State peasants. Concept, management, reform

State peasants , a category of peasants (see Peasantry) in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries, formed from the non-enslaved agricultural population. G.k. lived on state lands, used allotted plots, paid a poll tax and a 40-kopeck quitrent, carried out a number of duties (in 1850 some of the duties were replaced by a monetary tax), and were subject to the administration of the state. organs and were considered personally free. On the territory Bashkortostan G.K. known since the 18th century. They were formed from bobyli, monastery peasants, yasak people, teptyars, children of retired soldiers, suitcase Tatars (they maintained pits at their own expense, were engaged in transporting people and government cargo from Kazan to Ufa), white-arable soldiers (since 1842, some were transferred to G.K., the rest - into the Cossack class), discharged, escheated and bank peasants (peasants taken from landowners for debts or left without owners). Part G.k. settled on the patrimonial lands of the Bashkirs under an agreement with the Bashkirs-patrimonial owners (see Asaba) on the allowance. The earliest settlements of G.K. appeared in the east. districts of the Orenburg province. G.k. contributed monetary fees to the treasury (poll tax, quitrent for surplus product, zemstvo and worldly dues) and performed natural duties. duties (supplied food to the Uyskaya and Yaitskaya distances of the Orenburg line), instead of the 40-kopeck quitrent tax, they plowed the “sovereign tithe arable land” (since 1743 replaced by natural grain dues), served corvee and natural duties (underwater, stationary, road, recruit, etc. .). Cash fees from G.k. Orenb. lips gradually increased: in 1724 - 40 kopecks. from the heart, 1810 - ca. 2 rubles, 1812 - 3 rubles, 1816 -3 rubles. 26 kopecks, 1817 - 3 rubles. 30 kopecks, from 1839 (in terms of silver) - 95 kopecks, 1861-62 - 1 ruble. G.k. they sowed winter rye, oats, barley, millet, buckwheat, spelt, peas, hemp and flax; produced marketable grain and exported it to the city center. Russia. They were engaged in beekeeping, forestry, leatherworking, tailoring, fishing (they rented lakes and river sections from the Bashkirs) and other trades; Otkhodnichestvo and hiring at mining factories were widespread. At the end of the 50s. 19th century land dimensions allotments G.k. on the territory Orenb. lips were: in Belebeevsky district - 10.2 dessiatines. land per capita husband gender, Birsky district - 19, Menzelinsky district - 8.6, Orenburg district - 14.8, Sterlitamak district - 7.4, Troitsky district - 11.1, Ufa district - 8.3, Chelyabinsk district - 18.1 des. land. During the General Land Survey G.k. were allocated 15 des. land. Number of G.K. (thousand male souls), according to the 2nd revision (1719), amounted to St. 11.6, 3rd revision (1762) - St. 99, 5th revision (1800) - St. 161.5, 7th revision (1816) - St. 171.6, 8th revision (1834) - St. 310 (of which in Belebeevsky district - over 11.5, Birsky district - over 8.6, Bugulma district - over 35.5, Buguruslan district - over 60, Buzuluk district - about 51, Verkhneuralsky district — St. 0.8, Menzelinsky U. — about 26, Troitsky — St. 9.5, Orenb. U. — St. 26, Sterlitamaksky U. — St. 6.3, Ufa Ut. — St. 16, Chelyab. u. - St. 46), 9th revision (1850) - approx. 326. On the eve of the Peasant Reform of 1861 in Orenb. lips there were G.k. OK. 214 thousand male souls floor (1858), in Orenb. and Ufa provinces - St. 241 thousand (1865). Ethnic composition of G.k. (according to the 10th revision; 1859) was diverse: Russians made up St. 152 thousand people (71.3%), Tatars - St. 33 thousand (15.6%), Chuvash - approx. 15 thousand (7%), Mordovians - St. 10 thousand (5%), etc. From the beginning. 18th century G.k.'s postscript was circulated. to the mining factories (see Mining peasants, Assigned peasants), who performed state work. orders, and leasing to miners (see Possessed peasants); transfer to the category of appanage peasants; sale to private individuals, etc. In the 1st half. 19th century G.k. received the right to buy lands not inhabited by peasants (decree of 1801), engage in trading activities (manifesto of 1824), and move to live in cities (law of January 24, 1849). G.k. took part in the uprising of 1835, and in 1859 - in the “temperance movement” against the system of wine farming. acc. with the law “On the land structure of state peasants” dated November 24. 1866 for G.K. the lands (in the amount of 8 to 15 dessiatines) that were in their use were preserved. According to the law of June 12, 1886, they received ownership rights to the purchased lands.

STATE PEASANTS, the name first appeared in Russian legislation under Peter I (decree of June 26, 1724) and was originally applied to the so-called. black-growing peasants who survived mainly in the North, where serfdom did not develop and therefore the rural population was directly subordinated to state power. The core of state peasants was gradually joined by a wide variety of elements: descendants of service people of the Russian South (odnodvortsy), peasants taken from monasteries in 1764, foreign colonists, peasants freed from serfdom, etc. Until 1861, all rural ordinary people who were not the property of private individuals (serf peasants) or the Imperial family (appanage peasants). In 1842, according to the report of the Ministry of State Property of such inhabitants (including Siberian foreigners, nomadic Kalmyks and Kyrgyz, the rural population of Bessarabia, etc.), there were 10,354,977 male souls - approx. 1/3 of the total population of Russia according to the 8th revision. The state peasants included the landless ladles of the Russian North, and wealthy landowners (colonists, Siberian peasants), and not at all agricultural elements (factory workers in the Urals). The legal position of the mining peasants was almost no different from the position of serfs, and the odnovodvortsy themselves had the right to own serfs; foreign colonists, military inhabitants, etc., in turn, constituted special legal groups. The only unifying feature of this motley mass was its attitude towards the treasury.

The government was at the same time a private owner for the state peasants; In addition to taxes of a public nature (poll tax), state peasants also paid quitrent. The quitrent was at first an additional per capita tax to the general poll tax; according to the decree of 1724 it was equal to 4 hryvnia per soul. In 1746 it was raised to 1 ruble, in 1768 - to 2 rubles, in 1783 - to 3 rubles; in the 18th century 4 different rates of quitrent were established, depending on the location: state peasants of the center paid the most - 5 rubles each. 10 kopecks from the heart, least of all - the peasants of the North and Siberia - 3 rubles. 57 kopecks In 1810-12, salaries for all 4 classes were increased by another 2 rubles, and this collection was first given the name “ quitrent tax .” In its meaning, the quitrent of the state peasants was similar to the quitrent of the landowners: it was the income of the state, as a patrimonial property of the state peasants. Subsequently, he received an interpretation of the rent for the land on which the peasants were located. The quitrent of state peasants was at least half that of the landowners.

Treating state peasants as state property, the government used them as a reserve fund for various types of awards, rewards for service and for special services to the monarch and the state. In this way, only during the reign of Catherine II ca. 1,300 thousand state peasants became property owners; under Paul I, in one day, 82 thousand of them became serfs.

From the state's right to the personality of state peasants, its right to the latter's property, to peasant land, logically followed. But such a conclusion was not made earlier than ser. XVIII century Moscow law did not draw a clear boundary between ownership and property, and state peasants treated their lands as if they were their own: they sold them, mortgaged them, bequeathed them, etc. Land survey instructions of 1754 and 1766 established that the lands of state peasants, excluding those for which the owners have special letters of grant, are the property of the state and therefore are not subject to alienation. Sold to persons of other classes, they must be returned to the villages in which they are located. The purchase and sale of land by state peasants from each other was also prohibited in some places, and allowed in others, but with various restrictions. The new principle did not immediately put an end to the old practice, but the government carried it out steadily, repeatedly confirming the rules of boundary instructions (decrees of 1765, 1782 and 1790). This legal revolution is also associated with an economic one: the introduction of communal land ownership for state peasants.

Although the peasants had complete control over their land, the latter was distributed very unevenly. “Justice demands,” says one administrative document of 1786, “that the villagers, paying the same tax for everything, have an equal share in the land from which the payment is made”; “The equalization of land, especially in those districts and volosts where the inhabitants acquire food through arable farming more than through other trades, should be considered inevitably necessary, as much as to provide a way to pay the villagers their taxes without paying taxes, but nevertheless to reassure the land-poor peasants.” The last of the arguments shows that the government in this case met the wishes of the peasants, who under the previous order were sometimes completely deprived of land and always very deprived. But the starting point of his policy was still government interest, not peasant interest: the desire to avoid arrears, which, despite the abundance of strict decrees on this matter (over 20 years, from 1728 to 1748, 97 such decrees were issued), grew very unfavorable progression for the state treasury. Almost every decade they had to be written off; in 1730, for example, arrears amounted to 4 million rubles, and in 1739 there were again 1,600 thousand.

That the introduction of the community did not help matters, as was hoped for in the 18th century, is shown by the fact that arrears grew in the 19th century. In 1836, according to the calculations of P. D. Kiselev (in a memorandum submitted by him to the Committee to find funds to improve the condition of the peasants), “arrears, in addition to those accumulated according to manifestos, amounted to 68,679,011 rubles.” Kiselev believed that land distribution alone was not enough. The reason for this, he wrote, is the lack, firstly, of patronage, and secondly, of observation. The idea of ​​the need for special guardianship over state peasants had been expressed before - by the department to which they were subordinate. “The inconveniences of the current management of state peasants are so well known,” wrote Minister of Finance E. F. Kankrin in 1825, “that they do not require further explanation. The lack of immediate supervision and protection, by the way, is the reason that the well-being of the peasants is falling and the number of arrears falling on them is decreasing.” Kankrin proposed a plan for a new system of state peasants, although still under the Ministry of Finance. However, the previous history of the issue did not inspire much confidence in this department, and the State Council chose Kiselev’s point of view - on the need for special central management of state property. The opinion of the State Council was approved by Nicholas I on August 4. 1834, and 1 Jan. 1838 a new Ministry of State Property was established. Kiselev was appointed minister, whom the sovereign called his “chief of staff for the peasant sector.” In the projects and activities of the Ministry of State Property one can find all the ways to “raise” the people morally and materially, starting from the most naive and patriarchal and ending with those that were later recognized as the most progressive. Kiselev explained more than half of the discord in the economic life of state peasants by their “immorality,” which “reached the highest degree,” especially as a result of drunkenness. Realizing that the latter, in addition to individual ones, also had some common causes (the tax farming system), which he could not eliminate, Kiselev nevertheless took up “individual treatment of immorality” on a large scale. Peasants who were distinguished by exemplary behavior were awarded special certificates of commendation, which gave them some advantages in public life (primacy in casting votes at secular gatherings, etc.) and benefits (exemption from corporal punishment). A more effective way was to reduce the number of taverns in the villages of state peasants (from 15 to 10 thousand). during the reign of Kiselev).

An important means of combating immorality was education in schools, the main task of which was considered to be “the establishment among the peasants of the rules of the Orthodox faith and the obligations of loyalty (see: Loyalty) as the main foundations of morality and order.” Teaching in schools was entrusted to the clergy. In addition to the Law of God, the basics of literacy and basic arithmetic, the students became acquainted with the police charter, drawn up in such a way that it “stated in a form understandable to the understanding of the villager all his duties as an Orthodox, loyal member of society and family.” The rules of the charter were set out in the form of short commandments, which were not difficult to remember. In the year the ministry was founded, in all the villages of state-owned peasants there were only 60 schools with 1880 students; by 1866 there were already 5,596 schools (2,754 parish schools and 2,842 literacy schools) with 220,710 students (192,979 boys and 27,731 girls). But an inspection of these schools in the late 1850s showed that the qualitative results of Kiselev’s educational policy were not as brilliant as the quantitative ones: the school premises were cramped and uncomfortable; mentors “did not bring the expected benefits.” The students enrolled in the schools did not attend lessons well, and the ministry was forced to introduce the appointment of “permanent students” from among orphans of both sexes, for whom daily attendance at school was mandatory.

Along with improving the morality of the peasants, Kiselev also took care of their health and material security: medical care was organized for them - for the first time in a Russian village. Doctors and veterinarians were invited to serve, and schools were created to train paramedics and midwives. Since 1841, permanent “district hospitals” appeared. A special “Rural Medical Book for use in government-owned villages” was published. However, this initiative was not widespread: in 1866, for example, there was 1 hospital per 700 thousand people, and there were only 71 learned midwives for the entire department. To provide food for the peasants in the event of a crop failure, reserve grain stores were opened (partly even before Kiselev) - common in every village and, in addition, central ones, stocks from which were put on the market in case of high prices in order to lower prices. Mutual insurance was introduced in 1849.

Not content with just defensive measures, Kiselev sought to radically improve peasant farms, firstly, by disseminating improved agricultural techniques among the peasants (this, by the way, is associated with the famous “potato riots”, in order to pacify which it was necessary to use military force in some places and 18 people were killed). The second way was the resettlement of state peasants from land-poor provinces to land-rich ones; in just 15 years of the existence of the Ministry of State Property, 146,197 male souls were resettled. Thirdly, a credit system was organized; This goal was met by the opening of auxiliary and savings banks under the volost boards. The latter accepted deposits for any amount starting from 1 rub. out of 4%, the first issued loans from 15 to 60 rubles. for 6% to entire villages or individual householders with the guarantee of a meeting. In 1855, there were 1,104 auxiliary cash offices in the villages of state peasants, and 518 savings banks; up to 1.5 million rubles were loaned annually.

Important measures were also taken in the organization of taxes. Kiselev considered the per capita distribution of taxes and the resulting communal land ownership with redistribution of land per soul “harmful for any radical improvement in the economy.” Economically harmful, the community was, however, in his opinion, politically beneficial, “in relation to the elimination of the proletarians.” It was necessary to act in this matter by more indirect measures: limiting redistributions (they were timed to coincide with revisions), encouraging the development of plot land ownership, and partly - in newly populated areas - creating it artificially. But when distributing quitrents, it was possible to act by more direct means. Already when dividing the quitrent into categories, an attempt was made to coordinate the general collection with the payer’s funds. On the other hand, the peasants themselves, for the most part, distributed taxes first by land, and then by soul. Kiselev decided to finally transfer the rent from souls to land. As a result of cadastral work, which continued throughout his leadership of the Ministry of State Property, the average gross profitability of land was established in most of the provinces where there were state peasants. Cultivation costs were then subtracted from gross income - based on the average cost of working days in a given area; the remainder was considered net income. The rent was supposed to make up a certain part of the net income depending on the area: 20% - in the Kursk province, 16% - in the Kharkov province, 14% - in the Novgorod province, 9.5% - in the Ekaterinoslav, Voronezh and Tver provinces. etc.

The organs of peasant self-government were even more responsive to historical conditions. The worldly assembly and lay electors in one form or another have existed among state peasants since the Moscow era. Decrees dated 12 Oct. 1760 and July 6, 1761 legally formalized the choice of elders by the peasants themselves and the rights of a secular gathering. The law of 1805 established the composition of the latter (only householders) and determined the conditions for the legality of his sentences; in 1811-12, the right to try peasants for petty crimes was immediately given, the right to hire and fire members of the peasant society. Even earlier, under imp. Pavle, another higher unit of peasant self-government was created - the volost, which consisted of several rural communities; Each volost had its own volost government consisting of a volost head, an elected official and a clerk. The Ministry of State Property only had to streamline these local government bodies created at different times and establish their connection with the central government. The intermediary links were purely bureaucratic in nature; The closest guardian of the peasants to the volost was the district chief, who was entrusted with the management of all matters “relating to the improvement of the moral state of the peasants, their civil life, construction, provision of food, farming, taxes, duties and defense in court cases.” Only the investigative and police units remained under the jurisdiction of the zemstvo courts. The court for peasant cases was concentrated in rural and volost institutions, without direct dependence on the district chief, but under his supervision. Above the district commanders there was a chamber of state property, one in each province. District leaders, according to Kiselyov, had to show “how much our semi-enlightened peasants know how to be happy when they are guided by the power of a guardian, paternal and unscrupulous.” The idea of ​​economic guardianship over the peasants was, however, not new: to some extent, it was answered by the “directors of economy” established by Catherine II at each treasury chamber (abolished by Paul).

The practice of bureaucratic guardianship soon disappointed Kiselev. Already at the very beginning of the ministry, in 1842, he complains in a letter to his brother that “Russia cannot be remade at once,” and laments the impossibility of “inspiring all his colleagues with zeal.” Immediately after this (in a report for 1842), the idea is expressed about the need to “weaken the influence of district commanders,” and in private letters Kiselyov openly admits the validity of complaints about the dishonesty of his administration. All this partially contributed to discrediting Kiselev’s reform plans in the highest spheres, despite the fact that even from a purely fiscal point of view, the successes of his management were obvious. Shortages decreased by more than half, and over the 18 years of Kiselev’s ministry, state peasants replenished the treasury by 150 million rubles, more than during the same previous period of time. His successor in the ministerial chair, M. N. Muravyov, found, however, that the income of state peasants could be much more significant “with the ability to get down to business, the skill that Kiselyov lacked as a theorist, not a practitioner.” But Muravyov’s own actions amounted to only an increase in the labor payment (from 20 to 33% of the estimated income), which was, in fact, the exploitation of the results of the Kiselyov administration, which significantly increased the well-being of state peasants. In addition, the very view of state peasants as a revenue item for the treasury was completely outdated by the time Muravyov took office.

The liberation of the landowner peasants with all the preparatory work had a very strong impact on the population of state-owned lands. Simultaneously with the first projects of peasant reform, the idea “of equalizing state peasants in terms of civil rights with other free states” began to strengthen in government spheres. Alexander I stopped granting state peasants private ownership - from that time on, only uninhabited treasury lands were alienated (the exception was the transfer of several hundred thousand state peasants to appanages under Emperor Nicholas I). In 1801, state peasants were given back the right to own real estate in villages; in 1827 they received the right to acquire and alienate houses also in cities, excluding capitals. In 1825, in all property transactions, state peasants were subject to general civil laws. Already in the 1820s, the question of the rights of state peasants to their land plots arose; in projects gr. Guryev, Kankrin, committee chaired by Prince. Kochubey puts forward the idea of ​​transferring land to peasants for “indefinite maintenance” or “eternal and inalienable use.”

The liberation of the landowner peasants from the land put the state peasants in a very strange position. On March 5, 1861, the Highest decree was issued on the application of the principles of the reform on February 19. to state peasants. At first (the Highest Order of January 28, 1863) it was intended to transfer the land to the peasants for “permanent use” on the terms of quitrent, unchanged for the first 20 years; the allotment received all the land that was actually in the use of the peasants at the time of the introduction of the reform; it was decided not to make a reduction in allotments, similar to that which was made from the landowner peasants (draft of the commission of Senator Gan). In the end, however, the opinion prevailed about transferring land to state peasants on the basis of property rights (except for forests) with giving them the right to buy it outright (by making a one-time payment in interest-bearing securities of the amount of capitalized quitrent) or pay with a constant quitrent tax (decree of November 24, 1866 ). In 1886, redemption became mandatory, and the quitrent tax (with some additional payment) was transformed into a redemption payment. The special administration of state peasants was abolished by decree of January 18. 1866, according to which they were removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of State Property and transferred to the management of general institutions for peasant affairs.

Lit.: Semevsky V. State-owned peasants under Catherine II // “Russian Antiquity”. 1879. T. 24, 25; Efimenko A. Peasant land ownership in the Far North. "Studies of Folk Life". Vol. I; Zablotsky-Desyatovsky A. Gr. P. D. Kiselev and his time. In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1882; Historical review of fifty years of activity of the Ministry of State Property. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1888.

Class system and changes in the social structure of society.

The class structure of Russian society began to change. Along with the old classes of feudal lords and peasants, new classes arose - the bourgeoisie and

proletariat. But officially the entire population was divided into 5 estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry, urban inhabitants, Cossacks.

Early 19th century:

Nobility- economically and politically dominant class. The nobles owned most of the land and exploited the peasants who lived on these lands. They had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. Occupying all command positions of the state apparatus, they formed its basis. Rights: ownership of land and serfs, class self-government, exemption from taxes, conscription and corporal punishment.

Clergy. Divided into black and white. The autocracy sought to attract the most devoted churchmen to its social environment, which was dominated by the noble aristocracy. The clergy awarded with orders acquired rights of nobility. The white clergy received hereditary nobility, and the black clergy the opportunity to transfer property by inheritance along with the order. Rights: ownership of land and serfs, class self-government, exemption from taxes, conscription and corporal punishment.

Peasants. Feudal-dependent peasants made up the bulk of the population, and were divided into landowners, state possessions and appanage peasants belonging to the royal family. The situation of the landowner peasants was especially difficult. The landowners disposed of the peasants as their property. The labor of sessional peasants was unproductive, which is why the use of hired labor in industry began to increase. Responsibilities as the property of nobles: corvee, quitrent and other duties. Responsibilities as subjects of the state: conscription, payment of taxes. Rights: communal ownership of land, community self-government.

City dwellers. This class was divided into 6 groups: honorary citizens, merchants, guild foremen, townspeople, small owners and working people, i.e. hired workers. Honorary citizens enjoyed a number of privileges: they were exempt from corporal punishment and personal duties. The merchant class was divided into 2 guilds. The first is wholesalers; the second is retailers. The guild group consisted of artisans assigned to the guilds, divided into masters and apprentices. The urban population consisted of petty bourgeois, mostly employed in factories and factories. Rights: employment in urban industries and small trade, class self-government. Responsibilities: recruitment, payment of taxes.

Cossacks As a class, it was established only in the second half of the 19th century. In 1837, the state sought to distinguish the Cossacks from the rest of the population. All Cossacks received plots of 30 acres of land. The lands of the Cossack nobility in 1848 were declared hereditary property. With all these measures, tsarism sought to preserve the economic and socio-political structure of the Cossacks. Police duties: night patrols in cities, catching fugitives, convoy of government transport, encouraging the payment of taxes and correction of arrears, monitoring the deanery at fairs, etc. Economic duties: delivery, storage and sale of food, collection of taxes, various assignments for government procurement.

The state began to create new Cossack troops to guard the borders. This is how the Siberian Cossack army was formed, and then the Transbaikal army. By the middle of the 19th century, there were nine Cossack troops in Russia: Don, Black Sea (later transformed into Kuban), Terek, Astrakhan, Orenburg, Ural, Siberian, Transbaikal and Amur. Rights: land ownership, tax exemption. Responsibilities: military service with your own equipment.

Population of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. grew steadily. According to various estimates, at the beginning of the century about 40 million people lived in Russia, in 1825 - just over 50 million people, in 1851 - about 70 million people. The ratio of the rural to urban population did not change significantly (no more than 7-8% of Russians lived in cities). The social structure was based on the class principle. Belonging to a certain class - a social community distinguished on the basis of origin and legal status - played a significant role in a person’s life. The ruling class remained nobility. It made up approximately 1% of the country's population, but had exclusive rights to own land and serfs, and was exempt from taxes and conscription. In the officer corps of the Russian army, the predominance of the nobility was absolute; many nobles served in the state apparatus. An official who reached VIII (from 1832 - V) class according to the Table of Ranks became a hereditary nobleman. Quite complex processes took place among the nobility. Contemporaries noted the growth of the layer of small-landed and even landless nobles, and spoke of the “clogging” of the nobility by people from other classes. The government of Nicholas I (1825-1855) made serious efforts to support the upper class: it raised the class (rank), which gave the right to hereditary nobility, introduced the title of honorary citizen, and adopted a law on primogenitures, which allowed declaring estates not subject to division between heirs. The clergy and merchants also belonged to the privileged classes. The clergy, like the nobles, had the right to own land and peasants, and were exempt from taxes and conscription. The merchant class was divided into three guilds depending on the size of their capital. The merchants of the first guild were engaged in domestic and foreign trade, did not pay most taxes and were not subject to conscription. Merchants of the second guild conducted internal trade throughout the country, and merchants of the third guild - within the city or county. They paid taxes to the treasury and were not exempt from conscription. Military agriculture was considered semi-privileged class of Cossacks. The tax-paying classes were the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie (the unprivileged urban population - artisans, small traders).

The largest class in terms of numbers was peasantry. It was divided into three large groups - landowners (belonged to a private owner - landowner), state (belonged to the treasury) and appanage (belonged to members of the imperial family and were managed by a special palace department, appanage). Peasants performed various duties in favor of their owners (corvee labor, quitrent, etc.), paid taxes to the state, and were subject to conscription. An important role in the life of the Russian village was played by the peasant community (mir), which carried out periodic redistribution of arable and hayland among peasants. At the community meeting, important issues were resolved, and elected officials (elders, sotskie, etc.) were appointed to lead the life of the village. The peasantry was the most powerless class and suffered more than others from serfdom. Serfdom hindered the social growth of enterprising (“capitalist”) peasants and undermined the economic strength of the serf village. It should be noted that a number of social processes that took place in the first half of the 19th century contradicted the dominant class system. The development of industry led to a numerical increase in the layer of people who were engaged in entrepreneurship. Among the successful entrepreneurs are not only merchants of the first and second guilds, but also serfs who made huge fortunes (Prokhorovs, Ryabushinskys, Morozovs, etc.)> and even nobles. A new phenomenon was also the formation of a vast layer of commoners. Petty officials, children of clergy and bankrupt merchants, they were exempt from paying taxes, but could not buy land without peasants or engage in commercial and industrial entrepreneurship. The sphere of application of their efforts became bureaucratic service and free professions (doctors, teachers, journalists, etc.). It was from the commoners that the Russian intelligentsia was formed in the next half century. Tax-paying classes - in Russia in the 15th - first half of the 19th centuries, groups of the population (peasants and townspeople) who paid a poll tax, were subject to corporal punishment, and performed conscription and other in-kind duties. Estates that were not subject to the poll tax were called tax-exempt.

Nobility: composition, personal and property rights and obligations, position and legal status.

In the first half of the 19th century. the state and social order of the Russian Empire was on the same basis. The nobility, constituting a small part of the population, remained the dominant, privileged class. It amounted to the basis of the state apparatus, occupying He has all command positions. Freed from compulsory service to the state, the landowners from the service class turned into an idle, purely consumer class of slave owners. The rapidly growing offices of the bureaucratic apparatus of the empire were formed from the nobles. The country was dominated by bureaucratic and landowner arbitrariness.

By the time the Code of Laws was compiled in 1832, the nobility were given new rights: to have factories and factories in cities, to conduct trade on an equal footing with the merchants. The importance of the provincial noble corporation as a legal entity endowed with property rights also increased. Thus, the state, through laws, sought to maximally strengthen the position of the nobles - large landowners, a reliable support for Russian absolutism.

The state activities of Nicholas I had a great influence on the nobility. The legal status of subjects was formalized in the 1830s - 50s during the systematization of all-Russian legislation, which was an extremely important stage in the development of Russian law. As a result, the legal status of all classes in the Russian Empire was formalized: the nobility, the clergy, city residents and rural inhabitants. The emperor understood that the strength and support of his power rested on large and medium-sized landowners, so he tried in every possible way to support them. The inviolability of power lay in the task of strengthening the position of large and medium-sized landowners in local bodies of noble self-government - this was the focus of the Manifesto of December 6, 1831. It established a property qualification for the participation of nobles in the election of candidates for state and public positions. The right to vote was enjoyed by hereditary nobles who owned at least 100 serf souls or 3 thousand dessiatines of land within the province. Through commissioners, owners of at least 5 peasants or 150 acres of land could participate in elections. It follows that the opportunity to actively participate in the corporate life of the estate was presented primarily to the wealthiest part of the nobility. The very activities of district and provincial noble assemblies were placed under stricter control of government officials. The government tried to bureaucratize the nobility, tie it more tightly with the government apparatus, and transform the estate-corporate service into a type of state service. The position of the nobility was legally regulated by the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire of 1832. The nobles still remained the highest privileged class and were defined as “a consequence flowing from the quality and virtue of the men who commanded in ancient times, who distinguished themselves by merit: by which, turning the service itself into merit, they acquired a noble name for their offspring” (v. 15); divided into hereditary and personal (v. 16); the methods of obtaining hereditary and personal nobility were also fixed (section 2).

The government continued throughout the 19th century. support the local nobility by providing them with a preferential loan from state-owned banks secured by populated estates and transferring to them state-owned lands. To preserve large noble land ownership, in 1845 a law on majorates was issued. Its essence was that owners of estates of more than 1000 souls were allowed to declare them “reserved.” They were entirely inherited by the eldest son in the family, and were not divided among other heirs. The law was advisory in nature, so only a few of the large landowners took advantage of it. Until 1861, less than 20 large noble estates were under primordial rights. Despite all these events in the period from 1836 to 1858. about 3.6 thousand nobles lost all their lands, becoming placeless. The class policy of Nicholas I led to the fact that the noble class became more closed, and the positions of its wealthiest part were significantly strengthened. All these measures, however, could not stop the objective process of reducing the social and political role of the nobility. Despite the predominance of hereditary nobility among the highest bureaucracy, the bureaucracy was actively replenished with people from other classes.

Ownership, or serfs, or landowners peasants lived on estates and estates, being under the authority of the landowner and paying him rent and duties to the state. Until the end of the 16th century, landowner peasants enjoyed the right to leave (“refuse”, “exit”) from the landowner once a year on St. George’s Day, subject to certain conditions. Since 1597, a government decree introduced a five-year period for searching for fugitive peasants, which actually meant their rigid attachment to the owner’s land. The Code of 1649 introduced an indefinite investigation. In the 18th century, the situation of the landowner peasants worsened even more - landless peasants were increasingly being sold, and landowners had the right to exile those they found objectionable to Siberia. In 1859, the total number of male and female landowner peasants was about 23 million. Landless In Russia, peasants were the category of landowner peasants who do not have an allotment of land as a result of: - refusal of an allotment when drawing up a charter; - loss of the right to the received plot with leaving the rural society; - loss of allotment due to faulty payment and duties, debt and tax collections in lean years, loss of livestock, etc. Landless peasants existed as a category of the population until 1861, when they were equated to the category of domestic peasants. Yards peasants in Russia were dependent persons who lived at the court of the landowner and served him and his family. Household peasants were also called servants, serfs, servants, etc. From the end of the 17th century until 1861, household peasants were included in the category of serfs, were deprived of land plots and lived in the master's yards. Since the end of the 17th century, in connection with the development of industrial and mining enterprises, mining peasants. This category of landowner peasants was common in the Urals and partly in Altai. The mining peasants consisted of personally free assigned and possessory possession peasants and were obliged to live and work at the mining factories. Possessional peasants appeared in Russia in 1721. These were serfs assigned to possessional manufactories and sold or bought integrally from these manufactories. At first, sessional peasants could be purchased for agreed periods, and from January 7, 1736, for “perpetual use.” In the 19th century, the number of possession peasants included "essential workers"(new name for assigned peasants). Possessional peasants could not be used for agricultural work, given up as recruits instead of serfs, etc. Possessional peasants were punished both physically and economically - they imposed monetary fines, and made payments from their salaries. In the 19th century, owners of possessional manufactories began to strive to replace serfs with hired workers, and from 1840 they received the right to free themselves from possession peasants. In 1861-1863, the category of possession peasants was eliminated. Another category of serfs in Russia is palace peasants. Palace land ownership developed in the country during the period of the 12th - 15th centuries. Since the 16th century, the fashion has spread among members of the royal family to distribute palace peasants as rewards to their relatives, favorites, close associates, and serving nobles. The palace peasants belonged personally to the tsar and members of the royal family, lived on the lands of the great princes and tsars (the so-called “cabinet lands”) and bore various duties in their favor - in-kind and (or) cash dues (since 1753, mainly only cash dues) . The main responsibility of the palace peasants was to supply the royal family with food and firewood. Over time, the palace peasants entered the category of proprietary peasants, and from 1797 they began to be called appanage peasants. The number of palace peasants in 1700 was 100 thousand households. Since 1724, the palace peasants were in charge of the Main Palace Chancellery - the central administrative, economic and judicial body for managing the palace peasants. Locally, the palace lands were managed by clerks, and from the beginning of the 18th century by stewards. In the 18th century, the economic situation of the palace peasants was better than that of other serfs, since their duties were lighter and they had more freedom in economic activity. As a result, by the end of the 18th century, wealthy categories emerged among the palace peasants - rich peasants, merchants, moneylenders and others. Specific peasants, who were, in essence, former palace peasants, appeared in Russia, as mentioned above, in 1797, and farmed on appanage lands, that is, on lands owned by the imperial family. Appanage peasants and appanage lands were managed by the Department of Appanages through local appanage offices. Villages of appanage peasants were united into volosts. At village assemblies, elders, sotskys and tens were elected. The predominant form of duties of appanage peasants was quitrent. Appanage peasants enjoyed greater freedom of economic activity than landowner peasants. The number of male souls of appanage peasants gradually increased: 1797 - 463 thousand; 1812 - 570 thousand; 1857 - 838 thousand. By decree of June 26, 1863, the main provisions of the peasant reform of 1861 were extended to appanage peasants. In particular, appanage peasants received part of their appanage lands as their property for compulsory redemption. As a result, the allotments of appanage peasants in fourteen provinces decreased by 10.7%, and in five northern provinces they increased by 41.6%. In general, former appanage peasants received more land than private peasants, but less than state-owned ones. In particular, in 1905, on average, the former categories of peasants had allotment land per yard: - proprietary peasants - 6.7 dessiatines; - appanage peasants - 9.5 tithes; - state peasants - 12.5 tithes. The appanage lands were nationalized in accordance with the Land Decree of 1917. Among the serfs there were peasants who were freed from corvee and received money or bread as payment for working for the landowner. Such peasants were called groundwork. In the 18th century, a layer of peasants emerged from the landowner peasants and took shape. entrepreneurs. Their appearance is associated with increased property differentiation among the peasantry, especially on quitrent estates. During this period, cash rent became widespread, causing processes of otkhodnichestvo. Peasant entrepreneurs quickly began to form a class of rural and urban bourgeoisie, and after 1861 this process accelerated even more. From April 2, 1842, some of the former landowner peasants received land plots from the landowners, and before the peasants acquired this land they were called obligated peasants. According to the decree of 1842, obligated peasants, by agreement with the landowners (landowners were not obliged to enter into an agreement), acquired personal freedom, but the land remained the property of the landowner, and the peasants were obliged to bear duties for its use - corvée and quitrent. There were no restrictions on the power of landowners. By the end of the era of serfdom, only 0.25% of the ten million landowner peasants were transferred to the category of obliged peasants.

Personally free peasants Arable peasants cultivated state (state) arable land, which included lands in Siberia, lands in the south of Russia and palace (cabinet) lands. Since the end of the 16th century, an arable peasant received a plot of land (sobin arable land) for personal use, subject to the cultivation of a state-owned field, the grain from which went to the treasury. Since 1769 in Siberia, for arable peasants, the cultivation of state-owned land was replaced by monetary quitrent, and since the 18th century, arable peasants entered the category of state peasants, that is, they remained personally free. Since the 14th century, Russia appeared black moss, or black, peasants. They were not dependent on the landowner and retained a greater degree of personal freedom and the right to dispose of the land. By the end of the 16th century, black-sown peasants survived mainly only in the north of Russia, and in the 17th - 18th centuries they appeared and established themselves in Siberia. Under Peter I, black-growing peasants began to be called state peasants, were subject to a poll tax and additional rent in favor of the state. Estate state, or state-owned, peasants, took shape in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century by decrees of Peter I from the free peasant classes at that time - black-mown peasants, ladles of Northern Pomerania, Siberian arable peasants, single-dvortsev and non-Russian peoples of the Volga and Urals regions. State peasants lived on state-owned lands, used allotted plots, were under state administration and were considered personally free. State peasants were obliged to contribute money for zemstvo needs and for worldly expenses, pay a poll tax and serve natural duties on the principle of mutual responsibility. From the beginning of the 19th century, state peasants were allowed to trade, open factories and factories, own uninhabited (without serfs) lands, etc. At the same time, progressive impoverishment and arrears among the state peasants were discovered; the nobles demanded their transfer to private hands. In 1837 - 1841, a special ministry of state property was established with a complex hierarchy of bureaucratic bodies to look after state peasants through rural communities. In the middle of the 19th century, state peasants made up about 45% of all peasants in Russia. The main problem for the peasantry was land shortage. In 1866, state peasants were subordinated to the general system of rural administration and recognized as peasant owners, although they continued to pay the quitrent tax. State peasants received full ownership rights to land under the 1886 law on compulsory redemption of land plots, while the size of state peasant plots turned out to be larger, and redemption payments were lower than those of landowner peasants. The state peasants of Siberia and Transcaucasia remained in the previous position of holders of state-owned land, since the laws of 1866 and 1886 were not extended to them. Since the end of the 17th century in Russia there was a category assigned peasants who were obliged, instead of paying quitrent and capitation taxes, to work “forever” in state-owned or private plants and factories, in accordance with the policy of the government, which supported the development of large-scale industry and sought to provide it with cheap and constant labor. Mainly assigned peasants existed in the Urals and Siberia. Since 1807, in the Urals, assigned peasants began to be exempted by their owners from compulsory factory work, and a little later, under the name of “essential workers,” they entered the category of possessional peasants. And the last category of peasants, equated to state peasants later than others - in the first quarter of the 19th century - peasants odnodvortsy. From the first quarter of the 18th century, the descendants of servicemen who carried out patrol and guard duty on the southern border were called odnodvorets. The creation of a regular army entailed the liberation of part of the military people, who began to become peasants and formed peasant households. It is these reasons that explain the predominant distribution of odnodvortsy in the central black earth regions of Russia, namely, in the territories of Voronezh, Kursk, Oryol, Tula, Tambov, Penza and Ryazan provinces. The number of single-yard owners in Russia increased: 1730s - 453 thousand male single-yard owners; 1830s - about 1 million; 1851 - 1.2 million. Odnodvortsy were obliged to pay a poll tax and a four-hryvnia quitrent, and until 1840 they had the right to own serfs, however, this right was not widely used (in 1833 - 1835, odnodvortsy owned a total of 11 thousand peasant souls, living in the same yard with the serfs).

Bureaucracy

Officials(civil servants) of various ranks was 0.3%– more than 500 thousand people, that is, one for every 3,000 inhabitants of the country. At that time it was the largest bureaucracy in the world. 14% of the state budget was spent on its maintenance (in England - 3%, France - 5%, Italy and Germany - 7% each). Low salaries of officials contributed to bribery and corruption. A type of Russian bureaucrat has emerged—a bribe-taker and a tyrant who takes out his dissatisfaction with his own life on petitioners. Russian officials were inactive and uninitiative.

Life and customs of classes.

Various social groups and classes, under the influence of geographical and socio-economic conditions, develop their own set of everyday norms, traditions, customs, and rituals. At the same time, different forms of life are formed in the city and countryside. Everyday life has a huge impact on other areas of social life and, above all, on work, social activities, psychological mood and behavior of people; influences the formation of a person’s personality. In turn, the life of each individual is determined by the level of his culture.

Last quarter of the 19th century. – a special period in the development of the Russian state: the active process of urbanization and the development of capitalism opened up new opportunities for representatives of different social categories of the Russian city. The transition of the period determined the blurring of the social structure: the traditional division into classes gradually lost its relevance, and the inheritance of class affiliation no longer guaranteed a person a certain place in society. During the bourgeois modernization of Russian society, estates began to gradually transform into classes and professional groups. This process was based on the evolution of class-value guidelines, when, under the influence of socio-economic processes of a capitalist nature, class status in the public consciousness gave way to social status, based on indicators of financial well-being. The basis and internal mechanism for the transformation of society from an estate-representative society to a class one, formed not by laws and customs, but by economic relations, is considered to be the professionalization of labor activity. In the conditions of the development of capitalism, occupations, and especially professions, were determined by the free choice of a particular person and expressed the active participation of this person in the social life of the country. The professionalization of the urban population reflected the further process of division of labor in society. In addition to deepening professional specialization itself, it also involves the consolidation of “representatives of individual professions into professional organizations for the purpose of collectively defending their social status and control over the area of ​​the market where this professional group carries out its functions.”

THE PEASANT QUESTION

Starting from the time of Emperor Paul, the government showed a clear desire to improve the life of the serfs. Under Emperor Alexander I, as we know, a law was given on free cultivators, which seemed to outline the path to the gradual and amicable liberation of peasants from the power of their owners. However, the landowners almost did not take advantage of this law at all, and serfdom continued to exist, despite the fact that it aroused the indignation of the progressive part of the nobility. Upon ascending the throne, Emperor Nicholas knew that he was faced with the task of resolving the peasant question and that serfdom was, in principle, condemned by both his sovereign predecessors and his opponents, the Decembrists. The urgency of measures to improve the life of peasants was not denied by anyone. But there was still fear of the danger of millions of slaves being suddenly freed. Therefore, fearing social upheavals and an explosion of passions of the liberated masses, Nikolai firmly stood on the idea of ​​liberation gradually and prepared the liberation secretly, hiding the preparation of the reform from society.

Discussions regarding measures concerning peasants took place under Nicholas in secret committees, which were formed more than once for this purpose. It began in the secret “Committee of December 6, 1826.” and affected both state peasants and landowner peasants. More significant and successful measures were developed in relation to state peasants than in relation to serfs. The situation of the former was improved more than that of the latter.

The class of state peasants included the former “black-growing” peasants who inhabited the sovereign’s black lands; further – “economic” peasants who were on church lands secularized by the state; then - the odnodvortsy and other “Landmilitsky” people, i.e., the descendants of that small service people who once inhabited the southern border of the Moscow state. Heterogeneous groups of the state-owned peasantry were at different levels of prosperity and had different internal structures. Left to the local administration (state chambers and lower zemstvo courts), state-owned peasants were often oppressed and ruined. In the "Committee of the 6th December 1826" Speransky spoke about the need for “better economic management for state-owned peasants” and expressed the opinion that such management “would serve as a model for private owners.” Speransky's idea met with the approval of the sovereign, who attracted Count P. D. Kiselev to this matter. This was one of the educated Russian people who made the campaigns of 1812–1814. and saw European orders. Close to Emperor Alexander, Kiselev was still interested in peasant affairs in his time and presented to the sovereign a project for the abolition of serfdom. As an expert on the peasant question, he attracted the attention of Emperor Nicholas and gained his trust. Kiselev was entrusted with the entire matter of state-owned peasants. Under his leadership, the fifth department of His Majesty's own chancellery temporarily arose (1836) for a better management of state property in general and to improve the life of state-owned peasants. This fifth department was soon transformed into the Ministry of State Property (1837), which was entrusted with guardianship over state-owned peasants. Under the influence of the Ministry of State Property, “chambers” (now “administrations”) of state property began to operate in the provinces. They were in charge of state lands, forests and other property; they also observed the state peasants. These peasants were organized into special rural societies (of which there were almost 6,000); A volost was formed from several such rural societies. Both rural societies and volosts enjoyed self-government, had their own “gatherings”, elected “heads” and “elders” to manage volost and rural affairs, and special judges for the court (volost and rural “retribution”). This is how, according to Kiselev, self-government of state-owned peasants was structured; Subsequently, it served as a model for privately owned peasants in liberating them from serfdom. But Kiselev did not limit himself to concerns about the self-government of peasants. During his long administration, the Ministry of State Property carried out a number of measures to improve the economic life of the peasantry subordinate to him: the peasants were taught the best methods of farming and were provided with grain in lean years; those with little land were given land; started schools; they gave tax benefits, etc. Kiselev’s activities constitute one of the bright pages of the reign of Emperor Nicholas. Pleased with Kiselev, Nikolai jokingly called him his “chief of staff for the peasant unit.”

Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. SPb., 2000 http://magister.msk.ru/library/history/platonov/plats005.htm#gl22

[…] It was decided to arrange for the state-owned peasants so that they would have their own defenders and guardians of their interests. The success of the establishment of state-owned peasants should have prepared the success of the liberation of the serfs. For such an important task, an administrator was called upon, whom I am not afraid to call the best administrator of that time, one of the best statesmen of our century. This was Kiselev, who at the beginning of the last reign, following the conclusion of the Paris Peace, was appointed ambassador to Paris; he was entrusted with organizing a new administration of state peasants and property. According to his plan, a new Ministry of State Property was opened in 1833, at the head of which he was placed. Chambers of state property were created to manage state property locally. Kiselev, a businessman with ideas, with great practical knowledge of the matter, was distinguished by even greater benevolence, that well-intentionedness that puts the general benefit and state interest above all else, which cannot be said about most of the administrators of that time. In a short time he created excellent management of the state peasants and raised their well-being. In a few years, state peasants not only ceased to be a burden for the state treasury, but began to arouse the envy of the serfs. A series of lean years - 1843 and the following - not only did not require loans to state peasants, but even Kiselyov did not spend the reserve capital he had formed on these loans. Since then, serfs have become the heaviest burden on the shoulders of the government. Kiselev owned the structure of rural and urban societies, the main features of which were later transferred to the situation on February 19 for the freed serfs.

In addition to all this, Kiselev also came up with the idea of ​​one important law concerning serfs. As we know, on February 20, 1803, a law on free cultivators was issued; According to this law, landowners could free serfs with land plots by voluntary agreement with them. This law, poorly supported by the government, had little effect on the life of the serfs; Over the course of 40 years, few peasants were released in this way. What stopped the landowners most of all was the need to give the land into the ownership of the peasants. Kiselev thought to support the operation of this law by removing this main obstacle. In his somewhat impressionable head (a flaw from which all well-meaning heads are not free) the thought flashed that it was possible to achieve the gradual liberation of the peasants by leaving this matter to private initiative. The idea of ​​the law was that landowners could, by voluntary agreement with the peasants, cede their lands to them for permanent hereditary use under certain conditions. These conditions, once drawn up and approved by the government, were not to be changed; In this way, the peasants will be attached to the land, but personally free, and the landowner will retain ownership of the land to which the peasants are attached. The landowner retained judicial power over the peasants, but was already losing power over their property and labor; the peasants worked for the landowner or paid him as much as was stated in the conditions. But the landowner was freed from the responsibilities that lay with him in owning serfs, from responsibility for their taxes, from the obligation to feed the peasants in lean years, to intercede for them in the courts, etc. Kiselev hoped that in this way, having understood the benefits of such transactions, the landowners themselves will rush to eliminate the troubles. While serfdom was maintained, the model for the structure of the peasants, who were thus freed, was already ready in the rural structure of state peasants, divided into volosts and communities with elected administrations, courts, with free meetings, etc.

REFORM OF STATE VILLAGE MANAGEMENT

In 1837, the Ministry of State Property was created, headed by P.D. Kiselev. He was a military general and an active administrator with a broad outlook. At one time, he submitted a note to Alexander I about the gradual abolition of serfdom. In 1837–1841 Kiselev achieved a number of measures, as a result of which it was possible to streamline the management of state peasants. Schools, hospitals, and veterinary stations began to open in their villages. Land-poor rural societies moved to other provinces on free lands.

The Kiselevsky ministry paid special attention to raising the agrotechnical level of peasant farming. Potato planting was widely introduced. Local officials forcibly allocated the best land from the peasant plot, forced the peasants to plant potatoes there together, and the harvest was confiscated and distributed at their discretion, sometimes even taken to other places. This was called “public plowing”, designed to insure the population in case of crop failure. The peasants saw this as an attempt to introduce government corvee. According to state villages in 1840–1844. There was a wave of “potato riots”.

The landowners were also dissatisfied with Kiselev’s reform. They feared that attempts to improve the life of state peasants would increase the tendency of their serfs to move into the state department. The landowners were even more dissatisfied with Kiselev’s further plans. He intended to carry out the personal liberation of the peasants from serfdom, to allocate small plots of land to them, and to accurately determine the size of corvee and quitrent.

The discontent of the landowners and the “potato riots” aroused fear in the government that with the beginning of the abolition of serfdom, all classes and estates of the vast country would come into motion. It was the growth of the social movement that Nicholas I was most afraid of. In 1842, at a meeting of the State Council, he said: “There is no doubt that serfdom, in its current situation with us, is an evil, tangible and obvious to everyone, but touching it now would be even more disastrous."

The reform of state village management turned out to be the only significant event in the peasant issue during the entire 30-year reign of Nicholas I.

Siberian arable peasants, odnodvortsy (service people on the black earth border with the Wild Steppe), non-Russian peoples of the Volga and Urals regions.

The number of state peasants increased due to the confiscation of church estates (huge possessions of the Russian Orthodox Church were confiscated by Catherine), annexed and conquered territories (Baltic states, Right-Bank Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea, Transcaucasia), former serfs confiscated estates of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth gentry, etc. In addition, the number of state peasants was replenished by runaway serfs (privately owned) peasants who settled on the lands being developed (Bashkiria, Novorossiya, the North Caucasus, etc.). This process (of the transition of fugitive serfs into the category of state peasants) was secretly encouraged by the imperial power.

Foreign colonists (Germans, Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.) who settled in Russia also contributed to the increase in the number of state peasants.

The situation of state peasants

State peasants lived on state lands and paid taxes to the treasury. According to the 1st revision (), there were 1.049 million male souls in European Russia and Siberia (that is, 19% of the total agricultural population of the country), according to the 10th revision () - 9.345 million (45.2% of the agricultural population ) . Presumably, the model for the legal determination of the position of state peasants in the state was the crown peasants in Sweden. By law, state peasants were considered “free rural inhabitants.” State peasants, in contrast to proprietary peasants, were considered as persons with legal rights - they could act in court, enter into transactions, and own property. State peasants were allowed to conduct retail and wholesale trade, open factories and factories. The land on which such peasants worked was considered state property, but the peasants were recognized with the right to use - in practice, the peasants made transactions as owners of the land. However, in addition, since 1801 the state. peasants could buy and own “uninhabited” lands (that is, without serfs) as private property. State peasants had the right to use an allotment of 8 dessiatines per capita in provinces with little land and 15 dessiatines in provinces with a lot of land. Actual allotments were significantly smaller: by the end of the 1830s - up to 5 dessiatines in 30 provinces and 1-3 dessiatines in 13 provinces; in the early 1840s, 325 thousand souls had no allotment.

The bulk of state peasants contributed cash rent to the treasury; on the territory of the Baltic states and the Kingdom of Poland, state-owned estates were leased to private owners and state peasants served primarily corvée; Siberian arable peasants first cultivated state-owned arable land, then paid food taxes (later cash). In the 1st half of the 19th century, rent fluctuated from 7 rubles. 50 kopecks up to 10 rub. per soul per year. As the duties of appanage and landowner peasants increased, the cash rent of state peasants became relatively less than the duties of other categories of peasants. State peasants were also obliged to contribute money for zemstvo needs; they paid a capitation tax and served duties in kind (travel, underwater, stationary, etc.). For the proper performance of duties, state peasants were responsible for mutual responsibility.

Kiselyov's reform

As a result of the growth of land shortage and the increase in duties at the beginning of the 19th century, a progressive impoverishment of the state peasants was revealed. Unrest of state peasants began to occur more often against the reduction of allotments, the severity of quitrents, etc. (for example, “Cholera riots”, “Potato riots” 1834 and 1840-41). The question of changing the management of state peasants gave rise to numerous projects.

In the 1830s, the government began to reform the government of the state village. In 1837-41, a reform developed by P. D. Kiselyov was carried out: the Ministry of State Property and its local bodies were established, which were entrusted with “guardianship” of state peasants through the rural community. The corvée duties of state peasants in Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine were eliminated, the leasing of state estates was stopped, and the per capita dues were replaced by a more uniform land and trade tax.

A staunch opponent of serfdom, Kiselyov believed that freedom should be introduced gradually, “so that slavery would be destroyed by itself and without upheaval of the state.”

State peasants received self-government and the opportunity to decide their affairs within the framework of the rural community. However, the peasants remained attached to the land. Radical reform of the state village became possible only after the abolition of serfdom. Despite the gradual nature of the reforms, they encountered resistance, since the landowners feared that excessive emancipation of the state peasants would set a dangerous example for the landowner peasants.

Kiselyov intended to regulate the allotments and duties of the landowner peasants and partially subordinate them to the Ministry of State Property, but this caused the indignation of the landowners and was not implemented.

However, when preparing the peasant reform of 1861, the drafters of the legislation used the experience of Kiselyov’s reform, especially in matters of organizing peasant self-government and determining the legal status of peasants.

Liberation of state peasants

see also

Sources and links

• N. M. Druzhinin State peasants and the reform of P. D. Kiseleva, M.-L., 1958.
• L. G. Zakharova, N. M. Druzhinin, article “State Peasants” in the encyclopedia “Domestic History”
• A. B. Muchnik, Social and economic aspects of the potato riots of 1834 and 1841-43 in Russia, in the collection: People's uprisings in Russia. From the Time of Troubles to the “Green Revolution” against Soviet Power, ed. H.-D. Löwe, Wiesbaden, 2006, pp. 427-452 (in German). (A. Moutchnik: Soziale und wirtschaftliche Grundzüge der Kartoffelaufstände von 1834 und von 1841-1843 in Russland, in: Volksaufstände in Russland. Von der Zeit der Wirren bis zur "Grünen Revolution" gegen die Sowjetherrschaft, hrsg. v on Heinz-Dietrich Lowe ( = Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, Bd. 65), Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2006, S. 427-452)

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “State peasants” are in other dictionaries:

In Russia 18 1st floor. 19th centuries a class formed from former black-sown peasants, ladles, odnodvortsev, etc. They lived on state-owned lands, bore duties in favor of the state, and were considered personally free. Since 1841 they were controlled by the Ministry... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

In Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. a class formed from former black-sown peasants, ladles, odnodvortsev, etc. They lived on state-owned lands, bore duties in favor of the state, and were considered personally free. In 1886 they received the right... ... Legal dictionary

STATE PEASANTS, IN THE 18th 1st half of the 19th centuries. a class formed from former black-sown peasants, ladles, single-dvortsev and others. G.K. lived on state-owned lands, bore duties in favor of the state, and were considered personally free. Since 1841... ...Russian history

A special class of serf Russia, formalized by the decrees of Peter 1 from the remaining unenslaved rural population (black-mown peasants (See Chernososhnye peasants) and ladles (See ladles) of Northern Pomerania, Siberian arable ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

In Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. a class formed from former black-sown peasants, ladles, odnodvortsev, etc. They lived on state-owned lands, bore duties in favor of the state, and were considered personally free. Since 1841 they were controlled by... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

A special class of serf Russia, formalized by the decrees of Peter I from the remnants of the non-enslaved farmers. population of black-plowed peasants and ladles of the North. Pomerania, Siberian arable peasants, odnodvortsev, non-Russians. peoples of the Volga region and the Urals).... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

See Peasants... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

STATE PEASANTS- a special category of peasants in Russia in the 18th–19th centuries, formed as a result of the tax reform of 1724, with a total number of 1 million male souls who previously paid tax to the state along with other categories of tax... ... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century