On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    I ,'^i.L: »> ' «TS»(a«ut^M*J'^1<^W'i"JvW...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    The Productive Forces Of Russia. Comment...

    rite ^ forces ofan empire whose superficial extent is dose on 400 , 000 geo-< nraphical sqaare mile & i extending over forty degrees in latitude fr 6 m south to north , and over ninety degrees of longitude from east to west , embracing almost every variety of climate ; an empire whose population is nigMy heterogeneous , and in ever }" phase of tho progress from barbarism to civilisation . The ;•; magnitude of this undertaking might , of itself , lead one to conclude againstHits being'Well executed . But , considering ^ the difficulties ^ which Russia present ^ to the statist , that nowhere are official returns so incomplete * when complete so little to be relied on , and that nowhere are the errors in making probable estimates from defective data so liable to be multiplied , we were fully prepared to find the attempt a failure . Teugoborski has fully realised our expectations . of the is believer in

    Our author , to judge from his frequent use phrase , a the irrefragable testimony of figures . " He reveres them , however , in their Arabic character as much as for being the representatives of human labour and honour . But , except in so far as they represent these , figures of numbers are as treacherous as figures of speech . We must inquire , therefore , into the validity of the testimony which they give in M . De Tegoborski's book . In making a calculation of the soil in regard to culture , he is forced to jumble the results of surveys at widely distant dates ; those collected in the middle of last century with those just completed . At page 39 we find a table exhibiting the agricultural classification of the soil in forty-five governments . In regard to twenty-six of these , the data rest Upon an old general survey of last century ; and in respect to two only was the survey effected

    in the present . Four tables , supplementary to that just alluded to , exhibit results rectified from those of the former on numerous , and , we think , frequently unreasonable assumptions . The method in which these rectifications are made may be illustrated by an example . The amount of the cultivable lands in forty-five governments is quoted from 'M . Arsenieff at 72 , 386 , 75 _ 5 dessiatines . This is the basis of the calculation for the whole empire , ArseniefF's calculations , errors and all , being accepted so far in the mass . Our author , however , differs from him in detail , and particularly in respect to the governments not included in the forty-five above referred to . Our example is the case of Bessarabia . In the text we are told that the arable land in this province occupied in 1846 more than a viillion dessiatines . In a foot-note we are informed that Arsenietf reckons it only 500 , 000 , or less than half as much . This calculation our author considers below the truth .

    Arguing from the amount of cereals sown in 1845 , he holds that there must then have been at least 688 , 000 dessiatines of arable land . Slumping with this the fields under potatoes , orchards , & c , & c , he says , " We do not see how we can admit less than a million of dessiatines . " It is thus he doubles the computation of M . ArseniefF ! Similar , rectifications of previous estimates occur at pages 42 , 46 , and 47 . Again in regard to population . We instance the mode in wllch he obtains bis grand total , to show the spirit in which he sets to work . According to the last census , the population of European Russia in 1851 was 55 , 033 , 000 . From this figure he desires to pass to the population at the end of 1852 . After showing in a general way that in twenty-six governments the rate of increase of population fell ( in most , considerably ) short

    of one per cent , per annum , while in ten others it exceeded that proportion , lie adopts the rate of one per cent , for the ordinary annual increase of population throughout European Russia . He is thus enabl e d to add half a million to the census of 1851 , which , with the populations of Finland and Poland similarly augmented , thus amounts to 61 , 909 , 000 . He then sets down the population of Russia in Asia at 4 , 638 , 000 . " This cipher , " he says , " added to the total population of European Russia , gives 66 , 931 , 000 inhabitants for the whole empire ; or , if we add the American possessions , with a population of about 60 , 000 , together with the army and navy , we may carry the total cipher of the population of the empire to 68 , 000 , 000 . " He proceeds to say that at the same rate of increase the population will amount to 100 , 000 , 000 within thirty-nine years . The faculty with which he here operates upon numbers is admirable ; it is only to be equalled by his faith in the results . First , we have an imperfect census , in which he admits that the not unfrequently fi twice thriceand

    same persons gure or , which passes the possibility of rectification . Next , we have a guess at the rate ofincrease of the population . To conclude , we have the army and navy reckoned broadly at 1 , 009 , 000 to bring out a round number in the grand total , while at the same time we have no information whether they were not already included in the census . In dividing the urban from the rural populations he arrives at numerical results independently of any data whatever . We must do him the justice to say that in this , as in other cases , he is far from being studious to conceal the shaky bases of his conclusions . He tells us that in the large towns the frequency of changes of domicile , & c , occasion mistakes , and make the same individual figure over and over in the population lists ; that as regards the'population of the towns the accounts are generally very imperfect ; and that the population of the burghs in altogether unknown . He effects the division notwithstanding ; by figures he floors ull difficulties , and secures their " irrefragable testimony" in favour of conclusions already determined upon . In estimating the products of the soil , he proceeds with gr «» t boldness to reason upon the data in his possession ; not unfrequently he ventures upon his estimates with few or no facts to guide him . We hero quote the gross results of his estimates of Russian produce : — ESTIMATE OF AGUICUKTUKAL PRODUCTS . Silver roubles . Cereals , including straw j 1 , 019 / 200 , 000 Potatoes 16 , 000 , 000 Culture of Lect-root for sugar 1 , 800 , 000 Product of vineyards , i 7 , 700 , 000 Product of gardens 00 , 000 , 000 Product of meadows 800 , 000 , 000 Flax and homp 80 , 528 , 000 Cotton 620 , 000

    Oleaginous grains ................. 18 , 886 , 000 Tobacco ,... * ... * .. „ ..., 2 , 10 O , 0 <> 0 Tinctorial and medicinal plants 2 , 600 , 000 Forest products 135 , 000 , 000 Products of domestic animals 275 , 380 , 000 Poultry .... 10 , 000 , 000 Beea ... * 8 , 000 , 000 Silk 1 , 600 , 000 Chase 2 , 000 , 000 Fisheries 15 , 000 , 000 Total ( = s 811 , 221 , 000 / . sterling ) 1 , 965 , 609 , 000 This table includes only a few of the products of Russia in Asia . The corrected annual gross product of the rural economy of Russia , according to our author , gives the grand total of 2 , 044 , 000 , 000 of roubles , or 332 . $ million pounds sterling . We are unfortunately unable to compare this result with those obtained by other statists ; but we think we can show what value is to be attached to it by examples in the case of France . Tegoborslri himself admits that French statists enjoy many advantages over himself in making estimates of agricultural produce . Now in France Count Chaptal estimated the gross returns from agriculture in 1819 at 4 , C 78 , 7 O 8 , OOO francs . In 1886 they amounted , according to M . Dutens , to 6 , 723 , 760 , 000 francs . M . Royer , in the same year , estimated them at 7 , 543 , 023 , 000 francs ; while , according to the corrected official statistics prepared in 1840 , they amounted to 5 , 837 , 529 , 459 francs . Last year ML Lavergne , availing himself of the most recent information , set them down at 3 , 400 , 000 , 000 francs . Here we see that , in the absence of positive information , the errors committed by some of the statists actually doubled the gross returns . ^ To come nearer home , one of the results of the report of the Scottish Agricultural Statistics Society was to show the utter absurdity of such arguments as to make up the book before us . Mr . M'Culloch had achieved a great reputation for his " admirable" statistics , till it was found that by such arguments & s those of Togoborski he had made an error of nearly 4 , 000 , 000 quarters in his estimate of Scotch produce . This statist actually doubled the produce from the small area cultivated in Scotland—an area far exceeded by tliat of most Russian provinces ! We are not aware that Tegoborski is personally

    above falling into errors us great as those of Mr . M'Culloch and the 1 rench statists , and we know that his data are more deficient and less trustworthy than those to which they had access . But when the errors in respect to a single province couido be multiplied fifty-fold , as in the gross returns above quoted , no reliance can be placed on them . We will give one example of our author ' s mode of making estimates . At page 150 he sets down the land occupied in the culture of beet-root at over forty-five thousand dessiatinee , or say one hundred and thirty-live thousand acres . He here proves by probable reasoning that this estimate must be considerably beneath the mark ; but at page 493 , having received the report of commission , he confesses to an error in excess in this estimate of about 45 , 000 acres , or one-third of the amount . No doubt the candour of this confession is to be much admired .

    but as much is the obtusencss which refuses to benefit by the lesson involved in the discovery of such a mistake to be censured . When we discover such an error as this in his estimate of beet-root , what are we to say of the cereal harvest , the potato crop , the vine , meadows , flax , hemp , tobacco , and other products , the estimates of which appear to be in no better casof We hold " guesses at truth" in works affecting to be statistical to be worse than valueless . While they mislead , they present the appearance of work done , and delay the collection of reliable information . As M . Tegoborski occupies a large portion of his work with comparisons of the produce , and the money values of the produce , of Russia and other Europeun countries , we have to remark that lie uniformly omits to accommodate the money values in the different countries to each other , by applying

    the money equation . Inconsequence , the tables of comparison which he gives are calculated only to mislead ; and it is impossible to obtain from them , without performing a troublesome arithmetical sum in each case , any idea of the relative resources of the countries compared . We would also observe , that in comparing the resources of different countries as deduciblc from produce , a comparison of produce alone is insufficient . Tho subjects of comparison should be the fraction formed in each case by nutting the produce as numerator and the population as denominator . But had ^ Tegoborski followed this rule ho would have " turned the tables" against his own country . We have now given our opinion of M . Tcgoborski a statistics . His book contains much interesting matter apart from his figures . Though the absolute population of Russia is so great , the empire is relatively one of the

    mostly thinly peopled countries in the world . Whereas m _ England there arc nearly 5000 inhabitants to a geographical square mile , in Russia there are only 072 . The population is , besides , very unequally distributed , varying in different governments from 21 to 2591 inhabitants to the square mile . This inequality contributes with other causes to make the prices in the torn trade variable . Among these other causes , and independently of the Russian system of agriculture , are the inequality of the harvests , tho distances between the corn markets , and tho difficulties of communication . With u . « , tho variations in the price of corn nre never very remarkable . In Russia , between 1832 and 1841 , prices varied in some governments from 10 to 25 , and in otlicra from 10 to II I . The remedy for these variations , to judge from the thinness of tho towns , must be fur distant . In European Russia

    ( here is only one town to 100 J fcquurc miles . And besides the disadvantages under which the corn merchants labour from the distribution of the population and towns , tho system of culture by serf labour prevents their obtaining more than half tho benefits of tho soil . Thirl labour is admitted to be less productive than free labour , and the former is almost tho only kind employed in Russia . According to the last census , there vfece 1 l , Ctf . ' ) , 2 (> 0 male pennants subject to the Corvee , and 11 , 087 , 600 . not subject to it , of whom only 230 , 000 were free pennants . In forty-six governments » n which tho total male population is 23 , 450 , 350 , there are of serf cultivators 10 , 86 . > , WW , g iving n proportion of 40 , 318 to the hundred thousand mnlo inhabitants , o that , on tho irrefragable testimony of figures , " tho Russian Empire is m a very bud way . We arc accordingly glnd to learn that tho Government

    I ,'^I.L: »> ' «Ts»(A«Ut^M*J'^1<^W'I"Jvw...

    I , '^ i . L : »> ' « TS »( a « ut ^ M * J' ^ 1 <^ W'i"JvW *» - «* - ¦* " ^ j-i ** .-l' . '" r * -f * _ «• "•* ¦ -.- ¦ _ ¦ _ _ .. !¦ Hi- ¦ mm H . n i " ¦ " *»^——^—¦—Mmium ^————p———^——¦——^»^————¦ | ml——^—

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Oct. 13, 1855, page 20, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_13101855/page/20/