Contents of the peasant reform of 1861

INTRODUCTION

The abolition of serfdom in Russia was caused by the economic and social conditions that developed in the 40-50s. 19th century.

The development of new capitalist production and the decomposition of natural serfdom, which began at the end of the 18th century, led in the 50s. to the deepest crisis of the entire feudal-serf system of Russia.

Serfdom in Russia lasted longer than in any European country, and acquired such forms that it was practically no different from slavery.

New, capitalist in nature, phenomena in the economy came into conflict with serfdom, which became a serious obstacle to the development of industry and trade, and peasant entrepreneurship. The landowner economy, based on forced serf labor, fell increasingly into decay. The crisis primarily affected the corvee estates (by the mid-19th century, 71% of the serfs were in them), which was expressed in a progressive decline in the productivity of corvee labor. The peasant became increasingly burdened by the work of the lord, trying to spend as little of his energy on it as possible.

Quit estates also experienced serious difficulties. Since the 20s In the 19th century, arrears in the payment of quitrents grew.

An indicator of the decline of landowners' farms was the growth of landowners' debt to credit institutions and individuals. Landowners increasingly began to mortgage and remortgage their “serf souls” in these institutions.

Another important reason that forced the landowners to abolish serfdom was the social factor - the increase in peasant revolts from decade to decade.

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that from whatever point of view we look at the process of internal socio-political development of Russia in the 19th century, 1861 is undoubtedly a turning point. In Soviet historiography, this year was conventionally taken as the boundary separating the history of feudal Russia from capitalist Russia.

The purpose of this work is to examine the peasant reform of 1861.

The objectives of this work are:

Consider the prerequisites for the peasant reform of 1861.

Consider the essence of the reform of 1861.

The abolition of serfdom in Russia and the bourgeois reforms of the 60s of the 19th century are one of the most popular topics in Soviet historiography. This is due to the exceptional historical significance attributed to the reforms of the 60s. A huge number of scientific works, both general and special, are devoted to the abolition of serfdom.

As a theoretical basis for the study, the work used the works and textbooks of Russian authors on the study of the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia. These are the works of such authors as Zakharova L.G., Kornilov A.A., Zayonchkovsky P.A., Gorinov I.M., Eidelman N.Ya. In the books and articles of the mentioned authors, the economic and political prerequisites and the very process of carrying out the peasant reform of 1861 in Russia are explored and analyzed, the consequences of the reform are studied, and a large place is devoted to the study of state policy in implementing this reform.

CHAPTER 1. Prerequisites for the peasant reform of 1861

The serf system of organizing agriculture at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. was going through a period of disintegration and crisis. By this time, productive forces in agriculture had reached a relatively high development; Russia's manufacturing industry was not inferior to Western Europe.

New productive forces in agriculture could not receive any significant development in the first half of the 19th century due to the dominance of feudal-serf relations. The final establishment of new production relations was impossible in the conditions of the preservation of feudal forms of economy, which were an insurmountable barrier to any progress.

The forms of exploitation of serfs were determined by local economic conditions, which gave the landowner the opportunity to receive the greatest income either in the form of corvée or quitrent. In more industrially developed areas, rent prevailed in the form of cash rent. The quitrent system created great opportunities for the stratification of the peasantry, which meant its inclusion in the orbit of capitalist relations. However, the quitrent system itself was by no means an indicator of a capitalist economy, although it created certain prerequisites for this due to the relative freedom that the quitrent peasant enjoyed in comparison with the peasant who was in corvée. Quirk prevailed in the central industrial non-chernozem provinces, corvée prevailed in the non-industrial areas of the black earth and non-chernozem provinces. In Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine, corvee dominated almost exclusively.

About 70% of all serfs were employed in Corvee. In such landowner farms, crisis phenomena manifested themselves in the low productivity of forced peasants. The worker was not economically interested in his work.

In the non-chernozem zone of Russia, the quitrent system prevailed in the form of cash and in-kind payment. High dues were given where peasants could earn good money: near capitals and large cities, in fishing villages, in areas of vegetable gardening, horticulture, poultry farming, etc.

Elements of capitalism penetrated into the landed estates, which was manifested in the strengthening of commodity-money relations, connections with the market, in individual attempts to use machines, hired workers, and improve agricultural technology. However, in general, the economy developed not through the investment of capital, but through increased exploitation of peasants and the expansion of the implementation of legal ownership of land.

To pay taxes, corvée peasants had to sell on average at least a quarter of the grain they collected. In wealthy peasant farms, surplus grain accounted for more than 30% of the gross harvest. It was these peasants who used hired labor and machines, were more closely connected with the market, and from among them came traders, moneylenders, and owners of workshops and factories. All these processes took place much more widely and faster in the state village. Among the state peasants there were many owners who sowed dozens, and some - in the South, Siberia and the Urals - hundreds of acres of land, had exemplary farms using machines, hired workers, improved breeds of livestock, etc. The peasants themselves invented improved tools and machines .

By the middle of the 19th century. The old production relations in Russia came into clear discord with the development of the economy not only in agriculture, but also in industry.

Two processes took place simultaneously in Russia: the crisis of feudalism and the growth of capitalism. The development of these processes during the first half of the 19th century. caused an irreconcilable conflict between them both in the area of the basis - industrial relations, and in the area of the political superstructure.

The abolition of serfdom did not occur as a result of a mass peasant movement or revolution, but peacefully, “from above,” after 100 years of discussions and attempts to resolve the peasant issue in various commissions and committees, mostly secret. Objective socio-economic, demographic, socio-political reasons matured gradually, but the immediate impetus for reform “from above”, the force of autocratic power, was the difficult and inglorious Crimean War of 1853-56 for Russia. During the war, Russia's backwardness was exposed: the sailing fleet could not resist the steam fleet; the recruitment system of the army, based on serfdom, was outdated and did not correspond to the new organization of the armed forces in Europe; the lack of railways delayed the transfer of troops and the delivery of ammunition and food. The eleven-month siege of Sevastopol, which ended with its fall in August 1855, brought an end to the duel between Russia and the West - England and France, who fought on the side of Turkey. This showed how much the gap between serf Russia and capitalist countries had increased.

Alexander II took the path of liberation reforms not because of his convictions, but as a military man who realized the lessons of the Eastern War, as an emperor and autocrat.

CHAPTER2. Peasant reform of 1861

Preparation of the peasant reform took 4 years. At first it was carried out secretly. Then wide circles of the nobility were attracted to it: in 1858, elected noble committees were created in all provinces (except Arkhangelsk, where there were no serfs) to draw up reform projects. The central leadership of the preparation of the reform was concentrated in the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, created in 1858.

The main issue of the reform was the question of whether to free the peasants with land or without land. There were disputes on this issue between groups of serf owners and liberals. The feudal bureaucratic nobility belonged to the serf owners, as well as landowners, whose economy was based on earned rent. Liberals expressed the interests of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and bourgeois landowners. The struggle between them was not fundamental: both serf owners and liberals stood for the abolition of serfdom while maintaining landownership and autocracy, but the liberals wanted to somewhat limit tsarist absolutism and were against the liberation of peasants without land.

There was also class struggle around the reform. Nobody represented the interests of the people in the royal committees and commissions. The main struggle around the reform was not between noble groups, but between landowners and the autocracy, on the one hand, and the peasantry, on the other. The interests of the peasants were expressed by revolutionary democrats; in their speeches they called for the complete abolition of serfdom and landownership, for the transfer of all land to the peasants without any ransom. The struggle of the revolutionary democrats and the ongoing peasant unrest forced the tsarist government to abandon the most reactionary reform options and make some concessions to the peasantry. A compromise decision was made, reconciling all the landowners, to release the peasants with a minimum allotment of land for a ransom. Such liberation provided landowners with both labor and capital.

On February 19, 1861, the “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom” (they included 17 legislative acts) were signed by the tsar and received the force of law. On the same day, a Manifesto was signed, announcing the liberation of the peasants.

According to the Manifesto, the peasants immediately received personal freedom, but the liquidation of feudal economic relations in the countryside lasted for 20 years. According to the law, after receiving personal freedom, peasants for 2 years had to serve almost the same duties as under serfdom, only the corvée was slightly reduced and natural exactions were abolished. Before the peasants were transferred to ransom, they were in a temporary position, i.e. are obliged to bear corvee or pay quitrent for the plots provided to them according to the norms established by law. The law did not establish any expiration date for the temporary obligation of peasants.

An important place in the reform of 1861 was occupied by the solution of the agrarian question. The liberation of peasants without land could not be carried out; it was economically unprofitable and could cause a social explosion. Providing them with enough land was unprofitable for the landowners. Therefore, the task was set to provide such an amount of land that they would be tied to their allotment, and if this is not enough, then to the landowner’s economy. The law was based on the principle of recognizing the landowner's ownership of all the land on his estate, including peasant allotment land. The peasants received their allotment not as property, but for use, for the statutory duty in the form of quitrent or corvee. To become the owner of allotment land, the peasant must buy it from the landowner, paying the entire ransom at once, which was practically impossible. The state took over the ransom business. It immediately paid the ransom amount to the landowners, and then collected it in the form of ransom payments from the peasants. The period for payment of redemption payments was set at 49 years.

Thus, the reform on the emancipation of serfs was carried out in the interests of the landowners.

The noble character of the reform was manifested in many features: in the order of calculating redemption payments, in the procedure for the redemption operation, in privileges in the exchange of land plots, etc. During the redemption in the black earth regions, there was a clear tendency to turn peasants into tenants of their own plots (the land there was expensive), and in non-chernozem ones - a fantastic increase in prices for the purchased estate.

During the redemption, a certain picture emerged: the smaller the plot of land being redeemed, the more one had to pay for it. Here a hidden form of redemption not of land, but of the peasant’s personality, was clearly revealed. The landowner wanted to get him for his freedom. At the same time, the introduction of the principle of compulsory redemption was a victory of state interest over the interest of the landowner.

The deceived hopes of the peasants for “full freedom” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring and summer of 1861. During the year, about 2 thousand unrest swept across the country, and more than half were suppressed using military force. Over the next year, unrest arose again, but the government suppressed peasant discontent. Since 1863, the peasant movement began to decline sharply.

A feature of the reform of 1861 was the preservation of the community; allotment land was transferred to peasants on the basis of the rights of a collective form of communal use, and after redemption - communal property. Exit from the community was not closed, but it was very difficult. The legislators were not supporters of preserving the community, but they agreed to preserve it, as it seemed to them, temporarily. They assumed that the community would help the peasants, who were not accustomed to being the owners of their property, maintain their independence. In addition, the community seemed to be a powerful obstacle to the process of proletarianization of the peasantry and the maturation of social explosions. There were also fiscal considerations - relief for the authorities in collecting duties and payments. The peasant community bound its members with a mutual guarantee: it was possible to leave it only by paying half of the remaining debt and with the guarantee that the other half would be paid by the community. It was possible to leave “society” by finding a deputy. The community could decide on a mandatory purchase of the land. The gathering allowed family divisions of land.

The volost assembly decided by a qualified majority issues: on the replacement of communal land use with a district one, on the division of land into permanently inherited plots, on redistributions, on the removal of its members from the community.

The headman was the actual assistant of the landowner (during the period of temporary existence), he could impose fines on the guilty or subject them to arrest.

The volost court was elected for a year and resolved minor property disputes or tried for minor offenses.

Peasant reform of the 60s. served as the main reason for the creation in Russia of a comprehensive system of job insignia. Previously, the country had almost no positions that would have had appropriate uniforms. The peasant reform gave rise to many elected positions, the holders of which had to constantly confront people, judge them, encourage or punish them. And in Russia, in order to perform such work, it was necessary to have a formal sign of the right to a position.

A wide range of measures were envisaged to apply to arrears: confiscation of income from real estate, giving to work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor's movable and immovable property, confiscation of part or all of the allotment. The peasant reform of 1861 provided for the abolition of patrimonial power, as well as the establishment of peasant elective self-government, which was seen as the basis for the participation of peasants in the new local all-class self-government. Thus, class, like the community, seemed to be a temporary, inevitable institution and justified only for the transition period. The “Regulations” and the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom were published during Lent - from March 7 to April 2; in St. Petersburg and Moscow - March 5. The peasant reform of 1861 extended to the landowner peasants of the European part of Russia. Similar legislation was developed for the national borderlands in subsequent decades.

The unfavorable consequences of the reform were the following:

a) peasants’ allotments decreased compared to pre-reform, and payments increased in comparison with the old quitrent;

b) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and water bodies;

c) peasants remained a separate class.

Thus, the main provisions of the reform were as follows:

1. Abolition of personal dependence - the reform provided peasants with personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property, buy and sell movable and real estate, and engage in commercial and industrial activities. However, having freed the peasants from serfdom, the reform made them dependent on the rural community.

2. Allotments and duties of peasants - when determining the norms of allotments, they were formally based on the degree of fertility of the land in various regions of the country, but in fact - on the interests of the landowners. Only men were allocated land. The size of the plots varied depending on the fertility of the soil and the economic characteristics of different regions.

3. Redemption of peasant plots - the redemption of the estate was mandatory, and the redemption of the plot depended on the desire of the landowner. The amount of the ransom was determined by the size of the capitalized quitrent.

After the reform, the stratification of the peasantry also intensified. Some peasants became rich, bought land from landowners, and hired workers. Of these, a layer of kulaks subsequently formed - the village bourgeoisie. Many peasants went bankrupt and gave their plots to the kulaks for debts, while they themselves were hired as farm laborers or went to the city, where they became the prey of greedy factory owners.

And yet, the peasant reform of 1861 was an act of progressive significance. The liberation of the peasants gave impetus to the intensive growth of the labor market. Providing peasants with property and certain civil rights contributed to the development of agricultural and industrial entrepreneurship.

CONCLUSION

The reforms of 1861, associated with the socio-economic and political processes of the first half of the 19th century, were at the same time a turning point in the history of Russia. Without envisioning or ensuring a one-time revolution in all spheres of state life, they laid the foundation for this revolution and excluded the possibility of restoring the pre-reform order.

The modernization of Russia continued on a new basis - labor freed from serfdom, the development of private initiative, and the emergence of civil society. In this context, 1861 is a milestone, a starting point from which the “new history of Russia” begins.

The abolition of serfdom played an important role in transforming Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. Conducted by the nobility, although bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861 opened up broad opportunities for the development of capitalism, but did not completely destroy feudal socio-economic relations.

The reform changed the situation of landowners, state and appanage peasants, as well as workers of possession and patrimonial manufactories.

The peasant reform of 1861 was the beginning of important changes in the socio-political life of the country, which can be noted. Thus, in the context of a revolutionary situation, the tsarist government was forced, following the abolition of serfdom, to undertake a number of other bourgeois reforms - to introduce elements of local self-government, jury trials, abolish corporal punishment, introduce universal conscription instead of conscription, and reorganize education and finance.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The crisis of autocracy at the turn of the 1870s-1880s. M., 1964

Zakharova L.G. Autocracy, bureaucracy and reforms of the 60s. 19th century in Russia // Questions of history, 1989, No. 10

History of Russia part 2. The Rise and Decline of the Russian Empire/Gorinov I.M., Lyashchenko L.M., M., 1994

Kornilov A.A. Course on the history of Russia in the 19th century. M., 1993

Eidelman N.Ya. "Revolution from above" in Russia. M., 1991

The editorial commissions were closed in October 1860, and from the day of their closure work immediately began on the Main Committee. He worked for two whole months; There were difficult to reconcile differences between its members, so that Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, who, due to the illness of the prince. Orlova was appointed chairman of the committee at that very moment; he was put in a very difficult position, since on some issues it was impossible to form a majority for a long time. There were few members, only 10 people, and they were divided into three or four groups, and none had an absolute majority.

The main question concerned the methods and norms for allocating land to peasants. During the discussion of this issue, a stubborn group was formed under the leadership of M. N. Muravyov, the Minister of State Property, with whom the chief of gendarmes, Prince, joined on all issues. V. A. Dolgorukov and, for the most part, the Minister of Finance A. M. Knyazhevich, and initially the Minister of the Court and Appanages, gr. V.F. Adlerberg, who later, however, fell behind. This group, which sought to restore the norms of allotments and their assessments drawn up in the provincial committees, seeing that it would not be able to carry out its point of view, began to try to transfer the matter to the localities, pointing out that the editorial commissions changed the decisions of the provincial committees too much without sufficient grounds. These members persistently proposed to define in the committee only the general principles of the reform, indicating that peasants should be provided with land plots, and in what size and according to what standards duties for these plots should be determined - this group recognized it necessary to decide locally. Actually, the project that they presented was written by the then rising luminary of the noble party, on whom the then “feudal lords” and serf owners pinned their hopes, P. A. Valuev, who shortly before transferred to serve from governors to the Ministry of State Property, and then, shortly after the publication of the Regulations on February 19, appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs.

But this group in the Main Committee could not gather a majority, and four votes remained on the side of the projects adopted by the drafting commissions; but still there was no absolute majority here, since Prince. P.P. Gagarin, who wanted the landless liberation of peasants, and gr. Panin, who challenged many of the decisions of the editorial commissions, stubbornly remained in their opinions. In order to somehow form a majority, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich made extraordinary efforts to win over Count Panin to his side, who, by the way, challenged the norms of allotments drawn up by the editorial commissions for many districts.

In the end, to convince gr. Panin even formed a special private conciliation commission, where Konstantin Nikolaevich invited many members of the former editorial commissions and left them to convince Panin (in the presence of the Grand Duke) of the accuracy of their calculations. In the end, however, they had to make some concessions to Panin, reducing in a number of districts the norms suggested by the editorial commissions - sometimes by a quarter, sometimes by half a tithe - after which Panin abandoned the rest of his objections and agreed to join the majority (five votes to four ).

Thanks to this, an absolute majority was finally formed in the Main Committee (half + 1), and two months after the start of these sessions, the issue here was resolved relatively well, in the sense that the decisions of the editorial commissions did not undergo any fundamental changes.

The Tsar himself was present at the last meeting of the Main Committee, and since all members of the Council of Ministers who were not members of the Main Committee were also present by special invitation, the Tsar, turning to him and speaking flatteringly about the work of the editorial commissions, indicated that, now postponing the matter to the State Council, he would not allow any delays in its decision, and immediately set the deadline for completing its consideration on February 15, so that it could be in time for the start of field work. “This,” said Emperor Alexander, “I wish, I demand, I command!”

When the consideration of the case began in the State Council, and the council members were given only ten days to familiarize themselves with it, the meetings of the council were opened by Emperor Alexander himself on January 28, 1861. Here, in a long, detailed and extremely energetic speech, he outlined the entire course of the peasant case - and in previous reigns, and especially since the development of the peasant reform began, he confirmed the need for quick consideration of it in the State Council and said among other things, addressing the council members: “Views on the presented work may be different. Therefore, I will listen to all different opinions willingly, but I have the right to demand one thing from you: that, putting aside all personal interests, you act not as landowners, but as state dignitaries invested with my trust.” At the same time, he reiterated that he demands that the matter be over by mid-February.

And indeed, by February 17, the members of the State Council managed to complete the consideration of the entire case. The sovereign immediately gave his resolutions on each issue, joining the opinion of the majority or minority. At the same time, he often had to agree with the opinion of 8 to 35 votes in order to support the decision of the editorial commissions. In the end, he supported them on all counts.

By February 17, the matter was finally resolved. At the same time, only one new proposal was adopted in the State Council, introduced by Prince P. P. Gagarin, who here continued to support his opposition to the decisions of the editorial commissions, stubbornly standing on the point of view of the landless emancipation of peasants with the granting of landowners the right to voluntarily resolve the issue of leaving the peasants with those or other land plots. In the end, having suffered defeat on all points, the prince proposed that the landowners be given, in cases where they have reached an agreement on this with the peasants, to be given an allotment in exchange for the allotment they use or which is due to them according to the approved norms. reduced to one fourth of the highest, or specified, allotment established for a given area, but for nothing, without any reward for it. The State Council agreed to this unanimously, and the sovereign approved it. This is where the so-called quarter notes, or, popularly, "beggarly""orphan" gratuitous allotments. The peasants were often later tempted by the opportunity to receive this, although small, but free allotment, and this, of course, greatly increased the spread of land shortages in many, especially in the steppe, provinces, where in 1861 there was still a lot of land and where the peasants therefore did not particularly value the allotment it is their property.

On February 19, 1861, the sovereign signed the provisions that were developed by the editorial commissions and, with relatively minor changes, passed through the Main Committee and the State Council, and along with them a manifesto was signed, which was drawn up in very solemn terms by Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. Initially, the manifesto was commissioned to be written by Yu.F. Samarin, but they did not agree with his project, and therefore this project was transferred in the form of material to Filaret, who compiled the final text. Filaret himself was an opponent of liberation in the form in which it was carried out, and took on this work not very willingly.

Monument to Tsar-Liberator Alexander II in Moscow near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior

The progress of work in the Main Committee and in the State Council for the consideration of draft provisions developed by the drafting commissions is set out in the article by Mr. A. Popelnitsky in “Russian Thought” for 1911, No. 2. Compare also the information about this in the third volume of foreign “Materials” D. P. Khrushchev, reprinted partly from I. I. Ivanyukova(“The Fall of the Fortress, Law”, pp. 390 et seq.); information given in Volume III (Part 2) of the book N. P. Semenova“The liberation of the peasants under the emperor. Alexander II", pp. 749 et seq., and in "Materials for the biography of Prince. V. A, Cherkassky, Vol. I, Part 2. M., 1903, pp. 214 et seq., as well as in the notes of gr. P. A. Valueva.

The prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom arose at the end of the 18th century. All layers of society considered the serfdom an immoral phenomenon that disgraced Russia. In order to stand on a par with European countries free from slavery, the Russian government was faced with the issue of abolishing serfdom.

The main reasons for the abolition of serfdom:

Serfdom became a brake on the development of industry and trade, which hampered the growth of capital and placed Russia in the category of secondary states;
The decline of the landowner economy due to the extremely ineffective labor of the serfs, which was expressed in the obviously poor performance of the corvee;
The increase in peasant revolts indicated that the serf system was a “powder keg” under the state;
The defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856) demonstrated the backwardness of the political system in the country.

Alexander I tried to take the first steps in resolving the issue of abolition of serfdom, but his committee did not figure out how to bring this reform to life. Emperor Alexander limited himself to the law of 1803 on free cultivators.

Nicholas I in 1842 adopted the law “On Obligated Peasants”, according to which the landowner had the right to free the peasants by giving them a land plot, and the peasants were obliged to bear duties in favor of the landowner for the use of the land. However, this law did not take root; the landowners did not want to let the peasants go.

In 1857, official preparations began for the abolition of serfdom. Emperor Alexander II ordered the establishment of provincial committees, which were supposed to develop projects to improve the life of serfs. Based on these projects, the drafting commissions drew up a bill, which was transferred to the Main Committee for consideration and establishment.

On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and approved the “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.” Alexander remained in history with the name “Liberator”.

Although liberation from slavery gave peasants some personal and civil freedoms, such as the right to marry, go to court, trade, enter the civil service, etc., they were limited in freedom of movement, as well as economic rights. In addition, peasants remained the only class that bore conscription duties and could be subject to corporal punishment.

The land remained the property of the landowners, and the peasants were allocated a settled estate and a field allotment, for which they had to serve duties (in money or work), which were almost no different from serfs. According to the law, peasants had the right to buy out an allotment and an estate, then they received complete independence and became peasant owners. Until then, they were called “temporarily obligated.” The ransom amounted to the annual quitrent amount multiplied by 17!

To help the peasantry, the government organized a special “redemption operation.” After the establishment of the land allotment, the state paid the landowner 80% of the value of the allotment, and 20% was assigned to the peasant as a government debt, which he had to repay in installments over 49 years.

Peasants united into rural societies, and they, in turn, united into volosts. The use of field land was communal, and to make “redemption payments” the peasants were bound by a mutual guarantee.

Household people who did not plow the land were temporarily obliged for two years, and then could register with a rural or urban society.

The agreement between landowners and peasants was set out in the “statutory charter”. And to sort out emerging disagreements, the position of peace mediators was established. The general management of the reform was entrusted to the “provincial presence for peasant affairs.”

The peasant reform created the conditions for the transformation of labor into goods, and market relations began to develop, which is typical for a capitalist country. The consequence of the abolition of serfdom was the gradual formation of new social strata of the population - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Changes in the social, economic and political life of Russia after the abolition of serfdom forced the government to undertake other important reforms, which contributed to the transformation of our country into a bourgeois monarchy.

1861 – abolition of serfdom. The abolition of serfdom is an institution that plays an important role in the life of the state. The institution was formed in the mid-17th century, the serfdom regime took shape in the mid-18th century. With its help, surplus product is withdrawn. Three forms of rent: corvée, natural rent, cash rent, capitation tax. The poll tax is a direct tax, the most important source of income. While the country is agricultural, it cannot do without this institution.

Peasants become subjects of law. Different plots will be issued.

Three zones : black earth zone- the smallest. The allotment was given to the peasants. Even in this zone there is no single allotment. Divided into 8 localities, each locality has its own allotment size. The landowners negotiate the maximum and minimum. Maximum from 3-6 dessiatines. The minimum is a little less than 1 to 2 dessiatines.

Non-chernozem zone– an industrial region is being formed, more land is being given to peasants. This zone is divided into 9 localities. Minimum 1-2 tithes, maximum 3-7.

Steppe zone– weak population of the region, the presence of a large number of undeveloped lands. The landowner is ready to give away large plots. 12 localities. 6-12 dessiatines. At the level of the State Council there will be important additions such as segments, cuts, Trimmings- when the pre-reform allotment is less than the established minimum, so it is necessary to give the peasant up to the minimum level. Segments– pre-reform size is one thing, post-reform size is another. Pre-reform more. This difference is the segments. Mass phenomenon. The peasant finds himself economically dependent on the landowner. Donation allotment– the maximum size of the allotment is divided into 4 parts, ¼ is the donation allotment, ¾ remains with the landowner. The peasant lost his land. This allotment was given for ransom. The ransom amount and the criterion included in this amount. The concept is the market value of land, the landowner should receive the same amount of income as before the abolition of the Communist Code. It was necessary to take from the peasant the amount that would generate income in the bank at 6%. By purchasing land, the peasant buys his personal freedom.

The Regulations of 1861 contain 5 main parts:

1) The provision for the personal liberation of peasants - personal freedom and free right to dispose of property. The right of a legal entity, concluding transactions. Object of law. The right to participate in local government institutions.

2) Regulations on the provision of land to the peasant. It consists of two parts - an estate (house, garden plot) and arable land (land for cultivation). Revision souls were given, women were not given allotments, because were not included in the accounting group.

3) Redemption clause. The ransom was based on the value of the allotment to which the peasant was allocated. The peasant bought his land from the landowner. What is the mechanism for calculating the value of purchased land? The authors of the reform, liberals Rostovtsev and Milyutin, based the calculation of value on the income that the landowner received from the peasant before the reform. To do this, the peasant put his money in the bank so that at interest they would give the landowner his own amount before the reform - a form of capitalized quitrent. The peasant redeems freedom, which was granted to him by the 1st provision.

4) The provision on the redemption operation, the peasant receives the redemption amount given to the landowner by the state, the peasant had to repay this within 49 years. The peasant who managed to buy the allotment became personally free. The position of those temporarily obliged lasted 49 years for those who did not redeem themselves in a timely manner. Those who will not pay 6% interest for 49 years. The Russian Tsar wins. The underlying bourgeois capitalist mechanisms were serfdom, corresponding to the bulk of the landowners, who could start some new capitalist economy.

The duties that a peasant bears (in-kind, corvée, cash rent) corvee was limited to 30 days a year for women, 40 for men. The size of the monetary quitrent in each province had to correspond to the pre-reform one. From 8 to 12 rubles per year, the highest was set 25 km from St. Petersburg, the lowest for black earth provinces 8-9 rubles. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants” and “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.”

Peasants received personal freedom and most civil rights. Peasant self-government was established, to which the collection of taxes and a number of judicial powers were transferred. At the same time, peasants still paid a poll tax, carried out conscription duties, and were subjected to corporal punishment. The community and communal land tenure were preserved.

The authors of the peasant reform believed that sustainable agrarian development in Russia would ensure the coexistence of two types of farms - large landowners and small peasants. Therefore, peasants were provided with plots of field land, however, they were on average 20% smaller than those plots that the peasants used under serfdom. The peasants' lack of land greatly complicated post-reform agrarian development.

For the land, the peasants had to pay the landowners a ransom, the value of which was 1.5 times the market value of the land. 80% of the redemption amount was paid to the landowners by the state, and the debts of the landowners to the state were deducted from the amount paid to them. The peasants had to repay the debt to the state with interest for fifty years.

From 1858 to 1863 a reform of appanages (belonging to the imperial family) was carried out, and in 1866 - a reform of state peasants. The peasant reform created significant opportunities for the agrarian development of Russia, however, it also retained many remnants (class isolation of peasants, community). The peasants' lack of land also created great difficulties. That's why in the future, the reform certainly needed further development- stagnation or a turn back threatened revolution. The reform concentrated significant funds in the hands of the state, but because of this it turned out to be very difficult for the peasants; this slowed down the development of peasant farming.

The “Regulations” of February 19, 1861 included: “General Regulations”, four “Local Regulations on the Land Organization of Peasants”, “Regulations on Redemption”, “Regulations on the Organization of Household People”, “Regulations on Provincial Institutions for Peasant Affairs”, as well as a number of “rules” - “On the procedure for enacting the Regulations”, “On small-scale peasants”, “On people assigned to private mining factories”, etc. These legislative acts extended to 45 provinces.

The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that lasted more than two decades. The peasants did not receive complete liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and “Regulations” were published on February 19, 1861. The Manifesto announced that the peasants for another two years(until February 19, 1863 - the date for the entry into force of the “Regulations”) They were obliged to serve, although in a slightly modified form, essentially the same duties as under serfdom.

Only canceled especially hated by the peasants, the so-called "additional fees" in kind: eggs, oil, flax, canvas, wool, mushrooms, etc. Usually the entire burden of these extortions fell on women, so the peasants aptly dubbed their abolition " by woman's will".

Besides, landowners were forbidden to transfer peasants to courtyards, A quitrents for corvée. On corvee estates, the size of corvée was reduced from 135-140 days of tax per year to 70, and submerged duty was slightly reduced.

But even after 1863, the peasants for a long time were in the position of “temporarily obliged", i.e., obligated to bear the feudal duties established by the "Regulations" - pay quitrents and perform corvée.

The final act of eliminating feudal relations in the former landowner village was the transfer of peasants for ransom. The final date for the transfer to redemption and, therefore, the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants was not determined by law. However, the transfer of peasants to ransom was allowed immediately after the promulgation of the “Regulations,” either by mutual agreement with the landowner, or at his unilateral request (the peasants themselves could not demand their transfer to ransom).

Legal status of peasants

According to the Manifesto, the peasants immediately received personal freedom. The importance of this act must be emphasized: the struggle for “freedom” occupied a central place in the centuries-old history of the peasant movement.

Rich peasants went to great expense to buy their freedom. And so in 1861, the former serf, who before that was actually the complete property of the landowner, who could take away all his property from him, and sell him and his family or separately from it, mortgage, donate, now not only received the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality , but also a number of general property and civil rights: act in court on one’s own behalf, enter into various types of property and civil transactions, open commercial and industrial establishments, and move to other classes. All this gave greater scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to an increase in the number of people going to work and, consequently, to the formation of the labor market, and most importantly, it liberated the peasants morally.

True, the question of the personal liberation of peasants in 1861 has not yet received final approval. The features of non-economic coercion continued to persist for the period of time of the obliged state of the peasants: The landowner retained the right of patrimonial police on the territory of his estate; during this period, rural officials were subordinate to him; he could demand the replacement of these persons, the removal from the community of peasants he disliked, and interfere in the decisions of village and volost assemblies.But with the transfer of the peasants to ransom, this guardianship over them by the landowner ceased.

Subsequent reforms in the field of court, local education administration, and military service expanded the rights of the peasantry: the peasant could be elected to the jury of new courts, to the bodies of zemstvo self-government, and he was given access to secondary and higher educational institutions. Certainly, this was not filmed completely class inequality of the peasantry. It continued to remain a lower, tax-paying class. Peasants were obliged to pay a poll tax and various other monetary and in-kind duties, and were subjected to corporal punishment, from which other, privileged classes were exempt.

Peasant self-government

From the date of promulgation of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, it was envisaged to introduce “peasant public administration” in the villages of former landowner peasants within nine months. It was introduced during the summer of 1861. Peasant self-government in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P.D. Kiseleva.

Rural and volost government bodies were introduced. The first unit was the rural society, which previously constituted the landowner's estate. It could consist of one or several villages or part of a village. Rural society (community) was united by common economic interests - common land and common obligations to the landowner. The rural administration here consisted of a village assembly, represented by all householders, prefects, his assistant And tax collector elected for 3 years. At the village meeting, representatives were elected hair gathering based on one person per 10 households.

The rural assembly was in charge of issues of communal land use, the distribution of state and zemstvo duties, had the right to remove “harmful and vicious members” from society, and to exclude from participation in the assembly for three years those who had committed any offenses. The decisions of the meeting had legal force if the majority of those present at the meeting spoke in favor of them.

Several adjacent rural societies, which included a total of 300 to 2 thousand male peasants, accounted for parish.

Volost gathering elected a volost foreman, his assistants and volost court consisting of 4 to 12 judges. Often, due to the illiteracy of the foreman, the key figure in the volost was the hired servant of the assembly volost clerk. The volost assembly was in charge of the distribution of secular duties, the compilation and verification of recruitment lists and the order of recruitment. When considering recruitment cases, the young men appointed to recruits and their parents were present at the meeting. The volost elder, like the village headman, performed a number of administrative and economic functions: he monitored “order and decorum” in the volost, his duties included the detention of vagrants, deserters and generally all “suspicious” persons, and “suppression of false rumors.” The volost court considered peasant property litigation, if the size of the claims did not exceed 100 rubles, and cases of minor offenses, guided by the norms of customary law.

Village elders and volost elders were obliged to unquestioningly fulfill the demands of representatives of the “established authorities”: a peace mediator, a judicial investigator, and police officials.

Global mediators

The createdin the summer of 1861, the Institute of Peace Mediators, who were entrusted with numerous intermediary and administrative functions: verification, approval and introduction of statutory charters (which determined post-reform duties and land relations between peasants and landowners), certification of redemption acts when peasants transferred to redemption, analysis of disputes between peasants and landowners, confirmation of village elders and volost elders in positions, supervision of peasant government bodies.

Peace mediators were appointed by the Senate from local hereditary landowners on the proposal of governors and (jointly) provincial leaders of the nobility

World mediators were called upon to carry out the government line- take into account, first of all, state interests, suppress the selfish inclinations of outright serf owners and demand that they strictly adhere to the framework of the law

In practice, the majority of peace mediators were not “impartial reconcilers” of disagreements between peasants and landowners. Being landowners ourselves, world mediators defended primarily the interests of landowners, sometimes they even went to break the law.

The composition of the world mediators elected for the first triennium was the most liberal(world mediators of the “first call”). Among them were the Decembrists A.E. Rosen, P.N. Svistunov, M.A. Nazimov, Petrashevites N.S. Kashkin and N.A. Speshnev, writer L.N. Tolstoy and the famous surgeon N.I. Pirogov.

However, such peace mediators were soon either removed from their positions or resigned.

Peasant allotment

The issue of land occupied a central place in the reform. The law issued was based on the principle of recognizing landowners' ownership of all land on their estates, including peasant allotments, and peasants were declared only users of their plots, obliged to serve for them the duties established by the "Regulations" (quitrent or corvee). To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

When determining the norms for peasant plots, local features of natural and economic conditions were taken into account. Based on this, the entire territory of European Russia was divided into three stripes - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the stripes, in turn, were divided into terrain(from 10 to 15 in each strip).

IN non-chernozem and chernozem strips were installed highest and lowest(1/3 of the highest) norm of allotments, and in steppe - one, so-called, decree norm.

The law provided segmentfrom the peasant's allotment in favor of the landowner, if its pre-reform dimensions exceeded the highest or specified norms, and cutting, if he did not reach the lowest standard.

The difficulty of the sections for the peasants lay not only in their size. Of particular importance was what lands fell into the segments. Although it was forbidden by law to cut off arable land, it turned out that peasants were deprived of the land they most needed(meadows, pastures, watering places), without which normal farming was impossible.

Then the peasant was forced to rent these “cut-off lands” from the landowner. Segments Thus, in the hands of the landowners, they turned into a very effective means of hiring peasants and became the basis of the working-out system of running a landed estate.

Peasant land ownership was “constrained” not only by land plots, but also striped stripes depriving peasants of forest land(the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in some northern provinces).

Most disadvantaged turned out to be peasants, yes relatives those who received gift (beggarly or, as the peasants called it, “orphan”) plots. The donors numbered 461 males. “As a gift” they were given 485 thousand dessiatines - 1.05 dessiatines per capita (versus 3.3 dessiatines for the rest of the peasants). According to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift. But often the peasants found themselves in such conditions when they were forced to agree to a donative allotment and even demand it if their pre-reform allotment was close to the lowest norm, and the duties for the land exceeded the profitability from it. The desire to switch to “donation” was manifested mainly in sparsely populated provinces with a lot of land and mainly in the first years of the reform, when market and rental prices for land here were relatively low.

A small group of wealthy peasants, who had the funds to buy land “on the side” and wanted to establish a business enterprise on their own purchased land, especially sought to receive a donative allotment.

The majority of donors who agreed to a “free” small allotment miscalculated and found themselves in an extremely difficult situation.

The allocation of land to peasants was of a compulsory nature; the landowner was obliged to provide the peasant with an allotment, and the peasant to take it.

By law, after 1870, a peasant could refuse an allotment. But the right to refuse the allotment after this period was surrounded by conditions that reduced it to nothing: the peasant had to fully pay off all taxes and duties, including recruitment. After 1870, only 9.3 thousand male souls were able to use the right to refuse allotment.

Abolition of serfdom. IN 1861 In Russia, a reform was carried out that abolished serfdom. The main reason for this reform was the crisis of the serfdom system. In addition, historians consider the inefficiency of the labor of serfs as a reason. Economic reasons also include the urgent revolutionary situation as an opportunity for a transition from the everyday discontent of the peasant class to a peasant war. In the context of peasant unrest, which especially intensified during Crimean War, the government led by Alexander II, went towards the abolition of serfdom

January 3 1857 a new Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was established, consisting of 11 people 26 July Minister of the Interior and Committee Member S. S. Lansky An official reform project was presented. It was proposed to create noble committees in each province with the right to make their own amendments to the project.

The government program provided for the destruction of the personal dependence of peasants while maintaining all land ownership landowners; providing peasants with a certain amount of land for which they will be required to pay quitrent or serve corvée, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (residential buildings and outbuildings). Legal dependence was not eliminated immediately, but only after a transition period (12 years).

IN 1858 To prepare peasant reforms, provincial committees were formed, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between liberal and reactionary landowners. The committees were subordinate to the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs (transformed from the Secret Committee). 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 decline of the peasant movement.

December 4 1858 A new program of peasant reform was adopted: providing peasants with the opportunity to buy out land plots and the creation of peasant public administration bodies. The main provisions of the new program were as follows:

peasants gaining personal freedom

providing peasants with plots of land (for permanent use) with the right of redemption (especially for this purpose, the government allocates a special credit)

approval of a transitional (“urgently obligated”) state

February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto " About the All-Merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants" And , consisting of 17 legislative acts.

The manifesto was published in Moscow on March 5, 1861, in Forgiveness Sunday V Assumption Cathedral Kremlin after liturgy; at the same time it was published in St. Petersburg and some other cities ; in other places - during March of the same year.

February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom And Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, consisting of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto “On the Most Gracious Granting of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens to Serfs” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (22 documents in total) concerning the issues of the emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their purchase of landowners’ land and the size of the purchased plots in certain regions of Russia.

Peasant reform of 1861 On February 19, 1861, the Emperor approved a number of legislative acts on specific provisions of the peasant reform. Were accepted central And local regulations, which regulated the procedure and conditions for the liberation of peasants and the transfer of land plots to them. Their main ideas were: the peasants received personal freedom and, before the redemption deal was concluded with the landowner, the land was transferred to the use of the peasants.

The allocation of land was carried out by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasant: the first could not give a land allotment less than the lower norm established by local regulations, the second could not demand an allotment larger than the maximum norm provided for in the same regulation. All land in thirty-four provinces was divided into three categories: non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe.

The soul's allotment consisted of a manor and arable land, pastures and wastelands. Only males were allocated land.

Disputed issues were resolved through a mediator. The landowner could demand the forced exchange of peasant plots if mineral resources were discovered on their territory or the landowner intended to build canals, piers, and irrigation structures. It was possible to move peasant estates and houses if they were located in unacceptable proximity to landowner buildings.

Ownership of the land remained with the landowner until the redemption transaction was completed; during this period, the peasants were only users and " temporarily obliged " . During this transitional period, peasants were freed from personal dependence, taxes in kind were abolished for them, and the norms of corvee labor (thirty to forty days a year) and cash rent were reduced.

The temporarily obligated state could be terminated after the expiration of a nine-year period from the date of issue of the manifesto, when the peasant refused the allotment. For the rest of the peasants, this situation lost force only in 1883, when they were transferred to the state owners.

The redemption agreement between the landowner and the peasant community was approved by the mediator. The estate could be purchased at any time, the field plot - with the consent of the landowner and the entire community. After the agreement was approved, all relations (landowner-peasant) ceased and the peasants became owners.

The subject of property in most regions became the community, in some areas - the peasant household. In the latter case, peasants received the right of hereditary disposal of land. Movable property (and real estate previously acquired by the peasant in the name of the landowner) became the property of the peasant. Peasants received the right to enter into obligations and contracts by acquiring movable and immovable property. The lands provided for use could not serve as security for contracts.

Peasants received the right to engage in trade, open enterprises, join guilds, go to court on an equal basis with representatives of other classes, enter service, and leave their place of residence.

In 1863 and 1866 the provisions of the reform were extended to appanage and state peasants.

Peasants paid a ransom for estate and field land. The redemption amount was based not on the actual value of the land, but on the amount of quitrent that the landowner received before the reform. An annual six percent capitalized quitrent was established, equal to the pre-reform annual income ( quitrent ) of the landowner. Thus, the basis for the redemption operation was not the capitalist, but the former feudal criterion.

The peasants paid twenty-five percent of the redemption amount in cash upon completion of the redemption transaction, the landowners received the remaining amount from the treasury (in money and securities), which the peasants had to pay, along with interest, for forty-nine years.

The government's fiscal police apparatus had to ensure the timeliness of these payments. To finance the reform, the Peasant and Noble Banks were formed.

During the period of "temporary duty" the peasants remained a legally separate class. The peasant community bound its members with a mutual guarantee: it was possible to leave it only by paying half of the remaining debt and with the guarantee that the other half would be paid by the community. It was possible to leave “society” by finding a deputy. The community could decide on a mandatory purchase of the land. The gathering allowed family divisions of land.

Volost gathering decided by a qualified majority issues: on replacing communal land use with precinct land use, on dividing land into permanently inherited plots, on redistributions, on removing its members from the community.

Headman was the actual assistant of the landowner (during the period of temporary existence), could impose fines on the perpetrators or subject them to arrest.

Volost court elected for a year and resolved minor property disputes or tried for minor offenses.

During the redemption, a certain pattern emerged: the smaller the plot of land being redeemed, the more one had to pay for it. Here a hidden form of redemption not of land, but of the peasant’s personality, was clearly revealed. The landowner wanted to get him for his freedom. At the same time, the introduction of the principle of compulsory redemption was a victory of state interest over the interest of the landowner.

The unfavorable consequences of the reform were the following: a) peasants' allotments decreased compared to pre-reform, and payments increased in comparison with the old quitrent; c) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and water bodies; c) peasants remained a separate class.