On February 19, 1861, Russian Emperor Alexander II signed a manifesto on the complete abolition of serfdom, and also approved the “Regulations on Peasants...”, receiving the popular nickname “Liberator” for this.

Although this manifesto gave peasants civil and personal freedoms (for example, the right to marry, trade, or go to court), they were still limited in economic rights and freedom of movement. In addition, peasants continued to be the only class bearing conscription and subject to physical punishment.

At the same time, the land plot remained the property of the landowner, and the peasants received only a field allotment and a settled estate, for which they were obliged to bear responsibility, paying with work or money. According to the new law, peasants were allowed to buy out an estate or plot. In this case, they became peasant owners, gaining complete independence. The ransom amount was equal to the annual quitrent amount multiplied by seventeen.

Also, to help the peasants, the state organized a special “redemption operation”, the essence of which was as follows. After establishing an allotment, the government gave the landowner 80% of its value, and the remaining 20% ​​was attributed to the peasant, who agreed to pay it off within 49 years.

Peasants united into so-called rural communities, which, in turn, united into volosts. To make redemption payments, all peasants were bound by a mutual guarantee, and the use of field land was common.

Household people who did not plow the land were temporarily obliged to do so for two years, after which they were allowed to register with a city or rural society.

The agreement between peasants and landowners was set out in a “charter”, and the position of a conciliator was established to deal with various disputes. In general, the leadership of the “passage” of the reform was entrusted to the presence of peasant affairs located in the provinces.

The peasant reform created all the conditions for the transformation of labor into a commodity. Market relations began to develop, which are an indicator of a capitalist state. The consequence of the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was the emergence of new social strata of the population - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The Manifesto of February 19 was the main document of the reform; it was he who proclaimed the reform; other legislative acts regulating the progress of the reform were based on the provisions of the manifesto; the manifesto also determined the mechanism for its implementation (legal acts and government bodies).

The manifesto defined the goal of the reform: “.. serfs will receive in due time the full rights of free rural inhabitants,” that is, not just the abolition of serfdom, but the endowment of former serfs with additional rights and opportunities that free peasants had at that time, and from which the serfs were separated not only by personal dependence on the landowner.

Landowners retained ownership of the land - this was the second key point of the reform. They were obliged to provide their former serfs with land and housing for the fulfillment of their duties - a kind of rent. Since the creators of the manifesto understood that the abolition of serfdom in itself does not make the peasant free, a special designation was introduced to designate landless former serfs: “temporarily obliged.”

Peasants were given the opportunity to buy out estates and, with the consent of the landowners, to acquire arable land and other lands allocated to them for permanent use. With the acquisition of a certain amount of land into ownership, the peasants were freed from their obligations to the landowners on the purchased land and entered into the state of free peasant owners.

A special provision for courtyard people also determined a transitional state for them, adapted to their occupations and needs; upon expiration of a two-year period from the date of publication of the Regulations, they received full exemption and urgent benefits.

On these main principles, the drafted Regulations determined the future structure of life of peasants and courtyard people, established the order of public peasant governance, and indicated in detail the rights given to peasants and courtyard people and the responsibilities assigned to them in relation to the state and to the landowners.

All Regulations, general, local, and special additional rules for some areas, for the estates of small landowners and for peasants working in landowner factories and factories, were, if possible, adapted to local economic needs and customs. In order to preserve the usual order where it represents “mutual benefits” (first of all, of course, to the landowners), the landowners were given the right to enter into voluntary agreements with the peasants on the size of the peasants’ land allotment and on the duties following it, in compliance with the rules established to ensure the inviolability of such agreements.

The manifesto established that a new device could not be introduced suddenly, but would require time, approximately at least two years; During this time, “to avert confusion, and to maintain public and private benefits,” the order that existed on the landowners’ estates was to be preserved “until, after proper preparations have been made, a new order will be opened.”

To achieve these goals, it was decided:

  • 1. Open in each province a Provincial Presence for Peasant Affairs, which was entrusted with supreme management of the affairs of peasant societies on landowners' lands.
  • 2. To consider local misunderstandings and disputes that may arise during the implementation of the Regulations, appoint World Mediators in the counties, and form from them County World Congresses.
  • 3. To form secular administrations on landowners’ estates, for which purpose, leaving rural societies in the same composition, open volost administrations in significant villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.
  • 4. Draw up a charter for each rural society or estate, which will calculate, on the basis of local Regulations, the amount of land provided to peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner, both for land and for other benefits.
  • 5. Charter charters shall be carried out as they are approved for each estate, and finally put into effect for all estates within two years from the date of publication of the Manifesto.
  • 6. Until the expiration of this period, peasants and courtyard people remain in the same obedience to the landowners and unquestioningly fulfill their previous duties.
  • 7. Landowners will retain control over order on their estates, with the right of trial and reprisal, until the formation of volosts and the opening of volost courts.

The text of the Manifesto, which proclaimed the liberation of the serfs, was written on behalf of Alexander II by Moscow Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov). Like other reform documents, it was signed by the emperor on February 19, 1861.

The Manifesto proved the legality of the previously existing power of the landowners over the peasants, and explained that although the previous laws did not define the limits of the landowner's right over the peasants, they obliged him to arrange... the well-being of the peasants. An idyllic picture was drawn of the initial good patriarchal relations of sincere, truthful trusteeship and charity of the landowner and the good-natured obedience of the peasants, and only later, with a decrease in the simplicity of morals, with an increase in the diversity of relations... good relations weakened and the way was opened to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants. Thus, the author of the Manifesto sought to convince the peasants that their liberation from serfdom was an act of beneficence of the highest power (autocracy), which prompted the landowners to voluntarily renounce their rights to the personality of serfs.

The Manifesto also briefly outlines the main conditions for the liberation of peasants from serfdom (they are set out in detail in the eight Regulations and nine Additional Rules approved on February 19, 1861).

According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately receives personal freedom (full rights of free rural inhabitants).

The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside is not a one-time act, but a long process stretching over several decades. Complete liberation peasants did not receive immediately from the moment the Manifesto and Regulations were promulgated, i.e. on February 19, 1861. The Manifesto announced that peasants were required to serve the same duties (corvée and quitrent) for two years (until February 19, 1863), as under serfdom, and remain in the same obedience to the landowners. The landowners retained the right to monitor order on their estates, with the right of trial and reprisals, until the formation of volosts and the opening of volost courts. Thus, the features of non-economic coercion continued to be preserved even after the announcement of the “will”. But even after two transition years (i.e., after February 19, 1863), the peasants were still in the position of temporarily obliged for a long time. The literature sometimes incorrectly states that the period of temporary obligatory status of peasants was predetermined at 20 years (until 1881). In fact, neither the Manifesto nor the Regulations of February 19, 1861 established any fixed term for the termination of the temporarily obligated state of the peasants. The mandatory transfer of peasants for redemption (i.e., the termination of temporary obligatory relations) was established by the Regulations on the redemption of plots of land still remaining in obligatory relations with landowners in the provinces consisting of Great Russian and Little Russian local provisions on February 19, 1861 from December 28, 1881, and in nine western provinces (Vilna, Grodno, Kovno, Minsk, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kyiv, Podolsk and Volyn) peasants were transferred to compulsory redemption in 1863.

The manifesto proclaimed the preservation of the landowners' morality for all the land on their estates, including the peasant allotment, which the peasants received for use for duties determined by local regulations. To become the owner of his plot, the peasant had to buy it. The terms of the redemption are set out in detail in the Regulations on the redemption by peasants who emerged from serfdom, their settlement on estates, and on government assistance in the acquisition of field land by these peasants.

Quoting “The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans” (chapter 13, verses 1 and 7); “Every soul must obey the powers that be” and “give everyone their due, and especially to whom it is due, a lesson, tribute, fear, honor,” the author of the Manifesto convinced the peasants to maintain complete obedience to the authorities and landowners.

The manifesto preceded the promulgation of 17 legislative acts, approved on the same day, containing the conditions for the liberation of the peasants.

On February 19, 1861, the tsar signed a decree to the Governing Senate, which was ordered to “make the necessary order for the immediate promulgation and actual implementation” of the specified 17 legislative acts transmitted to the Senate on peasants emerging from serfdom. The Senate was instructed to “take measures so that the general Regulations, intended for universal implementation, are delivered to landowners and rural societies of peasants established on landowners’ lands, and local Regulations and additional rules to them are transmitted according to their affiliation with landowners and to rural societies of those areas which each of these laws concerns.” The texts of the Provisions and the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 were also published as Appendix to No. 20 of the “Senate Gazette” of March 10, 1861. At the beginning of March 1861, a resolution was adopted: “In order to facilitate the study of these Provisions, it was considered useful to publish a brief extract from them, in fact, about the procedure for the gradual introduction into force of new regulations relating to the rights and responsibilities of peasants and courtyard people.” IN " Summary”contained articles: on the personal rights and obligations of peasants, rules on their land structure and rules on household servants.

The promulgation of the Manifesto and Regulations on February 19, 1861, the content of which deceived the hopes of the peasants for “full freedom,” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861: in the first five months, 1,340 mass peasant unrest were registered, and in just a year - 1,859 (about as many well, how many of them were taken into account during the entire first half of XIX century). In 937 cases, peasant unrest in 1861 was pacified using military force. In fact, there was not a single province in which the protest of the peasants against the “will” “given” to them would not have manifested itself to a greater or lesser extent. The peasant movement assumed its greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, the Volga region and Ukraine. where the bulk of the peasants were in corvee labor and the agrarian question was the most acute. The peasant uprisings, which ended in their execution, had a great public resonance in April 1861 in the villages of Bezdne (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands of peasants took part.

Alexander II, who signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, was called the Tsar the Liberator. He was not called the Great, like Peter or Catherine, but his reforms were defined as great. Having ascended the throne in 1855, Alexander II received a difficult legacy. The defeat in the Crimean War showed an obvious military-technical lag and the dilapidation of the entire economic system. Society, which had experienced thirty years of stagnation, demanded decisive steps to renew the country. Not being a reformer by vocation, the young monarch became one in response to the challenges of the time. According to contemporaries, with the accession of Alexander II, a “thaw” began in the socio-political life of Russia.

The conclusion of the Paris Peace in March 1856 is the first of his most important decisions. In August of the same year, he declared an amnesty for the Decembrists, Petrashevites, and participants in the Polish uprising of 1830-1831, and suspended recruitment for three years. By his decision, the Supreme Censorship Committee was liquidated, and the discussion of government affairs began to be open. Finally, immediately after the coronation new monarch declared the need to abolish serfdom. “The existing order of ownership of souls cannot remain unchanged,” he said, addressing representatives of the nobles of the Moscow province. “It’s better to start destroying serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it begins to destroy itself from below.” During four years under the chairmanship of the emperor, a special Secret Committee on peasant affairs regularly met. At the cost of compromise, by overcoming a number of contradictions between representatives of different strata of society, it was possible to create fundamental documents on peasant reform.

On February 19, 1861, they were signed by Alexander II in St. Petersburg, and two days later they were unveiled in a solemn ceremony in Moscow, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. The news, according to eyewitnesses, did not make much of an impression on ordinary people - only Bolshoi Theater the audience after the evening performance to the exclamations of “Hurray!” performed twice National anthem"God save the king." “With the acquisition of ownership of a certain amount of land,” the manifesto emphasized, “the peasants are freed from their duties to the landowners on the purchased land and will enter the decisive state of free peasant owners.” At the same time, they could “carry out free trade,” “leave their place of residence,” “enter the service,” and “acquire ownership of real and movable property.”

The peasants received not only personal freedom, but also land. The landowners were paid for it by the state, which thus became the creditor of a huge number of former serfs. The peasants had to pay off the state within 49 years. Moreover, the majority of them, over 85%, bought the land after 20 years. And in 1905, the government canceled the remaining debt.


To consider complaints from peasants against landowners and resolve disputes between them, “middlemen” were established, appointed from among local nobles. Leo Tolstoy worked actively and enthusiastically in this position - when settling disputes and conflicts, he conducted the matter “in the most cold-blooded and conscientious manner.” The economic growth that Russia experienced after 1861 is the main result peasant reform. This is due to the fact that the acquired personal freedom allowed a huge mass of landless or land-poor peasants to go to the cities to earn money. Appearance an entire army An inexpensive and hard-working workforce gave impetus to industrialization, which significantly improved the country's economy - the growth of the gross national product was at an unprecedented pace.

Starting with the liberation of 23 million serfs, Alexander II essentially began to reform the entire Russian life. One of his most important reforms was the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”, published on January 1, 1864. Local government bodies - zemstvos - were elected by all classes for a three-year term and were responsible for education, healthcare, food supplies, the quality of roads, insurance, and veterinary care. The judicial reform of 1864 also played a huge role, thanks to which the third, judicial, power was separated from the executive and legislative powers.

In civil and criminal proceedings, the principles of transparency and competition between the parties have been introduced. In criminal cases, the determination of guilt was left to jurors chosen from representatives of all classes. Stretched out for a decade and a half military reform, started by Alexander II in 1862. Military districts were formed, the officer corps was improved and updated, a military education system was created, and the technical re-equipment of the army was carried out. In 1874, Alexander II approved the law on the transition to universal military service. All men at the age of 20, regardless of class, were subject to conscription into the army and navy.

In the history of Russia, Alexander II was one of the most beloved monarchs by the people. Alas, it was precisely this circumstance that largely became the cause of his death. The chances of rousing the people to revolution and coming to power would be reduced to a minimum, socialists and anarchists believed, if the emperor carried his reforms to the end. It is unlikely that a people who have received so much will want to rebel. And therefore, the Narodnaya Volya party constantly developed plans to assassinate the emperor. The excessive, in the opinion of many, liberalism of Alexander II prevented him from taking tough measures against various revolutionary-minded elements - even after they began outright terror: seven attempts on his life alone. The eighth, fatal one, happened on March 1, 1881, when the terrorist Ignatius Grinevitsky threw a bomb at the feet of the emperor. The mortally wounded Alexander II was transferred to Winter Palace, where he died.

February 18, 1855 on Russian throne 37-year-old Alexander II entered. On February 19, 1861, the emperor signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.
The abolition of serfdom was accompanied by reforms in all aspects of life Russian society, which caused a wave of research into the events of this period of Russian history.
The issues of the abolition of serfdom and the consequences of this reform, its reflection in the life of Russian society have constantly been (and continue to be) the subject of study by scientists.

Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom

IN early XIX century, the Russian economy has been steadily and naturally developing along the path of the formation of capitalist relations.
By the middle of the 19th century, the crisis of feudal relations became obvious. The possession industry finally showed its economic insolvency, due to which, on the initiative of the breeders themselves, it was rebuilt in a new way. Owners of possessional enterprises received the right to dismiss serfs, who were then transferred to the ranks of state peasants or city residents. After their dismissal, they were willingly hired into free-hire enterprises.
The patrimonial industry, based on the labor of serfs, also fell into decline.
At the same time, capitalist industry - merchant and peasant - was actively developing. However, feudalism interfered with its free growth, made it difficult to attract hired workers, and narrowed the sales market.
The growth of capitalist industry in the country required more and more free labor. This was significantly hampered by the corvée system of farming. Representatives of the bourgeoisie and some of the liberal landowners demanded the abolition of the corvee system and the transition to civilian wage labor.
In the 30-50s of the 19th century, an industrial revolution took place in Russia. The development of capitalist industry, closely related to the production of goods for the market, led to an increase in the urban population. However, the expansion process domestic market was much slower than the development of industry. This was explained by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country's population was engaged in subsistence farming. Serfs could not be full-fledged consumers of industrial products.
Paul I also established a limit on corvee days - no more than three days a week. However, this norm was not observed by the landowners. In the black earth provinces, corvee was the dominant form of exploitation of the peasants. On the eve of the abolition of serfdom, as noted by P.A. Zayonchkovsky, corvee peasants numbered 71.1%.
The labor of serfs and landowners became increasingly unprofitable. Some of them preferred to transfer the peasants entirely to quitrent, and then hire them to work on the lord’s land. The majority of landowners nevertheless followed the path of intensifying the exploitation of peasants in order to increase the profitability of their estates. The country needed more and more commercial grain. Landowners were in a hurry to use this circumstance to make profits.
Some landowners, especially in the black earth regions, in pursuit of profits, intensify the exploitation of serfs by transferring them completely to corvée and even to the so-called month. The peasant received a meager monthly food ration from the master and worked all the time on the master's land, taking time away from his farm.
The country was experiencing a crisis of serfdom. Many landowners went bankrupt. The need and impoverishment of the peasants grew.
The situation is becoming even more aggravated due to the difficult and unfortunate situation for Russia. Crimean War. At this time, recruitment increases and taxes increase. The war itself showed the rottenness of the Russian economy, clearly demonstrated the backwardness of the country, which ultimately led to the emergence of a revolutionary situation in the country in 1859-1861.
Spontaneous mass protests and uprisings of peasants become so powerful and dangerous for tsarism that the tsar and many of his associates understand the need to take urgent measures to save the autocracy.
Thus, the reasons that pushed the autocratic monarchy to abolish serfdom are, in general, a question that has been sufficiently clarified. This is a crisis of the feudal-serf economic system, military-technical backwardness and the growth, in connection with this, of peasant uprisings.
“The previous system has outlived its usefulness,” is the general verdict of one of the recent apologists of this system, historian M.P. Pogodin, with whom one cannot but agree.
It is noteworthy that among scientists there is no consensus on the objective socio-economic prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom. Soviet historians wrote about the crisis of the feudal-serf formation; most Western historians (following P. Struve and A. Gerschenkron) came to the conclusion that the serf economic system on the eve of the reform of 1861 was quite viable. This problem apparently requires further research using data on the macro and micro levels of social economic development pre-reform decades.
In the works of A. Crisp, A. Skerpan, B. Lincoln, the question of the economic motives for carrying out the reform, as they were understood by the reformers themselves, was also sufficiently clarified. Their views were based on economic liberalism and recognition of the role of private initiative in economic development. At the same time, the assertion that the liberal bureaucracy did not know the realities of Russian reality and only copied the experience of the West seems very controversial. Rather, we can say that she took into account the experience of Europe, but in relation to the peculiarities of Russian reality, way of life and traditions that were well known to her.
In the early 1840s, N.A. Milyutin, together with A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, were specially sent to familiarize themselves with the state of the fortress village. A.V. Golovnin in the summer of 1860 was sent by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich for the same purpose to the central provinces. Before writing his note on the liberation of the peasants in 1855, K.D. Kavelin himself was engaged in farming, etc. Recalling the speech of N.A. Milyutin in the Editorial Commissions in connection with disagreements on the issue of the community, P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky wrote: “raised on economic European literature, he, however, with his statesmanship and great sensitivity acquired knowledge of the conditions of Russian national life, introduced into legislative work by the successful selection of expert members.”

Among the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom, the experience accumulated in the first half of the 19th century in discussing and resolving the peasant question was of no small importance. The decrees of 1803 on free cultivators and 1842 on obligated peasants, not binding on landowners and therefore ineffective, at the same time tested in legislation the ideas of abolishing serfdom with the purchase of land by peasants into ownership and the inextricable connection of the peasant with the land. Local reforms: the abolition of serfdom in the Baltic provinces (Livland, Courland, Estland) in 1816-1819 and the introduction of inventories in the South-Western region (Kiev, Podolsk, Volyn provinces) in 1847-1848 were mandatory for landowners and represented two models solutions to the peasant question, which were taken into account in preparing the abolition of serfdom.
The abolition of serfdom did not happen overnight. The peasant reform was preceded by a long period of work on the development of draft legislative acts on the abolition of serfdom.
At the beginning of January 1857, at the direction of the Tsar, a Secret Committee was formed, which was entrusted with the development of the main project for the abolition of serfdom. However, the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom met with strong resistance from the feudal landowners. The Committee, expressing the interests of the latter, was in no hurry to begin developing the necessary document.
Members of the Secret Committee tried to counteract the Tsar's proposals. It was unprofitable for them to give up their privileges and lose such free labor as serfs. The king himself was forced to approach this issue differently. He and his closest associates saw that a revolutionary situation was brewing in the country, which could lead to the abolition of serfdom from below on conditions that were clearly unfavorable for the landowners.
Tsarism, when developing the reform project, could not, of course, ignore the opinion of the majority of landowners. To clarify this, the tsarist government formed provincial committees from local landowners, which were asked to develop their proposals for the project of abolishing serfdom.
In January 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for the Organization rural population. It consisted of 12 senior royal dignitaries chaired by the king. Two editorial commissions arose under the committee, which were entrusted with the responsibility of collecting and systematizing the opinions of the provincial committees. They included representatives of the Ministries of Internal Affairs, Justice, State Property and the II Department of the Tsar’s Own Chancellery.
The content of the peasant reform project was significantly influenced by the opinion of the provincial committees, which expressed the interests of the reactionary serf owners.
Discussions in provincial committees continued for a long time. There were fierce disputes between obvious serf owners and more liberal landowners. While these disputes were going on, the peasant movement was growing. This forced the autocracy to accelerate the development and adoption of agrarian laws. Editorial commissions began to become more active in studying the projects of provincial committees. As a result, taking into account the opinion of the provincial committees, a final draft was prepared and reviewed by the State Council, the majority of whose members approved it. On February 19, 1861, the tsar signed the Manifesto on the liberation of peasants from serfdom and a set of laws on the abolition of serfdom.

Implementation of the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom

From the moment the reform documents were published, peasants received personal freedom. Landowners lost the right to interfere in the personal lives of peasants; they could not resettle them to other areas, much less sell them to others with or without land. The landowner retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who had emerged from serfdom.
The property rights of peasants, especially their right to land, also changed. However, for two years, essentially the previous serfdom was maintained. During this time, the transition of the peasants to a temporarily obliged state was supposed to take place.
The allocation of land was carried out in accordance with local regulations, in which the highest and lowest limits for the amount of land provided to peasants were determined for different regions of the country (chernozem, steppe, non-chernozem). These provisions were specified in charters, which indicated what land the peasants received.
To regulate the relationship between landowners and peasants, the Senate, on the recommendation of the governors, appointed peace mediators from among the noble landowners. Statutory charters were drawn up by landowners or peace intermediaries. After this, their contents were necessarily brought to the attention of the corresponding peasant gathering or gatherings, if the charter concerned several villages. Amendments could then be made in accordance with the comments and suggestions of the peasants, and the mediator would resolve controversial issues. The charter came into force after the peasants were familiar with its text and when the peace mediator recognized its contents as complying with the requirements of the law. The consent of the peasants to the conditions provided for in the charter was not necessary. True, it was more profitable for the landowner to achieve such consent, because in this case, upon the subsequent purchase of the land by the peasants, he received the so-called additional payment.
In the country as a whole, peasants received less land than they had before. The segments in the black earth regions turned out to be especially significant. The peasants were not only disadvantaged in the size of their land; they, as a rule, received plots that were inconvenient for cultivation, since the best land remained with the landowners.
The temporarily obligated peasant did not receive the land as ownership, but only for use. For use, he had to pay with duties - corvée or quitrent, which differed little from his previous serf duties.
The next stage in the liberation of the peasants was their transition to the state of owners. To do this, the peasant had to buy out the estate and field lands. The redemption price significantly exceeded the actual value of the land. Consequently, the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal liberation.
To ensure the reality of the land purchase, the government organized the so-called buyout operation. It paid the ransom amount for the peasants, thus providing them with a loan. This loan was to be repaid in installments over 49 years with 6% interest paid annually on the loan.
After the conclusion of the redemption transaction, the peasant was called the owner. However, his ownership of the land was subject to various restrictions. The peasant became the full owner only after paying all redemption payments.
Initially, the period of stay in a temporary state was not established, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, approximately 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed on the mandatory transition to buyout within two years. During this period, redemption transactions had to be concluded or the right to land plots would be lost. In 1883, the category of temporarily obliged peasants disappeared. Some of them executed redemption transactions, some lost their land.
In 1863 and 1866, the reform was extended to appanage and state peasants. Appanage peasants received land on more favorable terms than landowners. The state peasants retained all the land they used before the reform.
The peasants, who perceived the land as “God’s property,” which, according to “truth,” should be distributed equally only among those working on it, reacted extremely negatively to the abolition of serfdom, calling it a “false charter.” Rumors spread that the landowners had hidden the “real will.” As a result, riots broke out in a number of places (including the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, and the village of Kandeevka, Penza province), and military teams were sent to suppress them. In total, more than two thousand performances were recorded.
However, by the summer of 1861 the unrest began to subside. The peasants, participating in the drawing up of charters, and, probably, hoping for an improvement in life as independent and free owners, were drawn into daily work activities, which led to calm. The hopes of the revolutionaries to rouse them to fight after the signing of the charters, that is, when, as expected, the peasants would finally be convinced of the predatory nature of the reform, turned out to be groundless.

Results and consequences of the reform

The results of the reforms of the mid-19th century, including the abolition of serfdom, are constantly the subject of research and analysis by scientists.
Thus, for most Soviet historians, reforms are a watershed separating the period of feudalism from the period of capitalism; for many Western researchers, they are the boundary between traditional and modern society.
P. Gottrell proposed a different interpretation. It is that “the reforms coincided with a period of acceleration economic growth, but did not lay the foundation for it... Undoubtedly, the reforms had great political and social significance, but they economic impact should be assessed very carefully."
If we keep in mind the exact meaning of the legislation of 1861, then we must admit that it was not designed for a one-time restructuring of the landowner and peasant farms, much less a one-time revolution in the economy as a whole. The time for achieving the final goal of the reform - the separation of the peasant economy from the landowners and the formation of peasant land ownership - was not established, although it was assumed that the transfer of all peasants to redemption would take place in 20 years. This calculation of N. Milyutin was justified with absolute accuracy: by 1870, about half of the temporarily liable peasants switched to ransom, by 1881 they became 85%, and then the government recognized mandatory ransom for the remaining 15%.
With the transition to the purchase of allotment land, peasants nominally became owners, but this legal status in itself did not mean the free development of independent small peasant farming, which the reformers sought to achieve. A number of important provisions of the reform that they were forced to accept made it difficult to achieve the final goal. The question of the impact of the abolition of serfdom on the development of landowner and peasant farming has not yet been sufficiently studied.
Unlike the agrarian reforms in Austria and Prussia, the experience of which was taken into account when preparing the legislation of 1861, the autocracy did not invest a single ruble in peasant reform. On the contrary, it made it profitable for the state. Along with the lack of land, burdensome duties and redemption payments, the community hampered the development of initiative, independence, and the use of new agricultural technology in peasant farming. In general, it should be recognized that, while preserving the community, the laws to a certain extent undermined the peasants’ concepts of property. In addition, maintaining the redistribution of land, mutual responsibility, specific forms land use meant consolidating the predominance of collectivism over individualism, “we” over “I”. This was a more than significant difference from Western models of agrarian transformation. The weakness of the concept of property in the minds of the nation, the weakness of the positions of the owners, opened the way to strengthening the bureaucracy, regardless of the liberal goals of the reformers.
The contrast between the traditional conclusions and the new approaches proposed in modern literature, leads to one undoubted conclusion: the problem of implementing the reform of 1861 requires close attention and further specific research, primarily regional. And they are already appearing. Thus, D.V. Kovalev came to the conclusion that in the Moscow region, by the end of the 19th century, a process of transition of peasant communities from traditional three-field farming to intensive multi-field farming with a focus on the production of new commercial types of agricultural products had unfolded, unprecedented for Russia. At the same time, the development of non-agricultural industries led to a surge in the fishing migration of the peasantry. The emergence of a contradiction between traditional socio-legal institutions and the changing realities of the post-reform village required legislative solutions. This created objective preconditions for the agrarian reforms of P.A. Stolypin.
An interesting and promising approach to studying the implementation of peasant reform at the micro level was outlined by A. Wildman. Taking into account not only digital material, but the text of the charter documents itself, he came to the conclusion that “cuts” were often made at the request of the peasants themselves, who were interested in reducing duties, and not in obtaining a larger plot of land. On the other hand, the need for money explains the reluctance of landowners to sometimes “cut off” an allotment even when the peasants demanded it. But in general, the system of maximum and minimum allotments adopted by the reform, according to Wildman, ensured, first of all, the financial interests of the state. This approach makes it possible to understand not only the fact of the transaction itself, but also the motivation of the parties’ behavior and their understanding of their economic interests. Another direction in studying the implementation of the reform is outlined in a special study on peasants-gifts, their economic situation in comparison with the village that was bought out.
Of course, the agricultural sector developed after the abolition of serfdom. Landowners-entrepreneurs and some wealthy peasants, who were able to take advantage of the new situation, actively developed commercial farming in some regions of the country. The grain harvest doubled in the second half of the 19th century, Russia's grain exports increased 5.5 times (7,324 million tons). By the 1890s, 50% of the net grain harvest went to market. Land ownership gradually but steadily lost its exclusively class character. By the beginning of the 20th century, the nobility retained only 60% of its land ownership. Land ownership by peasant entrepreneurs grew. At the same time, commodity market economy has not become a reality for the entire mass of peasants.
Peasant business, which required special attention and the development laid down in the reform of 1861 began for almost two decades - until the end of the 1870s it found itself on the sidelines of government policy. Serious problems that arose were not resolved. Already in the mid-1860s, M.H. Reitern, in his most devoted reports, drew attention to the unbearable, ruinous nature of duties and redemption payments for liberated peasants. But neither the Minister of Finance himself nor the government as a whole took any measures to solve the difficulties that arose during the implementation of the peasant reform, to achieve the ultimate goal of the reform - the creation of independent small peasant farms. The question of the community was raised, but not resolved.
By the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the opportunity to continue the reforms, decisively and radically begun by the abolition of serfdom, was missed, which few of the surviving reformers understood and felt. Russia was entering the 20th century - a century of revolutions and upheavals, which they were so eager to avoid.

It is impossible to find an event in the history of Russia throughout the 19th century that, in terms of the scale and depth of its impact on all aspects of life, could be compared with the “great” reforms of 1860-1870, the locomotive of which was the peasant reform.
It is its significance, the truly fateful consequences for the country, that explains the attention of scientists, publicists, public and political figures to the problem of preparing and implementing peasant reform for almost a century and a half.
The abolition of serfdom marked the beginning of the era of the so-called “great reforms”, which affected various aspects of the socio-political life of Russia and is often called a “revolution from above” or a “coup” in popular science literature. However, until today, a number of unresolved problems relating to this era remain in history.
On the one hand, the abolition of serfdom in Russia is a “turning point”, a “turning point” in the history of Russia. These are the assessments in which the legislators themselves and their opponents, contemporaries of the era in Russia and abroad, and many researchers for whom this topic has always been and will always be of interest agree.
On the other hand, in certain periods, for example, during the revolution of 1905-1907. or Gorbachev's perestroika, interest in the history of the reforms of Alexander II acquired particular urgency and political overtones.
In connection with the land reforms currently being carried out in Russia, the issue of abolishing serfdom and allocating land to peasants is relevant today.
Rightfully, many scientists call the reform the greatest progressive event in Russian history. It marked the beginning of the accelerated modernization of the country, that is, the transition, moreover at a fast pace, from agricultural to industrial society.
At the same time, as other authors rightly say, the interests of landowners and, especially, the state were taken into account in the reform more than peasants, which predetermined the preservation of a number of fundamental remnants of serfdom and elements of traditional structures. The consequence of this was the land instability of the peasants, who did not receive land (forests, pastures, etc.), which made farming difficult.
Having removed the severity of the contradictions and achieved dynamic economic development with relative political stability as a result of the reform, the latter gradually abandoned the continuation of liberal reforms.
And, as a result, the problems, growing like a snowball, ultimately led to the revolutionary upheavals of the early twentieth century.

In 1858, the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was formed.

The first to respond to the sovereign's call to the nobility to improve the situation of the peasants were the nobles of the western provinces, who, through Governor General Nazimov, presented an all-submissive address expressing their readiness to set the peasants free, but without giving them land. The emperor responded to this address with a rescript dated November 20, 1857, which laid the foundation for all further reform. It proposed opening committees to develop the issue of emancipating serfs and indicated that peasants should be freed with land, for which the landowners would receive a fair reward. The rescript was distributed to all provinces, and soon proposals began to come from many places to give freedom to the peasants and projects for liberation. All these materials were submitted to the Main Committee for consideration and development general provisions reforms. In October 1860, the project for the liberation of the peasants was already ready and submitted to the State Council, the meeting of which the emperor himself opened with a speech: “I have the right to demand,” the sovereign said to the members of the Council, “from you alone, so that you, putting aside all personal interests, acted as state dignitaries, invested with my trust... I hope that God will not abandon us and will bless us to finish this matter for the future prosperity of our dear fatherland...”

Disagreements arose in the Council, but the sovereign took the side of the minority of members, whose opinions coincided with his predictions, and this put an end to the disagreements. The issue was resolved irrevocably.

On February 19, 1861, on the day of his accession to the throne, Secretary of State Butkov delivered to the Winter Palace the “Regulations” on the liberation of the peasants and a manifesto about it, written by Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. After fervent prayer, the sovereign signed both documents, and 23 million people received their long-desired freedom.

Having completed the greatest act of state in Russian history, the emperor felt great joy. - “Today is the best day of my life!” - he said, kissing his youngest daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna.

On March 5, the manifesto was published. The general rejoicing was boundless, and when the sovereign appeared on the streets of the capital, the people greeted him with long-lasting shouts. Throughout the empire, the manifesto was greeted as the greatest good that the people had dreamed of for many years. Listening to his words: “Across yourself with the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call upon Us God’s blessing on your free labor, the guarantee of your home well-being and public good,” crowds of peasants in rural churches cried with tenderness and joy.

Soon after the promulgation of the act on February 19, the emperor began to travel around Russia, and everywhere the grateful people greeted the Tsar-Liberator with manifestations of boundless delight.

Personal exemption

The manifesto provided peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. From now on, the peasant could own movable and immovable property, enter into transactions, and act as a legal entity. He was freed from the personal guardianship of the landowner, could, without his permission, marry, enter the service and educational establishments, change place of residence, move to the class of burghers and merchants. The government began to create local self-government bodies for the liberated peasants.

At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited. First of all, this concerned the preservation of the community. Communal ownership of land, redistribution of plots, mutual responsibility (especially for paying taxes and performing state duties) slowed down the bourgeois evolution of the countryside.

The peasants remained the only class that paid a poll tax, carried out conscription duties and could be subjected to corporal punishment.

Allotments

“Regulations” regulated the allocation of land to peasants. The size of the plots depended on the fertility of the soil. The territory of Russia was conditionally divided into three stripes: black earth, non-black earth and steppe. In each of them, the highest and lowest sizes of the peasant field allotment were established (the highest - more than which the peasant could not demand from the landowner, the lowest - less than which the landowner should not offer the peasant). Within these limits, a voluntary transaction between the peasant community and the landowner was concluded. Their relationship was finally consolidated by statutory charters. If the landowner and the peasants did not come to an agreement, then amicable mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute. Among them were mainly defenders of the interests of the nobles, but some progressive public figures(writer L.N. Tolstoy, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, biologist K.A. Timiryazev, etc.), becoming world mediators, reflected the interests of the peasantry.

When resolving the land issue, peasant plots were significantly reduced. If before the reform the peasant used an allotment that exceeded the highest norm in each zone, then this “surplus” was alienated in favor of the landowner. In the black soil zone, from 26 to 40% of the land was cut off, in the non-chernozem zone - 10%. In the country as a whole, peasants received 20% less land than they cultivated before the reform. This is how sections were formed, taken by the landowners from the peasants. Traditionally considering this land theirs, the peasants fought for its return until 1917.

When delimiting arable land, landowners sought to ensure that their land was wedged into peasant plots. This is how stripes appeared, forcing the peasant to rent the landowner's land, paying its value either in money or in field work.

Ransom

When receiving land, peasants were obliged to pay its cost. The market price of the land transferred to the peasants actually amounted to 544 million rubles. However, the formula for calculating the cost of land developed by the government increased its price to 867 million rubles, that is, 1.5 times. Consequently, both the allocation of land and the redemption transaction were carried out exclusively in the interests of the nobility.

The peasants did not have the money needed to buy the land. In order for the landowners to receive the redemption amounts in a lump sum, the state provided the peasants with a loan in the amount of 80% of the value of the plots. The remaining 20% peasant community paid the landowner herself. For 49 years, peasants had to repay the loan to the state in the form of redemption payments with an accrual of 6% per annum. By 1906, when the peasants through a stubborn struggle achieved the abolition of redemption payments, the real market value of land in 1861 ^4^1

The payment by the peasants to the landowner lasted for 20 years. it gave rise to a specific temporarily obligatory state of peasants who had to pay quitrents and perform some duties until they completely bought out their allotment, i.e. 20% of the value of the land. Only in 1881 was a law issued to eliminate the temporarily obliged position of peasants.

So, agrarian reform 1861 can be considered to have taken place only on paper, because it did not make life easier for peasants and did not provide them with civil rights. Nevertheless, the reform made it possible for Russia to embark on the path of capitalist development.

A natural continuation of the abolition of serfdom in Russia were zemstvo, city, judicial, military and other reforms. Their main goal is to bring political system and administrative management in accordance with the new social structure, in which the multimillion-dollar peasantry received personal freedom. They became the product of the desire of the “liberal bureaucracy” to continue the political modernization of the country. This required adapting the autocracy to the development of capitalist relations and using the bourgeoisie in the interests of the ruling class.