Test

The era of great reforms. Peasant reform of 1861

1. Background and reasons for the abolition of serfdom in Russia. Reform preparation

serfdom reform

Contrary to the widespread erroneous opinion that the vast majority of the population of pre-reform Russia was serfs, in reality the percentage of serfs to the entire population of the empire remained almost unchanged at 45% from the second revision to the eighth (that is, from 1747 to 1837), and by 10- th revision (1857), this share fell to 37%. According to the 1857-1859 census, 23.1 million people (of both sexes) out of 62.5 million people who inhabited the Russian Empire were in serfdom. Of the 65 provinces and regions that existed in the Russian Empire in 1858, in the three above-mentioned Baltic provinces, in the Land of the Black Sea Host, in the Primorsky Region, the Semipalatinsk Region and the Siberian Kirghiz Region, in the Derbent Governorate (with the Caspian Territory) and the Erivan Governorate, there were no serfs at all; in 4 more administrative units (Arkhangelsk and Shemakhinsk provinces, Zabaikalsk and Yakutsk regions) there were no serfs either, with the exception of a few dozen courtyard people (servants). In the remaining 52 provinces and regions, the proportion of serfs in the population ranged from 1.17% (Bessarabian region) to 69.07% (Smolensk province).

The first steps towards the abolition of serfdom in Russia were taken by Emperor Alexander I in 1803 by issuing the Decree on free cultivators, which spelled out the legal status of peasants set free.

In the Baltic (Ostsee) provinces of the Russian Empire (Estland, Courland, Livonia), serfdom was abolished as early as 1816-1819.

The crisis of the serf system became evident by the end of the 1850s. In the context of peasant unrest, which especially intensified during the Crimean War, the government decided to abolish serfdom.

The main reasons for the abolition of serfdom in Russia were the following:

serfdom hindered the development of industry, and the accumulation of capital was slow. Russia could move into the category of minor states;

peasant farms were ruined, as the landowners increased the corvée in the Black Earth region, and quitrent peasants left for factories, the basis of the serf economy, based on forced, extremely inefficient labor of serfs, was undermined;

The crisis of serfdom was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the country in the Crimean War, which showed the military-technical backwardness of Russia. The financial system was undermined; the peasants were ruined because of recruiting sets, the growth of duties. A mass exodus of peasants from the landowners began;

the growth in the number of peasant unrest (in 1860 there were 126 peasant uprisings) created a real threat of turning isolated uprisings into a new "Pugachevshchina";

the realization by the ruling circles that serfdom is a "powder magazine" under the state. From liberal landlords, scientists, even relatives of the tsar, in particular the younger brother of the Grand Duke Konstantin, the government began to receive proposals, projects for reforming land relations. Alexander II, speaking in 1856 to representatives of the Moscow nobility, said: "If we do not free the peasants from above, then they will free themselves from below";

serfdom, as a form of slavery, was condemned by all sections of Russian society.

The program of the government was outlined in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II on November 20 (December 2), 1857, to the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov. It provided for: the destruction of the personal dependence of the peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners; providing peasants with a certain amount of land for which they are obliged, they will pay dues or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings).

In 1858, provincial committees were formed to prepare peasant reforms, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between the liberal and reactionary landowners. The fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government program of peasant reform, the projects of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or fall of the peasant movement, as well as under the influence and with the participation of a number of public figures (for example, A.M. Unkovsky).

In December 1858, a new peasant reform program was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and creating peasant public administration bodies. In March 1859 Drafting Commissions were created to consider the drafts of provincial committees and work out the peasant reform. The project, drawn up by the Editorial Commissions at the end of 1859, differed from that proposed by the provincial committees by an increase in land allotments and a decrease in duties. This caused dissatisfaction among the local nobility, and in 1860 the allotments were somewhat reduced and duties increased. This direction in changing the project was preserved both when it was considered in the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs at the end of 1860, and when it was discussed in the State Council at the beginning of 1861.

The preparation of the peasant reform took place in an atmosphere of socio-political upsurge in the country. In the 1950s, two ideological centers emerged that led the revolutionary-democratic trend in Russian thought: A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogareva, N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov in London.

There is a noticeable revival of the liberal opposition movement among those strata of the nobility who considered it necessary not only to abolish serfdom, but also to create all-class elected bodies of government, establish a public court, introduce publicity in general, carry out reforms in the field of education, etc.

By the end of August 1859, the draft "Regulations on Peasants" was practically prepared. At the end of January 1861, the project was submitted for consideration by the last instance - the State Council. Here a new “addition” was made to the project in favor of the landlords (Appendix 1): at the suggestion of one of the largest landowners P.P. Gagarin, a clause was introduced on the right of the landowner to provide the peasants, respectively, by agreement with them, immediately to the property and free of charge, i.e. “As a gift” put on a quarter. Such an allotment was called "quarter" or "donation", the peasants themselves called it "orphan".

2. Manifesto of Alexander II of February 19, 1861. The main provisions of the peasant reform

On February 16, 1861, the State Council completed the discussion of the draft "Regulations on peasants leaving serfdom." The signing of the "Regulations" was timed to February 19 - the 6th anniversary of the accession of Alexander II to the throne.

February "Regulations" (Appendix 2), and they included 17 legislative acts, were signed by the king and received force. On the same day, the tsar also signed the Manifesto on the liberation of the peasants.

After the Manifesto and the “Regulations” were signed by the tsar and the required number of copies were printed, the adjutant wing of the tsar’s retinue was sent with them to the province, who were entrusted with the duty of announcing the “will”. They were endowed with broad powers to suppress possible peasant "riots". All local authorities and troops stationed in the provinces passed into submission to the aide-de-camp.

The “General Regulations on Peasants Who Emerged from Serfdom” (Appendix 3) concerned only the landlord peasants of the Great Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian provinces and provided for the release of serfs in stages, over a rather long period. It decreed: "Serfdom for peasants settled in landowners' estates, and for householders is abolished forever."

2.1 Size of allotments

Based on the provisions of the reform, it should be noted that the maximum and minimum sizes of peasant allotments were established. It was possible to reduce the allotments on the basis of special agreements between the peasants and the landowners, as well as in the case of receiving a donation allotment. If the peasants had smaller allotments in use, the landowner was obliged to either cut the missing part of the land allotment from the minimum size (the so-called “cutting”), or to reduce duties. Pruning took place only if the landowner was left with at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, the established amount of dues from 8 to 12 rubles was adopted. per year or corvee - 40 male and 30 female working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest, then the landowner cut off the "extra" land in his favor. If the allotment was less than the highest, then there was a decrease in duty, but not proportionally.

As a result of this state of affairs, the average size of the peasant allotment of the post-reform period was 3.3 acres per capita, which was less than before the reform. In the black earth provinces, the landowners cut off a fifth of their land from the peasants. The biggest losses were suffered by the peasants of the Volga region. In addition to the cuts, other tools for infringing on the rights of peasants were the implementation of resettlement to barren lands, the deprivation of pastures, forests, reservoirs, paddocks and other lands necessary for each peasant. Huge difficulties for the peasants were also represented by the striped land, which forced the peasants to rent land from the landowner, which went like wedges into the peasant allotments.

2.2 Duties of temporarily liable peasants

The peasants continued to be in a temporarily obligated state until the conclusion of a redemption deal. At first, the period of this state was not indicated. On December 28, 1881, he was finally installed. Based on the decree, it was decided to transfer all temporarily liable peasants for redemption from January 1, 1883. The fact of such a situation took place only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obligated condition of the peasants continued to be preserved until 1912-1913.

Under a temporarily obligated state, the peasants were charged with the obligation to pay dues for the use of land or work on corvée. The amount of dues for a full allotment fluctuated between 8-12 rubles a year. The profitability of the allotment and the size of the quitrent were in no way connected. The highest dues (12 rubles a year) had to be paid to the peasants of the St. Petersburg province, whose lands were extremely infertile. On the contrary, in the chernozem provinces the amount of dues was much lower.

As another vice of quitrent, it seems possible to confidently name the fact of its gradation, in which it was customary to value the first tithe of land for some reason more expensive than the rest. This circumstance forced the peasants to carry out the purchase of land, and the landowners were given the opportunity to profitably sell infertile land.

All men in the age category from 18 to 55 years old and all women aged 17 to 50 years old were required to serve corvee. Unlike the former corvée, the post-reform corvee was more limited and orderly. For a full allotment, the peasant had to work on corvee for no more than 40 men's and 30 women's days.

2.3 Local regulations

A number of other "Local Regulations" basically repeated the "Great Russian", but taking into account the specifics of their regions. The features of the Peasant Reform for certain categories of peasants and specific regions were determined on the basis of the “Additional Rules” - “On the organization of peasants settled on the estates of small landowners, and on the allowance for these owners”, “On people assigned to private mining plants of the department of the Ministry of Finance”, “About peasants and workers serving work at Perm private mining plants and salt mines”, “About peasants serving work at landlord factories”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Land of the Don Cossacks”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Stavropol province ”, “About peasants and courtyards in Siberia”, “About people who came out of serfdom in the Bessarabian region”.

2.4 Liberation of household peasants

The “Regulations on the arrangement of courtyard people” provided for the implementation of their release without land and estates, however, for 2 years they continued to remain in full direct dependence on the landowner. Domestic servants in that period of time accounted for 6.5% of the serfs. Thus, we can conclude that a huge number of peasants found themselves practically without means of subsistence.

2.5 Redemption payments

The content of the provision “On the redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom of their estate settlement and on government assistance in acquiring field land by these peasants” determined the procedure for the redemption of land by peasants from landowners, the organization of the redemption operation, the rights and obligations of peasant owners. The implementation of the redemption of the field allotment was directly dependent on the agreement with the landowner, who had the right to oblige the peasants to redeem the land at their request. It was customary to determine the price of land by quitrent, which was capitalized from 6% per annum. In case of redemption on the basis of a voluntary agreement, the peasants had to make an additional payment to the landowner. The main amount of the landowner received from the state.

The peasants were charged with the obligation to immediately pay the landowner 20% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 80% was set to be paid by the state. Peasants were obligated to ensure its repayment for 49 years annually through equal redemption payments. The annual payment was 6% of the redemption amount. Thus, the peasants paid a total of 294% of the redemption loan. In modern terms, a redemption loan was a loan with annuity payments for a period of 49 years at 5.6% per annum. The payment of ransom payments was discontinued in 1906 during the First Russian Revolution. By 1906, the peasants paid 1 billion 571 million rubles in redemption for land, which was estimated at 544 million rubles. Thus, the peasants actually (taking into account the interest on the loan) paid a triple amount, which was the subject of criticism from the observers who stood on populist positions (and later from Soviet historians), but in this case was a mathematically normal result for such long term loan. The loan rate of 5.6% per annum, taking into account the non-mortgage nature of the loan (for non-payment of redemption fees, it was possible to seize the personal, non-productive property of peasants, but not the land itself) and the manifested unreliability of borrowers, was balanced and consistent with the prevailing rates lending to all other types of borrowers at the time. Since penalties for late payments were repeatedly written off, and in 1906 the state forgave rural communities all the unpaid part of the debt, the redemption operation turned out to be unprofitable for the state.

In order to ensure the regular receipt of taxes from the peasants and the fulfillment of their duties, communal land tenure was preserved, and mutual responsibility was introduced: the entire rural society was financially responsible for each of its members. Such a communal order was legalized in the overwhelming majority of the Great Russian provinces, in three "Novorossiysk" provinces (Ekaterinoslav, Tauride and Kherson), partly in Kharkov, as well as in Mogilev and in a number of districts of Vitebsk province.

Thus, liberation from serfdom on the basis of the law of February 19, 1861, was long and painfully difficult for the peasants, who for the most part did not have money to buy land. Even 10 years after the proclamation of the abolition of serfdom in Russia, more than 30% of peasant households continued to be in the position of temporarily liable.

3. The historical significance of the peasant reform

"Manifesto" and "Regulations" were promulgated from March 7 to April 2 (in St. Petersburg and Moscow - March 5). Fearing dissatisfaction of the peasants with the terms of the reform, the government took a number of precautionary measures (redeployment of troops, secondment of the imperial retinue to the places, appeal of the Synod, etc.). The peasantry, dissatisfied with the enslaving conditions of the reform, responded to it with mass unrest. The largest of them were the Bezdnensky performance of 1861 and the Kandeev performance of 1861.

The implementation of the Peasant Reform began with the drafting of charters, which was basically completed by the middle of 1863. On January 1, 1863, the peasants refused to sign about 60% of the letters. The price of land for redemption significantly exceeded its market value at that time, in some areas by 2-3 times. As a result of this, in a number of districts they were extremely striving to obtain donation allotments, and in some provinces (Saratov, Samara, Yekaterinoslav, Voronezh, etc.), a significant number of peasants-gifts appeared.

Under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863, changes took place in the conditions of the Peasant Reform in Lithuania, Belarus, and the Right-Bank Ukraine—the law of 1863 introduced compulsory redemption; redemption payments decreased by 20%; peasants, landless from 1857 to 1861, received their allotments in full, previously landless - partially.

The transition of peasants to ransom lasted for several decades. By 1881, 15% remained in temporary relations. But in a number of provinces there were still many of them (Kursk 160 thousand, 44%; Nizhny Novgorod 119 thousand, 35%; Tula 114 thousand, 31%; Kostroma 87 thousand, 31%). The transition to redemption was faster in the black-earth provinces, where voluntary transactions prevailed over mandatory redemption. Landowners who had large debts, more often than others, sought to speed up the redemption and conclude voluntary deals.

The abolition of serfdom also affected the appanage peasants, who, by the "Regulations of June 26, 1863", were transferred to the category of peasant proprietors by compulsory redemption on the terms of the "Regulations of February 19". On the whole, their cuts were much smaller than those of the landowning peasants.

The law of November 24, 1866, began the reform of the state peasants. They retained all the lands that were in their use. According to the law of June 12, 1886, the state peasants were transferred for redemption.

The peasant reform of 1861 led to the abolition of serfdom in the national outskirts of the Russian Empire.

In October 1864, a decree was issued on the abolition of serfdom in the Tiflis province, a year later it was extended with some changes to the Kutaisi province, and in 1866 to Megrelia. In Abkhazia, serfdom was abolished in 1870, in Svaneti - in 1871. The terms of the reform here retained serfdom survivals to a greater extent than according to the "Regulations of February 19". In Azerbaijan and Armenia, the peasant reform was carried out in 1870-1883 and was no less enslaving than in Georgia. In Bessarabia, the bulk of the peasant population was made up of legally free landless peasants - tsarans, who, according to the "Regulations of July 14, 1868", were endowed with land for permanent use for service. The redemption of this land was carried out with some derogations on the basis of the "Regulations on Redemption" on February 19, 1861.

Contemporaries called this reform great, since it brought freedom to more than 30 million serfs, serfdom was abolished, the road was cleared for the formation of bourgeois relations, the economic modernization of the country.

However, this reform was only half-hearted. It was a complex compromise between the state and the whole society, between the two main classes - landowners and peasants, as well as between various socio-political movements. The process of preparing the reform and its implementation made it possible to preserve landownership, but doomed the Russian peasants to lack of land, poverty and economic dependence on the landowners, since the peasants, when dividing the land, were forced to give the landowners a fifth of their allotments.

The reform of 1861 did not remove the agrarian question in Russia, which remained central and most acute for a long time. Despite the predatory nature of the reform of 1861 for the peasants, its significance for the further development of the country was very great. This reform was a turning point in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The liberation of the peasants contributed to the intensive growth of the labor force, and the granting of some civil rights to them contributed to the development of entrepreneurship. For the landlords, the reform ensured a gradual transition from feudal forms of economy to capitalist ones.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the first Russian revolution broke out in Russia, a peasant revolution in many respects in terms of the composition of the driving forces and the tasks that confronted it. This is what made P.A. Stolypin to implement land reform, allowing the peasants to leave the community. The essence of the reform was to resolve the land issue, but not through the confiscation of land from the landlords, as the peasants demanded, but through the redistribution of the land of the peasants themselves.

Bibliography

1. History of Russia (IX - early XXI c.): textbook. for universities / ed. A.Yu. Dvornichenko, V.S. Izmozica . - 3-e ed., corrected. And extra. - M.: Gardariki, 2007.

History of Russia: textbook. Allowance /A.A. Androsov and others; under total ed. L.V. Bochkova .-Moscow: RGAZU. -Ch. 2. - 2009.

History of Russia: textbook. For universities /A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina . - 3-e ed., revised. and additional - M.: Prospect, 2009

Mikhailova N.V. Domestic history: textbook. Allowance for universities. -M: Knorus, 2010.

Klyuchevsky IN. A Course in Russian History, Op. in 9 volumes, Volume 5, 1989, p. 258-277.

The history of homeland. A course of lectures, ed. Borisova V.M. and others. M.: 1998, p. 172-176.

Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. In 9 vols. Vol. 7. Editor: Oleg Ivanovich Chistyakov. Publisher: Legal Literature (Moscow) Year: 1989, p. 816.

8. Chernobaev A.A. etc. History of Russia. Textbook for high schools. M.: 2000, p. 200 - 206.

Deinichenko P.G. The Complete Encyclopedic Reference. M.: 2004, p. 204-246.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The peasant question in the 19th century became a central topic of discussion in all sectors of society. Many understood the need to free the peasants from the almost unlimited power of the landowner, since, due to the existence of this system, all spheres of society suffered. So, the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom:

. The inefficiency of landlordism

Serfdom not only began to bring much less economic benefit to the state, but, considering the general trend, it can be noted that it even brought losses: the estates brought less and less income to the owners, some were unprofitable. Therefore, the state had to financially support the ruined nobles, who, however, provided people for the state to serve.

. Serfdom hindered the industrial modernization of Russia

Serfdom prevented the formation of a free labor market, and, due to the low purchasing power of the population, hindered the development of domestic trade. As a result, there was no need for enterprises to upgrade equipment, and the country lagged behind not only in quantity, but also in the level of equipment of factories and manufactories.

. Defeat in the Crimean War

The defeat in the Crimean War also proved the failure of the serf system. The country was not able to give a worthy rebuff to the enemy, mainly because of the internal situation: financial difficulties, the country's backwardness in all sectors. After the defeat in the Crimean War, Russia was in danger of losing its influence on the world stage.

. Increased unrest of the peasants

The peasants were dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of the landowners (an increase in corvée, dues) and additional recruitment among the serfs. Their discontent manifested itself in the form of active and passive resistance. The first one should mean open uprisings (arson of estates, murders of landowners), which, thanks to the developed local police system, were suppressed quite quickly. Passive resistance was expressed in the deterioration of the quality of work, sometimes - non-payment of dues. It was impossible to cope with this problem under the prevailing conditions, since this phenomenon covered a huge number of peasants.

So, the abolition of serfdom was historically inevitable. In 1858, the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was created, the program of which, however, provided for the mitigation of serfdom, but not its elimination. On December 4, 1858, a new peasant reform program was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and creating peasant public administration bodies. To develop a peasant reform in March 1859, Editorial Commissions were created under the Main Committee. The work of the commissions ended in October 1860. Further, the project of "reform in the peasant case" was discussed by the State Council (since January 1861). Finally, on February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants" and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto was promulgated in Moscow on March 5 (OS), 1861, on Forgiveness Sunday in churches after mass, in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. In the Mikhailovsky Manege, the decree was read out to the people by the tsar personally. In some remote places - during March of the same year.

Considering the issue of the abolition of serfdom in Russia today, we continue to meet with the methodological assessments of the nature, causes and consequences of the reform of 1861 approved by Soviet historiography, we see the desire of scientists to adhere to the concept of reform outlined by the leader of Russian Marxists Ulyanov (Lenin) at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

It was presented in concentrated form in a series of articles written on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the abolition of serfdom in 1911.

Basically, the concept of the reform of 1861 proposed by Lenin boiled down to the following provisions:

The reform, as a "by-product of the revolutionary struggle", was the result of the crisis of feudal-serf relations, as well as the revolutionary situation that arose in 1859-1861.

The immediate cause that forced tsarism to abolish serfdom and embark on the path of democratic reforms was the Crimean War lost by Russia and peasant revolts, which "grew with every decade before liberation."

The reform was carried out "from above" by the tsarist government and the feudal lords themselves, and therefore turned out to be incomplete, massively dispossessing the land of the villagers and economically tying them to the landowners' farms.

The reform was carried out in the interests of the landlords, who, however, having received huge funds for the redemption of peasant allotments, squandered them, without rebuilding the economy on a capitalist basis and continuing to exploit the peasants economically dependent on them by semi-serf methods.

The reform opened a "valve" for the development of capitalism in Russia, primarily in trade and industry, which, having made a grand leap in a few decades, reached at the beginning of the 20th century. level corresponding to the advanced countries of Europe.

The reform was not completed. The mass dispossession of the peasantry, the preservation of the remnants of serfdom in the countryside led to the impoverishment of the bulk of the peasantry, its class differentiation, the emergence of the rural bourgeoisie (kurkulstvo) and the rural proletariat (the future ally of the working class in the socialist revolution), as well as the middle peasantry (also an ally of the proletariat, but in bourgeois-democratic revolution).

Assessing the historical events of a century and a half ago from various methodological positions, one can notice that a number of the "Leninist" provisions mentioned above require clarification from a scientific point of view.

Thus, the current level of knowledge allows us to evaluate differently the process of maturation of objective conditions for the abolition of serfdom, which dragged on for more than a hundred years. As is known, the problem dates back to the 18th century, and in the first quarter of the 19th century. feudal relations turned into a serious brake on the development of industry, trade and rural entrepreneurship, which even then fell under the influence of commodity-money relations. Previously, the crisis had gripped those landowners' estates where corvée economy predominated and in which about 70% of all the serfs of the empire's peasants worked. A striking manifestation of the crisis was the emergence of new forms of corvee - "lesson" and "lunar", providing for a significant increase in feudal exploitation. Not in the best position were those estates in which the villagers were on dues. Starting from the 20s of the 19th century, arrears in the payment of contributions have been growing everywhere. The debts of the landlords are also growing, both to credit institutions and to private individuals, to whom they began to mortgage and re-mortgage their own "serf souls" more and more. The sum of the debt of the landowners, whose estates were mortgaged in credit institutions alone, amounted to 425 thousand rubles on the eve of the reform of 1861, which was twice the annual income of the state budget. However, even under such conditions, feudal-serfdom relations continued to dominate in the central regions of European Russia.

A completely logical question arises: at the expense of what resources did tsarism manage to maintain serfdom and quite successfully maintain trade and economic relations with the leading countries of Europe until 1861?

We find the answer to it in the Russian historian A. Presnyakov (1870-1929), who, characterizing the era of Nicholas I, used the term "Nikolaev imperialism".

Its essence was that, while still having enough strength at that time, tsarism compensated for the narrowness of the internal market in the central regions of the empire by expanding it on the outskirts through militaristic expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Within the Ukrainian lands, the objects of such expansion, first military and then economic, have long been the territories of the south-steppe Ukraine, the Northern Black Sea region and the Crimea. However, the policy of artificial preservation of feudal relations, which was based on the strength of the army and military expansion, objectively could not ensure sustainable success.

The economic gulf between feudal Russia and the advanced countries of Europe with their highly efficient economies was supposed to lead to the collapse of "Nikolaev imperialism." This was confirmed by the defeat in the Crimean War. It not only demonstrated the economic backwardness of the empire, but, more importantly, it clearly marked the loss of its positions in the international arena. The army lost its power and in the future was no longer the mainstay of tsarism in solving the problems of foreign and domestic policy. As a result, the state power of the Russian Empire, its international prestige and, finally, the very system of state administration were under threat. To overcome these crisis phenomena, it was necessary to reorganize the army, re-equip it and build modern means of communication (railroads) to move it. In this regard, it was necessary to create a new modern industry, which, in turn, needed civilian workers. But this was hindered by the legal dependence of the peasantry on the landowners. This dependence had to be eliminated as soon as possible. Ultimately, this set of facts decided the fate of serfdom in Russia. The government was no longer able to listen to the demands of the landowners to preserve serfdom and took the path of its abolition.

Another problem that requires serious revision is the presence of a revolutionary situation in 1859-1861, which, according to Lenin, seriously influenced the government's decision to abolish serfdom.

In The Collapse of the Second International, he outlined his vision of the revolutionary situation, the quintessence of which he considered an extremely upsurge in the revolutionary activity of the masses. In this case, we are talking, first of all, about the masses of the serfs, who showed more interest in the abolition of serfdom. That is why Lenin, recognizing the power of economic development, drew Russia into commodity-money relations, at the same time noted: "Peasant" riots "increasing with each decade before the liberation, forced the first landowner Alexander II to admit that it was better to free" from above ", than to wait until they are overthrown "from below". At one time, this expression served as one of the real confirmations of how much tsarism was afraid of the people's wrath. Moreover, the terms "from below" and "from above" were read as political. Today, another reading of them is possible. Transmitted by a Russian researcher R. Zakharova part of the speech of Alexander II to the Moscow nobility sounds like this: “There are rumors that I want to announce the release of serfdom. This is not true. [...] I will not say that I was completely against it: we live in a time when sooner or later this must happen. [...] I think it's better for all this to happen from above than from below."

Upon careful reading of this quote, one can notice that here we are not talking about revolutionary events, but about the objective course of historical development, when the sprouts of new relations, developing in the bowels of the old society (that is, "from below"), objectively have already prepared the ground for the abolition of serfdom . And the government should only legitimize and lead this spontaneous process ("from above"). At the same time, going for reforms, Alexander II sought to preserve the existing form of state administration by adjusting it to new development trends and thereby strengthening both the internal power and the international authority of the empire, which had been shaken after the defeat in the Crimean War. What was the influence of the masses on the state policy in the field of the abolition of serfdom? Consider the dynamics of the peasant movement on the eve of the reforms of 1861.

The generalizing statistics of the mass peasant movement on the eve of the reform records that within the empire in 1857 there were 192 performances, in 1858 - 528, in 1859 - 938 and in 1860 - 354 performances.

The given data testify to the tendency to reduce the peasant movement on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. And its record figures within the Russian Empire, recorded in 1859 (938 performances), achieved through the people's struggle against wine farming and high taxes on wine (636 out of 938 performances). The same 1370 speeches that took place in the first half of 1861 took place after the proclamation of the manifesto on February 19 and the promulgation of the legislative acts of the reform and cannot be considered to have influenced the government's decisions to abolish serfdom.

The Manifesto of February 19, written on behalf of Alexander II, by the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), gave the serfs legal freedom. “Having called on God to help,” it said, “we decided to put this matter in motion. Through the provisions indicated above, the serf people will in due time receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.” It also explained the obligatory endowment of the peasants with both the estate and the field land, which they had to redeem from the landowners. The norms of the manifesto were specified in a number of other legislative acts. The most important of them were: "General provisions on peasants who have emerged from serfdom", "Local regulations" for individual regions, "Regulations on the arrangement of courtyards", "Regulations" on the redemption of land allotments allocated to them by peasants and a number of other additional rules. A separate provision regulated the formation of bodies for managing peasant affairs and peasant self-government.

When reading the documents on the reform, it becomes clear that the process of emancipating the peasants had to take place gradually, stretching over years.

So, in the manifesto on February 19, in particular, it was stated that until the peasants were completely transferred for redemption, the landowner retained ownership of all land owned by the peasants, including peasant allotments. “Using this land ideal,” the manifesto noted, “for this, the peasants must fulfill in favor of the landowners the duties stipulated in the provisions. In the state that is transitional, the peasants are called temporarily obliged,” i.e., the peasants remained temporarily liable until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. In fact, this meant for the peasants the preservation of dependence on the former feudal lords and the continuation of the execution of corvee in favor of the latter. And although the government demanded that the landowners complete the complete transition of the peasants to redemption over the next three years after the abolition of serfdom, i.e. until 1864, but in reality this period reached 9-25 years.

So, the abolition of serfdom became an urgent need of the time, an important government measure to restore the state power of the Russian Empire. As I. Gurvich noted, "the liberation of the peasants became a means of attracting domestic and foreign capital in Russian industry."

However, it was impossible to do this without affecting the interests of the nobility. In the current circumstances, Alexander II and his government, taking care of the interests of the state and maintaining the existing form of state government, decided to inflict a sensitive blow on the nobility: by abolishing serfdom, that is, freeing up labor for the future modernized industry, the government equally sacrificed the nobility in the interests of state, how much it sacrificed the peasants in the interests of the nobles.

serf war peasant reform

PEASANT REFORM of 1861 - a system of legislative acts, as a result of which serfdom was abolished in the Russian Empire and peasant self-government was introduced.

The Kestyan reform is the key link in the so-called. Ve-li-kih reforms of the 1860-1870s. So-qi-al-no-eco-no-mic and general-st-ven-but-po-ly-tic pre-re-forms, as well as awareness-on- not-about-ho-di-mo-sti of its pro-ve-de-niya warehouses-dy-va-lied in a degree-pen-but (in is-that-rio-graphics with-nya to consider that not-in-the-medium-st-vein-in-house to the pro-ve-de-tion of the Kestyansky reform became-lo-ra-zhe-of Russia in the Crimean war- not 1853-1856). The idea of ​​\u200b\u200bfrom-me-we-cre-by-st-no-go-great-va once-a-slave-you-va-las in the Secret-nyh-ko-mi-te-tah (first uch-re-zh- den in 1826), two of which (in 1846 and 1848) were led by Grand Duke Alexander Ni-kolae-vich (the future emperor Alexander II).

Under-go-to-re-form-we.

For the first time, Emperor Alexander II openly declared about not-about-ho-di-mo-sti ag-rar-nyh pre-ob-ra-zo-va-ny in his re- chi before the pre-sta-vite-la-mi of the nobility-st-va of the Mo-s-kov-province 30.3 (11.4).1856. According to him, “it’s better to start destroying the cre-po-st-right right from above, isn’t it possible to wait for the time when it start-no self-destruct-to-reap-sya from below. In 1857, Alexander II headed the last Secret Committee on the cross-st-yan-sky de-lu [ob-ra-zo-van 3 (15) January; pre-ob-ra-zo-van by the imperial decree of 21.2 (5.3). in the day-st-vie im-pe-ra-to-ra headed by A.F. Or-lo-vym, from September 25 (October 7). 1860 - Grand Duke Kon-stan-tin-n Ni-ko-lae-vi-chem]. When under-go-tov-ke and pro-ve-de-nii of the Kestian reform, Emperor Alexander II relied on the group of “li-be-ral bureau-ro-kra-tov”, someone -rym in-cro-vi-tel-st-vo-va-li Grand Duke Kon-stan-tin Ni-ko-lae-vich and Grand Duchess Yele-na Pav-lov-na, pre-dos-ta-viv -shay im-pe-ra-to-ru in October 1856, the project of os-in-bo-zh-de-niya kre-st-yan in her estate Kar-lov-ka in Pol-tavskaya provinces, special-ci-al-but raz-ra-bo-tan-ny N.A. Mi-lu-ti-nym.

In October 1857, he-pe-ra-to-rum received all-under-given-her-she address from the nobility of the 3 northwestern provinces (Vi - Lena, Grod-nen-sky and Ko-vien-sky) with a request from me-thread cre-on-st-prav-in under the condition of preserving all ze-mel-noy own-st-ven-no-sti for me-schi-ka-mi. In response, you-so-tea-shiy re-sk-ript dated 11/20 (2/12/1857) was sent in the name of vi-len-sko-go, co-ven-sko-go and grd-nen -go-general-gu-ber-na-to-ra V.I. Na-zi-mo-va (active-no-go side-ron-no-ka of the Kestian reform), in some-rum from la-ha-las the first right-wing program -ma re-form-we - personal OS-in-bo-g-de-nie kre-st-yan, their right to use the earth for wine-no-sti . Re-script-ript but-strong lo-kal-ny char-ter, however-on-ko its content was immediately-lo ofi-qi-al-but pre-yes- but the voice-no-sti: the text is ra-zo-slan to all the gu-ber-na-to-ram and the gu-bern pre-vo-di-te-lyam of the nobility-ryan-st-va for the lake-na- com-le-nia and pub-li-ko-van in the newspaper "Le Nord" (Brussel), spe-tsi-al-but created-dan-noy on the ini-tsia-ti-ve of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in " Zhur-on-le Mi-ni-ster-st-va of internal affairs. Ana-logic-ny re-sk-ript to the right-len St. Petersburg general-gu-ber-na-to-ru P.N. Ig-nat-e-woo. After this, the pra-vi-tel-st-vom ini-tsi-ro-va-ny ad-re-sa from the nobility of the os-tal-nyh European provinces Russia, in response to them, we give re-sk-rip-you governor-on-to-ram (according to the re-sk-rip-tov Na-zi-mo-vu and Ig -nat-e-woo). To the ob-su-zh-de-niyu in-pro-of-owls of the governmental in-li-ti-ki for the first time would have attracted wide circles of two ryan-st-va: opening of 46 gu-bern-sky ko-mi-te-tov on the cross-st-yan-sko-mu de-lu (1858-1859) and two general ko- missions for the northwestern and southwestern provinces, someone should have developed their own projects of reform. In the gu-Bern-sky ko-mi-te-takh, two pro-ti-east-yav-shih la-ge-rya-me-shchi-kov formed: con-ser-va-tiv-noe pain- shin-st-vo (I.V. Ga-ga-rin, D.N. Shid-lov-sky, P.P. Shu-va-lov and others; -me-shchi-kov on the earth and here is the rank of power) and the li-be-ral-noe less-shin-st-vo (A.I. Ko-she-lev, A.M. Un- kovsky, V.A. Cher-kassky, A. G. Shre-ter and others; kup kre-st-I-on-mi on del-noy zem-whether in own-st-ven-ness).

Raz-ra-bot-ka re-form-we.

Emperor Alek-san-drom II on 18 (30). 10. 1858, would we have given “ru-ko-vo-dya-os-no-you” for the development of the re-form-we - for-shchi-ta in-te-re-owls in-me-shchi-kov with no-conditional "improvement-of-that kre-st-yan" and save-non-nii not-quiver-le-mo-sti of power. It helped whether-be-ral-no-mu less-shin-st-woo in the gu-bern-sky ko-mi-te-tah to gain the upper hand. On 4 (16) .12.1858, the Main Committee adopted a new government program from me-cre-by-st-no-go right, which then-heaven pre-du-smat-ri-va-la you-kup on-del-noy earth-whether cre-st-I-on-mi in own-st-ven-ness, whether-to-vi-yes -tion of the rank of authority in-me-shchi-kov and the creation of the organ-ga-nov of the kre-st-jan-go-go public self-management. For consideration of the projects of the Gu-Bern ko-mi-te-tov 4 (16) . -noe uch-re-g-de-nie - Re-dak-tsi-on-nye co-missions from the pre-hundred-vi-te-lei byu-ro-kra-tii and public deeds -ley (chairman - Ya.I. Ros-tov-tsev, since 1860 - V.N. Pa-nin), more-shin-st-in-something was-la-lis-ron-ni -ka-mi-li-be-ral-nyh projects of re-form-we. Their common-recognized li-de-rum was N.A. Mi-lu-ting, name-but his project is os-bo-zh-de-niya kre-st-yan with the earth for you-kup you-dvi-nut in ka-che-st-ve edi-no-th pre-lo-zhe-niya pre-hundred-vi-te-la-mi li-be-ral-noy byu-ro-kra-tii. He served as the basis of the official mo-de-li for the general-Russian-si-so-for-ko-no-da-tel-st-va. In the ob-su-zh-de-nii of the project-ta re-form-we in the Re-dak-tsi-on-nyh ko-miss-si-yah teaching-st-vova-whether pre-hundred-vi- te-whether Gu-Bern ko-mi-te-tov (2 each from ka-zh-to-go ko-mi-te-ta). They subjected the cri-ti-ke to the raz-ra-bo-tan-ny Editorial commission-miss-s-mi project, but its main na-cha-la os-ta-lis without me-not-ny. By September 1859, the draft of the Editorial Commissions was under preparation. He was accepted by the Main Committee for the cross-st-yan-sko-mu de-lu and on 28.1 (9.2). 1861 was transferred to the State Council, where he was approved under the -mom of Emperor Alek-san-dr II and Grand Duke Kon-stan-ti-na Ni-ko-lae-vi-cha.

Pro-ve-de-re-form-we.

Emperor Alexander II 19.2 (3.3.) 1861, on the day of the 6th year of his pre-be-va-tion on the pre-hundred-le, under-pi-sal Ma-ni -fest about from-me-not cre-by-st-no-go right-va [“About all-mi-lo-sti-ve-shem yes-ro-va-nii cre-post-people are right state of the free rural customs-va-te-lei "; about-on-ro-do-van 5 (17) .3.1861], “The general situation about the cross noy for-vi-si-mo-sti ”and 17 additional do-ku-men-tov. According to them, in-me-whose cross-st-I-not (an eye-lo-lo-vin-we of the entire Russian cross-st-yan-st-va) in-lu- cha-whether personal freedom and the right to race-by-rya-to reap with their own imu-shche-st-vom. In-me-shchi-ki-ke-save-y-whether the property is for all the land that belongs to them, but would it be obligatory for us to pre-dos- ta-twit kre-st-I-us-estate-bu for you-kup (see you-kup-naya opera-ra-tion), as well as on the left-howl on-deeds in a hundred-yan- noe use (from-for-the-th-cre-st-I-didn’t have rights in those 9 years). For the use of the earth, the fortress-st-I-wouldn’t-be-wa-whether bar-schi-well or pla-ti-whether ob-rock. Size-measures in-le-go-on-de-la and in wine-no-stay should-we-whether fik-si-ro-va-sya in the chartered graphs tah, for compiling someone from-in-dil-sya two-year term. Compilation of charter charters in-ru-cha-moose in-me-shchi-kam, their verification - in the world-ro-you in the middle of the world. For-st-I-didn't-have-the-right-to-drink-to-left-howl on-cases on request in-me-shchi-ka or by agreement with him. K-st-I-not, you-ku-drinking your lands, na-zy-wa-lis-kre-st-I-on-mi-own-st-ven-no-ka-mi, not ne-re-went-shie to you-kup, - time-but-obligation-zan-us-mi kre-st-I-na-mi. Kre-st-I-couldn’t-re-re-tee to the gift-st-vein-ny on-del (1/4 from lo-women-no-go, but without you-ku-pa), in this case, they were called-zy-va-lis-cre-st-I-on-mi-dar-st-ven-ni-ka-mi. Many fortresses-I-not so and in-stu-pa-li, because the cost-bridge of the earth-whether according to you-ku-pu fak-ti-che-ski pre-you-sha-la its dey -statutory price. Kre-st-yan-sky ob-shchi-on preserved. On-del-land-la-re-da-wa-wa-cre-st-I-us on the rights of the communities-no-go-pol-zo-va-nia, and after you-ku -pa - common sob-st-ven-no-sti.

In 4 “Me-st-nyh in the same-lo-no-yah” op-re-de-la-li-li-mea-ry land-on-de-fishing and wine-no-stays for their use in 44 provinces of European Russia. “Me-st-noe-lo-same about the land-of-the-ground device-swarm-st-ve kre-st-yan ... in gu-ber-ni-yah: Ve-li-ko -Russian-Sian, But-in-Russian-Sian and Be-lo-Russian "races-pro-country-elk on 29 Ve-li-Ko-Russian gu-ber-nies , 3 but-in-Russian-si-sky (Eka-te-ri-no-slav-sky, Tav-ri-che-sky, Kherson-sky), 2 be-lo-Russian (Mo- gi-lev-skuyu, part of Vi-teb-skaya) gu-ber-nii and part of the Kharkov province. Time-measures of the soul-she-in-go on-de-la op-re-de-la-fox in-for-vi-si-mo-sti from the los (not-black-but-earth-noy , black-but-earth-noy, steppe-noy). In the non-black-but-earth-noy in the lo-se, the highest size of the soul-she-in-go on-de-la was from 3 to 7 tithes (from 3.3 to 7 .6 ha), the lowest - 1/3 of the highest. In the black-and-earth in the lo-se: the highest - from 23/4 to 6 acres (from 2.5 to 6.5 ha), the lowest - less than 1 acre (1.1 ha). In the steppe in the lo-se: in the Ve-li-ko-Russian gu-ber-ni-yah - from 6 to 12 acres (from 6.5 to 13.1 ha), in the UK-ra- in-sky - from 3 to 6.5 acres (from 3.3 to 7.1 ha). If it was more than the highest, because of the shek it could be from-re-zan, if it was less than the lower norm, then the maker must -zan was to-re-zat not-to-do-thaw-ing-whether-honor-of-the-earth. Ob-rock us-ta-nav-li-val-sya from 3 to 12 rubles a year for the soul-she-howl on-cases. Bar-shchi-on for the highest soul-she-howl on-deeds with becoming-la-la 40 male and 30 female working days a year. The rest of the "Me-st-nye in-lo-zhe" is basically in the second place "Me-st-noe-lo-same-tion about the land of the mouth -roy-st-ve kre-st-yan ... in the gu-ber-ni-yah: Ve-li-ko-Russian-si-sky, But-in-Russian-si-sky and Be-lo-Russian-sky ”, but taking into account the special-qi-fi-ki of the ka-zh-do-go district. So, "Me-st-noe-lo-same" for Cher-ni-gov-skaya, Pol-tav-skaya and part of Kharkov-gu-ber-niy, in some ryh from-day-st-in-va-lo communal earth-le-vla-de-nie, pre-du-smat-ri-va-lo on de-le-nie kre-st-yan earth-lei on the basis-no-ve on-the-trace-st-ven-no-se-mei-no-go prin-tsi-pa. Ka-zh-daya gu-ber-niya sub-raz-de-la-slid into several places, for some mustaches-ta-nav-li-va-las the highest hole -ma du-she-vo-go-on-de-la: from 23/4 to 41/2 acres (from 2.5 to 4.9 ha). The lower-shay norm-ma with-la-la 1/2 higher-sheers. In wine-no-sti on Le-in-be-rezh-noy Uk-rai-wouldn’t it be less than in Ve-li-ko-Russian gu-ber-ni-yah (ob-rock - from 1 ruble 40 kopecks to 2 rubles 80 kopecks for 1 tithe; bar-schi-na - from 12 to 21 male working days for 1 tithe). "Me-st-noe-lo-zhe-nie" for 3 gu-ber-ny Pra-in-be-rezh-noy Uk-rai-ny (Ky-ev-skaya, Vo-lyn-skaya, Po- Dol-sky) for-kre-p-la-lo for the cross-st-I-on-mi the whole earth, for some reason they used-zo-va-lied along the In-ven-tar-ny right -wee-lam 1847-1848. In terms of wine-no-sti, there would be no less than in Le-in-be-rezh-noy Uk-rai-ne. According to “Me-st-no-mu in the same way” for Vi-len-skaya, Grod-nen-skaya, Ro-vien-skaya, Minsk and part of the Vi-teb-skaya gu- taking for the cross-st-I-on-mi for-cre-p-la-the whole earth-la, which they used before the Kestian reform. According to wine-no-sti, op-re-de-la-lied in a slightly reduced size compared to those who were whether for-fik-si-ro-va-ny in the in-ven-ta-ri-yah of the estates. Under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863-1864, did it get out of me in the conditions of the Kestyansky reform in the western provinces yakh and on the right-in-be-rezh-noy Uk-rai-not. Here you entered the obligatory you-kup, you-kup-nye payments decreased by 20%, the size of the cross was re-re-viewed -yan-sko-go-on-de-la (cre-st-I-not, ut-ra-tiv-shie part of his land-le-vla-de-niya in 1857-1861, in-lu- chi-whether your on-de-ly ob-rath-but full-on-stu, de-earthed-len-ny earlier - hour-tych-but). On-de-ly kre-st-yan in comparison with the number of earth-whether, for-fic-si-ro-van-nym in the charter of gra-mo -tah, mean-chi-tel-but increased-li-chi-lis.

The real-is-for-tion of the Kestian reform began with the compilation of charters. This process was basically completed by the middle of 1863. All-go-to-become-le-but about 113 thousand grams (in general, from the cre-by-st-noy for-vi-si-mo-sti os-in-bo-zh-de -but 22.5 million in-me-shchich-their kre-st-yan both in la).

“Po-s-zhe-nie about the device-swarm-st-ve of two-ro-of people” dated 19.2 (3.3). 1861 pre-du-smat-ri-va-lo os-vo-bo- w-de-nie without land, but in those 2 years, two-ro-ve people were left in full za-vis-si-mo-sti from the authorities del-tsev. Especially-ben-no-sti of the Kestyansky reform for individual ka-te-go-ry kre-st-yan and special-ci-fi-che-sky districts op-re-de-la-lis 8 to-pol- ni-tel-ny-mi pra-vi-la-mi dated 19.2 (3.3). yah small-to-in-local-owner-del-tsev, and about the co-bearing of these vlad-del-tsam”, “On the pri-pi-san-nyh to private mountains nym for-in-ladies people-dyah ve-dom-st-va Mi-ni-ster-st-va fi-nan-ovs ”, etc.).

The Kestian reform also slacked off in the same specific kre-st-yan, some of them, by decree of 26.6 (8.7). -st-yan-sob-st-ven-ni-kov way obya-for-tel-no-go you-ku-pa on the con-lo-vi-yah -niya ... ". Za-ko-nom dated 11/24 (12/6). would be personal but free). Behind them, the lands were kept, which were in their use. According to-to-well dated 12 (24) .6.1886, state cre-st-I-wouldn’t-we-re-ve-de-us for you-kup.

Cre-by-st-right right was from-me-not-but also on the national outskirts of the Russian Empire: on the Caucasus, in the Za-kav-ka -zee, in Bes-sa-ra-bee. The conditions for re-forms in these places would be more tya-zhe-ly-mi (the whole earth-la was-ta-va-las for-me-schi-ka-mi, you -kup not only in a la-go-to-de-la, but also to sit down for-vis-sat from their will).

The Kestyanskaya reform of 1861 in lo-ji-la na-cha-lo se-rii of reforms - su-deb-noy re-for-me of 1864, zemstvo re-for-me of 1864, in-en -ny re-forms of the 1860s-1870s, in a better way, the name “Ve-li-kie re-forms”. They are oz-on-cha-whether re-building the state system-te-we as a whole, how-to-st-in-wa-whether to develop-vi-tyu ka-pi-ta-liz- ma and pro-cesses of mod-der-ni-za-tion in Russia, creating pre-po-sy-lok for re-re-ho-yes from sos-lov-no-go to civil society. Res-pri-ni-ma-lis-pain-shin-st-vom co-time-men-ni-kov as a mouth-to-mouth point of Russian history, and Emperor Alexander II entered in is-to-ryu as “king-os-vo-bo-di-tel”. At the same time, the Kestyansky reform of 1861 was sub-verg-well-ta cri-ti-ke revolutionary de-mo-kra-ta-mi for not-to-with-that-accurate , in their opinion, the size of the lands on the de-catch, in the lu-chen-ny kre-st-I-on-mi.

The content of the peasant reform was set out in a lengthy document entitled: "Regulations on February 19, 1861 on peasants who have emerged from serfdom." The guiding principles of the "Regulations" were explained to the people by the tsar's Manifesto on February 19. It was composed so intricately that Leo Tolstoy determined: “The peasants will not understand a word, and we will not believe a word” (as if “it was written in French and translated into clumsy Russian by some German,” I.S. Turgenev). The Manifesto was compiled by the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret Drozdov - "Filka", as the people called him. This is where the expression “filkin’s letter” came from (i.e., the document is stupid). Its essence, littered with verbal husks, was this.

Landlord peasants (23.1 million people) received personal freedom, as well as an estate and a field allotment for permanent use, from which they could not, even if they wanted to, give up earlier than after 9 years. During this 9-year period, the peasants had to continue to serve for the corvée or pay dues. The size of the allotment and the volume of duties of the peasants were fixed in charter letters which took two years to complete. The landlords themselves had to draw up letters, and to check whether they were drawn up correctly (without deception), - mediators who were appointed from local landowners. It turned out that the same landlords turned out to be intermediaries between the peasants and the landowners. Of course, they almost always (with the rarest exception) "explained" or corrected the statutes in favor of the landowners.

Statutory letters were concluded not with individual peasants, but with the "peace", i.e. with a rural society from all the peasants of one or another landowner (if there were 1000 souls in a society, then with all of them together). Thus, mutual responsibility and responsibility of the whole "world" for each peasant and for his duties was fixed.

In order to establish and fix the size of the allotment in the charter, both landowners and peasants had to take into account the norms of allotment plots - higher and lower. The peasants could not demand an allotment above the established maximum, and the landlords could not cut the allotment below the established minimum. That was the rule. But exceptions were made from it - /194/ of course, not in favor of the peasants. On the one hand, if a peasant before the reform had less land to use than the minimum established after the reform, the landlord did not always cut his land to the minimum, but on the condition that the landowner would have at least a third (in the steppe zone - at least half) of comfortable lands. On the other hand, if the allotment that the peasant used before the reform exceeded the post-reform maximum, the landowner cut off the “surplus” from it. Most importantly, the very norms of peasant allotments were calculated in such a way that there were as many cuts from them as possible (tens of times), and correspondingly fewer cuts to them.

As a result, the landlord peasants received an average of 3.3 acres per audit soul, i.e. for a man (women were not given land). This is less than the land that they used before the reform, and did not provide them with a living wage. In total, in the black earth provinces, the landlords cut off 1/5 of their lands from the peasants. Most of the land was lost by the peasants of the Volga region. If in the Moscow, Smolensk, Novgorod provinces, the segments ranged from 3 to 7.5% of peasant lands, then in the Kazan province - 29.8%, in Samara - 41.8%, in Saratov - 42.4%. “The tsar gave the muzhik land, and drove it in such a way that it cost him almost a soul, that one foot each,” the Narodnik proclamation says about this. It was then that the saying was born: "There is nowhere to let the chicken out."

In addition to cuts, the landlords found other ways to infringe on the interests of the peasants: they resettled them on unusable lands, “on the sand”, deprived them of pastures, pastures, watering places, forests and other lands, without which it was impossible to conduct an independent economy. This is how the government auditor K. Mekker saw the peasant allotments in the villages of the Galibitsa-Nemchinovskaya volost in the Pskov region: all - peat bogs, sometimes covered with some tussocks and plants, such as wild rosemary, cotton, and similar herbs that are not eaten by livestock.

The real scourge of the peasant farms was the striped land: the landlords' lands were driven like a wedge into the peasants', which is why the peasants were forced to rent the landowners' wedges at usurious prices. The same Mekker stated: “With the strictness of the supervision established by the landowner over the boundaries of the villages located among his lands, with the aim of capturing peasant cattle during grazing, these traps and traps arranged in allotments bring the peasants to final ruin.”

All the land that the peasants received for “permanent use” legally remained the property of the landowners /195/ until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. Until this deal was concluded, the peasants were considered "temporary" those. still performed feudal duties for the use of land. The term of the temporarily obligated state was not initially determined. Only on December 28, 1881 (in the context of the second revolutionary situation), a law on compulsory redemption followed - a law according to which all temporarily liable peasants were transferred for redemption, but not immediately, but from January 1, 1883. Thus, the legal liquidation of serfdom stretched for 22 years - this is in the provinces of central Russia. On the outskirts of the same (in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia) temporarily obligated relations persisted until 1912-1913, i.e. over half a century.

For the use of land, the peasants had to perform two kinds of duties - corvée and dues. The amount of dues varied in different regions from 8 to 12 rubles. per capita allotment per year, but there was no correspondence between the amount of quitrent and the profitability of the allotment. Peasants paid the highest dues (12 rubles) near St. Petersburg, where the land was infertile, and in the black-earth provinces of Kursk and Voronezh the dues were lower - 9 rubles. This paradox reveals the feudal essence of the post-reform quitrent. As before the reform, quitrent was the income of the landowner not only from the land, but also from the personality of the peasant: after all, in the industrial provinces, the peasants paid the landowners money earned not so much on their poor allotments, but on all kinds of crafts.

Even more violated the correspondence between the yield of land and the size of the dues, the so-called gradation quitrent: the first tithe of land was valued more than the next. So, in the non-chernozem zone, where the highest allotment was set at 4 tithes, and the quitrent at 10 rubles, 5 rubles were supposed for the first tithe. (50% quitrent), for the second - 2 rubles. 50 kop. (25%) and for the other two - 1 rub. 25 kop. (i.e. 12.5%) from each tithe. Thus, the less land a peasant received, the more it cost him.

Gradation was introduced mainly in non-chernozem provinces, where land was valued low, but labor was expensive. She tempted the peasants to take more land, since for each additional tithe they had to pay less - the peasants went for it. It was profitable for the landlords to sell the poor land to the peasantry and thereby replenish their money capital, which was so necessary in the industrial regions. In the event of a reduction in peasant allotments, the gradation allowed the landowners to retain their income to a large extent. In a word, the gradation of dues was, in essence, a cash bonus to the landowners for the loss of labor power.

As for the corvée, as before the reform, all peasants had to serve it - men from 18 to 55 years old and /196/ women from 17 to 50 years old. Only now the corvee regime was somewhat streamlined, and the arbitrariness of the landlords was partially curbed. For each highest allotment, it was supposed to work 40 men's and 30 women's days, no more (though 3/5 of the time - in the summer).

Thus, the duties of temporarily liable peasants hardly differed from those of serfs and were only more precisely regulated by law. Therefore, the peasants did not want to sign the charter letters. They hoped for a "genuine, real will" (with land) and themselves spread the rumor among themselves that such a will would come in two years. That is why the consciousness lived in the peasants literally all over Russia that if "whoever signs the statutory charter during these years, he will enslave himself again, but whoever resists these two years will be free." As a result, by January 1, 1863, when it was supposed to complete the drafting of statutory charters, 58% of the landlord peasants still had not signed the charters, referring to the fact that "the signature will attach them again."

The reform gave the peasants the right to redeem the estate and field allotment. The ransom amount was determined by capitalization from the 6% dues set for the allotment, i.e., wanting to receive the required ransom amount, they calculated how much money should be put in the bank so that at 6% annual growth the landowner would have an income equal to the dues. Simply put, the quitrent was equal to 6% of the redemption amount. Here is an example: quitrent = 10 rubles, what should be the amount of the ransom in this case?

Since 10 rubles. make up 6% of the redemption amount, then we obtain, according to the equation (X: 10 \u003d 100: 6), X \u003d (100 10): 6 \u003d 166 rubles. 60 kop. It can be even simpler: 100 is more than 6 by 16 2/3 times. So the easiest way to determine the amount of the ransom is to multiply the amount of the due by 16 2/3. Thus, not the value of the land, but the quitrent, which included, in addition to the value of the land, also the value of serf labor, was the criterion for the size of the redemption sum.

That the ransom amount included a disguised ransom for the peasant's personality is shown by its comparison with the market price of the land. At the prices of 1854-1855. peasant land was worth 544 million rubles, and the ransom for it was set at 867 million (323 million difference is compensation to the landowners for the personal liberation of the peasants).

The role of an intermediary between the peasants and the landlords for the redemption was assumed by the state, which profited from the redemption operation. The peasant immediately paid the landowner 20% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 80% was paid by the state for the peasants (this was the redemption loan, which the peasants, as it were, borrowed from the state). The operation to return the debt /197/ stretched for 49 years with the payment of 6% of the redemption amount annually. Therefore, the peasants had to pay 294% of the redemption loan. Only since 1906 (in the context of the first Russian revolution) was the payment of redemption payments stopped. By that time, the former landlord peasants had contributed 1 billion 570 million rubles. redemption - for the land, which cost 544 million rubles, i.e. 3 times less!

From the moment the redemption deal was concluded, the peasants ceased to perform duties in favor of the landlords and turned from temporarily liable to "peasant owners". From now on, the land, which was previously legally the property of the landowners, passed into peasant property, and the law protected it from encroachment by the landowners.

In a somewhat special way, yard servants were released, of which there were then 1.5 million, i.e. 6.5% of landlord peasants. They were released without a ransom, but not immediately, but two years later, and, most importantly, they did not receive either an estate, or a field allotment, or any kind of remuneration for their work for the landowner. The sick and the elderly, the disabled were literally thrown into the street, as they had nothing but freedom ... to go around the world. Such were the conditions for the liberation of the landlord peasants. The reform also extended to the specific peasants (belonging to the royal family) and the state.

The specific department was formed in 1797 under Paul I. It provided the royal family with income from the palace lands and the peasants attached to them. By the beginning of the 1960s, the royal inheritance amounted to 9 million acres of land in 20 provinces and exploited 1.7 million serf souls.

A special provision on specific peasants was adopted on June 26, 1863. The "first Russian landowner" - the tsar also did not want to return the land to the peasants for free. The appanage peasants redeemed their land on the same terms (by capitalization from 6% quitrent) as the landlord peasants; only appanages were transferred to mandatory redemption not after 20 years, as landowners, but after 2 years. The liberation of the specific peasants was not without cuts, although somewhat smaller than those of the landlord peasants (10.5% of the total area of ​​\u200b\u200bpeasant land). On average, specific peasants received 4.8 acres per audit soul.

Still later, on June 24, 1866, the "Regulations of February 19" were extended to state peasants, who were considered personally free, but paid feudal rent (common tax) to the treasury. All of them (and there were 19 million of them) retained the lands that were in their use, and could, at their request, either, as before, pay a quitrent tax to the state, or conclude a redemption deal with the treasury, subject to a lump-sum contribution of such capital, interest on which /198/ would be equal to the amount of quitrent tax. The average size of allotments of state peasants amounted to 5.9 acres - more than that of landlord and appanage peasants.

The reform significantly changed the legal status of the peasants. For the first time, she gave the former serfs the right to own property, engage in trade and crafts, conclude deals, marry without the consent of the landowner, etc. There was a big step along the path from feudal lack of rights to bourgeois law. However, the landowners retained a number of feudal privileges, including police power over temporarily liable peasants. As before the reform, they represented the interests of the peasants in court. Remained (until 1903!) corporal punishment for the peasants. Alexander II "forbade the whipping of peasants not according to the law, but ordered them to be whipped according to the law," wrote the Narodnik magazine Land and Freedom about this.

In the course of the reform, special bodies were created to manage the peasants, which were loudly called "self-government". Their lower link was a rural society of peasants on the land of one landowner. It constituted a village assembly, which elected a village headman and a number of officials: tax collectors, shopkeepers, etc. fined, forced to do community service, even put under arrest.

Several rural communities formed a volost, which was built according to the territorial principle (with the number of inhabitants from 300 to 2 thousand revision souls). The highest peasant body of the volost was the volost gathering of representatives of rural communities. The volost gathering elected the volost board headed by the volost foreman and the volost court. The volost foreman had the same functions as the village elders, only in the volume of the volost, the village elders were subordinate to him. As for the volost court, it dealt with lawsuits between peasants on the territory of the volost and tried those responsible for offenses more serious than those for which the village headman punished.

All this "self-government" had no independence. It was controlled by a mediator who, by law, approved (or might not approve) the election of officials of the peasant "administration" and, consequently, selected candidates pleasing to him from among the "prudent" and obedient peasants. Those, disobedient and "uncontrollable", whom the peasants themselves put forward, the world mediator dismissed as "instigators".

Peace mediators were appointed by the governors on the recommendation of the marshals of the nobility from the local landowners. The feudal lords predominated among them, but the liberals did not differ much from the feudal lords, since they defended the same, landlord, /199/ interests. Only a few of the world mediators, like Leo Tolstoy or the Decembrist Andrey Rosen, rose to the defense of peasant interests. They were usually fired or out of office. Tolstoy, before retiring, complained: "I<...>despite the fact that he conducted the business in the most cold-blooded and conscientious manner, he earned the terrible indignation of the nobles. They want to beat me and bring me to court.”

The peace mediators reported to the county congress of peace mediators, chaired by the county marshal of the nobility, and above the county congress was the provincial presence for peasant affairs, presided over by the governor himself. So, the world mediator, above him the county congress, even higher the provincial presence and at the very top the governor - that's what kind of pyramid the peasant self-government was crushed. The power of one landowner over the peasants was replaced by the power of representatives of the local nobility, which did not change its class content. “And the bosses divorced so many,” recalled a contemporary, “that the peasant rarely had a chance to put on a hat.”

In general, the reform of 1861 was for Russia the most important of the reforms in its entire history. It served as a legal boundary between two major eras in Russian history - feudalism and capitalism.

The seemingly peasant reform of 1861 was bourgeois in content, since it created the conditions necessary for the victory of the capitalist mode of production. Chief among these conditions was the personal emancipation of 23 million landlord peasants, who formed the wage labor market. Since the feudal lords and feudal lords carried out the bourgeois reform, it also acquired feudal traits. The peasants were deceived and robbed, they left the slavery of the landowners into bondage to the same landowners.

The great chain is broken
Broke and hit
One end on the master,
Others - for a man -

this is how the poet of peasant democracy N.A. wrote about the reform. Nekrasov. The half-heartedness of the reform was expressed in the fact that the economic basis became new, capitalist, and inside it the remnants of the old, feudal-serf system were preserved - primarily landownership and the labor system, i.e. processing of landed estates by peasants for land rent, money loans, etc. The remnants of serfdom hindered the development of the country, which had already firmly taken the path of capitalism. Therefore, the class struggle did not subside after 1861, but, on the contrary, as we shall see, it flared up even more strongly, because a new one (workers against capitalists) was added to the old social /200/ war (peasants against landowners). As a result, according to V.I. Lenin, "1861 gave birth to 1905".

Peasant reform of 1861

Causes

In 1861, a reform was carried out in Russia that abolished serfdom and marked the beginning of the capitalist formation in the country. The main reason for this reform was: the crisis of the feudal system, peasant unrest, especially intensified during the Crimean War. In addition, serfdom hindered the development of the state and the formation of a new class - the bourgeoisie, which was limited in rights and could not participate in government. Many landowners believed that the emancipation of the peasants would give a positive result in the development of agriculture. An equally significant role in the abolition of serfdom was played by the moral aspect - in the middle of the 19th century, "slavery" existed in Russia.

Reform preparation

The program of the government was outlined in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II on November 20, 1857 to the Vilna Governor-General V. I. Nazimov. It provided:

1. the destruction of the personal dependence of the peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners;
2. providing peasants with a certain amount of land, for which they will be required to pay dues or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings).

In 1858, provincial committees were formed to prepare peasant reforms, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between the liberal and reactionary landowners. The fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government's program of peasant reform, the drafts of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or fall of the peasant movement.

In December 1858, a new program of peasant reform was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and creating organs of peasant public administration.

February 19 (March 3, old style) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulations on peasants leaving serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts.

The main provisions of the peasant reform

The main act - "The General Regulations on Peasants Who Have Emerged from Serfdom" - contained the main conditions for the peasant reform:

1. peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property;
2. the landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, however, they were obliged to provide the peasants with "estate estates" and a field allotment for use.

For the use of allotment land, the peasants had to serve a corvée or pay dues and did not have the right to refuse it for 9 years.

The peasants were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field allotment; until this was done, they were called temporarily liable peasants.

Four "Local Regulations" determined the size of land plots and duties for their use in 44 provinces of European Russia. From the land that was in the use of the peasants before February 19, 1861, cuts could be made if the per capita allotments of the peasants exceeded the highest size established for the given locality, or if the landowners, while maintaining the existing peasant allotment, had less than 1/3 of the entire land of the estate.

Allotments could decrease under special agreements between peasants and landowners, as well as upon receipt of a donation allotment. If the peasants had smaller allotments in use, the landowner was obliged to either cut the missing land or reduce duties. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 men's and 30 women's working days per year. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties decreased, but not proportionally.

The features of the Peasant Reform for certain categories of peasants and specific areas were determined by the “Additional Rules” - “On the arrangement of peasants settled on the estates of small landowners, and on the allowance for these owners”, “On people assigned to private mining plants of the department of the Ministry of Finance”.

"Regulations on the arrangement of courtyard people"provided for their release without land, but for 2 years they remained completely dependent on the landowner.

"Redemption clause"determined the procedure for the redemption of land by peasants from landowners, the organization of the redemption operation, the rights and obligations of peasant owners. The redemption of the field allotment depended on an agreement with the landowner, who could oblige the peasants to redeem the land at their request. The price of land was determined by quitrent, capitalized from 6% per annum. In the event of a ransom under a voluntary agreement, the peasants had to make an additional payment to the landowner. The landowner received the main amount from the state, to which the peasants had to repay it for 49 years annually in redemption payments.

The "Manifesto" and "Regulations" were made public from March 7 to April 2. Fearing dissatisfaction of the peasants with the conditions of the reform, the government took a number of precautionary measures (redeployment of troops, secondment of the imperial retinue to the places, appeal of the Synod, etc.). The peasantry, dissatisfied with the enslaving conditions of the reform, responded to it with mass unrest.