The state village was the first to be reformed in Belarus. In 1839, Emperor Nicholas I signed the “Regulations on lustration of state property in the western provinces and the Bialystok region.” The reform provided for: lustration (description of all state property) and precise determination of the duties of state peasants depending on their economic situation; transfer of land-poor and landless peasants to the category of tax or semi-tax workers by transferring field plots, hayfields, draft animals, and necessary equipment into their ownership; cessation of leasing of state estates and the gradual transfer of state peasants from corvee to quitrent. In order to streamline the management of state estates, strict control over temporary owners was introduced, the status of the rural community was increased, P.D. Kiselev was involved in land management, distribution of taxes among peasants, etc.

Another measure of P. D. Kiselev’s reform was the policy of “guardianship” over state peasants. Provided for the organization of assistance to peasants in case of crop failures and epidemics. The question was raised about organizing the primary education of children. The reformers' plans included providing medical care, carrying out various agronomic activities, intensifying trade, and developing an insurance system. However, the lack of funds and the desire to improve peasant life entirely at their own expense prevented the implementation of the “guardianship” policy.

The rejection of the folk-corvee system and the transfer of state peasants to quitrent were the main results of the reform, which determined its progressive nature. Particularly favorable changes occurred in the legal status of state peasants. Civil freedom was recognized for them, which distinguished them favorably from the disenfranchised landowner peasants. The rights acquired by state peasants to receive inheritance and property, and to engage in trade and crafts were also of great importance.

Since 1844, P. D. Kiselev began to carry out an inventory reform of the landowner village in order to raise its economic level to the state level. In the western provinces, “Committees were created to review and compile inventories of landowners’ estates.” The reform was aimed at regulating the size of allotments and duties of landowner peasants. For this purpose, accurate lists of peasant duties (inventory) were compiled. Officially, the compilation of mandatory inventories was completed in 1849. In 1852, inventory rules were introduced, according to which the peasants were left with the land that was in their use. However, due to the resistance of the landowners, the revision and correction of these rules dragged on until 1857, when preparations began for the abolition of serfdom. Unlike the state village, which was transferred to quitrent, in the landowner village the previous duties remained. The inventory reform did not solve the most important issue - peasant land use.

Landowners considered the principles of reforming the state village too radical. The social and legal situation of landowner peasants has changed little. The landowner's property remained untouched.

KISELEV REFORM - reform of the state village, carried out in 1837-1841. Minister of State Property P.D. Kiselev.

In March 1835, a Secret Committee was established to discuss the project of peasant reform, and in April, the Fifth Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, headed by P.D. Kiselev to prepare the reform of the state village. In con. In 1837, the Ministry of State Property was created, headed by Kiselev. Nicholas I instructed him to carry out the planned reform.

The reform applied to 8.1 million male souls - state peasants, mainly in the western and some southern provinces, single-yard dwellers, etc., who in total made up more than a third of the total population of Russia.

In 1838-1841. In the Great Russian, Western and Baltic provinces, a four-stage management system was created: province - district - volost - rural society. A Chamber of State Property was established in each province. The district, depending on the number of state peasants, included one or several counties. The district was headed by a district commander with two assistants. The districts were divided into volosts (about 6 thousand male souls in each). The volost assembly, to which one representative was sent for every 20 peasant householders, elected the volost government for 3 years, consisting of the volost head and two assessors, as well as the volost clerk.

The volosts consisted of rural communities, ca. 1.5 thousand male souls in each. A rural society included one or more villages. One representative from every 5 householders participated in the village meeting. The gathering elected a village foreman for 3 years, and to supervise order - sotsky (one from 200 households) and ten (one from 20 households). The volost and village courts elected by the peasants ("massacres") were involved in the analysis of small claims and misdemeanors. They consisted of a judge and assessors (“conscientious”).

Communal land use with land redistribution was preserved. The quitrent was assigned depending on the profitability of the peasant plot. The authorities transferred part of the land from the state reserve to the peasants - a total of approx. 2.5 million dessiatines. Peasant families began to be resettled in sparsely populated provinces. The settlers (170 thousand male souls) also received 2.5 million dessiatines of land, state peasants of the western provinces were freed from corvee.

Doctors and veterinarians appeared in the village. “Model” farms arose, where advanced farming techniques were developed. To prevent famine in the event of a crop failure, 3.3 thousand grain reserve stores and the so-called allotment land allocated from peasants were supposed to be prevented. public plowing, a significant part of which was allocated for potato crops.

Forced planting of potatoes led to mass riots in the Urals, Volga region and other areas. In November 1843, Kiselev abolished the mandatory potato plantings. The reform improved the situation of the state village, increased the plots of peasants and eliminated land "crowding".

KISELEV REFORM 1837-41, reform of the management of state peasants in the Russian Empire, carried out by P. D. Kiselev. 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 odnodvortsev 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%. Kiselev’s 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 Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery under the direction of P. D. Kiselev (1836). In the summer of 1836, an audit of state villages in the Kursk, Moscow, Pskov and Tambov provinces, representing economically different regions, was carried out. In 1837, in his all-submissive report to Emperor Nicholas I, Kiselev outlined the main directions of the reform: “the establishment 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 Kiselev’s initiative, “ Institution on the management of state property in the provinces,” which extended to the quitrent state peasants of the Great Russian provinces and served as the basis for the issuance of 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 region 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, a Chamber of State Property was established, consisting of economic and forestry departments. The district was headed by a district chief, who had two assistants: one for managing state peasants and one for the forestry department. Depending on the number of state peasants, the state property district covered one or several counties. The districts were divided into volosts (about 6 thousand male souls in each). The bodies of peasant self-government were preserved - the volost assembly, consisting of representatives of householders (one from every 20 households), the volost board, elected by the assembly for a period of 3 years, consisting of the volost head and two “assessors” - for economic and police affairs. The volosts were divided into rural societies (1.5 thousand male souls in each). A 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 to perform police functions - sotsky (one from 200 households) and ten (one from 20 households). To deal with small claims and misdeeds of peasants, elective volost and rural “courts” (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).

Kiselev's reform preserved communal land use with periodic redistribution of land within the community, quitrent, taking into account the profitability of the peasant plot. To equalize quitrent payments in accordance with the profitability of land, the compilation of land cadastres was provided (under P. D. Kiselyov, the cadastre was compiled in 19 provinces, in which by 1855 the quitrent tax was transferred from souls to land). To eliminate the shortage of land in the state village, it was planned to provide peasants with land from the state reserve, as well as resettlement to sparsely populated provinces. In the western provinces, corvee was eliminated among state peasants and by 1848 the rental system (the practice of renting out state-owned villages to tenants) was abolished. By 1843, over 500 thousand hectares were allocated to allocate land to landless peasants, over 2 million hectares were allocated to those with little land, 170 thousand male souls were resettled from land-poor provinces, and over 2.7 million hectares were transferred to them. In large villages, small loan offices were created, from which up to 1.5 million rubles were annually issued to needy peasants on preferential terms. In case of crop failures, over 3.3 thousand grain reserve stores were created. Kiselev's reform contributed to the formation of peasant self-government.

Not everything planned by P. D. Kiselyov was implemented on time and in full [in 1838, administration was rebuilt in 5 provinces of Central Russia, by 1841 - in another 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 the peasant reform of 1861.

Source: Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2. T. 12. No. 10834. T. 13. No. 11189. T. 14. No. 12165, 12166, 13035. T. 16. No. 14157, 14643.

Lit.: Historical review of 50 years of activity of the Ministry of State Property. 1837-1887. St. Petersburg, 1888. Parts 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.

Kiselyov reform Kiselyov reform

management of state peasants in Russia 1837-41. Conducted under the guidance of P. D. Kiselev. Established: the ministry and provincial chambers of state property, districts of state peasants and community-volost self-government. The quitrent was replaced by a land and trade tax, and the leasing of state estates was stopped. Attempts to improve agriculture, veterinary and medical practice. Coercive methods were introduced in the 1840s. peasant protests (see the article “Potato riots”).

KISELEV REFORM of management of state peasants in Russia 1837-41. Conducted under the guidance of P. D. Kiselev. Established: the ministry and provincial chambers of state property, districts of state peasants and community-volost self-government. The quitrent was replaced by a land and trade tax, and the leasing of state estates was stopped. Attempts to improve agriculture, veterinary and medical practice. Coercive methods were introduced in the 1840s. peasant protests (see article “Potato riots” (cm. POTATO RIOTS)).

encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .

See what "Kiselyov's reform" is in other dictionaries:

KISELEV REFORM, transformation of the management system of state peasants in 1837 41. Conducted under the leadership of P. D. Kiselev. The ministry and provincial chambers of state property, districts of state peasants were established, ... ... Russian history was introduced

Reform of management of state peasants (See State peasants) in Russia, carried out in 1837 41 under the leadership of the Minister of State Property P. D. Kiselyov ...

- (“Kiselevsky” schools) rural parish schools in Russia, created on the initiative of the Minister of State Property P. D. Kiselev in the villages of state peasants. Kiselev inextricably linked the improvement of peasant farming with... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Count, Russian statesman. Participant in the Patriotic War of 1812. Since 1814, the wing has been the adjutant of Emperor Alexander I. In 1816, he presented the Tsar with a note on the gradual liberation of the peasants from... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Kiselev. Count Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev ... Wikipedia

Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev Count, Minister of State Property Date of birth: January 8 (19), 1788 Place of birth ... Wikipedia

State village reform P.D. Kiseleva (1837-1841).

In social policy, the autocracy pursued the goal of strengthening the position of the nobility - its main support, but at the same time, it also made concessions to the emerging bourgeoisie, mainly in the economic sphere.

The process of impoverishment of the nobility due to the growing fragmentation of noble estates, debt in the Guardian Council and other credit institutions threatened this “premier class in the empire” with the loss of its previous positions, which ultimately undermined the social basis of the autocracy. A number of measures were taken to improve the financial situation of the nobility: impoverished nobles were allocated lands from the state land fund, they were given cash loans on preferential terms for economic needs, the children of nobles were admitted free of charge to special noble military and civilian educational institutions, and nobles were given advantages in the promotion of ranks.

In order to preserve large landowners' estates from fragmentation, in 1845 a law on "majors" was passed. Its essence was that owners of estates of more than 1000 souls were allowed to declare them “reserved.” They were entirely inherited by the eldest son in the family, and were not divided among other heirs. The law was advisory in nature, so only a few of the large landowners took advantage of it: by the time serfdom was abolished, there were only 17 majorates.

After the publication of Peter's Table of Ranks in 1722, which made it possible to obtain noble dignity through length of service upon reaching a certain rank (rank), the proportion of such nobility in relation to the high-born was 52% by 1825. Therefore, on December 6, 1826, the Committee proposed to grant noble dignity not for length of service, but with a royal award for special merits. However, the government could not decide on this measure, because it would lead to the transformation of the nobility into a closed caste, independent of the authorities.

The path was chosen to limit the number of persons receiving the status of nobleman through length of service. In 1845, a decree was issued on a new procedure for acquiring nobility. If previously personal nobility was acquired from the 12th rank, and hereditary nobility from the 8th, then according to the law of 1845, personal nobility was granted upon reaching the 9th rank, and hereditary nobility - on the 5th.

Another measure was taken to protect the noble class from the influx of representatives from other class groups (merchants, clergy, commoners). On February 10, 1832, a Manifesto was issued on honorary citizenship of two categories - hereditary and personal. The first was assigned by birth to the children of personal nobles and clergy who had educational qualifications, scientists and artists who had academic degrees and titles, as well as by special petition to merchants of the first guild, if they stayed in it for at least 20 years, or received a rank or order. The second category included children of clergy who did not have educational qualifications, and persons who graduated from universities or other higher educational institutions, as well as those who received ranks in the service that did not yet give the right to personal or hereditary nobility. Honorary citizenship provided a number of privileges: exemption from poll tax, conscription and corporal punishment.

The government sought to give all official positions in local and central government bodies exclusively to nobles. Measures were also taken to increase the role and authority of noble corporate bodies - district and provincial noble deputy assemblies (introduced by Catherine II in 1785). However, the emphasis was placed on the middle and large landed nobility. "Regulations on noble societies " 6 December 1831 the property qualification for participation in noble meetings was increased. From now on, only hereditary male nobles, at least 21 years old, who had at least 100 peasant souls and 3 thousand dessiatines of land in a given province, and who had received a rank in military or civil service, could enjoy the right to vote. They made up no more than 20% of the nobility. Small-scale nobles participated in elections through representatives: first, they “formed” into groups that together constituted a complete property qualification, and each group elected its own authorized deputy to the noble district congress. District and provincial deputy noble assemblies were convened once every three years: the district elected a district leader (chairman of the assembly) and one deputy to the provincial assembly, and the provincial one elected a provincial leader.

Previously, noble deputy assemblies dealt with the issues of maintaining genealogical books, issuing letters and certificates to nobles about the inclusion of their clans in the provincial genealogical books, imposing guardianship on estates for non-payment of debts, “abuse of landowner power” over peasants, as well as in the case of minor owners. According to the “Regulations” of 1831, noble provincial assemblies received the right to make “representations” (i.e., send petitions) to the government, both about their noble needs and on issues of local government.

At the same time, the autocracy sought to give the noble corporate governing bodies a bureaucratic character, closely connected with the local government administration. The service itself in noble assemblies began to be equated with state service. In addition, no political element was allowed in their activities. The noble district and provincial assemblies were placed under even more vigilant control by the provincial and district authorities: in fact, they turned into a kind of appendage to the local bureaucratic apparatus, and the provincial leaders of the nobility became assistants to the governors.

In government policy of the second quarter of the 19th century. One of the most pressing was the peasant question. The peasantry itself constantly “reminded” itself with riots that increased with each decade. According to materials from the central archives, for 1826-1835. 342 peasant unrest were registered in 1836-1845. -- 433, and for 1846-1855. -- 572. Already in the first year of the reign of Nicholas I, 179 peasant unrest occurred, of which 54 were pacified with the help of military commands. On May 12, 1826, in connection with numerous peasant unrest, accompanied by persistent rumors about the imminent “freedom,” the tsar’s manifesto was published, threatening punishment for the spread of these rumors and disobedience.

Nicholas I, in principle, had a negative attitude towards serfdom, saw its unsightly sides and considered it socially dangerous. Understanding the need to abolish serfdom, he nevertheless pointed out the untimely implementation of this measure at the moment . He saw the danger in the fact that the abolition of the power of the landowners over the peasants would inevitably affect the autocracy, which relied on this power. The government also feared that the abolition of serfdom would not proceed peacefully and would inevitably be accompanied by popular unrest. Therefore, the measures taken in the peasant question were of a palliative nature: they were aimed at abolishing the most odious and egregious aspects of serfdom and aimed at alleviating the severity of social relations in the village.

During the reign of Nicholas I, a total of more than 100 legislative acts on the peasant issue were issued. A number of laws were issued against the dispossession of peasants. Thus, according to the decree of 1827, landowners were prohibited from selling peasants without land or one land without peasants. A decree issued in the same year prohibited the sending of serfs to factories. The decree of May 2, 1833 prohibited the sale of serfs at public auction, as well as the transfer of peasants to courtyards, taking away their plots. In 1841, it was forbidden for nobles who did not have estates to buy peasants without land.

The measures aimed at some mitigation of serfdom included: a decree of 1828, which limited the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia at their discretion, granting, by decree of June 12, 1844, landowners the right to release serfs at liberty on mutual terms them to the agreement, the decree of 1853 prohibited the renting out of landowners' inhabited estates to non-nobles. All these scanty decrees, due to their non-binding nature for landowners, remained a dead letter or found very limited application.

Attempts were also made to take a more general approach to solving the problem of serfdom, for which special secret committees were created. In total, 9 such committees were formed during the reign of Nicholas I

Two committees of 1835 and 1839 had a certain significance in the approach to solving the peasant question. The “Secret Committee for Finding Means to Improve the Condition of Peasants of Different Ranks” in 1835 set itself a broad, but very carefully formulated task - the gradual transfer of peasants from the state of serfs to the state of free. Three stages of this process were planned: the first was to limit the work of peasants for the landowner to three days a week; at the second stage, the peasants remained “firm to the land,” but their duties were clearly regulated by law; at the third stage, peasants received the right to freely transfer from one owner to another, the allotment land continued to be considered the property of the landowner, but the peasants could rent it by agreement with him on certain conditions. The committee did not set any deadline for completing this landless emancipation of the peasants. However, even this proposal did not go beyond the scope of his discussion.

A new attempt at a general solution to the peasant question was made in the secret committee in 1839. The result of the sessions of the secret committee in 1839 was the publication of a decree on April 2, 1842 on “obligated peasants” . He was called upon to correct the decree of 1803 on free cultivators - the alienation of part of the landed property of landowners (allotment peasant land) in favor of the peasants. According to this decree, the peasant, at the will of the landowner, received freedom and an allotment, but not for ownership, but for use, for which he was obliged to fulfill, by agreement with the landowner, essentially the same feudal duties (corvée or quitrent), but with the condition that the landowner henceforth he could not change either the types or the amounts of these duties. Once the land plot was given to the peasant for use, the landowner could no longer take it away from him, exchange it, or reduce it. The law did not establish any specific norms for allotments and duties - everything depended on the will of the landowner. In the villages of “obligated peasants”, elective “rural self-government” was introduced, but the patrimonial power of the landowner on the estate was preserved.

During its operation (1842-1858), only 27,173 male souls on seven landowner estates passed into the category of “obligated peasants”. This is explained not only by the fact that the majority of landowners met this decree with hostility, but also by the fact that the peasants themselves did not agree to such unfavorable conditions, which did not give them either land or freedom.

It is characteristic that, despite the constraining conditions of the redemption, many peasant communities, to the surprise of the government, began to receive applications for the opportunity to buy their freedom on the basis of the decree of November 8, 1847.

On March 3, 1848, a law was passed giving landowners the right to buy land. However, this law was also surrounded by a number of conditions that were constraining for the peasants. A peasant could buy land only with the consent of the landowner, of which he had to notify him in advance. But the land acquired by the peasant in this way was not protected by law. The landowner could take possession of it with impunity, since the law prohibited peasants from bringing a lawsuit against their owner.

In 1844, the Committee of Western Provinces was formed to develop “Rules for the management of estates according to the inventory approved for them.” Inventories were compiled - descriptions of landowners' estates with precise recording of peasant plots and the number of corvée days common to all estates, which could no longer be changed. The inventory reform was carried out in 1847-1848. in the provinces of Right Bank Ukraine (Volyn, Kyiv and Podolsk), in 1852-1855. - in the Belarusian provinces (Vitebsk, Grodno, Minsk and Mogilev).

The inventory reform caused discontent among landowners who opposed government regulation of their property rights, as well as numerous unrest among peasants, whose situation it practically did not improve.

The reform in the state village was much more important , carried out in 1837-1841. In April 1835, the V Department of the Imperial Chancellery was created specifically to develop a project for the reform of the state village. P.D. was appointed to head it. Kiselev.

In the summer of 1836, an audit of the state village situation was carried out in five provinces, representing economically different regions. Based on the data from this audit, Kiselev presented a detailed report to Nicholas I, in which he outlined the main directions of the reform. In accordance with this plan, the state village was removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance and transferred to the Ministry of State Property established on December 26, 1837, headed by P. D. Kiselev. In 1838--1841. A series of legislative acts followed on the introduction of new management of the state village, on the land management of peasants, the streamlining of the tax system, the organization of primary education, medical and veterinary care. A four-stage management system was created locally: province - district - volost - rural society. A Chamber of State Property was established in each province. The district included one or two counties, depending on the number of state peasants in them. The district chief was placed at the head of the district. The districts were divided into volosts with about 6 thousand male souls in each. The volosts, in turn, were divided into rural communities of approximately 1,500 male souls in each. Rural society consisted of one or more villages. Elected rural and volost self-government was introduced. A village assembly was formed from householders from every 5 households, which elected a village foreman for a period of 3 years, and for the performance of police functions - sots and tens. The volost assembly consisted of householders from every 20 households. He elected a volost government for a period of 3 years, consisting of a volost head and two “assessors” - for economic and police matters. Rural and volost courts ("retributions") were elected to deal with small claims and misdeeds of peasants. They consisted of a judge and several “conscientious” (assessors). Subsequently, the experience of the administrative structure in the state village was used in the formation of rural self-government during the reform in the landowner and appanage village.

Kiselyov's state village reform preserved communal land use with periodic redistribution of land within the community. Quit labor was reorganized. Although the quitrent was still distributed “per soul” (to the male sex), its size was determined taking into account the profitability of the peasant’s allotment. To equalize labor payments in accordance with the profitability of land, a land cadastre was carried out (land demarcation with their assessment). To eliminate land shortages, it was planned to provide peasants with land from the state reserve, as well as resettle them to sparsely populated provinces. 200 thousand landless peasants received 0.5 million of land, 169 thousand were resettled to other provinces and were given 2.5 million dessiatines of land. In addition, up to 3.4 million dessiatines were cut to land-poor peasants. Small loan offices were created in large villages, from which loans were issued to needy peasants on preferential terms. To solve the food problem, “public plowing” was expanded, which was intended to create the necessary insurance reserve. In case of crop failures, grain reserves were arranged. Schools were established in the village (by 1857 there were 26 thousand of them, with 110 thousand students), medical and veterinary centers. State “farms” were created to promote the latest farming techniques among peasants.

In the state villages of the western provinces, corvée was eliminated and the practice of renting out state-owned villages to tenants was abolished. In 1847, the Ministry of State Property was granted the right to purchase populated noble estates at the expense of the treasury. The treasury purchased 55 thousand souls of serfs from 178 landowner estates.

Reform 1837--1841 in the state village was of a contradictory nature. On the one hand, it somewhat softened the land “crowding”, contributed to the development of productive forces, but, on the other hand, it expanded the expensive bureaucratic management apparatus, created petty bureaucratic guardianship over the peasants and increased tax oppression, which caused mass uprisings of state peasants in 1841-1843 gg. Unrest took place in 28 provinces, the total number of participants exceeded 500 thousand people. The unrest became most widespread in the Urals and the Volga region, where peasants to a greater extent felt the strengthening of administrative and tax oppression. In Perm, Orenburg, Kazan and Tambov provinces, armed clashes between peasants and punitive troops took place.