between the peasants of the crown and those of individuals. The former are almost all in comparatively easy circumstances. Their abrock, or rent, is fixed at five roubles a year, all charges included; and as they are sure that it will never be raised, they are more industrious. The peasants belonging to the nobles have their abrock regulated by their means of getting money; at an average, throughout the empire, of eight or ten roubles. It then becomes, not a rent for land, but a downright tax on their industry. Each male peasant is obliged, by law, to labour three days in each week for his proprietor. This law takes effect on his arriving at the age of fifteen. If the proprietor chooses to employ him the other days, he may; as, for example, in a manufactory; but he then finds him in food and clothing. Mutual advantage, however, generally relaxes this law; and, excepting such as are selected for domestick servants, or, as above, are employed in manufactories, the slave pays a certain abrock, or rent, to be allowed to work all the week on his own account. The master is bound to furnish him with a house, and a certain portion of land. The allotment of land is, generally, settled by the starosta [elder of the village] and a meeting of the peasants themselves. In the same manner, when a master wants an increase of rent, he sends to the starosta, who convenes the peasants; and, by that assembly, it is decided what proportion each individual must pay. If a slave exercises any trade which brings him in more money than agricultural labour, he pays a higher abrock. If, by journeys to Petersburgh, or other cities, he can still earn more, his master permits his absence, but his abrock is raised. The smallest earnings are subject to this oppression. The peasants employed as drivers at the posthouses, pay an abrock out of the drinkmoney they receive, for being permitted to drive; as, otherwise, the master might employ them in other less profitable labour on his own account. The aged and infirm are provided with food and raiment, and lodging, at their owner's expense. Such as prefer casual charity to the miserable pittance they receive from their master, are frequently furnished with passports, and allowed to seek their fortune; but they sometimes pay an abrock even for this permission to beg. The number of beggars in Petersburgh, is very small; as when one is found, he is immediately sent back to his owner. In Moscow, and other towns, they are numerous; though I think less so than in London. They beg with great modesty, in a low and humble tone

of voice, frequently crossing themselves, and are much less clamorous and importunate than a London beggar.

"The master has the power of correcting his slaves, by blows or confinement; but if he is guilty of any great cruelty, he is amenable to the laws; which are, we are told, executed in this point with impartiality. In one of the towers of the Khitaigorod, at Moscow, there was a countess Soltik of confined for many years with a most unrelenting severity, which she merited, for cruelty to her slaves. Instances of barbarity are, however, by no means rare. At Kostroma, the sister of Mr. Kotchetof, the governour, gave me an instance of a nobleman who had nailed (if I understood her right) his servant to a cross. The master was sent to a monastery, and the business hushed up. Domestick servants, and those employed in manufactories, as they are more exposed to cruelty, so they sometimes revenge themselves in a terrible manner. A Mr. Hetrof, brother to Mrs. Schepotef, who had a great distillery, disappeared suddenly, and was pretty easily guessed to have been thrown into a boiling copper by his slaves. We heard another instance, though not from equally good authority, of a lady, now in Moscow, who had been poisoned three several times by her servants."

66 A slave can on no pretence be sold out of Russia, nor in Russia, to any but a person born noble, or, if not noble, having the rank of lieutenant-colonel. This rank is not confined to the military; it may be obtained by them in civil situations. [Professor Pallas had the rank of brigadier.] This law is, however, eluded, as roluriers [plebeians] frequently purchase slaves for hire, by making use of the name of some privileged person; and all nobles have the privilege of letting out their slaves."-p, 165. 167.

Dr. Clarke's observations seem to have exceeded those of Mr. Heber, in regard to the condition of the Russian villeins. He describes them as wholly at the mercy of their masters in practice and effect; as liable to pay whatever tribute he imposes; and as paying whatever they earn beyond their own most scanty subsistence. The laws for their protection, are next to a dead letter, according to him; and the only refuge of the slave is escaping from his master's neighbourhood. We believe Mr. Heber attended rather

more to the law and the theory, Dr. Clarke, to the state of the facts; that the former was induced to take the little that is favourable in his statement from the accounts of the Russian nobles themselves, whose testimony Dr. Clarke, and with much justice, positively objects to, and proves, by various instances, can, in no degree, be relied on. In truth, the account, even of Mr. Heber, gives but a sad picture of those unfortunate peasants; and it signifies little, whether we take their situation from him, or his friend, Dr. Clarke. However, we must add a few of the remarks made by the latter on this subject, after premising, that we consider them as rather colouring the picture too highly. After relating a boastful conversation held by a Russian prince, upon the ease and happiness which his slaves enjoyed, whom he described (in exactly the sort of language used by the West Indian slave-drivers, and now happily so triumphantly exploded in this enlightened and humane country) "as having relief in sickness, refuge in calamity, and a comfortable asylum in their old age," and whose situation his highness was pleased (again borrowing a topick from our West Indians) to contrast with that of English peasants, our author adds:

"I had seen the peasants of this man, according to his own pathetick discourse, ' in sickness, in calamity, and in old age;' and it was well known to every person present, that their relief and refuge' was in death, and their asylum' the grave. Another nobleman assured me, that the greatest punishment he inflicted upon his slaves (for he professed to have banished all corporeal chastisement) was to give them their liberty, and then turn them from his door. Upon further inquiry, I discovered, that the slaves of this very man fled from their fetters, even if there was a certainty of death before their eyes, rather than remain beneath his tyranny. Great, indeed, must be the degree of oppression, which a Russian will not enVOL. IV.

3 C

dure, who, from his cradle, crouches to his oppressor, and receives the rod without a murmur. Other nations speak of their indolence, which is remarkable; as no people are naturally more lively, or more disposed to employment. We may assign a cause for their inactivity: it is necessity. Can there exist incitement to labour, when it is certain, that a tyrant will bereave industry of all its fruits? The only property a Russian nobleman allows his peasant to possess, is the food he cannot, or will not, eat himself: the bark of

trees, chaff, and other refuse; quass, water, and fish oil. If the slave has suffi cient ingenuity to gain money without his knowledge, it becomes a dangerous pos session; and, when once discovered, falls instantly into the hands of his lord. A peasant in the village of Celo Molody, near Moscow, who had been fortunate enough to scrape together a little wealth, wished to marry his daughter to a tradesman of the city; and for that purpose, that she roubles for her liberty; a most unusual should be free, he offered fifteen thousand price of freedom, and a much greater sum than persons of his class, situated as he was, will be found to possess. The tyrant took the ransom; and then told the father, that both the girl and the money belonged to him; and, therefore, she must still continue among the number of his slaves. What a picture do these facts afford of the state of Russia! It is thus we behold the subjects of a vast empire, stripped of all they possess, and existing in the most abject servitude; victims of tyranny and torture; of sorrow and poverty; of sickness and famine. Traversing the provinces south of Moscow, the land is as the garden of Eden; a fine soil, covered with corn, and apparently smiling in plenty. Enter the cottage of the poor labourer, surrounded by all these riches, and you find him dying of hunger, or pining from bad food, and in want of the common necessaries of life. Extensive pastures, covered with cattle, afford no milk to him. In autumn, the harvest yields no bread for his children. The lord claims all the produce. At the end of summer, every road in the southern province is filled with caravans, bearing corn and all sorts of provisions; every produce of labour and the land, to supply the lords of Moscow and Petersburgh; and the markets, of these two capitals, which, like whirlpools, swallow all that comes within their vortex with never-ending voracity. Can there be a more affecting sight, than a Russian family, having got

in an abundant harvest, in want of the common stores to supply and support them, through the rigours of their long and inclement winter? Let us hasten from its contemplation!" P. 169–171.5 Perhaps, when we have thus surveyed the condition of the different orders of the Russian empire, and when we add to the estimate, the grand consideration of the utter want of political liberty, the comparatively slender degree of intercourse which any part of the state can enjoy with foreign nations, and the darkness in which the court itself sits, when compared with the cabinets of other countries, we shall not err widely in our conclusions as to the probable conduct of Russia, 'considered as a whole, or as a European power, and the kind of demeanour which we have a right to expect from her towards her neighbours, whether in negotiation, or in war. Her resources are another matter; though much of what we have stated, applies to them also, and serves to diminish, even more than the events of later times have taught us to do, the vague, ill founded, and at all periods, most inexcusable estimates, which some years ago prevailed on this subject. But, at present, we are only viewing the character of this empire as an ally and an enemy; and considering what sort of conduct is likely to result from such a composition as we have been occupied in contemplating. The conclusion is, in fact, already before us. We have seen what the nobles are, and what the people. The probability certainly is, that even the monarch and his family, but at any rate his chief counsellors, should be taken from the first of those classes; his armies must necessarily be raised from the other. We may easily conjecture, then, what is to be expected from a court so constituted, sending forth such troops. But, granting that a foreigner should reign (as has, during a re

markable period of Russian history, already happened) the influence of the instruments to be employed, both in directing and executing, both at home and abroad, must sensibly_affect even the plans and operations of the most enlightened and refined prince whom our fancy can place at the head of affairs. The favourites, the family connexions, the ministers, the secretaries, the generals, the inferiour officers, the envoys, the governours of provinces, the subalterns, civil and military; the judges, the priests, the soldiers and sailors; these cannot all be foreigners, and enlightened and refined, to second and chime in with the views of the sovereign: and, in the management of a large empire, the monarch, be he ever so absolute, nay, be he ever so active and able, be he as active as Buonaparte or Frederick, or Catherine or Joseph II. be he as able as all four combined, and as despotick as the superstition and servitude of his people can make him; unless he could perform a miracle every five minutes of his reign, would find it quite impossible to conduct his affairs uninterrupted, nay, unswayed, at each step, by the nature of the people he is ruling over, and the instruments through whom he must rule them. Their character and habits must, to a certain degree, give the law to his measures; fix the limits of his orders; and prescribe the manner of executing them. His publick conduct, his demeanour as a sovereign, must, in a great measure, take its tone and colour from the aspect and features of his people. In a word, we shall in vain expect to meet with any such monster in politicks as a European monarch of the eighteenth century, sustaining that character at the head of an empire peopled by Calmuks, or, at best, by the villeins of the dark ages, and their feudal lords.

The outward show of civility may,

for a while, deceive us. Fringed here and there with a shred of finer stuff, the great rough mass may, at times, dazzle and mislead us. A cursory and a distant observation of the parts only wherein all states may be made to resemble each other, will certainly lead us away from the radical difference which, for centuries, cannot be got over; and thus they who only, in this superficial manner, viewed the empire of Catherine II. thought they beheld a civilized and European state; a deception which that skilful, ambitious and profligate personage, spared no pains to encourage; and was greatly assisted in keeping up, by the passive line of foreign policy, which, towards all but her Polish and Turkish neighbours, that is, to all her European neighbours, she so anxiously and so prudently followed. But, as soon as her conduct, the conduct which she could not avoid pursuing, and which was pointed out by the construction of her empire, was more nearly scrutinized, we could discover how widely different from a European dynasty was the empire of the Czars, even under so enlightened and accomplished a chief. We could perceive those traits of barbarism necessarily inherent in the whole conduct of Russian affairs; and which, the more those should be extended and intermingled with the concerns of European politicks, were sure to -break out with greater effect; and which, in the sequel, have marked each step, that the feeble successours of Catherine have so foolishly made from the politick state of rest, so conducive to her power, and to the reputation of her empire.

But the proofs which later events have adduced of the barbarism of Russia, and its unfitness to support a great and useful part in European affairs, were, in truth, not wanting to convince us on this point. It was enough to look with some attention at the history of that uncivilized country, even during the most bril

liant period of Catherine's reign; and we must say, that we feel some satisfaction at the ample illustrations which this matter has received from the work now before us, All that we have been now stating (which is only a repetition of what we have, on former occasions, preached to our countrymen, with the usual success of those unpleasant and troublesome persons who speak the truth against the wishes of their hearers) re ceives the strongest confirmation from the pictures with which Dr. Clarke's work abounds, of the conduct of the Russian government to wards its distant provinces, and of the conduct of both government and people towards the neighbouring countries with which they had intercourse. We return him our thanks for the boldness with which he has spoken out on this subject, for daring to call things by their right names; for opposing the feelings, originating in gross ignorance, we verily believe, which prompt the people in this country still to hanker after Russian alliances; for denouncing that nation as perfectly barbarous; nay, for venturing to hold up its conduct towards its neighbours as infinitely worse than even the worst passages in the history of modern France, her treatment of Switzerland and Spain. When we express such feelings, and hasten to let our readers judge a little more nearly of their foundation, we lay our account with being, as usual, misrepresented, and accused of be ing the apologists of France. This charge is, nowadays, so regular; it is so invariably found in the mouths of the base and feeble creatures who have nothing else to offer, in defence of corruption and imbecility than hackneyed abuse of the enemies of misrule; that we care very little how often or how seldom we hear the sound of it. It is exactly like the charge of jacobitism and popery a century ago, which used to be hawked and bandied about so

freely, that Swift, in a fine vein of ridicule, makes it one argument to prove Partridge's death, that it was asserted by a friend of the protestant succession, and only denied by Partridge himself, whose leaning towards the pretender had, for many years, been more than suspected. We must, therefore, proceed without even listening to such silly noises, knowing full well, that they mean merely nothing; except, indeed, that the persons who make them are very angry, but have nothing to say, and can do nothing; that they are somewhat like dogs of a tender age, who bark more than they bite; or, like certain unmusical instruments, of manifest use in exciting strife and tumult, which make a louder noise the emptier they are. The page in the annals of Catherine, which we are now about to survey, is neither that in which Oczakow, nor Ismael, nor Warsaw, stand enrolled. It is not the record of her domestick oppressions, her family murders, the cruelties done in her state prisons, the debaucheries that polluted hen court, nor the tragedies which were enacted in her places of exile. These things might, perhaps, depend on herself, more than on her people; and we wish to take our illustrations from cases where the character of the country was unequivocally concerned. We turn, therefore, to that passage of Russian story, so little known in the rest of Europe, but so elegantly descriptive of both Catherine and her people; the conquest, and the subsequent treatment of the Crimea. It is upon this damned spot that we must now gaze for a moment; a spot which all the perfumes of Astrachan will not sweeten, nor the waters of the Wolga wash away.

Our author travelled all over the Crimea, and resided, for a length of time, in various parts of it. He enjoyed the benefit of constant and instructive intercourse with all the persons best qualified to give him information of its recent history and

present state. They were chiefly officers in the service of Russia, and professor Pallas, one of the greatest landed proprietors in the peninsula, and devoted to the sovereign from whom his wealth was derived. Our author conversed also with the natives; and more than all this, he saw, with his own eyes, much of what he relates. If his narrative and his descriptions stand in some points unsupported, it is only because there are no other authors of any note who touch those parts of the subject. With the single exception of Mr. Eton, who endeavours something in palliation of the enormities in question, we know of nothing that has ever been written, inconsistent with Dr. Clarke's account; and we shall, by and by, have occasion to show how little credit is due to that strenuous, and, we fear, not alto'gether disinterested apologist of Russia, if, indeed, the publication of Mr. Thornton's work on Turkey has left any doubt upon the subject. With such authority, and from such quarters, proceed the statements which we are now to give, in our author's own words. We take the passages almost at random, from the portion of his book which relates to the Crimea, beginning with a few particulars relating more immediately to the hostilities and the conquest of that once happy and peaceful country.

"The havock made in all the towns of the Crimea, during the various revolutions, and frequent change of inhabitants the country has sustained, has confused or annihilated almost every valuable document, for the illustration of its former history. But, of all the people who have hitherto scourged this devoted land, none have proved so injurious to the interests of literature as the Russians. I dare not mention the high authority on which the traits of their national character were delivered to me, at the time I am conducting this part of my journal. It is sufficient to say, one who best knew them, affirmed, that there was no characteristick of a Russian more striking, than that of wantonly destroying whatever is prized by enlightened nations. In Kertchy, after levelling