[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 of landholding, Dessiatines.Actual average, Dessiatines.Excess of the normal over the average, per cent.Ranenburg and Dankoff:(Communities of which all the members are farmers taken as the normal.) To 1 “revision” male5.03.4+47Korotoyak:(Farms with net profit taken as the normal.) To 1 adult male worker11.58.3+39The extent of landholding in theguberniaof Ryazañ (districts of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while theguberniaof Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the southeastern prairies.—(Cf., Prof. Janson’sEssay 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 theguberniasof 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 wanting12,070,484100Land purchased through the Bank (from April, 1883, up to January 1, 1890)1,579,39113Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in 8guberniasof 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 11gubernias, of which 5 are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). TheZemstvoshave 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 theguberniaof Samara. (Cf.“The consequences of the failure of the crops in theguberniaof Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in theRusskaya Zhizñ[daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:Bailiwicks.Lost.Per cent.Remains.Per cent.Ivanteyeffskaya7426Lipovetzkaya6733Novotoolskaya6733Koozabayeffskaya6139Shintinoffskaya4555Etc.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:Households (total: 745).1887.October, 1891.Increase or Decrease.Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.“Horseless”5}1929}58+480}+205With 1 horse1429+107”from 2 to 3 horses32}8128}42-12}-48”4 horses147-50”5 or more horses357-80Total100100Such 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 theRusskaya 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 ruralpetite 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.
[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 of landholding, Dessiatines.Actual average, Dessiatines.Excess of the normal over the average, per cent.Ranenburg and Dankoff:(Communities of which all the members are farmers taken as the normal.) To 1 “revision” male5.03.4+47Korotoyak:(Farms with net profit taken as the normal.) To 1 adult male worker11.58.3+39The extent of landholding in theguberniaof Ryazañ (districts of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while theguberniaof Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the southeastern prairies.—(Cf., Prof. Janson’sEssay 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 theguberniasof 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 wanting12,070,484100Land purchased through the Bank (from April, 1883, up to January 1, 1890)1,579,39113Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in 8guberniasof 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.
[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:
The extent of landholding in theguberniaof Ryazañ (districts of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while theguberniaof Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the southeastern prairies.—(Cf., Prof. Janson’sEssay 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 theguberniasof 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):
Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in 8guberniasof 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.)
[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.
[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 11gubernias, of which 5 are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). TheZemstvoshave applied to the government for appropriations for the next seed.
[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 11gubernias, of which 5 are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). TheZemstvoshave 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.
[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 theguberniaof Samara. (Cf.“The consequences of the failure of the crops in theguberniaof Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in theRusskaya Zhizñ[daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:Bailiwicks.Lost.Per cent.Remains.Per cent.Ivanteyeffskaya7426Lipovetzkaya6733Novotoolskaya6733Koozabayeffskaya6139Shintinoffskaya4555Etc.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:Households (total: 745).1887.October, 1891.Increase or Decrease.Per cent.Per cent.Per cent.“Horseless”5}1929}58+480}+205With 1 horse1429+107”from 2 to 3 horses32}8128}42-12}-48”4 horses147-50”5 or more horses357-80Total100100Such 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.
[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 theguberniaof Samara. (Cf.“The consequences of the failure of the crops in theguberniaof Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in theRusskaya Zhizñ[daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).
The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:
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:
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.)
[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 theRusskaya 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.
[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 theRusskaya 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 ruralpetite 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.)
[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 ruralpetite 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.”
[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.
[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.