From the moment the laws were published on February 19, 1861, landowner peasants ceased to be considered property - from now on they could not be sold, bought, given, or resettled at the will of the owners. The government declared the former serfs “free rural inhabitants” and granted them civil rights - freedom to marry, independently enter into contracts and conduct court cases, acquire real estate in their own name, etc.

The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. Village elders and elected officials from rural societies participated in the volost assembly. At this meeting, the volost foreman was elected. He performed police and 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. Peace mediators had broad powers. But the administration could not use peace mediators for its own purposes. They were not subordinate to either the governor or the minister and did not have to follow their instructions. They had to follow only the instructions of the law. The first composition of the world mediators included many humanely minded landowners (Decembrists G.S. Batenkov and A.E. Rosen, L.N. Tolstoy, etc.).

All land on the estate was recognized as the property of the landowner, including that which was in the use of the peasants. For the use of their plots, free peasants personally had to serve corvee or pay quitrent. The law recognized this condition as temporary. Therefore, personally free peasants bearing duties in favor of the landowner were called “temporarily obligated.”

The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should have been determined once and for all by agreement between the peasants and the landowner and recorded in the charter. The introduction of these charters was the main activity of the peace mediators.

The permissible scope of agreements between peasants and landowners was outlined in the law. Kavelin, as we remember, proposed leaving behind the peasants all the lands that they used under serfdom. The landowners of non-black earth provinces did not object to this. In the black earth provinces they protested furiously. Therefore, the law drew a line between non-chernozem and chernozem provinces. Non-black soil peasants still had almost the same amount of land in use as before. In the black soil, under pressure from the serf owners, a greatly reduced per capita allotment was introduced. When recalculated for such an allotment (in some provinces, for example Kursk, it dropped to 2.5 dessiatines), “extra” land was cut off from peasant societies. Where the peace mediator acted in bad faith, among the cut off lands there were lands necessary for the peasants - cattle runs, meadows, watering places. For additional duties, the peasants were forced to rent these lands from the landowners. The “cuts,” which greatly constrained the peasants, poisoned relations between the landowners and their former serfs for many years.

Sooner or later, the government believed, the “temporarily obligated” relationship would end and the peasants and landowners would conclude a buyout deal - for each estate. According to the law, peasants had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount. The rest was paid by the state. But the peasants had to return this amount to him (with interest) in annual payments for 49 years.

In principle, the ransom amount should be based on the profitability of the purchased lands. This is approximately what was done in relation to the black earth provinces. But the landowners of non-black earth provinces considered such a principle ruinous for themselves. They had long lived mainly not from the income from their poor lands, but from the quitrents that the peasants paid from their outside earnings. Therefore, in non-black earth provinces, land was subject to redemption payments higher than its profitability. The ransom payments that the government had been pumping out of the villages for many years took away all the savings in the peasant economy, prevented it from rebuilding and adapting to the market economy, and kept the Russian village in a state of poverty.

Fearing that peasants would not want to pay big money for bad plots and would run away, the government introduced a number of strict restrictions. While redemption payments were being made, the peasant could not refuse the allotment and leave his village forever without the consent of the village assembly. And the gathering was reluctant to give such consent, because the annual payments went to the entire society, regardless of the absent, sick and infirm. The whole society had to pay for them. The peasants were tied up mutual guarantee and attached to their allotment.

The serf-owners managed to introduce another amendment to the law. By agreement with the peasants, the landowner could refuse the ransom, “give” the peasants a quarter of their legal allotment, and take the rest of the land for himself. The peasant societies that fell for this trick subsequently bitterly repented.

Very soon, the villages of “donors” on their tiny plots became catastrophically impoverished.

Of course, this was not the kind of reform the peasants expected. Having heard about the approaching “freedom,” they received the news with surprise and indignation that they must continue to serve corvee labor and pay quitrent. Suspicions crept into their minds as to whether the manifesto they were read was genuine, whether the landowners, in agreement with the priests, had hidden the “real will.” Reports of peasant riots came from all the provinces of European Russia. Troops were sent to suppress. The events in the villages of Bezdna, Spassky district, Kazan province, and Kandeevka, Kerensky district, Penza province, were particularly dramatic.

In the Abyss lived a peasant sectarian Anton Petrov, a quiet and modest man. He read the “secret meaning” from the “Regulations” of February 19 and explained it to the peasants. It turned out that almost all the land should have gone to them, and to the landowners - “ravines and roads, and sand and reeds.” From all sides, former serfs went into the Abyss to listen “about real freedom.” The official authorities were expelled from the village, and the peasants established their own order.

Two infantry companies were sent to the village. Six volleys were fired at the unarmed peasants who surrounded Anton Petrov's hut in a tight ring. 91 people were killed. A week later, on April 19, 1861, Petrov was publicly shot.

In the same month, events took place in Kandeevka, where soldiers also shot at an unarmed crowd. 19 peasants died here. These and other similar news made a grave impression on the public, especially since it was forbidden to criticize the peasant reform in the press. But by June 1861 the peasant movement began to decline.

The reform did not turn out the way Kavelin, Herzen and Chernyshevsky dreamed of seeing it. Built on difficult compromises, it took into account the interests of the landowners much more than the peasants, and had a very short “time resource” - no more than 20 years. Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.

And yet the peasant reform of 1861 was of enormous historical significance. It opened up new prospects for Russia, creating an opportunity for the broad development of market relations. The country has confidently embarked on the path of capitalist development. A new era in its history has begun.

The moral significance of this reform, which ended serfdom, was also great. Its abolition paved the way for other important transformations, which were supposed to introduce modern forms of self-government and justice in the country, and push the development of education. Now that all Russians have become free, the question of the constitution has arisen in a new way. Its introduction became the immediate goal on the path to a rule of law state - a state governed by citizens in accordance with the law and every citizen has reliable protection in it.

We must remember the historical merits of those who developed and promoted this reform, who fought for its implementation - N.A. Milyutina, Yu.F. Samarina, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, K.D. Kavelina, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky, and in the longer term - the Decembrists, A.N. Radishcheva. We must not forget the merits of outstanding representatives of our literature - A.S. Pushkina, V.G. Belinsky, I.S. Turgeneva, N.A. Nekrasova and others. And, finally, the undeniably great merits of Emperor Alexander II.

Related information.

Alexander II

Contrary to the existing erroneous opinion that the overwhelming majority of the population of pre-reform Russia was in serfdom, in fact, the percentage of serfs to the entire population of the empire remained almost unchanged at 45% from the second revision to the eighth (that is, from before), and by the 10th revision ( ) this share fell to 37%. According to the 1859 census, 23.1 million people (of both sexes) out of 62.5 million people inhabiting the Russian Empire were in serfdom. Of the 65 provinces and regions that existed in the Russian Empire in 1858, in the three above-mentioned Baltic provinces, in the Land of the Black Sea Army, in the Primorsky region, the Semipalatinsk region and the region of the Siberian Kyrgyz, in the Derbent province (with the Caspian region) and the Erivan province there were no serfs at all; in another 4 administrative units (Arkhangelsk and Shemakha provinces, Transbaikal and Yakutsk regions) there were also no serfs, with the exception of several dozen courtyard people (servants). In the remaining 52 provinces and regions, the share of serfs in the population ranged from 1.17% (Bessarabian region) to 69.07% (Smolensk province).

Causes

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

Preparation of reform

The government program was outlined in a rescript from Emperor Alexander II on November 20 (December 2) to the Vilna Governor-General V. I. Nazimov. It provided: the destruction of personal dependence peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners; provision peasants a certain amount of land, for which they will be required to pay rent or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings). To prepare peasant reforms, provincial committees were formed, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between liberal and reactionary landowners. The fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government program of peasant reform, the projects of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or decline of the peasant movement. In December, a new peasant reform program was adopted: providing peasants the possibility of purchasing land and creating peasant public administration bodies. To review projects of provincial committees and develop peasant reform, Editorial Commissions were created in March. The project drawn up by the Editorial Commissions at the end differed from that proposed by the provincial committees in increasing land allotments and reducing duties. This caused discontent among the local nobility, and in the project the allotments were slightly reduced and duties increased. This direction in changing the project was preserved both when it was considered in the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs at the end, and when it was discussed in the State Council at the beginning.

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

The main provisions of the peasant reform

The main act - “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom” - contained the main conditions of the peasant reform:

• peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property;
• The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with “sedentary estates” and field allotment for use.
• For the use of allotment land, peasants had to serve corvee or pay quitrent and did not have the right to refuse it for 9 years.
• The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in the statutory charters of 1861, which were drawn up by the landowners for each estate and verified by the peace intermediaries.
• Peasants were given the right to buy out an estate and, by agreement with the landowner, a field allotment; until this was done, they were called temporarily obligated peasants.
• the structure, rights and responsibilities of the peasant public administration bodies (rural and volost) courts were also determined.

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

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

The “Regulations on the Settlement of Household People” provided for their release without land, but for 2 years they remained completely dependent on the landowner.

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

The “Manifesto” and “Regulations” were published from March 7 to April 2 (in St. Petersburg and Moscow - March 5). Fearing the dissatisfaction of the peasants with the conditions of the reform, the government took a number of precautions (relocation of troops, sending members of the imperial retinue to places, appeal of the Synod, etc.). The peasantry, dissatisfied with the enslaving conditions of the reform, responded to it with mass unrest. The largest of them were the Bezdnensky uprising of 1861 and the Kandeyevsky uprising of 1861.

The implementation of the Peasant Reform began with the drawing up of statutory charters, which was mostly completed by the middle of the year. On January 1, 1863, peasants refused to sign about 60% of the charters. The purchase price of land significantly exceeded its market value at that time, in some areas by 2-3 times. As a result of this, in a number of regions they were extremely keen to receive gift plots, and in some provinces (Saratov, Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Voronezh, etc.) a significant number of peasant gift-givers appeared.

Under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863, changes occurred in the conditions of the Peasant Reform in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine: the law of 1863 introduced compulsory redemption; redemption payments decreased by 20%; peasants who were dispossessed of land from 1857 to 1861 received their allotments in full, those dispossessed of land earlier - partially.

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

The abolition of serfdom also affected appanage peasants, who, by the “Regulations of June 26, 1863,” were transferred to the category of peasant owners through compulsory redemption under the terms of the “Regulations of February 19.” In general, their plots were significantly smaller than those of the landowner peasants.

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

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

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

Literature

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

Links

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

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Regulations of February 19, 1861” are in other dictionaries:

- “REGULATIONS” FEBRUARY 19, 1861, a legislative act that formalized the abolition of serfdom in Russia and began the peasant reform of 1861 (see PEASANT REFORM). Consisted of the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom”, 4... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

PROVISIONS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1861, a legislative act that formalized the abolition of serfdom and began the peasant reform of 1861. Consisted of the General Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, 4 separate Regulations, 4 Local Regulations ... ... Russian history

Political science. Dictionary.

- (“Regulations” February 19, 1861) a set of legislative acts that formalized the abolition of serfdom in Russia. Approved by Emperor Alexander II on February 19, 1861 in St. Petersburg. Consisted of “General provisions on peasants who came from ... ...

The legislative act that formalized the abolition of serfdom in Russia and began the peasant reform of 1861. Consisted of the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom”, 4 separate “Regulations”, 4 “Local Provisions” by group... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Legislator acts formalizing the abolition of serfdom in Russia. They consist of 17 documents: General provisions on peasants emerging from serfdom, provisions on the arrangement of palace people, on ransom, on the cross. institutions, four local... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

REGULATIONS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1861, a legislative act that formalized the abolition of serfdom in Russia and began the peasant reform of 1861. Consisted of the General Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, 4 separate Regulations, 4 Local ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

A document that established the size of the allotment of temporarily obliged peasants (See Temporarily obliged peasants) according to the “Regulations” of February 19, 1861 (See Regulations of February 19, 1861) and duties for its use, and also recorded information about ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

PEASANT REFORM 1861, the main reform carried out during the reign of Emperor Alexander II, 1860-70s, abolished serfdom. Carried out on the basis of the Regulations of February 19, 1861 (published March 5). The peasants received personal freedom and... ... Russian history

Bourgeois reform, which abolished serfdom in Russia and marked the beginning of the capitalist formation in the country. The main cause of K. r. There was a crisis in the feudal serf system. “The power of economic development that pulled Russia in... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

• Great Reform. February 19 (set of 2 books), In the year of the 150th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom in Russia, the TONCHU Publishing House republished six volumes of the books “The Great Reform. Russian society and the peasant question in the past and present”, released... Category:

About the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants

By the grace of God, We, Alexander II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, 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 the 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 deceased 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, retaining the right of ownership of all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for established duties, for the permanent use of their settled estates and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, a certain amount of field land and other lands 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 aversion to 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.

"Provisions of February 19, 1861"

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

The main conditions for the abolition of serfdom, set out in the “General Regulations” are as follows: serfdom, peasant reform

The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in the statutory charters, for the preparation of which a two-year period was allotted. The landowners themselves were entrusted with drawing up charter documents, but checking them? the so-called peace intermediaries, who were appointed from among the local noble landowners. Thus, the same landowners became intermediaries between peasants and landowners.

Charter charters were concluded not with an individual peasant, but with the “peace”, i.e. with the rural society of peasants who belonged to one or another landowner, as a result of which duties for the use of land were removed from the “world”. The mandatory allocation of land and the establishment of mutual responsibility for the payment of duties actually led to the enslavement of the peasants by the “peace.” The peasant did not have the right to leave society; to receive a passport, all this depended on the decision of the “world”. Peasants were given the right to buy out the estate, while the buyout of the field plot was determined by the will of the landowner. If the landowner wanted to sell his land, the peasants had no right to refuse. Peasants who bought out their field plots were called peasant owners, and those who did not buy out were called temporarily obliged. The ransom was also carried out not by an individual, but by the entire rural community.

Analyzing these conditions, it is easy to see that they fully met the interests of the landowners. The establishment of temporary-obligation relations preserved the feudal system of exploitation for an indefinite period. The question of ending them was determined solely by the will of the landowners, on whose desire the transfer of peasants to ransom depended. The implementation of the reform was transferred entirely into the hands of the landowners, from among whom peace intermediaries were appointed.

The issue of the size of land plots, as well as payments and duties for their use, was determined by “Local Provisions”. Four “Local Regulations” were published. In accordance with these “Regulations”, peasants were allocated a certain amount of land. However, the established standards for mental allotment were, as a rule, lower than the amount of land that the peasants had before the reform; this made it possible for landowners to cut off for their own benefit that amount of land that exceeded the highest spiritual allotment. Also, the landowner had the right to reduce the allotment to one quarter of the highest if he transferred this part of the land to the peasants free of charge on the basis of a mutually beneficial agreement. This was very beneficial to the landowners, because... gave them the opportunity to hold on to the rapidly increasing price of land.

Those. the solution to the issue of providing peasants with land in most provinces provided landowners with ample opportunities to rob the peasantry, i.e. dispossessing it. In addition to reducing the peasant allotment, the landowners received an additional opportunity to rob the peasants in the form of an exchange of peasant lands, i.e. relocating them to obviously unprofitable land.

A special regulation was issued regarding domestic servants. The courtyard workers did not receive either a field allotment or an estate. From the day the “Regulations” were promulgated, the servants formally received “... all personal, family and property rights granted to peasants who emerged from serfdom.” However, despite this, they remained completely dependent on their owners for two years. Household servants had to serve regularly or pay dues, “remaining in full, on the basis of the laws, obedience to the owners.” After the expiration of the two-year period, all the servants were released by the landowner, without receiving either a land allotment or any remuneration, regardless of the length of service for the landowner. Only for those who were incompetent, a small “pension” was assigned, at the expense of ruble collection from the courtyard workers themselves.

Now we need to talk about the legal status of the peasants, as well as their social structure. According to the “General Regulations”, peasants received “the rights of status of free rural inhabitants, both personal and in property.” However, they were included in a number of so-called tax-paying classes, which, unlike the privileged, had to pay a capitation tax and bear conscription duties. The peasants remained somewhat dependent on the local nobility.

The landowner was granted the rights of patrimonial police, i.e. in police matters, the village authorities were subordinate to him. The landowner had the right to demand a change in the village headman or other members of the village administration. Moreover, during the first nine years, the landowner was given “... the right, if he recognizes the presence of any peasant in society as harmful or dangerous, to propose to the society itself to exclude that peasant and present him at the disposal of the government. According to the “Regulations”, bodies of peasant “public” administration were created in the villages of former landowner peasants, which were highly dependent on the local nobility. The lowest level of these bodies was the rural society, which consisted of peasants “settled on the land of one landowner.” Several rural societies formed a volost, created on a territorial basis with a number of 300 to 2 thousand revision souls. The rural public administration consisted of a village assembly, which elected a village headman and a number of officials (tax collectors, bread store supervisors, etc.). In addition, the village assembly was in charge of issues of land ownership and use. The headman was actually a representative of the police power; his functions were limited to maintaining order and ensuring the payment of various taxes.

The volost administration consisted of a volost assembly, a volost elder with a volost administration, and volost officials and representatives from every ten peasant households. The volost assembly elected volost officials and judges, and also resolved various issues affecting the entire volost. The actual owner of the volost was the volost foreman. All administrative peasant bodies were directly subordinate to the peace intermediaries, who were chosen exclusively by hereditary noble landowners. All this says that the legal “emancipation” of the peasants left them completely dependent on the local nobility.

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:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. The increase in peasant revolts indicated that the serf system was a “powder keg” under the state;
4. 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.