Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/331

Rh

the hope that the communal land tenure was to form the cradle of future collectivism. The Cadets mostly agreed with the principles of the Government scheme, but they objected to the coercive character of its methods. The majority of the House supported the Government and carried its bill through the Duma. The motives that influenced the deputies of the Duma were well expressed by the chairman of the Land Committee, S. Shidlov- sky, in his speech on Oct. 23 1908:

" Our attitude as regards the decree of Nov. 9 is in substance a favourable one, because this decree aims at the development of individual land tenure and individual land tenure is certainly the necessary condition of improved cultivation, and the latter means the solution of the agrarian problem .... The foundation of a State ruled by law consists in a free, independent and energetic personality. Such a personality cannot exist unless you allow the common right of ownership, and no one who wishes the State to be ruled by law should oppose the spread of private property in land. Land is, after all, only a basis for the application of labour and capital, and labour is most productive when the labourer is placed in favourable conditions. In the forefront in this respect we have to place an open door for personal enterprise, free play for creative energy, security against outside interference, personal interest. . . . The avenue towards a permanent improvement in the existence of our peasants is to be found in an immediate increase of production and income from land, and this cannot be achieved without the help of outside capital. ... A law which opens the way to personal property en- ables the agricultural worker to display his creative force."

It seemed as if the reform had achieved an immediate and striking success. Before Jan. i 1913 the Commission had ar- ranged farms on an area of 7,413,064 dess., held by 738,980 households; strips had been concentrated into blocks on an area of 4,359.537 dess., held by 585,571 households.

The following figures illustrate the first part of the Commission's work from 1907 to 1911.

Up to April I 1911 the number of peasants who wanted to leave the commune amounted to 2,1 16,600, or 23 % of the whole number (9-2 millions). The movement towards enclosures was not equally popular in all the parts of the Empire. To make the process clearer we may divide the country into 5 areas: (i) South-East, (2) Ag- ricultural Centre, (3) two Industrial Centres, round Petrograd and round Moscow, (4) South-West and West, (5) North and North- East (Oganoysky).

The following figures show the proportions of demand for compact plots in each of these provinces in proportion to 1,000 households:

S.E.

Agr. Cent.

Ind. Cent.

S.W andW.

N. and N.E.

The whole country

Till Nov. 1907

2-8

0-9

o-5

5-2

0-4

1-4

Nov. 1907.

Nov. 1919.

7-9

7-2

3'7

14-6

2-7

6-7

Nov. 1908.

May 1909

15-8

9-1

6-6

15-6

i-7

8-9

May 1909.

Jan. 1910

6-1

5-o

4-8

7-3

2-1

4.9

Jan. 1910

July 1910.

5-2

4-6

4-8

8-6

1-4

4-7

Aug. 1910.

April 1911

2-5

3-1

1-8

6-1

I-O

2-8

The number of demands for separate farms before April 1911 for each 1,000 households who held their land in communal tenure were: S.E. 320-6; Agr. Cent. 236-9; Ind. Cent. 172-5; S.W. 427-3; N. and N.E. 77-9; whole country 234-9.

These figures show that the greatest number of demands for separate farms were made in the South and South-East provinces, where the most extensive agricultural methods prevailed. It ap- pears also that after May 1909 the number of householders applying for farms diminished in a marked proportion. The area of the com- pact plots was generally very small: and the percentage of poor peasants who asked for enclosure was growing. Their intention in getting rid of communal ties was to sell their land.

To judge by these data, the Government scheme of creating a class of small independent farmers was not in a fair way to success. As was shown above, most of those who asked for separation held only a small plot, and belonged to the poorer peasantry. Even with Government assistance they were unable to start separate farms, as this undertaking involves in the beginning a considerable outlay of capital. Besides, the natural conditions in some parts of Russia were not favourable to separate farms or homesteads. One of the chief difficulties was the lack of water, which cannot be found at all, except in con-

nexion with considerable rivers, in very large tracts of the " black soil " area. This fact, together with the traditional leaning of the peasantry to village life, obliged the Land Commission to keep up on many occasions the village system even after the concentration of the fields.

A memoir drawn up by the conference of Old Ritualists held at Moscow on Feb. 22-25 1906 discloses the view taken by the peasantry on the question of communal land tenure. The oppo- nents of the commune suggested that it made impossible any improvements in agricultural methods and diminished the pro- ductive power of the soil; its supporters stated that communal tenure was the only system based on justice; this consideration is characteristic of the traditional feeling among the Russian people. The Government scheme sacrificed justice for the sake of expected increased production. Stolypin himself described the new land settlement as " a stake on the strong."

The small area of the holdings of the new farmers and their economic helplessness had, however, a very unfavourable influ- ence on the expected increase of production. A farmer who held only 8-10 dess. of land could not introduce any extensive improvements in his household in the absence of cheap credit. Stolypin recognized that " primitive methods were used by the peasantry as before." On the other hand, the rapid growth of emigration was one of the results of the new settlement.

The land settlement of 1906-10 was carried out with uncom- mon energy, but the social needs of the population were not satisfied. The Government was accused of having destroyed by a stroke of the pen an institution formed by centuries. The sudden change affected not only the economic conditions of the peasants' life, but the juridical relations between the members of the family were also shaken. Before the new settlement the life of the peasants was based on the participation in the com- mon holding of all the members of the household. The new law substituted for this family tenure the individual ownership of the chief householder. All the other members of the family suddenly lost their rights in the land.

Other important inconveniences were also pointed out: the compulsory introduction of the reform, the danger of the increased competition, the buying up of the peasants' land for speculative purposes, the increased difficulties of existence in the case of the small households. The great end of the settlement the creation of a strong, wealthy and conservative class of small landowners, was not attained. The necessity of extensive Government assistance and credit for the improvement of agri- culture was felt more and more, but the financial estimates under this heading for 1911 amounted only to 4,000,000 rubles.

Altogether it may be said that Stolypin's agrarian measures could take effect only if they were accompanied by a steady policy making for agricultural education and backed by extensive credit. Even in such a case a long time would have been neces- sary to enable them to strike root. Their immediate consequence was rather to increase the fermentation in the villages and to excite and embitter the feelings of the villagers, who were losing faith in the village community without acquiring any other standard of economic organization. Thus the legislation of 1006- 1 1 helped the agrarian upheaval instead of preventing it.

The Third and Fourth Dumas. The death of Stolypin left a wide gap in the ranks of the Government, and the appoint- ment of M. Kokovtsov, the Minister of Finance, to the premier- ship did not result in a rejuvenation of the bureaucratic system. The new Premier was in favour of continuity in policy; this meant that he would keep on the lines traced by Stolypin's initiative and avoid new departures as far as possible. He was a trained administrator, placed by chance at the head of the country in a time when caution and routine were certainly insufficient to meet the requirements of a critical situation. The principal achievement of the three years of Kokovtsov's rule was apparent success in the management of financial operations. The budget grew every year and reached in 1914 the enormous sum of 3 milliard rubles, and yet not only was a deficit avoided, but some 1,500 millions in gold were accumulated as a reserve fund to sustain the currency and meet possible emergency calls.