of the large landowners, he remarked in the year 1847 that the aristocracy had rights in the soil but not in the men upon the soil. The alleged right to treat men as chattels had been secured solely through craft and deception on one side and ignorance on the other, and it was on account of serfdom that Russia was devoid of industry and commerce. It is recorded that upon his death-bed Nicholas commended the task of liberation to his son.
The reasons for the vacillation and indecision displayed by Nicholas are readily comprehensible. The tsar recognised that the foundation of his absolutism was serfdom. Count Uvarov, too, had made this exceedingly plain when he declared slavery to be the basis of aristocracy. According to Uvarov's conception of politics, autocracy, monarchy itself, had the same historic basis as the right to hold men in serfdom. Everything that had existed before the days of Peter had passed away, serfdom alone excepted, and to tamper with serfdom would be to shatter the entire edifice. Uvarov uttered warnings against any attempt to diminish the rights of the nobles over the serfs. Were this done, the aristocracy would become discontented and would seek compensation. The only source of compensation, said this tsarophil aristocrat, was to be found within the sphere of autocracy.
Other landowners, some of them friendly to the peasantry, recognised that there was an intimate connection between slavery, aristocracy, and tsarism. Such a landowner was Kiselev, who often discussed the matter with the tsar. Upon sentimental and rational grounds Kiselev favoured the liberation of the peasantry, but considered that it was essential to avoid allowing liberation to lead to democratisation. As regards the problem whether the enfranchised peasant should or should not be granted rights in the land, he recommended a middle course. The peasant should be given personal freedom, and in return for enfeoftment with a moderate area of land should have to perform definitely specified services. Kiselev recommended this plan because he considered that to liberate the peasants without giving them land would serve merely to create a class of proletarians, whereas to liberate them and at the same time to grant them absolute possession of the land they tilled would "destroy the independence of the nobility and would establish democracy."
Monarchy, and above all absolute monarchy, is no more
