This paper seeks to clarify the agrarian structure in the middle of the 19th century in the Western regions of the Russian Empire, i.e. Lithuanian and White Russian prefectures of the North-West and part of Ukrainean prefectures of the South-West. To begin with, we shall examine the systems of agricultural land and point out that there existed three forms; (1) rope-form land system (sznu-rowa czerespolosica) (2) block-strip system and (3) scattered land system. After describing these three systems and their geographical distribution, we shall survey historical process. It is obvious that of the above three the first system prevailed most wide spread while the second that was typical of Central Russia was only found in the East of White Russia and the third was barely to be found. Historical study shows that the rope-form land system has its origin in the agrarian reform in the 16-17th century-introduction of 'Hufeverfassung' and 'Vorwerke' (wloczny system and folwark, i.e. farm based on forced labour)-and was distinguishable from the first by historical development. In the second place, we shall give an analysis of land holding of the peasantry and 'folwarki'. It can be safely said that in Lithuania and especially in Samogitia (Kowno) a high percentage of the peasants held about one 'Hufe' (wloka), or approximately 24 ha, but that in White Russian and Ukrainean regions the percentage of the households which held a half 'Hufe' or under it was overwhelmingly large. In addition it must be noted here that the regions here considererd were different in class relation: in Lithuania and Samogitia (Kowno, Augustow, part of Wilno and Infland districts of Vitebsk) many of the rural population belonged to farm workers but in the other regions there were very few of them. All of them were not 'folwark' workers. We must admit that part of them were employed in the peasants' households. This is comprehensive if we know that 'folwarki' could do without constant workers under the condition of forced labour except in Kowno, Augustow etc. We shall finally consider to what degree capitalist production of agriculture had developed by the emancipation in 1964. In conclusion we can say that the 'Prussian model' of agricultural development was typical of Lithuania but that the other regions were at intermediate stages between Lithuania and Central Russia.

View full abstract

The local government of the Three Northeastern Provinces, which had been reorganized under the governor-general after the Russo-Japanese War, disposed of a vast area of public lands in this area at the end of the Ch'ing dynasty. In this paper, I have analyzed the case of the disposal of a manor located in Chin-chou 錦州. This manor had been owned by the Bureau of Domestic Affairs (Nei-wu-fu 内務府) of the Ch'ing dynasty. Though under the authority of the Nei-wu-fu, real control had come into the hands of the "managers" (chuang-t'ou) of the manor who were banner members. Under these conditions, the newly organized local government of this area started disposing of the Chin-chou manor's lands from 1905 and completed the process in 1909. I discuss the following points on this issue: 1) The local government of the Three Northeastern Provinces disposed of the lands by selling them to private citizens. The chuang-t'ou held special privileges to purchase these lands. The chuang-t'ou class bought lands and thus acquired legal status as landlords who were free from the restrictions of the banner system. 2) The area of the disposed manor lands was about 1.35 million mu 畝. The price of the lands was from 7 ch'ien 銭 to 2 liang 両 1 ch'ien, which was about 20 percent of the real average land price in this area. The local government acquired approximately 1.8 million liang through the sale of these lands and 92,000 liang of tax from these lands a year. These revenues formed a necessary part of the funds for the realization of the local government's new policies such as the establishment of a new police force, military, judicial, educational, and local autonomy systems. 3) However, peasants of this area were opposed to the disposal of the manor's lands because recognition of chuang-t'ou's exclusive ownership of lands meant the denial of the peasants' customary rights over these lands. Some of the chuang-t'ou also resisted the disposal of the lands because they had to pay the extra land price and tax to acquire official ownership of these lands. Nevertheless, the local government of this area suppressed resistance by the newly established police and military organizations. 4) The land disposal of the Chin-chou manor was a typical case that shows the local government's attempt to reorganize the local ruling class under its control. They had not been under official control before, but now, they were expected to form an economic and political basis of the local government as a landlord class. The disposal of the Chin-chou manor also meant that the Ch'ing dynasty's privileged ownership of lands in Manchuria was gradually being denied, even before the 1911 revolution.

View full abstract