THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1892. THE RUSSIAN MIR.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2420, 3 November 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1892. THE RUSSIAN MIR.

In the Review of Reviews for September there is an article taken from The Forum on the cause of the famine in Russia, the writer of which is Mr W. C. Edgar, editor of the North Western Miller. In this article the cause of the trouble is attributed to the communal ownership of land under the Mir system. Mr Edgar describes the Mir as a " community of Russian peasants in which the land is divided into lots and held in common," but how "land divided into lots" could be " held in common*" is not easy to understand. However, his explanation is that "the peasant will not intelligently and adequately cultivate land which may pass from his possession into the hands of others after one or two, or, at the best, a few seasons." The cause of the famine, therefore, he says, is that the land has become exhausted, because, owing to the uncertainty of ownership, no one takes the trouble of cultivating it properly. This has been pointed out to us as an instance of the mischievous effects of common ownership of land, but we reply that nothing of the kind has ever been suggested in an Englishspeaking community, and it is no argument against State ownership, perpetual leasing, village settlement, or any other land tenure which any Radical has ever advocated. But MiEdgar himself, in the selfsame article, contradicts his own theory. He says : " The export of grain from Russia does not mean the export of a surplus, but the parting with food needed to sustain life." Just so. The land yields the grain, which shows it has not been exhausted. The exports from Ireland were as large, if not larger, during the years of the great famine, when thousands died of starvation, as in other years ! and why ? Because the peasantry had to sell their grain and cattle to make up their landlords' rent. Is it not possible that the Russian peasants have to do the same ? They have to pay rent to the landlords, and also taxes to the State, for it ia a mistake to think that thY'lanC * s their own > aild the taxation is so hea7J' &zt it is often greater than the rent. And now as to facts. Mr Edgar says the land is changed every one or two years. The Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. XXI., page 84) says that in 4442 communities the redistributions averaged only 2.1 in 20 years, that is once in every ten years, and in more than two-thirds of these it occurred only once in 20 years. In the black-earth regions, where the land does not x*equire manure, the redistributions are more frequent. That settles Mr Edgar's theory. In a History of Russia by the Rev. PI. W. Little, published in 1885, a description of the Mir, or, as he calls it, the " Miv," is given. When in 18n'l the Czar Alexander-11. emancipated the serfs, provision had to be made for them, and each village was allotted a certain area of land, " and a rental was attached to it on a scale arranged by a Government assessor," and it was also made subject to " rates and taxes." Each village or community forms what is called a Mir, and it elects its own officers, even its own juSt.'oes of the peace, and the women have votes p'St as well as the men. There then Russia is in advance of Radical New Zealand, in having female franchise and elective justices of the peace. Each Mir is presided over by an Elder, or, probably wo. should call him Mayor or Chairman, and the local body thus formed manages the business. The arable land is divided into lots, and each family receives a lot proportionate to its size. The man who has a large family of sons and daughters gets more than the man who has none at all. As we have seen, these distributions do not take place very frequently. They occur when great changes take place in the i families. For instance, some families may increase and some grow smaller, and thus redistribution becomes necessary. Mr Little speaks highly of the harmonious way in Avhich these villages work together, but let us remember that with all this show of freedom they are under despotic control. They must pay rents, rates, and taxes; they can make laws and local regulations for their own guidances, but they must not infringe the ukase of the Czar. From these facts it appears to us that Mr Edgar is altogether wrong, but even if he is right his arguments have no bearing whatsoever on any proposal, however

radical, which has ever been put forward in any English-speaking country. Land nationalisation, perpetual leasing, communism, socialism, or any other ism with which we are acquainted bears no analogy to this system. All these systems contemplate freedom within the bounds of social utility, and the general good ; the Mir is freedom limited by the will of the Czar, or his corrupt, grasping, grinding, despotic officers. As an instance we may state that several covenants in the ukase of Alexander 11. giving freedom to the serfs have never been fulfilled, and that they remain a dead letter to this day. The most important of these is the appointment of judges. The judges were, like our own, to be independent, but they have never been appointed, and the positions are still held by creatures of the central Government.