+-----------------+---------------------_The Economics of the Russian Village

| | Classes of Farms (per cent.). |

| +-----------------------+-----------------------+

| | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitsk. |

|Number of Workers+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

| | the |Average| the | the |Average| the |

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

|None | 61 | 33 | 6 | 49 | 44 | 7 |

|One | 25 | 59 | 16 | 29 | 56 | 15 |

|Two | 3 | 56 | 41 | 7 | 60 | 33 |

|Three | 1 | 22 | 77 | 3 | 25 | 72 |

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

| Total | 16 | 50 | 34 | 18 | 51 | 31 |

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

[101]

+-------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+--------+

| | Stopped working on | Stopped tilling one part |

| | their farms. | of their farms. |

+-------------+----------+---------+----------------+---------+

| | | +---------+------+ |

| | | In the | All | All | In the |

+-------------+----------+---------+---------+------+---------+

|Zadonsk | 95 | 25 | 73 | 13 | 7 |

|Korotoyak | 95 | 15 | 62 | 16 | 8 |

|Nizhnedevitsk| 96 | 13 | 65 | 27 | 13 |

+-------------+----------+---------+---------+------+---------+

As shown by these figures, the percentage of householders who are

unable to till the full size of their farms is twice as large among

those with one horse as in the region at large; moreover, this

transitional class of weak householders consists chiefly of those with

one horse.

[102]

_Districts._ _“Horseless,” _With 1 horse, _In all,

per cent._ per cent._ per cent._

_Gubernia of

Voronezh_--

Zadonsk 25 40 65

Korotoyak 13 32 45

Nizhnedevitsk 13 32 45

_Gubernia of

Ryazañ_--

Ranenburg 36 27 63

Dankoff 34 25 59

[103] The following tables are fully conclusive as regards the rise and

growth of this class:

I. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS TO ONE

HOUSEHOLD (TOTAL IN EVERY CLASS = 100.)

+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

| | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitsk. |

| +-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

+-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

|With 3 or more workers | 89 | 2 | 88 | 2 |

|With 2 workers | 86 | 6 | 82 | 5 |

|With 1 worker | 73 | 19 | 65 | 20 |

|Without workers | 24 | 72 | 30 | 60 |

+-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

| In all | 78 | 15 | 74 | 13 |

+-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

|In the Gubernia of Ryazañ| 57 | 36 | 59 | 34 |

| +-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

| | Ranenburg. | Dankoff. |

+-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

II. CLASSIFICATION THE SAME (ALL “STOPPED WORKING,” ETC. = 100.)

+-----------------------+---------------------------------+

| | Stopped working on their farms. |

| Households. +----------------+----------------+

| | Korotoyak, | Nizhnedevitsk, |

| | per cent. | per cent. |

+-----------------------+----------------+----------------+

|With 3 or more workers | 2 | 2 |

|With 2 workers | 12 | 14 |

|With 1 worker | 62 | 67 |

|Without workers | 24 | 17 |

+-----------------------+----------------+----------------+

| In all | 100 | 100 |

+-----------------------+----------------+----------------+

[104]

+-------------------+----------------------------------+----------------+

| | Families numbering | All told. |

| +--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

+-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

|The farmer’s family| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |1.8 | 0.4 | 2.2 |

|Hired laborers | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 |1.0 | 0.2 | 1.2 |

+-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

| Total workers | 1.2 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 4.5 |2.8 | 0.6 | 3.4 |

|The farmer’s family| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |2.0 | 0.5 | 2.5 |

|Hired laborers | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 |0.8 | 0.4 | 1.2 |

+-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

|Total workers | 1.0 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 4.4 |2.8 | 0.9 | 3.7 |

+-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

[105]

+---------------+----------+------------------------+

| |Villages | Employing farmers. |

| |in the +---------------+--------+

+---------------+----------+------+--------+--------+

|Korotoyak | 128 | 829 | 4 | 6.5 |

|Nizhnedevitsk | 147 | 1067 | 5 | 7.3 |

+---------------+----------+------+--------+--------+

[106] The farms of the average size (from 5 to 15 dessiatines), or

those below the average size, are not available for the purposes of

comparison, since the figures are influenced by yet another agent,

_viz._, by the lack of land, leaving a narrow field for even the labor

of the farmer himself.

[107]

+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+

| | Households separated within |

| +-------------------------+--------------------------+

| | | |

| Districts. | The decennial periods | The quinquennial periods |

| +------------+------------+-------------+------------+

| | 1868-77, | 1878-87, | 1878-82, | 1883-87, |

+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+

| Zadonsk | 30 | 36 | 17 | 19 |

| Korotoyak | 22 | 35 | 17 | 18 |

| Nizhnedevitzk | 27 | 39 | 18 | 21 |

+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+

[108]

+---------------+----------------------+--------------------------+

| | | Tilling their plots with |

| | | their own stock and |

| Districts. | Households of yearly | implements. |

| | or season laborers. +-------------+------------+

+---------------+----------------------+-------------+------------+

| Korotoyak | 1891 | 1315 | 70 |

| Nizhnedevitzk | 2313 | 1912 | 83 |

| Zadonsk | 2733 | 1558 | 57 |

+---------------+----------------------+-------------+------------+

[109]

+----------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

| | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. |

| To 1 household upon +----------+----------+----------+----------+

+----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

| Total membership | 2 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.4 |

| Employed outside | 1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 |

| +----------+----------+----------+----------+

| Remain at home | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 |

+----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

[110]

_Zadonsk._ _Korotoyak._ _Nizhnedevitzk._

Total permanently employed 100 100 100

Households with 1 full worker 64 33 38

Stopped working on their farms 43 33 17

[111] _Kulak_ means “fist”; _miroyed_ means “_mir_ fretter.” These are

nicknames for the village usurer and saloon keeper.

[112] Gleb Oospensky stood alone in his skepticism, opposing his

ironical smile to the universal illusion. With his perfect knowledge of

the peasantry, and his extraordinary artistic talent that penetrated

to the very heart of the phenomena, he did not fail to see that

individualism had become the basis of economic relations, not only

as between the usurer and the debtor, but among the peasants at

large.--_Cf._ his _Casting in one mould (Ravnenie pod odno), Russkaya

Mysl_, January, 1882.

[113] In the _Reports for the gubernia of Ryazañ_, column 36 of the

General Table, states “the area of land held in property by every 10

shareholders of the communal land,” and column 42, the respective data

with regard to lease. The figures have no practical value unless it is

assumed that all members of the community have their shares in the land

acquired in property, or held under lease. In reality, however, the

contrary is the case.

[114]

+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

| Classes. +-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+

| | House-| Per | House-| Per | House-| Per |

+-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+

|Employers | 609 | 4 | 829 | 4 | 1067 | 5 |

| yearly or per season) | 2733 | 17 | 1891 | 9 | 2313 | 12 |

+-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+

|Total peasant population | 15704 | 100 | 20282 | 100 | 20072 | 100 |

+-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+

[115] Households with 2 and those with 3 horses are counted together

in the tables; yet given the number of horses, the membership of every

group, is found by solving two equations with two unknown quantities.

[116] There are, all told, 103 households of traders who do not work on

their farm, _i. e._, 8 per cent. of all the traders, or 0.5 per cent.

of the total peasant population of the district of Korotoyak.

[117] We find among the traders a large minority whose farms do not

exceed the average; still the lack of communal land is made up by the

greater development of tenure, as shown in the following table:

+---------------------+------------+------------+--------------+

| D. of Korotoyak. +------+-----+------+-----+ upon an |

+---------------------+------+-----+------+-----+--------------+

| 1 to 5 dessiatines | 59 | 5 | 48 | 81 | 5.9 |

| 5 to 15 ” | 444 | 35 | 311 | 70 | 8.6 |

| 15 to 25 ” | 392 | 31 | 288 | 73 | 9.7 |

| above 25 ” | 370 | 29 | 271 | 73 | 17.3 |

| +------+-----+------+-----+--------------+

| Total | 1265 | 100 | 918 | 73 | 11.4 |

+---------------------+------+-----+------+-----+--------------+

[118]

_Farmers

_Households._ merely. _Traders.

Per cent._ Per cent._

Without adult male workers .. 3

With 1 adult male worker 29 24

With 2 adult male workers 40 33

With 3 or more adult male workers 31 40

---- ----

Total 100 100

[119]

+-------------------------------+-------------------+------------------+

| |Employing farmers. |Laborers employed.|

| +------+------------+-------+----------+

+-------------------------------+------+------------+-------+----------+

|Traders | 296 | 22 | 43} 59| 1.5 |

|Mere farmers | 161 | 8 | 16} | 1 |

|In all the rest of the district| 372 | 2 | 41 | 1.1 |

| +------+------------+-------+----------+

| Total | 829 | 4 |100 | 1.3 |

+-------------------------------+------+------------+-------+----------+

[120]

_Households of trading farmers._ _Employing permanent

laborers, per cent._

With 3 or more adult male workers 16

With 2 or less adult male workers 25

Total 22

[121]

+--------------------------+---------------------+---------+

| | | In the |

| | In the class. |district |

| Stopped working | |at large.|

| on their plots. +-----------+---------+---------+

+--------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+

|Horseless | 2471 | 90 | 13 |

|With 1 horse | 256 | 9} 10 | 32} 87 |

|With 2 horses or more | 33 | 1} | 55} |

| +-----------+---------+---------+

| Total | 2760 | 100 | 100 |

+--------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+

The class almost coincides on the whole with the so-called “horseless:”

“_Horseless._” _Households._ _Per cent._

Traders 68 3 } 8

Tilling their plots 143 5 }

Stopped tilling their plots 2471 92

---- ----

Total 2682 100

The 10 per cent. who stopped tilling their plots, though owning 1

horse or more, as well as the 8 per cent. who manage to till their

plots without working horses, make (each of these sections) only about

1 per cent. of the peasantry of the district. Thus, in identifying

the proletarians with the “horseless,” the error is of the kind to be

neglected, to use the mathematical term.

[122]

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

| +---------+---------+---------+

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

|Landless | 11 } 48| 11 } 48| 2 } 16|

|Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 37 } | 37 } | 14 } |

|Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 42 | 43 | 50 |

|Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 9 } 10| 8 } 9 | 25 } 34|

|Owning above 25 dessiatines | 1 } | 1 } | 9 } |

| +---------+---------+---------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |

| | | | |

| To 1 household, dessiatines | | 7.2 | 14.4 |

| To 1 adult male worker, ” | | 7.9 | 8.3 |

+--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

[123]

+---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

| +---------+---------+---------+

+---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

|Without adult male workers | 24} 86 | 17} 85 | 5} 51 |

|With 1 adult male worker | 62} | 68} | 46} |

|With 2 adult male workers | 12} 14 | 13} 15 | 30} 49 |

|With 3 or more adult male workers| 2} | 2} | 19} |

| +---------+---------+---------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |

| Adult male workers | | 0.9 | 1.7 |

| Half-workers | | 0.2 | 0.4 |

| Males and females | | 3.8 | 7.4 |

+---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

[124]

_Proletarians. _Korotoyak. _Nizhnedevitzk.

(Stopped tilling their plots)._ Per cent._ Per cent._

Farm laborers 48 50

Miscellaneous 39 40

No steady employment 13 10

---- ----

Total 100 100

[125]

_District of Korotoyak, “Horseless.”_ _Rubles._ _Per cent._

Gross income from farming 40610 24

Wages 122604 72

Odd jobs 6719 4

------ ----

Total 169933 100

[126]

_“Horseless,” Korotoyak._ _Receipts. _Expenses.

Rubles._ Rubles._

Gross income from farming 40610

Taxes 33738

Rent 1046

Wages paid 1144

------ ------

Total 40610 35928

Balance (2682 households) 4682

------ ------

40610 40610

Balance to 1 household (money

revenue) 1.75

[127]

_District of Zadonsk._ “_Horseless._”

_Households._ _Per cent._

Feeding on the bread produced on their farms:

All the year through 771 30

9 months 531 21}

From 6 to 9 months 358 14} 44

From 1 to 6 months 220 9}

Purchasing bread all through the year 665 26

---- ----

Total 2545 100

[128]

_Farm cultivated by _Farming stopped

_Districts._ hired labor. altogether.

Per cent._ Per cent._

Zadonsk (total proletarians = 100) 69 31

Korotoyak ” 67 33

Nizhnedevitzk ” 74 26

Ranenburg ” 64 36

Dankoff ” 64 36

[129] This is the rate of these avowed proletarians within the total

peasant population:

_Districts._ _Per cent._

Zadonsk 8

Korotoyak 5

Nizhnedevitzk 3

Ranenburg (landless included) 15

Dankoff ” ” 15

Of these, a greater percentage find employment in industry, as compared

with the proletarians who cultivate their plots by means of hired labor:

_Districts and classes._ _Industrial laborers. _Farm laborers.

Per cent._ Per cent._

_Korotoyak_:

“Husbandless” 51 39

Farming proletarians 34 53

_Nizhnedevitzk_:

“Husbandless” 48 44

Farming proletarians 37 53

Industrial proletarians are steadily carried away by the growing

movement out of the rural districts. Thus it may be reasonably assumed

that only one-half of the pure-blooded proletarians remain in the

village. This constitutes from 2 to 8 per cent. of the population.

Relative rates, however, are sometimes misleading without reference to

the absolute numbers. 2 per cent. of a 100-million population convey

the illusion of a two million strong rural proletariat with pronounced

class interests. Still we know that they are dissipated in villages

with an average inhabitancy of 62 households (_cf._ above page: 50,429

communes with 3,309,020 households). Now the maximum 8 per cent. of 62

households means only 5 proletarian families, and the minimum 2 per

cent., only 1 proletarian of the European type to a village. It seems

to show that there can be no proletarian class spirit (“_proletarisches

Klassen-bewusstsein_”) in the Russian village of to-day.

[130]

+--------------------+--------------------------------------+---------+

| | Households. (Per cent.) | Horses |

| Classes in the +------+------+-------+-------+--------+ to 1 |

+--------------------+------+------+-------+-------+--------+---------+

|Trading farmers | | 12 | 25 | 27 | 36 | 3.2 |

|Farmers merely | | | 45 | 38 | 17 | 2.8 |

|Farmers--laborers | | 40 | 37 | 15 | 6 | 1.8 |

| | | | |__________________| | |

|Proletarian laborers| 90 | 9 | 1 | 0.1 |

+--------------------+------+------+------------------------+---------+

[131]

_Households._

_D. of Korotoyak._ _With net profit. _With deficit.

Per cent._ Per cent._

Male workers to 1 household--

None .. 3 } 73

One 29 70 }

Two 41 } 71 23 } 27

Three or more 30 } 4 }

[132]

_Households._

_D. of Korotoyak._ _With net profit. _With deficit.

Per cent._ Per cent._

Size of the farms--

Less than 5 dessiatines .. 15

From 5 to 15 dessiatines .. 79

From 15 to 25 dessiatines 72 6

Above 25 dessiatines 28 ..

--- ---

Total 100 100

_Dessiatines._ _Dessiatines._

Average to 1 household 24.4 10.6

” to 1 adult male worker 11.5 8.3

[133]

_Section A. _Section B.

_D. of Korotoyak._ Per cent._ Per cent._

_Landholding_--

Households owning

Less than 5 dessiatines 15 10

From 5 to 15 dessiatines 79 52

From 15 to 25 dessiatines 6 28 } 38

Above 25 dessiatines .. 10 }

--- ---

Total 100 100

_Live stock_--

Households

Without working horses .. 1} 40

With 1 working horse 49 39}

With 2 working horses 36} 38}

With 3 working horses 13} 51 16} 60

With 4 or more working horses 2} 6}

---- ----

Total 100 100

[134]

_Gross income per worker._ _Rubles._

Section _A_ 66.17

Section _B_ 54.29

[135]

_Section A. _Section B.

_Households (D. of Korotoyak)._ Per cent._ Per cent._

Without adult male workers 3} 73 1} 39

With 1 adult male worker 70} 38}

With 2 adult male workers 23} 27 37} 61

With 3 or more adult male workers 4} 24}

---- ----

Total 100 100

[136]

_Class II., Section B._

Workers and half-workers 23110

Employed without their farms 16299

------

Working exclusively on their farms 6811

Total households 10016

[137] In the table below the percentage of old men is contrasted in

the several groups of landholders, with a view to the division of the

peasantry into the classes above mentioned:

-----------------+---------------------------+---------+-----------------

| Classes. | |Old men above 60.

Households +--------+----------+-------+Total +------+----------

| I. | II. | III. | | |of house-

-----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------

Landless | .. | .. |11 } | 2 } | 1} | 9

| | | } 48| } 16 | } 8 |

Owning from 1 to | 2 | 11 |37 } | 14 } | 7} | 7

| | | | | |

15 dessiatines | 14 | 60 |42 | 50 |41 | 11

| | | | | |

Owning from 15 to| 56 } | 22 } | 9 } | 25 } |31} | 17

25 dessiatines | } | } | } | } | } |

| } 84| } 29| } 10| } 34 | } 51|

Owning above 25 | 28 } | 7 } | 1 } | 9 } |20} | 28

-----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------

Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 14

-----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------

The relative number of old men above 60 is four times greater in the

uppermost than in the lowest class of landholders (28:7). The absolute

number of old householders belonging to the two lowest classes is the

half of the average in the district (8:16), while the uppermost class

numbers twice as many householders as the average, and in the two

upper groups taken together the number of old householders exceeds

the average by 50 per cent. (51:34). Now, the bulk of the class of

strong farmers is made up of these two groups, and one-half of the old

householders range among the very same groups, constituting there a

very noticeable minority. On the contrary, one-half of the proletarians

range among those groups in which old people cut no figure numerically.

[138] The above statements are based upon the following numerical data:

+--------------------+----------------------------------+------------+

| | One part leased. | |

| +------+---------------------------+ |

| |House-+-------+-------+-----------+ |

+--------------------+------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+

| dessiatines | .. | 20.7 | 9.9 | 10.8 | 17.6 |

| dessiatines | .. | 9.7 | 5 | 4.7 | 8.9 |

| dessiatines | .. | 5 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 4.9 |

| dessiatines | .. | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 |

| +------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+

| Total | .. | 6 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 4.9 |

| | | | | | |

| or more | 10 | 38.1 | 9 | 29.1 | 10.7 |

| horses | 226 | 11.8 | 5.6 | 6.2 | 5.9 |

|Having 1 horse | 909 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3.6 |

|Having no horse | 877 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 2.6 |

| +------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+

| Total | 2022 | 6 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 4.9 |

+--------------------+------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+

If we consider the first series specified according to the size of the

farms, we notice that the lessors, with their plots somewhat above the

average, are falling into the next lower classes with regard to the

extent of their farming. On the other hand, given the quantity of live

stock, the extent of cultivated land remains constant. The lessors are

those whose plots equal the standard of the higher class, while by the

quantity of their live stock they are on a par with the lower class.

The 10 households with 4 horses to each make an exception, the area

cultivated by them considerably exceeding the average. There may be a

few more households of the same kind, which are hidden in the average

figures; on a whole, however, such households are only an exception to

the rule.

As to the extent of the farms leased _in toto_, the following figures

need no comment:

_Average extent of cultured land

to 1 household (dessiatines)._

_Zadonsk._ _Korotoyak._

Total plot leased 2.2 2.5

In the region at large 4.6 5.8

_Percentage of families _Percentage of leased land

to population._ to the total communal land._

_Ranenburg_:

Leasing their plots--

1) Total 12 } 10

2) Partly 14 }

_Dankoff_:

Leasing their plots--

1) Total 11 } 8

2) Partly 13 }

[139] _Cf._ Chapter III.

[140] It appears from the following table that among the higher classes

of landholders, tenure of peasant plots is represented by a higher

percentage than tenure from landlords, while the latter kind of tenure

is stronger among the lower groups of landholders:

+-------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+

| | Tenants. | Land in tenure. |

| | Per cent. | Per cent. |

| Classes and districts. +---------+---------+---------+---------+

+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

|Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 38 | 31 | 28 | 21 |

|Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines| 52 | 51 | 48 | 48 |

|Owning above 15 dessiatines | 10 | 18 | 24 | 31 |

| +---------+---------+---------+---------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |

| | | | | |

|Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 13 | 13 | 10 | 8 |

|Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines| 53 | 48 | 38 | 38 |

|Owning above 15 dessiatines | 34 | 39 | 52 | 54 |

| +---------+---------+---------+---------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |

| | | | | |

|Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 25 | 15 | 23 | 9 |

|Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines| 52 | 49 | 41 | 42 |

|Owning above 15 dessiatines | 23 | 36 | 36 | 49 |

| +---------+---------+---------+---------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |

+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

[141] Peasant land held in lease for long terms:

+-------------+--------------------------+----------------------------+

| | Lessees. | Land. |

| +-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+

| | | = 100). | | = 100). |

+-------------+-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+

|Zadonsk | 179 | 5 | 801 | 8 |

|Korotoyak | 400 | 7 | 4090 | 22 |

|Nizhnedevitsk| 238 | 4 | 1061 | 6 |

+-------------+-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+

[142] _Rental Prices per 1 Dessiatine._

_In yearly lease._ _For long terms._

_Districts._ _Rubles._ _Rubles._

Zadonsk 9.34 6.28

Korotoyak 8.45 5.81

Nizhnedevitsk 8.71 6.17

[143]

+---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+

+---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+

|Rented for long terms| 4090 | 100 | 5.81 | |

|Re-rented | 990.5 | 24 | 7.14 | 23 |

|Rented for long terms| 1061 | 100 | 6.17 | |

|Re-rented | 138 | 13 | 10.09 | 63 |

+---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+

We find, however, some cases wherein communal land was used for the

purposes of farming on a large scale. The community was bound to

combine the plots annually into one tract for the use of the lessee,

who was often a merchant and a stranger to the community (_Statistical

Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, Vol. II., Part I., p. 272, No. 6;

p. 283, No. 5; p. 301, No. 5.)

In a few cases chronic arrears in taxes compelled the community itself

to lease tracts of communal lands, usually pasture, to be converted

into arable land. “The village ‘Dubki,’ Dankoff, was destroyed by

fire in 1861, and the peasants delayed paying the tallage, which was

levied through the sale of the rest of their chattels. Public sales

continued at intervals until 1872, when they were stopped by the

community through the lease of 50 dessiatines of meadow and pasture to

be converted into arable.” (_Loc. cit._, Part II., p. 199, No. 4.)

“In the village Plemyannikovo, Dankoff, arrears in the tallage gave

rise to repeated auction sales of the peasants’ chattels. In 1865 the

community resolved to let out 150 dessiatines, and has since been

unable to stop leasing.” (_Loc. cit._, p. 249, No. 6, _Cf._, also p.

210, No. 7.)

Exceptional as these cases are, they show nevertheless that the

ownership of land by the village community does not preclude the

possibility of capitalistic farming upon communal fields.

[144] In a series of articles which appeared first in the

_Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_ (monthly) subsequently published in book

form under the heading “_Community and Tax_.”

[145] The poll-tax did not exceed 1.60 rubles, and constituted but

a very small portion of the entire amount of taxes levied. It was

replaced by indirect taxes upon articles of peasant consumption.

Besides, though the capitation tax proper was repealed, the system

of taxation _per capita_ remained in force in the shape of the other

direct taxes levied upon the peasant.

[146] Such was indeed the case in the village of Voskresenskoye,

bailiwick Kochurofskaya, Dankoff, in which the plots of the emigrants

were distributed in the subdivision among all the members of the

community, notwithstanding the fact that the term of lease had not yet

expired. (_Loc. cit._, part II., p. 236.)

[147] It is very questionable whether there is any action at law at all

for the lessee in similar cases. The plot is held by the lessor under a

precarious title, and the lessee may be supposed to have been cognizant

of the risk.

[148] It is peculiar to find quite obsolete sentimentalism with regard

to the Russian _mir_, among even Russian writers of reputation with

the English public. We read in a recent issue of an English magazine:

“Voting and ballot are unknown to Russian peasants, and every question

is decided unanimously by means of mutual concessions and compromises,

as in united families.”

Lost paradise!

A few concrete cases are produced here by way of elucidation:

1. Village Pokrovskove, bailiwick Yeropkinskaya, Dankoff: “About ⅓ of

the householders are in good standing, the rest are destitute. The

former deal in communal lots. The debate over subdivision is very warm;

about 5 of the votes necessary to constitute the two-thirds majority

are lacking.” (_Loc. cit._, Part I., p. 202, No. 15.)

_Householders._ _Number._ _Per _Votes._

cent._

Total allotted 140 100 Total.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In good standing (tilling

their total plots) 52 37 Against the subdivision.

Destitute 88 63 In favor of the subdivision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

93 66⅔ Vote required.

93 - 88 = 5 Votes deficient.

(_Cf. ib._, p. 16.)

2. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, district of Dankoff: “The question of

subdivision is brought up for discussion in only three communities.

In none of the others does it attract serious attention. In all

probability this is to be accounted for by the unsatisfactory quality

of the soil, as well as by the great number of families who have at

length fallen into destitution and lease their lots.” (_Loc. cit._,

part II., p. 211.)

Let us now compare the figures:

_Householders _Lessors._

_Former serfs._ _Communities._ allotted._ _Number._ _Per cent._

Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya 15 372 79 21

Throughout the districts

(former serfs) 25

It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for

the bailiwick in question, it holds good _a fortiori_ for the region at

large, where the average percentage of lessors is even greater.

The correctness of this explanation is strikingly proved by the figures

for the adjacent bailiwick Znamenskaya, Dankoff.

_Householders _Lessors._

_Communities._ allotted._ _Number._ _Per cent._

Subdivision out of order 15 370 167 45

(_Loc. cit._, pp. 248, 110-129.)

As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other

half, the latter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were

it not so, however, a unanimous vote of the farming half could not

possibly effect the redivision.

3. Village Troitzkoye, the same bailiwick, Ranenburg, “There is some

talk about subdivision, yet it is very hard to have it passed here.

A good many are so impoverished that they show no interest in the

question of increasing the amount of their land, for, in any event, it

would have to be let out; while the redivision would bring prejudice

to the lessees, and there are many of them.” (_Loc. cit._, part I., p.

310.)

Let us show it in figures:

_Householders._ _Number._ _Per cent._

Total allotted 187 100

Vote required for redivision 125 66⅔

Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots) 44 23

Opposition sufficient to stay the same 18 10

Having 2 horses or more 36 20

(_Loc. cit._, pp. 130, 131.)

4. Village Kunakovo, b. Zmievskaya, Dankoff, “The peasants live in

great poverty. Redivision is talked about; it is much checkmated by the

fact that many among the householders are permanently living outside.”

(_Loc. cit._, p. 254.)

Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11

lease their lots _in toto_; 9 among them have no houses in the village;

23 adult males are working outside.

After deduction of the 11 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not

live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority

even in case of unanimity. Yet they are divided as follows:

_Householders._ _Personally._ _By hire._ _In all._

Tilling their lots--

Total 9 2 11

In part (the rest leased) 2 4 6

-- -- --

11 6 17

Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (_Ib._, pp.

128-132.)

If there is no antagonism to the redivision, then indifference on the

part of some is but natural.

5. Village Sergievskoye, Ranenburg, “Most of the ‘horseless’ half of

the village are working exclusively outside. A good many are in arrears

for taxes. Their lots are taken from them by the community and given

to the wealthiest householders. This tends greatly to still further

enrich the few at the expense of the many. In 1863 about one sixth of

the bailiwick (300 ‘revision males’) emigrated to the _gubernia_ of

Stavropol, Caucasus, leaving their lots to the community. The land was

distributed among the best-situated householders. All of the emigrants,

save 15 families, have now come back, but the _mir_ refuses to return

their lots. This is the case with the emigrants in all the communities

of the district. It is very difficult to settle the matter of the

redivision, for the people are always away at work, and the redivision

is opposed by the most influential householders, who keep in their

hands the lots of the former emigrants and delinquent tax-payers.”

(_Loc. cit._, part I., p. 305,)

These are the figures connected with the above statement:

_Per cent._

Horseless 54

Outside workers 56

(_Ibid._, pp. 116-120.)

Apart from the opposition of the lessees, it is hardly ever possible to

get even a simple majority to vote upon the redivision.

[149] Bailiwicks Naryshkinskaya, Karpovskaya, Nikolskaya, Vednovskaya,

and Zimarovskaya, district of Ranenburg; b. Spasskaya, Loshkovskaya,

and Yagodnovskaya, district of Dankoff, and some scattered communities

all over the region.

[150] _Cf. loc. cit._, Part I, p. 288, No. 4; p. 310, No. 2.

[151] So far as I am aware from the newspapers, the land was afterward

redistributed in the communities of a number of _gubernias_ of Middle

Russia.

[152] These views were expounded by Mr. V. V. in a series of articles

which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, in 1880 and 1881, and

were published in 1882, in book form, under the title: _The Destinies

of Capitalism in Russia_.

[153] This question was put by Mr. Michaïloffsky, a very renowned

Russian publicist, in his article: “_Karl Marx on trial before Mr.

J. Zhukoffsky_,” which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_,

1877. An answer to this criticism, in letter form, was found in the

posthumous papers of Karl Marx, and was published in Russian, first by

the revolutionary press, and subsequently in the _Juridichesky Vestnik_

(Juridical Herald, monthly), Moscow, 1888.

[154] Mr. V. V. himself, in the preface to his book, placed his

confidence in Russian autocracy, which appeared to him particularly

adapted to the carrying out of social reforms in favor of the masses.

The Russian bicephalous eagle soars in his majesty high above the

classes, whereas constitutional government is avowedly a class rule

promoting the interests of the _bourgeoisie_. This was a correct

translation from the Prussian into the Muscovite of Rodbertus’ motto:

“_Christlich, monarchisch, sozial!_” Whether this declaration of

allegiance was not inspired to the peasantist author rather by the

reading of the Statute of Censorship, is open to question. It is sure,

however, that the adherents of the doctrine within the ranks of the

“party of the _Narodnaya Volya_” (“The Will of the People”) did not

share in this enthusiasm for the blessing of autocracy bestowed by

history upon the chosen Russian nation.

[155] With regard to the condition of agriculture on a large scale,

reference will be made in this chapter to the _Statistical Reports for

the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., district of Voronezh. The tables

contain detailed data, (62 columns) on each of the 279 estates of the

district, which exceed in size 50 dessiatines (135 acres).

[156]

+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------------+

| Division of the | landlord. | for money | in crops. +-------+-----+

| estates. +------------+------------+------------+Dessia-| Per |

+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+

| Rye | 12615 | | | | |

| Wheat | 4573 | | | | |

| +------------+ | | | |

| | 17188 | 7221 | 917 | 25326 | 33 |

| II. Spring seed | 19995 | 6787 | 1194 | 27976 | 36 |

|III. Left unsown | 24292 | | | 24292 | 31 |

| +------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+

| Total | | | | 77594 | 100 |

+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+

This classification bears upon 89.5 per cent. of the total area of

ploughland; the deficient 10.5 per cent. concern the land which is held

in large tenure, but yearly re-rented in small plots to the peasants.

[157] This is the comparative development of stock breeding on large

estates and on peasant farms, in the district of Voronezh:

_Dessiatines

_To 1 head of big cattle._ of tillage land._

On peasant farms 2.0

On estates over 50 dessiatines 7.9

We know that the fields of the peasants are very insufficiently

manured. The opportunities for large estates do not appear more

favorable. The extent to which land is fertilized on the estates is

shown by the following figures:

_Arable land._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._

Yearly under culture 61882 100

Yearly manured 3431 5.5

The fertilizing of 1 dessiatine requires 6 heads of big cattle (_op.

cit._, p. 92.) Thus we have:

_Head of _Per

_Used to manure the fields on the estates._ big cattle._ cent._

Total, 3431 dessiatines × 6 heads 20586 100

Total stock of the landlords 11010 53

------ ----

Stock of the peasants 9576 47

In a word, nearly one half of the manure used on large estates is

procured by the small farmers who are compelled to neglect their own

fields. Quite a number of statements to this effect are produced in the

Appendices to the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_.

[158] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., p.

234.

[159] The total of this table exceeds the total of plough land in large

estates by 1119 dessiatines, which amounts to 2 per cent. of the whole

area, and could by no means influence the inferences drawn from the

table. The difference concerns small tenure, on which the statements

are slightly at variance with those of the large landholders.

Peasant tenure in the district is represented by the following figures:

_Rented for money rental._ _Dessiatines._

In all 25992

Tenements over 50 dessiatines 474

-----

Small tenure 25518

Held from small estates (of under 50 dessiatines) 1292

-----

Held from large estates (of over 50 dessiatines) 24226

(_Cf._ _op. cit._, p. 251, column 18; p. 273, col. 65. Upon tenure for

share in crops, p. 251, col. 14, and cols. 55-56 on pp. 276-335.)

[160]

_Ploughland in small tenure._ _Dessiatines._

In all 25309

Manured 51

This topic was very fully discussed by Prof. Engelhardt in his _Letters

from the Village_.

[161]

+-------------------------+-------+-------------+----------------------+

| with large |Number.|Average size,+------------+---------+

+-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+

|The fields fertilized | 146 | 686 | 33809 | 91 |

|The fields not fertilized| 44 | 215 | 3373 | 9 |

| +-------+-------------+------------+---------+

| Total | 190 | 577 | 37182 | 100 |

| | | | | |

|Estates in small tenure | 64 | 244 | | |

+-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+

[162] As for peasant agriculture; _Cf._ _loc. cit._, p. 101.

[163]

+------------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

| | Planted with wheat. | Fertilized. |

| +------------+---------+------------+----------+

+------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+

| a) land not fertilized | 136 | 3 | | |

| b) land fertilized | 4437 | 97 | 2216 | 50 |

|Without culture of wheat| | | 1164 | |

| +------------+---------+------------+----------+

| Total | 4573 | 100 | 3380 | |

+------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+

[164]

+------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+

+------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+

| Without working horses | 48 | 13103 | 12 | 273 |

| With working horses | 142 | 96512 | 88 | 680 |

| |---------+------------+----------+------------+

| Total | 190 | 109615 | 100 | 577 |

+------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+

[165] Wherever ploughs are in use, we find from two to three horses to

one plough upon an average; it shows that the horses are raised with

the avowed purpose of driving the plough. Such is the case with most

of the horses found on large estates. Ploughs without horses are kept

only in exceptional cases. Furthermore, we notice that those estates on

which ploughs are used are the largest. The smaller estates are tilled

with the primeval peasant _sohá_, ploughs being only too seldom used by

the peasantry. The figures are found in the following tables:

------------------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------------

A. Estates | |Total extent.|Average | Horses (or oxen).

with large | +-------+-----+(Dessiatines).|----+-------+-------

agriculture. |Num-|Dessia-|Per | +--------+Num-|To 1 |To one

------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------

horses | 70 | 33672| 33 | 481 | | 544| 7.8 |

| | | | | | | |

a) with working | 72 | 62840|63} | 873 | 454 |1087| 15.1 | 2.4

horses | | | }67| | | | |

b) with oxen | 2 | 3966| 4} |1983 | 37 | 34| 17 | 0.9

+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------

Total |144 | 100478| 100 | | 491 | | |

------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------

----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

| | | Ploughland tilled |

| | | by the owner. |

| | | (Dessiatines.) |

B. Ploughs | Average estate. |Ploughs. |---------+---------|

----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

By the landlord | 903 | 491 | 44764 | 91 |

By the laborer | 369 | 115 | 16710 | 145 |

(_l. c._ p. 97.)| | | | |

+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

Total | 577 | 606 | 61474 | 101 |

----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

[166] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, vol. I.,

pp. 17-18. By “property of the capitalistic class,” is understood

all estates belonging to merchants, whatever may be the size of the

holding, as well as every estate above 50 dessiatines, whatever may

be the legal status of its owner (merchant, burgher or peasant). All

holdings below this size, except those owned by the noblemen and

merchants, are included in the class of small property. The idea of

this classification is to divide historical landed property of the

nobility from landholding for mercantile purposes, as well as from that

in which the owner may be supposed to be himself the tiller of his land.

[167] _Ibid._, pp. 28-29.

[168] “Honorable citizenship” is awarded, under certain provisions, to

merchants in old standing. Others than merchants cut no figure in this

class.

[169] The socialistic aversion of the Russian peasantists to the

“exploiters” was somewhat tainted with the patrician prejudices

against the merchant. The Russian magazines were crammed with touching

descriptions of how the poetry of a shadowy oak alley in the old

garden of the noble slave-owner was ruthlessly sacrificed in favor

of prosaic timber by the boorish parvenu (_tchoomáziy_). It was

universally believed that the merchant who engaged in land tenure was

something of a dynamiter, whose element was destruction for the mere

devilish voluptuousness of destruction. To devastate the forests while

re-renting the land to the peasant at an exorbitant interest--this

appeared to be the only aim of the merchant. Statistical investigations

did away with these naive conceptions. Here are some of the facts

brought to light by the Ryazañ census:

1. _Bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, d. Ranenburg._ “The lack of land to rent

is keenly felt. The condition of the communities under discussion has

grown much worse as compared with former years. The main reason thereof

is the considerable decrease in the area leased by landlords and the

rise of rental prices, which is closely connected with the passage of

the estates of the nobility into the hands of merchants through either

sale or lease.” (_L. c._, vol. II., part I., p. 282. No. 3-4, 6-9.)

2. _Village Prosech’ye, same district._ “Since their former master sold

his estate to the merchant, neither land nor easements are to be got

anywhere. The new owner cultivates everything for himself.” (_L. c._,

p. 305, No. 13.)

3. _Village Cheglokovo, b. Vednovskaya._ “The condition of the peasants

grew much worse after their former master sold his estate, about

1870, to a merchant, who has almost entirely stopped leasing land.

The master, on the contrary, used to lease much of his land, and the

peasants assert that they then made a pretty good living.” (_Ib._, p.

325, No. 5. _Cf._, also, Nos. 6, 7.)

4. _B. Troitskaya._ “Tenure is a rare exception, since the landlords

either carry on their own farming or have leased their estates to big

farmers, who cultivate everything for themselves.” (_Ib._, p. 309.)

5. _B. Hrushchovskaya, Dankoff._ “All the landlords in the neighborhood

either carry on their own farming, or have leased their estates to

merchants, who cultivate solely for themselves. The peasants can

positively get no land for rent, except a small tract of meadow.” (_L.

c._, part II., p. 208. _Cf._, also bailiwick _Ostrokamenskaya_, p. 211,

and b. _Odoevskaya_, p. 230.)

[170] More particulars as to the availability of these averages for

purposes of comparison are produced in the Appendix, Table VII.

[171] 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.

[172] _Cf._ Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890, p. 335.

[173] _Cf._ _Le commerce de grains dans l’Amérique du Nord_, par Paul

Lafargue.

[174] The inference is drawn from the figures below:

_Estates with large agriculture._ _Number._ _Average. _To 1 plough.

Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._

Property of the nobility:

Estates with ploughs 54 1044 91

Estates without ploughs 79 428 ..

Property of the capitalist class:

Estates with ploughs 20 520 93

Estates without ploughs 47 191 ..

With the nobility the average estate tilled exclusively with the

peasant _sohá_ is more than twice as large as the corresponding average

with the capitalist class.

On the other hand, the capitalist provides his farm with ploughs when

the same is only half as large as that on which the noble could afford

to have improved implements.

[175] The following is a synopsis of the results of the above

comparison between capitalist ownership of land and property of the

nobility:

+--------------+--------------------+--------------+--------------------+

| Negative +----------+---------+ Positive +----------+---------+

+--------------+----------+---------+--------------+----------+---------+

|Small tenure | 128 | 273 |Large farming | 289 | 734 |

| | | | | | |

|Tilled by | 108 | 233 |Proletarian | 351 | 783 |

| | | | | | |

|No fertilizing| 138 | 280 |Fertilizing | 363 | 816 |

| | | | | | |

|Tilled with | 138 | 326 |Working horses| 326 | 896 |

| | | | | | |

|No wheat | 197 | 501 |Wheat grown | 478 | 898 |

| | | | | | |

|Tilled with | 191 | 428 |Ploughs | 520 | 1044 |

+--------------+----------+---------+--------------+----------+---------+

Backward management by capitalists is found only within the average

limits from 108 to 197 dessiatines (292-532 acres), while the same

methods are still practiced by noblemen so long as the estate averages

from 233 to 501 dessiatines (629-1353 acres). Progress begins on

capitalistic farms as soon as they reach the average of from 289 to 520

dessiatines (780-1404 acres), while on those owned by the nobility,

improvement is observed only within the average limits of from 734 to

1044 dessiatines (1892-2819 acres). This plainly points to the lack

of money as the only reason which prevents the petty nobleman from

practicing the same methods as those applied by the capitalist as soon

as he takes possession of the same estate.

[176]

_Districts._ _Communities._

Ranenburg 340

Dankoff 313

Ostrogozhsk 250

Zadonsk 197

Korotoyak 124

Nizhnedevitsk 161

----

Total 1385

[177] A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with

regard to agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, _La

Famine en Russie_, in the _Revue d’Economie Politique_, 1892, No. 7.

The apologists of the “historical friendship” pattern, should carefully

read Chapter III.: _Qu’est ce qui a été fait pour relever l’agriculture

en Russie?_ One can there get the knowledge of some very conclusive

facts which it is, of course, impossible to come across during a rapid

trip through a vast country like Russia. The paper referred to should

gain in authority by the fact that it was read before a meeting held at

Emperor Alexander’s Lyceum of St. Petersburg, (to which only the sons

of the highest dignitaries of the State or the offspring of the most

aristocratic families are admitted,) and--last, not least--by the fact

that it was published in France, which is now _plus Tzariste que le

Tzar_.

[178]

_Loans granted._ _Rubles._

By the nobility’s Crédit Foncier, to January 1, 1892 328,000,000

By the Peasant’s Bank, to January 1, 1891 56,140,438

[179] “On small _crédit foncier_.” _Otechstvenniya Zapiski_ (monthly),

1883.

[180] “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p.

105--_Russkaya Mysl_ (monthly), February, 1892.

[181] _Ibid._, pp. 107, 108.

[182] In some of the _gubernias_ failures were even more extensive:

_Percentage to the total in the gubernia._

_Gubernias._ _Land forfeited._ _Loans failed._

Penza 39.34 48.80

Poltava 34.36 33.53

Voronezh 31.13 33.36

Kursk 25.22 30.81

These are moreover the very _gubernias_ in which the Bank operated most

extensively. (_Ibid._, p. 100.)

[183] Loans granted by the Bank:

_Rubles._

In 1884 9,529,368

” 1885 13,761,978

” 1886 11,148,850

” 1887 7,495,197

” 1888 5,133,539

” 1889 3,692,133

” 1890 4,519,209

----------

Total 56,140,438

(_Ibid._, p. 103.)

[184] The normal size of a peasant farm, which is above referred to,

was calculated in Chapters II. and X. These are the respective figures:

_Normal extent _Actual _Excess of the

Districts. of landholding, average, normal over

Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._ the average,

per cent._

_Ranenburg and Dankoff_:

(Communities of which all the

members are farmers taken

as the normal.)

To 1 “revision” male 5.0 3.4 +47

_Korotoyak_:

(Farms with net profit taken as the

normal.) To 1 adult male worker 11.5 8.3 +39

The extent of landholding in the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ (districts

of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of

the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while the

_gubernia_ of Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character

of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the

southeastern prairies.--(_Cf._, Prof. Janson’s _Essay of a Statistical

Investigation, etc._, App., pp. 12, 13, Table II. [bis]). Should we

fix the increase of landholding needed by the peasants at 40 per

cent. in the _gubernias_ of the famine stricken sections of Middle

Russia (Voronezh, Kazañ, Kursk, Orel, Penza, Ryazañ, Samara, Saratoff,

Simbirsk, Tamboff, Tula), the area lacking would compare as follows

with that purchased through the Peasant’s Bank (_Cf._, Herzenstein, _l.

c._, p. 104):

_Dessiatines._ _Per cent._

Land wanting 12,070,484 100

Land purchased through the Bank (from April,

1883, up to January 1, 1890) 1,579,391 13

Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need

of land in 8 _gubernias_ of the same section, at 17,124,321 dessiatines

(_l. c._, April, 1883, p. 178), which is about ten times as much as the

land acquired through the Peasant’s Bank.

[185] “Russian famines and the measures of the Government against

them,” by Prof. Romanovitch-Slavatinsky, _University Records_, Jan.,

1892, pp. 40, 61 (monthly publication of St. Vladimir University,

Kieff.)

[186] The war of 1877 caused a depreciation of the paper ruble from 80

per cent. to 60 per cent. It never got above that figure until 1890,

when the enormous harvest unexpectedly raised its exchange value to 80

per cent., the rate that had prevailed before the war.

[187] The first chapters of this essay were written when the famine

of 1891-92 had reached its climax. Now, while these concluding lines

are being printed, the Russian papers have brought official reports

of a failure in 11 _gubernias_, of which 5 are of the number of those

affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). The

_Zemstvos_ have applied to the government for appropriations for the

next seed.

[188] A delay in the payments was lately granted to the debtors of

the Nobility’s Bank in the famine stricken region, for the purpose of

saving numerous estates from being sacrificed at forced sale.

[189] In the tables that follow we have availed ourselves of some

of the figures produced in a very interesting article, in which the

consequences of the famine are discussed on the ground of the data

recently published by the Statistical Bureau of the _gubernia_ of

Samara. (_Cf._ “The consequences of the failure of the crops in the

_gubernia_ of Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in the _Russkaya Zhizñ_

[daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).

The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:

_Lost. _Remains.

_Bailiwicks._ Per cent._ Per cent._

Ivanteyeffskaya 74 26

Lipovetzkaya 67 33

Novotoolskaya 67 33

Koozabayeffskaya 61 39

Shintinoffskaya 45 55

Etc.

The heavy losses suffered by the peasantry have enormously accentuated

the existing inequalities of distribution of live stock. This is

evidenced in the village Dergoonofka, d. of Nicholayeff, which figured

in 1887 among the wealthiest villages, 3.5 working horses being the

average to a household (nearly twice as much as in the districts above

examined). These are the comparative data for 1887 and 1891:

+--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+

| | 1887. | 1891. | Decrease. |

| Households (total: 745). +-----------|-----------+----------------+

+--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+

| “Horseless” | 5 } | 29 } | +480 } |

| With 1 horse | 14 } 19 | 29 } 58 | +107 } +205 |

| | | | |

| ” from 2 to 3 horses | 32 } | 28 } | -12 } |

| ” 4 horses | 14 } 81 | 7 } 42 | -50 } -48 |

| ” 5 or more horses | 35 } | 7 } | -80 } |

| +-----------+-----------+----------------+

| Total | 100 | 100 | |

+--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+

Such was the condition of the peasantry as early as in October, when

the famine was still at its very beginning. Concentration of communal

land in the hands of a few wealthy lessees is reported by the Bureau as

an immediate result of the famine, but the respective figures are not

cited in Mr. Vodovozoff’s paper.

[190] We read in a communication from the district of Voronezh that

“there is hardly one-fourth of the live stock left.… Thanks to the

enfeebled condition, as well as to the complete loss of the peasants’

horses, many among the landlords, and larger tenants, have secured live

stock of their own.” _The Agriculturist_ (St. Petersburg), No. 26,

April 24 (May 6), 1892.

Says another correspondent, also a landlord: “This year the greatest

part of the farm work was to be done with the landlord’s live stock, it

being impossible to get peasants for the purpose, as they had suffered

a heavy loss of horses.” (_Ib._, No. 33, June 12 (24), 1892.)

[191] Fertilizing and irrigation have become a necessity in Russian

agriculture. Let us figure the expenses entailed by these improvements.

We know that manure is procured for the landlord’s fields by the

decaying small farmer. The ruin of the latter necessitates an outlay

of capital by the landlord for the purchase of live stock. Now, to

fertilize the fields once in three years, 2 heads of big cattle are

required per dessiatine of arable land, which would cause an expense

of 78.96 rubles per dessiatine. (_Cf._, _Statistical Reports for the

Gubernia of Voronezh_, Vol. II., Number II., App., pp. 44-45.) Here

we have the Achilles heel of the Russian landed nobility. The land

acquired by the peasants with the aid of the Peasants’ Bank sold at an

average price of rubles 43.41 the dessiatine. (Herzenstein, _l. c._,

p. 104). The cost of fertilizing alone exceeds the total value of the

land; it could consequently not be conducted on a large scale by means

of funded loans.

The conditions are similar in the case of irrigation. Mr. Vladimir

Biriukowicz, a writer in the _Russkaya Mysl_, quotes a few instances

of how artificial irrigation has increased the rental value of the

estates from 3 rubles to 15, and even 25 rubles yearly per dessiatine.

Moreover, and this is of greater importance, amidst the surrounding

failure, the irrigated estates were blessed by excellent crops.

According to Mr. Daniloff, a civil engineer, irrigation had raised the

productivity of ploughland by from 15 to 20 per cent., and of meadow by

100 per cent., while the cost of construction did not exceed 60 rubles

per dessiatine. (_l. c._, April 1, 1892, _Protection and Agriculture_,

pp. 2, 3.) Certainly there is nothing exorbitant in the expense;

still it likewise requires an outlay of capital exceeding the value

of the land, and this, in the opinion of a practical agriculturalist,

must be accounted for as the chief reason of the indifference of the

landlords in the matter of irrigation. (_Cf._, “Topographical Surveying

for irrigation works,” by V. Kasyanenko. _The Agriculturist_, St.

Petersburg, No. 47, 1892). Thus the progress of artificial irrigation

means the ruin of the nobleman.

[192] I am glad to know that this is the opinion advanced by so high

an authority in political economy as Mr. Frederick Engels, one of

the few Western students familiar with the Russian language. (_Die

Neue Zeit_, 1892.) So far, however, as my case is concerned, I claim

independence of judgment. I wrote in an editorial, dated December 20,

1891: “The consequences of this famine are equivalent to a revolution

in the social organization of the Russian village.… The development

of capitalism in agriculture, the dissolution of the peasantry into

two distinct groups: a rural _petite bourgeoisie_, and a rural

proletariat--these are the characteristics of a new epoch in Russia’s

social life.” (_Cf._, _Progress_, No. 3, a Russian weekly published at

the time in New York.)

[193] This economic revolution seems to be one of more than merely

national import. Up to the present day the American farmer has met the

Russian peasant on the international market, either as small farmer,

or as cultivator of the greater part of the landlords’ property. In

this competition the greater economy of labor and the cheaper methods

of transportation secured the prize to the American producer. From now

on the mortgaged American farmer will have to stand the competition

of the Russian capitalist. It hardly needs a prophet to foretell that

the breakdown of the Russian peasantry will hasten the decay of small

agriculture in America.

[194] Landless households and members thereof are not counted here.

[195] Here are included those possessing their land partly on the basis

of communism, and partly quarterly.

[196] This group was formed from the serfs who had belonged to petty

gentlemen; this small class of serfs was reduced in 1861 from private

serfdom to state serfdom, or, as it was called, to the class of state

peasants. In 1866 it shared the lot of the emancipated state peasants.

Thus, by its historical origin, this group should be classed among

former serfs, while by title of possession its members were hereditary

tenants like the rest of the former state peasants. Nowadays they

likewise enjoy the right of purchasing their land in property.

[197] Redemption tax, corvée, taille, or rent paid to the state by the

former state peasants.

[198] The translation differs from the original in the systematic

arrangement of the entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of

the present discussion.

[199] In the winter, cows as well as horses are fed mostly with straw

mixed with flour. Oats is given to horses only in the season of farm

work or in case of carrying.

[200] Milk, butter, cheese, as well as cabbage and cucumbers, which are

produced exclusively for domestic consumption, are not included in the

debits or in the credits.

[201] The single items are not quoted in detail, since they are very

similar to those already produced in Budget I.

[202] Among the entries of which this sum is made up, we notice a

yearly expense of 1.80 rubles for 1 pound of tea, and 1.00 ruble for 5

pounds of sugar a year.

[203] The boys go barefoot, and have no clothing but shirts; no pants,

nor overcoats.

[204] It is peculiar to read among the entries “For horseshoeing (only

the fore feet), 0.60.”

[205] _Note._--Series I contains the results of many years’ experience

on a few farms. Series II comprises such estates, on the one hand, on

which the area planted with wheat coincides with that manured, so as

to justify the inference that the fields are manured precisely for

the wheat crop; on the other hand, it includes such estates on which

no fertilizing is practiced at all. Series II, as well as the great

majority of the average yields which could be ascertained by one

census, is distinguished from Series I in that it refers to no stated

term of observation. The slight difference between, or rather the

identity of, the averages in both series guarantees the validity of all

the averages, though the period of observation be not stated.

BRITISH ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.

Council:

THE RIGHT HON. G. J. GOSCHEN, M.P., _President_.

THE RIGHT HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. H. C. E. CHILDERS,

M.P., THE RIGHT HON. LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. JOHN

MORLEY, M.P., _Vice-Presidents_.

MR. JOHN BIDDULPH MARTIN, _Treasurer._ 68 Lombard Street, E.C.

Professor C. BASTABLE.

Mr. HENRY R. BEETON.

Mr. JAMES BONAR.

Mr. CHARLES BOOTH.

Mr. JOHN BURNETT.

Mr. THOMAS BURT, M. P.

Major PATRICK GEORGE CRAGIE.

Rev. Professor CUNNINGHAM, D. D.

Mr. T. H. ELLIOTT (_Hon. Secretary_).

Sir THOMAS FARRER, Bart.

Professor H. S. FOXWELL (_Hon. Secretary_).

Mr. CHARLES GAIRDNER.

Dr. GIFFEN, C. B.

Professor E. C. K. GONN.

Mr. ALFRED SPALDING HARVEY.

Mr. HENRY HIGGS.

Mr. ALFRED HOARE.

Mr. GEORGE HOWELL. M. P.

Professor J. K. INGRAM.

Mr. J. N. KEYNES.

Professor ALFRED MARSHALL.

Professor J. E. C. MUNRO.

Professor J. S. NICHOLSON.

Mr. R. H. INGLIS PALGRAVE, F. R. S.

Rev. L. R. PHELPS.

Mr. L. L. PRICE (_Hon. Secretary_).

Mr. JOHN RAE.

Sir RAWSON RAWSON. K. C. M. G., C. B.

Mr. FREDERICK SEEBOHM.

Professor HENRY SIDGWICK.

Mr. H. LLEWELLYN SMITH.

Rev. PHILIP WICKSTEED.

PROFESSOR F. Y. EDGEWORTH, M. A., D. C. L., _Editor and Secretary_.

Correspondents:

Mr. F. C. HARRISON for CALCUTTA (4, Harrington Street, Calcutta).

Prof. W. J. ASHLEY for CANADA (University of Toronto).

Mr. A. DUCKWORTH for NEW SOUTH WALES (87, Pitt Street, Sydney).

Dr. STEPHAN BAUER for AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (1 Reichsrath-Strasse, 23,

Vienna).

Dr. MAHAIM for BELGIUM (322, Rue St. Giles, Liège).

Prof. CHARLES GIDE for FRANCE (Université, Montpellier).

Prof. GUSTAV COHN for GERMANY (Universität, Königsberg).

Prof. H. B. GREVEN for HOLLAND (Leiden).

Mons. E. CASTELOT for PARIS (158, Boulevard Mal’esherbes).

Prof. F. TAUSSIG for UNITED STATES (Cambridge, Massachusetts).

The Annual Subscription is a Guinea (26½ francs). There is at present

no entrance fee. Any member may at any time compound for his future

yearly payments by paying at once the sum of Ten Guineas (265 francs).

The Journal will be supplied to Members without charge. They will also

receive _gratis_ some of the other publications which the Association

may, from time to time, issue.

Any person desirous of becoming a member of the Association is

requested to send his name to PROFESSOR F. Y. EDGEWORTH, _British

Economic Association, 9, Adelphi Terrace, London, W. C._, who will

submit it to the Council for approval at their next meeting.

Editorial Communications should be addressed to Prof. F. Y. EDGEWORTH,

Balliol College, Oxford.

_For Statements made by Contributors to the Journal, they alone are

responsible._

AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.

PUBLICATIONS.

FIVE VOLUMES COMPLETED.--They will be sent:--bound in cloth, at $5

each; any two for $9; any three for $13; any four for $17; and all five

for $21; all five volumes bound in half morocco, $23.50; single volumes

in half morocco, $5.50. Unbound, $4 per volume. Forwarded post-paid.

Subscription to Volume VI, $4.00.

CONTENTS OF VOLUMES.

_Vol. I.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

=No. 1.--Report of the organization of the American Economic

Association.= By RICHARD T. ELY.

=Nos. 2 and 3.--The Relation of the Modern Municipality to the

Gas Supply.= By EDMUND J. JAMES. Out of print, sold only in the

complete volume.

=No. 4.--Co-operation in a Western City.= By ALBERT SHAW.

=No. 5.--Co-operation in New England.= EDWARD W. BEMIS.

=No. 6.--Relation of the State to Industrial Action.= By HENRY

C. ADAMS.

_Vol. II.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

=No. 1.--Three Phases of Co-operation in the West.= By AMOS G.

WARNER. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 2.--Historical Sketch of the Finances of Pennsylvania.=

By T. K. WORTHINGTON, with an Introduction by RICHARD T. ELY.

_Price 75 cents._

=No. 3.--The Railway Question.= By EDMUND J. JAMES. _Price 75

cents._

=No. 4.--The Early History of the English Woolen Industry.= By

W. J. ASHLEY. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 5.--Two Chapters on the Mediæval Guilds of England.= By

EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 6.--The Relation of Modern Municipalities to

_Quasi_-Public Works.= By H. C. ADAMS, GEORGE W. KNIGHT, DAVIS

R. DEWEY, CHARLES MOORE, FRANK J. GOODNOW and ARTHUR YAGER.

_Price 75 cents._

_Vol. III--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

=No. 1.--Three Papers Read at Meeting in Boston=: “Statistics

in Colleges,” by CARROLL D. WRIGHT; “Sociology and Political

Economy,” by F. H. GIDDINGS; “The Legal-Tender Decisions,” by

E. J. JAMES. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 2.--Capital and its Earnings.= By Prof. J. B. CLARK.

_Price 75 cents._

=No. 3 consists of three parts=: “The Manual Laboring Class,”

by F. A. WALKER; “Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley,” by E. W.

BEMIS; “Report of the Second Annual Meeting,” by RICHARD T.

ELY. _Price 75 cents._

=Nos. 4 and 5.--Statistics and Economics.= By RICHMOND

MAYO-SMITH. Out of print, sold only in the complete vol.

=No. 6.--The Stability of Prices.= By SIMON M. PATTEN. _Price

75 cents._

_Vol. IV.--Bound $5; Unbound $4._

=No. 1.--Contributions to the Wages Question=: “The Theory of

Wages,” by STUART WOOD; “Possibility of a Scientific Law of

Wages,” by J. B. CLARK. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 2.--Socialism in England.= By SIDNEY WEBB. _Price 75

cents._

=No. 3.--Road Legislation for the American State.= By JEREMIAH

W. JENKS. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 4.--Report of the Proceedings of the Third Annual

Meeting.= _Price 75 cents._

=No. 5.--Three Papers Read at Third Annual Meeting=: “Malthus

and Ricardo,” by SIMON N. PATTEN; “The Study of Statistics,” by

DAVIS R. DEWEY; “Analysis in Political Economy,” by WILLIAM W.

FOLWELL. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 6.--An Honest Dollar.= By E. BENJAMIN ANDREWS. _Price 75

cents._

_Vol. V.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

=No. 1.--The Industrial Transition in Japan.= By YEIJIRO ONO.

_Price $1.00._

=No. 2.--Two Prize Essays on Child Labor.= I. By WILLIAM F.

WILLOUGHBY; II. By MISS CLARE DE GRAFFENRIED. _Price 75 cents._

=Nos. 3 and 4.--Two Papers on the Canal Question.= I. By EDMUND

J. JAMES; II. By LEWIS M. HAUPT. _Price $1.00._

=No. 5.--History of the New York Property Tax.= By JOHN

CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB. _Price $1.00._

=No. 6.--The Educational Value of Political Economy.= By SIMON

N. PATTEN. _Price 75 cents._

_Vol. VI.--Subscription, $4.00._

=Nos. 1 and 2.--Report of the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual

Meeting.= _Price $1.00._

The Association will Publish at least Six Numbers Annually.

Subscription, $4.00 per Volume.

For further information, address

PUBLISHING AGENT, American Economic Association, BALTIMORE, MD.

THE ECONOMIC REVIEW.

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY.

CONTENTS OF THE NUMBER FOR OCTOBER, 1892.

1. _What attitude should the Church adopt towards the Aims and

Methods of Labour Combinations?_

THE REV. CANON H. S. HOLLAND, M. A.

2. _The Present Position of the “Sweating System” Question in

the United Kingdom._

DAVID F. SCHLOSS, M. A.

3. _Co-operative Credit-Banking in Germany._

HENRY W. WOLFF.

4. _The Universities’ Settlement in Whitechapel._

THOMAS HANCOCK NUNN.

5. _The Theory of Prize-giving._

I. THE REV. AND HON. E. LYTTELTON, M. A.

II. A CRITICISM. THE REV. H. RASHDALL, M. A.

6. _Thoughts on Social Problems and Their Solution._

E. VANSITTART NEALE, M. A.

_Notes and Memoranda._

_Legislation, Parliamentary Inquiries and Official Returns._

EDWIN CANNAN, M. A.

_Reviews and Short Notices._

PERCIVAL & CO., 34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.

Yearly Subscription in advance direct to the Publishers, 10s. post

free. Single copies, price 3s.

BERLIN: PUTTKAMMER & MÜHLBRECHT.

_Subscription, 12 marks. Single copies, 3 marks._

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS.

STUDIES IN HISTORY AND POLITICS.

Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS.

The Tenth Series is now in progress. Subscription, $3.00 per year.

=ANNUAL SERIES. 1883-1891.=

SERIES I.--LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pages. $4.00.

SERIES II.--INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pages. $4.00.

SERIES III.--MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595 pages. $4.00.

SERIES IV.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pages. $3.50.

SERIES V.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 pages. $3.50.

SERIES VI.--THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 540

pages. $3.50.

SERIES VII.--SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 628

pages. $3.50.

SERIES VIII--HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pages. $3.50.

SERIES IX.--EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 635 pages. $3.50.

=EXTRA VOLUMES.=

I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By CHARLES H. LEVERMORE. $2.00.

II. PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. By EDWARD P. ALLINSON and BOIES PENROSE.

$3.00.

III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861. By GEORGE WILLIAM

BROWN. $1.00.

IV-V. LOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By GEORGE E.

HOWARD.

Vol. I.--Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. $3.00.

Vol. II.--Development of the City and the Local Magistracies

(in preparation).

VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT. $2.00.

VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. $1.25.

VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN. By INAZO

NITOBE. $1.25.

IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND. By JOHN M. VINCENT.

$1.50.

X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. FRANK W. BLACKMAR. $2.00.

XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION. By MORRIS M.

COHN. $1.50.

XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By CHARLES M. ANDREWS, $1.50.

XIII. AMERICA: ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1792. By W. B. SCAIFE.

The set of nine series is now offered in a handsome library edition for

$27.00.

The nine series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-one

volumes, for $45.00.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

Systematic Political Science

BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

The University Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College have

in preparation and intend to publish a series of systematic works

covering the entire field of political science proper and of the allied

sciences of public law and economics. The method of treatment will be

historical, comparative and statistical; and it will be the aim of the

writers to present the latest results of institutional development and

of scientific thought in Europe and America. Each work will be indexed

by subjects and authors, and the last volume will contain a topical

index to the entire series.

The series will consist of the following nine works:

=Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics.= By JOHN W.

BURGESS.

=Comparative Constitutional Law of the American Commonwealths.=

By FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE.

=Historical and Practical Political Economy.= By RICHMOND

MAYO-SMITH.

=Historical and Comparative Science of Finance.= By EDWIN R. A.

SELIGMAN.

=Comparative Administrative Law and Science.= By FRANK J.

GOODNOW.

=International Law.= By JOHN BASSETT MOORE.

=Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence.= By MUNROE SMITH.

=History of Political Theories.= By WILLIAM A. DUNNING.

=Literature of Political Science.= By GEORGE H. BAKER.

The first of these works was published early in 1891, by Ginn and Co.

The entire series will probably be completed within three years.

+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+