s, but by simply limiting the number of sheep and cattle
which each family is entitled to put upon the pasturage, as is done in
many Russian villages at the present day. When any one desires to keep
more sheep and cattle than the maximum to which he is entitled, he pays
to the others a certain compensation. Thus, we see, in pastoral life
the dividing of the common land is unnecessary and inexpedient, and
consequently private property in land is not likely to come into
existence.

With the introduction of agriculture appears a tendency to divide the
land among the families composing the community, for each family living
by husbandry requires a definite portion of the soil. If the land
suitable for agricultural purposes be plentiful, each head of a family
may be allowed to take possession of as much of it as he requires, as
was formerly done in the Cossack stanitsas; if, on the contrary, the
area of arable land is small, as is the case in some Bashkir aouls,
there will probably be a regular allotment of it among the families.

With the tendency to divide the land into definite portions arises a
conflict between the principle of communal and the principle of private
property. Those who obtain definite portions of the soil are in general
likely to keep them and transmit them to their descendants. In a
country, however, like the Steppe--and it is only of such countries
that I am at present speaking--the nature of the soil and the system of
agriculture militate against this conversion of simple possession into a
right of property. A plot of land is commonly cultivated for only three
or four years in succession. It is then abandoned for at least double
that period, and the cultivators remove to some other portion of the
communal territory. After a time, it is true, they return to the old
portion, which has been in the meantime lying fallow; but as the soil is
tolerably equal in quality, the families or individuals have no reason
to desire the precise plots which they formerly possessed. Under such
circumstances the principle of private property in the land is not
likely to strike root; each family insists on possessing a certain
QUANTITY rather than a certain PLOT of land, and contents itself with a
right of usufruct, whilst the right of property remains in the hands of
the Commune; and it must not be forgotten that the difference between
usufruct and property here is of great practical importance, for so long
as the Commune