The publication of the Manifesto on the three-day corvee is an important event in the history of Russia. The legislative act marked the beginning of the restriction of serfdom in the empire. What is the content of the manifest? How did contemporaries react to this legislative act?
Meaning of term
Corvee - forced labor that was performed by peasants. This phenomenon became widespread in the second half of the 16th century. What is a three-day corvee? It is easy to guess that these are the same works, but performed within only three days.
The decree on a three-day corvee was adopted by the Russian Emperor Paul I on April 16, 1797. The event for the country was unprecedented. For the first time since the advent of serfdom, the rights to use peasant labor were limited. Serfs from now on could not work on Sundays. In total, during the week, the landowner had the right to involve them in free labor for no more than three days.
Backstory
Corvee economy in the second half of the XVIIIcentury took an intensive form of exploitation of peasant labor. In contrast to the bar system, it had every chance of leading to the complete enslavement and exploitation of forced labor. Obvious shortcomings of this type of farming have already been observed. For example, the appearance of the month, that is, the daily corvée. By the end of the 17th century, small peasant farming was in danger of disappearing. The serfs were not protected from the arbitrariness of the landlords.
The adoption of the Manifesto on the three-day corvee was preceded by events that took place before the reign of Paul I, that is, in the Catherine era.
The peasants were in a terrible situation. Catherine II, being under the impression of European educators, with whom she corresponded for many years, established the Free Economic Society and the Legislative Commission. Organizations played a key role in the development of projects for the regulation of peasant duties. However, the activities of these structures did not receive significant consequences. The corvée, which lies on the peasants like a heavy yoke, has remained in a rather indefinite form.
Reasons
Paul I took certain measures to improve the situation of the peasants even before he ascended the throne. He, for example, reduced and reduced duties. He allowed the peasants sometimes, exclusively in their free time from corvée work, to engage in their own household. Of course, these innovations were distributed only on the territory of his personal estates: in Pavlovsky and Gatchina. Here he also opened two hospitals and several schools for peasants.
However, Paul I was not a supporter of radical forms in the field of the peasant question. He allowed the possibility of only some changes in serfdom and the suppression of abuses. The publication of the Manifesto on the three-day corvee was due to a number of reasons. Basic:
- The plight of the serfs. The peasants were subjected to absolutely uncontrolled exploitation by the landlords.
- The growth of the peasant movement, expressed in constant complaints and petitions. There were also cases of disobedience. armed rebellion.
A few months before the publication of the Manifesto on the three-day corvée, many complaints were submitted to the emperor from peasants, in which they reported daily hard work, various kinds of fees.
Russia was obliged by the publication of the Manifesto on the three-day corvee to the political will of the emperor. The beginning of his reign was marked by a series of reforms. The adoption of the decree at the same time became a key event timed to coincide with the coronation of Paul I.
Content of the legislative act
What is the essence of the decree on the three-day corvee, we found out. The text was drawn up in a rather ornate form, like other similar documents of that time. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting two main provisions that regulated peasant labor in the landlord economy:
- It was forbidden to force peasants to work on Sundays.
- Οremainingsix days, according to the decree, should be divided equally between the work of the peasant for himself and for the landowner.
In fact, just a few lines of the manifesto contained one of the most important events of the short reign of the son of Catherine II. But this event became an important stage in the peasant history of Russia. And most importantly, the first attempt of the Romanovs to introduce a three-day corvee throughout the entire territory of the empire. It was an attempt, because not every landowner followed the decree.
Attitude of contemporaries
The decree on the three-day corvee caused controversy. The publication of the Manifesto was welcomed by both the old Ekaterininian officials of the reformist persuasion, and the future reformers of the 19th century, among whom the most prominent public and political figures were M. Speransky, V. Kochubey, P. Kiselyov.
In conservative landlord circles, for obvious reasons, there was a dull murmur and indignation. Here the imperial decree was met as something unnecessary and harmful. Later, Senator Lopukhin openly warned a follower of Paul I - Alexander - not to renew the decree, which limited the power of the landowners. The Pavlovsk law partly remained only on paper, which was very welcomed by the opponents of reforms in serfdom.
Flaws
Paul regulated feudal exploitation, set certain limits for it, thereby limiting the rights of the landowners and taking the peasants under his protection. Manifesto createdthe basis for the development of further, rather complex processes of modernization of serfdom. This is the benefit of the decree.
Were there any flaws in Pavlov's manifesto? Undoubtedly. No wonder the landowners ignored the decree. In its text, no sanctions were discussed for violating the norms, which reduced the effectiveness of the law and made it difficult to implement.
Another drawback: a legislative act on the restriction of the rights of landlords was introduced on the territory of Little Russia, where, according to an unspoken tradition, a two-day corvée existed for a long time. This miscalculation of the Pavlovian decree was subsequently criticized by many researchers.
Following events
The issued decree, according to many historians, was initially doomed to failure. The revision of the manifesto was ambiguous. Its mechanisms have not been developed. In addition, the popularization of the opinions of judicial and government officials, who interpreted its content in different ways, played a significant role in the implementation of the Pavlovsk decree.
In issuing the decree, Paul, on the one hand, was guided by the desire to improve the situation of the peasant masses. On the other hand, he did not want to see in the serf peasantry a social support, an independent political force. This, perhaps, explains the lack of strict control over compliance with the norms set forth in the manifesto.
The landlords treated this law as a formality. Three-day corveethey were in no hurry to install on their estates. Serfs continued to work even on weekends and holidays. The Pavlovsk decree was actively boycotted throughout the country. Local and central authorities turned a blind eye to violations.
Reaction of peasants
The serfs took the manifesto as a law that would ease their lot. They tried in their own way to fight against the boycott of Paul's decree. They filed complaints with state authorities and courts. But these complaints, of course, were not always paid attention to.
Under Alexander I
The son of Catherine II, as you know, did not rule for long. Too many did not like the political innovations he introduced, among which the issuance of a legislative act, the content of which is described in today's article, was far from being the most annoying factor. Under Alexander I, the autocracy resigned itself to the boycott of the norms of the Pavlovian decree. In fairness, it should be said that officials sometimes made attempts to control compliance with the framework contained in the manifesto. But this, as a rule, provoked harsh attacks from the nobility's circles. Aspired to revive the Pavlovian law and such liberals as Speransky and Turgenev. But their attempts were also unsuccessful.
