"Russian emancipation of the serfs and American abolition of slavery came within a short time of each other. Both the nations have been greatly benefited by the result, and to-day an advocate of serfdom is as rare in Russia as an advocate of slavery in the United States."
Frank read to his cousin the little essay we have just quoted; then he read it to the Doctor, and asked whether it would be well to insert it in his journal.
"By all means do so," the Doctor replied. "There are not many people in America who understand exactly what serfdom was, and your essay will do much to enlighten them."
Accordingly Frank carefully copied what he had written. Impressed with Doctor Bronson's suggestion, we have reproduced it here, in the confidence that our youthful readers will find it interesting and instructive.
"You can add to your account of serfdom," said Doctor Bronson, "that when it was established by Boris Godounoff, in 1601, it was regarded by both peasant and noble as a great popular reform, and welcomed with delight. His decree went into force on Saint George's Day, in the year named, and its principal provision was that every peasant in the Empire should in future till and own forever the land which he then tilled and held. It was an act of great liberality on the part of the Czar, for by it he gave up millions of acres belonging to the Crown and made them the property of the peasants.
"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.
"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.