Kiselev reformer. Agrarian reforms P
KISELYOV REFORM 1837-41, the reform of the management of state peasants in Russian Empire , conducted by P. D. Kiselev. It extended to more than 8 million male souls (according to the revision of 1835-36) of various categories of non-enslaved peasants: over 5.1 million state peasants, over 1.2 million single-dvortsy and about 11 thousand peasants belonging to them, about 554 thousand "Little Russian Cossacks" , about 374 thousand "military inhabitants", about 651 thousand peasants of the western provinces, about 188.6 thousand peasants of the Crimea and the Caucasus. In relation to the rest of the population of the Russian Empire, these categories of peasants amounted to 34.6%. The Kiselev reform was prepared in March 1835 by the Secret Committee “On Improving the Condition of Peasants of Different Ranks” (established in 1835), and then by the 5th Department of His Own Imperial Majesty’s Chancellery under the direction of P. D. Kiselev (1836). In the summer of 1836, an audit was carried out of the state villages of the Kursk, Moscow, Pskov and Tambov provinces, which represented economically different regions. In 1837, in a most submissive report to Emperor Nicholas I, Kiselev outlined the main directions of the reform: “the organization of a correct and fair administration”, the elimination of peasant land shortages, the streamlining of taxes, the creation of rural schools, the organization of medical and veterinary care, etc. In 1838, on the initiative of Kiselev, “ Institution on the management of state property in the provinces ”, which spread to quitrent state peasants of the Great Russian provinces and served as the basis for issuing other decrees: on the management of state property in the western provinces (Vilna, Grodno, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk, Kiev, Volyn, Podolsk) and Bialystok region, on the management of state property in the Transcaucasian Territory and on the management of state property in the Courland, Livonia and Estland provinces. A 4-stage management system was created: province - district - volost - rural society. In each province, the Chamber of State Property was established, which consisted of economic and forestry departments. The district was headed by the district chief, who had two assistants: in charge of the state peasants and in the forest section. Depending on the number of state peasants, the district of state property covered one or several counties. The districts were subdivided into volosts (about 6 thousand male souls in each). The organs of peasant self-government were preserved - the volost gathering, consisting of representatives of householders (one from every 20 households), the volost board elected by the gathering for a period of 3 years, consisting of the volost head and two "assessors" - for the economic and police parts. Volosts were subdivided into rural communities (1.5 thousand male souls in each). Rural society included one or more villages. The village assembly consisted of representatives of householders from every 5 households and elected a village foreman for a period of 3 years, and for the performance of police functions - sotsky (one out of 200 households) and tenth (one out of 20 households). To deal with petty claims and misdeeds of the peasants, elected volost and rural "reprisals" (courts) were established, which were guided by the norms of customary law and consisted of a judge and several assessors (the so-called conscientious ones).
Kiselyov's reform preserved communal land use with periodic redistribution of land within the community, quitrent duty, taking into account the profitability of the peasant allotment. In order to equalize quitrent payments in accordance with the profitability of the land, land cadastres were drawn up (under P. D. Kiselev, the cadastre was compiled in 19 provinces, in which by 1855 the quitrent tax had been transferred from souls to the land). To eliminate the lack of land in the state countryside, it was planned to allocate land from the state reserve to the peasants, as well as resettlement in sparsely populated provinces. In the western provinces, corvee was abolished among state peasants, and by 1848 the rental system (the practice of renting state-owned villages to tenants) was abolished. By 1843, more than 500,000 hectares were allotted to landless peasants, more than 2 million hectares were allocated to land-poor peasants, 170,000 male souls were resettled from land-poor provinces, to whom more than 2.7 million hectares were transferred. In large villages, small loan offices were set up, from which up to 1.5 million rubles were annually issued to needy peasants on favorable terms. In case of crop failures, more than 3.3 thousand grain spare stores were created. Kiselyov's reform contributed to the formation of peasant self-government.
Not everything conceived by P. D. Kiselyov was implemented on time and in full [in 1838, administration was rebuilt in 5 provinces Central Russia, by 1841 - still in 19 (according to other sources, in 18; it was planned in 35 provinces)). The experience of Kiselyov's reform was subsequently used in carrying out peasant reform 1861.
Source: Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2. Vol. 12. No. 10834. Vol. 13. No. 11189. Vol. 14. No. 12165, 12166, 13035. Vol. 16. No. 14157, 14643.
Lit .: Historical review of the 50-year activity of the Ministry of State Property. 1837-1887. SPb., 1888. Ch. 1-5; Knyazkov S. A. Count P. D. Kiselev and the reform of state peasants // Great Reform. M., 1911. T. 2; Ivanov L. M. State peasants of the Moscow province and Kiselev's reform // Historical notes. M., 1945. T. 17; Druzhinin N.M. State peasants and the reform of P. D. Kiselev. M.; L., 1946-1958. T. 1-2.
In 1837, the implementation of the reform in the state village began and it continued until 1841. The events were quite large and affected approximately 19 million people (27% of the population). That is how many state peasants were counted by the middle of the 19th century. They belonged to the treasury of the state, they paid dues for the use of land (in some areas they worked out corvee), and also carried various duties in favor of the state - a poll tax, recruitment duty, taxes in kind and cash.
Prerequisites for the reform
The most important reasons that prompted Nicholas I to carry out the changes were the serious dissatisfaction of the peasants with their dependent powerless position, as well as the receipt of not the entire amount of taxes from the peasants to the treasury.
State peasants did not have self-government, they could be leased to private individuals along with state estates. In addition to various kinds of taxes, they were attracted to the construction and repair of roads, to the repair of bridges. Without any right to vote, being in fact the poorest and most numerous segment of the population, the peasants expressed their dissatisfaction with the riots.
The system of taxation was arbitrary and disordered. It would be more profitable for the state to have peasants who are able to pay taxes and clearly understand how much they should contribute to the treasury. For 20 years before the start of the reform, 391 million rubles were collected from the state peasants in the form of taxes, with arrears of 33 million rubles. Within 20 years after the reform, fees increased to 506 million rubles, and arrears decreased to 17 million rubles.
Initially, Nicholas I did not seek to pay attention to solving the complex peasant issue. However, over time, he became more and more convinced of the need for change. It was rather dangerous to ignore the urgent problem, since small unrest among the peasants could develop into a serious uprising. The emperor understood more and more deeply how negatively serfdom affects the development of the country in economic and military relations.
The question of liquidating the entire serf system at once could not yet be considered. The upper class - the nobles - were not ready for large-scale changes. Attempts to seriously influence their situation could turn into a disaster for Nicholas I, as well as for the state as a whole. If the peasants are given freedom, while retaining the land for the landowners, the former will either begin to demand land by force, or, being forced to take a job, will fall into bondage to the owner. The state was also not ready to buy land from the landowners, so that later it would be provided to the peasants, since this would require huge financial outlays. Due to these difficulties, a decision was made on partial transformations.
The least dangerous was the reform of the state village, not connected with the nobles and their interests. The sovereign counted on improvements after the reforms and assumed that the changes would serve as a good model for the landowners.
Preparation of a reform project (1835-1837)
To prepare the reform in 1835, the 5th department of the imperial office was created, headed by Count Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev. Pavel Dmitrievich, who had a wide knowledge of political issues, sought to prove to Nicholas I the need to reform the system. Kiselev, as a supporter of prudent government, considered it necessary to improve the existing system through gradual changes.
As a young man, he drafted a project to reform the serf system for Alexander I, in which he expressed his thoughts on the abolition of serfdom. It is also known that Pavel Dmitrievich communicated with the southern society of the Decembrists and agreed with their ideas. He managed to convince Nicholas I of the need for reforms.
At the stage of preparation for the implementation of large-scale measures (in the summer of 1836), an audit of the state lands of several of the most important provinces was carried out. Kiselev also managed to obtain materials from Austria and Prussia, which highlighted the experience of solving problems related to the peasants.
In the spring of 1837 audit results were reviewed. These results, together with the conclusions of Kiselev after his personal research, were collected in a report that outlined the most important areas for future changes:
✔ the creation of a ministry to carry out the reform;
✔ organization of proper management;
✔ addressing the issue of lack of land among the peasants;
✔ creation of a clear system of taxation;
✔
increase in the number of schools, medical institutions, road construction.
Implementation of Improvements in the State Village (1837-1841)
It should be noted that the main goals of the reform were:
✔ Raising the standard of living of peasants;
✔ Improving tax collection;
✔
Creating an example of peasant management for landlords
In the winter of 1837, the management of the peasants was transferred from the "Ministry of Finance" to the "Ministry of State Property" created in the same year, headed by P.D. Kiselev.
It was decided to make the management system of the peasants 4-stage: the province became the largest administrative unit, then the district, the volost and, the smallest, the rural society became.
In the provinces, chambers of state property were organized to manage the peasants. The district administration was entrusted to the district chief and officials. In volosts (6 thousand male inhabitants) and rural communities (1500 souls), the peasants received self-government. Now they had the right to gather at gatherings and elect from among their number those who would deal with pressing issues. The volost head was elected to the volost administration, as well as two assessors. In rural societies, a village foreman and sots with tenths were elected to carry out law enforcement functions. Judicial functions in the localities were carried out by elected volost and rural courts.
The use of land by the peasants remained communal, but not all land plots corresponded to established standards. In this regard, the peasants were endowed with state land from the reserve, moved from densely populated areas to less developed ones.
The system of state duties was brought to a more streamlined form, and taxes in kind were completely replaced by monetary ones. Now the peasants were obliged to pay a strictly established dues, the amount of which depended on the size of the land allotment and the profitability of the farm. To determine the amount of payments in 19 provinces, work was carried out to account for the lands and the peasants assigned to them.
Thanks to the reform, state peasants were freed from certain types of duties, such as repairing and building roads, and supplying food to the army. The practice of leasing state lands and state peasants was also abolished.
They tried to improve the well-being of the state village by raising the quality of social and economic life. The Ministry, at public expense, organized the construction of agricultural schools, where peasants were taught new methods of farming. Special farms were also created to spread these techniques among the peasants. opened primary schools, hospitals, veterinary clinics, roads were built. In case of crop failure, seed funds and food warehouses were created.
Results of the reform
The results of the reform are ambiguous, although one cannot fail to note their rather democratic character. Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev in his report in 1843 noted that the state allocated 500 thousand acres of land to peasants who did not have land, and 2 million acres were transferred to those with little land. In large villages, credit offices were organized, where those in need could receive small amounts of money on preferential terms. Such cash desks issued up to 1.5 million rubles every year. More than 3,000 food warehouses (shops) have been created to prevent starvation in the event of a lack of harvest.
The allotments of the peasants really increased, and the development of agricultural work began to grow. The state provided the peasants with more favorable living conditions and contributed to the improvement of education in the countryside. All this was followed by an increase in the productivity of the peasants.
The negative consequences of the measures taken should include the strengthening of the tax burden, which caused in 1841-1843. mass peasant unrest. Yes, taxation has taken on clearer forms, but at the same time it has increased, as it has become easier to monitor the payment or non-payment of taxes to the state. Such oversight required the involvement more officials, which led to an increase in the cost of the administrative apparatus of the peasants.
In general, undoubtedly, the events held by Nicholas I were quite progressive for their time. The emperor did not dare to take more serious steps in solving the peasant problem, however, the experience gained in the process of reforming the state village was later used by Alexander II and statesmen in preparing the reform of 1861.
FROM 1837 - 1841. under the leadership of Kiselev was carried out reform in the state village. home a task reforms - to bring the position of state peasants closer to the state of “free rural inhabitants, to raise their well-being, to increase their tax capacity. Nicholas declared in 1842: "Serfdom is an evil, obvious to everyone, but to touch it now would be even more disastrous." Necessary gradually solve the peasant question, to develop projects, to look for ways to painlessly solve the peasant problem. For Nicholas, the preservation of serfdom was evil, ”but the peasant riots and the opposition of the nobility are an even greater evil. It was impossible to solve the peasant question in such a way that “the wolves were fed and the sheep were safe”.
Decree on obligated peasants of 1842 allowed landowners, at their will (recommendatory character), to free the peasants without land, while the landlords had to give the peasants land in allotments for duties. This decree was more conservative than the decree on free cultivators, because. allowed to release the peasants without land. However, this the decree was not widely used, which was evidence of the interest of the nobles in maintaining serfdom, which provided their farms with free labor.
From 1848 the question of emancipating the peasants was no longer considered. Why was it not possible to solve the peasant question in the era of Nicholas I?
Conservatism of the highest bureaucracy, not interested in transformations
The emperor's indecisiveness
They did not involve society in solving the peasant question
The emperor and the ruling circles sought to strengthen the autocracy; they feared that the abolition of serfdom would lead to a restriction of autocracy
The era of Nicholas I was a time of political and social stability, the ruling circles believed in the greatness of Russia, official ideology created the illusion of power Russian state; defeat in Crimean War showed that Russia is a “colossus with feet of clay”, that the country is inferior in terms of economic development countries of Western Europe.
Refusal to resolve the peasant issue, the preservation of serfdom is one of the reasons for Russia's lagging behind.
Secret societies of the Decembrists: cultural and historical factors of emergence
1. The most important cultural and historical factor in the formation of the freedom-loving intelligentsia was the granting of freedom to the nobility under the Decree on the Liberty of the Nobility of 1762 and the Letter of Complaint to the Nobility of 1785. These documents led to the formation of an independent noble intelligentsia. Social and spiritual independence led to the freedom of moral choice, the independent formation of their own cultural world.
2. Education and upbringing in highly cultured noble families - important reason formation of the generation of Decembrists. In noble families they gave religious education. Cultured people sought to instill in their children high moral principles, many of which were determined by the system of Orthodox values.
3. A significant cultural and historical factor in the formation of a new generation of intelligentsia, who created secret political organizations, was development of education. The development of the education system led to the formation of a layer of cultural nobility. The Decembrists for the most part were well-educated people. Lunin assessed the movement of the Decembrists as follows: “ The thinkers have risen to a mental feat, the crowds rose up for hand-to-hand combat. V.A. Fedorov cited in his work information about the level of education of the Decembrists: “37 of them were students and“ volunteers ”of Moscow University, 23 studied at the University Noble Boarding School, 24 graduated from the Moscow Educational Institution for Column Leaders (General Staff Officers), the founder and leader of which was a progressive public figure and writer, father of the Decembrists Alexander and Mikhail Muravyov, N.N. Ants. Future Decembrists studied at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute (since 1819 a university), where many professors with advanced views taught ... ”. Most of the nobles preferred to give their children home education.
4. Reading the works of Western thinkers. At the beginning of Alexander's reign, the works of Western thinkers were allowed to be imported into Russia.
5. self-education. Many Decembrists were engaged in self-education. The circle of their reading - books on political economy, history, philosophy. Knowing European languages, they read the works of Western thinkers in the original language. Thanks to education and self-education, the future Decembrists received ideas about the possible democratic structure of society, the rule of law and the rule of law. The circle of communication with friends contributed to the education of their ideas of friendship, brotherhood, honor, and dignity. Subsequently, appreciating the "days of Alexander, a wonderful beginning," the Decembrists welcomed the government's measures to spread education.
6. Decembrists adopted many ideas of the French and Russian Enlightenment. The Russian nobility showed great interest in the way of life in the West, and an educated minority studied the works of European thinkers. The main forms of contact with the West were trips abroad, teaching children from tutors who came to Russia from European countries, import of Western literature, translations into Russian and publication of books by European scientists and writers.
7. Patriotism. The main value of young people - the future Decembrists was the good of the motherland. A developed civic consciousness was the main feature of the subculture of the Decembrist generation of the intelligentsia. And. Civic consciousness was formed among the future Decembrists already in their early youth. The desire to dedicate one's life to serving the motherland has become the main motive political activity Decembrists. A.M. Muravyov, dedicating his notes to his wife and children, wrote to them that he "suffered for a wonderful and noble deed and with courage wore fetters for the freedom of his homeland." He motivated joining a secret society of young people ardent desire for the good of the fatherland. He noted that patriotically minded young people deliberately doomed themselves to sacrifice for the sake of Russia, they did not seek to acquire personal benefits..
Future Decembrists felt like citizens of their homeland, not subjects.
8. An exceptionally large role in the formation of the Decembrists' civic worldview was played by war of 1812. According to Yu.M. Lotman, the war of 1812 affected the life of all classes of Russian society. She began in an atmosphere of public uplift. The peace of Tilsit in 1807 and the alliance with Napoleon were perceived by Russian society as an infringement national dignity . The majority of Russian society was seized by sharp anti-Napoleonic sentiments And. Bonapartism of Russian freedom-loving people was replaced by patriotism. 1812 changed the relationship between officers and soldiers. The young officers turned out to be much closer to the soldiers. The officers, as Lotman writes, saw in the soldiers of accomplices in a historical event. Together they endured the hardships of the war. Young thinking officers realized the role of the people in the war. They understood that the efforts of the state would not be enough if the people did not rise up to fight the aggressor. They spoke of the plight of the people. It was during the war of 1812 that many future Decembrists realized the need to abolish serfdom. They condemned serfdom from moral positions as a "wild state". Lunin believed that the people won the war. During the war, Lunin was characterized by a sacrificial mood, he wanted to hasten the victory of Russia at the cost of his life.
According to I.D. Yakushkin, the war of 1812 awakened the Russian people to the consciousness of their strength. The war contributed to the formation of the psychology of heroes, saviors of the fatherland, among young officers. They understood that they were participating in great events that decided the fate of peoples. During the war years, young officers felt the full force of their love for Russia. V.E. Yakushkin, in his memoirs of the Decembrists, wrote: “The strong excitement of patriotism naturally caused an increase in public interests and public aspirations in general. People were ... cut off from their petty personal interests, ... immediately placed in the middle of a broad and important public, state, people's cause ... ".
The War of 1812 accelerated the development of the political consciousness of thinking youth, the awareness of pressing problems Russia, made young officers think on the question of the fate of the fatherland and the Russian people. Decembrist A.A. Muravyov-Apostol wrote about the impact of the war on the mental development of future Decembrists: “ We were children of the twelfth year. 115 future members of secret societies took part in the war.
The feeling of national pride caused by the war of 1812 increased the interest of Russian society in the history of their country, the language of the Russian people, and its culture. Educated nobility in post-war period began to study folk culture. The collection of folklore began.
The Decembrist generation appeared on the stage of Russian public life after the war of 1812 and the foreign campaigns of 1813-1814. Having become acquainted with the life of society in the West, young officers were able to understand the advantages of European civilization. During foreign campaigns, the officers realized that Russia lagged behind the West.
9. All the Decembrists who participated in foreign trips noted that, having compared Russia with the West, they began to understand that many things are unfavorable in Russia, and reforms are needed. I.
10. The War of 1812 and foreign campaigns raised the authority of Alexander I. But Alexander did not reform, which led to the creation of secret societies. In the army after the end of hostilities, he enjoyed universal love. The thinking nobility expected reforms from the emperor and hoped to assist the state in carrying out the reforms. He knew the liberal way of thinking of Alexander I and his intentions to give Russia a constitution and abolish serfdom. S.P. Trubetskoy claims that secret political societies began to be created, when thinking people became disillusioned with the policies of the emperor . The Decembrists treated Alexander I as a person whose words cannot be relied upon. The first contradiction highlighted by the author of the notes is the granting of a constitution to Poland, and to Russia - military settlements. “Poland received a constitution, and Russia received military settlements as a reward for its heroic efforts in 1812!” The second contradiction is the liberation of the peasants of the Baltic "provinces" and the assertion that "free beginnings can be the basis of the happiness of peoples", on the one hand, on the other hand, an indifferent inattention to the position of the Russian peasants. “And when the Russian serfs resorted to protection from the oppression of the landlords, military execution was the answer they received.” The third contradiction in the policy of the sovereign, noted by the Decembrist, is talk about religion for any reason, but in reality - the deprivation of property and freedom of his subjects, indifference to the atrocities committed by Muslim fanatics against the Orthodox. A.M. Muravyov condemned the policy of repression, which the authorities turned to soon after the war of 1812. “Forgetting his duty to Russia, Alexander, at the end of his reign, left all branches of government to the famous Arakcheev, who himself was consumed by an unworthy passion. This confidant, hostile to all progress, selects subordinates worthy of it. Censorship, for its part, became meaningless, and the importation of books from abroad was prevented in every way. The professors of our universities have been placed under the power of the Inquisitor. Unheard-of injustices were committed." A.M. Muravyov was outraged by the lawlessness in the activities of officials: “The impotence of laws that were not collected and which no one could know, extortion, venality of officials - this is the sad spectacle presented by Russia.” It follows from Muravyov's notes that thinking people accused Alexander I of dislike for Russia and admiration for foreigners. Muravyov drew attention to those facts that testified to the violation by Alexander I of the rights of the Russian people. “To please the sovereign, one must be a foreigner or bear a foreign surname. Our generals, who rendered services to the country in 1812, Raevsky, Yermolov and others, were neglected or kept under suspicion. I.D. Yakushkin in his notes wrote about the rumors that had spread in St. Petersburg about the emperor; they said that the monarch hates Russia: "... he hates Russia, and this was probably after all his actions in Russia since the 15th year." According to I.D. Yakushkin, Emperor Alexander - "in Europe, the patron and almost the coryphaeus of the liberals, in Russia he was not only cruel, but worst of all - a senseless despot."
Being critical of Russian reality, young officers did not want to put up with autocratic arbitrariness, extortion of officials, the lack of rights of the people, the existence of military settlements, the difficult conditions of service of soldiers, and the incompetence and arbitrariness of judges.
Thus, the appeal of Alexander I to the politics of reaction was unexpected for the thinking nobility, became one of the most important factors in the emergence political liberalism in Russia. Young officers decided to take responsibility for carrying out reforms in the country.
core values Decembrists were dignity and freedom of the individual, the good of the people, love for the fatherland. The Decembrists considered their goal to be activities for the good of Russia. The Decembrists did not limit themselves to discussions about the welfare of the people. They were people of action. They showed their willingness to devote their lives to serving the people. The Decembrist movement had a sacrificial character. Voluntarily and knowingly sacrificed their lives to serve their country. Such were the political and ethical origins of the emergence of Decembrism.
Decembrist organizations
Social composition– officers Russian army.
Salvation Union. 1816 - 1817
Created in St. Petersburg. The initiator of the creation is Alexander Muravyov (23 years old, Colonel of the Guards Headquarters). Young officers entered: Nikita Muravyov, brothers M.I. and S.I. Muraviev-Apostoy, S.P. Trubetskoy, I.D. Yakushkin, P.I. Pestel. A statute was adopted - the charter of the society. Since that time it has been called Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland". The society included 30 officers.
Goals: the introduction of the constitution and the abolition of serfdom. There were no clear ideas about the program of transformations, there was no clarity by what means the goal could be achieved. Members of the society still hoped that Alexander I would give a constitution, especially since he promised in 1818 in Warsaw during the opening of the Polish Sejm to give Russia a constitution. The members of the society wanted to support the emperor if he introduced a constitution. But the officers were disappointed with the real policy of the emperor. There were no reforms. In 1817, it became known about the uprising of peasants in the Novgorod province, who did not want them to be transferred to military settlers. Yakushkin proposed to kill the king: he would sneak into the royal chambers, kill the emperor with one revolver, and himself with another, this murder would have the character of a noble duel. Disputes broke out among the Decembrists on the issue of the assassination of the emperor. The members of the society decided to refuse to kill the king, since their organization is small and they still will not be able to come to power and carry out reforms, even if they manage to commit regicide. The members of the society decided to liquidate the "Union of Salvation" and create a new organization.
Along with private measures, the government also tried to solve the more general problem of gradually emancipating the peasants and restoring their civil rights. In the process of the transition of the peasants "from the state of serfs to the state of freedom," three stages were outlined. At the first stage, it was supposed to limit the corvée to three days a week; on the second - to introduce legislative regulation of peasant duties; on the third - to give the serfs personal freedom without endowing them with land. No deadlines for the release of the serfs were established. It was planned to start the transformation with reforming the state village, and then extend this experience to privately owned estates. Thus, it was actually a two-pronged reform: the results of changes in the position of state peasants were to become a powerful tool for influencing the nobility.
The project itself was never implemented, but its discussion put forward Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev (1788-1872) to key positions in the development of the government course on the peasant issue. In 1829-1834. Kiselev headed the civil and military administration of the Danube principalities. The reforms carried out under his leadership were highly appreciated by the king. In 1836, Kiselev headed the 5th department of the imperial office, created to develop a new regulation on the management of state peasants, and from 1837 he became the first minister of state property. Nicholas I considered him his "chief of staff for the peasantry." Therefore, carried out in 1837-1841. the reform of the state village was called the "Kiselyov reform".
An important direction of the reform was the restructuring of the system of government peasants. In addition to the creation within the framework of His Imperial Majesty's Own Office of the V Department and the establishment of the Ministry of State Property, local chambers of state property were formed in each province. The provinces were divided into districts, which in turn united several volosts of state peasants (about 6 thousand male souls). The volost gathering, which met periodically, elected the volost board, the volost head and the clerk for three years. Volosts were subdivided into rural communities (about 1.5 thousand souls in each). The village assembly elected the village foreman, and for the performance of police functions - sot and tenth. Consideration of peasant property claims for small amounts and cases of minor offenses was entrusted to the volost and rural reprisals (courts).
To eliminate land shortages, the Ministry of State Property organized the resettlement of peasants in sparsely populated provinces, and also allocated additional land to them from the state fund.
The authorities sought to implement a system of "trusteeship" over the peasants: schools, hospitals, veterinary stations were built, model farms were created to disseminate the latest agrotechnical knowledge among the peasants, and public plowing was expanded to increase insurance reserves in case emergencies. Special credit offices were established, which issued "auxiliary" loans to the peasants.
The main goal of the reform - to bring the position of the state peasants closer to the state of "free rural inhabitants" - turned out to be fulfilled. As a result of the transformations carried out, the standard of living of state-owned peasants increased somewhat, arrears decreased, and land allotments increased. These positive changes were accompanied by the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus and the creation of a system of petty bureaucratic guardianship over the state village.
The reign of Nicholas I in the history of Russia is called the period of reaction and conservatism. Indeed, after the defeat of the Decembrist rebellion, the emperor tried in every possible way to strengthen the empire, doing this mostly by force. The tsar himself realized that only such methods could not calm the country, so he went on a number of transformations, one of which was the reform of Kiselev.
On the eve of transformation
The beginning of the reign of Alexander's successor was marked by a powerful uprising, in which the privileged strata of Russian society also participated. It extremely frightened the new emperor, so the most stringent measures were taken against the conspirators, and five leaders of the rebellion were executed. In the course of the investigation that began, Nikolai saw the whole ugly picture of the internal situation of the country. The liberal strata of high society insisted on broad reforms, with which the tsar categorically disagreed. However, he made small concessions public opinion Thus, the odious figure of Alexander's reign, Count Arakcheev, was removed. But in fact, this was not the end, the cause of the Arakcheevshchina was continued by many of the count's followers who remained in power, who enjoyed the full confidence of Nicholas.
The first steps of Nicholas I
Nevertheless, the emperor surrounded himself with truly progressive-minded people. These were E.F. Kankrin and P.D. Kiselev. The main transformations of the Nikolaev era are connected with these figures. At the beginning of his reign, the emperor did not pay much attention to the peasant issue, but over time, the tsar and his entourage were increasingly inclined to think that serfdom was evil, and the landlords were on the tinderbox of new riots. But the government was afraid to radically resolve the issue, so there was a bet on evolutionary and cautious reform. One of these steps was to be the reform of the state village of Kiselev. Pavel Dmitrievich was known as a consistent supporter of the abolition of serfdom, during the 20-30s of the 19th century several times he submitted notes addressed to the highest name with proposals for improving the situation of the peasants. Therefore, Nicholas considered his candidacy quite suitable for solving the peasant question.
Kiselyov's reform
In 1837, the Ministry of State Property was formed especially for the implementation of reforms, and Count P. D. Kiselev was appointed its head. The essence of Kiselev's reform was to create a competent administration that would be fully versed in the peasant issue, as well as improving the life and economic life of the peasants. Immediately after the appointment, the graph begins to transform. First of all, he changed the system of management of the peasants. In the provinces, special state chambers were introduced, which, in turn, were subordinate to the districts, which consisted of several counties. In addition, Kiselyov's reform assumed the introduction of volost and rural self-government, a special court for solving minor offenses among peasants. A new system of tax collections was also introduced, its main idea is to take into account the profitability of the peasant economy.
Ideas and implementation of the reform
Kiseleva did not stop there. At the direct insistence of the count in many rural districts began to open medical and educational institutions, they tried to deal with land shortages by way of peasant communities leaving for other regions of the country, while receiving a small monetary compensation for the first time. This direction of peasant policy did not receive much development; peasant families did not want to leave their native lands. The main provision of the Kiselev reform implied an increase in the agrotechnical level in the cultivation of the land, an increase in the profitability of the peasant economy. To this end, members of the rural community were taught advanced farming methods, but the peasants were very distrustful of all innovations, which led the officials into a state of discontent, and administrative measures were often taken against the peasant community.
Consequences of transformations
One of the consequences of the policy to solve problems by managerial decisions was the widespread introduction of potato planting. Frequent crop failures and famine were to become a thing of the past. Provincial and volost officials forcibly confiscated from the peasants the best lands, forcing potatoes to be planted on them, the crop was confiscated and redistributed at their own discretion, sometimes even sent to other settlements. Thus, the authorities tried to insure against crop failures, this phenomenon was called public plowing. But the peasant community saw this as an attempt to introduce state corvée; a wave of riots swept through all state-owned villages demanding that public ploughing be abolished. In this direction, Kiselyov's reform failed.
The discontent of the landlords
In general, the transformations went with great slippage, first of all, this was due to the fact that the majority of the landlords treated them with great fear, and some even expressed dissatisfaction with the policy of Count Kiselev. Their fears boiled down to the fact that an improvement in the situation would increase the desire of their serfs to move into the ranks of the state. But if at the very least they put up with this, then Pavel Dmitrievich’s broad plans for the personal liberation of the peasants from serfdom, endowing them with small plots of land and accurately determining the size of dues and corvee caused them furious discontent. The reform of the state village of Kiseleva was recognized for the most part landlords harmful, this caused concern in the government. According to the reactionary ministers, the beginning of the dismantling of serfdom could lead to the growth of a social movement throughout the country. Nicholas I was most afraid of this, therefore, all further attempts to resolve the peasant issue were postponed at the direction of the emperor for a distant future.
In general, for the entire reign of Nikolai Pavlovich, the reform of Kiselev was the only significant attempt to resolve it, in many respects, paved the way for the future elimination of serfdom, and Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev played an important role in this.