peasants saw no remedy for their plight but more acres, and the various political parties differed chiefly as to ways and means of providing them with this desideratum. The first Duma had advocated the forced expropriation of all crown, church and private lands, and its steadfast adherence to this demand had brought about its dissolution. But while the government disapproved of this method of supplying the need of the peasants, it felt the need to be a real one. It therefore increased the powers and privileges of the Peasants' Bank so that through its medium the poor could add to their holdings on surprisingly easy terms. Appanage lands were offered for sale. Large areas of private estates whose owners had suffered in 1905 and who feared further disturbances were placed on the market. During the five years from 1905 to 1910 inclusive, more than 14,000,000 acres were sold to the people through the agency of the bank. These figures sound large. They are, however, relatively small. Moreover, it must be remembered that in those very districts where the cry for land was loudest there was in the nature of the case least to be had.
Meanwhile, however, the government attacked the agrarian problem from another side. The ukase of November, 1906, was meant to induce the peasants to change from communal to private ownership. This had been their privilege on certain conditions according to the laws governing the emancipation but in 1893 the privilege had been made subject to the consent of the mir, the village community, because at that time the government did not wish the strength of the mir to be impaired. The ukase restored the privilege, but whereas in the past the peasant had seldom been able to avail himself of it because he had not the money to buy out his land from the community now he had no need of money since the government cancelled all arrears and all redemption installments payable in the future. Any member of a mir could step out whether the mir were willing or not, receiving his due amount of land in private ownership. How much the individual received depended upon circumstances. If he had held the same parcels for twenty-four years, in other words, if there had been no redistribution of the nadiel during that time, he received these parcels or their equivalent, the assumption being that in that particular community the principle of parcelling out the land was dead. If on the contrary there had been a redistribution of land within the last twenty-four years, the assumption was that this principle was still operative. In that case the withdrawing peasant could claim only as much land as would be allotted him if a redistribution were made at the moment of his withdrawal. He must be allowed, however, to purchase the difference between what he actually held and what he would receive in the event of a redivision.
This law definitely announced the break-up of the mir, it looked toward the end of community ownership. It had, in all probability, as
