XII. ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR…

XII. ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR

In recalling to memory all that the Russian nation passed through during the reign of the emperor Alexander II, and comparing the position and condition of Russia at the end of the reign with what they were in the beginning, it is impossible not to marvel at the beneficent change which took place throughout all the branches of national life during that short space of time. The liberation of the peasants from the dependence of serfdom, which had weighed on them for some centuries, and the organisation of their existence, the abolition of shameful and cruel corporal punishments, the introduction of provincial and territorial institutions, of the self-government of towns, the new tribunals and general military service, without mentioning other less important reforms, innovations and improvements accomplished by the will of the Czar Liberator, had an immeasurable influence upon the intellectual and moral regeneration of the people, and, it may be said, gave to Russia a complete inward revival.--SCHUMACHER.[d]

[Sidenote: [1855-1881 A.D.]]

Born in 1818, Alexander came to power at the age of thirty-seven under circumstances of the greatest difficulty both at home and abroad. “Your burden will be a heavy one,” his father had said to him when dying. Alexander’s first care was to terminate under honourable conditions the war that was exhausting Russia. At the news of the death of Nicholas the value of stocks and bonds rose in every exchange in Europe; and the general peaceful mood was not disturbed by the new emperor’s proclamation that he would “endeavour to carry out the views of his illustrious predecessors, Peter, Catherine, the beloved Alexander, and our father of imperishable memory.” A new conference took place at Vienna between the representatives of Austria, Russia, and the two western powers. France demanded the neutralisation of the Black Sea, or the limitation of the naval powers that the czar might place there. “Before limiting our forces,” replied Gortchakov and Titov, the representatives of Russia, “take from us Sebastopol!”

[Sidenote: [1855 A.D.]]

The siege continued. Sardinia in its turn sent 20,000 men to the East. Austria agreed to defend the principalities against Russia, and Prussia agreed to support Austria. On the 16th of May Pélissier succeeded Canrobert as general-in-chief of the French forces. During the night of the 22nd of May the Russians made two sorties, which were repulsed; all the allied forces occupied the left bank of the Tchernaia, and an expedition was sent out which destroyed the military posts of Kertch and Jenikale, occupied the Sea of Azov, and bombarded Taganrog, leaving the Russians no route by which to receive supplies save that of Perekop. The Turks occupied Anapa and incited the Circassians to revolt.

Pélissier had announced that he would gain possession of Sebastopol, and on the 7th of June he took by storm the Mamelon Vert (Green Hillock) and the Ouvrages Blancs (White Works), on the 18th he sent the French to attack Malakov and the English to lay siege to the great Redan, but both expeditions were repulsed with a loss of 3,000 men. On the 16th of August the Italian contingent distinguished itself in the battle of Traktir on the Tchernaia. The last day of Sebastopol had arrived. Eight hundred and seventy-four cannon directed their thunder against the bastions and the city; and the Russians, who displayed a stoical intrepidity that nothing could shake, lost 18,000 men from the effects of the bombardment alone. A million and a half of projectiles were thrown upon the city. The French had dug 80 kilometres of trenches and sunk 1,251 metres of mines before the Mast bastion alone, and their parallels had been extended to within thirty metres of Malakov. Under a terrible fire, the noise of which could be heard at a distance of a hundred kilometres, the Russian bastions crumbled away, and their artillerists and reserve soldiers fell by thousands. Korinlov, Istomin, and Nakhimov succumbed. The besieged had not even time to substitute good cannon for those that had been damaged, and could scarcely accomplish the burial of their dead. The very eve of the crisis that was to end all had arrived.[b]

During the protracted siege of Sebastopol death had claimed Marshal Saint-Arnaud; the French commander general Canrobert succeeded him and he was now superseded by General Pélissier. Lord Raglan had fallen a victim to cholera, and General Simpson was now in command of the English army.

In these weary months of waiting there had been many sanguinary encounters both by day and by night, and repeated bombardments. But it was not until September the 8th, 1855, that the grand assault was made.[a]

THE FALL OF SEBASTOPOL

At half-past eleven in the morning (September 8) all the trenches before the Karabel faubourg were occupied by the attacking force. Pélissier, surrounded by his staff, was installed on the Green Mamelon. In the sixth parallel was Bosquet, attentive to everything and influencing everyone around him by his calm energy. The troops, excited, eager, with their clothes loosened so as to fight the better, filled beforehand with the rage of battle (for the long siege had tried their patience), impatiently awaited the signal. From time to time bayonets showed above the parapets. “Down with the bayonets,” shouted Bosquet, who feared to reveal to the enemy the position of the French: then he added more gently: “Have patience! the time will come.” It had as a fact almost come, being now on the stroke of noon. “Forward!” cried Bosquet, and immediately his colours as commandant were planted on the parallel. The order flew from mouth to mouth; drums beat, trumpets sounded; the officers with naked swords led their troops out of the trenches.

The Malakov garrison at that time was composed of 500 artillery, certain militiamen or workmen, and 1400 infantry belonging to the Modlin, Praga and Zamosc regiments. After being prepared for an attack at daybreak the garrison was no longer upon the alert. Only the gunners remained by their guns, with a few riflemen along the ramparts. All the rest were hidden in their bomb-proof shelters and were about finishing their dinner. Having become accustomed to alarms, they were resting at comparative ease, and, yielding to that lassitude which often overtakes the mind and will after a night of anxious watching. They did not move except to salute the commandant of the fort, General Bessau, who was making an examination of the casemates and bestowing the cross of St. George on the most deserving. Suddenly, on the stroke of noon, the sharp crack of the French rifles rent the air, and the zouaves in their brilliantly coloured uniforms were seen bounding up the Malakov slopes. “The French are upon us! We are attacked!” cried the guard. Before the defenders of the bastion had even had time to pick up their arms, the zouaves had thrown themselves on the work. They cleared the fosse, and without waiting for ladders scaled the escarp and precipitated themselves through the embrasures. The Russian gunners stood to their guns, defending themselves with stones, pickaxes, and sponges. Meantime the men of the Modlin regiment rushed from their shelters and massed themselves towards the front of the fort. There took place one of those hand-to-hand fights, so rare in the history of battles, a desperate, merciless fight, full of terrible episodes. But the Russians were hampered by their long cloaks; the assailants, more active than they, dodged the blows of their enemies, surrounded them, closed with them, and little by little gained ground. The number of assailants momentarily increased. Immediately following the zouaves, almost side by side with them, appeared a battalion of the 7th line regiment, supporting the African troops with energy and bravery. General Bessau fell, mortally wounded, nearly all the other Russian leading officers were killed. Pressed and outflanked on every side the besieged fell back, surrendering the terre-plein, and retiring beyond the first traverses, and the colours of the 1st zouaves were hoisted on the captured redoubt. The battle had lasted only half an hour.

During this same space of time Dulac’s division had invaded the Little Redan and driven back the riflemen as far as the second enceinte; whilst La Motterouge’s division took possession of the curtain between the Malakov and the Little Redan. From this post of observation the commander-in-chief had seen the French eagle planted on the Malakov; he had also witnessed the triumphant passage of Dulac’s and La Motterouge’s divisions. Immediately he hoisted the queen’s colours on the Green Mamelon. This was the signal for which the English were waiting.

At the sight of it they poured out of their trenches; with the intrepid coolness characteristic of their temperament and their country. First came their rifles, next the men with scaling ladders, then the attacking columns composed of the light division and the 2nd division. In making their attack our allies were at a double disadvantage; in the first place the Russians were on the alert throughout the length of their line of defence, and, secondly, a distance of 200 yards lay between them and the Great Redan. A murderous fire greeted them, and before they could reach the work the ground was strewn with their red coats. They continued to advance notwithstanding, doubled to the fosse, scaled it, drew up their ladders, reached the now almost demolished salient-angle and routed the battalions of the Vladimir regiment. Before them stretched a great space, open and exposed; beyond it were the bomb-proof shelters from which the Russians kept up their hottest and best directed fire. Vainly the attacking party strove to push their undertaking further: vainly even did they strain every nerve to maintain the ground they had gained. After an hour and a half of futile attempts they fell back on their trenches.

Whilst the English were being foiled at the Great Redan, Levaillant’s division approached the central bastion at about two o’clock and met with no better fate. At first Couston’s brigade succeeded in getting possession of the Schwartz redoubt, to the left of the bastion; it even fought a battle in the gully known as the Town Gully. But the commanding officer was wounded, reinforcements arrived for the enemy, and it was brought back to the foremost parallels. To the right of the bastion Trocher’s brigade had invaded the Bielkine lunette and gained the bastion itself, but could no longer maintain its advantage. Like General Couston, General Trocher was wounded, and the Russian reprisals shattered his unhappy regiments. A second attempt was not more happy, and orders came from the commander-in-chief forbidding a continuance of such bloody efforts.

And indeed where was the use of persisting against the town when the principal engagement had been fought in the Karabel faubourg, an engagement which, according to whether it succeeded or failed, would save or compromise everything else?

At the Little Redan fortune had made the French columns pay dearly for their early success. Barely mistress of the bastion, Dulac’s division had been assailed by a heavy fire from the batteries of the Maison-en-Croix and of the three vessels moored in the roads. Moreover the Russians had brought up a large number of field-pieces to all the more favourable points, whilst a considerable number of reserve troops debouched from the Uchakov gully. Outnumbered; crushed by showers of missiles, and finally compelled to evacuate a redoubt filled with their dead, our troops had retired to their place-of-arms. At the curtain La Motterouge’s division had itself given way before the attacks of the enemy. New columns were formed from the débris of Saint-Pol’s brigade, which had already lost its general, de Marolles’ brigade, and the guards division. A little later arrived at full gallop two batteries of the Lancaster artillery which, by the hotness of their fire, strove to work havoc in the enemy’s columns, and, above all, to disperse the fog. The Little Redan was taken, lost, retaken, abandoned. The bloodshed was terrific. General de Marolles was killed, Generals Bourbaki, Bisson, Mellinet and de Pontevès wounded, the latter mortally; the trenches were so heaped with dead that it was almost impossible to move in them. Atop of all this General Bosquet was wounded in the right side by the bursting of a shell. He was obliged to relinquish his command, and a rumour even got about that he was dying. Shortly after a loud report was heard from the direction of the curtain. A powder-magazine had exploded, claiming fresh victims; General de la Motterouge was among the wounded. So many casualties, the loss of so many officers, the difficulty of fighting in a narrow space choked up with dead and dying, even extreme exhaustion, all combined to dissuade from a renewed attack on the Little Redan. Only a portion of La Motterouge’s division partially held its own on the ramparts.

It was now three o’clock. Judging only by the results as a whole the allies had to count more disappointments than successes. The English had been beaten back at the Great Redan. The central bastion withstood all attacks. And finally, in the Karabel faubourg the Little Redan, already carried, had just slipped from our grasp. But, notwithstanding, there was more joy than depression amongst those surrounding the commander-in-chief. All eyes were turned obstinately towards the Malakov. Were the Malakov safely held, not only would the other checks be made good but the advantage of the day would rest with the allied army; for the occupation of this dominant position would render all further resistance impossible. Now, according to all accounts MacMahon was keeping safe hold of his prize and strengthening himself there.

He had maintained his position, God only knows at what cost of valour. We have related how the terre-plein fell into the hands of the allies, and how this brilliant success had determined the great attack. But inside the work, fortified and improved with so much care during the long days of siege, the Russians had thrown up a multitude of traverses beneath which were their bomb-proof shelters, which formed all over the fort so many trenches easy of defence. The salient-angle once occupied, it would be necessary to carry one by one these traverses behind which were drawn up what remained of the Modlin regiment and the Praga and Zamosc battalions. Happily General MacMahon had recalled the 2nd, Vinoy’s, division. Thanks to these reinforcements he had been enabled to force back the enemy, dislodge them from their positions and drive them towards the gorge of the redoubt.

There an engagement had taken place more terrible than any throughout the day. Driven to bay at the extremity of the work, the Russians had, by a series of heroic rushes, attempted to retake the fort, the veritable palladium of their city. Whilst MacMahon hastily ordered up Wimpfen’s brigade, and the zouaves of the guard, in short all the reserves, the Muscovite officers sacrificed themselves one after the other in their efforts to avert a total defeat. First it was General Lisenko with a few remnants of the Warsaw, Briansk and Ieletz regiments; then General Krulov with four battalions of the Ladoga regiment, lastly General Iuverov with the same men newly led on to battle. Lisenko was mortally wounded, Krulov dangerously so, Iuverov killed. In the end the Malakov gorge was ours. The engineers began at once to put it in a state of defence: the capitulation of the little garrison of the tower, isolated in the midst of the fort, completed the victory. A supreme effort made a little later by General de Martinau with the Azov and Odessa regiments only served to demonstrate the powerlessness of our enemies to wrest the magnificent prize from us.

And magnificent it certainly was. The corpses heaped around the fortress showed plainly enough the Russians’ obstinate intention to defend or recapture it. Notwithstanding the fact that our triumph was complete the fusilade had not ceased. There were still certain volunteers risking their lives around the Mamelon, meditating some desperate stroke. “Give us cartridges,” they cried: “Let someone lead us again to battle.” But nearly all their officers were either dead or in the ambulances, and the remainder scarcely troubled to answer them. Not that they were indifferent to so crushing a defeat, but after such desperate fighting an immense weariness had overtaken them, and, having done all they could to avert their fate they now submitted to it impassively.

Towards four o’clock Prince Gortchakov arrived on these scenes of confusion and woe. On receiving the first intelligence of the assault he had crossed the roads and had been able to follow all the varying chances of the fight. For a long time he surveyed the Karabelnaia, as if to gauge the defensive strength of the faubourg; for a yet longer time he contemplated the Malakov, so lately the pride of the Russians and now lost to them. Neither the still hot firing which killed one of his officers at his side, nor the time which pressed availed to cut short this searching examination.

At last, judging that the town was no longer tenable he decided on consummating the sacrifice. The moment seemed to him a favourable one, for two reasons: the success gained at the Great and Little Redans and at the safeguarded central bastion, had established the honour of the Muscovite arms; whereas the extreme weariness of the allies guaranteed that the remainder of the day and the ensuing night would be allowed by them to pass without further offensive action. The Russian commander-in-chief therefore resolved to evacuate Sebastopol and to make all his troops cross over to the northern bank. The idea once conceived he hurried to the Nicholas battery to secure the immediate execution of his orders.

At his post of observation on the Green Mamelon, Pélissier had learnt of MacMahon’s signal success, and this great advantage, somewhat counterbalanced it is true by the checks received in other engagements, filled all hearts with hope. Nevertheless, by reason of this multitude of engagements, victory appeared to be, though probable, still uncertain. Would MacMahon be able to maintain his position at the Malakov? Might not some exploding mine change the triumph into a catastrophe? Would not the defeated Russians defend themselves from behind their second enceinte, in their streets, in their houses even? And would not the battle of September 8 have a yet more bloody morrow? No answer was forthcoming to these questions, and faces that had begun to brighten grew troubled.

Things were at this stage when, towards the end of the day, General Martimprey turning his glasses towards the town thought he detected an unaccustomed movement on the great bridge spanning the roads. Glasses were passed from hand to hand and, despite the first shades of evening, long processions of soldiers, waggons, carriages, guns, could be distinctly seen wending their way towards the northern bank. The bridge gave under the weight, and shaken by a high wind swayed beneath the swell which from time to time submerged and almost swamped it. In spite of this hindrance the march continued, whilst ferry-boats filled with people crossed to the northern bank, and then returned empty to fetch other passengers. The rapidly falling darkness prevented further observation, but the spectators felt no doubt that they were watching the retreat of the Russians.

They had not all retreated, however. At this supreme moment Gortchakov bethought himself of Moscow. Several volunteer corps and several detachments of sappers and marines were left behind, not to give battle to an already victorious enemy, but to level to the dust the city it was no longer possible to defend. As night fell the work of devastation was begun. Powder-magazines were blown up. The cannon and siege trains that could not be removed were sunk in the bay. All that remained of the North Sea squadron was sunk; even the Empress Marie was not spared, that splendid vessel which was commanded by the glorious Nahkimov at the battle of Sinope. Only the war steamers were saved and taken across to the northern bank. The blowing up of the Paul battery completed the work of destruction. When all was finished the great bridge was broken up. Then the executors of those savage orders departed in boats for the further shore. With them went the generals who up to that moment had remained at Sebastopol to guard the retreat. Of this number was Count Osten-Sacken, governor of the town, who was one of the last to leave, as a captain abandons his burning ship only when all the hands have left.

The explosions of that terrible night had kept the allies on the alert in their camp, and had triumphed over their immense fatigue. At daybreak on the 9th of September, Sebastopol, already nearly deserted, appeared to them as an immense heap of ruins from which shot up tongues of flame kindled by the incendiaries. For a long time French and English contemplated with a mixture of joy and horror those ruins which attested the greatness of their triumph and also the tenacity of their enemies. Beyond the roadstead, on the northern heights, appeared the Russians, vanquished but still menacing.

On the morrow, September 10th, 1855--after 332 days of siege, three set battles, and three assaults more bloody even than the battles--Pélissier, as marshal of France, in the name of the emperor, planted his country’s flag among the smoking ruins.[e]

With the fall of Sebastopol the war was practically at an end. Hostilities continued for some time longer, but neither side won any material advantage. The allies were not in complete accord on the question of the continuance of the war, England being inclined to push matters to a complete overthrow of Russia, while France was ready to talk about terms of peace. Lord Palmerston himself was a strenuous opponent of peace, and declared that Russia had not been sufficiently humbled. At this juncture Prince A. M. Gortchakov, the Russian ambassador at Vienna, taking advantage of the divided councils of the allies, urged Austria to act as peacemaker. The emperor Francis Joseph thereupon took the occasion to press upon Russia an acceptance of the four conditions on which Turkey was prepared to make peace, backing the communication with an implied threat of war in case of denial. On January 16th, 1856, the czar, much against his will, signified his acceptance of Austrian intervention. The preliminaries of peace were signed on February 1st and on the 25th of the same month representatives of the great powers assembled at Paris to settle the details of the peace. Negotiations proceeded for over a month, France and Russia drawing together and Austria insisting upon the maximum of Russian cessions.[a]

[Sidenote: [1856 A.D.]]

Under the Treaty of Paris, March 30th, 1856, the powers bound themselves not to intervene singly in the administration of Turkey, to respect her independence and territorial status, and to treat disputes between any of them and the Porte as matters of general interest. A Hatti-sherif, or ordinance, had been obtained by England from the sultan before the congress opened, which guaranteed equal religious privileges to all his subjects. This was set forth as an article in the treaty. Russia renounced her claims to a protectorate over Turkish Christians. She abandoned similar pretensions with regard to the Danubian principalities, which were in future to be governed by hospodars elected under European control. She surrendered to Moldavia the southern portion of Bessarabia, which had been ceded under the Treaty of Bucharest, retaining however the principal trade-routes southwards and the fortress of Khotin. The navigation of the Danube was declared free to all nations, and placed under an European commission.

A clause, through which Russia drew her pen as soon as an opportunity presented itself, declared the Black Sea neutral and closed it to men-of-war of all nations. Russia surrendered Kars to Turkey, but regained the portion of the Crimea in the allies’ occupation. By a separate act she undertook not to fortify the Åland Isles or to make them a naval station. Thanks to the astuteness of her diplomacy, she scored a decided success against England in securing the insertion of articles which limited the scope of naval warfare. The Treaty of Paris abolished privateering, and provided that a neutral flag should protect the enemy’s goods, while neutral property, even under a hostile flag, was exempted from capture. “Contraband of war” was indeed excepted, but no attempt was made to define the meaning of this ambiguous phrase. The recognition of a blockade by neutrals was to be conditional on its effectiveness.[g]

AMELIORATION IN THE CONDITION OF THE SOLDIER

On the 26th of August, 1856, the emperor Alexander Nikolaivitch placed on his head, in the cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow, the imperial crown and received the sacrament of anointing with the Holy Chrism. The sacred day of the coronation was one of rejoicing and hitherto unprecedented favours and therefore left the most joyful remembrance in the hearts of the people.

When he had taken upon himself the imperial crown, the emperor Alexander II immediately set about the preparation of those great administrative reforms, which were so full of humanity and justice, which made his reign illustrious and which immortalised his name.

Solicitous for the welfare of his people, the emperor first of all directed his attention to the improvement of the condition of the soldier and entered upon a series of reforms in the organisation and administration of that army, which was so dear to his heart, with the object of raising the moral spirit of the troops, of arousing the lower ranks to the consciousness of their dignity and in general of placing the military profession upon its proper elevated footing.

As the preserver of order in the state during times of peace and the defender of the country in time of war, the soldier is justly proud of his profession; he should not be given cause for mortification by finding beside him in the service men condemned to the ranks as punishment for vicious behaviour. Yet in previous times men were frequently made soldiers by way of punishment for some crime instead of being banished to the settlements: fugitives, vagabonds, horse stealers, thieves, swindlers, and such vicious persons found a place in the ranks of the army.

[Sidenote: [1860 A.D.]]

The emperor Alexander II put an end to this shameful state of things: by the imperial manifesto of 1860 the enrolment of soldiers as a punishment for crimes and offences, an abuse which had attained vast dimensions, was abolished and replaced by other forms of punishment. But the czar’s chief care was to bring to fulfilment his most sacred idea, one which he cherished day and night: to give liberty to the peasants who were dependent as serfs upon the landowners; to abolish the law of serfdom. Amongst the great administrative reforms accomplished during the reign of the emperor Alexander II, the liberation of the peasants occupies incontestably the first place and served as the chief foundation for all the reforms that followed. All further changes were directly or indirectly called forth by the abolition of the law of serfdom. This glorious accomplishment which gave new life to Russia, which breathed a new soul into the millions of Russian peasantry, was the most important of all the great deeds of the emperor Alexander II, and the brightest jewel in the crown of his glory.

THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS (1861 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1861 A.D.]]

The predecessors of Alexander II had already felt all the evils of the law of serfdom and had not unfrequently aimed, if not directly at its abolition, at least at the amelioration of the position of the peasant serfs and their gradual preservation against the arbitrariness of the landowners’ authority. But all these beneficent measures were insufficient for the abolition of the firmly established order; they only limited the rights of serfdom, put a certain restraint upon it, but did not abolish the right of the possession of serfs. The glory of the complete emancipation of the peasants from the dependency of serfdom, the great and difficult initiative of the entire abolition of the law of serfdom in Russia belongs wholly to the emperor Alexander II.

The question of the abolition of the law of serfdom constituted the chief care of the emperor Alexander II during the first years of his reign; all the course of the work in connection with the matter of the peasants testified to what firmness of will, immovable convictions and persistency were brought by the emperor himself into this matter which he regarded as “sacred and most vital” for Russia.

The emperor spoke many times in public on the peasant question during the time when the measure was under discussion. The sovereign’s speeches all displayed his firm, inflexible intention of bringing the work he had conceived to a successful termination; they had kept up the courage of those labouring for the peasantry reforms, attracted the wavering, kept opponents in check, and thus had an enormous influence both on public opinion and on the course of local and general work in the matter of peasant reforms.

The solution of the peasant question, which was of such vital importance to Russia, presented many difficulties. Of course it would have been far easier to master the problem if the emperor had desired to solve it as it had already been solved in some kingdoms of western Europe, where the peasants had been at one time in the same position as the Russian serfs; there the peasants had only been declared individually free, the land remained the property of the landowner. But such was not the will of the emperor Alexander II. He desired that the interests of the landlords should be as far as possible guarded, and also that the emancipated peasants should be endowed with a fixed quantity of land; not converted into homeless, landless labourers.

Much labour had to be expended over this great problem before an issue was found for its successful solution. The chief executor of the emperor’s preconceived plans in the matter of the peasant question was Adjutant-General J. T. Rostovtsev, in whom Alexander found an enlightened and boundlessly devoted assistant. In his turn Rostovtsev found a most zealous and talented collaborator in the person of N. A. Milutin, who warmly took up the cause of the emancipation of the peasants and who, after the death of Rostovtsev in 1860, became the chief director of all the work upon this question. The emperor attentively followed the course of the preparatory labours on the peasant reforms and without giving any serious heed to the wiles and opposition of the obstinate partisans of the law of serfdom, he firmly and unwaveringly directed these labours to the object marked out.

But of course it was impossible to accomplish so vast a work at once. Four years passed in the indispensable preparatory work. The thoughts of the sovereign were full of this administrative measure; his heart must have been frequently overwhelmed with anxieties and fears in regard to the successful solution of the peasant question. But the czar’s will never weakened, his love for his people was never exhausted, and the great, holy work of the emancipation of the rural population of Russia from the bondage of serfdom, and the organisation of this population into a new form of existence was at last brought to a successful conclusion.

On the 19th of February, 1861, in the sixth year of the reign of the emperor Alexander II, all doubts were resolved. On that memorable day, which can never be forgotten in Russia, was accomplished the greatest event in the destinies of the Russian people: the emperor Alexander II, after having fervently prayed in solitude, signed the imperial manifesto for the abolition of the right of serfdom over the peasants living on the landlords’ estates and for granting to these peasants the rights of a free agricultural status. Through the initiative and persistent efforts of their czar more than twenty-two million Russian peasants were liberated from the burden of serfdom, which had weighed on them and their forebears for nearly three centuries. They obtained their freedom and together with it the possibility of enjoying the fruits of their free labour, that is, of working for themselves, for their own profit and advantage and of governing themselves and their actions according to their own will and discernment. Freedom was given to the Russian peasant by the emperor Alexander II himself; it was not given under him, but by him; he personally maintained the right of his people to freedom, personally broke the chains of serfdom; the initiative of this great work, its direction and its execution belong wholly to the emperor. We repeat, the laws of serfdom crumbled away at his royal word alone. Together with the imperial manifesto of the 19th of February, 1861, were promulgated in both capitals and afterwards throughout all Russia, laws for the organization of the liberated peasants into the social order, entitled “General regulations concerning the peasants issuing from the dependence of serfdom.” Upon the basis of these laws and in particular by virtue of the reforms that followed, the liberated peasants were thus granted personal, social, and individual rights which placed them almost on a footing of equality with the other classes of the state.

Laws and Social Rights Granted to the Peasants

In conferring upon the liberated peasants the individual rights, common to all citizens of the empire, the czar was solicitous for the establishment of laws actually conducive to the security and amelioration of their condition, indissolubly bound up as it had been with the use and enjoyment of the land. With this object in view it was established that the peasant should have a share in the perpetual enjoyment of the farm settlements and arable land, in accordance with the qualities of the land of each locality and with local requirements. But as the peasants had not means to give the landowner at once all the value due for their share of the land, and on the other hand as the prospect of receiving the sum allotted, in small proportions during a period of thirty to forty years, was not an alluring one for the landowner, the state took upon itself the office of intermediary between the landowners and the liberated peasants and paid the landowner in redeemable paper all the sums due to him and inscribed them as long term debts against the peasants, who were under the obligation of paying them off by yearly instalments.

Together with the reservation of individual and property rights to the emancipated peasants, a special peasant government was established for them. The peasants received the right of disposing independently of their agricultural and public work, and of choosing from amongst themselves the wisest and most reliable persons for conducting their affairs under the direction of peasant assemblies. And as in the life of the Russian peasants many ancient customs and rules are preserved which are esteemed and observed as sacred, being the product of the experience of their forefathers, the emperor granted them also their own district peasant tribunals which decide upon purely local questions and arbitrate according to the conscience and traditions of these communities.

The imperial manifesto was, as has already been said, signed on the 19th of February, 1861, but it was universally proclaimed only on the 5th of March of the same year; the news of the emancipation evoked an indescribable enthusiasm, a touching gratitude in the people towards their liberator throughout the whole length of the Russian land, beginning with the capital and finishing with the last poor little hamlet.[d]

Having thus summarised the results achieved by this remarkable manifesto, we give below a literal translation of the full text of the document itself.[a]

Text of the Imperial Proclamation

Manifesto of the Emancipation of the Serfs: By the Grace of God We, Alexander the Second, Emperor and Autocrat Of All the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, et cætera, et cætera, et cætera, Make known to all Our faithful subjects.

Having been called by God’s Providence and the sacred law of succession to the throne of our forefathers and All the Russias, We have in accordance with this calling vowed to comprehend in Our royal love and care all Our faithful subjects of every calling and condition, from him who nobly wields the sword in the defence of the fatherland to the modest worker with the tools of the artisan, from him who serves in the highest service of the state to him who draws the furrow over the field with the plough.

Upon examining into the position of the various callings and conditions of the state structure, We have observed that the legislation of the state, while organising actively and well the higher and middle classes by determining their duties, rights and privileges, has not attained to an equal activity in regard to the people bound to the soil and called serfs because they, partly through ancient laws, partly from custom, are hereditarily settled under the authority of the landowners, upon whom at the same time the obligation lies to provide for their welfare. The rights of the landowners have been until now extensive and not defined with any exactitude by the law, the place of which has been taken instead by tradition, custom and the good will of the landowner. In the most favourable cases there have proceeded from this state of things kind, patriarchal relations of sincere and true guardianship and beneficence on the part of the landlord, and good tempered obedience on the part of the peasant. But with the increasing complexity of manners and customs, with the increasing diversity of relations, the lessening of direct intercourse between the landowners and peasants, the occasional falling of the landowner’s rights into the hands of persons who only seek their own profit, these good relations have weakened, and a path has been opened for an arbitrariness which is burdensome to the peasants and unfavourable to their welfare, and to which the peasants have responded by insensibility to improvement in their own existence.

These matters were observed also by Our ever to be remembered predecessors and they took measures to effect a change for the better in the position of the peasants; but these measures were indecisive. In many cases they depended on the co-operation of the landowners; in others they concerned only particular localities and were instituted to meet special requirements or else as experiments. Thus the emperor Alexander I issued a regulation concerning the freedom of agriculturists, and Our deceased parent Nicholas I, who rests in God, a regulation as to the obligations of peasants. In the western governments inventory rules have defined the distribution of the peasants by the land and their obligations. But the regulations concerning the freedom of agriculturists and the obligations of peasants have been carried out only to a very limited extent.

Thus, We have become convinced that the amelioration of the condition of the serfs or people bound to the soil, is for us a testament of Our predecessors and a lot appointed to Us, through the course of circumstances, by the hand of Providence.

We have entered upon this work by an act showing Our confidence in the Russian nobility, Our confidence in their devotion to the throne, which has been proved by great trials, and in their readiness to make large sacrifices for the good of the country. We left the nobility, at its own request, responsible for the new legislation in behalf of the peasantry. It thus became the duty of the nobles to limit their rights over the peasants and to take up the difficulties of the reformation; and this involved a sacrifice of their own interests. But Our confidence has been justified. In the government committees, invested with the confidence of the nobility of each government, the nobility has voluntarily renounced its rights over the persons of the serfs. In these committees when the necessary information had been collected, propositions were drawn up for the new code regulating the conditions of persons bound to the soil, and their relations to the landowners.

These propositions, which, as might have been expected from the nature of the matter, were very various, have been compared, brought into harmony, arranged in a regular form, amended and completed in the higher commission appointed for this matter; and the new propositions thus constituted in the interests of landowners, peasants, and menials have been examined in the council of state.

Calling upon God to assist us, We have decided to bring this work to its accomplishment.

In virtue of the new regulations, the serfs will receive at the proper time the full rights of free villagers.

The landowners while preserving the rights of property over all the land belonging to them, will leave the peasants, in return for the dues established, in perpetual enjoyment of their farm settlements; Moreover, in order to ensure the security of their existence and the fulfilment of their obligations before the Government, the quantity of arable land and other necessaries allotted will be determined by regulation.

Thus profiting by a share of the land, the peasants are in return obliged to pay in to the landowner certain dues determined by the regulations. In this condition which is transitory the peasants are denominated as temporarily bound to work for the landlords.

Together with this they are given the right to buy their farm settlements, and with the consent of the landlords they can acquire as property the arable land and other appendages, allotted for their perpetual enjoyment. By such acquisitions of certain determined quantities of land, the peasants are freed from any obligations to the landowners on the land purchased and enter into the position of free peasant-proprietors.

By special regulation in regard to menials or domestic servants, a transitory position is determined for them adapted to their occupations and requirements; after the expiration of a space of two years from the day of the issue of this regulation, they will receive full emancipation and exemption from taxes.

These are the chief principles by which are determined the future organisation of the peasants and the menials. They indicate in detail the rights granted to the peasants and menials and the duties laid upon them in respect to the government and the landlords.

Although these regulations, general, local and special as well as supplementary rules for certain particular localities, for the estates of small landed proprietors, and for peasants working in their landlords’ manufactories are as far as possible adapted to the economic requirements, yet in order to preserve the usual order, We leave to the landlords the option of making a voluntary agreement with the peasants regarding land and dues.

As the new system, on account of the inevitable multitude of changes it involves, cannot be at once introduced, but requires time for adjustment, therefore in order to avoid disturbance in public and private affairs, the order existing until now shall be preserved for two years, when, after the completion of the necessary preparations, the new laws shall go into force.

For the lawful attainment of this, We have considered it well to command that:

1. In every government a government council on peasant affairs shall be opened, having the supreme direction of the affairs of the peasant societies installed on the landowners’ territories.

2. Arbiters of peace are to be nominated in the districts, and district assemblies formed from them in order to investigate on the spot into any misunderstandings and disputes which may arise in the fulfilment of the regulations.

3. Besides this, communal councils are to be established on the landowners’ estates, in order that, while leaving the village communities in their present formation, Volost[69] councils should be opened in the principal villages, uniting the smaller village communities under one Volost administration.

4. A charter shall be drawn up in each village specifying, on the basis of the local regulations, the quantity of land appointed for the perpetual enjoyment of the peasants, and the dues to be paid the landowner.

5. These charters shall be executive, and brought into operation within a space of two years from the day of the issue of this manifesto.

6. Until the expiration of this term, the peasants and menials are to remain in their previous condition of subjection to the landlords and indisputably to fulfil their former obligations.

7. The landowners are to see that order is maintained on their estates, and preserve the right of the dispensation of justice until the formation and opening of the Volost tribunals.

In contemplating the inevitable difficulties of the reform, We first of all lay Our trust in God’s most gracious Providence, which protects Russia.

After this We rely on the valiant zeal of the Honourable body of the Nobility, to whom We cannot but testify the gratitude it has earned from Us and from the whole country for its disinterested action in the realisation of Our preconceived plans. Russia will not forget that it has voluntarily, incited only by respect for the dignity of man and Christian love for its neighbour, renounced serfdom and laid the foundation of the new agricultural future of the peasant. We believe unquestioningly that it will continue its good work by ensuring the orderly accomplishment of the new regulations, in the spirit of peace and benevolence; and that each landowner will complete within, the limits of his own estate, the great civic movement of the whole body, by organising the existence of the peasants settled on his lands, and that of his domestic servants, upon conditions advantageous to both sides, thus setting the rural population a good example, and encouraging it in the exact and conscientious fulfilment of the state regulations.

The examples that We have in view of the generous solicitude of the landlords for the welfare of the peasants, and the gratitude of the peasants for the beneficent solicitude of the landlords, confirm in Us the hope that mutual, spontaneous agreement will solve the greater number of difficulties; difficulties which are inevitable in the adaptation of general rules to the diversity of conditions existent in separate estates; and that by this means the transition from the old order to the new will be facilitated, and that for the future, mutual confidence, good understanding and unanimous striving for the common welfare will be consolidated.

For the more convenient accomplishment of those agreements between the landlords and peasants, by which the latter will acquire property, together with the farms and agricultural appendages, assistance will also be afforded by the government, on the basis of special rules, by the payment of loans, and the transfer of debts lying on the estates.

We rely upon the good sense of Our people. When the government’s idea of the abolition of serfdom became spread amongst the peasants who were unprepared for it, it aroused partial misunderstandings. Some thought of liberty and forgot all about obligations. But the mass of the people did not waver in the conviction, that by natural reasoning, a society that freely enjoyed benefits must mutually minister to the welfare of society by the fulfilment of certain obligations, and that in accordance with the Christian law, every soul must be subject unto the higher powers (Rom. xiii, 1), must render therefore to all their dues, and especially to whom are due tribute, custom, fear, honour (v. 7); that the lawfully acquired rights of the landowners cannot be taken from them without fitting recompense for their voluntary concession; and that it would be opposed to all justice to avail oneself of the land belonging to the landlord without rendering certain obligations in return for it.

And now we hopefully expect that the serfs, in view of the new future opening for them, will understand and gratefully receive the great sacrifice made by the honourable nobility for the improvement of their condition.

They will understand, that having received a firmer foundation of property and greater freedom in the disposition of their agricultural labours, they have become bound, before society and themselves to complete the beneficence of the new law by a faithful, well-intentioned and diligent use of the rights conferred by it upon them. The most beneficent law cannot make people happy and prosperous, if they do not themselves labour to establish their felicity under the protection of the law. Competence and ease are not acquired and increased otherwise than by unremitting labour, a wise use of powers and means, strict thrift and an honest, God-fearing life.

The executors of this new system will see that it is accomplished in an orderly and tranquil manner, so that the attention of the agriculturists may not be drawn off from their necessary agricultural occupations. May they carefully cultivate the earth, and gather its fruits in order that afterwards from well-filled granaries the seed may be taken for sowing the land that is for their perpetual enjoyment, or that will be acquired by them as their own property.

Sign yourselves with the sign of the cross, orthodox people, and call upon God with Us for His blessing on your free labour, on your homes and on the public welfare.

Given in St. Petersburg, on the nineteenth day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one from the birth of Christ, and the seventh of Our reign.

ALEXANDER.[f]

EFFECTS OF THE NEW CONDITIONS

Let us now turn our attention to the epoch in which this law was published. As regards the effect of the new law on the mind of the population, it was soon evidenced, that the cultivated classes, burdened as they were with sacrifices for the work of reform, expressed their joy and satisfaction at this great acquisition, far more readily than the peasants, whom it immediately concerned. The disaffected portion of the Russian nobility was and remained decidedly in the minority, especially under the first impression of the great and decided step that had been taken, and no one ventured to manifest disapproval. Public opinion had declared itself too decidedly in favour of the government for any one to venture on opposition. On the contrary, the number was by no means unimportant, of those among the nobles and officials, who exceeded even the demands of the government, and who could not suppress their vexation, that their desire that the lands possessed by the community should be gratuitously transferred into their property, had been disregarded. Although these voices were not distinctly audible until a later period, still from the first they had influence, because they could reckon on the sympathies of the freed portion of the population. Moreover a great part of the nobles, at that time, looked for a rich compensation for the sacrifice they had made; they hoped to be able to excite public opinion in favour of the embryo demand for the restoration of a constitution, and by its assistance to reach the desired goal. Thus the disaffected feelings of the hitherto ruling classes were veiled, and maintained in one balance, by hopes of the future; at the most a small band of stubborn adherents to the system of Nicholas grumbled at the liberalism come into fashion, could not conceal their vexation at the loss of their revenues, and used every effort to recover their lost influence in the court circles.

The Russian peasant received the important tidings of the breaking of his fetters with profound silence; and some time elapsed before he had made up his mind what position to assume with regard to it. Partly, the habitual want of freedom had become too inveterate, and was too deeply rooted, to be at once cast aside; and partly, the attention of the people was too eagerly directed to the still pending agricultural arrangements with the proprietors, for the publication of the emancipation edict to make at once any evident impression. The effect of the emancipation act was felt most strongly and evidently in the two capitals of the empire; here there were thousands of serfs living (as merchants, second-hand dealers, artisans, drivers, servants, etc.) who had been obliged to purchase with high obroc-payments the right of seeking their gain, and were always in danger of being recalled by the will of their masters and constrained to return to the old position of dependence. To these, the advantages of the newly established arrangement of things were manifest, and the fruits of it could at once be enjoyed; the emancipation law limited the duration of their dependence to merely two years, and fixed an unimportant obroc-sum for this transition period. From these town-serfs, therefore, proceeded the first exhibitions of thankfulness and joy, the first ovations to the “liberating czar.” But here also the weak, womanish character of the Slavonic race did not belie itself; there was no idea of passionate outbursts. The St. Petersburg descriptions of those momentous February days tell most characteristically of intoxicated bands of bearded cab-drivers and artisans, who reeled through the streets, humming as they went “Volyushka, Volyushka,” (literally, “beloved freedom”). Truly effective, however, was the shout of rejoicing, with which the masses of the people received the emperor when he quitted the winter-palace, on the 19th of February, in order to be present at the reading of the emancipation-ukase in the Kazan church; and subsequently, the addresses sent to the emperor by the drivers and lower class of citizens in the two capitals, who had been freed from serfdom.

Although this law had been published throughout the whole empire on the same day in all churches, and the peace-mediators (mirovuye-Posredniki) had at once proceeded to regulate the agricultural questions, the first more important manifestations in the country did not occur until two months later, in the end of April, 1861. These were manifestations of dissatisfaction and disappointment, which appeared east of the Volga, and had the districts of Kazan and Nijni-Novgorod for their principal centre. In all probability they were revolutionary agitators from the higher and more cultivated classes who first scattered the seeds of discontent. The people were persuaded that the true emancipation-ukase of the czar had been craftily intercepted by the nobles and officials; that the will of the czar was to consign to the peasants, without compensation or hindrance, the land they had hitherto cultivated. These doctrines fell on a soil all the more ready, as the services yielded to the masters were in the eyes of the people of a purely personal nature, and were no equivalents for the lands conceded to the communities. “We belong to the proprietors, but the common land belongs to us,” was the creed of the peasant; hence the feeling was, that the abolition of personal servitude was synonymous with the establishment of free property. In the Kazan district, matters soon reached a pitch of open refusal to obedience; and when the magistrates interfered, they amounted to attempts at resistance. Popular discontent assumed at once a genuinely national stamp; it found a leader in a new Pugatchev, the peasant Anton Petrov, who personated the czar (who had fled from St. Petersburg, pursued by the boyars); and within a short time he had gathered round him 10,000 men. After vain attempts to bring back the infatuated men by gentle means to obedience, military power was obliged to be employed. Some battalions, led by Count Apraxin, marched through the insurgent country, and took the ringleader prisoner; and after Petrov had fallen into their hands, and had been immediately shot, order was again so completely established, that in May nothing further was thought of this episode. The peasants returned to their obedience, and everywhere the arrangements of the peace-arbitrator were complied with. Yet the idea of the perfect freedom hoped for, was not yet wholly forgotten; the Volga districts remained for some time longer the scene of revolutionary experiments, which excited the people with the hope of a “new freedom” still to be expected and held fast to the old idea of a gratuitous division of the soil. Under the title Zemliyä i Volyä (Land and Freedom), there appeared from time to time secretly published pamphlets, which endeavoured to give the agrarian question a revolutionary colouring, and which were numerously circulated, in the eastern districts especially. These manifestations of a propaganda, secretly inflaming the public mind, we shall meet with again in other places, and under other forms.

In general, the completion of the arrangement between peasant and lord was unexpectedly quick, and favourable in its course. Little as it can be asserted, that the Russian peasant subsequently made a just use of his newborn liberty, or that agricultural progress exhibited any favourable influence from it; still it is evident, that the peasant population manifested in the arrangement good-will, a just insight into the state of affairs, and great tractableness; and that this matter was justly conceived and handled by those entrusted with it. The execution of the law of the 19th of February, 1861, was not placed in the hands of ordinary magistrates, but was consigned to officials, who were selected ad hoc from the number of landed proprietors, and were furnished with extensive authority. It was a happy idea, and one of decided and lasting importance, that these peace mediators, or arbitrators, as they were called, were not reckoned in the service of the state, and were not fettered to the orders of the bureaucratic hierarchy. For the first time in Russia, men of the most different calling, and social position, stood side by side with equal right to join hands for the execution of a patriotic work, which promised neither title, rank, nor advancement. Generals in command, and mere lieutenants, councillors of the state, and simple titular councillors, once the choice of their fellow-citizens and class-equals fell on them, demanded leave of absence from service, in order to undertake, according to the law, the demarcation between the estates of the nobles and the lands of the community within definite districts, and to induce both parties to agree; it was only where this result could not be attained, that the strict orders of the regulations were enforced, and the co-operation of higher authority was appealed to.[h]

ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (1863 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1863 A.D.]]

The first reform that followed on the abolition of the law of serfdom, which had been an unsurmountable obstacle to any improvement and reform in the political organisation of the state, was the abolition of the cruel and shameful corporal punishments which were formerly allotted for crimes.

In the beginning of the reign of Alexander II attention had been directed to the fact that corporal punishment as a punitive measure did not accomplish the reformation amendment of the criminal, but only dishonoured the personality of the man, lowered his feeling of honour and destroyed in him the sense of his manhood.

The emperor began by diminishing the number of offences amenable to corporal punishment; the new position which had been given to the peasants by the abolition of serfdom, soon led to the almost total suppression of corporal punishment for them.

On the 29th of April, 1863, an imperial ukase followed, by which corporal punishment was entirely abolished as a punitive measure, determined by the sentence of the public tribunals. By this memorable ukase, which will ever remain a glorious monument in the legislation of Russia, were abolished by the will of the czar-liberator, the last traces of slavery in Russia, the running of the gauntlet, the spur, the lash, the cat, the branding of the human body, all passed away into eternal oblivion; the punishment of the rod to which persons belonging to the class not exempt from corporal punishment had hitherto been subjected was replaced for them by arrest or confinement in prison, and was preserved only in two or three cases and then in the most moderate measure.

REFORMS IN THE COURTS OF JUSTICE

Almost simultaneously with the establishment of the provincial and territorial institutions, the emperor Alexander II recognised it as indispensable for the welfare of his people, to reform the existing judiciary system and law proceedings, to render all his subjects equal before the legal authorities, and to afford them all the same protection of the tribunals and the law.

Ancient Russian tribunals, as is well known, were far from being distinguished either by their uprightness or the rapidity of their procedure. It is hardly necessary to remind readers that justice was administered in secret, behind closed doors, besides which not merely outsiders were refused admittance to the courts, but even the persons implicated and interested in the affair. Such chancery secrecy resulted in great lack of truth and justice in the tribunals. Taking advantage of the secrecy of the proceedings, the judges allowed themselves to commit every possible abuse: they extorted money from the suitors, behaved unfairly and against their own consciences, distorted facts and afterwards decided the affair in accordance with their own views and pleasure, that is, as was most advantageous and convenient to them. Another great defect in the ancient Russian tribunals was due to the fact that the entire procedure was carried on in them exclusively on paper, upon the foundation of notes alone; verbal explanations were not permitted in the tribunals. This complicated form of written procedure led to litigations of incredible length; the most trivial lawsuit sometimes dragged on for years, requiring enormous expenditure and often in the end ruining the litigants. In a like manner, the accused, not infrequently innocent people, and only suspected of some crime or offence, had to languish for years in prison, awaiting the termination of their affairs before the courts.

The emperor Alexander II was well aware of all these defects and imperfections in the ancient courts of justice, and as a true friend of humanity, could not remain indifferent to such an order of things. He therefore desired that there should be established in Russia a system of justice that would be “speedy, righteous, merciful, and equitable.” The reign of truth and mercy in the tribunals could be attained only by a complete reorganisation of the ancient tribunals, in consequence of which, by command of the czar, new legal statutes were composed, and received the imperial confirmation towards the end of November, 1864.

The enormous superiority of the new tribunals over the old ones was at once evident. The new courts, carrying on their business in public, punished crimes without respect of persons; all Russian subjects were recognised as equal before the law and the courts. The appearance of justices of the peace had a particular importance for the people newly liberated from the dependence of serfdom; they afforded the hitherto poor and almost defenceless lower classes a possibility of protecting themselves against every kind of offence, violence and oppression, and of claiming their legal rights almost without trouble or expense.

THE POLISH INSURRECTION OF 1863

In spite of his ardent reformatory activity in the interior of the empire, the emperor Alexander II did not neglect foreign policy. Although, at the conclusion of the Crimean war, the emperor had recognised the necessity of a prolonged peace for Russia, and therefore continually endeavoured to avoid becoming entangled in the affairs of nations, nevertheless in all cases where the interests of Russia were affected, he firmly and calmly declared his requirements, and by means of peaceful persuasions maintained the honour and interests of his country.

The suppression of the Polish rebellion of 1863 is particularly remarkable in this respect: The amelioration of conditions in Poland had occupied Alexander II immediately after his accession to the throne, and he had at once eliminated inequalities of legislation between his Russian and Polish subjects: all that was granted to Russia was granted also to the kingdom of Poland.

All these favours aroused a feeling of gratitude in the more moderate and wiser portion of the population. But they were not received in the same spirit by those Poles who dreamed of the re-establishment of the ancient Poland with its former frontiers, and of giving entire self-government to the kingdom by means of its separation from Russia, and the formation of a separate state. These persons looked with hostility upon all the actions of the Russian government and, with the design of entering into an open conflict with Russia, secretly began to incite the people of Poland to revolt.

In January, 1863, a fresh insurrection burst forth in Poland. But the revolutionaries were unsuccessful, and the Russian troops defeated them at every point, taking 300 prisoners and a considerable number of guns. Being desirous of again trying mild measures, and in the hope of at last bringing the Poles to reason, the emperor declared that pardon would be granted to all who laid down their arms by the 13th of May. But the term allotted expired without good sense having triumphed. Then Count Birg was appointed viceroy in Warsaw, and Adjutant-General Muraviev, governor-general of the northwest border. Under the direction of these two men, the conflict took a more decided character and the suppression of the rebellion was made effective.

Meanwhile, when the insurrection was already almost put down by the Russian troops, three great western European powers--England, France and Austria--expressed their sympathy with the Polish movement and at the same time gave the Poles hopes of assistance. Having concerted together, and being besides supported by Turkey, these powers simultaneously sent the Russian government threatening exactions for concessions to Poland. Naturally, these pretensions on the part of the powers were offensive to Russian national honour. A feeling of profound indignation and wounded dignity took possession of the Russian nation, and readiness was expressed to sacrifice everything to the defence of the fatherland. Prince A. M. Gortchakov showed himself a worthy champion of Alexander II in the resistance shown to the European powers.

[Sidenote: [1864 A.D.]]

Meeting with such decided opposition to their interference, the powers became convinced that the entire Russian nation stood behind the czar, and they were obliged to withdraw their exactions. The final suppression of the Polish insurrection became thenceforth a matter of internal policy. Complete tranquillity was restored in Poland in the year 1864.

Following on these events a series of measures was undertaken tending to the gradual union of the kingdom of Poland with the Russian empire. The most beneficial of all these measures was the ukase of the 2nd of March, 1864, for the reorganisation of the peasantry in the kingdom of Poland.

Strictly speaking, the law of serfdom had been abolished in Poland as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, but the freedom the peasants had then received was no better than servitude; they were individually free, but had no share in the possession of land. By virtue of the ukase of the 2nd of March, 1864, the land of which the peasants had the use became their property, and the compensation to the landowners was defrayed by the state.

Upon this important measure followed a series of other measures, contributing to the development of the general welfare of Poland; and finally in 1869, it was declared by the imperial will that measures should be taken for the complete union of the kingdom of Poland with the other parts of the empire, by which the definitive pacification of Poland was completed.

THE SUBJECTION OF THE CAUCASUS (1864 A.D.)

The subjection of the Caucasus took place in the year after the suppression of the Polish insurrection.

Of all the nations that populated the Caucasus, only the Georgians and Armenians had succeeded, some centuries before the birth of Christ, in establishing independent kingdoms. But being surrounded by powerful and warlike mountaineers and bounded on the south by the dominions of Persia and Turkey, the kingdoms of Georgia and Armenia had gradually fallen into decay, and therefore Georgia itself turned to Russia, as professing the same religion, with the request to be received into the empire. Yielding to the urgent request of the unfortunate country, the emperor Paul I, who was then reigning in Russia, annexed Georgia in 1800 A.D.

After the annexation of Georgia to Russia, the mountain people made their appearance from the north and south amongst Russian possessions, but by continuing their previous plundering and incursions into Russian territory, they hindered relations between the Caucasus and the empire. Thus, in order to secure the tranquil possession of Georgia nothing remained but to subject to Russian domination those wild tribes of the Mohammedan faith which lived in the mountains separating Russia from the Caucasus. Therefore during the first years of the nineteenth century there commenced an almost continuously persistent and truly heroic struggle of the Russian army against the Caucasian tribes, which was prolonged for more than sixty years until that definitive subjection of the Caucasus which took place during the reign of Alexander II.

The Taking of Schamyl

The struggle against the Caucasian mountaineers was rendered peculiarly difficult at that time by the appearance of Schamyl as their leader, uniting as he did all the qualities of a brave and experienced soldier to his spiritual calling. The possessor of an iron will and an astonishing skill in ruling over the wild mountain tribes, Schamyl converted them into an organ of war which he directed against the Russians. Added to this he fortified the almost impregnable mountains, constructed excellent fortresses and established powder-works, foundries, etc. Seeing all this the Russians began to carry on a regular warfare against the mountaineers. The commander-in-chief in the Caucasus, who also exercised the functions of Caucasian viceroy, was Adjutant-general Prince Bariatinski, with whose nomination the war took a decisive turn.

Prince Bariatinski directed his efforts first of all against the eastern group of the Caucasian mountains. The general aggressive movement of the Russian army, which was accomplished after mature reflection, soon placed Schamyl in an embarrassing position which put an end to the fascination he had exercised over the mountaineers, who had hitherto been blindly devoted to him. One tribe after another fell away from Schamyl and declared its submission to Russia. Defeated and pressed on every side, Schamyl fled to Daghestan, the extreme eastern province of the Caucasus, on the shores of the Caspian Sea and took refuge with his family and a little band of adherents in the village of Gunib situated on the heights of an inaccessible mountain, where he decided to defend himself to the last. Meanwhile, the Russian troops, which had indefatigably pursued Schamyl, finally besieged him at Gunib and surrounded the village itself with a thick chain of soldiers. Upon the proposal of the commander-in-chief to put an end to the useless defence, and to spare the village the horrors of an assault, Schamyl, hitherto deemed invincible, saw his hopeless position, left his refuge, and surrendered himself as prisoner on the 6th of September, 1859, throwing himself upon the mercy of the czar. The taking of Schamyl produced an impression of astonishment on all the mountain tribes: the whole Caucasus trembled with desire for peace. After the taking of Gunib, and the captivity of Schamyl the whole eastern portion of the Caucasus submitted to the Russian domination.

After this all the efforts of the Russian troops were immediately directed towards the western Caucasus, adjoining the eastern shore of the Black Sea; but the definitive subjection of this part of the Caucasus required yet four years of uninterrupted and unrelaxed conflicts. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the year 1863, Field-marshal Prince Bariatinski was on account of impaired health replaced by a new Caucasian viceroy in the person of the emperor’s youngest brother, the grand duke Michael Nikolaivitch, after which the aggressive movements of the Russian troops proceeded with such rapidity, that the entire conquest of the western portion of the Caucasus was accomplished in the spring of the year 1864. Thus ended the costly and bloody Caucasian war, and since then all the Caucasus has belonged to Russia.

WARS WITH KHOKAND AND BOKHARA

[Sidenote: [1864-1867 A.D.]]

Following on the subjection of the Caucasus, Russia began to settle accounts with three small neighbouring Mohammedan khanates, those of Khokand, Bokhara, and Khiva. These khanates were situated amidst the arid, sandy steppes of central Asia and were populated by half savage robber tribes who continually made audacious incursions upon Russian central Asian frontier possessions, attacking Russian mercantile caravans, and plundering the merchants, either killing or carrying them into captivity and selling them as slaves. All this greatly hindered Russian trade with Asia, it destroyed the tranquillity of Russian frontier possessions and therefore had long been a source of preoccupation and disquietude on the part of the Russian government.

Therefore, in 1864, two small detachments of Russian troops under the command of Colonel Tchernaiev and General Verevkine, were despatched from two sides for the punishment of the hostile tribes and the preservation of the Russian eastern frontier from their plundering incursions. Colonel Tchernaiev, by storm, took the Khokand fortress of Auliet, while General Verevkine seized the Khokand town of Turkestan. In the following year, 1865, General Tchernaiev took by assault one of the most important towns of the Khokand khanate--Tashkend--after which the khan of Khokand ceased hostilities and declared his submission to the Russian czar.

Then, however, one of the khanates neighbouring upon that of Khokand--Bokhara--began to disturb peace on the Russian frontiers and it became necessary to quiet it. A detachment of Russian troops under the command of General Romanovski was sent against Bokhara.

The war with Bokhara was as successful as that with Khokand. In the year 1866 the chief forces of the emir of Bokhara were utterly defeated and the Russians took some towns and fortresses. But it was only after the Russian troops had taken the ancient, famous, and wealthy town of Samarkand, that the emir finally submitted, being bound by a special treaty to allow the Russian merchants entire liberty to trade in the Bokharan possessions, and to abolish slavery throughout his dominions. This greatly raised the prestige of the czar in Asia.

The newly conquered territories in central Asia (in Khokand and Bokhara) were joined to the Russian possessions, and from them was formed (in 1867) the special government general of Turkestan, with Tashkend for its chief town.[d]

A GLANCE AT THE PAST HISTORY OF BOKHARA

It may be of interest to recall in a few words the past history of the somewhat important territory thus acquired by Russia. We have already become acquainted with Bokhara in ancient history under the name of Sogdiana; afterwards in Persian history it appears as T̈ransoxania, or by the Arabic name of Mawarra an-nahr. The country was conquered by the Arabs in the early part of the eighth century, and towards the end of the ninth it was conquered by Ismail, the founder of the Samanids dynasty, who became emir of Bokhara and Kharezm (Khiva) in 893. Towards the end of the eleventh century the celebrated Seljuk sultan Malik Shah conquered the country beyond the Oxus, and in 1216 it came for a short time under the power of the Kharezmian prince, Muhammed Kutbuddin. In about 1220 the land was subdued by Jenghiz Khan and incorporated into the khanate of Jagatai. Bokhara remained under the successors of Jenghiz until the whole country was overrun and conquered by Timur (Tamerlane), who selected Samarkand as his capital and raised it to a high stage of prosperity. The descendants of Timur ruled in the country until about the year 1500, when they were overthrown by the Usbeg Tatars under Muhammed Shaibani, a descendant of Shaiban, the fifth son of Juji. Muhammed ruled over T̈ransoxania, Ferghana, Khwarizm and Hissar, but in 1510 he was defeated and killed by Shah Ismail, the founder of the Persian dynasty of Sufi.

The Shaibani dynasty ruled for nearly a century when it was replaced by the dynasty of Astrakhan, a house related to the Shaibanis by marriage. Under two rulers of this family--Iman Kuli Khan and Subhankuli Khan--Bokhara recovered somewhat of its former glory, and Subhankuli ruled over Khiva also for a time. In 1740 Bokhara had been so reduced under weak rulers that it offered its submission to Nadir Shah of Persia, and after his death the Astrakhan dynasty was overthrown by the house of Mangit (1784), which is the dynasty at present ruling in the country. Under the first sovereign of this family, Mir Maasum, Bokhara enjoyed a certain degree of prosperity, although the ruler was a cruel tyrant and a bigoted ascetic. He led a curious life of pretended piety, living in filth and misery although surrounded by wealth. He conquered and almost exterminated the city of Merv and invaded and devastated Khorassan. At his death in 1802 he was succeeded by his son Saïd, a weak ruler who lived until 1826. He was succeeded by one of the worst tyrants who ever occupied a throne--the emir Nasrullah Bahuder; he was cruel, lustful, treacherous, hypocritical, ungrateful to friends, whom he rewarded for service by putting them to death--in short, he appears to have had all the vices it is possible for a human being to have. It was during his reign that England and Russia tried to acquire influence in Bokhara. Two English envoys, Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly, were executed in 1842 after several years’ imprisonment in a loathsome dungeon. The Russian envoy did indeed come away alive from the court of the tyrant but he succeeded in gaining no concessions for his country. Nasrullah died in 1860, his last act being to have his wife killed and her head brought to his bedside. He was succeeded by his son Mozaffer-eddin, during whose reign the Russian conquest took place.[a]

THE CONQUEST OF KHIVA (1873 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1873 A.D.]]

After Khokand and Bokhara came the turn of Khiva. In the early spring of 1873 three detachments of Russian troops marched on Khiva from different sides under the command of the governor-general of Turkestan, Adjutant-general V. P. von Kaufmann. Incredible privations and difficulties had to be borne and overcome by the Russian troops during this march across the steppes. First they endured frosts and snowstorms, and then under the sun’s burning rays they courageously accomplished in the space of one month a thousand versts march across a desert, and finally reached the borders of the khanate of Khiva in the beginning of May. In three weeks’ time the entire khanate was subjugated; some of the towns were taken after a combat, others surrendered without resistance, and on the 10th of June the capital of the khanate--Khiva--fell. The Russian troops entered the town in triumph, covered with fresh glory.

After the taking of Khiva by the Russians, the khan of Khiva fled to the steppes, but he afterwards returned and declared his submission, in consequence of which he was reinstated on his throne. But in spite of this a portion of the Khivan possessions fell to Russia. Besides this, the khan had to acknowledge a partial dependence upon Russia, he was obliged to reimburse her by a considerable sum of money for the expenses incurred in the campaign, and to allow the Russian merchants to trade freely in his dominions; he was pledged to discountenance plundering, to set at liberty all prisoners and slaves, and to abolish throughout his possessions forever all traffic in slaves. Thus, through the medium of the Czar Liberator, freedom was brought into central Asia--the land of slavery and of arbitrary rule. The complete pacification of a great country was accomplished.

THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR (1877-1878 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1875-1877 A.D.]]

Besides the wars already enumerated, Russia had, under the reign of the Czar Liberator, to carry on another war, which entailed innumerable sacrifices.

In the summer of 1875, the Slavonians of the two Turkish dependencies of Bosnia and Herzegovina, inhabited by Servian races, rose against their oppressors, the Turks, and decided to take up arms in defence of their faith, freedom, and property, and the honour of their wives and daughters, and to endeavour to obtain equal rights with the Mussulman subjects of Turkey.

In the summer of 1876 the neighbouring Slavonian principalities of Montenegro and Servia came to the aid of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians, and declared war against Turkey. The Montenegrins were under the leadership of their Prince Nicholas, and the Servian troops under the command of the Russian General Tchernaiev, the hero of Tashkend, who volunteered his services to the Slavonians.

Although Montenegro, which was small in the number of its sons, but mighty by their bravery and their love of freedom, had more than once defeated the Turkish army, Servia with her few troops could not stand against the Turkish troops, which definitively overcame the Servian forces and were about to invade the frontiers of Servia. Russia, however, did not allow this invasion to take place, and in October, 1876, the emperor Alexander II required from the Turkish sultan the immediate cessation of further hostilities against the Servians, and in order to support these demands he ordered that a portion of the Russian army should be placed on a war footing. The decisive action of the czar towards the Turkish government at once stopped the invasion of the Turkish hordes into Servia, and a two months’ armistice was concluded between Servia and Turkey.

But in spite of this, the Turks continued their cruelties amongst the Christians of the Balkans; defenceless Bulgaria in particular suffered from the fury of the Turks. They traversed the country with fire and sword, striving to stifle the movement taking place there by the savage slaughter of thousands of the inhabitants, without distinction of sex or age.

For a long while Russia endeavoured to avert the situation, without having recourse to arms, in order--as Alexander II expressed it--“to avoid shedding the precious blood of the sons of Russia.” But all his efforts were unsuccessful, all means of arbitration were exhausted and also the patience of that most peace-loving of monarchs, the emperor Alexander II. He found himself obliged to declare war against Turkey and to advance his troops towards the Turkish frontier. On the 19th of April, 1877, the emperor joined his army at Kishinev, where it had been commanded to assemble, and on the 24th of the same month, after public prayers, he informed the troops of their approaching entry upon the frontiers of Turkey. Thus commenced the Russo-Turkish war, which was carried on simultaneously in two parts of the world--in Europe and in Asia.

The commander-in-chief of the Russian troops upon the Asiatic theatre of the war was the grand-duke Michael Nikolaivitch, governor of the Caucasus. A few days after the issue of the manifesto declaring war, the Russian troops had occupied the Turkish fortress of Bajazet without a struggle (April 30th), and had proceeded to besiege the first class fortress of Kars, justly regarded as one of the chief points of support of the Turkish army in Asia Minor, after which at the beginning of May they took by assault another sufficiently important Turkish fortress--that of Ardahan.

As to the Danubian army, of which the grand-duke Nicholas Nikolaivitch was appointed commander-in-chief, on the very day of the declaration of war it entered into the principality of Roumania, which was subject to Turkey, and directed its march towards the Danube. At the passage of the Danube, the problem consisted in diverting the attention of the Turks from the spot where the chief forces of the Russian army were to cross. This was accomplished with entire success; complete secrecy was maintained, and during the night between the 26th and 27th of June the Russian troops crossed the Danube with the assistance of pontoons and rafts, at a point where the Turks least expected it, namely from Zimnitzi (between the fortresses of Rustchuk and Nikopol) to Sistova; the Russian losses in this great undertaking did not exceed 1,000 men fallen from the ranks. Having thus crossed the Danube and disembarked on the enemy’s shores, the Russian troops, without giving their adversaries time to recover, began to move into the heart of Bulgaria, and took town after town and fortress after fortress from the Turks.

But in Asia as well as in Europe the first brilliant successes of the Russians were followed by some serious reverses, which like the victories were first manifested upon the Asiatic seat of the war. The most serious reverse of the Russians in Asia was the unsuccessful attack (June 25th) upon the Turkish stronghold near Zeven, after which the Russian troops were obliged to raise for a time even the siege of Kars, and to retire within their own frontiers. But the temporary reverses of the Russian troops on the European theatre of the war were far more important. The most serious reverse during the entire period of the Eastern war was the attack of the Russian troops upon Plevna. Plevna was an insignificant Bulgarian town. The Russian troops hoped easily to overcome it, and on the 20th of July a small detachment of them attacked Plevna. But it turned out that the Turks had already managed to concentrate considerable forces within the little town, under the command of the best of their leaders, the gifted and resolute Osman-Pasha, added to which the most talented European engineers had constructed round Plevna, in the space of a few days a network of fortifications, rendering Plevna an impregnable position. In consequence of this the first attack of the Russian troops on Plevna was repulsed by the Turks; the losses of the Russians amounted to three thousand killed.

Ten days later (on the 30th of July) the Russian troops made a second attack against Plevna. But this time again the attack resulted in a like defeat; the enemy’s forces, which far exceeded those of the Russians, repelled all the assaults of the Russian troops, added to which this second attack on Plevna cost the Russians 7,500 men. Following upon this, with the arrival of fresh reinforcements for the army encamped before Plevna, a third and final heroic effort was made to take this fortified position by storm. The chief part in the attack was taken by the brave young general Skobelev and his detachment. But in spite of his brilliant action, in spite of the heroism and self-sacrifice displayed by his soldiers, this assault also was unsuccessful. On the 12th of September, Skobelev repulsed five furious attacks by the whole mass of Turks, but not receiving assistance, he was obliged to retreat. This last reverse cost the Russians as many as 3,000 killed and nearly 10,000 wounded. But following on these reverses came a rapidly successive series of victories of the Russian troops over the Turkish, both in Asia and in Europe.

The crowning success of the Russian troops in Asia was the fall on the 18th of November of the terrible stronghold of Kars, which was taken by General Loris-Melikov, after a heroic assault by night. All Europe recognised the taking of Kars as one of the greatest and most difficult of military exploits ever achieved. At the same time, on the European theatre of the war, on the southern slope of the Balkans a great Turkish body of troops was concentrated under the command of the talented leader Suleiman Pasha, with the object of retaking at any cost the Shipka pass, which was occupied by a small Russian detachment. During the space of seven days (from the 21st to the 28th of August) the Turks endeavoured to wrest from the Russians the Shipka pass, and a series of furious attacks was made with this object. On the first two days a handful of heroes, who defended the heights of Shipka, repulsed all the desperate efforts of Suleiman Pasha’s entire army! The echo of the incessant artillery fire became one endless roll of thunder. The Russian ranks dwindled and were exhausted from wounds and fatigue. It was at that time that the Russian gunners, under the command of General Radetzki came to their assistance, and by the 24th of August fresh reinforcements arrived. The Turks’ insane attacks still continued during the 25th, 26th and 27th, but on the evening of the 27th of August all was suddenly quiet; the Turks had become convinced that they could not overcome the steadfastness and bravery of the Russian troops defending the Shipka pass, and had retired.

Meanwhile, after the third attempt on Plevna, it was decided not to renew any more such dearly bought attacks, but to limit operations to encircling the Turkish positions in order to cut off communication between Plevna and the surrounding places, and thus to starve the Turks into surrender.

At the end of October General Gurko’s division, amongst which were the guards, took Gorni Dubinak, Telisch and a series of other Turkish strongholds, situated to the southwest of Plevna and protecting the Sophia road, along which reinforcements and stores had hitherto been brought into Plevna, and thus to cut off entirely all communications between that town and the outside. After less than a month’s time all the provisions that the Turks had in Plevna were definitively exhausted. On the morning of the 10th of December, Osman Pasha, being desirous of penetrating through the Russian lines to the Danube, made a violent attempt to get out of Plevna. He cut his way through, but after some hours of desperate fighting--during which he was wounded in the leg--he was thrown back and compelled to surrender, with all his army to the number of more than 40,000 men. This heated action cost the Russians 600 men killed, and double that amount wounded.

Taking deeply to heart the successes of his valiant army and the holy work for which it was fighting, the emperor Alexander II had at the end of May, 1877, at the very commencement, that is, of the war, arrived in Bulgaria, and in spite of the weak state of his health had remained all the while amongst the acting army of the Danube, sharing all reverses and privations of military life on the march.

“I go as a brother of mercy,” said the czar when he set off for the active army. And actually, leaving to others all the martial glory of victory over the enemy, the emperor concentrated his attention upon the sick and wounded soldiers to whom he showed himself not a brother, but a very father of mercy. Zealously visiting the sick and wounded soldiers in the hospitals and ambulances, the emperor showed them heartfelt sympathy, comforted, encouraged, and sustained the sufferers, listened to their tales with fatherly love, and with his own hand rewarded those who had distinguished themselves by their services in battle.

[Sidenote: [1877-1878 A.D.]]

The wounded and their families were the object of the emperor Alexander’s unwearied care. He was rejoiced when the provisions sent out for the use of the wounded by the empress Marie Alexandrovna arrived from St. Petersburg. Alexander unfailingly distributed them himself, carefully inquiring of each soldier what he wanted, what he liked, and strove to satisfy each sufferer: to the musicians he gave accordions, to the readers books, to the smokers tobacco pouches, to the non-smokers tea, dainties, etc. Both soldiers and officers were as pleased as children at receiving presents from the hand of the royal “brother of mercy,” and listening to his cordial, gracious words. The soldiers’ love for the emperor, their joy and rapture at seeing him acted like living water on the wounded; everyone that could move strove to rise, to stand up, to take courage; they stretched out their hands to the czar, kissed his raiment and blessed his name. It was only after the fall of Plevna when the war clearly inclined to the advantage of the Russians, and further success was entirely secured that the emperor, bidding farewell to his troops, left the active army and in the beginning of December, 1877, returned to Russia.

Immediately after the taking of Plevna it was decided that, without losing time, the Balkans should be crossed. Meanwhile a severe winter had already set in and the Turks did not even admit the possibility of the Russian troops crossing the Balkans at such a time. But here again all the valour of the Russian army was displayed. To take a whole army across the Balkans in winter was a work of the very greatest difficulty and danger; but to cross the Trievna pass had never yet been attempted by any army in the world. Strictly speaking, the chief part of the Russian army crossed the Balkans at two other points, but it was part of the Russian strategy to carry an insignificant portion of the troops across by the Trievna pass in order that the attention of the Turks should be diverted from the chief army, and the passage of the latter thus be facilitated. The accomplishment of this terribly difficult and almost impossible feat was entrusted to General Kartzov’s division. On the night between the 3rd and 4th of January the division moved on its road. After having reached by incredible efforts the very summit of the pass, where a short time was spent, on the 7th of January General Kartzov’s division stormed the Turkish redoubt, forced their way into it and drove out the Turks. After this the Russians had to descend to the so-called Valley of Roses on the southern slope of the Balkans, which was even much steeper than the northern. As soon as the Russians had come down from Trievna, the Turks abandoned their positions at the feet of the Great Balkans, and General Kartzov’s division entered into communication on one side with General Gurko’s division, and on the other with the Shipka division of General Radetzki.

After descending the Balkans to the Valley of Roses, General Radetzki, together with General Skobelev, who had come to his assistance after the fall of Plevna, attacked on the 9th of January an army of 40,000 Turks at Kezanlik, who after a stubborn resistance were defeated and taken prisoners. After having devastated and scattered the Turkish army of Shipka and accomplished the feat unexampled in history of the passage of the Balkans, the Russian army continued its victorious advance; Adrianople, the second capital of the Turkish empire, was taken without a struggle and the troops drew near to Constantinople itself. Then, on the 3rd of March, 1878, at a little place called San Stefano, at ten versts from Constantinople, Turkey signed the conditions of peace offered her by Russia.

Meanwhile the great European powers required that three conditions of peace should be submitted to their consideration, and thus the treaty of San Stefano showed itself to be only a preliminary one; the great European powers ratified it only after considerable changes. These altered conditions of peace were signed in 1878 by the plenipotentiaries of all the great powers at the Congress of Berlin; after which on the 8th of February, 1879, a final treaty of peace, based on these same conditions, was signed at Constantinople between Russia and Turkey.

The emperor Alexander might certainly with full right have insisted on the ratification of the treaty of peace of San Stefano without any alterations; but then Russia would have incurred a fresh war with Europe, while the emperor deeply felt the necessity of peace. It was time to give the Russian people rest after they had made such sacrifices in the struggle for their Slavonian brethren! Pitying his people, the emperor decided--however painful it might be to him--not to insist on all that had been gained at the price of Russian blood and confirmed by the treaty of San Stefano with Turkey, but consented in Berlin to great concessions which did not, however, in any way interfere with the liberation of the Christian population of Turkey.

By the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin, that part of Bessarabia was returned to Russia which, by the Peace of Paris in 1856, had been ceded to her by Turkey after the Crimean campaign. Thanks to this, Russia again reached the mouths of the river Danube; in Asia she acquired a portion of the Turkish possessions, with the port of Batum and the fortress of Kars, which guaranteed her security and future development. Finally, in compensating for the military expenditure incurred by Russia, Turkey was bound to pay her an indemnity of 300 million rubles.

Thus terminated the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878--that decisive struggle for the liberation of the Slavonians of the Balkan peninsula, and although in consequence of the interference of Europe Russia was far from attaining what she had a right to expect after the enormous sacrifices she had made, and the glorious victories she had gained, nevertheless the great and sacred object of the war was attained; on the memorable day of the emancipation of the peasants in Russia, also the Slavonian nations of the Balkan peninsula were liberated, by the help of Russia and her great monarch, from the Turkish yoke which had oppressed them for ages. To the emperor Alexander II, who gave freedom to many millions of his own subjects, was allotted also the glorious rôle of liberator of the Balkan Christians, by whom he was a second time named the Czar Liberator!

SPREAD OF EDUCATION AND CIVILISATION

The new order of things established in Russia, thanks to the great reforms of Emperor Alexander II, called forth a particular want of educated, enlightened men. They were necessary to the wise interpretation and execution of the luminous ideas of the czar-liberator.

Recognising that the spread of education amongst the people is an indispensable condition of its prosperity, the emperor Alexander II, who had become convinced by a personal survey of Russia, that one of the chief obstacles to her progress lay in the ignorance of the people, wished to give to his subjects the means for the highest degree of enlightenment. This solicitude was expressed in a radical reform of all the educational establishments of the empire, beginning with the university and finishing with the national schools. Properly speaking, it may be asserted that the primary national schools and village schools were created during the reign of Alexander II, for until his reign the primary education of the people was in a sad condition, and amongst them an almost total ignorance prevailed.

His legislation for the education of the masses should justly be numbered amongst the most important works of the Czar Liberator. But many were the other reforms accomplished by him that also had a great and beneficent signification for the Russian people. During the reign of the emperor Alexander II the country which had until then but few means of intercommunication, became covered with a network of railways. In conjunction with the extraordinarily rapid development of railway communication, the postal service was perfected, the telegraph made its appearance, while commerce and trade acquired wide development. Finally, essential changes and improvements were introduced into the financial administration of the empire; the police was reorganised and certain modifications were granted to the press, in consequence of which there was a powerful awakening in the intellectual life of the people.

THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER II

In studying the wars which took place during the reign of Alexander II, it is impossible not to remark that they were all entered upon and carried on, not under the influence of ambition, not with the thirst for conquest, but exclusively out of a feeling of humanity, in order to preserve those living on the frontiers of the Russian empire from the plundering incursions of half savage Asiatic tribes (as was the case in the subjection of the Caucasus, of Khokand, Bokhara, and Khiva), or for the deliverance of the oppressed co-religionists of Russia (as, for example, the deliverance of the Slavonians of the Balkans).

The emperor Alexander II was actively solicitous for the welfare of his subjects during the twenty-six years of his glorious reign, never losing sight of the exaltation of the country and the consolidation of the prosperity of the nation. But in spite of the indefatigable labours and fatherly care of the emperor Alexander II, in spite of the enormous services he rendered to the country, of his boundless goodness of heart, his great clemency and unusual humanity--amongst the Russian people were to be found those who had more than once tried by violence to shake the existing state and social organisation of Russia and who did not stop at any crime for the attainment of their ends. Their boundless audacity finally reached the last limits, and they dared more than once to make attempts on the life of the Czar-Liberator.

On the 2nd of March, 1880, the 25th year of the reign of the emperor Alexander II was accomplished, and this memorable day was celebrated with heartfelt enthusiasm in both capitals and throughout the whole Russian Empire. But amongst the millions of joyous Russian hearts, for one man alone in Russia the festivity was not a festivity. That man was the czar himself, the creator of the happiness of many millions of Russians and the cause of the rejoicings. The emperor did not doubt the sincere affection of the people towards him; he knew and felt that Russia loved her czar with all her soul; but at the same time he knew and felt, that in spite of all the glory of his reign, in spite of the great measures he had accomplished, the Russian land bore a handful of malcontents, whose designs it was beyond the power of anyone to arrest.

[Sidenote: [1881 A.D.]]

The fatal 13th of March, 1881, came. About one o’clock in the afternoon the emperor drove in a carriage from the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, accompanied by his usual escort, to the Michael riding school to assist at a grand military parade, appointed to take place that day. Coming out of the riding school at the end of the parade, at about a quarter to three, and learning that the grand duke Michael Nikolaivitch, who was present at the parade intended to visit the grand duchess Catherine Mikhailovna at the Mikhailovski palace, the emperor proposed to his brother that they should go together. After spending about half an hour at the Mikhailovski palace the emperor came out alone, without the grand duke and told the coachman to “drive home by the same way.” The carriage set off along the Catherine canal, in the direction of the Theatre bridge.

At three o’clock in the afternoon, at a distance of about 50 sajens from the corner of the Engineer street, the emperor’s carriage as it drove along the side of the canal, past the garden of the Mikhailovski palace came alongside a young man at the footpath of the canal; he afterwards turned out to be the citizen Nicholas Ivanovitch Rissakov. When he came on a line with the imperial carriage, Rissakov turned his face towards it, and before the escort could notice anything, quickly threw beneath the feet of the horses harnessed to the carriage, something white like snow, which afterwards turned out to be an explosive instrument wrapped up in a handkerchief. At the same instant a deafening crash, like a salvo of artillery, resounded; two Cossacks riding behind the czar’s equipage fell from their horses wounded, and a fourteen year old peasant boy, mortally wounded, lay groaning on the pavement; a thick cloud of snow and splinters filled the air. The emperor’s carriage appeared much damaged by the explosion, all the four windows and the little glass behind were broken, the frame of the door was splintered at the side and back, the side of the carriage was broken and the bottom seriously injured. When he had thrown the explosive instrument under the carriage, Rissakov began to run off in the direction of the Nevski Prospect, but at a few sajens from the spot where the explosion had taken place, he slipped, fell, and was seized by some soldiers who came up. The emperor himself was entirely uninjured. He ordered the coachman to stop the horses, opened the left door, got out of the carriage, and went to the spot where Rissakov was already surrounded by a crowd of people.

Then, when the emperor, desiring to examine the spot where the explosion had taken place, had left Rissakov, and had made a few steps along the pathway of the canal, another man--who turned out to be a Pole named Grinevetzki--waiting till the emperor was at a distance of two arskins from him, raised his arms and threw something on the footpath at the very feet of the emperor. At the same moment, not more than four or five minutes after the first explosion, another deafening explosion was heard, after which a mass of smoke, snow and scraps of clothing enveloped everything for some moments. When the column of smoke dispersed, to the stricken gaze of the spectators a truly awful sight was presented: about twenty men more or less severely wounded by the two explosions lay on the pavement, and amongst them was the emperor. Leaning his back against the railing of the canal, without his cap or riding cloak, half sitting on the footpath, was the monarch; he was covered with blood and breathing with difficulty; the bare legs of the august martyr were both broken, the blood flowed copiously from them, and his face was covered with blood. The cap and cloak that had fallen from the emperor’s head and shoulders, and of which there remained but blood-stained and burnt fragments, lay beside him.

At the sight of such an unexpected, such an incredible disaster, not only the uninjured, but also the sufferers from the explosion rushed to the emperor’s help. Raising the wounded emperor, who was already losing consciousness, the persons who surrounded him, with the grand duke Michael, who had arrived on the spot, carried him to the sledge of Colonel Dvorginski, who had been following the emperor’s equipage. Leaning over the emperor’s shoulder, the grand duke inquired if he heard, to which the emperor replied, “I hear,” and then in answer to the question of how he felt the emperor said: “Quicker ... to the palace,” and then as if answering the proposal to take him to the nearest house to get help, the emperor said, “Take me to the palace to die ... there.” These were the last words of the dying monarch, heard by an eye-witness of the awful crime of the 13th of March. After this the emperor was placed in Colonel Dvorginzki’s sledge and transported to the Winter Palace. When the palace was reached the emperor was already unconscious, and at 25 minutes of 4 o’clock Alexander II was no more.

The emperor Alexander II was great not only as the czar of a nation of many millions, but by a life devoted to the welfare of his subjects; he was great as the incarnation of goodness, love and clemency. The autocratic monarch of one of the vastest empires of the world, this czar was governed in all his actions by the dictates of his loving heart. Showing himself a great example of self-sacrificing human love, he lived only in order to exalt the land of Russia, to alleviate the necessities and consolidate the welfare of his people.[d]

FOOTNOTES

[69] [A district containing several villages.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XIII. REACTION, EXPANSION, AND THE WAR WITH JAPAN

[Sidenote: [1881-1904 A.D.]]

In the history of Russia the period extending from 1882 to 1902 was much less eventful than the thirty years immediately preceding. The reign of Alexander II had been a time of important administrative reforms and of great economic, social, and intellectual changes in the life of the nation. Serfage had been abolished, the emancipated peasantry had been made communal proprietors of the soil, a democratic system of rural and municipal self-government for local affairs had been introduced, the tribunals of all degrees had been radically reorganised, means had been taken for developing more energetically the vast natural resources of the country, public instruction had received an unprecedented impetus, a considerable amount of liberty had been accorded to the press, a liberal spirit had been suddenly evoked and had spread rapidly among all sections of the educated classes, a new imaginative and critical literature dealing largely with economic, philosophical, and social questions had sprung into existence, and for a time the young generation fondly imagined that Russia, awakening from her traditional lethargy, was about to overtake, and soon to surpass, on the paths of national progress, the more advanced nations of western Europe.

These sanguine expectations were not fully realised. The economic and moral condition of the peasantry was not much improved, and in many districts there were signs of positive impoverishment and demoralisation. Local self-government, after a short period of feverish and not always well-directed activity, showed symptoms of organic exhaustion. The reformed tribunals, though incomparably better than their predecessors, did not give universal satisfaction. In the imperial administration the corruption and long-established abuses which had momentarily vanished began to reappear. Industrial enterprises did not always succeed. Education produced many unforeseen and undesirable practical results. The liberty of the press not unfrequently degenerated into license. The liberal spirit, which had at first confined itself to demanding feasible reforms, soon soared into the region of socialistic dreaming and revolutionary projects.

In short, it became only too evident that there was no royal road to national prosperity, and that Russia, like other nations, must be content to advance slowly and laboriously along the rough path of painful experience. In these circumstances sanguine enthusiasm naturally gave way to despondency, and the reforming zeal of the government was replaced by tendencies of a decidedly reactionary kind. Already in the last years of the reign of Alexander II, these tendencies had found expression in ukases and ministerial circulars, and zealous liberalism was more and more discountenanced in the official world. Partly from a feeling of despondency, and partly from a conviction that the country required rest in order to judge the practical results of the reforms already accomplished, the czar refrained from initiating any new legislation of an important kind, and the government gave it to be understood that the period of radical reforms was closed.

[Sidenote: [1881 A.D.]]

In the younger ranks of the educated classes this state of things had produced much dissatisfaction, which soon found expression in revolutionary agitation. At first the agitation was of an academic character, and was dealt with by the press censure, but it gradually took the form of secret associations, and the police had to interfere. There were no great, well-organised secret societies, but there were many small groups, composed chiefly of male and female students of the universities and technical schools, which worked independently for a common purpose. That purpose was the overthrow of the existing régime and the reorganisation of society on collectivist principles. Finding that the walls of autocracy could not be overturned by blasts of revolutionary trumpets, the young enthusiasts determined to seek the support of the masses, or, as they termed it, “to go in among the people” (idti v narod). Under the guise of doctors, midwives, teachers, governesses, factory hands, or common labourers, they sought to make proselytes among the peasantry and the workmen in the industrial centres by revolutionary pamphlets and oral explanations.

For a time the propaganda had very little success, because the uneducated peasants and factory workers could not easily understand the phraseology and principles of scientific socialism; but when the propagandists descended to a lower platform and spread rumours that the czar had given all the land to the peasants, and that the proprietors were preventing his benevolent intentions from being carried into effect, there was a serious danger of agrarian disturbances, and energetic measures were adopted by the authorities. Wholesale arrests were made by the police, and many of the accused were imprisoned or exiled to distant provinces, some by the regular judicial procedure, and others by so-called “administrative procedure,” without trial. The activity of the police and the sufferings of the victims naturally produced intense excitement and bitterness among those who escaped, and a secret body calling itself the executive committee announced in its clandestinely printed organs that those who distinguished themselves by endeavouring to suppress the propaganda would be removed. A number of officials had been condemned to death by this secret terrorist tribunal, and in some cases its sentences were carried out. As these terrorist measures had quite the opposite of the desired effect, repeated attempts had been made on the life of the emperor. At last, on the 13th of March, 1881, the carefully-laid plans of the conspirators, [as related in the last chapter], were successful.

THE REACTIONARY POLICY UNDER ALEXANDER III

Finding repressive police measures insufficient to suppress the revolutionary movement, Alexander II had entertained the idea of giving a certain satisfaction to moderate liberal opinion without restricting his autocratic power. With this object in view he had appointed General Loris-Melikov, who was credited with liberal views, minister of the interior, and on the morning of his death he had signed a ukase creating several commissions, composed of high official personages and eminent private individuals, who should prepare reforms in various branches of the administration.

His son and successor Alexander III (1881-94), who had never shown much sympathy with liberalism in any form, entered frankly on a reactionary policy, which was pursued consistently during the whole of his reign. He could not, of course, undo the great reforms of his predecessor, but he amended them in such a way as to counteract what he considered the exaggerations of liberalism. Local self-government in the village communes, the rural districts, and the towns was carefully restricted, and placed to a greater extent under the control of the regular officials.

The reformers of the previous reign had endeavoured to make the emancipated peasantry administratively and economically independent of the landed proprietors; the conservatives of this later era, proceeding on the assumption that the peasants did not know how to make a proper use of the liberty prematurely conferred upon them, endeavoured to re-establish the influence of the landed proprietors by appointing from amongst them “land-chiefs,” who were to exercise over the peasants of their district a certain amount of patriarchal jurisdiction. The reformers of the previous reign had sought to make the new local administration (zemstvo) a system of genuine rural self-government and a basis for future parliamentary institutions; these later conservatives transformed it into a mere branch of the ordinary state administration, and took precautions against its ever assuming a political character. Even municipal institutions, which had never shown much vitality, were subjected to similar restrictions. In short, the various forms of local self-government, which were intended to raise the nation gradually to the higher political level of western Europe, were condemned as unsuited to the national character and traditions, and as productive of disorder and demoralisation. They were accordingly replaced in great measure by the old autocratic methods of administration, and much of the administrative corruption which had been cured, or at least repressed, by the reform enthusiasm again flourished luxuriantly.

In a small but influential section of the educated classes there was a conviction that the revolutionary tendencies, which culminated in nihilism and anarchism, proceeded from the adoption of cosmopolitan rather than national principles in all spheres of educational and administrative activity, and that the best remedy for the evils from which the country was suffering was to be found in a return to the three great principles of nationality, orthodoxy, and autocracy. This doctrine, which had been invented by the Slavophils of a previous generation, was early instilled into the mind of Alexander III by Pobiedonostsev, who was one of his teachers, and later his most trusted adviser, and its influence can be traced in all the more important acts of the government during that monarch’s reign. His determination to maintain autocracy was officially proclaimed a few days after his accession. Nationality and eastern orthodoxy, which are so closely connected as to be almost blended together in the Russian mind, received not less attention.

THE RUSSIFICATION OF THE PROVINCES.

Even in European Russia the regions near the frontier contain a great variety of nationalities, languages, and religions. In Finland the population is composed of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking Protestants; the Baltic provinces are inhabited by German-speaking, Lett-speaking, and Esth-speaking Lutherans; the inhabitants of the southwestern provinces are chiefly Polish-speaking Roman Catholics and Yiddish-speaking Jews; in the Crimea and on the middle Volga there are a considerable number of Tatar-speaking Mohammedans; and in the Caucasus there is a conglomeration of races and languages such as is to be found on no other portion of the earth’s surface. Until recent times these various nationalities were allowed to retain unmolested the language, religion, and peculiar local administration of their ancestors, but when the new nationality doctrine came into fashion attempts were made to spread among them the language, religion, and administrative institutions of the dominant race. In the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II these attempts were merely occasional and intermittent; under Alexander III they were made systematically and with very little consideration for the feelings, wishes, and interests of the people concerned. The local institutions were assimilated to those of the purely Russian provinces; the use of the Russian language was made obligatory in the administration, in the tribunals, and to some extent in the schools; the spread of eastern orthodoxy was encouraged by the authorities, whilst the other confessions were placed under severe restrictions; foreigners were prohibited from possessing landed property, and in some provinces administrative measures were taken for making the land pass into the hands of orthodox Russians. In this process some of the local officials displayed probably an amount of zeal beyond the intentions of the government, but any attempt to oppose the movement was rigorously punished.

Of all the various races the Jews were the most severely treated. The great majority of them had long been confined to the western and southwestern provinces. In the rest of the country they had not been allowed to reside in the villages, because their habits of keeping vodka-shops and lending money at usurious interest were found to demoralise the peasantry, and even in the towns their number and occupations had been restricted by the authorities. But, partly from the usual laxity of the administration and partly from the readiness of the Jews to conciliate the needy officials, the rules had been by no means strictly applied. As soon as this fact became known to Alexander III he ordered the rules to be strictly carried out, without considering what an enormous amount of hardship and suffering such an order entailed. He also caused new rules to be enacted by which his Jewish subjects were heavily handicapped in education and professional advancement. In short, complete russification of all non-Russian populations and institutions was the chief aim of the government in home affairs.

FOREIGN POLICY; THE FRENCH ALLIANCE

In the foreign policy of the empire Alexander III likewise introduced considerable changes. During his father’s reign its main objects were: in the west, the maintenance of the alliance with Germany; in southeastern Europe, the recovery of what had been lost by the Crimean war, the gradual weakening of the sultan’s authority, and the increase of Russian influence among the minor slav nationalities; in Asia, the gradual but cautious expansion of Russian domination. In the reign of Alexander III the first of these objects was abandoned. Already, before his accession, the bonds of friendship which united Russia to Germany had been weakened by the action of Bismarck in giving to the cabinet of St. Petersburg at the Berlin congress less diplomatic support than was expected, and by the Austro-German treaty of alliance (October, 1879), concluded avowedly for the purpose of opposing Russian aggression; but the old relations were partly re-established by secret negotiations in 1880, by a meeting of the young czar and the old emperor at Dantzic in 1881, and by the meeting of the three emperors at Skiernewice in 1884, by which the Three Emperors’ League was reconstituted for a term of three years.

Gradually, however, a great change took place in the czar’s views with regard to the German alliance. He suspected Bismarck of harbouring hostile designs against Russia, and he came to recognise that the permanent weakening of France was not in accordance with Russian political interests. He determined, therefore, to oppose any further disturbance of the balance of power in favour of Germany, and when the treaty of Skiernewice expired in 1887, he declined to renew it. From that time Russia gravitated slowly towards an alliance with France, and sought to create a counterpoise against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy. The czar was reluctant to bind himself by a formal treaty, because the French government did not offer the requisite guarantees of stability, and because he feared that it might be induced, by the prospects of Russian support, to assume an aggressive attitude towards Germany. He recognised, however, that in the event of a great European war the two nations would in all probability be found fighting on the same side, and that if they made no preparations for concerted military action they would be placed at a grave disadvantage in comparison with their opponents of the Triple Alliance, who were believed to have already worked out an elaborate plan of campaign. In view of this contingency the Russian and French military authorities studied the military questions in common, and the result of their labours was the preparation of a military convention, which was finally ratified in 1894. During this period the relations between the two governments and the two countries became much more cordial. In the summer of 1891 the visit to Kronstad of a French squadron under Admiral Gervais was made the occasion for an enthusiastic demonstration in favour of a Franco-Russian alliance; and two years later (October, 1893) a still more enthusiastic reception was given to the Russian admiral Avelan and his officers when they visited Toulon and Paris. But it was not till after the death of Alexander III that the word “alliance” was used publicly by official personages. In 1895 the term was first publicly employed by Ribot, then president of the council, in the chamber of deputies, but the expressions he used were so vague that they did not entirely remove the prevailing doubts as to the existence of a formal treaty. Two years later (August, 1897), during the official visit of President Félix Faure to St. Petersburg, a little more light was thrown on the subject. In the complimentary speeches delivered by the president of the French Republic and the czar, France and Russia were referred to as allies, and the term nations alliées was afterwards repeatedly used on occasions of a similar kind.

In southeastern Europe Alexander III adopted an attitude of reserve and expectancy. He greatly increased and strengthened his Black Sea fleet, so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise, and in June, 1886, contrary to the declaration made in the Treaty of Berlin (Article 59), he ordered Batum to be transformed into a fortified naval port, but in the Balkan Peninsula he persistently refrained, under a good deal of provocation, from any intervention that might lead to a European war. The Bulgarian government, first under Prince Alexander and afterwards under the direction of Stambolov, pursued systematically an anti-Russian policy, but the cabinet of St. Petersburg confined itself officially to breaking off diplomatic relations and making diplomatic protests, and unofficially to giving tacit encouragement to revolutionary agitation. In Asia, during the reign of Alexander III, the expansion of Russian domination made considerable progress.[b]

THE CONQUEST OF THE TEKKE-TURCOMANS (1877-1881 A.D.)

Transcaspia is the official name given to the territory east of the Caspian which was annexed by Russia in 1881 shortly after the accession of Alexander III. The country was inhabited by the Turcomans--a branch of the Turkish race--who have been identified with the old Parthians. They were a brave but wild and lawless people, bands of whom would frequently sweep down upon a peaceful village, kill the men, and carry off the women and children to be sold as slaves in Bokhara and Khiva. Whole villages were sometimes wiped out in this way. The marauding raids of the Turcomans were a constant menace to the northern frontier of Persia and we frequently find the Persians engaged in war with them. The great Nadir Shah was himself a Turcoman. In 1861 the Persians had made a final attack on the Turcomans or Tekkes, as they are commonly called, and defeated them.

The Russian conquest of the Central Asian khanates, however, materially altered the situation of these nomadic robbers; they could no longer sell slaves in Bokhara, as the Russian laws forbade slavery, neither could they carry on their depredations in lands guarded by the Russians, hence they turned to Persia and offered her their allegiance in return for her support against these civilised intruders. But they were now a serious obstacle in the way of these same Russians. Caravans from Bokhara and the East, to reach the Caspian, had to cross the Turcoman desert or else make a long detour to the north, and these plundering tribes seriously interfered with commerce.

In 1877 General Lomakin was sent against the Tekkes, but the Russo-Turkish war intervened before he had accomplished anything. In 1878 Lomakin attacked Dengil Teppe, was defeated by the Tekkes, and forced to retreat. The natives were greatly encouraged by this victory, their raids increased, and they tried to stir up the Bokharans and Khivans to revolt. The Russians now undertook more vigorous measures. General Skobelev was put in charge of the campaign, a portable railway was started from the shores of the Caspian towards the Amu Daria, a large force of artillery was conveyed to the front, and a water distillery--of the greatest service in this waterless region--was established at Krasnovodsk. Colonel Kuropatkin, who had been on Skobelev’s staff in the Russo-Turkish war, came by forced marches to assist his former chief.

The Turcomans were intrenched in three camps--Yangi Kala, Dangil Teppe, and Geok Teppe. The Russians began the main attack on January 1st, 1881, charging first upon Yangi Kala. The Tekkes fought with the greatest bravery, but the Russian artillery forced them to evacuate. The Turcoman sorties were made usually a little after sunset and the attacks were exceedingly fierce. The Tekkes had their wives and children in camp with them, huddled in their felt tents, and their sufferings under the continual artillery fire must have been terrible. Finally upon January 24th, after three weeks of fighting, the Russians were successful, the Tekkes were routed with great loss to both Russians and Turcomans. There are different estimates given as the total number killed.

Beveridge’s[c] figures, given below, cannot be far from right. He uses this siege to illustrate the Russian method of conquest. Their method, he says, “is to wage war while war exists and to employ the methods of peace only when war is over. Skobelev at Geok Teppe refused to accept the surrender of the heroic Tekkes who had terrorised Central Asia for centuries, and he slaughtered more than twenty thousand men, women and children in twenty days. It seemed quite terrible and was as terrible as it seemed; but it is hard to see that it is much worse to destroy 20,000 men, women, and children and secure peace for all time than it is to kill that number during twenty years and in the process increase the irritation, the disorder, and the feud. For from the red day of Geok Teppe to this hour, order, law, safety to travellers, security of commerce and all other things which help to make up civilisation have existed in Central Asia, as firmly guarded as they are in the United States. War is bad under any circumstances, but if it must be it should be thorough, that it may be brief and not fruitless.”

[Sidenote: [1885-1894 A.D.]]

After calling attention to the efficacy of this method in Manchuria during the Boxer movement, the author continues: “It is worth the attention of all men that when Russia has once inflicted her punishment there has seldom been any recurrence of insurrection. Where Russian law and order and system have been established they have remained, upheld not by the bayonets of the soldiers who established them, but by the hands of the very people among whom and against whose resistance they were planted. Among all the defects of Russian civilisation, its virtues are striking and elemental, and one of the chief of them is stability.”

The country of the Turcomans thus conquered was annexed to the Russian Empire, the final annexation of Merv taking place in 1884.[a] Alexander III then allowed the military authorities to push forward in the direction of Afghanistan, until in March, 1885, an engagement took place between Russian and Afghan forces at Penjdeh. Thereupon the British government, which had been for some time carrying on negotiations with the cabinet of St. Petersburg for a delimitation of the Russo-Afghan frontier, intervened energetically and prepared for war; but a compromise was effected, and after more than two years of negotiation a delimitation convention was signed at St. Petersburg on July 20th, 1887. The forward movement of Russia was thus stopped in the direction of Herat, but it continued with great activity farther east in the region of the Pamir, until another Anglo-Russian convention was signed in 1895. During the whole reign of Alexander III the increase of territory in central Asia is calculated by Russian authorities at 429,895 square kilometres.

ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS II (1894 A.D.)

On November 1st, 1894, Alexander III died, and was succeeded by his son, Nicholas II, who, partly from similarity of character and partly from veneration for his father’s memory, continued the existing lines of policy in home and foreign affairs. The expectation entertained in many quarters that great legislative changes would at once be made in a liberal sense was not realised. When an influential deputation from the province of Tver, which had long enjoyed a reputation for liberalism, ventured to hint in a loyal address that the time had come for changes in the existing autocratic régime they received a reply which showed that the emperor had no intention of making any such changes. Private suggestions in the same sense, offered directly and respectfully, were no better received and no important changes were made in the legislation of the preceding reign. But a great alteration took place noiselessly in the manner of carrying out the laws and ministerial circulars.

Though resembling his father in the main points of his character, the young czar was of a more humane disposition, and he was much less of a doctrinaire. With his father’s aspiration of making holy Russia a homogeneous empire he thoroughly sympathised in principle, but he disliked the systematic persecution of Jews, heretics, and schismatics to which it gave rise, and he let it be understood, without any formal order or proclamation, that the severe measures hitherto employed would not meet with his approval. The officials were not slow to take the hint, and their undue zeal at once disappeared. Nicholas II showed, however, that his father’s policy of russification was neither to be reversed nor to be abandoned. When an influential deputation was sent from Finland to St. Petersburg to represent to him respectfully that the officials were infringing the local rights and privileges solemnly accorded at the time of the annexation, it was refused an audience, and the leaders of the movement were informed indirectly that local interests must be subordinated to the general welfare of the empire. In accordance with this declaration, the policy of russification in Finland was steadily maintained and caused much disappointment, not only to the Finlanders, but also to the other nationalities who desired the preservation of their ancient rights.

[Sidenote: [1895-1896 A.D.]]

In foreign affairs Nicholas II likewise continued the policy of his predecessor, with certain modifications suggested by the change of circumstances. He strengthened the cordial understanding with France by a formal agreement, the terms of which were not divulged, but he never encouraged the French government in any aggressive designs, and he maintained friendly relations with Germany. In the Balkan Peninsula a slight change of attitude took place. Alexander III, indignant at what he considered the ingratitude of the Slav nationalities, remained coldly aloof, as far as possible, from all intervention in their affairs. About three months after his death, De Giers, who thoroughly approved of this attitude, died (January 26th, 1895), and his successor, Prince Lobanov, minister of foreign affairs from March 19th, 1895, to August 30th, 1896, endeavoured to recover what he considered Russia’s legitimate influence in the Slav world.

For this purpose Russian diplomacy became more active in southeastern Europe. The result was perceived first in Montenegro and Servia, and then in Bulgaria. Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria had long been anxious to legalise his position by a reconciliation, and as soon as he got rid of Stambulov he made advances to the Russian government. They were well received, and a reconciliation was effected on certain conditions, the first of which was that Prince Ferdinand’s eldest son and heir should become a member of the Eastern orthodox church. As another means of opposing Western influence in southeastern Europe, Prince Lobanov inclined to the policy of protecting rather than weakening the Ottoman empire. When the British government seemed disposed to use coercive measures for the protection of the Armenians, he gave it clearly to be understood that any such proceeding would be opposed by Russia.

[Sidenote: [1897 A.D.]]

After Prince Lobanov’s death and the appointment of Count Muraviev as his successor in January, 1897, this tendency of Russian policy became less marked. In April, 1897, it is true, when the Greeks provoked a war with Turkey, they received no support from St. Petersburg, but at the close of the war the czar showed himself more friendly to them; and afterwards, when it proved extremely difficult to find a suitable person as governor-general of Crete he recommended the appointment of his cousin, Prince George of Greece--a selection which was pretty sure to accelerate the union of the island with the Hellenic kingdom. How far the recommendation was due to personal feeling, as opposed to political considerations, it is impossible to say.

In Asia, after the accession of Nicholas II the expansion of Russia, following the line of least resistance and stimulated by the construction of the Siberian railway, was effected at the expense of China. As a necessary basis for a strong foreign policy the army was systematically strengthened. At one moment the schemes for military reorganisation involved such an enormous expenditure that the czar conceived the idea of an agreement among the great powers to arrest the increase of national armaments. The idea was communicated to the powers somewhat abruptly by Count Muraviev, Prince Lobanov’s successor in the direction of foreign affairs, and an international conference was held at the Hague to discuss the subject; but it had very little practical result, and certainly did not attain the primary object in view. [Its final act is given in the appendix to this volume.]

A sketch of the recent history of Russia, however brief, would be incomplete without some mention of the remarkable industrial progress made during the period under consideration. Protected by high tariffs and fostered by the introduction of foreign capital, Russian manufacturing industry made enormous strides. By way of illustration a few figures may be cited. In the space of ten years (1887-1897) the number of workers employed in the various branches of industrial enterprise rose from 1,318,048 to 2,098,262. The consumption of cotton for spinning purposes, which was only 117 million kilograms in 1886, was 257 millions in 1898, and the number of spindles, according to the weekly journal Russia of August 2nd, 1902, was estimated at that date at 6,970,000. Thanks chiefly to this growth of the cotton industry, the town of Lódz, which was little more than a big village in 1875, has now a population of over 300,000. The iron, steel, and petroleum industries have likewise made enormous progress. Between 1892 and 1900 the estimated value of metallic articles manufactured in the country rose from 142 millions to 276 millions of rubles. As is generally the case in such circumstances, protection led to temporary over-production, which brought about a financial and economic crisis; but if we may accept certain figures given by Henry Norman,[d] the crisis could not have been very severe, for he states that “no fewer than 580 companies declared a dividend during the first nine months of 1901, their total nominal capital being £105,000,000, and the average dividend no less than 10.1 per cent.” Much of this progress is due to the intelligence and energy of M. Witte, minister of finance.[b]

KUROPATKIN ON THE RUSSIAN POLICY OF EXPANSION

In connection with the Russian advance in Asia with its climax in the war with Japan, it may be interesting to notice an address made by General Kuropatkin to a party of English tourists at Askabad in November, 1897. Its protestations of peaceful intent will come as a surprise to many who have seen in the Russian advance only an insatiable land-hunger. General Kuropatkin, whose fortune it was seven years later to command the Russian army in the war with Japan, said in part, as quoted in a recent work:[a]

“The policy of our government in Central Asia, since the accession of the late czar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has never been had to arms until every other means of gaining a given object had failed. The principles which govern the policy of Russia are very simple. They are the maintenance of peace, of order, and of prosperity in all classes of the population. The means employed to compass these ends are equally free from complexity. Those who fill responsible positions are expressly informed by our government that the assumption of sovereignty over alien nationalities must not be attempted without very serious deliberation, inasmuch as such become, on annexation, Russian subjects, children of the czar, and invested with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the empire. His majesty has enjoined on his representatives, as their first duty, a fatherly care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the possibility of internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no pains have been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The fruits of this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now cross central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without incurring the smallest risk of attack.

“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during which central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised rule, have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing strength in bonds of attachment and good-will, which unite these subject peoples to the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. Between 1885 and 1888 we established a stable and logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain; and in the twelve years which have since elapsed there have been no expeditions throughout its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia, and 400 on Afghanistan. The latter country contains much inflammable material, but we have taken every means in our power to ensure that the internal disorders of that state shall not react on our frontier. So scrupulous is our regard for the status quo, that whole tribes have cast themselves on our protection in vain.

“Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis have crossed our borders in troops of as many as 1,000 families, but we have always repatriated such refugees. There have been similar cases in our dealings with Persian subjects. Turkestan proper has been free from war since the occupation of Farghana--twenty-one years ago. The Bokhara frontier has remained intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. The last complication on the Persian border dates from 1829--nearly 70 years ago. Throughout our frontier conterminous with China we have had no disturbance for more than a century. I am led to mention these significant facts in order to show that our policy in Asia is essentially a peaceful one, and that we are perfectly satisfied with our present boundaries. And I may claim to speak with authority, apart from my official position, for I have been personally concerned in all our important military and political movements in Central Asia since 1868, when, only twenty, I took part in storming Samarkand.”[e]

RUSSIA IN MANCHURIA

[Sidenote: [1900-1902 A.D.]]

Russian advance in the Far East has been going on so steadily and so quietly that few realise to what an extent northeastern Asia is becoming russianised. Russian ships are seen in Chinese and Japanese harbours, Russian banks are found on Chinese territory, Russian railways are connecting those remote parts of the world with Europe, and, most important of all, Russian peasants are being landed in the Far East. The russification movement is especially active in Manchuria, which province has become prominent in the last few years. Although on a map of Asia Manchuria does not look very large, it covers nearly as much space as France and Germany together. Beveridge[c] recently said of it: “It is an empire more favourably situated as to its climatic conditions than any part of Asia. It is in the same latitude as southern Canada and the northern portion of the United States. Its northern limits are about the same as the northern limits of Quebec. Its southern limits are about the same as the southern limits of Maryland. It is bounded on the north by the richest portions of Siberia, which not many years ago was itself a part of the dominion of the Manchus; for several hundred miles on the east by the grain-fields of the Ussuri district of Russian Siberia, also until recently a part of the Chinese Empire; on the east and south by Korea, over which the world’s next great war will probably be fought, and soon; on the west by Mongolia, and on the south by Korea, China, and the gulfs and extensions of the Yellow Sea, which touches or commands much of that empire. On these gulfs are two of the finest military and commercial ports of Asia, or the world--Port Arthur and Talienwan, or, as the Russians call it, Dalny.”

Russian designs upon Manchuria first became prominent after the Chino-Japanese war when Russia objected to Japan’s acquiring any territory in that quarter. During the Boxer uprising in 1900 Russian troops overran Manchuria and in a convention concluded between Russia and China at the end of the movement, the civil and military administration of the province was placed practically under the control of Russia. Owing to objections on the part of the other powers, however, Russia withdrew this convention and another was signed in place of it on April 8th, 1902. According to this Manchuria was to remain “an integral portion of the Chinese Empire”; China pledged herself to protect the railway and all Russian subjects and their enterprises in Manchuria, while Russia for her part agreed to withdraw her troops gradually. This agreement on the part of Russia remained a promise only. In the meanwhile Manchuria was rapidly becoming russianised. The important cities along the railway such as New-Chwang, Mukden, Liauyang and Kirin became centres of Russian forces. Russian immigrants built and inhabited whole towns laid out like European cities with all modern improvements. Harbin, which in 1897 was a collection of mud huts, became a Russian city and a centre of Manchurian trade.

THE WAR WITH JAPAN

[Sidenote: [1903-1904 A.D.]]

Russia’s policy in the Far East was the cause of friction with England and the United States, and especially with Japan; relations with the latter becoming more and more strained until they finally led to a war which broke out in February, 1904. In April of the preceding year Russia’s representative at Peking presented certain demands to the Chinese government which virtually excluded all foreigners--except Russians--from Manchuria, and were a plain violation of the principle of the “open door” which Russia had pledged herself to maintain in that province. Owing to the opposition of the United States and Japan, however, most of these demands were withdrawn and permission was granted to open two Manchurian ports, although this was not carried out. In Korea also Russia opposed Japan, refusing to allow her to open the port of Wi-ju to foreign trade, and objecting to a Japanese telegraph from Seul to Fusan, although Russia herself laid a telegraph line on Korean territory.

In August, 1903, Russia took the important step of establishing a special vice-royalty in the Amur provinces which had been leased to her in the Liao-tung peninsula. Vice-admiral Alexiev was appointed as first Russian viceroy of the Far East, and was invested with civil and military authority which made him to a great extent independent of St. Petersburg.

In September the Russian ambassador at Peking had announced that New-Chwang and Mukden would be evacuated on October 8th, but that date passed and Russian troops were still there, while Russia continued to strengthen her army and navy in the Far East. Japan demanded that Russia should evacuate Manchuria in agreement with her promises and that she should discontinue her aggressive attitude in Korea.

Russia’s answers to Japan’s repeated demands were evasive, and on January 8th, 1904, Japan sent a final note to Russia and, receiving no reply, withdrew her minister and legation from St. Petersburg on February 6th, 1904. On February 7th both governments issued statements announcing the severance of diplomatic relations. On February 8th the main Japanese fleet, under Vice-admiral Togo, opened the war by surprising the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in a state of unpreparedness, and inflicting much damage.

The attack was repeated on the following day with a repetition of the result of the first day’s assault. On the same day Admiral Uriu and a small Japanese squadron attacked and destroyed two Russian cruisers in the harbour of Chemulpo. Thus at the very outset the Japanese had secured a decided advantage over their opponents on the sea. At once the cry arose in Russia that Japan, by not giving official notice of the proposed attack had violated international law, but neutral nations generally saw in Russia’s complaint only an attempt to excuse her defeats, and held that the severing of diplomatic relations was warning enough. Still that the Russians were not entirely crippled was shown by the fact that within a fortnight their squadron of four cruisers at Vladivostok cut its way out of the ice, which was supposed to hold it captive, and harried the Japanese coast. But this danger did not hinder the transportation of Japanese troops to Korea, which began on February 18th. The following month saw a continuation of Japanese successes and of Russian losses. Several times Admiral Togo attacked Port Arthur, at one time or another almost all of the Russian ships of war sustaining more or less serious damage. Vladivostok was bombarded, and a succession of minor engagements took place between the outposts of the two opposing armies advancing toward one another from opposite sides of the Yalu river. On February 24th Admiral Togo made an unsuccessful attempt to “bottle up” the Russian fleet in the harbour of Port Arthur by sinking five old steam-ships in the channel. Early in March, General Kuropatkin, the Russian minister of war, was appointed by the czar to the supreme command of the Russian armies in Manchuria to succeed Viceroy Alexiev and Admiral Makarov was at the same time appointed to the command of the fleet. By the end of the month the Japanese had, on the Manchurian border, in Korea, with which country they had concluded a close alliance, a force estimated at eighty thousand, with a base at Ping Yang. This was faced by a Russian force, slightly smaller, but increased daily by reinforcements which kept arriving in a continuous stream over the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian railways. The Japanese successes appeared well nigh to stupefy Russia, and the demoralisation of the czar’s official advisers seemed complete. Beside the loss of General Kuropatkin, who was succeeded as minister of war by General Sakarov, both Count Lamsdorf, minister of foreign affairs, and M. Witte, the finance minister, retired from the cabinet. On April 13th, the Russian battle-ship Petropavlovsk struck a mine or floating torpedo near the entrance to Port Arthur harbour and sank with all on board, including Admiral Makarov and the war artist Vereshchagin.

During the succeeding month war operations of importance or interest were confined to the land. By the first of May the principal points in the Japanese military programme had unfolded themselves. The absolute command of the sea and coast, thus assuring ease and safety in the transportation of troops and munitions of war, had been secured, and an efficient and formidable army had been landed on the Asiatic mainland. Korea too had been thoroughly occupied. The Japanese army, in the last days of April, began its forward movement under General Kuroki, the purpose being to cross the Yalu at several points and drive the Russians back into Manchuria.

On May 1st, after a six days fight on the Yalu near Wi-ju, the Japanese won their first land victory, and secured a firm footing on the Manchurian side of the Yalu. During the month of May Kuroki continued his advance into the interior, but his progress was slow owing to the difficulty in maintaining communication with the coast and constant skirmishing with the Cossacks who opposed his advance guard. Kuropatkin meanwhile proceeded to concentrate his forces at Liauyang on the Manchurian Railway south of Harbin, with the apparent intention of leaving Port Arthur to its fate.

It was about the latter place that the activity now centred and against it a second Japanese army under General Oku advanced. On May 25th Oku landed a force of some forty thousand men near Kin-chau on the narrowest point of the Liao-tung peninsula. At this point the Nan-shan hills extending from Kin-chau, on the western side of the isthmus toward Dalny on the east afforded the Russians an excellent opportunity for defence and here they had constructed a strong line of fortifications, mounted a large number of guns and manned them with the flower of the Port Arthur army. After a series of tentative attacks, Oku made a grand assault under cover of fire from warships in the harbour of Kin-chau. In the charge up the heights he lost over 4,000 men, but drove out the Russians, who lost 2,000 men and 78 cannon. Two days later the Japanese occupied Russia’s great commercial port, Dalny, finding the docks, piers, and railway yards uninjured. It was thenceforward the Japanese base.

[Sidenote: [1904-1905 A.D.]]

Port Arthur was now left to its fate, save for the single effort of General Stakelberg who was detached with 40,000 men to make a dash southward, but was defeated by Oku at Telissu (Vofangow), eighty miles north of Port Arthur (June 14-16), and by Kuroki. He made his escape, having lost some 10,000 men on his vain foray.

Kuropatkin’s tactics were Fabian and his eventual reliance was the reinforcements which the Siberian railway poured in as fast as possible. The Japanese forced the attack. Marshal Oyama was in charge of the armies opposed to Kuropatkin, his subordinates being Nodzu and the brilliant Kuroki. General Oku also joined Oyama, the Port Arthur siege being placed in the command of General Nogi. June 26-27 the Japanese took the well-nigh impregnable position at Fen-shiu-ling pass. Shortly after Kuroki took the important pass of Motien-ling. On July 17 General Count Keller made a desperate effort to recapture it, but was repulsed with heavy loss. July 24 Oku took Tashichiao and forced the Russians back to the walled city of Hai-cheng. July 29 Kuroki took the Yangtse pass, in whose defence General Keller was killed. Oku having turned his right flank, Kuropatkin was forced to evacuate Hai-cheng and retreat to his base at Liauyang. He was also compelled to give up the important city of New-Chwang.

The capture of Liauyang was a great problem. The Japanese were not ready to open battle till August 24, when they began a twelve days’ combat which takes a permanent place as one of the largest and fiercest battles in history. The Russians were estimated at 200,000; the Japanese at 240,000. The Japanese confessed a loss of 25,000; the Russian loss was perhaps still greater, as they were defeated and escaped capture or annihilation only by Kuropatkin’s ingenuity in retreat.

The Russians retired to Mukden. October 2nd Kuropatkin felt strong enough to take the offensive, and assailed Oyama on the river Shakhe or the Sha-ho. A series of battles followed, lasting till October 18, when the Russians fell back again to Mukden, after a loss of 45,000 men killed and wounded, according to a Russian staff report. Oyama claimed to have found 13,300 Russians dead on the field, and admitted a loss of 15,800 on his own side.

Meanwhile Port Arthur was undergoing one of the most important sieges in history. The siege began on May 26th, when Nan-shan hill was taken and Dalny occupied, though on August 12th the last of the outlying defences was taken and the Japanese sat down before the permanent works. They combined a patient and scientific process of sapping, trenching and tunnelling, with a series of six grand assaults. The collaboration of such skill with such reckless heroism had its inevitable result. The garrison under General Stoessel held out with splendid courage against an army totalling perhaps 100,000, but the gradual exhaustion of ammunition, food, and strength, together with the appearance of scurvy, compelled a surrender. January 3rd, 1905, the Japanese took possession, finding 878 officers, 23,491 men, besides several thousand non-combatants.

The fleet which had made several efforts to escape had been reduced by loss after loss, and finally, on the capture of 203 Metre Hill, had been subjected to the fire of the land artillery and completely destroyed.

During the leaguer of Port Arthur and the gradual beating back of Kuropatkin, other Russian activities kept diplomacy busy. The seizure of neutral ships in the Red Sea by two vessels that passed the Dardanelles as merchantmen and then equipped as cruisers, provoked such indignation in England and Germany that the seizures were discontinued. The Vladivostok squadron made daring raids upon Japanese and neutral vessels, but after a long pursuit was caught by Admiral Kamimura, who sank the Ruric and crippled the other two cruisers.

Much talk was made of sending the powerful Baltic fleet to the aid of Port Arthur under the command of Admiral Rojestvensky. It set forth in October after infinite delays. On the night of the 21st, while in the North Sea, off the Dogger Bank, it met a fleet of British fishing smacks and fired on it, sinking one boat and killing two fishermen. The indignation of the English people was intense, an inquiry was demanded, during the progress of which the Baltic fleet continued on its long voyage.

The internal condition of Russia was rendered critical by the war, and by profound commercial distress. June 15th the Governor-General over Finland, Bobrikov, was assassinated by an opponent of the russification policy. On July 29th the Czar’s minister of the interior, Von Plehve, was slain by a bomb thrown at his carriage. Rightly or wrongly, Von Plehve was considered the special author and adviser of the increasing vigour and tyranny of the czar’s internal administration. Jews abhorred him as the man responsible for the Kishinev massacres, and the Finns looked upon him as the destroyer of their national institutions. He was succeeded by Prince Peter Sviatopolk-Mirsky, a man of comparatively liberal and progressive views.

This gave some encouragement to the zemstvos, the farthest step toward representative government yet taken in Russia. They date only from the czar’s ukase of January, 1864. Each of the districts in which Russia is divided is represented by an assembly, elected by the three estates, communes, municipalities, and landowners. Each district assembly in a province sends delegates to a general provincial assembly or zemstvo, which body controls the roads, primary schools, etc. Alexander II meant that these zemstvos should acquire large power, but after his death they fell under the sway of provincial governors. November 21st, 1904, the zemstvos lifted their heads again, and their presidents met in a congress which, by a majority of 105 to 3, voted to beg the czar to grant Russia a constitution and a genuine representative government.

The czar, with some asperity of tone, refused a constitution, and while promising certain reforms, rebuked the zemstvos and forbade their further discussion of such unsettling topics. Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky now resigned, declaring that Russia was on the brink of a great revolution, and that the bureaucracy must be supplanted by “the freely elected representatives of the people.” In January, 1905, Sergius de Witte succeeded to the office of minister of the interior. One of the most prominent European statesmen, a liberal, and an enemy of Von Plehve, his first statements were nevertheless disappointing to the believers that radical reforms alone can save Russia.

APPENDIX. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIAN HISTORY

I

TREATY OF PARIS

GENERAL TREATY BETWEEN THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH, THE KING OF PRUSSIA, THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA, THE KING OF SARDINIA, AND THE SULTAN

Signed at Paris, March 30th, 1856. Ratifications exchanged at Paris, April 27th

Art. 1. From the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty there shall be peace and friendship between her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his majesty the Emperor of the French, his majesty the King of Sardinia, his imperial majesty the Sultan, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, on the other part, as well as between their heirs and successors, their respective dominions and subjects in perpetuity.

Art. 2. Peace being happily re-established between their said majesties, the territories conquered or occupied by their armies during the war shall be reciprocally evacuated.

Special arrangements shall regulate the mode of the evacuation, which shall be as prompt as possible.

Art. 3. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias engages to restore to his majesty the Sultan the town and citadel of Kars, as well as the other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troops are in possession.

Art. 4. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, engage to restore to his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias the towns and ports of Sebastopol, Balaklava, Kamiesch, Eupatoria, Kertch, Yenikale, Kinburn, as well as all other territories occupied by the allied troops.

Art. 5. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the Emperor of all the Russias, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, grant a full and entire amnesty to those of their subjects who may have been compromised by any participation whatsoever in the events of the war in favour of the cause of the enemy.

It is expressly understood that such amnesty shall extend to the subjects of each of the belligerent parties who may have continued during the war to be employed in the service of one of the other belligerents.

Art. 6. Prisoners of war shall be immediately given up on either side.

Art. 7. Her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his majesty the Emperor of Austria, his majesty the Emperor of the French, his majesty the King of Prussia, his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and his majesty the King of Sardinia, declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the public law and system (concert) of Europe. Their majesties engage, each on his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement; and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest.

Art. 8. If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other signing powers any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte and each of such powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their mediation.

Art. 9. His imperial majesty the Sultan having, in his constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a firman which, while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of his empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that respect, has resolved to communicate to the contracting parties the said firman, emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will.

The contracting powers recognise the high value of this communication. It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relations of his majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the internal administration of his empire.

Art. 10. The convention of the 13th of July, 1841, which maintains the ancient rule of the Ottoman empire relative to the closing of the straits of the Bosporus and of the Dardanelles, has been revised by common consent.

The act concluded for that purpose, and in conformity with that principle, between the high contracting parties, is and remains annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed an integral part thereof.

Art. 11. The Black Sea is neutralised; its waters and its ports, thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war, either of the powers possessing its coasts or of any other power, with the exceptions mentioned in Articles 14 and 19 of the present treaty.

Art. 12. Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and waters of the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations of health, customs, and police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of commercial transactions.

In order to afford to the commercial and maritime interests of every nation the security which is desired, Russia and the Sublime Porte will admit consuls into their ports situated upon the coast of the Black Sea, in conformity with the principles of international law.

Art. 13. The Black Sea being neutralised according to the terms of Art. 11, the maintenance or establishment upon its coast of military-maritime arsenals becomes alike unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence, his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his imperial majesty the Sultan engage not to establish or to maintain upon that coast any military-maritime arsenal.

Art. 14. Their majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Sultan having concluded a convention for the purpose of settling the force and the number of light vessels necessary for the service of their coasts, which they reserve to themselves to maintain in the Black Sea, that convention is annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity, as if it formed an integral part thereof. It cannot be either annulled or modified without the assent of the powers signing the present treaty.

Art. 15. The act of the Congress of Vienna having established the principles intended to regulate the navigation of rivers which separate or traverse different states, the contracting powers stipulate among themselves that those principles shall in future be equally applied to the Danube and its mouths. They declare that this arrangement henceforth forms a part of the public law of Europe, and take it under their guarantee.

The navigation of the Danube cannot be subjected to any impediment or charge not expressly provided for by the stipulations contained in the following articles; in consequence, there shall not be levied any toll founded solely upon the fact of the navigation of the river, nor any duty upon the goods which may be on board of vessels. The regulations of police and of quarantine to be established for the safety of the states separated or traversed by that river shall be so framed as to facilitate, as much as possible, the passage of vessels. With the exception of such regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to free navigation.

Art. 16. Establishing a temporary international commission for the control of navigation on the Danube.

Arts. 17-19. Establishing a permanent commission for the improvement and control of navigation on the Danube.

Art. 20. In exchange for the towns, ports, and territories enumerated in Art. 4 of the present treaty, and in order more fully to secure the freedom of the navigation of the Danube, his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias consents to the rectification of his frontier in Bessarabia.

Art. 21. The territory ceded by Russia shall be annexed to the principality of Moldavia under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte. The inhabitants of that territory shall enjoy the rights and privileges secured to the principalities; and during the space of three years they shall be permitted to transfer their domicile elsewhere, disposing freely of their property.

Art. 22. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia shall continue to enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte and under the guarantee of the contracting powers, the privileges and immunities of which they are in possession. No exclusive protection shall be exercised over them by any of the guaranteeing powers. There shall be no separate right of interference in their internal affairs.

Arts. 23-27. Concerning the government, administration, preservation of order in, and defence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia.

Art. 28. The principality of Servia shall continue to hold the Sublime Porte, in conformity with the imperial hats which fix and determine its rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee of the contracting powers. In consequence the said principality shall preserve its independent and national administration, as well as full liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation.

Art. 29. The right of garrison of the Sublime Porte, as stipulated by anterior regulations, is maintained. No armed intervention can take place in Servia without previous agreement between the high contracting powers.

Art. 30. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his majesty the Sultan maintain in its integrity the state of their possessions in Asia, such as it legally existed before the rupture. A mixed commission for the verification or rectification of the frontiers is provided for.

Art. 31. The territories occupied during the war by the troops of their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and the King of Sardinia, according to the terms of the conventions signed at Constantinople on the 12th of March, 1854, between Great Britain, France, and the Sublime Porte; on the 14th of June, of the same year, between Austria and the Sublime Porte; and on the 15th of March, 1855, between Sardinia and the Sublime Porte, shall be evacuated as soon as possible after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty. The periods and the means of execution shall form the object of an arrangement between the Sublime Porte and the powers whose troops have occupied its territory.

Art. 32. Until the treaties or conventions which existed before the war between the belligerent powers have been either renewed or replaced by new acts, commerce of importation or of exportation shall take place reciprocally on the footing of the regulations in force before the war; and in all other matters their subjects shall be respectively treated upon the footing of the most favoured nation.

Art. 33. The convention concluded this day between their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias on the other part respecting the Åland Islands, is and remains annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if it formed a part thereof.

CONVENTIONS ANNEXED TO THE PRECEDING TREATY

1. Convention between the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the King of Sardinia, on the one part, and the Sultan on the other part, respecting the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosporus.

Art. 1. His majesty the Sultan, on the one part, declares that he is firmly resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably established as the ancient rule of his empire, and in virtue of which it has at all times been prohibited for the ships of war of foreign powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosporus, and that, so long as the Porte is at peace, his majesty will admit no foreign ship of war into the said Straits.

And their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of all the Russias, and the King of Sardinia, on the other part, engage to respect this determination of the Sultan’s, and to conform themselves to the principle above declared.

Art. 2. The Sultan reserves to himself, as in past times, to deliver firmans of passage for light vessels under flag of war, which shall be employed, as is usual, in the service of the missions of foreign powers.

Art. 3. The same exception applies to the light vessels under flag of war, which each of the contracting powers is authorised to station at the mouths of the Danube, in order to secure the execution of the regulations relative to the liberty of that river, and the number of which is not to exceed two for each power.

2. Convention between the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan, limiting their naval force in the Black Sea.

Art. 1. The high contracting parties mutually engage not to have in the Black Sea any other vessels of war than those of which the number, the force, and the dimensions are hereinafter stipulated.

Art. 2. The high contracting parties reserve to themselves each to maintain in that sea six steam-vessels of fifty metres in length at the line of floatation, of a tonnage of 800 tons at the maximum, and four light steam or sailing vessels, of a tonnage which shall not exceed 200 tons each.

3. Convention between her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, and the Emperor of Russia, respecting the Åland Islands.

Art. 1. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, in order to respond to the desire which has been expressed to him by their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of the French, declares that the Åland Islands shall not be fortified, and that no military or naval establishment shall be maintained or created there.

Declaration respecting maritime law, signed by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled in congress at Paris, April 16th, 1856.

The plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of Paris, of the 30th of March, 1856, being duly authorised, and having come to an agreement, have adopted the following solemn declaration:--

1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished.

2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy’s flag.

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective--that is to say maintained by force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The governments of the undersigned plenipotentiaries engage to bring the present declaration to the knowledge of the states which have taken part in the congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it.

Convinced that the maxims which they now proclaim cannot but be received with gratitude by the whole world, the undersigned plenipotentiaries doubt not that the efforts of their governments to obtain the general adoption thereof will be crowned with full success.

The present declaration is not and shall not be binding, except between those powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it.

Done at Paris, the 16th of April, 1856.

[Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries of the signatory powers.]

II

TREATY OF BERLIN, 1878

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and King Apostolic of Hungary, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, being desirous to regulate with a view to European order, conformably to the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of 30th March, 1856, the questions raised in the East by the events of late years and by the war terminated by the Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano, have been unanimously of opinion that the meeting of a Congress would offer the best means of facilitating an understanding.

[Here follow the names of the ambassadors.]

Who, in accordance with the proposal of the Court of Austria-Hungary, and on the invitation of the Court of Germany, have met at Berlin furnished with full powers, which have been found in good and due form.

An understanding having been happily established between them, they have agreed to the following stipulations:

Art. 1. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan; it will have a Christian government and a national militia.

Art. 2. The Principality of Bulgaria will include the following territories:

[Here follows a detailed account of boundaries. These having mainly a technical interest are omitted here and in other articles of the treaty of the same nature. Those articles likewise whose importance is purely local are given in abbreviated form.]

This delimitation shall be fixed on the spot by the European Commission, on which the Signatory Powers shall be represented. It is understood: 1. That this Commission will take into consideration the necessity for His Imperial Majesty the Sultan to be able to defend the Balkan frontier of Eastern Rumelia. 2. That no fortifications may be erected within a radius of 10 kilometres from Samakov.

Art. 3. The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the population and confirmed by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers. No member of the Reigning Dynasties of the Great European Powers may be elected Prince of Bulgaria. In case of a vacancy in the princely dignity the election of a new Prince shall take place under the same conditions and with the same forms.

Art. 4. An Assembly of Notables of Bulgaria convoked at Tirnovo, shall, before the election of the Prince, draw up the Organic Law of the Principality. In the districts where Bulgarians are intermixed with Turkish, Rumanian, Greek or other populations, the rights and intents of these populations shall be taken into consideration as regards the elections and the drawing up of the Organic Law.

Art. 5. Differences of religious creed not to be a bar to office holding in Bulgaria. Complete freedom of worship assured.

Art. 6. The provisional administration of Bulgaria.

Art. 7. The provisional régime shall not be prolonged beyond a period of nine months from the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty. When the Organic Law is completed the election of the Prince of Bulgaria shall be proceeded with immediately. As soon as the Prince shall have been installed, the new organisation shall be put into force, and the Principality shall enter into the full enjoyment of its autonomy.

Art. 8. The treaties of commerce and navigation as well as all conventions and arrangements concluded between Foreign Powers and the Porte, and now in force are maintained in the Principality of Bulgaria, and no change shall be made in them with regard to any Power without its previous consent. No transit duties shall be levied in Bulgaria on goods passing through that principality. The subjects and citizens of commerce of all the powers shall be treated in the principality on a footing of strict equality. The immunities and privileges of foreigners, as well as the rights of consular jurisdiction and protection as established by the capitulations and usages, shall remain in full force so long as they shall not have been modified with the consent of the parties concerned.

Art. 9. Tribute to be paid by Bulgaria to suzerain court, etc.

Art. 10. Railway questions in Bulgaria.

Art. 11. Evacuation and demolition of Bulgarian fortresses.

Art. 12. Land rights of non-resident Moslems and others. Commission to settle questions of state property. Bulgarians travelling in Turkey subject to Ottoman laws.

Art. 13. A province is formed south of the Balkans which will take the name of “Eastern Rumelia,” and will remain under the direct political and military authority of His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, under conditions of administrative autonomy. It shall have a Christian Governor-General.

Art. 14. Boundaries of Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 15. His Majesty, the Sultan, shall have the right of providing for the defence of the land and sea frontiers of the province by erecting fortifications on those frontiers and maintaining troops there. Internal order is maintained in Eastern Rumelia by a native gendarmerie assisted by a local militia. In forming these corps, the officers of which are nominated by the Sultan, regard shall be paid in the different localities to the religion of the inhabitants.

His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, undertakes not to employ irregular troops, such as Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians, in the garrisons of the frontiers. The regular troops detailed for this service must not in any case be billeted on the inhabitants. When they pass through the province they shall not make a stay there.

Art. 16. The governor-general shall have the right of summoning the Ottoman troops in the event of the internal or external security of the province being threatened. In such an eventuality the Sublime Porte shall inform the representatives of the Powers at Constantinople of such a decision, as well as of the exigencies which justify it.

Art. 17. The governor-general of Eastern Rumelia shall be nominated by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers for a term of five years.

Arts. 18 and 19. Creating a European commission for the organisation of Eastern Rumelia.

Arts. 20 and 21. Concerning foreign relations, religious liberty and railway administration of Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 22. Regulations concerning Russian occupation of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. Evacuation of Rumania.

Art. 23. The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply, in the Island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868 with such modifications as may be considered equitable. Similar laws adapted to local requirements, excepting as regards the exemption from taxation granted to Crete shall also be introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe, for which no such organisation has been provided by the present Treaty. The Sublime Porte shall depute special Commissions, in which the native element shall be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each province. The schemes of organisation resulting from these labours shall be submitted for examination to the Sublime Porte, which, before promulgating the Acts for putting them into force, shall consult the European Commission instituted for Eastern Rumelia.

Art. 24. In the event of the Sublime Porte and Greece being unable to agree upon the rectification of frontiers suggested in the 13th protocol of the Congress of Berlin, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia reserve to themselves to offer their mediation to the two parties to facilitate negotiations.

Art. 25. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. The government of Austria-Hungary, not desiring to undertake the administration of the Sandjak of Novibazar, which extends between Servia and Montenegro in a southeasterly direction to the other side of Mitrovitz, the Ottoman administration shall continue to exercise its functions there. Nevertheless, in order to assure the maintenance of the new political state of affairs, as well as the freedom and security of communications, Austria-Hungary reserves the right of keeping garrisons and having military and commercial roads in the whole of this part of the ancient Vilayet of Bosnia.

Arts. 26-33. Recognition of the independence of Montenegro and regulations as to its boundaries, freedom of worship, debt, commerce and defence.

Art. 34. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of Servia, subject to the conditions set forth in the following Article.

Art. 35. Differences of religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in Servia; freedom of worship assured.

Art. 36. Boundaries of Servia.

Arts. 37-42. Concerning commercial relations and consular jurisdiction in Servia; railway administration and property rights.

Art. 43. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of Rumania, subject to the conditions set forth in the two following Articles.

Art. 44. Differences in religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in Rumania: freedom of worship assured.

Arts. 45-46. Concerning the cession of Bessarabian territory by Rumania to Russia and the addition of the Danubian Delta, etc., to Rumania.

Arts. 47-49. Concerning fisheries, transit dues and rights of foreign consuls in Rumania.

Art. 50. Reciprocity of consular rights between Turkey and Rumania. Transfer of public works in ceded territory.

Art. 52. In order to increase the guarantees which assure the freedom of navigation on the Danube, which is recognised as of European interest, the High Contracting Parties determine that all the fortresses and fortifications existing on the course of the river from the Iron Gates to its mouths shall be rased, and no new ones erected. No vessel of war shall navigate the Danube, below the Iron Gates, with the exception of vessels of light tonnage in the service of the river police and customs. The “stationnaires” of the Powers at the mouths of the Danube may, however, ascend the river as far as Galatz.

Arts. 53-56. Concerning the rights and duties of the European Commission of the Danube.

Art. 57. Rights of Austria-Hungary on the Danube.

Art. 58. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia, the territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batum, together with the latter port, as well as all the territories comprised between the former Russo-Turkish frontier and the following line:

[Here follows new boundary line between Russia and Turkey.]

Art. 59. His Majesty the Emperor of Russia declares that it is his intention to constitute Batum a free port, essentially commercial.

Art. 60. Restoration of Alaschkerd to Turkey: cession of Khotour to Persia.

Art. 61. The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds.

Art. 62. Pledge of Turkey to maintain the principle of religious liberty.

Art. 63. The Treaty of Paris, of March 30th, 1856, as well as the Treaty of London, of March 13th, 1871, are maintained in all such of their provisions as are not abrogated or modified by the preceding stipulations.

Art. 64. The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications exchanged at Berlin, within three weeks, or sooner if possible.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed it, and affixed to it the seal of their arms. Done at Berlin, the thirteenth day of the month of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight.

[Signatures.]

III

THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE

[An international conference of representatives of the principal powers of the world assembled at The Hague, May 18th, 1899, in response to a call issued by the Czar of Russia with a view to concerted action in regard to an amelioration of the hardships of war, the furtherance of the principle of the arbitration of international disputes, the maintenance of a general peace and the possible reduction of the world’s military and naval armaments. The states represented were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, Japan, France, Mexico, the United States, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Russia, Spain, Italy, Servia, Siam, the Netherlands, Rumania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Persia and Portugal. Sessions continued until July 29th, when the delegates embodied the conclusions reached in a final act for submission to the several states represented. This final act consisted of three conventions, three formal declarations and a series of six resolutions. The resolutions embodied an expression of the desire that certain unsettled points in regard to neutrals, contraband and so forth might be passed upon by an international tribunal at an early date. The conventions were (1) For the pacific settlement of international conflicts; (2) Regarding the laws and customs of war by land; (3) For the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention, August 22nd, 1864. The declarations had to do with (1) The prohibition of launching explosives and projectiles from balloons; (2) The prohibition of the use of projectiles diffusing poisonous gases; (3) The prohibition of the use of expanding or flattening bullets. The Conventions were signed at once by 16 powers, Germany, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, and several minor powers, withholding their assent temporarily but finally accepting them.]

A. CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

Title I--On the Maintenance of the General Peace

Art. 1. Agreement of powers to use best efforts to ensure peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Title II--On Good Offices and Mediation

Arts. 2-4. Recommendation of the principle of mediation, the exercise of which is never to be considered an unfriendly act.

Art. 5. The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

Art. 6. Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the parties at variance, or on the initiative of powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.

Art. 7. The acceptance of mediation not to hinder preparations for, or interfere with the prosecution of war.

Art. 8. Concerning special mediation.

Title III--On International Commissions of Inquiry

Arts. 9-13. Appointment and procedure of the Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 14. The report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited to a statement of facts, and is in no way the character of an arbitral award.

Title IV--On International Arbitration

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. ON THE SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION

Arts. 15-19. Recognition of the efficacy of arbitration conventions, and the implied engagement of loyal submission to the award.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. ON THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

Art. 20. Undertaking of the signatory powers to organise a permanent court.

Art. 21. The permanent court shall be competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special tribunal.

Art. 22. An international bureau, established at The Hague, serves as record office for the court, and the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the court. It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.

Art. 23. Selection of members of the court.

Art. 24. Arbitrators are to be chosen from the general list of members of the court. Alternative provisions in case of failure of direct agreement.

Art. 25. Seat of the tribunal to be ordinarily at The Hague.

Art. 26. The jurisdiction of the permanent court may within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-signatory powers, or between signatory powers and non-signatory powers if the parties are agreed on recourse to this tribunal.

Art. 27. Reminding powers of the existence of the court not to be considered an unfriendly act.

Art. 28. Institution and duties of a permanent administrative council to be composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland minister for foreign affairs, who will act as president.

Art. 29. The expenses of the bureau.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. ON ARBITRAL PROCEDURE

Arts. 30-31. Regarding agreement to submit to arbitration.

Art. 32. Failing the constitution of the tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued: Each party appoints two arbitrators and these latter together choose an umpire. In case of equal voting the choice of the umpire is entrusted to a third power, selected by the parties by common accord. If no agreement is arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different power, and the choice of the umpire is made in concert by the powers thus selected.

Arts. 33-38. Concerning umpires, seat of tribunal, counsel, and language.

Art. 39. As a general rule the arbitral procedure comprises two distinct phases; preliminary examination of documents, manuscripts and briefs and oral discussion of the agreements of the parties.

Arts. 40-51. Concerning procedure as to documents and arguments.

Art. 52. The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by a statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member of the tribunal. Those members who are in the minority may record their dissent when signing.

Art. 53. Publication of the award.

Art. 54. The award puts an end to the dispute definitively, and without appeal.

Art. 55. Concerning demand for a revision of the award on account of the discovery of new evidence.

Art. 56. The award binding only on parties who submitted to arbitration. Right to intervene of other nations parties to a convention interpreted.

Art. 57. Parties to arbitration to share expenses equally.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Arts. 58-60. Ratification and notification of ratification and the adherence of non-signatory powers.

Art. 61. In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing the present Convention, this denunciation would not take effect until a year after its notification made in writing to the Netherland government, and by it communicated at once to all the other contracting powers. This denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.

B. CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

[Here follow the names of the signatory powers and a statement of the reasons for and the necessities which have led to the following convention.]

Art. 1. Contracting powers to accept “Regulations” adopted by the present conference.

Art. 2. Regulations to be binding only in case of war between two contracting powers, and cease to be binding when a non-contracting power joins one of the belligerents.

Arts. 3-5. Concerning ratification by contracting powers, the adherence of non-contracting powers, and denunciation by a contracting power.

ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION

Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Section I--On Belligerents

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS

Art. 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to the armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions: I. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; II. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance; III. To carry arms openly; and IV. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the “army,” or form part of it, they are included under the term.

Art. 2. The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organise themselves in accordance with Article I, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. ON PRISONERS OF WAR

Arts. 4-12. Prisoners of war; their personal property, their imprisonment, utilisation of their labor, maintenance, recapture of escaped prisoners and parole.

Art. 13. Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who fall into the enemy’s hands, and whom the latter think fit to detain, have a right to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can produce a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were accompanying.

Art. 14. A bureau for information relative to prisoners of war to be instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the belligerent states, to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, to keep an individual return for each prisoner of war.

Arts. 15-16. Concerning rights and privileges of relief societies and information bureaus.

Art. 17. Officers taken prisoners may receive, if necessary, the full pay allowed them in this position by their country’s regulations, the amount to be repaid by their government.

Arts. 18-20. Right of prisoners to freedom of worship; wills; repatriation.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. ON THE SICK AND WOUNDED

Art. 21. The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22nd of August, 1864, subject to any modifications which may be introduced into it.

Section II--On Hostilities

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. ON MEANS OF INJURING THE ENEMY, SIEGES, AND BOMBARDMENTS

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it is especially prohibited: (a) To employ poison or poisoned arms; (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention; (g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country, are considered allowable.

Art. 25. Attack or bombardment of undefended towns prohibited.

Art. 26. Providing for warning before bombardment.

Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

Art. 28. Pillage of a town even when taken by assault prohibited.

[Chapters II-V, containing Arts. 29-41, are concerned with Spies, Flags of Truce, Capitulations, and Armistices.]

Section III--On Military Authority over Hostile Territory

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in her power to re-establish and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while representing, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Arts. 44-45. Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country or oath to the hostile powers is prohibited.

Art. 46. Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47. Pillage is formally prohibited.

Arts. 48-49. Right of hostile power to levy taxes, dues, and tolls in occupied territory for the administration of such territory.

Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

Art. 51. No tax shall be collected except under a written order on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief. For every payment a receipt shall be given to the taxpayer.

Art. 52. Neither requisitions in kind, nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country. These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. The contributions in kind shall as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.

Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and generally all movable property of the state which may be used for military operations. Railway plants, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, but they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid.

Art. 54. The plant of railways coming from neutral states whether the property of those states, or of companies or of private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible.

Art. 55. The occupying state shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country.

Art. 56. The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when state property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited.

Section IV--On the Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the Wounded in Neutral Countries

Arts. 57-60. Concerning the internment, detention and maintenance of belligerents, and of the sick and wounded of a belligerent in a neutral country. Application of the Geneva Convention.

DECLARATIONS

(I) The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.

(II) The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

(III) The contracting powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

The above declarations are only binding on the contracting powers in the case of a war between two or more of them. They shall cease to be binding from the time when in a war between the contracting powers, one of the belligerents shall be joined by a non-contracting power.

The non-signatory powers can adhere to the above declarations.

In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing the declarations, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the government of the Netherlands, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other contracting powers. This denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.

D. CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MARITIME WARFARE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF AUGUST 22ND, 1854

Arts. 1-5. Military hospital-ships owned either by a state or a private individual or society not to be considered belligerent.

Art. 6. Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having or taking on board, sick, wounded, or the shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture, for any violation of neutrality.

Art. 7. Concerning the inviolability of the religious, medical, or hospital staff of any captured ship.

Art. 8. Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected by the captors.

Art. 9. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war.

Art. 10. Concerning the treatment of the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities.

Art. 11. Concerning limitation, ratification, acceptance by a non-signatory power and denunciation of the above articles.

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. LAND AND PEOPLE AND EARLY HISTORY (to 1054 A.D.)

[b] A. LEROY-BEAULIEU, L’Empire des Tsars et les Russes.

[c] M. KOVALEVSKI, Russian Political Institutions.

[d] PROCOPIUS, Gothica seu Bellum Gothicum.

[e] MAURICIUS, Strategicum.

[f] LEO, Tacita seu de re militari.

[g] T. SCHIEMANN, Russland, Polen und Livland.

[h] NESTOR, Chronicle.

[i] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[j] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[k] ROBERT BELL, History of Russia.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. THE PERIOD OF THE PRINCIPALITIES (1054-1224 A.D.)

[b] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[c] T. SCHIEMANN, Russland, Polen und Livland.

[d] N. M. KARAMZIN, History of the Russian Empire.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

III. THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION (1235-1462 A.D.)

[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, Russian History.

[c] D. M. WALLACE, Russia.

[d] R. BELL, A History of Russia.

[e] S. M. SOLOVIOV, History of Russia from the Earliest Times.

[f] N. TURGENIEV, La Russie et les Russes.

[g] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[h] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, Russian History.

[i] A. BRÜCKNER, Geschichte Russlands.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. FROM IVAN THE GREAT TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1462-1584 A.D.)

[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, Russian History.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, Russian History.

[d] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, Geschichte des Russischen Staates.

[e] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[f] N. KARAMZIN, History of the Russian Empire.

[g] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[h] S. M. SOLOVIOV, History of Russia from the Earliest Times.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. THE CENTURY AFTER IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1584-1682 A.D.)

[b] PROSPER MÉRIMÉE, Demetrius the Impostor.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, Russian History.

[d] N. KARAMZIN, History of the Russian Empire.

[e] JEAN HENRI SCHNITZLER, L’Empire des Tsars au point actuél de la science.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[g] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[h] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, History of Russia from the Earliest Times.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VI. PETER THE GREAT (1682-1725 A.D.)

[b] VOLTAIRE, Histoire de Russie.

[c] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[d] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, Russian History.

[e] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[f] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, Geschichte des Russischen Staates.

[g] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[h] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, Readings from Russian History.

[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, History of Russia from the Earliest Times.

[j] AUGUSTE DE HAXTHAUSEN, The Russian Empire, its People, Institutions and Resources.

[k] CLAUDE CARLOMAN DE RULHIÈRE, Révolution de Pologne.

[l] C. A. DE LOUVILLE, Mémoires.

[m] IVAN GOLIKOV, The Acts of Peter the Great.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VII. CATHERINE I TO PETER III (1725-1796 A.D.)

[b] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, Russian History.

[d] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, Readings from Russian History.

[e] V. A. BILBASSOV, History of Catherine II.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, Historie de la Russie.

[g] R. NISBET BAIN, The Daughter of Peter the Great.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VIII. THE AGE OF CATHERINE II (1769-1796 A.D.)

[b] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, Readings from Russian History.

[c] V. A. BILBASSOV, History of Catherine II.

[d] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[e] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[f] ANTOINE DE FERRAND, Les trois démembrements de la Pologne.

[g] CATHERINE II, Memoirs.

[h] A. BRÜCKNER, History of Catherine II.

[i] THEODOR VON BERNHARDI, Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik in den Jahren 1814-1831.

[j] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[k] N. K. SHILDER, The Emperor Alexander I.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IX. RUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC EPOCH (1796-1815 A.D.)

[b] F. C. SCHLOSSER, Geschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts.

[c] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[d] R. BELL, History of Russia.

[e] R. GOSSIP, History of Russia.

[f] A. ALISON, History of Europe.

[g] N. K. SHILDER, The Emperor Alexander I.

[h] P. DE SÉGUR, History of the Expedition to Russia.

[i] A. MIKHAILOVSKI-DANILEVSKI, Vie du Feld-Maréchal Koutouzoff.

[j] T. VON BERNHARDI, Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik in den Jahren 1814-1831.

[k] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[l] F. H. SKRINE, The Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

X. ALEXANDER I, MYSTIC AND HUMANITARIAN (1801-1825 A.D.)

[b] N. K. SHILDER, The Emperor Alexander I.

[d] N. TURGENIEV, La Russie et les Russes.

[e] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[g] A. ALISON, History of Europe.

[h] F. H. SKRINE, The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900.

[i] STORCK, Russland unter Alexander dem Ersten.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XI. THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I (1825-1854 A.D.)

[b] N. K. SHILDER, The Reign of the Emperor Nicholas I.

[c] J. H. SCHNITZLER, La Russie, Ancienne et Moderne.

[d] W. K. KELLY, History of Russia.

[e] A. P. DE CUSTINE, La Russie en 1839.

[f] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[g] T. DELORD, Histoire du second Empire.

[h] P. DE LA GORCE, Histoire du second Empire.

[i] H. MARTIN, Histoire de la France depuis 1789 jusqu’à nos jours.

[j] A. A. SHUMAKR, The Czar Liberator.

[k] F. H. SKRINE, The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XII. ALEXANDER II, THE CZAR LIBERATOR (1855-1881 A.D.)

[b] A. RAMBAUD, Histoire de la Russie.

[c] D. M. WALLACE, Russia.

[d] A. A. SHUMAKR, The Czar Liberator.

[e] P. DE LA GORCE, Histoire du second Empire.

[f] ALEXANDER II, Manifesto or Proclamation.

[g] F. H. SKRINE, The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900.

[h] JULIUS ECKHARDT, Modern Russia.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us