habits which ruin their constitution, and vitiate their morals. It is not unusual to find in a single family of the nobility, thirty or forty females, from sixteen to thirty years of age, all unmarried, most of them employed the whole year in embroidery and other needle work; while as many more men-servants, under the name of coachmen, grooms, etc., are spending a life of sloth and sin, a great part of whom might be advantageously employed on the farm. But the family

would suffer were the number of these slaves retrenched. It is no uncommon thing to find two hundred or five hundred of these domestics attached to the residence of the principal nobles, forming bands of musicians, actors, singers, dancers, etc. At a tournament acted and prepared by the nobles of Moscow in 1811, there were 100,000 spectators present, and a vast multitude of slaves, in the capacity of riders, whose horses and trappings were of the most splendid description.