The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The Russian power and country next-to-skin lands at the end of XIX beginning of the 20th century



60 _____________________________ POWER ________________________ 03’2008

Valery SOLOVYOV, Alexander SOLYANICHENKO

the Russian power and country next-to-skin LANDS at the end of XIX - the BEGINNING of the 20th CENTURY

Modernization of Russia at a boundary of H1H-HH vekov affected practically all spheres of activity. Meanwhile updating of the country depended on successful integration into uniform economic, social and legal space of the most numerous group of the population - the peasantry. Their class isolation which overcoming was impossible without change of legal status of country next-to-skin lands became an obstacle in this way.

By the beginning of the 20th century the fund of the next-to-skin earth made 35.1% of all comfortable earth of the European part of Russia (the rest was made by private-ownership lands, mainly landowner). For 1905 in 50 provinces of the European Russia there were more than 136.9 million des. next-to-skin earth. The next-to-skin lands including an arable land, the woods, meadows, pastures, pastures, waters were a kernel of country land use.

In this regard the question of assessment by the power of the place and a role of next-to-skin fund in the system of autocracy, about ability of autocracy at the turn of the century to overcome traditionalist paradigms of the peasantry which consequence substantially and was a phenomenon of next-to-skin land tenure is of interest.

"Situation" did not lead on February 19, 1861 to elimination of legal isolation of peasants. On the contrary — the national justice was legalized, and the Code of laws is recognized as non-conforming to conditions of country life. The fund of next-to-skin land tenure created during peasant reform under the prevailing influence of Slavophile views initially served the purpose of "providing life of peasants", and not formation of conditions of free business and the market of the earth at all. Withdrawal of next-to-skin lands from all-civil circulation was explained by it. Legal restrictions for next-to-skin lands pursued several aims. In the plan economic they had to keep a group of the small producers giving about a half of agricultural products, to provide with labor of landowners. In the social plan the next-to-skin lands were considered as means against social stratification of the village, a peasantry proletarization. In political — were designed to provide to the existing mode a conservative support acting through a group of small producers. Certainly, all marked purposes were incompatible with "philosophy" of private property per se. The next-to-skin fund had to provide stability of country situation ("life of peasants") first of all due to the system of legal restrictions in the right of use, possession and orders with the earth.

According to the provision of 1861 there were two main forms of next-to-skin land use — communal and household. And that, and other option had a number of essential limiters. So, a legal entity on the next-to-skin lands which appeared in races political science, SGAU of a poryazheniya of country communities was rural society, in

Valery Yuryevich SOLOVYOV is a candidate of historical sciences, the associate professor of economic and political history, SGSEU

Alexander Nikolaevich SOLYANICHENKO is a candidate of historical sciences, the senior teacher of department of history, cultural science and

03’2008 __________________ POWER _________________________ 61

which continuous use there were plots before commission of the redemption transaction. And after repayment of the earth was recognized as the property of all society. Society within the first nine years after reform had no right to alienate next-to-skin lands. After the nine-year period (before payment of a redemption loan) it could alienate the earth, but with the permission of provincial presence and with introduction of the gained money on account of the remained redemption debt. Before repayment of repayment of a loan the earth could not be provided as a deposit for receiving loans from credit institution, according to obligations with treasury or individuals. Practice of repartitions of the communal earth strengthened a priority of communal land right over private and emphasized isolation of next-to-skin land use.

To be fair it should be noted that in plans of authors of the project of peasant reform there was no aspiration to preserve legal isolation of peasants. The Soslovnost was not end in itself, did not go for "preservation of serf norms of life". Gradual elimination of legal restrictions, after payment by peasants of the loan presented to them by the state was assumed (in 49 years), an exit of certain householders from community by an apportionment in personal property of separate grounds was allowed. Article 165 of the Provision on repayment provided even early repayment by peasants of next-to-skin lands at introduction of the necessary sum. In other words, the mechanism of the transfer of the week earth to personal property before the expiration of 49 years was provided.

Within the general domestic policy of the government of Alexander III who received the name of counterreforms there was a revision of some essential provisions of the legislation on the peasantry. As a result the volume of restrictions in use of the next-to-skin earth not only did not decrease, but also significantly increased. On this way laws of June 8, 1893 on land repartitions and of December 14, 1893 became the most important. "About some measures to prevention of alienation of country next-to-skin lands".

Especially the confusion was caused in power by Paragraph 2 of Article 165 of the Provision on repayment which

allowed the member of community to demand an apportionment to him in the property of a plot (without the consent of community) after early introduction of the redemption sum which is due from it. This norm opened a way to sale by peasants of the bought lands. It was started dangerous in terms of the right - telstvo process of a proletarization of country weight, washing out of a traditional support of the power with far-reaching socio-political consequences. The Ministry of Internal Affairs suggested to cancel the second paragraph of the 165th article about repayment. At the same time the basic proclaimed the principle of inalienability of plots: restrictions of the right of purchase and sale, guarantee, other ways of alienation.

The large reformer of an era of reign of Alexander II N. of X became the opponent in principle of the project. Bunge. He consistently and persistently asserted the right of peasants to dispose of the earth on the basis of not cut down, and full authority of a private property. For it and an exit of peasants from community, and sale of the plots by them was represented quite natural. The main task of the government seemed to it in "simplification of conditions for formation of a private property" 1, capable to intensify agriculture. At this N. of X. Bunge considered this measure as a basis for equality of peasants.

S.Yu. Witte and most of members of the State Council which supported him for which consideration the project of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was submitted adhered to an opposite position. In compliance with the Slavophile views of that time it defended inalienability of next-to-skin lands and was the convinced supporter of community. The problem of legal status of next-to-skin lands was not considered by it at that moment in terms of development of domestic market for the industrialization which is carried out by him. Without any reservations he introduced the ban of pledge and sale of next-to-skin lands to persons of another sosloviya2.

S.Yu. Witte and his supporters saw usefulness for Russia of next-to-skin lands that, first, inalienability of plots guarantees peasants against economic slavery, against transformation

1 V.L. Stepanov. N of X. Bunge. Fate of the reformer. M, 1998, p. 251
2 Karelin A.P. Stepanov of S.A. Witte of S.Yu. Finansist, politician, diplomat. M, 1998, p. 89
62 _______________________ POWER ___________________ 03’2008

them in landless the proletariat as it happened in Western Europe. Though as supporters of next-to-skin lands noted, the specified measure and will increase negative attitude of peasants to the right of a private property for the earth, but will win welfare of the country population as the next-to-skin earth will remain at those who process it. Secondly, the Western European experience of regulation of the land attitudes towards Russia is inapplicable as in the West the unlimited freedom of trade the country earth results in adverse results. Thirdly, post-reform life showed that life of mass of the country population cannot be provided to the natural course. All this, according to the majority, blocked consequences from negative attitude of peasants to the right of a private property for the earth.

The point of view of the majority considering that inalienability of plots corresponds long since to the developed outlook of our people which did not acquire to itself(himself) a concept about the right of exclusive and full property for the wordly earth at all won, and it is rather inclined to look at it as on property of the state represented by the autocratic power. As a result of December 14, 1893 the State Council adopted the law forbidding an exit from community without its consent even at early repayment of a plot (second paragraph of the 165th article) and also sale, pledge and donation of plots to "the persons which are not attributed to rural societies". The law actually destroyed the 165th article. Political and ideological motives at the solution of a question of land property of peasants prevailed.

The law adopted still on June 8, 1893 which limited control of community of repartitions of the wordly earth and also the law defined on December 14, 1893 the new system of legal restrictions in the sphere of country land use.

According to the updated legislation of an innovation looked as follows.

At communal use of the earth the general or radical repartition of the next-to-skin earth was passed under control of government administration. Repartition was carried out under sentence of society (with the consent of 2/3 all householders), but at the same time the sentence of a village assembly about conditions of repartition came into force only after its check on the place by the territorial chief and the approvals by a district congress. Besides, not to allow degeneration of plots and also for ensuring bigger stability in use of plots the minimum term of repartition was established (not earlier than in 12 years). Early repartition or the final partition of the next-to-skin earth into household sites were allowed only by provincial presence. At the same time the sentence was also checked by the territorial chief. Could be it either it is approved, or will reject.

Fell under restrictions and intra family sections. Their commission required consent not less than 2/3 all householders who had the right to vote on a descent.

In case of the death of the householder, his dismissal from society, expulsion on court or a public censure, or its unknown absence and leaving of economy without care if after the dead or the left person did not remain in the company of members of family behind whom the site could be left, refusal of the householder of use of the earth or its malfunction in payment of duties the remained sites can be or are transferred to other householders, or kept in public use in the form of wordly quitrent articles.

Peculiar the legal entity was defined the legislation on the next-to-skin earth by

>. To them the householder appeared. However he was not an owner of land, and was the representative of the country yard both before rural society, and before the state. He was responsible for payment of taxes, redemption payments and execution of duties. However the head of the family had no personal right of possession of the earth as according to common law it belonged to all family.

The agricultural crisis of the end of the 19th century which was expressed in crop failures of the 90th years, and the followed rural hunger strikes pushed the power to revision of agrarian policy in the country. In the same direction conducted also the industrial recession which began since 1900 called into question S.Yu. Witte's arguments about a priority of active investment into the industry as a fundamental condition of enrichment of all population.

By the beginning of the 20th century two main approaches in the relation dalney03 ’2008 _____________ the POWER ____________________ 63 accurately came to light

sew the fate of the social and economic development of the country directly connected with position (state) of the Russian village.

For the purpose of studying problems of the peasantry in 1902 practically at the same time, two government agencies — Drafting panel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on revision of the legislation on peasants (RK) and the Special meeting about needs of the agricultural industry appear. Both institutions in the activity concerned a wide range of questions. However inevitably led the analysis of development of agriculture and a legal status of the peasantry, definition of measures of improvement of country farms to consideration of a problem about the nature of country land tenure.

Meeting in tactical questions concerning recognition country malozemelya, in negative attitude to crushing of lands, in a question of preservation of landowner land tenure, need of cancellation of mutual responsibility, both institutions essentially dispersed in strategic plans. Divergences originated in world outlook paradigms within which they looked for measures of adaptation of the country to realities of the beginning of the 20th century.

Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte and the Special meeting headed by him about needs of the agricultural industry were guided by bourgeois modernization of economic development of the country. Russia, according to him, after other countries passed to capitalism ("the world immutable law") and there was no different way to raise well-being of nation, except capitalist development. Saw essence of the moment of S.Yu. Witte in a contradiction between industrial growth in the country and archaic structure of the agrarian legislation.

V.K. Plehve remained the ardent opponent of a country private property on the earth and persistently protected inalienability of the next-to-skin earth. This principle also was the basis for statutes about the peasantry. After maintaining inalienability the preservation of two of its forms was supposed: communal and household land use as being "natural, developed in the historical way... most

answering to all set local soil and climatic conditions, and in particular to the average level of the general level of culture of the country and intellectual development of masses".

In whole the ideas assumed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs meant change of a vector of evolution of next-to-skin land tenure aside, opposite to the all-civil legislation. The foundation for formation of the "not bourgeois" land property having a certain "reserved" character was laid.

Prior to the first Russian revolution any of the above strategy was not the basis for government policy. Autocracy, fluctuating between two projects, tried to combine the fundamental principles both within a uniform government policy. It found the reflection in the royal manifesto on February 23, 1903 and the royal decree on December 12, 1904 ("About outlines to improvement of the state order"). If in the manifesto it was told about need of revision of the legislation on peasants (in particular, the promise to facilitate an exit to certain peasants from community contained) at indispensable preservation of the main forms of next-to-skin land tenure, then the decree included a promise "to carry out laws on peasants to association with the general legislation of the empire" for the purpose of transformation of peasants into "full rural inhabitants".

Such mixture of opposite principles blocked development of an optimum way of reforming of the country land relations. Serious change of the status of next-to-skin lands as bases of modernization of the country belongs already to the period of Stolypin reforms.

Reforming of the Russian society demands not only scientific, political, but in not smaller degree and spiritual and moral, cultural and social and psychological providing. It is necessary to develop at the state level the concept of spiritual and cultural revival and development of new Russian society taking into account both universal fundamental values, and the Russian historical specifics and national mentality.

Veenstra Roel
Other scientific works: