The liberation of peasants from serfdom occurred during. When was serfdom abolished? Add your price to the database Comment

On March 3, 1861, Alexander II abolished serfdom and received the nickname “Liberator” for this. But the reform did not become popular; on the contrary, it was the reason mass unrest and the death of the emperor.

Landowner initiative

Large feudal landowners were involved in preparing the reform. Why did they suddenly agree to compromise? At the beginning of his reign, Alexander gave a speech to the Moscow nobility, in which he voiced one simple thought: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for it to begin to be abolished from below by itself.”
His fears were not in vain. For the first quarter XIX century, 651 peasant unrest were registered, in the second quarter of this century - already 1089 unrest, and in last decade(1851 - 1860) - 1010, with 852 unrest occurring in 1856-1860.
The landowners provided Alexander with more than a hundred projects for future reform. Those of them who owned estates in non-black earth provinces were ready to release the peasants and give them plots. But the state had to buy this land from them. The landowners of the black earth strip wanted to keep as much land as possible in their hands.
But the final draft of the reform was drawn up under the control of the state in a specially formed Secret Committee.

Forged will

After the abolition of serfdom, rumors spread almost immediately among the peasants that the decree read to him was a fake, and the landowners hid the real manifesto of the tsar. Where did these rumors come from? The fact is that the peasants were given “freedom,” that is, personal freedom. But they did not receive ownership of the land.
The landowner still remained the owner of the land, and the peasant was only its user. To become the full owner of the plot, the peasant had to buy it from the master.
The liberated peasant still remained tied to the land, only now he was held not by the landowner, but by the community, from which it was difficult to leave - everyone was “shackled by one chain.” For community members, for example, it was not profitable for wealthy peasants to stand out and run independent farms.

Redemptions and cuts

On what conditions did the peasants part with their slave status? Most hot issue There was, of course, the question of land. The complete dispossession of peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure. Entire territory European Russia was divided into 3 stripes - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe. In non-black earth regions, the size of the plots was larger, but in the black earth, fertile regions, landowners parted with their land very reluctantly. The peasants had to bear their previous duties - corvee and quitrent, only now this was considered payment for the land provided to them. Such peasants were called temporarily obliged.
Since 1883, all temporarily obliged peasants were obliged to buy back their plot from the landowner, and at a price much higher than the market price. The peasant was obliged to immediately pay the landowner 20% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 80% was contributed by the state. The peasants had to repay it annually over 49 years in equal redemption payments.
The distribution of land in individual estates also took place in the interests of the landowners. Allotments were fenced off by landowners from lands that were vital in the economy: forests, rivers, pastures. So the communities had to rent these lands for a high fee.

Step towards capitalism

Many modern historians write about the shortcomings of the 1861 reform. For example, Pyotr Andreevich Zayonchkovsky says that the terms of the ransom were extortionate. Soviet historians clearly agree that it was the contradictory and compromise nature of the reform that ultimately led to the revolution of 1917.
But, nevertheless, after the signing of the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the life of peasants in Russia changed for the better. At least they stopped buying and selling them, like animals or things. Liberated peasants joined the labor market and got jobs in factories. This entailed the formation of new capitalist relations in the country's economy and its modernization.
And finally, the liberation of the peasants was one of the first of a series of reforms prepared and carried out by the associates of Alexander II. Historian B.G. Litvak wrote: “... such a huge social act as the abolition of serfdom could not pass without leaving a trace for the entire state organism.” The changes affected almost all spheres of life: the economy, the socio-political sphere, local government, the army and navy.

Russia and America

It is generally accepted that the Russian Empire in socially was a very backward state, because there before the second half of the 19th century centuries, the disgusting custom of selling people at auction like cattle was preserved, and landowners did not suffer any serious punishment for the murder of their serfs. But we should not forget that at this very time, on the other side of the world, in the USA, there was a war between north and south, and one of the reasons for it was the problem of slavery. Only through a military conflict in which hundreds of thousands of people died.
Indeed, one can find many similarities between an American slave and a serf: they did not have the same control over their lives, they were sold, separated from their families; personal life was controlled.
The difference lay in the very nature of the societies that gave rise to slavery and serfdom. In Russia, serf labor was cheap, and estates were unproductive. The attachment of peasants to the land was political rather than economic phenomenon. The plantations of the American South have always been commercial, and their main principle was economic efficiency.

Despite the fact that the Russian nobility eventually became “noble,” Russia itself was not supposed to be called noble. But they called it serfdom, slavery, etc. Serfdom is directly related to the development of the noble class. It is the nobles, not the aristocracy, who are much less interested in this.

In early Rus', the overwhelming majority of peasants were free. More precisely, the majority of the population, since with increasing central government All classes are gradually becoming enslaved. We are talking about North-Eastern Rus', Vladimir-Moscow, which became Russia. The attachment of peasants, restricting freedom of movement, has been known since the 14th century. It is noteworthy that nobles were mentioned for the first time.

Alexander Krasnoselsky. Collection of arrears. 1869

A nobleman (for now, more likely the son of a boyar) received a limited amount of land for his service. And perhaps not too fertile. Man, as they say, is looking for something better. In frequent years of famine, peasants could easily move to better land, for example, to a larger landowner. In addition, in very hungry years, a rich landowner could support the peasants thanks to serious reserves. More and better land means higher yield. You can buy more land of better quality. You can get the best agricultural implements and seed material.

Large landowners deliberately lured peasants away, and seemingly simply captured them and took them to their place. And of course, the peasants themselves migrated as usual. In addition, large landowners often, partially or completely, exempted newly resettled people from taxes.

In general, it is more profitable to live in a large estate or on “black” lands. But the serving nobles need to feed. And basically enslavement was in their interests.

Traditionally, the peasant and the landowner entered into a lease agreement. It seems that at first the tenant could leave at any time, then payment and departure were timed to coincide with certain days. Traditionally - the end of the agricultural year, autumn: Intercession, St. George's Day. In the 15-16th century. the government, meeting the nobles halfway, limited the peasant movement to the week before and the week after St. George's Day.

The forced strengthening of the “fortress” occurred during the reign of Godunov (during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov himself). A series of crop failures and widespread famine. Peasants are fleeing in search of basic food. They flee primarily from poor landowners.

But in order.

1497 - the establishment of St. George's Day as the only period for the transition of peasants.

1581 - Decree on Reserved Years, specific years in which there is no transition even on St. George’s Day.

The beginning of the 1590s - the widespread abolition of St. George's Day. A temporary measure due to the difficult situation.

1597 - lesson summer, 5-year search for fugitive peasants. A peasant lives in a new place for more than 5 years - they leave him. Apparently, it has settled down, it is no longer advisable to touch it...

Then the Troubles, ruin - and again the need to provide the serving nobles with land and workers.

The support of the nobles is more than needed! Firstly, it is still the main military force. Secondly, the Romanovs were elected to the kingdom under active participation nobility. Thirdly, it was the nobility that showed itself in the Troubles, in general, as an independent force. Fourthly, in the 17th century Zemsky Sobors still met.

Finally, the normal process of the formation of autocracy begins again. The nobles become the main support of the throne. And as the importance of the nobility grows, the laws regarding the attachment of peasants are increasingly tightened.

1649 - Council Code. A set of laws that remained relevant, as it later turned out, for... 200 years (the Decembrists were tried in accordance with the Council Code!). Cancellation of 5-year investigation; the found peasant is returned to the landowner, regardless of the time that has passed since his departure. Serfdom becomes hereditary...

The transition from local militia to regular troops does not eliminate the need for estates. A standing army is expensive! In fact, this is also one of the main reasons for the slow transition to standing armies in Europe. Maintain an army Peaceful time expensive! Either hired or recruited.

The nobles are actively entering the civil service, especially since administrative apparatus is growing.

It is beneficial for the government if officers and officials feed from the estates. Yes, the salary is paid - but it is unstable. Already under Catherine II, feeding and bribes were almost officially allowed. Not out of kindness or naivety, but because of budget deficits. So an estate is the most convenient way for the state to provide for the nobles.

Under Peter I, serfs were prohibited from voluntarily recruiting for military service, which freed them from serfdom.

Under Anna Ioannovna, there was a ban on going to the fields and entering into farming and contracts without the permission of the landowner.

Under Elizabeth, peasants were excluded from the oath to the sovereign.

The time of Catherine II was the apogee of enslavement. It is also the “golden age” of the nobility. Everything is interconnected! The nobles were exempted from compulsory service and became a privileged class. So they don’t receive a salary!

During Catherine's reign, lands and about 800 thousand serf souls were distributed to the nobles. These are men's souls! Let's multiply by 4. How much is it? That's it, and she ruled for more than 30 years... It is no coincidence that the largest uprising in Rus', the Pugachev uprising, took place during her reign. By the way, it was never peasant - but the serfs actively participated in it.

1765 - the right of nobles to exile serfs to hard labor. No trial.

All emperors after Catherine II tried to alleviate the situation of the peasants! And the fact that “serfdom” was abolished only in 1862 - it’s just that earlier it could have provoked a powerful social explosion. But the abolition was prepared by Nicholas I. In fact, his entire reign was spent working on preparations, searching for opportunities, etc.

In order...

Paul I established (rather recommended) a 3-day corvee; prohibited the sale of courtyards and landless peasants; prohibited the sale of peasants without land - that is, as slaves; forbade splitting up serf families; again allowed the serfs to complain against the landowners!

Alexander I issued a decree on “free cultivators,” allowing landowners to free peasants. Few people took advantage of it - but it was the very beginning! Under him, the development of measures for liberation from serfdom began. As usual, this was done by Alexey Andreevich Arakcheev. Which, as usual, was against it - but did a great job. It was envisaged, in particular, that the peasants would be redeemed by the treasury - with 2 acres of land. Not much - but at least something, for that time and the first project this is more than serious!

Nicholas I sees the main support of the raznochintsy, the bureaucracy. He seeks to get rid of noble influence on politics. And realizing that the liberation of the peasants would explode society, he actively prepared liberation for the future. Yes, and there were actual measures! Even if they are very careful.

The peasant issue has been discussed since the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas I. Although at the beginning it was officially stated that there would be no changes in the situation of the peasants. In reality - more than 100 decrees regarding peasants!

The landowners were recommended to treat the peasants legally and Christianly; ban on sending serfs to factories; exile to Siberia; split up families; lose to the peasants and pay their debts with them... and so on. Not to mention the development of liberation projects.

There is a massive impoverishment of the nobles (the ruin of about 1/6 of the landowner families!). The land is being sold and mortgaged. By the reign of Alexander II, a lot of lands with people passed to the state.

That’s why liberation was a success!

And one last thing. There was no “serfdom”. That is, the term itself appeared in the 19th century in scientific circles. There was no “right” as a kind of law, decree, article. There were a number of measures over the centuries that gradually attached peasants to the land. The land was transferred to the landowners, who very gradually gained power... There was no single law, “right” as such!

Nevertheless, serfdom was, in fact, at its apogee - on the verge of slavery. So it is much more correct to talk not about law, but about serfdom...

Introduction…………………………………………………….....2

I. Preparation of the abolition of serfdom…………………….3

1. Personal exemption……………………………………8

2. Dimensions of the field plot………………………………...9

3. Duties………………………………………………………12

4.Redemption…………………………………………………….15

5.Legal status……………………………………17

III. Consequences peasant reform……………………18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………...23

References……………………………………………………..25

Introduction

The reign of Alexander II (1856-1881) became the era of “great reforms”. Its central event was the abolition of serfdom.

In 1856-1857 Peasant unrest occurred in a number of southern provinces. They quickly calmed down, but once again reminded us that the landowners were sitting on a volcano.

Serfdom was fraught with danger. It showed no obvious signs of its imminent collapse and collapse. It could have existed for an indefinitely long time. But free labor is more productive than forced labor - this is an axiom. Serfdom dictated an extremely slow pace of development for the entire country. The Crimean War clearly showed Russia's growing lag. In the near future it could become a minor power. Serfdom, too similar to slavery, was immoral.

The events of the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 will be covered in the work. Thus, the purpose of the work is to consider next questions -

preparation for the abolition of serfdom, regulations of February 19, 1861, consequences of the peasant reform.

I.Preparation of the abolition of serfdom

The abolition of serfdom affected the vital foundations of a huge country. In constitutional states, all major measures are first developed in the relevant ministries, then discussed in the Council of Ministers, and then submitted to parliament, which has the final say. In Russia at that time there was no constitution, no parliament, no Council of Ministers. Therefore, it was necessary to create a cumbersome system of central and local institutions specifically for the development of peasant reform.
Soon after imprisonment Parisian world Alexander II, speaking in Moscow to the leaders of the nobility, declared that “it is better to begin the destruction of serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed by itself from below.” Hinting at Pugachevism, the tsar touched upon a very sensitive topic for landowners. “Please convey my words to the nobles for consideration,” he said at the end of his speech.
Preparations for the abolition of serfdom began in January 1857 with the creation of the Secret Committee “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Submitting to the will of the monarch, the committee recognized the need for the gradual abolition of serfdom. In November 1857, a rescript was signed and sent throughout the country addressed to the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov, who announced the beginning of the gradual liberation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees in each province to make proposals and amendments to the reform project.

The atmosphere of glasnost forced the landowners to respond to the tsar's call. By the summer of 1858 Provincial noble committees were created almost everywhere. Provincial noble committees drew up projects on the peasant issue and sent them to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, which, in accordance with its program, planned to provide peasants with personal freedom without land, which remained the property of the landowners. Drafting commissions were formed to review these projects and draw up a detailed draft of the reform.

All current affairs regarding the preparation of the reform were concentrated in the hands of the Minister of Internal Affairs Nikolai Alekseevich Milyutin (1818-1872). Milyutin was close to Kavelin and tried to implement the main provisions of his note. The Slavophile Yu.F. provided him with great help. Samarin, member of editorial commissions.
The landowners were distrustful of the editorial commissions, and Alexander II promised that representatives of the nobility would be summoned to St. Petersburg, familiarize themselves with the documents and be able to express their opinions. By August 1859, the project was prepared and the question arose about the arrival of noble representatives. Fearing that they might form some semblance of parliament, the government decided to summon the nobles to the capital in two stages (first from the non-Black Sea provinces, and then from the Black Sea ones). Those summoned were forbidden to gather for official meetings. They were invited in groups of 3-4 to the editorial commissions and asked to answer the questions asked. The nobles were very unhappy with this turn of events.
The landowners of the non-Black Sea provinces did not object to the allocation of land to the peasants, but they demanded a ransom for it that was disproportionate to its value. Thus, they tried to include compensation for the quitrent in the ransom amount. They also insisted that the government guarantee the buyout operation.
In addition, the landowners feared that the power of the government bureaucracy would become too strong if it took into its own hands the entire matter of managing the peasants. To partially neutralize this danger, noble deputies demanded freedom of the press, openness, an independent court and local self-government. In response, the government forbade discussing the issue of reforms at the next noble meetings.
This ban caused strong unrest among the nobility, especially in non-Black Sea provinces, where they were more enlightened and liberal. At a meeting of the Tver nobility, landowner A.I. Evropeus (former Petrashevite) made a strong speech against the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, violating legal rights nobles, and was sent to a new exile in Perm. Vyatka was chosen as a place of exile for the Tver provincial representative of the nobility A.M. Unkovsky. Alexander II showed that he had learned a thing or two from his father. These events reminded us of how poorly protected the rights of individual citizens are in Russia.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1860, noble representatives from the Black Sea provinces gathered in St. Petersburg. Their criticism of the government project was even harsher. They saw in the activities of the editorial commissions a manifestation of democratic, republican and even socialist tendencies. With loud cries about various dangers allegedly threatening the state, the landowners wanted to disguise their reluctance to give land to the peasants. But the landowners of their southern provinces did not put forward demands for transparency and various freedoms, and the government did not subject them to repression. The noble representatives were promised that their comments would be taken into account whenever possible.
Minister of Justice Count V.N. was appointed chairman of the editorial commissions. Panin, a famous conservative. At each subsequent stage of discussion, certain amendments were made to the draft by the serf owners. The reformers felt that the project was increasingly moving away from the “golden mean” towards the infringement of peasant issues. Nevertheless, the discussion of reform in provincial committees and the call of noble representatives did not remain without benefit. Milyutin and Samarin (the main developers of the reform) realized that it could not be carried out on the same basis throughout the country, that local characteristics must be taken into account. In the Black Sea provinces main value represents the land, in non-Black Sea peasant labor, embodied in quitrent. They also realized that it was impossible to hand over the landowner and peasant economy to the power of market relations without preparation; a transition period was required. They became convinced that the peasants should be freed from the land, and the landowners should be given a government-guaranteed ransom. These ideas formed the basis of the laws on peasant reform.

On February 19, 1861, on the sixth anniversary of his accession to the throne, Alexander II signed all the reform laws and the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. Because the government was afraid popular unrest, the publication of the documents was delayed for two weeks to take precautionary measures. On March 5, 1861, the manifesto was read in churches after mass. At the divorce ceremony in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander himself lamented it to the troops. This is how serfdom fell in Russia. "Regulations of February 19, 1861." extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand household servants and 543 thousand assigned to private factories.

1.Personal exemption

“Regulations of February 19, 1861 on peasants emerging from serfdom” consisted of a number of separate laws that interpreted certain issues of reform. The most important of them was the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom,” which set out the basic conditions for the abolition of serfdom. 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 were obliged to provide the peasants with “manor settlement” for permanent use, i.e. estate , with a personal plot, as well as a field plot “to ensure their daily life and to fulfill their duties to the government and the landowner ..,». For the use of the landowner's land, peasants were required to serve corvee labor or pay quitrent. They did not have the right to refuse the field allotment, at least in the first nine years (in the subsequent period, the refusal of land was limited by a number of conditions that made it difficult to exercise this right).

This prohibition quite clearly characterized the landowner nature of the reform: the conditions of “liberation” were such that it was often unprofitable for the peasant to take land. Refusal from it deprived the landowners of either labor l s, or the income they receive in the form of rent.

2. Dimensions of the field plot

The size of the field allotment and duties should have been recorded in the charter documents, for with setting which were given a two-year term. The drafting of statutory charters was entrusted to the landowners themselves, and their verification was entrusted to the so-called peace intermediaries, who were appointed from among the local noble landowners. Thus, the same landowners acted as intermediaries between peasants and landowners.

Charter charters were concluded not with an individual peasant, but with the “peace”, i.e. e. with the rural society of peasants who belonged to one or another landowner, as a result of which duties for the use of land were collected from the “world”. The mandatory allocation of land and the establishment of mutual responsibility for the payment of duties actually led to the enslavement of the peasants by the “peace.” The peasant did not have the right to leave society or receive a passport - all this depended on the decision of the “peace”. Peasants were given the right to buy out the estate, while the buyout of the field plot was determined by the will of the landowner. If the landowner wanted to sell his land, the peasants had no right to refuse. Peasants, redeemed your gender e vye on d ate, named s peasant owners"ransom d was also not an individual, but all m sat down Russian society." These are the main conditions for the abolition of serfdom, set out in the “General Regulations”.

These conditions fully met the interests of the landowners. Establishment temporary relationships preserved the feudal system of exploitation indefinitely. The termination of these relations is determined l axis solely by the will of the landowners, on whose wishes the transfer of peasants to ransom depended. The implementation of the reform was transferred entirely into the hands of the landowners .

The size of land plots, as well as payments and duties for their use, were determined by “Local Provisions”. Four “local regulations” were published.

1. “Local regulations on the land structure of peasants settled on landowners’ lands in the provinces: Great Russian, Novorossiysk and Belarusian”

2. “Little Russian local situation”, which extended to the Left Bank part of Ukraine: Chernigov, Poltava and the rest of the Kharkov province.

3. The “situation” for Left Bank Ukraine was determined by the fact that there was no community in Ukraine and the allocation of land was made depending on the availability of draft power.

4. “Local provisions” for Right Bank Ukraine - the provinces of Kyiv, Podolsk, Volyn, as well as for Lithuania and Belarus - provinces Vilenskaya, Grodno, Kovenskaya, Minsk and part of Vitebsk. This was determined by political considerations, because the landowners in these areas were the Polish nobility.

According to the “Local Regulations,” family plots were maintained in pre-reform sizes, decreasing in proportion to the plots produced. Similar the distribution of land corresponded to the actual situation, determined by the availability different categories serfs, although the distinction between draft and foot soldiers was legally abolished. Landless peasants received allotments if land was cut.

According to the “Little Russian Regulations,” the landowner was also given the right to reduce the peasant allotment to one quarter of the highest, if, by mutual agreement, the landowner transferred it to the peasants free of charge.

The peasants of Right Bank Ukraine found themselves in a slightly better position, i.e. e. in those areas where the Polish nobility were landowners. According to the “Local Regulations” for the Kiev, Volyn and Podolsk provinces, all the land that they used according to the inventory rules of 1847 and 1848 was assigned to the peasants. If the landowner reduced the peasant plots after the introduction of inventories, then according to the “Regulations” he had to return this land to the peasants.

According to the “Local Regulations”, which applied to Vilenskaya, Grodno, Kovenskaya, Minsk and part of the Vitebsk province, the peasants retained all the land by the time the “Regulations” were approved, i.e. to February 19, 1861, which they used. True, the landowner also had the right to reduce the size of peasant plots if he had less than one third of convenient land left. However, according to the “Regulations”, the peasant allotment «... cannot be in any case... reduce by more than one sixth; the remaining five-sixths form the inviolable land of the peasant allotment..."

Thus, while providing peasants with land in most provinces, landowners were given ample opportunities to rob the peasantry, that is, to dispossess them of land. In addition to reducing the peasant's allotment, the landowners could also rob the peasants, relocating them to obviously unsuitable lands.

3.Duties

Responsibilities for the use of land were divided into monetary ( quitrent ) and sharecropping ( corvée ). The “Regulations” stated that peasants are not obliged to e make any additional duties in favor of the landowner, as well as pay him tribute in kind (poultry, eggs, berries, mushrooms, etc.) d.). The main form of duties was a monetary quitrent, the size of which in each province approximately corresponded to the pre-reform one. This circumstance clearly revealed that the quitrent was determined not by the value of the land, but by the income that the landowner received from the personality of the serf.

The highest quitrent was established where the land brought in little income, and, conversely, mainly in the black earth provinces, the quitrent was significantly lower. This indicated a complete discrepancy between the price of land and the established quitrent. The latter was not a kind of rent for the use of land and retained the character of a feudal duty, which provided the landowner with income from personalities peasant, which he received before the reform.

If we take into account that land plots were reduced compared to the pre-reform period, and quitrent remained the same, it becomes clear that income sch ika not only did not decrease, but even increased. The size of the quitrent could be increased at the request of the landowner to one ruble per capita (if the peasant was engaged in trade, or crafts, or, given the advantageous location of the village, proximity to large shopping centers and cities, etc.). Peasants were also given the right to ask for a reduction in quitrent due to poor quality of land or for other reasons. Peasants' requests for reduction And and the quitrent was due And be supported by a peace mediator and resolved by the provincial peasant affairs presence.

The means for establishing an even greater discrepancy between land profitability and duties were the so-called quitrent gradations, introduced for all three stripes (in Ukraine, Lithuania and the western provinces of Belarus, these gradations were absent). Their essence was that the quitrent established for the highest per capita allotment was not reduced proportionally in the case of granting the peasant an incomplete allotment, but, on the contrary, was calculated in inverse proportion to the size of the allotment.

To determine the amount of quitrent collected under the “Great Russian Regulations” for peasant manor would be subdivided With b by four digits. TO first the category included estates s in agricultural areas, i.e. in the black earth provinces, “which did not provide any special benefits.” K The second category included estates on those estates where the peasant economy was not limited only to agriculture, but “was supported primarily by trade and earnings from waste or local industries.” K t R This category included estates, representing sewn"How And e any important local benefits", and on walking no further than 25 versts from Petersburg R ha and Moscow. TO fourth at R This category included estates that brought special d oho d.

The quitrent had to be paid to the landowner from the entire society “in a circular manner for each other A body" of peasants. At the same time, the landowner had the right to demand O forward it six months in advance. The amount of quitrent determined by the “Regulations” was established for a period of 20 years, after which it was assumed re-signing for the next twenty years, providing for increased e quitrent in connection With rising land prices. The collection of quitrents for the estate was intended in cases where the peasants did not use the field allotment or bought only one estate.

Another type of service is corvee. Work on the landowner's land was divided into horse and foot days. The equestrian day departed with one horse and the necessary tools (plow, harrow, cart). Correspondingly w The time between horse and foot days was determined at the discretion of the landowner. Operating time T It was 12 hours in the summer, and 9 hours in the winter. If the shower allotment was less than the highest or specified the number of corvée days decreased, but not proportionally.

Gradations existed not only in the era la those quitrents, but also when working off e corvée. The fulfillment of corvée duties could also be carried out on the basis of a fixed-term position, if this was required by the landowner or peasant society. Corvée had to be performed by men aged 18 to 55 years, women - from 17 to 50 years. For the correct service of corvée y answered in the whole society (community) on the basis of mutual responsibility. Before the expiration of the two-year period from the date of publication of the “Regulations”, peasants had the right to transfer from corvée to quitrent only with the consent of the peasants. O tradesman; After this period, consent was not required, but the peasants were obliged to notify the landowner a year in advance.

So, the quitrent established by the “Regulations” was still feudal rent. The size of the quitrent not only fully ensured the preservation of the pre-reform income of the landowners, but even increased it somewhat, taking into account the decrease in peasant plots. Corvee, in comparison with the pre-reform period, was significantly reduced, but this did little to affect the interests of the landowners. Firstly, quitrent became the main form of service after the reform. Secondly, the landowners retained ample opportunities to use the labor of peasants in the form of various forms of labor for the use of the land cut off from them.

4.Bransom

According to the “General Regulations”, peasants were obliged to buy out the estate, while the redemption of the field plot depended solely on the will of the landowner. Terms of redemption from lied in the special “Regulations on the redemption cross Yanami, who came out of serfdom, their settled estates and the government’s assistance in acquiring field land for these peasants ». Redemption of the estate was permitted in any time provided there is no arrears. As in all articles concerning the establishment of the size of the allotment and duties, the “Regulations on Redemption” included a stereotypical phrase stating that the amount of ransom for both the estate and the field allotment was established Yu is “by voluntary agreement”. Along with this introduced exact standards that actually determined the size ransom A. The amount for both the estate and the field plot was to be determined by the amount of quitrent established for the peasants. Ransom put it on could be carried out either by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasants, or by the unilateral demand of the landowner against the wishes of the peasants.

Peasants, with the exception of a few, could not contribute the entire amount of the capitalized quitrent at a time. The landowners were interested in receiving the ransom immediately. In order to satisfy the interests of the landowners, the government provided O action in the acquisition by peasants of their field lands,” i.e. e. organized a “buyout operation.”

Its essence was that the peasants received a redemption loan, issued by the state at a time to the landowner, which the peasants gradually repaid. “Government assistance”, i.e. the issuance of redemption loans was distributed according to the “State And yu about the ransom" only for peasants who were on quitrent. The terms of the redemption operation provided for the issuance of a loan in the amount of 80% of the cost of the capitalized quitrent, provided that the allotment corresponded to its size according to the charter, and a loan in the amount of 75% in the event of a reduction in the allotment compared to the charter. This amount, minus the landowner's debt from the credit institution (if the estate was mortgaged), was issued to him by five percent state bank loans. And years and redemption certificate . In addition, the peasants, when starting the redemption, had to contribute e deposited to the cash desk of the county treasury, an additional payment in addition to the redemption loan, in the amount of one fifth of the redemption loan, if the entire plot was purchased, and one n oh quarter, if part of the allotment was purchased. If the redemption of the field plot was carried out not as a result of a voluntary agreement between landowners and peasants, but as a result of the unilateral demand of the landowner, then no additional payment was due. The peasants were required to repay the redemption amount received from the government over 49 years at 6% annually.

"Provisions of February 19, 1861" are simply robbery of the peasants. And at the same time it was the most predatory buyout operation. It was thanks to her that peasants were often forced to give up the land that they had the right to receive under the terms of the reform.

Repayment of redemption payments by peasants was carried out by rural societies, i.e. “peace”, based on the principle of mutual responsibility. Until the end of the redemption payments, peasants had no right to either mortgage or sell the land they had acquired.

The redemption operation, despite its bourgeois character, was serfdom. The repurchase was not based on the actual cost of the e mli, and capitalized quitrent, which was one of the forms feudal rent. Consequently, the redemption operation made it possible for the landowner to retain in full the income that he received before the reform. It was precisely because of this that the transfer of peasants to ransom corresponded to the interests of the bulk of the landowners, especially that part of them that sought to switch to capitalist methods of their farming.

5 . Legal status

III.Consequences of the peasant reform

The promulgation of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861, the content of which deceived the peasants’ hopes for “full freedom,” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. In the first five months of 1861, 1340 mass protests occurred peasant unrest, in total for the year -1859 unrest. More than half of them (937) were pacified military force. In fact, there was not a single province in which the protest of the peasants against the unfavorable conditions of the granted “will” would not have manifested itself to a greater or lesser extent. Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe that such laws were coming from him, which for two years would leave them in fact in the same subordination to the landowner, force them to perform the hated corvée and pay dues, deprive them of a significant part of their former allotments, and The lands provided to them are declared the property of the nobility. Some considered the published “Regulations” to be a forged document, which was drawn up by landowners and officials who agreed with them at the same time, hiding the real, “tsarist will”, while others tried to find this “will” in some incomprehensible, therefore differently interpreted, articles of the tsarist law. False manifestos about “freedom” also appeared.

The peasant movement assumed its greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, the Volga region and Ukraine, where the bulk of the landowner peasants were in corvee labor and the agrarian question was most acute. The uprisings in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands of peasants took part, caused a great public outcry in the country. The demands of the peasants boiled down to the elimination of feudal duties and landownership (“we will not go to corvee, and we will not pay taxes”, “the land is all ours”). The uprisings in Bezdna and Kandeevka ended in the execution of peasants: hundreds of them were killed and wounded. The leader of the uprising in the village. Abyss Anton Petrov was court-martialed and shot.

Spring 1861 - highest point peasant movement at the beginning of the reform. It is not for nothing that the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev, in his report to the Tsar, called these spring months “the most critical moment of the matter.” By the summer of 1861, the government, with the help of large military forces (64 infantry and 16 cavalry regiments and 7 separate battalions participated in the suppression of peasant unrest), through executions and mass beatings with rods, managed to repel the wave of peasant uprisings.

Although in the summer of 1861 there was a slight decline in the peasant movement, the number of unrest was still quite large: 519 during the second half of 1861 - significantly more than in any of the pre-reform years. In addition, in the fall of 1861, the peasant struggle took other forms: the felling of the landowner’s forests by peasants became widespread, refusals to pay quitrents became more frequent, but peasant sabotage of corvée work became especially widespread: reports were received from the provinces about “the widespread failure to perform corvée work,” so that in a number of provinces up to a third and even half of the landowners' land remained uncultivated that year.

In 1862, a new wave of peasant protest arose, associated with the introduction of statutory charters. More than half of the charters that were not signed by the peasants were imposed on them by force. Refusal to accept statutory charters often resulted in major unrest, the number of which in 1862 amounted to 844. Of these, 450 protests were pacified with the help of military commands. The stubborn refusal to accept charter documents was caused not only by the unfavorable conditions of liberation for the peasants, but also by the spread of rumors that the tsar would soon grant a new, “real” will. The majority of peasants dated the date of this will (“urgent” or “hearing hour”) to be February 19, 1863 - the time of the end of the entry into force of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861. The peasants considered these “Provisions” themselves as temporary (as “ first will"), which after two years will be replaced by others, providing peasants with “uncut” allotments free of charge and completely freeing them from the tutelage of landowners and local authorities. The belief spread among the peasants about the “illegality” of charters, which they considered “an invention of the bar,” “new bondage,” “new serfdom.” As a result, Alexander II spoke twice before representatives of the peasantry to dispel these illusions. During his trip to Crimea in the fall of 1862, he told the peasants that “there will be no other will than the one that is given.” On November 25, 1862, in a speech addressed to the volost elders and village elders of the Moscow province gathered before him, he said: “After February 19 of next year, do not expect any new will and no new benefits... Do not listen to the rumors that circulate among you , and do not believe those who will assure you otherwise, but believe only my words.” It is characteristic that among the peasant masses there continued to be hope for “ new will with the redistribution of land." 20 years later, this hope was revived again in the form of rumors about a “black redistribution” of land.

The peasant movement of 1861-1862, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. There were 509 riots in 1863, most of them them-in the Western provinces Since 1863, the peasant movement has sharply declined. There were 156 riots in 1864, 135 in 1865, 91 in 1866, 68 in 1867, 60 in 1868, 65 in 1869 and 56 in 1870. Their character also changed. If immediately after the promulgation of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861, the peasants protested with considerable unanimity against liberation “in the noble way,” but now they focused more on the private interests of their community, on using the possibilities of legal and peaceful forms of struggle to achieve the best conditions for organizing the economy.

The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. Village elders and elected officials from rural societies participated in the volost assembly. At this meeting, the volost elder was elected. He performed police and administrative duties.
The activities of rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationship between peasants and landowners, were controlled by global intermediaries. They were called the Senate from among the local noble landowners. Peace mediators had broad powers. But the administration could not use peace mediators for its own purposes. They were not subordinate to either the governor or the minister and did not have to follow their instructions. They had to follow only the instructions of the law.
The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should have been determined once and for all by agreement between the peasants and the landowner and recorded in the charter. The introduction of these charters was the main activity of the peace mediators.
The permissible scope of agreements between peasants and landowners was outlined in the law. Kavelin proposed leaving all the lands for the peasants; he proposed leaving all the lands that they used under serfdom for the peasants. The landowners of the non-Black Sea provinces did not object to this. In the Black Sea provinces they protested furiously. Therefore, the law drew a line between non-chernozem and chernozem provinces. Non-black soil peasants still had almost the same amount of land in use as before. In the black soil, under pressure from the serf owners, a greatly reduced per capita allotment was introduced. When recalculating such an allotment (in some provinces, for example Kursk, it dropped to 2.5 dessiatines), “extra” land was cut off from peasant societies. Where the peace mediator acted in bad faith, including the cut-off lands, the land necessary for the peasants, cattle runs, meadows, and watering places were found. For additional duties, the peasants were forced to rent these from the landowners.
Sooner or later, the government believed, the “temporarily obligated” relationship would end and the peasants and landowners would conclude a buyout deal for each estate. According to the law, peasants had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount. The rest was paid by the government. But the peasants had to return this amount to him (with interest) in annual payments for 49 years.
Fearing that peasants would not want to pay big money for bad plots and would run away, the government introduced a number of harsh restrictions. While redemption payments were being made, the peasant could not refuse the allotment and leave his village forever without the consent of the village assembly.

Conclusion

If the abolition of serfdom occurred immediately, then the liquidation of feudal, economic relations, established for decades, lasted for many years. According to the law, peasants were required to serve the same duties as under serfdom for another two years. Only the corvee decreased somewhat and small natural taxes were abolished. Before the peasants were transferred to ransom, they were in a temporary position, i.e. were obliged to fulfill according to the allotments given to them established by law norms of corvée or paying quitrent. Because certain period after which the temporarily obliged peasants had to be transferred to compulsory redemption, there was no such thing, then their liberation extended for 20 years (although by 1881 no more than 15% of them remained).

Despite the predatory nature of the reform of 1861 for the peasants, its significance for further development the country was very large. This reform was a turning point in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The liberation of peasants contributed to the intensive growth of the labor force, and the provision of some civil rights to them contributed to the development of entrepreneurship. For landowners, the reform ensured a gradual transition from feudal forms of economy to capitalist ones.

The reform did not turn out the way Kavelin, Herzen and Chernyshevsky dreamed of seeing it. Built on difficult compromises, it took into account the interests of the landowners much more than the peasants, and had a very short “time resource” of no more than 20 years. Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.
And yet the peasant reform of 1861 had a huge impact historical meaning.
It was great moral significance this reform, which ended serfdom. Its abolition paved the way for other important transformations, which were supposed to introduce modern forms of self-government and justice in the country, and push the development of education. Now that all Russians have become free, the question of the constitution has arisen in a new way. Its introduction became the immediate goal on the way to rule of law such a state that is governed by citizens in accordance with the law and every citizen has a reliable
protection.

Bibliography

1. Buganov V.I., Zyryanov P.N., History of Russia end of XVII– XIX century M., 1997. - p. 235.

2. Great reforms in Russia: 1856-1874. M., 1992.

3. Zayonchkovsky. P. A. Abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1968. - p. 238.

4. Zakharova L.G. Alexander II // Questions of History, 1993, No. 11-12.

6. History of Russia in questions and answers. / Comp. S.A. Kislitsyn. Rostov-on-Don, 1999.

7. Popov G.Kh. Peasant reform of 1861. An economist's view. Origins: questions of history National economy and economic thought. M: Yearbook, 1989. - p. 58.

8. Fedorov V.A. History of Russia 1861-1917. M., 2000.

Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher education, 2007.- from 239.

Buganov V.I., Zyryanov P.N. History of Russia late XVII - XIX centuries. M., 1997. from 235.

Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher Education, 2007. - p. 239.

Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher Education, 2007. - p. 240.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

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

Serfdom in Russia was formed gradually and, according to historians, there are many reasons for this. Back in the 15th century, peasants could freely leave for another landowner. The legal enslavement of peasants took place in stages.

Code of laws of 1497

Code of Laws of 1497 - beginning legal registration serfdom.

Ivan III adopted a set of laws of a single Russian state- Lawyer. Article 57 “On Christian Refusal” stated that the transfer from one landowner to another is limited to a single period for the entire country: a week before and a week after St. George’s Day - November 26. The peasants could go to another landowner, but they had to pay elderly for the use of land and yard. Moreover, the more time a peasant lived with a landowner, the more he had to pay him: for example, for living for 4 years - 15 pounds of honey, a herd of domestic animals or 200 pounds of rye.

Land reform of 1550

Under Ivan IV, the Code of Law of 1550 was adopted; he retained the right of peasants to move on St. George’s Day, but increased the payment for elderly and established an additional duty, in addition, the Code of Law obliged the owner to answer for the crimes of his peasants, which increased their dependence. Since 1581, the so-called reserved years, in which the transition was prohibited even on St. George’s Day. This was connected with the census: in which region the census took place, in that region the reserved year. In 1592, the census was completed, and with it the possibility of peasants transferring was completed. This provision was secured by a special Decree. Since then there has been a saying: “Here’s St. George’s Day for you, grandma...

The peasants, deprived of the opportunity to move to another owner, began to run away, settling for life in other regions or on “free” lands. The owners of the escaped peasants had the right to search for and return the fugitives: in 1597, Tsar Fedor issued a Decree according to which the period for searching for fugitive peasants was five years.

“The master will come, the master will judge us...”

Serfdomin the 17th century

In the 17th century in Russia, on the one hand, commodity production and the market appeared, and on the other, feudal relations, adapting to market conditions. This was a time of strengthening of autocracy, the emergence of prerequisites for the transition to an absolute monarchy. The 17th century is the era of mass popular movements in Russia.

In the second half of the 17th century. peasants in Russia were united into two groups − serfs and black-sown Serf peasants ran their farms on patrimonial, local and church lands, and bore various feudal duties in favor of the landowners. Black-nosed peasants were included in the category of “taxable people” who paid taxes and were under the control of the authorities. Therefore, there was a mass exodus of black-mown peasants.

Government Vasily Shuisky tried to resolve the situation, to increase the period of search for fugitive peasants to 15 years, but neither the peasants themselves nor the nobles supported Shuisky’s unpopular peasant policy.

During the reign Mikhail Romanov further enslavement of the peasants took place. Cases of concessions or sales of peasants without land are increasing.

During the reign Alexey Mikhailovich Romanov a number of reforms were carried out: the procedure for collecting payments and carrying out duties was changed. In 1646 - 1648 A household inventory of peasants and peasants was carried out. And in 1648, an uprising called the “Salt Riot” took place in Moscow, the cause of which was an excessively high tax on salt. Following Moscow, other cities also rose. As a result of the current situation, it became clear that a revision of the laws was necessary. In 1649 it was convened Zemsky Sobor, at which it was adopted Cathedral Code, according to which the peasants were finally attached to the land.

Its special chapter, “The Court of Peasants,” abolished the “fixed summers” for the search and return of fugitive peasants, the indefinite search and return of fugitives, established the heredity of serfdom and the right of the landowner to dispose of the property of the serf. If the owner of the peasants turned out to be insolvent, the property of the peasants and slaves dependent on him was collected to repay his debt. Landowners received the right of patrimonial court and police supervision over peasants. Peasants did not have the right to speak in court independently. Marriages, family divisions of peasants, and inheritance of peasant property could only occur with the consent of the landowner. Peasants were forbidden to keep trading shops; they could only trade from carts.

Harboring runaway peasants was punishable by a fine, whipping and prison. For the murder of another peasant, the landowner had to give up his best peasant and his family. Their owner had to pay for runaway peasants. At the same time, serf peasants were also considered “state tax collectors,” i.e. bore duties for the benefit of the state. Peasant owners were obliged to provide them with land and implements. It was forbidden to deprive peasants of land by turning them into slaves or setting them free; it was forbidden to forcibly take away property from peasants. The right of peasants to complain about their masters was also preserved.

At the same time, serfdom extended to the black-sown peasants, the palace peasants who served the needs of the royal court, who were forbidden to leave their communities.

The Council Code of 1649 demonstrated the path to strengthening Russian statehood. It legally formalized serfdom.

Serfdom inXVIII century

Peter I

In 1718 - 1724, under Peter I, a census of the peasantry was carried out, after which household taxation in the country was replaced by poll tax. In fact, the peasants maintained the army, and the townspeople maintained the fleet. The size of the tax was determined arithmetically. The amount of military expenses was divided by the number of souls and the amount was 74 kopecks. from peasants and 1 rub. 20 kopecks - from the townspeople. The poll tax brought more income to the treasury. During the reign of Peter I, a new category of peasants was formed, called state, they paid into the state treasury, in addition to the poll tax, a quitrent of 40 kopecks. Under Peter I, a passport system was also introduced: now if a peasant went to work more than thirty miles from home, he had to receive a note in his passport about the date of return.

Elizaveta Petrovna

Elizaveta Petrovna simultaneously increased the dependence of the peasants and changed their situation: she eased the situation of the peasants, forgiving them arrears for 17 years, reduced the size of the per capita tax, changed the recruitment (divided the country into 5 districts, which alternately supplied soldiers). But she also signed a decree according to which serfs could not voluntarily enroll as soldiers and allowed them to engage in crafts and trade. This put the beginning of delamination peasants

Catherine II

Catherine II headed for further strengthening absolutism and centralization: the nobles began to receive land and serfs as a reward.

Serfdom in19th century

Alexander I

Of course, serfdom hampered the development of industry and the development of the state in general, but despite this, agriculture adapted to new conditions and developed according to its capabilities: new agricultural machines were introduced, new crops began to be grown (sugar beets, potatoes, etc.) , to develop new lands in Ukraine, the Don, and the Volga region. But at the same time, the contradictions between landowners and peasants are intensifying - corvée and quitrent are being taken to the limit by the landowners. Corvée, in addition to working on the master's arable land, included work in a serf factory and performing various household chores for the landowner throughout the year. Sometimes the corvee was 5-6 days a week, which did not allow the peasant to run an independent farm at all. The process of stratification within the peasantry began to intensify. The rural bourgeoisie represented by peasant owners (more often - state peasants) got the opportunity to acquire ownership of uninhabited lands and lease land from landowners.

The secret committee under Alexander I recognized the need for changes in peasant policy, but considered the foundations of absolutism and serfdom unshakable, although in the future it envisaged the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution. In 1801, a decree was issued on the right to purchase land by merchants, burghers and peasants (state and appanage).

In 1803, a decree “On Free Plowmen” was issued, which provided for the liberation of serfs for the purchase of land by entire villages or individual families by mutual consent of peasants and landowners. However, the practical results of this decree were negligible. The provision did not apply to landless peasant farm laborers.

Alexander I tried to solve the peasant question again in 1818. He even approved the project of A. Arakcheev and Minister of Finance D. Guryev on the gradual elimination of serfdom by buying out landowner peasants from their plots with the treasury. But this project was not practically implemented (with the exception of granting personal freedom to the Baltic peasants in 1816−1819, but without land).

By 1825, 375 thousand state peasants were in military settlements (1/3 of the Russian army), of which a Separate Corps was formed under the command of Arakcheev - the peasants served and worked at the same time, discipline was strict, punishments were numerous.

AlexanderII – Tsar-Liberator

Alexander II, who ascended the throne on February 19, 1855, set the following goals as the basis for the peasant reform:

• liberation of peasants from personal dependence;
• turning them into small owners while maintaining a significant part of landownership.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom; he changed the fate of 23 million serfs: they received personal freedom and civil rights.

Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom

But for the land plots allotted to them (until they redeem them), they had to serve labor service or pay money, i.e. began to be called “temporarily obligated”. The sizes of peasant plots varied: from 1 to 12 dessiatines per male capita (on average 3.3 dessiatines). For the plots, the peasants had to pay the landowner an amount of money that, if deposited in the bank at 6%, would bring him an annual income equal to the pre-reform quitrent. According to the law, the peasants had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount (they could pay it not in money, but by working for the landowner). The rest was paid by the state. But the peasants had to return this amount to him (with interest) in annual payments for 49 years.

A. Mukha "Abolition of serfdom in Rus'"

The peasant reform was a compromise solution to the abolition of serfdom (this path is called reform); it was based on the real circumstances of life in Russia in the mid-19th century, the interests of both peasants and landowners. The disadvantage of this program was that, having received freedom and land, the peasant did not become the owner of his plot and a full member of society: the peasants continued to be subjected to corporal punishment(until 1903), they actually could not participate in agrarian reforms.

Let's summarize

Like any historical event, the abolition of serfdom is not assessed unambiguously.

It is hardly worth perceiving serfdom as a terrible evil and only as a feature of Russia. It was in many countries of the world. And its cancellation did not happen immediately. There are still countries in the world where slavery has not been abolished by law. For example, slavery was abolished in Mauritania only in 2009. The abolition of serfdom also did not automatically mean an improvement in the living conditions of the peasants. Historians, for example, note the deterioration of the living conditions of peasants in the Baltic states, where serfdom was abolished under Alexander I. Napoleon, having captured Poland, abolished serfdom there, but it was reintroduced in this country and abolished only in 1863. In Denmark, serfdom was officially abolished in 1788, but peasants had to work corvée on the landowners' lands, which was finally abolished only in 1880.

Some historians even believe that serfdom in Russia was a necessary form of existence for society in conditions of constant political tension. It is possible that if Russia did not have to constantly repel the onslaught from the southeast and west, it would not have arisen at all, i.e. Serfdom is a system that ensured the national security and independence of the country.

Monument to Emperor Alexander II, Moscow

March 3 (February 19, O.S.), 1861 - Alexander II signed the Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants” and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. On the basis of these documents, peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property.

The manifesto was timed to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the emperor's accession to the throne (1855).

Even during the reign of Nicholas I, a large preparatory material to carry out peasant reform. Serfdom during the reign of Nicholas I remained unshakable, but in the decision peasant question significant experience was accumulated, which his son Alexander II, who ascended the throne in 1855, could later rely on.

At the beginning of 1857, a Secret Committee was established to prepare peasant reform. The government then decided to make its intentions known to the public, and the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee. The nobility of all regions had to create provincial committees to develop peasant reform. At the beginning of 1859, Editorial Commissions were created to process draft reforms of the noble committees. In September 1860, the draft reform developed was discussed by deputies sent by noble committees, and then transferred to the highest government bodies.

In mid-February 1861, the Regulations on the Liberation of Peasants were considered and approved by the State Council. On March 3 (February 19, old style), 1861, Alexander II signed the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants.” In closing words historical Manifesto were: “Make the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call upon us God’s blessing on your free labor, the guarantee of your home well-being and public good.” The manifesto was announced in both capitals on a major religious holiday - Forgiveness Sunday, and in other cities - in the week closest to it.

According to the Manifesto, peasants were granted civil rights - freedom to marry, independently conclude contracts and conduct court cases, acquire real estate in their own name, etc.

Land could be purchased by both the community and individual peasants. The land allocated to the community was for collective use, therefore, with the transition to another class or another community, the peasant lost the right to the “secular land” of his former community.

The enthusiasm with which the release of the Manifesto was greeted soon gave way to disappointment. The former serfs expected complete freedom and were dissatisfied with the transitional state of the “temporarily obliged”. Believing that they are hiding from them true meaning reforms, the peasants rebelled, demanding liberation with the land. Troops were used to suppress the largest uprisings, accompanied by the seizure of power, as in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province). In total, more than two thousand performances were recorded. However, by the summer of 1861, the unrest began to subside.

Initially, the period of stay in a temporary state was not established, so the peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, approximately 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed on the mandatory transition to buyout within two years. During this period, redemption transactions had to be concluded or the right to land plots would be lost. In 1883, the category of temporarily obliged peasants disappeared. Some of them executed redemption transactions, some lost their land.

The peasant reform of 1861 was of great historical significance. It opened up new prospects for Russia, creating an opportunity for the broad development of market relations. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other major transformations aimed at creating a civil society in Russia.

For this reform, Alexander II began to be called Tsar the Liberator.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources