The reign of Alexander II is usually called a period of large-scale changes in the life of society. Having ascended the throne after the death of his father Nicholas I, he received a country in a state of deep economic and social crisis. Reforms in the life of society were inevitable.
The number of peasant unrest grew every decade. If about 650 cases were registered in the first quarter of the 19th century, then from 1850 to 1860 their number exceeded 1000. In those years, the population census showed that about 23 million people were in serfdom. This was more than a third of all subjects of the Russian Empire, whose number in 1857-1859 was 62.5 million people.
“It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for it to begin to be abolished from below on its own,” was the idea that the emperor voiced to representatives of the Moscow nobility.
Attempts to resolve this difficult issue were made under his father. During the years that Nicholas I was in power, about a dozen commissions worked on developing a law on the emancipation of peasants. One of the prominent figures involved in such a project was Pavel Kiselyov, a member of the State Council who was a member of the Secret Committee for Peasant Affairs. He was a supporter of the gradual elimination of serfdom, when “slavery was destroyed by itself and without upheaval of the state.” In his opinion, this could be a consequence of improvements in the living conditions of the peasants: the expansion of their lands and the easing of feudal duties. All this, naturally, did not please the owners of serf souls.
“His well-known plans for the emancipation of serfs had long brought upon him the hatred of the landowner class,” Baron Modest Korf wrote about this.
The “Note” quickly made Kavelin famous. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org
Also popular at that time was the idea of the historian and publicist Konstantin Kavelin, who in his “Note on the Liberation of Peasants” proposed that peasants buy out land through a loan, the payment of which was to be made over 37 years at 5% annually through a special peasant bank.
It is worth noting that it was the “Note”, which was circulated in society in a handwritten version, that quickly made Kavelin famous. In the Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom, the main ideas outlined by Kavelin in his work were taken into account.
Is the manifesto fake?
The manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens to Serfs” was published on March 3 (February 19), 1861. Its release was accompanied by 17 legislative acts that stipulated the conditions for the purchase by peasants of landowners' land and the size of these plots in certain regions of Russia.
The “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom” stated that they received full civil legal capacity in everything that related to their class. Having ceased to be serfs, they became “temporarily obligated.”
Grigory Myasoedov. “Reading of the Regulations of February 19, 1861,” 1873. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org
Landowners now had to provide a field allotment for the collective use of rural communities, the size of which was determined for each region. In order to use allotment land, peasants had to serve corvee (forced work for the land owner) and pay quitrent (a kind of tribute to the landowner in food or money).
The peasant had to buy his plot from the landowner at a price much higher than the market price. He was forced to pay 20% of the total amount at once, and the remaining 80% was contributed by the state. True, then for 49 years the peasant repaid the debt, making annual redemption payments.
Some peasants, who were told the text of the document, did not even believe in these conditions at first. It seemed very strange to them that when they received freedom, they were not given land to own. This even gave rise to rumors that the decree being read to them was a fake.
"Profitable" deals
Historians are ambiguous in their assessments of the reform. While noting its liberal nature, they emphasize that in a number of cases this did not alleviate the plight of the peasantry.
So, for example, D. Blum wrote that in the non-chernozem zone of Russia, the redemption value of land exceeded the market price by 2 times, and in some cases - 5-6 times. And this, in fact, was not much different from the practice of redeeming manumission from the landowner, which existed earlier.
A. I. Korzukhin. Collection of arrears (The last cow is taken away). Painting from 1868. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org
Another “loophole” of the law, which landowners rushed to take advantage of, was that the division of land took place on terms convenient for them. As a result, peasants often found themselves “cut off by the landowner’s land from a watering hole, a forest, a high road, a church, and sometimes from their arable land and meadows,” historians wrote. As Nikolai Rozhkov noted, as a result, the peasants “were forced to rent the landowner’s land, at any cost, on any terms.” At the same time, rental prices for land cut off from peasants were significantly higher than the existing average market prices.
All these factors led to the fact that the peasants began to go bankrupt. This led to famine and an increase in the number of epidemics in the villages. From 1860 to 1880, the average peasant allotment decreased by about 30% - from 4.8 to 3.5 dessiatines.
Part of society was outraged by the half-hearted nature of the reform. Thus, representatives of revolutionary communities were convinced that the government should have acted more radically, for example, confiscating and nationalizing landowners' lands.
Discontent in society resulted in anti-government propaganda, including its extreme forms that preached terrorism, beginning to gain popularity.
Several attempts were made on Alexander II himself. On March 13, 1881, he was mortally wounded by a bomb thrown at his feet by Narodnaya Volya member Ignatius Grinevitsky.
The era of Alexander II's reign is called the era of Great Reforms or the era of Liberation. The abolition of serfdom in Russia is closely associated with the name of Alexander.
Society before the reform of 1861
The defeat in the Crimean War showed the backwardness of the Russian Empire from Western countries in almost all aspects of the economy and socio-political structure of the state. Progressive people of that time could not help but notice the shortcomings in the thoroughly rotten system of autocratic rule. Russian society by the middle of the 19th century was heterogeneous.
- The nobility was divided into rich, middle and poor. Their attitude to the reform could not be unambiguous. About 93% of nobles did not have serfs. As a rule, these nobles held government positions and were dependent on the state. The nobles who had large plots of land and many serfs were opposed to the Peasant Reform of 1861.
- The life of serfs was the life of slaves, because this social class did not have civil rights. Serfs were also not a homogeneous mass. In central Russia there were mainly quitrent peasants. They did not lose touch with the rural community and continued to pay taxes to the landowner, hiring in factories in the city. The second group of peasants was corvée and was in the southern part of the Russian Empire. They worked on the landowner's land and paid corvee.
The peasants continued to believe in the “good father of the king,” who wants to free them from the yoke of slavery and allocate a plot of land. After the reform of 1861, this belief only intensified. Despite the deception of the landowners during the reform of 1861, the peasants sincerely believed that the tsar did not know about their troubles. The influence of the Narodnaya Volya on the consciousness of the peasants was minimal.
Rice. 1. Alexander II speaks before the Assembly of Nobility.
Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom
By the middle of the 19th century, two processes were taking place in the Russian Empire: the prosperity of serfdom and the emergence of a capitalist system. There was constant conflict between these incompatible processes.
All the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom arose:
- As industry grew, production became more complex. The use of serf labor in this case became completely impossible, since the serfs deliberately broke the machines.
- The factories needed permanent, highly qualified workers. Under the serf system this was impossible.
- The Crimean War revealed acute contradictions in the Russian autocracy. It showed the medieval backwardness of the state from the countries of Western Europe.
Under these circumstances, Alexander II did not want to take the decision on carrying out the Peasant Reform only on himself, because in the largest Western states reforms were always developed in committees specially created by parliament. The Russian emperor decided to follow the same path.
TOP 5 articleswho are reading along with this
Preparation and beginning of the reform of 1861
At first, preparations for the peasant reform were carried out secretly from the Russian population. All leadership for designing the reform was concentrated in the Secret or Secret Committee, formed in 1857. However, things in this organization did not go beyond the discussion of the reform program, and the summoned nobles ignored the tsar’s call.
- On November 20, 1857, a republic was drawn up and approved by the tsar. In it, elected committees of nobles were elected from each province, who were obliged to appear at the court for meetings and agreement on the reform project. The reform project began to be prepared openly, and the Secret Committee became the Main Committee.
- The main issue of the Peasant Reform was the discussion of how to free the peasant from serfdom - with land or not. The liberals, who consisted of industrialists and landless nobles, wanted to free the peasants and allocate them plots of land. A group of serf owners, consisting of wealthy landowners, was against the allocation of land plots to the peasants. In the end, a compromise was found. Liberals and serf owners found a compromise between themselves and decided to free the peasants with minimal plots of land for a large ransom. This “liberation” suited the industrialists, since it provided them with permanent labor. The Peasant Reform supplied the serf owners with both capital and labor.
Speaking briefly about the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, it should be noted three basic conditions which Alexander II planned to carry out:
- the complete abolition of serfdom and the liberation of the peasants;
- each peasant was allocated a plot of land, and the amount of the ransom was determined for him;
- the peasant could leave his place of residence only with the permission of the newly formed rural society instead of the rural community;
To resolve pressing issues and fulfill obligations to fulfill duties and pay ransom, peasants on landowners' estates united into rural societies. To control the relationship between the landowner and rural communities, the Senate appointed peace mediators. The nuance was that peace mediators were appointed from local nobles, who naturally sided with the landowner when resolving controversial issues.
The result of the reform of 1861
The reform of 1861 revealed a whole a number of disadvantages :
- the landowner could move the site of his estate wherever he pleased;
- the landowner could exchange the peasants' plots for his own lands until they were fully redeemed;
- Before the redemption of his allotment, the peasant was not its sovereign owner;
The emergence of rural societies in the year of the abolition of serfdom gave rise to mutual responsibility. Rural communities held meetings or gatherings, at which all peasants were assigned duties to the landowner equally, each peasant being responsible for the other. At rural gatherings, issues about the misdeeds of peasants, problems of paying ransom, etc. were also resolved. The decisions of the meeting were valid if they were adopted by a majority of votes.
- The main part of the ransom was borne by the state. In 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was created.
The main part of the ransom was borne by the state. For the ransom of each peasant, 80% of the total amount was paid, the remaining 20% was paid by the peasant. This amount could be paid in a lump sum or in installments, but most often the peasant worked it off through labor service. On average, a peasant paid the state for about 50 years, paying 6% per annum. At the same time, the peasant paid a ransom for the land, the remaining 20%. On average, a peasant paid off the landowner within 20 years.
The main provisions of the reform of 1861 were not implemented immediately. This process lasted almost three decades.
Liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century.
The Russian Empire approached liberal reforms with an unusually neglected local economy: roads between villages were washed away in spring and autumn, there was no basic hygiene in the villages, not to mention medical care, epidemics mowed down the peasants. Education was in its infancy. The government did not have money to revive villages, so a decision was made to reform local governments.
Rice. 2. First pancake. V. Pchelin.
- On January 1, 1864, the zemstvo reform was carried out. The zemstvo was a local government body that took charge of the construction of roads, the organization of schools, the construction of hospitals, churches, etc. An important point was the organization of assistance to the population that suffered from crop failure. To solve particularly important problems, the zemstvo could impose a special tax on the population. The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were provincial and district assemblies, and the executive bodies were provincial and district councils. Elections to the zemstvos were held once every three years. Three congresses met for elections. The first congress consisted of landowners, the second congress was recruited from city property owners, the third congress included elected peasants from volost rural assemblies.
Rice. 3. The zemstvo is having lunch.
- The next date for judicial reforms of Alexander II was the reform of 1864. The court in Russia became public, open and public. The main prosecutor was the prosecutor, the defendant had his own defense lawyer. However, the main innovation was the introduction of a jury of 12 people at the trial. After the judicial debate, they rendered their verdict - “guilty” or “not guilty.” The jurors were recruited from men of all classes. The justice of the peace dealt with minor cases.
- In 1874, a reform was carried out in the army. By decree of D. A. Milyutin, recruitment was abolished. Russian citizens who reached the age of 20 lei were subject to compulsory military service. The period of service in the infantry was 6 years, the period of service in the navy was 7 years.
The abolition of conscription contributed to the great popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.
The significance of the reforms of Alexander II
Noting all the pros and cons of the reforms of Alexander II, it should be noted that they contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of moral consciousness among the population, improving the quality of life of peasants in villages and the spread of primary education among peasants. It is worth noting the growth of industrial growth and the positive development of agriculture.
At the same time, the reforms did not affect the upper echelons of power at all; remnants of serfdom remained in local government; landowners enjoyed the support of noble intermediaries in disputes and openly deceived peasants when allocating plots. However, we should not forget that these were only the first steps towards a new capitalist stage of development.
What have we learned?
Liberal reforms studied in the history of Russia (grade 8) generally had positive results. Thanks to the abolition of serfdom, the remnants of the feudal system were finally eliminated, but the final formation of the capitalist system, like the developed Western countries, was still very far away.
Test on the topic
Evaluation of the report
Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 163.
Boris Kustodiev. "The Liberation of the Peasants (Reading the Manifesto)." Painting from 1907
"I want to be alone with my conscience." The Emperor asked everyone to leave the office. On the table in front of him lay a document that was supposed to turn the entire Russian history upside down - the Law on the Liberation of Peasants. They had been waiting for him for many years, the best people of the state fought for him. The law not only eliminated the shame of Russia - serfdom, but also gave hope for the triumph of goodness and justice. Such a step for a monarch is a difficult test, for which he has been preparing all his life, from year to year, since childhood...
His teacher Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky spared neither effort nor time to instill in the future Emperor of Russia a sense of goodness, honor, and humanity. When Alexander II ascended the throne, Zhukovsky was no longer around, but the emperor retained his advice and instructions and followed them until the end of his life. Having accepted Russia, exhausted by the Crimean War, he began his reign by giving Russia peace.
Historians often reproach the emperors of the first half of the 19th century for not trying to implement or trying with all their might to complicate the abolition of serfdom. Only Alexander II decided to take this step. His reform activities are often accused of being half-hearted. Was it really easy for the monarch to carry out reforms if his support, the Russian nobility, did not support his initiatives. Alexander II required enormous courage to balance between the possibility of a threat from the noble opposition, on the one hand, and the threat of a peasant revolt, on the other.
To be fair, we note that there have been attempts to carry out peasant reform before. Let's turn to the background. In 1797, Emperor Paul I issued a decree on a three-day corvee, although the wording of the law remained unclear, whether the law did not allow or simply did not recommend the use of peasant labor in corvee more than three days a week. It is clear that the landowners were for the most part inclined to adhere to the latter interpretation. His son, Alexander I, once said: “If education had been at a higher level, I would have abolished slavery, even if it cost me my life.” Nevertheless, after Count Razumovsky approached him in 1803 for permission to free fifty thousand of his serfs, the tsar did not forget about this precedent, and as a result, in the same year, the decree “On Free Plowmen” appeared. According to this law, landowners received the right to release their peasants if it would be beneficial to both parties. During the 59 years of the law, the landowners released only 111,829 peasants, of which 50 thousand were serfs of Count Razumovsky. Apparently, the nobility was more inclined to hatch plans for the reconstruction of society rather than begin its implementation with the liberation of their own peasants.
Nicholas I in 1842 issued the Decree “On Obligated Peasants,” according to which peasants were allowed to be freed without land, providing it for the performance of certain duties. As a result, 27 thousand people became obligated peasants. The need to abolish serfdom was beyond doubt. “The state of serfdom is a powder magazine under the state,” wrote the chief of gendarmes A.H. Benkendorf in a report to Nicholas I. During the reign of Nicholas I, preparations for peasant reform were already underway: the basic approaches and principles for its implementation were developed, and the necessary material was accumulated.
But Alexander II abolished serfdom. He understood that he had to act carefully, gradually preparing society for reforms. In the first years of his reign, at a meeting with a delegation of Moscow nobles, he said: “There are rumors that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's unfair and you can say it to everyone left and right. But, unfortunately, a feeling of hostility between peasants and landowners exists, and as a result there have already been several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think that you are of the same opinion as me. It is better to begin the destruction of serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed of its own accord from below.” The emperor asked the nobles to think and submit their thoughts on the peasant issue. But I never received any offers.
Then Alexander II turned to another option - the creation of a Secret Committee “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants” under his personal chairmanship. The committee held its first meeting on January 3, 1857. The committee included Count S.S. Lanskoy, Prince Orlov, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property Muravyov, Prince Gagarin, Baron Korf and Y.I. Rostovtsev. He managed the affairs of the Butkov committee. Committee members agreed that serfdom needed to be abolished, but warned against making radical decisions. Only Lanskoy, Bludov, Rostovtsev and Butkov spoke out for the real liberation of the peasants; the majority of committee members proposed only measures to alleviate the situation of the serfs. Then the emperor introduced his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, into the committee, who was convinced of the need to abolish serfdom.
The Grand Duke was an extraordinary person and thanks to his active influence, the committee began to develop measures. On the advice of the Grand Duke, Alexander II took advantage of the situation in the Baltic provinces, where landowners were dissatisfied with the existing fixed norms of corvee and quitrent and would like to abolish them. Lithuanian landowners decided that it was better for them to completely abandon the ownership of serfs, retaining land that could be rented out profitably. A corresponding letter was drawn up to the emperor, and he, in turn, handed it over to the Secret Committee. The discussion of the letter went on for a long time in the committee; the majority of its members did not share this idea, but Alexander ordered to “approve the good intentions of the Lithuanian nobles” and create official committees in the Vilna, Kovno and Grodno provinces to prepare proposals for organizing peasant life. Instructions were sent to all Russian governors in case local landowners “would like to resolve the matter in a similar way.” But no takers showed up. Then Alexander sent a rescript to the St. Petersburg Governor General with the same instructions to create a committee.
In December 1857, both royal rescripts were published in newspapers. So, with the help of glasnost (by the way, this word came into use at that time), the matter moved forward. For the first time, the country began to openly talk about the problem of the abolition of serfdom. The Secret Committee ceased to be such, and at the beginning of 1858 it was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. And by the end of the year, committees were already working in all provinces.
On March 4, 1858, the Zemstvo Department was formed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the preliminary consideration of projects coming from the provinces, which were then transferred to the Main Committee. Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs A.I. Levshin was appointed chairman of the Zemstvo Department; the most important role in his work was played by the head of the department, Y.A. Solovyov, and the director of the economic department, N.A. Milyutin, who soon replaced Levshin as deputy minister.
At the end of 1858, reviews finally began to arrive from provincial committees. To study their proposals and develop general and local provisions for the reform, two editorial commissions were formed, the chairman of which was appointed by the emperor as the chief head of military educational institutions, Ya. I. Rostovtsev. General Rostovtsev was sympathetic to the cause of liberation of the peasants. He established a completely trusting relationship with Milyutin, who, at the request of the chairman, attracted liberal-minded officials and public figures, staunch supporters of the reform Yu.F. Samarin, Prince Cherkassky, Ya.A. Solovyov and others, to the activities of the commissions. They were opposed by members of the commissions who were opponents of the reform, among whom Count P.P. Shuvalov, V.V. Apraksin and Adjutant General Prince I.F. Paskevich stood out. They insisted on maintaining land ownership rights for landowners, rejected the possibility of providing land to peasants for ransom, except in cases of mutual consent, and demanded that landowners be given full power on their estates. Already the first meetings took place in a rather tense atmosphere.
With the death of Rostovtsev, Count Panin was appointed in his place, which was perceived by many as a curtailment of activities to liberate the peasants. Only Alexander II was unperturbed. To his aunt Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, who expressed concerns about this appointment, he replied: “You don’t know Panin; his convictions are the exact execution of my orders.” The Emperor was not mistaken. Count Panin strictly followed his instructions: not to change anything during the preparation of the reform, to continue to follow the intended course. Therefore, the hopes of the serf owners, who dreamed of cardinal concessions in their favor, were not destined to come true.
At the same time, at meetings of the editorial commissions, Panin behaved more independently, trying to gradually, very carefully make concessions to landowners, which could lead to significant distortions of the project. The struggle between supporters and opponents of the reform sometimes became quite serious.
On October 10, I860, the emperor ordered the closure of the editorial commissions, which had worked for about twenty months, and the activities of the Main Committee to be resumed again. Due to the illness of the chairman of the committee, Prince Orlov, Alexander II appointed his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, to this post. In a small committee, several groups formed, none of which could achieve a clear majority. At the head of one of them, which included the chief of gendarmes, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of Finance A.M. Knyazhevich and others, was M.N. Muravyov. These committee members sought to reduce land allotment rates. A special position in the committee was occupied by Count Panin, who challenged many of the provisions of the editorial draft, and Prince P.P. Gagarin, who insisted on the liberation of peasants without land. For a long time, Grand Duke Constantine was unable to gather a solid majority of supporters of the draft editorial commissions. To ensure an advantage, he tried, by resorting to the power of persuasion and making some concessions, to win Panin over to his side, and he still succeeded. Thus, an absolute majority of supporters of the project was formed - fifty percent plus one vote: five members of the Main Committee against four.
Many were waiting for the onset of 1861. Grand Duke Constantine noted in his diary: “January 1, 1861. This mysterious year of 1861 began. What will he bring us? With what feelings will we look at it on December 31? Should the peasant question and the Slavic question be resolved in it? Isn't this alone enough to call it mysterious and even fatal? Maybe this is the most important era in the thousand-year existence of Russia?
The last meeting of the Main Committee was chaired by the Emperor himself. Ministers who were not members of the committee were invited to the meeting. Alexander II stated that when submitting the project for consideration by the State Council, he would not tolerate any tricks or delays, and set the deadline for completion of the consideration on February 15, so that the content of the resolutions could be published and communicated to the peasants before the start of field work. “This is what I desire, demand, command!” - said the emperor.
In a detailed speech at a meeting of the State Council, Alexander II gave historical information about attempts and plans to resolve the peasant issue in previous reigns and during his reign and explained what he expected from members of the State Council: “Views on the presented work may be different. Therefore, I will listen to all different opinions willingly, but I have the right to demand one thing from you: that you, putting aside all personal interests, act not as landowners, but as state dignitaries, invested with my trust.”
But even in the State Council, approval of the project was not easy. Only with the support of the emperor did the decision of the minority receive the force of law. Preparations for the reform were nearing completion. By February 17, 1861, the State Council completed its consideration of the project.
On February 19, 1861, on the sixth anniversary of his accession, Alexander II signed all the reform laws and the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.
On March 5, 1861, the Manifesto was read in churches after mass. At the divorce ceremony in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander II himself read it to the troops.
The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom provided peasants with personal freedom. From now on they could not be sold, bought, given, or relocated at the request of the landowner. Peasants now had the right to own property, freedom to marry, could independently enter into contracts and conduct legal cases, could acquire real estate in their own name, and had freedom of movement.
The peasant received a land allotment as a means of personal freedom. The size of the land plot was established taking into account the terrain and was not the same in different regions of Russia. If previously a peasant had more land than the fixed allotment for a given area, then the “extra” part was cut off in favor of the landowner. Such “segments” made up a fifth of all lands. The allotment was given to the peasant for a ransom. The peasant paid a quarter of the ransom amount to the landowner in a lump sum, and the rest was paid by the state. The peasant had to repay his debt to the state within 49 years. Before purchasing the land from the landowner, the peasant was considered “temporarily obligated”, paid the landowner a quitrent and worked off corvée. The relationship between the landowner and the peasant was regulated by the Charter.
The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies - communities. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. The volost elder was elected at a general meeting, and he subsequently performed administrative duties.
The activities of rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationships between peasants and landowners, were controlled by global intermediaries. They were appointed by the Senate from among the local noble landowners. Conciliators had broad powers and followed the directions of the law. The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should have been determined once and for all by agreement between the peasants and the landowner and recorded in the Charter. The introduction of these charters was the main activity of the peace mediators.
When assessing the peasant reform, it is important to understand that it was the result of a compromise between landowners, peasants and the government. Moreover, the interests of the landowners were taken into account as much as possible, but there was probably no other way to liberate the peasants. The compromise nature of the reform already contained future contradictions and conflicts. The reform prevented mass protests by peasants, although they still took place in some regions. The most significant of them were the peasant uprisings in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, and Kandeevka, Penza province.
And yet, the liberation of more than 20 million landowners with land was a unique event in Russian and world history. The personal freedom of peasants and the transformation of former serfs into “free rural inhabitants” destroyed the previous system of economic tyranny and opened up new prospects for Russia, creating the opportunity for the broad development of market relations and the further development of society. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other important transformations, which were to introduce new forms of self-government and justice in the country, and push for the development of education.
The undeniably great merit in this is Emperor Alexander II, as well as those who developed and promoted this reform, fought for its implementation - Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, N.A. Milyutin, Y.I. Rostovtsev, Yu.F. Samarin, Y.A. Solovyov and others.
References:
Great Reform. T. 5: Reform figures. - M., 1912.
Ilyin, V.V. Reforms and counter-reforms in Russia. - M., 1996.
Troitsky, N.A. Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1997.
The prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom arose at the end of the 18th century. All layers of society considered the serfdom an immoral phenomenon that disgraced Russia. In order to stand on a par with European countries free from slavery, the Russian government was faced with the issue of abolishing serfdom.
The main reasons for the abolition of serfdom:
- Serfdom became a brake on the development of industry and trade, which hampered the growth of capital and placed Russia in the category of secondary states;
- The decline of the landowner economy due to the extremely ineffective labor of the serfs, which was expressed in the obviously poor performance of the corvee;
- The increase in peasant revolts indicated that the serf system was a “powder keg” under the state;
- The defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856) demonstrated the backwardness of the political system in the country.
Alexander I tried to take the first steps in resolving the issue of abolition of serfdom, but his committee did not figure out how to bring this reform to life. Emperor Alexander limited himself to the law of 1803 on free cultivators.
Nicholas I in 1842 adopted the law “On Obligated Peasants”, according to which the landowner had the right to free the peasants by giving them a land allotment, and the peasants were obliged to bear duties in favor of the landowner for the use of the land. However, this law did not take root; the landowners did not want to let the peasants go.
In 1857, official preparations began for the abolition of serfdom. Emperor Alexander II ordered the establishment of provincial committees, which were supposed to develop projects to improve the life of serfs. Based on these projects, the drafting commissions drew up a bill, which was transferred to the Main Committee for consideration and establishment.
On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and approved the “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.” Alexander remained in history with the name “Liberator”.
Although liberation from slavery gave peasants some personal and civil freedoms, such as the right to marry, go to court, trade, enter the civil service, etc., they were limited in freedom of movement, as well as economic rights. In addition, peasants remained the only class that bore conscription duties and could be subject to corporal punishment.
The land remained the property of the landowners, and the peasants were allocated a settled estate and a field allotment, for which they had to serve duties (in money or work), which were almost no different from serfs. According to the law, peasants had the right to buy out an allotment and an estate, then they received complete independence and became peasant owners. Until then, they were called “temporarily obligated.” The ransom amounted to the annual quitrent amount multiplied by 17!
To help the peasantry, the government organized a special “redemption operation.” After the establishment of the land allotment, the state paid the landowner 80% of the value of the allotment, and 20% was assigned to the peasant as a government debt, which he had to repay in installments over 49 years.
Peasants united into rural societies, and they, in turn, united into volosts. The use of field land was communal, and to make “redemption payments” the peasants were bound by a mutual guarantee.
Household people who did not plow the land were temporarily obliged for two years, and then could register with a rural or urban society.
The agreement between landowners and peasants was set out in the “statutory charter”. And to sort out emerging disagreements, the position of peace mediators was established. The general management of the reform was entrusted to the “provincial presence for peasant affairs.”
The peasant reform created the conditions for the transformation of labor into goods, and market relations began to develop, which is typical for a capitalist country. The consequence of the abolition of serfdom was the gradual formation of new social strata of the population - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Changes in the social, economic and political life of Russia after the abolition of serfdom forced the government to undertake other important reforms, which contributed to the transformation of our country into a bourgeois monarchy.
Serfdom turned into a brake on technological progress, which was actively developing in Europe after the Industrial Revolution. The Crimean War clearly demonstrated this. There was a danger of Russia turning into a third-rate power. It was by the second half of the 19th century that it became clear that maintaining the power and political influence of Russia was impossible without strengthening finances, developing industry and railway construction, and transforming the entire political system. Under the conditions of the dominance of serfdom, which itself could have existed for an indefinite period of time, despite the fact that the landed nobility itself was unable and not ready to modernize its own estates, this turned out to be practically impossible. That is why the reign of Alexander II became a period of radical transformations of Russian society. The Emperor, distinguished by his sound mind and a certain political flexibility, managed to surround himself with professionally competent people who understood the need for Russia's progressive movement. Among them, the tsar's brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, brothers N.A. stood out. and D.A. Milyutin, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, P.A. Valuev and others.
By the second quarter of the 19th century, it had already become obvious that the economic capabilities of the landlord economy in meeting the increased needs for grain exports had been completely exhausted. It was increasingly drawn into commodity-money relations, gradually losing its natural character. Closely related to this was a change in the forms of rent. If in the central provinces, where industrial production was developed, more than half of the peasants had already been transferred to quitrent, then in the agricultural Central Black Earth and Lower Volga provinces, where commercial grain was produced, corvée continued to expand. This was due to the natural increase in the production of bread for sale on the landowners' farm.
On the other hand, the productivity of corvee labor has dropped noticeably. The peasant sabotaged the corvée with all his might and was burdened by it, which is explained by the growth of the peasant economy, its transformation into a small-scale producer. Corvee labor slowed down this process, and the peasant fought with all his might for favorable conditions for his farming.
Landowners sought ways to increase the profitability of their estates within the framework of serfdom, for example, transferring peasants to monthly labor: landless peasants, who were obliged to spend all their working hours in corvee labor, were given payment in kind in the form of a monthly food ration, as well as clothes, shoes, and necessary household utensils , while the landowner's field was cultivated with the master's equipment. However, all these measures could not compensate for the ever-increasing losses from ineffective corvee labor.
The quitrent farms also experienced a serious crisis. Previously, peasant crafts, from which quitrents were mainly paid, were profitable, giving the landowner a stable income. However, the development of crafts gave rise to competition, which led to a drop in peasant earnings. Since the 20s of the 19th century, arrears in quitrent payments began to grow rapidly. An indicator of the crisis of the landlord economy was the growth of estate debt. By 1861, about 65% of landowners' estates were pledged to various credit institutions.
In an effort to increase the profitability of their estates, some landowners began to use new methods of farming: they ordered expensive equipment from abroad, invited foreign specialists, introduced multi-field crop rotation, etc. But such expenses were only affordable for wealthy landowners, and under the conditions of serfdom, these innovations did not pay off, often ruining such landowners.
It should be especially emphasized that we are talking specifically about the crisis of the landlord economy, based on serf labor, and not the economy in general, which continued to develop on a completely different, capitalist basis. It is clear that serfdom hampered its development and prevented the formation of a wage labor market, without which the capitalist development of the country is impossible.
Preparations for the abolition of serfdom began in January 1857 with the creation of the next Secret Committee. In November 1857, Alexander II sent a rescript throughout the country addressed to the Vilna Governor-General Nazimov, which spoke of the beginning of the gradual liberation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees in three Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) to make proposals for the reform project. On February 21, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. A wide discussion of the upcoming reform began. Provincial noble committees drew up their projects for the liberation of peasants and sent them to the main committee, which, on their basis, began to develop a general reform project.
To revise the submitted projects, editorial commissions were established in 1859, the work of which was led by Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs Ya.I. Rostovtsev.
During the preparation of the reform, there were lively debates among landowners about the mechanism of liberation. The landowners of the non-black earth provinces, where the peasants were mainly on quitrent, proposed to allocate land to the peasants with complete liberation from the landowners' power, but with the payment of a large ransom for the land. Their opinion was most fully expressed in his project by the leader of the Tver nobility A.M. Unkovsky.
Landowners of the black earth regions, whose opinion was expressed in the project of the Poltava landowner M.P. Posen, they proposed to give only small plots to the peasants for ransom, with the goal of making the peasants economically dependent on the landowner - forcing them to rent land on unfavorable terms or work as farm laborers.
By the beginning of October 1860, the editorial commissions completed their activities and the project was submitted for discussion to the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, where it was subject to additions and changes. On January 28, 1861, a meeting of the State Council opened and ended on February 16, 1861. The signing of the manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants was scheduled for February 19, 1861 - the 6th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Alexander II, when the emperor signed the manifesto “On the All-Merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants and on the organization of their life,” as well as “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom,” which included 17 legislative acts. On the same day, the Main Committee “on the structure of the rural state” was established, chaired by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, which replaced the Main Committee “on peasant affairs” and was called upon to carry out supreme supervision over the implementation of the “Regulations” of February 19.
According to the manifesto, peasants received personal freedom. From now on, the former serf peasant received the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, he was granted some civil rights: the opportunity to move to other classes, enter into property and civil transactions in his own name, and open commercial and industrial enterprises.
If serfdom was abolished immediately, then the settlement of economic relations between peasants and landowners lasted for several decades. The specific economic conditions for the liberation of peasants were recorded in the “Charter Charters”, which were concluded between the landowner and the peasant with the participation of world intermediaries. However, according to the law, peasants were required to serve virtually the same duties as under serfdom for another two years. This state of the peasant was called temporarily obliged. In fact, this situation lasted for twenty years, and only by the law of 1881 were the last temporarily obliged peasants transferred to redemption.
An important place was given to the provision of land to the peasant. The law was based on the recognition of the landowner's right to all the land on his estate, including peasant plots. The peasants received the allotment not for ownership, but only for use. To become the owner of land, the peasant was obliged to buy it from the landowner. The state took on this task. The redemption was based not on the market value of the land, but on the amount of duties. The treasury immediately paid the landowners 80% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 20% had to be paid to the landowner by the peasants by mutual agreement (immediately or in installments, in money or in labor). The redemption amount paid by the state was treated as a loan to the peasants, which was then collected from them annually, for 49 years, in the form of "redemption payments" of 6% of this loan. It is not difficult to determine that in this way the peasant had to pay for the land several times more not only its real market value, but also the amount of duties that he bore in favor of the landowner. That is why the “temporarily obliged state” existed for more than 20 years.
When determining the norms for peasant plots, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account. The entire territory of the Russian Empire was divided into three parts: non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe. In the chernozem and non-chernozem parts, two norms of allotments were established: the highest and the lowest, and in the steppe there was only one - the “decreed” norm. The law provided for a reduction of the peasant allotment in favor of the landowner if its pre-reform size exceeded the “higher” or “decree” norm, and an increase if the allotment did not reach the “higher” norm. In practice, this has led to the fact that cutting off land has become the rule, and trimming the exception. The burden of the “cuts” for the peasants was not only their size. The best lands often fell into this category, without which normal farming became impossible. Thus, the “cuts” turned into an effective means of economic enslavement of the peasants by the landowner.
Land was provided not to an individual peasant household, but to the community. This form of land use excluded the possibility of a peasant selling his plot, and its rental was limited to the community. But, despite all its shortcomings, the abolition of serfdom was an important historical event. It not only created conditions for the further economic development of Russia, but also led to a change in the social structure of Russian society and created the need for further reform of the political system of the state, which was forced to adapt to new economic conditions. After 1861, a number of important political reforms were carried out: zemstvo, judicial, city, military reforms, which radically changed Russian reality. It is no coincidence that domestic historians consider this event a turning point, the line between feudal Russia and modern Russia.
ACCORDING TO THE “SHOWER REVISION” OF 1858
Landowner serfs - 20,173,000
Appanage peasants - 2,019,000
State peasants -18,308,000
Workers of factories and mines, equated to state peasants - 616,000
State peasants assigned to private factories - 518,000
Peasants released after military service - 1,093,000
HISTORIAN S.M. SOLOVIEV
“Liberal speeches began; but it would be strange if the first, main content of these speeches were not the liberation of the peasants. What other liberation could one think of without remembering that in Russia a huge number of people are the property of other people, and slaves are of the same origin as their masters, and sometimes of higher origin: peasants of Slavic origin, and masters of Tatar, Cheremis, Mordovian origin, not to mention Germans? What kind of liberal speech could be made without remembering this stain, the shame that lay on Russia, excluding it from the society of European civilized peoples?
A.I. HERZEN
“Many more years will pass before Europe understands the course of development of Russian serfdom. Its origin and development are a phenomenon so exceptional and unlike anything else that it is difficult to believe in it. How, in fact, can one believe that half the population of the same nationality, gifted with rare physical and mental abilities, was enslaved not by war, not by conquest, not by a coup, but only by a series of decrees, immoral concessions, vile claims?
K.S. AKSAKOV
“The yoke of the state was formed over the land, and the Russian land became, as it were, conquered... The Russian monarch received the meaning of a despot, and the people - the meaning of a slave-slave in their land”...
“IT’S MUCH BETTER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN ABOVE”
When Emperor Alexander II came to Moscow for the coronation, the Moscow Governor-General Count Zakrevsky asked him to calm the local nobility, excited by rumors about the upcoming liberation of the peasants. The Tsar, receiving the Moscow provincial leader of the nobility, Prince Shcherbatov, with district representatives, told them: “There are rumors that I want to announce the liberation of serfdom. This is unfair, and as a result there were several cases of peasants disobeying the landowners. I won't tell you that I'm completely against it; We live in such an age that this must happen over time. I think that you are of the same opinion as me: therefore, it is much better for this to happen from above than from below.”
The matter of the liberation of the peasants, which came before the State Council, in its importance I consider a vital issue for Russia, on which the development of its strength and power will depend. I am sure that all of you, gentlemen, are just as convinced as I am of the benefits and necessity of this measure. I also have another conviction, namely, that this matter cannot be postponed, which is why I demand from the State Council that it be completed in the first half of February and can be announced by the beginning of field work; I entrust this to the direct responsibility of the chairman of the State Council. I repeat, and it is my absolute will that this matter be ended now. (...)
You know the origin of serfdom. It did not exist with us before: this right was established by autocratic power and only autocratic power can destroy it, and this is my direct will.
My predecessors felt all the evils of serfdom and constantly strived, if not for its direct destruction, then for a gradual limitation of the arbitrariness of landowner power. (...)
Following the rescript given to Governor General Nazimov, requests began to arrive from the nobility of other provinces, which were answered with rescripts addressed to governors general and governors of similar content with the first. These rescripts contained the same main principles and foundations and allowed us to proceed to the matter on the same principles I indicated. As a result, provincial committees were established, which were given a special program to facilitate their work. When, after the given period of time, the work of the committees began to arrive here, I allowed the formation of special Editorial Commissions, which were supposed to consider the projects of the provincial committees and do the general work in a systematic manner. The Chairman of these Commissions was first Adjutant General Rostovtsev, and after his death Count Panin. The editorial commissions worked for a year and seven months, and, despite the criticisms, perhaps partly fair, to which the commissions were subjected, they completed their work in good faith and presented it to the Main Committee. The main committee, chaired by my brother, worked with tireless activity and zeal. I consider it my duty to thank all the members of the committee, and my brother in particular, for their conscientious efforts in this matter.
Views on the work presented may vary. That’s why I listen to all different opinions willingly; but I have the right to demand one thing from you, that you, putting aside all personal interests, act as state dignitaries invested with my trust. When starting this important task, I did not hide from myself all the difficulties that awaited us, and I do not hide them now, but, firmly trusting in the mercy of God, I hope that God will not leave us and will bless us to complete it for future prosperity dear Fatherland to us. Now, with God’s help, let’s get down to business.
MANIFESTO FEBRUARY 19, 1861
BY GOD'S GRACE
WE, ALEXANDER THE SECOND,
EMPEROR AND AUTOCRET
ALL-RUSSIAN
KING OF POLISH, GRAND DUKE OF FINNISH
and so on, and so on, and so on
We announce to all our loyal subjects.
By God's providence and the sacred law of succession to the throne, having been called to the ancestral all-Russian throne, in accordance with this calling we have made a vow in our hearts to embrace with our royal love and care all our loyal subjects of every rank and status, from those who nobly wield a sword in defense of the Fatherland to those who modestly work with a craft tool, from those undergoing the highest government service to those plowing a furrow in the field with a plow or plow.
Delving into the position of ranks and conditions within the state, we saw that state legislation, while actively improving the upper and middle classes, defining their duties, rights and benefits, did not achieve uniform activity in relation to serfs, so called because they were partly old by laws, partly by custom, they are hereditarily strengthened under the power of landowners, who at the same time have the responsibility to organize their well-being. The rights of landowners were until now extensive and not precisely defined by law, the place of which was taken by tradition, custom and the good will of the landowner. In the best cases, from this came good patriarchal relations of sincere, truthful trusteeship and charity of the landowner and good-natured obedience of the peasants. But with a decrease in the simplicity of morals, with an increase in the variety of relationships, with a decrease in the direct paternal relations of landowners to peasants, with landowner rights sometimes falling into the hands of people seeking only their own benefit, good relations weakened and the way opened to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants and unfavorable for them. well-being, which was reflected in the peasants by their immobility towards improvements in their own life.
Our ever-memorable predecessors saw this and took measures to change the situation of the peasants for the better; but these were measures, partly indecisive, proposed to the voluntary, freedom-loving action of landowners, partly decisive only for some areas, at the request of special circumstances or in the form of experience. Thus, Emperor Alexander I issued a decree on free cultivators, and our late father Nicholas I issued a decree on obligated peasants. In Western provinces, inventory rules determine the allocation of land to peasants and their duties. But the regulations on free cultivators and obliged peasants were put into effect on a very small scale.
Thus, we are convinced that the matter of changing the situation of serfs for the better is for us the testament of our predecessors and the lot given to us through the course of events by the hand of providence.
We began this matter with an act of our trust in the Russian nobility, in its devotion to its throne, proven by great experiences, and its readiness to make donations for the benefit of the Fatherland. We left it to the nobility itself, at their own invitation, to make assumptions about the new structure of life of the peasants, and the nobles were to limit their rights to the peasants and raise the difficulties of transformation, not without reducing their benefits. And our trust was justified. In the provincial committees, represented by their members, invested with the trust of the entire noble society of each province, the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to personality of serfs. In these committees, after collecting the necessary information, assumptions were made about the new structure of life for people in a state of serfdom and about their relationship to the landowners.
These assumptions, which turned out to be varied, as could be expected from the nature of the matter, were compared, agreed upon, put into the correct composition, corrected and supplemented in the Main Committee for this matter; and the new regulations on landowner peasants and courtyard people drawn up in this way were considered in the State Council.
Having called on God for help, we decided to give this matter executive movement.
By virtue of these new provisions, serfs will in due course receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.
The landowners, while retaining the right of ownership of all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for established duties, with their permanent homestead for permanent use and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, a certain amount of field land and other land determined in the regulations.
Using this land allotment, the peasants are obliged to fulfill the duties specified in the regulations in favor of the landowners. In this state, which is transitional, the peasants are called temporarily obliged.
At the same time, they are given the right to buy out their estates, and with the consent of the landowners, they can acquire ownership of field lands and other lands allocated to them for permanent use. With such acquisition of ownership of a certain amount of land, the peasants will be freed from their obligations to the landowners on the purchased land and will enter into a decisive state of free peasant owners.
A special provision for domestic servants defines for them a transitional state, adapted to their occupations and needs; upon expiration of a two-year period from the date of publication of this regulation, they will receive full exemption and immediate benefits.
On these main principles, the provisions drawn up determine the future structure of peasants and courtyard people, establish the order of public peasant governance and indicate in detail the rights granted to peasants and courtyard people and the responsibilities assigned to them in relation to the government and to the landowners.
Although these provisions, general, local and special additional rules for some special areas, for the estates of small landowners and for peasants working in landowner factories and factories, are, if possible, adapted to local economic needs and customs, however, in order to preserve the usual order there, where it represents mutual benefits, we allow the landowners to make voluntary agreements with the peasants and conclude conditions on the size of the peasants’ land allotment and the following duties in compliance with the rules established to protect the inviolability of such agreements.
As a new device, due to the inevitable complexity of the changes required by it, cannot be carried out suddenly, but will require time, approximately at least two years, then during this time, in order to avoid confusion and to respect public and private benefit, existing to this day in the landowners On estates, order must be preserved until, after proper preparations have been made, a new order will be opened.
To achieve this correctly, we considered it good to command:
1. To open in each province a provincial presence for peasant affairs, which is entrusted with the highest management of the affairs of peasant societies established on landowners' lands.
2. To resolve locally misunderstandings and disputes that may arise during the implementation of the new provisions, appoint peace mediators in the counties and form county peace congresses from them.
3. Then create secular administrations on the landowners' estates, for which, leaving rural societies in their current composition, open volost administrations in significant villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.
4. Draw up, verify and approve a statutory charter for each rural society or estate, which will calculate, on the basis of local situation, the amount of land provided to peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner both for the land and and for other benefits from it.
5. These statutory charters shall be carried out as they are approved for each estate, and finally put into effect for all estates within two years from the date of publication of this manifesto.
6. Until the expiration of this period, peasants and courtyard people remain in the same obedience to the landowners and unquestioningly fulfill their previous duties.
Paying attention to the inevitable difficulties of an acceptable transformation, we first of all place our hope in the all-good providence of God protecting Russia.
Therefore, we rely on the valiant zeal of the noble class for the common good, to whom we cannot fail to express from us and from the entire Fatherland well-deserved gratitude for their selfless action towards the implementation of our plans. Russia will not forget that it voluntarily, prompted only by respect for human dignity and Christian love for one’s neighbors, renounced serfdom, which is now being abolished, and laid the foundation for a new economic future for the peasants. We undoubtedly expect that it will also nobly use further diligence to implement the new provisions in good order, in the spirit of peace and goodwill, and that each owner will complete within the boundaries of his estate the great civil feat of the entire class, arranging the life of the peasants and his servants settled on his land people on terms beneficial to both parties, and thereby give the rural population a good example and encouragement to accurately and conscientiously fulfill state duties.
The examples in mind of the generous care of the owners for the welfare of the peasants and the gratitude of the peasants to the beneficent care of the owners confirm our hope that mutual voluntary agreements will resolve most of the difficulties inevitable in some cases of applying general rules to the various circumstances of individual estates, and that in this way the transition from the old order to the new and in the future mutual trust, good agreement and unanimous desire for common benefit will be strengthened.
For the most convenient implementation of those agreements between owners and peasants, according to which they will acquire ownership of field lands along with their estates, the government will provide benefits, on the basis of special rules, by issuing loans and transferring debts lying on the estates.
We rely on the common sense of our people. When the government's idea of abolishing serfdom spread among peasants who were not prepared for it, private misunderstandings arose. Some thought about freedom and forgot about responsibilities. But general common sense has not wavered in the conviction that, according to natural reasoning, one who freely enjoys the benefits of society must mutually serve the good of society by fulfilling certain duties, and according to Christian law, every soul must obey the powers that be (Rom. XIII, 1), give everyone their due, and especially to whom it is due, lesson, tribute, fear, honor; that rights legally acquired by landowners cannot be taken from them without decent compensation or voluntary concession; that it would be contrary to all justice to use land from the landowners and not bear the corresponding duties for it.
And now we expect with hope that the serfs, with the new future opening up for them, will understand and gratefully accept the important donation made by the noble nobility to improve their life.
They will understand that, having received for themselves a more solid foundation of property and greater freedom to dispose of their household, they become obligated to society and to themselves to supplement the beneficialness of the new law with the faithful, well-intentioned and diligent use of the rights granted to them. The most beneficial law cannot make people prosperous if they do not take the trouble to arrange their own well-being under the protection of the law. Contentment is acquired and increased only by unremitting labor, prudent use of strength and means, strict frugality and, in general, an honest life in the fear of God.
Those who carry out preparatory actions for the new structure of peasant life and the very introduction to this structure will use vigilant care to ensure that this is done with a correct, calm movement, observing the convenience of the time, so that the attention of farmers is not diverted from their necessary agricultural activities. Let them carefully cultivate the land and collect its fruits, so that later from a well-filled granary they can take seeds for sowing on land for permanent use or on land acquired as property.
Sign yourself with 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. Given in St. Petersburg, on the nineteenth day of February, in the year from the birth of Christ one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, the seventh of our reign.