CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Cornell University Library HD1992 .H84 Economics of the Russian village / by Is olin 3 1924 030 056 026 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030056026 STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW. EDITED BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. Volume II.] [Number 1. THE ECONOMICS RUSSIAI^ VILLAGE. BY Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D., Seligman Fellow in Political Science, Columbia College. New York. 1892. - / ( TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction. The Rise of " Peasantism." 7 Chapter I. General Sketch of the Development of Landholding IN Russia 19 The Russian village community of historical times — Survivals of com- munal co-operation — The communistic peasant household — Origins of private property in land — Patrimony and fee — Slavery resulting from the obligation of loan — Tenure in fee an institute of public law — Limi- tation of the peasant's right of migration — The fee becomes hereditary — Statute of Peter the Great on inheritance in the estates held by the no- bility; abolition of the distinction between patrimony and fee — The poll tax — Slaves and serfs put upon a common footing — Emancipation of the nobility from their duty toward the state — The serfs agitated by a feeling in favor of emancipation — " Land and Liberty " — The question discussed in the Legislative Assembly convoked by Catherine II. — Insurrection under the head of Emilian Pougatchoff — Further developments of the abolitionist problem — Peasant riots about the time of the Crimean War — Economic necessity of abolition of serfdom — Evolution of private prop- erty achieved by the emancipation — Expi-opriation of tlie peasantry — Legends of land nationalization popular with the peasantry — The Statute of 1861 in its characteristic features — Russian taxation — Limitation of the personal liberty of the taxpayer — The village community upheld by over-taxation of the land — Counteracting influence of the rise of rent. Chapter II. Community of Land 37 The region selected for review with regard to geographical position and population — Forms of ownership in land — Agrarian communism — Community of land with shares fixed in perpetuity — History of the latter form of ownership— Evolution of the same into agrarian communism — Opinions of Russian students on the origin of agrarian communism. Chapter III. The Productive Forces of the Peasantry 47 Normal size of a farm required by the present state of ajrriculture— Actual size of peasant farms — Legal discrimination — Want of fodder — Depressed condition of stock breeding — Want of fuel — Manure used as fuel — The land not fertilized — Exhaustion of the soil — Improper situa- (iii) iv CONTENTS. FACB Hon of the lots — Yields of cereals — Balance of peasant agriculture — Review of real peasant budgets — Development of money economy in peasant farming. Chapter IV. Taxation of the Peasant 59 The taxes in inverse ratio to the income — The redemption tax paid by the former serf — Assessment per capita — Arrears in taxes — Bearing upon the peasant's live stock — The fiscal system lived down by economic development. Chapter V. Communal Tenure and Small Holdings 67 Economic relations arising from the lack of land — Tenure at will — Community as party to the agreement — Easements — Pasture — Tendency toward individualism produced by inequality of wealth and money econ- omy — Arable land and grass land — Individualism prevailing — Com- munal agreements — Influence of divergent interests within the com- munity — Rental partnerships, a step toward individualism. Chapter VI. The Evolution of the Farmer into the Agricultural Laborer 75 Relations between landlord and tenant — ^Division of crops — Labor in payment for rent — Tendency towards money agreements — Rise of rent — Rate of rent to wages — Differentiation of tenant and farm laborer. Chapter VII. The Wages in the Rural Districts 80 Farmer as wage-worker — Farm work prevailing — Indebtedness of the farmer — Wages in rural districts cut down by the farmer-workingman — Low wages a drawback to the development of industry — Pauperism. Chapter VIII. The Rural Surplus Population 85 Increasing movement away from the rural districts — Wages higher abroad — The bonds to the village severed — Growth of the proletariat. Chapter IX. The Dissolution of the Patriarchal Family ... 90 The position of the peasantists and of the government in the question — Opinions of students of peasant life on the dissolution of the patriarchal family — The typical family of to-day — Influence of outside jobs — Par- cellation of the soil — Landless— Ruin of the farmer occasioned by the decay of family co-operation — The employing farmer. Chapter X. The Modern Agricultural Classes 104 The vagueness of class distinctions at a primitive stage of economic development — The peasantist conception of class antagonism in the vil- lage — Results of statistical investigation — Farmers deriving a net profit from agriculture — Farmer and business man — Concentration of the land and a strong patriarchal household — The employing farmer developing side by side with the dissolution of the compound family — The rural CONTENTS. V PAGE proletariat — Lack of" land — The dissolution of the patriarchal family complete — The Russian proletarian as wage-laborer and employer at the same time — The transitional class — Deficit in the balance of farming resulting from the division of the co-operal ive family — The farmer as wage laborer — Imminent transition into the proletarian class — " The struggle of generations" in the village a reflected form of class antagonism. Chapter XI. Individual Ownership and Agrarian Communism . . 123 Their effects upon the distribution of landed property — Lease of com- munal land a step toward expropriation of the poor — Speculation in peasant lots — Mobili^tion of communal land. Chapter XII. The Redivision of the Communal Land 130 The censuses for the assessment of the poll tax — Redivisions of land — General redivisions — Partial redivisions brought into disuse by the rise of rent — Lease of communal land a check to its redivision by the mir — ■ Vote required for redivision — Privilege for the wealthy minority — Con- centration of communal land in private hands — Influence of redemp- tion — Antagonism of economic interests within the village — Dissolution of the community going on. Note : The " inalienability " scheme. Chapter XIII. Agriculture on a Large Scale 138 The peasantist view of the matter — T/ie destinies of capitalism in Russia, by V. V. — Large agriculture and peasant farming — Backward- ness of large agriculture — The latter still prevailing over small peasant tenure — Agriculture progressing with the increase of the estate— The beginnings of capitalistic agriculture — Decrease in the dominions of the nobility — Growth of capitalistic property in land — Displacement of the small tenant by the capitalist farmer — Progressive tendencies of capital- istic management — Substitution of the small farmer by the proletarian laborer — Economic dependence of the nobility upon the small farmer — - Imminent ruin of the landed nobility. Chapter XIV. Conclusion : The Consequences of the Famine . . 157 The bearing of the above discussion upon Middle Russia at large — The economic policy of the Government — Credit Foncier for the peas- ants, and its failure — The famine a result of agricultural backwardness — Failure of the peasantry and of the landed nobility — The rise of capital- istic agriculture. Appendices. Statistical Tables. I. Distribution of land among the several sections of the peasant population 166 I., a. Acreage of a peasant farm 167 II. Taxation of the peasantry 168 CON'TENTS. PAGB III. Arrears in taxes 169 IV. Distribution of rented land : A. — With regard to ownership in land; B. — With regard to stock-breeding 170 V. Budgets of typical peasant households 171 VI. Wages of the peasant in industrial employment : A. — Local ; B. — Outside 180 VII. Average yields of wheat ... 182 INTRODUCTION. THE RISE OF " PEASANTISM." The awful famine which has lately been raging over an area as large as the territory of the Dreibund, and inhabited by a population as numerous as that of the "' allied Republic," has called the attention of the whole civilized world to the condi- tion of the starving Russian peasant. A movement has been set on foot in this country to relieve the hard need of the suf- ferers. This has induced me to think that it would perhaps not be without some interest for the American student of eco- nomics to cast a glance at the rural conditions which have finally resulted in that tremendous calamity. I felt bound to im- prove the opportunity of having been educated in Russia, by introducing the American reader to some one portion of the vast Russian economic literature which, because of the lan- guage, remains as yet completely unknown to the scientific world at large. Russians by education, though not by ethnical descent, who, in spite of having identified themselves with the cause of the Russian people, are now denied the honorable title of " Rus- sian," may find consolation in the fact that the first investi- gator of Russian history (Schlozer), the first grammarian who scientifically elaborated the laws of Russian grammar, our Brown (Vostokoff=von Osteneck), the best, if not the first Russian lexicographer, our Webster (Dahl), and finally the man who, it may be said, discovered for the Russian public the Russian village community, the mir (Freiherr August von Haxthausen), were all of foreign birth. The last named discovery was destined to play a prominent part in the subsequent political history of Russia. Agrarian (7^ 8 THE ECONOMICS communism, spread throughout a vast country during an age of extreme economic individualism, when the last traces of such a form of possession were deeply buried in the past of European nations, gave rise for years to an erroneous theory both in Russia and in Western Europe, viz: that this was a specifically Russian or Slavic institution. In Russia it con- tributed greatly towards drawing the line between the two parties of the Russian educated class in " the epoch of the forties," between the " occidentalists " (zapadniki) and the " Slavophiles." The latter regarded the village community as being, with autocracy and orthodoxy, an emanation of the Russian " na- tional spirit." These three institutions were predestined in their belief to prevent Holy Russ from entering upon the impious ways of the " rotten West," with its class antagonism, extremes of luxury and poverty, intestinal discords and civil wars. Precisely for the same reasons, considering the village com- munity as an integral part of the prevailing system of paternal- ism, the " occidentalists," opposed to autocracy and orthodoxy, strove for the abolition of the niir as well as of bond serfdom. The archaic communism of the inir appeared to them to stand in acute contradiction to Western liberalism or individu- alism. The " epoch of emancipation," however, that came to realize the aspirations of the occidentalists, brought about a fundamental change of public opinion in regard to the village community. The intellectual development in Russia was ever going on under the steady influence of Western ideas. The " epoch of the forties " coincided with the era during which socialistic and communistic ideas were in full blast throughout France. Thanks to the many Russian tourists and students who became im- bued with these ideas during their sojourn in Paris, socialism, towards the end of "the forties," attained no inconsiderable popularity among the educated class in Russia. Not to speak OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. ^ of Herzen or Bakunin — ^who were at that time closely affiliated with Proudhon, Karl Marx and other prominent representa- tives of the social movements of the day — Belinsky, who was the foremost Russian critic ,and publicist, equally renowned among all parties (except, of course, the bureaucratic party), became in his latter years a socialist. " Secret circles," or, as they would be called in this country, debating clubs, swarmed in every large centre of intellectual culture. Among the young men connected with this movement, there was one who was later on to play a part of extraordinary importance in Russian history; this was Nicholas Gavrielovitch Tchernyshefsky. The influence of Tchernyshefsky upon the development of Russia was far wider, and far more many-sided, than might be supposed. Philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, criticism, political economy, politics, fiction : — these were the various fields of his activity; and everywhere his ideas determined the course of further development. It would require the elaborate study of a scholar to truly represent the historical value of Tcherny- shefsky, who can justly be called the father of Russian Nihil- ism. Nihilism was entirely misunderstood in Western countries. It will, perhaps, appear somewhat surprising to an English reader to learn that Jeremy Bentham's doctrine of utilitarian- ism offered the philosophical foundation of Nihilism. The lat- ■ ter was in reality nothing but an attempt to construct socialism upon the basis of individual utility. The village community, seen in the light of Nihilism, must evidently have presented quite a different aspect from that which it presented to both the Slavophiles and the occidental- ists of the preceding epoch. The first article of Tchernyshef- sky upon the village community was written in 1857, on the eve of the emancipation of the peasants, and was in the form of a criticism on the papers that had appeared in the Slavophile magazine Russkaya Beseda. Tchernyshefsky, though appar- ently an " occidentalist," sided with the Slavophiles, and in a lO THE ECONOMICS series of brilliant articles laid down the basis of the so-called ■' peasantism " {narodnitchesivd) which since then, and until quite recently, has constituted the common ground of all lib- eral and radical aspirations in Russia, however greatly they may have differed upon other questions. " Must Russian development of historical necessity follow in the tracks of Western Europe ? Cannot Russia benefit by the lessons taught by the history of Western nations, and find out some new way of her own to avoid that evil of pauperism which necessarily accompanies private enterprise in produc- tion ? " These were the questions raised by Tchernyshefsky. Tak- ing as a basis Hegel's famous triad, he showed that Western Europe went from State regulation to individualism and laissez-faire, and now was entering upon a new path which tended toward cooperation and social regulation of economic phenomena. Why then should Russia pass through the in- termediate phase, since she already possessed a national insti- tution which permeated the whole economic life of the people, and embodied the principles of cooperation ? The individual- istic French farmer must inevitably succumb in the war of competition with the large landholder, for the latter is in a position to utilize all new agricultural improvements, while the former lacks all means of combination with his neighbors. On the other hand, supposing that the time has come for the introduction of improved machinery into Russian agriculture, would it require any revolution in the social relations prevail- ing in the Russian village? Not in the least; the land be- longs to the community, and not to the individual ; the forms of distribution of land are very various, and admit, not infre- quently, even of collective mowing and subsequent distribu- tion of the hay. If new machinery were to be introduced, the Russian community would combine at once the advantages of a large concern, and those of having each individual worker directly interested in his work. This latter, it is claimed, is OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. H the characteristic feature of small farm holding. Having thus proved the superiority of Russian communism in land, judged from the standpoint of individual utility, Tchernyshefsky goes on to the other very important question: " Is it possible for Russia to leap over one phase of her his- torical development? Natura non agit per saltus." To answer this question he quoted the history of technical progress. There was a time when our forefathers produced fire by rubbing together pieces of dry wood. Man next found out how to strike the fire from flint, but centuries elapsed be- fore matches were invented. Now suppose an African nation were to come into contact with European culture, would such a nation have to pass through all the inconveniences of the period of transition suffered by Europeans, or would it not rather adopt matchesimmediately ? Applying the same prin- ciple to social institutions, Tchernyshefsky advocated national- ization of land, and communal landholding, as a basis for the emancipation of the peasants, which was then under the con- sideration of the government. In a paper entitled Is the Redemption of Land Difficult? he showed in figures the prac- ticability of buying out the land by the government, and in a series of other articles he maintained that such a reform would prevent the formation of a proletariat in Russia. The period that preceded the reform of 1861, was a time of universal enthusiasm for the liberal government on the part of the educated class. So much the greater was the disappoint- ment when the reform was at last proclaimed. It has not been stated whether Tchernyshefsky himself was in any way connected with the " underground " agitation against the government, of which he was accused at so early a date as 1862. Tried in 1864, and exiled to Siberia, he was allowed to return to European Russia only in 1883, when the revolution- ary party seemed to have been finally suppressed by the gov- ernment. And yet for this whole period none but Tcherny- shefsky was the spiritual leader of the social movement that 12 THE ECONOMICS sprang up from the disappointment caused by the manner in which the emancipation of the peasants had been carried out. It will be seen further that, owing to the origin and develop- ment of private ownership in land, nationalization of land be- came intimately connected, in the minds of the Russian peasants, with emancipation. Hence a series of riots in 1861- 62, at the time when the reform was being put in force. The peasants claimed that they were duped by the " rnasters " and the officials, who were concealing from the people " the true will of the Czar." The belief that the Czar desired to nation- alize the land for the use of the tiller of the soil was so uni- versal among the peasants that, in 1878, minister Makoff found himself under the necessity of issuing a special circular for the purpose of dispelling the gossip current upon the sub- ject. The priests were ordered to read and explain this circu- lar in all the churches; and on the i6th day of May, 1883, while receiving the elders of the peasants, who presented their congratulations on the solemn occasion of the Czar's corona- tion, the latter told the delegates to disabuse the peasants' minds of the false rumors of gratuitous distribution of land, that were being spread abroad by the enemies of the throne. Yet the influence of the said enemies of the throne was in- finitesimal as compared with the extent to which these rumors became popular. On the contrary, instead of its being a case of the radicals influencing the people, it was precisely the radicals themselves who were influenced by this popular be- lief. The latter seemed to them a proof of the moral support their aspirations were to gain from the people ; and if " the will of the people " is not to be fulfilled through the govern- ment, why, this will must be complied with against the gov- ernment. Thus revolutionary peasantism came into being. After years of propaganda it broke out in 1 873-1 874 in a huge movement that was called " the pilgrimage amongst the folk." Hundreds of boys and girls, chiefly college students, settled in villages as common laborers to make propaganda OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 1 3 among the peasants for what they believed to be sociaHstic ideas. They hoped to be able, sooner or later, to foment a popular uprising that would result in the establishment of a new social order. Certainly this juvenile movement must, under any circum- stances, have inevitably proved a failure. Defeat was, how- ever, accelerated by the merciless persecution of the Govern- ment. The events which followed are only too well known for it to be necessary for me to dwell on them. The final de- feat of revolutionary peasantism after 188 1, brought into the foreground a peaceable peasantist movement that excited little attention, but which will certainly be of great consequence for the coming development of Russia. Having suffered ship- wreck in their revolutionary course, the peasantists came to the conclusion that scientific investigation of the economics of the village was the most essential preliminary for any rational political action. And scores of former revolutionists zealously took part in the statistical investigation started by the zemsivos (provincial assemblies). If is true that the revolutionary peasantists cannot be cred- ited with the initiative of this important work. The founder of the so-called " Moscow method" of statistical investigation, the late Vasili Ivanovitch Orloff, was a peaceable peasantist in 1875, when a young man of twenty-seven he took into his hands the Statistical Bureau of the Moscow ^^wzj/z/i?. Yet the many who helped him in his work, and who afterwards be- came somewhat prominent in spreading his system over new provinces, such men as Messrs. Greegoryeff, Werner, Shtcher- bina, Annensky, etc., had previously spent several years in prison and in exile for " political offences." It is by no means exaggerated to say that in the hun- dreds of volumes of the censuses, ordered by the majority of the thirty-two zemsivos, Russia possesses a masterpiece of statistics which for its completeness, and for the mathematical exactness of its figures, has hardly been rivalled in any coun- 14 THE ECONOMICS try. The following quotations will give some idea of the methods practiced by the Russian statisticians: " We used to begin by making a minute extract from the Book of assessed taxes. Another highly interesting document found in the "bailiff's board" (volostnoye pravlenie) was the Book of transactions and contracts. It had been kept for many years, and, contained the terms of agreements made between peasants and landlords of the neighborhood for agricultural work, as well as the terms of those agreements made between peasants and contractors, where the work had been done out- side the limits of the village. There were also to be found there rental agreements, made both by peasants and those outside the ranks of the peasants ; loan agreements made by individu- als, as well as by communities, with joint suretyship of all their members, etc. The third document was the Book for register- ing passports, from which we could learn approximately the number of peasants yearly leaving their villages for a time. . . After these quotations had been made in the bailiff's board, we made a tour through the villages under the jurisdiction of the board, and it was here that the local inquiries began, and the most valuable material was collected. In every community of every village^ we called a regular meeting of the community's members, and, in meeting assembled we took a census. We passed with every householder through a series of questions, tending to elucidate the economic capacity of his family, and capable of being put in figures. The method itself of collecting these data in full meeting insured the greatest possible correct- ness of the figures obtained; one householder often aided the other in remembering some fact, or corrected his misstate- ments. It frequently happened that some sheep or calf, which was intended for sale or was already sold, called forth a discus- sion as to whether it should not also be included in the list. ' There are large villages composed of several distinct communities, something like Zurich until recently, or New York, Brooklyn, Jersey City, etc.; that is to say, municipally divided, though socially and geographically a unit. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 15 The questions were asked with a view to ascertain from every household the following points : the area of land allotted at the emancipation, purchased as private property, or farmed; the way in which the soil was tilled, whether it was cultivated by the householder himself, or by some of his neighbors, whom, in such cases, he had usually hired, because he himself owned no horse, or finally, whether he had entered the ranks of the " husbandless " («. e., destitute of husbandry),' who lease'their lots or desert them altogether. We also ascertained what were the labor forces of the family, male and female; the entire number of heads of which it consisted; the business, apart from agriculture, of every adult member of the family, and whether the member sought work at a distance from home; the quantity of cattle; the size of the buildings; the shops be- longing to every family. In a word, through the census a picture is drawn of the economic condition of all the house- holds of the community. The number of those who can read, or who are learning to read, is also given in the census. Cer- tainly the material collected appears to be of such a character as to furnish fundamental facts for the formation of a judgment as to the economic condition of the population.'"' The technical side of statistics, says Mr. Shtcherbina, the methods applied in the local investigations, are elaborated with the minutest detail. . . . The questions are several times crossed by each other, so as to mutually complete and verify the statements.' The area covered by the investigations for the year 1 890, is represented by the following figures:* 1 1 plead for liberty to use this expression, which is to be found in Shakespeare. ^ Statistical Rejiorts for the Gubernia of Ryazan, District of Ryazanj'^ol I., pp. 2-4. ^Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, Vol. I., p. 2. *"The Zemstvo and the national economy," by I. P. Bielokonsky. Severny Vestnik (monthly magazine), May, 1892. l6 THE ECONOMICS Provinces (Gubernias) 25 Districts 148 Communes 50«429 Peasant households 3,309,020 Total males and females 19,693,191 This is about one-fifth of the total population of European Russia. As the unit for all information is identical with the economic cell — the peasant household — these investigations -present us with the true scientific anatomy of Russian economic life. Nevertheless there may be cases in which plain truth is not exceedingly welcome. This holds true even of the most ad- vanced reform parties. Why then should the Russian nobility be among the exceptions, if there are any? If the rent is ex- orbitant and the earnings of the farmer are scanty, it does not require a genius to draw the conclusion that there must be some connection of cause and sequence between the two facts. Still, this is precisely what the landlords would like to keep hidden from public notice. Hence strong opposition -by the party of the nobility to the statistical investigations. The statisticians were generally charged with representing only such facts as favored their leanings toward land nationalization and expropriation of the landlords. The first outbreak of this opposition took place in 1882 in Ryazaii against Mr. Gree- goryeff, Superintendent of the Ryazafi Bureau of Statistics, and his assistants. The assembly passed a resolution that the two volumes of the census which dealt with the districts of Dankoff and Ranenburg should be suppressed. These vol- umes were confined exclusively to raw material, and contained only tables and statements, without any generalizations. The excitement was so great that some of the members moved to buy out all copies which had already been put in circulation, though it should cost 100 roubles {$^,6) a copy, and to solemnly burn them as a public example. It is true that this extreme motion was not carried, but Mr. Greegoryeff was sent for four OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. ij years into administrative exile at Kineshma, a small town of the province of Kostroma, and put under police surveillance as a political suspect. Thus Russian statistics have already had their martyr. Mr. Greegoryeff's book. The Emigration of the Peasants from the Province of Ryazan, founded on the same proscribed data, was subsequently honored with a prize by the University of Moscow. Similar occurrences took place in Kazan and Kursk. In the latter province the assembly proscribed the general review of the province, although the review consisted merely of the totals of the respective items for the several districts, and the volumes containing these items were in due time published by the assembly.. However, it must be admitted that Mr. Werner's fate was not a specially hard one, since he was not even exiled, while his book, which caused his discharge from the Bureau, was awarded the same honor by the University of Moscow, as Mr. Greegoryeff's investigation had received. Finally the government saw fit to interfere, and a law was passed in 1888 forbidding any investigations into the relations between landlord and peasant, and putting the programmes of statistical investigations under the control of the adminis- trative authorities. The work, however, had been done; a work that may be truly called the social work of the eighties. Was it virtually a fallacious census, imbued with party spirit? The present famine has offered the most striking proof of the authenticity of the much-assailed figures. It will require years of study to sum up the results of the statistical investigations, and I have been necessarily forced to limit the scope of my essay to some one locality. I have se- lected the two districts of the province of Ryazaii,' the statis- ' As the investigation of the gubernia of Ryazan had not been brought to an end, the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring to the Reports for the guber- nias of Voronezh, Tamboff and Smolensk, which are now likewise among those affected by the famine. 1 8 THE ECONOMICS tical data relating to which were attacked as unreliable by the nobility in 1882. This is the very locality in which Count Leo Tolstoi has carried on his work of philanthropy in feed- ing the hungry. It has seemed to me that it might be of some interest to know what information there was actually at command, as far back as 1882, respecting the districts now stricken with famine. CHAPTER I. GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND- HOLDING IN RUSSIA. It seems now to be a fairly well established fact in science that at the dawn of the evolution of mankind the individual had not yet differentiated from the social aggregate. Archaic communism in the production of food and other necessaries, as well as in possession and consumption, is now, I imagine, universally recognized as the primitive form of social life. It is only during the higher stages of development that private ownership by individuals comes into existence; and private property in land was the latest to appear on the historical scene. The dissolution of the land community in Western Europe is a fact of comparatively very recent date. In Russia, where the process of evolution has been less rapid, we see this primeval institution preserved until to-day. In Russia we do not find within historical times that tribal communism which Lewis H. Morgan met with among the American Indians. The Russian village community of his- torical times consists of a number of large families, often, yet not necessarily, of common ancestry, who possess the soil in common, but cultivate it by households. The ancient communal cooperation re-appears sporadically, upon various special oc- casions, in the form of the pbmoch (help). Some householder invites his neighbors to help him in a certain work : to mow his meadow lot, to reap his field, to cut down wood for a new house he has undertaken to build, etc. This is consid- ered as a reception tendered by the family to its neighbors, and different kinds of refreshments are prepared for the occa- (19) 20 THE ECONOMICS sion. These constitute the only remuneration for the work done collectively by the guests. 'Of course, there is nothing compulsory in the custom, and no one is bound to answer the call in case he does not like to do so. On the other hand, the party benefited is under an obligation to appear at the call of all those who participated in the poinoch. This custom, which is now limited for the most part to extra- ordinary occasions and is more and more falling into disuse, apparently played a far more conspicuous part in former days, when rural settlements were scattered clearings in the midst of virgin forests, and pioneer work was constantly needed. Still even then it was but a social revival, hinting at a preced- ing epoch of closer communistic co-operation, yet at the same time pointing out the existing severance between the house- holds of which the community was formed, In other words, the pbmoch, being undoubtedly a revival of primeval com- munism, is at the same time a sign of the dissolution of com- munism into individual households. However, it is essential to notice jhat the Russian house- hold is not identical with the Roman family or its derivatives. The Roman paterfamilias is the absolute master of all living under his patria potestas; he is the unlimited owner of all property belonging to the household, even where such prop- erty is the product of the personal industry of particular mem- bers of the family. The modern family, on the other hand, is merely a union of individuals having their individual rights recognized by law, though sometimes not without certain limitations in favor of the head of the family. The Russian peasant family alone is a perfect communistic commonwealth. All the moveables belonging to the household, as well as its \ whole income, constitute the collective property of the family, / but not of its head. The same holds good even of those parts/ of the Empire in which the village community disappeared! long before the emancipation of the peasants. In Little Russia J and White Russia, as elsewhere, the statute of 1861 recog- OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 21 nized the rural institutions upheld by peasant common law. Thus the land was there allotted to the families, and it was subsequently reaffirmed by the Senate, in one of its interpre- tations, that the land does not belong to the head of the fam- ily, but does belong to the family as a whole. Moreover, an old Russian family greatly resembled a com- munity even in the number of its members. Mr. Krasnoperoff, in a paper which appeared some ten years ago in the Oteche- stvenniya Zapiski, described a family he met with in the prov- ince of Mohileff The family numbered ninety-nine members, and was composed of a grandmother, with her children and married grandchildren, all of whom were living together and working for their own common benefit. Such households are, indeed, isolated exceptions at the present day, but they were universal in the past. Thus ownership of land by the community without, and complete communism within the family, were the fundamental elements in the structure of the village at the dawn of Russian history. The rise and growth of private property in land soon came in to restrict the domain of the village community. In the early days of mankind cooperation is essential to success in the struggle for life which man is carrying on daily against his natural surroundings. Landholding, whether collective or individual, must be large enough to admit of cooperation. Therefore private ownership in land first appears in history in the form of large holdings. Now, so long as population is thin, and vacant land lies practically free to any- body, it would be useless to occupy large estates if there were no means of compelling the husbandman to labor in the land- lord's fields instead of for his own benefit. Indeed, private property in land in the early periods of history goes hand in hand with the personal dependence of the tiller of the soil. I In the Muscovite State we find two forms of individual landed property: patrimony {ijottchind) or freehold, and fee (j)omestye) or benefice. 22 THE ECONOMICS While fee was an institution of public law, patrimony owed its origin to private law and to a more ancient epoch. Patri- monies were to be found in the Republic of Novgorod, and in some other States of the Russian Federation, before their con- quest by the Great Princes of Muscovy, afterwards Czars of all the Russias. The rise of this form of property is intimately bound up with the growth of slavery in ancient Russia. Slavery, like patrimony, was also an institution of private law, arising from the transaction of loan. The payment of the debt was secured, as in the civil law (Jus civile), by the person of the debtor. Unquestionably this was the only possible security in an historical epoch when landed property had no value, save when human labor was applied to it. As in Rome, war was the constant cause that put the peasant under the necessity of contracting loans. As in Rome, there could hardly be found two years of uninterrupted peace in the course of the first centuries of Russia's history. Destruction, by force of arms and rapine, usually compelled the plundered peasant to alienate his liberty to the " better man" (vir bonus, KaTA^ K&ya^dg) who furnished him with cattle, seed, and imple- ments. The peasant sold himself either for a term of years, or for life, and in the course of time the state of serfdom became hereditary. The labor of these slaves {zakup, kabalniy holbp^ was used by the creditors to cultivate their estates, or to re- claim new acres from the forest. Amidst the wilderness of primitive forests, such parcels of cultivated land had already a certain value which attracted settlers. Here we have the ori- gin of patrimonies in Russia during the "period of federation and witenagemote." Left, however, as it was, to private intercourse and initiative, the spread of individual landed property, like the number of slaves, remained comparatively limited. It was only as politi- cal institutions that individual landholding and personal de- pendence of the peasant were to become the foundations of social life in Russia. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 23 The fee was the virtual germ of Russian private property in land. Not only in Russia, but also in many other countries, pri- vate property in land owed its origin to relations of public law. Public land {ager publicus) was primarily held by officers on the ground of, and for the purposes of their office as a benefice. In proportion as the offices became hereditary, and the rela- tions growing out of administration of public affairs developed into personal dependence of the common people upon the office holders, the tenure of land by reason of office became hereditary, and subsequently developed into an institution of private law. The next step was in the direction of freeing the landholder from the duty of public service connected with the tenure of his land. Thus his possession became independent. On the other hand, the free ownership of land by the people was replaced, in the course of evolution, by dependent posses- sion. And finally, with the abolition of the personal depend- ence of the peasant, his right to land expired. Such was, taking a bird's eye view, the evolution of private property in most European countries. In Russia the course was essentially the same. Old republican and semi-republican Russia of " the period of federation and witenagemote " knew no firm government. The prince was elected and deposed by the people, and it was very difficult for him to hold his position for more than any single year amidst the dissensions of the hostile factions of turbulent citizens. Usually princes tramped their whole life long from one principality to another, attendants tramping with them. War was their chief business and war was also their chief source of income. Moreover, through a confisca- tion of the judicial functions by the prince, a part of the wergild paid by the convicted wrongdoer to the right party, found its way into the treasury of the prince to be distributed among his followers. No bond wedded the prince and his followers to the land until the nomadic elected prince was re- 24 THE ECONOMICS placed by the Muscovite Great Prince and Lord of All the Russias. Struggle with the Tartar conquerors — a struggle that lasted for two centuries — furthered the growth of central- ization and of monarchical authority, and the former free at- tendant of the prince became the servitor of his sovereign. The State in Russia has always been a self-sufficing entity, which claimed the services of everybody, without owing in re- turn anything to anybody. And this still remains to-day the fundamental principle wherein Russian public law differs from <:onstitutional law. If, perchance, the state engaged in sup- pressing crime, it was not for the sake of justice or defense to the people, but rather for fiscal considerations, or for the sake of the safety of the state, threatened by gangs of brigands and highway robbers. It was the duty of the " servitor " {sloo- zhiliy chelovek) to prosecute bandits, to defend the frontiers from invasion by nomadic tribes, and to appear in case of war among his sovereign's troops with a number of armed men. To furnish the " gentleman" with the necessary means for the support of his detachment, and in general for the discharge of his office, he was granted a certain tract of land " in fee." The peasant who settled upon this lot was bound to pay a certain tax (in kind) to the " gentleman " to whom the power of taxation was delegated by the State. However, it was no easy task to enforce the exact payment of the taxes, since the peasant could run away at any time he chose as soon as he found the payments becoming burdensome. Indeed, even in modern Russia, wherever land is in abund- ance, agriculture is to a great extent a nomadic pursuit. A field is cultivated uninterruptedly for from two to three years, and the peasant then leaves it and turns to another fresh lot. It is only after a period of not less than twenty years that the peasant will perhaps return to the first lot. It may be, how- ever, that he will change his place for an entirely new one. In olden times the facilities for migration were the same as they now are in Siberia. This state of things gave rise to OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 25 competition among the gentry, who vied with one another in cutting down the rate of payments exacted from the peasants. The gentry constantly complained of being unable to fulfil their duties toward the State so long as this self-willedness on the part of the peasants continued. In order to secure exact fulfilment by each of his duties toward the state, freedom ot migration was first limited, and then gradually abolished. The free peasant became bound to the soil, glebce adscriptus. Yet this dependence was based entirely upon public law. The peasant was made subject to the gentleman, not for the gentle- man's sake, but for the benefit of the state. The only re- striction of civil rights imposed upon the peasant by his de- pendence was the prohibition of emigration ; and even in that no distinction existed between the peasant and the gentleman, since the latter was also forbidden to quit his fee. Through- out the Muscovite period the peasant was considered as a citizen, and was protected by the state against abuses of power on the part of the gentleman. The latter was not even the owner of the land ; it belonged to the state, or to the Czar, as the personification of the state. Land was allotted to the gentleman for service, and for lifetime only, and could escheat by the state for cause. Inasmuch, however, as the gentle- man's son also entered the service of the Czar, it became little by little a custom to transfer to the son his father's fee. Thus the fee became hereditary. Peter the Great effaced all the distinctions that were charac- teristic of the preceding epoch. By compelling every land- holder to enter the service of the state, and by establishing a uniform law of inheritance for all real estate belonging to the nobility, he merged in one patrimonies and fees. On the other hand, by imposing the poll tax upon peasants, and by making the landholder responsible for the exact payment of this tax, he put slaves and serfs upon a common footing, and made the latter personally dependent upon the landlord. His successors restricted the civil rights of the peasants and took 26 THE ECONOMICS away from them the right to sue their masters. At the same time the latter were granted the right to exile their peasants to Siberia, and to sell them, even where such sale entailed the separation of the wife from her husband, of the child from its parents. On the other hand, after the time of Peter the Great, the duty of service was gradually relaxed, and at last defini- tively abolished by Peter III in 1762. It was by this ukase that private property in land and serf- dom were finally recognized in Russia as institutions of private law.' But immediately after the "Charter to the Nobility" was granted by Peter III, the question of emancipation began to agitate the peasants. Three generations were too short a period in which to implant in the minds of the peasantry the new principles brought into social relations by the St. Peters- burg Emperors. The conservative mind of the peasant was wedded to the old customs of the Muscovite common law. He knew no Emperor; for him there was still a Czar, who owned all the lands of his country for the good of his people. The gentleman was bound to serve the Czar; the peasant was bound to provide the gentleman with the necessary means; ' Prof. W. J. Ashley, in the introductory chapter of his translation of The Ori- gin of Property in Land by Fustel de Coulanges, represents the Russian village community as " only a joint cultivation and not a joint ownership." The Rufsian mir, he thinks, has always in historical times been a " village group in serfdom under a lord " (p. xx.). This opinion stands in direct contradiction to the results of Russian historical investigation, which are here presented in a condensed sum- mary. The development of landlord property in Russia, on the contrary, is but a fact of modern centuries ; there are vast provinces in Russia where there never ■was anything like a nobility and landlord property {e. g.,\}n& gubernias of Olonetz, Vyatka, Vologda, Archangelsk), save in a few exceptional cases. Serfdom was altogether unknown in these districts, and in all the rest of Russia a considerable part of the peasantry, though dependent upon the State, knew no landlord above them. Toward 1861 the total number of State peasants amounted to 29W mil- lions, while the former serfs numbered^a^^^jnillions. (Prof. Janson, Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the Peasants' Latmed Property and Taxation, 2d ed., p. I.) Thus, in so far at least as one half of the Russian peasantry is con- cerned, the village community must be construed, in direct opposition to Prof, Ashley, as "joint ovraership and not joint cultivation.'' OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 2 7 hence bond serfdom and fee. And was the idea really so ob- solete? Were not the gentlemen daily granted large estates for services they had rendered to the Czar? Now, since the Czar in his grace has freed the gentleman from service, there is no longer any ground upon which the gentleman can be justified in detaining the land in his possession, nor is there any reason for keeping the peasant in dependence upon the gentleman. Consequently " Land and Liberty ! " {Zemlya ee Volya!) It is now plain enough why the nobility conspired to assasinate the Emperor Peter III Theodorovitch. After the "dear father" had narrowly escaped his fate.^he lords declared him dead; but fortunately he succeeded at last, after eleven years of exile, in recruiting an army of loyal subjects to help him in taking lawful possession of his throne, usurped by his perfidious wife. The war over, the people will be graciously vouchsafed " Land and Liberty." This legend found its way readily into the minds of the peasants, who for a whole year, under the leadership of the rebellious Cossack Emilian Pugacheff, alias " Emperor Peter Theodorovitch," held half Russia in their power. It would be, of course, a rash conclusion to seek to establish any im- mediate connection between the bloody uprising of 1773-1774 and the discussion of the question of emancipation in the " Commission for the Enactment of a New Code," called by Catherine II. in 1767. Yet it is worth noticing that such a question did arise, and that the emancipation of the peasants was pleaded for by the representative of the Don Cossacks, who were shortly to lead the insurrection. And, indeed, many of those who represented the Cossacks in the commission were later on active in the civil war. The suppression of the latter led to the expansion of serfdom, since the "pension system " of that epoch consisted, of necessity, only in grants of " peasant souls." Thus in the reign of Catherine II. about one million " state serfs " were given into the private posses- sion of landlords, for military, or civil (or " personal ") merit. 28 THE ECONOMrCS The reigns of her successors were marked by an uninter- rupted series of peasant uprisings, agrarian crimes, and half- measures on the part of the government to loosen the bonds of serfdom. At the same time, after the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, abolitionist ideas began to win their way among the land-owning, upper classes. The insurrection of December 14th (26th), 1825, had among its chief purposes the abolition of serfdom. The disastrous termination of that in- surrection did not stop the propaganda of the abolitionist ideas which reached even to the palace, through the famous Russian poet Zhukoffsky, instructor of Alexander II. The political necessity of emancipation, as guaranteeing the safety of the state, was brought still farther home to the minds of the ruling classes by the general excitement among the peasantry which followed the Crimean war, and broke out in numberless riots of a most alarming character throughout the country. " We must free the peasants from above, before they begin to free themselves from below," — these were the historical words addressed by Alexander II to the Assembly of the Nobility in Moscow, August 31st (September 12th), 1858. Yet such political farsightedness could hardly have de- veloped, had not the economic conditions been ripe for the change. Indeed, after the Crimean war it became obvious to the government that Russia, with her old-fashioned methods of transportation, could play no prominent part in the " Euro- pean concert." Now it was perfectly evident that an extensive system of railways could not possibly be supported out of the resources of agriculture alone, in a country in which nine- tenths of the people were serfs, either of the state or of the landlords, and had to bear out of their scanty income the ex- penses of a large military state, and of an aristocracy. In- dustry and commerce were nece.ssary for the maintenance of the state. The emancipation of the peasants was the scheme to attract domestic and foreign capital to industrial pursuits in Russia. By placing money in the hands of the landlords it OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 29 was sought to promote the progress of agriculture, and the growth of industries intimately connected therewith. By set- ting at liberty twenty million serfs, who were the subjects of the landlords, wage-workers were created for industrial enter- prises. / The economic significance of the reform of February 19th,/ (March 3d,) 1861, lies in the fact that, on the one hand, itj completed the evolution of private property in land, and thatJ on the other hand, it effected at a single blow the expropria4 tion of the peasantry on a large scale. ' Before the emancipation anything like d istincti on between the land of the lord and that of the peasant existed oiiTv"on those estates on which theduties ofThe serf toward his master wefe'^i discharged in compulsory labor. Yet even there the distinction was not clearly marked, for the peasants enjoyed the right of pasture in common with the lord, and were furnished a modicum of wood from the lord's forest. The distinction, moreover, was not a rigid one, since the lord could, at his option, transform the corvee into tallage {taUle)-f-cova- pulsory labor into compulsory payments. The latter form prevailed on many estates. In such cases the lord enjoyed merely the legal ownership, Ober-Eigenthunt (dominium ex jure Quiritium) while to the peasant belonged the real possession, Nutzeigenthum [possessio ex jure gentium). Now the severance of a tract of land from the fields held by the community trans- \ formed communal possession into private property of the gentleman. The owner who tilled the soil was transformed into a tenant or into a wage-laborer. There was a party among the nobility at the time of the emancipation who would have liked to see a still more decided reform in the same direction. In compliance with the wishes of the members of this party it was accordingly proposed to transfer all the land into the private property of the noble, while leaving to the peasant merely his homestead (i. e. house, yard and garden). But, after consideration, this radical plan 20 THE ECONOMICS was abandoned, for fear lest it might prove seriously dangerous to the public peace. Unquestionably, the principles in accordance with which the reform was carried out stood in striking contradiction to the aspirations of the peasants, who held fast to the idea expressed by the old saying: "We are yours, but the land is ours!" Hence general disappointment of the peasantry with the re- form, which failed to grant the people "land" as well as "lib- erty." Now, since the land is the Czar's and has been unlaw- fully seized by the masters, can there be any doubt that the gentlemen and the officials have conspired together against- the will of the Czar? We here arrive at the source of those wide-spread legends of land nationalization that were so popu- lar with the peasants for a quarter of a century after the eman- cipation. To obviate all incitement to acute outbreaks of popular dis- content, the , government, as far as possible, avoided drastic measures. In order to meet the wishes of those who leaned toward the Irish system of landholding, the government satisfied itself with offering to every community the choice either of agree- ing to pay the redemption tax for the normal lots, or of tak- ing in lieu thereof the so called " donated lots " extending to one-fourth of the normal lots, and free from the redemption tax. At the same time these lots became at once the absolute property of the donees. Similarly, the government did not proceed to an immediate assault upon agrarian communism, though considering the same as an ob.stacle to agricultural progress. Wherever com- munism was in existence, the land was allotted to the com- munity as a whole. But a road was opened to the spontane- ous and gradual dissolution of the community. The " home- steads," i. e. the house, the yard and garden, were declared the property of the family. Further, the community was em- powered to divide the field into private property, upon a vote OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 3 1 of two-thirds of the householders. Finally every individual householder was granted the right of enclosing his lot, after having complied with certain formalities, and paid the whole amount of amortization. It was hoped that as soon as the way had been opened to private property, the latter would not fail to take the place of communism. These expectations were, however, fulfilled but in a comparatively meagre nieasure. The reason lay in the fact that the government could not make up its mind to break entirely with the old regime. In order to smoothe the opposition of the nobility to the emancipation of their serfs, the redemption of land was not made compulsory. The State undertook the part of middle- man between the gentleman and the peasant, under certain normal conditions. But the agreement was to be made volun- tarily between the parties. The gentleman alone was given the privilege of rendering the redemption compulsory at his own option, by making an abatement of one-fifth of the normal rate of installments. In case no such action was taken by him, and no mutual understanding could be reached, the peas- ant remained in a transitional state of dependence upon his former master. His obligation was to be discharged either in pecuniary payments or in forced labor. This state of moder- ated serfdom lasted throughout the reign of Alexander II., surnamed "the Liberator," and was abolished in 1883 by a law ordering the compulsory settlement of the relations be- tween the so-called "temporary obligors^' and their masters.' In so far as this state of dependence remained in existence, the destructive influence of the "Statute of Redemption" upon the rural community was suspended.^ ^Most of the Russians were doubtless extremely surprised to learn that bond serfdom in Russia was in existence up to this very year of 1892. The Kalmyks, a semi-nomadic tribe of 150,000 men, in southeastern Russia, near the Caspian Sea, remained serfs of their chiefs, the zaisangs and noyons, until the ukase issued on the 8th (20th) of May, 1892, whereby bond serfdom of the common Kalmyks was at last abolished. ^The government did not act in consistence with the principles of the emanci- 32 THE ECONOMICS Whatever may have been the effect of permitting the de- pendence of the peasant to be continued, the support offered to the community by the old fiscal system, which has re- mained up to this very day, was still more influential. It would be idle to criticise the Russian financial system from the standpoint of justice in taxation. The law of self- preservation is the first law of all being. To cover her nine hundred million budget, official Russia has got simply to take money wherever it can be found. Now where can it be found in Russia? The State can tax either the producer or the con- sumer, or both. Where is the producer to be sought for pur- poses of taxation ? Is it in industry, which is being fostered by means of bounties and prohibitive tariffs ? Is it the noble landlord, for whom State mortgage banks are established, and State lotteries issued, whose solo notes are discounted by the State Bank, etc ? Then there remains none but the peas- ant to pay the taxes. Should on the other hand the consumer be taxed, then again it is the 80 per cent, peasants who must pay the major part of the indirect taxes.^ In a word, whether the burden weigh upon producer or consumer, it must needs be the Russian peasant to whom will fall the lion's share — in paying the taxes. And truly the peasantry, like the " burgh- ers," are designated as a "taxable order," but the burghers are too few to cut any figure as compared with the peasant. What follows? pation of the serfs when applying in 1866 the " Statute on peasants freed from bond serfdom " to those freed from dependence upon the State. While the former were declared " peasant proprietors," the latter were regarded only as hereditary tenants. A new law was subsequently passed, granting the former State peasants the right of buying out their lots from the State. I have not the respective statutes at hand, and am not certain as to the year in which the law was passed. It was certainly later than 1882, the year of the census whose reports we use further on. ' The indirect taxes are figured in the budget for the current year as follows : RUBLES. 1892. 1891. Sec. 4. From liquors 242,570,981 259,550,981 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 3 j A great sensation was produced in 1877 by a book on Rus- sian taxation by Prof J. E. Janson, of the University of St. Petersburg.' On the strength of the Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Condition of Agriculture in Russia, 1872, and of the Proceedings of the Commission on Taxation, he brought to hght the starthng fact that the amount of taxes paid by the peasant toward 1872 considerably exceeded the net income of his land.^ This means that it did not pay for the peasant to own land, since he had to cover a part of the taxes from his wages, while, by deserting his plot, he would enjoy the whole amount of his wages with the exception of a Sec. 7. From naphtha 10,026,800 9,528,50a " 8. " matches 4,720,000 4,524,000 " 5. " tobacco 27,741,102 28,213,102 " 6. " sugar 21,174,000 20,161,000 " 9. Customs duties 110,900,000 110,929,000 417,182,883 432,906,583 {Cf. The Government Messenger, No. I, 1892.) The taxes in Sees. 4, 7 and 8 are naturally paid chiefly by the peasants, who are the majority, and these items alone amount to from 62 to 63 per cent, of all indirect taxes. ' Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the Peasants' Landed Property and Taxation. ' In the gubernia of Novgorod the former State peasants paid in taxes the entire net income of their land, and the former serfs from 61 to 465 per cent, above their net income. In the gubernia of St. Petersburg they paid 34, and in that of Mos- cow, upon an average, 105 per cent in excess of their net income. EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME. In the gubernias. Per cent, former State peasants. Per cent, former serfs, Tver 144 152 Smolensk 66 120 Kostroma 46 140 Pskoff 30 113 Vladimir 68 176 Vyatka 3 100 In the " black soil " region the difference amounted to from 24 to 200 per cent, for the former serfs, while the former State peasants, more favorably situated, had to pay in taxes from 30 to 148 per cent, of their net income, etc. (Zor. cit., pp, 35-36, 86.) ,4 THE ECONOMICS small poll tax. And indeed many a peasant would be glad to run away from his farm, if he was only permitted to do so. But the fulfilment of the peasant's obligation toward the State was secured by the curtailment of his personal liberty. In case of arrears he would get no passport, and no one is allowed in Russia to go farther from home than 30 versts (about 20 miles) without a passport, under penalty of being imprisoned and forwarded home by etape. Should, however, the peasant renounce his right of locomotion, then public sale of his home- stead and personal effects, and corporal punishment^ inevitably follow arrears in the payment of taxes. Moreover all the members of the community are responsible, jointly and sever- ally, for the exact payment of the taxes assessed upon the community as a whole. Therefore wherever, and so long as, the taxes exceed the rent brought in by the land^ the an- cestral tenet of communal supremacy is emphatically observed, and the most scrupulous justice and equality are maintained in the distribution of the land. The lots are strictly proportioned to the number of males in each family, or to that of the workers (from the ages of 15-18 to 55-60), or even to the number of "eaters"; democratic principles being so far lived up to as to efface all distinction between male and female " mouths." The terms of distribu- tion vary according to the kinds of land. Meadows are subdivided every summer. Arable is usually distributed at intervals of greater length. Yet, in the meantime, for some reason or other, land may become vacant, or fall to the dis- posal of the community. It often happens that some house- ' Corporal punishment for debts (Jiravyozh') is an institution of Russian law bearing the stamp of antiquity. It might perhaps flatter the Russian " national pride " to class this institution as one of the emanations of the " self-existent Russian spirit." Unfortunately for the latter, this is a method of procedure common to many other nations at a certain stage of historical development. 2 The rent is here no fictitious quantity, it being an every-day occurrence for peasants to lease their lots. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. ^5 holder requests to be relieved of a part of his land on the ground of the decrease in the number of workers in his family, £. g., because his son has been enlisted in the army. At the same time there may be other families who are " strong," i. e., well-off and numerous enough to pay the taxes for an addi- tional tract of land. In such cases a partial subdivision be- tween the households is made by the community. After a time, with the increase in the number of these partial subdivi- sions, the complexity and inequality of distribution necessitate a fresh general subdivision. The land is once more minutely re-divided among the villagers. The optimistic enthusiast of the community would fancy that at last it stood firmly rooted in the soil, in spite of all unfavorable environments. And yet, notwithstanding the strictest minuteness in the distribution of land, wherein the sovereignty of the mir over private interests is manifested, the equilibrium of the rural community must be defined as utterly unstable, since it rests upon such a shaky basis as over-taxation of the land. The economic development of Russia, however, tends to eliminate the disproportion between tax and income. By taking one-half of the land out of the occupancy of the community, the government put the peasant under the neces- sity of seeking land or employment outside of his own farm- stead. To secure to the landlords an abundant supply of farm hands, the emigration of the former serfs to districts where there was plenty of vacant land was so throttled with red tape that it was practically equivalent to prohibition.^ Moreover, in 1866 the emancipation of the State peasants brought about ' Picture the condition of a New Jersey farmer who would have to await the permission of the Governor of New Jersey, the Secretary of State, and the Treas- ury Department, before moving to Minnesota. This is exactly the condition of the Russian peasant. According to the recent law, more liberal than the original law of 1861, emi- gration is allowed by a special permission, in every single case, of the Ministers of the Interior and of Public Domains, which permission is issued upon the presenta- tion of the local governor. 36 THE ECONOMICS the repeal of the old law, which encouraged emigration, under certain conditions, through the support of the State. As op- posed to this the " Statute of the peasants freed from bond serfdom," which was now to be applied to the former State peasant, brought with it a new restriction of his personal rights. The peasants now found themselves tied to the place in which they had been born. The increased demand for land could not but react upon the peasants' plots, by raising the rent that they brought, and so neutralizing the effects of over- taxation. The fiscal influence which tends to counteract the dissolution of the village community is thus passing away. CHAPTER n. COMMUNITY OF LAND. The region which has been selected for the present discus- sion comprises two Districts: Dankoff and Ranenburg, (or Oranienburg) in the province (Gubernid) of Ryaaaii. They are situated in Middle Russia, between North latitude 53° and 53" 31', East longitude 38° 40' and 40° lo', and enjoy a mod- erate climate, at least when judged by Russian ideas. The soil is mostly pure black earth, the rest being made up of black earth mixed, or alternated with other soils." According to the census taken by the zemstvo in 1882, the entire peasant population of this region numbered 36,126 fam- ' Districts. Land in peasants' possession. Total. Pure black soil. Dessiatines. Dessiatines. Per cent. Ranenburg Dankoff I 6436 I 130082 113681 89376 69 69 X dessiatine =>= 2.7 acres. A. word as- to the way in wtiich quotations are made from the Statistical Re- ports. Pages are cited whenever the data are found in the Tables or Appendices in such a shape as to be immediately available for the purposes of the discussion. Where, however, the raw material would have to be re-arranged, the pages of this essay would be needlessly encumbered with references to hundreds of para- graphs. No citailions are given in such instances, but a general reference is made to the Reports in question. (37) 28 THE ECONOMICS ilies, composed of 232,323 males and females, and living in 655 village communities. Agrarian communism is the prevailing form of land tenure; the right of property belongs to the community, while the land is either used in common, or subdivided in equal shares among the members of the community, according to some scale, adopted by the same. It is the pasture alone that remains to-day in the common use of all the members of the community. Arable land and meadow are subdivided, and remain in the temporary posses- sion of the several householders. But after harvest and mow- ing they return into communal usage, for pasture. Still, side by side with agrarian communism, we meet with that peculiar form of hereditary tenure known as "quarterly" {fschetverttioye) possession.' The difference between agrarian communism and quarterly possession consists in the fact that,, under the former, the plots are fixed by the mir, whereas un- der the latter they are fixed through inheritance, gift, etc. Yet it is not the land itself, but some ideal share in the com mon possession, that is held by the individual, prg£isel^ der agrarian communism. The arable land, though cc ' The term is derived from " quarter," an old Muscovite measure in usage for estates granted in fee. The numerical relation between these two forms is given in the following table : HEREDITARY POSSESSION. Districts. Communities of for- mer State peasants. Households. Land. Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent. Dessiatines. Per cent. Ranenburg . . Dankoff .... 25 21 48 54 1.639 2,180 21 41 21,236 32.539 24 50 Cf. Quarterly Possession, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow review Russkaya My si, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been published as a part of the Reports of the RyazaH Statistical Bureau, but after the work was stopped (see above page 16) it appeared in one of our liberal magazines. • OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. jp, by law as private property, is virtually subdivided by the com- munity according to the same rules^as thosejsracticed wher- ever agrarian communism is d gminant — the pasturgjJfielQrest, and the meadow are in the possession ofthejcomjnunity^. The forest and the meadow are redivided yearly. The villages differ as to the standard of subdivision : in some of them the lots of the peasants are proportioned to the size of the inherited lots of arable land, in some they are equal. The pasture is used in common. It is a well established fact that the actual agrarian com- munism among the majority of the State peasants of the region in question is a phenomenon of very recent date and has evolved from hereditary possession.' In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the present guber- nias of Middle Russia formed the boundaries of Muscovy ad- joining the dominions of the Porte and the military Republic of Little Russia. To defend the borders of the state a kind of na- tional militia, or yeomanry, was settled along the frontiers. As usual, it was granted land in fee. The gradual transformation of fee into patrimony by force of legislation did not, however, concern this class of tenants in fee, as they did not count among the gentry. Nevertheless, the process went on, thanks to the natural play of economic forces. Mr. Pankeyefif, in his e^ay on the subject, does not show us the causes of the fre- quent sales of small fees during the eighteenth century. As the times coincided with the period during which the resources of the country were strained to the utmost in order to keep up the aggressive annexation policy of the Empire, it seems very probable that this mobility of the land belonging to the yeomen {pdnodvortzy, as they were designated after 1719) was due to the burdens imposed by the State. On the other hand, the policy of the government in regard to this class tended to bring them down to the level of the peasantry. Alienability of land was obviously opposed to these views of the govern- '^Op. cit., book III., page 28. 40 TBE ECONOMICS ment, since thereby many members of this class became land- less. The attempt was therefore made to put a stop to it by a series of ukases forbidding the sale of lands belonging to the odnodvortzy. To insure obedience to its ukases the govern- ment, in 1766, changed the method of allotting land to the odnodvortzy, in conformity with the communistic method used by the peasantry. It was ordered that land should henceforth be measured for the entire village in one tract, and not in in- dividual parcels to every householder, as had been previously done ; and at the same time the alienation of lots was forbid- den. Thus the community was entrusted with the subdivision of the land among its members. The distribution was based originally upon the dimensions of individual possession of former times. It generally led, however, through many inter- mediate forms to the estabhshment of equal distribution, i. e. to agrarian communism. According to the information gathered by the Ministry of Public Domains, toward the fifties, the odnodvortzy, as regards the forms of possession, were divided as follows:' Forms of Possession: Number of Males and Females: Quarterly ^ 452,508. Communistic 533,201. In all the villages inhabited by these 533,201 persons, agra- rian communism came to be substituted for the once generally prevailing quarterly possession. In the region now in question there were, according to the census taken by the Government in 1849, 287 villages inhabited by odnodvortzy in the whole gubernia of Ryazan. According to the forms of landholding they were divided as follows: Forms of Landholding. Number of villages. Number of Males and Females. Land in deS' siatines. Quarterly possession. ..... Agrarian communism Mixed .76 56 55 11,265 21,283 12,627 64,811 84,448 49.S°8 'f/. eit., book III., pag;e 33. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 4 1 Here also agrarian communism developed from quarterly possession. The process went on after 1849, without even stopping after the reform of 1866, by which the land held by the former odnodvortzy was recognized as their private alien- able property. The progress of agrarian communism between 1849 and 1882 can be seen from the following table:' EXTENSION OF QUARTERLY POSSESSION. Population (males and females^ In 1849. In 1882. Ranenburg 19.714 4.213 Dankoff. 10,509 6,089 What appears here in most striking contradiction with the ideas universally adopted by modern writers, is the inverse historical correlation between these two forms of possession. This fact seems to offer a new argument in favor of the theory which regards community of land as a derivative form of owner- ship owing its origin to the policy of the State. Prof Tschi- tscherin, the author of this theory, maintains that the land community was called into life by the ukases of Peter I estab- lishing the poll tax and the responsibility in solido of all members of the community for the punctual payment of the tax. A full discussion of the issue in controversy does not come within the scope of this essay ; for whatever may have been the origin of the land community, its existence during the past two centuries is a fact beyond dispute ; and it is only the period after the emancipation that constitutes the immediate subject under consideration. Moreover, the theory 'belongs to an ^Op. cit., page 27. The figures show the number of population in villages where the land is owned quarterly. The population of 1849 is given according to the ninth revision (of 1846), and the population of 1882 according to the tenth revision (of 1858). The extent of private property would be exaggerated were the comparison made with the census of 1882. By overlooking the increase of the population between the ninth and the tenth revisions, the results of the com- parison are but emphasized. 42 THE ECONOMICS epoch when the study of the history of the Russian peasantry was yet in its infancy. In the course of the last thirty years this special branch of knowledge has progressed enormously, and Prof. Tschitscherin's views have been since abandoned by the students of the history of Russian law. A few remarks will suffice for the purpose of the present discussion, inasmuch fis no one to-day believes that communism in land sprang, like Minerva, from the head of some administrative Jupiter. Responsibility in solido for the payment of taxes could hardly be thought of in a country of developed individualism. It presupposes a state of society in which not the individual but the aggregate alone counts in social relations. And such was indeed the social condition of Russia as late as the seventeenth century. The Council of the Commons {Zemskee Sobor) represented, not, as under' modern constitutional gov- ernments, the individual voters, but the communities alone. These Councils were convoked on extraordinary occasions, one of their chief purposes being to assess certain additional taxes upon the communities represented therein, but never upon individual tax-payers. Even punishments were inflicted in solido upon the community where a murdered body had been found, or some other crime had been perpetrated, and the culprit remained undiscovered. Collective ownership in land appears to be the inseparable concomitant, if not the material basis, of such social conditions. The study of the development of landed property among the odnodvortzy, however, brought about a revival of the views held by Prof. Tschitscherin, so far as this class of the Russian peasantry is concerned. Prof. Klutschefsky advanced the opinion that the growth of communal landholding was due to the policy of the Government, which saw in this form of own- ership a means of guaranteeing the fiscal interest. The fact that the ukases of the Government interfered with the method of surveying the land among the odnodvortzy, as well as with the purchase and sale of their lots, seems to support this opin- OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 4, ion. On the other hand, Mr. Semefsky, the famous historian of the Russian peasantry, thinks that the establishment of agrarian communism was due to the initiative of the peasantry, who came to the conclusion that this form of ownership suited their needs better than did quarterly possession. The Gov- ernment acted only in accordance with the wishes of the peas-' ants, as expressed in numberless petitions and land-suits, and' granted the sanction of law to the results of economic develop- ment. Mr. Pankeyeff, the statistician, inclines to the latter opinion. The investigations made by the statisticians of the zemstvo, showed that the struggle over the form of landholding was very obstinate and lasted for years. Oftentimes the contending parties had recourse to violence. The courts were encumbered with interminable suits, and not infrequently the courts and the government decided in favor of quarterly possession. Thus the decisive stand made by the government in favor of the village community is open to question. Moreover, the devel- opment of agrarian communism from quarterly possession after the emancipation, when the policy of the government took- a turn directly favoring private property, is considered by the peasantists as a proof of the vitality of the communistic spirit among the peasantry. While the promoters of agriculture upon a large scale, on the one hand, and the Russian Marxists, on the other hand, point out the growing dissolution of the village community, the example of the quarterly landholding tends, in the view of the peasantists, to disprove their position. Mr. Pankeyeff claims that, even at present, quarterly landhold- ing cannot be considered as a settled form of possession. A hidden strife is ever going on within the village between the rich and the poor, similar to that which previously led to the final victory of agrarian communism ; and it seems very prob- able that the latter will soon triumph over quarterly possession all along the line. There appears, however, to be room for yet a third view. 44 THE ECONOMICS The case can hardly be considered as one of evolution from private property to communal landholding ; nor, consequently, can it serve to support the theory that derives communal land- holding from the policy of the government. As Mr. Pankeyeff correctly puts it, quarterly landholding, even in its present aspect, combines the features of private and communal property. If we go back to the origin of quarterly landholding, we find that even the fees granted to the yeomen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries cannot be construed as private prop- erty. The land was given in temporary or hereditary posses- sion; the right of property remained with the state. The pasture, the forest, and the meadow were allotted to the village as a whole, not to the individual yeoman. The arable alone was apportioned to every one in separate plots. Though these plots were conferred on individuals, through inheritance, gift etc., yet this cannot be considered as a proof of private prop- erty in land. It must be borne in mind that wherever in Russia land is in abundance, its possession rests upon the title by oc- cupancy. In Siberia such plots pass from father to son, or duaghter, exactly as was the custom among the quarterly landholders some hundred years ago. And yet by all stu- dents of the Russian village community this is regarded as com- munal, not individual, landholding, since the supreme right over the land rests in the community. So long as there is no want of land, this right is exercised by using the stubble as com- mon pasture after the harvest. As soon as land, with the in- crease of population, becomes too scarce to allow of unlimited exercise of the right of first possession, the supreme right of the community asserts itself through the subdivision of the "claims" {zaeemkd). In the region under consideration the right of first possession ' was still in use in the beginning of • Cf. Mr. GreegoryefTs Report to the XVII. Assembly of the Gubernia of Rya- zaft, p. 5. Cf. also Emigration among the Peasants of the Gubernia of Rya- zan, by the same author, which I have not now at hand. In Eastern Russia the OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 45 this century, and the movement toward subdivision of the arable land dates from then.' In the district now under review we are able to observe the steps in the transition from possession by occupancy to subdi- vision of arable land. We find here the original form— quar- terly ownership, and the final form — equal subdivision of the land by the community among its members, and the inter- mediate stage in which one part of the field is subdivided into fixed hereditary shares, and the other part in equal lots among all the members of the community. In the districts of Dankoff and Ranenburg, in those com- munities where this intermediate form of possession is prevalent, forty-four per cent of the whole land (pasture, forest and meadow inclusive) is now considered as communal property. Formerly it was all common pasture. When want of land began to be felt, various tracts of the communal pasture were taken posses- sion of by individual householders, and converted into arable land. This arable land was the first to be declared the prop- erty of the community, and subject to equal subdivision among the community's members. The next step is subdivision of subd ivision of the arable land is but of very recent date. In Siberia it cannot be traced farther back than two generations, and there are even now a great many districts in which no limitations are imposed by the community on the free use of land by every one of its members. Nevertheless the poll tax was applied to these districts also for about two centuries. It seems to prove that the imposition of the said tax did not necessitate subdivision except where land was scarce. It may consequently be inferred that it was not the poll tax, but the scarcity of land in the most crowded provinces, that prompted the subdivision. In this view the subdi- vision of the land appears to be a natural phase in the evolution of communal landholding. (With reference to this point cf. Prof. W. J. Ashley's remarks in his introduction to Fustel de Coulanges' The Origin of Property in Land, ■^^., xlvii-xlviii.) ' Mr. Pankeyeff makes in one passage an allusion to the analogy between the de- velopment of quarterly landholding into agrarian communism and the transforma- tion of the right of first possession into communal ownership in New Russia and in ihe gubernia of Voronezh (Cf. op. cit., book III., p. 35). The analogy, however is not further worked out. 46 THE ECONOMICS the quarterly arable. Thereby the intermediate form passes into communal landholding proper, or agrarian communism.' The conclusion which can be drawn from the facts as pre- sented above is that quarterly landholding, is but an archaic form of communal landholding, and follows no exceptional course in its development, though that development has been somewhat retarded. ' The extent of the three forms of possession to-day is shown in the following table : Forms of possession. u S 1 1 1 c Extent of land. Communal proper. Quarterly. Dessia- tines. Per cent. Dessia- tines. Per cent. Quarterly .... ... " and Communistic . Communistic proper .... 33 12 45 2,180 1.639 9.3"9 15,071 11.037 62,114 3.754 9,210 99.493 II 45 99 5 29,598 11,213 493 89 S5 OS CHAPTER III. THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY. The old laws governing the State peasants, before the re- form of 1866, fixed the normal size of the plots at eight des- siatines (about 21 acres) to each male "of the revision" (i. e., included in the last preceding census) for the " regions where land is scarce." By the reforms of 1861 and 1866, not a single class of peas- ants was granted the extent of land that the state of agricul- ture in the district under consideration called for/ and the average tract owned by the more comfortably situated State peasant is only a little more than one-half of this normal plot as it was empirically fixed ; of course, the normal extent of a farm is subject to change through increase of population and progress of agricultural methods. Let us see how large is the extent of land actually required by, but not in the possession of, the peasantry of the districts under review. The table on the top of the next page gives the total num- ber of communities, in which all the householders were able to carry on farming with their own stock and implements. The favorable condition of these few communities was due to the fact that the land rented and acquired as private prop- erty by the prevailing majority equalled in extent the commu- nal tract. The communities in question occupied, as a whole, over one-half more land than the average. ' C/. Table of the Distribution of Land and Population, in the Appendix. U7) 48 THE ECONOMICS Title of Possession. Commu- nities. Revision males. Households. Land (Dessiatines.) Num- ber. Per- cent. Total. To one revision male. To one house- hold. Communal land: a. allotted . . . b. rented . . . Tenure from land- lords .... Private property . In all Total in the region (allotted land). . 28 465 158 ? 107 14 100 68 9 1180 314 666 '47 2-5 7S 6.2 lo.s 121 77 28 653 465 90031 158 36126 100 2307 294443 3-3 14.6 8.1 Still land tenure is unequally distributed among the peas- antry, thanks to legal discrimination. The main distinctions date from the reforms of 1861 and 1866. Here is the propor- tion of land to population in the several classes of the peasan- try of our region : DistricU and Classes. In every 100. To each peasant. Peasants. Dessiatines. Ranenburg : 599 39-9 64.1 35-4 45-4 54-4 50.0 494 I.o 1-7 I.I 1-9 Former state peasants Dankoff : Former state peasants That the disproportion is not the result of subsequent alter- ations in population or property can be seen from the compari- son between the average lot fixed by law for the former serf in 1 86 1, and that given to the former state peasant in 1866 : To each male of the Xth census : Ranenburg. Dessiatines. Former serfs, 2.4 Former state peasants 4,3 Dankoff. Dessiatines. 2.7 4.6 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 49 This inequality is due to the influence of landlord interests upon the reform of 1 86 1, considerable tracts of land having been cut off from the former peasant possessions and granted in ab- solute property to the masters/ It goes without saying that the free peasant must have sunk below the level of the serf. By the side of the former serfs even the state peasants appear as an " upper class.'' And yet the average quantity of land held by the state peasants falls short of the extent proved by experience to be necessary for farming in the districts under consideration. Want of land urged the pea.sant to convert everything into arable land, and that to such an extent that no improvements worth mentioning were left for the use of the cattle. The total hay yield of the meadows belonging to the peas- ants who live under agrarian communism^, is 458,000 poods', and this has to be distributed among 83,079 head of large cattle*. This makes on an average 5 ^ poods, i. e. 200 pounds to every head for the Russian winter, lasting at least half a ^The appendices to the Statistical Reports contain some figures for the com- parison between the extent of land formerly held by the serf and now owned by the free "peasant-propneior.' In 117 out of 562 communities of former serfs, there were held by the peasants : Dessiatines. Per cent. Before the emancipation 53^7° "0° After " " 40537 75 Cut off for the nobles '3333 25 It must be remembered that besides these 25 per cent., the nobles cultivated, before 1861, large portions of land on their estates by means of forced labor. 'Uniformity and equality being the law of the distribution of land in these com. munities, the income of each share is controlled by everybody, which makes it easy for the statistician to estimate. Those communities of quarterly possession constitute but 8.4 per cent, of the entire population of the district of Ranenburg and 15.2 per cent, of that of Dankoff. ' I pood = I quarter, 1 1 pounds and 2 ounces avoirdupois. • Small and young cattle (sheep, swine, calves, etc.) are also included in this total, with a compulation of ten head of small cattle to one head of big cattle (ox or horse). so THE ECONOMICS year. In other words, there is about one pound of hay a day for every head of cattle. Nor is the condition any better in the summer, since the pas- tures, where there are any, are very scanty; and this is due to conversion of pasture into arable land, as already mentioned, as well as into homesteads for the increased population. This reduces to a paltry figure the number of cattle raised by the peasants.' Two working horses to a farm can hardly be con- sidered as representing, even for Russian agriculture, a par- ticularly high standard. The actual extent to which stock- breeding is carried on by the peasants falls below even this minimum, save among the 415 quarterly proprietors in the Ranenburg district, who are a kind of peasant " four hundred" in their own way, owing to the extent of allotted land that they own. > Classes. House- holds. Work- ing horses. Cows. Average h Horses. per house- old. Big cattle. Ranenburg. 1. Former serfs II. Former State peasants — a. Agrarian communism . . b. Quarterly possession . . . t. Mixed Total Dankoff. I. Former serfs II. Former State peasants — a. Agrarian communism . . b. Quarterly possession . . . c. Mixed Total 12,999 6,237 415 1,224 16,140 8,241 830 1,781 8,924 5,687 5 '4 1,195 1.2 '•3 2 15 2.6 2.9 4 31 20,875 9.9«9 3,082 J.765 415 26,992 '3,576 4,092 3,126 648 16,320 6,485 2,189 1,406 318 J-3 1.4 1-3 1.8 1.6 2.6 2-5 2.6 3-3 29 15-251 21,442 10,398 14 2.7 (Former State peasants holding their land on the right of quarterly possession, are here noted separately in order to show that they enjoy about the same facili- ties for stock-breeding as do the rest of the peasantry). OF Th'E RUSSIAN VILLAGE. SI The depressed condition of stock-breeding reacts in its turn upon agriculture. Apart from this there is another universal cause that diverts the cattle manure from its natural use. I refer to the lack of woods. With respect to possession of forests, so necessary in a climate like Russia, most of the state peasants were originally in a privileged condition, compared with the former serfs, to whom, as a rule, no woodland at all was allotted.^ However, time has effaced all distinction between the privileged com- munities and those less fortunate. Of the former forests there remain at present only shrubs, and young bushes, of no prac- tical value. State peasant and former serf are equally domi- nated by the want of fuel, a want which must be satisfied with the only burning material at hand, viz: with dung. In many a community this precludes the fertilizing of the soil altogether; in a great many others it is but the land next to the homestead that is manured, and the poorest among the peasants have no manure at all worth carrying to their fields. It is needless to speak of the extent to which this contributes to the rapid exhaustion of the soil.'' Apart from these general conditions, we cannot pass by ' This is shown in the table below : Communities. Ranenburg. Dankoff. Former serfs. Former State peasants. Former serfs. Former State peasants. Total . . Forest allotted to . 276 3 52 26 260 19 39 27 (^Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II , pp. I-II., Appendices. ^We read in the Appendix to the Statistical Reports for the Ranenburg Dis- ^rictip.^zi : " Village Novoselki, former serfs of Barkoff. About 1877, pressed by the extreme need of daily bread, the peasants began sowing all the Belds, with- out giving them rest for a single year (in Russia every field rests once in three years); the yield is now constantly going from bad to worse, and there is nothing to manure the soil with.'' 52 THE ECONOMICS without notice certain special circumstances that continually depress the level of the peasants' agriculture in a number of villages inhabited by former serfs. The reform of 1861 was not carried out without serious troubles which in certain cases called for the intervention of armed force. As an example we may quote the village Speshnevo, bailiwick (volost) Hrushchefskaya, Dankofif dis- trict. We find the following in the Statistical Reports: "In 1 86 1 the peasants refused to accept the present tract, which was allotted to them in the place of one they had form- erly held. The latter was far superior as regards both situa- tion and quality. They stopped ploughing for seven years and finally agreed to accept the tract only after a detachment of soldiers had arrived at the village." "The village is now surrounded by property that is owned by strangers. The plots owned by the peasants begin at a dis- tance of 1400 feet, and extend about 3^ miles. The peas- ants are very frequently fined for damage done by the cattle to the fields of the landlords of the neighborhood."' Behind this dry, matter-of-fact statement, is hidden the story of a system of trickery practiced, at the time of the emancipa- tion, by the masters and the subservient officials. The land was, in some cases, purposely divided in such a way as to create for the peasants the necessity of an easement or servi- tude {servitus itineris, actus, aqiicB, etc), in the master's estate. The tract given in possession to the peasants is situated, at least in part, far away from their villages, sometimes without even a road for driving, and stretched in a long and narrow strip. Not to speak of the waste of time in going to and fro, it would not pay to manure the distant tracts. Thus in addi- tion to the immediate injury to the peasants aimed at by this system, a large portion of land is lost to all rational culture.' ^Statistical Reports fur the District of Dankoff, p. 240. ' Moreover, a crying injustice was thereby created — an injustice peculiar to Rus- sia alone. Enclosure is commonly considered the sign of private property. To this OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 53 In short, the effects of the scarcity of land ard'summed up in the lack of animal power, which is no unimportant drawback to agricultural progress, and in the predatory character of the peasant farming. This can be easily figured from the yields of rye and oats, the principal crops raised by the peasantry' : Countries. Russia^ District of Ostrogozhsk, Gub ernia of Voronezh, average for lo years (1877-1886) United States, average for 10 years (1880-1889) Ontario, Canada (1889—1890) , , , Great Britain (1889-1890). . . France (1888-1889) Germany (1890) Austria (1889) Hungary (1889) Yield Per Acre. Rye. Bushels. 8.9 1 1.9 'SS 16.1 147 14-5 13-8 Per Cent:. 100 134 174 165 163 15s Oats. Bushels. 10.7 26.6 307 403 26.1 30.1 17.6 174 Per Cent, 249 287 377 244 287 164 163 rule Russia is the sole exception. There the landlords do not care to enclose their •estates, while the peasants lack the necessary means to do so, having no woods in their possession. Whenever the landlord's estate adjoins the village, the peasants' cattle, being innocent of the knowledge of geodesical distinctions, invariably cross the fatal line. Then, if caught, (which is the rule,) they are duly arrested and delivered to their owners only after compensation has been paid for the damages suffered by the landlord. The courts are overwhelmed with processes of this kind just when the farmer is most busy. The number of villages laboring under these unfavorable conditions is given in the following table : Communes of former serfs. Total. Injured by site. Ranenburg 288 22 Dankoff 274 17 (QC Statistical Reports, Vol. II., Appendices.) ' Cf. Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, Vol. II., part II., pp. 166, 172; Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890 (Washington, 1891), p. 335; Reports of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Agriculture, 1891, by J. R. Dodge, Statistician, pp. 277-280, 654-655. 'The yield in the district of Ostrogozhsk represents pretty nearly the average for Russia, as can be shown by the following figures ; 54 THE ECONOMICS Unless the stnall productivity of agriculture is made up for by the size of the farm, the balance must needs close with a deficit. This is exactly what has been stated in figures by the statistical investigation of the ^//3fr«/a of Voronezh, where bal- ances of all moneys received and expended were made out by the statisticians for each one of the registered families. The results are shown in the following table :' Districts. -a 'o § Receipts from sale of produce (ru- bles). Expenses (rubles). iS S Q c .0 a, a c3 Zadonsk . . Korotoyak . . Nizhnedevitzk, 15.528 20,232 20,05 ' 390,178 1,280,206 1,326,110 784,061 1,017,727 1,069,013 239,072 304789 327,200 1,023,133 1,322,516 1,396,213 632,955 42,31° 70,103 If we examine the items of expenses, we find rye and flour among those necessaries which the farmer has to procure in the market during a portion of the year. The deficit of a peasant farm is consequently one of daily bread.' Yield of Rye per Acre. Seed-.\. Percent. All over Russia 4.C 100 In Ostrogozhsk 4.J 100 In the U. S. (1890) 6.1 135 (C/. Reports, etc., by J. A. Dodge, p. 480; Comparative Statistics of Russia, by Prof. J. E. Janson, p. 74). 1 Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. IV., part I., pp. 97, 98; Vol. V., part I., pp. io6- 109; Vol. VI., part I., pp. 144-146. 'In reality, the deficit is far greater, inasmuch as a part of the receipts came from the produce raised on rented land. It must also be noticed that taxes are not included in the expenses. ' This can be inferred from the table on the next page : OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 55 To give some idea of the standard of life of the Russian peasant, we append a summary review of three peasant budgets of the giibernia of Tamboff.^ I. Gabriel, the son of Michea, surnamed Trupoff, who owns four horses and holds 15 dessiatines (40 acres) of land, is, in faith, one of the chosen ones among the Tamboff peasantry. Verily it is worth while going through the budget of these peasant " four hundred." The total expenditure of a family of four adult persons and three children does not exceed 510 rubles a year, say (in round figures) ^10 a week.'' All the dresses of two rustic Lady Astors amount to the exorbitant figure of sixteen rubles a year, while the gentlemen are satis- Districts. Farmers buying rye and flour. To the amount of rubles Deficit of farming in the district (rubles). Number. Percentage to the population. Korotoyak Nizhnedevitzk .... 3.368 7.238 16 36 31.481 84.473 42,310 70,103 Ibid., Vol. v., part I., p. 107, columns 89, 92, 93; Vol. VI., part I., p. 145, col. 151, 154, 155. The quantity of bread consumed by a peasant family in a year amounting to e,"] poods upon an average (1. c, vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 75- 76, total), the deficit of bread in a year of ordinary crops figures as foUovfS : Households buying Deficit of Districts. bread, per cent. bread, per cent. Ostrogozhsk 58 54 Zadonsk 41 44 l^lbid., Vol. II. part I,, p. 223, col. 58, 59; Vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 77-82.) ' Cf, Statistical Reports for Borisoglebsk District, Gubernia of Tamboff, Ap- pendix, pp. 86-87. Every budget was made out upon the statement of the house- holder, in the presence of his neighbors, who were thoroughly cognizant of the income and expenses of the house ; the data are therefore perfectly trustworthy. (Ibid., and also page 28.) The budgets are produced in full in the Appendix below. 2 I ruble in gold = ?o.8o. Still there is no gold in circulation in Russia. The paper ruble, since the Turkish war of 1877-78, is worth only 60 per cent, of its nominal value, i. c, l.oo paper ruble = I0.50. The purchasing power of one ruble is however equal to that of one dollar in New York. c6 THE ECONOMICS fied with one hat once in five years, and one girdle of the value of eighiy cents once in a decade. To make both ends meet they have to content themselves with, upon an average, about one and a half pounds meat a day, for seven persons, and to do with- out tea, rejoicing over one glass of brandy a day, for the whole family. All the sundries expended make up the sum of ten dollars a year, or less than one cent a day to every grown up man or woman. This frugality enables them to add to their wealth 7.79 rubles in a year, when the harvest is 10: i to the seed. Now this is about twice as much as the Ryazan aver- age, and exceeds by one-half the Ryazan maximum. Should we reduce the yield from 10: i to the average 6.5 : i for rye and to 6.8 : I for oats, as given in the Reports for the district of Bor- isoglebsk, it would cause a deduction from the income, as follows : 3.5 : 10 from 40 Russian quarters rye @ 2.00 rubles 56.00 3.2: 10 " 60 " " oat @ 2.00 " 3840 Total , 9440 This would give a deficit of 86.61 rubles a year. To cover this deficit Gabriel Trupoff used to engage in various occupa- tions besides his farming. 2. The second family is likewise one of the best off, since they can even allow themselves the luxury of consuming one pound of tea, and five pounds of sugar yearly. Their farm yields them however a total income of only 358.80 rubles and the balance, 660.45, must be provided from other sources. 3. Finally, the third family of " pea.sant-proprietors " draws a yearly income of 27. Fo rubles from farm and house, while the entire expenditure amounts to 241.80 a year, or 20.15 a month for 8 persons. Although it causes a yearly deficit of 65.20, which must be covered through loans, and probably through the sale from time to time of their chattels, yet they are tax- payers, and contribute 8.00 yearly toward the expenses of the state. In short, it is manifest that even the most favored classes of OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 57 the Russian peasantry are hardly able to make a living, how- ever moderate, by farming on their plots. Hence the econo- mic dependence of the Russian peasant, evidenced in various ways. There is yet another very important feature of modern peas- ant economy which is brought to light by the budgets. A by no means insignificant part of the entire peasant consumption is to be provided for in the market outside of farming,' and consequently a corresponding portion of the peasant's labor must be spent in production for the market. Thus the archaic peasant husbandry based upon natural economy has been to a ' CONSUMPTION. Householders in the gubernia of Tambofif. Rubles. Per cent. Own produce. Market produce. Own produce. Market produce. Gabriel TrupofF. KosmaAbramofl 30900 586.80 166.71 416.45 65 59 35 4' Taxes and rents are not included. Should we count all expenses, the figures would look as follows : TOTAL EXPENDED. Householders. Rubles. Per cent. Own produce. Market produce. Own produce. Market produce. Gabriel Trupoff. KosinaAbramoff 30900 586.80 219.21 7M-45 59 45 41 55 THE ECONOMICS 58 very considerable extent supfersedfed by money economy.' IM other words, Russian farming has developed from the produfc- tion of use-values or utilities to a production of commodities. 1 Districts in Une^bernia of Voronezh. Households buying in the market. 15.528 20,232 20,05 ' Households sell- ing produce. Households con- suming their total produce. Number. 8,094 18769 18,558 Per cent. 51 93 93 Number. 7,610 1,463 1.493 Per cent. 49 7 7 Zadon-k Knrotoyak iSizhnedevitzk Those households which purchased in the market witl out selling produce, earned the nece.'sary money by felling their own labor force, which is shown by figures in the same Reports. (L. c.) CHAPTER IV. TAXATION OF THE PEASANT. When the balance of a peasant farm is closed, year in, year out, with a deficit, it is only of secondary importance whether there be added to it a score of rubles or not, in taxes. In either case the farmer has to look for employment outside of his homestead that he may be able to keep body and soul to- gether. Nor is it of great moment that the taxes must be paid in money, since at any rate not a small part of the produce must be carried to the market to be converted into money for the purchase of implements, clothing, and even of food for the pea.sant and his cattle.' But the economic influence of taxa- tion is marked by its compulsory character, as well as by its unequal pressure upon different classes of the people. It may be regarded as an established rule that the burden of taxation is, in Russia, in inverse ratio to the means of the tax- payer.' •Taxes constitute but a minor part — though a very considerable one — of the money expenditure; and the receipis drawn from sale ot produce exceed by far the sum paid in taxes. The respective items are contrasted in the following table ; Districts in the gu- bernia >of Voronezh. Money expenditure for the needs of the farmer (rubles). Taxes (rubies). Receipts from sale of produce (rubles). Zadonsk Korotoyak, . . Nizhnedevitzk ... 784,061 1,017,727 1,069,013 271.729 504.608 5.1,285^ 390,178 ) 1,280,206 1,326,110 1 . ' Cf. Table II., in the Appendix. In this table, land and stock, the principal instruments of production in Russian agriculture, give the comparative Standard of the peasant's •life. i (59) 6o THE ECONOMICS The former serf is taxed more, absolutely (every male and every worker), and relatively (every acre of land), than is the former State peasant. The difference is literally the tribute paid to the landlord class for the emancipation of their serfs. Indeed, the greater part of the contributions of the former serf is composed either of his redemption tax, or of the pay- ment due to his master {taille) : AMOUNT OF TAXES (IN RUBLES) TO ONE " REVISION " MALE. Dankoff. Ranenburg. ■A x" Classes of Peasants. I. C .9 Q- s (U u c At the time of the reform it was ostentatiously declared by the government that the person of the serf would be freed without any compensation to the master. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 6l called donated lots, i. e., the least is levied from those who are free from the obligation to their former masters. Here, however, we are again face to face with the charac- teristic feature of the Russian financial system: the "absolute proprietor," who owns from six to ten times as much land as the donee, and who breeds more than twice as much stock as the latter, is taxed from four to eight times less upon every acre. It would be absurd to suspect even a Russian financial administration of the intention to overtax the neediest while relieving the burdens of the better-off. Yet this is the neces- sary result of a financial system which belongs to a different historical epoch, and has survived the overthrow of its econo- mic foundations through a social revolution. Let us take as a unit every male of the revision, (i. e., the official unit of taxation); let us then compare with one another the assessments levied upon both exceptional classes of abso- lute proprietors and donees, on the one hand, and let us again compare with each other the assessments levied upon the re- maining classes, of the peasantry. We shall see that every male is taxed on the whole at an approximately uniform rate. This is the usual system of taxation in every primitive state, where land is in abundance and human labor is the main source of wealth. The labor powers of men being approxi- mately equal, assessment per capita insures a rude equity in taxation. But after the reforms of 1861 and 1866, which added new and sharp distinctions to those already in existence among the peasantry, taxation per capita became a power that accentuated the social inequalities, and hastened, through its extortion, the ruin of the feeble. Indebtedness of landed property is the inclined plane usually leading toward expropriation of the small farmer, as well as of the aristocratic landlord. In Russia the three minor subdi- visions of the peasantry, viz.- the '"absolute proprietors," the "donees" and the "quarterly possessors," are the only ones who enjoy the title of property in their land, and consequently 62 THE ECONOMICS * they alone are in a position to mortgage to private persons. The bulk of the peasantry' have no right of alienating their plots. Chronic indebtedness upon the latter takes, therefore, as its only po.ssible form that of arrears. in taxes, which is pre- cisely the sore place of the Russian administration. The amount of "arrears" due by the peasants to the treas- ury is represented by no inconsiderable figure, as may be seen from the following table : Amount of taxes Arrears, apportioned (rubles'). Rubles. Per cent. Ranenburg — Former serfs 347,672 176,288 50 Former State peasants . .212.571 70>3o3 331 Total 560,243 246,591 44 Z>««,*ff^— Former serfs 292,648 12,352 4.2 Former Slate peasants . . . 135,019 4,936 3.7 Total ^. .427,667 17,288 ,4 It is needless to dilate upon the consequences to the budget pf a deficiency of about one-half of the direct taxes paid by the most numerous class of the population. Yet the average fig- ures for the entire region do not convey any true idea of the real disturbance caused to the concrete communities which are unable to stand the burden of their payments. The number ot those communities, as well as the rate of indebtedness, is very considerable, and the burden is, moreover, very unequally dis- tributed among the communities indebted, the consequence be- ing that some are entirely crushed.' In the district of Ranenburg, this den of " sturdy nonpay- ers," we find only 9.6 per cent, of the former serfs and 2.1 per cent, of the former State peasants who give no annoyance to the "constituted authorities." The rest, that is to say, 293 Households, per cent. Land, per cent. ' Ranenbut^ 91.6 86.9 Dankoff 83.8 73.8 * Cf. th£ Table of the Distribution of Arrears, in the Appendix to this essay. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 63 communities out of 340, are in arrears fop not less than 6.70 rubles. The burden is aggravated by its unequal distribur tion. We find one third of the former State peasants owing above one-half of the arrears of their class, while above three- eighths of the former serfs are responsible for 70 per cent, of the entire debt of their class. These, the most heavily indebted groups, are made up of those communities which are in arr rears for more than the tax levied for the use of the land, the rent paid to the treasury by the former state peasant, the taille or the redemption tax imposed upon the former serf In other words, one-third of the former State peasants, and three- eighths of the former serfs, are unable to bear the fee levied for the use of their land.' Finally, this fact attracted the attention of the central government, and in 1882, the zemstvos were re- quired by the Minister of the Interior to report upon " the communities in which husbandry had fallen into ultimate des- titution,'"' and a relief in the amount of the redemption tax was desirable. The committee elected by the zeinstvo of the dis- trict of Ryazan applied, as we learn, to the Reports of th^ Statistical Bureau. The same could hardly be done for the districts under consideration, since the Reports were subse- quently proscribed by the zemstvo of the gubernia of Ryazan.' If the Reports were taken into account, all the above three- eighths of the former serfs would perhaps have to be classed among those whose husbandry "has fallen into ultimate desr titution," since above one- fourth owed to the treasury 20.10 rubles, and one-ninth above 34 ruble to an average house- hold. This one-ninth was in chronic arrears of from one to two annual instalments. Whatever may be the absolute amount of the arrears, the point is that they bear upon the peasant's live stock, which is ' In addition a tax assessed per capita is levied upon the lands of the peasants for the expenses of the State. ' Cf. Reports, Vol. II., part I., preface, p. 7. ' Cf. above page 16. 64 THE ECONOMICS the only valuable part of his movable property, and is conse- quently the first to be taken hold of by the auctioneer. Ar- rears in taxes are, therefore, a constant threat to the very ex- istence of the peasant's farming.^ •The maximum of arrears reached, in three communities, the enormous sum of 65 rubles to an average household. This means complete destruction of indepen- dent farming. Let us quote some examples, by way of illustration : 1. The community of former serfs of Mr. Balk, village and bailiwick Karpofka, district of Ranenlurg: The arrears amount to 67.90 rubles from each house- holder. Out of the total number of 51 householders there are but 24 who culti- vate their lots personally. Only three among them have two horses, the rest must do with one, and 26 (one-half) have no working animals at all. One householder among these 26 has a cow ; the rest have jieither horse nor cow. There are like^ wise only 13 cows to be distributed among the 24 better-off householders who- personally cultivate their farms. Only one pig is raised in the village, and 87 sheep — that is to say, less than two sheep, upon an average, to each household- This means 'that the peasants have no meat on their tables, and most of the chil- dren no milk. 10 "householders" (one-fifth of the village) have neither houses nor land ; tliey lease their lots in order to pay their taxes, and, in all probability,, seeing the coincidence of the figures, they have no cattle either. The yield of rye is to the seed as 3 to i, and that of oats as 2 to I {loc. cit,. Vol. II., tables, pp. 56- 61). In 1864 many peasants* chattels in this village were sold for arrears. The majority of the peasants go a-begging (App., pp. 286-287), and certainly are very little afraid of public sale for o-U ilrCy a rien, le roi perd son droit. Neither is flogging endowed with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsible in solido for the payment of the taxes, it was the minority who had to pay, in addition to their own arrears, those of the beggars. Seeing the extent of their wealth, it is not perhaps too pessimistic to presume that in this year 1892 perfect equality reigns in place of the old distinction between minority and majority. 2. Community of former serfs of Mr. Novikoff, in the same village, in arrears for 46.30 rubles to each household, i. e., for about three terms of payment. Soon after the emancipation two great public sales of their chattels took place, the sales being to satisfy arrears in the payment of the taille. Year in and year out, from 20 to 30 householders have their catlle and buildings sold at public auction to satisfy arrears of taxes. 23 families out of the whole number of 245 (i. e., 9 per cent.) have lost their shanties; 105, or 43 per cent., have no horses; and 84 among them, or more than one-third of the village, have also no cows. 123 fam- ilies, i. c, one half of the village, do not cultivate their lots themselves (or culti- vate only a part), either hiring their neighbors to do the work, or leasing their lots for the mere payment of the taxes. The wealthier half numbers but 60 house- holders (i. e., one-fourth of the village), who own two or more horses, and can be OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. Oi Moreover they bind the peasant to the spot, and thus restrict the market for his labor. This, however, is only an evil of the transitional epoch. A change of great moment has taken place in so short a period as the ten years which separate the census of the zemstvo from the investigations of the above mentioned Commissions of the central government. Overtaxation has been swallowed up in the increase in value of the land. The rent of the peasant's plot in both districts of the giibcrnia of Ryazan exceeds the taxes by from one to three rubles (i. e. the taxes absorb, in an average, from 78 to 91 per cent of the rent.)' Though rise of rent is by no means regarded as beongng 10 tl e type of bonus pater familias (^kozyaislvenniy "itt- zhik). The resi have I ut one hors^e, and some of them no cow. "They live but poorly," explains ihr Apfindix (1. c, p. 286). 3. Community of former serfs of Messrs. Muromtzeff, village Durofshtchino, bailiwick Vedr.ofskiy 1, of the same district. The arrears amount in an average to 42.70 rubles to each 1 oustholder. The community may serve as an example of the astounding capacity for growth of the Russian peasant's wool after he has been shorn like a sheep, .'S ihe great Russian satirist has it {Playwork Manikins, by M. E. Saltykc fl). Irdier, in 1881 all the cows in the village were sold for arrears by the mir ; in I J 82 the statisticians found 38 householders, each of whom was again in posstrssion cf a cow. However, notwithstanding this capacity of ac- commodation, in which the Russian peasant approaches the lowest zoological species, the village in question is still far from prosperous. Among the 64 families there are 12, i. e., about one-fifth, who own neither house nor cattle, and hold no land, having either returned their lots to the community or leased them for pay- ment of the taxes, which comes to the same thing. On the other hand, there are but 27 households, i. e., 42 per cent., who maintain a normal standing, i. e., have not less than tw o horses and one cow, and cultivate all the land in their possession. (Cf. Tables, pp. 194-199. No- 29; App., p. 329.) '^ Ibid., Vol. II., part I., p. 264; part II., p. 197. There are in both districts only ten communities in which the taxes absorb the entire rent, and only seven communities of former serfs (out of 562) in which the taxes exceed the rent. On the other hand, there are only 17 communities where the difference is above three rubles; and the maximum reaches 13 rubles in a community of former State peasants who own a tract of forest in the district of Dankoff (^Ibid., pp. 31, 210, * No. 8). The proportion of taxes to rent in this community is as 9.5 to 22.5, i. e., the taxes absorb 42 per cent, of the rent in the most favored community. What would the New York landlord or the American farmer say, to such a rate of tax- ation 7 66 THE ECONOMICS a blessing for the Russian peasant, partly tenant, partly agri- cultural laborer as he is, yet the benefit he gains, as taxpayer is the possibility of disposing of his labor by leasing his plot to any one willing to pay the taxes thereon, Thus the old question of chronic arrears is to-day easy to be settled through public sale of the peasant's stock. Flogging as a measure of financial policy can be dispensed with, so fay at least as the insolvent debtor is concerned ; for the taxes are secured by the land, over and above the bpdy of the taxpayer. Thus economic evolution has loosened the legal bonds which formerly chained the Russian peasant to the soil. CHAPTER V. COMMUNAL TENURE AND SMALL HOLDINGS. Two economic features determined the further development of Russia, after the abolition of serfdom. Personal dependence of the serf was replaced, as above shown, by economic depend- ence of the "peasant-proprietor" compelled to seek work for wages beyond the limits of his own holding. Inequality of condition among the peasants, created by legal discrimination and furthered by the fiscal system, furnished the basis for the division of labor by which the peasants tried to fill up the holes in their farming. What were these occupations, and how did they react upon the village community? In the times of serfdom the village community, as above mentioned, enjoyed certain rights to the land which was used by the master himself. Pasture, and water, and way in the landlord's estate were free to the community. The emancipa- tion deprived the peasants of these privileges and put them under the necessity of entering into agreements, of one kind or another, with the landlord for the use of these easements. Where lack of water, or the necessity of a way through the landlord's estate, has been artificially created by the reform, it is obviously the community as a whole that must contract the agreement. In so far, however, as rented pasture is concerned, the usual communistic rule is put on trial by the growing inequalities that have arisen in the business of stock breeding within the village community. About one fourth of the community is composed of the poorest families, who own no horses, and oftentimes no cattle at all.^ It is obvious that whenever the Percentage of families owning ^Districts. No horse. Ntither horse nor cow. Ranenburg 36 25 Dsnkoif 34 25 (Q^ Reports, Vol, II., part I., p. 255 ; part II., p. 189.) (67) 68 THE ECONOMICS use of a pasture is rented for horses or cows, a not inconsider- able part of the community is practically excluded from the agreement. The assessment of the obligation in proportion to the shares held by the several householders in the communal land would be unjust to the poorest part of the community. Another basis for the distribution is found, in many in- stances, in the number of heads of cattle belonging to each householder, i. e. outside of the province of agrarian commun- ism; the poor are thus released from the burden of payments. But, on the other hand, the community becomes virtually the voluntary partnership of its wealthier members. The econo- mic tendency of the time is shown by the following figures:' Partv of the renter. Rented pasture. a li In consideration of H 1 ■a Former State peasants. I 1 I I 91 562 2. Individuals All to iormer State peasants . . . I 22 14 I 8 3 I 2 123 26 3 2 Former serfs. 1. Community 2. Community, obligation discharged per 93 12 3. ComniUnily, beside individuals , , . I All to former serfs los 37 12 '54 ' The numbers designate communities. * In these transitional communities labor agreements for pasture are met with side by side with money contracts. In one case a very partriarchal form of rela- tions was observed. The community was admitted to the pasture of the neigh- boring village for a reception yearly tendered to the latter. [Reports, Vol. II., part I., p. 328, No. 27.) OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 69 We find the province of communism extended in only two villages of the former state peasants, who had nothing to do with the landlords' pasture before the emancipation. On the other hand, the right of pasture held by the mir in the land- lord's fields in the times of serfdom has disappeared in 408 out of the 562 free communities. Yet wherever pasture is rented, the mir prevails, and individual agreements are the rarest ex- ception. The latter form is, however, likely to keep pace with the development of money economy in rural relations. So long as the easement is granted in consideration of a certain amount of farm work to be done, (and this is now the ordinary rule), it is to the landlord's advantage to secure the collective labor of a whole community at once, instead of entering into a special agreement with each peasant for a small service. The fulfil- ment of the obligation is secured by the joint suretyship of the community, while to sue each peasant for failure to perform two or three days' work would be far too troublesome. It certainly matters little to the landlord, how the labor is distri- buted among the several members of the community, and it was but in 12 cases out of 105 that the agreement was made for so much work to be done/^r head. On the other hand payment was stipulated for at so much/fr head in 14 out of 37 cases, in which the transaction was one of money. But as soon as the agreement is made in this form, the householders can act individually as well as through the viir, and this was in reality the case in 6 communities out of the 156, the peasants managing to get their cattle counted as part of the landlord's flock. We notice here how economic inequality weakens the tie of communism, even where that communism has its roots set deep in the prevailing methods of agriculture, the cattle graz- ing in one flock upon the common pasture under the surveil- lance of the communal shepherd. Quite naturally we find individualism to be the rule as soon as we come to the tenure of arable land, which is cultivated by the householders individually: 70 THE ECONOMICS Party to the agreement. Rdvinburg. Cominunity . . Partnerships . . Individuals . . Total . . . Dankoff. Comniunity . . Partnerships . . Individuals . . Total . . . 256 Number of Rented Land, per communities. dessiatines. cent. 25 2195 120 2 J43 0.8 265' 16009' 87.2 290 18347'' 100 23 2240 16.2 3 42 0.3 230' 11561I 83s 13843' As appears from this table, in so far as peasant farming has survived on the landlortd's estate, agrarian communism has been almost entirely superseded by individual tenancy. Should not, however, the few cases of communal tenure be considered, on the contrary, as signs of a budding agrarian communism? Is it not a fact that peasant tenancy has .sprung into existence from nothing within recent times, and that in 48- villages agrarian communism has acquired a foothold even in that tenancy which was always considered as being essentially an individualistic form of landholding? Such was the argument of an optimistic school of peas- antists, which gained much credit in Russia in a few years ago.* In reality, however, nothing like a growth of communism can ' Some cases of communal tenure are not included in the tables of the Reports, though mentioned in the Appendices; I have added the extent of this tenure, which makes the difference between my totals and those of the tables. 'The numbers of the two columns under this heading do not correspond, since land is besides rented individually in those communities where tenure by the mir Or by p.irtnerships is practiced. ' Cf. Forms of Agricultural Production in Russia, p. 43 tt passim, by Mr. Euzhakoff, an admirer of Mr. Henry George. The paper was published in the magazine Otelchestvenniya Zapiski, 1882. OF THiE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. -\ be s6en in the feceiit rise of communal tenancy. As a mattei- of fact the latter is restricted solely to communities of former Strfs/ CoHisequently it is but the title bf possession that has changed, and that from tenure in perpetuity into tenancy at will, for periods of from 3 to 12 years. On the other hand, the land which had been before the enr- ancipation occupied by the village community of the serfs, is now held by the individual tenant. Let us compare the area of land held by the tenants in 1882 with the tracts carved out of the peasants' possession in 1861.' Cariied out in 1861. Rentea in i88i. Ranenburg 37'° 3^74 Dankoff 5179 4327 Really worth thinking over is the question; why could not communal tenure stand the competition of individual peasant tenancy ? In the first place the lots leased by the community are con- siderably larger than those rented by individual peasants.' 'In the district of Ryazan, where communal tenure is by far more extended than in the districts under review, we find .1 few casesof communal tenure among (he former State peasants ; yet the extent of land so held is so small as to cut no figure at all : Communal tenure. Classes of tenants. Dessiatines. Per cent. Former serfs 9924 96 Former State peasants 456 4 Total 10380 100 ( Cf. Statistical Reports for the Guiirnia of Ryazafii Vol. I., sec. II., table 3, f-; P- 57) ' Rented land is taken into account only in those communities in which the area cut off at the time of the emancipation could be ascertained by the statisticians. It may be furthier stated that only such land is here taken into account as is yearly cultivated. •average holding (in dessiatines). Communal. individual. Ranenblirg 88 3 Dankoff 97 3 72 THE ECONOMICS Moreover by the joint suretyship of all the members of the community a security is ofTered lacking in small individual contracts. Quite naturally the terms on which land is rented by the community are more favorable for the peasants than those of individual contracts.' The result of cheaper rent is the better condition of the com- munities in question as compared with the average.' Why then should not other communities imitate this praise- worthy example? The answer seems to be found precisely in the higher economic level of the communities concerned, which carries with it greater uniformity of interests: ' Average rent paid for I dessia- tine. Arable. Meadow. Ranenburg. Dankoff. Ranenburg. Dankoff. By ihe communiiy . . rubles. By individuals in the same com- tnunities 13. 1 1 19.82 16.62 9.76 13-47 12.76 10.86 15.91 7-74 7-S9 By individuals throughout the dis- trict • Districts and classes. Quantity of stock to one household. " Horseless," per cent. Working horses. All kinds of large cattle (horses in- clusive). Kanenburg. In the communities in question . . Among former serfs at large . . . Among former Stale peasants with agrarian communism Dankoff. In the communities in question . . Among former serfs at large . . . Among former State peasants with agrarian communism 1.6 1.2 "■3 '•5 1-3 1-3 2-9 2.9 2-S 2.6 27 37 33 33 35 33 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 73 Classes of communities. Percentage of householders. Engaging in tenure. Indifferent. Letting Out their own lots.^ Ranenburg: Tenure by the communily. . Tenure by individuals. . . . Dankoff. Tenure by the community. . Tenure by individuals. . . . 64 26 58 25 25 57 25 59 II 17 17 16 The language of the figures is unequivocal. Wherever land is leased by the mir, the prevailing majority is made up of tenants, while under ordinary circumstances they form but a small minority. On the contrary above one-half of the village assembly consists at large of those householders who are in- different to the question, and would not put themselves to the trouble of incurring responsibility. Thus it is in the growing heterogeneity of the village that the cause of the decline of communism in tenancy is to be sought. On the other hand, the same reason accounts for the substi- tution of the usual method of distribution of land and burdens by the community, through subdivision of the rented land in proportion to the money invested by each householder. The question arises whether that can really be called tenure by the community, where a part of its members keep out of the agreement, and the land is held severally, and pro rata to the capital invested? It seems to be rather a joint partner- ship. Yet partnership is by nature an individualistic contract, whether the parties to such contract be the " elders " of the »«V, or common business men.' We consider therefore rental part- ' Altogether or partly, but without cultivating the rest personally. ' Indeed, we find the mir in some instances playing the part of land broker. The community of former serfs of Prince Shtchetinin, in the village of Sergievskee Borovok, Ranenburg, rented a field of 434 dessiatines (1172 acres), at 16 ruble* 74 THE ECONOMICS nership only as a stage of transition from communal to indi- vidual tenancy. As above mentioned, in those very communities where com- munal tenure is yet in existence, side by side with it individual tenancy has taken root: Ranenburg. Dankoff. Dessitttines. Per cent. DesHatines. Per cent. Held by the tnir 2195 66 2240 81 Held by individuals 1 138 34 534 19 Total rented 3333 100 2774 100 Thus communism in tenancy is passing away; small hold- ings for a term of one summer have become to-day the domi- nant form of rental agreements/ the dessiatine, and re-rented one-third of the tract at a commission of firom 3 to 4 rubles per dessiatine {i. e., from 20 to 25 per cent.), and even more. (^Reports, part I., p. 316, No. 10. Cf. also p. 289, No. 15, etc.) No doubt this business could be as successfully performed by any East Side New York real estate and land improvement agency, as by the Ryazan peasant communists. ^Ibid., Vol. II., part I., p. 264. CHAPTER VI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRI- CULTURAL LABORER. In the vast majority of cases tenure at will did but take the place of the old relations between master and serf.' The oblir gation of the serf toward his master was discharged on some estates in labor (corvee), on others by payments, either in money or in kind. It is only natural to find the old practice inherited by modern economy : ' This is shown by the comparative data concerning tenure at will among the two main divisions of the peasantry : Classes and Districts. Tenants. Land leased. Tenants to population, per cent. Land leased to land owned, per cent. House- holds. Per cent. Dessia- tines. Per cent. Ranenburg, Former serfs .... Former State peasants . Dcinkoff. Former serfs .... Former State peasants , 4392 893 3205 676 83 83 17 '5337 3010 1 1078 2765 84 16 81 20 34 II 32 13 20 3 >7 4 (75) 76 THE ECONOMICS Communal Individual In all.i tenure. tenure. Land. Land. Land. in u H m yj c p 3 s G S cd s 71 s fc *55 u s !S u IS p 47 I u Q OJ Pi Share in crops 4 382 2 429 2 Money rental (merely) . . .34 ■SS.SO 76 84 6687 43 IOOI7 SO Labor (merely) I 48 I 8 S62 4 610 3 Labor compulsory and money in addition lo 958 22 100 132 8065 SI 9023 45 100 Total 48 4383 228 15696 100 20079 The patriarchal custom of division of the product itself be- tween landlord and tenant [metayage) has now become about entirely obsolete, and is now to be found only in combination with extra payments in money. Forced labor on the part of the peasant for the benefit of the landlord continued in use. Abolished by law, it has been upheld until to-day, through the economic pressure of the need of land. The free tenant was compelled to bind himself to do a certain amount of work for the landlord. If he failed in this he could not get the oppor- tunity of renting land. Pecuniary agreements were in vogue on those estates alone, whose owners did not care for farming. ' The table includes 62 per cent, of the total area of rented land, the data for the classification being furnished by the statements in the Appendices to the Re- ports for the districts in question. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 77 The economic tendency of the time, however, is toward money economy and "free contract.'" As in the matter oi' taxation, the change is brought about by the rise of rent. On the one hand, the amount of work done by the tenant for the landlord has enormously increased, thereby diminish- ing the demand for compulsory labor. On the other hand, whenever the rent is to be paid in cash, at least one part must be advanced in the spring, i. e. at a time when most of the peasants are short of money. Moreover, the extraordinarily heavy rents exacted have made the leasing of land a very hazardous business; one bad yield is sufficient to upset all the tenant's calculations, and to throw him into insolvency." The circle of tenants who can pay their rents in ' We find this tendency very pronounced in the gubernia of Voronezh : Area rented. rn s ^ u Districts. t t3 t, K C^J M eu c S zt s >; S O o rt o .Q « ■ss A § "rt s ^ s ^ ^ e fe fe H Zadonsk 86 7 7 100 Korotoyak 88 12 100 Nizhnedevitsk 94 4 2 100 {_Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. IV., part I., Vol. V., part I.; Vol. VI., part I., Table of Rented Land.) ' Here are some instances: I. Village Solntzevo, district of Ranenburg. — " Some five years ago, after one failure of the crops, too householders were 6ooo rubles in arrears with their rent. Up to this date they have paid practically nothing, and live with the threat of be- ing sold out hanging perpetually over their heads." (Zof. cit. App., p. 308.) The result can be shown in figures : 78 THE ECONOMICS cash has thus been reduced to the "stronger" householders.' The natural consequence was increased offers of farm labor in exchange for land, on the part of those who could not afford to lay out ready money. Thus in the process of the economic evolution, compulsory labor becomes obsolete. It was only in the minority of cases that the promise of labor was required as an essential part of the rental agreement, and even then it was only in exceptional cases that farm work was to be performed for the full amount of the rent. Generally only a part of the latter was to be covered through labor; the rest could be paid, at the option of the tenant, either in work or in money. In this transitional form of agreement prevalent in 1882, the peasant appears, properly speaking, as tenant and laborer at once. The next step is toward the differentiation of both. The purely money form of rent has already won the field over about one half of the whole area of rented land. That this is the form which is finally to prevail, follows from the fact, undisputed by Russian statisticians, that peasants in good standing avoid working on the landlords' estates, and prefer to pay their rent in money. The miserable remuner- ation for farm work is the very obvious r'eason of this dislike. These are the average amount of rent and the average price Rent {in rubles) paid; Number of tenants. By all tenants. By each otte. In 1877 100 6000 60 In 1882 75 3514 47 (C/ p. 123.) 2. Village Bahmetyevo, Ranenburg. — " Excessive rent, often not returned by the yields, has caused the heavy indebtedness of many a householder" (p. 331). 3. Village Blagueeya. — " The terms of tenure are very burdensome. — above 20 rubles the dessiJtine. One part of the rent must be discharged in labor, the rest is payable in advance. Leasing land is often direct loss. A good many are in debt, and not infrequently get ruined." [/bid.) 1 Cf. Table IV. in the Appendix. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 79 paid for the full work of cultivating, and harvesting one des- siatine, and carrying the crops to the barn : Rent rubles 14.78 Labor " 4.75 Rent for i dessiatine ^ Wages for 3 dessiatines. The average figures can be considered, however, merely as representing static conditions at any given moment. The tendency of the movement is rather indicated by the extreme limits. When work is offered in payment of rent, wages very often sink far below the level. At the same time rent is ever on the rise. Let us take for purposes of comparison, some communities in which piece wages are lowest, and some others in which rent is highest: ,h Wages per des- Rates of rent siatine(rubles). to wages. District of Ranenburg. 'S 3 1 £1? s 1l s.s a d B ,6 u 1-1 < fe H (iK fn Minimum of wages. . . 44 1909 15.16 3.00 4.00 5.2:1 3-9:1 Maximum of rent .... 12 «33 23.72 4.00 5.00 5.9:1 4-3:1 As the ratio of rent to wages is moving from 3:1 towards 5:1, it finally becomes questionable whether we should class among tenants or among laborers a peasant who has to till five ■dessiatines for the landlord in exchange for one dessiatine given to himself. Thus land tenure is degenerating into wage labor. CHAPTER VII. THE WAGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS. The amphibious character of the peasant, who is at once farmer and laborer, proves a very important factor in shaping' the relations of Russian economic life. In Russia we have the case of the so called allotment sys- tem on a large scale. The influence of this system was pic- turesquely elucidated by John Stuart Mill when he statcid that "it makes the people grow their own poor rates."' Exactly the same is observed in Russia. The greater part of the work in agriculture, as well as in in- dustry, is performed by farmers.^ With them the earnings from' outside labor are to cover only a' part of their expenses, which cannot be provided for by farming. It is obvious that wages alone must fall below the usual standard of life.^ We have seen how, in the course of the evolution from farmer to wage worker, the tenant first becomes farm laborer. ^Principles of Political Economy, eighth edition, Vol. I., p. 453. ' Classes. Percentage to the total of the peasantry. Korotoyak. Nizhnedevitzk. Households taking to wage-labor Of these are : Regular farmers Laborers proper 62 5° 12 69 63 6 J ' Detailed tables containing the rates of wages paid in different occupations are found in the Appendix. (80) OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. gl Accordingly it is natural to find farm labor prevailing among the local occupations of the peasants : Agriculture. Trades. Per cent. Per cent. Ranenburg 69 31 Dankoff y2 28 The transitional stage between husbandman and help is oc- cupied by the householder who alternates his own farming with working on the landlord's estate. In either case the workman comes with his own horse and implement.' The relation between employer and employee is, with a very few exceptions,'' one of money economy. Owing to the circumstances above discussed, the farmer is ever in quest of ready money. In his quality of "peasant pro- prietor" he enjoys "the blessing of credit," that is to say, he is always in debt to the landlord. Unquestionably, the favor is not granted for the sake of pure neighborliness. Money is ad- vanced in fall time, or in winter, in reward for farm work to be performed next summer, and sometimes in a year or two.' ' Optimism is inborn in the Russian ; to whatever creed or party he may belong, things ever appear to him as he would like them to be. The Russian peasantist must not therefore be censured for his misconception of this most typical figure of the modern Russian village. The peasant who agrees to do the full work of cul- tivating and harvesting a tract of the landlord's field appears to Mr. Euzhakoff as a tenant, with the only peculiarity that " the tenant takes his share in money, while leaving the landlord to take the crops " (loc. cit., pp. 26-27). This confusion reminds one to some extent of the attempts of certain economists to represent the workingman as capitalist, and the capitalist as workingman. There is, however, one extenuating circumstance that may be urged on behalf of the well-meaning author, in the hopelessness of the task he has undertaken with the best intentions, viz., to demonstrate that the debilitated Russian Capitalism, condemned before its birth by history, is unable to hold its ground in the contest with the triumphant small peasant culture. • There are in all two statements to the effect that work is done for straw, flour, etc. (^Loc. «V., part II., p. 198, No. 4; p. 206, No. 3.) Cases in which work is done for rented land, or for a share in the crop, have been counted as tenure. *Loi.. cit., part I., p. 264. Figures on the indebtedness of the peasantry with regard to farm labor for wages are found in the Statistical Reports for the Gu- g3 THE ECONOMICS , The noble descendant of Rurik' gains the benefit of 50 per cent, yearly upon an average on the reduced rate of hire. Low pay for piece work beats down the workman proper, who has to depend entirely upon his employment. The wages for day-labor may serve as an illustration: BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER. Male. Female. Minimum. Maximum. Minimum. Maximum, In winter 0.18 0.25 0.12 0.15 In spring and fall 0.25 0.35 , , . . In summer 0.35 0.70 0.20 0.45 Furthermore, the comparison between agriculture and in- dustry brings out the fact that skilled labor' is paid in the rural districts at nearly the same rate as farm work.' The case is perfectly analogous to that of agricultural labor. In many of the households in question there are, besides the artisan, other iernia of Voronezh (Vol. V., part 1.; Vol. VI., part I., Table G.). In the table that follows the figures are reduced to percentage rates : Districts and classes. k 0- c aj ... OJ -.1 Pi Average due by i householder, rubles. District of Korotoyak. Indebted : i. All told 2. Farm laborers .... 5° 52 ' '56' 100 39 100 46 34.80 2399 44-38 23.46 District of Nizhnedevitsk. Indebted : i. All told 2. Farm laborers .... 5° ' The mythical first Russian prince, to whom the llite of the aristocracy trace their ancestry. ' Carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, blacksmiths, and others who supply by their work the local wants. ' Cf Appendix, Table V. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. gi ftiale members of the family who carry on their farming.' In fall and winter the farmer, who is at the same time an art- isan, would work for any price. A tailor, e. g., travelling around his village, earns in the fall from 1.50 to 2.50 a week, while boarding with the customer. On the other hand, the maximum in wages is paid to carpenters, whose trade is carried on in the summer, so as to preclude competition on the part of the farmer.^ Certainly, the maximum of two rubles, say ;^2.oo, a week, and board, to a skilled carpenter, falls short of the minimum in some civilized countries. It is in this rate of wages that we must seek the reason for the slow development of industry in the rural districts. Indeed, it is but for a small part of the hands who have been ■" freed" from farming, that room could be found in local in- dustry : Percentage of " horseless." Households engaged in industry. Eanenburg .... '30 9 Dankoff 34 8.5 The ranks of the rural proletarians, who had no working horses with which to carry on their farming, grew four times as fast as rural industry, though it might be expected that the latter would have been fostered by low wages. The example of the quarries in the bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, District of Dankoff, can be used to make the matter plain. About fifty men are engaged there in breaking stonej and working it into millstones. Some of them work in small part- nerships, and sell the stone to middle men; some are in the em- 1 ENGAGED IN SKILLED LABOR IN EVERY 1000. Households Adult workers. Raiienburg 72 53 Dankoff 67 49 2 BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER. Paid to For the summer season. Per year. Fatm help , , From 25.00 to 35. co From 35.00 to 60.00 Carpenters " SS-oo to 70.00 100.00 84 THE ECONOMICS ploy of petty contractors. A rent of 25.00 per head is levied by the owner of the place; the net income of an independent worker is from 75.00 to lOO.OO for the summer, which is more than the income in any other trade. The hired work- man, however, is paid only from 35.00 to 60.00, the profit of the entrepreneur amounting to 47-66 per cent, in a season. Where the product of a man's semi-annual labor sells for 125 rubles, no mechanical improvements could make the com- modity cheaper. So long as ten per cent, a month can be made by the petty employer, at a practically nominal outlay of money, he will successfully compete with big capitalistic en- terprises. Indeed, we see that five men are about the average number of workers employed in any one concern.' There are, certainly, a few capitalistic concerns : distilleries, sugar fac- tories, steam flour mills, coal mines. A railway line is crossing the district, and employs some of the peasants. But here, as elsewhere, the proletarian is beaten on the labor market by the farmer. In distilleries a farmer can be got to work in winter merely for mash, which is used as fodder for his cattle. Money wages naturally oscillate between the very modest limits of 5.00 and 9.00 a month, out of which the workingman must board at his own expense. In sugar factories the wages are between 6 and 8 rubles a month in winter, i. e. between ^0.75 and ^ I .CO a week ! ' Workingmen, ' Concerns. Total. Average to concern. Ranenburg 506 1985 3.9 Dankoff 240 1355 5.6 Total 746 3340 4.5 Virtually, however, the average is less than this, since there are included only those industrial concerns belonging to peasants, and situated in the precincts of the villages, while peasant labor is also employed in those enterprises owned by the landlords and situated on their estates. ' This is the industry which is protected, through prohibitive tariffs and export premiums, from foreign competition. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. §5 It follows from what has been here shown that it is only the farmer who can get along with the rate* paid in rural industry. The peasant who is unable to farm could hardly eke out an existence. He has the choice either of becoming a pauper' or of leaving his village. 1 Twelve communities were found by the statisticians in which a considerable part of the membership consisted of regular beggars. As an example may be -quoted the village Bratovka, bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, Ranenburg : " A good many go a-begging even when crops are good ; in years of failure over half the village takes to begging." [^Loc. cit., p. 283.) Professional beggary has been of late very comprehensively described by some of the observers of peasant life. Late in the fall the huts are nailed up, and caravans of peasants — man, wife and <:hild — start on a journey •' for crumbs." We read in the Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Tamioff: "Everywhere the peasants report a great number of beggars; generally they are peasants from a strange district. It is only in a case of extreme necessity that a man able to work would force himself to ask alms in his own village. Usually, the needy families are supported through loans of bread from their neighbors, who divide with them their last provisions. The peasants of the district of Morshansk report, moreover, that they are haunted by a good many beggars from the district of Shatzk, as well as from the gubernias of Vladimir and Ryazan." (Vol. III., ?• 277-) Does it not exactly remind one of the historical picture drawn by Vauban, who ■reported that " one-tenth of the French peasants are beggars, and the remaining nine-tenths have nothing to give them?" CHAPTER VIII. THE RURAL SURPLUS POPULATION. The movement of population away from the rural districts, which is an economic law in capitalistic countries, plays a very conspicuous part in modern Russian economy. Colonization of the border districts and periodical migration in quest of work, are tending to absorb the natural increase of the peasant population: Districts. Ratio to the population of 1858. Per cent. Ratio to the respective groups of the populatioi) of 1882. Per cent. Emigration, 1858-1882. Surplus of popula- tion in 1882. Adult males work- ing outside, 1882. Total. Males. Ranenburg .... Dankoff 10 9 3° 26 23 22 20 21 There is thus but a minor fraction of the surplus population that has forever left the native village with the chance of set- tling somewhere else as farmers.' It is still to agriculture that most of the wandering peasantry are looking, not as farmers, • The question of the degree to which they are successful in starting as farmers, is one that does not come within the scope of this essay. I have discussed this question in my previous publication, Peasant Emigration to Siberia, Moscow, 1888. (86) OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 87 however, but as wage laborers, while a vast minority flock to the cities.' As to this class of the peasantry, it is commonly regarded by the Russian press as standing on the lowest round of the ladder of village life. It does not seem generally to occur to the public mind that a regular movement of the working population, like the movement of mercury in the barometrical tube, has to select the line of least resistance. Indeed, it is distinctly shown by comparison that the wages are higher out- side than within the village. Local. Abroad. Minimum. Maximum-. Minimum. Maximum. I. Agriculture. Per- summer, board provided by the employer. Farm help 25.00 SS-OO 40.00 60.00 Ranchmen in the south . . 50.00 100.00 II. Trade and service. Per month, no board extra. . 7.00 15.00 10.00 18.00 III. Capitalistic in- dustry. Per month, no board extra. Factory hands, in winter . . 5.00 9.00 Factory hands through the year 10.00 18.00 Turf cutters in summer . . 15.00 25.00 Coal miners, in winter, etc. 8.00 13-00 24.00 37-00 Difference of wages stimulates the movement, which when once started in a village, goes on at an ever increasing rate.' 1 The wandering population of the district of Voronezh was divided as follows, between the several branches of employment : Workers. Per cent. Agriculture 1283 62 Handicraft 469 23 "j Personal service 89 4 [■ 3^ City and railroad laborers ' . . . 219 11 J Total 2060 100 ' The general statements made to this effect by the peasants, an ^-N -ga. 6 a . ^ - S « . •& •" Housebolds. ^rt o;^.^ = ri 0) o 2 f,ag u '0 ° «a§§ <^ (/] bj) q|.S c 00 G T3 C ^ "00 (u C j^ 4» « t-«. lUOO rce aan tak h -o -2 P-( 1^ ^ Ph With 1 adult male worker 52 44 67 44 1 With 2 adult male workers 39 3« 47 40 With 3 or more adult male workers . 36 24 34 28 The rate of separated families increases with the percentage of wage laborers. It is by wage laborers that most of the households of the modern type (with one adult male) have been started, while within the patriarchal household about two- thirds of its labor forces are applied to farming. The dissolution of the old household was of the greatest ' The figures above given are rather too little expressive for the actual degree of the dissolution of the patriarchal family abroad. The following are the figures for the whole region covered by the statistical investigation of the zemstvo toward January i, 1890 (j:f. Introduction): Communities 50,429 Households 3,309,020 Males and females 19,693,191 Average membership to 1 family 5.95 To the do. of Ranenburg 6.4 " " Dankoff 6.4 " " Korotoyak y.3 " " Niznedevitfik y.g OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 95 economic consequence, parcellation of the soil being its ne- cessary result : Classes and Districts. 13 „• '0 u -c ^" - 3 c 2 (U J3 ^ Per cent. 14 50 25 9 'a 0. 1 a 2 OJ > < 4.0 5-3 9-1 13-5 (A 4* . l| 2 c a rt c *J < I.O i-S 2.1 3-1 Households. a It .si ITS f^ C 00 1" b Per cent. 46 38 31 24 '36" 50 41 33 24 Land- holding a "a Per cent. 12 3 I u Per cent. 80 55 27 9 OJ 'rt Per cent. 7 34 40 25 "3 ■s . i| si Per cent. I 8 32 66 tin c a la. II C c 4.1 10-5 19.7 35-6 14.2 3-7 10.3 19.4 36.6 es.) 1. H 4.2 7-' 9-3 1 1.6 7-9 3-3 6-5 8.5 9.2 Karotoyak : Tenure, less than 5 dessia- tines Tenure from 5 to 15 dessia- tines Tenure, from 15 to 25 des- siatines Tenure, above 25 dessia- tines Total Nizknedevitsk : Tenure, less than 5 dessia- tines Tenure, from S to 15 dessia- tines Tenure, from 15 to 25 des- siatmes Tenure, above 25 dessia- tines 98 '7 51 23 8 7-4 4.6 6.7 9-9 15.0 1-7 I.I 1.6 2.2 3-4 5 9 3 I 46 74 50 24 7 30 13 37 38 21 »«9 4 10 37 72 Total 99 7.8 1.8 4 44 32 20 39 '3-5 7-2 We notice that the greater the percentage of separations during the period from 1877 to 1887, the smaller the average plot per family and per worker, and vice versa. About one- half of the households whose plots are the smallest, are those who have separated in the course of the last ten years and have as a rule only one worker. On the other hand, the larg- est plots, absolutely and relatively, are held by the compound g6 THE ECONOMICS families of the old stamp, of whom only about one-quarter have undergone division during the last decade.' Furthermore we find a certain percentage of the village community absolutely without any land : Thus we have — Per cent. In Ranenburg 4 In Dankoff 4 In Kprotoyak 1. 7 In Nizhnedevitsk ■ 0.5 This new class of the peasantry owes its existence solely to the division of the family : Landless households. Korotoyali. Nizhnedevitsk, Without male worker 260 69 With I male worker 58 42 With 2 male workers 12 6 With 3 or more male workers 5 2 Total 335 119 Above the age of 60 — Males 31 8 Females 68 14 Difference, females 37 6 1 The correlation between the number of workers and the size of the farm care ■ be summed up as follows : Number of Workers to I Family. Classes of Farms (per cent.). Korotoyak. Nizhnedevitsk. Below the aver- age size. Average size. Above the aver- age size. Below the aver- age size. Average size. Above the aver- 'age size. None One . Two Three . . 61 3 I 33 56 22 6 16 41 77 49 29 7 3 44 56 60 25 7 '5 33 72 Total 16 5° 34 18 5' 31 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. gy In the age trom i8 to 60— Males 113 68 Females 382 149 Difference, females 269 81 Males between 18 and 60 — With physical defects 6 7 It might be supposed that landlessness was connected mainly with old age, widowhood, orphanry, and bodily defects, (blind- ness, lameness, etc). Yet such, what we may call, biological phenomena will carry with them consequences that vary ac- cording to the social institutions of the time. The patriarchal family was not destroyed by the death of one of its male mem- bers. His widow and orphans belonged, in some analogy with the Roman family, not to the husband, but to the household as a whole. It was no unusual thing for a widowed daughter- in-law to be given in marriage to an outsider with the purpose of introducing a new male worker into the cooperative body in the place of the deceased member. . Similarly the other mem- bers remained until death in their family. It was only after the dissolution of the patriarchal household that the feeble and helpless began to figure as a distinct group in village life. On the other hand the division of the original household and of its lot in the communal land necessarily resulted in a decrease of -the live stock belonging to each family, and conse- quently in a decrease of its agricultural efficiency. This is shown by the following tables : 98 THE ECONOMICS I. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS. D. of Korotoyak. Classes of Households (per cent.). With regard to the number of horses. With regard to the size of the farms. 1 w i S 12 V V S c •s s 1 o" il Without workers . . . With I worker With 2 workers .... With 3 or more workers 60 20 6 I 29 46 28 10 II 33 61 62 I s 27 61 3 I 33 S6 22 6 16 41 77 Total 13 32 48 7 IS 5° 35 IL HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HORSES RAISED. t). of Korotoyak: Classes of Households (per cent.). With regard to the number of workers. With regard to the size of the farm. g > .2 u C 6 S £ •a m S rt Di a u ■a ■ is < Horseless With I horse With 2 horses With 3 horses With 4 or more horses . '7 3 }■ 68 63 31 7 '3 28 41 22 2 6 71 49 20 6 2 I 43 65 55 ?8 8 15 39 66 81 Total ...... 5 46 30 19 15 5° 35 The highest class in regard to the ownership of live stock is composed chiefly of the households of the old type that OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 99 flumber at least three male workers, and whose shares in the communal land exceed the average. The households of the new type consisting of two adult male workers are provided in the majority of cases with two work- ing horses ; but there is a very notable minority which is grad- ually falling into the lower group with only one working horse to a household. Finally even that level appears to be too high for the house- holds in which there is only one male worker. Only the minority of such households are in the position to keep up at least two working horses ; the great majority have either one horse or none, and vice versa : the groups with one horse or without horses are made up mainly of those households with only one adult male worker, their plots only very seldom exceeding the average, or even falling short of the average. Now, without a horse there can be no farming; and a household with only one horse is liable to go down in the long run.^ Still these two groups cover at least one-half of 'Districts. Zadonsk . , Korotoyak . . Nizhnedevilsk. Stopped working on Stopped tilling Dne part their farms. of tlieir farms. F, "rt ^- With I horse. rt 4J a a u -SS . -8 .H a s. *i i- 1^ ^ SI JV .SB. n ■5 II ^ 0. X 1— ( %" ^■^ 95 25 73 13 7 95 15 62 t6 8 96 '3 6s 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 jegion at large ; moreover, this transitional class of weak householders consists chiefly of those with one horse. lOO THE ECONOMICS the peasantry of to-day.^ Thus the dissolution of the old peasant family sapped the productive forces of the peasantry at large and prompted the liquidation of independent farming with a considerable minority of the householders. A dis- tinct group of the village is formed to-day by those peasants who for want of live stock with which to till their plots, are compelled either to hire their neighbors to do the work, or to lease their plots and consequently to stop their farming alto- gether. The bulk of this class is made up of those families in which there is only one adult male worker.^ Lack of land, '^Districts. Gubirnia of Voronezh — Zadonsk Korotoyak Nizhnedevitsk Gubernia of HyazaH — Ranenburg Dankoff Horseless;' With I horse. In all, per cent. per cent. per cent. 25 40 65 13 32 45 13 32 45 36 27 63 34 25 59 ' The following tables are fully conclusive as regards the rise and growth of this class: 1. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS TO ONE HOUSEHOLD (TOTAL IN EVERY CLASS=IOO.) Households. Korotoyak. Nizhnedevitsk. ^ > . Til 89 86 73 24 Stopped working on their farms, per cent. Total lot tilled with the owner's live stock, per cent. Stopped working on their farms, per cent. With 3 or more workers With 2 workers 2 6 19 72 88 82 65 3° 74 2 5 20 60 13 With I worker Without workers In all 78 In the Gubernia of Ryazan 57 36 59 34 Ranenburg. Dar koff. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. lOI lack of live stock and lack of labor power, make it by no means an easy task for a "singleton" to carry on farming, and a good many must needs fail. It becomes plain that small peasant agriculture, based on the labor of the farmer alone, could stand only as long as its basis, the compound cooperative family, held together. The previous economic evolution has demonstrated that the co- operation of three adult workers is required upon an average to constitute a stable peasant household. As the progress of individualism will not stop in presence of the survivals of the patriarchal compound family, .so the lacking labor force will have to be supplied by hire. The dissolution of the patri- archal family brings forth, of necessity, the employing farmer. The characteristic feature of this class is that the employer is still the tiller of the soil. The laborer is hired only to help the farmer in his work, the average number of laborers em- II. CLASSIFICATION THE SAME (ALL " STOPPED WORKING," ETC.= I0O.) Households. Stopped working on their farms. Korotoyak, per cent. Nizhnedevitsk, per cent. With 3 or more workers 2 12 62 24 2 H 67 17 With I worker In all ICO 100 I02 THE ECONOMICS ployed varying between one and two to one household, so as to constitute the required cooperation of three working men.' For the present this class appears but in small numbers in the Russian village/ and this obviously accounts for the little attention paid to the employing farmer in Russian literature, even in the statistical investigations. Still the need of hired labor increases on the larger farms' with the division of the compound family, as can be seen from the following table: Families numbering All told^ u u 01 •Districts. a 1-^ B s C4 li B or mt ult ma rkers. 4J 1 1 tl 1^ <4^ "3 S iz; O H H (1, W H Korotoyak ■ The farmer's family I 2 3 I.& 0.4 2.2 Hired laborers 1.2 1.2 1.2 i-S I.O 0.2 1.2 Total workers 1.2 2.2 3-2 4-S 2.8 0.6 .3-4 Niihnedevitsk : The farmer's family O I 2 3 2.0 0.5 25 Hired laborers I.O 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.4 1.2 Total workers I.O 2.2 3-2 4-4 2.8 0.9 3-7 ' Districts. Mo ^ 'C. Employing farmers. it S3 rC in ui Ot3 V ■> Korotoyak Nizhnedevitsk 128 147 829 1067 4 s 6.5 7.3 '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 6eld for even the labor of the farmer himself. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 103 Korotoyak. Nizhnedevitzk. 'nj, N 'o w ff Extent of the farm. II ■IS. •5 i2 ^-2 2 2§ 13 ? Jl ■s fe ^ wT ^ C ■^ («"■ Tilling their plots 143 5 > Stopped tilling their plots 2471 92 Total Z682 100 The 10 per cent, who stopped tilling their plots, though owning I 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 I 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. ' Households. Stopped tilling their plots. " Horseless." In the district at large. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Landless . 42 "Us 37 1^ 43 1/^ Owning less than 5 dessiatines . . Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines . Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines. Owning above 25 dessiatines . . Total * 100 100 7-2 7-9 100 14.4 8-3 Average plot : To I household, dessiatines . To I adult male worker, " 114 THE ECONOMICS of the latter consisting of families with only one adult male worker.' Having failed as farmers, one-half have become farm laborers, the rest are employed in industry, or have no steady employ- ment at all.' With all of them, wages are the chief means of livelihood.' The income from their farms is of secondary im- portance. The gross receipts from sale of produce are ab- sorbed by the taxes.* Still the produce of the farm is partly 1 Households. Stopped tilling their plots. " Horseless." In the district at large. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Without adult male workers . . With I adult male worker .... With 2 adult male workers . , . With 3 or more adult male workers Total To I household upon an average : Adult male workers ..... Half-workers Males and females lOO loo 0.9 0.2 3-8 100 '7 0.4 7-4 ^Proletarians. {Stopped tilling their plots'). Farm lahorers .... Miscellaneous .... No steady employment Total ^District of Korotoyak, "Horseless." Gross income from farming Wages Odd jobs Korotoyak. Per cent. 48 39 13 100 JVizhnedevitzk, Per cent, 50 40 10 Total Fubles. 40610 122604 6719 169933 * "Horseless",Korotoyak. Receipts. Rubles. Gross income from farming 40610 Taxes 100 Per cent. 24 72 4 Expenses. Rubles. 33738 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 115 •consumed in kind and may serve to supply the owner with some of the necessaries of life." In fact, it proves profitable for the village proletarian to cultivate his plot with the help of hired labor; accordingly, the majority of the proletarians of the Russian villages are not only employees, but also employ- ers at the same time." As yet there is but a small fraction of the village that has evolved into the condition of proletarians proper, whose only economic interest is that of wage labor.' Rent 1046 "Wages paid ii44 Total 40610 35928 Balance (26S2 households) 4682 40610 40610 Balance to i household (money revenue) . . 1. 75 ' District of Zadonsk. "Horseless." Households. Per cent. Teeding on the bread produced on their farms: AU the year through 771 30 9 months 531 21 -> From 6 to 9 months 358 14 [-44 From I to 6 months 220 9 ■' Purchasing bread all through the year .... 665 26 Total 2545 100 Farm cultivated by Farming stopped _ ' Districts. hired labor. altogether. Per cent. Per cent. Zadonsk (total proletarians^ 100) . . 69 31 Korotoyak " . . 67 33 TSrizhnedevitzk " . . 74 26 Ranenburg " , . 64 3^ Dankoff " . , 64 36 * This is the rate of these avowed proletarians within the total peasant popula- tion: Districts. Per cent. Zadonsk • ° Korotoyak 5 Nizhnedevitzk 3 1 16 THE ECONOMICS Ad II. The mean between both extremes, i. e. between the independent farmers and the proletarian laborers, is occupied by a transitional class who are farmers and wage laborers at once. The soil being tilled by its owner's labor, the farmer is sup- posed to raise live stock. We remember that two horses to a farm is the minimum required to constitute a strong house- hold, the normal approaching three horses upon an average. The proletarians, as a rule, have no horses. The transitional 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 Niihnedevitzk : " 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 loo-million popula- tion 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 {c/. above page : 50,429 communes with 3,309,02a households). Now the maximufti 8 per cent, of 62 households means only 5 proletarian families, aind the minimum 2 per cent., only I proletarian of the Euro- pean type to a village. It seems to show that there can be no proletarian class- spirit ("Jiroletarisc/ics Klassin-bewusstsein ") in the Russian village of today. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 117 class under consideration is characterized by the ownership of from one to two horses/ Within this class a further distinction is to be made as be- tween (A), those with whom outside earnings are to cover only a small deficit in their farming, and (B), those with whom wage labor has become as important a source of income as farming : District of Korotoyak, Class II. Income from farming, per cent. Income from wage labor. Per cent. To I household per year, rubles. Section A Section B 92 50 8 5° fe-39 50.47 Small as the deficit of agriculture is in Section A, still it is the first step down of the lately independent farmer. The com- parison between this section and the farmer pure and simple of Class I brings out the unmistakable reason : the deficit begins ' Classes in the district of Korotoyak. Trading farmers. , Farmers merely . Farmes — laborers , Proletarian laborers Households. (Per cent.) 90 40 25 45 37 27 38 IS .a . 36 17 6 3-2 2.8 1.8 1 1 8 THE ECONOMICS with the dissolution of the patriarchal family.' The absolute and relative size of the farm owned by a divided family with only one male worker cannot compare with that of a patriar- chal household^ The single worker keeps only very seldom above the average ; in the long run he is liable to turn to some wage-paying occupation, that is to say, to pass into the section adjoining the proletarians. This wing of the transitional class seems to show even a somewhat greater strength of farming than the upper section just described.' It must be, however, placed at a lower degree Households. ^ D. of Korotoyak. With net profit. VHih deficit. Per cent. Per cent. Male workers to i household — None .,.,,,... .. ■x'\ One ,,,,... 29 70 J T^° ^'|7i "3U7 Three or more 30 J 4 i Households, ''■ D. of Korotoyak. With net profit. With deficit. Per cent. Per cent. Size of the farms — Less than 5 dessiatines . , Ij From 5 to 15 dessiatines .].,,,.,, , , 79 From 15 to 25 dessiatines 72 6 Above 25 dessiatines 28 Total 100 100 Dessiatines. Dessiatines, Average to i household 24.4 10.6 " to I adult male worker 11.5 8.3 Section A. Section B, ^ D. of Korotoyak. Percent. Percent. Landholding — Households owning Less than 5 dessiatines Ij 10 From 5 to 15 dessiatines 79 52 From 15 tp 25 dessiatines 6 ^^\ g Above 25 dessiatines 10 i Tota 1 100 100 OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 119 of the scale, inasmuch as, in the first place, the relative income per adult male worker is below that of Section A^ and, in the second place, its .higher absolute level of agriculture is not of long duration. In reality, it is due to the fact that the com- pound family still prevails in Section B, while it is about to disappear in Section A? The existence of the compound fam- ily enables some of its workers to carry on farming, while others are employed outside." With the division of the family, which, as we know, is only a question of time, a number of householders will be compelled to stop farming. Such are in the first place those employed yearly or during the Live stock — Households Without working horses ' \ AO With I working horse 49 39 J With 2 working horses 36 -> 38 ■\ With 3 working horses 13 >-5i 16 |-6o With 4 or more working horses - zJ "J Total 100 100 • 1 Gross income per worker. Rubles. Section^ 66.17 Section B 54-29 Section A. Section B. * Households {D. of Korotoyak. Per cent. Per cent. Without adult male workers 3X7-5 '1^0 With I adult male worker 70 / 38 J With 2 adult male workers _. . ^31 27 ^''1-61 With 3 or more adult male workers 4 J 24 J Total 100 100 ^ Class II., Section B. Workers and half-workers 231 10 Employed without their farms 16299 Working exclusively on their farms 681 1 Total households " • • 10016 I20 THE ECONOMICS summer as farm laborers. At present they number as follows : Households. With I adult male worker. . 649 " Horseless" 568 Stopped tilling their plots. . 576 Households. With 2 or more adult male workers. . 1242 With I horse or more 1323 Tilling their plots 1315 The " single " householders permanently employed as farm laborers have in most cases stopped working on their plots. The separation of the remaining 1242 compound householders would swell the proletarian class by nearly as many families, which would constitute an increase of the proletariat by forty-five per cent. After having examined in detail the several classes of the village, let us sum up their characteristic features in one schedule, to show the tendency of the evolution going on: c Average membershi household. pper Classes. '0 3 OJ S t 1 ■ < Dessiatines. ■3 .a Land to 1 household (Dessiatines). In all. Leased Cultivated. Owning above 25 dessiatines Owning from 15 10 25 dessiatines Owning from £ to 15 dessiatines. Owning less than 5 dessiatines . Total * ' 20.7 9-7 S 2-5 99 5 2.7 '•5 10.8 4-7 2-3 I 17.6 8.9 4.9 2 6 38,1 II. 8 6 4-3 3-2 9 5.6 3 2.7 2.8 29.1 6.2 ?.6 49 10.7 36 2.6 Having 4 horses or more . . . Having from 2 to 3 horses . . . Having 1 horse Having no horse Total 10 226 909 877 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 cul- I 26 THE ECONOMICS It will be remembered' that the terms of the agreement in- clude the payment of the taxes with from one to three rubles yearly per plot for the enjoyment of the owner. It is evident that lease on such terms means practically expropriation of the owner. Thus, under the rule of the mir, about one-fourth of the householders, nominally counted among "peasant proprie- tors,'' are on the way toward expropriation, or have already be- come expropriated. As to the lessees of the peasant plots, tivated by tliem 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 culturea land to I 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- Ranenburg : to population. to the total communal land. Leasing their plots — 1) Total 12 ■, 2) Partly 14 1 '° Dankoff: \ Leasing their plots — 1) Total II ^ 2) Partly 13 / ^ i 1 Cf Chapter III. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 127 they must be at the top of the tenant class,' by reason of the terms of lease. The landlord gives the tenant credit for his rent, at least in part, till after harvest, and, in case of need, part of the rent is permitted to be paid in labor. The peasant lets his plot, either in full for the payment of taxes, or in part, "by reason of lack of money. In either case it must be advanced in the fall. It is by no means unusual for the lease to be con- ' It appears from the following table that among the higher classes of land- holders, 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. Classes and districts. Per cent. Per cent. 1 rt ID l-H nl I s s -a -a v a Zadonsk : Owning less than 5 dessiatines 38 31 28 21 Owning from 5 to I5dessiatine ;. . . 52 51 48 48 Owning above 15 dessiatines Total . . 10 18 24 31 . . 100 100 13 100 10 • 100 8 Koroioyak : Owning less than 5 dessiatines • ■ 13 Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatine 3. . . 53 48 38 38 Owning above 15 dessiatines Total . . 34 39 52 54 . . 100 100 100 100 Nizhnedevitsk : Owning less than 5 dessiatines • . 25 '5 23 9 Owning from £ to 15 dessiatine 5. . . 52 49 41 42 Owning above 15 dessiatines Total . . 23 36 36 49 . . 100 100 100 100 128 THE ECONOMICS tracted for a term of from six to twelve years,' the rent for the whole being payable in advance. This is very often the case with the plots of emigrants, leaving home for purposes of col- onization, and with those who are permanently employed out- side. It goes without saying that rent is advanced only at a considerable reduction of the rates.^ This difference gave rise to speculation in peasant land. A hundred shares are leased by a wealthy peasant or merchant, to be re-rented in the spring in small plots to the poorer among the lessees.' The fact that ' Peasant land held in lease for long terms : Districts. Lessees. Land. Households. Per cent. (Total lessees = 100) Dessiatines. Per cent. (total in lease = 100 ) Zadonsk .... Korotoyak . . . Nizhnedevitsk . . 179 400 238 5 7 4 801 4090 106 1 8 22 6 ' Rental Prices per i Dessiatine. Districts. In yearly lease. Kubles. Zadonsk 9.34 Korotoyak 8.45 Nizhnedevitsk 8.71 For long terms. Rubles. 6.28 5.81 6.17 'Districts. Dessiatines. Per cent. Price per dessiatine, rubles. Net profit. Per cent. Korotoyak : Rented for long terms. . . Re-rented Nizhnedevitsk : Rented for long terms. . . Re-rented 4090 990,5! 1061 138 100 24 100 13 S.81 714 6.17 10.09 23 63 We find, however, some cases wherein communal land was used for the pnr- OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 129 alienability of the peasant land had become a rule in the com- munity, was first stated by Mr. Trirogofif as far back as 1879.^ The observer, however, was not aware of the economic signifi- cance of the phenomenon when he advanced the opinion that alienability of land exhibits the great capacity of adaptation intrinsic in the community. In reality the contrary is the case. The fact that communal land is disposed of by private agreement, means the displace- ment of agrarian communism by economic individualism. This was most strikingly demonstrated when the question of the general redivision of the communal land came up before the free mir in the beginning of the eighties. poses of faiming 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 Ryazan, 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 paslure.'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 com- munity through the lease of 50 dessiatines of meadow and pasture to be converted into arable." (Zof. «V., Partll., p. 199, No. 4.) f In the village Plemyannikovo, Dankoff, arrears in the tallage gave rise to re- peated 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. 'In a series of articles which appeared first in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski (monthly) subsequently published in book form under the heading '^Community and Tax:- CHAPTER XII. THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND. Peasant Russia of the time of serfdom was a kind of a single tax realm. Land was treated by the peasantry as the only source of taxable income. Accordingly, the terms of the gen- eral subdivisions of the land were adapted to the censuses [revi- sions), made by the government for the assessment of the poll- tax, at average intervals of fifteen years. The division of the nation into "taxable orders" and "privi- leged orders " did not correspond to the new idea of equality before the law, proclaimed by the reformers who surrounded Alexander IL A commission was appointed in 1858 to con- sider the question of the repeal of the poll-tax, andoPa general reform in the financial system. After twenty-five years of hard labor (very liberally remunerated, I feel bound to state, to the credit of the government), the Commission brought about the repeal of the poll-tax'. In the meantime the censuses were held in abeyance, since they had for their sole purpose the assessment of the tax. The general redivision was conse- quently delayed. Wherever, and so long as the rent did not cover the taxes, partial subdivisions took place yearly to re- adjust the assessment of the taxes to the changed condition of the several tax-payers. Rise of rent made the intervention of the community unnecessary, and the practice of partial sub- divisions fell into disuse. Yet, while at first everybody had 'The poll-tax did not exceed 1.60 rubles, and constituted but a very small por- tion 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. (130) OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 1,1 "been anxious to be relieved from his share of land, which im- posed a heavy obh'gation upon the holder, everybody now became eager for land, since it brought a certain income. Inequality of landholding, which developed with the growth of population, produced a keen antagonism within the village. About the time of the Ryazan census, in a few communities the strife was already over, having resulted in the victory of the mir. But in the great majority the controversy had just reached its climax. In 6 bailliwicks (out of the 45), i. e. in 87 communities, a serious obstacle to the subdivision arose from the lease of com- munal land. A strong opposition was shown by the wealthy members of the community, who held the lots of the emigrants, and of outside workers, for long terms, and had advanced the rent for the whole period of lease. The subdivision would necessarily have had the effect of rendering their agreements void\ while it would have been useless to have sued the lessors^ The remedy lies in the fact that, under given circumstances, the present law enables a small minority to put a stop to the sub- division. The resolution must be passed by a vote of two-thirds of the mir. Now, about one-fifth of the householders are absent from home, engaged in some wage-earning occupation, and there is also a certain percentage among the emigrants who have not yet severed their relations with the community. After sub- traction of both these groups, which are counted in the vote, it becomes very easy for the stronger households to stand against the advocates of subdivision. Furthermore, those who are in ' Such was indeed the case in the village of Voskresenskoye, bailliwick Kochu- rofskaya, Dankoff, in which the plots of the emigrants were distributed in the sub- division among all the members of the community, notwithstanding the fact that the term of lease had not yet expired. (Zor. cit,, part II., p. 236.) * 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. 132 THE ECONOMICS the habit of leasing their plots would have no interest in the subdivision, even if present. The case of the adherents of the fnir thus becomes a very precarious one. This is strikingly evidenced by the following figures : Ranenburg. Dankoff, Per cent. Per cent Total of the community lOO loo Lessors 25 24 Remainder 75 76 Vote required for subdivision 665^ 66j^ Opposition sufficient to stay the same.' 9 10 ' 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 mu- tual 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 J^ 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 cent. Votes. 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 ^^Vi Vote required. 93 — 88=5 Votes deficient. {C/.ib.,^. I6.) 2. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, district of Dankoff: "The question of subdivis- ion 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.) OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 133 We know that the lessor class is constantly growing with Let us now compare the figures : Householders Lessors. Former serfs. Communities. allotted. Number. Per cent. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya. 15 372 79 21 Throughout the districts (for- mer 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 per- centage 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. Percent, Subdivision out of order . . 15 370 167 45 {Loc. cit., pp. 248, 1 10-129.) As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other half, the lat- ter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were it not so, however, u unani- mous vote of the farming half could not possibly effect the I'edivision. 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 im- poverished 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 ^^% Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots) ... 44 23 . Opposition sufficient to stay the same 18 10 Having 2 horses or more 3^ ^° {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 1 1 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority even in case of unan- imity. Yet they are divided as follows : 134 THE ECONOMICS the increase of the population, and the spread of the movement from the village. Thus the young generation grows indifferent to the custom of the village community. The old-fashioned households, on the other hand, are accumu- lating the plots of the declining farmers, and show a pro- nounced opposition to agrarian communism. There still remain the intermediate groups of the "weak" householders, who faithfully preserve their allegiance to the mir. The posi- tion of these groups is, however, very unstable. It follows that the formation of classes within the mir tends to perpetuate the expropriation of the " weak " families, and Householders, Personally. By hire. In all. Tilling their lots — Total 9 2 II In part (the rest leased) 2 4 6 II 6 17 Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (/i5., pp. 128-132.) If there is no antagonism to the redivisior, then indifference on the part of some is but natural. 5. Village Sergievskoye, Ranenburg, "Most of the ' horseless ' half of the vil- lage 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 house- holders. This tends greatly to itill 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, savei 15 families, have now come back, but the mir refuses to return their lots. This is the ca--e 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 taxpayers.'' (Zor. cit., part I., p. 305.) These are the figures connected with the above statement : * Per cent. Horseless 54 Outside workers 56 {^Ibid., pp. 1 16-120.) Apart from the opposition of the lessees, it is hardly ever possible to get even a simple majority to vote upon the redivision. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. I,r the concentration of communal land, formerly held by them, in the hands of the " strong." It is true that it is only the right of possession which is con- ferred upon the lessee of communal land. But there are many facts that go to show the possible evolution of possession into property. Attention has been called in Russian economic literature to the tendency toward private property developing among the former serfs out of the redemption of their plots. At the time of the Ryazan census there were 364 communities concerned in the region under consideration, and it was in 100^ out of this number that the opposition against the re-division of the communal land came to the front. Those who had been pay- ing the redemption tax at the time when the taxes exceeded the net income of the lots, objected to the decrease of the lat- ter after the land had acquired a certain value. The wealthier householders had threatened to pay at once the whole amor- tization debt that hung over their plots, so as to compel the community to deed them over to their owners at the time, according to law'^ Whatever may have been the final outcome of the issue this time", "the ides of March are not gone.'' The nearer we approach the end of the period of redemption, the greater be- comes the material interest attaching the individual to his plot, and the greater, consequently, his opposition to the re-division of the land. At present, since the Statute of Redemption has been extended to all divisions of the peasantry, the conflict between agrarian communism and the interests of the indi- vidual has become universal. The old peasant common law, ' Bailiwicks Naryshkinskaya, Karpovslcaya, Nilcolslcaya, Vednovskaya, and Zimarovskaya, district of Ranenburg; b. Spasskaya, LoshliOvsl ^ J3 6 3 i3 ■55 ^ Q flH < Ph :? H H I. Without ploughs. Still with worlcing horses 70. 33672 33 481 544 7-8 II. With ploughs. a) with working horses. 72 62840 'I}" «73 4';4 1087 i^i 2.4 b) with oxen .... Total .... 2 3966 1983 37 34 17- 0.9 144 100478 100 491 B. Ploughs furnished. Average estate, (Dessiatines.) Ploughs. Ploughland tilled by the owner. (Dessiatines.) In all. 44764 16710 ■ To I plough. By the landlord . . . By the laborer . . . (/. c. p. 97.) Total 903 369 491 "5 91 577 606 61474 lOI '^ Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazan, ^o\. I., pp. 17-18. By "pro- 148 THE ECONOMICS Classes of owners. Percentage in the area. Average holding (Dessiatines). 1867. 1881. 1867. 1881. Property of the nobility Property of the capitalistic class. . . Small property 92 3-3 4-7 66.6 22.3 II. I 284.9 124.4 3-7 283.6 372.1 4-9. Immediately after the emancipation of the peasants the domains of the nobility covered nearly the total area of private property. Twenty years after the reform, one-third of their property had already gone to other classes. The land which was lost by the nobility was divided between the cap- italist and the small farmer in the ratio of two to one, the possessions of the capitalist growing about three times as fast as small private property. The new classes of property holders well-nigh correspond, as to their origin, to the legal status of "merchants" and "peas- ants." Among these classes is being divided the inheritance of the nobility. " The merchant class take possession mainly of the large estates, neglecting altogether, and even relinquishing, the small plots, . . . which gradually pass into the hands of the peasant." ' The following figures may serve as an illustration: perty 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 dessia- tines, 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 di- vide 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. ' Ibid., pp. 28-29. OF THE JiUSSIAN VILLAGE. 149 Status of owners. Percentage of the area. Estates under 50 dessiatines. Estates over 50 dessiatines. Ryazan. 1881. Voronezh. 1884. Ryazan. 1881. Voronezh. 1884. Nobility Peasants Merchants & "hon. citiiens."' Burghers, clergy, etc. . . . Total 13-9 77-7 1.2 7.2 32.0 44.2 8,2 «S-6 74-5 2.4 20.4 2.6 80.1 3-6 14.5 1.8 100 100 100 100 The growth of capitalistic tenure furthers the progress of capitalistic agriculture. The small tenant is being superseded ■ by the large business man (or merchant, to use the Russian expression), exploiting the land by means of wage labor. This is proved by the following figures : Systems of management. Property of the nobility. Property of the capitalist class. i Total extent. OJ a 0) •a s OJ V B u OJ S 3 Total extent. V ■1 ■a % < 104 816 19 280 45 ,^6,s 22 i3« Area under cultivation. Dessiatines. & S f^ >^T3 C a >. 3 (U "3 " s SHE H Ph > 100 2555 II. I 28495 92 2415 « 100 82, 6.4 S3H 8S 'iS'i 'S keenly felt. The condition of the communities under discussion has grown much worse as compared with former years. The main reason thereof is the considera- ble 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." (Z. 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 1 870, 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." [16,, p. 325, No. 5. Cf., also, Nos. 6,7.) 4. P. Troitskaya. " Tenure is a rare exception, since the landlords either carry on their own farming or have leased their estates to big farmers, who culti- vate everything for themselves." (/i5., 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 culti- vate solely for themselves. The peasants can positively get no land for rent, except I 5 2 1'HE E CONOMICS The expense of fertilizing is compensated by the greater pro- ductivity of capitalistic agriculture. We observe that wheat is planted by the capitalist where rye would be the only winter crop raised by a nobleman : Average Estates with large agriculture. Number. (^Dessiatines). Property of the nobility ,- Wheat grown 7^ ^9^ No wheat growu 51 501 Property of the capitalist class : • Wheat grown 22 478 No wheat grown 45 197 Of much greater consequence is, moreover, the fact that the yields of wheat are by far higher on capitalistic farms than on the estates of the nobility^ : Wheat planted. Dessiatines. Average yields. •6 s CO > 0) 1 > Regardless of class of property. With regard to class of properry. Chetverts' from i dessiatine. t a. s c Is u •d s c T3 V. a 1 ^1. By noblemen. . By capitalists. . [U.S. 1880-89'] 3609 768 166 30 S-4 w II.7 17.8 12.0 97 148 100 8.4 4377 196 4 a small tract of meadow." (Z. c, part II., p. 208. Cf, also bailiwick Ostroka- menskaya, p. 211, and b. Odoevskaya, p. 230.) ' More particulars as to the availability of these averages for purposes of com- parison are produced in the Appendix, Table VII. ' I chetvert =5.9 Winchester bushels. * Cf. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890, p. 335. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. 153 It appears from these figures — 1. That on the estates of the nobility the average yield of wheat amounts to what can be got from the soil without the application of manure, while on capitalistic farms the average is nearly on a par with that which is raised from fertihzed land. 2. That the average yield of wheat per acre on a capitalistic farm in the district of Voronezh outruns by about one-half the American average, while the noble landlord is barely able to keep on a level with the American producer. Taking into consideration that the farm laborer of middle Russia, with his 50 kopeks a day (25 cents in gold) in the summer, is well fitted to underbid the Chinese cooly, so large an advance in productivity seems to justify the prediction of Mr. Paul Lafargue, viz., that Russia will some become a suc- cessful competitor of America on the international grain mar- ket.' The rise of the income from agriculture, as above shown, goes hand in hand with the development of stock breeding. Thus where the nobleman would have all his land tilled with peasant live stock, the capitalist draws a benefit from cultivat- ing a part of his estate with his own stock, and this part is rela- tively greater than on the largest estates owned by the nobility The evidence is presented in the following table : Estates with large farming. in i-t 579>39l '3 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 (/. c, April, 1883, P- 178), which is about ten times as much as the land acquired through the Peasant's Bank. OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. i6i The present catastrophe was consequently by no means un- expected, and there has been no lack of alarming symptoms within the past ten years. In 1883, 1884 and 1885 famine stalked alternately through western Siberia, through the north- east, and through certain of the central provinces of European Russia (Vyatka, Kazan, Kursk, etc.). Famine was again re- ported in 1889.' To such an extent was the peasantry already exhausted that even the extraordinarily good harvest of 1890' was unable to prevent a subsequent failure of crops from re- sulting in a famine. It is only in the area affected that the present failure is dis- tinguished from its precursors.' The cause of the various famines is at bottom always essentially the same, viz : the backwardness of Russian agriculture. The surface of the soil has become finally exhausted and the wooden plough of the Russian peasant is unable to reach down to the deeper layers where the soil is yet virgin. Deep ploughing is impossible with only one horse, and that horse fed on straw. It is further not only the peasant land, but also the major part of the land- lord's fields, that is cultivated with the peasant's stock and implements. Thus the crisis of peasant agriculture is at the same time the crisis of Russian landlord farming.* The famine '" 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.) ^ 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 har- vest unexpectedly raised its exchange value to 80 per cent., the rate that had pre- vailed before the war. ^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 Rus- sian papers have brought official reports of a failure in 1 1 ^hernias, 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 appropriation! for the next seed. ' A delay in the payments was lately granted to the debtors of the Nobility's Bank in the famine strickenregion, for the purpose of saving numerous estates from being sacrificed at forced sale. 1 62 THE ECONOMICS has brought about at one single stroke the dissolution which had been slowly going on in the village since 1861. The Russian papers have published a multitude of letters from their correspondents telling of the loss of some 50% of the horses owned by the peasants. This means the complete ruin of the weak groups of the village, and the further con- centration of the communal land into the hands of the strong, who alone survived as the farming class/ The class of small ^ In the tables that follow we have availed ourselves of some of the figures 'pro- duced 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 ol •^ q H -H ■It- q\ M \q fo q\ ON ■-*■ -fi — J3 *- o-** S°| c H S |g». t •^^i 1^-c ^ "ivl in in H id (N 01 t>. K C7* * q\o» \d d 10 «■ ■*■ M «' d% q. •-• 1 «-i3 « .3 ^ 9 ifl H-^ U J3 '^ "rt c • T3 Els ■* ■* M m -f M t^in fo ro ^ « incooo '^ H -4- M NO m i-J U 4) C ci ci d lA N W-VO 4 ■«■ M fO ci « d ■* 4 ■* ro S-S c*- H° "^ M M ■<(- 10 t^N , ■*- W ■<»■ m ^ t^ q TMJVH '<^ VO fes o^'^d d lA -i rods ■«- Q 006 d d d ■>!■ d ■«■ 6\ 6 ■* "^^ 1 m < M m m N N PhS "rt (^g\d>N o\0 " •«^ r^ -* N vo CO NIO H t^ NO 000 H N *o m -fl- g\ "o « v£ m in m o\ m 00 I I^UT-i N j,p3; t^ ci m ci c- ^ CTi ■^^ oo\o in cft in ■- c^ m M in t^ . tv^ C7\ fO M S) s, •ssijm in « m "* 'O tvio « « a m N t^vo 0000 m o\ ■«- f»i -nuiuio3 ^» o\ t^ « M ri 10 M s t^ t^ ro c" . . . tj . 1 d |3) ■ f • • ** 'C . - c .... >» . p 0.-° 1 -§ ■U t, M W f p. s . a, ■! < ^ •fid ■ II • ip:l|: 11 ■2.8 .1,1 nil " 0^ c a a ■ fl^ sis • I.Z,- 8« If i-"""^^" 'r u (5" s 3 i§" !^ S-2,a ,&8 III - (U « ^1S rt ~ tl g u £ ^ « u a. " u S n S *' « g ,b 3 « " O " ■* -^ u 2 'C *^ c C u K.« *^ S2-°^.S-2. = D.Tj'S ^5- : nJS w q « !«oJSg.2 )tH= " i » U n a ;1_, (It goo "2-0 »l e-s a^i •D *• *- in 3 •C — g O - Q. w u o2,S V ■O « in « S -S " ""B E o o S APPENDICES. 167 TABLE I, a. To make it clearer for the purposes of comparative study, some of these data are translated into Enghsh measures : ACREAGE OF A PEASANT FARM OR HOUSEHOLD IN AVERAGE. Classes, Ranenburg, Dankoff. I. Former serfs : 1. Corv6e or taille 16.8 18.7 2. Redemption 16.5 18.9 3. Donation 5.4 7.3 4. Absolute property 43.5 38.1 All to former serfs 16.5 18.7 •II. Former state peasants: 1. Agrarian Communism 29.7 28.1 2. Quarterly possession 40.5 43.0 3. Mixed 33.5 34.9 All to former state peasants 31. i 33.5 III. Mixed 17.6 24.6 Total 22.2 24.1 1 68 APPENDICES. •J3>[J0jB. 0\ t^»-« o\ 00 ^ VO « 0\ ,. 1 ajBiu I ox *H 00 00 00 in cK i>l» t^ vd •gSgi 'ai^ui I ox VO " O OO CT> « Tj-00 m .s Ci 1-.* ^ IT) «>. M CT^ d d d *§ -S en M M *" 11 ro^O - "^ ■* « CT.VO P •auijBisssp I ox lA.ri-'^" N TJ- N w' W « O 0^ * .s 1 ^d An ■* cf\ vd d ION ci •^ c "Sis > < •gSgi 'aiBui I ox •O UIOO 00 r^ ". ■*" VO N N d 'f •4 « 4 iri in 4 w •J3>[J0M '^ '^ ". "". « N N 0^ t^ p-l « apra I ox d\ t^vd »o ■* 00 vd 00* 00 vd u H H-l Id =i s H '-' ■gSgl 'siKtn 1 ox O\00 *o vo q q -. N - ■* fe &> G " d ro 4 r^ d rnt-i d O t-" hH »-l M 1 •L) § a N u->00 CO IX VO ■* Ov -if ■ ^vd d fO 'ij- «• -• N « o _aj t^vOOO « ■* VO o\ ■- o d •pioqasnoq i ox N «' hh" sf «■ N «" ■* m PO Q n « i-i 0\'-' m Nri - ■* m •sg ^d ^ h^ vd >d vd M* inN M < 1-2 H •gSgl 'aiEui I ox •^ Tj- »nro r»5 ■^ M r^m ro « ei d i^ « N Tj-o 4 ■t (*-< .... O a . . . . _>;^ .J« Id • • ■ >> C OJ s. III '5 e ■ £ 1 isl o irmer serfs : 1. Corv4e 01 2. Redetnpt 3. Donation 4. Absolute Is 3 e2 Former state 1. Agrarian 2. Quarterly 1. Mixed . ) 1 J '^ tn l-H 5 APPENDICES. 169 i3 B 1 1 1 •pioq •asnoij I ox •4U3D J3J t^ ro a. 8 OM-< ^ tn •junomy 00 CO On i>. 0000 ro CO vO N ^^ ui 1 •}U33 J3£ w rovo « -^ ro VO CO ON 8 ■jBqmnjij in 000 CS 1-1 IH ^ M 0\ CO -d- vO VO VO -^ W i-i VO VO £■ ■s3inununuo3 CO CO w • 1 -^ CO g J2 a 1 3 s « .S OJ l-l < •pioq •ssnoq 1 ox 0\ VO 00 H^ t^PO •1U30 J3. Ov 8 •-; po ov r^ 8 < J. •}unomv M N N VO CO •I -d- M 00 OS HH osvo 00 00 fO t^ LO t-^ Tj- VO 00 i •JU33 J3£ N ■^^O 00 VO rD CO 00 CO VO l-l hH vO vO cS ci t^ d d u-jN w §v < •J3quin^ -"i-vo r-. t-t loi-i >-< CO OS ■^ VO OS t-^ <0 00 \r\ !>. N VO t-^ Os M r^ u-j CO OS t-t VO CO i-H li-i 1^ OS OS OS •sspranuiuio^ 10 00 00 CO r- 00 0\ OS t:}- t- 00 VO OS CO r-^ -^ CO !>. VO 00 N (U -a .S (4-1 In arrears : For not more than the land tax' . . For not more than 1 year's taxes . . For from 1 to 2 years' taxes. . . c c 1 In arrears : For not more than the land tax . . . For not more than 1 year's taxes For from 1 to 2 year's taxes .... For from 2 to 3 years' taxes .... Total in arrears Total in the district I/O APPENDICES. tli.% « 00 O "^VO g^§^ d N d ^" d O Pi S c g. •^ ^^ rt a l-H 11 ^i c g c "^ rOvO CO •- M o ^ Ov^d N (Sg'-S. •(ssup EisSap) •<)- rOTi- M o> T) H ju^ua) to ro CO -^00 ro t3 aao ox 0^ ■* t T3 S g ^ ? Q-2 rt f5i m^o t-^-o CO O O si Q 1- « 1 hR ro i-H !>. Q o^ O o O ON On N OO ^ 1^ (■ssm; -Eissap) -> ^• h- 1 ■a «J^- B '-' CO O vO •s o -a o S S g ^ w T(- ro O OS fe ►- S •^ •S3UH13ISS3P cow Tf ro « 'juBuai I ox 11 N COM. ■<■ ■SSB[D aqj mmiAV moo ON\o OS s- sSsjasoasd rooo Tj- « « mao ■* o 'S1UBU3X & 1 V4-. O •^vO ro t^ P Be" O O OOO 1 m ro 8 % cu » ^g "-• ■* m. 8 ^ gs PHO - s? *5UE i-i ro Tf t-* ON "^ -U34 I 0) « M fOON CO s M SSUIJ^1SS3Q ■ssBp am ninJiM mONNO in O R > aSEiuaoaad w t^ONOO w ro-* r^ ro ^ 'sjmuax •-> T3 ■"■ G ^-S S On mt^ On 2 g§" M vd NO 1:1- 8 1 M-< NH Ttro o ^ p a B U F. 1-1 food xi-^ H a. l-( • ■ ■ S " ■S O w . • J3 o 1 S o £ 3 3 s s« 1 H O %^U Hi g-** j:j3 II" " APPENDICES. 171 TABLE V. BUDGETS OF TYPICAL PEASANT HOUSEHOLDS. Translated from the Statistical Reports for the District of BorisogUbsk, Guber- nia of Tamboff [K'p^faAiyi I., pp. 28-32, 88-97).' I. Gabriel Michea's (son) Trupoff, village Sukmanka, baili- wick {volost) Sukmanka. The family selected is one of medium standing, getting along well with its farming. The figures refer to 1879, when the crops were good, the yield being in the ratio of 10:1 to the seed. Members of the Family. 1. The housefather, 60 year old, doing all kinds of farm work. 2. His wife, of the same age, keeping the house. 3. Their son, aged 27. 4. Their daughter-in law, aged 26, and, 5-7. The son and daughter-in-law's three children, between 3 and 8 years of age. .Schedule of Property Owned by the Eamily. 1. Wooden house, straw roof: Dimensions. Yards. Feet. Inches. a. Length 9 I b. Breadth 4 2 c. Height 2 2 2 Add thereto sheds, etc., used for various farming purposes. 2. Land, 15 dessiatines (=40 acres). 3. Stock : a. Horses 4 b. Cow I c. Calf I ' The translation differs from the original in the systematic arrangement of the entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of the present discussion. 172 APPENDICES. Income in Rubles. Dr. Farm and house : Rye, 40 Russian quarters, @. Oats, 60 Russian quarters, @ Millet, 5 Russian quarters, @ Potatoes, 40 Russian measures, { Flaxseed, 5 quarters, @ . . . Flax and hemp, fibre .... Hemp seed, 2^ quarters, @ . Hay, 100 poods, @ .... Straw Two slaughtered pigs, @ . . One calf, @ Sold : ducks, @ 3 geese, @ . . I colt, @ Total from farm and house Price. In Kind. InMoney Total. 4.00 z.oo 5.00 0.IS 10.00 8.00 O.IO 5.00 20.00 I.OO 23.00 90.00 40.00 25.00 6.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 40.00 10.00 20.00 291.00 70.00 80.00 50.00 4.00 3.00 23.00 230.00 160.00 120.00 25.00 6.00 50.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 40.CO 10.00 20.00 30.00 521.00 APPENDICES. Expenses in Rubles. 173 Cr. Price. In Kind. InMoney Total. I. I^oductive Consumption : 1. Forage for cattle' : Hav 28.00 40.00 40.00 Oats Straw All to forage 108.00 3.00 30.00 108.00 2. Wages to the communal shepherd: 3. Wear and tear of implements , . Total productive consumption. . . II. Persona/ Consumption : 1. Food : Rye flour, 15 poods a month, @ Salt, 4J(^ poods a year @ . . Hemp oil 0.50 0.70 108.00 90.00 20.00 33-00 3.15 12.00 5.60 5.00 16.00 141.00 Corn 25.00 6.00 Potatoes .... .... Meat and lard a. On holidays . . 72 lbs. i. On workdays. . . 430 lbs. 30.00 Total meat . . . 502 lbs. Brandy, 4 pails (400 glasses) All to food ' 171.00 41-75 13.00 3.00 212.7s 2. Shoes: One pair a year to each mem- Felt boots for all . . . 16.00 16.00 ' 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 carying. » 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. 174 APPENDICES. Income in Rubles. Dr. Price. In Kind. In Money Total. Total from farm and house 291.00 18.00 230.00 52.00 521.00 18.00 52.00 ' II. Rented grass land : 1 3 dessiatines (8 acres) : i Hay, i8o poods, @ \\\. Odd jobs: O.IO 1 / \ Grand total 309.00 282.00 591.00 APPENDICES. Expenses in Rubles. 175 Cr. Price. In Kind. InMoney Total. 3. Clothing : One fur to each father and son, once in 5 years @ . . . . One coat to each, once in 2 years @ One gird to each, once in 10 years @ One cap to each, once in 5 years @ One holiday coat to each, once in 3 years @ One overcoat for the son, once in 2 years @ Dresses for two women . . . Dresses for children 10.00 5.00 0.16 2.00 6.00 5.00 30.00 4.00 5.00 0.80 10.00 4.00 2.50 1 6.0c 10.00 Linen from own flax and seed. AH to clothing 30.00 42.46 1.60 2.40 5.50 1.50 2.50 10.00 10.00 72.46 4. Sundries : Lard candles, 10 lbs. a year. . Expenses of worship . . • • Tar Moulding of rye, etc Unexpected 33-5° 33-50 Total personal consumption. III. Taxes 201.00 '33-71 37-50 334-7' 37-50 All to ordinary expenses. . 309.00 204.21 15.00 513.21 15.00 IV. Rent for 3 dessiatines grass land, @ Total expenditures .... 5.00 309.00 219.21 528.21 Balance : 7-79 3.00 52.00 2. Net income from rented land Grand total 591.00 176 APPENDICES. II. Kosma Abramoff, village Michailovka, bailiwick Nicholo- Kaban yevskaya. The family counts as one of the " strong" economically. Members. 3 male workers. 3 female workers. 3 children. I elder. 10 Schedule of Property. 1. I house (with appurtenances): J ards. Inchei. a. Length 6 8 b. Breadth 6 8 3. Land, 3 dessialines (8 acres). 3. Stock: a. Horses 5 b. Cow I c. Calves 2 d. Sheep II e. Lambs y / Pigs , 2 APPENDICES. 177 8 0^ fa O s <: P5 n ^ un n n vn m 00 Ti- N OD 6 a> N 00 ro r>. w u-l\0 •x> Ln Th C^.vO r cq (^ -in "^ "^ 8cg eg 8 S> »-< r-« 00 n u-i CO 00 !>■ 10 Th ^ c^ "X) c" • • qj . lU T3 (garc ic use fcifl ■g V, S . lotted tenanc for do S " Til £ c ■3 the al appur dustry £ le 6 "rt .3 " u HP c § s T3 H HW rming ousea raestic c :2; i -n ci J= rt Tt fa Q [if M l-H »-< > (-H , ?, J3 0. ■a =i -0 ^ f4 S "« .§ Si. OJ '13 ■S (i .S -S „- a J3 J3 1 a 178 APPENDICES. III. Capiton Popoff, village Pavlovka, bailiwick Pavloda- rovka. The family is considered one of the " powerless." Members. 1. Father. 2. Mother. 3. Son. 4. Daughter-in-law. 5. Girl of 16. 6. Girl of 1 3. 7-8. Two little boys. Schedule of Property. I. House, 14X14 square feet. I. Land, i^ dessiatines (4 acres), 3. Stock: a. Horse I b. Cow I e. Sheep 3 APPENDIChS. 179 0^ O Ph o pL, o H <: u 1=^ 00 o\ o o o c^» t^od d d 0. 000 t~ 1:; r^ t^ m N N " ^^ 5 ®s-< si jS "3 " to 'S « •?;■ (A M bo a bfl w o ■ CUmS V • ° & ■ '^« ^ rt rt Pi o H X o 5! PiH(2 000 00 O 00 r^ ti- ■<*• ,0 "3 I; HP5 O tn 3 •^ C o - 4) lU . o in vo J3 .0 j: li< tfl s c V s 4J -13 J3 T1 c rt d >2 H a i8o APPENDICES. '°N 1 " " m-^in*© i^ti><^oo ch 2m2 2* M i?^ M M ?8 i 1 - • • ; : . : 8 • ■ § 8. 8 H i o H 1 88 o' 6 :88 8 -8>8 a 88 R8 E 88 as- 888 :88 8 %%% -KSK 88 1010 o B 0 t-. OO C3\ O M N n -«- lOVD t^ 00 Oi APPENDICES. i8i Z (d S >• O ►J (U % H -< w Ph ■ 3N tx « ro ■<*■ iri VO r^oo 0\ O '-' •p" o . o . o o o pi H \r\ o t^ m 0) J2 fS PM ^ n . O XTiO O £ t^ lO \r\ •n F^ "1 in o t^ !>. J3 f; O i o .8 % fa ■a" o . O . o o O s u^ lo u-ir^ r^ c o J3 • w a . o o . o O o $ ^ I ■* * nn* . :« s H g 2 .00 00 00 00 ■a -Q • • » TS -d £« s C 3 Moscow and Vladimi S O o o s 1 •M03S0M is §55 o ■> 1 1 • • • ,^ ■ J • • • ■ • „• o Diggers. . . Quarries . . Brickmakers. Turf Cutter May to July . May to Augus Railways . . Cabmen. . . Drivers. . Houskeepers Janitors, ser- vants, etc. Flour mills . Factory Hand 1 H I— 1 •oM 1 ft M fO ^ Ln ^o r^oo o\ o •-• 1 82 APPENDICES. TABLE VII. — Average Yields of Wheat (District of Voronezh). lU Chetverts from i dessiatine. c M -H & 'O r^ Estates of over 50 destiatines. -g" en 1^ -s .2 ^ a J3 Q 1 1^ Series I. No. 81 19 300 8.4 5.6 " 197 5 30 8 " 32 10 SI ? 6-3 " l°3 9 i>3 5-2 " 81 6 no 5-2 " 189 bis 7 90 4-7 " 192 bis Average on 7 estates. 7 103 4 12 797 8.4 330 767 5-4* Series II. 13 estates 596 86,5 7-9 5-4 Total 18 estates . . . 682.5 Note. — Series 1 contains the results of many years' experience on a fevr 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 oh 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., > Vk Vice-Presidents . Mr. JOHN EIDDULPH MARTIN. Treasurer. 68 Lombard Street, E.G. 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 Sebeohm. Professor Henry Sidgwick. Mr. H. Llewellyn Smith. .Rev. Philip Wicksteed. Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, M. A., D. C. L., Editor and Secretary . , dorresponbents : 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 (i Reichsrath-Strasse, 23, Vienna). Dr. Mahaim for Belgium (322, Rue St. Giles.Liege). Prof. Charles Gide for France (Universite, Montpellier). Prof. GusTAV CoHN for Gfrmany (Universitat, Konigsberg). Prof. H. B. Gr EVEN for Holland (Leiden). Mons. E. Castelot for Paris (158, Boulevard Mal'esherbes). Prof. F. Taussig for United Statbs (Cambridge, Massachusetts). The Annual Subscription is a Guinea (26j[^ 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 xtc&ivQ 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 Asso- ciation, 9, Adelpki 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. Eor Statements made by Contributors to the Journal, they alone are responsible. FIVE VOLUMES COMPI^ETED.— They will be sent : — boand In clotli, at $5 eacli; any two for $9 ; any three far $13 ; any four for $17 ; and all Ave for $21 ; all five volumes bound In half ntorocco, $23.50; single vol- umes In half morocco, $5.50. Unbound, $4: per volume. Forwarded post-paid. Snbscrlptlonto Volume VI, $4.00. CONTENTS Vol. I. — Bound, $S : Unbound, $4. No. 1.— Report of the or§;anlzatlon of the American Economic Asso- ciation. By Richard T. Ely. Nos. 2 and 3.— The Relation of tlie Modern Municipality to the Gas Supply. By Edmund J. James. Out of print, sold only in the complete volume. !No. 4:.— o-operatlon In a 'Western City. By Albekt Shaw. No. 5. — o-operatfton in Neiv Eng- land. Edward W. Bemis. No. 6.— Relation of the State to In- dustrial Action. By Henry C. Adams. Vol. II. — Bound, Sj ; Unbound^ $4.. No. 1. — Three Phases of Co-opera- tion in the West, By Amos G. War- ner. Price TJ" cents. No. ».— Historical Slcetch of the Finance^ of Pennsylvania. By T. K. WoRTHiNGTON, with an Introduction by Richard T. Ely. Price y^ cents. No, 3.— The Railway Question. By Edmund J. James. Price 7j cents. So. 4.— The Early History of the English Woolen Industry, By W. J. Ashley. Price js cents. No. 5. — Tvro Chapters on the Medi- vseal Guilds of England. By Ed- win R. A. Seligman. Frice yj cents. No. 6.— The Relation of Modem Municipalities to <3uasi-Publlc Worlcs. By H. C. Adams, George W. Knight, Davis R. Dewey, Charles Moore, Frank J. Goodnow and Arthur Yager. Price y_$ cents. Vol. III. — Bounds $^ ; Unbound, $4. No. 1. — Three Papers Read at Meet- ing 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 ys cents. No. 3.— Capital and its Earnings. By Prof. J. B. Clark, Price '^S^^'^is. 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 An- nual Meeting," by Richard T. Ely. Price fSc^^ts. OF VOLUMES. Nos. 4- and 5.— Statistics and Eco- nomics. By Richmond Mavo-Smith. Out of print, sold only in the complete vol. No. G The Stahility of Prices. By Simon M. Patten. Price 75 cents. Vol. IV. — Bound $S ; Unbound $4, No. 1.— Contributions to the Wages Question ; *' The Theory of Wages," by Stuakt Wood ; " Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages," by J. B. Clark. Price y 3 cents. No. 3.— Socialism in England. By Sidney Webb. Price 73 <^^^i^- ' No. 3.— Road Legislation for the American State. By Jeremiah W. Jenks. Price y^cents. No. 4. — Report of the Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting. Price 7S 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 Wil- liam W. FoLWELL. Price y^ cents. No. 6.— An Honest Dollar. By £. Benjamin Andrews. Price y^ cents. Vol. V. — Bound, $^ ; Unbound, $4. No. 1.— The Industrial Transition in Japan. By Yeijiro Ono. Price $1.00. No. 2.— Two Prize Essays on Child Labor. \. By William F. Willoughby; n. By Miss Clare de Graffhnried. Price y 3 cents. Nos. 3 and 4:.— Two Papers on the Canal Question. I. By Edmund J. James; II. ByLswis M.Haupt. Price $i 00. No. 5.— History of the Nctv Yorh Property Tax. By John Christopher Schwab. Price $r.oo. No. 6.— The Educational Value of Political Economy. By Simon N. Patten. Price 75 cents. Vol. VI, — Subscription, $4.00. Nos. 1 and 3. — Report of the Pro- ceedings of the JPourth Annual Meeting. Price $i.oq. The Association tvIU Publish at least Six Numbers Annually. Subscription, $4.00 per Volume. For further information, address PUBLISHING AGENT, American Economic Association, BALTIMORE, MD. Economic Review. PUBLISHED QUARTERLY. CeN^EN^g 0E TPE JViapBE^ E0^ eC¥0BEl^, 3S9S. 1 . What attitude should the Church adopt towards the Aims and Methods of Labour Combinations f The Rev. Canon H. S. Holland, M. A. 2. The Present Position of the "Sweating System" Qitestion in the United Kingdom-. David F. Schloss, M. A. 3. Co-operative Credit- Banking in Germany. I 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. n. 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. FEUCIV^L &D CO., 34 KING- STREET, OOVBNT GARDEN, LONDON. •Yearly Subscription in advance direct to the Publishers, los. post free- Single copies, price 3s. BERLIN ; PUTTKAMMER & mUHLBRECHT. Subscription, 12 mariis. Singie copies, 3 marbs. THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS. 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. 54.00. SERIES III.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595 pages. M-oo- SERIES IV.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TEN- URE. 600 pages. ^13.50. 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 FED- ERAL GOVERNMENT. 628 pages. ^3.50. SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pages. $3.50. SERIESIX.— EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIE.'JCE. 635 pages. )f3-5°- EXTRA VOLUMES. I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEWHAVEN. By Charles H. Lever- more. IS2.00. 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 UNI- TED STATES. By George E. Howard. ■ Vol. I. — Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. iS3.oo. Vol. II. — Development of the City and the Local Magistracies(in preparation) . VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By Jeffrey R. Brackett. S2.00. 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. ;?i.25. IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZER- LAND. By John M. Vinxent. $1.50. X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. Frank W. Blacicmar. 52.00. XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTI- TUTION. By Morris M. Cohn. 51.50. XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By Charles M. ANDREWS. 51.50. 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 527.00. The nine series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-one volumes, for 545.00. 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 pubHc law and economics. The method of treat- ment will be historical, comparative and statistical ; and it will be the aim of the writers to present the latest results of institutional develop- ment 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 Com- monwealths. 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 1 891, by Ginn and Co. The entire series will probably be completed within three years