| Householders. | Number. | Per cent. | Votes. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total allotted | 140 | 100 | Total. |
| In good standing (tilling their total plots) | 52 | 37 | Against the subdivision. |
| Destitute | 88 | 63 | In favor of the subdivision. |
| 93 | 66⅔ | Vote required. | |
| 93 - 88 = 5 | Votes deficient. |
(Cf. ib., p. 16.)
2. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, district of Dankoff: “The question of subdivision is brought up for discussion in only three communities. In none of the others does it attract serious attention. In all probability this is to be accounted for by the unsatisfactory quality of the soil, as well as by the great number of families who have at length fallen into destitution and lease their lots.” (Loc. cit., part II., p. 211.)
Let us now compare the figures:
| Former serfs. | Communities. | Householders allotted. | Lessors. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number. | Per cent. | |||
| Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya | 15 | 372 | 79 | 21 |
| Throughout the districts (former serfs) | 25 | |||
It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for the bailiwick in question, it holds good a fortiori for the region at large, where the average percentage of lessors is even greater.
The correctness of this explanation is strikingly proved by the figures for the adjacent bailiwick Znamenskaya, Dankoff.
| Communities. | Householders allotted. | Lessors. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number. | Per cent. | |||
| Subdivision out of order | 15 | 370 | 167 | 45 |
(Loc. cit., pp. 248, 110-129.)
As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other half, the latter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were it not so, however, a unanimous vote of the farming half could not possibly effect the redivision.