Russia in the era of Alexander II. Domestic policy.

The defeat of Russia in the Crimean War demonstrated to the whole society that the socio-political system and those economic relations that Nicholas I tried to conserve did not meet the requirements of the time. After his death, his son Alexander II (1855 - 1881) ascended the throne. His reign was the era of a series of bourgeois reforms aimed at eliminating Russia's backwardness from Western countries and returning it to the status of a great power. This time was called the Epoch of Great Reforms. They touched upon the most important aspects of public life - the judiciary, the army, local governments. But the most urgent was the solution of the peasant question. The main reform was the abolition of serfdom.

Abolition of serfdom. 1861.

The reasons:

· foreign policy- the defeat in the Crimean War showed all the shortcomings of the regime, the military and technical backwardness of the country, which created the threat of Russia becoming a secondary power.

· Economic- The feudal system of economy is in crisis. It may exist long enough, but free labor is more productive than forced labor. Serfdom dictated extremely slow pace of development to the country. Serfdom hindered development:

- Agriculture- the peasants are not interested in working better, in applying technology. Landlord farms are inefficient.

- industry- there is not enough free worker, since 35% of the population is in serfdom and cannot freely dispose of their working hands.

- trade– the purchasing power of the population remains low, and the economy remains subsistence.

· Social- there is a sharp increase in peasant uprisings (1857 - 192 performances, 1858 - 528, 1859 - 938), government troops are used to suppress some uprisings. A new major uprising is brewing.

· Political- the need to abolish serfdom was understood by the tsar, and the landowners, and officials. “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to abolish itself from below” (speech in 1856 by the tsar to the Moscow nobility).

· Moral- serfdom is a relic, it has long been gone in Europe, it is too similar to slavery and humiliating for a person.

Thus, it is necessary to abolish serfdom, the question was how to do it. The reform was preceded by a lot of preparatory work. Most of the nobles, according to the secret report of the Third Division, still opposed the liberation of the peasants, free labor was beneficial for them. The government, in fact, resorted to direct violence against its social support for the sake of national long-term interests. This explains the development of the reform at the first stage in the strictest secrecy.

Stages:

I. January 1857- the creation of a secret (tacit) committee to discuss measures for arranging the life of the landlord peasants under the chairmanship of Alexander II. But his work was sluggish and ineffective (the need for the liberation of the peasants was recognized, personal freedom - without redemption).

II. November 1857- a rescript (instruction) was signed and sent around the country addressed to the Vilna governor Nazimov, who announced the beginning of the gradual emancipation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees to make proposals and amendments to the reform project. It was a cunning tactical move, since the nobility was included in the discussion of the reform, which made it irreversible.

III. February 1858- The secret committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. The discussion of the reform is open. During 1858, noble committees were created in 47 provinces. Projects differ from each other, often contradictory. The main points of controversy:

Free the peasants with or without land.

Release the peasants for ransom or without it.

If released with land, what will be the ransom for the land.

Whether or not to keep peasants bearing feudal duties.

When should the reform be carried out?

As a result, all projects can be conditionally divided into three groups:

1. pro-peasant– release with land and free of charge.

2. pro-noble- release without land, and personal freedom - for a ransom.

3. moderate- to release with the land, but for a ransom .. it was this project that was implemented.

IV. in March 1859- Under the Main Committee, editorial commissions were established to review materials prepared by provincial committees and draw up a law (chairman Rostovtsev, then Panin). The work was completed in October 1860. The editorial commissions carried out the most painstaking work aimed at developing a reform program, on the one hand, satisfying the bulk of the landowners, and on the other hand, not provoking a protest by the peasants.

VI. February 19, 1861- Alexander II signed the main documents on the reform - "Manifesto proclaiming the abolition of serfdom" and "Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom."

VII. March 5, 1861- the documents were made public (it took 2 weeks to prepare troops to suppress possible peasant uprisings). The manifesto was read in the churches after mass. At the divorce in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander II himself read it to the troops.

The main provisions of the reform:

1. The peasants received personal freedom. They ceased to be serfs, the property of landowners - from now on they could not be sold, bought, donated, relocated at the request of the owner. The peasants received a number of civil rights:

Conclude property transactions on your own behalf, that is, dispose of property.

Open commercial and industrial enterprises.

Move to another class.

To marry without the permission of the landowner.

Choose a place of residence.

Enter the service and in educational institutions.

But the peasants remained an unequal estate, since duties in favor of the state remained - recruitment, soul tax, corporal punishment, their own court. Peasants began to be called rural dwellers.

2. Giving peasants land. In the summer of 1861, the institution of peace mediators was created, to whom the government entrusted the performance of various administrative functions to carry out the reform. They are

Statutory charters were approved, which determined further relations between peasants and landowners.

Certified purchase deeds.

Supervised the delimitation of peasant and landlord lands.

Observed the activities of peasant self-government bodies.

Peace mediators were appointed by the Senate from local nobles - landowners and obeyed only the law.

The landowner was considered the owner of all the land. Under the reform, the peasants were freed with a land plot, the size of which depended on the fertility of the soil and the agreement between the village assembly and the landowner. The entire territory of the country was divided into 3 zones - chernozem, non-chernozem and steppe. For the first two, the “highest” maximum size of the allotment was set, more than which the landowner did not give land, and the “lower” minimum - less than which he could not give. If the peasants had more land than the maximum, then it was cut off in favor of the landowner (cuts). Especially a lot (up to 40%), the peasants lost land in the black earth provinces, where it was a value.

In general, peasants received 20% less land than they had before the reform. This led to the economic dependence of the peasants on the landowners - the peasants rented the missing land from the landowners. There was a problem - lack of land of the peasants. The allotment of land was mandatory - the landowner was obliged to give an allotment, and the peasant - to take it.

Redemption operation.

The peasants had to pay for the land ransom.

The peasants themselves paid 20% of the ransom to the landowner. Until now, they were considered temporarily liable and carried the former duties in favor of the landowner - corvee and dues, their size could not be increased. The peasants were transferred to compulsory redemption in 1881.

80% of the ransom for the peasants was immediately paid to the landowner by the state (5% was issued in securities and redemption certificates, which were accepted by the treasury as payment for payments - 902 million rubles were issued, of which 316 were set off in payment of their debts to banks). And then the peasants had to return this money within 49 years at 6% per annum. It was considered as a long-term loan. The ransom was based not on the market value of the land, but on feudal duties. The cost of the land was estimated at 544 million rubles, and by 1907 the peasants paid 4 times more. Redemption payments were abolished in 1906.

When making a redemption operation, the landowner did not deal with individual peasants, but with the community. The land was transferred not to the peasant - the owner, but to the community, and the latter distributed it fairly. While the redemption payments were being made, the peasant could not refuse the allotment and move out of the village without the consent of the village assembly (he gave his consent reluctantly, so he had to pay for those who left).

Thus, the peasants paid more for the land than it actually cost.

As a result, the peasants did not receive the freedom they expected. In 1861 - 1370 peasant uprisings. Troops were used to suppress. Most dramatic events:

In the village Abyss Kazan province. Headed by Anton Petrov, who interpreted the Manifesto in his own way, 91 people were killed.

In the village of Kandeevka, Penza province, 19 people died.

In 1863-65, an agrarian reform was carried out in the specific and state villages - under more favorable conditions - more allotments, and less redemption.

The historical significance of the reform.

1. After the abolition of serfdom, capitalism began to assert itself in Russia, as conditions were created for its rapid development (free hands appeared, interest in the results of labor, the purchasing power of the population increased).

2. this reform entailed other bourgeois transformations that were necessary.

3. great moral significance, since serfdom has been put an end to

4. carried out in the interests of the landowners

5. The agrarian issue has not been resolved, since landownership, land shortages, and the peasant community remained.

Land reform. 1864.

Judicial reform. 1864.

It is considered the most consistent bourgeois reform.

20 November 1864 A decree on judicial reform and new judicial statutes were promulgated. They introduced common judicial institutions for all estates.

A unified judicial system has been created on principles new to Russia:

All-estate.

Publicity of the judiciary.

Competitiveness.

Protection of the rights of the defendants.

Independence of judges from administration.

Completely new institutions for Russia were introduced:

-jury trial- was appointed by zemstvo provincial assemblies and city dumas from among respected people on the basis of a property qualification, literacy and settlement qualifications (except for priests, military men and teachers of public schools). Established innocence or guilt.

- advocacy- Attorneys at law were supposed to defend the accused in court.

--prosecutor's office- presented evidence against the accused.

The judicial system included 4 steps:

1. magistrate's Court- Simplified judicial system. One judge dealt with both criminal and civil cases, the damage in which did not exceed 500 rubles (punishment - a fine of up to 300 rubles, arrest up to 6 months, imprisonment up to a year).

2. district Court- general trial with jurors. The main court within the province. His decisions were considered final.

3. judicial chambers- considered appeals and was the court of first instance for political and public affairs.

4. Senate- the highest court, could cancel the decisions of other courts.

In addition, consistories were preserved - courts for the clergy, military courts - for the military, the supreme criminal court - for members of the State Council, senators, ministers, generals, volost courts - for peasants.

Thus, Russia received a new progressive court. During the investigation, the vices of the existing system began to be revealed (the workers who participated in the Morozov strike were released, Vera Zasulich was released)

City reform. 1870.

According to the reform, city dumas (legislative bodies) and city councils (executive bodies) were created under the chairmanship of the mayor. Elections were held in three electoral assemblies on the basis of a property qualification (large taxpayers, smaller ones, everyone else). They were elected for 4 years, the head was approved by the governor or the minister of the interior.

Resolved business issues

Urban improvement - lighting, heating, water supply, cleaning, transport, construction of embankments, bridges.

Public education and health care.

Public charity.

Care for the development of trade and industry

City taxation

The cost of maintaining the fire department, police, prisons, barracks.

By 1892, self-government was introduced in 621 cities out of 707.

1. - enlistment of rank and file. Instead of recruitment service for all estates, universal military service was introduced. Men became liable for military service from the age of 20. The terms of service have changed: instead of 25 years, 6 years in the army (9 years in reserve) and 7 years in the navy (3 years in reserve). Service life depended on education. Those who graduated from elementary school served 3 years, gymnasium - 1.5 years, university graduates - 6 months. There is an interest in education.

Such a system made it possible to quickly increase the army and navy in case of war. The size of the army was reduced, but the military potential was preserved. There were numerous benefits (the only son of the parents, the only breadwinner, unfitness for service for health reasons, the clergy, the peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan were released).

2. officer training. New military schools were created - higher and non-commissioned officers, the Academy of the General Staff. Military gymnasiums and cadet schools were created. There are new statutes.

3. rearmament. The construction of a steam fleet is in progress. New small arms and artillery weapons are being created.

The country is divided into 15 military regions.

Results:

Due to the introduction of a new manning system, the size of the army decreased by 2 times, and the combat capability increased.

Reduced the cost of maintaining the army.

High fighting qualities were already demonstrated by the war of 1877-1878.

Significance of bourgeois reforms:

1. accelerated the country's transition to capitalist relations.

2. made the image of power in the eyes of the people more attractive.

3. were inconsistent, retained many vestiges of feudalism.

Similar information.

Serfdom turned into a brake on technological progress, which in Europe, after the industrial revolution, was actively developing. The Crimean War clearly demonstrated this. There was a danger of Russia turning into a third-rate power. It was by the second half of the 19th century that it became clear that the preservation of Russia's power and political influence was impossible without strengthening finances, developing industry and railway construction, and transforming the entire political system. Under the dominance of serfdom, which itself could still exist for an indefinite time, despite the fact that the landed nobility itself was unable and not ready to modernize their own estates, it turned out to be almost impossible to do this. That is why the reign of Alexander II became a period of radical transformations of Russian society. The emperor, distinguished by his common sense and a certain political flexibility, managed to surround himself with professionally literate people who understood the need for Russia's forward movement. Among them stood out the king's brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, brothers N.A. and D.A. Milyutin, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, P.A. Valuev and others.

By the second quarter of the 19th century, it had already become obvious that the economic possibilities of the landlord economy in meeting the increased demand for grain exports had been completely exhausted. It was increasingly drawn into commodity-money relations, gradually losing its natural character. Closely connected with this was a change in the forms of rent. If in the central provinces, where industrial production was developed, more than half of the peasants had already been transferred to quitrent, then in the agricultural central black earth and lower Volga provinces, where marketable bread was produced, corvée continued to expand. This was due to the natural growth in the production of bread for sale in the landowners' economy.

On the other hand, the productivity of corvée labor has fallen noticeably. The peasant sabotaged the corvee with all his might, was weary of it, which is explained by the growth of the peasant economy, its transformation into a small-scale producer. Corvee slowed down this process, and the peasant fought with all his might for favorable conditions for his management.

The landlords sought ways to increase the profitability of their estates within the framework of serfdom, for example, transferring peasants for a month: landless peasants, who were obliged to spend all their working time on corvée, were paid in kind in the form of a monthly food ration, as well as clothes, shoes, necessary household utensils , while the landowner's field was processed by the master's inventory. However, all these measures could not compensate for the ever-increasing losses from inefficient corvée labor.

Quit farms also experienced a serious crisis. Previously, peasant crafts, from which the dues were mainly paid, were profitable, giving the landowner a stable income. However, the development of crafts gave rise to competition, which led to a drop in peasant earnings. Since the 20s of the 19th century, arrears in the payment of dues began to grow rapidly. An indicator of the crisis of the landowners' economy was the growth of the debts of the estates. By 1861, about 65% of the landowners' estates were pledged in various credit institutions.

In an effort to increase the profitability of their estates, some landowners began to apply new farming methods: they ordered expensive equipment from abroad, invited foreign specialists, introduced multi-field crop rotation, etc. But only rich landowners could afford such expenses, and under serfdom, these innovations did not pay off, often ruining such landowners.

It should be specially emphasized that we are talking specifically about the crisis of the landlord economy, based on serf labor, and not the economy in general, which continued to develop on a completely different, capitalist basis. It is clear that serfdom held back its development, hindered the formation of a wage labor market, without which the capitalist development of the country is impossible.

Preparations for the abolition of serfdom began in January 1857 with the creation of the next Secret Committee. In November 1857, Alexander II sent a rescript throughout the country addressed to the Vilna Governor-General Nazimov, which spoke of the beginning of the gradual emancipation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees in three Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) to make proposals for the reform project. On February 21, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. A broad discussion of the forthcoming reform began. The provincial noble committees drew up their drafts for the liberation of the peasants and sent them to the main committee, which, on their basis, began to develop a general reform project.

In order to process the submitted drafts, editorial commissions were established in 1859, the work of which was led by Deputy Minister of the Interior Ya.I. Rostovtsev.

During the preparation of the reform among the landowners there were lively disputes about the mechanism of release. The landlords of the non-chernozem provinces, where the peasants were mainly on dues, proposed to give the peasants land with complete exemption from the landowner's power, but with the payment of a large ransom for the land. Their opinion was most fully expressed in his project by the leader of the Tver nobility A.M. Unkovsky.

The landlords of the black earth regions, whose opinion was expressed in the project of the Poltava landowner M.P. Posen, offered to give the peasants only small plots for ransom, aiming to make the peasants economically dependent on the landowner - to force them to rent land on unfavorable terms or work as farm laborers.

By the beginning of October 1860, the editorial commissions completed their activities and the project was submitted for discussion to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, where it underwent additions and changes. On January 28, 1861, a meeting of the Council of State opened, ending on February 16, 1861. The signing of the manifesto on the liberation of the peasants was scheduled for February 19, 1861 - the 6th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Alexander II, when the emperor signed the manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants and on the organization of their life", as well as the "Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom”, which included 17 legislative acts. On the same day, the Main Committee "on the arrangement of the rural state" was established, chaired by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, replacing the Main Committee "on peasant affairs" and called upon to exercise supreme supervision over the implementation of the "Regulations" on February 19.

According to the manifesto, the peasants received personal freedom. From now on, the former serf was given the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, he was granted some civil rights: the opportunity to transfer to other classes, conclude property and civil transactions on his own behalf, open trade and industrial enterprises.

If serfdom was abolished immediately, then the settlement of economic relations between the peasant and the landowner dragged on for several decades. The specific economic conditions for the liberation of the peasants were fixed in the Charter, which were concluded between the landowner and the peasant with the participation of world mediators. However, according to the law, the peasants for another two years were obliged to serve in fact the same duties as under serfdom. This state of the peasant was called temporarily liable. In fact, this situation dragged on for twenty years, and only by the law of 1881 the last temporarily liable peasants were transferred to ransom.

An important place was given to the allocation of land to the peasant. The law proceeded from the recognition of the right of the landowner of all the land in his estate, including peasant allotments. The peasants received the allotment not as property, but only for use. To become the owner of the land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner. This task was undertaken by the state. The ransom was based not on the market value of the land, but on the amount of duties. The treasury immediately paid the landowners 80% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 20% ​​were to be paid to the landowner by the peasants by mutual agreement (immediately or in installments, in cash or by working off). The redemption amount paid by the state was considered as a loan granted to the peasants, which was then collected from them annually, for 49 years, in the form of "redemption payments" in the amount of 6% of this loan. It is easy to determine that in this way the peasant had to pay for the land several times more than not only its real market value, but also the amount of duties that he bore in favor of the landowner. That is why the "temporarily liable state" lasted more than 20 years.

When determining the norms of peasant allotments, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account. The entire territory of the Russian Empire was divided into three parts: non-chernozem, black earth and steppe. In the chernozem and non-chernozem parts, two norms of allotments were established: the highest and the lowest, and in the steppe one - the “instruction” norm. The law provided for the reduction of the peasant allotment in favor of the landowner, if its pre-reform size exceeded the “higher” or “indicated” norm, and the cutting if the allotment did not reach the “higher” norm. In practice, this led to the fact that cutting off the land became the rule, and cutting the exception. The severity of the "cuts" for the peasants consisted not only in their size. The best lands often fell into this category, without which normal farming became impossible. Thus, the "cuts" turned into an effective means of economic enslavement of the peasants by the landowner.

The land was provided not to a separate peasant household, but to the community. This form of land use ruled out the possibility of the peasant selling his allotment, and renting it out was limited to the boundaries of the community. But, despite all its shortcomings, the abolition of serfdom was an important historical event. It not only created conditions for the further economic development of Russia, but also led to a change in the social structure of Russian society, necessitated further reform of the political system of the state, which was forced to adapt to new economic conditions. After 1861, a number of important political reforms were carried out: zemstvo, judicial, city, military reforms, which radically changed Russian reality. It is no coincidence that Russian historians consider this event a turning point, a line between feudal Russia and modern Russia.

ACCORDING TO THE "SHOWER REVISION" OF 1858

Landlord serfs - 20,173,000

Specific peasants - 2,019,000

State peasants -18,308,000

Workers of factories and mines equated to state peasants - 616,000

State peasants assigned to private factories - 518,000

Peasants released after military service - 1,093,000

HISTORIAN S.M. SOLOVIEV

“Liberal speeches have begun; but it would be strange if the first, main content of these speeches did not become the emancipation of the peasants. What other liberation could one think of without remembering that in Russia a huge number of people are the property of other people, moreover, slaves of the same origin as the masters, and sometimes of higher origin: peasants of Slavic origin, and the masters of Tatar, Cheremis, Mordovian, not to mention Germans? What kind of liberal speech could be made without remembering this stain, the shame that lay on Russia, excluding it from the society of European civilized peoples.

A.I. HERZEN

“Many more years will pass before Europe understands the course of development of Russian serfdom. Its origin and development is a phenomenon so exceptional and unlike anything else that it is difficult to believe in it. How, indeed, to believe that half of the population of the same nationality, endowed with rare physical and mental abilities, is enslaved not by war, not by conquest, not by a coup, but only by a series of decrees, immoral concessions, vile pretensions?

K.S. AKSAKOV

“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” ...

"MUCH BETTER THAT HAPPENED FROM ABOVE"

When Emperor Alexander II arrived in Moscow for the coronation, the Moscow Governor-General Count Zakrevsky asked him to calm the local nobility, agitated by rumors about the upcoming liberation of the peasants. The tsar, receiving the Moscow provincial marshal of the nobility, Prince Shcherbatov, with district representatives, told them: “Rumors are circulating that I want to announce the liberation of serfdom. This is unfair, and from this there were several cases of disobedience of the peasants to the landlords. I won't tell you that I'm totally against it; we live in such an age that in time this must happen. I think that you, too, are of the same opinion as me: therefore, it is much better for this to happen from above than from below.”

The case of the emancipation of the peasants, which was submitted for consideration by the State Council, due to its importance, I consider it a vital issue for Russia, on which the development of its strength and power will depend. I am sure that all of you, gentlemen, are just as convinced as I am of the usefulness and necessity of this measure. I also have another conviction, namely, that this matter cannot be postponed, why I demand from the Council of State that it be completed by it in the first half of February and that it could be announced by the beginning of field work; I place this on the direct duty of the chairman of the Council of State. I repeat, and it is my indispensable will that this matter be ended immediately. (…)

You know the origin of serfdom. It did not exist with us before: this right was established by the autocratic power, and only the autocratic power can destroy it, and this is my direct will.

My predecessors felt all the evil of serfdom and constantly strove, if not for its direct abolition, then for the gradual limitation of the arbitrariness of the landowners' power. (…)

Following the rescript given to the Governor-General Nazimov, requests began to arrive from the nobility of other provinces, which were answered by rescripts addressed to the governors-general and governors of a similar content with the first. These rescripts contained the same main principles and foundations, and it was allowed to proceed to business on the same principles I have indicated. As a result, provincial committees were established, which were given a special program to facilitate their work. When, after the period given for that time, the work of the committees began to arrive here, I allowed the formation of special Editorial Commissions, which were to consider the drafts of the provincial committees and do the general work in a systematic manner. The chairman of these commissions was at first Adjutant General Rostovtsev, and after his death, Count Panin. The editorial committees worked for a year and seven months, and despite the criticisms, perhaps partly just, to which the committees were subjected, they completed their work in good faith and submitted it to the Main Committee. The main committee, under the chairmanship of my brother, labored with tireless activity and diligence. I consider it my duty to thank all the members of the committee, and my brother in particular, for their conscientious labors in this matter.

Views on the presented work may be different. Therefore, I listen to all different opinions willingly; but I have the right to demand from you one thing, that you, putting aside all personal interests, act as state dignitaries, invested with my confidence. Starting this important work, I did not hide from myself all the difficulties that awaited us, and I do not hide them even now, but, firmly trusting in the mercy of God, I hope that God will not leave us and bless us to complete it for the future prosperity. our dear Fatherland. Now, with God's help, let's get down to business.

MANIFESTO FEBRUARY 19, 1861

GOD'S MERCY

WE, ALEXANDER II,

EMPEROR AND AUTOGRAPHER

ALL-RUSSIAN

Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland

and other, and other, and other

We announce to all our loyal subjects.

By God's providence and the sacred law of succession to the throne, having been called to the ancestral All-Russian throne, in accordance with this calling, we made a vow in our hearts to embrace with our royal love and care all our loyal subjects of every rank and status, from those who nobly wield a sword to defend the Fatherland to modestly work as an artisan tool, from passing the highest state service to making a furrow in the field with a plow or a plow.

Delving into the position of ranks and states in the composition of the state, we saw that state legislation, actively improving the upper and middle classes, defining their duties, rights and advantages, did not achieve uniform activity in relation to serfs, so named because they are partly old. laws, partly custom, hereditarily strengthened under the rule of the landowners, who at the same time have the duty to arrange their well-being. The rights of the landowners were until now extensive and not precisely defined by law, the place of which was replaced by tradition, custom and the goodwill of the landowner. In the best cases, this resulted in good patriarchal relations of sincere, truthful guardianship and charity of the landowner and good-natured obedience of the peasants. But with a decrease in the simplicity of morals, with an increase in the diversity of relations, with a decrease in the direct paternal relations of landlords to peasants, with landlord rights sometimes falling into the hands of people seeking only their own benefit, good relations weakened and the path opened up to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants and unfavorable for them. well-being, which in the peasants was answered by immobility for improvements in their own way of life.

Our ever-memorable predecessors also saw this and took measures to change the condition of the peasants to a better one; but these were measures, partly indecisive, proposed to the voluntary, freedom-loving action of the landlords, partly decisive only for certain localities, at the request of special circumstances or in the form of experience. So, Emperor Alexander I issued a decree on free cultivators, and in Bose, our deceased father Nicholas I - a decree on obligated peasants. In the western provinces, inventory rules define the allocation of land to peasants and their obligations. But the decrees on free cultivators and obligated peasants have been put into effect on a very small scale.

Thus, we were convinced that the matter of changing the position of serfs for the better is for us the testament of our predecessors and the lot, through the course of events, given to us by the hand of providence.

We began this work by an act of our trust in the Russian nobility, in the great experience of devotion to its throne and its readiness to donate for the benefit of the Fatherland. We left it to the nobility itself, at their own call, to make assumptions about the new arrangement of the life of the peasants, and the nobles were supposed to limit their rights to the peasants and raise the difficulties of transformation, not without reducing their benefits. And our trust was justified. In the provincial committees, in the person of their members, endowed with the confidence of the entire noble society of each province, the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to the identity of serfs. In these committees, after collecting the necessary information, assumptions were made about a new arrangement for the life of people in a serf state and about their relationship to the landowners.

These assumptions, which, as one might expect from the nature of the case, turned out to be diverse, were compared, agreed, brought together in the correct composition, corrected and supplemented in the Main Committee on this case; and the new provisions drawn up in this way on the landlord peasants and courtyard people were considered in the State Council.

Calling on God for help, we decided to give this matter an executive movement.

By virtue of the aforementioned new provisions, serfs will in due course receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.

The landowners, while retaining the right of ownership to all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for the established duties, for permanent use with their estate settlement and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, the amount of field land and other lands determined in the regulations.

Using this land allotment, the peasants are obliged to perform in favor of the landowners the duties specified in the regulations. In this state, which is a transitional state, the peasants are called temporarily liable.

At the same time, they are given the right to redeem their estate settlement, and with the consent of the landowners, they can acquire ownership of field lands and other lands assigned to them for permanent use. With such an acquisition of ownership of a certain amount of land, the peasants will be freed from obligations to the landowners for the purchased land and will enter into a decisive state of free peasant owners.

A special provision on householders defines a transitional state for them, adapted to their occupations and needs; after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of issuance of this regulation, they will receive full exemption and urgent benefits.

On these main principles, the drafted provisions determine the future structure of the peasants and householders, establish the order of social peasant administration and indicate in detail the rights granted to the peasants and householders and the duties assigned to them in relation to the government and landowners.

Although these provisions, general, local and special additional rules for certain special localities, for the estates of small landowners and for peasants working in landowner factories and factories, are adapted as far as possible to local economic needs and customs, however, in order to preserve the usual order there, where it represents mutual benefits, we leave the landowners to make voluntary agreements with the peasants and to conclude conditions on the size of the peasants' land allotment and on the duties following it, in compliance with the rules established to protect the inviolability of such contracts.

As a new device, due to the inevitable complexity of the changes required by it, cannot be made suddenly, but it will take time for this, approximately at least two years, then during this time, in disgust of confusion and for the observance of public and private benefit, existing to this day in the landowners on the estates, order must be maintained until then, when, after proper preparations have been made, a new order will be opened.

In order to achieve this correctly, we recognized it as good to command:

1. To open in each province a provincial office for peasant affairs, which is entrusted with the highest management of the affairs of peasant societies established on landowners' lands.

2. In order to resolve local misunderstandings and disputes that may arise in the implementation of the new provisions, appoint conciliators in the counties and form them into county conciliation congresses.

3. Then to form secular administrations on the landowners' estates, for which, leaving rural communities in their current composition, open volost administrations in large villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.

4. Draw up, verify and approve for each rural society or estate a charter charter, which will calculate, on the basis of the local situation, the amount of land provided to the peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner both for land and and for other benefits.

5. These statutory letters to be enforced as they are approved for each estate, and finally for all estates to be put into effect within two years from the date of publication of this manifesto.

6. Until the expiration of this period, the peasants and yard people remain in their former obedience to the landlords and unquestioningly fulfill their former duties.

Paying attention to the inevitable difficulties of an acceptable transformation, we first of all place our hope in the all-good providence of God, patronizing Russia.

Therefore, we rely on the valiant zeal of the noble nobility for the common good, to which we cannot but express deserved gratitude from us and from the entire Fatherland for their disinterested action towards the implementation of our plans. Russia will not forget that it voluntarily, motivated only by respect for human dignity and Christian love for neighbors, renounced serfdom, which is now abolished, and laid the foundation for a new economic future for the peasants. We undoubtedly expect that it will also nobly use further diligence to enforce the new provisions in good order, in the spirit of peace and goodwill, and that each owner will complete within the limits of his estate a great civil feat of the entire class, arranging the life of the peasants settled on his land and his yards. people on favorable terms for both sides, and thus give the rural population a good example and encouragement to the exact and conscientious performance of state duties.

The examples we have in mind of the generous care of the owners for the welfare of the peasants and the gratitude of the peasants for the beneficent care of the owners confirm our hope that mutual voluntary agreements will resolve most of the difficulties that are inevitable in some cases of applying general rules to the various circumstances of individual estates, and that in this way the transition from the old order to the new, and for the future, mutual trust, good agreement and unanimous striving for the common good will be strengthened.

In order to most conveniently put into effect those agreements between owners and peasants, according to which these will acquire ownership along with estates and field lands, the government will provide benefits, on the basis of special rules, by issuing loans and transferring debts lying on the estates.

We rely on the common sense of our people. When the government's idea of ​​abolishing serfdom spread among the peasants who were not prepared for it, there were private misunderstandings. Some thought about freedom and forgot about duties. But the general common sense did not waver in the conviction that, according to natural reasoning, freely enjoying the benefits of society should mutually serve the good of society by fulfilling certain duties, and according to the Christian law, every soul should obey the powers that be (Rom. XIII, 1), do justice to everyone, and especially to whom it is due, a lesson, a tribute, fear, honor; that the rights legally acquired by the landowners cannot be taken from them without a decent reward or a voluntary concession; that it would be contrary to any justice to use the land from the landlords and not bear the corresponding duty for this.

And now we expect with hope that the serfs, in the new future that opens up for them, will understand and gratefully accept the important donation made by the noble nobility to improve their life.

They will come to understand that, having received for themselves a firmer foundation of property and greater freedom to dispose of their economy, they become obliged to society and to themselves to supplement the beneficence of the new law by faithful, well-intentioned and diligent use of the rights granted to them. The most beneficent law cannot make people prosperous unless they take the trouble to arrange their own well-being under the protection of the law. Contentment is acquired and increased only by unremitting labor, prudent use of forces and means, strict frugality and, in general, an honest life in the fear of God.

The performers of the preparations for the new organization of peasant life and the very introduction to this organization will use vigilant care so that this is done with a correct, calm movement, observing the convenience of the time, so that the attention of the farmers is not diverted from their necessary agricultural activities. Let them carefully cultivate the land and gather its fruits, so that from a well-filled granary they will take seeds for sowing on the land of constant use or on land acquired in property.

Fall on yourself with the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call with us God's blessing on your free work, the guarantee of your domestic well-being and the public good. Given in St. Petersburg, on the nineteenth day of February, in the summer of the birth of Christ, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, our reign in the seventh.

By the end of the 18th century, the discontent of the masses in the Russian Empire had grown to the limit. The tsarist government could no longer ignore the immorality of serfdom against the backdrop of a slave-free European society. So, the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom in Russia appeared long before the accession to the royal throne of Alexander II, who signed the long-awaited manifesto for the peasants.

Gradual improvement of conditions for serfs: what were the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom

The socio-economic development of the Russian Empire invariably lagged behind the European states, the reason for which was the unproductive serf system. The absence of free hired labor hindered the development of capitalist industry. Poor peasants could not consume industrial products, which also had a negative impact on the development of the sector. In addition, the crisis of serf farms led to the ruin of the landowners.

Therefore, the main reasons regarding the need to abolish serfdom are clear:

• crisis of the imperial feudal-serf system:
• the backwardness of the Russian Empire in almost all spheres of life;
• growing unrest among the serfs and frequent peasant uprisings

At the beginning of the 19th century, the peasants of the Russian Empire began to feel some relaxation of the serf system. According to the Decree on free cultivators, serfs, by agreement with the landowners, could receive freedom for a ransom. The law proved ineffective, but a start was made.

A compromise option for reforming serfdom was proposed by General A.A. Arakcheev. This statesman had great influence and was almost the second person after the king in the empire. Arakcheev's project on the abolition of serfdom was to free the peasants on the basis of a lease: the landowners at the same time received compensation from the treasury. Such a decision was directed, by and large, to protect the interests of the landlords, because the peasants would still be forced to rent land. Yes, and Arakcheev himself had a lot of serfs, therefore it is obvious what views he was guided by. However, Arakcheev's project approved by Alexander I never came to fruition.

Soon a law was passed prohibiting the sale of serfs at fairs, and in 1833, when selling peasants, it was forbidden to separate members of the same family. Tsar Nicholas I continued the course of freeing the peasants from the oppression of the pans, but he was committed to the gradual implementation of this reform. At first, the position of the state peasants, who received a number of privileges, was somewhat improved.

The understanding of the tsarist government of the need for a step-by-step struggle against the system of serfdom is evidenced by the words uttered after the accession of Nicholas I to the throne. “There is no doubt that serfdom in its current state is an evil, tangible and obvious to everyone; but to touch it now would be an evil, of course, even more disastrous, ”said the sovereign. Serfdom was also unprofitable from a productive point of view: the labor of the peasants did not bring income, and in lean years the landowners had to feed the peasants. The situation was aggravated by the economic crisis experienced by the Russian Empire after the war with the Napoleonic armada.

The need for reform and its preparation: the reasons for the abolition of serfdom under Alexander II

In 1855, Alexander II took the tsar's throne. The new tsar made it clear that the abolition of serfdom by the authorities is a necessity dictated by the realities of the times. In order to prevent a possible peasant uprising, it was impossible to delay the implementation of reforms. Alexander II expressed his attitude to this issue as follows: “It is better to start destroying serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to destroy itself from below.” It was Alexander II who is listed in history as the one who signed the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.

At first, the preparation of reforms to eliminate the serf system was completely classified. But such a fateful initiative for the Russian Empire could not for a long time be the property of only a narrow circle of nobles close to the tsar, and the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was soon created.

The fundamental idea of ​​the future reform was to leave the land to the deduction of the peasants. The agrarian economy of the empire was to be divided in the future into large landed estates and small peasant land holdings. The provisions of the abolition of serfdom were actively taken up by the created editorial commissions.

The impending changes met with misunderstanding and resistance on the part of the nobles: the landlords did not want to give the land to the peasants. In addition, after the reform, the management of the peasants was to be concentrated in the hands of the government, which was not included in the plans of the nobles. In turn, the government understood the need to take into account the interests of all parties in the reform project. Therefore, the project for the abolition of serfdom was based on the following provisions:

• individual approach to certain territories, which have their own characteristics;
• the need for a transitional period for the transfer of farms to market relations;
• ransom guarantee for landowners upon the release of peasants

After the preparation by the editorial commissions of the provisions on the abolition of serfdom, the draft reform was submitted for consideration and approval by the state officials included in the Main Committee.

Manifesto of 1861: the pros and cons of the abolition of serfdom

At a meeting of the State Council on peasant affairs, the tsar demanded approval of the project proposed by the drafters. February 19, 1861 is the official date for the abolition of serfdom in Russia: it was on this memorable day that Alexander II signed the fateful manifesto. Russian serfdom was forever ended, and the peasants were declared free. The land, however, remained the property of the landlords, and the peasants had to either pay money or work for the use of allotments.

Peasants could obtain complete independence from the landowners after the complete redemption of land plots. Prior to that, they were considered temporarily obligated peasants. The treasury paid the ransom to the landowners, and the peasants were given 49 years to pay off their debt to the state.

Peasant societies were also created, uniting the lands of former serfs. Internal issues were entrusted to solve the village gathering, which was headed by the village headman. Peasants who did not trade in agriculture were released without a land plot. Subsequently, they could join any society.

The agreement between landlords and former serfs was regulated by a charter, which also provided for the size of the land allotment. In case of disagreement during the preparation of such charters, the dispute had to be settled by mediators - local nobles who approved charter charters.

The reaction to such a long-awaited event was mixed. The peasants, who dreamed of complete freedom, were not satisfied with the transition period. In places, peasant unrest passed, and by the end of 1861, the revolutionary movement intensified in the empire. It should be noted that Russia's intra-economic relations were not ready for such a reform.

And yet, the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom is difficult to overestimate. After more than two hundred years of being in the property of the landowners, the peasants finally received the long-awaited freedom.

The reform opened up prospects for the development of productive forces in the empire, and the abolition of the serf system gave impetus to the implementation of reforms in other areas.

When serfdom was abolished in Russia, conditions were created everywhere for the growth of the economy of the Russian Empire, because now labor power could be turned into a commodity. The epochal manifesto of 1861 opened a new capitalist page in the history of Russia and introduced a vast country into the era of capitalist development of agriculture. In response to the question “in what century was serfdom abolished,” we can safely say that the peasant reform became almost the main event in Russian history of the 19th century.

Brief answers to questions

Date of the abolition of serfdom in Russia? In what century was serfdom abolished?

Who abolished serfdom in 1861 (signed the manifesto)?

Tsar Alexander II

What were the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom under Alexander II?

Avoiding a peasant uprising

Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom?

Serfdom became a brake on the development of industry and trade, which hindered the growth of capital and placed Russia in the category of secondary states;

The decline of the landlord economy due to the extremely inefficient labor of serfs, which was expressed in the deliberately poor performance of corvee.

What is the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom?

This step opened a new capitalist page in the history of Russia and introduced a vast country into the era of capitalist development of agriculture.

How did the peasants and nobles react? Everyone was dissatisfied with the reform.

The landowners felt that too much had been taken from them. The peasants felt that they were given too little. The peasants were the most worried about the authorities.

The spring of 1861, when the content of the reform became known, was characterized by a surge of peasant unrest. Before the reform they were small. In 1860, less than 400 cases of peasant unrest, clashes with the authorities and landlords were recorded in the villages throughout Russia. This is the average level. And here in 2 months on the territory of Ukraine 1 million were recorded, and in Russia 2 thousand peasant unrest. No need to exaggerate the severity. For the most part, the peasants were peaceful. Clashes with the landlords were rare, clashes with the troops even more rare. Even where it came to the fact that the troops fired, the peasants did not show aggression. In principle, the soldiers shot down an essentially unarmed and defenseless crowd.

This spring surge of peasant unrest affected a relatively small number of regions, i.e. the feeling of an explosion in the village was among contemporaries simply because there was a sharp contrast between the previous and the modern.

Peasant uprisings against statutory letters acquired a truly massive character. When the time came, the peasants massively refused to sign them. In the central black earth region, where a significant mass of landlord peasants was concentrated, about 70% of the peasants refused to sign.

In the end, by 1863, the situation was resolved.

Measures against the peasantry were not limited to the reform of 1861.

In addition to the landlord peasants, there were other categories of peasants, and quite numerous. There were specific peasants who were owned by the royal family. There were significantly fewer of them than the landlords, but also a lot.

By 1860, there were about 2 million specific peasants.

The reform in the specific village began as early as 1857-58; even before the reform of 1861. The government was trying to set an example for the nobles. Specific peasants received all civil rights.

Now it remained to settle the issues of land, because the specific peasants did not have land. The case dragged on. In 1863, with respect to the specific peasantry, the land issue was also resolved. The reform in the specific village was carried out on the same main grounds on which it was carried out in the landowners' farms, but on more favorable terms.

From the point of view of the land, the appanage peasants received allotments according to the highest category. Cut-offs were very rare, and cuts quite often. There was no provision for a temporary obligation for them, they were immediately transferred for ransom. Redemption was carried out in the same way as the landowners. The state gave them a loan that they had to repay.

Another measure that affected the peasantry concerned the state peasants. In 1860, the number of state-owned peasants exceeded the number of landlord peasants. They made up more than half of the entire peasant population of the Russian Empire. What problem needed to be solved? They had civil rights. But the question arose about land. The land they cultivated did not belong to them. This land was government, state. They had to pay a special contribution to the treasury, something like quitrent. A reform in the state village was carried out in 1866.

The peasants retained the allotments that they had at the time of the reform. The reform in the state countryside was carried out on much more favorable terms than the landowners, and even specific ones, they also received the right to redeem. The amount was calculated in the same way as for landlord and specific peasants. But it was more difficult for the former state-owned peasants to redeem the land than for the landowners and appanage, because they did not receive loans, and the entire amount had to be paid immediately in full. Very few peasants could take advantage of this.

The results of the reform differed markedly from each other. As a result of the peasant reforms of the 1860s, different forms of peasants found themselves in different positions. State peasants found themselves in a better position, former appanage peasants in a slightly less advantageous position, and former landlords in the most disadvantageous position. The result of the reform was that all categories of the peasant population were abolished, i.e. there were no longer appanage, state, landlord peasants. They all began to be called free rural.

The peculiarity was the implementation of the reform on the outskirts of Russia. For example, in Transcaucasia, on the territory of Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine. The reform here was carried out on very favorable terms for the peasants, and very unfavorable for the landowners. This was due to the fact that the Polish uprising broke out in 1863, the Polish landowners behaved disloyally towards the authorities, and so that the peasants would not support them, the authorities began to provide them with land on favorable terms. The interests of the landowners were greatly infringed here. From a political point of view, this measure brought great benefits. The peasants not only did not support the rebels, but also provided active assistance to the Russian authorities.

The peasant reform was the most important measure among the reforms that were adopted in the 1860s and 70s. They laid the foundation for all subsequent transformations.



The peasant reform of 1861, which put an end to the serfdom of the overwhelming majority of the peasantry of Russia, is equally often called "great" and "predatory". Seeming contradiction: she is both.

Cancel from above

Serfdom is the most striking manifestation of Russia's backwardness in socio-economic terms from the leading world states. In Europe, the main manifestations of personal dependence were eliminated in the XIV-XV centuries. In fact, the slavish lack of rights of the most massive category of the population of the vast empire affected all spheres of its life.

1. Labor productivity in agriculture was extremely low (this is in an agrarian country!). The landowners rarely dared to introduce technical innovations on the estates (what if the peasants-bastards spoil it?), And the peasants had neither the time nor the means for this.
2. Industrial development was slowed down. The industrialists needed free working hands, but they were not, by definition. A similar situation in the world at that time was developing only in the United States due to slavery in the South.
3. Numerous hotbeds of social tension were created. The landlords, inspired by permissiveness, sometimes treated the peasants disgustingly, and those, unable to defend themselves legally, went on the run and riots.

Although the entire ruling elite of Russia consisted of the nobility, in the middle of the 19th century, even there they understood that something had to be done. History is a little confused when determining the author of the statement "We need to abolish serfdom from above, otherwise the people will abolish it from below." But the quote reflects the essence of the question accurately.

Rescripts and Commissions

Immediately after the accession of Alexander 2, various ministerial commissions appeared, offering ways to solve the peasant issue. But the starting point of the reform should be considered the “rescript to Nazimov” of November 28, 1857. This document envisaged the creation in three "pilot" provinces (Grodno, Vilna, Kovno) noble committees to develop projects for the abolition of serfdom in Russia. A year later, such committees arose in all the provinces of the European part of the country, where there were serfs (there were none in the Arkhelogorodsk region), and the Main Committee in the capital collected and processed proposals.

The main problem was the question of peasant allotment. Ideas about this can be reduced to 3 main options.

1. Release without land at all - let the peasant redeem or work out both the field and the estate with the house.
2. To release with the estate, but to redeem the field allotment.
3. Release with a minimum allotment of the field, the rest - for ransom.

The result was something in between. But the reform touched not only the question of personal dependence, but also the class status of the peasant as a whole.

Great Manifesto

The main provisions of the peasant reform were collected in the tsar's Manifesto of February 19 (March 3, according to the new style), 1861. Then a lot of supplementary and clarifying legislative acts were issued - the process continued until the mid-1880s. The main gist was as follows.

1. Peasants are freed from personal dependence.
2. Former serfs become legal subjects, but on the basis of a special class right.
3. A house, estate, movable property is recognized as the property of a peasant.
4. The land is the property of the landowner, but he is obliged to allocate a shower plot to each peasant (the size varied depending on the province and the type of land in it). For this land, the peasant will work off corvée or pay dues until he redeems it.
5. The land is given not to a specific peasant, but to the "world", that is, the community of former serfs of one gentleman.
6. The redemption for the land should be such an amount that, when placed in a bank at 6% per annum, it would give an income similar to the quitrent received earlier from a peasant plot.
7. Until the settlement with the landowner, the peasant had no right to leave the site.

There were almost no peasants capable of paying the full amount of the ransom. Therefore, in 1863, the Peasants' Bank appeared, which paid the landowners 80% of the funds due to them. The peasant paid the remaining 20%, but then he fell into credit dependence on the state for 49 years. Only the reform of P.A. Stolypin in 1906-1907 put an end to this state.

Wrong freedom

So the peasants immediately interpreted the royal mercy. The reasons were obvious.

1. In fact, peasant allotments decreased - the norms were less than the actual land use of peasants at the time of the reform. The changes were especially sensitive in the black earth provinces - the landowners did not want to give away profitable arable land.
2. For many years the peasant remained semi-independent, paying or working off the landlord for the land. In addition, he was still in credit bondage with the state.
3. Until 1907, the peasants overpaid for their allotments almost 3 times against their market price.
4. The community system did not turn the peasant into a real owner.

There were also cases of concessions. So, in 1863, the peasants of the Right-Bank Ukraine, parts of Lithuania and Belarus received increased allotments and were actually exempted from redemption payments. But it was not love for the people - this is how the impoverished peasants were motivated to hate the Polish rebels. It helped - for the land, the peasants were ready to kill their mother, not like pan-lyakh.

As a result, after the abolition of serfdom, only entrepreneurs won. They did get hired workers (yard people were freed without land, that is, without means of subsistence), and very cheap ones, and an industrial revolution began rapidly in Russia.

The predatory side of the peasant reform of 1861 nullified all greatness. Russia remained a backward state with the largest estate, significantly limited in rights. And as a result, the "tops" did not get what they wanted - the peasant riots did not stop, and in 1905 the peasants resolutely went to get "real freedom" from below. With the help of a pitchfork.