Reforms of Catherine II. Catherine II's policy towards the serfdom Catherine 2 and serfdom briefly

Catherine's legislation on the scope of landowner power over serfs is characterized by the same uncertainty and incompleteness as the legislation of her predecessors. In general, it was directed in favor of landowners. We saw that Elizabeth, in the interests of settling Siberia, by the law of 1760, granted landowners the right “for impudent acts” to exile healthy serfs to Siberia for settlement without the right of return; By the law of 1765, Catherine turned this limited right of exile to a settlement into the right to exile serfs to hard labor without any restrictions for any time with the return of the exiled person at will to the previous owner. Further, in the 17th century. the government accepted petitions against landowners for their cruel treatment, carried out investigations on these complaints and punished the perpetrators. During the reign of Peter, a number of decrees were issued prohibiting people of all conditions from making requests to the highest name outside of government agencies; these decrees were confirmed by Peter's successors. However, the government continued to accept peasant complaints against landowners from rural communities. These complaints greatly embarrass the Senate; at the beginning of Catherine's reign, he proposed measures to Catherine to completely stop peasant complaints against the landowners. Catherine approved this report and on August 22, 1767, at the same time that the deputies of the Commissions were listening to the articles of the “Nakaz” on freedom and equality, a decree was issued that said that if anyone “is not allowed to petition their landowners, especially Her Majesty in their own hands dares to submit,” then both the petitioners and the compilers of the petitions will be punished with a whip and exiled to Nerchinsk for eternal hard labor, with those exiled to the landowners counted as recruits. This decree was ordered to be read on Sundays and holidays throughout all rural churches throughout the month. The Senate's proposal, approved by the Empress, was drawn up in such a way that it stopped the peasants from having any opportunity to complain about the landowner. Further, even under Catherine, the boundaries of patrimonial jurisdiction were not precisely defined. The decree of October 18, 1770 stated that the landowner could judge peasants only for those offenses that, according to the law, were not accompanied by the deprivation of all rights of the estate; but the amount of punishment that the landowner could punish for these crimes was not indicated. Taking advantage of this, landowners punished serfs for minor offenses with punishments that were reserved only for the most serious criminal offenses. In 1771, to stop indecent public trading by peasants, a law was passed that prohibited the sale of peasants without land for the debts of landowners at public auction, “under the hammer.” The law remained inactive, and the Senate did not insist on its implementation. In 1792, a new decree restored the right of landless peasants to sell landowners' debts at public auction only without using a hammer. In the “Nakaz”, Catherine recalled that even under Peter a decree was issued according to which insane or cruel landowners were placed “under the supervision of guardians.” Catherine says that this decree was carried out as far as it concerned the insane, but its decree on cruel landowners was not carried out, and she expresses bewilderment why the action of the decree was constrained. However, she did not restore it to its former state. full force. Finally, in a charter granted to the nobility in 1785, listing personal and property rights class, she also did not separate peasants from the total composition of real estate of the nobility, i.e. silently acknowledged them integral part agricultural landowner equipment. Thus, landowner power, having lost its previous political justification, acquired wider legal boundaries under Catherine.

The issue of serfdom in historical science has been discussed for several generations of historians. There are two main theories:

the first is fiat enslavement. One of its supporters, Karamzin, believed that Godunov enslaved the peasants by a special decree of 1592, but the text of this decree was lost over time.

The second is unconditional enslavement. Her supporter Klyuchevsky argued that the living conditions of the peasants, their debts to the feudal lords, and not the instructions of the government, became the reason for the enslavement of the peasants.

Prerequisites for enslavement:

1) from ancient times, peasants in Rus' united into communities. The prince knew that in such and such a place there were a number of peasant households. He imposed on them a general tax salary - a tax, which the community delivered to the prince in due time. At the same time, people came to the community and left not without the knowledge of the princely administration - they were accepted and released by the community itself.

2) Russia often fought and if the war turned out to be long, then there was a shortage of soldiers. Then the state began to recruit warriors from the plebeian strata and settle them on state lands inhabited by peasants. This is how the noble class (landowners) was formed. Now the situation of the peasants was changing. In order for the landowner to serve the state, the peasants had to support him. It became extremely unprofitable for the state for peasants to leave the community freely. Russia was drawn into international trade, and more and more imported goods entered the country. Previously, the feudal lord was satisfied with pewter utensils or chain mail made by his village craftsmen. Now all this has become a sign of poverty if a neighbor displayed silver utensils at a feast or appeared at a parade wearing chain mail made in Iran. To acquire all this, money was needed, and the feudal lords tried to increase the exploitation of the peasants, but they were greatly hampered by the peasant law of St. George’s Day (for two weeks a year before and after November 26, the peasant could legally leave the feudal lord by paying his debt). Thus, the greedy feudal lord could be left without peasants, and the peasant law of St. George's Day limited his appetite. As a result, both the state and the feudal lords had a need to forever attach the peasants to the land.

The main stages of establishing serfdom include:

Code of Law of 1497: the right of St. George's Day was confirmed, while the peasant was obliged to pay the old fee - payment for living on the land of the feudal lord.

Code of Law 1550: the elderly are increasing, and the peasant is obliged to sow the winter field before leaving.

In the second half of the 16th century. such a phenomenon as the export of peasants arose: a rich landowner (boyar) could pay the old fee for a peasant and lure him away from a poor landowner (landowner). The export ruined the nobles, because they could not keep the peasants. But it was the nobles who were the basis of the army, and the state could not put up with this

Since the 80s of the 16th century. the state began to impose a commandment (prohibition) on the right of St. George’s Day in certain years (reserved years)

In addition, a 5-year period was established for the search for fugitive peasants (prescribed summers). Later this period will be increased to 10 years.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 abolished fixed-term summers and introduced an indefinite search for peasants. Peasants were forever assigned to landowners, boyars, and monasteries. The feudal lords received the right to judge the peasants and decided their family affairs.

Under Peter I, the process of enslavement of peasants intensified even more.

The decrees on the first revision under Peter I legally mixed two serfdoms, previously distinguished by law, serfdom and serfdom. Peter's legislation extended the state tax of serfs to serfs. A serf was considered not the one who entered into a serfdom obligation under a contract, but the one who was recorded as a famous person in the audit tale.

Since the death of Peter, the serfdom expanded both quantitatively and qualitatively, that is, at the same time, an increasing number of persons became subject to serfdom and the boundaries of the owner’s power over serf souls expanded more and more.

Thus, the process of enslaving the peasants continued. In this work we will consider peasant question in Russia in the second half of the 18th century.

The situation of the peasants and the reforms of Catherine II.

The reign of Catherine the Great is called the period of Enlightened absolutism, because. at this time, Russia as a whole continued to develop along the paths laid by Peter the Great.

However, complete freedom of economic life could not exist as long as serfdom. Now it is easy to understand what task faced Catherine’s legislation in establishing relations between landowners and the serfs: this task was to fill the gaps allowed in the legislation on land relations of both sides. Catherine had to proclaim the general principles that were to form the basis of their land relations, and, in accordance with these principles, indicate the exact boundaries to which the power of the landowner over the peasants extended and from which the power of the state began. The determination of these boundaries apparently occupied the empress at the beginning of her reign. In the commission of 1767, bold claims were heard from some sides for serfdom of peasant labor: classes that did not have it, for example, merchants, Cossacks, even clergy, demanded the expansion of serfdom, to their shame. These slaveholding claims irritated the empress, and this irritation was expressed in one short note that has come down to us from that time. This note reads: “If a serf cannot be recognized as a person, therefore, he is not a person; then, if you please, recognize him as a beast, which will be attributed to us from the whole world to considerable glory and philanthropy.” But this irritation remained a fleeting pathological flash of a humane ruler. People close and influential, familiar with the state of affairs, also advised her to intervene in the relations of the peasants with the landowners. It can be assumed that liberation, the complete abolition of serfdom was not yet within the power of the government, but it was possible to introduce into the minds and legislation the idea of ​​​​mutually harmless norms of relations and, without abolishing rights, to restrain arbitrariness.

To resolve this issue, as well as for the purpose of rational organization of agricultural production, the Free Economic Society was created (1765). One of the oldest in the world and the first economic society in Russia (free - formally independent from government departments) was established in St. Petersburg by large landowners who, in the conditions of the growth of the market and commercial agriculture, sought to rationalize agriculture and increase the productivity of serf labor. The founding of the VEO was one of the manifestations of the policy of enlightened absolutism. VEO began its activities by announcing competitive tasks, publishing “Proceedings of VEO” (1766-1915, more than 280 volumes) and appendices to them. The first competition was announced on the initiative of the Empress herself in 1766: “What is the property of a farmer (peasant), whether it is his land that he cultivates or movable property, and what right should he have to both for the benefit of the whole people?” Of the 160 responses from Russian and foreign authors, the most progressive was the work of the jurist A. Ya. Polenov, who criticized serfdom. The answer displeased the VEO competition committee and was not published. Until 1861, 243 competitive problems of a socio-economic and scientific-economic nature were announced. Socio-economic issues related to three problems:

1) land ownership and serfdom relations,

2) the comparative advantage of corvee and quitrent,

3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.

The activities of VEO contributed to the introduction of new agricultural crops, new species Agriculture, development economic relations. Catherine II also thought about the liberation of peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The “Nakaz” talks about how landowners should treat peasants: not burden them with taxes, levy taxes that do not force peasants to leave their homes, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, peasants should be given freedom.

The internal contradictions of Catherine's reign were fully reflected in the policy of Catherine II on the peasant issue. On the one hand, in 1766 she anonymously put before Volny economic society competition task on the advisability of providing landowner peasants with the right to movable and landed property and even awarded the first prize to the Frenchman Lebey, who argued: “The power of the state is based on the freedom and welfare of the peasants, but the endowment of them with land should follow liberation from serfdom.”

But on the other hand, it was under Catherine II that the nobility achieved almost unlimited powers over the peasants belonging to them. In 1763, it was established that serfs who decided “to engage in many willfulness and insolence” must “beyond the punishment due to their guilt” pay all the costs associated with sending military teams to pacify them.

In general, Catherine’s legislation on the scope of landowner power over serfs is characterized by the same uncertainty and incompleteness as the legislation of her predecessors. In general, it was directed in favor of landowners. Elizabeth, in the interests of settling Siberia, by the law of 1760, granted landowners the right “for impudent acts” to exile healthy serfs to Siberia for settlement without the right of return; By the law of 1765, Catherine turned this limited right of exile to a settlement into the right to exile serfs to hard labor without any restrictions for any time with the return of the exiled person at will to the previous owner. Further, in the 17th century. the government accepted petitions against landowners for their cruel treatment, carried out investigations on these complaints and punished the perpetrators. During the reign of Peter, a number of decrees were issued prohibiting people of all conditions from making requests to the highest name outside of government agencies; these decrees were confirmed by Peter's successors. However, the government continued to accept peasant complaints against landowners from rural communities. These complaints greatly embarrass the Senate; at the beginning of Catherine's reign, he proposed measures to Catherine to completely stop peasant complaints against the landowners.

Once, Catherine, at a meeting of the Senate in 1767, complained that while traveling to Kazan, she received up to 600 petitions - “mostly everything, including a few weekly ones, from the landowner peasants in large fees from the landowners.” Prince Vyazemsky, the Prosecutor General of the Senate, expressed concern in a special note: lest the “displeasure” of the peasants against the landowners “multiply and produce harmful consequences.” Soon the Senate forbade the peasants from complaining about the landowners in the future. Catherine approved this report and on August 22, 1767, at the same time the deputies of the Commissions were listening to the articles of the “Nakaz” on freedom and equality, a decree was issued that said that if anyone was “illegal if he dares to submit petitions against his landowners, especially Her Majesty, into his own hands,” then both the petitioners and the compilers of the petitions will be punished with a whip and exiled to Nerchinsk for eternal hard labor, with those exiled to the landowners counted as recruits. This decree was ordered to be read on Sundays and holidays in all rural churches for a month. That is, this decree declared any complaint by peasants against their landowners a state crime. Thus, the nobleman became a sovereign judge in his domains, and his actions in relation to the peasants were not controlled by state authorities, courts and administration.

Further, even under Catherine, the boundaries of patrimonial jurisdiction were not precisely defined. The decree of October 18, 1770 stated that the landowner could judge peasants only for those offenses that, according to the law, were not accompanied by the deprivation of all rights of the estate; but the amount of punishment that the landowner could punish for these crimes was not indicated. Taking advantage of this, landowners punished serfs for minor offenses with punishments that were reserved only for the most serious criminal offenses. In 1771, to stop indecent public trading by peasants, a law was passed that prohibited the sale of peasants without land for the debts of landowners at public auction, “under the hammer.” The law remained inactive, and the Senate did not insist on its implementation.

With such a breadth of landowner power, during the reign of Catherine, the trade of serf souls with and without land developed even more than before; prices for them were established - decree, or state, and free, or noble. At the beginning of Catherine’s reign, when entire villages purchased a peasant soul with land, it was usually valued at 30 rubles; with the establishment of a loan bank in 1786, the price of a soul rose to 80 rubles. rubles, although the bank accepted noble estates as collateral only for 40 rubles. for the soul. At the end of Catherine’s reign, it was generally difficult to buy an estate for less than 100 rubles. for the soul. In retail sales, a healthy worker purchased as a recruit was valued at 120 rubles. at the beginning of the reign and 400 rubles. - at the end of it.

Finally, in the charter granted to the nobility in 1785, while listing the personal and property rights of the class, she also did not single out peasants from the total composition of real estate of the nobility, i.e., she tacitly recognized them as an integral part of the landowner's agricultural equipment. Thus, landowner power, having lost its previous political justification, acquired wider legal boundaries under Catherine.

What ways of determining the relations of the serf population were possible during the reign of Catherine? We saw that the serfs were attached to the face of the landowner as eternally obligated state cultivators. The law determined their strength in person, but did not determine their relationship to the land, the work on which paid for the state duties of the peasants. It was possible to develop the relationship of serfs to landowners in three ways: firstly, they could be detached from the face of the landowner, but not attached to the land, therefore, this would be the landless emancipation of the peasants. The liberal nobles of Catherine's time dreamed of such liberation, but such liberation was hardly possible; at least, it would have brought complete chaos into economic relations and, perhaps, would have led to a terrible political catastrophe.

It was possible, on the other hand, by detaching the serfs from the landowner, attaching them to the land, that is, making them independent of the masters, tying them to the land purchased by the treasury. This would have placed the peasants in a position very close to that which was initially created for them on February 19, 1861: it would have turned the peasants into strong state payers of the land. In the 18th century It was hardly possible to accomplish such a liberation coupled with the complex financial transaction of purchasing the land.

Finally, it was possible, without detaching the peasants from the landowners, to attach them to the land, that is, to maintain a certain power of the landowner over the peasants, who were placed in the position of state cultivators attached to the land. This would create a temporary relationship between peasants and landowners; legislation in this case had to determine exactly the land and personal relations of both parties. This method of sorting out relations was the most convenient, and it was precisely this that Polenov and practical people close to Catherine who knew well the state of affairs in the village, such as Pyotr Panin or Sivers, insisted on. Catherine did not choose any of these methods; she simply consolidated the rule of the owners over the peasants as it had developed in the middle of the 18th century, and in some respects even expanded that power.

Thanks to this, serfdom under Catherine II entered the third phase of its development and took on a third form. The first form of this right was the personal dependence of serfs on landowners by contract - until the decree of 1646; Serfdom had this form until the middle of the 17th century. According to the Code and legislation of Peter, this right turned into the hereditary dependence of serfs on landowners by law, conditioned by the compulsory service of landowners. Under Catherine, serfdom received a third form: it turned into the complete dependence of the serfs, who became the private property of landowners, not conditioned by the latter’s compulsory service, which was removed from the nobility. That is why Catherine can be called the culprit of serfdom not in the sense that she created it, but in the fact that under her this right from a fluctuating fact, justified by the temporary needs of the state, turned into a right recognized by law, not justified by anything.

Under the cover of serfdom in the landowner villages, they developed in the second half of the 18th century. peculiar relationships and orders. Until the 18th century In the landed estates, a mixed, quitrent-corvee system of land exploitation and serf labor dominated. For the plot of land given to them for use, the peasants partly cultivated the land for the landowner, and partly paid him a quitrent.

Thanks to the vague definition of serfdom by law, during the reign of Catherine, the demands of landowners in relation to serf labor expanded; this exactingness was expressed in the gradual increase in rent. Due to differences in local conditions, quitrents were extremely diverse. The following quitrents can be considered the most normal: 2 rubles. - in the 60s, 3 rubles. - in the 70s, 4 r. - in the 80s and 5 r. - in the 90s from every revision soul. The most common land allotment at the end of Catherine's reign was 6 acres of arable land in three fields for taxation; a tax was an adult worker with a wife and young children who could not yet live on a separate household.

As for corvée, according to information collected at the beginning of the reign of Catherine II, it turned out that in many provinces peasants gave half of their working time to the landowners; However, in good weather, the peasants were forced to work for the landowner all week long, so that the peasants were able to work for themselves only after the end of the lord's harvest season. In many places, landowners demanded four or even five days of work from peasants. Observers generally found work in Russian serf villages for a landowner more difficult compared to peasant work in neighboring countries of Western Europe. Pyotr Panin, a liberal man to a very moderate extent, wrote that “the lord’s exactions and corvée labor in Russia not only surpass the examples of the closest foreign residents, but often come out of human tolerability.” This means, taking advantage of the absence of a precise law that would determine the extent of compulsory peasant labor for the landowner, some landowners completely dispossessed their peasants and turned their villages into slave-holding plantations, which are difficult to distinguish from North American plantations before the emancipation of blacks.

Serfdom had a bad impact on the national economy in general. Here it delayed the natural geographical distribution of agricultural labor. Due to the circumstances of our external history, the agricultural population has long been concentrated with particular force in the central regions, on less fertile soil, driven by external enemies from the southern Russian black soil. Thus, National economy for centuries it suffered from a discrepancy between the density of the agricultural population and the quality of the soil. Since the southern Russian black soil regions were acquired, two or three generations would have been enough to eliminate this discrepancy if peasant labor had been allowed free movement. But serfdom delayed this natural distribution of peasant labor across the plain. According to the audit of 1858 - 1859, in the non-chernozem Kaluga province, serfs made up 62% of its total population; in even less fertile. Smolenskaya - 69, and in the black earth Kharkov province - only 30, in the same black earth Voronezh province - only 27%. Such were the obstacles encountered in serfdom by agricultural labor during its placement.

Further, serfdom delayed the growth of the Russian city and the success of urban crafts and industry. The urban population developed very slowly after Peter; it constituted less than 3% of the total tax-paying population of the state; at the beginning of Catherine’s reign, according to the III revision, it was only 3%, therefore, its growth over almost half a century is barely noticeable. Catherine worked a lot about the development of what was then called the “middle class of people” - the urban, craft and trading class. According to her economic textbooks, this middle class was the main conductor of people's welfare and enlightenment. Not noticing the ready-made elements of this class that existed in the country, Catherine came up with all sorts of new elements from which this class could be built; It was also planned to include the entire population of educational homes. The main reason for this slow growth of the urban population was serfdom. It affected urban crafts and industry in two ways.

Every wealthy landowner tried to acquire yard craftsmen in the village, starting with a blacksmith and ending with a musician, painter and even an actor. Thus, serf courtyard artisans acted as dangerous competitors to urban artisans and industrialists. The landowner tried to satisfy his basic needs with home remedies, and with more refined needs he turned to foreign stores. Thus, native urban artisans and traders lost their most profitable consumers and customers in the person of landowners. On the other hand, the ever-increasing power of the landowner over the property of the serfs increasingly constrained the latter in disposing of their earnings; peasants bought and ordered less and less in the cities. This deprived city labor of cheap but numerous customers and consumers. Contemporaries saw serfdom as the main reason for the slow development of Russian urban industry. The Russian ambassador in Paris, Prince Dmitry Golitsyn, wrote in 1766 that internal trade in Russia will not achieve prosperity “if we do not introduce the right of ownership of peasants to their movable property.”

Finally, serfdom had an overwhelming effect on the state economy. This can be seen from the published financial statements of Catherine’s reign; they reveal interesting facts. The poll tax under Catherine was slower than the quitrent, because it also fell on the landowner peasants, and they could not be burdened with government taxes in the same way as the state peasants, because the surplus of their earnings, which could be used to pay for the elevated poll tax, went to the benefit of the landowners, the savings of the serf the peasant was taken over from the state by the landowner. How much the treasury lost from this can be judged by the fact that under Catherine the serf population made up almost half of the entire population of the empire and more than half of the entire tax-paying population.

Thus, serfdom, having dried up the sources of income that the treasury received through direct taxes, forced the treasury to turn to such indirect means that either weakened the country’s productive forces or placed a heavy burden on future generations.

Let us summarize the situation of the peasants during the reign of Catherine II. Despite the desire to give the serfs freedom in the first stages of her reign, the empress was forced to follow the lead of the landowners, and serfdom only became stricter.

The landowners bought and sold their peasants, transferred them from one estate to another, exchanged them for greyhound puppies and horses, gave them as gifts, and lost at cards. They forcibly married and gave away peasants, broke up the families of peasants, separating parents and children, wives and husbands. The infamous Saltychikha, who tortured more than 100 of her serfs, the Shenshins and others became known throughout the country.

The landowners, by hook or by crook, increased their income from the peasants. For the 18th century the peasants' duties in their favor increased 12 times, while in favor of the treasury only one and a half times.

All this could not but affect the mood of the masses and naturally led to the peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev.

Under Catherine II they got theirs further development undertakings of Peter I in the field of administrative structure and local government. Judicial reform also continued.

In 1775, in order to improve financial, supervisory and judicial activities, the three-member division of the empire into governorates, provinces and districts was reorganized into a two-member one: province - district. At the same time, the provinces were disaggregated, their number increased first to 40, and a little later to 50. According to the Institution on the Governorates, administrative units were created according to the number of population (300–400 thousand souls in the province, 20–30 thousand in the district). At the head of the province was a person appointed by the Tsar. governor, at the head of the county - zemstvo police officer, elected by the nobility of the county. He ruled over several provinces Governor General, under whose command were the troops.

Catherine II called the governor the “master” of the province. Until February 1917, all administrative, financial and military power in the region was concentrated in his hands. Governors acted as local agents of the center's policies and as administrators of large territories. Provincial power was a flexible, tenacious and maneuverable institution of power, which combined centralization and decentralization of management in accordance with the characteristics of the region, period, the personality of the king and the personality of the governor.

In the apparatus of the provincial government there were financial affairs(Treasury Chamber), social activities(Order of public charity, which was in charge of educational, charitable and sanitary institutions), surveillance and legality(provincial prosecutor with a staff of prosecutors and attorneys). All officials were elected at noble meetings, with the exception of elected representatives from the 3 estates who sat in the Order of Public Charity. In cities, a special official appointed by the government was introduced - mayor, who carried out police supervision. To perform police functions in the capital's centers, a position was retained Chief of Police, and in garrison cities - commandant.

In 1782, a new police authority was created - Deanery Board, the competence and composition of which were determined by a special Charter. It consisted of 5 persons: chief police chief (in capitals) or mayor (in other cities), two bailiffs (for criminal and civil cases) appointed by the government, and two Ratmanov(councillors), elected by a meeting of townspeople. Cities in police terms were divided into parts headed by private bailiffs, into neighborhoods led by quarterly supervisors, appointed by the Deanery Board, and quarterly lieutenants, elected by citizens from among themselves. The functions of the police authorities were very extensive: security, sanitation, morality, family relations, criminal investigations, arrest houses, prisons - this is only an incomplete list of what the police did.

As we see, already during the organization of local administrations, people were involved in its work. elected representatives of the estates. The main violin in the process of forming a new generation of bureaucratic bureaucracy was played by the nobility, which greatly expanded due to people from other classes by the middle of the 18th century. The Empress also paid attention to the merchants, whose share increased greatly due to the development of industry and trade. These main classes Russian Empire Catherine II granted the right to organize its representative bodies locally. However, more about them a little later, after characterizing the class system.

Legal status of estates. In the 18th century, with a significant lag behind the West, in Russia 4 estates finally took shape from the class groups of Moscow society: nobility(nobility), clergy, philistines(from urban townspeople) and peasantry.. The main feature of the class system is the existence and inheritance of personal rights of the estate and corporate rights and obligations.

Registration of the nobility. The nobility was formed from different ranks service people(boyars, okolnichy, clerks, clerks, boyar children, etc.), received the name under Peter I nobility, renamed under Catherine II to nobility(in the acts of the Statutory Commission of 1767), transformed over the course of a century from the service class into the ruling, privileged class. Some of the former service people (nobles and children of boyars) settled on. outskirts of the state, by the decrees of Peter I of 1698–1703, which formalized the nobility, she was not included in this class, but was transferred under the name odnodvortsev on the position of state-owned peasants.

The leveling of the position of feudal lords of all ranks was completed by the decree of Peter I of 1714 “On Single Inheritance”, according to which estates were equated to estates and assigned to the nobles on the right of ownership. In 1722, the “Table of Ranks” established methods for obtaining the nobility by length of service. She also secured the status of the ruling class for the gentry.

According to the “Table of Ranks”, everyone who was on public service(civil, military, naval) were divided into 14 ranks or ranks, from the highest field marshal and chancellor to the lowest - adjutant to lieutenants and collegiate registrar. All persons from 14th to 8th rank became personal, and from 8th rank - hereditary nobles. Hereditary nobility was passed on to the wife, children and distant descendants in the male line. Daughters who got married acquired the class status of their husband (if he was higher). Before 1874, of the children born before receiving hereditary nobility, only one son received the status of a father, the rest were registered as “honorary citizens” (this status was established in 1832), after 1874 - all.

Under Peter I, the service of nobles with compulsory education began at the age of 15 and was for life. Anna Ioanovna somewhat eased their situation by limiting their service to 25 years and placing its beginning at the age of 20. She also allowed one of the sons or brothers in the noble family to stay at home and take care of the house.

In 1762, Peter III, who stayed on the throne for a short time, abolished by a special decree not only the compulsory education of nobles, but also the compulsory service of the nobility. And Catherine II’s 1785 “Certificate on the Rights and Advantages of the Russian Nobility” finally turned the nobility into a “noble” class.

So, the main sources of the noble class were in the 18th century. birth And length of service Longevity included the acquisition of nobility through award And indigenous for foreigners (according to the “Table of Ranks”), through receiving an order(according to the “Charter of Grant” of Catherine II). In the 19th century will be added to them higher education And academic degree.

Belonging to the rank of nobility was secured by an entry in the “Velvet Book”, established in 1682 during the abolition of localism, and from 1785 by inclusion in the local (provincial) lists - noble books, divided into 6 parts (according to the sources of the nobility): award, military service, civil service, indigenous, title (order), prescription. Since Peter I, the estate was subordinate to a special department - the Heraldry Office, and from 1748 - to the Department of Heraldry under the Senate.

Rights and advantages of the nobility. 1. Exclusive right of ownership of land. 2. The right to own serfs (with the exception of the 1st half of the 18th century, when persons of all statuses could own serfs: townspeople, priests and even peasants). 3. Personal exemption from taxes and duties, from corporal punishment. 4. The right to build factories and plants (from Catherine II only in the countryside), to develop mineral resources on their land. 5. Since 1771, the exclusive right to serve in a civil department, in the bureaucracy (after the ban on recruiting persons from tax-paying classes), and since 1798 to form an officer corps in the army. 6. The corporate right to have the title of "nobility", which could only be taken away by the court of "peers" or by decision of the king. 7. Finally, according to the “Charter of Complaint” of Catherine II, the nobles received the right to form special noble societies, elect their own representative bodies and their own class court. But this was no longer their exclusive right.

Belonging to the noble class gave the right to a coat of arms, a uniform, riding in carriages drawn by four, dressing footmen in special liveries, etc.

The bodies of class self-government were county And provincial noble assemblies, held once every three years, at which they elected leaders of the nobility and their assistants - deputies, as well as members of noble courts. Everyone who met the qualifications took part in the elections: residence, age (25 years), gender (men only), property (income from villages not less than 100 rubles), service (not below the rank of chief officer) and integrity.

The noble assemblies acted as legal entities, had property rights, participated in the distribution of duties, checked the genealogical book, expelled defamed members, submitted complaints to the emperor and the Senate, etc. The leaders of the nobility exercised serious influence on provincial and district authorities.

Formation of the bourgeois class. Original name – citizens(“Regulations of the Chief Magistrate”), then, following the example of Poland and Lithuania, they began to be called bourgeois. The estate was created gradually, as Peter I introduced European models of the middle class (third estate). It included former guests, townspeople, lower groups of service people - gunners, strikers, etc.

By the “Regulations of the Chief Magistrate,” Peter I divided the emerging class into 2 groups: regular And irregular citizens. The regular ones, in turn, consisted of two guilds. The first guild included bankers, noble merchants, doctors, pharmacists, skippers, silversmiths, icon painters, painters, the second - all those “who trade in small goods and all kinds of food supplies, as well as handcrafted carvers, turners, carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, etc. similar." Craftsmen, as in the West, were divided into workshops At the head of the guilds and workshops were foremen, who often performed the functions government agencies. To irregular citizens or "mean people"(in the sense of low origin - from slaves, serfs, etc.) everyone “found in hire and menial labor” was included.

The final formation of the bourgeois class took place in 1785. “Charter of Grant for Rights and Benefits to the Cities of the Russian Empire” Catherine II. By this time, the entrepreneurial layer in the cities had noticeably “strengthened; in order to stimulate trade, customs barriers and duties, monopolies and other restrictions were eliminated, freedom of establishment was announced industrial enterprises(that is, about freedom of enterprise), peasant crafts were legalized. In 1785, the population of cities was finally divided according to the property principle into 6 categories: 1) “real city inhabitants”, owners of real estate within the city; 2) merchants of three guilds; 3) artisans; 4) foreigners and nonresidents; 5) eminent citizens; 6) the rest of the townspeople. Belonging to a class was secured by being included in the city a common book. Belonging to a merchant guild was determined by the size of the capital: the first - from 10 to 50 thousand rubles, the second - from 5 to 10 thousand, the third - from 1 to 5 thousand.

The exclusive right of the petty bourgeois class was to engage in crafts and trade. Duties included taxes And recruiting duty. True, there were many exceptions. Already in 1775, Catherine II freed the inhabitants of the suburbs, who had a capital of over 500 rubles, from the poll tax, replacing it with a one percent tax on the declared capital. In 1766, merchants were exempted from conscription. Instead of each recruit, they paid first 360 and then 500 rubles. They were also exempt from corporal punishment. Merchants, especially those of the first guild, were granted certain honorary rights (riding in carriages and carriages).

Corporate law for the bourgeois class also included the creation of associations and self-government bodies. According to the “Charter of Complaint”, city dwellers who had reached the age of 25 and had a certain income (capital, the interest charge on which was not less than 50 rubles) were united in city ​​society. The meeting of its members elected city ​​head And vowels(deputies) city ​​councils IN general Duma all six categories of the urban population sent their chosen ones to six-vote Duma 6 representatives of each category, elected by the General Duma, worked to carry out current affairs. Elections took place every 3 years. The main field of activity was urban management and everything that “serves to the benefit and need of the city.” Of course, governors supervised local governments, including the spending of city funds. However, these amounts, donated by the merchants for urban improvement, for the construction of schools, hospitals, and cultural institutions, were sometimes very significant. They, as Catherine II planned, played an important role in the matter of “benefits and beautification of the city.” It was not for nothing that Alexander I, having come to power in 1801, immediately confirmed the “Charter of Grant”, which had been canceled by Paul I, and restored all the “rights and benefits” of the townspeople and all Catherine’s city institutions.

Peasants. IN XVIII century Several categories of peasantry took shape. Discharge state peasants were formed from former black-growing peasants and from peoples who paid yasak. Later, the already mentioned odnodvortsy, descendants of Moscow service people, settled on the southern outskirts of the state, who did not know communal life, joined it. In 1764, by decree of Catherine II, the secularization church estates, which came under the jurisdiction of the College of Economy. The peasants taken away from the church began to be called economic. But since 1786, they too became state peasants.

Privately owned(landowner) peasants absorbed all the previous categories of dependent people (serfs, serfs) who belonged to factories and factories since the time of Peter I (possession). Before Catherine II, this category of peasants was also replenished by clergy who remained on staff, retired priests and deacons, sextons and sextons. Catherine II stopped converting people of spiritual origin into serfdom and blocked all other ways of replenishing it (marriage, loan agreement, hiring and service, captivity), except two: birth And distributions state lands from peasants into private hands. Distributions - awards were especially widely practiced by Catherine herself and her son, Paul 1, and were stopped in 1801 by one of the first decrees of Alexander I. From that time on, the only source of replenishment of the serf class remained birth.

In 1797, from the palace peasants, by decree of Paul I, another category was formed - specific peasants (on the lands of the royal inheritance), whose position was similar to the position of state peasants. They were the property of the imperial family.

In the 18th century The situation of the peasants, especially those belonging to the landowners, noticeably worsened. Under Peter I, they turned into a thing that could be sold, donated, exchanged (without land and separately from the family). In 1721, it was recommended to stop the sale of children separately from their parents in order to “calm the cry” among the peasants. But the separation of families continued until 1843.

The landowner used the labor of serfs at his own discretion, quitrent and corvee were not limited by any law, and the previous recommendations of the authorities to take from them “according to force” were a thing of the past. The peasants found themselves deprived not only of personal but also property rights, for all their property was considered to belong to their owner. The law and the right of court of the landowner did not regulate. He was not allowed only to use the death penalty and hand over peasants in his place to justice (under Peter I). True, the same king in the instructions to the governors from 1719. ordered to identify landowners who ruined peasants and transfer management of such estates to relatives.

Restrictions on the rights of serfs, starting in the 1730s, were enshrined in laws. They were forbidden to purchase real estate, open factories, work under contract, be bound by bills, assume obligations without the owner's permission, or enroll in guilds. Landowners were allowed to use corporal punishment and send peasants to restraining houses. The procedure for filing complaints against landowners has become more complicated.

Impunity contributed to the increase in crimes among landowners. An illustrative example is provided by the story of the landowner Saltykova, who killed more than 30 of her serfs, who was exposed and sentenced to death (commuted to life imprisonment) only after a complaint against her fell into the hands of Empress Catherine II.

Only after the uprising of E.I. Pugachev, in which the serfs took an active part, the government began to strengthen state control over their situation and take steps towards mitigating the state of serfdom. The release of peasants to freedom was legalized, including after serving conscription (together with their wife), after exile to Siberia, for ransom at the request of the landowner (since 1775 without land, and since 1801 - the Decree of Paul I on “free cultivators" - with the land).

Despite the hardships of serfdom, exchange and entrepreneurship developed among the peasantry, and “capitalist” people appeared. The law allowed peasants to trade, first with individual goods, then even with “overseas countries”, and in 1814 people of all conditions were allowed to trade at fairs. Many wealthy peasants, who became rich through trade, were bought out of serfdom and, even before the abolition of serfdom, constituted a significant part of the emerging class of entrepreneurs.

State peasants were, in comparison with serfs, in much better position. Their personal rights were never subject to such restrictions as the personal rights of serfs. Their taxes were moderate, they could buy land (while retaining duties), and were engaged in entrepreneurial activities. Attempts to curtail their property rights (taking out farm-outs and contracts, purchasing real estate in cities and counties, obliging themselves with bills of exchange) did not have such a detrimental effect on the state of the economy of state peasants, especially those living on the outskirts (in Siberia). Here, the communal orders preserved by the state (land redistribution, mutual responsibility for the payment of taxes), which held back the development of the private economy, were much more energetically destroyed.

Self-government was of greater importance among state peasants. Since ancient times, elders elected at gatherings have played a prominent role. According to the provincial reform of 1775, state peasants, like other classes, received their own court. Under Paul I, volost self-governing organizations were created. Each volost (with a certain number of villages and no more than 3 thousand souls) could elect volost administration, consisting of volost mayor, elder And clerk They were elected in the villages foremen And tens. All these bodies performed financial, police and judicial functions.

Clergy. The Orthodox clergy consisted of two parts: white, parish (from ordination) and black, monastic (from tonsure). Only the first constituted the estate itself, for the second part had no heirs (monasticism took a vow of celibacy). White clergy occupied lower positions in church hierarchy: clergy (from deacon to protopresbyter) and clergy (sacristans, sextons). The highest positions (from bishop to metropolitan) belonged to the black clergy.

In the 18th century the clergy has become hereditary and closed, since the law prohibited persons of other classes from accepting the priestly rank. Leaving the class, for a number of formal reasons, was extremely difficult. Of the class rights of the clergy, it can be noted freedom from personal taxes, from conscription, from military posts. It had privilege in the field of legal proceedings. In general courts, the priesthood was tried only for particularly serious criminal offenses; civil cases involving lay people were resolved in the presence of special representatives of the clergy.

The clergy could not engage in activities incompatible with the clergy, including trade, crafts, servicing farm-outs and contracts, producing alcoholic beverages, etc. As we have already seen, in the 18th century. it also lost its main privilege - the right to own estates and serfs. Church ministers were transferred “to pay.”

In the Russian Empire, other Christian and non-Christian faiths coexisted freely with Orthodoxy. Lutheran kirks were built in cities and large villages, and from the middle of the 18th century. and Catholic churches. Mosques were built in places where Muslims lived, and pagodas where Buddhists lived. However, the transition from Orthodoxy to another faith remained prohibited and was severely punished (in the 1730s, there was a known case of an officer being burned in a wooden frame).

Rules: 1. The situation of peasants in Rus' from ancient times to Catherine II 2. Tightening of the situation of peasants under Catherine II 3. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Basic provisions. 4. Stolypin’s reforms a) Stolypin’s personality b) reforms 5. Collectivization. 6.Agriculture today.

Questions: 1. The situation of peasants in Rus' from ancient times to Catherine II. 2. Tightening of the situation of peasants under Catherine II. 3. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Basic provisions. 4. Stolypin’s reforms: a) the personality of P.A. Stolypin; b) the main content of the reforms. 5.Collectivization. 6.Agriculture today.

Personality of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin Minister of Internal Affairs and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire (since 1906). In the Saratov governor, where he led the suppression of peasant unrest during the Revolution, he determined government policy. In 1906 he proclaimed a course of socio-political reforms. Began implementing the Stolypin agrarian reform. ()

Stolypinskaya agrarian reform 1. Permission to leave the peasant community for farms and cuts. 2. Strengthening the Peasant Bank. 3. Forced land management and strengthening of resettlement policy - the movement of the rural population to Siberia and Far East: () elimination of peasant land shortage: intensification of economic activity of the peasantry on the basis of private ownership of land; increasing the marketability of peasant farming.

Questions: 1. The situation of peasants in Rus' from ancient times to Catherine II. 2. Tightening of the situation of peasants under Catherine II. 3. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Basic provisions. 4. Stolypin’s reforms: a) the personality of P.A. Stolypin; b) the main content of the reforms. 5.Collectivization. 6.Agriculture today.

Questions: 1. The situation of peasants in Rus' from ancient times to Catherine II. 2. Tightening of the situation of peasants under Catherine II. 3. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Basic provisions. 4. Stolypin’s reforms: a) the personality of P.A. Stolypin; b) the main content of the reforms. 5.Collectivization. 6.Agriculture today.
Questions: 1. The situation of peasants in Rus' from ancient times to Catherine II. 2. Tightening of the situation of peasants under Catherine II. 3. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Basic provisions. 4. Stolypin’s reforms: a) the personality of P.A. Stolypin; b) the main content of the reforms. 5.Collectivization. 6.Agriculture today.

2) the comparative advantage of corvee and quitrent,

3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.

The activities of VEO contributed to the introduction of new crops, new types of agriculture, and the development of economic relations.

In the field of industry and trade, Catherine II (by decree of 1767 and manifesto of 1775) proclaimed the principle of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, which was primarily beneficial to the nobility: it had serf labor resources, had cheap raw materials, and received subsidies from state and class credit institutions. The nobility, including the middle nobility, took the path of feudal entrepreneurship - the number of patrimonial manufactories began to grow. The growth of peasant manufactures also benefited the nobility, since many peasant entrepreneurs were serfs. Finally, the leaving of quitrent peasants to the city to earn money was also convenient for the landowner, who wanted to get more cash. There were few capitalist enterprises, that is, based on hired labor, and the hired workers were often not personally free, but serfs working to earn money. The absolutely predominant forms of industry were based on various types forced labor. At the beginning of the reign of Catherine II in Russia there were 655 industrial enterprises, by the end - 2294.

In order to formalize the class privileges of the nobility, the Charter of the Nobility was issued in 1785. The “Certificate for the rights of liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility” was a set of noble privileges, formalized by the legislative act of Catherine II of April 21. 1785. Under Peter I, the nobility carried out lifelong military and other service to the state, but already under Anna Ioannovna it became possible to limit this service to 25 years. The nobles got the opportunity to begin their service not as a private or a simple sailor, but as an officer, having passed the noble military school. Peter III issued a decree on the freedom of the nobility, giving the right to serve or not to serve, but the effect of this decree was suspended. Now, the freedom of the nobles from compulsory service was confirmed. The complete emancipation of the nobility made sense for several reasons:

1) there was a sufficient number of trained people knowledgeable in various matters of military and civil administration;

2) the nobles themselves were aware of the need to serve the state and considered it an honor to shed blood for the fatherland;

3) when the nobles were cut off from the lands all their lives, farms fell into decay, which had a detrimental effect on the country’s economy. Now many of them could manage their peasants themselves. And the attitude towards the peasants on the part of the owner was much better than on the part of a random manager. The landowner was interested in ensuring that his peasants were not ruined. By granting a charter, the nobility was recognized as the superior class in the state and was exempt from paying taxes; they could not be subjected to corporal punishment; only a court of the nobility could judge them. Only nobles had the right to own land and serfs; they also owned mineral resources on their estates, could engage in trade and set up factories, their houses were free from troop billets, and their estates were not subject to confiscation. The nobility received the right to self-government and formed a “noble society”, the body of which was noble assembly, convened every three years in the province and district, electing provincial and district leaders of the nobility, assessors and police captains who headed the district administration. This charter called upon the nobility to participate broadly in local government. Under Catherine II, nobles occupied positions of local executive and judicial power. The charter granted to the nobility was supposed to strengthen the position of the nobility and consolidate its privileges. Contributed to greater consolidation of the ruling class. Its effect was also extended to the nobles of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus and the Don. The letter granted to the nobility testified to the desire of Russian absolutism to strengthen its social support in an environment of aggravated class contradictions. The nobility turned into the politically dominant class in the state.

The peasantry, on the contrary, lost the remnants of their rights, domestic politics in this area was aimed at strengthening serfdom: peasants were forbidden to complain about the landowners, take an oath, take a farmout and contracts. The landowner received the right not only to exile peasants to Siberia, but also to send them to hard labor (law of 1765). Distribution of state peasants to landowners was widely practiced. The zone of serfdom under Catherine extended to Ukraine. At the same time, the situation of the monastic peasants was alleviated, who were transferred to the jurisdiction of the College of Economy along with the lands. All their duties were replaced by monetary rent, which gave the peasants more independence and developed their economic initiative. As a result, the unrest of the monastery peasants ceased.

CONCLUSION

It is difficult to unambiguously assess the results of the reign of Catherine II. Many of her outwardly spectacular undertakings, conceived on a large scale, led to modest results or gave unexpected and often erroneous results. It can also be said that Catherine simply implemented the changes dictated by the times and continued the policies outlined in her previous reigns. Or recognize it as paramount historical figure, who took the second, after Peter I, step along the path of reforming it in the Europeanization of the country, and the first in the liberal-educational spirit.

3. Borzakovsky P.K. “Empress Catherine the Second the Great.” - M.: Panorama, 1991.

4. Zaichkin I. A., Pochkaev I. N. Russian history: From Catherine the Great to Alexander II. - M.: Mysl, 1994.

5. History of Russia: In 2 volumes. T. 1: From ancient times to the end of the 18th century. / A. N. Sakharov, L. E. Morozova, M. A. Rakhmatullin, etc. - M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2003.

6. “Catherine II and her time: Modern look" Philosophical Age, Almanac. - No. 11 - 2004.