part II., p. 211.)

Chapter 326,550 wordsPublic domain

Let us now compare the figures:

_Householders _Lessors._ _Former serfs._ _Communities._ allotted._ _Number._ _Per cent._ Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya 15 372 79 21 Throughout the districts (former serfs) 25

It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for the bailiwick in question, it holds good _a fortiori_ for the region at large, where the average percentage of lessors is even greater.

The correctness of this explanation is strikingly proved by the figures for the adjacent bailiwick Znamenskaya, Dankoff.

_Householders _Lessors._ _Communities._ allotted._ _Number._ _Per cent._ Subdivision out of order 15 370 167 45

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

As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other half, the latter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were it not so, however, a unanimous vote of the farming half could not possibly effect the redivision.

3. Village Troitzkoye, the same bailiwick, Ranenburg, “There is some talk about subdivision, yet it is very hard to have it passed here. A good many are so impoverished that they show no interest in the question of increasing the amount of their land, for, in any event, it would have to be let out; while the redivision would bring prejudice to the lessees, and there are many of them.” (_Loc. cit._, part I., p. 310.)

Let us show it in figures:

_Householders._ _Number._ _Per cent._ Total allotted 187 100 Vote required for redivision 125 66⅔ Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots) 44 23 Opposition sufficient to stay the same 18 10 Having 2 horses or more 36 20

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

4. Village Kunakovo, b. Zmievskaya, Dankoff, “The peasants live in great poverty. Redivision is talked about; it is much checkmated by the fact that many among the householders are permanently living outside.” (_Loc. cit._, p. 254.)

Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11 lease their lots _in toto_; 9 among them have no houses in the village; 23 adult males are working outside.

After deduction of the 11 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority even in case of unanimity. Yet they are divided as follows:

_Householders._ _Personally._ _By hire._ _In all._ Tilling their lots-- Total 9 2 11 In part (the rest leased) 2 4 6 -- -- -- 11 6 17

Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (_Ib._, pp. 128-132.)

If there is no antagonism to the redivision, then indifference on the part of some is but natural.

5. Village Sergievskoye, Ranenburg, “Most of the ‘horseless’ half of the village are working exclusively outside. A good many are in arrears for taxes. Their lots are taken from them by the community and given to the wealthiest householders. This tends greatly to still further enrich the few at the expense of the many. In 1863 about one sixth of the bailiwick (300 ‘revision males’) emigrated to the _gubernia_ of Stavropol, Caucasus, leaving their lots to the community. The land was distributed among the best-situated householders. All of the emigrants, save 15 families, have now come back, but the _mir_ refuses to return their lots. This is the case with the emigrants in all the communities of the district. It is very difficult to settle the matter of the redivision, for the people are always away at work, and the redivision is opposed by the most influential householders, who keep in their hands the lots of the former emigrants and delinquent tax-payers.” (_Loc. cit._, part I., p. 305,)

These are the figures connected with the above statement:

_Per cent._ Horseless 54 Outside workers 56

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

Apart from the opposition of the lessees, it is hardly ever possible to get even a simple majority to vote upon the redivision.

[149] Bailiwicks Naryshkinskaya, Karpovskaya, Nikolskaya, Vednovskaya, and Zimarovskaya, district of Ranenburg; b. Spasskaya, Loshkovskaya, and Yagodnovskaya, district of Dankoff, and some scattered communities all over the region.

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

[151] So far as I am aware from the newspapers, the land was afterward redistributed in the communities of a number of _gubernias_ of Middle Russia.

[152] These views were expounded by Mr. V. V. in a series of articles which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, in 1880 and 1881, and were published in 1882, in book form, under the title: _The Destinies of Capitalism in Russia_.

[153] This question was put by Mr. Michaïloffsky, a very renowned Russian publicist, in his article: “_Karl Marx on trial before Mr. J. Zhukoffsky_,” which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, 1877. An answer to this criticism, in letter form, was found in the posthumous papers of Karl Marx, and was published in Russian, first by the revolutionary press, and subsequently in the _Juridichesky Vestnik_ (Juridical Herald, monthly), Moscow, 1888.

[154] Mr. V. V. himself, in the preface to his book, placed his confidence in Russian autocracy, which appeared to him particularly adapted to the carrying out of social reforms in favor of the masses. The Russian bicephalous eagle soars in his majesty high above the classes, whereas constitutional government is avowedly a class rule promoting the interests of the _bourgeoisie_. This was a correct translation from the Prussian into the Muscovite of Rodbertus’ motto: “_Christlich, monarchisch, sozial!_” Whether this declaration of allegiance was not inspired to the peasantist author rather by the reading of the Statute of Censorship, is open to question. It is sure, however, that the adherents of the doctrine within the ranks of the “party of the _Narodnaya Volya_” (“The Will of the People”) did not share in this enthusiasm for the blessing of autocracy bestowed by history upon the chosen Russian nation.

[155] With regard to the condition of agriculture on a large scale, reference will be made in this chapter to the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., district of Voronezh. The tables contain detailed data, (62 columns) on each of the 279 estates of the district, which exceed in size 50 dessiatines (135 acres).

[156]

+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------------+ | | Farmed | In small | Tilled | | | | by the | tenure | for share | In all. | | Division of the | landlord. | for money | in crops. +-------+-----+ | fields on large | | rental. | | | | | estates. +------------+------------+------------+Dessia-| Per | | |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|tines. |cent.| +------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+ | I. Winter seed--| | | | | | | Rye | 12615 | | | | | | Wheat | 4573 | | | | | | +------------+ | | | | | | 17188 | 7221 | 917 | 25326 | 33 | | II. Spring seed | 19995 | 6787 | 1194 | 27976 | 36 | |III. Left unsown | 24292 | | | 24292 | 31 | | +------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+ | Total | | | | 77594 | 100 | +------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+

This classification bears upon 89.5 per cent. of the total area of ploughland; the deficient 10.5 per cent. concern the land which is held in large tenure, but yearly re-rented in small plots to the peasants.

[157] This is the comparative development of stock breeding on large estates and on peasant farms, in the district of Voronezh:

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

On peasant farms 2.0 On estates over 50 dessiatines 7.9

We know that the fields of the peasants are very insufficiently manured. The opportunities for large estates do not appear more favorable. The extent to which land is fertilized on the estates is shown by the following figures:

_Arable land._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._

Yearly under culture 61882 100 Yearly manured 3431 5.5

The fertilizing of 1 dessiatine requires 6 heads of big cattle (_op. cit._, p. 92.) Thus we have:

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

Total, 3431 dessiatines × 6 heads 20586 100 Total stock of the landlords 11010 53 ------ ---- Stock of the peasants 9576 47

In a word, nearly one half of the manure used on large estates is procured by the small farmers who are compelled to neglect their own fields. Quite a number of statements to this effect are produced in the Appendices to the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_.

[158] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., p. 234.

[159] The total of this table exceeds the total of plough land in large estates by 1119 dessiatines, which amounts to 2 per cent. of the whole area, and could by no means influence the inferences drawn from the table. The difference concerns small tenure, on which the statements are slightly at variance with those of the large landholders.

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

_Rented for money rental._ _Dessiatines._

In all 25992 Tenements over 50 dessiatines 474 ----- Small tenure 25518 Held from small estates (of under 50 dessiatines) 1292 ----- Held from large estates (of over 50 dessiatines) 24226

(_Cf._ _op. cit._, p. 251, column 18; p. 273, col. 65. Upon tenure for share in crops, p. 251, col. 14, and cols. 55-56 on pp. 276-335.)

[160]

_Ploughland in small tenure._ _Dessiatines._ In all 25309 Manured 51

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

[161]

+-------------------------+-------+-------------+----------------------+ | | | | Arable yearly under | | Estates | | | cultivation. | | with large |Number.|Average size,+------------+---------+ | agriculture. | |dessiatines. |Dessiatines.|Per cent.| +-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+ |The fields fertilized | 146 | 686 | 33809 | 91 | |The fields not fertilized| 44 | 215 | 3373 | 9 | | +-------+-------------+------------+---------+ | Total | 190 | 577 | 37182 | 100 | | | | | | | |Estates in small tenure | 64 | 244 | | | +-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+

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

[163]

+------------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+ | | Planted with wheat. | Fertilized. | | +------------+---------+------------+----------+ | Estates. | | | |Percentage| | |Dessiatines.|Per cent.|Dessiatines.| to the | | | | | |area under| | | | | | wheat. | +------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+ |With culture of wheat: | | | | | | a) land not fertilized | 136 | 3 | | | | b) land fertilized | 4437 | 97 | 2216 | 50 | |Without culture of wheat| | | 1164 | | | +------------+---------+------------+----------+ | Total | 4573 | 100 | 3380 | | +------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+

[164]

+------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+ | Estates with large | Number. |Dessiatines.| Per cent.| Average | | agriculture. | | | |Dessiatines.| +------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+ | Without working horses | 48 | 13103 | 12 | 273 | | With working horses | 142 | 96512 | 88 | 680 | | |---------+------------+----------+------------+ | Total | 190 | 109615 | 100 | 577 | +------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+

[165] Wherever ploughs are in use, we find from two to three horses to one plough upon an average; it shows that the horses are raised with the avowed purpose of driving the plough. Such is the case with most of the horses found on large estates. Ploughs without horses are kept only in exceptional cases. Furthermore, we notice that those estates on which ploughs are used are the largest. The smaller estates are tilled with the primeval peasant _sohá_, ploughs being only too seldom used by the peasantry. The figures are found in the following tables:

------------------+----+-------------+--------------+-------------------- A. Estates | |Total extent.|Average | Horses (or oxen). with large | +-------+-----+(Dessiatines).|----+-------+------- agriculture. |Num-|Dessia-|Per | +--------+Num-|To 1 |To one |ber.|tines. |cent.| |Ploughs.|ber.|estate.|plough. ------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+------- I. Without ploughs| | | | | | | | Still with | | | | | | | | working | | | | | | | | horses | 70 | 33672| 33 | 481 | | 544| 7.8 | | | | | | | | | II. With ploughs | | | | | | | | a) with working | 72 | 62840|63} | 873 | 454 |1087| 15.1 | 2.4 horses | | | }67| | | | | b) with oxen | 2 | 3966| 4} |1983 | 37 | 34| 17 | 0.9 +----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+------- Total |144 | 100478| 100 | | 491 | | | ------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------

----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+ | | | Ploughland tilled | | | | by the owner. | | | | (Dessiatines.) | B. Ploughs | Average estate. |Ploughs. |---------+---------| furnished. | (Dessiatines.) | | In all. | To 1 | | | | | plough. | ----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+ By the landlord | 903 | 491 | 44764 | 91 | By the laborer | 369 | 115 | 16710 | 145 | (_l. c._ p. 97.)| | | | | +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+ Total | 577 | 606 | 61474 | 101 | ----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

[166] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, vol. I., pp. 17-18. By “property of the capitalistic class,” is understood all estates belonging to merchants, whatever may be the size of the holding, as well as every estate above 50 dessiatines, whatever may be the legal status of its owner (merchant, burgher or peasant). All holdings below this size, except those owned by the noblemen and merchants, are included in the class of small property. The idea of this classification is to divide historical landed property of the nobility from landholding for mercantile purposes, as well as from that in which the owner may be supposed to be himself the tiller of his land.

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

[168] “Honorable citizenship” is awarded, under certain provisions, to merchants in old standing. Others than merchants cut no figure in this class.

[169] The socialistic aversion of the Russian peasantists to the “exploiters” was somewhat tainted with the patrician prejudices against the merchant. The Russian magazines were crammed with touching descriptions of how the poetry of a shadowy oak alley in the old garden of the noble slave-owner was ruthlessly sacrificed in favor of prosaic timber by the boorish parvenu (_tchoomáziy_). It was universally believed that the merchant who engaged in land tenure was something of a dynamiter, whose element was destruction for the mere devilish voluptuousness of destruction. To devastate the forests while re-renting the land to the peasant at an exorbitant interest--this appeared to be the only aim of the merchant. Statistical investigations did away with these naive conceptions. Here are some of the facts brought to light by the Ryazañ census:

1. _Bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, d. Ranenburg._ “The lack of land to rent is keenly felt. The condition of the communities under discussion has grown much worse as compared with former years. The main reason thereof is the considerable decrease in the area leased by landlords and the rise of rental prices, which is closely connected with the passage of the estates of the nobility into the hands of merchants through either sale or lease.” (_L. c._, vol. II., part I., p. 282. No. 3-4, 6-9.)

2. _Village Prosech’ye, same district._ “Since their former master sold his estate to the merchant, neither land nor easements are to be got anywhere. The new owner cultivates everything for himself.” (_L. c._, p. 305, No. 13.)

3. _Village Cheglokovo, b. Vednovskaya._ “The condition of the peasants grew much worse after their former master sold his estate, about 1870, to a merchant, who has almost entirely stopped leasing land. The master, on the contrary, used to lease much of his land, and the peasants assert that they then made a pretty good living.” (_Ib._, p. 325, No. 5. _Cf._, also, Nos. 6, 7.)

4. _B. Troitskaya._ “Tenure is a rare exception, since the landlords either carry on their own farming or have leased their estates to big farmers, who cultivate everything for themselves.” (_Ib._, p. 309.)

5. _B. Hrushchovskaya, Dankoff._ “All the landlords in the neighborhood either carry on their own farming, or have leased their estates to merchants, who cultivate solely for themselves. The peasants can positively get no land for rent, except a small tract of meadow.” (_L. c._, part II., p. 208. _Cf._, also bailiwick _Ostrokamenskaya_, p. 211, and b. _Odoevskaya_, p. 230.)

[170] More particulars as to the availability of these averages for purposes of comparison are produced in the Appendix, Table VII.

[171] 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.

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

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

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

_Estates with large agriculture._ _Number._ _Average. _To 1 plough. Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._ Property of the nobility: Estates with ploughs 54 1044 91 Estates without ploughs 79 428 .. Property of the capitalist class: Estates with ploughs 20 520 93 Estates without ploughs 47 191 ..

With the nobility the average estate tilled exclusively with the peasant _sohá_ is more than twice as large as the corresponding average with the capitalist class.

On the other hand, the capitalist provides his farm with ploughs when the same is only half as large as that on which the noble could afford to have improved implements.

[175] The following is a synopsis of the results of the above comparison between capitalist ownership of land and property of the nobility:

Backward management by capitalists is found only within the average limits from 108 to 197 dessiatines (292-532 acres), while the same methods are still practiced by noblemen so long as the estate averages from 233 to 501 dessiatines (629-1353 acres). Progress begins on capitalistic farms as soon as they reach the average of from 289 to 520 dessiatines (780-1404 acres), while on those owned by the nobility, improvement is observed only within the average limits of from 734 to 1044 dessiatines (1892-2819 acres). This plainly points to the lack of money as the only reason which prevents the petty nobleman from practicing the same methods as those applied by the capitalist as soon as he takes possession of the same estate.

[176]

_Districts._ _Communities._ Ranenburg 340 Dankoff 313 Ostrogozhsk 250 Zadonsk 197 Korotoyak 124 Nizhnedevitsk 161 ---- Total 1385

[177] A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with regard to agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, _La Famine en Russie_, in the _Revue d’Economie Politique_, 1892, No. 7. The apologists of the “historical friendship” pattern, should carefully read Chapter III.: _Qu’est ce qui a été fait pour relever l’agriculture en Russie?_ One can there get the knowledge of some very conclusive facts which it is, of course, impossible to come across during a rapid trip through a vast country like Russia. The paper referred to should gain in authority by the fact that it was read before a meeting held at Emperor Alexander’s Lyceum of St. Petersburg, (to which only the sons of the highest dignitaries of the State or the offspring of the most aristocratic families are admitted,) and--last, not least--by the fact that it was published in France, which is now _plus Tzariste que le Tzar_.

[178]

_Loans granted._ _Rubles._ By the nobility’s Crédit Foncier, to January 1, 1892 328,000,000 By the Peasant’s Bank, to January 1, 1891 56,140,438

[179] “On small _crédit foncier_.” _Otechstvenniya Zapiski_ (monthly), 1883.

[180] “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p. 105--_Russkaya Mysl_ (monthly), February, 1892.

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

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

_Percentage to the total in the gubernia._ _Gubernias._ _Land forfeited._ _Loans failed._ Penza 39.34 48.80 Poltava 34.36 33.53 Voronezh 31.13 33.36 Kursk 25.22 30.81

These are moreover the very _gubernias_ in which the Bank operated most extensively. (_Ibid._, p. 100.)

[183] Loans granted by the Bank:

_Rubles._ In 1884 9,529,368 ” 1885 13,761,978 ” 1886 11,148,850 ” 1887 7,495,197 ” 1888 5,133,539 ” 1889 3,692,133 ” 1890 4,519,209 ---------- Total 56,140,438

(_Ibid._, p. 103.)

[184] The normal size of a peasant farm, which is above referred to, was calculated in Chapters II. and X. These are the respective figures:

_Normal extent _Actual _Excess of the Districts. of landholding, average, normal over Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._ the average, per cent._ _Ranenburg and Dankoff_: (Communities of which all the members are farmers taken as the normal.) To 1 “revision” male 5.0 3.4 +47

_Korotoyak_: (Farms with net profit taken as the normal.) To 1 adult male worker 11.5 8.3 +39

The extent of landholding in the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ (districts of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while the _gubernia_ of Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the southeastern prairies.--(_Cf._, Prof. Janson’s _Essay of a Statistical Investigation, etc._, App., pp. 12, 13, Table II. [bis]). Should we fix the increase of landholding needed by the peasants at 40 per cent. in the _gubernias_ of the famine stricken sections of Middle Russia (Voronezh, Kazañ, Kursk, Orel, Penza, Ryazañ, Samara, Saratoff, Simbirsk, Tamboff, Tula), the area lacking would compare as follows with that purchased through the Peasant’s Bank (_Cf._, Herzenstein, _l. c._, p. 104):

_Dessiatines._ _Per cent._ Land wanting 12,070,484 100 Land purchased through the Bank (from April, 1883, up to January 1, 1890) 1,579,391 13

Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in 8 _gubernias_ of the same section, at 17,124,321 dessiatines (_l. c._, April, 1883, p. 178), which is about ten times as much as the land acquired through the Peasant’s Bank.

[185] “Russian famines and the measures of the Government against them,” by Prof. Romanovitch-Slavatinsky, _University Records_, Jan., 1892, pp. 40, 61 (monthly publication of St. Vladimir University, Kieff.)

[186] The war of 1877 caused a depreciation of the paper ruble from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. It never got above that figure until 1890, when the enormous harvest unexpectedly raised its exchange value to 80 per cent., the rate that had prevailed before the war.

[187] The first chapters of this essay were written when the famine of 1891-92 had reached its climax. Now, while these concluding lines are being printed, the Russian papers have brought official reports of a failure in 11 _gubernias_, of which 5 are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). The _Zemstvos_ have applied to the government for appropriations for the next seed.

[188] A delay in the payments was lately granted to the debtors of the Nobility’s Bank in the famine stricken region, for the purpose of saving numerous estates from being sacrificed at forced sale.

[189] In the tables that follow we have availed ourselves of some of the figures produced in a very interesting article, in which the consequences of the famine are discussed on the ground of the data recently published by the Statistical Bureau of the _gubernia_ of Samara. (_Cf._ “The consequences of the failure of the crops in the _gubernia_ of Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in the _Russkaya Zhizñ_ [daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).

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

_Lost. _Remains. _Bailiwicks._ Per cent._ Per cent._

Ivanteyeffskaya 74 26 Lipovetzkaya 67 33 Novotoolskaya 67 33 Koozabayeffskaya 61 39 Shintinoffskaya 45 55 Etc.

The heavy losses suffered by the peasantry have enormously accentuated the existing inequalities of distribution of live stock. This is evidenced in the village Dergoonofka, d. of Nicholayeff, which figured in 1887 among the wealthiest villages, 3.5 working horses being the average to a household (nearly twice as much as in the districts above examined). These are the comparative data for 1887 and 1891:

+--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+ | | | October, | Increase or | | | 1887. | 1891. | Decrease. | | Households (total: 745). +-----------|-----------+----------------+ | | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | +--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+ | “Horseless” | 5 } | 29 } | +480 } | | With 1 horse | 14 } 19 | 29 } 58 | +107 } +205 | | | | | | | ” from 2 to 3 horses | 32 } | 28 } | -12 } | | ” 4 horses | 14 } 81 | 7 } 42 | -50 } -48 | | ” 5 or more horses | 35 } | 7 } | -80 } | | +-----------+-----------+----------------+ | Total | 100 | 100 | | +--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+

Such was the condition of the peasantry as early as in October, when the famine was still at its very beginning. Concentration of communal land in the hands of a few wealthy lessees is reported by the Bureau as an immediate result of the famine, but the respective figures are not cited in Mr. Vodovozoff’s paper.

[190] We read in a communication from the district of Voronezh that “there is hardly one-fourth of the live stock left.… Thanks to the enfeebled condition, as well as to the complete loss of the peasants’ horses, many among the landlords, and larger tenants, have secured live stock of their own.” _The Agriculturist_ (St. Petersburg), No. 26, April 24 (May 6), 1892.

Says another correspondent, also a landlord: “This year the greatest part of the farm work was to be done with the landlord’s live stock, it being impossible to get peasants for the purpose, as they had suffered a heavy loss of horses.” (_Ib._, No. 33, June 12 (24), 1892.)

[191] Fertilizing and irrigation have become a necessity in Russian agriculture. Let us figure the expenses entailed by these improvements.

We know that manure is procured for the landlord’s fields by the decaying small farmer. The ruin of the latter necessitates an outlay of capital by the landlord for the purchase of live stock. Now, to fertilize the fields once in three years, 2 heads of big cattle are required per dessiatine of arable land, which would cause an expense of 78.96 rubles per dessiatine. (_Cf._, _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, Vol. II., Number II., App., pp. 44-45.) Here we have the Achilles heel of the Russian landed nobility. The land acquired by the peasants with the aid of the Peasants’ Bank sold at an average price of rubles 43.41 the dessiatine. (Herzenstein, _l. c._, p. 104). The cost of fertilizing alone exceeds the total value of the land; it could consequently not be conducted on a large scale by means of funded loans.

The conditions are similar in the case of irrigation. Mr. Vladimir Biriukowicz, a writer in the _Russkaya Mysl_, quotes a few instances of how artificial irrigation has increased the rental value of the estates from 3 rubles to 15, and even 25 rubles yearly per dessiatine. Moreover, and this is of greater importance, amidst the surrounding failure, the irrigated estates were blessed by excellent crops. According to Mr. Daniloff, a civil engineer, irrigation had raised the productivity of ploughland by from 15 to 20 per cent., and of meadow by 100 per cent., while the cost of construction did not exceed 60 rubles per dessiatine. (_l. c._, April 1, 1892, _Protection and Agriculture_, pp. 2, 3.) Certainly there is nothing exorbitant in the expense; still it likewise requires an outlay of capital exceeding the value of the land, and this, in the opinion of a practical agriculturalist, must be accounted for as the chief reason of the indifference of the landlords in the matter of irrigation. (_Cf._, “Topographical Surveying for irrigation works,” by V. Kasyanenko. _The Agriculturist_, St. Petersburg, No. 47, 1892). Thus the progress of artificial irrigation means the ruin of the nobleman.

[192] I am glad to know that this is the opinion advanced by so high an authority in political economy as Mr. Frederick Engels, one of the few Western students familiar with the Russian language. (_Die Neue Zeit_, 1892.) So far, however, as my case is concerned, I claim independence of judgment. I wrote in an editorial, dated December 20, 1891: “The consequences of this famine are equivalent to a revolution in the social organization of the Russian village.… The development of capitalism in agriculture, the dissolution of the peasantry into two distinct groups: a rural _petite bourgeoisie_, and a rural proletariat--these are the characteristics of a new epoch in Russia’s social life.” (_Cf._, _Progress_, No. 3, a Russian weekly published at the time in New York.)

[193] This economic revolution seems to be one of more than merely national import. Up to the present day the American farmer has met the Russian peasant on the international market, either as small farmer, or as cultivator of the greater part of the landlords’ property. In this competition the greater economy of labor and the cheaper methods of transportation secured the prize to the American producer. From now on the mortgaged American farmer will have to stand the competition of the Russian capitalist. It hardly needs a prophet to foretell that the breakdown of the Russian peasantry will hasten the decay of small agriculture in America.

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

[195] Here are included those possessing their land partly on the basis of communism, and partly quarterly.

[196] This group was formed from the serfs who had belonged to petty gentlemen; this small class of serfs was reduced in 1861 from private serfdom to state serfdom, or, as it was called, to the class of state peasants. In 1866 it shared the lot of the emancipated state peasants. Thus, by its historical origin, this group should be classed among former serfs, while by title of possession its members were hereditary tenants like the rest of the former state peasants. Nowadays they likewise enjoy the right of purchasing their land in property.

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

[198] The translation differs from the original in the systematic arrangement of the entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of the present discussion.

[199] In the winter, cows as well as horses are fed mostly with straw mixed with flour. Oats is given to horses only in the season of farm work or in case of carrying.

[200] Milk, butter, cheese, as well as cabbage and cucumbers, which are produced exclusively for domestic consumption, are not included in the debits or in the credits.

[201] The single items are not quoted in detail, since they are very similar to those already produced in Budget I.

[202] Among the entries of which this sum is made up, we notice a yearly expense of 1.80 rubles for 1 pound of tea, and 1.00 ruble for 5 pounds of sugar a year.

[203] The boys go barefoot, and have no clothing but shirts; no pants, nor overcoats.

[204] It is peculiar to read among the entries “For horseshoeing (only the fore feet), 0.60.”

[205] _Note._--Series I contains the results of many years’ experience on a few farms. Series II comprises such estates, on the one hand, on which the area planted with wheat coincides with that manured, so as to justify the inference that the fields are manured precisely for the wheat crop; on the other hand, it includes such estates on which no fertilizing is practiced at all. Series II, as well as the great majority of the average yields which could be ascertained by one census, is distinguished from Series I in that it refers to no stated term of observation. The slight difference between, or rather the identity of, the averages in both series guarantees the validity of all the averages, though the period of observation be not stated.

BRITISH ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.

Council:

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

THE RIGHT HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. H. C. E. CHILDERS, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY, M.P., _Vice-Presidents_.

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

Professor C. BASTABLE.

Mr. HENRY R. BEETON.

Mr. JAMES BONAR.

Mr. CHARLES BOOTH.

Mr. JOHN BURNETT.

Mr. THOMAS BURT, M. P.

Major PATRICK GEORGE CRAGIE.

Rev. Professor CUNNINGHAM, D. D.

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

Sir THOMAS FARRER, Bart.

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

Mr. CHARLES GAIRDNER.

Dr. GIFFEN, C. B.

Professor E. C. K. GONN.

Mr. ALFRED SPALDING HARVEY.

Mr. HENRY HIGGS.

Mr. ALFRED HOARE.

Mr. GEORGE HOWELL. M. P.

Professor J. K. INGRAM.

Mr. J. N. KEYNES.

Professor ALFRED MARSHALL.

Professor J. E. C. MUNRO.

Professor J. S. NICHOLSON.

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

Rev. L. R. PHELPS.

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

Mr. JOHN RAE.

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

Mr. FREDERICK SEEBOHM.

Professor HENRY SIDGWICK.

Mr. H. LLEWELLYN SMITH.

Rev. PHILIP WICKSTEED.

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

Correspondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Annual Subscription is a Guinea (26½ francs). There is at present no entrance fee. Any member may at any time compound for his future yearly payments by paying at once the sum of Ten Guineas (265 francs). The Journal will be supplied to Members without charge. They will also receive _gratis_ some of the other publications which the Association may, from time to time, issue.

Any person desirous of becoming a member of the Association is requested to send his name to PROFESSOR F. Y. EDGEWORTH, _British Economic Association, 9, Adelphi Terrace, London, W. C._, who will submit it to the Council for approval at their next meeting.

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

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

AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.

PUBLICATIONS.

FIVE VOLUMES COMPLETED.--They will be sent:--bound in cloth, at $5 each; any two for $9; any three for $13; any four for $17; and all five for $21; all five volumes bound in half morocco, $23.50; single volumes in half morocco, $5.50. Unbound, $4 per volume. Forwarded post-paid.

Subscription to Volume VI, $4.00.

CONTENTS OF VOLUMES.

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

=No. 1.--Report of the organization of the American Economic Association.= By RICHARD T. ELY.

=Nos. 2 and 3.--The Relation of the Modern Municipality to the Gas Supply.= By EDMUND J. JAMES. Out of print, sold only in the complete volume.

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

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

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

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

=No. 1.--Three Phases of Co-operation in the West.= By AMOS G. WARNER. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 2.--Historical Sketch of the Finances of Pennsylvania.= By T. K. WORTHINGTON, with an Introduction by RICHARD T. ELY. _Price 75 cents._

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

=No. 4.--The Early History of the English Woolen Industry.= By W. J. ASHLEY. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 5.--Two Chapters on the Mediæval Guilds of England.= By EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 6.--The Relation of Modern Municipalities to _Quasi_-Public Works.= By H. C. ADAMS, GEORGE W. KNIGHT, DAVIS R. DEWEY, CHARLES MOORE, FRANK J. GOODNOW and ARTHUR YAGER. _Price 75 cents._

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

=No. 1.--Three Papers Read at Meeting in Boston=: “Statistics in Colleges,” by CARROLL D. WRIGHT; “Sociology and Political Economy,” by F. H. GIDDINGS; “The Legal-Tender Decisions,” by E. J. JAMES. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 2.--Capital and its Earnings.= By Prof. J. B. CLARK. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 3 consists of three parts=: “The Manual Laboring Class,” by F. A. WALKER; “Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley,” by E. W. BEMIS; “Report of the Second Annual Meeting,” by RICHARD T. ELY. _Price 75 cents._

=Nos. 4 and 5.--Statistics and Economics.= By RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH. Out of print, sold only in the complete vol.

=No. 6.--The Stability of Prices.= By SIMON M. PATTEN. _Price 75 cents._

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

=No. 1.--Contributions to the Wages Question=: “The Theory of Wages,” by STUART WOOD; “Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages,” by J. B. CLARK. _Price 75 cents._

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

=No. 3.--Road Legislation for the American State.= By JEREMIAH W. JENKS. _Price 75 cents._

=No. 4.--Report of the Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting.= _Price 75 cents._

=No. 5.--Three Papers Read at Third Annual Meeting=: “Malthus and Ricardo,” by SIMON N. PATTEN; “The Study of Statistics,” by DAVIS R. DEWEY; “Analysis in Political Economy,” by WILLIAM W. FOLWELL. _Price 75 cents._

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

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

=No. 1.--The Industrial Transition in Japan.= By YEIJIRO ONO. _Price $1.00._

=No. 2.--Two Prize Essays on Child Labor.= I. By WILLIAM F. WILLOUGHBY; II. By MISS CLARE DE GRAFFENRIED. _Price 75 cents._

=Nos. 3 and 4.--Two Papers on the Canal Question.= I. By EDMUND J. JAMES; II. By LEWIS M. HAUPT. _Price $1.00._

=No. 5.--History of the New York Property Tax.= By JOHN CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB. _Price $1.00._

=No. 6.--The Educational Value of Political Economy.= By SIMON N. PATTEN. _Price 75 cents._

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

=Nos. 1 and 2.--Report of the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting.= _Price $1.00._

The Association will Publish at least Six Numbers Annually. Subscription, $4.00 per Volume.

For further information, address

PUBLISHING AGENT, American Economic Association, BALTIMORE, MD.

THE ECONOMIC REVIEW.

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY.

CONTENTS OF THE NUMBER FOR OCTOBER, 1892.

1. _What attitude should the Church adopt towards the Aims and Methods of Labour Combinations?_

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

2. _The Present Position of the “Sweating System” Question in the United Kingdom._

DAVID F. SCHLOSS, M. A.

3. _Co-operative Credit-Banking in Germany._

HENRY W. WOLFF.

4. _The Universities’ Settlement in Whitechapel._

THOMAS HANCOCK NUNN.

5. _The Theory of Prize-giving._

I. THE REV. AND HON. E. LYTTELTON, M. A.

II. A CRITICISM. THE REV. H. RASHDALL, M. A.

6. _Thoughts on Social Problems and Their Solution._

E. VANSITTART NEALE, M. A.

_Notes and Memoranda._

_Legislation, Parliamentary Inquiries and Official Returns._

EDWIN CANNAN, M. A.

_Reviews and Short Notices._

PERCIVAL & CO., 34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.

Yearly Subscription in advance direct to the Publishers, 10s. post free. Single copies, price 3s.

BERLIN: PUTTKAMMER & MÜHLBRECHT.

_Subscription, 12 marks. Single copies, 3 marks._

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS.

STUDIES IN HISTORY AND POLITICS.

Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS.

The Tenth Series is now in progress. Subscription, $3.00 per year.

=ANNUAL SERIES. 1883-1891.=

SERIES I.--LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pages. $4.00.

SERIES II.--INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pages. $4.00.

SERIES III.--MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595 pages. $4.00.

SERIES IV.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pages. $3.50.

SERIES V.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 pages. $3.50.

SERIES VI.--THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 540 pages. $3.50.

SERIES VII.--SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 628 pages. $3.50.

SERIES VIII--HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pages. $3.50.

SERIES IX.--EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 635 pages. $3.50.

=EXTRA VOLUMES.=

I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By CHARLES H. LEVERMORE. $2.00.

II. PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. By EDWARD P. ALLINSON and BOIES PENROSE. $3.00.

III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861. By GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN. $1.00.

IV-V. LOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By GEORGE E. HOWARD.

Vol. I.--Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. $3.00.

Vol. II.--Development of the City and the Local Magistracies (in preparation).

VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT. $2.00.

VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. $1.25.

VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN. By INAZO NITOBE. $1.25.

IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND. By JOHN M. VINCENT. $1.50.

X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. FRANK W. BLACKMAR. $2.00.

XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION. By MORRIS M. COHN. $1.50.

XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By CHARLES M. ANDREWS, $1.50.

XIII. AMERICA: ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1792. By W. B. SCAIFE.

The set of nine series is now offered in a handsome library edition for $27.00.

The nine series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-one volumes, for $45.00.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

Systematic Political Science

BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

The University Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College have in preparation and intend to publish a series of systematic works covering the entire field of political science proper and of the allied sciences of public law and economics. The method of treatment will be historical, comparative and statistical; and it will be the aim of the writers to present the latest results of institutional development and of scientific thought in Europe and America. Each work will be indexed by subjects and authors, and the last volume will contain a topical index to the entire series.

The series will consist of the following nine works:

=Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics.= By JOHN W. BURGESS.

=Comparative Constitutional Law of the American Commonwealths.= By FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE.

=Historical and Practical Political Economy.= By RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH.

=Historical and Comparative Science of Finance.= By EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN.

=Comparative Administrative Law and Science.= By FRANK J. GOODNOW.

=International Law.= By JOHN BASSETT MOORE.

=Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence.= By MUNROE SMITH.

=History of Political Theories.= By WILLIAM A. DUNNING.

=Literature of Political Science.= By GEORGE H. BAKER.

The first of these works was published early in 1891, by Ginn and Co. The entire series will probably be completed within three years.