Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  Emergence.

  In Russian historiography, there are two opposite views on the circumstances and time of the emergence of serfdom - the so-called "instruction" and "instructionless" versions. Both of them appeared in the middle of the 19th century. The first of them proceeds from the statement about the existence of a specific law at the end of the 16th century, namely from 1592, on the final prohibition of the peasant transfer from one landowner to another; and the other, relying on the absence of such a decree among the surviving official documents, considers serfdom as a gradual and protracted process of the loss of civil and property rights by previously free people.

  The famous historiographer of the 19th century S. M. Solovyov is considered to be the founder of the "decree" version. It was he, for a number of reasons, who defended the existence of the law of 1592 on the prohibition of the peasant transition, or the abolition of St. George's Day, published during the reign of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich. It should be noted that Soviet historiography actively took the side of S. M. Solovyov in this matter. The preferred advantage of this hypothesis in the eyes of Soviet historians was that it presented social-class contradictions more prominently and sharply, pushing the fact of enslavement more than 50 years into the past.

  The “instruction” version was refuted at the very beginning by V. O. Klyuchevsky, who extracted from reliable sources many texts of peasant regular records of the 20s and 30s of the seventeenth century, indicating that even at that time, that is, after almost half a century after the alleged decree on the enslavement of the peasants of 1592, the ancient right of the "exit" of the peasants from the landlords' land was fully preserved. In orderly ones, only the conditions for exit are stipulated, the very right to which is not called into question. This circumstance deals a tangible blow to the position of the "ukazniks", both former and their later followers.

  Development from the time of the Old Russian state to the XVII century.

  An objective picture of the development of serfdom in Russia from ancient times to the middle of the 17th century is presented as follows: princely and boyar land ownership, in combination with a strengthening bureaucratic apparatus, attacked personal and communal land ownership. Formerly free farmers, communal peasants, or even private owners of land - "own landowners" of ancient Russian legal acts - gradually became tenants of plots belonging to the tribal aristocracy or serving nobility.

  However, some rights of the serf were still preserved and protected by the Code. The serf could not be landless at the will of the master and turned into a courtyard; he had the opportunity to bring a complaint to the court for unfair requisitions; the law even threatened to punish the landowner, from whose beatings the peasant could die, and the victim's family received compensation from the offender's property. From the end of the 17th century, hidden transactions for the sale and purchase of peasants between landlords gradually entered into practice, serfs were also given away as dowry, etc. one estate to another. The law forbade the dispossession of peasants. In addition, trade in serfs was also prohibited. Chapter 20 of the Code unequivocally stated on this score: "Baptized people are not ordered to be sold to anyone." .

  The development of serfdom from the end of the 17th century to 1861

  From the end of the 17th and, especially, from the beginning of the 18th century, serfdom in Russia acquires a fundamentally different character than that which it had at its inception. It began as a form of state "tax" for the peasants, a kind of public service, but in its development it came to the fact that the serfs were deprived of all civil and human rights and found themselves in personal slavery to their landowners. First of all, this was facilitated by the legislation of the Russian Empire, which uncompromisingly stood up to protect exclusively the interests of the landlords. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, “The law more and more depersonalized the serf, erasing from him the last signs of a legally capable person.” .

  Serfdom in the late period

  Despite the realization that serfdom was a social evil, the government did not take any drastic measures to abolish it. The decree of Paul I, "about the three-day corvee", as this decree is often called, was of a recommendatory nature and was almost never executed. Corvee in 6 and even 7 days a week was common. The so-called " month". It consisted in the fact that the landowner took away from the peasants their allotments and personal households and turned them into real agricultural slaves who worked for him constantly and received only a meager ration from the master's reserves. The "monthly" peasants were the most disenfranchised people and did not differ at all from the slaves on the plantations of the New World.

  The next stage in the approval of the lack of rights of serfs was the Code of Laws on the Condition of People in the State, published in 1833. It declared the master's right to punish his yard people and peasants, to manage their personal lives, including the right to allow or prohibit marriages. The landowner was declared the owner of all peasant property.

  Human trafficking continued in Russia until February 1861. True, there is a formal ban on the sale of serfs with the separation of families and without land, and the right of dispossessed nobles to acquire serfs is also limited. But these prohibitions are easily circumvented in practice. Peasants and courtyards were bought and sold as before, wholesale and retail, but now such advertisements were masked in the newspapers: instead of “a serf for sale”, it was written “leave for hire”, but everyone knew what was really meant. Corporal punishment of serfs was extremely widespread. Often such punishments ended in the death of the victims, but the landowners almost never bore any responsibility for the murders and injuries of their servants. One of the most severe measures of the government in relation to the cruel gentlemen was the taking of the estate "under guardianship." This only meant that the estate came under the direct control of a government official, but the sadistic landowner retained ownership and regularly received income from the estate. Moreover, after the lapse of time, as a rule, very soon, guardianship by the “highest command” was canceled, and the master got the opportunity to again commit violence against his “subjects”.

  In 1848, serfs were allowed to acquire property - until that time they were prohibited from owning any property. On the one hand, such permission was supposed to stimulate an increase in the number of "capitalist" peasants who managed to get rich even in captivity, to revive economic life in the serf village. However, this did not happen. The decree allowed peasants to buy property only in the name of their landowner. In practice, this led to abuses, when the masters, using a formal right, took away property from their serfs.

  Serfdom on the Eve of Abolition

  The first steps towards the restriction and subsequent abolition of serfdom were made by Paul I and Alexander I in 1803 by signing the Manifesto on the three-day corvee on the restriction of forced labor and the Decree on free ploughmen, which spelled out the legal status of the peasants released into the wild.

  Evaluation of serfdom in Russian science and social thought

  An objective attitude to the problem of serfdom in Russia has always been hampered by the strict control of censorship. This is explained by the fact that, one way or another, but truthful information about serfdom had a negative impact on state prestige. Therefore, despite the fact that at different times interesting materials appeared in the press, scientific research and rather sharp journalistic works were published, in general, the history of the era of serfdom was studied and covered insufficiently. Kharkov jurist Professor Dmitry Kachenovsky criticized slavery in the USA in his lectures, but his numerous listeners perceived this criticism as Aesopian language. His student, later the Odessa mayor Pavel Zelenoy wrote:

  There is no need to explain that every listener clearly understood and felt that, speaking about the suffering of slaves, Kachenovsky means whites, and not only blacks.

  From the very beginning, there were directly opposite assessments of serfdom as a social phenomenon. On the one hand, it was seen as an economic necessity, as well as a legacy of ancient patriarchal relations. It was even asserted about the positive educational function of serfdom. On the other hand, opponents of serfdom denounced its destructive moral and economic impact on the life of the state.

  However, it is noteworthy that ideological opponents called serfdom "slavery" in the same way. So, Konstantin Aksakov wrote in an address to Emperor Alexander II in 1855: “The yoke of the state was formed over the earth, and the Russian land became, as it were, conquered ... The Russian monarch received the value of a despot, and the people - the value of a slave-slave in their land.” "White slaves" called the Russian serfs A. Herzen. However, the chief of the gendarme corps, Count Benckendorff, in a secret report addressed to Emperor Nicholas I admitted: “In all of Russia, only the victorious people, the Russian peasants, are in a state of slavery; all the rest: Finns, Tatars, Estonians, Latvians, Mordovians, Chuvashs, etc. are free.”

  Ambiguous assessments of the significance of the era of serfdom in our days. Representatives of the patriotic direction of modern politics tend to reject the negative characteristics of serfdom as aimed at denigrating the Russian Empire. Characteristic in this sense is A. Savelyev’s article “Fictions about “dark kingdom  serfdom”, in which the author is inclined to question the most authoritative evidence of violence against serfs: “Pictures of the distress of the peasants, described by Radishchev in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow”, - a consequence of the clouding of the author's mind, distorting the perception of social reality. Some researchers are inclined to positive assessments of serfdom as a system of economic relations. Some even consider it a natural result of the development of national character traits. For example, d.h.s. B. N. Mironov states that "serfdom ... was an organic and necessary component of Russian reality ... It was the reverse side of the breadth of Russian nature ... the result of the weak development of individualism."

  Despite the fact that the Russian nobility eventually became "noble", Russia itself did not seem to be called noble. But they called it serfdom, slavery, etc. Serfdom is directly connected with the development of the nobility. It is the nobles, not the aristocracy, who are much less interested in this.

  In early Russia, the vast majority of peasants are free. More precisely, the majority of the population, since with the strengthening of the central government, all classes are gradually becoming enslaved. We are talking about North-Eastern Russia, Vladimir-Moscow, which became Russia. Attachment of peasants, restricting freedom of movement, has been known since the 14th century. It is noteworthy that at the same time the nobles were mentioned for the first time.

  Alexander Krasnoselsky. Collection of arrears. 1869

  A nobleman (so far rather a son of a boyar) received a limited amount of land for his service. And perhaps not very fertile. A person, as they say, is looking for where it is better. In the frequent famine years, the peasants could well move to better lands, for example, to a larger landowner. In addition, in very hungry years, a rich landowner could support the peasants thanks to serious reserves. More and better land - higher yield. You can buy more land, better quality. You can get the best agricultural equipment and seed.

  Large landowners both deliberately lured the peasants away, and seemed to simply capture and take them away. And of course, the peasants themselves habitually migrated. In addition, large landowners often, partially or completely, exempted the newly resettled from taxes.

  In general, it is more profitable to live in a large estate or on "black" lands. And serving nobles need to feed. And basically enslavement went in their interests.

  Traditionally, the peasant and the landowner entered into a lease agreement. It seems that at first the tenant could leave at any time, then the calculation and departure were timed to coincide with certain days. Traditionally - the end of the agricultural year, autumn: Pokrov, St. George's Day. In the 15-16 century. the government, going towards the nobles, limited the peasant transition to a week before and a week after St. George's Day.

  The forced strengthening of the "fortress" occurred during the reign of Godunov (during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov himself). A series of crop failures and mass famine. Peasants flee in search of basic food. First of all, they run away from poor landowners.

  But in order.

  1497 - the establishment of St. George's Day as the only time for the transition of peasants.

  1581 - Decree on the Protected Years, specific years in which there is no transition even on St. George's Day.

  The beginning of the 1590s - the widespread cancellation of St. George's Day. Temporary measure due to the difficult situation.

  1597 - lesson summer, 5-year investigation of fugitive peasants. A peasant lives in a new place for more than 5 years - they leave him. Apparently, he has settled down, it is no longer advisable to touch ...

  Then the Time of Troubles, ruin - and again the need to provide the service nobles with land and workers.

  The support of the nobles is more than needed! First, it is still the main military force. Secondly, the Romanovs were elected to the kingdom with the active participation of the nobility. Thirdly, it was the nobility that showed itself in the Time of Troubles, in general, as an independent force. Fourthly, in the 17th century Zemsky Sobors were still gathering.

  Finally, the normal process of establishing autocracy is underway again. Nobles become the main pillar of the throne. And since the importance of the nobility is growing, the laws regarding the attachment of peasants are becoming more and more stringent.

  1649 - Cathedral code. A code of laws that remained relevant, as it later turned out, for ... 200 years (the Decembrists were tried in accordance with the Cathedral Code!). Cancellation of 5-year investigation; the found peasant is returned to the landowner, regardless of the time elapsed since the departure. Serfdom becomes hereditary…

  The transition from local militia to regular troops does not eliminate the need for estates. A standing army is expensive! In fact, this is also in Europe one of the main reasons for the slow transition to standing armies. Maintaining an army in peacetime is expensive! What is hired, what is recruiting.

  The nobles are also actively entering the civil service, especially since the administrative apparatus is growing.

  It is beneficial for the government if officers and officials are fed from the estates. Yes, salaries are paid - but unstable. Already under Catherine II, bribe-feeding was almost officially allowed. Not out of kindness or naivety, but because of the budget deficit. So the estate is the most convenient way for the state to provide for the nobles.

  Under Peter I, serfs were forbidden to volunteer for military service, which freed them from serfdom.

  Under Anna Ioannovna - a ban on leaving for crafts and engaging in farming and contracts without the permission of the landowner.

  Under Elizabeth, peasants are excluded from the oath to the sovereign.

  The time of Catherine II is the apogee of enslavement. It is also the "golden age" of the nobility. Everything is interconnected! The nobles were exempted from compulsory service and became a privileged class. And they don't get paid!

  During the reign of Catherine, land and about 800 thousand souls of serfs were distributed to the nobles. These are male souls! We multiply, conditionally, by 4. How much did it turn out? That's it, and she ruled for more than 30 years ... It is no coincidence that the largest uprising in Russia, the Pugachev, took place in her reign. By the way, it has never been a peasant one - but the serfs actively participated in it.

  1765 - the right of nobles to exile serfs to hard labor. No trial.

  All emperors after Catherine II tried to alleviate the situation of the peasants! And that "serfdom" was abolished only in 1862 - just earlier it could provoke a powerful social explosion. But the abolition was prepared by Nicholas I. In fact, throughout his entire reign, work was underway on preparation, searching for opportunities, etc.

  In order...

  Paul I established (rather recommended) a 3-day corvee; forbade the sale of yard and landless peasants; banned the sale of peasants without land - that is, as slaves; forbade the splitting of serf families; again allowed the serfs to complain about the landowners!

  Alexander I issued a decree on "free cultivators", allowing the landowners to free the peasants. Few people took advantage of it - but it was the very beginning! Under him, the development of measures for liberation from serfdom began. As usual, Alexei Andreevich Arakcheev was involved in this. Which, as usual, was against - but did an excellent job. It was envisaged, in particular, the redemption of the peasants by the treasury - with 2 acres of land. Not much - but at least something, for that time and the first project, this is more than serious!

  Nicholas I sees the bureaucracy as the main support of the raznochintsy. He seeks to get rid of the influence of the nobility in politics. And realizing that the liberation of the peasants would blow up society, he actively prepared the liberation for the future. And yes, there were measures! Let them be very careful.

  The peasant question has been discussed from the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas I. Although at the beginning it was officially stated that there would be no changes in the position of the peasants. Really - more than 100 decrees regarding the peasants!

  The landowners are recommended legal and Christian treatment of the peasants; a ban on giving serfs to factories; exile to Siberia; break up families lose the peasants and pay their debts ... and so on. Not to mention the development of liberation projects.

  There is a massive impoverishment of the nobles (the ruin of about 1/6 of the landlord families!). The land is being sold, mortgaged. By the reign of Alexander II, a lot of land with people passed to the state.

  That's why the liberation succeeded!

  And the last. There was no "serfdom". That is, the term itself appeared in the 19th century in scientific circles. There was no "right" as a kind of law, decree, article. There were a number of measures over the centuries that gradually attached the peasants to the land. The land was transferred to the landlords, who very gradually gained strength ... But there was no single law, “right” as such!

  Nevertheless, serfdom was, in fact, at its apogee - on the verge of slavery. So it is much more correct to speak not about law, but about serfdom ...

  The era of the reign of Alexander II is called the era of the Great Reforms or the era of Liberation. The abolition of serfdom in Russia is closely associated with the name of Alexander.

  Society before the reform of 1861

  The defeat in the Crimean War showed the backwardness of the Russian Empire from Western countries in almost all aspects of the economy and the socio-political structure of the state. The progressive people of that time could not help but notice the shortcomings in the thoroughly rotten system of autocratic rule. Russian society by the middle of the 19th century was heterogeneous.

  • The nobility was divided into rich, middle and poor. Their attitude to the reform could not be unambiguous. About 93% of the nobles did not have serfs. As a rule, these nobles held public office and depended on the state. The nobles who had large plots of land and many serfs were opposed to the Peasant Reform of 1861.
  • The life of serfs was the life of slaves, because this social class had no civil rights. The serfs were also not a homogeneous mass. In central Russia there were mostly quitrent peasants. They did not lose contact with the rural community and continued to pay the duty to the landowner, being hired in the city for factories. The second group of peasants was corvée and was in the southern part of the Russian Empire. They worked on the landowner's land and paid corvée.

  The peasants continued to believe in the “good father of the tsar”, who wants to free them from the yoke of slavery and allocate a piece of land. After the reform of 1861, this belief only intensified. Despite the deception of the landowners during the reform of 1861, the peasants sincerely believed that the tsar did not know about their troubles. The influence of the Narodnaya Volya on the consciousness of the peasants was minimal.

  

  Rice. 1. Alexander II speaks before the Assembly of Nobility.

  Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom

  By the middle of the 19th century, two processes were taking place in the Russian Empire: the prosperity of serfdom and the formation of the capitalist way of life. There was constant conflict between these incompatible processes.

  All the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom arose:

  • As industry grew, so did production. The use of serf labor at the same time became completely impossible, since the serfs deliberately broke the machines.
  • The factories needed permanent workers with high qualifications. Under the fortification system, this was impossible.
  • The Crimean War revealed the sharp contradictions of the autocracy of Russia. It showed the medieval backwardness of the state from the countries of Western Europe.

  Under these circumstances, Alexander II did not want to take the decision to carry out the Peasant Reform only on himself, because in the largest Western states, reforms were always developed in committees specially created by parliament. The Russian emperor decided to follow the same path.

  TOP 5 articleswho read along with this

  Preparation and beginning of the reform of 1861

  At first, the preparation of the peasant reform was carried out secretly from the population of Russia. All leadership in the design of the reform was concentrated in the Unspoken or Secret Committee, formed in 1857. However, things in this organization did not go further than discussing the reform program, and the summoned nobles ignored the call of the king.

  • On November 20, 1857, a respite was drawn up approved by the king. In it, elected committees of nobles were elected from each province, which were obliged to come to the court for meetings and agree on a reform project. The reform project began to be prepared openly, and the Private Committee became the Main Committee.
  • The main issue of the Peasant Reform was the discussion of how to free the peasant from serfdom - with land or not. The liberals, who consisted of industrialists and landless nobles, wanted to liberate the peasants and give them allotments of land. A group of serf-owners, consisting of wealthy landlords, was against the allocation of land plots to the peasants. In the end a compromise was found. The liberals and the feudal lords found a compromise between themselves and decided to free the peasants with minimal plots of land for a large monetary ransom. Such a “liberation” suited the industrialists, since it supplied them with permanent working hands. The peasant reform supplied both capital and working hands to the serfs.

  Speaking briefly about the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, it should be noted three basic conditions , which Alexander II planned to fulfill:

  • the complete abolition of serfdom and the emancipation of the peasants;
  • each peasant was endowed with a plot of land, while the amount of the ransom was determined for him;
  • a peasant could leave his place of residence only with the permission of a newly formed rural society instead of a rural community;

  To resolve pressing issues and fulfill obligations to fulfill duties and pay ransoms, peasants of landlord estates united in rural societies. To control the relationship of the landowner with rural communities, the Senate appointed mediators. The nuance was that the mediators were appointed from local nobles, who naturally were on the side of the landowner in resolving controversial issues.

  The result of the reform of 1861

  The reform of 1861 revealed a whole a number of shortcomings :

  • the landowner could transfer the place of his estate wherever he pleased;
  • the landowner could exchange the allotments of the peasants for his own lands until they were completely redeemed;
  • the peasant before the redemption of his allotment was not his sovereign owner;

  The emergence of rural societies in the year of the abolition of serfdom gave rise to mutual responsibility. Rural communities held meetings or gatherings, at which all peasants were entrusted with the execution of duties to the landowner equally, each peasant was responsible for the other. At rural gatherings, issues of misconduct by peasants, problems of paying ransoms, etc. were also resolved. The decisions of the meeting were valid if they were taken by a majority of votes.

  • The bulk of the ransom was taken over by the state. In 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was established.

  The bulk of the ransom was taken over by the state. For the redemption of each peasant, 80% of the total amount was paid, the remaining 20% ​​was paid by the peasant. This amount could be paid at a time, or in installments, but most often the peasant worked it out by labor service. On average, the peasant paid off with the state for about 50 years, while paying 6% per annum. At the same time, at the same time, the peasant paid a ransom for the land, the remaining 20%. On average, with the landowner, the peasant paid for 20 years.

  The main provisions of the 1861 reform were not implemented immediately. This process spanned almost three decades.

  Liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century.

  The Russian Empire approached liberal reforms with an unusually neglected local economy: the roads between the villages were washed out in spring and autumn, there was no basic hygiene in the villages, not to mention medical care, epidemics mowed down the peasants. Education was in its infancy. The government did not have money for the revival of villages, so a decision was made to reform local governments.

  

  Rice. 2. First pancake. V. Pchelin.

  • On January 1, 1864, the Zemstvo reform was carried out. The zemstvo was a local authority that took care of the construction of roads, the organization of schools, the construction of hospitals, churches, etc. An important point was the organization of assistance to the population, which suffered from crop failure. To solve especially important tasks, the zemstvo could impose a special tax on the population. The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were provincial and district assemblies, executive-provincial and district councils. Elections to zemstvos were held once every three years. Three congresses met for the elections. The first congress consisted of landowners, the second congress was recruited from city owners, the third congress included elected peasants from volost rural assemblies.

  

  Rice. 3. Zemstvo is having lunch.

  • The next date for the judicial reforms of Alexander II was the reform of 1864. The court in Russia became public, open and public. The main accuser was the prosecutor, the defendant got his own defense lawyer. However, the main innovation was the introduction of 12 jurors at the trial. After judicial debate, they issued their verdict - “guilty” or “not guilty”. Jurors were recruited from men of all classes.
  • In 1874, a reform was carried out in the army. By decree of D. A. Milyutin, recruitment was abolished. Citizens of Russia who reached 20 lei were subject to compulsory military service. Service in the infantry was 6 years, service in the navy was 7 years.

  The abolition of recruitment contributed to the great popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.

  The significance of the reforms of Alexander II

  Noting all the pros and cons of the transformations of Alexander II, it should be noted that they contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of moral self-consciousness among the population, the improvement of the quality of life of peasants in the villages and the spread of primary education among the peasants. It should be noted both the growth of the industrial upsurge and the positive development of agriculture.

  At the same time, the reforms did not affect the upper echelons of power at all, remnants of serfdom remained in local administration, the landlords enjoyed the support of noblemen-mediators in disputes and openly deceived the peasants when allocating allotments. However, it should not be forgotten that these were only the first steps towards a new capitalist stage of development.

  What have we learned?

  The liberal reforms studied in the history of Russia (Grade 8) generally had positive results. Thanks to the abolition of serfdom, the remnants of the feudal system were finally eliminated, but, like the developed Western countries, it was still very far from the final formation of the capitalist way of life.

  Topic quiz

  Report Evaluation

  Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 136.

  Servants who do not have a master do not become free people because of this - they have servility in their souls.

  G. Heine

  The date of the abolition of serfdom in Russia is December 19, 1861. This is a significant event, since the beginning of 1861 turned out to be extremely tense for the Russian Empire. Alexander 2 was even forced to put the army on high alert. The reason for this was not a possible war, but the growing boom of discontent among the peasants.

  A few years before 1861, the tsarist government began to consider a law to abolish serfdom. The emperor understood that there was nowhere to delay further. His advisers unanimously said that the country was on the verge of an explosion of a peasant war. On March 30, 1859, a meeting of noblemen and the emperor took place. At this meeting, the nobles said that it was better for the liberation of the peasants to come from above, otherwise it would follow from below.

  Reform February 19, 1861

  As a result, the date of the abolition of serfdom in Russia was determined - February 19, 1861. What did this reform give the peasants, did they become free? This question can be answered unambiguously the reform of 1861 made the life of the peasants much worse. Of course, the royal manifesto, signed by him in order to free ordinary people, endowed the peasants with rights that they never had. Now the landowner did not have the right to exchange a peasant for a dog, to beat him, to forbid him to marry, trade, or engage in fishing. But the problem for the peasants was the land.

  Land issue

  To resolve the land issue, the state convened world mediators who were sent to the places and there they were engaged in the division of the land. The overwhelming majority of the work of these intermediaries consisted in the fact that they announced to the peasants that on all disputed issues with the land they should negotiate with the landowner. This agreement had to be in writing. The reform of 1861 gave the landowners the right, when determining land plots, to take away from the peasants, the so-called "surplus". As a result, the peasants had only 3.5 acres (1) of land per audit soul (2). Before the reform of the land was 3.8 acres. At the same time, the landlords took away the best land from the peasants, leaving only barren lands.

  The most paradoxical thing about the reform of 1861 is that the date of the abolition of serfdom is known exactly, but everything else is very vague. Yes, the manifesto formally endowed the peasants with land, but in fact the land remained in the possession of the landowner. The peasant received only the right to redeem that land who was assigned to him by the landowner. But at the same time, the landlords themselves were endowed with the right to independently determine whether or not to allow the sale of land.

  Land redemption

  No less strange was the amount at which the peasants had to buy land plots. This amount was calculated on the basis of the dues received by the landowner. For example, the richest nobleman of those years Shuvalov P.P. received a quitrent of 23 thousand rubles a year. This means that the peasants, in order to redeem the land, had to pay the landowner as much money as needed so that the landowner put them in the bank and annually received the same 23 thousand rubles in interest. As a result, on average, one auditor's soul had to pay 166.66 rubles for the tithing. Since the families were large, on average across the country, one family had to pay 500 rubles for the purchase of a land plot. It was an unbearable amount.

  The state came to "help" the peasants. The State Bank paid the landlord 75-80% of the required amount. Peasants paid the rest. At the same time, they were obliged to settle accounts with the state and pay the required interest within 49 years. On average across the country, the bank paid the landowner 400 rubles for one land plot. At the same time, the peasants gave money to the bank for 49 years in the amount of almost 1200 rubles. The state almost tripled its money.

  The date of the abolition of serfdom is an important stage in the development of Russia, but it did not give a positive result. Only by the end of 1861, uprisings broke out in 1176 estates in the country. By 1880, 34 Russian provinces were engulfed in peasant uprisings.

  Only after the first revolution in 1907, the government canceled the purchase of land. Land was provided free of charge.

  1 - one tithe is equal to 1.09 hectares.

  2 - auditor's soul - the male population of the country (women were not entitled to land).

  
  

  1842

  Nicholas I in 1842 issued a Decree "On obligated peasants", according to which peasants were allowed to be freed without land, providing it for the performance of certain duties. As a result, 27 thousand people passed into the category of obligated peasants. During the reign of Nicholas I, preparations were already underway for the peasant reform: the main approaches and principles for its implementation were developed, and the necessary material was accumulated.

  But Alexander II abolished serfdom. He understood that one should act cautiously, gradually preparing society for reforms. In the first years of his reign, at a meeting with a delegation of Moscow nobles, he said: “Rumors are circulating that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's not fair, and you can say it to everyone right and left. But a feeling of hostility between the peasants and the landowners, unfortunately, exists, and this has already led to several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think you are of the same opinion as me. It is better to begin the abolition of serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it begins to abolish itself from below.” The emperor asked the nobles to think and submit their views on the peasant issue. But no offers were forthcoming.

  1857

  On January 3, the Secret Committee on the Peasant Question was created under the leadership of the then chairman of the State Council, Prince A.F. Orlov, who said that “he would rather let his hand be cut off than sign the release of the peasants with the land.” All the projects presented so far to abolish serfdom in Russia had a common focus - the desire to preserve landownership. The committee included statesmen who dragged out the consideration of the peasant reform. Especially ardent opponents of the reform were the Minister of Justice, Count V.N. Panin, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, chief of gendarmes Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, member of the State Council Prince P.P. Gagarin. And only the Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lanskoy made positive proposals approved by Alexander II: the liberation of the peasants, the redemption of their estates for 10-15 years, the preservation of peasant allotments for service.

  The position of the government and the committee fluctuated between progressives and reactionaries.

  1858

  The Committee leaned towards the emancipation of the peasants without land, but the peasant unrest of 1858 in Estonia showed that the emancipation of the peasants without land did not solve the problem. Soon, the emperor's brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, entered the Secret Committee, and Alexander II himself demanded certain decisions from the Committee. In 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, and during that year 45 provincial committees were opened in the country.

  1859

  The following year, in February 1859, Editorial Commissions were formed, chaired by a member of the Main Committee, General Yakov Ivanovich Rostovtsev, a close friend of the tsar, who proposed a draft of a new government program: the redemption of estate and allotment land by peasants, the establishment of peasant self-government and the abolition of patrimonial power of the landowners. Thus, the main positions of the future reform were formulated.

  Imperial Manifesto from February 19, 1861

  "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants" and "Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom."

  According to these documents, serfs received personal freedom and the right to allot land. At the same time, they still paid the poll tax and carried out recruitment duties. The community and communal land ownership were preserved, the peasant allotments turned out to be 20% smaller than those that they used before. The value of the peasant redemption of land was 1.5 times the market value of the land. 80% of the redemption amount was paid to the landowners by the state, and then the peasants paid it off for 49 years.

  
  

  1. According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The “Regulations” regulated the issues of allocating peasants with land.

  2. From now on, the former serfs received personal freedom and independence from the landowners. They could not be sold, bought, donated, relocated, mortgaged. Peasants were now called free rural inhabitants; they received civil liberties - they could independently make transactions, acquire and dispose of property, engage in trade, get hired, enter educational institutions, move to other classes, independently marry. But the peasants received incomplete civil rights: they continued to pay the poll tax, they were subject to recruitment duty, they were punished corporally.

  3. Elective peasant self-government was introduced. The peasants of one estate united in a rural society, and rural gatherings resolved economic issues. The village elder was elected (for 3 years). Several rural societies formed a volost headed by a volost foreman. Rural and volost assemblies themselves distributed the land provided for the allotment, laid out duties, determined the order of serving the recruiting duty, decided the issues of leaving the community and admission to it, etc. . They were appointed by the Senate, not subject to the ministers, but only to the law.

  4. The second part of the reform regulated land relations. The law recognized the landowner's right to private ownership of the entire land of the estate, including peasant allotment land. The peasants were liberated with land, otherwise this would have led to a protest by the people and would have undermined state revenues (peasants were the main tax payers). True, large groups of peasants did not receive land: courtyard, sessional workers, peasants of small estate nobles.

  5. According to the reform, the peasants received the established land allotment (for redemption). The peasant had no right to refuse to put on. The size of the allotment was established by mutual agreement of the landowner and the peasant. If there was no consent, then the "Regulations" established the norm of allotment - from 3 to 12 acres, which was recorded in the charter.

  6. The territory of Russia was divided into black earth, non-black earth and steppe. In the non-chernozem zone, the landowner had the right to retain 1/3 of the land, and in the chernozem - 1/2. If, before the reform, the peasants used more land than was established by the "Regulations", then part of the land was taken away from them in favor of the landowners - this was called cuts. The peasants of the middle zone lost 20% of the land in the segments, and 40% of the land in the black earth.

  7. When endowing the landlord provided the peasants with the worst lands. Part of the allotments was located among the landlords' lands - a striped strip. A special fee was charged for the passage or driving of cattle through the landowner's fields. Forests and lands, as a rule, remained the property of the landowner. Land was provided only to the community. The land was given to the men.

  8. To become the owner of the land, the peasant had to redeem his property from the landowner. The ransom was equal to the annual amount of dues, increased by an average of 17 (!) times. The payment procedure was as follows: the state paid the landowner 80% of the amount, and the peasants paid 20%. Within 49 years, the peasants had to pay this amount with interest. Until 1906, the peasants paid 3 billion rubles - while the cost of land was 500 million rubles. Before the redemption of the land, the peasants were considered temporarily obligated to the landowner, they had to bear the old duties - corvée or dues (abolished only in 1881). Following the Russian provinces, serfdom was abolished in Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Transcaucasia, etc.

  9. The owner of the land was a community, from which the peasant could not leave before paying the ransom. A mutual guarantee was introduced: payments-taxes came from the whole society, all members of the community had to pay for those who were absent.

  10. After the publication of the Manifesto, peasant revolts began in many provinces against the predatory provisions of the reform. The peasants were not satisfied that after the publication of the documents on the reform, they had to remain subordinate to the landowner for another 2 years - to perform corvée, pay dues, that the allotments provided to them were landlord property, which they had to redeem. Mass unrest was especially strong in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, and in the village of Kandeevka, Penza province. When the uprising was suppressed, 91 peasants died in Abyss, and 19 peasants died in Kandeevka. In total, 1860 peasant unrest took place in 1861, and military force was used to suppress more than half of them. But by the autumn of 1861, the peasant movement began to wane.

  11. The peasant reform was of great historical importance:

  > conditions were created for the broad development of market relations, Russia embarked on the path of capitalism, over the next 40 years the country has traveled the path that many states have traveled over the centuries;

  > inestimable moral value of the reform, which put an end to serfdom;

  > the reform paved the way for transformations in the Zemstvo, the court, the army, etc.

  12. But the reform was built on compromises, took into account the interests of the landlords to a much greater extent than the interests of the peasants. It did not completely eradicate serfdom, the remnants of which hindered the development of capitalism. It was obvious that the struggle of the peasants for land and true freedom would continue.