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 in due time receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants,” i.e. 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” (primarily, 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 that follow for 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:

To 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.

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.

To form secular administrations on the landowners' estates, for which, leaving rural societies in their previous composition, open volost administrations in significant villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.

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 the land and for other benefits.

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.

Until the expiration of this period, peasants and courtyard people remain in the same obedience to the landowners and unquestioningly fulfill their previous duties.

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 ensure 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, the good relations weakened, and the way was opened to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants. Thus, the peasants were taught that their liberation from serfdom was an act of beneficence from a higher power (the autocracy), which prompted the landowners to voluntarily renounce their rights to the personality of serfs.

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. The peasants did not receive complete liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and Regulations were promulgated (i.e., February 19, 1861). The Manifesto announced that peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties (corvée and quitrent) as under serfdom, and to 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 reprisal, 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 landowner's right to all the land on their estates, including the peasant allotment, which the peasants received for use for duties determined by local provisions. 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 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 enforcement” Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries: in 9 volumes of the indicated 17 legislative acts on peasants transmitted to the Senate who emerged 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, to which each of these laws concerns" Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries: in 9 volumes. The texts of the Regulations and the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 were also published as Appendix to No. 20 of the Senate Gazette of March 10, 1861. In At the beginning of March 1861, a resolution was adopted to publish a “Summary” to facilitate the study of the Regulations, which contained articles: on the personal rights and obligations of peasants, rules on their land structure and rules on household servants.

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

The peasants of each landowner's estate united into rural societies. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at village meetings. The village headman, elected for three years, had to carry out the decisions of the assemblies. Several adjacent rural communities made up the volost. Village elders and elected officials from rural societies participated in the volost assembly. At this meeting, the volost foreman was elected. He performed police and administrative duties.

The activities of rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationships between peasants and landowners, were controlled by global intermediaries. They were appointed by the Senate from among the local noble landowners. Peace mediators had broad powers. But the administration could not use peace mediators for its own purposes. They were not subordinate to either the governor or the minister and did not have to follow their instructions. They had to follow only the instructions of the law. The first composition of the world mediators included many humanely minded landowners (Decembrists G.S. Batenkov and A.E. Rosen, L.N. Tolstoy, etc.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related information.

March 3 (February 19, O.S.), 1861 - Alexander II signed the Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants” and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. On the basis of these documents, peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property.

The manifesto was timed to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the emperor's accession to the throne (1855).

Even during the reign of Nicholas I, a large amount of preparatory material was collected for carrying out the peasant reform. Serfdom during the reign of Nicholas I remained unshakable, but significant experience was accumulated in solving the peasant question, which his son Alexander II, who ascended the throne in 1855, could later rely on.

At the beginning of 1857, a Secret Committee was established to prepare peasant reform. The government then decided to make its intentions known to the public, and the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee. The nobility of all regions had to create provincial committees to develop peasant reform. At the beginning of 1859, Editorial Commissions were created to process draft reforms of the noble committees. In September 1860, the draft reform developed was discussed by deputies sent by noble committees, and then transferred to the highest government bodies.

In mid-February 1861, the Regulations on the Liberation of Peasants were considered and approved by the State Council. On March 3 (February 19, old style), 1861, Alexander II signed the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants.” The final words of the historical Manifesto were: “Sign yourself with the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call upon us God’s blessing on your free labor, the guarantee of your home well-being and the good of society.” The manifesto was announced in both capitals on a major religious holiday - Forgiveness Sunday, and in other cities - in the week closest to it.

According to the Manifesto, peasants were granted civil rights - freedom to marry, independently conclude contracts and conduct court cases, acquire real estate in their own name, etc.

Land could be purchased by both the community and individual peasants. The land allocated to the community was for collective use, therefore, with the transition to another class or another community, the peasant lost the right to the “secular land” of his former community.

The enthusiasm with which the release of the Manifesto was greeted soon gave way to disappointment. The former serfs expected complete freedom and were dissatisfied with the transitional state of the “temporarily obliged”. Believing that the true meaning of the reform was being hidden from them, the peasants rebelled, demanding liberation with land. Troops were used to suppress the largest uprisings, accompanied by the seizure of power, as in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province). In total, more than two thousand performances were recorded. However, by the summer of 1861, the unrest began to subside.

Initially, the period of stay in a temporary state was not established, so the 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.

The peasant reform of 1861 was of great historical significance. It opened up new prospects for Russia, creating an opportunity for the broad development of market relations. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other major transformations aimed at creating a civil society in Russia.

For this reform, Alexander II began to be called Tsar the Liberator.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

The reform of 1861 was formalized by a number of documents: the Manifesto “On the most merciful granting of the rights of free rural inhabitants to serfs”, “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom”, “Regulations on Redemption”; “Regulations on provincial institutions for peasant affairs”, “Rules on the procedure for enacting the Regulations”. Additional documents specified general rules applicable to different regions of the empire and depending on the category of peasants. In total, these documents consisted of three hundred and sixty pages of printed text, twenty-two separate pieces of legislation, consisting of hundreds of chapters. Now it is easier for us to understand why Alexander II entrusted the place at the head of the reform project to a very conservative minister of justice. Panin's appointment looked in the eyes of the nobility as a real guarantee of the emperor's moderation. And the nobles were confident in their ability to resist the reformers, although this was an illusion. But the very presence of a strong opponent of the reforms on the commission responsible for carrying them through to completion neutralized critics and opposition to some extent. And when it turned out that Panin was present in it only to confirm loyalty to its principles as a stronghold of conservatism, it was too late - the Manifesto was proclaimed. In this case, perhaps for the first time during his reign, Alexander II, who was often suspected of being “apolitical,” demonstrated that he was a much better politician than he was thought to be.

The manifesto was read to the people by priests in churches and on porches in an atmosphere of confusion and even bewilderment. They explained to the peasants that they had emerged from serfdom, but despite their joy at this, the general meaning of the reform was unclear to them. Doubts and bewilderment accompanied and made manifestations of joy less bright. The peasants understood that they were becoming free people, cultivators with all civil rights and that they would receive their house and plot of land for eternal use. But here the question arose about land and the conditions for its distribution, because for a peasant without land, freedom meant nothing, and the proposed system looked quite complicated. Yes, the peasants were allocated plots of land that they were already cultivating, but they had to be purchased from the landowner who owned the land. Indeed, the reform - which confused the peasants and caused them to react with discontent, sometimes accompanied by violence - was intended to be a three-stage process. The first stage, the meaning of which was poorly understood during the reading of the Manifesto, was a two-year transition period lasting from February 19, 1861 until the entry into force "statutory charters". During this time, the peasant, vested with all civil rights, remained under the jurisdiction of the landowner and had to serve the same duties - corvee and quitrent - as in the past. Then the time came " temporarily obliged» a state when peasants and the landowner agreed directly on the area of ​​land transferred to the collective use of the community and on the amount of duties. Finally, the time came for the transfer to the redemption of collective lands with the help of state loans, which finally broke the connection between the peasants and their former owners. All peasants became property owners and the last traces of feudal land ownership disappeared.

Global mediators were called upon to “consider locally misunderstandings and disputes that may arise during the implementation of the new Regulations,” but also complaints from landowners against the bodies of peasant self-government in the event that they were unable to monitor public order or the fulfillment of duties, and, finally, complaints from peasants on landowners who made excessive demands on them. Conciliators also had to approve agreements between landowners and peasants and perform administrative functions that were performed by previous landowners before the reform. The reform, which gave real power to these intermediaries with their numerous functions, did not clearly define the manner of their appointment. Yes, they had to come from the hereditary noble landowners of each county - large and medium-sized landowners - and they had to be elected, but the Regulations of 1861 did not specify either who was to choose them or the election procedure. At first, peace mediators were appointed on the recommendation of governors from among persons who met the required conditions. Later came the turn of elections, which entailed numerous conflicts.

The “Regulations” of 1861 created primarily two problems: the problem of buying land on credit and the problem of the peasant community, peace, who became the real owner of the land. Land purchases were closely related to political-economic needs and concerns about justice. During this reform, the nobility lost its hereditary privileges and funds. Political wisdom demanded that the authorities take into account the sacrifices made by the landowners. Could it be possible to neglect the fact that they were always overwhelmingly opposed to such reform? And that by losing the privileges that the nobles considered inviolable, they could endanger the sovereign? The nobles remembered that it was they who placed the Romanovs on the throne in 1613, and that many times they rejected the reigning monarch in order to replace him with another of their own choosing. Alexander II was forced to take into account the lessons of the past. In addition, the loss of lands by the nobility led to the need to provide them with compensation so that they could hire workers on their estates and pay for their labor and thus participate in the economic life of the country. The state, which lay in ruins after the Crimean War, could not take on such an obligation, but could compensate the losses of the landowners with securities and finance the reform through credit. Peasants had to pay the redemption amount for the land over 49 years at a very low interest rate. But in the end, the redemption payment became a heavy burden for them, because the loan provided for such a long period was expensive, and, in addition, the value of land was overestimated everywhere, with the exception of plots belonging to the Poles: for political reasons, they were valued slightly lower than their real value . Ultimately, the peasants noted that the ransom amount significantly exceeded their income, and that arrears continued to grow. In 1905, when these payments were abolished, the total ransom amount was almost three times the market price of the land.

Another problem concerned the preservation of the rural community, or peace. The ideas of the Slavophiles about the beneficial influence of the communal organization of the peasantry on the development of society inspired many reformers. The owner of the land, as the reform defined him, was not the individual peasant, but the world, all members of which were collectively responsible for paying off the debt. The peasants did not really understand this concept of a solidary debtor, just as they did not understand the preservation of communal power. Finally, the possibility of freely allocating to any freed peasant a quarter of the norm due to him - what was called "beggar's allotments" - was also confusing. This measure, contrary to the spirit of the reform, was adopted under pressure from the State Council, which was hostile to the law as a whole and which Alexander II tried to bend to his will.

Whatever it was, with all its shortcomings, the reform of 1861 removed the stigma of shame from Russia and brought it into the family of European states. Count Montebello, the French ambassador in St. Petersburg, who closely observed this enterprise, wrote in a dispatch addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “This measure, whatever its consequences, is the main business of Alexander II,” which, however, did not prevent him from pointing out a story about the emperor’s trip to Moscow in June 1861, to “the warm welcome of the peasants and the coldness of the nobility, who retired to their estates” so as not to greet the tsar.

The peasants' reaction was also not as calm as the authors of the project might have expected. The French charge d'affaires Fournier noted at the end of 1861: “The peasants think that the last word of the reform has not been said, they think that they have a right to the land, that is, an unconditional right, because for them, since they have always cultivated the land, it belongs to them.” But the peasants did not always show disappointment or persistence; sometimes they were also frightened by change and preferred to stick to their previous status. Count Nikolai Yegorovich Komarovsky noted in his “Notes” (albeit compiled many years after the reform carried out when he was only sixteen): “I remember my amazement when, some time after the promulgation of the manifesto quitrent the peasants of the Yaroslavl province came to my mother and asked her with tears and bows to the ground, so that the will that they were given would not concern them, assuring that they would live well without her, and begging my mother to take the steps necessary to be left in the same state." These testimonies highlight the confusion of the peasants, examples of which can be found in other sources. The one given here comes from the pen of a man who considered the reform an event “bestowing national greatness.”

The reform of 1861 carried certain contradictions that manifested themselves in the future. The plots transferred to the peasants were insufficient and often inferior in size to those they cultivated before the reform, although it assumed that their area would remain the same. In the fertile southern regions, the size of allotments after 1861 was sometimes 40% smaller than before the reform. In addition, during the redistribution of peasant lands, they were often separated by forests and rivers, and in order to gain access to them, they again had to negotiate with the former owners and bind themselves to new obligations. The number of peasants who received plots insufficient to feed themselves is generally estimated at 42%. 30 thousand nobles remained the owners of 95 million dessiatines of the best lands, while 20 million “liberated” peasants had to divide 16 million dessiatines of arable land among themselves. It is clear why peasants sometimes reacted to this state of affairs with indignation.

In the long term, the reform created two more problems. First of all, unemployment grew in the countryside, because after the transition period, former serfs no longer had to work for their former owners. But having less land at their disposal, they could not always use it. As for the peace that remained after the reform, even if the reasons underlying this decision were fair in many respects: was it possible to leave the freed peasant to his own devices after so many centuries of serfdom? - it also had an impact on rural life, slowing down its modernization. But the latter simply suggested itself, especially since for several years the demographic growth in Russia, whose population in twenty years increased from 70 to 99 million inhabitants, affected primarily the villages, in which about a million children were born every year. There was not enough land to feed the growing population. Modernization of agricultural equipment was required, and the rural community was extremely wary of such changes. Faced with these difficulties, the debt-ridden peasants expressed growing discontent and dreamed of being allocated new lands, those that remained with the landowners.

These shortcomings of the reform explain the reaction, which was sometimes accompanied by violence. The precautions taken during the reading of the Manifesto - measures to strengthen law and order, the ban on spontaneous gatherings - initially ensured relative calm. But just a few months later, uprisings began, often sparked by the peasants' belief that there was real A manifesto, allegedly replaced by the nobles with a forged manifesto, which curtailed what was granted to them by Alexander II. Count Montebello, reporting on these unrest, primarily in the Volga region, reminded the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian tradition of impostors posing as the real sovereign, and connected with it the idea of ​​​​a false manifesto, designed, like the false tsar, to deceive the people. Alexander Nikitenko, the son of a serf and a professor at Moscow University, wrote in his diary: “They are afraid of alarms and outbreaks, which, like muddy waves, are increasingly covering us from all sides and which threaten us with a bloody flood in the future.” The unrest that engulfed various regions in the summer of 1861 convinced Alexander II that the liberation of the peasants would not solve all problems, that other fundamental reforms were needed, which were under development simultaneously with the “Regulations” of 1861.

From the book History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates author

February 19, 1861 – Abolition of serfdom and other reforms The central event of the era of the Great Reforms was the abolition of serfdom. The manifesto about this began with words about the sovereign’s love for all his subjects without distinction: “We have made a vow in our hearts to embrace Our

From the book History. New complete student guide for preparing for the Unified State Exam author Nikolaev Igor Mikhailovich

From the book History of Russia. XIX century. 8th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich

§ 21. REFORM OF 1861 AND ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE The position of the peasants according to the Manifesto of 1861. The Manifesto of February 19, 1861 stated that serfdom for landowner peasants and courtyard people was “abolished forever” and they were endowed with the rights of “free rural inhabitants” .

From the book USA: History of the Country author McInerney Daniel

1861 The struggle between Richmond and Washington, which resulted in a four-year civil war, has been thoroughly studied and is well known to all Americans. Large enemy forces were concentrated in the Chesapeake Bay area, both capitals were subjected to serious

From the book New Chronology of Egypt - II [with illustrations] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

7.8.5. Date on the zodiac “RS”: February 4...5, 1289 AD. or February 20...21, 1586 AD We have found all the solutions for this horoscope from 3000 BC. before 2000 AD There were only

From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Main features of the situation of February 19, 1861 Unfortunately, I can only outline the main features of the act, which deserves careful study. During the centuries preceding February 19, 1861, we had no more important act; centuries will pass and there will be no act so important

From the book Everyday Life of France in the Age of Richelieu and Louis XIII author Glagoleva Ekaterina Vladimirovna

1. State machine Noble hierarchy. - Government. – Reform of the state apparatus. Quartermasters. - Church administration. - Arrival. - City Administration. – Taxes and duties. – Currency reform. - Peasant uprisings. Crocans and

From the book The French She-Wolf - Queen of England. Isabel by Weir Alison

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 20th century author Nikolaev Igor Mikhailovich

Peasant reform of 1861 and post-reform development of Russia In the early 50s. XIX century Russia seemed to contemporaries to be a powerful military-political power. Top government officials counted on supposedly unlimited military-economic

From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich

1861, February 19 Abolition of serfdom, the beginning of reforms The abolition of serfdom became the central event of the era of great reforms, affected a huge part of the population, and destroyed the system of social relations established for centuries. It led to other reforms

From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

45. PEASANT REFORM OF 1861 RESULTS OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ALEXANDER II The peasant reform of 1861 significantly changed the political system of Russia and set the task of revising a large number of legislative acts that were outdated with its release.I

From the book The Life of Count Dmitry Milyutin author Petelin Viktor Vasilievich

Chapter 7 FEBRUARY 9, 1861 On January 28, 1861, under the chairmanship of Alexander II, a meeting of the general meeting of the State Council began, dedicated to the discussion of materials presented by the Main Committee on peasant affairs and draft legislation on

author

From the book Historical description of changes in clothing and weapons of Russian troops. Volume 30 author Viskovatov Alexander Vasilievich

From the book Book of Fates author Erokhin Petr Nikolaevich

1861 The 1st Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) caused enormous damage to Germany. The country's population has dropped by three-quarters in some areas. Hundreds of settlements disappeared (The Germans learned this lesson well. During the 2nd Thirty Years' War, soldiers from the front lines

From the book 100 key themes of Ukrainian history author Zhuravlyov D.V.

Village reform 1861 date and place3 Bereznya (19 years old style) 1861 r. a manifesto about reform and supporting documents have been seen; the reform covered 52 provinces of the Russian Empire, where the rule of law was based, with the exception of 9 Ukrainian ones.

On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the liberation of peasants from serfdom, thus abolishing serfdom. The quill pen with which the Tsar-Liberator signed the manifesto was kept until 1917 in the Historical Museum in Moscow. Afterwards the pen was destroyed, and the peasants again became dependent. During the collectivization period, for a long time, collective farmers, unlike other citizens, did not have passports and therefore could not leave their place of residence.

The Russian Peasant Reform (also known as the abolition of serfdom) was a reform carried out in 1861 that abolished serfdom in the Russian Empire. It was the first and most significant of the reforms of Emperor Alexander II; proclaimed by the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom dated February 19 (March 3), 1861.

At the same time, a number of contemporaries and historians of the late XIX - early XX centuries. called this reform “serfdom” and argued that it did not lead to the liberation of the peasants, but only determined the mechanism of such liberation, which was flawed and unfair.
In most of the territory of the Russian Empire there was no serfdom: in all Siberian, Asian and Far Eastern provinces and regions, in the Cossack regions, in the North Caucasus, in the Caucasus itself, in Transcaucasia, in Finland and Alaska.

The first steps towards the limitation and subsequent abolition of serfdom were taken by Paul I and Alexander I in 1797 and 1803 by signing the Manifesto on the Three-Day Corvee, limiting forced labor, and the Decree on Free Plowmen, which spelled out the legal status of freed peasants.

In 1816-1819 Serfdom was abolished in the Baltic (Baltic) provinces of the Russian Empire (Estonia, Courland, Livonia, Ezel Island).

According to historians who specifically studied this issue, the percentage of landowner serfs to the entire adult male population of the empire reached its maximum towards the end of the reign of Peter I (55%), during the subsequent period of the 18th century. was about 50% and increased again by the beginning of the 19th century, reaching 57-58% in 1811-1817. The first significant reduction in this proportion occurred under Nicholas I, by the end of whose reign it, according to various estimates, dropped to 35-45%. Thus, by the 10th revision (1858), the share of serfs in the entire population of the empire fell to 37%. According to the population census of 1857-1859, 23.1 million people (both sexes) out of 62.5 million people inhabiting the Russian Empire were in serfdom. Of the 65 provinces and regions that existed in the Russian Empire in 1858, in the three Baltic provinces (Estonia, Courland, Livonia), in the Land of the Black Sea Army, in the Primorsky region, the Semipalatinsk region and the region of the Siberian Kyrgyz, in the Derbent province (with the Caspian region) and in the Erivan province there were no serfs at all; in another 4 administrative units (Arkhangelsk and Shemakha provinces, Transbaikal and Yakutsk regions) there were also no serfs, with the exception of several dozen courtyard people (servants). In the remaining 52 provinces and regions, the share of landowner serfs in the population ranged from 1.17% (Bessarabian region, in which there were feudal-dependent Tsarans instead of serfs) to 69.07% (Smolensk province).

During the reign of Nicholas I, about a dozen different commissions were created to resolve the issue of abolishing serfdom, but all of them were ineffective due to the opposition of the landowners. However, during this period, a significant transformation of this institution took place (see article Nicholas I) and the number of serfs sharply decreased, which facilitated the task of the final abolition of serfdom. By the 1850s A situation arose where it could have happened without the consent of the landowners. As historian V.O. Klyuchevsky pointed out, by 1850 more than 2/3 of noble estates and 2/3 of serf souls were pledged to secure loans taken from the state. Therefore, the liberation of the peasants could have occurred without a single state act. To do this, it was enough for the state to introduce a procedure for the forced redemption of mortgaged estates - with the payment to the landowners of only a small difference between the value of the estate and the accumulated arrears on the overdue loan. As a result of such a redemption, most of the estates would pass to the state, and the serfs would automatically become state (that is, actually personally free) peasants. It was precisely this plan that was hatched by P. D. Kiselev, who was responsible for the management of state property in the government of Nicholas I.

However, these plans caused strong discontent among the landowners. In addition, peasant uprisings intensified in the 1850s. Therefore, the new government formed by Alexander II decided to speed up the solution to the peasant issue. As the Tsar himself said in 1856 at a reception with the leader of the Moscow nobility: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to abolish itself from below.”

The main reasons for the reform were: the crisis of the serfdom system, peasant unrest, which especially intensified during the Crimean War. The peasants, to whom the tsarist government turned for help, conscripting them into the militia, believed that by their service they would earn themselves freedom from serfdom. The hopes of the peasants were not justified. The number of peasant protests grew. If in 10 years from 1845 to 1854. There were 348 speeches, then over the next 6 years (1855 to 1860) - 474. A significant role in the abolition of serfdom was played by the moral aspect and the issue of state prestige.

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 Gracious Granting of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens to Serfs” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (22 documents in total) concerning the issues of the emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their purchase of landowners’ land and the size of the purchased plots in certain regions of Russia.

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.
* The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with “estate settlement” (house plot) and field allotment for use; 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 9 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;
* 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.

Allotment size

According to the reform, the maximum and minimum sizes of peasant plots were established. Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landowners, as well as upon receipt of a gift allotment. If peasants had smaller plots of land for use, the landowner was obliged to either cut off the missing land from the minimum amount (the so-called “cut”), or reduce duties. Reductions took place only if the landowner retained at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 men's and 30 women's working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest one, then the landowner cut off the “extra” land for his own benefit. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties were reduced, but not proportionally.

As a result, the average size of a peasant allotment in the post-reform period was 3.3 dessiatines per capita, which was less than before the reform. In the black earth provinces, landowners cut off a fifth of their lands from the peasants. The Volga region peasants suffered the greatest losses. In addition to sections, other instruments for infringing on the rights of peasants were resettlement to infertile lands, deprivation of pastures, forests, reservoirs, paddocks and other lands necessary for every peasant. The striping also posed difficulties for the peasants, forcing the peasants to rent land from the landowners, who protruded like wedges into the peasant plots.
Duties of temporarily obliged peasants

The peasants were in a temporary state of obligation until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. At first, the duration of this condition was not indicated. It was finally installed on December 28, 1881. According to the decree, all temporarily obliged peasants were transferred to redemption from January 1, 1883. A similar situation occurred only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obliged state of the peasants remained until 1912-1913.

During the temporary obligatory state, peasants were obliged to pay rent for the use of land and work in corvee. The quitrent for a full allotment was 8-12 rubles per year. The profitability of the allotment and the size of the quitrent were in no way connected. The highest quitrent (12 rubles per year) was paid by the peasants of the St. Petersburg province, whose lands were extremely infertile. On the contrary, in the black earth provinces the amount of quitrent was significantly lower.

Another flaw of the quitrent was its gradation, when the first tithe of land was valued more expensive than the rest. For example, in non-chernozem lands, with a full allotment of 4 dessiatines and a quitrent of 10 rubles, for the first tithe the peasant paid 5 rubles, which was 50% of the quitrent amount (for the last two dessiatines, the peasant paid 12.5% ​​of the total quitrent amount). This forced peasants to buy land, and gave landowners the opportunity to profitably sell infertile land.

All men aged 18 to 55 and all women aged 17 to 50 were required to serve corvée. Unlike the previous corvee, the post-reform corvee was more limited and orderly. For a full allotment, a peasant was supposed to work in corvee no more than 40 men's and 30 women's days.

Local provisions

The rest of the “Local Provisions” basically repeated the “Great Russian Provisions”, but taking into account the specifics of their regions. The features of the Peasant Reform for certain categories of peasants and specific areas were determined by the “Additional Rules” - “On the arrangement of peasants settled on the estates of small landowners, and on benefits to these owners”, “On people assigned to private mining factories of the Ministry of Finance”, “On peasants and workers serving work at Perm private mining factories and salt mines”, “About peasants serving work in landowner factories”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Land of the Don Army”, “About peasants and courtyard people in the Stavropol province”, “ About peasants and courtyard people in Siberia”, “About people who emerged from serfdom in the Bessarabian region”.
[edit] Liberation of domestic peasants

The “Regulations on the Settlement of Household People” provided for their release without land and estate, but for 2 years they remained completely dependent on the landowner. Household servants at that time made up 6.5% of serfs. Thus, a huge number of peasants found themselves practically without a livelihood.

Redemption payments

Main article: Buyout operation

The regulation “On the redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom, their settled estates and on the government’s assistance in the acquisition of field land by these peasants” determined the procedure for the redemption of land by peasants from landowners, the organization of the redemption operation, the rights and obligations of peasant owners. The redemption of a field plot depended on an agreement with the landowner, who could oblige the peasants to buy the land at his request. The price of land was determined by quitrent, capitalized at 6% per annum. In case of redemption by voluntary agreement, the peasants had to make an additional payment to the landowner. The landowner received the main amount from the state.

The peasant was obliged to immediately pay the landowner 20% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 80% was contributed by the state. The peasants had to repay it annually over 49 years in equal redemption payments. The annual payment was 6% of the redemption amount. Thus, the peasants paid a total of 294% of the redemption loan. In modern terms, the buyout loan was a loan with annuity payments for a term of 49 years at 5.6% per annum. Payment of ransom payments was stopped in 1906 under the conditions of the First Russian Revolution. Mikhail Pokrovsky pointed out that “the ransom was beneficial not to the peasants, but to the landowners.” By 1906, peasants paid 1 billion 571 million rubles in ransom for lands worth 544 million rubles. Thus, the peasants actually (including interest on the loan) paid a triple amount, which was the subject of criticism from observers who took populist positions (and subsequently from Soviet historians), but was at the same time a mathematically normal result for such a long-term loan. The loan rate of 5.6% per annum, taking into account the non-mortgage nature of the loan (for non-payment of redemption fees, it was possible to seize the personal property of the peasants, which does not have production value, but not the land itself) and the manifested unreliability of the borrowers, was balanced and consistent with the existing lending rates for all other types of borrowers at that time. Since penalties for late payments were repeatedly written off, and in 1906 the state forgave rural communities the entire unpaid portion of the debt, the redemption operation turned out to be unprofitable for the state.

Reform Analysis

Historians who lived in the era of Alexander II and studied the peasant question commented on the main provisions of these laws as follows. As M.N. Pokrovsky pointed out, the entire reform for the majority of peasants boiled down to the fact that they ceased to be officially called “serfs”, but began to be called “obligated”; Formally, they began to be considered free, but absolutely nothing changed in their situation or even worsened: in particular, the landowners began to flog the peasants even more. “To be declared a free man by the tsar,” the historian wrote, “and at the same time continue to go to corvée or pay quitrent: this was a glaring contradiction that caught the eye. The “obligated” peasants firmly believed that this will was not real...” The same opinion was shared, for example, by the historian N.A. Rozhkov, one of the most authoritative experts on the agrarian issue of pre-revolutionary Russia, as well as a number of other authors who wrote about the peasant issue.

There is an opinion that the laws of February 19, 1861, which meant the legal abolition of serfdom (in legal terms of the second half of the 19th century), were not its abolition as a socio-economic institution (although they created the conditions for this to happen over the following decades ). Serfdom in Russia arose at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. as a ban on peasants leaving the land they cultivated, and the term itself (serfdom) appeared later than this ban, which for several decades existed as a kind of temporary measure taken due to emergency circumstances (The Troubles of 1598-1613, economic crisis, devastation, etc.). Only during the first half of the 17th century. (finally in the Code of 1649) serfdom was legally recorded as the permanent attachment of peasants to the land. But the emergence of serfdom is clearly dated by historians not from the moment of its full legal registration, but from the moment of its actual emergence (late 16th - early 17th centuries). Accordingly, after the reform of 1861, until 1906, despite the legal abolition of serfdom, there remained an actual ban on the departure of “obligated” and “redemption” peasants from their plot of land, which indicates the preservation of serfdom as a socio-economic Institute. Earlier in history, the disappearance of this institution also did not happen in one day; for example, in Western Europe it lasted for 2-3 centuries (XI-XIV centuries).

As for the specific conditions for the redemption of land, according to N. Rozhkov and D. Blum, in the non-black earth zone of Russia, where the bulk of serfs lived, the redemption value of land was on average 2.2 times higher than its market value, and in some cases it exceeded it even 5-6 times. Therefore, in fact, the redemption price established in accordance with the reform of 1861 included not only the redemption of land, but also the redemption of the peasant himself and his family - just as previously serfs could buy their freed land from the landowner for money by agreement with the latter. Thus, the conditions for the liberation of peasants in Russia were much worse than in the Baltic states, where they were liberated under Alexander I without land, but also without the need to pay a ransom for themselves.

Accordingly, under the terms of the reform, peasants could not refuse to buy out the land, which M. N. Pokrovsky calls “compulsory property.” And “to prevent the owner from running away from her,” writes the historian, “which, given the circumstances of the case, could have been expected,” it was necessary to place the “released” person in such legal conditions that are very reminiscent of the state, if not of a prisoner, then of a minor or feeble-minded person in prison. under guardianship."

Another result of the reform of 1861 was the emergence of the so-called. sections - parts of the land, averaging about 20%, which were previously in the hands of peasants, but now found themselves in the hands of landowners and were not subject to redemption. As N.A. Rozhkov pointed out, the division of land was specially carried out by the landowners in such a way that “the peasants found themselves cut off by the landowner’s land from a watering hole, forest, high road, church, sometimes from their arable land and meadows... [as a result] they were forced to rent the landowner’s land land at any cost, on any terms." “Having cut off from the peasants, according to the Regulations of February 19, lands that were absolutely necessary for them,” wrote M. N. Pokrovsky, “meadows, pastures, even places for driving cattle to watering places, the landowners forced them to rent these lands only for work , with the obligation to plow, sow and harvest a certain number of acres for the landowner.” In memoirs and descriptions written by the landowners themselves, the historian pointed out, this practice of cuttings was described as universal - there were practically no landowners' farms where cuttings did not exist. In one example, the landowner “bragged that his segments covered, as if in a ring, 18 villages, which were all in bondage to him; As soon as the German tenant arrived, he remembered atreski as one of the first Russian words and, renting an estate, first of all inquired whether this jewel was in it.”

Subsequently, the elimination of sections became one of the main demands not only of peasants, but also of revolutionaries in the last third of the 19th century. (populists, Narodnaya Volya, etc.), but also most revolutionary and democratic parties at the beginning of the 20th century, until 1917. Thus, the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks until December 1905 included the liquidation of landowner plots as the main and essentially the only point; the same demand was the main point of the agrarian program of the I and II State Duma (1905-1907), adopted by the overwhelming majority of its members (including deputies from the Menshevik, Socialist Revolutionary, Cadets and Trudoviks parties), but rejected by Nicholas II and Stolypin. Previously, the elimination of such forms of exploitation of peasants by landowners - the so-called. banalities - was one of the main demands of the population during the French Revolution (see the article The Old Order).

According to N. Rozhkov, the “serfdom” reform of February 19, 1861 became “the starting point of the entire process of the origin of the revolution” in Russia.
Implementation of reform

The “Manifesto” and “Regulations” were published from March 7 to April 10 (in St. Petersburg and Moscow - March 5). Fearing the dissatisfaction of the peasants with the conditions of the reform, the government took a number of precautions (relocation of troops, sending members of the imperial retinue to places, appeal of the Synod, etc.). The peasantry, dissatisfied with the enslaving conditions of the reform, responded to it with mass unrest. The largest of them were the Bezdnensky and Kandievsky uprisings.

In total, during 1861 alone, 1,176 peasant uprisings were recorded, while in 6 years from 1855 to 1860. there were only 474 of them. Thus, the number of peasant uprisings in 1861 was 15 times higher than the previous “record” of the second half of the 1850s. The uprisings did not subside in 1862 and were suppressed very brutally. In the two years after the reform was announced, the government had to use military force in 2,115 villages. This gave many people a reason to talk about the beginning of a peasant revolution. So, M.A. Bakunin was in 1861-1862. I am convinced that the explosion of peasant uprisings will inevitably lead to a peasant revolution, which, as he wrote, “essentially has already begun.” “There is no doubt that the peasant revolution in Russia in the 60s was not a figment of a frightened imagination, but a completely real possibility...” wrote N. A. Rozhkov, comparing its possible consequences with the Great French Revolution.

The implementation of the Peasant Reform began with the drawing up of statutory charters, which was basically completed by mid-1863. The statutory charters were concluded not with each peasant individually, but with the “world” as a whole. "The World" was a society of peasants who were owned by an individual landowner. On January 1, 1863, peasants refused to sign about 60% of the charters.

The price of land at redemption significantly exceeded its market value at that time, in the non-chernozem zone on average 2-2.5 times (in 1854-1855 the price of all peasant lands was 544 million rubles, while the redemption amounted to 867 million) . As a result of this, in a number of regions, peasants sought to receive gift plots and in some provinces (Saratov, Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Voronezh, etc.) a significant number of peasant gift-holders appeared.

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

The peasants' transition to ransom lasted for several decades. By 1881, 15% remained in temporary obligations. But in a number of provinces there were still many of them (Kursk 160 thousand, 44%; Nizhny Novgorod 119 thousand, 35%; Tula 114 thousand, 31%; Kostroma 87 thousand, 31%). The transition to ransom proceeded faster in the black earth provinces, where voluntary transactions prevailed over compulsory ransom. Landowners who had large debts, more often than others, sought to speed up the redemption and enter into voluntary transactions.

A. I. Korzukhin. Collection of arrears (The last cow is taken away). Painting from 1868

The transition from “temporarily obligated” to “redemption” did not give the peasants the right to leave their plot (that is, the promised freedom), but significantly increased the burden of payments. The redemption of land under the terms of the reform of 1861 for the vast majority of peasants lasted for 45 years and represented real bondage for them, since they were not able to pay such amounts. Thus, by 1902, the total amount of arrears on peasant redemption payments amounted to 420% of the amount of annual payments, and in a number of provinces exceeded 500%. Only in 1906, after the peasants burned about 15% of the landowners' estates in the country during 1905, the redemption payments and accumulated arrears were canceled, and the "redemption" peasants finally received the freedom promised to them 45 years ago.

The abolition of serfdom also affected appanage peasants, who, by the “Regulations of June 26, 1863,” were transferred to the category of peasant owners through compulsory redemption under the terms of the “Regulations of February 19.” In general, their plots were significantly smaller than those of the landowner peasants. The average size of the former appanage peasant's allotment was 4.8 tithes per capita. The purchase of land by appanage peasants was carried out on the same conditions as serfs (that is, capitalization of 6% of the quitrent). Unlike landowner peasants, who were transferred to redemption after 20 years, appanage peasants were transferred to redemption after 2 years.
Beggars. Painting by S. A. Vinogradov

The law of November 24, 1866 began the reform of state peasants. They retained all the lands in their use. According to the law of June 12, 1886, state peasants were transferred to redemption. At his own request, the peasant could either continue to pay the quitrent to the state, or enter into a buyout deal with it. The average size of a state peasant's allotment was 5.9 dessiatines.

In relation to state peasants, there were neither cuts nor inflated prices - as D. Blum points out, redemption payments for tithes were on average 2-2.5 times lower than for serfs, therefore, in general they corresponded to market prices for land. However, earlier, during the preparation of this law, the Minister of State Property, a large landowner M. Muravyov, hatched a plan to take away part of their lands from state peasants and worsen the terms of redemption, similar to what was done in relation to serfs. Perhaps his resignation in 1862 and refusal to worsen the terms of redemption for state peasants were associated with the outbreak that began in 1861-1862. "peasant revolution".

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

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

The peasant reform of 1861 marked the beginning of the process of rapid impoverishment of the peasants. The average peasant allotment in Russia in the period from 1860 to 1880 decreased from 4.8 to 3.5 dessiatines (almost 30%), many ruined peasants and rural proletarians appeared who lived on odd jobs - a phenomenon that practically disappeared in the middle XIX century

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Moscow

The idea of ​​building a temple in honor of the abolition of serfdom in the Russian Empire appeared in society immediately after the publication of the Manifesto. Among the initiators of this project was the famous Russian historian, member of the Russian Academy M. N. Pogodin.
The result of this movement was the construction of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral on Miusskaya Square in Moscow. The temple was founded in 1911, on the 50th anniversary of the reform, and completed in 1917. Subsequently, during the years of Soviet power, it was destroyed.

In numismatics, the abolition of serfdom was noted twice:

* On September 3, 1991, the State Bank of the USSR issued a palladium coin worth 25 rubles in honor of the 130th anniversary of the event:
* In 2011, the Bank of Russia issued a commemorative coin dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the publication of the “Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom”

USSR coin - 500th anniversary of the united Russian state: Abolition of serfdom, 1861. Palladium 999 fine, 25 rubles.

Coin of the Bank of Russia - Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom on February 19, 1861. 999 gold, 1000 rubles.