ALEXANDER II. AND THE "ERA OF GREAT REFORMS" The reign of the "liberator" of serfs and Bulgarians ended with his assassination by terrorists (1855-1881). His personality partly accounts for this tragic contradiction. Alexander was a man of weak character, but good-natured and well-intentioned. He possessed no steadfast views on politics and during the reign of his father he sometimes surpassed Nicholas in reactionary in tentions. But the Crimean War proved too clearly the danger of Nicholas' martinet system and public opinion was too impetuous for Alexander to resist. He swam with the current, and this period coincides with the "great reforms" which made his reign a turn ing point in Russian history. But Alexander was always conscious of his power as unlimited monarch, and his liberalism ended as soon as his reforms brought with them a revival of political or autonomous tendencies. He then began to waver; the reforms were left unachieved or curtailed. Public opinion grew impatient; extremist tendencies won the ground, and the gap between the Government and advanced opinion finally became insuperable. As a consequence, the original impulse for reform was exhausted as early as 1865. There followed a period of faltering which turned into a sheer reaction as the revolutionary movement grew.
Relief of the Serfs.—The greatest achievement of the era of reforms was the liberation of peasants. It paved the way for all other reforms and made them necessary. It also determined the line of future development of Russia. The chief motive which decided Alexander is clearly expressed in his words to the Moscow gentry: "The present position cannot last, and it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait till it begins to be abolished from below." However, Alexander met with passive opposition from the majority of the gentry; their very existence as a class was menaced. The preparatory discussion lasted from 1857 to March 1859 when the "drafting commissions" of the "main committee" were formed, composed of young officials en thusiastically devoted to the work of liberation—such as Milyutin and Soloviev and their Slavophil friends Samarin and Prince Cherkasski. Rostovtsev, an honest but unskilled negotiator, en joying the full confidence of the emperor, was mediator. The pro
gramme of emancipation was very moderate at the beginning, but was gradually extended under the influence of the radical Press and especially Herzen's Bell. But Alexander wished that the initiative should belong to the gentry and he exerted his personal influence to persuade reluctant landowners to open committees in all the provinces, while promising to admit their delegates to discussion of the draft law in Petersburg. Not less than 46 provincial com mittees containing 1,366 representatives of noble proprietors were at work during 18 months preparing their own drafts for emanci pation. But they held to the initial programme, which was in con tradiction with the more developed one. The delegates from the provincial committees were only permitted—each separately—to offer their opinion before the "drafting committees." Unfortu nately, Rostovtsev died in Feb. 186o. Alexander who already feared that he had gone too far in his concessions appointed as his successor Count Panin, a reactionary. Under his influence the pro posed allotments of land to peasants were diminished and the rents were increased. However it was impossible to change the main lines of the draft. By the law of Feb. 9 (March 3) 1861 the peasant became personally free at once, without any payment, and his landlord was obliged to grant him his plot for a fixed rent with the possibility of redeeming it at a price to be mutually agreed upon. In that case the Government paid at once to the landowner the whole price (in 5% bonds) and the peasant had to redeem his plot by payments to the exchequer during 49 years. Although the Government bonds fell to 77% and purchase was made voluntary, the great majority of landowners—very often in debt—preferred to get the money at once and to end relations which had become insupportable. By 188o only 15% of the peasants had not made use of the redemption scheme, and in 1881 it was declared obligatory. The landowners tried, but in vain, to keep their power in local administration. The liberated peasants were organised in "village communities" governed by elected Elders.