Finally, the system of the mir is very favourable to colonization, an enormous advantage for Russia, which still possesses inEurope and in Asia, vast uninhabited territories.
It is stated that Cavour once said to a Russian diplomatist, "What will some day make your country master of Europe is notits armies, but its communal system!" King Frederic William IV of Prussia exclaimed, in 1848, "To-day begins the era ofSlavonic history!"
Schedo-Ferroti and Kawelin wish to reform this system without abolishing its principle. They would give each family thehereditary enjoyment of its parcel, which it might sell, devise, or lease. The commune would retain only the eminent domain;and, to avoid the accumulation of property in the hands of a few people, a maximum would be fixed. At Rome and in Greecewe meet with laws of this kind; but similar restrictions are scarcely in accordance with the spirit of modern legislation.
The institution of the mir forms a perfect, traditional system, which ought either to be respected or replaced entirely byindependent property. We may say of it, as of a celebrated order, Sit ut est aut non sit . I think the government should notrudely and authoritatively destroy an organization centuries odd, which penetrates with such deep roots into the whole lifeand history of the Russian nation. Give free course to social influences, and institutions which are obstacles to progress willgradually disappear, or be more or less modified according to new requirements. We should see with regret the suppressionof a system which, if improved, may be the safeguard of modern democracy.
With regard to the Russian system of attributing the collective ownership of the soil to the commune, and a temporaryenjoyment of an equal share to each family, there is no doubt that, as practised in Russia, the custom presentsinsurmountable obstacles to agricultural progress. The intermingling of the parcels forming the several lots and theconsequent Flurzwang , the compulsory rotation and cultivation of the same crop on the whole of a particular zone, imposedon all the cultivators, prevents individual initiative introducing improvements in agricultural processes on its own account.
These improvements might be decided on by the assembly of cultivators; but, for this, it requires the majority to possess anamount of enlightenment, which is evidently wanting in them. Hence routine must of necessity prevail.
These undeniable drawbacks are not absolutely inherent in the system, which they have almost universally accompanied. Inthe first place, an independent family lot might be given to each family for it to cultivate as it liked for a period of twentyyears, or during the lifetime of the father. The position would then be similar to that of a commune belonging to anindividual proprietor, who granted leases to tenants for terms of twenty or thirty years, as is commonly done in England.
The advantage of thorough cultivation would be the same in the two cases; there would be no obstacle to the employment ofthe best agricultural processes. The only difference would be, that the cultivators, instead of being tenants of a lord, wouldbe tenants of the commune; and that, instead of paying a rent continually increasing with each economic advance, theywould enjoy their portion of the soil gratuitously and in virtue of their natural right of possession, which certainly wouldmake their position no worse.
The opponents of the Russian system always attack it with regard to property, as if in the West the soil was alwayscultivated by its owners; whereas the converse of this is the case; the larger part of the soil is cultivated by tenants who haveonly the temporary use, and that for a term generally shorter than that which is secured to the Russian usufructuary. I admitthat the condition of the proprietor is preferable to that of the usufructuary; but I maintain that that of the usufructuary isbetter than that of the tenant. And the Russian peasant has the usufruct of the land which he tills, or, at any rate, occupies itby virtue of a lease for a long term.
In England we often see small proprietors selling their property, to apply the proceeds of the sale to the cultivation of alarge farm, which they take on lease and from which they derive large profits, by employing a relatively large capital. Theterm is for twelve or eighteen years, at the outside; and yet this limited enjoyment seems to them sufficiently long for themto engage all that they possess in agricultural enterprise. In this case leases lead to more intensive cultivation than actualownership, because they allow of the application of a larger capital to the land. These facts shew that enjoyment of landsecured to an enterprising man for twenty years is sufficient to make it to his advantage to cultivate on the best methodspossible. It is not, therefore, the shortness of the term of enjoyment in Russia which checks the progress of agriculture.
