Servants who do not have a master do not become free people because of this - lackeyness is in their soul.
G. Heine
The date of the abolition of serfdom in Russia is December 19, 1861. This is a significant event, since the beginning of 1861 turned out to be extremely tense for the Russian Empire. Alexander 2 was even forced to put the army on high alert. The reason for this was not a possible war, but a growing boom in peasant discontent.
Several years before 1861, the tsarist government began to consider legislation to abolish serfdom. The Emperor understood that there was no longer room to delay. His advisers unanimously said that the country was on the verge of an explosion of a peasant war. On March 30, 1859, a meeting between noble nobles and the emperor took place. At this meeting, the nobles said that it was better for the liberation of the peasants to come from above, otherwise it would follow from below.
Reform February 19, 1861
As a result, the date for the abolition of serfdom in Russia was determined - February 19, 1861. What did this reform give to the peasants, did they become free? This question can be answered unequivocally, the reform of 1861 made life much worse for peasants. Of course, the tsar’s manitsest, which he signed in order to free ordinary people, endowed the peasants with rights that they never possessed. Now the landowner did not have the right to exchange a peasant for a dog, beat him, forbid him to marry, trade, or engage in fishing. But the problem for the peasants was the land.
Land question
To resolve the land issue, the state convened world mediators, who were sent to the localities and dealt with the division of land there. The overwhelming majority of the work of these intermediaries consisted in the fact that they announced to the peasants that on all controversial issues with the land they must negotiate with the landowner. This agreement had to be drawn up in writing. The reform of 1861 gave landowners the right to take away the so-called “surplus” from peasants when determining land plots. As a result, the peasants were left with only 3.5 dessiatines (1) of land per auditor's soul (2). Before the land reform there were 3.8 dessiatines. At the same time, the landowners took the best land from the peasants, leaving only infertile lands.
The most paradoxical thing about the reform of 1861 is that the date of the abolition of serfdom is known exactly, but everything else is very vague. Yes, the manifesto formally allocated land to the peasants, but in fact the land remained in the possession of the landowner. The peasant received only the right to buy that plot of land, who was assigned to him by the landowner. But at the same time, the landowners themselves were given the right to independently determine whether or not to allow the sale of land.
Redemption of land
No less strange was the amount at which the peasants had to buy out the land plots. This amount was calculated based on the rent that the landowner received. For example, the richest nobleman of those years, P.P. Shuvalov. received a quitrent of 23 thousand rubles a year. This means that the peasants, in order to buy the land, had to pay the landowner as much money as was necessary for the landowner to put it in the bank and annually receive those same 23 thousand rubles in interest. As a result, on average, one audit soul had to pay 166.66 rubles for tithes. Since the families were large, on average across the country one family had to pay 500 rubles to buy out a plot of land. It was an unaffordable amount.
The state came to the “aid” of the peasants. The State Bank paid the landowner 75-80% of the required amount. The rest was paid by the peasants. At the same time, they were obliged to settle accounts with the state and pay the required interest within 49 years. On average across the country, the bank paid the landowner 400 rubles for one plot of land. At the same time, the peasants gave the bank money for 49 years in the amount of almost 1,200 rubles. The state almost tripled its money.
The date of the abolition of serfdom is an important stage in the development of Russia, but it did not give a positive result. Only by the end of 1861, uprisings broke out in 1,176 estates in the country. By 1880, 34 Russian provinces were engulfed in peasant uprisings.
Only after the first revolution in 1907 did the government cancel the land purchase. Land began to be provided free of charge.
1 – one dessiatine is equal to 1.09 hectares.
2 – auditor soul – the male population of the country (women were not entitled to land).
The reign of Alexander the Second (1856-1881) went down in history as a period of “great reforms”. Largely thanks to the emperor, serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861 - an event that, of course, is his main achievement, which played a large role in the future development of the state.
Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom
In 1856-1857, a number of southern provinces were rocked by peasant unrest, which, however, subsided very quickly. But, nevertheless, they served as a reminder to the ruling authorities that the situation in which the common people find themselves could ultimately result in dire consequences for them.
In addition, the current serfdom significantly slowed down the progress of the country's development. The axiom that free labor is more effective than forced labor was fully demonstrated: Russia lagged significantly behind Western states both in the economy and in the socio-political sphere. This threatened that the previously created image of a powerful power could simply dissolve, and the country would become secondary. Not to mention that serfdom was very similar to slavery.
By the end of the 50s, more than a third of the country's 62 million population lived completely dependent on their owners. Russia urgently needed peasant reform. 1861 was supposed to be a year of serious changes, which had to be carried out so that they could not shake the established foundations of the autocracy, and the nobility retained its dominant position. Therefore, the process of abolishing serfdom required careful analysis and elaboration, and this was already problematic due to the imperfect state apparatus.
Necessary steps for the coming changes
The abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 was supposed to seriously affect the foundations of life of the huge country.
However, if in states living according to the constitution, before carrying out any reforms, they are worked out in the ministries and discussed in the government, after which the finished reform projects are submitted to parliament, which makes the final verdict, then in Russia there are no ministries or a representative body existed. And serfdom was legalized at the state level. Alexander II could not abolish it single-handedly, since this would violate the rights of the nobility, which is the basis of the autocracy.
Therefore, in order to promote the reform in the country, it was necessary to deliberately create an entire apparatus specifically dedicated to the abolition of serfdom. It was intended to consist of locally organized institutions whose proposals were to be submitted and processed by a central committee, which in turn would be controlled by the monarch.
Since in the light of the upcoming changes it was the landowners who lost the most, the best solution for Alexander II would have been if the initiative to free the peasants had come from the nobles. Soon such a moment came up.
"Rescript to Nazimov"
In the mid-autumn of 1857, General Vladimir Ivanovich Nazimov, the governor from Lithuania, arrived in St. Petersburg, who brought with him a petition to grant him and the governors of the Kovno and Grodno provinces the right to free their serfs, but without giving them land.
In response, Alexander II sent a rescript (personal imperial letter) to Nazimov, in which he instructed local landowners to organize provincial committees. Their task was to develop their own options for future peasant reform. At the same time, in the message the king gave his recommendations:
- Granting complete freedom to serfs.
- All land plots must remain with the landowners, with retention of ownership rights.
- Providing the opportunity for freed peasants to receive land plots subject to payment of quitrents or working off corvée.
- Give peasants the opportunity to buy back their estates.
Soon the rescript appeared in print, which gave impetus to a general discussion of the issue of serfdom.
Creation of committees
At the very beginning of 1857, the emperor, following his plan, created a secret committee on the peasant question, which secretly worked on developing a reform to abolish serfdom. But only after the “rescript to Nazimov” became public knowledge did the institution become fully operational. In February 1958, all secrecy was removed from it, renaming it the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, headed by Prince A.F. Orlov.
Under him, Editorial Commissions were created, which reviewed projects submitted by provincial committees, and on the basis of the collected data, an all-Russian version of the future reform was created.
Member of the State Council, General Ya.I., was appointed chairman of these commissions. Rostovtsev, who fully supported the idea of abolishing serfdom.
Controversies and work done
During the work on the project, there were serious contradictions between the Main Committee and the majority of provincial landowners. Thus, the landowners insisted that the emancipation of the peasants should be limited only to the provision of freedom, and the land could be assigned to them only on a lease basis without redemption. The Committee wanted to give former serfs the opportunity to purchase land, becoming full owners.
In 1860, Rostovtsev died, and therefore Alexander II appointed Count V.N. as head of the Editorial Commissions. Panin, who, by the way, was considered an opponent of the abolition of serfdom. Being an unquestioning executor of the royal will, he was forced to complete the reform project.
In October, the work of the Editorial Commissions was completed. In total, provincial committees submitted for consideration 82 projects for the abolition of serfdom, occupying 32 printed volumes. The result of painstaking work was submitted for consideration to the State Council, and after its acceptance was presented to the Tsar for assurance. After familiarization, he signed the corresponding Manifesto and Regulations. February 19, 1861 became the official day of the abolition of serfdom.
The main provisions of the manifesto of February 19, 1861
The main provisions of the document were as follows:
- The serf peasants of the empire received complete personal independence; they were now called “free rural inhabitants.”
- From now on (that is, from February 19, 1861), serfs were considered full citizens of the country with the appropriate rights.
- All movable peasant property, as well as houses and buildings, were recognized as their property.
- The landowners retained the rights to their lands, but at the same time they had to provide the peasants with household plots as well as field plots.
- For the use of land plots, peasants had to pay a ransom both directly to the owner of the territory and to the state.
Necessary compromise of reform
The new changes could not satisfy the wishes of all concerned. The peasants themselves were dissatisfied. First of all, the conditions under which they were provided with land, which, in fact, was the main means of subsistence. Therefore, the reforms of Alexander II, or rather, some of their provisions, are ambiguous.
Thus, according to the Manifesto, the largest and smallest sizes of land plots per capita were established throughout Russia, depending on the natural and economic characteristics of the regions.
It was assumed that if the peasant plot was smaller in size than established by the document, then this obliged the landowner to add the missing area. If they are large, then, on the contrary, cut off the excess and, as a rule, the best part of the allotment.
Norms of allotments provided
The manifesto of February 19, 1861 divided the European part of the country into three parts: steppe, black earth and non-black earth.
- The norm of land plots for the steppe part is from six and a half to twelve dessiatines.
- The norm for the black earth strip was from three to four and a half dessiatines.
- For the non-chernozem zone - from three and a quarter to eight dessiatines.
In the whole country, the allotment area became smaller than it was before the changes, thus, the peasant reform of 1861 deprived the “liberated” of more than 20% of the area of cultivated land.
Conditions for transferring land ownership
According to the reform of 1861, land was provided to peasants not for ownership, but only for use. But they had the opportunity to buy it from the owner, that is, to conclude a so-called buyout deal. Until that moment, they were considered temporarily obligated, and for the use of land they had to work corvée, which amounted to no more than 40 days a year for men and 30 for women. Or pay a quitrent, the amount of which for the highest allotment ranged from 8-12 rubles, and when assigning a tax, the fertility of the land was necessarily taken into account. At the same time, those temporarily obliged did not have the right to simply refuse the allotment provided, that is, corvee would still have to be worked off.
After completing the redemption transaction, the peasant became the full owner of the land plot.
And the state did not lose out
Since February 19, 1861, thanks to the Manifesto, the state had the opportunity to replenish the treasury. This income item was opened due to the formula by which the amount of the redemption payment was calculated.
The amount that the peasant had to pay for the land was equal to the so-called conditional capital, which was deposited in the State Bank at 6% per annum. And these percentages were equal to the income that the landowner previously received from quitrent.
That is, if a landowner had 10 rubles in quitrent per soul per year, then the calculation was made according to the formula: 10 rubles were divided by 6 (interest on capital), and then multiplied by 100 (total interest) - (10/6) x 100 = 166.7.
Thus, the total amount of the quitrent was 166 rubles 70 kopecks - money “unaffordable” for a former serf. But here the state entered into a deal: the peasant had to pay the landowner at a time only 20% of the calculated price. The remaining 80% was contributed by the state, but not just like that, but by providing a long-term loan with a repayment period of 49 years and 5 months.
Now the peasant had to pay the State Bank annually 6% of the redemption payment. It turned out that the amount that the former serf had to contribute to the treasury was three times the loan. In fact, February 19, 1861 became the date when a former serf, having escaped from one bondage, fell into another. And this despite the fact that the size of the ransom amount itself exceeded the market value of the plot.
Results of changes
The reform adopted on February 19, 1861 (the abolition of serfdom), despite its shortcomings, gave a fundamental impetus to the development of the country. 23 million people received freedom, which led to a serious transformation in the social structure of Russian society, and subsequently revealed the need to transform the entire political system of the country.
The timely release of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, the preconditions of which could lead to serious regression, became a stimulating factor for the development of capitalism in the Russian state. Thus, the eradication of serfdom is certainly one of the central events in the history of the country.
Introduction…………………………………………………….....2
I. Preparation of the abolition of serfdom…………………….3
1. Personal exemption……………………………………8
2. Dimensions of the field plot………………………………...9
3. Duties………………………………………………………12
4.Redemption…………………………………………………….15
5.Legal status…………………………………17
III. Consequences of the peasant reform……………………18
Conclusion……………………………………………………………...23
References……………………………………………………..25
Introduction
The reign of Alexander II (1856-1881) became the era of “great reforms”. Its central event was the abolition of serfdom.
In 1856-1857 Peasant unrest occurred in a number of southern provinces. They quickly calmed down, but once again reminded us that the landowners were sitting on a volcano.
Serfdom was fraught with danger. It showed no obvious signs of its imminent collapse and collapse. It could have existed for an indefinitely long time. But free labor is more productive than forced labor - this is an axiom. Serfdom dictated an extremely slow pace of development for the entire country. The Crimean War clearly showed Russia's growing lag. In the near future it could become a minor power. Serfdom, too similar to slavery, was immoral.
The events of the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 will be covered in the work. Thus, the purpose of the work is to consider the following questions -
preparation for the abolition of serfdom, regulations of February 19, 1861, consequences of the peasant reform.
I.Preparation of the abolition of serfdom
The abolition of serfdom affected the vital foundations of a huge country. In constitutional states, all major measures are first developed in the relevant ministries, then discussed in the Council of Ministers, and then submitted to parliament, which has the final say. In Russia at that time there was no constitution, no parliament, no Council of Ministers. Therefore, it was necessary to create a cumbersome system of central and local institutions specifically for the development of peasant reform.
Soon after the conclusion of the Peace of Paris, Alexander II, speaking in Moscow to the leaders of the nobility, declared that “it is better to begin the destruction of serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed by itself from below.” Hinting at Pugachevism, the tsar touched upon a very sensitive topic for landowners. “Please convey my words to the nobles for consideration,” he said at the end of his speech.
Preparations for the abolition of serfdom began in January 1857 with the creation of the Secret Committee “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Submitting to the will of the monarch, the committee recognized the need for the gradual abolition of serfdom. In November 1857, a rescript was signed and sent throughout the country addressed to the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov, who announced the beginning of the gradual liberation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees in each province to make proposals and amendments to the reform project.
The atmosphere of glasnost forced the landowners to respond to the tsar's call. By the summer of 1858 Provincial noble committees were created almost everywhere. Provincial noble committees drew up projects on the peasant issue and sent them to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, which, in accordance with its program, planned to provide peasants with personal freedom without land, which remained the property of the landowners. Drafting commissions were formed to review these projects and draw up a detailed draft of the reform.
All current affairs regarding the preparation of the reform were concentrated in the hands of the Minister of Internal Affairs Nikolai Alekseevich Milyutin (1818-1872). Milyutin was close to Kavelin and tried to implement the main provisions of his note. The Slavophile Yu.F. provided him with great help. Samarin, member of editorial commissions.
The landowners were distrustful of the editorial commissions, and Alexander II promised that representatives of the nobility would be summoned to St. Petersburg, familiarized with the documents and would be able to express their opinions. By August 1859, the project was prepared and the question arose about the arrival of noble representatives. Fearing that they might form some semblance of parliament, the government decided to summon the nobles to the capital in two stages (first from the non-Black Sea provinces, and then from the Black Sea ones). Those summoned were forbidden to gather for official meetings. They were invited in groups of 3-4 to the editorial commissions and asked to answer the questions asked. The nobles were very unhappy with this turn of affairs.
The landowners of the non-Black Sea provinces did not object to the allocation of land to the peasants, but they demanded a ransom for it that was disproportionate to its value. Thus, they tried to include compensation for the quitrent in the ransom amount. They also insisted that the government guarantee the buyout operation.
In addition, the landowners feared that the power of the government bureaucracy would become too strong if it took into its own hands the entire matter of managing the peasants. To partially neutralize this danger, noble deputies demanded freedom of the press, openness, an independent court and local self-government. In response, the government forbade discussing the issue of reforms at the next noble meetings.
This ban caused strong unrest among the nobility, especially in non-Black Sea provinces, where they were more enlightened and liberal. At a meeting of the Tver nobility, landowner A.I. Evropeus (a former Petrashevite) made a bright speech against the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, violating the legal rights of the nobles, and was sent to a new exile in Perm. Vyatka was chosen as a place of exile for the Tver provincial representative of the nobility A.M. Unkovsky. Alexander II showed that he had learned a thing or two from his father. These events reminded us of how poorly protected the rights of individual citizens are in Russia.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1860, noble representatives from the Black Sea provinces gathered in St. Petersburg. Their criticism of the government project was even harsher. They saw in the activities of the editorial commissions a manifestation of democratic, republican and even socialist tendencies. With loud cries about various dangers allegedly threatening the state, the landowners wanted to disguise their reluctance to give land to the peasants. But the landowners of their southern provinces did not put forward demands for transparency and various freedoms, and the government did not subject them to repression. The noble representatives were promised that their comments would be taken into account whenever possible.
Minister of Justice Count V.N. was appointed chairman of the editorial commissions. Panin, a famous conservative. At each subsequent stage of discussion, certain amendments were made to the draft by the serf owners. The reformers felt that the project was increasingly moving away from the “golden mean” towards the infringement of peasant issues. Nevertheless, the discussion of reform in provincial committees and the call of noble representatives did not remain without benefit. Milyutin and Samarin (the main developers of the reform) realized that it could not be carried out on the same basis throughout the country, that local characteristics must be taken into account. In the Black Sea provinces, the main value is land; in non-Black Sea provinces, peasant labor is embodied in quitrent. They also realized that it was impossible to hand over the landowner and peasant economy to the power of market relations without preparation; a transition period was required. They became convinced that the peasants should be freed from the land, and the landowners should be given a government-guaranteed ransom. These ideas formed the basis of the laws on peasant reform.
On February 19, 1861, on the sixth anniversary of his accession to the throne, Alexander II signed all the reform laws and the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. Because the government feared popular unrest, the publication of the documents was delayed for two weeks to take precautionary measures. On March 5, 1861, the manifesto was read in churches after mass. At the divorce ceremony in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander himself lamented it to the troops. This is how serfdom fell in Russia. "Regulations of February 19, 1861." extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand household servants and 543 thousand assigned to private factories.
1.Personal exemption
“Regulations of February 19, 1861 on peasants emerging from serfdom” consisted of a number of separate laws that interpreted certain issues of reform. The most important of them was the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom,” which set out the basic conditions for the abolition of serfdom. Peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property. The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with “manor settlement” for permanent use, i.e. estate , with a personal plot, as well as a field plot “to ensure their daily life and to fulfill their duties to the government and the landowner ..,». For the use of the landowner's land, peasants were required to serve corvee labor or pay quitrent. They did not have the right to refuse the field allotment, at least in the first nine years (in the subsequent period, the refusal of land was limited by a number of conditions that made it difficult to exercise this right).
This prohibition quite clearly characterized the landowner nature of the reform: the conditions of “liberation” were such that it was often unprofitable for the peasant to take land. Refusal from it deprived the landowners of either labor l s, or the income they receive in the form of rent.
2. Dimensions of the field plot
The size of the field allotment and duties should have been recorded in the statutory charters, for with setting which were given a two-year term. The drafting of statutory charters was entrusted to the landowners themselves, and their verification was entrusted to the so-called peace intermediaries, who were appointed from among the local noble landowners. Thus, the same landowners acted as intermediaries between peasants and landowners.
Charter charters were concluded not with an individual peasant, but with the “peace”, i.e. e. with the rural society of peasants who belonged to one or another landowner, as a result of which duties for the use of land were collected from the “world”. The mandatory allocation of land and the establishment of mutual responsibility for the payment of duties actually led to the enslavement of the peasants by the “peace.” The peasant did not have the right to leave society or receive a passport - all this depended on the decision of the “peace”. Peasants were given the right to buy out the estate, while the buyout of the field plot was determined by the will of the landowner. If the landowner wanted to sell his land, the peasants had no right to refuse. Peasants, redeemed your gender e vye on d ate, named sya peasant owners"ransom d was also not an individual, but all m sat down Russian society." These are the main conditions for the abolition of serfdom, set out in the “General Regulations”.
These conditions fully met the interests of the landowners. Establishment temporary relationships preserved the feudal system of exploitation indefinitely. The termination of these relations is determined l axis solely by the will of the landowners, on whose wishes the transfer of peasants to ransom depended. The implementation of the reform was transferred entirely into the hands of the landowners .
The size of land plots, as well as payments and duties for their use, were determined by “Local Provisions”. Four “local regulations” were published.
1. “Local regulations on the land structure of peasants settled on landowners’ lands in the provinces: Great Russian, Novorossiysk and Belarusian”
2. “Little Russian local situation”, which extended to the Left Bank part of Ukraine: Chernigov, Poltava and the rest of the Kharkov province.
3. The “situation” for Left Bank Ukraine was determined by the fact that there was no community in Ukraine and the allocation of land was carried out depending on the availability of draft power.
4. “Local provisions” for Right Bank Ukraine - the provinces of Kyiv, Podolsk, Volyn, as well as for Lithuania and Belarus - provinces Vilenskaya, Grodno, Kovenskaya, Minsk and part of Vitebsk. This was determined by political considerations, because the landowners in these areas were the Polish nobility.
According to the “Local Regulations,” family plots were maintained in pre-reform sizes, decreasing in proportion to the plots produced. Similar the distribution of land corresponded to the actual situation, determined by the presence of different categories of serfs, although the distinction between draft and foot soldiers was legally eliminated. Landless peasants received allotments if land was cut.
According to the “Little Russian Regulations,” the landowner was also given the right to reduce the peasant allotment to one quarter of the highest, if, by mutual agreement, the landowner transferred it to the peasants free of charge.
The peasants of Right Bank Ukraine found themselves in a slightly better position, i.e. e. in those areas where the Polish nobility were landowners. According to the “Local Regulations” for the Kiev, Volyn and Podolsk provinces, all the land that they used according to the inventory rules of 1847 and 1848 was assigned to the peasants. If the landowner reduced the peasant plots after the introduction of inventories, then according to the “Regulations” he had to return this land to the peasants.
According to the “Local Regulations”, which applied to Vilenskaya, Grodno, Kovenskaya, Minsk and part of the Vitebsk province, the peasants retained all the land by the time the “Regulations” were approved, i.e. to February 19, 1861, which they used. True, the landowner also had the right to reduce the size of peasant plots if he had less than one third of convenient land left. However, according to the “Regulations”, the peasant allotment «... cannot be in any case... reduce by more than one sixth; the remaining five-sixths form the inviolable land of the peasant allotment..."
Thus, while providing peasants with land in most provinces, landowners were given ample opportunities to rob the peasantry, that is, to dispossess them of land. In addition to reducing the peasant's allotment, the landowners could also rob the peasants, relocating them to obviously unsuitable lands.
3.Duties
Responsibilities for the use of land were divided into monetary ( quitrent ) and sharecropping ( corvée ). The “Regulations” stated that peasants are not obliged to e make any additional duties in favor of the landowner, as well as pay him tribute in kind (poultry, eggs, berries, mushrooms, etc.) d.). The main form of duties was a monetary quitrent, the size of which in each province approximately corresponded to the pre-reform one. This circumstance clearly revealed that the quitrent was determined not by the value of the land, but by the income that the landowner received from the personality of the serf.
The highest quitrent was established where the land brought in little income, and, conversely, mainly in the black earth provinces, the quitrent was significantly lower. This indicated a complete discrepancy between the price of land and the established quitrent. The latter was not a kind of rent for the use of land and retained the character of a feudal duty, which provided the landowner with income from personalities peasant, which he received before the reform.
If we take into account that land plots were reduced compared to the pre-reform period, and quitrent remained the same, it becomes clear that income sch ika not only did not decrease, but even increased. The size of the quitrent could be increased at the request of the landowner to one ruble per capita (if the peasant was engaged in trade or crafts, or, given the advantageous location of the village, proximity to large shopping centers and cities, etc.). Peasants were also given the right to ask for a reduction in quitrent due to poor quality of land or for other reasons. Peasants' requests for reduction And and the quitrent was due And be supported by a peace mediator and resolved by the provincial presence in peasant affairs.
The means for establishing an even greater discrepancy between land profitability and duties were the so-called quitrent gradations, introduced for all three stripes (in Ukraine, Lithuania and the western provinces of Belarus, these gradations were absent). Their essence was that the quitrent established for the highest per capita allotment was not reduced proportionally in the case of granting the peasant an incomplete allotment, but, on the contrary, was calculated in inverse proportion to the size of the allotment.
To determine the amount of quitrent collected under the “Great Russian Regulations” for peasant manor would be subdivided With b by four digits. TO first the category included estates s in agricultural areas, i.e. in the black earth provinces, “which did not provide any special benefits.” K The second category included estates on those estates where the peasant economy was not limited only to agriculture, but “was supported primarily by trade and earnings from waste or local industries.” K t R This category included estates, representing sewn"How And e any important local benefits", and on walking no further than 25 versts from Petersburg R ha and Moscow. TO fourth at R This category included estates that brought special d oho d.
The quitrent had to be paid to the landowner from the entire society “in a circular manner for each other A body" of peasants. At the same time, the landowner had the right to demand O forward it six months in advance. The amount of quitrent determined by the “Regulations” was established for a period of 20 years, after which it was assumed re-signing for the next twenty years, providing for increased e quitrent in connection With rising land prices. The collection of quitrents for the estate was intended in cases where the peasants did not use the field allotment or bought only one estate.
Another type of service is corvee. Work on the landowner's land was divided into horse and foot days. The equestrian day departed with one horse and the necessary tools (plow, harrow, cart). Correspondingly w The time between horse and foot days was determined at the discretion of the landowner. Operating time T It was 12 hours in the summer, and 9 hours in the winter. If the shower allotment was less than the highest or specified the number of corvée days decreased, but not proportionally.
Gradations existed not only in the era la those quitrents, but also when working off e corvée. The fulfillment of corvée duties could also be carried out on the basis of a fixed-term position, if this was required by the landowner or peasant society. Corvée had to be performed by men aged 18 to 55 years, women - from 17 to 50 years. For the correct service of corvée y answered in the whole society (community) on the basis of mutual responsibility. Before the expiration of the two-year period from the date of publication of the “Regulations”, peasants had the right to transfer from corvée to quitrent only with the consent of the peasants. O tradesman; after this period, consent was not required, but the peasants were obliged to notify the landowner a year in advance.
So, the quitrent established by the “Regulations” was still feudal rent. The size of the quitrent not only fully ensured the preservation of the pre-reform income of the landowners, but even increased it somewhat, taking into account the decrease in peasant plots. Corvee, in comparison with the pre-reform period, was significantly reduced, but this did little to affect the interests of the landowners. Firstly, quitrent became the main form of service after the reform. Secondly, the landowners retained ample opportunities to use the labor of peasants in the form of various forms of labor for the use of land cut off from them.
4.Bransom
According to the “General Regulations”, peasants were obliged to buy out the estate, while the redemption of the field plot depended solely on the will of the landowner. Terms of redemption from lied in the special “Regulations on the redemption cross Yanami, who came out of serfdom, their settled estates and the government’s assistance in acquiring field land for these peasants ». Redemption of the estate was permitted in any time provided there is no arrears. As in all articles concerning the establishment of the size of the allotment and duties, the “Regulations on Redemption” included a stereotypical phrase stating that the amount of ransom for both the estate and the field allotment was established Yu is “by voluntary agreement”. Along with this introduced exact standards that actually determined the size ransom A. The amount for both the estate and the field plot was to be determined by the amount of quitrent established for the peasants. Ransom put it on could be carried out either by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasants, or by the unilateral demand of the landowner against the wishes of the peasants.
Peasants, with the exception of a few, could not contribute the entire amount of the capitalized quitrent at a time. The landowners were interested in receiving the ransom immediately. In order to satisfy the interests of the landowners, the government provided O action in the acquisition by peasants of their field lands,” i.e. e. organized a “buyout operation.”
Its essence was that the peasants received a redemption loan, issued by the state at a time to the landowner, which the peasants gradually repaid. “Government assistance”, i.e. the issuance of redemption loans was distributed according to the “State And yu about the ransom" only for peasants who were on quitrent. The terms of the redemption operation provided for the issuance of a loan in the amount of 80% of the cost of the capitalized quitrent, provided that the allotment corresponded to its size according to the charter, and a loan in the amount of 75% in the event of a reduction in the allotment compared to the charter. This amount, minus the landowner's debt from the credit institution (if the estate was mortgaged), was issued to him by five percent state bank loans. And years and redemption certificate . In addition, the peasants, when starting the redemption, had to contribute e deposited to the cash desk of the county treasury, an additional payment in addition to the redemption loan, in the amount of one fifth of the redemption loan, if the entire plot was purchased, and one n oh quarter, if part of the allotment was purchased. If the redemption of the field plot was carried out not as a result of a voluntary agreement between landowners and peasants, but as a result of the unilateral demand of the landowner, then no additional payment was due. The peasants were required to repay the redemption amount received from the government over 49 years at 6% annually.
"Provisions of February 19, 1861" are simply robbery of the peasants. And at the same time, the most predatory operation was the ransom operation. It was thanks to her that peasants were often forced to give up the land that they had the right to receive under the terms of the reform.
Repayment of redemption payments by peasants was carried out by rural societies, i.e. “peace”, based on the principle of mutual responsibility. Until the end of the redemption payments, peasants had no right to either mortgage or sell the land they had acquired.
The redemption operation, despite its bourgeois character, was serfdom. The ransom was not based on the actual value of the e mli, but a capitalized quitrent, which was one of the forms of feudal rent. Consequently, the redemption operation made it possible for the landowner to retain in full the income that he received before the reform. It was precisely because of this that the transfer of peasants to ransom corresponded to the interests of the bulk of the landowners, especially that part of them that sought to switch to capitalist methods of their farming.
5 . Legal status
III.Consequences of the peasant reform
The promulgation of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861, the content of which deceived the peasants’ hopes for “full freedom,” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. In the first five months of 1861, 1,340 mass peasant unrest occurred, and in total there were 1,859 unrest in the year. More than half of them (937) were pacified by military force. In fact, there was not a single province in which the protest of the peasants against the unfavorable conditions of the granted “will” would not have manifested itself to a greater or lesser extent. Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe that such laws were coming from him, which for two years would leave them in fact in the same subordination to the landowner, force them to perform the hated corvée and pay dues, deprive them of a significant part of their former allotments, and The lands provided to them are declared the property of the nobility. Some considered the published “Regulations” to be a forged document, which was drawn up by landowners and officials who agreed with them at the same time, hiding the real, “tsarist will”, while others tried to find this “will” in some incomprehensible, therefore differently interpreted, articles of the tsarist law. False manifestos about “freedom” also appeared.
The peasant movement assumed its greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, the Volga region and Ukraine, where the bulk of the landowner peasants were in corvee labor and the agrarian question was most acute. The uprisings in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands of peasants took part, caused a great public outcry in the country. The demands of the peasants boiled down to the elimination of feudal duties and landownership (“we will not go to corvee, and we will not pay taxes”, “the land is all ours”). The uprisings in Bezdna and Kandeevka ended in the execution of peasants: hundreds of them were killed and wounded. The leader of the uprising in the village. Abyss Anton Petrov was court-martialed and shot.
The spring of 1861 was the high point of the peasant movement at the beginning of the reform. It is not for nothing that the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev, in his report to the Tsar, called these spring months “the most critical moment of the matter.” By the summer of 1861, the government, with the help of large military forces (64 infantry and 16 cavalry regiments and 7 separate battalions participated in the suppression of peasant unrest), through executions and mass beatings with rods, managed to repel the wave of peasant uprisings.
Although in the summer of 1861 there was a slight decline in the peasant movement, the number of unrest was still quite large: 519 during the second half of 1861 - significantly more than in any of the pre-reform years. In addition, in the fall of 1861, the peasant struggle took on other forms: the felling of the landowner’s forests by peasants became widespread, refusals to pay quitrents became more frequent, but peasant sabotage of corvée work became especially widespread: reports were received from the provinces about “the widespread failure to perform corvée work,” so that in a number of provinces up to a third and even half of the landowners' land remained uncultivated that year.
In 1862, a new wave of peasant protest arose, associated with the introduction of statutory charters. More than half of the charters that were not signed by the peasants were imposed on them by force. Refusal to accept statutory charters often resulted in major unrest, the number of which in 1862 amounted to 844. Of these, 450 protests were pacified with the help of military commands. The stubborn refusal to accept charter documents was caused not only by the unfavorable conditions of liberation for the peasants, but also by the spread of rumors that in the near future the tsar would grant a new, “real” will. The majority of peasants dated the date of this will (“urgent” or “hearing hour”) to be February 19, 1863 - the time of the end of the entry into force of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861. The peasants considered these “Regulations” themselves as temporary (as “ first will"), which after two years will be replaced by others, providing peasants with “uncut” allotments free of charge and completely freeing them from the tutelage of landowners and local authorities. The belief spread among the peasants about the “illegality” of charters, which they considered “an invention of the bar,” “new bondage,” “new serfdom.” As a result, Alexander II spoke twice before representatives of the peasantry to dispel these illusions. During his trip to Crimea in the fall of 1862, he told the peasants that “there will be no other will than that which is given.” On November 25, 1862, in a speech addressed to the volost elders and village elders of the Moscow province gathered before him, he said: “After February 19 of next year, do not expect any new will and no new benefits... Do not listen to the rumors that circulate among you , and do not believe those who will assure you otherwise, but believe my words alone.” It is characteristic that among the peasant masses there continued to be hope for a “new will with the redistribution of the land.” 20 years later, this hope was revived again in the form of rumors about a “black redistribution” of land.
The peasant movement of 1861-1862, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. In 1863, 509 unrest occurred, most of them in the western provinces. Since 1863, the peasant movement has sharply declined. There were 156 riots in 1864, 135 in 1865, 91 in 1866, 68 in 1867, 60 in 1868, 65 in 1869 and 56 in 1870. Their character also changed. If immediately after the promulgation of the “Regulations” on February 19, 1861, the peasants protested with considerable unanimity against liberation “in the noble way,” but now they focused more on the private interests of their community, on using the possibilities of legal and peaceful forms of struggle in order to achieve the best conditions for organizing the economy.
The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. Village elders and elected officials from rural societies participated in the volost assembly. At this meeting, the volost elder was elected. He performed police and administrative duties.
The activities of rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationship between peasants and landowners, were controlled by global intermediaries. They were called the Senate from among the local noble landowners. Peace mediators had broad powers. But the administration could not use peace mediators for its own purposes. They were not subordinate to either the governor or the minister and did not have to follow their instructions. They had to follow only the instructions of the law.
The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should have been determined once and for all by agreement of the peasants with the landowner and recorded in the charter. The introduction of these charters was the main activity of the peace mediators.
The permissible scope of agreements between peasants and landowners was outlined in the law. Kavelin proposed leaving all the lands for the peasants; he proposed leaving all the lands that they used under serfdom for the peasants. The landowners of the non-Black Sea provinces did not object to this. In the Black Sea provinces they protested furiously. Therefore, the law drew a line between non-chernozem and chernozem provinces. Non-black soil peasants still had almost the same amount of land in use as before. In the black soil, under pressure from the serf owners, a greatly reduced per capita allotment was introduced. When recalculating such an allotment (in some provinces, for example Kursk, it dropped to 2.5 dessiatines), “extra” land was cut off from peasant societies. Where the peace mediator acted in bad faith, including the cut-off lands, the land necessary for the peasants, cattle runs, meadows, and watering places were found. For additional duties, the peasants were forced to rent these from the landowners.
Sooner or later, the government believed, the “temporarily obligated” relationship would end and the peasants and landowners would conclude a buyout deal for each estate. According to the law, peasants had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount. The rest was paid by the government. But the peasants had to return this amount to him (with interest) in annual payments for 49 years.
Fearing that peasants would not want to pay big money for bad plots and would run away, the government introduced a number of harsh restrictions. While redemption payments were being made, the peasant could not refuse the allotment and leave his village forever without the consent of the village assembly.
Conclusion
While the abolition of serfdom occurred immediately, the liquidation of feudal economic relations that had been established for decades lasted for many years. According to the law, peasants were required to serve the same duties as under serfdom for another two years. Only the corvee decreased somewhat and small natural taxes were abolished. Before the peasants were transferred to ransom, they were in a temporary position, i.e. For the plots given to them, they were obliged to perform corvee labor according to the norms established by law or pay quitrent. Since there was no specific period after which the temporarily obliged peasants had to be transferred to compulsory redemption, their liberation lasted for 20 years (although by 1881 no more than 15% of them remained).
Despite the predatory nature of the reform of 1861 for the peasants, its significance for the further development of the country was very great. This reform was a turning point in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The liberation of peasants contributed to the intensive growth of the labor force, and the provision of some civil rights to them contributed to the development of entrepreneurship. For landowners, the reform ensured a gradual transition from feudal forms of economy to capitalist ones.
The reform did not turn out the way Kavelin, Herzen and Chernyshevsky dreamed of seeing it. Built on difficult compromises, it took into account the interests of the landowners much more than the peasants, and had a very short “time resource” of no more than 20 years. Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.
And yet the peasant reform of 1861 was of enormous historical significance.
The moral significance of this reform, which ended serfdom, was also great. Its abolition paved the way for other important transformations, which were supposed to introduce modern forms of self-government and justice in the country, and push the development of education. Now that all Russians have become free, the question of the constitution has arisen in a new way. Its introduction became the immediate goal on the path to a rule of law state, a state governed by citizens in accordance with the law and every citizen has reliable security in it.
protection.
Bibliography
1. Buganov V.I., Zyryanov P.N., History of Russia, end of the 17th – 19th centuries. M., 1997. - p. 235.
2. Great reforms in Russia: 1856-1874. M., 1992.
3. Zayonchkovsky. P. A. Abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1968. - p. 238.
4. Zakharova L.G. Alexander II // Questions of History, 1993, No. 11-12.
6. History of Russia in questions and answers. / Comp. S.A. Kislitsyn. Rostov-on-Don, 1999.
7. Popov G.Kh. Peasant reform of 1861. An economist's view. Origins: questions of the history of the national economy and economic thought. M: Yearbook, 1989. - p. 58.
8. Fedorov V.A. History of Russia 1861-1917. M., 2000.
Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher Education, 2007. - p. 239.
Buganov V.I., Zyryanov P.N. History of Russia late XVII - XIX centuries. M., 1997. from 235.
Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher Education, 2007. - p. 239.
Zuev M.N. History of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Higher Education, 2007. - p. 240.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Portrait of Alexander II the Liberator.
On February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (17 documents in total) concerning the issues of emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their purchase of landowners’ land and the size of the purchased plots in certain regions of Russia. Among them: “Rules on the procedure for putting into effect the Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom”, “Regulations on the redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom, from manor settlement and on the government’s assistance in the acquisition of field land by these peasants”, local provisions.
Manifesto of Alexander II on the liberation of the peasants, 1861.
Main provisions of the reform
The main act - “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom” - contained the main conditions of the peasant reform:
Peasants ceased to be considered serfs and began to be considered “temporarily obliged”; peasants received the rights of “free rural inhabitants”, that is, full civil legal capacity in everything that did not relate to their special class rights and responsibilities - membership in rural society and ownership of allotment land.
Peasant houses, buildings, and all movable property of peasants were recognized as their personal property.
Peasants received elected self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government was the rural society, the highest (administrative) unit was the volost.
Medal "For Labor for the Liberation of Peasants", 1861.
Medals in honor of the abolition of serfdom. 1861.
The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with a “homestead settlement” (a house plot) and a field allotment for the use of the peasants; Field allotment lands were not provided to peasants personally, but for the collective use of rural societies, which could distribute them among peasant farms at their own discretion. The minimum size of a peasant plot for each locality was established by law.
For the use of allotment land, peasants had to serve corvee or pay quitrent and did not have the right to refuse it for 49 years.
The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in charters, which were drawn up by landowners for each estate and verified by peace intermediaries.
Abolition of serfdom. 1861-1911. From the collection of Igor Slovyagin (Bratsk)
Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field allotment, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who bought the plot were called “peasant owners.” Peasants could also refuse the right of redemption and receive from the landowner a free plot in the amount of a quarter of the plot that they had the right to redeem; when a free allotment was allocated, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.
The state, on preferential terms, provided landowners with financial guarantees for receiving redemption payments (redemption operation), taking over their payment; peasants, accordingly, had to pay redemption payments to the state.
Tokens and medals in honor of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the peasants, 1911.
THE MATERIALS WERE PRESENTED BY THE FRATERNAL COLLECTOR IGOR VIKTOROVICH SLOVYAGIN, WHO OWNS A LARGE SELECTION OF HISTORICAL MATERIALS ON THE EVENTS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1861. THE COLLECTOR DONATED THE ORIGINAL MANIFESTO OF ALEXANDER II ON THE LIBERATION OF THE PEASANTS TO THE MUSEUM.
Abolition of serfdom. IN 1861 In Russia, a reform was carried out that abolished serfdom. The main reason for this reform was the crisis of the serfdom system. In addition, historians consider the inefficiency of the labor of serfs as a reason. Economic reasons also include the urgent revolutionary situation as an opportunity for a transition from the everyday discontent of the peasant class to a peasant war. In the context of peasant unrest, which especially intensified during Crimean War, the government led by Alexander II, went towards the abolition of serfdom
January 3 1857 a new Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was established, consisting of 11 people 26 July Minister of the Interior and Committee Member S. S. Lansky An official reform project was presented. It was proposed to create noble committees in each province that would have the right to make their own amendments to the draft.
The government program provided for the destruction of the personal dependence of peasants while maintaining all land ownership landowners; providing peasants with a certain amount of land for which they will be required to pay quitrent or serve corvee, and over time - the right to buy out peasant estates (residential buildings and outbuildings). Legal dependence was not eliminated immediately, but only after a transition period (12 years).
IN 1858 To prepare peasant reforms, provincial committees were formed, within which a struggle began for measures and forms of concessions between liberal and reactionary landowners. The committees were subordinate to the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs (transformed from the Secret Committee). The fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government program of peasant reform, the projects of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or decline of the peasant movement.
December 4 1858 A new peasant reform program was adopted: providing peasants with the opportunity to buy out land and creating peasant public administration bodies. The main provisions of the new program were as follows:
peasants gaining personal freedom
providing peasants with plots of land (for permanent use) with the right of redemption (especially for this purpose, the government allocates a special credit)
approval of a transitional (“urgently obligated”) state
February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto " About the All-Merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants" And , consisting of 17 legislative acts.
The manifesto was published in Moscow on March 5, 1861, in Forgiveness Sunday V Assumption Cathedral Kremlin after liturgy; at the same time it was published in St. Petersburg and some other cities ; in other places - during March of the same year.
February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom And Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, consisting of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (22 documents in total) concerning the issues of emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their purchase of landowners’ land and the size of the purchased plots in certain regions of Russia.
Peasant reform of 1861 On February 19, 1861, the Emperor approved a number of legislative acts on specific provisions of the peasant reform. Were accepted central And local regulations, which regulated the procedure and conditions for the liberation of peasants and the transfer of land plots to them. Their main ideas were: the peasants received personal freedom and, before the redemption deal was concluded with the landowner, the land was transferred to the use of the peasants.
The allocation of land was carried out by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasant: the first could not give a land allotment less than the lower norm established by local regulations, the second could not demand an allotment larger than the maximum norm provided for in the same regulation. All land in thirty-four provinces was divided into three categories: non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe.
The soul's allotment consisted of a manor and arable land, pastures and wastelands. Only males were allocated land.
Disputed issues were resolved through a mediator. The landowner could demand the forced exchange of peasant plots if mineral resources were discovered on their territory or the landowner intended to build canals, piers, and irrigation structures. It was possible to move peasant estates and houses if they were located in unacceptable proximity to landowner buildings.
Ownership of the land remained with the landowner until the redemption transaction was completed; during this period, the peasants were only users and " temporarily obliged " . During this transitional period, peasants were freed from personal dependence, taxes in kind were abolished for them, and the norms of corvee labor (thirty to forty days a year) and cash rent were reduced.
The temporarily obligated state could be terminated after the expiration of a nine-year period from the date of issue of the manifesto, when the peasant refused the allotment. For the rest of the peasants, this situation lost force only in 1883, when they were transferred to the state owners.
The redemption agreement between the landowner and the peasant community was approved by the mediator. The estate could be purchased at any time, the field plot - with the consent of the landowner and the entire community. After the agreement was approved, all relations (landowner-peasant) ceased and the peasants became owners.
The subject of property in most regions became the community, in some areas - the peasant household. In the latter case, peasants received the right of hereditary disposal of land. Movable property (and real estate previously acquired by the peasant in the name of the landowner) became the property of the peasant. Peasants received the right to enter into obligations and contracts by acquiring movable and immovable property. The lands provided for use could not serve as security for contracts.
Peasants received the right to engage in trade, open enterprises, join guilds, go to court on an equal basis with representatives of other classes, enter service, and leave their place of residence.
In 1863 and 1866 the provisions of the reform were extended to appanage and state peasants.
Peasants paid a ransom for estate and field land. The redemption amount was based not on the actual value of the land, but on the amount of quitrent that the landowner received before the reform. An annual six percent capitalized quitrent was established, equal to the pre-reform annual income ( quitrent ) of the landowner. Thus, the basis for the redemption operation was not the capitalist, but the former feudal criterion.
The peasants paid twenty-five percent of the redemption amount in cash upon completion of the redemption transaction, the landowners received the remaining amount from the treasury (in money and securities), which the peasants had to pay, along with interest, for forty-nine years.
The police fiscal apparatus of the government had to ensure the timeliness of these payments. To finance the reform, the Peasant and Noble Banks were formed.
During the period of "temporary duty" the peasants remained a legally separate class. The peasant community bound its members with a mutual guarantee: it was possible to leave it only by paying half of the remaining debt and with the guarantee that the other half would be paid by the community. It was possible to leave “society” by finding a deputy. The community could decide on a mandatory purchase of the land. The gathering allowed family divisions of land.
Volost gathering decided by a qualified majority issues: on replacing communal land use with precinct land use, on dividing land into permanently inherited plots, on redistributions, on removing its members from the community.
Headman was the actual assistant of the landowner (during the period of temporary existence), could impose fines on the perpetrators or subject them to arrest.
Volost court elected for a year and resolved minor property disputes or tried for minor offenses.
A wide range of measures were envisaged to apply to arrears: confiscation of income from real estate, giving to work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor's movable and immovable property, confiscation of part or all of the allotment.
The noble character of the reform was manifested in many features: in the order of calculating redemption payments, in the procedure for the redemption operation, in privileges in the exchange of land plots, etc. During the redemption in the black earth regions, there was a clear tendency to turn peasants into tenants of their own plots (the land there was expensive), and in non-chernozem ones - a fantastic increase in prices for the purchased estate.
During the redemption, a certain pattern emerged: the smaller the plot of land being redeemed, the more one had to pay for it. Here a hidden form of redemption not of land, but of the peasant’s personality, was clearly revealed. The landowner wanted to get him for his freedom. At the same time, the introduction of the principle of compulsory redemption was a victory of state interest over the interest of the landowner.
The unfavorable consequences of the reform were the following: a) peasants' allotments decreased compared to pre-reform, and payments increased in comparison with the old quitrent; c) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and water bodies; c) peasants remained a separate class.
