Thus far we have seen the changes which the parcelling of soil wrought in the constitution of the village population. We are now brought face to face with the question of how small peasant landholding is influenced by this parcelling. In countries with individual property in land, the question is settled. In Russia the case is complicated by the system of communal ownership in land. Yet the right of alienation, the main essential for the question at issue, is inherent in quarterly possession on an equal footing with private property. Thus we can avail ourselves of the opportunity for comparative study. Quite naturally, the distribution of land shows more irregularity under quarterly possession than under agrarian communism. +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | | Quarterly | Agrarian | | |possession.|communism. | | +-----------+-----------+ | Former state peasants. |Dankoff and| Zadonsk, | | | Ranenburg.|Gubernia of| | | | Voronezh. | | | Per cent. | Per cent. | +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | Households: | | | |Landless | 4 | 1 | |Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 37 | 27 | |Owning more than 5 dessiatines | 59 | 72 | | +-----------+-----------+ | Total | 100 | 100 | | +-----------+-----------+ | Average holding: dessiatines| 10.9 | 10.4 | +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ The maximum extent of one quarterly holding exceeded ten times the average. Under the rule of agrarian communism, where land is periodically distributed _pro rata_, according to the membership of the families, such extremes are quite impossible, so far as ownership is concerned. Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under agrarian communism and under quarterly possession: _Dankoff and Ranenburg: _Landless. _Emigrated. _Total. Former state peasants._ Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._ With quarterly possession 3 14 17 With agrarian communism 1 9 10