_Ranenburg_--Former serfs 347,672 176,288 50 Former State peasants 212,571 70,303 33.1 ------- ------ ---- Total 560,243 246,591 44 _Dankoff_--Former serfs 292,648 12,352 4.2 Former State peasants 135,019 4,936 3.7 ------- ------ ---- Total 427,667 17,288 4 It is needless to dilate upon the consequences to the budget of a deficiency of about one-half of the direct taxes paid by the most numerous class of the population. Yet the average figures for the entire region do not convey any true idea of the real disturbance caused to the concrete communities which are unable to stand the burden of their payments. The number of those communities, as well as the rate of indebtedness, is very considerable, and the burden is, moreover, very unequally distributed among the communities indebted, the consequence being that some are entirely crushed.[47] In the district of Ranenburg, this den of “sturdy nonpayers,” we find only 9.6 per cent. of the former serfs and 2.1 per cent. of the former State peasants who give no annoyance to the “constituted authorities.” The rest, that is to say, 293 communities out of 340, are in arrears for not less than 6.70 rubles. The burden is aggravated by its unequal distribution. We find one third of the former State peasants owing above one-half of the arrears of their class, while above three-eighths of the former serfs are responsible for 70 per cent. of the entire debt of their class. These, the most heavily indebted groups, are made up of those communities which are in arrears for more than the tax levied for the use of the land, the rent paid to the treasury by the former state peasant, the _taille_ or the redemption tax imposed upon the former serf. In other words, one-third of the former State peasants, and three-eighths of the former serfs, are unable to bear the fee levied for the use of their land.[48] Finally, this fact attracted the attention of the central government, and in 1882, the _zemstvos_ were required by the Minister of the Interior to report upon “the communities in which husbandry had fallen into ultimate destitution,”[49] and a relief in the amount of the redemption tax was desirable. The committee elected by the _zemstvo_ of the district of Ryazañ applied, as we learn, to the Reports of the Statistical Bureau. The same could hardly be done for the districts under consideration, since the Reports were subsequently proscribed by the _zemstvo_ of the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ.[50] If the Reports were taken into account, all the above three-eighths of the former serfs would perhaps have to be classed among those whose husbandry “has fallen into ultimate