594 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



peasants saw no remedy for their plight but more acres, and the various 

 political parties differed chiefly as to ways and means of providing them 

 with this desideratum. The first Duma had advocated the forced expro- 

 priation of all crown, church and private lands, and its steadfast adher- 

 ence to this demand had brought about its dissolution. But while the 

 government disapproved of this method of supplying the need of the 

 peasants, it felt the need to be a real one. It therefore increased the 

 powers and privileges of the Peasants' Bank so that through its medium 

 the poor could add to their holdings on surprisingly easy terms. 

 Appanage lands were offered for sale. Large areas of private estates 

 whose owners had suffered in 1905 and who feared further disturbances 

 were placed on the market. During the five years from 1905 to 1910 

 inclusive, more than 14,000,000 acres were sold to the people through 

 the agency of the bank. These figures sound large. They are, however, 

 relatively small. Moreover, it must be remembered that in those very 

 districts where the cry for land was loudest there was in the nature of 

 the case least to be had. 



Meanwhile, however, the government attacked the agrarian problem 

 from another side. The uhase of November, 1906, was meant to induce 

 the peasants to change from communal to private ownership. This had 

 been their privilege on certain conditions according to the laws govern- 

 ing the emancipation but in 1893 the privilege had been made subject 

 to the consent of the mir, the village community, because at that time 

 the government did not wish the strength of the mir to be impaired. 

 The uhase restored the privilege, but whereas in the past the peasant 

 had seldom been able to avail himself of it because he had not the money 

 to buy out his land from the community now he had no need of money 

 since the government cancelled all arrears and all redemption install- 

 ments payable in the future. Any member of a mir could step out 

 whether the mir were willing or not, receiving his due amount of land 

 in private ownership. How much the individual received depended 

 upon circumstances. . If he had held the same parcels for twenty-four 

 year's, in other words, if there had been no redistribution of the nadiel 

 during that time, he received these parcels or their equivalent, the 

 assumption being that in that particular community the principle of 

 parcelling out the land was dead. If on the contrary there had been 

 a redistribution of land within the last twenty-four years, the assump- 

 tion was that this principle was still operative. In that case the with- 

 drawing peasant could claim only as much land as would be allotted him 

 if a redistribution were made at the moment of his withdrawal. He 

 must be allowed, however, to purchase the difference between what he 

 actually held and what he would receive in the event of a redivision. 



This law definitely announced the break-up of the mir, it looked 

 toward the end of community ownership. It had, in all probability, as 



