The social structure of the Russian Empire. Estates. The social system of Russia in the first half of the 19th century The state system in the second half of the 19th century

Capitalism also penetrated the peasant economy, contributing to the process of social stratification and the growth of contradictions in the countryside. While the majority of the peasants were becoming poor, rich peasants appeared in the villages, who were engaged in trade, started crafts, and invested their capital in industry.

The feudal-serf system slowed down the development of capitalist relations in industry. However, the use of hired labor, especially in privately owned manufactories, gradually grew. Even in the metallurgical industry, which was previously dominated by serf labor, many jobs (procurement of ore, charcoal, etc.) began to be carried out by hired workers, which was more profitable for factory owners. In the 30-50s of the XIX century. manufactories began to turn into capitalist factories based on the use of steam engines. The first were built railways. New classes developed - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, whose interests, which consisted in the destruction of serfdom, coincided at this stage.

The wars in which Russia took part had a great influence on the intensification of crisis phenomena in Russian society. So, if the consequence Patriotic War 1812 was the movement of the "Decembrists" and their uprising on December 14, 1825, the results Russian-Turkish war 1853-1856 served as a powerful impetus for the abolition of serfdom.

The population of the empire was still divided into estates - the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and the philistines, to which the merchants closely adjoined. The nobility remained the dominant class. His economic and political power was based on land ownership and the right to exploit the peasants, most of whom were considered their property. Representatives of the nobility occupied almost all important positions in the state apparatus.

Emperor Alexander I restored the “Charter to the Nobility” (1785), which was canceled by his father Paul I. The nobility retained all the old privileges and even received new rights: to own factories and plants, to trade on a par with the merchants. feudal state provided economic support to the nobles through the State Loan Bank and other lending institutions.

At the same time, stratification among the nobility increased. Many of them were dispossessed (14% in 1835), while wealthy nobles (1.1%) owned 33% of the serfs. The autocratic government sought to strengthen its main support - the big landowners. To this end, in 1834, the land qualification was increased during the elections of noble class bodies, which increased the influence of wealthy landlords on local government.

In order to preserve large landowner farms, a law was passed (July 16, 1845), which prohibited the fragmentation of reserved noble estates (mayorats). They were to be inherited only by the eldest son and were not subject to alienation in favor of outsiders.

Most of the landowners fully approved of the government's policy pursued in the interests of the nobility. At the same time, in the first quarter of the 19th century, among a small part of the nobles, under the influence of the French and American revolutions, a liberal movement arose, whose leaders (P.I. Pestel, N.M. Muravyov and others) advocated the abolition of serfdom and restriction, or even destruction, of the autocratic system. The apogee of the development of this movement was the armed uprising in St. Petersburg on December 14, 1825, which became known as the "Decembrist uprising" and was brutally suppressed by Emperor Nicholas I.

The clergy - the second privileged class - was still divided into black (monastic) and white (parish). In the development of the legal status of the clergy, the following features should be noted. On the one hand, all its representatives received even greater privileges. So, in 1801 they personally, and since 1835 and their families, were exempted from corporal punishment. Since 1807, the houses of the clergy were exempted from land tax, and since 1821 - from military quarters. The clergy, awarded with orders, acquired the rights of the nobility. Only for the period 1825-1845. more than 10 thousand clergy received noble rights. At the same time, the hereditary nobility complained only to representatives of the white clergy, and the black clergy, together with the order, received the so-called "commandership", i.e. the right to use a piece of inhabited land for the purpose of generating income.

On the other hand, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and manageable social group. The black clergy were reduced in number, and the rest was limited only to persons directly related to the performance of the church service. For these purposes, the states of monasteries were limited, an educational qualification was established for all candidates for church positions. By decree of 1828, the children of clergymen, "out of excess", were asked to enter the civil or military service of their choice. Those who did not do this during the year were to “certainly” be recorded in one of the taxable estates. After 1831, the recruitment of unemployed priests into the army was stopped. Since 1842, a gradual transfer of the parish clergy to state support was carried out.

In general, the Russian clergy occupied conservative, loyal positions. But the persecution of the schismatics, although on a smaller scale, continued. Many representatives of the Catholic clergy were subjected to repression by the government, especially after the Polish uprising of 1831-1832.

Feudal-dependent peasants made up the bulk of the population. Among them stood out landlord (ownership), state, sessional and appanage peasants. Particularly difficult, as before, was the position of the landlord peasants, who were considered the property of their owners. In the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" (1835), serfs were ranked as movable property.

Under Alexander I, attempts were made to start a peasant reform, but things did not go beyond discussions and the adoption of some minor measures. Nevertheless, it should be noted as a positive fact that an end was put to the expansion of serfdom: the distribution of state estates to private ownership was prohibited.

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 "On free cultivators", the landlords received the right to release their peasants into the wild with land plots for a ransom established by the landowners themselves. However, only a few peasants could pay it. Until 1861, only 112,000 souls became "free cultivators".

In order to develop industry in 1818, a Decree was issued that allowed all landowners, including peasants, to establish factories and plants.

After the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, in order to reduce the cost of the treasury for the maintenance of the army, part of the state peasants (their total number reached 400 thousand souls) was transferred to the position of military settlers. Residents of military settlements created in 1816 by the ferocious General A.A. Arakcheev, were obliged to engage in agriculture while doing military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their whole life was shackled by strict rules of military discipline. This caused hatred for the "Arakcheev" system in society, and among the military settlers - riots. Having failed to fulfill their purpose, after a series of uprisings in military settlements (1831), they gradually began to be abolished and were completely eliminated in the 50s. At the same time, former military settlers turned into either state or specific peasants.

In 1842, the "Decree on obligated peasants" was adopted. He allowed the landowners to lease the land to the peasants, for which they had to fulfill the obligations established by the contract. However, only six landlords took advantage of this permission.

In 1847, the Ministry of State Property was established, which was entrusted with the management of state peasants. It streamlined quitrent taxation, increased the land allotments of state peasants and determined the rules for the work of peasant self-government bodies: the volost gathering, the volost administration, the rural assembly and the village headman.

In a number of industries, the predominant place was occupied by the sessional peasants. So, in 1860, in the manufacturing industry, they accounted for up to 85% of all workers. For manufacturers, they were less profitable than civilian workers, since their wages included the cost of dues. In 1835 the right of the landowners to recall the possessive peasants was limited. In 1840, the State Council decided to begin the liquidation of the property-based enterprises, and the breeders were allowed to free the property-based peasants, turning them into civilian workers.

The position of the specific peasants has not changed in comparison with the previous period.

Conclusions on the issue. Russian history inherited from the previous period not only the form of government, but the entire social organization. The nobility continued to exert a huge influence on state affairs. Additional privileges are given to the clergy, who are exempt from land tax and from lodging. The formation of new classes (bourgeoisie) took place within the framework of the former estate system. Despite all the shifts in the economy, the legal status of certain groups of the population was the same. However, a small concession had to be made to the bourgeoisie.

The main contradiction in the development of Russian society, which was born in the previous century, arose from the imminent formational changes: capitalism was approaching to replace feudalism. Already in the previous period, the crisis of the feudal system of economy was revealed. Now it's coming with increasing force. Feudalism is increasingly showing its economic failure. At the same time, the crisis of the feudal-serf system becomes comprehensive, covering all the most important spheres of the economy.

In industry, serf manufacture cannot withstand competition with capitalist manufacture, with the bourgeois organization of production. Capitalism ensures an immeasurably greater productivity of labor and works with extraordinary flexibility and resourcefulness in difficult conditions, when all the foundations of feudalism, primarily serfdom, prevent it from attracting labor force into production and narrow the home market. The victory of bourgeois production is ensured by the use of hired labor and the introduction of machinery. Manufactory is replaced by a factory. During this period, the industrial revolution begins. From 1825 to 1860 the number of large manufacturing enterprises and workers employed in it has tripled. And it is no coincidence that in this industry by 1860 4/5 of the workers were already hired. At the same time, the share of serf workers in the entire industry was another 44%.

Wage labor created an incentive to increase the productivity of a worker interested in the results of production, and the use of machines saved labor power, which was so scarce under feudalism and serfdom. Attempts to use machines in the serf industry run up against the low professional level of the serf worker, and most importantly, his unwillingness to work, since he is not interested in raising labor productivity, but quite the opposite - in saving his labor, simply speaking, in working as possible less.

Violation of the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the nature of the productive forces is also evident in agriculture.

In the 19th century Western Europe is increasingly in need of Russian bread. From 1831 to 1860 the average annual export of grain from Russia increased from 18 million to 69 million poods. At the same time, the domestic market also grew: the sale of bread on it was 9 times higher than exports. Meanwhile, the grain yield at the beginning of the century averaged 2.5 (i.e., 1 sack of seed yielded 2.5 sacks of harvested grain). Consequently, the yield did not differ significantly from what it was centuries ago.

The landowners are trying by various means to increase the marketability of their estates. Some do this by putting even greater pressure on the peasant. In the "exemplary" estate of Count Orlov-Davydov, the whole life of a serf was strictly regulated, for which a special Code was issued. This patrimonial "law" provided for complex system punishments for the peasants' neglect of work and even for not getting married on time: the landowner needs a constant replenishment of the labor force.

Other landlords are trying to increase the profitability of their estates by innovation, but this does not give them success. Innovations fail because of the same lack of interest of the peasant in his work.

All-round pressure on the peasant only engenders the growth of class resistance. After a lull at the very beginning of the century, peasant unrest grows, especially intensifying at certain moments. Thus, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which gave rise to some illusions among the peasantry, widespread indignation broke out among the peasants when their hopes of making life easier did not come true. A new wave of peasant protests swept in connection with the accession of Nicholas I to the throne. In 1826 alone, 178 peasant uprisings were registered. At the end of the reign of Nicholas, the number of peasant unrest increased by 1.5 times.

The ever-increasing development of bourgeois relations in the economy, the crisis of the feudal economy cannot but be reflected in the social structure of society, where capitalism is maturing in the depths of feudalism.

The most important moment determining the changes in the social structure during this period is that instead of the former main classes, the main classes of bourgeois society are gradually taking shape - the capitalists and wage workers, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The formation of new classes, as before, is due to the decomposition of the old ones. The bourgeoisie was formed mainly from the merchant class and the top of the peasantry, who managed to get rich in one way or another. Such peasants, sometimes even landowners, were released by their master for quitrent, enriched themselves, bringing the master a much greater benefit than if they worked on arable land. A significant part of the Ivanovo factory owners came from the wealthy serfs who exploited tens of thousands of their own fellow villagers. Russian bourgeoisie first half of XIX century, growing in numbers and getting richer, remained, however, a weak political force. In any case, she, as in previous centuries, did not even think about political power. The Russian bourgeoisie was not a revolutionary force. The first troublemakers in Russia in the XIX century. the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists and Herzen became, and then - the revolutionary democrats-raznochintsy.

Due to the decomposition of the old classes, the proletariat also took shape. It was formed from artisans and the urban lower classes, but the main source of its formation was, again, the peasantry. The landowners of predominantly non-Chernozem provinces, as already noted, often let their peasants go to work on the condition of paying dues. These peasants entered factories and plants and were exploited as hired workers.

Such a form of capitalist organization of production was also widespread, when an entrepreneur distributed work among peasant huts, thus not caring about either the premises or the equipment. The serf became a worker without even noticing it.

The formation of new social classes gave rise to fundamentally new class antagonisms, the struggle of labor against capital. Already in the 1930s and 1940s, a labor movement emerged. Tsarism has to take this new factor into account in its policy: in 1835 and 1845. the first labor laws are issued, protecting the elementary rights of workers, albeit to a negligible extent.

The formation of new classes took place within the framework of the former class system. The division of society into estates remained in principle unshakable. Despite all the shifts in the economy, the legal status of certain groups of the population was the same. However, a small concession had to be made to the growing bourgeoisie. In 1832, a new state was introduced as part of the class of urban residents - honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were an exempt estate, in their status close to the nobility. This concession to the bourgeoisie also had the goal of protecting the nobility from the penetration of socially alien elements into it, inasmuch as the isolation of the nobility is intensifying. In 1810, Alexander I allowed the top merchants to acquire inhabited lands from the treasury, specifically stipulating that this, however, does not give the buyer any noble rights. At the same time, as early as 1801, the distribution of new estates to the nobles was prohibited. Under Nicholas I, measures are being taken to make it difficult to acquire the nobility in the service. In 1845, the requirements for civil servants applying for the nobility were sharply increased. To acquire hereditary nobility, it was now necessary to rise to the rank of headquarters officer in the army and to the 5th class in civilian service. Among the nobles themselves, inequality was established depending on their property status in favor, of course, of the largest, richest landowners. In 1831, a procedure was introduced according to which only large landowners and peasant owners could directly participate in the elections of the nobility, while others voted only indirectly. I must say that the property status of the nobility was very heterogeneous. In the second quarter of the XIX century. There were more than 250 thousand nobles, of which about 150 thousand did not have peasants, more than 100 thousand were themselves engaged in arable farming.

The economic development of the country, the peasant movement forced to take some steps towards the weakening of serfdom. Even the chief of the gendarmes, Benckendorff, wrote to the tsar about the need for a gradual emancipation of the peasants. In 1803, the well-known Decree on free cultivators was adopted, in 1842 landowners were allowed to transfer land to peasants for certain duties, in 1848 peasants were allowed to buy real estate. It is obvious that these steps towards the emancipation of the peasants did not introduce significant changes in their legal status. It is only important to note that institutions were tested in the legislation on the peasantry, which would later be used in the peasant reform of 1861. (repurchase of land, "obligated state", etc.).

The class and estate division of Russian society was supplemented by an ethnic division. Russia, which has been a multi-ethnic state since time immemorial, has become even more multinational in this period. It included areas that stood at different levels economic development, and this could not but affect the social structure of the empire. At the same time, all the territories that again entered the Russian Empire were typologically related to the feudal formation, although at different stages of development. Consequently, their class and estate structure was, in principle, of the same type.

The accession of new territories to Russia meant the inclusion of foreign feudal lords in the general structure of Russian feudal lords, and the feudal-dependent population - in the composition of the exploited. However, such inclusion did not take place mechanically, but had certain features. Back in the 18th century the tsarist government granted all rights Russian nobility Baltic barons. Moreover, they received privileges even in comparison with the Russian nobles. The Polish feudal lords also initially received Russian rights. Moldavian boyars in Bessarabia also acquired the rights of Russian nobles. In 1827, the Georgian nobles also received such rights. In the nineteenth century, as before, public service persons were accepted regardless of their nationality. In the official lists of officials there was not even a column about nationality.

As for the workers, the peasants of other nationalities had certain advantages over the Great Russians. In the Baltics, the emancipation of the peasants was carried out earlier than in Central Russia. Personal freedom was preserved for the peasants of the Kingdom of Poland and Finland. Moldovan peasants were given the right to move. In Northern Azerbaijan, the tsarist government confiscated the lands of recalcitrant feudal lords, which accounted for 3/4 of all land holdings in the region. At the same time, the peasants who lived on such lands were exempted from the duties of their former feudal lords and moved to the position of state peasants. Kazakhs also received the rights of state peasants. Moreover, they were allowed to move to other classes. Slavery, which still took place in Kazakhstan, was banned. The Kazakh population was freed from recruitment, which oppressed the Russian peasants with a heavy oppression.

Thus, non-national peasants either gained or, at least, did not lose anything from joining Russia.

As for the lords, their interests continue to clash with the interests of the Russian feudal lords, and this gives rise to a certain wave of local nationalism. True, tsarism pursued a rather flexible policy towards foreign feudal lords, trying to win them over to its side, and in most cases it succeeded.

Changes in the state mechanism

In development Russian state stands out as an independent period from the beginning of the XIX century. until 1861. At this time, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, absolutism reaches its zenith. All power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the emperor of all Russia. In the Fundamental Laws that open the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, the idea of ​​autocracy is formulated clearly and categorically: “The Emperor of Russia is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. God himself commands to obey his supreme authority not only out of fear, but also out of conscience. As before, as we see, autocracy is ideologically justified by divine origin. At the same time, a new idea appears - the idea of ​​the legitimacy of the power of the monarch.

The emperor in this period sought to personally intervene even in the minutiae of state administration. Of course, such an aspiration was limited by real human capabilities: the tsar was not able to do without state bodies that would carry out his desires, his policies. The Russian ambassador in London, Count S. R. Vorontsov, wrote in a private letter in 1801: “The country is too vast for the sovereign, even if he is the second Peter the Great, to do everything himself under the existing form of government without a constitution, without firm laws, without irremovable and independent courts”.

There were talks about the constitution under Alexander I. Even two drafts were drawn up - M. M. Speransky, and later - Η. Η. Novosiltsev. Despite the fact that they were drawn up with the expectation not to shake the foundations of the autocracy in any way, things did not go beyond the author's exercises.

Quietly doing without a constitution, Russian emperors could not at the same time do without improving the state apparatus, without adapting it to the needs of the new time. According to modern researchers, the need for reform was determined by two main circumstances. First, the development of bourgeois relations in Russia and bourgeois revolution in the West, it was required to adapt the state apparatus so that it could defend the feudal order. Secondly, the nobility, its elite, including the top officials, wanted to keep the emperor in their hands so that he would not take it into his head to encroach on their class privileges, the objective need to limit which was long overdue.

The development of the state mechanism as a whole is characterized in the pre-reform period by conservatism and reactionaryness. The changes that have taken place in it are small and refer mainly to the very beginning of the century, when the young Alexander I, with a circle of like-minded aristocrats, decided to carry out liberal reforms. These reforms, however, stopped at the establishment of ministries and the Council of State.

Having received an order from the emperor to develop a project for the transformation of the state mechanism, M. M. Speransky proposed the creation of the State Duma - a representative body elected by the owners of real estate, which was given legislative prerogatives. At the same time, it was proposed to create a purely bureaucratic State Council, which would also be entrusted with legislative and, at the same time, administrative duties. The idea of ​​the State Duma was resolutely rejected, because it was seen as an attempt to limit the autocracy, and the State Council was created in 1810.

All bills had to pass through the Council of State. He himself had to develop the most important of them. However, in Education State Council It was emphasized that no project can become law without the approval of its emperor. The State Council was also responsible for financial management.

The council consisted of a general meeting and 4 departments: the department of laws, departments of military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, and state economy. The emperor himself was considered the chairman of the State Council. However, it was envisaged that he could entrust the chairmanship function to one of the members of the Council. Practically during the period under review, the tsar himself never presided over the Council.

Even earlier, the sectoral management bodies were reformed. Petrovsky collegiums already during the 18th century. gradually withered. The principle of collegiality that existed in these bodies was increasingly replaced by the one-man command of their presidents, and the collegiums themselves were abolished one after another under Catherine II. At the very beginning of his reign, in 1802, Alexander I introduced new bodies of branch management - ministries. The experience of their work was summarized and consolidated in 1811 by the "General Establishment of Ministries". Ministries of foreign affairs, military, financial, justice, etc. were created. The circle of ministries changed throughout the period.

The main difference between ministries and collegiums was the approval of the principle of unity of command. The minister was fully responsible for the management of the branch of government entrusted to him and had all the powers to carry out this task. He was like an autocrat in his field of activity.

Simultaneously with the ministries, the Committee of Ministers was created. True, the regulation on it was published ten years later, in 1812. It was an advisory body under the tsar, which had, first of all, interdepartmental and supra-departmental functions, that is, it resolved issues relating to several ministries at once or exceeding the competence of the minister. In addition, he also had his own terms of reference, in particular. The committee oversaw governors and provincial boards. The Committee of Ministers included chairmen of departments of the State Council, ministers, heads of departments, and the Secretary of State.

The institution, which most clearly reflected the absolutist order of the structure of the highest governing bodies, was His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Under Nicholas, she actually stood over the entire apparatus of government. The fate of the state was decided by a small handful of people who were directly subordinate to the king. Under Nicholas I, 6 departments were created in this office, the rights of which almost did not differ from the rights of the ministries. Particularly well known is the notorious III Section, which waged a struggle against revolutionary and, in general, progressive moods in society. He was given a corps of gendarmes, the chief of which was considered the chief head of the III department. The whole country was divided into gendarmerie districts.

The secret police existed even before Nicholas. Upon accession to the throne, Alexander I abolished the secret expedition that had existed since the 18th century. However, already in 1805, leaving for the war with Napoleon, he created the Provisional Committee of the Higher Police to monitor public opinion. After the peace of Tilsit, this committee was transformed into the Committee of Public Safety, which was also charged with the duty of perusing private letters. At the end of the reign of Alexander I, bodies of political surveillance were created in the army as well.

Another kind of fame was given to the II Department of the Imperial Chancellery. It has carried out colossal work on the systematization of Russian legislation.

Local government did not undergo significant changes during this period.



The abolition of serfdom and the implementation of a number of bourgeois reforms brought about significant changes in the social system. A wide path was opened for the development of capitalism in Russia. However, even after the reform numerous vestiges of feudalism remained, especially in agriculture.

For some time, one of the methods of conducting landowner economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for working off. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.

Capitalist relations were steadily developing in the countryside. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the obstacles created by the communal system, there was a stratification of the peasantry. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.

But main line struggle in the countryside took place between the landlords and peasants. The peasantry as a whole waged a struggle against the landowners for the return of the peasant land that had been cut off in favor of the landowners during the peasant reform. Increasingly, the question of transferring all the landowners' land to the peasants was raised.

The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to look for extra work not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor to capitalist enterprises. The city was drawing the former peasants into its orbit more and more. As a result, they established themselves in capitalist production, and then their families also moved to the city. In the future, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into professional workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians. Insofar as the peasant escaped from the power of the serf-owner, to the extent that he became under the power of money, he fell into the conditions of commodity production, and became dependent on the nascent capital.

In the post-reform period, new plants and factories were built in Russia. The bourgeoisie, using a large influx of cheap labor, is developing industry at a gigantic pace, deriving superprofits from it. In the main branches of industry, the industrial revolution (the transition from manufactories to machine production) is being completed, and labor productivity is increasing.

Russia is rapidly overcoming its industrial backwardness. This was facilitated by the fact that Russian capitalists, creating new factories and plants (and the vast majority of new enterprises), equipped them with the most modern equipment for that time.

Russian industry was gaining such a powerful pace of development that late XIX in. prerequisites for the country's entry into a higher stage arose.

An important consequence of the development of capitalism in Russia was the formation of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which enter the political arena, actively joining in the struggle for their class interests.

The development of capitalism in Russia increasingly increases the importance of the bourgeoisie in society. However, its political positions are still not strong enough. Political power is still firmly held in the hands of the noble landowners. The preservation of class privileges gives the nobility significant political advantages: it continues to occupy key positions in the state apparatus.

The working class was brutally exploited. Working hours and size wages almost arbitrarily determined by manufacturers and breeders. The capitalists had the opportunity to employ workers on conditions of low wages and long hours of work. The work and life of the workers were extremely difficult.

In the second half of the XIX century. the proletariat is actively fighting for its rights. As one of the means of protecting his interests, he uses the strike struggle.

In the 90s. social-democratic workers' organizations arise. Professional revolutionaries are active in defending the interests of the proletariat. The revolutionary propaganda of Marxism is being widely developed. Conditions are ripening for the creation in Russia of a political party of the working class. In 1898, the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was convened.

In the 70s. populist movement emerges. By the end of the century, conditions were created for the formation of a peasant political party.

By the end of the XIX century. prerequisites are also created for the emergence of bourgeois political parties, but they are formed later.

In the second half of the XVIII - early XIX in. there was a process of decomposition of the feudal serf system and the development of bourgeois relations, which led to a change in the class structure of Russian society. New classes were born bourgeoisie and proletariat. The entire population was still divided into four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and city dwellers.

The ruling class was nobility. The economic and political power of the nobles was based on land ownership and the right to exploit the peasants who lived on the lands belonging to the nobles. They had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. Representatives of the nobility occupied all important positions in the bodies government controlled. The feudal state sought to strengthen the position of the nobility.

The title of nobility was considered as an inalienable, hereditary and hereditary, extending to all members of the nobleman's family. The nobility had such privileges as the freedom of the nobles to serve, leave the service, travel to other states, and renounce citizenship.

Among personal rights of nobles it can be noted: the right to noble dignity, the right to protect honor, personality and life, exemption from corporal punishment, etc. The property rights of the nobility included the following: property rights; the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property; the right to have factories and plants in cities; the right to trade on an equal footing with the merchants, etc.

With the increase land qualification the elections strengthened the role of large landowners in the noble class bodies and their influence on local government.

Since 1798, military personnel who were not nobles were not presented to the officer rank, and all non-noble officers were dismissed from military service.

Clergy still divided into "black" (monastic) and "white" (parish). In the development of the legal status of the clergy, the following two points should be noted.

On the one hand, the clergy received great perks: they and their children were freed from corporal punishment, the houses of the clergy were freed from land tax, from lodging, etc.

On the other hand, the autocracy tried limit the clergy only by persons directly serving in the churches.

The authorities sought to tie the most devoted ministers of the church to their social environment, where the noble aristocracy dominated. The clergy awarded with orders acquired noble rights. Thus, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and manageable social group.

The bulk of the population were feudal-dependent peasants. They were subdivided into landlord, state, sessional and appanage.

In 1801, a Decree was adopted, according to which merchants, philistines and all peasants (landlord peasants - Decree of 1803) were granted the right to buy land.

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 on free cultivators, the landlords received the right to release their peasants into the wild for a ransom set by the landowners themselves. Before the peasant reform of 1861, about 112 thousand people became free farmers.

In 1816, part of the state peasants was transferred to the position military settlers. They were obliged to engage in agriculture and carry out military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their life was regulated by the Military Charter.

In order to develop industry in 1818. A decree was issued that allowed all peasants to establish factories and factories.

In 1842 was adopted Decree on obligated peasants. In accordance with this act, the landlords could provide the peasants with land for lease, for which they had to fulfill the obligations established by the contract.

In 1847, to manage the state peasants, a Ministry of State Property. The quitrent taxation was also streamlined, the land allotments of state peasants were increased and the organs of peasant self-government were regulated: the volost gathering, the volost administration, the rural assembly, the village headman.

First half of the 19th century characterized by the rapid growth of cities: the number of urban population, the process of its stratification intensifies.

In 1832, a personal and hereditary honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were granted certain privileges: they did not pay the poll tax, did not bear recruitment duty, and were exempted from corporal punishment.

Due to the interest of the state in the development of trade and industry, rich merchants were endowed with special rights. Merchants It was divided into two guilds: the first guild included wholesalers, the second guild - retailers.

group guild composed and artisans assigned to the workshops. They were divided into masters and apprentices. The workshops had their own governing bodies.

working people, which included persons who were not accepted into the philistine societies, constituted the lowest group of the urban population.

Part personal rights of the burghers included: the right to protect honor and dignity, personality, life, the right to move, the right to travel abroad, etc. Among property rights of the bourgeoisie we can distinguish: the right to own property, the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property, the right to own industrial enterprises and crafts, the right to trade, etc.

The townspeople had their own class court

In the first half of the 19th century, Russia was an absolutist and feudal state. At the head of the empire was the king, who concentrated everything more and more; control threads in their hands. However, officially the entire population was still divided into four estates: the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and urban residents.

Nobility, as in the previous period, was the economically and politically dominant class. The nobles owned most of the land, they had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. They formed the basis of the state apparatus, occupying all command positions in it.

Clergy still divided into black (monastic) and white (parish). However, the legal status of this class, which finally turned into a service class, has changed significantly. On the one hand, the ministers of the church themselves received even greater privileges. On the other hand, the autocracy sought to limit the clergy only to persons directly serving in churches.

feudal dependents peasants constituted the bulk of the population. They were subdivided into landlord, state, sessional and appanage belonging to the royal family. Particularly difficult, as in previous years, was the situation of the landlord peasants. In the 10th volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (civil and boundary laws), serfs were ranked as movable property. Since 1816 part of the state peasants was transferred to the position of military settlers. They were supposed to be engaged in agriculture, handing over half of the harvest to the state, and to carry out military service.

Merchants and tradesmen constituted only a few percent of the population.

was in a special position Cossacks- a paramilitary class that performed the function of protecting the border areas of the state.

With the beginning of the industrial revolution, the formation of a new social stratum is associated - civilian workers. Poor townspeople, state peasants and serfs were employed at manufactories and factories, who left to work with the permission of their masters. By 1860, 4/5 of the workers were civilians.

In the second half of the XIX Russia's social development was determined by the conditions and course of the implementation of the peasant reform and the development of capitalist relations.

The class division of society has been preserved. Each class (nobles, peasants, merchants, philistines, clergy) had clearly defined privileges or restrictions. The development of capitalism gradually changed the social structure and appearance of estates, formed two new social groups - the classes of capitalist society (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). The features of the old and new social order were intertwined in the social structure.

The dominant position in the country still belonged to nobles. The nobility remained the backbone of the autocracy, occupied key positions in the bureaucracy, the army and public life. Some nobles, adapting to new conditions, actively participated in industrial and financial activities.

grew fast bourgeoisie, which was formed from the merchants, bourgeoisie, representatives of the wealthy peasantry. It gradually gained economic strength, but played an insignificant role in political life countries. Weak and unorganized, it supported the autocracy, which ensured the expansionist foreign policy and the possibility of exploitation of workers.

Peasants remained the most numerous social group. Having received freedom in 1861, they hardly adapted to their new social position. For this estate, numerous restrictions continued to exist in a wide variety of ways. social spheres. The community remained unshakable, limiting the legal, economic and personal life of the peasant. The community slowed down the social stratification of the peasants, but could not prevent it. It was moving at a slow pace. However, the penetration of capitalist relations into the countryside contributed to the division of the villagers into kulaks (rural bourgeoisie) and the bulk of the poor and half-ruined peasantry.

The impoverished peasantry and the urban poor served as a source of formation proletariat. The peculiarity of the working class in Russia was that it did not break its ties with the countryside. Therefore, the maturation of the cadre proletariat proceeded at a slow pace.