3. Village Troitzkoye, the same bailiwick, Ranenburg, “There is some talk about subdivision, yet it is very hard to have it passed here. A good many are so impoverished that they show no interest in the question of increasing the amount of their land, for, in any event, it would have to be let out; while the redivision would bring prejudice to the lessees, and there are many of them.” (Loc. cit., part I., p. 310.)
Let us show it in figures:
| Householders. | Number. | Per cent. |
|---|---|---|
| Total allotted | 187 | 100 |
| Vote required for redivision | 125 | 66⅔ |
| Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots) | 44 | 23 |
| Opposition sufficient to stay the same | 18 | 10 |
| Having 2 horses or more | 36 | 20 |
(Loc. cit., pp. 130, 131.)
4. Village Kunakovo, b. Zmievskaya, Dankoff, “The peasants live in great poverty. Redivision is talked about; it is much checkmated by the fact that many among the householders are permanently living outside.” (Loc. cit., p. 254.)
Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11 lease their lots in toto; 9 among them have no houses in the village; 23 adult males are working outside.
After deduction of the 11 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority even in case of unanimity. Yet they are divided as follows:
| Householders. | Personally. | By hire. | In all. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tilling their lots— | |||
| Total | 9 | 2 | 11 |
| In part (the rest leased) | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| 11 | 6 | 17 |
Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (Ib., pp. 128-132.)
If there is no antagonism to the redivision, then indifference on the part of some is but natural.