On February 19 (old style), 1861, on the day of the five-year anniversary of the beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander II, the Sovereign signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom in Russia. The event that had been awaited for many years has happened. “By virtue of these new provisions, serfs will in due time receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants”, - said the text of the Manifesto, for the publication of which the Emperor was awarded the honorary title “Tsar Liberator” by the Russian people.
“The nobility voluntarily renounced the right to personality of serfs... - reported in the Tsar's Manifesto . - The nobles had to limit their rights to the peasants and raise the difficulties of transformation, not without reducing their benefits... The referenced examples of generous care of the owners for the welfare of the peasants and the gratitude of the peasants to the beneficent care of the owners confirms our hope that most of the difficulties will be resolved by mutual voluntary agreements, inevitable in some applications general rules to the various circumstances of individual estates, and that in this way the transition from the old order to the new will be facilitated and mutual trust, good agreement and unanimous desire for the common benefit will be strengthened in the future.”.
However, the people learned about the Tsar's Manifesto not on the day of its signing, but only two weeks later - on Forgiveness Sunday after the end of the liturgy. This was due to the fact that, fearing a violent popular reaction, the authorities decided to wait out the Maslenitsa festivities and time the announcement of the document to coincide with the first week of Lent, when Orthodox Christians especially strive to curb their own passions and repentance. And these calculations were completely justified. As the capital's newspaper noted, “ The churches of God were filled with Orthodox people. The honest people humbly listened to the divine liturgy, preparing to find out the resolution of their cherished thought, nurtured in their hearts for years.” “From 9 o’clock in the morning, for 10 hours, the telegraph did not stop transmitting to all ends of Russia, wherever the electric wire was laid, the news of the highest manifesto on February 19, 1861,” reported “Northern Bee”. - The mercy bestowed by the Sovereign on the people was accepted by Moscow with reverent emotion. (...) On the same day, March 5, a manifesto was announced throughout the Moscow district, with complete calm on all landowners’ estates.”.
As part of this short essay We will not dwell on the content of the reform and the progress of the liberation of the peasants, which are well known at least from school course history, but we will only touch on the perception of this hysterical event by contemporaries.
Emperor Alexander II, on the eve of the promulgation of the Manifesto, prayed for a long time at the tomb of his father - Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, who died on February 18, 1855, and did a lot to make the abolition of serfdom possible during the reign of his son. According to the historian M.P. Pogodin, the Emperor experienced great joy on February 19. “Today is the best day of my life!”, said the Emperor, who “and cried, and laughed, and kissed children, and hugged loved ones...”
The official press was full of joyful and solemn messages: “The great event that took place on February 19, 1861, begins a new, better era in the social development of Russia”, - noted “Russian Rech”. And the St. Petersburg Vedomosti assured its readers that “the great call for the unity of classes and agreement on mutual interests in universal human relations forever closed the abyss that was opened by the hands of Peter as a result of historical necessity.”
“Kant, Schiller, Rousseau..., - M.P. Pogodin wrote enthusiastically , - take off your hats, bow to the ground... France, Germany, England, envy us... We received equality and this is “suddenly one truly beautiful morning.” And all this without a revolution. What a “monster Russia...”.
F.M. Dostoevsky also welcomed the Tsar’s Manifesto, noting that “all this vile sin of ours was abolished at once according to the great word of the Liberator”. The prominent conservative publicist M.N. Katkov also called February 19 “the Great Holiday of the Russian Land.” Assessing the reform 9 years after its implementation, Katkov noted: “Never has the “common sense of the people” been expressed so brilliantly as in the peasant reform that took place in Russia. At first after liberation, immediately after the abrupt change that took place in the Russian village, when serfdom had already fallen, but neither the peace mediators nor the village authorities had yet been put into effect, when the peasants had not yet had time to familiarize themselves with their new rights - and then no serious confusion occurred among the people, despite all the efforts of the malicious parties. Special measures taken just in case turned out to be completely unnecessary. The Russian people surprised with their common sense not only enemies, but also their friends, who still did not hope that the masses could discover such complete self-control in the first days of freedom. It is known that malicious people tried to arouse exaggerated expectations among the peasantry. Rumors were spread about a free allotment, about a new will, about exemption from all duties. But the people always retained a sound instinct for truth.”.
But the public reaction to the peasant reform turned out to be far from ambiguous. As the historian of the reign of Emperor Alexander II E.P. Tolmachev rightly notes, “the attitude of contemporaries to the promulgated peasant reform once again proved the old truth: there is no law that would be to everyone’s liking”. While some admired the great sovereign act, others interpreted the reform as “predatory.”
In the latter interpretation, the revolutionary camp was especially successful, which categorically did not accept the peasant reform. N.G. Chernyshevsky, having read the manifesto on February 19, 1861, irritably said: “It has long been clear that this is what will happen”. And Herzen’s “Bell” through the mouth of N.P. Ogarev, who noted that peasants from serfdom fell into debt dependence, wrote: “The old serfdom has been replaced by a new one. In general, serfdom has not been abolished. The people are deceived by the king".
But many former serf owners also felt deceived, whom the reform deprived of free labor and forced to share the land with the peasants. Those of them who mortgaged their estates and owed considerable sums to the treasury, instead of the expected generous reward, received only a write-off of pre-reform debts.
Everyone remembers Nekrasov’s lines about the abolition of serfdom:
The great chain has broken,
Torn - cracked
One way for the master,
Others don't care!..
However, criticism of the reform came not only from the lips of left-wing radicals and offended landowners. 12 years after the publication of the Manifesto, F.M. Dostoevsky noted: “With the liberation of the peasants, labor was left without sufficient organization and support. Everything perished: the village and land ownership, and the nobility, and Russia... Personal landed property is in complete chaos, bought and sold, changing its owner every minute... Who will finally remain with it is difficult to predict, but meanwhile, if you want, in this the most important question Russian future".
Without denying the need for reform, the Slavophile I.S. Aksakov was quite critical of its implementation in practice. “This reform is more than a revolution, in the ordinary meaning of the word; this is a whole revolution, of course peaceful, but still a revolution (...) - one of the greatest social revolutions, which history has known, he believed. - ...The liberation of peasants from serfdom was not some transfer of objects from one department to another or one of the useful reforms among others - even, perhaps, the most important of them, which increased the number of full-fledged citizens by 20 million, from the Russian point of view vision, citizens. When embarking on this great action, we not only did not clearly understand its meaning, the scope of its consequences, but even now we are not on the same level with it in our consciousness. (...) How long ago did we begin to realize that, by destroying the life of the landowners and the serfdom of the peasants, we had dug into the very depths native history? We have swept away centuries-old sediments and exposed an ancient layer, historical virgin soil, and we don’t know what to do with it: we have neither seeds nor appropriate tools for it; seeds and plows, which were suitable for alluvial layers, are not suitable for it. We solved the historical question - without arming ourselves with historical consciousness, which our society is shamefully poor in, having forgotten historical legends!
And the most famous publicist of “New Time” M.O. Menshikov drew the attention of his readers to the fact that the great reform led to the collapse of the traditional system of values among the peasants, and the burden of freedom turned out to be unbearably heavy for many of them: “To the great act of liberation from serfdom, the people, the free people! - answered: 1) rapid development drunkenness, 2) the rapid development of crime... 3) the rapid development of debauchery, 4) the rapid development of atheism and cooling towards the church, 5) the flight from the village to the cities, which were seduced by... brothels and taverns, 6) the rapid loss of all disciplines - state , family, moral and religious and the transformation into a nihilist".
And there was truth in this criticism too. After all, along with the acquisition of freedom, the peasants were deprived of the help and care from the landowners, on which they were accustomed to count. If for the wealthy part of the peasantry, accustomed to running an independent economy, this was not scary, then the poor peasants found themselves “thrown out” into a free life that was unusual for them and, adapting to new living conditions, often turned their newfound freedom to no good.
But let’s not forget that the task facing the Sovereign was not an easy one. Russian Autocrats have been thinking about the need to abolish serfdom since the time of Catherine the Great, when the realization began to dawn that after the nobles were released from compulsory public service, the enslavement of peasants lost its moral justification. Starting with Emperor Paul I, each of the Sovereigns took real steps to soften serfdom. And by the middle of the 19th century. it was already quite obvious that the form of management based on forced labor was losing its former effectiveness, and the growing awareness of the injustice of this state of affairs urgently required a fundamental decision peasant question. The words spoken to the Moscow nobility by Emperor Alexander II in 1856 are widely known: “It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to be destroyed by itself from below.”. But as soon as we began to resolve this issue seriously, it became obvious that it was impossible to free peasants without land, as was once done in the West, in Russia, and it would not be possible to carry out a painless redistribution of property. The authorities were faced with an almost insoluble dilemma: to make sure that both the sheep were safe and the wolves were fed. But the Emperor still managed to pass between Scylla and Charybdis. Although the reform simultaneously “robbed” both landowners and peasants (the former lost part of their property and income, and the latter did not receive what they expected), it did not lead to a powerful social explosion. Neither noble" palace coup", no peasant Pugachevism occurred. Having scolded the authorities, both dissatisfied parties began to adapt to living in new conditions.
Boris Kustodiev. "The Liberation of the Peasants (Reading the Manifesto)." Painting from 1907
"I want to be alone with my conscience." The Emperor asked everyone to leave the office. On the table in front of him lay a document that was supposed to change the whole of Russian history - the Law on the Liberation of Peasants. They waited for him for many years, they fought for him best people states. The law not only eliminated the shame of Russia - serfdom, but also gave hope for the triumph of goodness and justice. Such a step for a monarch is a difficult test, for which he has been preparing all his life, from year to year, since childhood...
His teacher Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky spared neither effort nor time to instill in the future Emperor of Russia a sense of goodness, honor, and humanity. When Alexander II ascended the throne, Zhukovsky was no longer around, but the emperor retained his advice and instructions and followed them until the end of his life. Having accepted Russia, exhausted by the Crimean War, he began his reign by giving Russia peace.
Emperors first half of the 19th century centuries, historians often reproach the fact that they did not strive to implement or tried with all their might to complicate the abolition of serfdom. Only Alexander II decided to take this step. His reform activities often accused of half-heartedness. Was it really easy for the monarch to carry out reforms if his support, the Russian nobility, did not support his initiatives. Alexander II required enormous courage to balance between the possibility of a threat from the noble opposition, on the one hand, and the threat of a peasant revolt, on the other.
To be fair, we note that there have been attempts to carry out peasant reform before. Let's turn to the background. In 1797, Emperor Paul I issued a decree on a three-day corvee, although the wording of the law remained unclear, whether the law did not allow or simply did not recommend the use of peasant labor in corvee more than three days a week. It is clear that the landowners were for the most part inclined to adhere to the latter interpretation. His son, Alexander I, once said: “If education had been at a higher level, I would have abolished slavery, even if it cost me my life.” Nevertheless, after Count Razumovsky approached him in 1803 for permission to free fifty thousand of his serfs, the tsar did not forget about this precedent, and as a result, in the same year, the decree “On Free Plowmen” appeared. According to this law, landowners received the right to release their peasants if it would be beneficial to both parties. During the 59 years of the law, the landowners released only 111,829 peasants, of which 50 thousand were serfs of Count Razumovsky. Apparently, the nobility was more inclined to hatch plans for the reconstruction of society rather than begin its implementation with the liberation of their own peasants.
Nicholas I in 1842 issued the Decree “On Obligated Peasants,” according to which peasants were allowed to be freed without land, providing it for the performance of certain duties. As a result, 27 thousand people became obligated peasants. The need to abolish serfdom was beyond doubt. “The state of serfdom is a powder magazine under the state,” wrote the chief of gendarmes A.H. Benkendorf in a report to Nicholas I. During the reign of Nicholas I, preparations for peasant reform were already underway: the basic approaches and principles for its implementation were developed, and the necessary material was accumulated.
But Alexander II abolished serfdom. He understood that he had to act carefully, gradually preparing society for reforms. In the first years of his reign, at a meeting with a delegation of Moscow nobles, he said: “There are rumors that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's unfair and you can say it to everyone left and right. But, unfortunately, a feeling of hostility between peasants and landowners exists, and as a result there have already been several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think that you are of the same opinion as me. It is better to begin the destruction of serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed of its own accord from below.” The emperor asked the nobles to think and submit their thoughts on the peasant issue. But I never received any offers.
Then Alexander II turned to another option - the creation of a Secret Committee “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants” under his personal chairmanship. The committee held its first meeting on January 3, 1857. The committee included Count S.S. Lanskoy, Prince Orlov, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property Muravyov, Prince Gagarin, Baron Korf and Y.I. Rostovtsev. He managed the affairs of the Butkov committee. Committee members agreed that serfdom needed to be abolished, but warned against making radical decisions. Only Lanskoy, Bludov, Rostovtsev and Butkov spoke out in favor of the real liberation of the peasants; the majority of committee members proposed only measures to alleviate the situation of the serfs. Then the emperor introduced his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, into the committee, who was convinced of the need to abolish serfdom.
The Grand Duke was an extraordinary person and thanks to his active influence, the committee began to develop measures. On the advice of the Grand Duke, Alexander II took advantage of the situation in the Baltic provinces, where landowners were dissatisfied with the existing fixed norms of corvee and quitrent and would like to abolish them. Lithuanian landowners decided that it was better for them to completely abandon the ownership of serfs, retaining land that could be rented out profitably. A corresponding letter was drawn up to the emperor, and he, in turn, handed it over to the Secret Committee. The discussion of the letter went on for a long time in the committee; the majority of its members did not share this idea, but Alexander ordered to “approve the good intentions of the Lithuanian nobles” and create official committees in the Vilna, Kovno and Grodno provinces to prepare proposals for organizing peasant life. Instructions were sent to all Russian governors in case local landowners “would like to resolve the matter in a similar way.” But no takers showed up. Then Alexander sent a rescript to the St. Petersburg Governor General with the same instructions to create a committee.
In December 1857, both royal rescripts were published in newspapers. So, with the help of glasnost (by the way, this word came into use at that time), the matter moved forward. For the first time, the country began to openly talk about the problem of the abolition of serfdom. The Secret Committee ceased to be such, and at the beginning of 1858 it was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. And by the end of the year, committees were already working in all provinces.
On March 4, 1858, the Zemstvo Department was formed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the preliminary consideration of projects coming from the provinces, which were then transferred to the Main Committee. Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs A.I. Levshin was appointed Chairman of the Zemstvo Department, the most important role His work was played by the head of the department, Ya.A. Solovyov, and the director of the economic department, N.A. Milyutin, who soon replaced Levshin as deputy minister.
At the end of 1858, reviews finally began to arrive from provincial committees. To study their proposals and develop general and local provisions for the reform, two editorial commissions were formed, the chairman of which the emperor appointed the chief military educational institutions Ya.I. Rostovtseva. General Rostovtsev was sympathetic to the cause of liberation of the peasants. He established a completely trusting relationship with Milyutin, who, at the request of the chairman, attracted liberal-minded officials and public figures, staunch supporters of the reform Yu.F. Samarin, Prince Cherkassky, Ya.A. Solovyov and others, to the activities of the commissions. They were opposed by members of the commissions who were opponents of the reform, among whom were Count P.P. Shuvalov, V.V. Apraksin and Adjutant General Prince I.F. Paskevich. They insisted on maintaining land ownership rights for landowners, rejected the possibility of providing land to peasants for ransom, except in cases of mutual consent, and demanded that landowners be given full power on their estates. Already the first meetings took place in a rather tense atmosphere.
With the death of Rostovtsev, Count Panin was appointed in his place, which was perceived by many as a curtailment of activities to liberate the peasants. Only Alexander II was unperturbed. To his aunt Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, who expressed concerns about this appointment, he replied: “You don’t know Panin; his convictions are the exact execution of my orders.” The Emperor was not mistaken. Count Panin strictly followed his instructions: not to change anything during the preparation of the reform, to continue to follow the intended course. Therefore, the hopes of the serf owners, who dreamed of cardinal concessions in their favor, were not destined to come true.
At the same time, at meetings of the editorial commissions, Panin behaved more independently, trying to gradually, very carefully make concessions to landowners, which could lead to significant distortions of the project. The struggle between supporters and opponents of the reform sometimes became quite serious.
On October 10, I860, the emperor ordered the closure of the editorial commissions, which had worked for about twenty months, and the activities of the Main Committee to be resumed again. Due to the illness of the chairman of the committee, Prince Orlov, Alexander II appointed his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, to this post. In a small committee, several groups formed, none of which could achieve a clear majority. At the head of one of them, which included the chief of gendarmes, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of Finance A.M. Knyazhevich and others, was M.N. Muravyov. These committee members sought to reduce land allotment rates. A special position in the committee was occupied by Count Panin, who challenged many of the provisions of the editorial draft, and Prince P.P. Gagarin, who insisted on the liberation of peasants without land. For a long time, Grand Duke Constantine was unable to gather a solid majority of supporters of the draft editorial commissions. To ensure an advantage, he tried, by resorting to the power of persuasion and making some concessions, to win Panin over to his side, and he still succeeded. Thus, an absolute majority of supporters of the project was formed - fifty percent plus one vote: five members of the Main Committee against four.
Many were waiting for the onset of 1861. Grand Duke Constantine noted in his diary: “January 1, 1861. This mysterious year of 1861 began. What will he bring us? With what feelings will we look at it on December 31? Should the peasant question and the Slavic question be resolved in it? Isn't this alone enough to call it mysterious and even fatal? Maybe this is the most important era in the thousand-year existence of Russia?
The last meeting of the Main Committee was chaired by the Emperor himself. Ministers who were not members of the committee were invited to the meeting. Alexander II stated that when submitting the project for consideration by the State Council, he would not tolerate any tricks or delays, and set the deadline for completion of the consideration on February 15, so that the content of the resolutions could be published and communicated to the peasants before the start of field work. “This is what I desire, demand, command!” - said the emperor.
In a detailed speech at a meeting of the State Council, Alexander II cited historical information about attempts and plans to resolve the peasant issue in previous reigns and during the years of his reign and explained what he expected from members of the State Council: “Views on the work presented may be different. Therefore, I will listen to all different opinions willingly, but I have the right to demand one thing from you: that you, putting aside all personal interests, act not as landowners, but as state dignitaries, invested with my trust.”
But even in the State Council, approval of the project was not easy. Only with the support of the emperor did the decision of the minority receive the force of law. Preparations for the reform were nearing completion. By February 17, 1861 State Council completed review of the project.
On February 19, 1861, on the sixth anniversary of his accession, Alexander II signed all the reform laws and the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.
On March 5, 1861, the Manifesto was read in churches after mass. At the divorce ceremony in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander II himself read it to the troops.
The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom provided peasants with personal freedom. From now on they could not be sold, bought, given, or relocated at the request of the landowner. Peasants now had the right to own property, freedom to marry, could independently enter into contracts and conduct legal cases, could acquire real estate in their own name, and had freedom of movement.
The peasant received a land allotment as a means of personal freedom. The size of the land plot was established taking into account the terrain and was not the same in different regions of Russia. If previously a peasant had more land than the fixed allotment for a given area, then the “extra” part was cut off in favor of the landowner. Such “segments” made up a fifth of all lands. The allotment was given to the peasant for a ransom. The peasant paid a quarter of the ransom amount to the landowner in a lump sum, and the rest was paid by the state. The peasant had to repay his debt to the state within 49 years. Before purchasing the land from the landowner, the peasant was considered “temporarily obligated”, paid the landowner a quitrent and worked off corvée. The relationship between the landowner and the peasant was regulated by the Charter.
The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies - communities. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. The volost elder was elected at a general meeting, and he subsequently performed administrative duties.
The activities of rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationships between peasants and landowners, were controlled by global intermediaries. They were appointed by the Senate from among the local noble landowners. Conciliators had broad powers and followed the directions of the law. The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should have been determined once and for all by agreement between the peasants and the landowner and recorded in the Charter. The introduction of these charters was the main activity of the peace mediators.
When assessing the peasant reform, it is important to understand that it was the result of a compromise between landowners, peasants and the government. Moreover, the interests of the landowners were taken into account as much as possible, but there was probably no other way to liberate the peasants. The compromise nature of the reform already contained future contradictions and conflicts. The reform prevented mass protests by peasants, although they still took place in some regions. The most significant of them were the peasant uprisings in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, and Kandeevka, Penza province.
And yet, the liberation of more than 20 million landowners with land was a unique event in Russian and world history. The personal freedom of peasants and the transformation of former serfs into “free rural inhabitants” destroyed the previous system of economic tyranny and opened up new prospects for Russia, creating the opportunity for the broad development of market relations and the further development of society. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other important transformations, which were to introduce new forms of self-government and justice in the country, and push for the development of education.
The undeniably great merit in this is Emperor Alexander II, as well as those who developed and promoted this reform, fought for its implementation - Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, N.A. Milyutin, Y.I. Rostovtsev, Yu.F. Samarin, Y.A. Solovyov and others.
Used literature:
Great Reform. T. 5: Reform figures. - M., 1912.
Ilyin, V.V. Reforms and counter-reforms in Russia. - M., 1996.
Troitsky, N.A. Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1997.
B. Kustodiev. Liberation of the peasants
1861 On March 3 (February 19, Old Style), Emperor Alexander II signs the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.
Preparations for the reform began with the creation in 1857 of a secret Committee on Peasant Affairs to develop measures to improve the situation of the peasantry. They tried not to use the words “liberation.” In 1858, provincial peasant committees began to open, and the main, secret committee became public. All these organizations developed reform projects, which were then submitted to the editorial commissions for consideration. Yakov Ivanovich Rostovtsev became the chairman of the commissions.Count Ya.I.Rostovtsev
The three main directions of the projects were fundamentally different: the project of the Moscow governor was directed against the liberation of the peasants, offering only an improvement in conditions, as originally formulated, the second direction, led by the St. Petersburg committee, proposed to free the peasants without the possibility of buying out the land, and the third group of projects insisted on the liberation of the peasants with earth.
After reviewing the projects, deputies were invited from the provinces. The deputies of the first convocation had very little access to the decision of affairs and were eventually dissolved. Members of the editorial commissions, not without reason, believed that provincial representatives would try to look after their own benefit exclusively to the detriment of the interests of the peasants.
In addition, the implementation of the reform according to the original plan could be hindered by the fact that after Rostovtsev’s death in 1860, Count V.N. took his place. Panin, who has a reputation as an opponent of liberal reforms.
The highest decree ordered that the creation of the reform project be completed by the day the emperor ascended the throne.
On March 1, the State Council adopts the project, and on March 3 (February 19, old style), Alexander II signs the legislative acts presented to him.
For all the enthusiasm with which the release of the manifesto was greeted, there were also many dissatisfied. Most peasants were interested not so much in the civil liberties granted to them by the reform, but rather in the land on which they could work to feed their families. According to the Regulations, issued simultaneously with the Manifesto, it was assumed that peasants would buy out land plots, since all land remained the full property of the landowners. Before the ransom, the peasants remained “temporarily obligated,” which meant that they were actually just as dependent.
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 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 July 26 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 that would have the right to make their own amendments to the draft.
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 corvee, 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 3) 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 3) 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 Merciful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (22 documents in total) concerning the issues of 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 position lost force only in 1883, when they were transferred to 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 when completing the redemption transaction, the landowners received the rest of the amount from the treasury (money and securities), its peasants had to pay it, along with interest, for forty-nine years.
The police fiscal apparatus of the government 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 guilty or subject them to arrest.
Volost court elected for a year and resolved minor property disputes or tried for minor offenses.
A wide range of measures were provided for for arrears: confiscation of income from real estate, placement in work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor's movable and immovable property, confiscation of part or all of the allotment.
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 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.
155 years ago, on February 19 (new style - March 3), 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens,” which was published two days later in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. This document actually abolished serfdom, essentially slavery, which had existed in Russia for several centuries.
Social elevator
The significance of the reform is evidenced by the following fact: it created a social elevator that allowed former serfs to rise high up the social ladder and bring great benefit to their Fatherland. Here's a concrete example. In Vladimir province Among the liberated peasants was the family of Grigory Stoletov. (True, the head of the family, being a serf, still had the right to engage in trading activities). The eldest son Vasily learned the construction trade and became a major contractor. He invested a considerable part of his income in the education of his younger brothers - Alexander and Nikolai.
As a result, Alexander became a prominent physicist, professor at Moscow University, who was one of the first to study the photoelectric effect. After some time, these works found widespread practical application. Nicholas elected military career, rose to the rank of lieutenant general, participated in many campaigns. He was one of the leaders of the defense of Shipka and actually created the Bulgarian army. In Bulgaria, Stoletov was elected an honorary citizen during his lifetime famous city Gabrovo.
After the reform of 1861, capitalist relations began to develop in Russia, and some of the former serfs, endowed with energy and enterprise, took up entrepreneurship. Let's say, from the peasants of the Kaluga province came bankers and owners of an entire network of textile factories, the Ryabushinskys.
Slavery existed by...tradition
Attempts to abolish serfdom were made in Russia over the course of a century and a half. Peter the Great thought about this. But the emperor quickly realized: carrying out such a reform in a situation where many rights and privileges were already taken away from the boyars and nobles was dangerous. Because this could provoke a powerful confrontation.
By the way, the founder of the Northern capital also tried to find out
When and by what law was serfdom itself established? And then it turned out that there was no legal basis: serfdom in Russia exists and is based on tradition.
The great-grandson of Peter Alekseevich, Emperor Paul I, limited corvee service to three days a week. But many landowners did not obey the royal will, forcing the peasants to work for five, six, and seven days.
In Estland, serfdom was abolished in 1816, in Courland - in 1817, in Livonia - in 1819. That is, during the reign of Emperor Alexander I.
It can be assumed that Nicholas I was to some extent prevented from abolishing serfdom by the Decembrist uprising. The emperor feared that after what had happened, granting freedom to the peasants could have dangerous consequences for the state.
The emperor's nerves could not stand it
By the middle of the 19th century, it became completely clear that without the abolition of serfdom, further development of the country was no longer possible, says Doctor of Historical Sciences Yuri Zhukov. - The decisive actions of Alexander II and his like-minded people were prompted by defeat in Crimean War and more frequent peasant uprisings. “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to abolish itself from below,” the emperor himself once said at a reception with the leader of the Moscow nobility.
While preparing for the reform, Alexander II used the developments made by his father. A few years before the release of the Manifesto of 1861, by decree of the emperor, a Secret Committee was created, which was involved in the preparation of the historical document. Why secret? Yes, it’s very simple: so that the nobles, dissatisfied with the expected reforms, do not begin to muddy the waters ahead of time.
The drafters of the Manifesto did not intend to exactly copy the Western system of social relations, as some experts claim. On behalf of the tsar, officials visited a number of countries, studied the relationship between the state and peasants, between peasants and land owners, and thought through how much this experience could be used in Russia.
And yet for a very long time to keep the preparations secret historical document it was impossible. After all, this is tantamount to hiding in a bag not just an awl, but a whole sword. And heated discussions began.
Very influential people opposed the reform. Even many members of the government, most of whom were landowners, expressed their disagreement quite harshly. Among them is the Minister of Internal Affairs Pyotr Valuev, who, in his own words, was “the pen of the opposition,” that is, the opposition to the cause of the liberation of the peasants.”
But the sovereign still had someone to rely on. Alexander II was supported by his brother Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and sister of the late Emperor Nicholas I, smart, energetic and strong-willed Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna.
During the discussion of the reform, the intensity of passions was such that the emperor’s nerves sometimes could not stand it, and he allowed himself to shout at his opponents. The ardent supporter of the abolition of serfdom, Governor-General of New Russia and Bessarabia, Count Alexander Stroganov, later recalled this with bitterness.
Both peasants and landowners were dissatisfied
The Manifesto of 1861 and subsequent reform are the result of a compromise between various forces. And, as always happens in such cases, they were not without serious shortcomings.
The main provisions of the reform were as follows, says historian and writer Elena Prudnikova. - The peasants were granted personal freedom, and the landowners retained all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with land plots for use. For their use, peasants had to continue to serve corvée or pay quitrent - until they redeemed their land. And when it turned out that the peasants did not have the means to pay for the ransom, the state contributed money for them, obliging them to repay the debt within 49 years at the rate of 6 percent per annum - a high percentage for those times. In such conditions, many peasants simply abandoned the land.
Not wanting to cause strong discontent among the landowners, the area of land allocated to the former serfs was made less than necessary for the profitability of peasant labor. On average, each peasant farm received three and a half dessiatines of land, and in order to have at least some profit, you need at least five to six dessiatines. That is, farms were doomed to gradual ruin. A well-known cartoon of that time is “A Little Man on One Leg,” where a peasant is depicted on a tiny piece of land.
According to the ideologists of the reform, landowners deprived of free labor will begin to think about how to increase the efficiency of agricultural production, notes Prudnikova. - In reality, it turned out differently. Not all landowners were ready to run a capitalist economy. Some went bankrupt, others simply preferred to rent out the land. And few people wanted to invest money to improve the efficiency of farms. Large, high-yielding plantations existed mainly only in the west and south of Russia.
It turns out that both landowners and peasants were not particularly happy with the reform that abolished such a shameful phenomenon as slavery in Russia. Remember Firs, the servant from " Cherry Orchard": they say, there used to be order, "men are with the gentlemen, gentlemen are with the men."
The fates of the peasants freed from serfdom developed differently. Some were able to achieve great success using the mentioned social elevator, some remained on earth, managed to adapt to new working conditions and gradually established their economy. But many went bankrupt and left for cities, where they could not always find use for their strength.
Each comparison, as we know, is lame, but the peasant reform of the mid-19th century is somewhat reminiscent of ... the privatization of state property, which was carried out in the nineties of the 20th century, says Yuri Zhukov. - In both cases, one might say, effective owners did not appear in the country, but the number of disadvantaged people increased sharply.
Reform gave rise to terrorism
...In July 1867, the newspaper St. Petersburg Vedomosti published an essay about the arrest of a whole group of robbers who robbed trains. All of them were former serfs who were unable to either work in the new conditions on the land or find employment in the city. One of these thugs, a former slave of a landowner in the Tula province, was distinguished by his extraordinary love of horses, his ability to break them and prepare them for races. The trouble was that the landowner, who had lost a significant part of his income due to the reform, sold his stud farm, and the serf found himself out of work.
But even this is not the worst thing.
Unlike countries Western Europe“In Russia, the liberation of peasants was not accompanied by political transformations,” says Yuri Zhukov. - In our country there was no political parties, democratic institutions, in particular parliament. And the only form of struggle became terror.
Let us recall that twenty years after the abolition of serfdom, on March 1, 1881, members of the organization “ People's will“They killed Tsar-Liberator Alexander II, and at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was completely overwhelmed by a wave of political terrorism.
Interesting facts
In the Netherlands, serfdom was abolished in the 11th century, in Great Britain in the 12th century, in France in the 11th century. Of all the so-called civilized countries, slavery ceased to exist only in the United States later than Russia.
During the period from 1855 to 1900, the population of St. Petersburg increased almost 2.5 times: from 513,000 people to one million 248 thousand people.
At the beginning of the 20th century, most terrorists belonged to the first generation of artisans or laborers, who came from impoverished peasant families. According to statistics, at least fifty percent of all political murders carried out by the Socialist Revolutionaries were committed by terrorist workers. A somewhat similar situation is now observed in modern Russia.
