HD FROM THE INCOME OF THE FISKE ENDOWMENT FUND THE BEQUEST OF Millard m^hi^ lyibrarian of the University 1868-1883 1905 iiM'^oiQ s\WiJ. Date Due •ii.. ■ ' 11 >: D g T ' AUG! 11H 4 t >EC 16 "^ m wrrrTr. f^ @ ^i HD1289.R9T67"""""'""-"'"^ °"?liliii iiuiiiii/iiffiEf !3*,..anS, .Jhe formation of olin 3 1924 030 053 197 STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. Edited by HON. W. PEMBER REEVES, Director of tht London School of Economici and Political Science. No. 30 in the Series of Monographs by Writers connected with the London School of Economics and Political Science. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030053197 ^ ,.<(--.\ '^x W jm. \ L A X T N J fe^^-f^^^^s^ /^ ;3 , ^' / ■-jaBm^"'^";r WEST FIELD AND PART OF MILL FIELD / .''-••''" 'r::r::::}}}3 5!S»°^.r^ Common Pasture Fa.rmN°/ Approximate Scale sooo i.*^. i .-•' r-.* 1/ '"^''•" 100 50 100 200 300 4-00 Vards Similar remains of village communities have been found all over England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Belgium, etc. Many of them have been reproduced in Meitzen's book entitled ; Siedelung and Agrar- •wesen der IV estgermanen und Ostgermanen^ dsr Kelten^ Romer^ Finnen utid Sla'ven, Berlin. 1895. (Reproduced, by kind permission of the author, from Dr. Slater's English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields. ) THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY AND THE FORMATION OF THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY A COURSE OF LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS BY JAN ST. LEWII^SKI LONDON : CONSTABLE & COMPANY LTD. 1913 //K '/tr r^.'/.^Tp^6 Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, brunswick street, stamford street, s.e., and bungay, suffolk. es PREFACE More than two years ago, when reading Prof, Kaufman's article about the village community in Siberia/ my attention was directed to the existence of a very rich Russian literature dealing with primitive forms of property. I thought that the study of these materials would throw new light on the problems con- nected with the formation of property in general, and that it was worth while for me to try to overcome the difficulties which the reading of Russian presented. As most of the publications I needed were neither in the British Museum nor in any other library outside of Russia I travelled in 1 9 1 1 and 1 9 1 2 to St. Petersburg. 1 am deeply indebted to Mr. Krivoshein, Minister of Agriculture, and to the officials of his department, who kindly presented to me most of the books quoted in this study and provided me with maps of Russian villages. My acknowledgments are due also to Prof. Kaufman for the benefit of his advice. ^ BeitrSge zur Kenntnis der Feldgemeinschaft in Sibirien. Brauns Archiv fflr soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, 1 896. There are two other studies in German describing the forms of property in Siberia : Simkowitsch's Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland (1898) and A. A. Tsohuprow's Die Feldgemeinschaft (1902). vi PREFACE I am very grateful to the Hon. W. Pember Reeves, Director of the School of Economics, for the facilities he has given me. Miss Dawson has done everything in her power to rectify my deficiencies of language and style. Jan St. LewiiJski. London School of Economics, Clare Market, W.C. January IQ13. RUSSIAN WORKS QUOTED IN THIS BOOK.' Abbreviations used In quoting. Liohkow, Dubienskij, Transcaucasia. West. Sib. T. T. Krol. Kirg. Bumianzew. OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS. MaiepicLiM no HacjtAoiiasiio 3eH^eno.ibBOBaHiii n ioshB- CTBeHBaro fiuia ce.ibCKaro nacejeaiH BpsyicKofi h EBHceacRott ryfiepaie. 1886. A. C. Jbikobi. $opuLi setueBjaAtnU (npK. ryd). M. H. 4yCieBCKiB. $opMu amietJini'iiilii (Euhc. ryfi). Cboai MaiepiaJOBi no HsyqcHiH) SKOHOJiaiecKaro fiHia rocyAapcTBeoHHXi KpecTMHi SaKaBKascKaro Kpaa. 1888. lH».iHCi. i vols. MaieplajM njin HayieHin sKOHOMHiecKaro etna rocy^ap- CTBesBbixi) Kpecibfloi a BBopo^i^eBi fb SanaAEoB Cafinpii. 21 vols. KpecibiiHCEoe BGHjenubBOBanie n xoaflSciBO bi ToSojbCKoti H TOMCKOtl ryOepBiaxi. 1894. 428 pp. This is a resume of the above 21 vols., and is written by Professor Kaufman. Bbicoiafime ynpoaiAeBnaa do41 npe^ct/iaTMbCTBOMi cTaTCi ceKpeiapH KyjOKSUBa kommbccIh haii ii3c.i'C,;oBanii seMje- BJiaA'fiBlii H BGMjeBOJbaoBaala b% Safia^KajbCKoB oOjaCTQ. H. Kpo.ib. $opMU seMjeBOJbaoBaalH. 1898. vol. X., 497 pp. MaTepJa.ibi no EapraBCKOHy BeiuenojibBOBaBiio coSpaaEue a paspafioiaaabie sEcneABi^ietl no BscitAOBaBiK) cienabii'b oejacTefl. 13 vols. 1898-1909. Maieplajbi no oScit^oBaniio lyaeMBaro a pyccKaro ciapo- HiBib^ecEaro xoaaacTBa a 3eM.ieno.ib30BaBiii bi Cejunptiea- CKO& oOjacTB. CoOpaaBbte a paspaOoTaaBbie noni, pynoBOA- CTBOMi n. n. PyMflBqCBa. C.-IIeiep(Sypn>, 1911. 633 pp. Bolshakow, W. W. W. W. History. WORKS BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS. EoJbmaEOBi, U. A. CMSmaaa y aupaab (SCaBaa CTapaaa 1906, roAi 15). B. B. KpecTbaBCKaa ofioiaBa. (Hiorn aKOHOMBiecKaro agcjtjOBasia POCCiB nOi^aBBUMl 3eMCK0ti CTaiBCTBKB T, I.) MocEsa, 1892. B.M. 08207. k. 30. B. B. K^ acTopia ofiuiBBbi bi PoccIb. MocKBa, 1902. 160 pp. I The books which are in the British Museum are marked B.M., and the Catalogue number is given. RUSSIAN WORKS QUOTED. Efimeoko, Qrodekow. Kaohoiowski. KaAifman. Sib. com. Kaufman. Trans-baikal. Kaufman. K woprosu, Kaufman. Pawlow- Silwanskij. Segal. I quote the Polish translation of this book. B.M. 10007dd.a. HatUBin. Shvetzow. Shcherbina. £«HHeEKO, A. HaueAOBaHiir napo^iHofi atiisae. Bs^aaie B. H. KacnepoBa. MocKsa, 1884. rpOAeKOBi, B.B. KHpmsu H KapaEBprBsu Cupi-4apiBBCKo8 ofijacTH. Tomi I. I0pB4BiecKia 6hm, TaraKeBn. 1889. 298, 201 pp. KaiopoBCKiS, K. P. PyccKan oOniHHa, BosMomBO.iB, mejaTOJkBO jb en coxpa- Beaie fl pasBBTle ? MocKsa, 1906 (2-e aSAaaie). 362 pp. B.M. 08276. 0. Ray«MaBt, A. A. KpeCTbflBCRaa ofiutBaa Vh CbCbpb. (Ho u'tCTnsiiii B3a1i40- BaBiam. 1886-1892.) C.-neiepfiypn, 1897. 277 pp. Kay«MaHi A. A. SeHeJbBbifl OTRomeBlBB odnjBBBbie nopa^RU bi 3afiaiiKa.ibt BO MtciBOMy B3a-S40Baalio|1897. (HpKycKi, 1900.) 179ipp. Kay'tuaB'b, A. A. Ki Boapocy npoBciosiAeBiB pyccKoH seweihaoH oCbibbu. MoCKBa, 1907. 71 pp. Kay^MaBi, A. A. PyccKaa ofiuiBna si, npoiiecct ea sapOHtjenia H pocia. MocKBa, 1908. XVI. 455 pp. B.M. 8094. i. 27. IIaBJOBi-CB.ibBaBCKlfi, H. n. teonamwb n y4t.ibBoH Pjca. C.-IIeiepfiypri. 1910. 604 pp. Ceraib, I. .1. KpecTbHBCEoe seHjes.iaA'tHie bi SaKasKasbt, Tb^jbci, 1912. 154 pp. CtpomeBCKifi, B. A. flKyiH. (Ha^aale HanepaiopcBaro pyccKaro reorpa*H^e- CKaro odmecTBa.) C.-neieplSypri, 1896. 719 pp. ^B.IBUOBOB'b, $opHbi 3eM4eB.taAtaia bi ctBepao sanaABOHi Eapaal!. XapysBBi, H. CstA'Kflifl KasaiiKBxii o6iqBBaxi> ea 4oBy. MocKBa, 1885. 388 pp. niBeqoBi, c. n. ropBbifl Ajiaft a ero Bacejeaie. t. I. KoieBaaKa filficiiaro yla4a. BapHaaai, 1900. 360, 168 pp. (Edited by CiaTHCiBqecKia ota*ji npa r.iaBB0MT. yapa- Bjeaia a.iTaiicEaro OBpyra.) OlepdBHa. 3eiie.ibBaR oOntana KaaaBCKBXi KaaaEOBi. CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction The iasuificiency of documentary sources,^, i, — The comparative method, p^ i. — The new material available for the study of the origin of property ; Russian inquiries ; other sources, p. z. — The method applied in this study, ^. 3. Chapter II The Origin of Property Definition of property, p. 5. — Property in land unknown to nomads, p. 6 — Limits between tribes do not exist in the beginning, and are formed only at a later stage, p, 6~-y. — The existence of boundaries not to be confounded with the idea of property, />. 7. — Why is there no property in land among nomads ? Man does not appropriate objects which are a free gifl of nature, and which are abundant. Air — Pasture Meadows — Forests, p. 8-9. — How does property originate ? The two sources of property,^. 10. — i. Labour. The incorporation of labour into the soil leads to the formation of individual property, p. li. — Meadows,^. 11. — Forests,^. 12, — Homesteads, p. I2, — Arable lands pass through the stage of temporary possession,^. X2. — Shifting cultiva- tion, ^. 13. — The cultivator retains a field only until he has collected the fruits of his labour, ^ . 14-16. — With a more intensive cultivation the right becomes more durable and acquires the character of property, f. 16-17. — The clearing of the forest confers a permanent right to keep the soil, p. ly . — Different forms of property according to the quantity of labour incorporated in the toil, p, 18 . — The influence of co-opera- tion, p. 19. — Common irrigation and common ploughing does not prevent the formation of individual property, /►. 1 9. — Does common cli^ring by large groups exist ? p. 19. — Co-operation leads sometimes to the formation of associations. Seebohm's explanation of the origin of the village community,/!. 21. — ii. Individutl Scarcity, The appropriation of lands adjacent to the cultivator's dwelling,^. 22. — Those lands on which ' no labour has been expended come into private ownership where the scattered farm system exists, p, 23. — ^The characteristics of primitive property ; the rights of the individual, p. 25. — ^The r61e of the community,^, 26. — Lands which do not pass through the stage of individual property ; Forests, p, 27. — Meadows, ix FAGB I CONTENTS PAGE p. 27. — Pasture, p. 28. — Individual property preceded the village community in Germany, p. 28. — England,/), 28. — Russia,^, 29. — India, p. 29. — Java, p. 30. — Other proofs against the communistic theory,/!. 31, — The Roman law gives us a correct idea of the formation of primitive property, /. 31. Chapter III The Origin and Development of the Village Community ... ... ... ... ... 33 The two reasons for which the intervention of the community becomes necessary,^. 33. — The prevetifiiie policy on the non-appropriated lands. Meadows, p, 33. — Preventive measures acquire at a later stage an equalising character,/!. 34. — Pasture. The necessity of limiting the grazing cattle leads finally to an equalisation of the pasture-rights, p. 34-35. — Forests used in the beginning without any restriction are subjected to a forestal economy. The limitation of wood every man can take, p. 36, — The equalising policy of the community on the appro- priated lands. The right of free occupation entails a great inequality, p. 37. — This inequality which in the beginning is in harmony with the interests of all, leads with the increase of population to the formation of a landless proleteriat, />. 38-39. — The struggle between the rich and the poor. The principles advocated,^. 39. — The struggle not merely verbal, />. 40. The interests of the numerically stronger party prevail, p, 40. — The struggle of classes similar in primitive and in modern societies,^. 41. — The passage from individual to common property is gradual. The three stages, />. 42. — i. Restrictive measures. Pastures, forests and meadows appropriated without any toil are open for the use ofall, />.42. — Passage from the scattered farm system to the village system, p. 43 . — Arable lands left a few years in fallow are free for occupation, />. 43. — This stage is not to be found on meadows in which labour has been embodied, />. 44, — ^The right to sell the ap- propriated arable land and homestead is restricted, ii. Allotments of meadows and arable lands, {a) out of lands left without successors, />. 45.^ — {J>) out of lands proprietors of which did not fulfil their social obligations, />. 46. — (c) out of all lands without discrimination, />. 46. — Lands occupied by the homestead subject to allotments, p. 47. — iii. Periodical divisions, p. 47. — The reasons for the existence of the scattered field system, />. 48, — The system, in the beginning quite simple, becomes with manuring more complicated, p. 49-50. The Flurzwang, p. 50. — How the community tries to avoid the economic disadvantages of periodical divisions, p. 50. — The development of common property is not simultaneous on all lands : i. because the necessity of divisions is not simultaneously felt< Earlier on meadows than on arable lands, ^. 51. — The difference between more and less valuable lands. Meadows, />. 52. — Arable lauds, p. 52. — ii. Because the difficulties met with are different. The discrimination according to the quantity of incorporated labour, />. 5 3. — Meadows and arable lands, />. 53. — Manured and cleared fields and meadows divided later than others, p. 54. — The homestead remains individual property in the village community, /i. 55. — The development of the village com- munity is not guided by an idealistic principle, but is determined by the necessities of daily life, p, 56, CONTENTS xi Chapter IV PAGC Conclusion ... ... ... ... ... 57 The evolution of property can be traced back to four aimple elements. The economic principle, Man appropriates only land in which he has incorporated labour, or which is adjacent to his dwelling, p. 57. — Land only divided when scarcity of it begins to be felt,^. 58. — The economic policy of the community,^. 59. — The principle of numerical strength, p. 59. — The growth of population is the great dynamic force determining all the process of evolution, p. 60, — Statistical confirmation of this fact, />. 60. — Historical evidence,^. 61. — The relation of nature towards human wants. Natural conditions react on the forms of property, influencing the quantity of labour incorporated in the soil and the degree of scarcity, p, 61. — How natural conditions prevent the forma- tion of village communities. Countries where the soil is covered with stones, p. 63. — Mountainous countries, p, 64. — Between the four elements analysed there is a causal relation,^. 6;. — How the natural process of evolution is perturbed, p. 66. — Criticism of other theories. The racial theory, p. 66. — Are emigrants transplanting from one country to the other the old forms of property ? p. 67, — The influence of imitation, p, 68, — ^The part played by legislation, p, 69. — The government is not able to modify die natural process of evolution p, 70.— The evolution of property is determined by causal laws, p, Jt. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY AND THE FORMATION OF THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY Chapter I INTRODUCTION The historian investigating primitive forms of economic life is usually obliged to be content with documents which give only a very incomplete idea of the economic structure of past centuries. Written by men who knew nothing of the problems which interest us to-day, and preserved only in fragments, they can never present a clear picture of what economic life has been in the past. Consequently it has been necessary to attempt to supplement these defective documentary sources by others which might throw some light upon the problems. More and more attention has been drawn to the study of peoples who are to-day living in stages which we have left behind. "We take a number of contemporary facts, Ideas and customs," so wrote Sir Henry Maine, applying this method, "and we infer the past form of those facts, ideas and customs, not only from historical records of that past form, but from examples of it which have not yet died out of the world, and are still to be found in it. . . . Direct observation comes thus to the aid of historical inquiry, and historical Inquiry to the help of direct observation." ^ 1 Sir Henry S. Maine, Village Communities in the East and West, 3rd ed., London 1876, pp. 6 and 7. B 2 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY The application of this method has exercised a great influence on the ideas concerning the origin of property. The existence of the village community in India, Russia and Java has been one of the corner-stones of the theories of Maine and Laveleye, which stated that individual property has evolved only out of communal property. To-day we are able to re-examine the problem of the origin of property under much more favourable circumstances, because the sources at our disposal are more complete. This is especially the case in Russia, whose government has' for more than thirty years investigated the forms of property found among the different nomadic and settled peoples of Siberia. These very detailed inquiries extend over an area not much smaller than that of Europe, and relate to peoples of the most difl^erent racial and economic conditions. Jurists, economists, statisticians, political exiles and officials such as Prof. Kaufman, MM. Bolshakow, Dubi- ensky, Krol, Lichlcow, Shcherbina, Shvetzow, Sieros- zewskl, and many others have given us splendid studies relating to the forms of ownership among the Kirgizes, Buriats, Yakuts, Russian peasants, etc. The value of the Russian material relating to this problem is especially great because it does not only describe the forms of property in existence at a certain stage, but gives us the opportunity to observe their evolution step by step. We must say with regret that our knowledge of the forms of property existing among native races outside those of Russia is far from satisfactory. With the exception of India and Java there is an absolute lack of special inquiries. The remarks of travellers and of ethnographers, stating simply that common or indi- vidual property prevails in a certain country, making no distinction between the forms of ownership of INTRODUCTION 3 meadows, pastures, forests and arable land, are far too superficial. Much more valuable is the evidence relating to the history of property in Europe ; the studies of Maurer and those of the students of the English village com- munity have been of great use to us. In many instances they helped me to verify my general con- clusions, and it appears to me that in this respect our new knowledge of the development of forms of property in Siberia throws new light on these historical problems. The method I have applied in this study is the same as that which is generally used in economic theory. I started from the assumption that man's relation towards material goods is determined by the economic principle, the desire to obtain the greatest possible quantity of objects necessary for the satisfaction of his wants, with the least possible efFort. I tried always to find out what every man would do according to this principle in a given situation. Having thus arrived at some common-sense theories, I investigated how far they were in accordance with the facts at our disposal. It is not from k priori considerations that I adopted this economic attitude. A close study of the problem convinced me that only by applying this method could a clear understanding of the Investigated phenomena be attained. It enabled me to reduce all the process of formation of property to four simple elements — 1. The economic principle. 2. The principle of numerical strength. 3. The growth of population. 4. The relation of nature towards human wants. I trust that after reading the book the student will find this enumeration less fantastic and mysterious than it may seem at present. In the Conclusion I shall explain in detail how the combination of these elements produces different forms of property. This little book aims exclusively at giving the main B 2 4 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY lines of the evolution of property. Those interested more fully in the details brought forward by the Russian inquiries will find them developed in the excellent work of Prof. Kaufman entitled Ruskdia Obshchina ^ (" The Russian Village Community "). I think that a translation of this book would be of great use to the historian and economist not acquainted with the Russian language.^ ^ Moscow, 1908, 455 pages. ^ There is another very good Russian book dealing with the same subject, Mr. Kachorowski's study entitled also Ruskdia Obshchina. Prof. Kaufman's book is, however, more exhaustive, as it contains a very detailed description (2 1 6 pages) of the economic and juridical conditions of the nomadic tribes living in Russian Asia. Chapter II THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY It has been said by somebody that Economists understand the phenomena they investigate so long as they do not attempt to define them. This is not without truth, and some definitions tend to obscure rather than to elucidate. But though many attempts at definitions have been unsuccessful, it is none the less true that vagueness of language increases the diflficulties of clearly understanding any problem. For instance, the fact that so many authors speak of common property among nomads, is simply due to the fact that they have not tried to learn the characteristics of property. I shall therefore begin this study with a definition. What is property ? (a^o/-^*^ »-a^»*.^, 5^ li is the permanent possession of an object, conferring \ the exclusive right to use it or to dispose of it. The 1 simple use and exclusiveness are not sufficient character- istics to constitute property. Football players in a public park have, while they are playing, the exclusive right to use the place they occupy, as indicated by the rope which surrounds their ground. They are not, however, proprietors of it, because their right is not permanent and doea not confer the power to dispose of it, by sale, transfer or bequest. The same applies to the occupier of a room in a hotel, a seat in a library or railway carriage, etc. The existence of permanent limits should not be confounded with the conception of property. States, though separated one from the other, do not own their 5 6 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY respective territories. Only the citizens or public bodies as far as they have the right to dispose of certain parts of the land are proprietors of it. ■<^ iThe right to own land as property has not always ' existed. ' Among pure nomads we find it absolutely , lacking. Wandering from place to place and remain- ing in one spot only so long as it affords food for their cattle, they have no further interest in it once it has been left behind. "The primitive nomads," writes Mr. Shcherbina, "who wander from north to south over hundreds of versts, and are constantly on the move, are in no way attached to the land, to this or to that locality, and in consequence no ownership of land exists among them." ^ To the Yakouts the right to own land is a thing they do not understand even to-day. Speaking of some merchants who bought a forest, they said, " They are quite stupid men. Why do they spend money .' Is there not wood enough all round to be had for the taking ? " ^ " The nomads," writes Gierke, " do not understand true ownership of the soil ; the land has for them no more value than the air or the sea for us.^ Hilde- brand gives many examples in proof of this opinion.* Gumplowich expresses himself in the following man- ner with regard to primitive tribes : " This common property which the horde is supposed to have in relation to the land occupied or rather settled by its members, is in reality not property but simply a common use of the soil." ^ I At the stage of pure nomadic life not only property, but even limits between the different tribes do not ^ Kaufman, p. 9 1 . " Sieroszewski, 12 lat w kraju jakuthw, p. 273. 3 Gierke, Rechtsgeschichte der deutschen Genossenschaft, I. p. 53. * R. Hildebrand, Recht und Situ auf den prmitiven wtrtschafilichen Kuhurstufen, 2nd ed., 1907, pp. 45, 46. ^ S. Gumplowich, Grundriss der Seciohgie, p. 113. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 7 exist. Among the Kirgizes, who are still in this state, all territory is considered a gift from Heaven, free for the use of all nomads,^ and even of strangers.^ The Yakouts, when asked to indicate the limits of their territory, answered, " Who knows it ? We think that our land is there where we live." ^ Among the Buriats the pasture is open for the use of all, natives and strangers.* In bad years they take their cattle to graze on the territory occupied by the Tunguses, and no one offers any objection.^ . Among hunting peoples we find the same pheno- menon. The aborigines of Altai, composed of Chuets and Tartars, who live hundreds of miles away one from the other, roam often without restriction over their respective territories.* When at a later stage limits begin to be formed between the different groups, each member within the group keeps the same freedom in the use of the soil. This we notice all over the world. Dargum, with reference to nomadic peoples in general, writes, " All may use the pasture as they like ; the community has not the right to dispose of it." ' It is thus quite erroneous to speak here of common property, as some authors do. It is only by confusing the existence of boundaries with the idea of property that this mistake is possible. The relation between the community and the soil among nomads is, as the German jurist Gierke points out, rather similar to the international right which a state has to its territory, and not to the right it has over a domain.^ So long as the right to dispose of a thing does not 1 Kaufman, p. 6i, 62. ^ Kirg., VI. p. 35. * Sieroszewski, s.c, p. 273. * Krol, p. 64. ^ Ibid., p. 65. * Shvetzow, p. 138. ^ Dargun, Dr. Lothar, " Ursprung und Entwickelungs-Geschichte des Eigentums," Zeitschrift fUr vergkichende Rechtszuissenschaft, Vol. V. p. 59. * O. Gierke, s.c, I. p. 57. 8 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY exist we cannot speak of property, and while every member is free to take as much land as he wishes, and where he wishes, it is impossible to call the land common property. It is true, however, that in exterior relations the nomadic community undertakes at times the duties of proprietorship, and disposes of the land. So, for instance, among the Kirgizes it is not the individual but the group which rents or sells land to the Russian peasant.^ But this is not the usual custom, it only occurs when nomadic tribes come into contact with more developed forms of economic life. It is then more convenient for the group to dispose of the land than for the individual, but the normal internal relations are not affected by it. To describe this stage as one of common property would render all the subsequent evolution unintelligible. Why among nomads is t there no property in land I -!■ To explain this I must make some theoretical rejnarks_ . Every appropriation necessitates a certain effort, consisting in separating, keeping and defending the goods. It is clear that everybody will try to avoid this trouble, in so far as by so doing he does not deprive himself of the satisfaction of his wants. Now there is not the slightest necessity for appropriating objects which in the case of loss can be replaced without any difficulty. This is the case with all goods which are a free gift of nature, and which are at our disposal in a quantity surpassing our wants. We do not object that our neighbours or other people breathe the air of our garden. We do not protest if balloons and aeroplanes occupy it. How is this indifference to be explained ? Simply by the fact that air exists in such large quantities in relation to our wants that the loss even of large portions does not affect our well-being. We do not experience any difficulty in finding always the necessary quantity of it. 1 Kirg., IV. p. 31. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 9 This explains why in the primitive stages of society, when land was very abundant, ownership of the soil did not exist. So long as the nomad was sure that in , his wanderings he could find the necessary pasture, it was not to his interest to take the trouble to appro- ipriate any part of it. Pasture-land had not greater i value for him than air has for us. For the same reason among half-nomadic peoples, * where the cutting of grass is already developed (it is I the first stage in the passage to settled life), meadows ^ in which no labour has been incorporated are used freely everywhere. " It is clear," says Krol of the Buriats, "that in localities where meadows abound and the amount of hay needed is small, it is un- necessary for any one to undertake the trouble of appropriating them. Each man cuts hay wherever and in whatever quantity he pleases." ^ The inhabitants of the Altai when asked why they do not appropriate the meadows, replied that, having more of them than they needed, they experienced no difficulty in replacing meadows they abandoned by others equally good.^ Among the Kirgizes of the north and south each man cuts as much grass as he requires, without restriction. There is such an abundance of meadow-land that they cannot mow it all.3 We observe the same with regard to forests. In Siberia, as long as there is a superfluity of wood, the peasants not only take it without any restriction wherever they like, but burn down large portions of the forest to facilitate agriculture, and nobody protests against it. No limits are observed between the respective territories, and members of far-situated communities are not prevented from using the forests of other villages.* 1 Krol, p. 9. ^ Shvetzow, pp. 141, 142. ' Kirg., IX, notes, pp. 8 and 50. * Kachorowski, 165 ff.; iT. and T., p. 69. lo THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY How out of this state does property originate ? Here .^gam- a short theoretical digression will facilitate ', the understanding of the problem. We have reason I to appropriate only such objects as in the case of loss I can only, be replaced with a certain efFort, or which i cannot be replaced at all. This is the case with goods which are the product of our labour or which are 5 scarce. If we lose an object which has been produced by ' us, we must to replace it make another one. If the commodity at our disposal exists only in a limited quantity we often cannot replace it at all, or only with great difficulty. In both cases we are exposed to an efFort in comparison to which the efFort of appropria- tion is relatively small, and for this reason economically rational. Of two evils it is the smaller one. P Thus the desire to appropriate an object can only / arise from these two causes, Labour and Scarcity. The /"desires of the difFerent individuals lead, however, to the formation of property as a socially recognized institu- tion only when they are in harmony one with the other. If they are antagonistic, if appropriation by one member means loss for another, then a collision of the difFerent interests must result, and to prevent this the community usually restrains or prohibits their manifestation, as in the case of theft, for instance. The desire to -^appropriate is in accordance with the interests of all, if it originates from labour, or a special kind of scarcity which we will call individual and define later. The same desire will lead to antagonism in the case of general scarcity, which we will term social. So long as land and raw material are abundant, as is the case under primitive conditions when the population is thin, the labourer, by making use of any part of the i soil, or of the materials, deprives no one else of the i satisfaction of his wants» As each man desires to keep i the objects into which |ie has incorporated his labour, ' private property with I'egard to those objects becomes THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY ii a socially recognized institution. This is why, even among the rudest peoples, weapons, implements, decorations, and other objects identified as the pro- ! ducts of a man's labour are recognized as his.^. The study of the development of ownership of land will confirm this general law. The nomadic and hunt- ing stages, where a quite simple use is made of the products of the soil, are very extensive forms of economic life, possible only where the area at the disposal of each man is very great. With the increase of population it becomes necessary to pass from simple nomadic life to more intensive systems.^ These changes necessitate an incorporation of labour into the soil, and thus lead to the establishment of owner- ship of land. ^ This property will be individual where the labour r, unit is an individual or a family ; it will be common ; where the labour unit is a collective group. In thelj beginning of agriculture the first appears to be the i general rule. We will therefore examine this case, and afterwards see- how co-operation influences the forms of ownership. The process by which property develops out of labour is difl'"erent for meadows, forests and arable lands. Meadows, as we have seen, are in the beginning used freely everywhere. But when with a greater density of population, the damage done by the grazing cattle \ becomes more destructive, it is necessary to prevent it V by constructing fences.^ Among the Buriats, where enclosing is very much developed, the individual by this means acquires the right of property.* Besides these enclosed meadows there are others in ^ E. Westermarck, Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, Vol. II. p. 41. y Kaufman, pp. 45 et. seq. * Shvetzow, p. 146 ; Krol, p. 11. * Krol, p. 20. 12 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY which labour has been embodied, as for instance those which have been manured, drained or cleared ; all these are private property. It is a characteristic fact, proving the close relation between labour and property, that where individual, hereditary property exists with regard to those meadows which have been manured, cleared or drained, those others which remain a free gift of nature are " nobody's land," so long as they exist in abundance. We find thisj for instance, among the natives of the Altai.-'- With regard to forests, the incorporation of labour into the soil is exceptional. This happens sometimes in Siberia, and a peasant who takes the necessary pre- cautions for protecting a part of the forest from fire becomes the proprietor of that part ; if he ceases to take these precautions he loses his right of property.^ The lands occupied by the homestead are every- where hereditary property of those who established them.8 In the case of arable land, the formation of property is more complicated than in that of meadows, forests and homesteads. The reason of it is simple. Labour expended on these latter either does not affect the natural forces contained in the soil, as in enclosing or housebuilding, or it increases those forces, as in manuring and draining ; while labour expended on arable land exhausts the soiU The productiveness of meadows and forests does hot diminish in conse- quence of the labour expended upon it, whereas, with every year of cultivation, the productiveness of arable land is less. Yet another difference must be kept in mind. The labour incorporated in the meadows, homesteads, etc., consists, to a great extent, of what we call capital investment. The man who has once drained and cleared his meadow or built his house, does not need ^ Shvetzow, p. 214. ^ West Siberia, V. pp. 129, 130. ' Kachorowski, p. 1 79 et seq. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 13 to repeat the operation, at least for a certain length of time. The labour of the primitive agriculturist, such as ploughing and sowing, consists, to a great extent, of annual expenses, of operations which are yearly repeated. Thus the proprietor of the meadow will be anxious to retain it, because otherwise he loses his capital investment. The cultivator, on the contrary, as far\ as he is embodying an equal amount of labour every \ year, has his expenses repaid after the harvest. He will find it to his best interest to abandon the exhausted soil, and he will occupy a new portion. This explains 1 why" arable land, unlike other land, passes through as/ stage of temporary possession. The shifting cultivation marks the first stage of the progress from pastoral and hunting to agricultural life. It characterizes primitive agriculture all over the world. I quote here only a few examples, and refer the reader who desires fuller information about this agricultural system to the book of Hildebrand.^ We find it on the Steppes among the Kirgizes,^ the peasants of South Russia,^ etc. The cultivator raises one or two crops from the land and then relinquishes it. We find it also in wooded countries. In India the tribes which practise it commence by selecting a suitable site with not too steep a slope, and cut down all the smaller trees, shrubs and other vegetation, which are heaped on the ground to dry during the hot season. The larger trees are killed by ringing, the rest is burned as soon as it is dry. When the rains fall, the ashes mixed with seed are dibbled into the ground. One crop is taken, perhaps a second ; and then the tribe moves on to a new locality, return- ing to the first only after a period of time which ^ Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, znd ed. 1907, pp. 47-51. ' Rumianzew, p. 169 ; Kaufman, pp. 24, 25. 3 W. W., p. 8. 14 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY has allowed the vegetation to grow up again. It may be twenty, thirty or forty years.'^ Similar condi- tions exist in the most thinly populated districts of Java. 2 This system once prevailed in the forest regions of Russia, and in the north it may be found to this day.^ It seems to have characterized the Germanic agriculture in the time of Tacitus.* Under such conditions temporary possession must arise, and not property. While there is abundance of land,^ the cultivator is only interested in retaining the I soil he has tilled so long as some of his labour on Lit remains unremunerated. If he be deprived of a 'field which he has ploughed and sowed, before he has harvested the crop, he will be obliged to repeat the labour. But once he has gathered the fruits of his toil, and abandoned the exhausted field, which he may never see again, it is of little moment to him whether it is occupied again or not. In accordance with this economic reasoning, a form of tenure originates intermediate between an abso- lutely free use of the soil, and property, giving to the cultivator the right to retain a field until he has collected from it the fruits of his laboun Among the Kirgizes of the district of Aktubansk, the arable land belongs to the cultivator only so long as he ploughs it. Once abandoned, it can be used by 1 Baden-Powell, Land Tenure in India, Vol. I. p. 1 1 6. 2 E. de Laveleye, De la propriiti et de ses formes primitives, 5th ed., p. 61. 8 Kaufman, p. 231 ; Kovalevsky, Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia, pp. 77, 78. * W. Roicher, Nationaidkonomie des Ackerbaues, 12th ed., 1888, p. 80. ' This phrase may seem in contradiction to my previous assertion, that with the growth of population the nomad has not land enough for continuing his pastoral life. This contradiction is only apparent, because the area which is insufficient for a nomadic population, after the passage to agriculture is superabundant. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 15 any one, either to cut the grass on the fallow or for new cultivation. 1 In the same district the poor people generally sow on the land which has before been ploughed by the rich, because it requires less labour than new land. The rich always plough the virgin and most fertile soils.2 Apparently a similar state of things existed everywhere on the Kirghiz Steppes before the Russian invasion,^ The same has been observed among the peasants of South Russia.^ In the Altai ^ and among the Tartars ® of the district of Simferopol each one retains his right to a piece of land only so long as he uses it ; in fact, once abandoned or left to lie fallow, any one else may take it. Among the Buriats the cultivator who removes the dividing fence and goes to another place, loses all connection with the old land, which is thus free for occupation.'' In the north of European Russia we find the same state of things ; if a peasant ceases to till a field on which no capital investment was made, any other man without asking permission or informing him is at liberty to take it.^ In the old German Mark, according to Maurer and Fustel de Coulanges so long as the system of annual shifting of cultivation prevailed there existed only the right of temporary possession.^ Among the Ges of South America, the Zulus, the natives of Eqxiatorial Africa, New Guinea and ^ Kaufman, p. 152. ^ Kirg., VII. p. 25. * Grodekow, p. 102. * W. W., p. 8. ^ Shvetzow, pp. 157, 158. ® Dr. Victor Utz, Die Besilzverhaltnisse der lariarenbauern im Kreise Simferopol. Tubingen, 1911, p. 42. ' Krol, p. 49. * Kaufman, p. 271. » Maurer, Einleitungzur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf- undStadt- verfassung, 1854, p. 97, § 102. Fustel de Coulanges, Recherches sur quelques problimes d'histoire, p. 283. i 1 6 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY other partly agricultural tribes, the custom prevails of a field belonging to an individual only so long as it is tilled by him.^ In Ancient Rome the occupation of the ager pub- licus did not confer any right of property, but only a mere possessive right.^ The extensive system of agriculture, where it is sufficient to burn down the forest, plough the land a little and sow the corn, or as in the steppes of Russia, to do merely the latter, is only possible where there is great abundance of arable land. A field, in forest districts where shifting cultivation is practised, can only be used again for crops when the trees have grown, that is after twenty to forty years in the Indian Jungle,^ and after forty to sixty years in Russia.* Thus during the lifetime of one generation it is not cultivated more than once. With the increase of population this extensive system must be abandoned and replaced by an inten- sive one.** "Where the population is dense," says Baden-Powell, "and space limited, the rotation is reduced to ten or even seven years." ^ Much labour is expended on the clearing of the forests,'' and the fallow is not left in its natural state, but begins to be manured.^ Parallel with this development the relation of the cultivator to the soil becomes more durable. The annual crop no more remunerates his labour, only after a few years is his capital investment redeemed. In accordance with this economic interest of the cultivator, the old right to occupy a soil once it is not tilled begins to be more restricted. Every one can keep his field, not only so long as he uses it, but so 1 Hildebrand, p, 45 et seq. 2 E. Laveleye, Primitive Property, p. 165. * Baden-Powell, Land Tenure, I. p. 11 6. * Bolshakow, p. 18. ^ Kaufman, p. 231. 6 B.-P., ibid., I. p. 1 16. ' B.-P., ibid., p. 114. ' Bolshakow, p. 21. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 17 long as it may be presumed that all his labour upon it has not been remunerated. So, for instance, among the Kirgizes of the district of Ustkamenegorsk the fallow may be ploughed again only by the old occupier, so long as he does not explicitly abandon his right to it.^ In the district of Kustonaisk the fallow belongs to the cultivator so long as some traces of his labour upon it are visible ; he only can cut the grass upon it. But this right is not perpetual ; if the fallow has not been tilled for ten or twenty years it becomes free for occupation by any one.^ The Buriats have similar regulations ; after 4wo, three, six, or fifteen years of fallow the land may be occupied.^ With a further intensification of agriculture this temporary possession acquires the character of a permanent right of property. It establishes itself 1 everywhere when the shifting cultivation is aban- j doned. This, however, is not due exclusively to the ! incorporation of labour, but also, as I wiU explain it below, to individual scarcity (vide p. 25). As clearing the forest requires a great expense of labour, it usually confers a permanent right to keep the soil ; this state of things is found among the Russian peasants,* the Finns of North Russia,5 the Buriats,® the Javanese,^ the aborigines of North East Africa,^ etc. In old Russia it was the custom to say that the land was property " as far as the axe, the scythe and the plough go." ® ^ Kirg., IX. pp. 27, 28. 2 Kaufman, p. 153. * Krol, pp. 46-49. * W. W., pp. 19, 22. 5 Bolshakow, p. 33. * Krol, p. 48. ' Eindresumi van het . . . anderzoek naar de Rechten van den In- lander op den grond on Java en Madoera (B.M. 5319, g. 22), I. p. 64. 8 Hildebrand, p. 46. * Pawlow-Silwanskij, p. 113. 1 8 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY In the old German Mark the law conferring the right of ownership on the one who cleared the land is traceable to the first settlements of the Germans.^ In India the man whose hands and funds have performed the severe and protracted labour of clearing the dense forest and jungle regards himself, and is regarded by others, as entitled to keep the land. Five hundred years b.c. the institutions of Manu recog- nized this principle. We read there : " The sages declare a field to belong to him who first cleared away the timber and a deer to him wno first wounded it." ^ The intimate relation which exists between labour and the formation of property is best illustrated by, the fact that in the same communities the land is subject to different rules according to the labour which was necessary to prepare it for cultivation. " Examining all the above facts," writes Mr. Krol about the Buriats, "it is impossible not to notice that they differentiate carefully between those fields the tillage of which required much labour (clearing of stones, forests, etc.) and those fields the occupation of which has not necessitated a great amount of it. With regard to the first the right of property is recognized without any discussion ; the second class of fields only belong to the occupier so long as the enclosures stand round them, or a little longer : only in exceptional cases are they considered as property."^ The intensification of labour thus contributed to the development of a closer relationship between man .and the occupied soil. With regard to meadow and I homestead land individual property originated directly, 'once labour had been expended upon them. On j arable lands it was preceded by an intermediate stage I of temporary possession. 'if So the old theory, so severely attacked by Maine, that occupation first conferred a right, against other ^ Maurer, Markenverfassung, p. i66. * Baden-Powell, itf«^ Tenure, I. p. 227. ^ Krol, p. 48. THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY 19 members of society, to an exclusive but temporary enjoyment, and that afterwards, while remaining ex- clusive, it became perpetual, finds here its confirmation and natural explanation. Hitherto we have considered the influence of labour on the formation of property, supposing the agricultural work to be done either individually or by families ; let us now see what form of^ property arises when co-operation is necessary from^ the beginning. Does co-operation extend only to a part of the cultivator's labour, then property remains individual ; so, for instance, among the Kirgizes, where irrigation works require a common effort, arable fields are the private, hereditary property of each labourer.^ He is entitled to dispose of his land according to his wishes, and is merely restricted in this, that he may only sell it to members of the community.^ No equality whatever exists in the possession of land, every one is free to occupy as much as he wishes and to use water accord- ing to his needs.^ Only when a deficiency of water begins to be felt, the community limits the share every one is entitled to use.* Among the Kirgizes also we find sometimes com- mon ploughing. A few cultivators join their funds in order to buy a plough, and then use their horses together in one team ; but all other operations are performed individually and the common relations of the labourers cease when the ploughing is over.^ The necessity of joint labour in clearing a forest has often been adduced to explain why primitive pro- perty must have been common. So far as our sources allow us to examine this point, nowhere do we find a convincing evidence proving common clearing by large groups. ^ Kirg., VII. p. 31 ; Rumianzew, pp. i68, 169. 2 Kirg., IX. p. 25. 3 Ibid., p. 26. 4 Ibid., p. 27. ' Ibid., IX. p. 24 ; Kaufman, p. 1 70 fF. c 2 20 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY " The common clearing " in Java of which Laveleye speaks ^ consists in reality in a mutual help of three or four households. Every one cultivates his land in- dividually, and there are no traces of a village com- munity.2 ■\Ye shall see later that in Java, as every- where, private property was the primitive form of ownership. In European Russia I have found only one community where common clearing seems to have existed. It is a quite exceptional case,^ and I do not know how far it is true. In India * and all over Siberia the individual is the 'first clearer. But even if clearing by large groups existed it would no more lead to the formation of common \ property than common irrigation. The individual cultivating the soil would acquire the right of property. Common property only originates where all labour, ? or by far the greater part of it, is due to co-operation. It originates, for instance, in the case of enclosed meadows where, with the exception of making the fence, no labour is incorporated in the soil. Among the Burials meadows are, when it is more convenient, enclosed by associations and not by individuals. Every one is free to become a member of these as- sociations and leave them when he likes ; the quantity of hay which each may cut is or is not limited, or is some- times distributed according to the length oiE fence con- structed.^ In the Altai, where meadows have been enclosed by several families, they mow the hay to- gether and divide it equally among the cutters.^ With regard to arable land, the cases where all the labour — ploughing, sowing, harrowing, beating, etc. — is performed in co-operation, are very rare. We find some examples of it among the Kirgizes. Small associa- ^ Laveleye, De la propriiti, s.c, p. 6i. 2 Eindresumi, s.c, II. Bijlage B., p. zz et seq. » W.W., p. 77; B. M., 5319. g. zz. Vol. II. * Baden- Powell, L«« ^« < «< o l-H o M O , and each member is allowed to send only a stipulated "^ number of cattle on to the pasture ground. In Siberia, and in the south of Eastern Russia, this number is usually equal for all, and those who have fewer cattle sell their rights to those who have more.^ The same was the custom in the old Danish village community.^ In England, in the eleventh century, there are many . traces of the necessity to reduce the number of beasts to be sent to the common pasture, and to equalize or to apportion them according to the size of the holdings.® In Germany, we find these limitations in the eighth and ninth centuries.^ These measures, which in the begin- 1 J. A. Voelcker, Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture, p. 72. 2 P. VinogradofF, ne Growth of the Manor, 2nd ed., 191 1, p. 169. 3 " Im einen wie im anderen Falle sollte jedoch nur selbstgezogenes Vieh in die Mastung und auf die Weide geschickt, also kein fremdes Vieh in die Heerde aufgenommen oder zu dem Ende angekauft werden." — Maurer, Markenverfassung, p. 145. * T. and T., pp. 82, 83 ; Kachorowski, p. 163. In central Russia, where there is no cattle breeding for sale, all these restric- tions do not exist. As every one keeps simply the cattle necessary for ploughing, etc., and as the arable fields are equally divided, great inequalities in the number of possessed beasts do not exist, and special regulations are not considered necessary. — W. W., p. 47 1 . 6 K. HafF, Die ddnischen Gemeinderechte, 1909, I. p. 66. 6 VinogradofF, p. 169. ' Maurer, Markenverfassung, p, 145. D 2 36 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY ning are almost exclusively preventive, have also at later stages more and more an equalizing tendency. The preventive intervention of the community is not only caused by the increase of destruction, but also because with growth of population and the increase of scarcity, this destruction becomes more palpable. This is very well illustrated by the history of the regulations for forest land in Siberia. In the first period there is such an abundance of forest that not only is there more wood than the peasants need, but the superfluity is a hindrance to agriculture. The forest is treated as an enemy, and great waste prevails. When a peasant needs one trunk he cuts several trees and then chooses the best. The burning down of large parts of the forest is not con- sidered a mishap but a means of facilitating agriculture. Under these conditions there is naturally no need for restrictions to prevent waste.-"- But this changes when the abundance decreases and scarcity begins to be felt. Among the Russian peasants of Siberia it is the members of other com- munities who are first excluded from the use of the forests.^ The cutting of young trees is forbidden, and a regular forestal economy is introduced. At a late stage the community limits the amount of wood which each man may take, thus introducing an equalizing element into property. In some parts of Siberia the peasant is limited in the amount of wood he may cut for sale by the amount which his own horses can carry.^ Among the Buriats there are communities in which a man is /Unrestricted in cutting wood for the needs of him- self and his family, but is obliged to obtain authori- zation if he wishes to sell the wood.^ This policy leads at times to complete prohibition of sale.^ 1 Kachorowski, p. 165 fF. ; T. and T., p. 69. 2 Kachorowski, p. 166. ' Ibid. p. 166. * Krol, p. 71. ^ Kaufman, p. 324. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 37 Later, when the forests become still more scarce, the community regulates the amount which a man may cut for his own use. In some districts in Siberia permis- sion to hew wood is only given to those members who need it for a new building or for repairing an old one.^ In the old German mark, the amount of timber and firewood which every man might take was fixed.^ The measures we have hitherto described are princi- pally intended to prevent the destruction of natural riches, although they have at times, and especially in the later stages of their development, an equalizing character. We will now examine the regulating policy of the community which aims exclusively at equalizing the property of the different members. It is on the appro- priated lands that we can observe this policy in its purest form, because here it Is not combined with considerations for preventing" destruction. Why do these equalizing measures become necessary at a certain time ? The right of free occupation leads to great inequality. Those who have great ability, more cattle, a larger family, become proprietors of land greater in extent by ten, and sometimes by one hundred times, than that of others.^ The superiority possessed by the rich over the poor in the appropriation of arable land has been very well observed among the Cossacks. Having at their dis- posal two plough-teams and three or four oxen, the rich proprietors can begin the thrashing before the harvesting is finished. Three or four pairs of oxen are employed to thrash the corn, and one plough- team goes on the fields and occupies the best lands. The poor man, possessing only one or two pairs of oxen or horses, cannot carry on these undertakings at the same time. He must first convey the corn to ^ Kaufman, p. 326. * Vide Maurer, Dorjvtrfassung, p. 214. * T. andT., p. 35. 38 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY the barn, then thrash it, and he is unable to think about ploughing before the end of the autumn : he must take the lands left by the rich, and has no time then to tiU more than a small plot. When possession becomes permanent the rich keep the large and fertile lands and the poor the small and barren ones.^ We hear of rich Cossacks who have appropriated looo and more desiatinas, and who possess seventy-five harrows and thirty to forty ploughs. At the other end of the social scale we find a proletariat, with or with- out a small quantity of land, obliged to serve the rich.^ In the government of Irkutsk the following distri- bution of arable land has been ascertained — Percentage of possessors less than 10-20 20 and more 10 desiatinas. desiatinas. desiatinas. Russian peasants . . . 39-8 35"i zj'i Natives 50-8 32"3 16-9 Amongst the poor there are some who have no land at all, and among the rich there are " magnates " who have sometimes 500 or more desiatinas.^ The same inequality exists among the Buriats with regard to meadow-land, which each member may appropriate by simply constructing a fence. Some of the rich possess such plenty of them, that during years of good crops they do not cut the grass on part of their meadows, but use them as pasture.* So long as there is plenty of land this inequality injures no one.^ The natives of a village in the Government of Irkutsk, when asked why they did not divide the lands, gave the following answer : " Why should we divide it when each man may clear as much as he wishes I It is impossible to introduce a division 1 Harusin, pp. 11-13 ; vide also Sir D. M. Wallace, ^«nM, 1905, Vol. I. p. 299. ' Harusin, pp. 13, 14. * Lichkow, pp. 187, 290 ; Kachorowski, p. 144. * Krol, p. 24. 5 T, gnd -p., p. 35 ; Kachorowski, p. 144. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 39 because the tilling of arable land requires much labour, and each man wishes to keep what he tills, otherwise he will have spent his labour in vain." In another village the same question received the following answer : " An industrious man can always clear a field for himself. Why then divide the labour of others ? " ^ Where land is abundant in Siberia, the rich Russian peasants reply thus to the complaints of the poor : " You have not enough fields ! — But look how much free land lies all around ! We have cleared our soils and there is nothing to hinder you from doing the same. '' This state of things changes with an increase of population.^ When all land convenient for ploughing, and all meadows are occupied, when the poor, and many of the young who wish to form households, find only inferior land or none at all, the old order of things ceases to be in the interests of all. We find this everywhere among the peasants of European Russia and of Siberia,* the Tartars^ and the Cossacks,® the Buriats, etc.'' At first this only leads to a strengthening of private v property. When scarcity begins to be felt the original F proprietors cling more closely to the land they possess. I But with the continuous growth of population and the consequent increase of the dissatisfied members, the struggle between the opposed interests becomes more and more acute. For the poor, the only means of improving their condition is to claim part of the land of the rich. They base their claim on the communistic principle, on the " theory " that the soil is a gift of God, 1 Lichkow, pp. 199, 200. * Kaufman, p. 275. * For the relation existing between this process and the growth of population vUe Kaufman, p. 275. * W. W., pp. 8-10, 37, 38 ; T. and T., p. 35 ; Kachorowski, p. 144. 5 Utz, s.c, p. 54. * Harusin, pp. i and 13. ' Krol, p. 29. 40 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY that it is no man's land, that it is common property, and that, in consequence, all those performing equal duties have the right to equal shares.^ The rich, on the other hand, advocate the right of every one to own the occupied soil, and try to justify it by the principle of labour and of first occupation. " Our lands have been tilled by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers ; is it our fault that the parents of others lived in idleness ? " ^ The struggle is not always merely verbal. Those who have not sufficient land sometimes try to take it from the rich by force ; as, for instance, among the Cossacks, it sometimes happened that the poor with their ploughs invaded the lands of the rich with the intention of appropriating them. These attempts usually ended in a fight which resulted in broken ploughs and pierced heads.^ Among the Rassian peasants of Europe the pas- sage to a division of land was accompanied by arsons, by disputes in which knives and clubs were used, and sometimes even by murder.* The possibility of the poor being able to make their interests prevail becomes greater as time passes. With the increase of population, the number of those want- ing land increases, and those claiming a division of the soil become the stronger party.^ " As soon as the landless have the majority," writes Simkowich of the peasants of European Russia, " the minority of the rich must either accept equalization, or the majority menaces and even persecutes them. So, for instance, if they do not want to abandon their rights, the division of land is made without them, and ^ Kachorowski, p. 145. ^ Hid. For Cossacks, vide Harusin, p. 15. ^ Harusin, p. 16. * Simkowich, s.c, pp. 77, 78. * Krol, p. 176. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 41 the rich are excluded from the use of the common pasture. Sometimes even violence is used."^ So we hear, for instance, of a public cudgelling of a peasant who tried to oppose himself to the decision of the majority.^ " So long as strength and the majority of voices," writes Krol of the Russian peasants of Transbaikal, "were on the side of those to whose interest it was to keep the old forms of property, these latter remained untouched. But when the inequality in the distri- bution of meadow-land assumed larger proportions, and the number of those who desired to replace the existing order by a more equalizing one became sufficiently great in each community, the proprietors of the occupied meadows were obliged to enter into a compromise." ^ About the Buriats the same author tells us that only when the number of the dissatisfied becomes sufficiently great, do the rights of the rich begin to be encroached upon, and the authority of the com- munity as an equalizing force manifests itself.'* The fight between the opposing interests is a long one : even if the rich have become the minority they succeed in making their interests predominate for a certain time. They represent the future state of things as destruction for all, if the demands of the " Communists " are granted, and many of the " middle classes," fearful of losing what they already possess, join the party of the rich.^ The poor also, partly from the same motives, partly because they are economically dependent on the rich, do the same. " Thanks to their influence and in- trigues," says Mr. Harusin of the rich Cossacks, " they succeed in adding to their party the very poor people who propagate false predictions about future ^ Simkowich, s.c, p. 77. ^ H., p. 78. ' The same applies to arable land, vide Krol, p. 176. * Krol, pp. 29, 112. ^ Harusin, p. 18 ; Kachorowski, p. 145. 42 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY miseries ; the mass without, after thinking for a long time, believes what they say and takes the side of the rich." 1 But finally, with the growth of population the num- ber and wretchedness of the poor increases, and the " middle classes," seeing and feeling more strongly the wrongs of the existing order, pass over to the opposi- tion camp.2 It is interesting to observe how this struggle of classes resembles what we have witnessed since the development of modern capitalism. It would be erroneous to think that at the very- moment when the partisans of equalization obtain a jnajority, individual ownership is abolished. The transition to equalization is a gradual one; it begins ,' while its supporters are still numerically unimportant \ and it continues after the political victory of the ; proletariat. The passage from individual to common ownership advances in accordance with the increase in the number of those who have not enough land. We can distin- guish three stages in this process of evolution — \ First stage. — There exists no equalization, the com- I munity merely restricts the right of free occupation. I Second stage.^— The community possesses the right to I transfer property from one person to another. Third stage. — The land is periodically divided. In the first stage, the principal regulation limits the right of property to those lands in which labour has been incorporated. The pastures, forests, and the natural meadows which have been appropriated without any toil, because they were situated near the peasant's dwelling, are now, when their scarcity begins to be felt, simply taken from their proprietor and are laid open for the use of all.^ - ^ Harusin, p. 19. * Kachorowski, p. 146. * Kaufman, pp. 291, 319. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 43 Every one can cultivate them. Because there is a great need of arable lands the community recognizes the principle that " it is forbidden to oiFer resistance to the plough." 1 At this stage the scattered farm system ceases to be. When all the pastures suitable for cultivation are ploughed up by the poor, the farm ceases to be an economic whole. The farmer must send his cattle to ' the common pasture designed for this purpose by the community. At this stage he abandons his old dwell- ing and settles in a place chosen for the village, where he probably has an easier access to the pasture- ground.^ The poor claim very energetically the abolition of the farm system. They exercise in this respect a very strong pressure on the rich.^ So the passage from the " Einzelhof " to the village, far from being an impossibility, as Maurer supposed {vide p. 23)5 is a phenomenon which we can observe even to-day. The arable lands may be kept by the proprietor only so long as they are used for cultivation. To meet this difficulty, the community stipulates the number of years of fallow after which the cultivator loses his right of property. The periods vary in Siberia from twenty to three years ; at first they are long but become shorter as the population increases.'* We find the same in Java.^ Finally even the short periods are abolished, , and once the land is left fallow the right to own it ' ceases. Similar regulations existed in the old German and Danish village. " The right of free occupation," says Maurer, "becomes restricted . . . the cultivated ^ Kaufman, K. vioprosu, p. 3 5 . ^ Ibid., and Shcherbina, p. 77. * Kaufman, pp. 288-294; Shcherbina, pp. 69-77. * Kachorowski, p. 124. ^ Eindresumi, I. p. 65, 44 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY lands left a certain time in fallow were treated again as ' Markland.' " i We do not find this kind of restriction on the appropriated meadows in which labour has been embodied ; ^ this for the reason, that arable land in the primitive system of agriculture is only tilled during a certain time and then left in fallow ; the meadows, on the contrary, are used continuously, and there is no opportunity to cause the right of property to cease when labour is interrupted.^ These meadows usually pass directly from un- restricted, individual ownership, to the second stage, characterized by the right of the community to transfer land from one person to another.* On arable lands in this first period of equalization the rights of the individual' to sell, give away, or bequeath the land are subject to the control of the community.^ Similar restrictions are applied to land occupied by the homestead.® The regulations making the right of ownership of arable land dependent on the tillage of the soil, lead to great disadvantages with the increase of population ; the periods of fallow become shorter and shorter, until the soil is cultivated without interruption, and becomes completely exhausted. The continuous cultivation also renders it impossible for the landless members to take advantage of their right to occupy untilled soil. Finally ^ Markland, the land which was free for occupation. — Maurer, Markenferfassung, p. 171. For similar regulations in Denmark, vide Haff., s.c, I. pp. 165, 170. 2 There are a few exceptions. In some districts the proprietor of a meadow loses his right to it only if he does not mow it. — Kaufman, PP- 1 33. 319- We do not know whether labour has been embodied in the meadows to which this rule applies. 8 Kaufman, p. 319. * Kaufman, S;^. Co/w., pp. 92, 93. ^ Kachorowski, pp. 138, 140. * Kaufman, p. 294; Krol, pp. 113-6, 123, 124; T.andT.,p.4. We do not know how far these restrictions apply also to meadows. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 45 the economic superiority of the rich, allowing them to ^appropriate large areas of the best soil, remains un- restricted.i To this there are only a few exceptions ^mong the Cossacks.^ The community must then make a further advance in social intervention ; it must take land from those Who have too much and give it to those who have not enough. The different phases of this process are the same in the case of meadows and arable land. First of all the community divides among the poor the lands left without successors. Among the Kirgizes such meadows " become common property, and are distributed among those families who obtained no meadows from their fathers." * The same applies to the Buriats : " The meadows left without successors," says Mr. Krol, " are no longer free for occupation by any one, but are disposed of by the community, which allots them to those who are in need.* In some cases the successor refuses to take over the land he inherits because he does not wish to pay the tax for it ; such land is also divided by" the community." ^ In Siberia, among the Russian peasants, meadows and fields are allotted to the landless out of lands left without successors. This method of allotment is the most convenient ; it releases the community from the trouble connected with any other system of measuring and valuing the land, and it leaves the interest of the old proprietor more or less untouched. But this system is only possible when the number wanting land is small ; as they increase, the amount of land left ^ Kaufman, p. 307 ; Dubienskij, pp. 163, 164, 189-90 ; fTest Si6.,XVllI. 228. * The Cossacks try to restrict the advantages of the rich by for- bidding them to use more than one plough. — Kachorowski, p. 127; Kaufman, p. 315. Here also we find regulations fixing the day on which ploughing shall begin. — Shcherbina, p. no. This kind of equalizing rules have nowhere been found in Siberia. 3 Kirg., XI. p. 36 ; IM., VII. p. 21. * Krol, p. 30. ^ I&U.fp. 31. 46 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY without successors is no longer sufficient to satisfy their needs, and the community must then take it from the actual possessors. Those who are first aiFected are those who have not paid the taxes. It is considered just to deprive those people who have not fulfilled their social obligations, of part of their property.^ When, however, with the continuous growth of population this system also becomes insufficient to provide the poor with land, the community abandons this discrimination between those who have and those who have not paid the taxes. Every man who has plenty of land becomes liable to be deprived of some of it.^ Generally among the Russian peasants in Siberia the initiative is left to the individual ; the community waits until the cultivator who needs more land applies for it, stating which portion he would like to have, why he needs it, and why the actual proprietor does not need it. The latter, naturally, tries to prove that he has not sufficient land, that the statement' of the covetous one is not true, etc. Having heard the statements of both parties, the community passes sen- tence, and eventually allots the land to the cultivato^ who was in need of it.^ This method of allotment becomes more and more frequent. At first there is no exact measuring, only the most conspicuous inequalities are abolished, but i later on the others, too, are remedied, and finally all members have more or less equal quantities of land.'* This system of providing the poor with land exists also among the half-noraadic peoples. If the meadow which a Kirgiz inherits from his father is small, the assembly allots to him a meadow taken from those who have abundance of land.^ The Buriats, in their '^ For Russian peasants, Kachorowski, p. 131 ; For Burials, Krol, p. 31. ^ Kachorowski, p. 136. * Kaufman, p. 309. * Ibid., and T. and T., p. 42. ^ Kirg., IX. p. 22 ; Kaufman, pp. 134, 135. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 47 social policy, are guided by the same principle as the peasants and Kirgizes, viz. to give land to those who are most in want of it. The allotments observed here are very frequent.^ Among half-nomads the allot- ment of arable lands is exceptional, for the simple reason that agriculture is not much developed, and there is abundance of land suitable for cultivation. Land occupied by the homestead is also subject to allotment ; sometimes the community stipulates that it shall not exceed a certain norm (1-2 desiatinas).^ In European Russia we find, besides this method, other means of equalization. Peasants who possess a greater homestead than others get a smaller quantity of arable fields, or are obliged to pay a special tax.^ When inequalities have been abolished by allot- 1 ments, the community can only supply the new/ members by taking equal parts from all.'* A periodical! re-division of the soil every few years is the simplest! manner of attaining this end, and of distributing the? land equally among a fluctuating population.^ Not only are those meadows and arable lands periodically divided which have passed through the previous stages of equalization, but also the non- appropriated meadows and forests in regard to which the equalizing measures were intimately connected with a preventive policy. This final stage in the equalization of land, viz. the\ periodical re-distribution, is not reached by pasture-) land, and that land on which the homestead is situated. I Pasture land is not periodically re-divided, because such| a process would be very inconvenient. 1 Krol, pp. 32-37. ^ Kachorowski, p. i8o ; Krol, pp. 115, 116, 123 ; T. and T., p. 84. 8 W. W., p. 490. * By taking land from one, the community would disturb the existing equality. ^ If the population were stationary it would not be necessary to repeat the division periodically. 1 48 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY Every household would be obliged to have its own herdsman, while, when all the cattle of the village is grazing together, a few boys are sufficient to keep it.^ By regulating the number of cattle which each family may send to graze on the common pasture the community, without a division, abolishes all inequalities. The reason why homesteads are not periodically divided will be examined below. The methods of division are far from being uniform, they not only differ in meadows, forests, and arable lands, but they vary from one place to another. In this book, which aims simply at setting forth the fundamental principles of the development of property, these different systems cannot be described. There are only two points which I want to put in this connection before the reader — 1. We will examine why, in the village community, arable lands are not divided into large plots, but into scattered strips. 2. I will show that the village community tries to divide the land in such a manner as to injure as little as possible the interest of every man in an intensive cultivation. The custom of dividing arable lands into fields, and afterwards into long strips, existed in Germany, England, Scotland and Wales, and traces of it are still visible. This so-called " open-field system " is to-day characteristic of the village community in Russia, Java, India, etc. Judged from a modern standpoint this peculiar straggling or scattered ownership is absurdly un- economic, particularly in the time wasted in passing from one part of the farm to another. But this system has also its advantages, which, as long as agriculture is extensive, outweigh the dis- "^ Utz., s.c, p. 47. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 49 advantages. We are able to see it very clearly in Siberia. The principal cause of this system's origin lies j« in the fact that the soil is very unequal in quality. 1 Already the first setder, taking possession of unoccu- pied land, has his fields scattered because it is difficult to find one continuous piece of land which would satisfy all the requirements of cultivation, which would give equally a good crop of oats, of spring corn, of wheat and of rye. Again, with the good land are \ usually found patches of bad land which is not worth cultivating. Finally the concentration of one man's land into one plot exposes it uniformly to the climatic peculiarities of the locality. " Briefly," says Mr. Lichkow, concluding these remarks, "so many economic conditions co-operate, that though the culti- vator prefers to have his land in one part, the necessity, indeed the inevitability, arises of having it in scattered pieces." ^ It is very characteristic that similar reasons are adduced to prove the superiority of the scattered field system existing in Japan. ^ The community in dividing the land takes this neces- sity into account. The allotments and the periodical divisions are made in several patches. One Cossack community failed to observe this rule, and divided the land in such a way that each member received his portion in one plot. By this means some received all good soil, and some only bad soil. The resulting disadvantages were so great, that six years later the community introduced the system of scattered ownership, dividing the land according to its quality.^ At first this kind of division is comparatively simple, 1 Lichkow, pp. 131, 132. For European Russia videW. W., pp. 399-400. 2 D. B. Simmons, " Land Tenure in Old Japan." Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 1891, Vol. XIX. p. 72. • Shcherbina, p. loi. E 50 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY because the difFerent sorts of land under extensive cultivation do not exceed three or four in number.^ i. With the introduction of manuring this changes, and the distance of the field as well as its quality becomes 1 of great importance. Each member must have at least I part of his land near the village, and so the commu- nity must, in making the division, consider both these factors — distance and quality. This leads to an in- crease in the number of sorts of soil, which generally ) range from six to fifteen in the three-field system, and ■ from four to ten in the two-field system.^ The two maps I reproduce here illustrate very well the influence of manuring on the form of the village community.^ In South Russia, where the soil has a great natural fertility (" chernosem," black earth) and manuring is only little developed, the fields are much less scattered than in the north. \ Usually only at the passage to the three- and four- I field system does the community begin to regulate I the cultivation. The different plots in each field must \ then be tilled at the same time, sown with the same / crops, and abandoned for common pasture at the same time, according to the rules of the Flurzwang. ^ Thus, after long and gradual evolution, the final stage of the village community is reached. In dividing the land, the labour expended on it is taken into account, and the periods are arranged so as not to destroy the interest of the individual in good cultivation of his soil. For this reason arable lands remain in the same hands for much longer periods than 1 Krol, pp. 207, 208 ; IVest Sib., V. pp. 164-167 ; Kaufman, PP- 349' 350 ; T. and T., pp. 44, 45. 2 Kaufman, pp. 350 ; T. and T., pp. 43-46 ; West Sib., XIII. ^ In the steppes of South Russia there are village communities where every peasant gets his arable land in two or three pieces. — W. W., p. 400. * Kaufman, p. 349 ; West Sib., V. p. 189; XJII, p. 69, etc. MAP 111. The Village Novo^elok IN THE Government P S K O W (NORTH Russia) ^ The black strips indicate the land allotted to one peasant Homesteads [f'^^^fj Arable Lands I Meadows 1*^0^1 Forests [^^gjgg=g»^ Roads Lakes ^^1 Bog-land Map IV. The Village Pavlovka IN THE Government of T A U R I A (South Russia) The shaded strips indicate the land allotted to one peasant Village Pavlovka Homesteads, Arable Land. ] Pasture. The two maps illustrate the influence of the soil on the forms of division (vide p. 50). In the village of Novoselok the meadow and arable land is allotted to every householder in 100 strips. We find similar conditions in all the northern parts of Russia, where manuring is very developed. The village Pavlovka with its arable land divided into only eight strips is typical of the conditions prevailing in the fertile South. (The two maps have been reproduced from the Report of the Ministry of Agriculture entitled: Zemlcvladenie, 1907-1910. St. Petersburg. 1 9 1 1 • ) THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 51^ meadows in Siberia ^ and European Russia.^ It was so in tiie old English village community.^ The same discrimination exists between different kinds of arable land and meadows, cleared fields being re-divided after forty, the others after twenty years.* In the south of Russia the periods of re-divi- sion are of six years ; in the north, where manuring is necessary, they extend from ten to twenty years.^ Meadows situated on river sites are divided for short periods ; those situated in forests for long periods, because they need much labour and care to protect them from being overgrown,^ The same applies to manured meadows.'' The gradual development of common property, as we have described it, is not a simultaneous process with meadows, fields and pastures, and for two reasons — 1. The necessity for equalization is not simulta- neously felt on all these soils. 2, The difficulties met with in abolishing indi- vidual property are not equal in different cases. j As we have seen, the intervention of the community is only desirable when the land ceases to be abundant.! It is quite clear that this will not be the case with meadows, arable land, forests, etc., at the same time as they exist in different quantities in different places, and human wants differ in degree. Division of meadows begins, as a rule, much earlier ' than that of arable land, because the scarcity of the former is felt before that of the latter. Among the settling nomads, agriculture does not play an important role, and there is more land than they require for this purpose ; hay, on the contrary, is needed in large Kaufman, p. 358. ^ W. W., pp. 460, 461. E. Nasse, titer die mittelalterlkheFeMgemeinschaft in England, p. Lichkow, pp. 207, i|i)8. Wj * W. W., p. f4i.oi fTest Sib., XIII. p. th%, '■ Vtf- » W. W., p. ^v. K 2 ^ /' 52 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY quantities and the existing meadows are not sufficient for the wants of all.^ The same applies to those Russian peasants of Siberia who coi}sidcr cultivation a secondary occupation, *' Cattle-breeding," says Mr. Krol, "which plays in the life of Trans-Baikal an important and even exclusive role, requires a much larger area than agriculture. And thus the cattle-breeders feel an ' oppression ' in land sooner than the cultivators." ^ "The insufficiency of meadows," writes Mr. Kaufman, speaking of similar conditions, " is everywhere felt much earlier than the scarcity of fields, because cattle- breeding is more developed." ^ The same reason which accounts for the earlier intervention of the community in the case of meadows than arable lands gives us a clue to the explanation why the division of all arable land and all meadows does not take place at the same time. The evolution of equalization in Siberia has made greater progress with the meadows situated near water than with those situated in forests, because the former, being much more fertile, are more desired, and in con- sequence comparatively scarce.* Thus, for instance, in the district of Tomsk and Mariisk, where meadow- land is in great abundance, the system of free occupation predominates with regard to meadows in dry valleys, while of those which are well watered division already exists.^ This same differentiation is found among the Cossacks,^ the peasants of European Russia.''' In Siberia the arable lands of poor quality often remain free for occupation while the better fields are divided.^ The land situated at a distance from the ^ Kaufman, p. 124. * Krol, p. 194. * Kaufman, p. 286 ; T. and T., pp. 36, 37. * T. and T., p. 37 ; West Sib., XVIII. p. 240. ^ T. and T., p. 58. « Harusin, p. 42. ' W. W., pp. 8-9. ' West Sib.,Y. p. 136 ; T. and T., p. 37 ; Kaufman, p. 313. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 53 village, for which there is no great demand, is also left for individual appropriation, and only that which is near is distributed by the community.^ In old German times, we observe the same diiFer- entiation of land according to quality and situation. "The mark belonging to a village," writes Maurer, "was generally, in so far as it was suitable for cul- tivation {terra arabilis) and situated near the village, distributed among the members of the community ; in so far as it was less suitable or more distant, it was left undivided." ^ In Sweden according to mediaeval law we find a similar state of things.^ In European Russia division was at first only applied to the fields near the village ; of those at a distance the right of free occupation continued to exist for a long time and was only gradually abolished.* The second reason which accounts for the develop- ment of the village community not being simultaneous on all lands, is in the varying difficulties met with in the process. The more labour a proprietor has expended^ on the soil, the more he clings to it, and the more strongly he protests against any intervention of the community.^ It is to the interest both of the old' proprietors and of the community to take this labour into account. By an indiscriminate division of land, the community would hinder intensive cultivation and clearing of forests, for no member would undertake these laborious tasks, only rewarded after many years, if he knew that he might be deprived of his lands in a few years by a re-distribution. Thus the wealth of the whole community might be diminished and all would suffer. For this reason the guiding principle of the 1 West Sib., XVIII. p. 228 ; T. and T., p. 37. 2 Maurer, Geschkhte der Dorfverfassung, pp. 33, 34 ; Idem, p. 40. * " Hiernach war im schwedischen Rechte des Mittelalters in der Nahe der DSrfer das Einfangen zu Individualeigentum nicht mehr gestattet." HafF. s.c, I., 166. * Kaufman, p. 315 ; W. W., p. 13. ^ Kaufman, p. 339. 54 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY economic policy of the village community is to respect as far as possible the right of each man to the fruit of his labour. We have already seen that the periods between the re-divisions are longer as there is more labour in- corporated in the soil {vide pp. 50, 51). I will now show that this principle influences the . rate of development of common property. Meadows are generally divided before arable lands, not only'because they are more scarce. — " The meadows," writes Mr. Krol, " scattered on the banks of the rivers in Trans-Baikal, can be used without preparatory labour ; while arable fields ready for harvest do not exist in nature and necessitate much labour in tilling the soil and clearing the forests." ^ Therefore a periodical division of these meadow-lands, by which the proprietor loses all connection with the land he has appropriated, is easily and early introduced. On the arable lands this arrives only later, and even then the community tries to distribute the land in such a manner as to give to the old proprietors a share in the fields which they have tilled before.^ It is only at a comparatively late stage, when scarcity is still more acutely felt, that this discrimination between the old and new settlers disappears.^ \ The same differentiation, according to the quantity of labour incorporated in the land, exists between differ- ent kinds of meadows and arable land. " Everywhere," says Mr. Krol of the Buriats, " the manured meadows remain in the possession of their owners much longer because much more labour is incorporated in them ; they are divided much later than the natural meadows, and only when their scarcity is very strongly felt."* Concerning the peasants in Siberia the same author 1 Krol, p. 194. " Ibid,, p. 207 ; T. and T., pp. 45, 46 ; Lichkow, pp. 214, 215 ; West Sib., V. p. 209. ^ Krol, p. 177 ; Kaufman, p. 342 et seq. * Krol, pp. 42, 64. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY 55 writes that first of all are divided those meadows which are the free gift of nature, and only later those which have been irrigated, manured or cleared.^ Among the Biiriats, the right to own the cleared arable lands is unrestricted ; those on which less preparatory labour has been expended are already subject to division.^ The same has been observed among the Cossacks,^ Armenians,* the peasants of North Russia,^ Siberia,^ and in Transcaucasia.' In Java, in many village communities, where the fields are periodically divided, the cleared land is still individual hereditary property.^ As I have already stated, the areas occupied by the homestead (house, gardens, orchards, out-buildings) are never periodically divided ; the reason for this is that the labour incorporated in them and necessary for their maintenance is so great ^ that an individual would have no interest in undertaking it unless he knows he can retain possession of them. A periodical re-distribution of such land would render impossible the building of durable houses, fruit-growing, gardening, etc., and so it remains private, hereditary property in European Russia,^" Siberia" and Java ; ^^ as it was in the old German and English village communities. " With regard to the house and to the close or croft adjoining it," says VinogradofF, " the householder had a right of private ownership, which seems at first sight to be as well grounded as the freehold property of the present day. Already, with regard to the ceorl, the old English ^ Krol, p. 196. ^ Ibid., p. 80. ' Ibid,,^. 158. * Segal, p. 56. ^ Efimenko, p. 143. " Krol, p. 196; West Sib., XVIII. p. 248; Lichkow, p. 235. ' Transcaucasia, Vol. III., Pt. II. p. i8. 8 Eindresume, s.c. Vol. II. p. 64. 8 Kachorowski, p. 180 ; Krol, pp. 115, 116 ; T. and T., p. 84 ; W.W., pp. 478,489, 49a 1" Laveleye, De la proprUte, 5th ed., p. 11. 11 Kachorowski, p. 181 et seq.; Krol, p. 113 ; T. and T., p. 89. ^2 Laveleye, s.c, p. 44 ; Eindresume, I. p. 141 et seq. S6 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY freeman of the lowest degree, it might be appropriately said that an Englishman's house is his castle. His edor, his hedge, was protected as well as the king's or the thane's burgh." ^ In this oasis of individualism remaining in the desert of communistic institutions the cultivator is restricted by no one. Here, on his homestead, he is sole master, and individual initiative can freely develop. Here he can introduce innovations, and make ex- periments, he can plant fruit-trees, tobacco, potatoes, or whatever he chooses.^ Such, in broad outline, is the history of the de- velopment of the village community. No idealistic principles guided its evolution according to the postu- lates of any theory, but the necessities of daily life determined the path of this primitive economic policy. With the growth of the number of those who are not satisfied with the old order of things, the measure tending to abolish them becomes more and more radical. This evolution, characterized by a transition from a laissez-faire policy to a developed system of social Intervention, is not simultaneous on all lands. According to the degree of need which makes an equalization necessary, and according to the difficulties encountered by such a policy, it originates at different times and advances at different rates. 1 VinogradofF, S.C., p. 183. ^ Kachorowski, p. 184. Chapter IV CONCLUSION In the introduction to this book I said that the whole evolution of property could be traced back to four elements — 1. The economic principle. 2. The principle of numerical strength. 3. The growth of population. - 4. The relation of nature to human wants. - Let us see how far this assertion is right. The influence of the economic principle, the assump- tion according to which man tries to obtain the \ greatest possible quantity of material — goods necessary for the satisfaction of his wants with the least possible effort — could be observed very clearly. During the process of formation of property this principle manifested itself in this form, that man under- I - took the effort of appropriation only then, when without \ it he risked being exposed to a much greater loss. The nomad, who had no difficulty in replacing the pasture he had left behind by another equally good, did not know the institution of property in, land. We saw how meadows and forests in the beginning, as long as they were abundant, were used freely every- where. Land at this stage had no greater value than air has for us, and consequently it was treated in the same manner (p. 6-10). This state of things changed with the passage to agriculture and to settled life. A cultivator, who might be deprived of a piece of land in which he had« incorporated his labour, would be obliged to repeat this burdensome task. In the same manner he could 57 58 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY replace a piece of land adjacent to his dwelling only by a more distant, and in consequence a less convenient, one. In both cases he was exposed to a loss of time in comparison to which the effort of appropriation was relatively small, and for this reason economically rational. Property then originated from the two sources, labour and individual scarcity. ~ In the smallest details we could observe how the formation of property was connected with these two factors. In the same communities we saw that the forms of property were diiFerent as regards meadows which were manured, drained, etc., and those in which no labour had been incorporated (p. 12). Arable lands, the till- age of which had required much labour (clearing of stones, forests, etc.), were individual hereditary property, all others were held only in temporary possession as long as the system of shifting cultivation prevailed (p. 18). _ Lands in which no labour was incorporated, and which were adjacent to the cultivator's dwelling, were private property ; the more distant ones remained a long time open for the free use of all (pp. 23, 26). We observed also the influence of the economic prin- ciple during the passage from individual to common property. The division of land is not only a trouble- some task, but also by restricting the individual, it hinders him in the most economic use of his labour. It is clear that nobody will desire such a measure if in exchange he does not obtain some economic advan- tage. As long as every one could find more land which he was able to cultivate, it did not matter to him how great was the property of his neighbour. He did not covet it, because without it he had a superabund- ance. This changed, however, when a class of poor grew up who found only inferior land, and in an insufficient quantity (pp. 38, 39). iBy dividing the fertile soils of the CONCLUSION 59 rich they were able to better their economic conditions ; ' | they could obtain more of the goods necessary for the , satisfaction of their wants, and with a smaller effort. ' Here also we could observe in the smallest details, in the discrimination between meadows and fields of different fertility, between those which were more or less distant from the village, how only when scarcity (social scarcity) of land began to be felt the community abolished the right of free appropriation (p. 51-53). There is perhaps nothing more characteristic of the relation which exists between equalization and scarcity, than the fact that meadows were used freely in good years and were divided only in years of bad crops (pp. 27, 28). This policy having for its purpose the amelioration of the economic conditions of the poor had necessarily a tendency contrary to its aim. Every intervention, namely, restricted the spirit of enterprise, rendered an intensive cultivation of the soil more difficult, and by this diminished the well-being of all. We have seen how the community, taking into account the labour in- corporated into the soil, tried to avoid all these undesir- able consequences of its policy (pp. 50, 51, 53-55). Where this was not possible, where the economic disadvantages of a division of land were so great that they outweighed the advantages, the community recoiled from these measures. For this reason homesteads and pastures were never periodically divided (pp. 47, 55). The economic principle In itself is not sufficient to explain for us all problems we have analysed. The economic interests — interests resulting from the applic- ation of the economic principle — are not always identical in a community. We saw the antagonism existing between the rich and the poor, between those who wanted to maintain the old institution of private property and those who claimed a division of lands. The prevailing of this or the other form was dependent \ on the numerical strength of its adherents. 6o THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY With the increasing number of the dissatisfied, the measure abolishing private property became more and more radical. Once the poor had become a majority, the days of this institution were numbered (pp. 40, 41). The economic principle and the principle of numeri- cal strength are constant elements, which do not change. If they alone were in existence the forms of property would be stationary, and the same all over the world. But besides these there are two varying elements. ! The great dynamic force which caused all the changes ! in the formation of property was the growth of population. It put an end to the original abundance of land, and by diminishing the area at the disposal of each man forced him to pass from nomadism to the cultivation of soil, and to settled life (p. 11). We saw how this gave rise to the formation of private property (pp. 11 et seq.). With the continuous increase of population even the more intensive use of the soil could not prevent a scarcity of land. The class of poor grew up and became more and more numerous. How this led to a division of the soil has been shown above (p. 39 etseq.) So the formation of private property and its break- \ down have been caused by the growtk of population. It is a unanimous opinion of those who investigated the origin of the village community in Siberia, that not only in main outline but in the smallest details the whole process has been dominated by this factor.^ For this fact, which is beyond any dispute, Lichkow has given a statistical confirmation. He has divided the communities of three districts of the government of Irkutsk into four groups according to the development of equalization. He has ascertained also how much arable land each of these groups possessed per head of population. The following are the results he has obtained^ : ^ Kaufman, p. 268 ; Kachorowski, pp. 146, 161, 202, 212, etc. ; Krol, pp. 176, 245, etc. ; Segal, pp. 53-6. * Lichkow, p. 143, quoted also by Kaufman, p. 277. CONCLUSION 6 1 J Arable land The development of equalization per head of of arable land . population (dessiatines). Communities without allotments, or with allot- ments occupying no more than 2 per cent, of the whole area ..... Communities with allotments occupying 2 to 7-6 per cent, of the whole area . . . 4.- 2 Communities with allotments occupying • more than 7 "6 per cent, of the whole area . . 4-1 Communities with the prevalence of periodical divisions . . . . . . . 3-7 We see very clearly how the process of equalization increases simultaneously with the decrease of arable land per head of population. Modern Russian historians, as Pawlow-Silwanskij, point out, on the evidence of documents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, that the passage to common property only took place when scarcity of land began to be felt.^ The increase of population does not produce every- where the same results. The intensification of economic life and the occurrence of scarcity of land are partly dependent also on the relation of nature towards human wants. Differences of natural conditions of the soil play in this respect an important part. With the same in- crease of population it is necessary to incorporate more labour in forest regions (clearing), for instance, than in the steppes. Where the soil has a great natural fertility, as in South Russia, manuring is much less developed than in the North. All these differences react on the formation of pro- perty. The greater the amount of labour incorporated in the soil, the sooner and the more strongly does individual ownership establish itself, and the greater are obstacles which equalization encounters. Lands ^ Pawlow-Silwanskij, pp. 106-108 ; Idem., Kaufman, p. 433. 62 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY which have been occupied by forests and have been cleared are divided much later and for longer periods than lands where this severe task is not necessary (pp. 51, 54). In South Russia arable lands are re- divided after six years, in North Russia after ten to twenty years, simply because the " black earth " does not need manuring (p. 51). For this reason also, the scattered field system is much less complicated in the fertile south than in the north (p. 50). Natural conditions influence also the scarcity of land, which is felt much sooner in regions where there is a small quantity of soils suitable for cultivation than in those where it is much greater. For this reason, in very infertile districts (in the government of Wologda and of Tobolsk, for instance) we find periodical divisions, though the quantity of land per head of population is comparatively great.^ Scarcity does not depend only on the density of population and on natural conditions of the soil, but also on the degree of human wants. In a primitive spjdety, where land is not acquired for speculation, but simply because it enables- man to obtain the necessaries of life, the need and want of it is determined by the existing economic system. The half-nomad having many cattle needs first of all pasture land and meadows, and does not care so much about arable land. The opposite is true of the cultivator. For this reason we see that the division of meadows is sometimes more developed among half-nomadic peoples than among agriculturists, though per head of population the former possess a greater area of it. But as at the same time their herds are much greater, they feel more strongly a scarcity of meadow-land. A statistical example will illustrate it. In the eastern Trans-Baikal we find as follows ^ : ^ Kaufman, p. 278. ^ Krol, p. 246 et seq. CONCLUSION 63 Per cent, of Dessiatines of meadow Large cattle divided meadow. per household. per household. Baptized natives 98 7-29"4 18-407 Russian peasants 92-5 i'4- 5-8 7-18-6 It must not be forgotten, however, that these difFer- ences of wants, though they influence scarcity, are themselves the result of it. The smaller the area of meadow and pasture per head of the population, the smaller, naturally, the number of cattle a society can keep and the greater the importance it attributes to agriculture. I think then that, under equal conditions of density of population and of natural surroundings, the needs and wants of every individual for land do not greatly differ. It is not necessary in the final conclusions to take them into account. Speaking then of density of population and of natural surroundings, we tacitly', imply a corresponding state of human wants. The geographical conditions which we have analysed hitherto, influenced the pace of evolution, caused small differences in details, but did not change the direction of the whole process. Out of a state of no property, private property, and out of it the village community originated. Natural conditions, however, modify sometimes this succession and prevent the formation of common property. We have seen already that homesteads are held always in individual ownership, because the labour incorporated in them is so very great (P- 55)- , , It is clear that where arable lands can be made fit for cultivation only under equally difficult conditions, the same must be observed. In the Russian Village communities great areas covered with stones remain waste. The efforts neces- sary for an individual to make them fit for cultivation are generally so great and are recompensed only after so many years, that the peasant does not undertake 64 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY their tillage, knowing that at the next redistribution he can be deprived of this land. Where, however, these soils are cultivated they become, contrary to the general rule of re-division of y soils, the hereditary property of those who cleared them. In some localities of the government of Peters- burg, Tambow, Orlowsk, etc., where periodical divi- sions are the rule, these lands are individual property.^ It is clear that in countries where all the soil is covered with stones the village communities cannot exist. This applies to Finland, where it is necessary to remove freat granite blocks to make the soil fit for cultivation, lere individual ownership of arable fields always existed.^ '~ Periodical divisions are only possible where the preparatory labour is relatively so small that it can be remunerated after a few years of cultivation. This general rule explains to us why, when agriculture becomes more intensive, the village community breaks down. The configuration of the soil reacts also on the formation of property. It is a commonly known fact that village communities are to be found in valleys but not on the hillsides. In Switzerland, Tyrol, and the Bavarian Alps we observe very clearly this dependence of forms of property on topographical conditions.^ Among the Scandinavians, the Norwegians living in mountainous country settle in " gaards " or separate homesteads, the Danes in " by's " or villages.* In India we find the 1 Kachorowski, pp. 93, 94. 2 This is based on private information and observations. 8 " Solche Hof-Ansiedlungen haben ihren Grund in der Regel in der Lokalitat. . . . Recht klar wird dieses in den bairischen, tiroler und schweizerischen Alpen, wo sammtliche Dorfsschaften aus solchen zusammenhangenden Hofanlagen bestehen, wShrend dicht daneben in den grOsseren Thalern und in den ebenen Darfer mit Feldgemeinschaft liegen." — Maurer, Einkitung, I. p. 10. Vinogradoff, Ori^n of the Manor, 2nd ed., p. 91 (Note 20). CONCLUSION 65 village community in the plain country ; at the same time we do not find it on the Himalayan hillsides.^ We have not sufficient material to say exactly what accounts for it. Perhaps it must be ascribed to the fact, that on mountains the difficulties of transport are far greater than in the plain country. The distance at which manuring, for instance, ceases to be economi- cal is in consequence comparatively small, and it is necessary to have the fields in the neighbourhood of the farm. Whatever it be, we see very clearly that the relation of Nature towards human wants, a factor investigated carefully by geographers, but quite neglected by economic historians, has an important role in economic evolution. The differences in a greater or smaller facility of cultivation of the soil, in its configuration, etc., account for the fact, that not everywhere does property pass through the same stages. So the growth of population explains to us why the forms of property are changing with time the relation of Nature towards human wants, why they are different in space. Between the four elements we have analysed there is a causal relation. Where they are present the development must pass through the same stages as those described above. As far as man and society are guided by the economic principle and the principle of numerical strength, an increase of population must lead first of all to an intensification of economic life, and consequently to an appropriation of the soil. With a further growth of population when a class of poor springs up, an equaliza- tion becomes desirable. Natural conditions must react, in the above described manner. Here, however, we must make a restriction. The 1 Baden-Powell, Land Tenure, I. p. 106. 66 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY natural process of formation of property, which we tried to describe and to explain above, can be purtur- bated, if the primitive population becomes dependent on the economic resources of a more advanced society. So, for instance, in some villages of Siberia, the peasants gained their living by carrying goods destined for European markets, and they attached little importance to agriculture. , In consequence they did not divide the arable land, though under normal conditions it would have been necessary. This was clearly demonstrated when with the building of the Siberian railway the carrying trade ceased to be lucrative. The peasants at once felt a scarcity of arable land and introduced divisions.^ These perturbations are not only very exceptional, but they modify slightly the formation of property. I think, however, that It is necessary to draw attention to them, because they show that, once a primitive society is caught up in a more developed economic system, the natural and normal process of evolution is disturbed. Having tried to give hitherto a positive study of the laws governing the evolution of property, we want now to make some criticisms of the theories by which others have tried to explain the origin of the village community. A great role has been attributed in this respect to racial elements. " We have seen," says Gomme, " that the evidence of comparative custom goes to prove that race elements enter largely into the history of the village community in the East, and that the parallel between the Eastern and English types suggests also parallel lines of development due to race elements." ^ And in Germany, Meitzen attributes equal Importance to the same factor, and sees in the v^lage community a 1 Kaufman, p. 279. 2 Gomme, ihe Village Community, p. 69. CONCLUSION 67 feature of Germanic, and in the " Einzelhof " a feature of Celtic history.^ Already at first glance one can see that there is no relation between race and the forms of property. We find the village community among the Malayans of Java as well as among some Aryans of India and Europe. Peoples inhabiting mountains never possessed common property, though they are ethnologically related to those living in plains. Our evidence in Siberia shows most clearly that the influence of race on the formation of property is nil. Krol tells us that as the conditions among which the forms of equalization develop are quite the same among the natives (Buriats, Mongolic race), Russian peas- ants and Cossacks (Indo-Europeans), the line of their evolution of property is quite the same also.^ Among the Buriats, it is true, free occupation was more developed^ than among the peasants, but, as Professor Kaufman points out, " not because they are natives, but because they had a greater abundance of land." 3 It is absolutely false — an error widely prevalent to-day — to think that emigrants transplant from one country to another the old forms of property. It is very often supposed that the German invaders brought the village community to England.^ Our material shows that tradition does not play a great role where economic interests are at stake. " The differences in ^ A. Meitzen, Skdlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Romer, Finnen undSlaven, 1895. * Krol, p. 177. * Kaufman, Trans-bdlkal, p. 158. * Meitzen, s.c, II. p. loi. A few pages before the same author explains the existence of the " Einzelhof" in some parts of Germany (Westphalia), by the fact that it was originally inhabited by Celts (p. 97). It is difficult to understand why in England the German tribes should have forced their institutions upon the Celts, and why, invading the much nearer situated Westphalia, they should have forgotten all about common property. This discrepancy shows all the weakness of the racial theory. F 2 68 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY the forms of property," says Professor Kaufman, "do not at all, or scarcely at all, depend on any ethnogra- phical peculiarities of special groups of the Siberian population : the old Siberians, the emigrants from the most divergent farts of European Russia — from those -where the village community or the farm system is the dominant feature — Aay, even the natives — form, as regards the evolutions of property, one undifferentiated mass: the (forms of property develop, first of all, according to the 'degree of abundance of land." ^ The Russian peasant emigrating from a village com- munity does not think about reproducing the old institution in Siberia, Without much hesitation he adopts the farm system and individual ownership as being more convenient.'^ I No more than race does imitation exercise any influ- ence on economic evolution. The settlements of Rus- sian peasants in the Kirgiz steppes do not anyhow affect the forms of property of the natives.^ Among the Buriats we search in vain for an example proving that they have introduced the division of lands, by imitating Russian peasants, who live in their neigh- bourhood. " It is difficult, yes, even impossible," says Professor Kaufman, " to speak of the borrowing of certain forms there, where all the evolution is gradual, where the community, before introducing divisions, passes through a number of intermediate stages, of which each one differs only a little from the other, and is organically connected with it,"* The origin of the village community has been very often explained by the introduction of a collective responsibility for government taxes.^ The evolution 1 T. and T., p. 31. The italics are mine. 2 Kaufman, 441-455 ; ^ib. Com., p. 275, 276. ^ Kaufman, K. vioprosu, p. 24. * Kaufman, Trans-hdikal, p. 159. * In Russia this doctrine has been during a long time popular among historians. It has been accepted by non-Russian scholars, as CONCLUSION 69 of property has thus been traced back to the will of the legislator. The study of this problem in Russian Asia shows us that this factor does not play at all the important part attributed to it. In every district of Siberia, where there is an abund- ance of land, and where in consequence there is no economic necessity to divide the land periodically, all the circulars of the government ordering such a measure remained a dead letter. "Where," says Kachorowski, "in communities, all the strength in the internal struggle is on the side of those who are opposed to divisions, even such a strong force as administrative pressure is insufficient to produce them." ^ • The same is pointed out by Professor Kaufman, who writes that where there is plenty of land all insistence of the authorities foundered against the obstinate opposition of the rich part of the population.^ "Where there is no necessity for divisions," says Krol, " the circulars very seldom lead to real divisions." ^ Among nomads (Khirgizes and Buriats) as well as among the Russian peasants, it is impossible to speak of the administrative intervention as a constructive factor in the evolution of property.* Only where the land has ceased to be abundant, and a strong desire to introduce divisions existed, did the communities comply with the orders of the administration.^ This transition, however, took place very often Laveleye, Hildebrand, Recht und sitte, p. 186, etc. About the theories of the old Russian historical school (Chicherin, Belalew, etc.) vide the book of J. V. Keussler, Zur Geschichte und Krit'ik aes b'duerlichen Gemelndebesitzes in Russland, 1876-87, p. 8 et sej. '^ Kachorowski, p. 208. * Kaufman, pp. 415,416. s Krol, p. 178. * Kaufman, p. 1 74. * Ibid., p. 417 ; Kachorowski, pp. *o8, 209. 70 THE ORIGIN OF PROPERTY without any external intervention, where the evolution was ripe for transition.^ New historical studies made in European Russia have confirmed the Siberian observations. It has been shown in the government of Wologda, for instance, that the circulars of the government order- ing a division of land were preceded by petitions of the poor claiming this measure.^ Where there was no such necessity the government failed completely in European Russia as well as in Siberia, in its attempt to introduce the village commiinity.^ As we see, legislation can simply facilitate the 'originating of new forms of property, but cannot shape them arbitrarily. — The same applies not only to external, but also to internal influences. An economic or social aristocracy is not able to force upon a community forms of property contrary to the economic interests of the majority. The Cossacks are a military society, with all the social inequalities connected with it. The succession of the forms of property is, however, the same here as everywhere else. It is perhaps slower, but it is not different from the general line of evolution consisting in a transition from free occupation to periodical divisions. So we see that such factors as race, imitation, legislation, etc., have no important part in the evolu- ^- Kachorowski, p. 210. * Vide W. W., History, and Kaufman, p. 426 et seq. ^ Kaufman, p. 431 ff.; W. W., History, pp. 5, 10, 29, etc. Simko- wich, p. 77. " Es ware deshalb falsch," he says, " den Einfluss und den Druck der Regierung zu tiberschStzen ; die Regierung hat nur in seltenen Fallen selbststSndig eingegriffen ; sie begntigte sich damit, den Landarmen und Landlosen die Einflihrung der Feldgemeinschaft zu ermaglichen und dieselbe zu begUnstigen." In another chapter, speaking of the government peasants, Simkowich still accepts the old theory of the forcible introduction of the village community, pp. 64-77. CONCLUSION 71 tion of property, which is the result of the combination of four simple elements. Under equal conditions of density of population and of natural surroundings — supposing dways the existence of the economic prin- ciple and the principle of numerical strength — the same forms of property necessarily originate. Every change in one of these elements necessarily produces a corresponding change in the economic structure.^ So the evolution of property is not determined by accident, by the whims of legislators, but by causal laws. Finishing this little book, I wish to express the hope that new studies will widen our knowledge of the forms of property among primitive peoples, and that others will be able to verify, to develop and to correct our generalizations. ^ I have shown above how this normal process is perturbated when a thinly inhabited country becomes dependent on the economic resources of a more developed society (p. 65-66). LIST OF "STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE." A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the London School of Economics and Political Science. EDITED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 1. The History of Local Rates in England. The substance of five lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By Edwin Cannan, M.A., LL.D. 1896 ; new edition, 1912 ; xv. and 215 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. P. S. King S^ Son. 2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism. I. — The Tailoring Trade. By F. W. Galton. With a Preface by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 1896 ; 242 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, ss. P. S. King fr» Son. 3. German Social Democracy. Six lectures delivered at the School in February and March, 1896. By the Hon. Bertrand Russell, B.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By Alys Russell, B.A. 1896; 204 pp.. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. P. S. King (Sr» Son. 4. The Referendum in Switzerland. By M. Simon Deploige, University of Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. van den Heuvel, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain. Translated by C. P. Trevelyan, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and edited with Notes, Introduc- tion, Bibliography, and Appendices, by Lilian Tomn (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research Student at the School. 1898; X. and 334 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. P. S. King ^f' Son. 5. The Economic Policy of Colbert. By A. J. Sargent, M.A., Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford ; and Whately Prizeman, 1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii. and 138 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. P. S. King S^ Son. 6. Local Variations in Wages. (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge University, 1898.) By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 1899; viii. and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams. Quarto, n in. by 8^ in., cloth. 8s. 6d. Longmans, Green Sr' Co. 7. Tlie Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the Thirty-first Year of Henry fl. (1185). A unique fragment transcribed and edited by the Class in Palaeography and Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, Hubert Hall, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record Ofifice. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii. and 37 pp.. Folio, 15^ in. by iij in., in green cloth; 3 Copies left. Apply to the Director of the London School of Economics. 8. Elements of Statistics. By Arthur L. Bowley, M.A., D.Sc, F.S.S., Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge ; Guy Silver Medallist of the Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 40 Diagrams; 1901 ; Third edition, 1907 ; viii. and 336 pp. los. 6d. net. P. S. King &» Son. 9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform. By C. P. Sanger, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Barrister-at-Law. 1901 ; viii. and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. P. S. King &> Son. 10. A History of Factory Legislation. By B. L. Hutchins and A. Harrison (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 1903 ; new and revised edition, 191 1 ; xvi. and 298 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. P. S. King (Sr» Son. 11. The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for the Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207). Transcribed and edited from the original Roll in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Palaeography and Diplomatic, under the supervision of the Lecturer, Hubert Hall, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record Office. With a Frontispiece giving a Facsimile of the Roll. 1903 ; xlviii. and 100 pp.. Folio, 13J in. by_8J in., green cloth. 15s. net. P. S. King (Sr* Son. 12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved : The Story of Lord Durham's Report. By F. Bradshav/, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London ; Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903 ; 414 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. P. S. King (Sr» Son. 13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Be- tween England and Ireland ft>om the Period of the Restoration. By Alice Effie Murray (Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), former Student at Girton College, Cambridge ; Research Student of the London School of Economics and Political Science. 1903 ; 486 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. P. S. King S-» Son. 14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields. By Gilbert Slater, M.A., St. John's College, Cam- bridge ; D.Sc. (Econ.), London. 1906 ; 337 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth. I OS. 6d, net. Constable 6^ Co, 15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer. By Dr. W. Hasbach, Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated from the Second Edition (1908), by Ruth Kenyon. Introduction by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 1908 ; xvi. and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. P. S. King (Sr* Son. 16. A Colonial Autocracy : New South Wales under Governor Maequarie, 1810-1821. By Marion Phillips, B.A., Melbourne, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. 1909 ; xxiii. and 336 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. net. P. S. King St' Son. 17. India and the Tariff Problem. By H. B. Lees Smith, M.A., M.P. 1909 ; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. Constable &' Co. 18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections. Three Lectures delivered at the School in November, 1909, by Ellis T. Powell, LL.B. B.Sc. (Econ.), Fellov^' of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1909 ; 52 pp., 8vo, paper, is. 6d. net. P. S. King 6-» Son. 19. The Political Development of Japan. By G. E. Uyehara, B.A., Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London, xxiv. and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1910. 8s. 6d. net. Constable &• Co. 20. National and Local Finance. By J. Watson Grice, D.Sc, (Econ.), London. Preface by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. net. P. S. King &* Son. 21. An Example of Communal Currency. Facts about the Guernsey Market-house. By J. Theodore Harris, B.A., with an Introduction by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 191 1 ; xiv. and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. net; paper, is. net. P. S. King Or'Son. 22. Municipal Origins. History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H. Spencer, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.), London ; with a Preface by Sir Edward Clarke, K.C. 191 i; xi.and 333 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. net. Constable 6-" Co. 23. Seasonal Trades. By Various Authors. With an Intro- duction by Sidney Webb. Edited by Sidney Webb, LL.B., and Arnold Freeman, M.A. 1912; xi. and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. Constable Gr' Co. 24. Grants in Aid. A Criticism and a Proposal, By Sidney Webb, LL.B. 191 1 ; vii. and 135 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. Longmans, Green &• Co. 25. The Panama Canal : A Study in International Law. By H. Arias, B.A., LL.D. 191 1; xiv. and 188 pp., 2 maps, biblio- graphy, Demy 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. net. P. S. King &> Sou. 26. Combination Among Railway Companies. By w. A. Robertson, B.A. 1912 ; 105 pp.. Demy 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. net, paper is. net. Constable Sr' Co. 27. War and the Private Citizen: Studies in. International Law. By A. Pearce Higgins, M.A., LL.D. ; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon. Arthur Cohen, K.C. 1912 ; xvi. and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. P. S. King &' Son. 28. Life in an English Village : an Economic and Historical Survey of tlie Parish of Corsley, in Wiltsliire. By M. F. Davies. 1909 ; xiii. and 319 pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. net. T. Fisher Unwin. 29. English Apprenticeship and Child Labour: a History. By O. JOCELYN DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London ; with a Supple- mentary Section on the Modem Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. Denman, M.P. 1912 ; 390 pp., bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. net. T. Fisher Unwin. 30. Origin of Property ; and the Formation of the Village Community. ByJ. St. Lewinski, D.Ec.Sc, Brussels. 1913 ; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. Constable &" Co. 31. The Modern Tendency towards Industrial Combination. By G. R. Carter, M.A. 1913 ; ix. and 386 pp. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. Constable &" Co. 32. Tariffs at Work : an Outline of Practical Tariff Administra- tion. By John Hedley Higginson, B.Sc. (Econ.), London, late Mitchell Student of the University. 1913 ; 150 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net. P. S. King Sr' Son. Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School. 1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed. By F. Isabel Taylor, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by Sidney Webb, LL.B. 1909 ; xix. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net ; paper, is. 6d. net. P. S. King &' Son. 2. Two Select Bibliographies of MedisBval Historical Study. By Margaret F. Moore, M.A. ; with Preface and Appendix by Hubert Hall, F.S.A. 1912 ; 185 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s.net. Constable &' Co. 3. Bibliography of Roads. By Dorothy Ballen : an enlarged and revised edition of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906. In the Press. 4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Litera- ture of English MedisBvaFEconomie History. Edited by Hubert Hall, F.S.A. In the Press. Series of Geographical Studies. 1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey. A Study in the Geography of the Surrey Hills. By Ellen Smith. Introduction by H. J. Mackinder, M.A., M.P. 1910 ; xix. and no pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations, Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. A.&' C. Black. 2. The Highlands of South- West Surrey: A Geographical Study in Sand and Clay. By E. C. Matthews. 191 i; viii. and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8 illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. A.&fC. Black. Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas. 1. The Hudson Mohawk Gap. Prepared for the London School of Economics, from a map by B. B. Dickinson. Sc. 20 miles = I inch; size 18" x 22J". 6d. net; post free, folded, 7d. net; rolled, 9d.net, Sifton, Praed Sir- Co. ■*!-"