Pages of history. History of Russia XIX–XX centuries

dynastic throne nicholas reign

Emperor Nicholas I was a staunch opponent of serfdom. From the very beginning of his reign, he conscientiously tried to resolve the issue of its abolition, creating several secret committees on the peasant issue, but in 1842 he came to the conclusion: “There is no doubt that serfdom in its current situation, we have an evil that is palpable and obvious to everyone, but to touch it now would be an even more disastrous thing." He approved the beginning of the reform of the state village, and in the 1840s he issued a number of decrees expanding personal and property rights serfs, but never decided on a complete peasant reform, believing that Russia was not yet ready for this.

The history of Russia of the so-called imperial or St. Petersburg period still appears before us as the history of wars marked by the brilliant victories of Russian weapons and the steady expansion and rounding of imperial borders. Ekshtut S. I’ll see you, oh friends! Unoppressed people, Rodina, No. 2, 2008

The winners, who marched from Moscow to Paris with arms in their hands, saw with their own eyes that they lived worse than the vanquished. And then they asked themselves: why is this possible?

This is how the Decembrist Alexander Bestuzhev-Marlinsky wrote about this to Emperor Nicholas I in a letter from Peter and Paul Fortress: “The war was still going on when the warriors, returning to their homes, were the first to spread murmurs among the class of the people. “We shed blood,” they said, “and we are again forced to sweat in corvee labor. We have delivered our homeland from a tyrant, but the gentlemen are tyrannizing us again.” The troops, from generals to soldiers, when they came back, only talked: “How good it is in foreign lands.” Comparison with our own naturally raised the question: why isn’t it the same with us?” The militias from among the serfs who took part in the hostilities believed that after the victory they themselves and their families would be granted freedom from serfdom. And although this, as we know, did not happen, the comparison of the lives of the victors and the vanquished, unfavorable for Russia, was firmly rooted in the minds of the serfs.

Not only the monarchs themselves, but also their well-meaning subjects understood perfectly well that a hasty resolution of this issue, instead of achieving the common good, would lead to great disaster: rampant self-will and the collapse of the state. The essence of these well-founded fears was very precisely and clearly formulated by officials III Division- secret political police- in “Review of the Arrangement of Minds and various parts government controlled in 1834”: “...Our peasant does not have an accurate concept of freedom and confuses will with self-will. And therefore, while on the one hand it is recognized as necessary for the government to gradually move closer to the goal of liberating the peasants from serfdom, on the other hand, everyone is confident that any careless, too hasty measure in this matter should have harmful effects for public peace." It was the government’s conscious desire to avoid bloody peasant unrest and the new Pugachevism, as well as a well-conscious desire to maintain public peace at any cost - all this for decades determined the slowness of action supreme power. Ekshtut S. I’ll see you, oh friends! Unoppressed people, Rodina, No. 2, 2008

Over a hundred-year history of existence peasant question in Russia, the idea of abolishing serfdom had its enthusiastic supporters from among the nobles and there were staunch opponents who belonged to the same class. The dividing line between the two cannot be drawn either by property or by education. Supporters of the abolition of serfdom argued in moral terms and appealed to the spirit of the times and experience European countries. Their opponents referred to historical tradition sanctified by the authority of centuries. However, neither one nor the other could imagine how to run a household without serfs. In his youth, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin could write the following lines:

I'll see, oh friends! unoppressed people

And Slavery, which fell due to the king’s mania,

And over the fatherland of enlightened freedom

Will the beautiful dawn finally rise?

At this time, Pushkin had neither property nor family. Almost a decade and a half will pass, and a mature husband, burdened with a family, will begin to think differently: he will no longer see serfdom as exclusively absolute evil and will begin to think about the consequences that its hasty abolition may entail. Without denying the horrors of serfdom and the landowners’ abuse of their rights, Pushkin will be forced to admit obvious fact: “There is a lot of abuse everywhere; criminal cases are terrible everywhere.”

Political lack of freedom and economic irresponsibility, which were cultivated throughout the St. Petersburg period of Russian history, contributed to the accumulation of many contradictions, which could be eliminated by evolutionary development it was impossible. It was a historical dead end. Ekshtut S. I’ll see you, oh friends! Unoppressed people, Rodina, No. 2, 2008

In general, we can talk about a radical change in guidelines public consciousness for many controversial issues eventful history of Russia.

Enslavement of people in Rus' existed back in the eleventh century. Already Kievan Rus And Novgorod Republic They widely used the labor of unfree peasants, who were called smerds, serfs and purchases.

At the dawn of development feudal relations peasants were enslaved by attracting them to work on land that belonged to the landowner. For this the feudal lord demanded a certain payment.

The origins of serfdom in Rus'

"Russian Truth"

Historians are inclined to think that the dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords arose during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, when the main set of laws was “Russian Truth”, which clearly delineated public relations between layers of the population.

During the Mongol-Tatar yoke, feudal dependence weakened somewhat due to the split of Rus'. In the 16th century, peasants had some freedom, but they were forbidden to move from place to place until payment for the use of the land was paid. The rights and obligations of the peasant were prescribed in the agreement between him and the owner of the land.

Here's to you, grandma, and St. George's Day!

With the reign of Ivan III, the situation of the peasants worsened sharply, as he began to limit their rights at the legislative level. At first, peasants were forbidden to move from one feudal lord to another except for the week before and the week after St. George’s Day, then they were allowed to leave him only in certain years. Often the peasant became an unpaid debtor, continuing to borrow bread, money, and agricultural tools from the landowner and falling into bondage to his creditor. The only way out there was escape from such a situation.

Serf means attached

Existed decree, according to which fugitive peasants who had not paid payment for the use of land were to be look for And to return to their previous place of residence and work. At first, the period for searching for fugitives was five years, then, with the accession of the Romanovs and the coming to power of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, it increased to fifteen, and the dependence of the peasants was finally consolidated." Cathedral Code» 1649, ordering the peasant to remain for life in that locality, to which it was attached according to the results of the population census, that is, it became “strong”. If a peasant “on the run” gave his daughter in marriage, the found family was returned in its entirety to the former landowner.

At the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. ekov, transactions of purchase and sale of serfs between landowners became commonplace. Serfs lost their legal and civil rights and ended up in slavery.

Souls - living and dead

Most serfdom tightened during the times of Peter I and Catherine I. I. Relations between the peasant and the landowner were no longer built on the basis of an agreement, they were enshrined in a government act. Both slaves and purchases moved into the category of serfs, or souls. Estates began to be inherited along with souls. They had no rights - they were allowed to marry, sell, separate parents from children, use Physical punishment.

Interesting to know: on the Ugra River under Prince Ivan III.

Attempts to alleviate the plight of the serfs

The first attempt to limit and subsequently abolish slavery was made Russian Emperor Paul I in 1797.

In his “Manifesto on three-day corvee“The sovereign introduced legal restrictions on the use of serf labor: for the benefit of the royal court and masters, one had to work three days a week with a mandatory Sunday day off. The peasants had three more days to work for themselves. On Sunday it was prescribed to attend an Orthodox church.

Taking advantage of the illiteracy and lack of enlightenment of the serfs, many landowners ignored the royal legislative act and forced peasants to work for weeks, often depriving them of a day off.

Serfdom was not widespread throughout the entire territory of the state: it did not exist in the Caucasus, in the Cossack regions, in a number of Asian provinces, in Far East, Alaska and Finland. Many progressive nobles began to think about its abolition. In enlightened Europe, slavery did not exist; Russia lagged behind European countries in terms of socio-economic development, because the lack of labor of civilian workers hampered industrial progress. Feudal farms fell into decay, and discontent grew among the serf peasants themselves, turning into riots. These were the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom.

In 1803 Alexander I issued the “Decree on Free Plowmen”. According to the decree, peasants were allowed to enter into an agreement with the landowner for a ransom, according to which they could receive freedom and a plot of land in addition. If the obligations given by the peasant were not fulfilled, he could be forcibly returned to the master. At the same time, the landowner could release the serf free of charge. They began to prohibit the sale of serfs at fairs, and later, when selling peasants, it was not allowed to separate families. However, Alexander I managed to completely abolish serfdom only in the Baltic states - Baltic provinces Estland, Livonia and Courland.

The peasants increasingly hoped that their dependence was temporary, and they endured it with Christian fortitude. During Patriotic War 1812, when he hoped to enter Russia in triumph and see the serfs greeting him as a liberator, it was they who gave him a powerful rebuff, uniting in the ranks of the militia.

Emperor Nicholas I also tried to abolish serfdom, for which, on his instructions, special commissions were created and the law “On Obligated Peasants” was issued, according to which peasants had the opportunity to be freed by the landowner, the latter had to allocate a plot of land. For the use of the allotment, the peasant was obliged to bear duties in favor of the landowner. However, this law was not recognized by the bulk of the nobles who did not want to part with their slaves.

Historians explain Nicholas I’s indecision on this issue by the fact that after the Decembrist uprising, he feared the rise of the masses, which, in his opinion, could happen if they were given the long-awaited freedom.

The situation became increasingly worse: economic situation Russia after the war with Napoleon was shaky, the labor of the serfs was unproductive, and in the years of famine the landowners also had to support them. The abolition of serfdom was just around the corner.

"Destroy from Above"

With accession to the throne in 1855 Alexander I. I., son of Nicholas I, significant changes took place. The new sovereign, distinguished by his political foresight and flexibility, immediately began to talk about the need to resolve the peasant issue and carry out reforms: “It is better to destroy serfdom from above than for it to begin to be destroyed from below.”

Understanding the need forward movement Russia, the development of the capitalist system in the state, the formation of the labor market for hired workers and at the same time maintaining a stable position of the autocratic system, Alexander I. I. in January 1857 created the Secret Committee, later renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, which began preparations for the gradual emancipation of the serfs.

Causes:

a crisis serf system;
lost, after which they especially intensified popular unrest;
the need for the formation of the bourgeoisie as a new class.

The moral side of the issue played a significant role: many nobles with progressive views were outraged by a relic of the past - legalized slavery in European state.

There was a wide discussion in the country about the planned peasant reform, the main idea of which was to provide peasants with personal freedom.

The land was still supposed to remain in the possession of the landowners, but they were obliged to provide it for the use of former serfs for serving corvee or paying quitrent, until they could finally redeem it. The country's agricultural economy was to consist of large landowners and small peasant farms.

The year of the abolition of serfdom was 1861. It was this year, on February 19, on Forgiveness Sunday, on the sixth anniversary of the accession to the throne of Alexander I. I., that the document “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants” - the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom - was signed.

Main provisions of the document:

Alexander II personally proclaimed the Manifesto to the people at the Mikhailovsky Manege in St. Petersburg. The Emperor began to be called the Liberator. Yesterday's serfs, freed from the tutelage of the landowner, peasant reform 1861 made it possible to move to a new place of residence, marry of one’s own free will, study, get a job, and even move into the bourgeois and merchant classes. From that moment on, scientists believe, peasants began to have surnames.

Consequences of the reform

However, the enthusiasm with which the manifesto was greeted quickly faded. The peasants were waiting complete liberation and were disappointed that they had to bear the label of “temporarily obliged”, demanding that land plots be allocated to them.

Feeling deceived, people began to organize riots, which the king sent troops to suppress. Within six months, more than a thousand uprisings broke out in different parts of the country.

The plots of land allocated to peasants were not large enough to feed themselves and generate income from them. On average, one farm accounted for three dessiatines of land, and for its profitability five or six were required.

Landowners, deprived of free labor, were forced to mechanize agricultural production, but not everyone was ready for this and many simply went bankrupt.

The so-called courtyard people, who had no property and were not allocated land, were also released. At that time they were about 6 percent of total number serfs. Such people found themselves practically on the street, without a means of subsistence. Some went to the cities and got a job, while others took the path of crime, engaging in robbery and robbery, and engaging in terrorism. It is known that two decades after the proclamation of the Manifesto, members of the People's Will, from among the descendants of former serfs, killed the sovereign liberator Alexander I. I.

But in general the reform of 1861 had a huge historical meaning :

Market relations characteristic of a capitalist state began to develop.
New social strata of the population were formed - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Russia took the path of transformation into a bourgeois monarchy, which was facilitated by the government’s adoption of other important reforms, including the Constitution.
Plants and factories began to be built rapidly, industrial enterprises to stop people's dissatisfaction with their jobs. In this regard, there has been an increase industrial production, which put Russia on a par with the leading world powers.

As always, the main issue in Russia remained the peasant question, the solution of which became the solution of others. complex issues domestic policy. For Nicholas I, the economic, political and moral damage suffered by Russian society from the existence of serfdom - this slavery in the Russian version. More than once he himself publicly condemned the violence of the serf owners and spoke about the love of humanity that should be inherent in a landowner who plays the role of a father, a commander for his peasants. Therefore, from the very beginning of his reign, he took up the peasant problem. On December 6, 1826, a secret Committee was created under the leadership of an old associate of Alexander I, Count V.P. Kochubey, which began to consider ways to transform serfdom with the prospect of its abolition in the future. But the work of the Committee of 1826, like others similar to it, created by decrees of the emperor in 1835, 1839, 1840, 1844 and 1848, was not crowned with success, and the final goal - the abolition of serfdom - was not achieved during the entire thirty-year reign of Nicholas I.

The reasons for Nikolai’s conservatism have already been mentioned above. He adhered to ideas that envisaged the abolition of serfdom in the infinitely distant future, with the constant preservation land ownership from the landowners. This line of thought of the emperor is clearly visible in his speech at a meeting of the State Council on March 30, 1842:

There is no doubt that serfdom in our current situation is a tangible and obvious evil for everyone; but to touch it now would be an evil, of course, even more disastrous. Emperor Alexander I, whose intention at the beginning of his reign was to grant freedom to serfs, subsequently deviated from this idea as still completely premature and impossible to implement. I will also never dare to do this: if the time when it will be possible to begin this is still far away, then in the present era any thought about this would only be a criminal encroachment on public peace and the good of the state. Pugachev riot proved to what extent the riot of the mob can reach.

At the same time, as a person not deprived common sense, the emperor understood that such a situation could not last forever. Therefore, in the same speech, he contradicted himself and stated:

But one cannot hide from oneself that now thoughts are no longer the same as they were before; it is clear to any prudent observer that the current situation cannot continue forever... But if the present situation... is such that it cannot continue, and decisive measures without a general shock are impossible, then it is necessary, at the very least, to prepare the means for a gradual transition to a different order of things and, without fearing any change, to calmly discuss its benefits and consequences.

This is how Nicholas I lived until the end of his days, hesitating between the consciousness of the inevitability of change and the fear of the abolition of serfdom to destroy the entire system of power. As the historian A. A. Kiesewetter wrote, pens creaked, mountains of paper were written on, commissions and committees continually replaced each other, and the activities of the ruling spheres bore all the visible features of intensive work. But this paper work was not really reflected in real life... It was a continuous bureaucratic “running in place.” Only attraction to government work living social forces could have given real significance to the government’s transformative attempts, but such involvement was precisely not part of the political program of Nicholas’s reign.

But let’s not be like the historians of Soviet times, who did not see a single positive moment in the reign of, as they wrote, “Nikolai Palkin.” The reign of Nicholas I shows that even in such dark times, ideological material for reforms gradually accumulated. The fact that the monarch spoke about the immorality of serfdom and condemned the cruel serf owners who had forgotten about philanthropy could not go in vain. Little by little, society was preparing for the abolition of serfdom through the activities of committees on the peasant question, extensive notes from officials and nobles on this topic, and finally, Kiselev’s very useful work for the future in streamlining the status state peasants. One cannot discount those half-hearted, but overall positive laws that Nicholas I adopted.

We are talking about laws that were adopted during the work of the Commission of 1826: according to one law, landowners were deprived of the right to sell land without peasants (which previously left peasants without a livelihood), and according to another, landowners were prohibited from sending peasants to hard mining -factory work. Later it was forbidden to sell serfs at public auction and separate their families, as well as send old serfs to Siberia. State guardianship - control over the estates of particularly cruel landowners - also became more thorough. And although these decrees were poorly executed, all these undertakings of Nicholas were not in vain, they worked for the future. But for the people of the Nicholas era, the realization that they were not living in vain did not make it any easier - the present was very sad.

Notes in the margins

This was the tragedy of Russian history at that time: the overdue changes never began and did not begin, dooming people to disappointment and pessimism. At the same time, in Nikolaev society there was clearly a lack of living forces, people thirsting for change. It was a time of stagnation and apathy. Tragedy on Senate Square was a tragedy for the entire Russian society. Talented, active people with progressive views found themselves either in exile in Siberia or the Caucasus, or, disunited and intimidated, sought peace at home, pursuing a bureaucratic career. The noble revolutionism was fading away. One of Nicholas I’s contemporaries joked that women remained the bravest men in Russian society, and Gogol’s heroes – the Nozdryovs, Manilovs, Chichikovs, Sobakevichs – were generalized portraits of real contemporaries of Nicholas I’s generation. It was necessary to wait for the arrival of a new generation capable of changing life...

SERFDOM

Nikolai's speech I at a meeting of the State Council on March 30, 1842

The memorable March 30th arrived. No special summons was sent out to the members, and for all that, due, of course, to rumors that had spread, even the most inaccurate ones gathered in advance. At 20 minutes on the 12th, Emperor Nicholas, accompanied only by the sovereign heir and without any meeting, quickly entered the meeting hall, looked at everyone present with a glance and a smile of greeting, shook hands with Prince Vasilchikov and took the place of the chairman not of the Council, but of the Department of Laws, Count Bludov, who moved slightly to the left, so that the sovereign had to sit between him and the speaker, diagonally from Vasilchikov, who remained in his usual place. The meeting consisted of 34 members ii.

The only things missing were Prince Volkonsky and Count Kiselyov, who entered a few minutes later, and Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, for whom a messenger was immediately sent. The Emperor was in a Horse Guards uniform, and the members, being not informed about the officer uniform, were in ordinary Soviet uniform, without ribbons. When everyone sat down, the sovereign, sitting, made the following speech iii:

“Before hearing the case for which we have assembled, I consider it necessary to acquaint the Council with my way of thinking on this subject and with the motives that guided me in it. 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 have been even more disastrous. The late Emperor Alexander at the beginning of his reign had the intention of giving serfs freedom, but then he himself deviated from his idea as completely premature and impossible to implement. I will also never dare to do this, considering that if the time when it will be possible to begin such a measure is generally still very far away, then in the present era any thought about this would be nothing more than a criminal encroachment on public peace and good of the state. The Pugachev rebellion proved to what extent the riot of the mob can reach. Subsequent events and attempts of this kind have so far always been happily stopped, which, of course, will continue to be the same subject of special and, with God's help, successful care of the government. But one cannot hide from oneself that now thoughts are no longer the same as they were before, and it is clear to any prudent observer that the current situation cannot continue forever. The reasons for this change of thoughts and more often repeated in Lately I cannot help but attribute most of my worries to two reasons: firstly, to the own carelessness of the landowners, who give their serfs a higher education unusual for the state of the latter, and through this, developing in them new circle concepts, make their situation even more painful; secondly, to the fact that some landowners - although, thanks to God, the smallest number of them - forgetting their noble duty, use their power for evil, and the noble leaders, as many of them themselves told me, do not find it necessary to stop such abuses means in the law, with almost no restrictions on the power of the landowners. But if the current situation is such that it cannot continue, and if, at the same time, methods decisive for ending it are also impossible without a general upheaval, then it is necessary, at least, to prepare ways for a gradual transition to a different order of things and, without fear of any change, coolly discuss its benefits and consequences. It should not give liberties, but should pave the way to a transitional state, and associate with it the inviolable protection of patrimonial ownership of the land. I consider this my sacred duty and the duty of those who will come after me, and the means, in my opinion, are fully presented in the draft decree now proposed to the Council. Firstly, it is not a new law, but only a consequence and, so to speak, a development of the law on free cultivators; secondly, it eliminates, however, the harmful beginning of this law - the alienation of land property from the landowners, which, on the contrary, it is so desirable to see forever inviolable in the hands of the nobility - an idea from which I will never deviate; thirdly, it directly expresses the will and conviction of the government that land is the property not of the peasants who are settled on it, but of the landowners - the same subject of paramount importance for future peace of mind; finally, fourthly, without any major revolutions, without even any kind of innovation, it gives every well-intentioned owner ways to improve the situation of his peasants and, without at all imposing on anyone the obligation of coercion, or restricting the right of property in any way, he leaves everything to the good will of everyone and the desire of his own heart. On the other hand, the project leaves peasants strong one the land on which they are recorded, and through this avoids the inconvenience of the provisions that have hitherto been in force in the Baltic provinces - provisions that brought the peasants to the most miserable state, turned them into farm laborers and prompted the local nobility to ask for exactly the same thing that is now offered here. Meanwhile, I repeat that everything must go gradually and cannot and should not be done at once or suddenly. The project contains only the main principles and first instructions. He opens to everyone, as I have already said, a way to follow, under the protection and assistance of the law, his heart’s desire. The protection of the interests of the landowners is based on their will and their own diligence, and the interests of the peasants will be protected through the consideration of conditions each time not only by the local authorities, but also by the highest government, with the approval of the autocratic authorities. It is now impossible to go further and forward to embrace all the other, perhaps very extensive and good developments of these main principles. When landowners who wish to take advantage of the decree will submit draft conditions based on localities and on various types Agriculture, then consideration of these conditions in the same order as now of contracts with free cultivators will indicate, according to their practical data, what needs and can be done in detail and what at the present time, about such a theory, with all caution and insight, cannot be foreseen in advance it is forbidden. But to postpone an undertaking, the benefits of which are obvious, and to postpone it only because some questions are deliberately left unresolved and some perplexities are foreseen for the first time, I do not find any reason. It is impossible to expect things to happen suddenly and everywhere. It wouldn't even fit our species either. Meanwhile, with its gradual and probably rather slow development at different points in the empire, experience will best and most reliably come to the rescue here. This experience will, without a doubt, resolve questions that now, without his help, seem difficult. The law must contain only the main principles; In particular, they will be resolved according to individual cases, and subsequently the total set of such cases will form the basis of a whole positive legislation. The present matter was dealt with for a very long time and in detail by a special committee to which it was entrusted from me, but, without hiding all its difficulties to myself, I did not dare to sign the decree without a new review in State Council. I always love the truth, gentlemen, and, relying on your experience and loyal zeal, I now invite you to express your thoughts with all frankness, without being embarrassed by my personal convictions. There is only one thing I cannot help but blame the Council with regret - precisely that public, naturally exaggerated popular rumor, the sources of which I attribute to inappropriate disclosures on the part of persons invested with my trust and obliged, by the very duty of their oath, to keep state secret. On this occasion, I am forced to confirm to convey to the entire meeting of the Council, so that henceforth the jury duty will be performed inviolably by both the members and the office, and I preface that if, beyond expectation, such disclosures again came to my attention, then I will immediately order the perpetrators to be judged according to the strictness of the laws, as a state crime.”

Here is an outline of what the sovereign said, but the outline is weak and lifeless, because paper is not living speech! As before the pen, the consciousness of inner, high dignity was expressed in every word, in every movement; this royal grandeur, this smoothly flowing stream of speech in which every word represented a thought; this sonorous, powerful organ, magnificent appearance, perfect calmness of posture, which so charmed the large assembly! The Emperor had long since finished, but everyone around him was still silent in reverent surprise. And it was precisely at this meeting, about which we so wanted to shout throughout all of Russia, that he imposed a vow and seal of silence on us!..

Following this speech, I read to the Council the departmental journal and the draft decree itself, which took about three-quarters of an hour, after which the Emperor repeated the invitation to the members to express their thoughts freely and frankly.

Collection Imp. Rus. history Obsch., vol. 98, pp. 114-117.

What was done during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I to limit serfdom

The idea of the need to abolish serfdom sooner or later was not alien to Nikolai Pavlovich even before his accession to the throne, both because it was carried out in his lectures by Academician Storch, who taught the Grand Duke political economy, and because it occupied his brother, Emperor Alexander I, who constantly collected projects on this subject. However, Nikolai Pavlovich came, according to his own testimony, to the conclusion that if his brother initially intended to give freedom to the serfs, then later he “deviated from this idea, as still completely premature and impossible to implement.”

However, the very first days of the reign of Emperor Nicholas should have convinced him that the best representatives of the younger generation looked at this issue differently: from the first interrogations of the arrested Decembrists, the sovereign who was present at them learned that one of the main reasons for public discontent was the inertia of the government in the liberation of the peasants - young people boldly and frankly expressed their thoughts on this subject. A year after ascending the throne, Emperor Nicholas established, on December 6, 1826, a secret committee, which was tasked with considering proposals regarding the improvement of various branches of government and administration and, by the way, regarding changes in the life of peasants, for which projects for this were also transferred to the committee question presented to the government in the previous reign. Even before the committee completed its work on December 6, 1826, by imperial command, a special committee was established to draw up a law to stop the sale of people without land. When there was a disagreement in the State Council regarding the sale of peasants for transport, which arose during the discussion of the bills drawn up by these committees, the sovereign sided with the opinion of the majority, which spoke out in favor of prohibiting the landless sale of serfs without any exception. However, the committee's projects of December 6, 1826 were ultimately not approved due to the protest of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. From the conversation between Emperor Nicholas and Kiselev in 1834, we see that from the very moment he ascended the throne, the sovereign was collecting materials on the peasant case and planning to conduct a “trial” against “slavery, when the time comes to free the peasants throughout the Empire,” but did not meet with sympathy not only on the part of the ministers, who fearfully retreat before this issue, but also on the part of their brothers, Konstantin and Mikhail.

Nevertheless, the sovereign categorically expressed in a conversation with Kiselev the conviction that he should “hand over this matter to his son with possible relief in execution,” that is, seriously prepare his final decision. Realizing his inexperience and unpreparedness in this regard, Emperor Nicholas was extremely pleased that he had found such an assistant as Kiselev, who, while managing the Danube principalities, was involved in regulating the situation of the peasants living on the owner's lands. The following year, 1835, the sovereign established a new secret committee, one of whose tasks was to take measures to improve the condition of the landowner peasants, but whose activities did not have any practical results for the serf population of Russia.

At the end of 1839, Emperor Nicholas again established a secret committee, which was supposed to exclusively deal with the issue of changing the life of the serfs. In March 1840, a member of this committee, Kiselev, proposed the following program of measures to the sovereign to weaken the power of the landowners and free the serfs: 1) organizing the life of the courtyard people; 2) fulfillment of conscription duty by landowner peasants on the basis of general rules established regarding its service for other classes; 3) assigning certain land plots to peasants and granting them ownership rights to movable property; 4) restriction of the right of landowners to punish peasants; 5) the establishment of rural administration for serf peasants, preserving the influence of landowners, but at the same time granting peasants the right to apply to courts on an equal basis with free cultivators.

The Tsar found all these assumptions “very fair and thorough” and allowed them to be submitted to the committee, but when Kiselev drew up a detailed project that included only part of these assumptions, namely the definition of allotments and duties of peasants, the Tsar ordered to announce to the committee in February 1841 that he did not and does not have the intention to give the proposed change in the law on free cultivators the force of a mandatory resolution and that the dismissal of peasants as obliged should be based on the own desire of the landowners. Such a command, in its general meaning, of course, reinforced the opinion of the committee members who protested against the establishment of any mandatory standards of duties when converting serfs into obligated peasants.

In March 1842, the sovereign gave a whole speech in the State Council before discussing the law on obligated peasants, in which, among other things, he said that “he will never dare to grant freedom to serfs,” that the time when this can be started is still very far away and that now “any thought about this would only be a criminal attack on public peace and the good of the state.” But if, in the opinion of the sovereign, “the serfs should not be given liberties,” then “the way should be opened to another transitional state” on the basis of voluntary agreements between landowners and peasants. The most important thing in this speech was the decisive condemnation of the dispossession of peasants in the Baltic region, and then the statement that this law is only the first step towards limiting serfdom: taking advantage of the agreements that will be concluded on the basis of this decree, and the detailed regulation in them of the relations of landowners to the peasants, the sovereign intended to subsequently issue a detailed law, which, as one must assume based on his mention of positive legislation, he intended to make mandatory for the owners of inhabited estates, but at the present time he did not want to put pressure on them.

When, at the same meeting, Prince. D.V. Golitsyn made the remark that if contracts are left to the will of the nobles, then hardly anyone will enter into them, and therefore it is better to directly limit the power of landowners to inventories, taking as a basis the decree of Emperor Paul on the three-day corvee, then the sovereign said: “ I, of course, am autocratic and autocratic, but I will never dare to take such a measure, just as I will not dare to order the landowners to conclude agreements: this should be their business good will, and only experience will indicate to what extent it will be possible to move from voluntary to compulsory.”

But regarding Western Russia, Emperor Nicholas held different views: in March 1840, on the resolution of the committee of western provinces, he wrote: “I believe that it is possible to decisively order the introduction into the landowners’ estates of those inventories with which the government itself is content with on rented estates. If this results in some restriction on the rights of the landowners, then it directly concerns the welfare of their serfs and should not at all stop the good goal of the government,” and soon after that he ordered the introduction of inventories within a four-month period. When it was not possible to fulfill this order so quickly, then in February 1841, a few days before the announcement to the committee on obligated peasants that the dismissal of serfs as obligated should be based on the own desire of the landowners, Emperor Nicholas, in a report of the committee of the western provinces, concluded the assumption of introduction of mandatory inventory in this region, wrote: “Don’t delay this matter, I consider it especially important and expect great benefits from this measure.”

In 1840, Emperor Nicholas established a secret committee to improve the life of the courtyards, which had only three meetings, after which it was ordered to leave this matter until a convenient time. In 1843, the sovereign instructed the Minister of Internal Affairs Perovsky to present his views on the issue of courtyards and, when he fulfilled this requirement, he established a new secret committee on the organization of their life, in which he himself took an intimate part, he agreed to some unimportant measures aimed mainly to reduce the number of courtyards, but at the same time stated that “direct prohibition on landowners taking from peasants into courtyards should be avoided to the last extreme.” He immediately said that the thought of changing our serfdom never left him from the very accession to the throne and that, considering the gradualness of measures to be the first condition in this matter, he decided to start with the courtyard people, but then again repeated that the prohibition for landowners to transfer peasants in the courtyard is “decidedly impossible for a long time.” Considering it useful to issue loans from the treasury to the courtyards, whose owners will set them free for a certain payment, the sovereign decided to allocate for this purpose up to 100,000 rubles for the first case, but this is an assumption of how much we know, it was not fulfilled. Law of 1844 on the redemption of courtyard servants, former result the activities of this committee did not have any significant consequences.

In 1846, to consider the note of the Minister of Internal Affairs Perovsky “On the abolition of serfdom in Russia,” a secret committee was again established, which recognized that it was timely only to take measures to protect the movable property of serfs from the unfair claims of landowners, which Emperor Nicholas ordered to be carried out. But in the same year, even earlier than this command of the sovereign was carried out, the Committee of Ministers raised the issue of granting serfs “the right to property” in relation to real estate, which the sovereign ordered to do immediately, saying on this occasion to Kiselev: “As long as a person is a thing , belonging to another, his movable property cannot be recognized as property, but on occasion and in turn this will be done.” However, new assumptions led in March 1848 to an insignificant result - to the permission to acquire real estate only with the consent of the landowner, and with the prohibition of starting any disputes regarding real estate previously purchased by serfs in the name of the landowners.

When Baron Korf raised the question of extending to the whole of Russia the right of Georgian peasants to buy their freedom when selling populated estates at auction, the sovereign reacted with full sympathy to this proposal and, gathering a “cell” committee to discuss it, declared that “ he considers the benefits and main principles” of this matter to have already been decided iv, and thanks to this, almost the only time, decisiveness revealed by Emperor Nicholas regarding the peasant issue in own Russia there was no delay in issuing a decree on this subject (November 8, 1847); but intensified agitation began against this government measure on the part of our serf owners, and the unfavorable rumors they spread and even written protests sent to the sovereign had to be considered in two committees, of which the first was established at the beginning of 1848 and very quickly ended its activities, and the second at the end of the year he prepared a secret cancellation of the decree of November 8. The appeal of Emperor Nicholas to the Smolensk nobles dates back to 1847, expressing his desire that they respond to the government’s call regarding the conversion of serfs into serfs, and in a speech to the deputies of the Smolensk nobility, the sovereign, among other things, said that “the peasant who is now in a state of serfdom almost not by right, but by custom, after a long time cannot be considered property, much less a thing.” But already at the end of the same year, one landowner, who sent a note to the heir-Tsarevich on the peasant issue, received the following answer: the Tsarevich knows that the sovereign “has no intention of changing the real relations of the landowner peasants to their owners”; After that, the Smolensk nobility (from among whom a group of landowners of 13 people sent a collective project on peasant affairs) was officially given to know that the sovereign “does not want private subscriptions to be made, but that everyone has to be guided by the decree of April 2, 1842 separately »v, and finally, at the beginning of 1849, the opinion of the Smolensk provincial leader of the nobility, Prince Drutsky-Sokolinsky, imbued with the most serf-dominated tendencies, earned the approval of the sovereign. The reaction that began with us February revolution in France, caused persecution of even very moderate protests against serfdom in the press. The sovereign showed some decisiveness only regarding the southwestern region, for which inventory rules were approved initially on May 26, 1847, and then in new edition December 29, 1848, when there was no longer anything to think about the progressive movement in peasant affairs in our own Russia vi.

Thus, Emperor Nicholas, for all his good intentions in the peasant question, with a clear consciousness of the need to abolish serfdom, if not under him, then at least in the next reign, and the urgency of serious preparation for this measure, discovered such indecisiveness in this relation that the activities of 9 “secret”, “cell” and “special” committees did not have any serious consequences, since among the measures they prepared, the only two that aroused hopes were the law on obligated peasants and the permission to buy their freedom when selling at auction , - did not bring almost any benefit: the first - due to the extreme inertia of the nobility and the indifference of its vast majority to the peasant issue, and the second - due to its speedy abolition; only the activities of the tenth committee (on the western provinces), with the assistance of the energetic Governor-General of the southwestern region D.G. Bibikov, were not without useful results to a certain extent. One of the main reasons that the activities of a number of government commissions remained fruitless was the extreme fear of publicity, so necessary in this matter, and the unfounded confidence that such a complex matter as the limitation of serfdom could be discussed and prepared exclusively by bureaucratic means, without assistance from society and the press; hence the reluctance to allow any kind of public initiative among the nobility and the prohibition of representatives of science, literature and journalism from assisting the government in that sacred task, which it took on so hesitantly. We saw with what ardent sympathy even people considered as extreme as Belinsky treated the government’s intentions regarding the peasant cause; It is clear what powerful assistance these leading figures could provide to the government, some by directly discussing measures that are so necessary, others by humanizing society through their fiction and other literary works dedicated to protecting the interests of the enslaved peasantry. But the government with the greatest intolerance rejected the assistance of these people, and among the highest administration, the Chernyshevs, Orlovs, and Perovskys slowed down the initiative of Kiselev, the only more energetic person in peasant business, and sometimes brought to naught the good initiatives that formed the basis of the activities of one or another committee. If, however, thanks to this opposition from those directly surrounding the sovereign, his dreams of preparing the fall of serfdom did not lead to any strict measures aimed at limiting it, then nevertheless the recognition of the sovereign that he is obliged to act as far as possible in this direction, gave rise to a whole series of individual, although not particularly important, but quite numerous legitimizations, which in some ways limited the power of the landowners and the spread of serfdom.

If we compare the demands expressed by various committees, members of the administration and private individuals regarding the limitation of serfdom, with what was actually done for this purpose during the reign of Emperor Nicholas, then we will see that the limitation of serfdom during this era moved forward very little, not to mention, of course, the emancipation of the serfs, the need for which our society has become more and more aware of, but which the government was afraid to even think about. We have seen to what extent the question of prohibiting the sale of serfs without land was ripe, but its complete prohibition did not follow, but it was only not allowed to separate family members, it was forbidden to accept serfs without land to secure and satisfy private debts and to buy them without land otherwise , as with a postscript to inhabited estates. The duties of peasants were precisely defined only in the southwestern region. No decisive measures were taken to organize the life of the courtyard servants, since the decrees of 1844 cannot be taken into account; nothing was done regarding granting property rights to peasants, since the decree of March 3, 1848 was not a step forward, but rather backward. The amount of ransom for which one can purchase freedom has not been established. The extension in 1847 to the whole of Russia of the right to redeem freedom when selling estates at public auction was canceled less than two years later. The decree on obligated peasants, as an optional measure, did not bear almost any fruit. A small number of souls were also freed as a result of the purchase of estates for the treasury. Thus, with the exception of private, incomplete measures regarding the sale without land and the limitation of duties in only one area of Russia, nothing serious was done, but it is very important that in the Nicholas era, in government spheres, a conviction was developed in the need to allocate land to the peasants after the destruction of the serfs rights.

V.I. Semevsky. "The Peasant Question in Russia." Vol. II, pp. 529-535 and 568-569.

Peasant revolts

The peasants of the Yaroslavl estate of the landowner Shch-voy, although they did not revolt, stubbornly refused to pay the quitrent and expressed disrespect to their superiors, even to the civil governor himself. The commission sentenced: 5 of the main culprits to be punished with a whip and exiled to Siberia for settlement, one, who has more than 70 years of age, to be exiled without being punished with a whip; the remaining 89 should be punished with whips and batogs and left in the estate, and as soon as the peasants express repentance during the execution of the punishment, then the punishment will be suspended and the most merciful forgiveness will be declared to the peasants; In total, there were 441 male souls in the estate, the committee replaced the punishment with a whip for the main five culprits, deciding to drive them through the gauntlet twice through 1000 people. The Committee's regulations were approved.

The peasants of the Grodno landowners Yu-v were sentenced by the commission for disobedience: the main culprits were sentenced to punishment with lashes and exile to Siberia for settlement, the less guilty - to punishment with lashes; The committee decided to replace the punishment with lashes by running them through a gauntlet of 500 people once at a time, which was approved.

Another time, the commission sentenced 10 peasants of the Yaroslavl estate of the 3rd to be deprived of their bellies; The governor commuted the sentence, determining: the three more guilty should be punished with 30-40 blows of the whip and exiled to Siberia, and the rest should be punished with whips and left in the estate. The committee not only agreed with the governor's verdict, but also decided to severely reprimand the members of the commission for her verdict. The committee's position was approved.

In 1845, the peasants of the heirs of D-va (Podolsk province), dissatisfied with the management of the foreigner Schmidt, who was entrusted with the estate, after night meetings in the priest’s house, not only disobeyed, but also did not allow those peasants who did not participate in their conspiracy to work. It took the intervention of troops, there were 2,700 peasants in the estate, and only after the punishment of 32 outstanding rebels did the population calm down. During the investigation, some peasants slandered the priest, as if he had persuaded them to seek the establishment of a two-day corvee, but the investigation also discovered that the economy of the estate required the peasants to work beyond the specified three-day corvee. The military court commission sentenced: one peasant to 30 lashes, branding and hard labor for 4 years; 14 peasants - to punishment with 80 blows of rods and to prison companies for 4 years; 29 people were punished with 50 blows of the rod, the commission left the local priest in strong suspicion, and fined the manager of the estate; one member of the military judicial commission submitted a separate opinion: in his opinion, there was no “indignation” either before the arrival of the police officer or after his arrival; Meanwhile, 37 peasants were captured and imprisoned, and 18 of them were in prison; The governor responded to the last remark by explaining that such a significant mortality rate occurred because the elderly peasants, in a debilitating state, were suddenly exposed to a change in air and were deprived of all movement. Governor-General Bibikov gave the following conclusion: there was unrest between the peasants, they, no doubt, showed unacceptable insolence, but, firstly, they submitted to the authorities quickly, and secondly, the very unrest between them arose because they suffered injustices, oh which they wanted to calmly explain to the son of their deceased owner, but the latter did not want to listen to them, then the peasants sought protection from outsiders, so their fate deserves relief. Based on this conclusion, the Minister of Internal Affairs proposed to the committee to impose the following punishments on the peasants: one main culprit should be subjected to 80 blows of rods and exiled to a settlement in Siberia, the rest, having been punished with rods, should be left in place in the estate; The committee agreed with this definition, but also ordered the priest, suspected of complicity with the peasants, to be transferred to another place. The position of the committee was approved by the sovereign.

The landowner of the Simbirsk province, Gl-v, punished the peasant with rods; the punished man fled from prison to his father, with whom he died on the sixth day after the punishment, according to the landowner, from cholera. The landowner justified himself by saying that he made the order for punishment in the most upset state of mind from the peasant’s rudeness. Three neighboring landowners stated that they had nothing but good things to say about G-ve, that he was one of the most caring and caring owners; The meeting of leaders and deputies of the nobility decided: since Glav never treated his peasants cruelly, then, according to the law, his estate cannot be taken into custody, but he should be reprimanded. The governor recognized this definition as weak due to the fact that the punished person had been in custody for a whole week. The Senate agreed with the governor: the action of the landowner, according to his definition, is subject to criminal trial, and the governor’s authorities should make sure of the situation of the peasants. The Senate's determination was adopted by the committee and approved by the sovereign.

Peasant women of the D-kago estate ( Tambov province) killed the manager and mutilated his corpse. Without denying the fact, the peasants showed that the late manager punished them unusually cruelly, especially women; the investigation confirmed the testimony of the peasants; It turned out that the peasants had complained before and made requests for protection, but were punished for this: the manager did not even let them go to confession without those who were absent introducing another worker in their place. The Senate, having passed the verdict, decided to petition for a mitigation of the fate of the criminals; The committee decided: the instigator of the crime, punished with whips, should be sent to hard labor for 18 years, nine peasant women should be punished with whips and sent to hard labor for 6 to 12 years, and 11 people should be punished with rods. In addition, the committee decided that the following were subject to strict punishment: the district leader of the nobility, the zemstvo police and the landowner D-oh, who kept such a manager. The Emperor wrote: “Execute, but, in addition to the first, the others sentenced to hard labor should be sent to settlement.”

One Pskov landowner N. and his wife were exposed for extremely cruel treatment of peasants and burdening them with work. When examining the case, the Senate demanded a response from the leader of the nobility, but he responded that he had not received any complaints from anyone about this landowner; The committee proposed: to reprimand the leader, and to bring the landowner and his wife to trial. Resolution: “It’s fair, and they should be tried under arrest.”

The peasants of the retired captain P-sky brought a complaint against the owner that he allegedly owned them incorrectly, since he was not the nephew of their late owner Samarina, but the son of the coachman Dmitriev; The peasants demanded that they were suffering great oppression and that the peasant Nikiforov, who discovered this imposture, was deprived of his life. Information was required. Ryazan Governor Kozhin replied that he could not find out anything that would confirm the peasants' complaint; The local gendarmerie staff officer, on the contrary, reported that there were rumors that the peasant Nikiforov had been kept under arrest for a long time in the barnyard and there he was poisoned by the servant Petrov and his wife. Then the governor ordered a formal investigation, sending officials to the estate; the peasants became agitated and refused to obey the owner. The investigation discovered that P-sky owned the peasants not by right of inheritance, but by deeds of 1840 and 1841, that until now all the peasants were happy with him, that Nikiforov’s death from poison was not at all confirmed, although Nikiforov was kept in a barnyard for a long time under arrest, but he was imprisoned by the late owner Samarina for escaping. The investigation discovered the following about P-sky’s personality: he was raised in the house of the landowner Samarin, as the son of the nobleman P-sky, and then entered the military service, in the Life Guards Uhlan regiment, and in 1829 he was dismissed due to illness, and it was registered: “From the Oryol nobles,” but Ippolit P-sky is not listed in the genealogical books of the province. According to information from the spiritual authorities, it was only revealed that Dmitriev, a servant of the landowner Samarin, had a son, Ippolit, registered with him. The peasants' unrest continued, and they were even noticeable danger signs in the surrounding estates, therefore, the manager of the Ministry of Internal Affairs proposed to stop all investigations, since P-sky has the full right to own the peasants, and, therefore, searches should not take place. The committee agreed with this opinion. The Emperor first ordered the case to be “presented separately,” and then the Minister of State Property was ordered to deal with P-sky’s estate, as in 1845 they did with the estate of Lieutenant Colonel Tatishchev, bought by the two Chulkov brothers. This case was as follows:

The children of Chulkov, Tatishchev's servant, received nobility and subsequently bought Tatishchev's estate, where their father had once been a servant, and settled in it with their father. The peasants, fearing that this same Chulkov might become their actual owner, complained, and the sovereign resolved the matter as follows: “Chulkov the father should be expelled from the estate, taken into custody, and the noble Chulkovs also forbidden to live until the matter is resolved. All this, as well as a note about the matter, should be transferred to the Committee of Ministers so that this property can be immediately assessed and acquired for the treasury, about which a decree can be prepared.”

To avoid publicity, the Chulkov estate was purchased in the name of Privy Councilor Nebolsin.

Two servants, Grigory Antonov and Afanasy Dementyev, cousins, serfs of the landowner of the Mogilev province L-sky, killed six in one day, but in different places, and wounded eight people of the noble class. Having received news of this in St. Petersburg, the sovereign ordered: “Send a fl. hell. Baranov, the whole case must be thoroughly investigated, the killers must be found and, upon capture, a military trial should be established on the estate both over them and over their participants and people who did not interfere with the murders, and the trial will be completed as quickly as possible.” Soon the criminals were caught; they showed the following: on January 19, 1846, some of the courtyard people of the landowner L-sky left at night without permission for a walk and returned home on the 20th at dawn, for which one of them, Ivka Yanishev, was punished with 20 rods; Hearing his screams, both criminals ran for knives and began their bloody massacre on the estate, killing several relatives of the landowner, but they failed to kill the landowner himself; then they seized two horses from the stable and galloped to the neighboring landowner P-mu - before reaching, they tied the horses, called the gentleman through his lackey, and one of the criminals, kissing P-sky’s hand, wounded him in the stomach with a knife; P-sky's wife ran out to hear the scream - the unfortunate woman suffered the same fate; the murderers burst into the house, wounded the governess, who began to give the criminal money, but they, saying: “We don’t need your money,” went out into the yard, mounted their horses and, telling P-sky’s people not to save their master, for This fate awaits not only their masters, but all the landowners of the province, that the peasants will not answer for this, but that, on the contrary, gendarmes are galloping behind them to check their actions; out of the six courtyard servants who were standing, only one fled and made an attempt to detain the murderers, but unsuccessfully. They managed to mortally wound the third landowner, K-sky and his wife; the servants who were here tried to grab them, but again failed. After all these murders, the brothers returned home, stopped by the miller, changed their clothes and disappeared, but not for long, and on January 27 they were caught. According to neighboring landowners, management on all three estates was good, especially on L-sky, who owned the criminals and where they began the murders. The murderers themselves were illegitimate, worked more for themselves than for the master, and had some wealth; the first brother could read, and the second could read and write both Russian and Polish; both had previously sought freedom, divulging rumors about liberation decrees and inventories, and both had previously threatened with rebellion. The criminals showed that they committed the crime without agreement, in a frenzy, they grabbed knives to prevent themselves from corporal punishment. The military court commission sentenced both killers to be run through a thousand people six times and then sent to hard labor; cousin after a thousand or two times they will be imprisoned forever in prison companies; three accused of complicity - after a thousand, one time each and imprisoned in prison companies for 4 years, and then exiled to Siberia for a settlement; the next category of accused shall be punished with 100-300 blows of the rod and left at their place of residence; One noblewoman, who heard talk of a riot and did not report it, was sentenced by the commission to be imprisoned for two months.

The governor secretly reported to the Belarusian governor-general the following: the crime committed is the subject of various absurd rumors, which all boil down to one topic - the overthrow of the landowners' power, and therefore, in order to put an end to the senseless and extremely harmful tales of the courtyard people and peasants and to calm the fear-stricken landowners, he , the governor, proposes to punish murderers with spitzrutens without rest 9 thousand times; In a secret report to the Governor-General, the governor also believed: after punishing criminals, hang their corpses at the crime scenes and order that at the place of punishment there should be at least two peasants from those estates where the peasants were noticed in disobedience.

Governor General Prince. Golitsyn, finding that the crimes committed went beyond the range of ordinary cases, since the criminals not only sought personal freedom, but also sought to overthrow the landowners’ power, proposed: having performed the ritual of preparation for death on the criminals, punish them with spitzrutens up to 9 thousand times and increase the punishment for other convicts .

The Minister of Internal Affairs in the committee explained that there is a secret highest command that it is forbidden to give more than 3 thousand instead of the 6 thousand times specified in the law, but in in this case the application of an unspoken command would have the effect of easing the fate of criminals, which they do not deserve at all; in addition, in 1845, the position of the committee was approved, which punished the murderers of the merchant E. with 6 thousand spitzrutens, and the same punishment was imposed on all deliberate arsonists; it is impossible to punish “without rest”, because it is allowed to give at a time no more than the number of blows that the person being punished can withstand, and then one should expect his recovery. Accepting the civil governor's proposal may do more harm than good; in general, it is clear from the case that the criminals acted in a fit of sudden bitterness and rage, and not by agreement, although, of course, their obvious hatred of the landowners cannot be denied.

On these grounds, Mr. Perovsky proposed: 1) the murderers should be punished according to the verdict of the commission; 2) punish their cousin Yakimov with 100 blows of the rod and send him to prison companies for 6 years; 3) peasants and servants guilty of failure to apprehend the murderers should be punished with 50-100 blows of the rod and left on their estates; 4) do not subject the weak-minded and decrepit among them to this punishment, charging them with detention as punishment, and, finally, do not prohibit the owners of all these peasants and servants, if they do not want to have them, to give them up as soldiers or send them to a settlement . The Committee of Ministers fully agreed with the conclusion of Mr. Perovsky; The committee's opinion was approved by the sovereign.

Very significant unrest also occurred in the Vitebsk province; Fl. was sent there to investigate the causes of the unrest. hell. Opochinin. Testifying to the restoration of calm and the fact that the peasants had already asked for forgiveness, Opochinin added that, according to his observations, the peasants were more sorry for their rashness with which they sold their livestock and upset their farms than they repented of their disobedience. Not only in the troubled districts, but also in those neighboring them, minds are still in ferment, and thoughts of freedom are sown everywhere: the popular crowd reinterprets in this sense every government measure, even every action of private individuals; Only one long stay of troops can, and then only temporarily, prevent unrest. The morality of the peasants, in Opochinin's opinion, has completely fallen, mainly as a result of the muckraking; the landowners have learned from experience that foreign peasants and peasants of other faiths hate them and are beginning to become convinced of the need for a radical change in serfdom; but this opinion, notes Opochinin, is not accepted unanimously; some of the owners are irrevocably ruined and in 1848 will be forced to feed the peasants, for which they have no means; they do not dare and cannot even count on the royal mercy that has benefited them so much during recent years; gr. Vielgorsky, for example, would be ready to give his estate to the government, but such a “desperate” desire cannot be fulfilled, because it would be a dangerous fulfillment of peasant hopes. Governor General Prince. Golitsyn presented his explanations of a somewhat more reassuring nature regarding this report; the fermentation of the peasant minds has calmed down somewhat, but it is still quite there, and in the minds the thought of freedom holds strong, although the presence of troops has its influence; the harmful influence that tavern has on the morality of the peasants will be eliminated after the introduction of an excise system for the sale of drinks, which has already been proposed; the heterogeneity and foreignness of landowners and peasants really divides both classes, and the former pay little attention to the position of the latter, treat them strictly, sometimes cruelly, but the introduction of inventories and granting the Ministry of State Property the right to buy defective estates can improve the situation of the peasants.

S.M. Seredonin. "Historical overview of the activities of the Committee of Ministers." St. Petersburg, 1902, vol. II, part 1, pp. 333-337 and 357-360.

Help, please, urgently!

“... 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 late Emperor Alexander, at the beginning of his reign, had the intention of giving serfs freedom, but then he himself deviated from his idea, as completely premature and impossible to implement. I will also never dare to do this, considering that if the time when it will be possible to begin such a measure is generally still very far away, then in the present era any thought about it would be nothing more than criminal trespass for public peace and for the benefit of the state. The Pugachev rebellion proved to what extent the riot of the mob can reach. Subsequent events and attempts of this kind have so far always been happily stopped, which, of course, will continue to be the same subject of special and, with God's help, successful care of the government. But one cannot hide from oneself that now thoughts are no longer the same as they were before, and it is clear to any prudent observer that the current situation cannot continue forever. The reasons for this change of thoughts and the worries that have been recurring more often lately, I cannot help but attribute most to two reasons: firstly, to the own carelessness of the landowners, who give their serfs a higher education unusual for the state of the latter, and through this, developing in them a new range of concepts make their situation even more difficult; secondly, to the fact that some landowners - although, thanks to God, the smallest number of them - forgetting their noble duty, use their power for evil, and the noble leaders, as many of them themselves told me, do not find means to suppress such abuses in the law, with almost no restrictions on the power of the landowners. But if the current situation is such that it cannot continue and if, at the same time, methods decisive for ending it are also impossible without a general upheaval, then it is necessary, at least, to prepare the way for a gradual transition to a different order of things and, without fearing Before any change, calmly discuss its benefits and consequences. It should not give liberties, but should pave the way to a transitional state, and with it connect the inviolable Protection of patrimonial ownership of the land. I consider this my sacred duty and the duty of those who will come after me, and the means, in my opinion, are fully presented in the draft decree now proposed to the Council. Firstly, it is not a new law, but only a consequence and, so to speak, a development of the law on free cultivators that has existed for forty years; secondly, it eliminates, however, the harmful beginning of this law - the alienation of land ownership from the landowners, which, on the contrary, it is so desirable to see forever inviolable in the hands of the nobility - a thought from which I will never deviate; thirdly, it directly expresses the will and conviction of the government that land is the property not of the peasants who are settled on it, but of the landowners - an object of the same paramount importance for future peace; finally, in the 4th, without any drastic revolutions, without even any kind of innovation, it gives every well-intentioned owner ways to improve the situation of his peasants and, without at all imposing on anyone a forced obligation, or restricting the right of ownership in any way, he leaves everything to good the will of each and the desire of his own heart. On the other hand, the project leaves the peasants strong in the land on which they are registered, and through this avoids the inconveniences of the provisions that have hitherto been in force in the Baltic provinces - provisions that brought the peasants to the most pitiful state, turned them into farm laborers and prompted the local nobility to ask specifically for the same as what is now offered here. Meanwhile, I repeat that everything must go gradually and cannot and should not be done at once or suddenly. The project contains only the main principles and first instructions. He opens to everyone, as I have already said, a way to follow, under the protection and assistance of the law, his heart’s desire...”

Questions about the presented document

1. About what decree we're talking about?
2. What reasons did the tsar give for the aggravation of the peasant question?
3. In your opinion, are they the main ones? Give your reasons.
4. What did Nicholas I see as the advantages of this decree?