Manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility. Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility Manifesto on the granting of freedom to the nobility

HISTORY

Peter III stayed on the Russian throne for 186 days. During his short reign, many laws were passed. Turning to the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire,” we find 192 acts for the period from December 25, 1761 to June 28, 1762. Therefore, in my opinion, the historical assessment of Peter III, often found on the pages of individual works, as a person completely devoid of political ideas and common sense, does not correspond to reality.

On February 18, 1762, the manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” was published. Finally, the centuries-old dream of the nobles about liberation from compulsory service came true. Back in the 40-50s, the voices of noble ideologists V.II were often heard. Tatishcheva, I.I. Shuvalova, M.I. Vorontsova, A.P. Melgunov and others, who substantiated the need to exempt nobles from compulsory service. Moreover, during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, decrees were issued more than once regarding incorrigible noble “infidels”.

The nobles gratefully appreciated the appearance of the manifesto. Small-scale Tula nobleman A.T. Bolotov left a note in his memoirs: “this piece of paper produced indescribable pleasure.” Prosecutor General A.I. Glebov proposed to the Senate to build a golden statue as a sign of gratitude from the nobility. The poets also did not remain silent, in particular, Rzhevsky exclaimed in his ode that Peter III “gave Russia freedom and gave it prosperity.”

Of course, February 18, 1762 became a significant day in the history of legislation on noble privileges. However, the problem of the background to the appearance and authorship of the text of the manifesto still remains unclear. This problem was raised by historians M.M. Shcherbatov, then S.M. Soloviev, M.I. Semevsky, S.A. Korf, A.V. Romanovich-Slavatinsky, G.V. Vernadsky et al. Historians N.L. Rubinstein. CM. Troitsky approached the solution to this problem from the position of materialist dialectics. The research of A.S. has significantly advanced the study of this issue. Mylnikov and I.V. Faizova in the post-Soviet period. However, in our opinion, this problem requires further study.

For correct orientation in this complex issue, let us turn to the work of S.M. Solovyov “History of Russia since ancient times”, where in the book. XIII says that Peter III, on January 17, 1762, at a meeting of the Senate, announced his plans for the future: “The nobles continue to serve of their own free will, as long as and where they wish, and when there is wartime, they must all appear on such a basis as and in Livonia he compromises with the nobles"

The document is interesting. It can serve as a reference point for us to understand the background of the manifesto. There is an assumption that before its compilation, the legislation of Livonia was studied. Livonia (German bMaps!) 1) German. name of Livonia in the 13th-16th centuries. 2) The official name of the territory of Northern Latvia and Southern Estonia in the 17th - early centuries. XX centuries

I think it would not be superfluous to briefly recall here that Peter III, being the Grand Duke under the reigning Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, delved into all the conversations about the unsatisfactory aspects of the internal state of the country and, having become emperor, already knew the issues that needed to be paid attention to in order to gain popularity. “Even a few years before his accession to the throne, as his tutor Shtelin testifies, he often spoke about the need to grant the nobility freedom from compulsory service and the right to travel abroad.” It is completely natural that under these circumstances, as the first steps in a new field, he decided to start with legislation on the nobility. And a month later, on February 18, a manifesto appears. The key to revealing its background, in addition to the legislation of Livonia, can also be called the activities of the Legislative Commission of 1754-1766. V.N. Latkin devoted more than 100 pages to it in his study. The historian used the entire fund of the commission and not only gave a full assessment of its work, but also paid great attention to the third part of the Code that interests us. An attempt to solve the problem of the social direction of the commission’s activities and the connection between Part III, namely Chapter 22 “On the Rights and Advantages of the Nobility” with the manifesto of Peter III was made by G.V. Vernadsky, and this led the historian to recognize the deep historical roots of the manifesto. He claims that “the spirit of the ideas of the manifesto, of course, hovered over the work of the commission.” Having compared the texts of both documents, the author of the article comes to the following conclusion: “the project was drawn up after the publication of the manifesto.” It is difficult to agree with the assumption of a respected historian. In our opinion, N.L.’s version is more convincing. Rubinstein. In his article “The laid down commission of 1754-1766. and her draft of a new code “On the state of subjects in general”", approaching the problem of the prehistory of the manifesto in a different way, the historian expresses the idea that “the coincidence of the final text of the project and the text of the manifesto suggests that it was the manifesto that proceeded from the draft of Chapter 22 in its last editors". As evidence, he points to drafts of the original version of this chapter, where references are made in paragraphs. 3 and 4 to Elizaveta Petrovna. Therefore, chapter 22 was written before the manifesto.

Yes, indeed, the commission became in some way an arena of struggle between two court factions. On the one hand, the brothers P.I. and A.I. Shuvalov,

A.I. Glebova and D.V. Volkov, who proposed measures not only to strengthen the privileges of the nobles, but also the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, the brothers M.I. and R.L. Vorontsov and Ya.G1. Shakhovsky, who pursued a policy of narrow noble interests. But they were all interested in the abolition of compulsory service. From here a fact inevitably follows for our purposes, which is of particular importance: some provisions of the manifesto were developed by the Statutory Commission under Elizaveta Petrovna.

If we accept this starting point as correct, then it will be easier for us to understand the history of the drafting of the text of the manifesto. M.M. tells us interesting details on this matter. Shcherbatov. “This night is remarkable for Russia, as Dmitry Vasilyevich Volkov, then his secretary, told me. Peter the Third, in order to hide from the count. Elis. Romanovna, that this night he would have fun with the newly imported woman, said in front of Volkov that he had to spend this night with him in the fulfillment of an important task known to them in the discussion of the improvement of the State. Night came, the Emperor went to have fun with Princess Kurakina, telling Volkov to write some noble legislation by tomorrow, and was locked in an empty room with a Danish dog. Volkov, not knowing either the reason or the intention of the sovereign; I didn’t know what to start writing about, but I had to write. But as he was a shrewd man, he remembered the frequent statements to the Emperor from Count Roman Larionovich Vorontsov about the freedom of the nobility, and then wrote a manifesto about this. In the morning he was released from prison and the manifesto was tested and published by the Emperor.” S.A. also supports this version. Rudakova. She talks about the legend “in the papers of D.V. Volkov has a draft copy, corrected and scratched by his hand." But it is not possible to verify this due to their loss.

It would seem that a dark curtain is opening before us, and the author of the text of the manifesto is emerging. But D.V. himself Volkov in his letter to G.G. Orlov wrote on July 10, 1762: “As for internal affairs, my main works are three: 1) about monastic estates; 2) about the secret office; 3) a lengthy decree on commerce." The Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility is not included in the list of works; perhaps it did not belong to him. True, historian S.M. Soloviev believes that “the most desirable benefits were not given to the nobility, and without them, freedom from service was not particularly important, especially for the nobles who made up the highest circle of St. Petersburg, to whom Volkov was answerable. Here, in this circle, it was inconvenient to boast about the manifesto of February 18, and Volkov cleverly bypassed it, not putting it among his main affairs.”

Indeed, the manifesto did not fully satisfy the aspirations of the nobles: it did not abolish corporal punishment for the nobles, the right of the state to confiscate

noble estates, etc. But this does not change the essence of the matter. In this case, we agree with the opinion of G.V. Vernadsky, A.S. Mylnikov and a number of historians who claim that the story of M.M. Shcherbatov is biased and unfair, because the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe liberation of the nobles was announced by the emperor a month earlier, and was not accidental, as the author is trying to present. If the author of the manifesto had been D.V. Volkov, then in the same St. Petersburg circle it would have been known about this, and Volkov could not simply “keep silent,” he would at least have to touch on this issue. It follows that most likely the author of the manifesto was not him, but someone else.

The legislation of Peter III is associated not only with the name of D.V. Volkov, but also A.I. Glebova. A.I. Glebov - Prosecutor General, participated in the activities of the Legislative Commission: until 1760 his signature was permanent, in 1761 the signature disappeared from the journals of the commission and appeared irregularly in 1762. This suggests that he was familiar with the issue under discussion about the nobility. It is difficult to agree with the opinion of N.L. Rubinstein, convinced that “Vernadsky’s hypothesis about the original authorship of A.I. disappears. Glebov in relation to this chapter, since it appeared in the draft after he left the commission." Here I would like to cite evidence from the same work by N.L. Rubinshtein, which tells about the three editions of the III part of the draft Code stored in the codification archive. On the cover with editorial! (consisting of 19 chapters) and II (consisting of 22 chapters) the years 1754 and 1760 are indicated. The researcher is sure that these are the years when work on the editions began: 1754 - on the 1st edition and 1760 - on the 2nd edition. But it is likely that they have significance as the beginning of work on the 1st edition - 1754 and the end of work on the 2nd edition - 1760, when all the work was already completed. And then there is reason to believe that. already being an active participant in the commission, A.I. Glebov took part in the discussion of chapter 22. And therefore he knew about its contents.

Authorship A.I. Glebova is also recognized by M.I. Semevsky. He pays attention to that. that the manifesto was not published in St. Petersburg Vedomosti, while “legalizations edited in this era by Volkov (for example, on commerce, etc.) were reprinted in Vedomosti.” Moreover, about the interest of A.I. Glebov is also evidenced by the fact with what delight he greeted the idea of ​​​​Peter III about the liberation of the nobility.From the compared facts, we have reason to assume that the author of the text of the manifesto was, after all, A.I. Glebov.

Let us dwell in detail on some aspects of the act under study. The manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility” begins with an indication of the reason for its publication. Peter III saw that the efforts of Peter the Great and his successors were not in vain. The duty of the nobles to serve and study both in Russia and abroad was only beneficial. “We see with our pleasure and every true son of his fatherland

I must admit that odd benefits resulted from this, rudeness was destroyed in those who were careless about the common good, ignorance was changed into common sense, useful knowledge and diligence in service multiplied skilled and brave generals in military affairs, in civil and political affairs it placed knowledgeable and suitable people in matter, in a word, to conclude, the noble ones have instilled in the hearts of all true Russian patriots, boundless loyalty and love for us, great zeal and excellent zeal for our service.”

Therefore, the emperor is confident that the moment has come when it is possible to free the nobles from service “from now on forever, and in hereditary generations we grant all the Russian noble nobility liberty and freedom, which can continue to serve, both in our empire and in other European our allied powers."

But now, as we see, this service is not obligatory and is optional. Nobles have the right to serve both in their Fatherland and abroad. “Whoever, having been dismissed from our service, wishes to go to other European states, to give our Foreign Collegium the appropriate passports without hindrance with such an obligation that when need demands” ... then everyone in such a case is guilty of fulfilling our will with all possible speed, under a fine of sequestration of his estate."

But the following point attracts attention: it turns out that the nobles are entrusted with a special election service “... for all sorts of emergencies. Then We most highly command from now on, whenever the weather changes, there will be thirty people in the Senate, and two twenty people in the Office.”

The manifesto gave the nobles the right to choose to raise their children both in their own country in schools and homes, and abroad. The choice of teaching media did not imply exemption from study. But due to the fact that not all nobles were able to give their children an education corresponding to their position in society, since considerable funds were required, Peter III allows all nobles “with no more than 1000 peasant souls behind them, to declare their children directly in our Nobility cadet corps, where they will be taught with the most diligent care everything that belongs to the knowledge of the noble nobility.”

Further, Peter III hopes that in the future, “All the noble Russian nobility, feeling a little of our generosity towards them and their descendants, by their all-subordinate loyalty and zeal for us, will be encouraged not to retire, to hide from service, but with jealousy and desire to enter into it and in an honest and not shameful manner, continue it at the very least.” The legislator is confident that the nobility will educate children without reminders from the government and only when absolutely necessary warns “all those. who had no service anywhere, but only as themselves

They will send their children away in laziness and idleness all the time, and they will not use their children for the benefit of their fatherland in any useful sciences. We, as those who are careless about the common good, despise and destroy, we command all our loyal subjects and true sons of the fatherland, and below to the court our arrival or in public meetings and celebrations will be tolerated."

Undoubtedly, this manifesto was of great importance for the nobility. This document changed their whole lives. This is how S.L. wrote about it. Korf: “Hundreds of nobles began to travel to their estates, where they were drawn not at all by the desire to engage in agriculture or to indulge in any local economic and administrative interests, but simply by the desire to take a break from the hated and difficult capital military discipline and puzzling bureaucracy.”

Thus, the new law became the pinnacle in strengthening the position of the nobility as a privileged class. Securing the legal right to freedom from service, he left only a moral obligation for the nobles. The nobility, brought up according to the laws of honor, had to remember their duty in the development of science and selfless service to the people. However, despite the privileges received, one of the first decisive actions of the “free nobility” was to deprive the “liberator” of power. At a time when the nobility as a whole was rejoicing, part of the court nobility and the guard were planning a conspiracy. The strangeness of this behavior is explained by the fact that they needed freedom, but not the emperor, who “did not know” Russia and did not defend its interests. The Guard made a change of power.

Literature and sources

Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire (PSZ). T.15. No. 11444. pp. 912-915.

2. Essays on the history of the USSR. XVIII century. Second half. M.: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1956.S. 78

3. PSZ T.13. No. 9909. pp. 541-543; T.N. No. 10234. No. 102234. pp. 85-87; T.15. No. 11197. P.637-638

4. Bolotov A.T. The life and adventures of Andrei Bolotov, described by himself for his descendants. St. Petersburg, 1870. T. 1. P. 131-132.

5. Fanzova I.V. “Manifesto of Liberty” and the service of the nobility in the 18th century. M.: Nauka, 1999. S.Z.

6. Romanovich-Slavatinsky A.V. Nobility in Russia from the beginning of the 18th century. until the abolition of serfdom. St. Petersburg, 1870. P. 195.

7. “On the corruption of morals in Russia” by Prince Shcherbatov and “Journey” by A. Radishchev. M.: Pauka, 1983. P.77-78; Soloviev S.M. History of Russia from ancient times. M.: Mysl, 1965. Book. XIII. P.12-15; Semevsky M.I. Six months from Russian history of the 18th century // Otechestvennye zapiski, St. Petersburg, 1867. T. 173. P. 770; Korf S.A. The nobility and its class management over the century /1762-1855/. St. Petersburg, 1906. P.4; Romanovich-Slavatinsky A.V. Decree. Op. pp. 191-197; Vernadsky G.V. Manifesto of Peter III on the freedom of the nobility and the legislative commission of 1754-1766 // Historical review. Pg„ 1915. T.20. P.51-59.

8. Rubinshtein N.L. Laid commission 1754-1766 and her draft of the new Code “On the state of subjects in general” // Historical Notes. M., 1951. T.38. P.208-251; Troitsky SM. Russian absolutism and the nobility in the 18th century. M.: Science. 1974. pp. 140-144.

9. Mylnikov A.S. Peter III. M.; Young Guard, 2002.P. 149-1 5 1; Fayuva I. V. Decree. Op. P.42.

10. Soloviev S.M. Decree. Op. P.11-12.

11. Large encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 1998. P.652.

12. Romanovich-Slavatinsky A.V. Decree. Op. P.191.

13. Latkin V.N. Legislative commissions in Russia in the 18th century. SPb.. 1887. T.1 P. 80-184.

14. Vernadsky G.V. Decree. Op. P.55.

15. Ibid. P.58.

16. Rubinshtein N.L. Decree. Op. P.239.

17. “On the corruption of morals in Russia” by Prince Shcherbatov and “Journey” by A. Radishchev. M.: Nauka, 1983. P.77-78.

18. Vernadsky G.V. Decree op. P.53.

19. Dmitry Vasilievich Volkov. Materials for his biography. Letters from D.V. Volkova to G.G. Orlov dated July 10, 1762 // Russian antiquity. St. Petersburg, 1874. T. 1 1. P. 484.

20. Soloviev S.M. Decree. Op. P. 15.

21. Rubinshtein N.L. Decree. Op. P.237.

22. Semevsky M.I. Decree. Op. P.770.

23. PSZ. T.15. No. 11444. P.912-915.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Korf S.A. Decree. Op. C.4.

31. Plekhanov G.V. Essays. M.; J1.: State publishing house, 1927. T.24. P.22.

VASILYEVA IZOLDA VALERIEVNA was born in 1969. Graduated from Chuvash State University. Postgraduate student at the Department of Source Studies and Archival Studies of the Chuvash University.___________________________

V.D. DIMITRIEV

CITY PEOPLE, LANDSCAPE PEOPLE, MONASTERIES AND SERVE PEASANTS OF CHEBOKSARY, TSIVILSKY, YADRINSKY, KOKSHAYSKY DISTRICTS ACCORDING TO CENSUS BOOKS OF 1646

In Russia from the end of the 15th to the end of the 18th century. Scribe censuses (often with land surveying) of lands and tax-paying population were carried out to collect taxes. Scribe and land survey books contain the most valuable information about land ownership and peasants. In 1646, a census of the tax-paying population was carried out for the first time throughout Russia - census books were compiled. Only the male population was enumerated. In the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA), in fund 1209 - Local order - census books of 1646 of Cheboksary, Yadrinsky, Kozmodemyansky have been preserved. Sviyazhsk, Kokshay districts.

In this article we will try to outline the main content of the census books of Cheboksary, Tsivilsky, Yadrinsky and Kokshay districts so that it can be used as a source.

The census book of the Cheboksary district begins with the words: “In the summer of July 7154 (1646), on the 12th day, according to the sovereign, the tsar and the Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, by decree and by order from the Kazan Palace, signed by clerk Pyatov Spiridonov Ofonasey Grigorievich Lodyzhenskaya and clerks Ondrey Bulygin, having arrived in the city of Cheboksary at the settlement of the Sadtsky trade and craft people in the city and in the district, in estates and estates in villages and in repairs of peasant and boby [b] courtyards, and in the courtyards of themselves and their children and brother[ b]yu, and nephews, and grandchildren, and backbones were copied from their fathers and from their nicknames.”

On the outskirts of the Cheboksary city in the courtyards:

1) Ivan Sergeev, son of Sevrin, 4 sons, 1 grandson: “and he bought that little tarchenka Stenka from him”; 2) Ya.A. Moskvitinov, brother, 3 sons; 3) M.I. Tveritin, 1 son; “from him, Mikhail, Onisimko Mikhailov, a resident of Nizhny Novgorod, was taken from him for a difficult period”; 4) A.M. Kozlov, 3 brothers, 3 sons, a brother has 1 son, “yes, their cousin Ivashko Petrov was taken from them for good years”; 5) G.I. Kovshenikov, 1 son, 1 father-in-law (“poor and old”); “Yes, Gavrila, he bought a Tatar boy from him

Thus, over the course of 30 years (1730 - 1760), the hereditary nobility acquired a number of benefits and advantages in terms of per capita and land ownership, namely: 1) strengthening of real estate on patrimonial right with free disposal, 2) class monopoly of serfdom, 3) expansion judicial and police power of the landowner over serfs to the most severe criminal penalties, 4) the right to sell landless serfs, not excluding peasants, 5) a simplified procedure for searching for fugitives, 6) cheap state credit secured by real estate. All these advantages boiled down to a sharp legal separation and moral alienation of the hereditary nobility from other classes of society. At the same time, the service obligation of the nobility was gradually eased by granting the right to enter military service directly as officers based on educational qualifications and by establishing a period of compulsory service. These property rights and service benefits were crowned by the exemption of the nobility from compulsory service. During the patriotic reign of Elizabeth, Russian people of hereditary noble and Cossack origin stood near the throne, who did not share the boyar plans of 1730, but jealously guarded the interests of the class in which they were born or took refuge as adopted children. In the circle of these people, the idea of ​​the final liberation of the nobility from compulsory service grew, conceived in the head of Prince D. M. Golitsyn, frightened by the servitude of the nobility. Moving around in the circle of these people, Elizabeth’s nephew, the Holstein prince, whom she appointed as heir to the throne, could have internalized this patriotic idea during his aunt’s lifetime. Upon his accession to the throne under the name of Peter III, the people of this circle - Roman Vorontsov, the father of his favorite, and other national liberals, silently “reassured” him, as a contemporary put it, about the release of nobles from service. This desire was fulfilled by a manifesto on February 18, 1762, granting “liberty and liberty to the entire Russian noble nobility.” This is the content of this seminarian-pompous and clerical-ignorant act. All nobles who are in any service can continue it as long as they wish; only military personnel cannot ask for resignation during a campaign or three months before it. A non-serving nobleman can go to other European states, even enter the service of other European sovereigns and, upon returning to his fatherland, be received with the rank he has served abroad; only “when need demands”, everyone is obliged, at the call of the government, to immediately return from abroad. The authorities retained the right to call nobles to serve when “a special need arises.” The educational obligation was not lifted: the nobles were given the opportunity to educate their children in Russian schools, or in other European powers, or at home, with strict confirmation, “so that no one would dare to raise their children under our severe wrath without learning the sciences appropriate to the noble nobility.” " as if those who are careless about the common good are to be despised and humiliated, not to be accepted into the court and not to be tolerated in public meetings.” It is not difficult to understand the main idea of ​​the manifesto: he wanted to turn the duty required by law into a requirement of state decency, public conscience, the failure of which is punishable by public opinion. But according to the logical development of this thought in the manifesto, it turns out that he granted the nobleman the right to be a dishonest person, only with some court and public deprivations. Removing from the class a centuries-old duty, entangled with a whole world of diverse interests, the manifesto did not give any deliberate practical instructions about the procedure for its implementation and the consequences flowing from it. It is easy to understand how the class greeted this new favor. Contemporary Bolotov, in his most curious notes, notes: “I cannot imagine what indescribable pleasure this piece of paper produced in the hearts of all the nobles of our dear fatherland; everyone almost jumped up for joy and, thanking the sovereign, blessed the moment at which he was pleased to sign this decree.” One of the poets of that time, the nobleman Rzhevsky, wrote an ode on this occasion, in which he said about the emperor that he gave Russia freedom and gave it prosperity.

THIRD SERfdom. The Manifesto of February 18, removing compulsory service from the nobility, does not say a word about noble serfdom, which flowed from it as its source. According to the requirements of historical logic or social justice, the next day, February 19, should have followed the abolition of serfdom; it followed the next day, only 99 years later. This legislative anomaly ended a legally incongruous process in the state position of the nobility: as the official duties of the class became easier, its ownership rights, based on these duties, expanded. The law introduced serfdom into the third phase of its development, which had been prepared since the first revision: the personal contractual obligation of the peasant by agreement with the landowner before the Code, in the era of the Code, transformed into hereditary state service of peasants on privately owned land to maintain the serviceability of the military service class, serfdom with With the abolition of compulsory service, the nobility received a formation that is difficult to define legally. It has lost its political justification, has become a consequence that has lost its cause, a fact worked out by history. In this phase of law, serfdom received a rather complicated legal and economic structure. Together with other tax-paying classes, serfs paid the state an indemnity for the maintenance of the army in the form of a poll tax. A much larger part of serf labor in the form of monetary quitrents, corvée and natural taxes went to the benefit of the owners. This part consisted of two only mentally distinguishable shares: 1) from the rent for the land plot, which the peasant would have paid even if he were not a serf, and for economic assistance, and 2) from the indemnity specially serf tax for the maintenance of the owner obliged to serve, requiring special expenses. Judicial and police powers served the landowner as auxiliary means for the proper performance of the duties assigned to him even before the abolition of compulsory service, namely the collection of poll taxes from serfs and economic assistance to them in case of crop failure. Granting freedom to the nobility, transferring the matter from military-political to fiscal-police grounds, the state and the nobility divided the serfs among themselves: the state ceded to the class its rights to the personality and work of the serf for the obligation to pay a poll tax for him and take care of his household, as far as necessary. to maintain the productivity of the land as a financial source, “so that the land does not lie idle,” in the words of the decree of 1734. The same rights and instructions were given to the managers of the palace and church serfs. Thus, about 4,900 thousand serfs, who made up at least 73% of the total tax-paying population according to the second revision (1740s), were placed at the economic and judicial-police disposal of private individuals and institutions due to the annual payment of 3,425 thousand rubles. Regardless of possible legal definitions, in practice such a fiscal operation was very similar to class hereditary farming with the transformation of the personality and labor of a serf into a profitable regalia. Therefore, serfdom of this third formation can be called farm-out or fiscal police, unlike the two previous ones, personal-contractual and hereditary military serviceman. Church lands with peasants were soon secularized. The nature of the third serfdom was fully and clearly revealed on the land of the landowners, on which, according to the second revision, there were up to 3 1/2 million serf souls, which accounted for more than half, namely 54%, of the rural population of the empire. This right has even less legitimacy than the previous ones. Law and practice, that is, the connivance of the authorities, erased those weak provisions for the personality and labor of the serf that the Code spared, and added new abuses to the previous ones. Arbitrary transfers of peasants, grants of populated estates even at the choice of those granted, mass enslavement from a capitation salary of unhoused people, vagabonds, homeless clergymen, etc., mixing of peasant arable land with lordly land in the first revision, which shifted the tax from land to souls, which was extremely difficult the rationing of land allotment to peasants and their duties, on the contrary, facilitated the deprivation of land by peasants through the expansion of lordly arable farming, and finally, allowing the landless sale of peasants at retail - all this gave a completely wrong direction to the serfdom issue. In the 17th century landowners sought to place courtyard people on arable land as peasants, interfering with the types of bondage. The first revision consolidated this confusion by enrolling all non-taxable slaves in the per capita salary on an equal basis with peasants. Taking advantage of this mixture, designed to strengthen rather than enslave the people's labor, after Peter the government and the nobility began to transform the serf peasantry into tax-paying servitude. The worst kind of serf bondage that Europe knew was formed - attachment not to the land, as was the case in the West, not even to the state, as we had in the era of the Code, but to the face of the owner, that is, to pure arbitrariness. Thus, at a time when our serfdom lost its historical justification, at this very time we began to strengthen it intensively. It came from both sides - the government and the nobility. The government, previously demanding of the nobles, as obligated to their servants, now tried to spare them, as their free agents sent to their own villages to maintain order. One comparison reveals a turning point in noble concepts that took place over the course of 70 - 80 years. During the reign of Princess Sophia, Prince V.V. Golitsyn found it possible to free the peasants legally by ceding the lands they cultivated to them. His relative Prince D. A. Golitsyn, a friend of Voltaire, decided to set the first example for the liberation of the peasants by granting them property. The free-thinking prince was understood to mean that he insisted on ceding the lands that they cultivated to the peasants. In 1770, the prince wrote touchingly in his defense that such an absurdity had never occurred to him: “The lands belong to us; it would be a gross injustice to take them away from us.” By granting property to the peasants, he meant only their personal liberation, that is, “their ownership of their personality,” the right to movable property and the permission to acquire land for those who can. Obviously, the decree of 1731, which granted former estates to estates, changed the view of landowners on their lands, and the manifesto of February 18, 1762 strengthened this changed view. Previously, from his regimental or clerical distance, the landowner knew that his land was a limited, cramped, conditional possession. Mandatory service, leaving the shoulders of the nobility, took with it the memory of the origin and meaning of serfdom. Nestling in his estate with his judicial-police powers, amid the uncontrolled practices of power, he got used to seeing in the owned estate his state territory, and in its population his “subjects,” as government acts taught him to call his serfs. The government could count that its own interest would force the landowner to take care of his peasants, about their farms, in order to maintain their paying ability, the weakening of which would hurt the landowner himself, as a responsible tax payer for his serfs. Whether he was prepared by service for agriculture - this question, apparently, worried the government little, although in 1730 among the nobles themselves there was concern that the “vile gentry”, the lower nobility, which was believed to number more than 50 thousand, had been disbanded from the army to their homes , all the same, they will not get used to feeding themselves from the land with their labors, and for the most part they will engage in robbery and robberies and will keep thieves’ havens in their homes.

- (Manifesto on the granting of freedom and liberty to the Russian nobility), a law that expanded the rights and liberties of the Russian nobility. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. The nobles were exempt from mandatory state and military... ... Russian history

- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobility Issued on February 18. 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... ... Political science. Dictionary.

Legal dictionary

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- (“On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility”) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. In accordance with the manifesto, all nobles were freed from... ... Legal encyclopedia

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russians. nobles Published 18 Feb. 1762 imp. Peter III. According to M. about v. d. all nobles were exempted from compulsory citizenship. and military services;... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility- (“On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility”) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. In accordance with the manifesto, all nobles were freed from... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law

manifesto on the freedom of the nobility- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... ... Large legal dictionary

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- law signed on February 18, 1762 by Peter III. Developed by Prosecutor General A.I. Glebov. Nobles were exempted from compulsory military and civil service, which contributed to their settling on estates. The nobles were allowed... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century

by the liberty of the nobility- Wed. What was the huge phalanx of our pillar and non-pillar nobles to do, who had served their time or, due to the freedom granted to the nobility, were not going to serve at all... Feast?.. Kokhanovskaya. Old man. Wed. A nobleman, when he wants, and servants... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

(“On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility”) - a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russians. nobles Published 18 Feb. 1762 imp. Peter III. According to M. about v. d. all nobles were exempted from compulsory citizenship. and military services; held at the state service could retire. This most important privilege was retained by the nobles for more than 100 years. The nobles could freely travel abroad, but at the request of the government they could return to Russia. During wars, nobles had to serve in the army. Right Russian nobles raising their children in “schools and at home” became their unity. class duty. With the publication of M. about century. d. the nobles received more opportunities to engage in their farming. At the same time, M. o v. D. strengthened the social support of absolutism in Russia. Basic M.'s provisions on the century. were confirmed by the government during the publication of the Charter of the Nobility in 1785.

Lit.: Vernadsky G.V., Manifesto of Peter III on the freedom of the nobility and legislators. commission 1754-1766, "Historical Review", vol. 20, P., 1915; Essays on the history of the USSR. Russia in the second half of the 18th century, M., 1956; On the granting of liberty to the Russian nobility, in the book: Reader on the history of the USSR, comp. Belyavsky M. T. and Pavlenko N. I., M., 1963.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .

See what the “MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY” is in other dictionaries:

- (Manifesto on the granting of freedom and liberty to the Russian nobility), a law that expanded the rights and liberties of the Russian nobility. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. The nobles were exempt from mandatory state and military... ... Russian history

- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobility Issued on February 18. 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... ... Political science. Dictionary.

Legal dictionary

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- (“On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility”) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. In accordance with the manifesto, all nobles were freed from... ... Legal encyclopedia

This term has other meanings, see Manifesto (meanings). Wikisource has texts on the topic... Wikipedia

- (“On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility”) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of the Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. In accordance with the manifesto, all nobles were freed from... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law

manifesto on the freedom of the nobility- (On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility) a law that expanded the class rights and privileges of Russian nobles. Published on February 18, 1762 by Emperor Peter III. All nobles were exempt from compulsory civil and military... ... Large legal dictionary

MANIFESTO ON THE LIBERTY OF THE NOBILITY- law signed on February 18, 1762 by Peter III. Developed by Prosecutor General A.I. Glebov. Nobles were exempted from compulsory military and civil service, which contributed to their settling on estates. The nobles were allowed... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century

Wed. What was the huge phalanx of our pillar and non-pillar nobles to do, who had served their time or, due to the freedom granted to the nobility, were not going to serve at all... Feast?.. Kokhanovskaya. Old man. Wed. A nobleman, when he wants, and servants... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary