138 LUDnied by compensation payments for the peasant. Even so, mass clearances were
so common that they had to be controlled by legislation. The class of landless
agricultural labourers multiplied rapidly. The last group of serfs - the peasants
of the smaller private estates under 25 morgs (6.4 hectares) — were released from
their obligations in 1850. Overall, therefore, the process of Emancipation in
Prussia was harsh but relatively swift. In some ways it resembled the contem-
porary campaign for Enclosures in England, but it telescoped the pains and
stresses into four decades. In Austria, personal freedom and possession of the
land were granted to the peasants outright at one stroke, by the Imperial Act of
7 September 1848. Within nine short years, over half a million Galician estates
were transformed. In this case, the landlords were compensated by the govern-
ment, which recouped its expenses through a new land tax levied on lord and
peasant alike. Unfortunately, in the haste of the moment, the landlord's title to
woods and meadows was upheld, and no attempt was made to resolve the con-
fusion surrounding the serwituty (minor feudal services not involving labour)
and the propinacja (the peasant's obligation to buy liquor in the lord's tavern).
As a result, disputes dragged on for the rest of the century. In Russia, serfdom
lasted longest of all. The ukaz of 1846, and its successor in 1858, made token
attempts to encourage rentification, but did little to satisfy growing demands. It
was left to Alexander II to realize that if measures were not taken by the gov-
ernment 'from above', then the peasants would take measures into their own
hands 'from below'. In territories incorporated into the Russian Empire, full
Emancipation was granted by the ukaz of 3 March 1861. In the Congress
Kingdom, it became embroiled in the politics of the January Rising. Here, in
face of a peasantry which had enjoyed personal freedom for half a century and
which was being offered attractive terms by the land decrees of the secret
Insurrectionary governments, the Tsar could not afford to hold back. The ukaz
of 18 March 1864, was notably generous. Russian policy followed the Austrian
example, seeking political advantage from social concessions and compensating
the landlords from funds created by new taxation. (See p. 000.)
In the short term, the immediate, visible effects of Emancipation were slight.
As a result of the 'adjustments', less than half of the farmland actually passed
into peasant hands - 48.9 per cent in the Congress Kingdom in 1864; whilst 46
per cent remained in the hands of the hereditary landowning class. From the
economic point of view, the peasant still lived at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-
vis his former master. Only the wealthier element in the village benefited
directly. If, over the next thirty years, some peasants were able to increase their
holdings, purchasing lands from their indigent neighbours, both gentlemen and
peasants, others could not prosper. The number of landless peasants quadru-
pled. Many of these had no option but to leave the village for ever. No clear
solution was offered to the problem of the serwituty. Many villages lost all right
to graze their cattle in the manorial pasture, or to cut timber in the manorial for-
est. Their chances of successfully prosecuting their squire in court were slim.
Friction, disputes, and chicanery persisted. No clear advantage was gained by