What is the main goal of the peasant reform 1861. Terms of land transfer to the property
Great reform "1861 and its consequences
One of the central events in the domestic history of the second half of the XIX century V. Stal is the abolition of serfdom and other reforms that followed it. In 1855, after the death of Nikolai I, his son came to power - Alexander II. He accepted power in the hardest moment when Russia suffered defeat in the Crimean War. Alexander II fell on the path of reforms not so much due to his convictions as as a result of the realization of the lessons of the Crimean War.
In modern historiography, a number of reasons that have led Russian authorities to conduct reforms are allocated:
1) the urgent need for the transition of Russia from the traditional, agricultural type of society to the industrial, the elimination of the emerging military-economic lag from the advanced countries of Western Europe;
2) the presence of crisis phenomena in the fastener sector of the economy, which led to frequent insignificant and insecurity of peasants
bread;
3) the potential danger of the social explosion in the peasant environment in the country;
4) The defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, which led the line under attempts to avoid or postpone the urgent modernization of agrarian society.
The first step towards the preparation of the peasant reform in 1857 was the creation of a secret committee for peasant affairs. The main result of its activity was the final decision on the abolition of serfdom. After that, the secrecy has lost its meaning and in 1858 the Committee was transformed into the Chief, whose task has already been to the definition of the principles of the liberation of peasants and the question of putting their land. These general principles were required to adapt to specific regions of the country. Special private editorial commissions were established (1859) the nobles were invited to form provincial committees to discuss the conditions for the liberation of peasants.
In the preparation of reforms, Alexander II relied on representatives of the highest bureaucracy, which were supporters of transformations. The most prominent role in the preparation of reforms played the younger brother of Tsar Great Prince Konstantin Nikolayevich (naval minister), N.A. Milyutin (Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs), D.A. Milyutin (Military Minister). Among the supporters of the transformations there were several points of view on the abolition of serfdom:
1) most of the nobility wanted to declare the peasants with free, having civil and property rights, but without any one, retaining the whole land owned;
2) free the peasants with the ground, but with a significantly trimmed one;
4) Do not make the peasants with the owners of the Earth, and accurately ignite the stationery, which were in the use of peasants, and the duties that they were in favor of landowners;
5) Ensure the peasants of a manor, arable, animal and meadow earth in an amount sufficient for the peasant family.
The final choice of the reform variant remained for Alexander II. By the beginning of 1861, the draft cancellation of serfdom was fully prepared. Central documents of reform were "Manifest" on February 19, 1861 and " General About peasants who came out of serfdom "proclaimed the abolition of serfdom and the general conditions of this cancellation.
In February 1861, all fortress peasants were provided with personal freedom. The provided freedom was expressed in the possibility of using peasants part of civil rights: conclusions of contracts, making trade transactions, opening enterprises, marriage, admission to educational institutions, etc. At the same time, the organization of the internal life of the liberated peasants should be built on the basics of community self-government. The functions of the rural community included such essential issues of peasant life as land distribution, tax layout and regulation of intraditary relations.
Freedom of the peasant acquired reality for him only if he received the Earth. Under the conditions of the reform, the landowners were obliged to highlight the peasant the land plot into indefinite continuous use. The size of the incident was determined by the voluntary agreement of the landowner with former serfs. If such an agreement was not achieved, the world intermediaries determined the size of the incomes on the basis of norms developed for each locality, taking into account the soil fertility and population density. Surplus the land were called segments and were withdrawn in favor of the landowner. The Earth could become the property of the peasants only if they concluded a repurchase deal with the landowner. They paid 20% of the cost, and the remaining amount made a state for the peasants. It was a redemption loan, to return the peasants should have been for 49 years with annual redemption payments of 6% per annum from the size of the loan.
Such a difficult decision of a land question could not satisfy the peasants. First, the size of the incidents transmitted to the peasants was reduced compared to those that they used in the preformal period. The magnitude of this difference is "segments" - in general amounted to about 20%. Secondly, this land should still be redeemed. True, 80% of the redemption amount made a state, but it did it by no means free, but gave the peasants a loan. Thus, the state has sought out several tasks at once: provided landlords necessary to restructure the farm for a new way with large cash or working hands, in case of refusal from such a restructuring (the lack of land was to force the peasants to take her to rent from the landlord), conducted Profitable usury operation.
The peasants amounted to rural society (community), whose self-government body was a rural gathering. They were allowed to be given various economic issues, the elders were elected. The statutory letter, which determined the size of the incidents and duties, was signed by the landowner with a rural society, and not with individual peasants. The exit from the community, even with the redefined land, was very difficult, the community contained the bundle of peasants. The community belonged 80% of the entire land, peasants - 20%. To get out of the community without consent to this two thirds of her members, the peasant did not have the opportunity. He could not become the owner of his land.
The reform of 1861 was the result of a compromise, a complex coordination of the interests of the state, landowners and peasants. After it, the little sail is preserved, the peasants were burdened with redemption payments. It gave rise to new conflicts and contradictions both between peasants and landowners and within society. Nevertheless, the abolition of serfdom has created objective prerequisites for the modernization of the country. As a result of her, landlords began to enter the path of modernization. Among the peasants began to arise a guise layer, which got on the path of commodity production. The numerous peasantry (35% of the country's population was serfs) replenished the ranks of workers and thereby contributed to industrial progress in Russia.
However, the layer of owners, the "middle class" did not give the reform. Community Earth could not alienate, did not subject to purchase and sale. And the land, whose owner of the peasant NE was, he had to buy away from the landowner. The redemption was mandatory. If the peasant refused to buy land, the government has pricked up payments. By 1881, 85% of the peasants passed on the ransom voluntarily, 15% is forcibly. Before the payment of redemption payments, the peasants were obliged to fulfill the subsidy in favor of the landowner, and were in the position of temporary obligated. The right to refuse to put on the peasant did not have. This was explained by the desire to limit the outflow of workers from the village.
The second stage of the reform concerned the specific peasants (owned by the imperial surname). In 1863, a provision was published on the stomach device of two million specific peasants. They were personally free. The land they enjoyed was transferred to the ownership of the community for redemption. The magnitude of the specific peasant was one and a half times more than the landlord peasants. The urgent submit to the royal family was transformed into redemption payments for a period of 49 years. The third stage of the reform concerned 20 million state peasants. They were personally free and lived by the community on state land. By decree of 1866, the state peasants went to the land without redemption, but they were obliged to contribute annual payments to the treasury as a "state ruffle grade".
Peasant reforms 1861-1866. Strengthen the community structure by passing the community the property to Earth. The community belonged to 4/5 of the whole land, peasants - 1/5 part. Exit free from the community and become the owner of his land the peasant had no opportunity. Nevertheless, with all the limitedness, the peasant reforms of the 1860s were step forward along the path of modernization of Russia.
A change in the legal status of such a large population group could not not affect all parties to Russia. Therefore, the liberation of the peasants should have been complemented by a number of other reforms conducted in the 60-70s of the XIX century.
The most important of them was the reform introducing new self-government bodies in rural areas (Zemskaya reform). In 1864, the "Regulations on the provincial and county facilities" was approved. Zemstvo was created - elected all-known organs. Elections in them were carried out on the basis of property cencing, in the Kuria. As part of the Zemstvo (meetings) and executive (councils). The competence of the scum includes issues of education, medical care, social wagism, improvement, supply of food counties. Political issues were not within the scope of the activities of the Zemstvo authorities. Central and local authorities - Minister of Internal Affairs, Governors - had the right to reject any decree of the Zemstvo Assembly. Zemstvo did not have the right to the All-Russian Association, the publicity of the ZemSKoy activity was limited. Zemstvo institutions were created in 34 provinces and the area of \u200b\u200bDon Troops. Their creation did not apply to non-Russian outskirts.
The next step in the change in local government was urban reform. In 1870, the city situation was approved, according to which in 509 cities of Russia, all-class elected self-government bodies were created - urban Duma. They were elected for 4 years, the elections were based on the property qualification. The right to elect and be elected to the city Duma was provided only to tax payers. The urban head, chosen by the Duma, was approved by the governor or the Minister of Internal Affairs. In 1892, the self-government was introduced in 621 cities out of 707. Urban dooms were engaged in the improvement of cities, the development of health and public education. Like Zemstvo, Duma was operating under the control of government officials who could suspend any decision of the urban self-government body.
The judicial reform (1864) was of great importance, which replaced the old court new, based on the principles of bourgeois law. Doreformous courts were classified: there were special courts for peasants, citizens, nobles. The structure of the pre-reform judicial system included a huge number of instances that could lead to decades. The prosecutors were "penalties" and at the same time the "defenders of innocence" the judicial investigation was closed, the audience was absent. The court had no right to directly explore evidence. Based on the written documents submitted, in which the "extract" obtained on the investigation of the testimony was carried out, the court ended the sentence. The trial did not see the witnesses and did not interrogate, the defendant was absent. Educational qualifications for judges was not installed. Even at the highest level (for example, in the Senate) in the second quarter of the XIX century. Only a few have special legal training. The failure of the court and justice led to an unusually low prestige of justice, legal nihilism, disrespect for the law in all public circles. The need to change the state-legal system has long been abandoned, its reform should have facilitated the modernization of the country. Famous lawyers were attracted to the development of judicial reform - D.A. Rovinsky, S.I. Zaudnaya, N.A. Buckorovsky et al.
The judicial reform of 1864 replaced the old Corrupt court new, based on the principles of bourgeois law: the equality of all citizens to the law and the independence of the court from power, the incrementability of judges, the publicity of the court and the adversary of the trial with the participation of the prosecutor and the lawyer.
Three types of ships were created: the world court, the district court and the court chamber. The world court examined small misconduct and civil lawsuits, the damage for which did not exceed 500 rubles. District Court disassembled criminal and civil crimes with the participation of jurors. The court chamber considered cases of state and political crimes. The highest judicial authority was the Senate, which could cancel the decision of the courts. The judicial reform was a significant step towards the creation of elementary norms of legality and law in the country.
A universal court with elected world judges formed a new citizenship for Russia. This was especially brightly demonstrated by the jury, in which the society was not a listener, but a participant of the process. It is characteristic that the composition of the jury as a whole reflected the social composition of the population. In 1883, among the jury were: nobles and officials - 15%, blessing - 18%, peasants - 57%. The introduction of a vowel unconscious court limited autocracy.
The defeat in the Crimean War was acutely demanded to reorganize the army and equipping it with new weapons. In 1861, the military minister was appointed D.A. Milyutin, who headed the transformation in the army. Military reform stretched for 15 years. In the course of her, the army was rearmed: a steam military fleet was created, artillery was updated, the smooth-bore weapon was replaced by rifled, railways were built to the boundaries. The system of military-educational institutions was reformed: military gymnasiums, UNCERSK Schools, Military Academies were created. The country was divided into 15 military districts, the centralization of military governance was carried out. New charters appeared in the army, paying the main attention to the combat and physical training of soldiers. However, the core of the reform was a decree of 1874 on military duty. Instead of recruiting sets, a universal military service was introduced for male people who have reached 20 years at the time of call. The service life in the army has decreased: 25-year recruitment was replaced in 6-year-old ground forces, and in the naval forces, 7-year-old service life. In the officers of the school, access was opened not only by nobles, but also to representatives of other classes. The state as a result of these measures was able to have a mobile personnel army.
The reform in the field of education provided the opportunity to study at school to children of all classes. In classical gymnasiums, more attention was paid to humanitarian, and in real-natural items. University Charter of 1863 restored the autonomy and democracy of the Higher School. Universities had 4 main faculties. Training in them (as in gymnasiums) was paid. The Reforms of Enlightenment allowed the country to have an intellectual elite, but there was no universal education yet.
In 1865, the reform of censorship was carried out. The censorship routes were weakened and the prerequisites were created to identify and discuss the problems in society.
Reformed financial sphere. In 1860, the State Bank was established. The only owner of the budget was the Minister of Finance. For general information, the painting of income and expenses began to be published. The system of otkupov in a winegirl, generating enormous corruption, was replaced by an excise system (excise tax on producers of alcoholic beverages), from the mid-1860s, commercial banks began to open in the country.
Thus, reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX century made huge changes to the life of the country. They contributed to the creation of conditions for the industrial modernization of Russia, it was noticeably accelerated by its development both in socio-economic and political relations. At the same time, the reforms did not affect the autocratic power, retained the remnants of the serf system. Therefore, their success did not receive a proper completion in the form of a constant movement towards the complete democratization of society.
Reforms of 1860-1870s. allowed for a while to stabilize the situation in the country. However, stabilization could not be long, because in the main system of power did not change - it still remained an autocably monarchical, which became more an anachronism in the conditions of a clay reality. Therefore, regardless of whether the personal qualities of this or that emperor were, whether Alexander II (1855 - 1881), Alexander III (1881 - 1894), or Nicholas II (1894 - 1917) - all of them In the face of the problem of discontent considerable part of the public with the existing authority. In turn, the wider the discontent was manifested, the higher Russian leadership became conservative, the more reluctantly, it went on any concessions. Accordingly, the main forms of the state device during the second half of the XIX century. remained almost unchanged.
The monarch carried out his power, not being limited to any formal framework (although he could not fully ignore the same public opinion), listening only to the voice of the nearest environment, as a rule, completely separated by the obstruction of the monarch. Naturally, hence the smallest changes have undergone a system of higher government bodies. She continued to consist of the Law of the State Council, the Executive Committee of Ministers, the Judicial Senate and the Synod Governor.
Local management in the second half of the XIX century. It has changed noticeably, which is associated with the emergence of the system of self-government. The head of the local administration, as before, remained the governor, but his competence was clearly decreased, since part of it passed into the sphere of the activities of all-class, elected Zemsky institutions. Despite this, the official apparatus, both in the center and on the ground, not only did not decrease, but, on the contrary, it grown several times (from 61 thousand to 385 thousand people for the attachment).
The flame reality was put in front of the government a lot of new challenges caused to life by the progress of Russian modernization. Among them are imbalances in the development of industry and agriculture, the rapid formation of new social classes, the growing of social contradictions, the activation of socio-political movements, peasant unrest, the emergence of revolutionary organizations. The destinies of the country largely depended on the moment from the development strategy that the government would have chosen. The alternativeness of the situation was either in a gradual continuation of reforms, or in refusing to further reform the country.
In the late 1870s. In the actions of the government, Alexander II, there was a course for the suspension of reforms. The country's highest bureaucracy in the main mass believed that the reforms carried out improved the state of affairs in the country and therefore the continuation of transformations are not necessary. Moreover, the voices of those who believed that only new problems would create reforms, without solving the problems of older. The growth of new public contradictions, the emergence of the working movement, the appeals of populists to the peasant revolution were considered by supporters of the conservative course in the government as a direct consequence of reforms of the 1860s - 1870s. In trying to take the country under the control of Alexander II began to strengthen bureaucratic management methods. However, this caused sharp criticism from the liberal movement, which the government reproached for an inconsistent internal political course. The policy of punitive measures did not bring the expected results, and Alexander II decided to make concessions to the liberal expectations of the educated society.
Under the leadership of the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris Melikova began to develop the reform program for the coming years. It was assumed to lower the redemption of the fears of peasants. The question was resolved about the representative assembly in the country. M.T. Loris Melikov sought to conduct the necessary political transformations and at the same time weakened the opposition, to prevent the possible Union of Liberals with revolutionary. He proposed to create in Russia not a full parliament who discussing and taking legal acts (the creation of a parliament on the Western model was the case of a distant future), and a deliberative representative body during the monarch. In the near future, it was proposed to convene special commissions in the capital from representatives of the deposits, cities, nobles, which, together with the government, would have been developing new reforms. The agenda was the issues of revising the conditions for the repurchase of peasant pans and the reform of local self-government. On March 1, 1881, Alexander II approved this plan, but did not succeed in life because of the death of the emperor on the same day due to the terrorist act of members of the Folk Volya organization.
After the death of Alexander II, the government finally took the top of the conservatives led by the Ober Prosecutor of the Synod KP. Victorious. He convinced the new emperor Alexander III in that M.T. Loris Melikov offers the introduction of the Constitution and the limitation of the power of the emperor. K.P. The victorious creates a sharp criticism of the so-called "constitution M.T. Loris Melikova ", which suggested the convening of representatives of the Company to discuss issues on the introduction of representative institutions, and stated that Russia would die with the introduction of the Constitution. On April 29, 1881, the coronation manifesto was published, which proclaimed the inviolability of the autocratic power and laid the beginning of the transition to counterformations. On August 14, 1881, the decree of the emperor was allowed to declare a partial or complete state of emergency and attract the perpetrators of political crimes to the Tribunal.
The liberal ministers were removed from the government, the conservatives were taken by convinces, convinced of the need for tough policy. In the country, the "Provision on Strengthened and Emergency Protection" was introduced providing broad rights to governors and police. Alexander III did not go to the deepening of reforms, and adopted a number of laws called counterposses.
Governors received the right to introduce a state of emergency in the provinces, betray the military court of persons who committed state crimes and crimes against officials. The closeness of the trial was introduced, the competence of the jury of the jury was limited (political affairs were withdrawn from their conduct). The laws prohibiting the bathers after the expiration of the employment period to stop working and leave the landowner. It was forbidden to divide the peasant posts. Since 1890, only offacarious nobles could be appointed by the positions of the Zemstvo chiefs who belonged to the forensic administrative power in the field. These and a number of other measures strengthened autocracy, increased the role of the nobility of the landowners in the management of the state, but did not lead the goal and could not stop the process of economic modernization of Russia.
In 1881, the Ministry of Internal Affairs introduced temporary press rules. According to them, after the third warning, the publication was suspended, and then the next number was supposed to be provided in censorship. Upon request, the publisher was obliged to disclose the pseudonyms of the authors of articles. The results of the Print Rules were not forced to wait a long time - two years after their introduction in Russia there was not a single radical magazine.
The pinnacle of the reformist policy was introduced in 1889 the Institute of Zemstvo Chiefs, who were the most frequent owners of the village and could cancel any decision of the rural gathering. Zemstvo chiefs were appointed governors from the nobles and were accountable only to them. The following year, there were new rules on elections to the Zemsky councils, which brought the peasant representation in the deposits.
Councils affected by education systems. The university charter was abolished 1863, rectors, deans, the faculty began to be appointed, and not to get out. In 1884, the autonomy of universities was destroyed, a special inspection was created to control students' classes. In 1887, the Circular Minister of Education I.D. Delianova has limited access to the gymnasium and universities from the lower estates (this circular received the ironic name "On the kitchers"). The schools intensified the teaching of religious items. The number of church-parish schools, which sought to replace secular education, increased from 4 to 32 thousand. In addition, the government has taken a number of measures to Russify national outflows.
The conservative domestic course after the death of Alexander III (in 1894) continued his son, Nicholas II. He had to manage a huge power at a turning point when many traditional values \u200b\u200bwere rethought by society, and the need for democratic change increased. However, Nicholas II saw his task in the protection of the "start-up of autocracy". As a result, the accelerating economic and cultural development of the country began to come into an increasing contradiction with its political system. Russian empireUnlike most European countries, where state power developed in the direction of parliamentarism, continued to remain an autocratic state.
Control questions
1. What was the government program of the peasant reform of 1861?
2. What was the preservation of the remnants of the serf system after the reform of 1861?
3. How has the system changed as a result of land and urban reforms?
4. What was the reason for the transition of the Government of Alexander III to the policy of "counter-reviews"?
5. What contradictions in the socio-economic and political development of Russia were characteristic of the end of the XIX century?
Literature
Zakharova L.G. Alexander II and the abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., "RosSlan", 2011.
Konovalov V.S. Reform of 1861 in the history of Russia (to the 150th anniversary of the cancellation of serfdom). Collection of reviews and abstracts. Moscow, Institute of Scientific Information on Public Sciences (Inion) RAS. 2011.
Litvak V.G. Movement 1861 in Russia: why the reform alternative was not realized. M., 1991.
Tomsinov V.A. The constitutional issue in Russia in the 60s - early 80s of the XIX century. M.: "Zrotsalo", 2013.
Tsamutali A.N. Power, society and reforms in Russia in the XIX - early XX century: research, historiography, source studies. Sat Scientific Tr. / Ross. Acad. science S.-Petersburg. In-t history. St. Petersburg: Nestor-History, 2009.
Peasant Reform of 1861
Introduction
Causes of reform
Preparation of reform
Conclusion
List of sources and literature
Introduction
the century has become a magnitude turning period in Russian history. Undoubtedly, speaking of this period, first of all recalls the war of 1812, and the uprising of the Decembrists, the golden age of Russian culture and other, equally important historical events and cultural phenomena.
Of course, in a number of these significant facts of Russian history, with which the age of XIX is associated, the reform of 1861 is also associated. Moreover, it was she who became one of the turning events of Russian history, in many respects determining its subsequent events and the fate of the country.
Such a huge importance of this reform in the history of our state led to a number of circumstances, without considering which it is impossible to realize the significance that the peasant reform broke.
The question of the abolition of serfdom in Russia was one of the most important and painful for quite a long time. Of course, it is impossible to forget that about the same historical period, the problem of slavery was the key to the internal policy of many leading countries of the world. His decision, most often, was accompanied by bloody and cruel wars.
Unlike other leading countries of the world, Russia "cost" without wars and numerous victims, and the serfdom was abolished from above - the government and the emperor.
As already noted above, the solution of the issue of serfdom has been crossed for quite a long time, since the Russian government perfectly understood the negative role that it played in the economic, political and social development of the country, as well as in moral terms.
Nevertheless, the reform on the abolition of serfdom was carried out only in 1861, which was preceded by a huge, painstaking work on the development of this draft law and a longer period of preparation of public opinion (first of all conservative circles - landlords) to the upcoming transformations.
Only Alexander II decided on such cardinal measures and consistently defended the marked political line, taking an active part in not only in the development of the reform project, but also promoting it.
This paper discusses the most relevant aspects of the peasant reform of 1861. Among them, first of all it is necessary to name the analysis of issues related to the preparation of reform, as well as why Alexander II became conductor, after receiving the liberator later.
In addition, the main provisions of the peasant reform of 1861 are also considered, as well as those principles and features that were laid in it. Moreover, in the proposed work, not only the consequences of the reform carried out, but also analyzed its economic, political and social results of the consequences.
1. Causes of reform
peasant reform
The 60-17th years of the XIX century were the time of indigenous transformations in Russia, which touched on almost all the most important parties to society and the state as a whole.
During this period, economic and political reforms were carried out, management reform, as well as transformations in the field of culture and education.
The lost Crimean war was the main impetus for such large-scale transformations. The defeat of Russia in the war showed the complete inconsistency of the political and economic system of Nicholas I. The military and economic power of Russia, with its collision with advanced European powers it turned out to be imaginary. Moreover, the Crimean War led Russia to international isolation.
Failures in the war and the death of Nicholas I in a certain sense would have liberated not only the liberal part of society, but also a number of government officials.
Alexander II decided on transformation exclusively by the will of the circumstances, which does not detract from his role in such a large-scale reform of the country. The main merit was the awareness of them the need for transformations. Thus, to preserve Russia, as a great power, it was possible only through the reorganization of the Nikolaev system1 .
Speaking about the need for reforms in Russia of the period under consideration, it should be noted that the peasant question was the main node of the Russian problems. From his decision, the fate of 110 thousand landlords and 22 million of their serfs, 20 million state and 2 million of the specific peasants depended directly.
The question of which factors have become decisive in the cancellation of the serfdom of a common opinion still not. Some historians emphasize on the economic and social processes that took place in Russia. The serfdom has become an insurmountable brake for the further development of the country. Untile labor serfs, according to their estimates, became extremely ineffective, and the landowner, in pursuit of profit, increasingly increased the operation of the peasants. All this led to the degradation of the economy, the fierce of the peasants. There is a transition from feudalism to capitalism.
Other researchers tend to believe that serfdom, braking the progress, still exhausted by the middle of the XIX century all reserves, and feudalism could still develop for some time. Supporters of this concept believe that the peasant rebellion of the 50s were scattered and few, and therefore did not threaten the revolution.
According to this concept, Russia could still live for a long time without an internal economic and social catastrophe, but it was no longer able to compete in the international arena with European industrial powers. Thus, according to supporters of this theory, the abolition of serfdom was caused not so much intraolesky, how many foreign policy factors2 .
In any case, the abolition of serfdom has become the most important border of Russian history, and a huge role of the state in this process. This is exactly what has become the main distinguishing feature of Russia from Europe, where such transformations were carried out solely in connection with bourgeois revolutions, during powerful social explosions.
Summing up, it is worth noting the main causes of the peasant reform of 1861:
Serfdom as a form of slavery has long been discussed by all layers of society;
The modernization of the country that was extremely necessary (as clearly demonstrated defeat in the Crimean War), overcoming technical and economic retardation was impossible within the framework of serfdom.
The work of the fortress peasants was small and did not contribute to the development of the agrarian sector in the economy as a whole.
The government feared the elemental speeches of the peasantry.
The need to restore international authority and the role of Russia in world politics3 .
Preparation of reform
Most historians tend to believe that Alexander II not only did not have a specific program of necessary transformations, but also was not ready for reform activity at all. To strengthen this opinion in historical science, it was consistent with the speech, spoken by the emperor on March 30, 1856 at a dinner arranged in his honor by the Moscow nobility. It is in it that Alexander II said a decisive phrase: "It is much better that it happened over, rather than below 4" However, many researchers note that this speech is not too thought out by the emperor and there was a clear desire to remove the responsibility for the decision of the peasant question. .
Nevertheless, already the first years of his reign were marked by a number of important changes, during which, in general, the main directions of future reforms were noticed.
In 1955, the highest censorship committee was closed, a free issuance of foreign passports was allowed, arrears were forgiven and the applied estates were exempt from recruitous postures for three years. Military settlements were abolished, amnesty was announced for political prisoners (Decembrists, participants of the Polish uprising of 1831 and Petrashevtsev).
In the same predefined period, the circle of future reformers was determined, i.e. Those people who developed and implement a new political line. Among them should be noted: Brothers N.A. and D.A. Milyutina, S.I. Zherrichny, P.A. Valuev, A.V. Head
In addition to the already named officials of the "second echelon", it is also impossible not to be called the highest state dignitaries who actively participate in the preparation and conduct of reforms: Chairman of the State Council D.N. Bludov, Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lanskaya, Head of military-schools Ya.I. Rostovtsev.
An important role in the reproductive ranks was also played by the brother of King Grand Duke Konstantin Niklaevich, headed by the Marine Ministry and the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna666 .
The reform of 1861 gave rise to the brutal collisions between liberals and serfs.
Deciding to cancel the serfdom, Alexander II initially acted by the methods of his father: began to wait for the initiative from the nobility, established the next secret committee on the peasant business (in January 1857). It is quite natural that neither the Committee compiled from the Nikolaev Sanovnikov, nor the nobility wanted to solve the peasant question, but also to postpone his decision was impossible. In this king, his own dignitaries also convinced, and public opinion also said.
At the end of 1857, the Lithuanian nobility, under certain pressure of the authorities, petitioned the landless liberation of his peasants. In response, the king ordered the Lithuanian nobles to create provincial committees to generate projects of peasant reform.
The prescription is (the so-called "Rescipte Nazimov" - the Lithuanian governor) was published, as a result of which, both in Russia itself, and abroad became known about the preparing reform. Now it was impossible to retreat.
Slowly, very reluctant landowners of different areas of the empire began to submit to the opening of the provincial committees. Thus, the government actually forced the landowners to make a "initiative" in the peasant question. This manifested itself a significant independence of state power in Russia and its initiative role7 .
Thus, the question of holding reform was finally resolved. At the same time, the personal liberation of the peasants was recognized as a certain, controversial was the endowment of the peasants of the Earth, who was considered the property of the landowner.
The landowners of fertile black earth provinces wanted after the personal liberation of the peasants to leave the maximum earth in their hands. The landowners of the non-black earth regions with poor land in general were agreed to give to the peasants the land put on the ransom. This, the second version in principle was rather liberal, but the minority of the nobles was supported in the provincial committees.
In the government, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe liberation of peasants with the land for the ransom defended the leader of the reform of N. A. Milyutin with like-minded people, the king initially divided the views of most landowners. However, in the spring of 1858, Estonian peasants relealed from St. Petersburg, who were released without land at the beginning of the XIX century. The attempt of landless liberation and specific peasants failed.
Against the projects of the noble majority, A. I. Herzen, Radical Journal "Contemporanik" N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov, as well as all the advanced public opinion of that time. Thus, at the end of 1858, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe liberation of peasants with the Earth became the basis of a government program.
Uroo's serfs attacked Milyutin N. A. and his associates, calling them "red", but those stubbornly stood on their own: after the cancellation of serfs, a small peasantician should be arose next to a major landlord. As a result, according to liberal bureaucrats, the landowners will be able to rebuild their economy for capitalist panels, and at the same time there will be no mass of landless proletarians in Russia, and therefore the country will definitely avoid those revolutions through which Europe passed; State power will be able to act as an arbiter between the estates, the authority of the king as a defender of folk needs will grow. It is these considerations and attracted Alexander II. Personal hostility to Milyutin, he appointed his companion (deputy) minister of internal affairs8 .
After that, it remained the most difficult thing - to make a liberal program into legislation. In early 1859, the editorial commissions were created for the processing of projects prepared by the Governors of the Governors, the editorial commissions, the chairman of which became Rostovtsev, and the actual leader was Milyutin N.A.
Submitting directly to the king, these commissions have become the main center of reform preparation. Rostovtsev and Milyutin gathered in them mostly Liberals: Slavophila Yu.F. worked in the commissions. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassy, \u200b\u200bMilyutin closely collaborated by the prominent Western K.D. Cavelin, who was not part of the Commission. A small but cohesive group, mastered the key position in the top, has become very significant for a while.
In 1859-1861, the draft commissions were transferred to the discussion by deputies of the provincial committees, and then, after their closure - to the Chief Committee and the State Council. In all these institutions, liberal projects were subjected to fierce attacks, but liberal bureaucrats and the king were not too ceremony with opponents: they were not given a lot to express their objections, Alexander II extremely limited the rights of the noble deputies, self-help argued the opinions of a liberal minority in the General Committee and the State Council9 .
Thus, to protect the liberal draft reform accounted for through authoritarian methods. As a result, the basis of the proposed project was able to defend, but his opponents achieved the adoption of major amendments: payments made from the peasants were significantly increased, and the dimensions of the deposits assigned to them were reduced.
February 19, 1861, in the sixth anniversary of his advice on the throne, Alexander II signed all the law on reform and manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. The manifest was published only in two weeks, since the government feared the folk unrest and at that time warning measures were scheduled.
Manifesto was read on March 5, 1861 in churches after dinner, and on a divorce in Mikhailovsky Manezh, Alexander read his troops himself. "The provisions of the peasants who came out of serfdom" were distributed to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563 thousand souls of serfs, including 1467 thousand yard and 543 thousand, ascribed to private plants and factories.
According to them, the former serfs received personal freedom from now on, they could not be sold, to buy, give, to relocate on the arbitrariness of the owners, as well as most of the general rights (enter into transactions, open trade and industrial institutions, go to other classes, freely marry ).
Nevertheless, the peasants remained an incomplete estate, as they still paid the pillow to submit, carried the recruitous service, were subjected to corporal punishments and were attached to the place of residence.
Thus, the faithful power of the landowner replaced the peasant self-government made by the collection of filters and minor court cases. Rural societies, which were created on the basis of peasant communities, and volost societies, consisting of several societies, were elected by the bosses - rural elder, volost elders and a volost court.
The whole system of peasant self-government submitted to government officials. At the same time, through it, the former serfs were included in new democratic institutions (Zdardi, jury), joined civilian life.
According to the manifesto, a community land tenure remained, regular redistributes of land between peasants, a circular owl in serving obliges. Earth put on the ground was not personally transferred to the peasant, the entire peasant community.
The power of the community over personality, the length of the peasant government was the features of archaic, but only the first time to maintain them was supposed to protect the peasants from rapidly detonation, as well as a push by the former owners - landowners.
Since the land was considered noble property, the peasants, receiving put on, should have paid a redemption for him, which was equated to the amount, which, being laid in a bank under 6%, would bring an annual income equal to the pre-reform lifting. Thus, the government sought to compensate for the landowner with the loss not only the land, but also free serfs.
The magnitude of the peasant incidents and duties, from which the ransom was estimated, was determined by agreement between landowners and peasants within the framework of the size established by the Government.
The calculation conditions were set out in statutory certificates, for which global mediators appointed by the government from local nobles and independent of the administration were supposed to observe. At the same time, before the moment, the peasants were redeemed to redeem the peasants were considered temporary and continued to work on landlord12 .
It should be noted that the dimensions and quality of land plots moving peasants are also regulated in the manifest. In the non-sinnamine provinces in the use of the peasants, almost as much land remained, as before, and in the chernozem under the pressure of the serpents, a strongly reduced shower was introduced (when the peasant societies were recalled at such a peasant societies). Where, among the cut off the land, the necessary peasants of land were turned out - runs for livestock, meadows and waterproofs, for the additional subsidy, the peasants were forced to rent these lands from the landowners.
During the period of the temporary position of the peasants, only additional charges (eggs, oil, flax, canvas, wool, etc.) were canceled, the barbec was limited to 2 female and 3 male days from taxed a week, the underwater subsidy was somewhat shortened, the translation of peasants from the lifestyle was prohibited Barschina and yard.
The ransom was carried out with the direct mediation of the state. The peasants paid the landowner only 20-25% of the value of the Earth. The state took over the obligation to immediately issue 75-80% of the redemption amount, and the peasants later, with time they had to return the duty to the state with interest, within 49 years13 .
Up to 1907, when the end of the payments put the first Russian revolution, the peasants gave the state by twice the initial amount of ransom for land.
At the same time, from the funds issued by the state owners, their debt of the treasury was deducted. Thus, the state returned to their debts not only nobility, but also the peasantry.
It should be said that formally the landowner could indeed tighten the "temporary" position of the peasants and to be listed by the owner of the whole land, using the gift labor of the peasants. However, at the same time, he could not punish them independently, to take away from them to put on or to increase the mantles. Thus, the state actually forced landowners to translate their former peasants to redeem.
For the peasants themselves, the ransom was obligatory for the nine years (and in fact - much longer) they could not refuse their worsen14 .
Causes of the limited peasant reform, its results and meaning
The reaction of the population of the country for publicized on February 19, the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was quite natural. The peasants expected more cardinal reform. Peasant unrest sweated throughout the country, where people demanded a "real will".
At the same time, it should be noted that the peasant reform conducted by Alexander II became the result of a rather serious compromise between the landowners and the government. Moreover, the interests of the landowners were taken into account as much as possible, since another path of the liberation of peasants in that situation, in all likelihood, could not15 .
However, the huge mass of the peasants remained small. The peasant economy, weakened by redemption payments, did not, as was calculated on that, the hearth of capitalism. The rate in this respect was done, first of all, on the landowner, the farm, who managed to preserve in their hands and huge land plots (Latifundy) and the large sums of money on the organization of new forms of management.
A negative role in the reform was played by distortions made with the draft editorial commissions by serfts from the Main Committee and the State Council. Dore-formed peasant noodle could not be saved. The "segments" from the peasant lands, carried out during the reform, amounted to an average of 20%. At the same time, the landowners tried to leave the most comfortable lands, sometimes necessary to peasants in the economy. The result of these processes was the actual inevitable ruin of a significant part of the peasantry. At the same time, the formation of independent peasant farms was significantly prolonged, many elements of old, feudal (testing) and even the preferptal (community) of production relations were substantiated. .
Speaking of numerous limitations of the peasant reform of 1861 and its shortcomings, it should still say that by and large the abolition of serfdom means only the modernization of the feudal system, and not its elimination.
Employment of the former landfill peasants with civil rights and land for certain (albeit rather severe) concerns translated into the situation in which millions of state peasants stayed. Thus, there was a refusal from the serf, the landowner forms of the feudal structure in favor of state feudalism.
At the same time, the abolition of serfdom in the real historical conditions of the middle of the XIX century caused a fatal blow to the feudal system, which was in a state of deep and protracted crisis. This objective and historical result of the reform was prepared by all previous development of Russia17 .
The peasant reform of 1861 opened new perspectives before Russia, creating a stimulus for the development of capitalism - relations of free hiring and competition, contributed to the rise of the economy.
In addition, in general, peaceful reform has significantly strengthened the authority of the king, who even received the nickname liberator. It is worth noting here that, for example, in the United States, the abolition of slavery, in the same years, caused a bloody civil War.
In Russia, having freeing the peasants with the station, the monarchy managed to strengthen the social base, receiving millions of "new" taxpayers. The redemption operation, in addition, largely contributed to the strengthening of public finances.
Veliko was I. moral importance The reform committed with the fortress slavery, and his abolition paved the road to other major transformations that were to introduce modern forms of self-government and the court in the country, as well as to push the development of the enlightenment.
It must be said that Russia approached the peasant reform with extremely backward local economy: medical assistance in the village was practically absent, and numerous epidemics carried thousands of lives; Popular education was in the infancy; Nobody cared about country roads.
In addition, the state treasury was exhausted, and the government could not raise the local economy on their own. Due to these circumstances, it was decided to meet the liberal community, which applied to the introduction of local self-government in the country.
As a result, on January 1, 1864, a law on Zemsky self-government was approved. According to him, Zemstvo management was established for the management of economic affairs: the construction and maintenance of local roads, schools, hospitals, was wondering, for the organization of food assistance to the population in lack of town years, as well as for agronomic assistance and collecting statistical information.
To fulfill the tasks of the land, the right to impose the population with special fees, while the provincial and county meetings were the administrative bodies of the Zemdom, and the existences are county and the provincial governments.
The establishment of scums played a prominent positive role in improving the lives of the Russian village and the development of education. Already soon after their creation, a whole network of Zemstvo schools and hospitals arose in Russia.
Simultaneously with the Zemstvo reform, in 1864, a judicial reform was also carried out. In Russia, a new court was introduced, based on nonsense, vowels, a contest basis, independent of the administration, and the court sessions themselves became open to the public.
Thus, the peasant reform has become one of the most important stages of the indigenous transformations in Russia, to a large extent changed its development and structure.
In addition, the reform itself, conducted in 1861, despite the limited nature and some flaws, was able to show a significant margin of safety. The speech here is that until the beginning of the 20th century, there was practically no large peasant unrest, which did not go beyond individual settlements. The most famous and large scale of them was the performance of peasants in the village of the abyss in 186118 .
The consequence of the compromise nature of the reform was the presence of initial, fairly serious contradictions and the source of permanent conflicts between the peasants and landowners. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized once again that the peasant reform assumed compulsory further development, the improvement of the procedure existing in Russia (the liquidation of the length of the peasants, the weakening of the community power, the relief of the peasant small ground).
The liberation of peasants went to the past old administrative system based on the fastep right and the estate predominance of the nobility. Thus, other conditions of socio-political and social life have advanced a whole range of priority transformations, the main purpose of which was to create a new government system. All these circumstances are largely determining the country's further development and reform.
The principles laid in reform implied further, deeper reform of all parties to the life of Russian society, and stagnation or turning back, to the previous situation threatened the social catastrophe.
By virtue of these circumstances, a lot in the future development of the country depended on how political conditions will be in the pureform period19 .
Conclusion
Detailed examined various aspects of the peasant reform of 1861, a number of important conclusions can be made.
First of all, it should be noted that despite the fact that Alexander II was not initially ready for reformist activities and, by and large, only obeyed the persistent requirements of the story about the need to cancel serfdom, it should still say that the merit of the emperor consists in The first is that he did not just realize the long-term need for such a reform, but also began to consistently conduct it into life.
At the same time, aware of the need for fundamental changes in the state device, Alexander II also understood the need to hold the country from possible conflicts, and the only way to avoid them was the compromise nature of reform.
Avalanche between the interests of peasants and landowners led to significant concessions in favor of the latter and expressed in the mass of compromise solutions. They, in turn, largely determined the further, rather long confrontation between the peasants and landowners.
It should not be noted that as a result of the reform, in addition to explicit psychological dividends and strengthen their own authority, the state also had a large extent to strengthen their own economic situation, not only returning landlord and peasant debts, but also earnings on topping.
List of sources and literature:
1.Manifesto February 19, 1861. / Reader on the history of the USSR 1861 - 1917. Red Tyubavkin V.G. M.; Education, 1990.
2.Litvak B.G. The coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reform initiative was not realized. / The history of Russia XIX century. Reader. Cost. Lyashenko L.M. M.; Drop, 2002. P. 129.
3.Lyashenko L.M. Tsar liberator. Life and acts of Alexander I. m.; Vlados, 1994.
.Nikolaev V. Alexander Second - a man on Pretol. / History of Russia XIX century. Reader. SOS. Lyashenko L. M. M.; Drop, 2002. P. 129.
.Orlov and others. Basics of the course of Russia. M.; Spacious, 1997.
.Russian history from ancient times to the present day. Ed. Doborchenko A.Yu. And others. St. Petersburg; ed. - "Lan", 2004.
Tutoring
Need help to study what language themes?
Our specialists will advise or have tutoring services for the subject of interest.
Send a request With the topic right now, to learn about the possibility of receiving consultation.
The peasant reform of 1861, which has canceled the serfdom, marked the beginning of the capitalist formation in the country.
The main cause of the peasant reform was the crisis of the feudal-serf system. Crimean war 1853-1856 I discovered rotting and powerlessness of fortress Russia. In the situation of peasant unrest, especially intensified during the war, tsarism went on the abolition of serfdom.
In January 1857, the Secret Committee was formed under the chairmanship of Emperor Alexander II "to discuss measures for the device of life of the landlord peasants", which at the beginning of 1858 was reorganized into the head committee on the peasant business. At the same time, the provincial committees were formed, who were developed by the development of the projects of the peasant reform considered by the editorial commissions.
On February 19, 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed a manifesto on the cancellation of serfdom and "provisions on peasants emerging from the serfdom", consisting of 17 legislative acts.
The main act - "General Regulations on the peasants who came out of serfdom" - contained the main conditions of the peasant reform:
the peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property;
the landowners retained the ownership of all the land belonging to them, but they were obliged to submit to the use of peasants "manor settlement" and field, "to ensure their life and to fulfill their responsibilities to the government and landlord";
the peasants for the use of the ridiculous land were supposed to serve the barbecine or pay the lifts and did not have the right to refuse it for 9 years. The dimensions of the field pouring and duties were to be recorded in the statutory modes of 1861, which were compiled by landowners for each estate and were checked by world intermediaries;
- the peasants were given the right to redeem the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field was put on, before the implementation of this, they were called temporary alternating peasants.
The "general situation" determined the structure, the rights and obligations of the organs of the peasant public (rural and volost) management and court.
In 4 "local provisions", the size of land plots and the contestants of the peasants for the use of them in 44 provisions of European Russia was determined. The first of them is "Velikorsiyskoye", for 29 Velikorsiyskiyskiy, 3 Novorossiysk (Ekaterinoslavskaya, Tavricheskaya and Kherson), 2 Belarusian (Mogilev and part of Vitebsk) and part of the Kharkiv provinces. The whole of this territory was divided into three bands (non-black-earth, chernozem and steppe), each of which consisted of locality.
In the first two bands were established depending on the "terrain" of the highest (from 3 to 7 tens; from 2 s 3/4 to 6 tents) and the lower (1/3 of the highest) sizes of mental taxes. For the steppe, one "Declated" was determined (in the Great-Russian provinces from 6 to 12 tents; in Novorossiysk, from 3 to 6 1/5 tits). The size of the treated tithing was defined 1.09 hectares. Reliable land was provided to the "rural society", i.e. The community, by the number of shower (men's only) by the time of the compilation of the statutory dimensions that had the right to put on.
From the Earth, which was in the use of peasants until February 19, 1861, segments could be made if the sneakers of the peasants exceeded the highest size set for this "locality", or if the landowners in the preservation of the existing peasant station remained less than 1/3 of the land of the estate . Powers could decrease by special agreements of peasants with landowners, as well as upon receipt of the donation.
In the presence of the peasants of incidents of less than the lowest size, the landowner was obliged to insert the missing land or reduce duty. For the highest mental, marks were established from 8 to 12 rubles per year or born - 40 male and 30 women's working days a year. If it was less than the highest, then the duties decreased, but not proportionally.
The remaining "local provisions" mostly repeated the "Velikorsiyskoye", but taking into account the specifics of their districts.
Features of the peasant reform for certain categories of peasants and specific areas were determined by 8 "additional rules": "On the device of peasants, placed in the estates of small-position owners, and on the benefits of Sim owners"; "On the representatives of the Ministry of Finance" assigned to the private mountain factories "; "About peasants and workers who are serving work in the Permian private mountain plants and salt fishers"; "About peasants who are serving work on landlord factories"; "About peasants and yard people in the land of the Don Troops"; "About peasants and courtyard people in the Stavropol province"; "About peasants and courtyard people in Siberia"; "On people who have come out of serf dependence in the Bessarab region."
Manifesto and "Provisions" were made public on March 5 in Moscow and from March 7 to April 2 - in St. Petersburg. Fearing the displeasure of the peasants to the terms of reform, the government took a number of precautionary measures: made a redeployment of troops, sent to the place of persons of the imperial suite, issued a synod, etc. However, the peasants, displeased reform, responded with mass unrest. The largest of them were the abnormal and Kandayev peasant performances of 1861
As of January 1, 1863, the peasants refused to sign about 60% of the diploma. The price of land for ransom significantly exceeded its market value at the time, in separate areas - 2-3 times. In many areas, the peasants have achieved the receipt of gadgets, thereby reducing the exact land use: in the Saratov province by 42.4%, Samara - 41.3%, Poltava - 37.4%, Ekaterinoslavskaya - by 37.3%, etc. The landselords of the land were the means of rolling the peasants, as they were vital to the peasant economy: water, pasture, haymaking, etc.
The transition of peasants for redemption stretched for several decades, on December 28, 1881, a law on compulsory redemption from January 1, 1883 was published, the translation into which was completed by 1895. Only by January 1, 1895, 124 thousand redemption transactions were approved, According to which 9,159 thousand shower passed on the redemption in areas with communal and 110 thousand households in areas with residential agriculture. About 80% of redemption transactions were mandatory.
As a result of the peasant reform (according to 1878) in the provinces of European Russia, 9860 thousand souls of peasants received 3,3728 thousand decades (on average 3.4 decishes per capita). At 115 thousand landlords left 69 million tents (on average 600 tents on the owner).
What did these "average" indicators look like after 3.5 decades? The political and economic power of the king relied on the nobles and landowners. According to the census of 1897 in Russia there were 1 million 220 thousand hereditary nobles and more than 600 thousand personal nobles, which the noble title was given, but was not inherited. They were all owners of land plots.
Of these: about 60 thousand - small noblemen, had 100 tents; 25.5 thousand - medium-stage, had from 100 to 500 tents; 8 thousand large nobles that had from 500 to 1000 tens: 6.5 thousand - the largest nobles that had from 1000 to 5,000 tens.
At the same time, in Russia there were 102 families: the princes of Yusupov, Golitsyn, Dolgorukov, Counts of Bobrinsky, Orlov, etc., the possessions of which were more than 50 thousand tents, that is, about 30% of the landlord of the Russian Land Fund.
The King Nicholas II was the largest owner in Russia. It beloved huge arrays of the so-called cabinet and specific lands. Gold, silver, lead, copper, forest were mined there. Significant part of the land he leased. Managed the property of the king Special Ministry of the Imperial Court.
Filling a survey sheet for census, Nicholas II in the column about the profession wrote: "The owner of the Russian land".
As for the peasants, the middle nade of the peasant family, according to the census, was 7.5 tents.
The value of the peasant reform of 1861 was that it abolished feudal ownership of workers and created the market of cheap labor. The peasants were announced personally free, that is, they had the right to buy land in their name, at home, enter into various transactions. The reform was based on the principle of graduality: for two years, statutory letters should have been drawn up, which determined the specific conditions for the liberation of peasants, then the peasants were transferred to the position of "temporary-shaped" until the transition to the redemption and in the subsequent 49-year period of the state who had paid the state bought the state For peasants at the landowners. Only after that land puts should become the full property of the peasants.
For the release of peasants from serfdom Emperor Alexander II was named by the people of the "liberator". Judge for yourself, what was more - truth or hypocrisy? Note that from the total number of peasant unrest, which occurred throughout the country in 1857-1861, 1340 out of 2165 (62%), speeches had to date after the announcement of the reform of 1861.
Thus, the peasant reform of 1861 was a bourgeois reform by serfs. It was a step towards Russia's turning into a bourgeois monarchy. However, the peasant reform did not solve the socio-economic contradictions in Russia, retained land in the land ownership and a number of other feudal-serpentive remnants, led to a further exacerbation of the class struggle, served as one of the main reasons for the social explosion of 1905-1907. XX century.
The reform of 1861 was a starting event for Russia. After all, that in general there is any reform, as not the reactionary attempt by structural restructuring to extend the agony of the taught system in the name of preserving the power of the existing elite, which is a social development brake? This is committed against the interests of the majority of the people, the price of his impoverishment and died.
There were no exception and reforms initiated by Alexander II.
The current Russia represented an ashole from himself, at which the predatory crow triumphed a new class of the rich - "Chumazy", as they called the rich pops of populists. The reform of 1861, contrary to the problem, the majority of the peasants ruined, launched rooted Russia in the world. It is for this period that it is the beginning of the impersonal of the central provinces - the ridge of the Russian nation.
National national policy was imposed on the terrifying picture of the national ruin. Like all past and real Russian reformers, Alexander II to the brain of Bones hated the Russian people, but he experienced a diet to other, more "delometric" nationalities. This is what I wrote in 1870 my daughter Poet F.I. Tyutchev: "Absolutism dominates in Russia, which includes a feature of the most distinctive, of all - contemptuous and stupid hatred of all Russian, instinctive, so to speak, the rejection of all the national." Thanks to this policy, Russian wealth began to quickly flop into foreign hands.
The conditions under which there was an unprecedented economic downturn.
This rotten system supported its existence to constant lawlessness, violation of its own laws, the arbitrariness, which also noted Petrashevsky: "The Life Principle (Government) is the principle of arbitrariness, which, due to the complication of all government officials, makes a commercial company from the state apparatus having a commercial company The purpose of the country's operation. "
In the heart of this system and a hit was applied. The king is the chief official, the main culprit of people's suffering, the organizer and the head of this "commercial company" - was fighting the hands of folk avengers.
Who confronted him and hundreds of thousands of his satrapses? Handland of the National Intelligentsia, the best Russian youth. It belongs to the most part to the residents of cities, to the middle class, these young people were little aware of the actual life of the people. According to the memoirs left by them, we can judge what action I had acquaintance with a valid popular life: "The curtain fell from the eye. The" Great Peasant Reform "was revealed in the form in which it was in reality. For the first time we learned, That she gave the people, and resentment covered us, "this is the overall feeling that united this youth. From this feeling, the desire was born to help people, teach it elementary rules for protecting their own interests, receiving confrontation by the arbitrariness of an official and the liberation of the exploitation.
In this paper, we are accustomed to analyze the justification of this approach to the consideration of the peasant reform of 1861.
There are two points of view on this issue:
and serfdom is a brake for economic Development countries.
Untile labor is ineffective.
The farm degrades.
The country went to the revolution, but the peasantry was not a revolutionary force and therefore the revolution did not happen.
and the serfdom did not exhaust its resources. The serfdom could exist more than a dozen, and maybe a hundred years.
Russia could slowly, but it is right to move to the capitalist method of doing the economy.
The serfdom looked immoral. AII, focused on the global opinion, understood it. Therefore, for world recognition of the development of Russia, the Cance of the CP was required.
The Crimean War showed that in militarily, Russia could not argue with developed industrial powers.
In contrast to Western countries, everything happens in Russia from above, and reforms produced in other countries from below, during the bourgeois revolutions, are carried out from above, the state.
As mentioned above, the peasant reform of 1861 is one of these key, turning points in the history of our country. First, our serfdom was canceled about 50 years after the last European country. The last country was Germany, where liberation occurred during Napoleonic wars, Napoleon, along with the banners of their regiments, Napoleon's Code and the liberation of other countries from feudal pass. If you deepen in history, it can be seen that on the border between the feudal and agricultural economy and the economy of industrial, free, capitalist, the market, there is a moment when countries passing this period make a big jerk, such as a bunch of energy splashes, and countries rise to A completely new stage of high-quality development. So it was in England. In fact, from serfdom in England got rid of - it was the first country in Europe - to the XV-XVI century there were already steady, they freed the peasants from the ground, and the "sheep ate people", as they talked. And everything ended in the English revolution, when Karl I cut off his head. But after that, England became a country completely free from feudal remnants. And this freedom, this is the emergence of the legal state, the decisive impact on the fact that the country that lies on the outskirts of Europe and has always been a very insignificant population compared to the continental countries, in the end, became the "workshop of the world", "Lady seas ", etc.
In fact, the same thing happened during the Great Agrarian Revolution, when the peasants receive freedom, they get the opportunity to freely improve their lives, and it attaches a huge impulse, which is not created by the decisions of the Communist Party, but simply freedom. And the same potential was also from our country. And just his release began with the Great Peasant Reform, as they said, after the royal manifest on February 18, 1861. But, unlike the English or French version, it was very limited. The reform was carried out "from above", the main reformers. The main people who insisted on the reform were people from the highest aristocracy: this is the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, his wife Elena Pavlovna, a whole range of prominent aristocrats who convinced the king, and the king also became a supporter of the reform, although in the depths of his soul forever it was, of course Resistance. And it was necessary to achieve a compromise between the peasants, between their interests and interests of serfs, the main landowners who owned the land and the peasants themselves. There was a question that simply to give freedom to peasants is not enough, they should be able to live for something, which means they had to give the earth. And then I found a braid on the stone, I was looking for a compromise. There were a party liberal and batch of revolutionary democrats. They stood closely, but, of course, vary greatly. These are people like, say, Cavery and Chicherin, Samarine, Liberals. From the side of the revolutionary democracy is Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. But at a certain point they performed together, because they sought radical reforms and clearing the place for the development of free peasantry. Although, I must say that the community did not affect the community, since Slavophiles, and the revolutionary Democrats had the belief that the peasant community is such a feature of the Russian society that will save Russia from the ulcer of capitalism. And at that time, capitalism was in Europe. In the same England, our figures, society saw a huge difference between rich and poor, etc., - what we see now - and they tried to escape it largely, so the community somehow touched. But for freedom was such a struggle for the peasants to receive land on the most favorable conditions for themselves. And it ended in that the conditions were very heavy. It was largely accepted by the conditions acceptable to the nobles, which means that the peasants received the land for the ransom, the redemption is quite significant that they had to still have certain responsibilities to work on the landowner, the community in which they were associated with a circular lodgment in relation to debts for repurchases.
The reasons of the reform of 1861 include:
industrial revolution;
a change in the social structure of the Russian society (capitalists appear, the institute of hired workers);
crimean war (Russia showed that it is the country of the second grade);
public opinion (conviction of serfdom);
death of Nicholas I.
It is impossible to deny the fact that the features of serfdom in Russia were also the base for reform.
Features of serfdom in Russia was:
Documents about serfs were not. And if in European countries it disappeared naturally, then in Russia its elimination becomes a state challenge.
In all European countries, serfdoms were diverse, i.e. The relationship of serfdom was observed in different estates and, in accordance with this, serfs had different rights. In Russia, the state itself forms a single estate.
The emperor is trying to submit his actions as an answer to the proposals of the Baltic nobility. The solution is to create a secret committee, but the severity of the work was transferred to the provincial committees, i.e. There is a work on the ground. Committees created in 45 provinces. In 1858, the chief committee on the peasant business was created, he was headed by Russian tradition, the emperor. The leading role in the organization of work belonged to the Ministry of the Interior, in which a special Zemsky Cathedral was created. The main committee worked 2 editorial commissions, which prepared all documents.
Lecture xxxiv
The position of the masses and agriculture in the 60s and 70s. - The course of the redemption operation. - Nishchensky put clothes. - Cut. - rent in the northern and southern provinces. - Rental price growth. - Debt of landowners. - Strengthened land disintegration due to reinforcement of bread exports and growth of bread prices. - The number of livestock in landlords and peasants. - Dimensions of landlords. - Conclusions about the landlord in the north and in the south. - Sale of land. - Poster. - Is it easy for peasants to expand their farm at the expense of landlord? - The position of the peasant economy. - Insufficiency of incidents. - burden by taxes and payments. - non-uniformity of taxation. - Hunger of 1868 - research of zemstvo. - arrears. - The position of the peasant economy in the Black Earth Gubnia. - Samara hunger 1872-1873. - Food loans. - Conclusions of Yanton and KN. Vasilchikova on the position of the peasant economy in the 70s.
In the last lecture, I outlined, as applied and at the same time distorted in the current time of the provisions about the Zemstvo institutions, about the new courts, and also what was the position of the press in the late 60s and in the 70s and in the 1970s. Now I want to go to the position of the masses at this time, as well as outline you and the situation of agriculture in this era.
In one of the first lectures of this part of my course, I have already drawn to you the picture of the land tenure distribution, which was formed after the spread of the peasant reform on state peasants in 1866, but, of course, this picture, purely, so to speak, is a statistical nature, gives only common The framework in which he had to develop in the peasant economy and to develop in the flame-form time of that new life of the rural population of Russia, which was due to transformations of the 60s.
Now I want to dwell on the content of that internal process, the outcome of which depended on the mass of material and intangible factors, of which, along with the size of the ending of the peasants of the Earth, were especially important in the peasant economy, which were burdened and the peasant land was burdened, as well as quite Economic factors such as the position of the global bread market and conduct were of great importance railways in Russia.
According to the position of February 19, as you remember, the redemption of peasant pans was delivered under normal conditions dependent on the agreement between landlords and peasants. True, the landowners were given and against the desire of the peasants to demand a ransom, but then they received a not complete redemption loan, what she had to be on capitalization due to the range of 6%, but only 80% of the total size of it in the event of a total entry and 75% of the extension By calculating the size in the incomplete ending of the peasants. Moreover, under the Regulation on February 19, only rural estates could have been published on the redemption, and the bargains were to go first to the lifts, and only then the landowners could demand their transition to the ransom, calculated using the capitalization of this lonk.
Meanwhile, as I told you, the peasants in the blunder time very quickly realized that landowners, strictly speaking, it is very difficult to insist on any correct and conscientious fulfillment of the bargaining work, because the power of the landowners declined very much; And, by realizing it, the peasants in those places where they were on the barbecine, often not only did not think to declare their desire to move onto the lifts, but did not agree on the offers of the landowners. And now we see that in 1862 there are a number of applications from the nobility about the need to introduce an obligatory ransom, which earlier, as you remember, the landowners of the non-Black minion provinces. Not to mention the sharp statements of the Tver Nobility, which were political in nature, we see that the petition and a purely business character did, such as the petition of the nobility of the Kazan province, where most of the peasants were on the Barechin and where the landowners felt in a particularly helpless position and Very quickly began to come to the conviction that the only way out of it is - it is as soon as possible to translate your peasants to redemption.
Kazan nobility, as well as to all, was denied 1862 in revising the provisions of 1861, but the government itself also saw that, indeed, the landowners were in many places in a hopeless position, and therefore in 1863 was published an additional The law on which the bargaining estates were allowed to translate directly on the ransom, at the request of the landowners, and the landowners again could get from the redemption institution only 80 and 75% of the calculated redemption amount. Meanwhile, the peasants in many places, especially in the southeastern steppe and southern New Russian provinces, right at that time fled from buyout, throwing pushing, despite the fact that the transition to the ransom for them was beneficial, as it seemed to the government, especially at the request of landowners When the peasants did not have any surcharges and their debt on a redemption loan was expressed in the amount of only three-quarters or four fifth total amount of capitalized exchange. The peasants refused to transition to redemption in these areas due to the lack of earnings and difficulties for them to transition to cash payments.
Then the government had to grab about the additional 123rd article of the Gaginarius, introduced at the proposal of Prince Gagarin, about the so-called "fourth", "gift" or "nishchensky" put on which I told you in my time. Conscious that the peasants in many places will not be able to pay cash payments, the government, publishing a law on the resolution of the landowners to require the transition and bargaining peasants to redemption, at the same time led to this right of one-sided requirement for the transfer of peasants to redempted in the case If the peasants refuse to go to the redemption proposed by the landlord, and prefer the receipt of a free fourth one, the landowner has no right to refuse it. This was the reason why in the most multi-earth locations the demand of the peasantsthere was such a huge distribution of these beggars, gifts. We see that the whole South-East of Russia and part of the eastern provinces, like Ufa, the southern part of the Perm, part of Voronezh, the whole Tambov, Samara and partly Saratov were the area of \u200b\u200bthe greatest spread of these Nishchensky, "orphan" put on.
On the other hand, with this course of the redemption operation, due to the fact that in most cases, the ransom occurred in the first years after the reform at the request of the landowners - in general more 65% of redemption transactions were committed at the request of landowners,- And since, thanks to this, the landowners received only incomplete remuneration and the peasants were not obliged to any surcharges to the treasury loan issued, then the landowners, in turn, took advantage of their right segment from the peasant land plots, up to the maximum standards established by the Regulation. I have already told you that these segments got a big distribution everywhere, even where there was no one or almost no beggar puts, but where they were and complete (maximum) put on. These segments in many localities did not have so much importance that they quantifiedly reduced the endowment of the peasants, how much is that they highly worsened him and even put the peasants sometimes directly in a hopeless position, in full economic dependence on landowners, because with such a landowner segment We intentionally tried to cut the various necessary peasants (for example, almost the entire meadow, or the whole pasture) and give the peasants only one arable land. And since the peasants, especially in the territories of the non-black earth, where the fertilizer of incidents was required, could not exist without cattle breeding and could not lead cattle breeding without meadows and pastures, then these most they were put in the complete need to rent on any, which will be the landowners, these prices Segments, since without them they could not do without them.
This provision that was formed in the early years of the bitform time created an extremely unfavorable general conditions for the development of agriculture. We see, on the one hand, that the peasants, freed from the serfdom, from the direct power of the landowners over them, fell in many places, thanks to the segments, again in full economic dependence on landowners. On the other hand, and the landowners were usually in great dependence on the peasants, as they had to keep the economy on their remaining lands with the help of wolved workers. And although thanks to the high freedom of movement in many multi-earth locations and came the coming workers, but the landowners preferred to deal with their former peasants, settled, which much more conscientiously treated land. On the other hand, fisheries were strongly developed in the non-black minion provinces, and here, as before, landlords almost did not exist or existed very little. The landowners again make the farm for those who remained behind the lands, and even with the willed workers, it turned out to be very difficult, and here it was the only way out for them to take advantage of the dependent position of the peasants, which was formed as a result of a segment of important in the peasant road.
According to A. N. Engelgardt, Prince A. I. Vasilchikova and other northern owners, in many non-sinnamine provinces of the peasants, for any prices, did not agree to take in the processing of landlords "on the circle" and agreed only when the landowners were in return to them in Rent a missing importance to them - commonly meadows and pastures. So, for the landowners, the only opportunity to lead the farm here was the lubrication of the peasants of the rental of segments, in the many local areas of the northern provincial management of the economy and was directly impossible. We are therefore seeing that there comes a huge sale of landlord estates and lands in non-black-earth provinces.
In the provinces of the Black Economic, economic conjuncture turns out to be completely different. Here, the peasants, as you know, got relatively very small put on, and at the same time, in most of these provinces were deprived of all sorting, non-nuclear earnings. In close areas of such earnings, it usually did not happen, and, having received insufficient puts, the peasants were supposed to be here or hired into the workers to landowners, or that they were more seductive, although, essentially, it was not always more profitable, to take in landlords Earth for rent.
It must be said that exactly at this time in the black earth gubnia was a favorable moment to increase the size of the bakery - an extraordinary increase in grain prices, depending primarily on the conditions of the global market. From the late 40s, after the abolition of prohibitive bread laws in England and under the influence of increasing concentration of the population of Western Europe in the cities, it turned out a great demand for Russian bread, and since the export increased, the scarce increased, became profitable, producing bread As a product going to the external market. In the current time, this joins the construction of a railway network, which was exactly the same as it was designed to facilitate the export of bread to the ports from the chubby provinces.
We see that under this influence the scarf in the chopped provinces, especially in the pattern time, grows very quickly. If we take general data in Russia, we will see that in the 60s the area of \u200b\u200bthe entire Pashnya in European Russia was equal to 88 million 800 thousand decreases; After 20 years, Pashny was already considered 106 million 800 thousand dec., and in 1887 - 117 million tenthene. Consequently, the growth of crops is growing extremely quickly, even if we take general data across the entire area of \u200b\u200bEuropean Russia. But we must take into account that this change in the sparehouse area was extremely uneven for different local areas of Russia. I just talked to you that in the Non-Black Gubnia, the landowners in many places ceased their economy and, in any case, did not start the new, and we see that in these non-sinnamine provinces, the scarce in these years was directly reduced, and quite significantly. The spawn area of \u200b\u200bsomeone is reduced in the North-West Territory, where the fruitless economy is introduced and the agriculture is intensified, and in the new forms of the economy is no longer at the power of preserving the previous dimensions of plowing.
But in the area of \u200b\u200bChernozem, it breaks off in these years, on the contrary, everything that may be: in the provinces of central black earth spare, it increases only 5%, for almost everything has been placed before the reform.
In the Central Expiry provinces at the age of twenty years, the following reform, Pushny Square increases by 35%; in the Malorossiysk provinces - by 13%; In localities, multi-earth spare grows in huge sizes; So, in Novorossia, it increases by 98%; In the southern challenge - even by 365%.
Thus, the growth of Pashny Square is huge here, but it does not marks the increase or improvement of landlord agriculture in these areas. Landowners, despite the fact that they got such a trump card in their hands, as an extraordinary growth in the breadposses, increased over these twenty years in ports by 50-80%, despite the fact that they received large capital in the form of large loans, and despite In the 80s, a number of land banks opened in the 1980s, where they could lay and really laid their estates - they all of these cash income and realized, capital in most cases did not put on improving agriculture, and somehow they lived and preferred instead of improving your farm, to take advantage of the extraordinary desire of the peasants to take the land for rent, which I said, preferred to take advantage of the growth of rental prices, which took place these areas, and began to wind up the land for rent to the peasants, so, although not to admit ,. What is in these southern and southeastern provinces landowner land tenureit turns out more stable than in the north, but landowner economyand here is shrinking if under the fariasis implies his own landowge.
This was explained by the fact that the landowners at the time of the liberation of the peasants in most cases did not have their own inventory, accustomed to to keep the farm with the help of peasant equipment, and, despite the receipt of huge amounts in their hands on the repurchase of the peasant lands and in the mortgage of their land in various banks, they did not start this inventory and in the defective time. We see that in the flareform time, the arrears of landlord is growing in huge sizes. Even before the reform of the landowners of all provinces from 10 million, the serfs managed to lay up to 7 million souls in the then credit institutions, precisely in the preserved treasury. When issuing redemptions of loose loans, this debt was held, and we see that from those 588 million rubles, which they had to get in the form of redemption loans in the first decade after the reform, the landowners received, actually, much less, because about 262 million . rub. It was kept on the coverage of debt by this preserved chance, and the remaining 326 million rubles. They were issued by interest securities, the course of which was very low, and, thanks to the loss of the course, they actually had to receive only 230 million rubles. Be that as it may, in the first ten years after the reform, in which the redemption passed to 70% of all landlord estates, the old debt was repaid, but by the mid-60s, a new duty begins to form in newly created land banks, and we We see that this debt is growing extremely quickly, so by the end of the 60s a new debt is already formed by 230 million rubles, by the beginning of the 80s it already reaches 400 million RUB., i.e. almost the same The figures reached by landlord debts redeemed by ransom, and by the end of the 80s this debt passes for 600 million rubles. But, despite such huge borrowing, the landowner, the economy and in the black earth gubnia improved and expanded very little, and all the huge expansion of the scarves in these provinces accomplished on the peasant economy due to the widespread rental of landlord land. Thus, if we take the first twenty years after the publication of the position on February 19, then we can state such a process.
In the north of the landowner, the farm falls; Many of the payers who in the pre-reform time led their own farm here, it is stopped, new farms do not harde and sell their lands. Those few farms that are held here are completely transformed, extremely intensified, i.e., not only their inventory, but they go to higher field systems and only if they can withstand the competition of southern farms, if they, regardless of the field economy, which they become Especially disadvantageous, especially after the railways in fertile terrain, when low-cost bread comes from places where it is much more profitable, if they are as the only farm available to them arrange plants for processing agricultural products, starch and others. . Or if they develop special flax production and hemp part for sales abroad, part for internal consumption. These utility production are the only way out that gives them the possibility of existence.
In the southern provisions of the landowner, land tenure turned out to be much more stable, but the landowner the economy here most often was explicitly reduced by transferring land for leasing to peasants when the landowners remained. Throughout the degree of peasant rental here at this time, one can judge the figures that are represented by statistical studies during this time. According to some statistical computing, in general, the sizes of the peasant lease reached the 80s of the XIX century. Within European Russia, a huge figure is 50 million tents. But if we will even eliminate the most assumptions, the size of the peasant leases is achieved by the most modest calculations, in any case, 25 million tents, and you know that the size of the entire space of the exact lands received by former landlord peasants did not exceed 33 million. Des., therefore, the peasants had to almost double with the help of renting the space of their farm, and most of the leased spaces were in the black-earth chopped provinces.
In the northern provinces, the peasants were rented mainly the land, which they need for the economy and whom they were deprived of a segment when buying, especially meadows and pastures; In the southern provisions, they mainly rented arable land, and we see this leased Pashnya here at the peasants at least 12 million dec. at that time . In general, if we take the size of the scarves and sizes of crops on peasant and landlords at this time, calculating them at least by approximate data, - direct data in this regard is not enough, we will see that in the 1980s in European Russia, With the exception of Poland, Finland and the Caucasus, there were 68 million dec. Sowing, of which 47 million 300 thousand dec. It was on peasant valid lands, then about 12 million dec. - On the lands rented by peasants from landlords, and only 8 million 700 thousand dec. Sowing accounted for private ownership. Thus, we see that 87% of all crops belonged to peasants at that time and only 12.8% are privately degraded farms. These calculations are more or less true; They are based on the accounting of livestock, which was at this time at the landowners and peasants. We see, it is that in the first military-horse census, produced in 1882 and granted quite accurate statistics, in 48 provinces of European Russia in the peasants were 12 million 134 thousand workers, and private owners were only 1, 5 million workers horses. Obviously, this figure is 1.5 million work horses - shows that, according to the most preferential calculations, the landowners with the help of this number of horses could handle a maximum of 38% of their land, and the rest, it means, it was understood by the peasants for rent.
Thus, relatively black-earth provinces, the final conclusion, to which the latest researchers come on the basis of these data for the twentieth anniversary, following the peasant reform, the one that although the landowner land held here, but their farm has improved and did not expand, and meanwhile The arrears of estimates grew quite strongly, and therefore, although the lands of their landowners were not yet lost in these years, but this loss was already prepared, and in the 90s with the help of peasant and noble banks will begin emergency elimination of landlord land and here.
As for the sale of landlord land in a varying period, currently there are the following statistics on where the land-selling landlords passed. We see that the average landlord decrease occurs in such sizes: in 1859-1875. On average, it is sold at 517 thousand dec. annually; In 1875-1879. - 741 thousand dec. in year; In the early 1990s - 785 thousand dec. in year. Annual sales all increase and subsequently reach the beginning of this century to 1 million dec. per year, and in 1906, however, under the influence of the special circumstances of this moment, more than 7.5 million decals were exhibited for sale. landlord earth.
During this time, the distribution of land for estimates was changed as follows: In 1877, if we take the average values \u200b\u200bof 49 provinces, for one private land tenure, not believing neither state, nor the right lands, in the hands of the nobles were 77.8% of the total area Private land tenure, in the merchants - 12.2%, in the meshan - 2%, in peasants - 7% and "other" private owners -1%. According to 1887, i.e. in ten years, the picture will be as follows: the nobles - 68%, in the merchants - 13%, from the messenger - 2.9%, in the peasants - 12% and others - 2.3% . Consequently, the main part of the selling land passes after all to the peasants, but it should be borne in mind that not all the biders of this land, especially the merchants, and partly even the peasants buy it for agricultural purposes. We see here a division only for estates, but from the fact that the face belongs to the peasant class, it still does not yet be what it leads the peasant economy; The lands were purchased by individual peasants at this time most often for speculation. According to statistical data, we see that from every hundred perceivers purchased from landowners merchants, they resell in the first five years 12,5 dec., By 1869 - 25 dec., By 1875-1880, 42 dec., 1881-1886 - 55 tents. The merchants buy noble lands, especially in the northern provinces, for the device of factories and plants, and not for agricultural economy. But under the factories and plants there is only a small part of the estates, and all the other merchants, exhausted by common land cutting down, sometimes cutting even the gardens, sell peasants.
The peasant purchases during this period were made not by societies and partnerships of the peasants, as it was in the next period, when the land purchased went to the expansion of peasant labor land tenure, and mostly separate peasants, so, although we see that in the 60s peasant Purchases are annually 91 thousand dec., in 70s - 203 thousand dec., In the 80s - 438 thousand dec., Consequently, shopping growth is developing extremely quickly, but at the same time it should be noted that very many Separate peasants, in essence, are the same kind of biders as merchants, and largely buy land for speculators. So, the peasants from the land purchased by them are sold in the first five years of 1863-1868 GG.-21%, in 1869-1874. - 22.8%, in 1875-1880. - 37.9%. In the 80s, this percentage reaches 45 and increases further in peasants buying land alone; But at this time, the part of peasant purchases increases greatly, which accounted for partnerships and societies, especially with the beginning of the activity of the peasant bank.
So, therefore, those consequences for rural and especially landlords that occurred in the first decades after the peasant reform. We see that the peasants seem to be not the very farming of the peasants, but only the numbers of the size of the area of \u200b\u200bpeasant land tenure and the farm, triumph throughout the line; Their farm is expanding, they buy land, increase the size of the rental of landlocker lands to huge numbers and on landlock land lead their farms.
But whether they got it easily and what it was at all the expansion of the peasant economy and the economic life of the peasants, you will now see it, and you will see that these circumstances were not so profitable as it would be possible to count on the figures ...
So, whether the peasants easily got this expansion of their land tenure and their farm, especially in black earth locations, what was their own economic situation in this pureform period? This question has to give an excective answer in general. The peasants, indeed, increased their land use in the widest sizes, but they sought so insistently for lease of these landlords in the black earth provinces, of course, because they had no other release, it was thanks to that land, which existed from them, thanks to The limited emphasis, which was achieved after many changes and recycling the rules of them, in the development of the situation on February 19.
It is in the black epic strip of peasant malskie in the first years after the reform, it affected particularly sharply. I have already said that the economic conjuncture for the chernozem strip at that moment was beneficial. Indeed, we see that bread prices in the overseas market have grown so much that they increased in some cases by 100%. At the same time, the wages increased by 100-80%, so that in essence speaking, earnings were made as if it was more profitable, but in view of the fact that in earnings in general, the workers accounted for to buy bread themselves, it is a raising of bread prices for people living in earnings , at least agricultural, appeared not particularly favorable circumstance. And here we see that the peasants seek in a flammable time in the Chernozem provinces to expand their own scarlet not only on their own, but also on landlords, and landowners are preferring this way to increase their income to expand their own farms by increasing their own crops, because That rental prices have increased at this time to a much greater degree than bread prices. According to the calculus of the Cognot of the Bread Trading Time of this time, Chawlsky, at the same time good statistics, we see that while wages and breadpage are growing no more than 100%, rental prices are growing in some places by 300% and even 400%, t . e. Earn 4-5 times. This is partly due to the templary, which, regardless of the growth of the grain prices in the world market, grows the bread prices in the fields are even more progression due to railways, precisely, thanks to railways in places like Kozlov, Morshansk, Saratov, Penza, Kursk , Eagle, Kharkov, Novorossiysk Territory, etc. There was a sales of bread to the market in such locations, where it was not at all at all, right in terms of their distance from those centers, where bread was sold, and thanks to the possibility of the court only on horseback Was too roads. Now, near these railway points, at a distance of 100-200 miles, the sale of bread is extremely expensive, the production of bread as a product is made profitable for both peasants, which this way for the first time receives the opportunity to produce money in their farm. It is extremely for them seductive, but, of course, to withstand such an increase in rental prices, as for 300-400%, the peasants can in most cases only by the price of their own ruin, and we see that in the next time the peasants here really ruin and ruin happens here, In the end, not only in the peasants, but also at the landowners, because the unrestrained decay of the earth leads not so much to the depletion of the chernozem, which here is so thick, that it is difficult to drain how much to do with the fact that the plowing steppe gives constant cracks from which they are formed The ravines who serve to flow moisture, so droughts are intensified, crumbs are rapidly student and one collapse of southern agriculture is prepared, which we will see in the early 90s.
Thus, we see that this increasing disintegration and land rental cost peasants Neszayevo: In many cases, she prepared their ruin. No better was the economic position of the peasants and on their own ridiculous lands, because they were extremely subordinated by all sorts of payments. We can say it not only in relation to redemption payments, which in many places were before the unbearable, that the peasants preferred to take the Nishchenskie noseli in some areas, rather than to move from the bargains to redemption, but also in relation to a number of other payments that are not Less than redemptions, all the peasant junctions gathered. In 1872, after lagging and hunger in Smolensk, and then the Samara provinces, when Valuev was appointed Minister of state property, the one who was in 1861-1868. The Minister of the Interior and in 1868 lost his place in 1868 Hunger in the Smolensk province, after it was found that he did not accept sufficient measures to ensure food food, this very Valeuv now, as the Minister of State Protection, wanted to show his disposal and enlightenment and arranged a fairly wide questionnaire about the situation of agriculture on the manner A questionnaire of parliamentary commissions in England. To this questionnaire, he attracted as representatives of landowners landowners of different places in Russia, so even representatives of the peasant land tenure - in the form of individual volost elders, as well as some provincial officials who served in peasant cases; Some governors were invited. And, despite the fact that the most enterprise was conceived pretty frivolously and official conclusions,to which the meeting came, they were also pretty lightweight, the material was assembled quite serious, which in the hands of independent researchers, as Professor Yantson or as KN. Vasilechikov, was used quite productively and instructive.
Of the data collected, we, by the way, we see that the picture of the impurgement of the peasant lands was as follows. The amount of all direct taxes and payments lying in the rural population were estimated in 1872 to 208 million rubles, and on only 13 million rubles. Fallen on the land of private owners. The rest of the rest, about 200 million rubles, fell on the peasant lands. These insights, firstly, treated charged directly from the Earth,and among these latter, first of all, the State Zemstvo collection, which at this time, in the form of concessions to the voice of public opinion, was transferred to some part with a shower on the ground; It is 8 million rubles. It was paid from the Earth, and 13 million rubles. It remained on the souls. However, from these 8 million rubles. Half paid the peasants from their lands. Then local land fees were followed, which were imposed by newly established departments; They were chosen mainly to land and other real estate, and therefore about half of them paid the landowners, treasury and lot and about half - the peasants; These Zemsky fees were about 13 million rubles. Then the landowners paid 1900 thousand rubles. For private noble needs, and all their payments were limited, although the landowners owned almost the same number of land as the peasants. Next, we walked different types of payments that the peasants were departed for the land alloted; Of these, the redemption payments were 38 million rubles., And in addition, it is necessary to add here for those peasants who at this time have not changed to ransom, 16 million rubles. Owl payments, total 54 million rubles. In addition, redemption payments of former specific peasants were 3 million rubles. and urgent files former state peasants 36 million rubles, and it must be added to it 1200 thousand rubles. Forest tax. All pasmodes,which were charged directly from the peasants, therefore, 95 million rubles.
Next, we went the mantles that already pillowwere decomposed on the rural feed population. First of all, the first submachine was 42 million rubles. And it was paid exclusively to the peasants. Then the public collection of state peasants in the amount of 3,400 thousand rubles. He then, the State Zemsky Collection in the part, decomposed on the soul, was 13 million rubles. 700 thousand rubles., In addition, worldly and public spending up to 30 million rubles. - total 90 million rubles.
It must be said that there are not yet included in the Natural Means, which were serving some peasants and to evaluate which we have no accurate data, but which should be assessed, in any case, several tens of millions of rubles.
So, not counting these naturally, for 19.5 million, the souls of the applied peasant population lay about 200 million payments, i.e., on the middle-size family - about 30 rubles. Such payments for the ordinary peasant budget were definitely unbearable.
At the same time I must say that between different drops of peasantsthese provisions were distributed extremely unevenly. So, for example, payments for the allocated passes lay in this way: for their 33.5 million dec. overlooking peasantsrUB 54 million RUB. state peasantsfor 75 million dec. We paid only 37 million rubles. Consequently, the uneven distribution of this supply severity between the individual categories of the peasant population itself was extremely significant. If we look at how the suppressed severity was distributed inside Categories of former landfill peasants, we will see that it laid even more unevenly, because, as you remember, when establishing redemption payments, there was a well-known gradation system, which was the fact that the first tenth was estimated by one at the same amount As everyone else, taken together, and in the territories of the non-black-earth and the second tenth was a quarter of the entire assessment, and therefore the relatively large severity fell on those who received the smallest put on. Who received one third of the maximum put on, he paid two thirds of the maximum amount of the redemption payment. The unevenness of this system in the black epic provinces was especially felt, because in the non-sinnamine, the non-uniformity of the taxation was still not reasonable by the fact that actually redeemed payments or the former regulations were calculated in accordance with no income from the Earth, but to third-party earnings that peasants in these provinces really had And the magnitude of the station here really did not play such a role as in the chernozem provinces. But the graduation system is editorial commissions from the non-black-earth provinces, on a strange bureaucratic tendency to uniformity, transferred to black earth locality, although here it could not be justified and therefore was particularly sensitive, since all incomes were obtained from the ground, and, therefore, unevenness The covers were particularly severely difficult to small-earth peasant yards, according to which this gradation system was hit. So, thus, the overall picture of the severity and unevenness of the design, which was discovered in the first years after the peasant reform. The results of such a situation of things have affected very quickly and were clear for many more to Valuev's questionnaire. It was, already in 1867, when the first serious cripper was in the Smolensk province and followed by a full hunger, then Valuev, who was then the minister of internal affairs, first denied the cash of hunger and claimed that there are sufficient food reserves to cover the needs of the peasants When the facial investigations went to the place of hunger, when they found that the reserves are not enough and that the peasants not only eat various impurities and surrogates of bread: woody bark, clay, and so on, but also directly die from hunger, then the government itself has risen, A special committee was even appointed chaired by the heir (the future emperor Alexander III), and this moment with the help of public charity gathered significant amounts that, however, for the most part of the thoroughly, and came to the hungry peasants.
Then after three years later, another crubnia followed mainly southeastern provinces, which were considered a resident of all Russia and even Europe; It was in the Samara province that she lasted three years in a row and then hunger in huge sizes, and then the government was especially embarrassed that he was hunger in this fellow and abundant land.
And after, after this hunger was in Samara province, and for the government was clear that it would be necessary to ever put the end of the chairs of the peasants with payments, on the one hand, and on the other hand, their relative small-earth in black earth locations, again appeared The question is, this time quite sharply delivered, regarding the inevitability of serious applied reform.
Nevertheless, the government continued to act with emergency slowness. It extremely reluctantly raised this question. We have already seen that the Minister of Finance, which at this time specifically cultivated the development of a large industry, walked a year two to Smolensk hunger with a light heart for a new treatment of the peasant economy, as soon as it was the slightest, according to his data, the opportunity. We have seen how the question of the destruction of the pillow, and the replacement of its income tax, designed by zeal, failed in government spheres. Meanwhile, sad circumstances in the peasant economy affected not only in the form of hunger, which came first in Smolensk, and then in Samara provinces, they affected the gradual fall of the peasant farm during the years are completely ordinary - especially in a significant decrease in cattle breeding.
We see that cattle breeding in these years falls not only on landlord lands, as it fell in a black earthly strip, because the landowners directly found here more profitable for themselves to take their lands for rent, but falls in the peasants in fairly significant sizes, so This feature is already serious enough. He, however, was noticed not immediately: the rational of the peasant economy was made with some graduality, and we see that in the 70s there were local administrators who tried to explain even the Samara famous by the fact that the people, they say, drunk and dying their Large incomes, and then, in the years crawling, and therefore hunger strikes. It was, the Samara Governor Klimov expressed such considerations in 1873 in the Committee of Ministers; But even here he received proper rebuff: State controller A.A. Abaza pointed out to him that all the information presented by him, the governor who would have to know his province were obviously incorrect and did not correspond to the actual position of things. Abase with numbers in his hands proved that the Samara province paid filters more than 3% of their total amount that was collected from all over Russia, and excisable fees came from it only 1.5% of their total amount, so he had the opportunity to definitely show the Samara Governor that Samara province is one of the most sober in Russia and that his governor, the data is not suitable for anywhere. The Minister of Internal Affairs of Timashev as soon as the situation in the dispute arose in the Committee of Ministers has become so uncomfortable for the Ministry of the Interior, stopped the conversation and said that he would present more accurate information, but what, in any case, is clear (?) That Samara The province will not be able to be attributed to the exhausted provinces. However, the depletion of the Black Earth Strip of Russia in the 1990s was no longer compared. I personally had to go in the years of irrevenge, in 1892-1893, collect statistics on the starving peasants, and I personally saw a number of such villages in central black earthly provinces, such as Tula, where 75% of the AB in the 90s Dropped "in black", i.e., the peasants, the winding of firewood or straw, built, for saving in fuel, their stoves without pipes, the ceilings in such spashes were completely black from soot and shiny, like well-sided boot, and in wet Weather from them dripped black dirt. A number of solutions in such villages was revealed; Only rafters remained on the roof, and the whole straw was removed and forth the cattle. According to statistical data, I myself came out, it turned out that in other villages up to 50% of the peasants were to the beginning of the 90s lately, and from the other 50% more than 40% and even 45% were single-smeared and only 5-6% were The owners who possessed two and more horses. In some villages, there were sometimes two or three yards and with five-six horses each, but they completely tone in the total mass of the ruined and helpless peasantry ...
Here is the general picture of that cloak, to which the peasantry came in the Black Earth Gubnia 20 years after the reform on February 19. Thus, it is undoubted that those insufficient landings that received the peasants in the Black Earth Strine, and the subcomposition of their payments, which existed in the territories of the non-sinnamen, and largely also in the black earthly, they had a very serious, and if the Government had thought It is possible to delay the necessary reforms and events that would serve at least partial improvement in the position of the peasants in Russia, then in society already in the 70s, people honored did not doubt that the position of the peasantry in the flagship time goes to a rather formidable decline. Among the writers who took advantage of the statistical data collected by government commissions, then the position of the peasants, - exactly submittedcommission, who worked for a whole 15 years, and then ancade Valuevskayathe commission, about which I just mentioned, were two outstanding writers, which I have already said about, - Yu. E. Yanon and KN. A. I. Vasilchikov. Of these, Professor Yanzon definitely and sharply outlined those conclusions to which he came in this regard, in his book "Experience of a statistical study on peasant pans and payments" - put on the provisions and payments under the provision of 1861. Research on the basis of these two government commissions The masses of our peasantry in all regions of European Russia, Professor Yanon found in it everywhere "weak security of economic life, especially in the part that the great act of 1861 is designed to prosperity and prosperity of free labor. Where there is no economic security, "wrote a venerable professor," there is almost unnecessarily complemented by the picture of the state of the people by the image of the phenomena, from it dependent, and the absence of its explanatory. Poor nutrition, bad physical and moral living conditions, great pain and strong mortality - all of this has its nearest cause in poverty of the population, and poverty itself, if it stems from the weakness of moral forces and lack of labor energy, then it did not go from them and not They stands in Russian land. It leads its beginning from recent times; It was created in the age-old peasant state; But it supports it there is a poor soil, to which the population is actually tied; Here the insignificant put on, from which it is impossible to get away, there is landless, here the lack of all income and what is happening from the other low remuneration of labor; Finally, the severity of common state, zemstvoy and worldly filters and fees lying on the property and its income, but on personal labor, and the high fee for land, which one feeds who processes it. "
"The applied system and agricultural legislation is ours," concluded Yanton, "cannot share in the present form without serious danger to prosperity and present generations ..."
But the change in the accommodation relations seemed to him "a much more imperative and essential question of the present than any reform in the financial statement of the state: without a doubt, eliminating the indigenous shortcomings of these relations, unless - in his opinion, - to dream of good results of the right Submitted System. "
Without seeing, however, it was possible to think about the complete eradication of the shortcomings of the supply system and at the same time taking into account that the march question was already resolved in the reform itself 1861, Janson offered therefore, going to meet the peasant land needs, only a number of more or less serious palliatives . He stated that "there are enough reasons to reduce the pavement payments for their equations with the means of peasants and those economic relations, which were determined by 20 years of experience; The issue of relocation and direction they are waiting for permission, according to the needs of the people and the benefits of the state; providing a cheap loan to acquire those lands that in the future will have to shoot at the expensive price, initial with redemption operation; The most revision of the redemption operation in the types of possible decrease in redemption payments; Finally, such a desired and long-awaited transformation of the supply system: these are the enormous importance of the task, which cannot but stop their attention and government and society. "
Indeed, in the early 80s came, as you will see from subsequent lectures, a number of events that were aimed at satisfying these needs and for adoption of just those palliative measures that were recommended by Professor Yanton in 1876.
A few other opinions were another of the two authors mentioned, CN. A.I. Vasilchikov, about whom I have repeatedly spoken in my lectures. The difference between him and Yu.E. Janson lies in the fact that Vasilchikov did not consider the most important cause of the sad position of our peasants the insufficiency of their land plots, and saw it mainly in the desperate supply system, which paralyzed the good results of reform on February 19. Lowing the epigraph used by Tan to the characteristic of the position of the peasants in France before the revolution itself of 1789, KN. Vasilchikov finds a complete analogy in this regard in the position of the then French and modern Russian peasants. Indicates that the peasants in France on the eve of the Great Revolution were stiguously bought by the land and at the same time ruined the weight of exorbitant taxes, burdened by peasant property, and taking the same phenomenon and in our 70s, the KN. Vasilchikov notes that "the position of Russian peasants, currently absolutely similar to the picture drawn by Tan, can serve as a serious caution for us; The supply system can suppress all the good action of freedom and equality and bring small owners against major to the sameracy, which manifested in France at the end of the last century. "
The difference you see in the conclusions of these two outstanding researchers of the then position of things is partly due to the fact that the CN. Vasilechikov meant mainly the position of the peasants in the Non-Black Strip, where the land did not have so sharply affected, while Janson turned his main attention to the most harboring area, where the land really affected much more acute.
These opinions of the KN. Vasilchikov and Professor Janson were largely divided into a mass of the then writers, researchers of the peasant position, and, in essence, it must be said that the government in the 60s and 70s belongs to this, the prime relationship was as sensible to this issue. and society. It can be called not only sensitive, but even prophetic, because during the development of peasant reform, at the very end of the 50s and early 60s Chernyshevsky, and then N.A. Solovyovich and others completely definitely predicted such negative results of reform.
In the 60s, in the medium of the advanced Russian intelligentsia, a rather definite and fairly stubborn opinion of the disadvantages of the economic device, which was given to the peasants of the peasant reform, and the prevalence of this opinion gave rise to a widely populous course in the literature, and then the people's movement, Which will be the subject of my next lecture.
We see that the export of bread from Russia, very fluctuated in the first half of the XIX century, but never reaching even 30 million, in the fifth anniversary of 1846-1850. Reached at once 51 million PUD, the next five years of 1850-1855. He, however, decreased (as a result of war) to 45 million PUD; But then, in 1856 - I860, there were already 69 million in PUD. per year, in 1861-1865 - 76 million, in 1876-1880. - 257 million PUD. per year, etc. (compared. V. I. Pokrovsky."A collection of information on the history and statistics of foreign trade in Russia", t. I, p. 4-5. St. Petersburg., 1902.)
Named essay, p. 168.
