favourable to the peasantry; but when they perceived that public opinion, as represented by the Press, went much further than the Government, they clung to these fundamental principles—­which secured at least the fee simple of the estate to the landlord—­as their anchor of safety.  Between the two parties arose naturally a strong spirit of hostility, and the Government, which wished to have the support of the minorities, found it advisable that both should present their projects for consideration.

As the Provincial Committees worked independently, there was considerable diversity in the conclusions at which they arrived.  The task of codifying these conclusions, and elaborating out of them a general scheme of Emancipation, was entrusted to a special Imperial Commission, composed partly of officials and partly of landed proprietors named by the Emperor.* Those who believed that the question had really been handed over to the Noblesse assumed that this Commission would merely arrange the materials presented by the Provincial Committees, and that the Emancipation Law would thereafter be elaborated by a National Assembly of deputies elected by the nobles.  In reality the Commission, working in St. Petersburg under the direct guidance and control of the Government, fulfilled a very different and much more important function.  Using the combined projects merely as a storehouse from which it could draw the proposals it desired, it formed a new project of its own, which ultimately received, after undergoing modification in detail, the Imperial assent.  Instead of being a mere chancellerie, as many expected, it became in a certain sense the author of the Emancipation Law.

     * Known as the Redaktsionnaya Komissiya, or Elaboration
     Commission.  Strictly speaking, there were two, but they are
     commonly spoken of as one.

There was, as we have seen, in nearly all the Provincial Committees a majority and a minority, the former of which strove to defend the interests of the proprietors, whilst the latter paid more attention to theoretical considerations, and endeavoured to secure for the peasantry a large amount of land and Communal self-government.  In the Commission there were the same two parties, but their relative strength was very different.  Here the men of theory, instead of forming a minority, were more numerous than their opponents, and enjoyed the support of the Government, which regulated the proceedings.  In its instructions we see how much the question had ripened under the influence of the theoretical considerations.  There is no longer any trace of the idea that the Emancipation should be gradual; on the contrary, it is expressly declared that the immediate effect of the law should be the complete abolition of the proprietor’s authority.  There is even evidence of a clear intention of preventing the proprietor as far as possible from exercising any influence over his former serfs.  The sharp distinction between the land occupied by the village and the arable land to be ceded in usufruct likewise disappears, and it is merely said that efforts should be made to enable the peasants to become proprietors of the land they required.