It must be taken into account that the plots of the emigrants remain, under agrarian communism, the property of the community, which is not the case under any other form of possession that is at all analogous to private property. Thus the rural community appears to be a fairly efficient safety-valve against the expropriation of the poorest among the peasantry. In reality, however, the influence of communal ownership is merely formal. Communal land escapes from the hands of its titular owners under the form of lease. The communal land held under lease is now nearly equal in amount to that leased by the peasants directly from the landlords. _Tenure from the landlords._ _Communal land in lease._ _Dessiatines._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._ Ranenburg 18044 17060 10 Dankoff 13792 9846 7 Zadonsk 12160 11886 9 Korotoyak 11815 21695 8 Nizhnedevitzk 13851 18950 7 Furthermore, the figures show that only about one-fourth of the lessors are regular farmers, cultivating their lots with their own horses and implements, while about one-half have abandoned farming altogether: _Ranenburg. _Dankoff. _Zadonsk. Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._ Leased: a part of the plot, the rest cultivated a) by the owner 7 7 7 b) with the aid of hired labor 6 6 5 -- -- -- The total plot 12 11 8 In all 25 24 20 Now, it is only in a few cases that the lease of a part of the plot is a proof of its extra size. As a rule, the plot is leased in part by those who are unable to raise the quantity of live stock required for the cultivation of their farms. The plots leased in full are the smallest, which it would not pay to cultivate.[138] It will be remembered[139] that the terms of the agreement include the payment of the taxes with from one to three rubles yearly per plot for the enjoyment of the owner. It is evident that lease on such terms means practically expropriation of the owner.