Do you think the highlighted sentence is grammatically correct? I haven't known the phrase " to come up for" before I read this passage .The phrase means "to reach the time when something should happen". Because it already suggests an end or kind of deadline do you think the word termination is abundant?

The sentence has a semantic confusion also for me because , what I understand from the article so far is that peasants get freedom and don't have to do land work but I get from the sentence is that their freedom comes to end ( come up for ) in 1863.The second part of the sentence ( after comma) makes sense for me but I cannot relate to the first part.I am probably wrong. So could you explain to me this sentence meaning especially with the usage of the phrase " to come up for". By the way I know " ...not only but also..." structure.My question is not concerning it.

This "emancipation", however, was barely related to what the peasants themselves were expecting. While the 360-page statute did give them "the status of free rural inhabitants," peasants were still subject to considerable taxes and a passport system to restrict movement throughout the country. In addition, the land settlement was equally as unfulfilling. Not only did freedom from land obligations only come up for termination in 1863, but also those so-called "temporary obligations" could continue until both the peasants and their local landlords came to a mutually agreeable settlement. When and if that moment ever came, the peasants would receive a small portion of the land through government- financed redemption payments to the landlord--a sum the former serfs would have to repay over a forty-nine year period.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section7.rhtml

Do you think the highlighted sentence is grammatically correct? I haven't known the phrase " to come up for" before I read this passage .The phrase means "to reach the time when something should happen". Because it already suggests an end or kind of deadline do you think the word termination is redundant?

The sentence has a semantic confusion also for me because , what I understand from the article so far is that peasants get freedom and don't have to do land work but I get from the sentence is that their freedom comes to end ( come up for ) in 1863.The second part of the sentence ( after comma) makes sense for me but I cannot relate to the first part.I am probably wrong. So could you explain to me this sentence meaning especially with the usage of the phrase " to come up for". By the way I know " ...not only but also..." structure.My question is not concerning it.

This "emancipation", however, was barely related to what the peasants themselves were expecting. While the 360-page statute did give them "the status of free rural inhabitants," peasants were still subject to considerable taxes and a passport system to restrict movement throughout the country. In addition, the land settlement was equally as unfulfilling. Not only did freedom from land obligations only come up for termination in 1863, but also those so-called "temporary obligations" could continue until both the peasants and their local landlords came to a mutually agreeable settlement. When and if that moment ever came, the peasants would receive a small portion of the land through government- financed redemption payments to the landlord--a sum the former serfs would have to repay over a forty-nine year period.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section7.rhtml

Do you think the highlighted sentence is grammatically correct? I haven't known the phrase " to come up for" before I read this passage .The phrase means "to reach the time when something should happen". Because it already suggests an end or kind of deadline do you think the word termination is abundant?

The sentence has a semantic confusion also for me because , what I understand from the article so far is that peasants get freedom and don't have to do land work but I get from the sentence is that their freedom comes to end ( come up for ) in 1863.The second part of the sentence ( after comma) makes sense for me but I cannot relate to the first part.I am probably wrong. So could you explain to me this sentence meaning especially with the usage of the phrase " to come up for". By the way I know " ...not only but also..." structure.My question is not concerning it.

This "emancipation", however, was barely related to what the peasants themselves were expecting. While the 360-page statute did give them "the status of free rural inhabitants," peasants were still subject to considerable taxes and a passport system to restrict movement throughout the country. In addition, the land settlement was equally as unfulfilling. Not only did freedom from land obligations only come up for termination in 1863, but also those so-called "temporary obligations" could continue until both the peasants and their local landlords came to a mutually agreeable settlement. When and if that moment ever came, the peasants would receive a small portion of the land through government- financed redemption payments to the landlord--a sum the former serfs would have to repay over a forty-nine year period.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section7.rhtml

Do you think the highlighted sentence is grammatically correct? I haven't known the phrase " to come up for" before I read this passage .The phrase means "to reach the time when something should happen". Because it already suggests an end or kind of deadline do you think the word termination is abundant?

The sentence has a semantic confusion also for me because , what I understand from the article so far is that peasants get freedom and don't have to do land work but I get from the sentence is that their freedom comes to end ( come up for ) in 1863.The second part of the sentence ( after comma) makes sense for me but I cannot relate to the first part.I am probably wrong. So could you explain to me this sentence meaning especially with the usage of the phrase " to come up for". By the way I know " ...not only but also..." structure.My question is not concerning it.

This "emancipation", however, was barely related to what the peasants themselves were expecting. While the 360-page statute did give them "the status of free rural inhabitants," peasants were still subject to considerable taxes and a passport system to restrict movement throughout the country. In addition, the land settlement was equally as unfulfilling. Not only did freedom from land obligations only come up for termination in 1863, but also those so-called "temporary obligations" could continue until both the peasants and their local landlords came to a mutually agreeable settlement. When and if that moment ever came, the peasants would receive a small portion of the land through government- financed redemption payments to the landlord--a sum the former serfs would have to repay over a forty-nine year period.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section7.rhtml