collected by Mr. Heber approaches very nearly to the exact truth, with the exception of a few mistakes so unimportant. that we think it unnecessary to rectify them.-After recommending this extract to our readers, we shall content ourselves with adding a few reflections, to render more evident the misstatements of Dr. Clarke.

The Russian army is entirely composed of those peasants, who are represented as groaning under oppression, and suffering all the horrors of privation and famine. If the condition of these people were such, how happens it that charged as they are, with the external defence of the empire, as well as with the maintenance of tranquillity in the interior, they have never made an effort, in concert with their fellow sufferers, to change this monstrous order of things? Where shall we find the principle of those military virtues, which the greatest detractors of Russia concede to her soldiers, if it be not in their attachment to their native country? The existence among them of this patriotic sentiment, is plainly demonstrated by the rarity of desertions in our service, even when our armies are in foreign territories, where the soldier is enabled to make comparisons, in many instances unfavourable to what he has seen at home; by the heroic courage he invariably displays in the most terrible combats-by his constancy in supporting every hardship during the longest campaign;-by the unshaken perseverance with which he follows the national banners. Surely, such sentiments cannot flourish in the hearts of soldiers, drawn from amidst a herd of slaves devoted to misery,--and it would be the height of imprudence, we think, to confide to them the defence of a country, which bestows on them nothing but a choice of bitter sufferings.

The political events which marked the close of the year 1806, unexpectedly brought the theatre of hostilities upon the frontiers of the empire, and afforded a test of its moral energies. The interior was left entirely without regular troops, and the preservation of the existing order of things was abandoned to the "victims of oppression." Not only did undisturbed tranquillity continue to prevail, without the slightest symptom of discontent among the millions of serfs, who compose three fourths of the Russian population,-but the idea was conceived and partly executed, of raising a national militia of more than 500,000 men, a portion of whom actually took part in the military operations, which immediately preceded the peace of Tilsit. That slavery, therefore, such as we find it in Russia, should be by any means as oppressive, as Dr. Clarke pretends, is incredible. Had he been more attentive VOL. III.

P

in his observations, he would have discovered that the absence of positive laws, or rather the insufficiency of existing regulations, to limit personal slavery, is in a great degree compensated, by the effects of the nationality common to the master and the serf. Both have the same origin, the same language, the same religion, the same customs and habits, and in some measure the same prejudices;-both are alike subject to the irresistible control of an absolute government, watchful to prevent the abuse of power on the part of the superior. Those masters who are guilty of excessive severity, are either deprived of the administration of their property, which is then confided to the nearest kinsman, or else are made to receive the value in money, and their estates are annexed to the domain of the crown. In the instructions given to the governors of the provinces, they are always particularly enjoined, to be vigilant in respect to the commission of such abuses, and to inform the government of them without loss of time. The extract from Mr. Heber's journal (p. 133,) will show that the liberal views of the administration are not always unattended with success. We can assure our readers, that the account of the confinement of the countess Soltikoff in a convent, as a punishment for her cruelty, is perfectly authentic.

Notwithstanding the alleviation of personal slavery in Russia, it is confessed, that there yet remains much to do, before the great work of emancipation is completed. Time has given to this evil the character of an inveterate malady, not to be cured, but by slow and circumspect treatment. The first steps towards this invaluable object, were made in the commencement of his present imperial majesty's reign,—and the friends of humanity will learn with satisfaction, that they authorize the most sanguine expectations of success.

By an ukase of 20th February 1803, the general principles on which the emancipation of serfs, shall henceforward be effected, are established.-Among the provisions of this memorable act, is one particularly deserving attention, which declares that no deed of enfranchisement between master and serf shall be valid, until it has received the emperor's approbation. By additions to this ukase, which were promulgated in 1804, government has facilitated the execution of deeds of enfranchisement, by considerably abridging the legal forms, and diminishing the costs and charges of registration.

When a village is enfranchised, the proprietor must abandon

The object of this clause, is to prevent extortion on the part of the masters, in cases where the serfs are able to purchase their freedom.

at the same time to its inhabitants, the entire property in all the lands appertaining to it.

Such are the fundamental principles on which is established the emancipation of serfs in Russia. We are firmly persuaded of their efficiency, and we experience lively gratification while informing our readers, that the stimulus to the benevolent law of February 20th, 1803, was given by a nobleman, Count Serge Roumianzoff, who set the example, by liberating two hundred peasants, to whom he abandoned all the lands belonging to the village they inhabited, without receiving any retribution whatever. He was soon followed by numerous imitators, and as early as 1805, the reports of the Minister of the Interior stated at 16,000 individuals of both sexes, the list of serfs who had received their freedom.* The law now recognizes them, under the denomination of free culti

vators.

The government has thought proper to go still further in the province of Livonia, where the authority of the landlords over their serfs, had from its extent, occasioned several intolerable abuses. A committee composed of members of the Livonian nobility, was ordered to prepare a system of regulations, which should fix with precision, the respective obligations of masters and vassals. The work received the imperial sanction on the 20th February, 1804, and the Livonian peasantry, formerly in a worse condition than any others of the same class in Russia, have acquired rights, which completely shield them, from the arbitrary treatment of their landlords.

We here terminate our remarks, on the observations which a residence of four weeks at Moscow, had enabled Dr. Clarke to make. In noticing the misrepresentations which abound in every chapter of his book, we have selected those which were particularly injurious to the moral character of our country.It would have been impossible to refute every charge, without entering into a tedious train of repetitions;-but we indulge the hope, that what has been said will suffice to determine the opinions of our readers, with respect both to his competency and credibility as a witness. In the remainder of the book we have found nothing new relative to the morals of the Russians, whom he had already anathematized in his preface.His observations are marked throughout with the same deep tinge of prejudice.-The geographical and statistical details

* We have not at hand any official documents of a later date than the above-but from facts which have come to our knowledge, it is highly probable that the number has considerably increased since 1805.

which he has given, are to be found in all the elementary treatises on Russian geography;-it is even very easy to procure that marine chart of the coasts of the Crimea, which he has presented as a treasure precious and rare, to the British admiralty.

The absurdities advanced by Dr. Clarke on the origin of the Don Cossacks, and his exaggerations of the conduct of our countrymen in the Crimea, are ably refuted in the Quarterly Review, c. 8. vol. 4, to which we refer the reader; we will add on this subject but a few general reflections, which shall close the irksome task we have undertaken.

To the praises of the Don Cossacks we cordially subscribe. In spite of the efforts of our traveller to represent them as a distinct nation, we see in them only brothers and fellow-countrymen. They speak the same language, profess the same religion and practise the same customs. We rejoice at finding them, an exception to the general reprobation he bestows on Russia. But we cannot as readily admit the moral superiority attributed to them. Hitherto no Cossack has ever distinguished himself in the sciences or the arts, or even in mechanic pursuits.-In whatever has been done in these respects, throughout the empire, the Cossacks have had no share whatever.-Dr. Clarke has consequently committed an error, in exalting them over their fellow-subjects, as to the qualities of mind, and is equally incorrect with regard to the pretended enmity existing btween them.-To the Cossacks is confided the guard of the frontiers on every side;-the advanced posts are always theirs in the Russian armies. How has it happened that this confidence has never been betrayed; that vengeance has never been exercised upon their oppressors?

As to the conquest of the Crimea and the deeds of violence which followed, we certainly will not undertake to justify them on the principles of rigid morality; but we think at the same time, that of all the acts of a similar nature which history records, there is none more excusable on the ground of political necessity, than the one in question. The Tartars, whose fate excites so much of Dr. Clarke's commiseration, were nothing more than the remnant of those innumerable barbarians, who after having twice ravaged Russia with sword and fire, held her, during two hundred years, in the most oppressive subjection. After their yoke was shaken off, by the conquest of Casan and Astrachan in the sixteenth century, these Tartars, driven back upon the Crimea and the adjacent provinces, retained their pristine and mortal enmity to the Russians. They were always the faithful allies of the Turks,

and their precursors in all the wars, which took place between the two empires, until the peace of Kainardji in 1774, gave a decisive ascendancy to Russia in those countries. Even this ascendancy was insufficient to protect altogether the Southern provinces of the empire, from the incursions of the Tartars, who from a conformity of religion and ancient habits, retained a marked partiality for the Ottomans. The possession of the Crimea became therefore indispensable, if it be true that security is the supreme law of nations; and we find in it, politically speaking, nothing reprehensible but the circumstances which accompanied the conquest. When these are said to surpass in atrocity, the horrors which have lately desolated Spain and Switzerland-we must observe, that no treaty of alliance offensive and defensive, united the Russians and Tartars previously to the occupation of the peninsula;—that the latter, far from being the faithful allies of Russia, had in every instance, been prodigal of their blood and their treasures, in the cause of her enemies, and consequently that there exists a most material difference between the objects of comparison.

Here again we are struck with the contradictions of our author. After informing us that the Russians "laid waste the country-cut down the trees-pulled down the houses," &c., (p. 380) he tells us, that in his visit to the Karaite Jews he was "highly entertained-by the singularity of having found one Jewish settlement, perhaps the only one upon earth, where that people exist secluded from the rest of mankind, in the free exercise of their ancient customs and peculiarities." (p. 387.) And further, (p. 422,) “ Soon after the capture of the Crimea, precisely at the time of terrible earthquakes in Hungary and Transylvania, a large portion of the immense cliff above the vil lage of Kutchuckoy fell down, and buried it. The late Empress caused the place to be restored at her own expense, indemnifying the inhabitants at the same time, for the losses they had sus

tained."

66

As Dr. Clarke has undertaken to explain on several occasions the meaning of Russian words, and to determine their pronunciation and orthography, we think ourselves obliged to correct some of his errors, in order to show the degree of confidence he ought to inspire as a linguist.

The Russian sandals are not called Labkas, but lapti. The word Célo or Sélo, (p. 140,) does not signify a church, but a village in which there is a church. Speaking of the capital of the Don Cossacks which he calls Tscherkaskoy instead of

sherkask, its true name, he with great gravity, announces that "the terminating syllable Koi signifies a town," whereas