owners was as follows (La Reforme agraire en Russie, Ministere de l'agriculture, 1912):
| A table should appear at this position in the text. See Help:Table for formatting instructions. |
Crown land 133,038,883 dess.
Peasants holdings . 119,067,754 dess.
Land bought by communities and associations
of peasants
Land bought by individual peasants .
Land of the gentry
Land owned by other classes Land owned by various institutions
1 1, 142,560 dess. 12,944,154 dess. 49,287,886 dess. 22,664,493 dess. 6,985,893 dess.
The enormous area of the Crown lands was mainly covered by forests or situated in the northern and eastern provinces, so that it could not be used for agricultural purposes; the surface of con- venient land in the hands of the Crown was only about 3,700,000 dess. The arable land owned by the Church and different eccle- siastical institutions amounted to 1,672,000 dess. (Statistics of the Holy Synod, 1890); the appanages comprised arable land of 2,000,000 dess. If we take into consideration that a large part of the landowners' land was covered also by forests, we come to estimate the surface of the arable land owned by squires at about 35,000,000 dess. (Yermolov). The sum total that could be dis- posed of would thus amount to 45,000,000 dess., or about 30% of the area of the peasants' holdings; divided among the villagers it would make less than one additional dessiatine per soul. The insufficiency of the land reserve becomes even more evident if we keep in mind that about 85% of the Crown's arable land, 00% of the appanage arable land, and a considerable part of the squires' land were already leased by the peasantry. Of the 7,449,228 dess. which were sold by a newly instituted Peasant Bank to the peasants from 1882 to Jan. i 1006, village commu- nities acquired 25-6%; peasants' associations 72%; individual householders only 2-4 per cent.
The peasants' revolt of 1005 and the new schemes of Stolypin gave an entirely new direction to the agrarian policy of the State. The Manifesto of Nov. 3 1905 suspended all redeeming payments after Jan. i 1006. Of the surface of 2,846,620 dess., which the bank sold directly from Jan. i 1906 to June i 1913 peasants' communities got 5-5%, peasants' associations 14-8%' individual owners 79-7 per cent. The peasants also acquired from the landowners, with some assistance of the bank, 4,375,163 dess. It is estimated by Oganovsky that the result of the bank activity until July i 1910 was the creation of 45 to 50 thousand separate farms and of 130-140 thousand small compact plots the owners of which live in hamlets.
Let us turn now to the policy of the Government concerning emigration. The law of 1889 had subjected emigration to official supervision. Those were allowed to emigrate who were able to pay the expenses of the journey and of the installation of a new household, provided their departure did not harm the remaining members of the community. No Government assistance was given to the emigrants. Permission to emigrate was refused if the local authorities considered that the emigrants could find work in the old district. Those who emigrated without an official permission had to be sent back. These regulations resulted in a great reduction of the emigration movement, which was practi- cally closed to the poorest peasants.
The events of 1905 and the new orientation of the Government brought a great change in the emigration policy. Greater facili- ties were granted, and Government assistance was promised by the Provisional Rules of June 6 1906. But the growth of emi- gration which followed the new regulations was obstructed by a complete lack of organization. The following figures give us some insight into the working of the new laws:
Emigrants
to Asia
(in thousands)
Emigrants returning from Asia (in thousands)
1906
'907
'39' *
13-7
1908
4 2 7 3
f.f,.
27-2
1909
45-1
1910
6'93
82-3
1911 ....
I66--5
114-9 84-4
These figures prove that the emigration policy of the Govern-
ment was far from successful.
We have now to consider the third branch of the Government activity, directed towards the solution of the agrarian question. The scheme for improving agricultural methods was based on a reform of the distribution of the land. In 1861 a legal confirma- tion of the peasants' customary commune was considered the best means to secure the return of the money advanced by the State for redemption. The statistics of landownership in 1905 showed that 23-2% of the households and 17% of the land owned by the peasants were held by private tenure; 76-8% of the farms and 82-7% of the peasants' land were in communal tenure. The right of property was attributed not to separate householders but to the whole village community, as a juridical person. In the case of communal land tenure only the farmyard belonged to households in permanent tenure; other land belonged to the whole community, and was subject to occasional redivi- sions. Unfree domestic servants were assigned to peasants' communities, but did not obtain holdings: they formed in this way a village proletariat.
In the reign of the Emperor Alexander III. the communal tenure, which was regulated by the Liberation Act of 1861, came to be regarded as a political safeguard, and its decay was con- sidered to be a national danger. The law of Dec. 14 1893 made practically impossible the transition from communal to house- hold tenure. But the growing impoverishment of the peasantry gave evidence that the existing land system ceased to be benefi- cial. The special conference established by an Imperial Order on Jan. 22 1902 recognized for the first time the necessity of a funda- mental change in the existing land settlement of the peasants. The majority of the Conference were of the opinion that the communal tenure and the intermixture of strips were the chief causes of the alarming condition of the' peasantry.
Stolypin's Land Settlement. The agrarian disorders of 1906 gave increased importance to the problem, and proved that the settlement of it could not be postponed any longer. In the years 1906-7 the problem of land reform excited the strongest interest in governmental circles, and played a most prominent part in the programmes of different parties and in the debates of the First and the Second Dumas. Stolypin took the initiative on the part of the Government and eventually obtained the support of the Third Duma. His scheme was directed towards a political purpose, the creation of a conservative class of small peasant owners who could be counted upon to defend the existing regime. This class had to be strong and progressive from the economic point of view, as it was clear that the improvement of the peasants' condition could be attained only by more intensive farming. As was said above, some measures had been taken to enlarge the area of the peasants' holdings without violating the interests of the squires. But the greatest part of the Govern- ment activity was directed to a complete reconstruction of rela- tions inside the village, to the creation of separate farms and to the spread of individual ownership. The Imperial ukaz of Nov. 9 1906, the Land law of June 14 1910, and the Agricultural law of May 29 1911 were enacted for this purpose. The leading features of Stolypin's scheme were as follow. Each householder possessed of land in a village community can demand that his land shall be constituted a plot in individual property. A simple majority of the village assembly may convert the holdings into the land owned privately. The land has to be assigned to the claimant, if possible, in a single block. The conversion of the land of the entire community can be decreed by a resolution of the village meeting passed by a simple majority of the members. All the communities where there had not been any redivision of land since 1861 were declared to have passed from communal tenure to individual or household ownership. The formation of compact plots could not be refused if it was asked for by not less than one-fifth of the householders. The Land Commissions created by the ukaz of March 4 1006 were entrusted with the redistribution of land under the new land settlement.'
In the Duma the Right clung to the opinion which had been predominant in the time of Alexander III.; the Left entertained
