New-York tribune., 1917-12-16


tion throughout Russia, and es-
pociaIly in the provinces, is the
land problem. Othcr questions agitatc
tho vast masses OF the peasant popula-
ton only I'm so far as they are con
rccted with possibility Of conhscating
che estates OF the large land owners. .
To understand the complexity Of tho
acrarian relations in Russia and 70 ap-
preciate the programmes advocated by
the several political parties, one must
have some knowledge Of Russian agra
rian history.
The peculiar institution of Russian
serfdom was abolished by the emanci-
patton act Of 1861. Though the event
was hailed universally as the do"niaIi
Of the last vcstige OF sertcom IN Eu-
rope, 10 did not release the peasants
from their obligations 20 their lords.
Tile peasants were rebellious in every
part OF the country, and they were sup
pressed with traditional atrOcity.
Scrf land tenure was based either on
service or on rent. Under the first
system. known as barshchina or pansh-
china, the peasant was required TO
work three days a week on his lords
fields iu return for the use Of strip
Of land which he could cultivate in the
remaining time. lie was attached to
the land, and was considered g part Of
jt. The value Of a rural estate in Rus
sia was estimated on the number Of
male adults 10 held.
The majority Of the Russian nobility
were ia the service of the government,
and 10 was more convenient for them
% give out their lands on the rent sys-
TEN, known as obrok. The peasant paid
a yearly rent for his holding, and he
could dispose of his time as he saw fit
Since the obrok in most cases eX-
ceeded the income from his plot, the
peasant had TO hire out his labor in
order TO meet the heavy tax.
The reform Of 1861 had in view, pri-
mGrilv. 70 stabilize the financial posi-
tion Of the nobility. Serfdom did not
pay. Il is important TO note that the
state was itself the largest single land
owner. IL rented out to the peasants
millions Of acres Of land. The private
lands of the imperial family, the appa-
mage lands, were almost quite as extern
sive. The Cars government under
took 10 improve its own affairs and
those Of the landed nobility, the agra
rian interests Of both being identical.
The peasants were freed from serfdom
obligations and allotted land which
they had 70 redeem through annual
payments for a period of forty-nine
years.
In every instance the peasants re
ceived less land than they had held
under serfdom, and the redemption
payments" were more onerous than the
obrok or the barshchina. But that was
not all. The government undertook
the business Of collecting the payments
for the mobiles The peasants were now
the debtors Of the government. They
had no voice in determining the value
of the holdings the government forced
upon them.
In assuming the redemption debt the
government devised a system Of collect
ing the redemption payments. The al
lOtments of land we're not made to indi-
yidual peasants, but to entire villages
or cOmmunes.
The Russian commune has played an
important role in the agrarian and po-
litical history of the country. As the
population grew, the individual hold
inCs became smaller and smaller, since
the territory of the compune was fixed.
The government Of Alexander ii re-
tanned the communal character of land
tenure and superimposed upon the
commune administrative and judicial
functions. It's chief function was to
collect taxes and redemption payments,
and this made the collection of pay
ments easy for ~ government
The communt,Chad within itself a
crude form Of elf-government. Every
male adult was a member Of the mir
and participated in its deliberations.
The term mir" frequently occurring
in English. refers 10 the administrative
membership Of the commune, or to the
popular council. The Russian for
commune as a social group is obsh-
china. The mir directed the reappor-
tionment Of communal land among its
members, the renting or acquisition by