The results of the peasant reform of 1861 briefly

Peasant reform of 1861

Causes

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

Reform preparation

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

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

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

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

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

The main provisions of the peasant reform

Main act - General position about the peasants who emerged from serfdom" - contained the main conditions of the peasant reform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abolition of serfdom. V 1861 In Russia, a reform was carried out that abolished serfdom. The main reason for this reform was the crisis of the serf system. In addition, historians consider the inefficiency of the work of serfs as a reason. The economic reasons also include the overdue revolutionary situation as an opportunity to move from the everyday discontent of the peasant class to peasant war. In the context of peasant unrest, especially intensified during Crimean War, government, led by Alexander II, went to 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 a formal draft of the reform was presented. It was proposed to create noble committees in each province with the right to make their own amendments to the draft.

The government program provided for the destruction of the personal dependence of the peasants while maintaining all the land in the property 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 (a residential building and outbuildings). Legal dependence was not eliminated immediately, but only after the transition period (12 years).

V 1858 to prepare peasant reforms, provincial committees were formed, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between liberal and reactionary landlords. 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's program of peasant reform, the drafts of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or fall of the peasant movement.

December 4 1858 a new program of peasant reform was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and the creation of peasant public administration bodies. Key points new program were as follows:

getting peasants personal freedom

providing peasants with plots of land (for permanent use) with the right to purchase (specially for this, the government allocates a special credit)

approval of a transitional ("urgently obligated") state

February 19 ( March, 3rd) in 1861 in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto " On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state 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 Petersburg, Alexander II signed Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and Regulations on peasants leaving serfdom, consisting of 17 legislative acts. The Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (22 documents in total) relating to the issues of the liberation of peasants, the conditions for their redemption of landowners' land and the size of redeemed allotments 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 release of peasants and the transfer of land plots to them. Their main ideas were: the peasants receive personal freedom and before the conclusion of a redemption deal 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 plot less than the lower norm established by the local regulation, the second could not demand an allotment larger than the maximum norm provided for in the same provision. All land in thirty-four provinces was divided into three categories: non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe.

The shower allotment consisted of a manor and arable land, pastures and wastelands. Land was allocated only to males.

Disputable issues were resolved through the mediation of a mediator. The landowner could demand a forced exchange of peasant allotments if minerals were discovered on their territory or the landowner was going to build canals, piers, and irrigation facilities. It was possible to transfer peasant estates and houses if they were in unacceptable proximity to the landowners' buildings.

Ownership of the land was retained by the landowner until the redemption transaction was completed, the peasants for this period were only users and " temporarily liable " . During this transitional period, the peasants were freed from personal dependence, taxes in kind were canceled for them, the rates of corvee (thirty to forty days a year) and cash dues were reduced.

The temporary state could be terminated after a nine-year period from the date of issue of the manifesto, when the peasant refused to put on. For the rest of the mass of peasants, this provision only lost force 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 redeemed at any time, the field allotment - with the consent of the landowner and the entire community. After the approval of the contract, all relations (landlord-peasant) were terminated and the peasants became owners.

The subject of property in most regions was the community, in some areas - the peasant household. In the latter case, the peasants received the right of hereditary disposal of land. Movable property (and immovable property 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 granted for use could not serve as collateral for contracts.

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

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

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

The peasants paid twenty-five percent of the redemption amount in cash when making a redemption transaction, the rest of the landlords received from the treasury (money and securities), the peasants had to pay it, together with interest, for forty-nine years.

The police fiscal apparatus of the government had to ensure the timeliness of these payments. The Peasants' and Nobles' Banks were formed to lend to the reform.

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

Volost gathering decided by a qualified majority questions: on the replacement of communal land use by district, on the division of land into permanently inherited plots, on redistribution, on the removal of its members from the community.

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

Volost court was elected for a year and decided minor property disputes or considered for minor misdemeanors.

A wide range of measures was envisaged to be applied to the debtors: taking away income from real estate, giving it to work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor's movable and immovable property, taking away part or all of the allotment.

The noble nature of the reform manifested itself in many ways: in the procedure for calculating redemption payments, in the procedure for the redemption operation, in privileges when exchanging land plots, etc. When redeemed in the black earth regions, there was a clear tendency to turn the peasants into tenants of their own allotments (the land there was expensive), and in the non-chernozem - a fantastic increase in prices for the redeemed estate.

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

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

150 YEARS OF THE ABOLITION OF serfdom in Russia

V. T. Ryazanov

REFORM OF 1861 IN RUSSIA:

REASONS AND HISTORICAL LESSONS

On February 19 (March 3, NS), 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the Emancipation of Peasants from Serfdom1, as well as the Regulations on Peasants Leaving Serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto was announced on March 5 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin and in St. Isaac's Cathedral Petersburg, and then in other cities. This day in the Orthodox calendar stood out for its symbolism. Forgiveness Sunday fell on it, when the Orthodox ask each other for forgiveness before entering the 40-day fast in order to renounce the worldly and focus on the spiritual life. According to tradition, the king on this day asks for forgiveness from his subjects, traveling around the troops, visiting monasteries and churches. And in 1861, Alexander II in St. Petersburg, after the divorce of troops in the Mikhailovsky Manege, surrounded by officers, delivered a speech about the Manifesto, causing, as it was written then, an extraordinary impression on the audience. (In some sources it is even written that the tsar himself read the Manifesto to the assembled.) When the sovereign’s carriage then appeared on the square in front of winter palace, a crowd of thousands of people welcomed the king-liberator.

Background and reasons for the reform

It should be noted that the Peasant Reform in Russia actually completed the pan-European cycle of transformations in the agrarian sector, removing serious restrictions.

1 Its exact title is as follows: "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants."

Viktor Timofeevich RYAZANOV - Doctor of Economics Sciences, Professor, Head of Department economic theory Faculty of Economics, St. Petersburg State University. In 1972 he graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Leningrad State University. In 1978 he defended his Ph.D. thesis, in 1987 - his doctoral dissertation. Since 1968 he has been working at the University, since 1972 - at the Faculty of Economics. In 1989-1994 - Dean of the Faculty, since 1995 - Head. department. economy. Elected full member of the Academy of Humanities and the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. Honored Worker of the Higher School of the Russian Federation. Scientific interests - the theory of economic development of Russia, macroeconomic and institutional problems of the transitional economy. Author of over 140 scientific works, including 11 monographs (4 individual and 7 collective: leader of groups of authors, author, co-author). Monograph “Economic development of Russia. Reforms and the Russian economy in the XIX-XX centuries. (St. Petersburg, 1998) published with the financial support of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation.

values of the transition to an industrial-capitalist economy2. The last country in Western Europe to undergo agrarian reform was Germany, where the liberation of the peasants took place in 1807-1809. thanks to the victory of Napoleon in the war and under the French occupation. England was the first to get rid of serfdom in the 16th century, and this was done in the most radical way in the process of enclosing, in which at the same time the peasants were "liberated from the land." It happened that T. Mor, the author of "Utopia", was defined in the form of a formula: "Sheep devour people."

The question of the fate of serfdom in Russia arose in the ruling circles almost a hundred years before the Reform itself, since they saw it as a real threat to the existing system, primarily because of its rejection by the peasant class. With particular drama, this was expressed in a whole series of major uprisings, among which the most famous are the uprisings of 1606-1607. (leader - I. I. Bolotnikov); 1670-1671 (S. T. Razin); 1773-1775 (E. I. Pugachev).

supreme power countries could not but realize that serfdom had turned into a “powder magazine under the state” (A. Kh. Benkerdorf). Back in 1766, Empress Catherine II announced a competition in the Free Economic Society (VES) on the topic of the right of ownership of a farmer, which received 160 essays from both domestic and European authors. At the same time, A. Ya. Polenov became one of the five winners with his essay “On the Destruction of the Serfdom of the Peasants in Russia”, in which he sharply criticized the serfdom that had developed in the country. (It is characteristic that this essay was not allowed to be printed by the censors and was first published in 1865 in the Russian Archive magazine3.)

On the seriousness of the intentions of the royal power with late XVIII v. many facts testify to the emancipation of the peasants. So, Paul I (in 1797) introduced the restriction of corvée to three days a week. Alexander I, having become emperor, immediately stopped the distribution of state peasants into private property. This stopped the spread of serfdom in breadth ( specific gravity the serf population in its total number since that time began to decline steadily - from 50% at the beginning of the 19th century. to less than 30% by the time of the liberation of the peasants), and the society was given an unambiguous signal about future plans. Under Nicholas I, the system of punishments that landowners could apply to peasants was regulated and softened.

Another noteworthy fact is that during the reign of Alexander I, projects were actively developed land reform(only the VEO received 25 notes on the peasant issue; see:), and also, as an experiment, its version was carried out in Estonia, Livonia and Courland (1816-1819) with the liberation of peasants without land.

The above examples give grounds for the conclusion that already from the end of the 18th century. higher Russian authorities began to carry out, in essence, preparations for the abolition of serfdom. At the same time, the rejection of serfdom was not shared in the lower power structures, and especially among the landlords (as Leo Tolstoy argued, even on the eve of the Reform in 1856, 9/10 of the landlords were against the abolition of serfdom4). In this regard, we can refer to such an interesting fact.

2 For example, serfdom in Romania (Wallachia and Moldavia) was abolished in 1864. In the USA, slavery was finally abolished in 1865.

3About the work of A. Polenov, see: .

4Leo Tolstoy's observation about the negative attitude of the landowners towards the land reform is confirmed by the following example. Of the 45.8 thousand landowners in 13 central provinces, only 12.6 thousand (27.5%)

When the next competition on agrarian topics was held in 1809, also held by the VEO, three awards were awarded to works that proved the economic benefits of not just serfdom, but its most classic form - forced corvée. Accordingly, in one case, the economic benefits and feasibility of conducting agrarian reform, in another - they were refuted.

The aggravation of the crisis of serfdom as an institution of social coercion and lack of rights for the peasants strengthened the need for the Reform, reflecting the growing pressure from below. It became especially threatening after Patriotic War 1812-1815 From 1826 to 1861, 1186 peasant protests were recorded in the country, but in last years During this period, the situation acquired a truly acute character; it can not without reason be defined as pre-revolutionary. If in 1856 there were 66 peasant riots, then in 1859 - already 797. With this circumstance in mind, it is easy to understand the meaning of the clearly formulated warning of Alexander II, made by him at a meeting with the marshals of the nobility in Moscow in 1856 after accession to the throne: “... It is much better that this (the abolition of serfdom. - V. R.) happened from above rather than from below.

The fact that the liberation of the peasants needed to be carried out was recognized in power structures and shared by society5. But during the discussion of the Reform project and in the subsequent period, the question of the reasons for the abolition of serfdom remained debatable. And today the answers to this question are sometimes given the opposite. To a large extent, this is facilitated by a weak evidence base due to the limited statistical surveys, problems with accuracy and coverage of data, which leads to inconsistent assessments of the economic situation in the country. Suffice it to point out that for the first time in Russia, the accounting of sown areas under individual crops with the determination of yields was carried out in 1881. Prior to this period, there are governor's reports on the state of agriculture, which are not very accurate and difficult to compare.

The question of how much the crisis of serfdom as a system of economic management has become direct, and for some even main reason which prompted the authorities to make a choice in favor of the abolition of serfdom.

At scientific justification offensive economic crisis serf system at the end of the first quarter of the 19th century, as a rule, two main arguments are put forward. First, data are given on the growing debts of the landowners. Indeed, from 1823 to 1859 it increased from 90 to 425 million rubles, i.e., the increase was almost fivefold. 7.1 million serfs, or 66% of their total number, were pledged (in 1823 - 2.2 million people, or 20%) their decreasing efficiency.

However, another circumstance must be taken into account when explaining the growth of the landowners' debt. The fact is that for landlords, when pledging estates, a preferential low interest rate (4-5% per annum) was established with a long payment period (up to 37 years).

in 1857-1858 signed an agreement to "improve the life" of their peasants. So initially, the authorities carefully determined the course for the abolition of serfdom (see:).

5 In 1855-1857 the government received 63 notes on the land issue, and all of them pointed to the vices of serfdom and offered various options for its abolition.

6Already in the period after the Reform, the landowners' debt increased by 1897 to 1,359 million rubles. (i.e. more than 3 times). And this has already become a significant sign of the onset of the crisis of this form of economic organization in the agricultural sector of the economy.

As for the assumption about the falling profitability of the landowners themselves, it can also be challenged7. This is evidenced by the increase since the beginning of the XIX century. and up to the reform of the number of corvée peasants. If at the beginning of the century there were 56% of them, then by the abolition of serfdom their share had increased to 71.5%. An even greater share of the corvee fell on the black earth and steppe provinces, which acted as the main suppliers of marketable grain. If the corvée, as the most classic example of serfdom, was not beneficial to the landlords, then they would naturally transfer the peasants to quitrent relations with the peasants bringing income from side forms of activity. Moreover, for the years 1801-1860. income from each quitrent peasant, according to researchers, increased by 70-90%.

Secondly, the economic crisis of the serf system of economy is associated with the obvious advantages of economic incentives for legally free workers in comparison with forced labor and limited material incentives. On the example of the economic activity of individual estates, various authors cited the corresponding calculations. So, according to N. G. Chernyshevsky, a civilian worker produced 3 times more per day than a serf on corvée. According to the statistician K. I. Arsenyev, the serf produced half as much output as the worker freed from the bonds of coercion.

However, the definition of the effectiveness of serf labor is not so simple. There are calculations according to which, when comparing the economic activities of landlord peasants and less enslaved state peasants, it turned out that the latter produced 1.5 times less agricultural products.

More significant for assessing the possibilities for the development of serfdom is the appeal to overall results development of agriculture in the pre-reform period. They do not confirm the conclusion about the onset of a deep crisis in production. In 1873, an official commission set up to study labor productivity in agriculture published data on the grain harvest in the European part of Russia (excluding Poland and Finland). These data show that the grain harvest from 1800 to the start of the Peasant Reform tended to increase steadily, although not very high (Table 1).

7Economic disinterest of the landowners in farming with the use of free hired labor even earlier was evidenced by the actual failure in the implementation of the decree of Alexander I on free cultivators (1803), according to which the landowners were allowed to free the peasants in whole communities for a ransom with allotment of land to them. During the entire reign of Alexander I, 47153 male souls were released, i.e. less than 0.5% of the total number of serfs.

Nevertheless, by the beginning of the Reform, the grain harvest increased by almost 42%, which hardly indicates the onset of a crisis in the agrarian sector of the economy.

Table 1

Grain harvest in European Russia (excluding Poland and Finland), _______million quarters (million tons)_______

Collection volume Percentage

loaves, collection ratio

Million quarter years to 1800-1813

1800-1813 155,0 (20,15) 100,0

1834-1840 179,0 (23,27) 115,5

1840-1847 209,7 (27,3) 135,3

1857-1863 220,0 (28,6) 141,9

Notes. 1. One quarter is equal to approximately 0.13 tons. 2. At the same time, in the “Report. . . » recognized the inaccuracy in the data presented, which means a decrease in the actual collection of bread by 19%. Thus, based on the calculation of bread consumption, its annual production in the 1840s was not 209.7, but 250 million quarters, with a harvest of 4.16. Accordingly, the real harvest in 1871 increased to 290 million quarters with a harvest of 4.2.

A source: .

The same conclusion about the development of agriculture in the pre-reform period can be made when compared with the post-reform period (1861-1900) in Table. 2, from which it follows that the rate of increase in grain harvest and productivity (with the exception of potatoes) in the first decade after the Reform approximately corresponded to the pre-reform period (growth by 5.6 and 5.0%, respectively). And only 20 years after the start of the Reform, the pace of development of Russian agriculture accelerated. In other words, the serf system of economy in its main parameters was quite comparable with the new organization of production, at least in the first twenty years of its operation.

table 2

Average annual indicators of the development of agriculture in Russia

(1851-1900)

Indicators 1851-1860 1861-1870 1871-1880 1881-1890 1891-1900 1891-1900 to 1851-1860 (%)

Grain harvest 26.8 28.3 31.8 37.2 43.9 163.8

Potato harvest 2.6 3.3 5.3 6.5 12.6 484.6

Productivity 4.0 4.2 4.5 5.1 5.9 147.5

cereals (c/ha) Availability Approx. 336 Over 336 384 Approx. 450 134.0

bread for the soul

population (kg)

Note. The indicator of bread supply for the population includes data on the collection of potatoes in the accepted recalculation (1 ton of grain = 3 tons of potatoes). At that time, the rate of grain consumption for food and fodder was estimated at 305 kg per person.

A source: .

The fact that the serf system of the economy retained a certain potential for further development and was not in a state of deep and permanent economy

economic crisis, evidenced by data on its marketability and the role of exports of agricultural products. In 1801-1860. overall volume foreign trade increased more than 3 times. At the same time, the average annual export of grain increased from 5,120 thousand poods (82 thousand tons) in 1806-1810. to 69,254 thousand poods (1.11 million tons) in 1856-1860, i.e., the increase reached 13.5 times. If the share of exports in the early XIX century. accounted for a little more than 1% of the harvest of basic bread, then in 1850-1855. it increased to 2.4%, and in 1856-1860. - up to 5%. In general, the share of marketable bread supplied to the domestic and foreign markets remained at the level of about 20% in the pre-reform period.

To assess the possibilities of the serf system, the significant economic gain that the state received due to the reduction in management costs is also important. After all, 103,000 landlords, relying on peasant communities, ruled a population of 22 million people, without receiving remuneration from the state for this, despite the fact that they were actually entrusted with the most important administrative functions, from maintaining law and order and conscription to the army to collecting taxes.

Sources and factors of development of the serf system of economy

The examples cited above, confirming the preservation of the potential for the development of the serf system of the economy, require an appropriate explanation. At the same time, we emphasize that we are not talking about an apology for the system of forced labor and a denial of the need to abolish serfdom. In this case, it is important to more accurately identify the factors that explain the need for the Reform. In this regard, we can assume that the abolition of serfdom in 1861, in its original nature and goals, acted not so much as an economic, but as a social reform, the need for which was reinforced by the danger of lagging behind the leading states, which was clearly confirmed by the defeat in the Crimean War . It was the rejection of serfdom as an institution of social coercion and lack of rights, combined with external and internal threats to the state, that determined the main motive for the reformers' activities. It is also noteworthy that the active development of the reform program took place against the backdrop of the first world economic crisis of 1857-1858, which also affected Russia.

It is important to emphasize that the attitude to serfdom as a social evil is indisputable not only at the present time, it was shared by many figures in the highest echelons of power already in the 19th century. Even such a “serf owner” (he is often characterized as such) as Emperor Nicholas I admitted that serfdom is an “evil”, which he publicly declared at a meeting of the State Council on March 30, 1842. He well understood the potential danger of this “evil” . But if the current situation is such that serfdom cannot continue, and if, at the same time, decisive methods for ending it are also impossible without a general upheaval, then, the Russian emperor declared, “it is necessary, at least, to prepare the way for a gradual transition to another order. of things" .

So with the socio-moral basis for the abolition of serfdom, everything is clear. After all, its underestimation weakens the instinct of self-preservation in power. In addition to what has been said, let us pay attention to the motivation that is presented in the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. It made two main arguments. At the very beginning, it was stated that the preservation of serfdom does not ensure "uniform activity in relation to serf people." Moreover, "with a decrease in the direct paternal relations of the landlords to the peasants"

"the path to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants and unfavorable for their well-being". In fact, it was recognized that after the release of the nobility from the obligation to perform public service (1762), confirmed in 1785, serfdom was deprived of its social and moral foundation and support in historical tradition. It should be borne in mind that serfdom in Russia acted as a completely rational institution, built into the socio-economic system, which, under the existing conditions and restrictions, could not develop normally without the guiding role of the state. At the same time, the system was initially based on the principle of symmetry of obligations: the peasants were obliged to serve the nobles, since they were supposed to serve the state. The abolition of serfdom meant the recognition by the authorities of the justice of the restoration of symmetry in rights and obligations for the peasants.

In addition, the need to abolish serfdom in the Manifesto was revealed as a "testament of our predecessors" with a reminder of the measures proposed for this purpose by Alexander I and Nicholas I. This indicated the continuity of the activities of the reformers in the implementation of the course towards the liberation of the peasants. V in a certain sense such a reminder was a kind of reproach to the local nobility, which did not respond properly to the early reform initiatives. It also indirectly contradicted the statement that "the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to the personality of serfs" .

Let us find out further the sources and factors of the development of the serf system of the economy. Note that even in the pre-revolutionary period, attention was paid to the continuing economic potential. This position, in particular, was argued in detail by P. B. Struve.

First, serfdom by the beginning of the XIX century. finally turned from subsistence into market-serfdom, the effectiveness of which was generally associated with the advantages of a large-scale organized economy, which made it possible to use technical means and other improvements much more widely. In addition, the low labor costs of serfs in comparison with civilian workers acted as an additional factor explaining the reasons for the transfer of peasants from dues to forced corvée or to the use of a mixed system. The role of this factor was especially significant in the context of the downward trend in grain prices in the Russian and world markets. Therefore, for the landlords, serf labor, especially corvée, turned out to be economically profitable.

Hence, the failures with attempts to carry out the liberation of the peasants in the first half of the 19th century are quite natural. It is also understandable why the reaction of the landlords to the right to free the peasants in whole communities with land for a ransom, granted to them in accordance with the decree on free cultivators (1803), or without land in accordance with the decree on obligated peasants (1842) 8 was so inexpressive. The underestimation of the role of the economic factor, the liberal reformers tried to compensate for by educational measures. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote about this: “Both the employees of Alexander I, and the people on December 14, one-sidedly carried away by the idea of personal and

8In 1818, the well-known Russian statesman and economist, Admiral N. S. Mordvinov, defined the economic prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom as follows: it is possible “when its population becomes equal to the area of land we own, when we are able to acquire monetary capital sufficient for pre-employment laborers, and when the sale of our crops will reward us in abundance.

public freedom, did not understand at all economic relations that serve as the soil for the political order” 9.

Secondly, serfdom in the form of corvee turned out to be economically more profitable in comparison with quitrent and free labor due to the fact that in the practice of managing it was able to rely on the traditions of communality that prevailed among the peasantry. The very organization of corvée labor with the use of working livestock and implements of peasants assumed the cooperation of equivalent economic units and therefore supported the communal tradition of leveling peasant farms. It also allowed all peasants to perform all their duties. And such an alignment was of key importance for ensuring the survival of peasant communities in conditions of extreme development - high weather dependence, responding to the life experience and worldview of the peasants. Let us take into account that for every decade in Russian agriculture there were several years of crop failures, many of which were catastrophic. That is why the quitrent, which seemed to be more effective for land owners, did not take root in Russia, as it increased the differentiation of peasant farms, and therefore met with resistance among the peasantry. In this regard, one more reason for the failure of the decree on free cultivators can be noted: it provided for the release of the peasants with the land, which formed a single plot. As such, it can be seen as a forerunner Stolypin reform with its characteristic farm plantation. However, this decree contradicted the experience of managing the peasants, who, through the crushing of a single land share, minimized the risk extreme conditions management.

Thirdly, the economic potential for the development of serfdom was also based on the existing efficiency of forced labor with its inevitable “subsystem of fear of punishment”. Of course, in the long run, such a system sooner or later exhausts its capabilities and collapses. Nevertheless, in the conditions of the limited needs of the peasantry and their lack of significant motivation for continuously growing production, coercive measures for labor brought their results. After all, the Russian peasants, for objective reasons, formed and reproduced the "ethics of survival", and not the "ethics of success", as was the case in countries with a Protestant culture. Characteristically, even in relation to the beginning of the XX century. A. V. Chayanov developed a theory of a special type of peasant economy, which has increased resistance to crisis processes and is based on the fact that the growth of production by peasants is carried out not with the expectation of making a profit, but as long as consumption is balanced with an increase in the burden of labor.

Therefore, as long as there is a resource in maintaining order and discipline, this system can bring acceptable economic results. It is no coincidence that as soon as the effectiveness of coercive measures and strict control on the part of the landowners weakened with the beginning of the liberation reform, the proportion of corvée peasants fell sharply (to 15%).

In addition, the comparison of economic and non-economic methods should not be considered in the variant of a one-factor model, in which the advantages of economic incentives to work appear indisputable. Any business system real life acts as multifactorial. So limited opportunities coercive methods themselves may be offset by other factors,

9 The same opinion was shared by P. B. Struve, who believed that the criticism of serfdom was based on "the natural-legal prejudice of liberal political economy."

as in the case of serfdom, associated with economies of scale, reliance on traditional motivation to work, lower costs for the reproduction of the labor force, smoothness and harmony of the existing system of organization of production, etc.

The above arguments, apart from others, give grounds for the conclusion that by 1861 the market-serf economy was, if not at the highest point of its development, then at least not in a state of permanent crisis. Characteristically, the standard of living of serfs in Russia in the pre-reform period was not lower than that of free peasants in European states10.

Finally, we note the following fact. A real crisis occurs when a new way of life has already been formed in the depths of the old system, which is more efficient and relies on the formed new social stratum (class), which is fully aware of its economic interests. There was nothing similar to such a situation in Russia, not only in the middle of the 19th century, but also at the beginning of the 20th century.

Let us also pay attention to the effect of such a historical pattern as the “secondary enslavement of the peasants”, which was observed in Eastern Europe in the XVII-XVIII centuries. as a reaction to the expansion of demand for agricultural products in the countries of early capitalism in Western Europe. In other words, the serf economy in this region also had a certain potential for the development of production.

Interestingly, almost two centuries later, in the works of American institutionalist economists (E. Vogel, D. North, etc.), it was proved that economic efficiency slavery in the middle of the 19th century. in the United States was much higher than is commonly believed. So, in accordance with the developed model, R. Vogel and S. Engerman obtained quantitative estimates that made it possible to confirm the conclusion about more efficient work slave farms in the US South compared to non-slave farms in the north. According to these calculations, the use of southern slave labor in 1860 was 28% more productive than workers on southern non-slave farms, and 40% more productive than on northern non-slave farms. Naturally, we are not talking about the effect of slavery itself, but about the advantages of large-scale production, organized with the preservation of traditionalist-communal relations in the labor process.

Therefore, it can be argued that the reasons for reforms aimed at changing the old economic system are by no means always associated with purely economic circumstances. More significant may be socio-political factors and other non-economic reasons, as well as internal and external threats, a combination of objective and subjective factors. This only confirms the conclusion that the study economic system from the standpoint of its autonomy and self-sufficiency. Economic processes exist inseparably with socio-political, legal, ideological and other non-economic spheres.

Nevertheless, although the serf system of economy in Russia had a resource of use in the agricultural sector by the beginning of the Reform, this does not negate the fact that it has already become a brake on further development, especially if we bear in mind the growing economic dynamism in European countries and the delay in industrialization. Such an example is indicative. If in 1800 in Russia iron smelting was 10.3 million poods, in England - 12 million poods, then by the beginning of the 1850s in England it increased to 140 million poods, in Russia - up to 15-16 million poods.

10 This is recognized not only by domestic but also by foreign economists-historians (see, for example: ).

Consequences and historical lessons of the Reform

In questions about the Reform of 1861, no less disputes arose over the assessment of its results and consequences for the future development of the country. Most domestic and foreign historians and economists offer a predominantly critical assessment of the Peasant Reform and its consequences for the development of the country. This approach has become a kind of mainstream in historical science11. Moreover, the Reform was criticized and criticized "from the left" and "from the right". In one case, we are talking about the fact that the Reform was carried out not in the interests of the peasants and actually led to their impoverishment, which ultimately laid the foundation for a series of revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century. The most significant in this case are two facts: 1) the loss by the peasants of the land that they traditionally cultivated on their farms (the so-called “segments”, which amounted to an average of about 20% in the country)12, and 2) heavy redemption payments for

lands assigned to the peasants.

In another case, the liberal criticism of the Reform was related to the fact that the peasants received land not in private ownership, but in the form of its assignment to the communities. It is believed that this preserved an archaic institution in the villages, which impedes the development of normal market-capitalist relations.

Of course, the Peasant Reform, like any other, carried out "from above", could not but be compromise and half-hearted. Otherwise, it would no longer be a reform, but a "revolution from above". (Yes, one of her options could be a plan for the liberation of the peasants with the free transfer to them, like all citizens, of half of the landlords' land, which was proposed by one of the leaders of the Southern Society of the Decembrists P. I. Pestel. The other half of the land was intended for private land ownership.) Moreover, at that time, the Reform could not but protect, first of all, the interests ruling class as a support of power, but it also gave a lot to the peasant class - freedom and land, albeit in a truncated version. It can be assumed that Alexander II was afraid of both a spontaneous popular uprising and the possibility of a palace conspiracy. The fate of the Reform was between two fires. Some considered it too radical, others - half-hearted. The discussion of the program of the Peasant Reform, which took place at the final stage of its implementation in State Council in February 1861. In fact, its conservative majority did not support the submitted Reform project on the fundamental issue of determining land plots for the peasants, in every possible way seeking a significant reduction in their size (the voting results were as follows: “for a reduction” - 27, “for the preservation established norms" - sixteen) . However, Alec

11 For a detailed analysis of discussions about reforms in pre-revolutionary Russia and their consequences, with a rationale for their positive role for the welfare and development of the country, see: .

12According to the results of the reform, about 10 million male former landlord peasants received 33.7 million acres of land, while 100,000 landowners received 69 million acres. On average, the peasant allotment amounted to 3.4 acres per capita, while in order to ensure a normal standard of living for a peasant, with the then development of agricultural technology, it was estimated that from 6 to 8 acres, depending on the area.

From 1862 to 1907 (before the abolition of redemption payments), the landlord peasants paid the state, which made the initial settlement with the landlords, 1,540.6 million rubles. In addition, they paid 527 million rubles in the form of quitrent to the landowners during the period of temporary liability. The treasury also received 2.5 billion rubles in redemption payments from specific and state peasants. So the state won a lot as a result of the land reform. After all, it paid the landlords 550 million rubles, and then received from the peasants for this payment almost 3 times more. It turns out that the main gain from the reform went to the state, which, thanks to redemption payments, was able to solve its budget problems.

Alexander II, relying on his right, approved the opinion of the minority and signed the documents on February 19 in the version presented14.

In this vein, the preparations made in connection with the approval of the documents and then their promulgation are quite remarkable. If on the eve of the announcement of the Manifesto (March 5) they were associated with the threat of peasant unrest, then additional measures on ensuring the security of Alexander II after the signing of documents, the contents of which could not yet be known to the peasant population, testify to fears about the possibility of a conspiracy against him15. (Do not forget that only 60 years have passed since the death of Emperor Paul I, the grandfather of Alexander II, as a result of a conspiracy.)

Let us now return to the question of the impoverishment of the peasants, which occurred as a result of the Reform. Of course, at the initial stage, the conditions of the Reform turned out to be excessively difficult for the peasantry. Theoretically, they could be more profitable for him, but this did not happen. It is not accidental, therefore, that the mass demonstrations of the peasants, especially in 1861, which then gradually subsided16. Perhaps these circumstances explain the stagnant process in the development of the entire Russian economy in 1861-1880 He especially touched that part of the industry, which was based on serf labor. There was a sharp reduction in the number of workers from 559.5 thousand in 1861 to 387.1 thousand people in 1866, although the value of industrial output during this period increased from 295.6 to 335.1 million rubles. In general, the average annual growth rate of the national product in 1861-1880. amounted to 1.8%. At the same time, we note that even in 1871 Russia retained the first place in the world in terms of the absolute value of the grain harvest and the second place in their production per capita, although it was inferior in terms of productivity to all leading powers (Table 3).

Table 3

Grain harvest in the leading countries of the world in 1871

Countries Grain harvest, million quarters (million tons) Grain harvest per capita (quarters) Yield per 1 tithe (quarter)

Wheat Rye

Russia 290.0 (37.7) 4.5 4.5 -

USA 241.3 (31.3) 6.2 8.8 -

France 117.9 (15.3) 3.0 11.4 10.3

Prussia 85.0 (11.0) 3.5 11.4 11.1

UK 65.0 (8.4) 2.9 33.9 -

Austria 41.3 (5.4) 1.15 9.5 9.7

Note. Russia and USA - total grain yield.

Alexander II

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

Causes

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

Reform preparation

The government's program was outlined in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II on November 20 (December 2) to the Vilna Governor-General V. I. Nazimov. It provided: the destruction of personal dependence peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners; providing peasants a certain amount of land for which they will be required to pay dues or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings). In order 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 fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government's program of peasant reform, the drafts of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or fall of the peasant movement. In December, a new peasant reform program was adopted: providing peasants the possibility of redemption of land allotment and the creation of bodies of peasant public administration. Editorial commissions were created in March to consider the drafts of provincial committees and develop a peasant reform. The project, drawn up by the Editorial Commissions at the end, differed from that proposed by the provincial committees with an increase in land allotments and a decrease in duties. This caused dissatisfaction with the local nobility, and in the project allotments were somewhat reduced and duties increased. This direction in changing the draft was preserved both when it was considered in the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs at the end, and when it was discussed in the State Council at the beginning.

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

The main provisions of the peasant reform

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

peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property;
the landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but they were obliged to provide the peasants with “estates” and a field allotment for use.
For the use of allotment land, the peasants had to serve a corvée or pay dues and did not have the right to refuse it for 9 years.
The size of the field allotment and duties had to be fixed in charter letters of 1861, which were drawn up by the landlords for each estate and verified by peace mediators.
The peasants were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field plot, before this they were called temporarily liable peasants.
the structure, rights and obligations of the bodies of peasant public administration (rural and volost) courts were also determined.

Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landlords, as well as upon receipt of a donation. If the peasants had smaller allotments in use, the landowner was obliged to either cut the missing land or reduce duties. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 male and 30 female working days per year. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties decreased, but not proportionally. The rest of the "Local provisions" basically repeated the "Great Russian", but taking into account the specifics of their regions. The features of the Peasant Reform for certain categories of peasants and specific regions were determined by the “Additional Rules” - “On the arrangement of peasants settled on the estates of small landowners, and on the allowance for these owners”, “On people assigned to private mining plants of the department of the Ministry of Finance”, “On peasants and workers serving work at Perm private mining plants and salt mines”, “About peasants serving work at landowner factories”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Land of the Don Cossacks”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Stavropol province”, “ About Peasants and Household People in Siberia”, “About people who came out of serfdom in the Bessarabian region”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 13, 1864, a decree was issued on the abolition of serfdom in the Tiflis province, a year later it was extended with some changes to the Kutaisi province, and in 1866 to Megrelia. In Abkhazia, serfdom was abolished in 1870, in Svaneti - in 1871. The terms of the reform here retained serfdom survivals to a greater extent than according to the "Regulations of February 19". In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the peasant reform was carried out in 1870-83 and was no less enslaving than in Georgia. In Bessarabia, the bulk of the peasant population was made up of legally free landless peasants - tsarans, who, according to the "Regulations of July 14, 1868", were allocated land for permanent use for service. The redemption of this land was carried out with some derogations on the basis of the "Regulations on Redemption" on February 19, 1861.

Literature

Zakharova L. G. Autocracy and the abolition of serfdom in Russia, 1856-1861. M., 1984.

Links

The most merciful Manifesto of February 19, 1861, On the abolition of serfdom (Christian reading. St. Petersburg, 1861. Part 1). On the site Heritage of Holy Russia
Agrarian reforms and the development of the rural economy of Russia - an article by Doctor of Economics Adukova

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

Peasant reform of 1861
Peasant wedding (painting)

See what the "Peasant Reform of 1861" is in other dictionaries:

Peasant reform of 1861- bourgeois reform that abolished serfdom in Russia and marked the beginning of the capitalist formation in the country. The main cause To. was the crisis of the feudal serf system. “The force of economic development that drew Russia in… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Peasant reform in Russia- Boris Kustodiev. “The Liberation of the Peasants (... Wikipedia

Peasant reform- In Russian classical literature bred almost exclusively LAND PEASANTS, which were discussed above. But there were other categories of peasants, sometimes mentioned in passing by the classics. To complete the picture, you should get to know them ... Encyclopedia of Russian life of the XIX century

PEASANT REFORM- 1861, the main reform of the 1860s and 70s, which abolished serfdom in Russia. Conducted on the basis of the "Regulations" February 19, 1861 (published March 5). Peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property. The landowners kept ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Medal "February 19, 1861"- Medal "February 19, 1861" ... Wikipedia

The peasant reform in Russia (also known as the abolition of serfdom) is a reform carried out in 1861 that abolished serfdom in the Russian Empire. It was the first in time and the most significant of the reforms of Emperor Alexander II; was proclaimed by the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom of February 19 (March 3), 1861.

At the same time, a number of contemporaries and historians of the late XIX - early XX centuries. called this reform "feudal" and argued that it did not lead to the emancipation of the peasants, but only determined the mechanism for such emancipation, moreover, flawed and unfair.

background

In most of the territory of the Russian Empire, there was no serfdom: in all Siberian, Asian and Far Eastern provinces and regions, in the Cossack regions, in the North Caucasus, in the Caucasus itself, in Transcaucasia, in Finland and Alaska.

The first steps towards the restriction and subsequent abolition of serfdom were taken by Paul I and Alexander I in 1797 and 1803 by signing the Manifesto on the three-day corvee to limit forced labor and the Decree on free cultivators, which spelled out legal status free peasants.

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

According to historians who have specifically studied this issue, the percentage of landlord serfs in the entire adult male population of the empire reached its maximum by the end of the reign of Peter I (55%), during the subsequent period of the 18th century. was about 50% and increased again by the beginning of the 19th century, reaching 57-58% in 1811-1817. For the first time, a significant reduction in this proportion occurred under Nicholas I, by the end of whose reign it, according to various estimates, decreased to 35-45%. So, by the 10th revision (1858), the proportion of serfs in the entire population of the empire fell to 37%. According to the 1857-1859 census, 23.1 million people (of both sexes) were serfs out of 62.5 million people who inhabited the Russian Empire. Of the 65 provinces and regions that existed in the Russian Empire in 1858, in three Baltic provinces (Estland, Courland, Livonia), in the Land of the Black Sea Host, in the Primorsky Region, the Semipalatinsk Region and the Region of the Siberian Kirghiz, in the Derbent Governorate (with the Caspian Territory) and the Erivan province had no serfs at all; in 4 more administrative units (Arkhangelsk and Shemakha provinces, Transbaikal and Yakutsk regions) there were no serfs either, with the exception of a few dozen courtyard people (servants). In the remaining 52 provinces and regions, the share of landlord serfs in the population ranged from 1.17% (Bessarabian region, in which instead of serfs there were feudal-dependent tsars) to 69.07% (Smolensk province).

During the reign of Nicholas I, about a dozen different commissions were created to resolve the issue of the abolition of serfdom, but all of them turned out to be ineffective due to the opposition of the landowners. Nevertheless, during this period there was a significant transformation of this institution (see the article Nicholas I) and the number of serfs was sharply reduced, which facilitated the task of the final elimination of serfdom. By the 1850s there was a situation where it could happen without the consent of the landowners. As the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky pointed out, by 1850 more than 2/3 of the noble estates and 2/3 of the serf souls were pledged to secure loans taken from the state. Therefore, the liberation of the peasants could take place without a single state act. To do this, it was enough for the state to introduce a procedure for the forced purchase of mortgaged estates - with the payment to the landowners of only a small difference between the value of the estate and the accumulated arrears on the overdue loan. As a result of such a buyout, most of the estates would pass to the state, and the serfs would automatically move into the category of state (that is, actually personally free) peasants. It was precisely such a plan that P. D. Kiselev, who was responsible for managing state property in the government of Nicholas I, hatched.

However, these plans caused strong discontent among the landowners. In addition, peasant uprisings intensified in the 1850s. Therefore, the new government, formed by Alexander II, decided to speed up the solution of the peasant issue. As the tsar himself said in 1856 at a reception with the marshal of the Moscow nobility: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to be abolished by itself from below.”

The main reasons for the reform were: the crisis of the feudal system, peasant unrest, which especially intensified during the Crimean War. The peasants, to whom the tsarist authorities turned for help, calling for the militia, believed that by their service they would earn their freedom from serfdom. The hopes of the peasants were not justified. The number of peasant uprisings grew. If for 10 years from 1845 to 1854. there were 348 speeches, then over the next 6 years (1855 to 1860) - 474 A significant role in the abolition of serfdom was played by the moral aspect and the issue of state prestige.

As historians point out, in contrast to the commissions of Nicholas I, where neutral persons or experts on the agrarian question prevailed (including Kiselev, Bibikov, and others), now the preparation of the peasant question was entrusted to large feudal landowners (including ministers Lanskoy, Panin and Muravyov ), which largely predetermined the results of the reform.

On January 3, 1857, a new Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was established, consisting of 11 people (the former chief of the gendarmes A. F. Orlov, M. N. Muravyov, P. P. Gagarin, etc.) July 26 by the Minister of Internal Affairs and a member Committee S. S. Lansky presented an official draft of the reform. It was proposed to create noble committees in each province with the right to make their own amendments to the draft. This program was legalized on November 20 in a rescript addressed to Vilna Governor-General V. I. Nazimov.

The government program, set out in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II of November 20, 1857 to the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov, provided for the destruction of the personal dependence of the peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners (patrimonial power over the peasants also, according to the document, remained with the landlords) ; providing peasants with a certain amount of land, for which they will be required to pay dues or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings). Legal dependence was not eliminated immediately, but only after the transition period (12 years). The rescript was published and sent to all the governors of the country.

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's program of peasant reform, the drafts of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or fall of the peasant movement.

The new program of the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was approved by the tsar on April 21, 1858. The program was based on the principles of the rescript to Nazimov. The program provided for the mitigation of serfdom, but not its elimination. At the same time, peasant unrest became more frequent. The peasants, not without reason, were worried about landless liberation, arguing that "the will alone will not feed bread."

On December 4, 1858, a new peasant reform program was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and creating peasant public administration bodies. Unlike the previous one, this program was more radical, and numerous peasant unrest (along with pressure from the opposition) largely pushed the government to adopt it. This program was developed by Ya. I. Rostovtsev. The main provisions of the new program were as follows:

getting peasants personal freedom

providing peasants with plots of land (for permanent use) with the right to purchase (specially for this, the government allocates a special loan to peasants)

approval of a transitional ("urgently obligated") state

To consider the projects of the provincial committees and develop a peasant reform, in March 1859, Editorial Commissions were created under the Main Committee (in fact, there was only one commission) chaired by Ya. I. Rostovtsev. In fact, the work of the Editorial Commissions was led by N. A. Milyutin. The project, drawn up by the Editorial Commissions by August 1859, differed from that proposed by the provincial committees with an increase in land allotments and a decrease in duties.

At the end of August 1859, deputies from 21 provincial committees were called. In February next year deputies from 24 provincial committees were called. After Rostovtsev's death, V. N. Panin, a conservative and serf-owner, took over as chairman of the Editorial Commissions. A more liberal project aroused dissatisfaction with the local nobility, and in 1860, in a project with active participation Panin, allotments were somewhat reduced and duties increased. This direction in changing the project was preserved during its consideration in the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs in October 1860, and during its discussion in the State Council from the end of January 1861.

On February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants" and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts.

The manifesto was published in Moscow on March 5 (OS), 1861, on Forgiveness Sunday in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin after the 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 the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (17 documents in total) relating to the emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their redemption of landowners' land and the size of redeemed allotments in certain regions of Russia.

[edit] Main provisions of the reform

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

Peasants ceased to be considered serfs and began to be considered "temporarily liable"; peasants received the rights of "free rural inhabitants", that is, full civil legal capacity in everything that did not relate to their special class rights and obligations - membership in a rural society and ownership of allotment land.

Peasant houses, buildings, all movable property of the peasants were recognized as their personal property.

The peasants received elective self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government was the rural society, the highest (administrative) unit was the volost.

The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but they were obliged to provide the peasants with “estate residence” (household plot) and a field allotment for use; the lands of the field allotment were not provided personally to the peasants, but for the collective use of rural communities, which could distribute them among the peasant farms at their discretion. The minimum size of a peasant allotment for each locality was established by law.

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

The size of the field allotment and duties had to be fixed in charter letters, which were drawn up by the landowners for each estate and checked by peace mediators;

Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field plot, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who redeemed the allotment were called "peasant-owners". Peasants could also refuse the right to redeem and receive from the landlord free of charge an allotment in the amount of a quarter of the allotment that they had the right to redeem; when endowing a free allotment, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.

The state, on preferential terms, provided the landlords with financial guarantees for the receipt of redemption payments (redemption operation), accepting their payment; peasants, respectively, had to pay redemption payments to the state.

[edit] Lot sizes

According to the reform, the maximum and minimum sizes of peasant allotments were established. Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landlords, as well as upon receipt of a donation. If the peasants had smaller allotments in use, the landowner was obliged either to cut the missing land from the minimum size (the so-called "cuts"), or to reduce duties. Pruning took place only if the landowner was left with at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 male and 30 female working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest, then the landowner cut off the “extra” land in his favor. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties decreased, but not proportionally.

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

The peasants were in a temporarily obligated state until the conclusion of a redemption deal. At first, the period of this state was not indicated. On December 28, 1881, it was finally installed. According to the decree, all temporarily liable peasants were transferred for redemption from January 1, 1883. A similar situation took place only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obligated state of the peasants remained until 1912-1913.

During the temporarily obligated state, the peasants were obliged to pay dues for the use of land and work on corvee. The amount of dues for a full allotment was 8-12 rubles a year. The profitability of the allotment and the size of the quitrent were in no way connected. The highest dues (12 rubles a year) were paid by the peasants of the St. Petersburg province, whose lands were extremely infertile. On the contrary, in the chernozem provinces the amount of dues was much lower.

Another vice of quitrent was its gradation, when the first tithe of land was valued more than the rest. For example, in non-chernozem lands, with a full allotment of 4 acres and a quitrent of 10 rubles, the peasant paid 5 rubles for the first tithe, which was 50% of the quitrent (for the last two acres, the peasant paid 12.5% of the total quitrent). This forced the peasants to buy land, and gave the landowners the opportunity to profitably sell infertile land.

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

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

Liberation of the yard peasants

The “Regulations on the arrangement of courtyard people” provided for their release without land and estates, but for 2 years they remained completely dependent on the landowner. Domestic servants at that time accounted for 6.5% of the serfs. Thus, a huge number of peasants found themselves practically without a livelihood.

Main article: Redemption operation

The regulation “On the redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom of their estate settlement and on the government’s assistance in acquiring field land by these peasants” determined the procedure for the redemption of land by peasants from landowners, the organization of the redemption operation, the rights and obligations of peasant owners. The redemption of the field plot depended on an agreement with the landowner, who could oblige the peasants to redeem the land at their request. The price of land was determined by quitrent, capitalized from 6% per annum. In the event of a ransom under a voluntary agreement, the peasants had to make an additional payment to the landowner. The landowner received the main amount from the state.

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