Retired soldiers were not subject to poll taxation. But this measure was not enough to arrange their fate after their resignation. It was also necessary to think about how, in addition, how to attach them and ensure their existence. The Russian government was solving this problem throughout the 18th century. How exactly read in an excerpt from V. E. Dena "The population of Russia according to the fifth revision. Vol. 2, part 4." (Moscow: University Printing House, 1902).
1. Retired soldiers as a special group of the population
The main means of manning the Russian army in the 18th century were recruitment kits. At the same time, persons who fell into the army or the navy for such a set and became soldiers or sailors left the ranks of their class and lost any connection with it. They constituted a completely separate group of people in the population, obliged to serve indefinitely. It was only at the very end of the century that a 25-year term was set for the latter. Prior to that, the service had to continue as long as only a soldier was able to carry it. With the onset of this moment, he received a resignation. At the same time, retired soldiers also constituted a special group in the population, different from all other categories. The question arises - what was the estate-tax position of these two categories of people: soldiers and retired soldiers? 1
Regarding the first of them, we already know from the first volume that persons who were recruited into soldiers were not excluded from the capitation salary. Their peers had to pay taxes for them until the next revision, next, sometimes for more than 20 years. This principle was put forward even during the first revision2, and the government then firmly adhered to it throughout the entire later history. Thus, we do not encounter any difficulties here: the estate and tax status of the soldiers is quite clear to us. As for the estate and tax status of soldiers' wives and children, we will consider it below, together with the study of the position of the wives and children of retired soldiers.
As for the second category then, i.e. retired soldiers, they were a class of persons not subject to poll tax. And this principle was also established during the production of the first revision, and then it was preserved in the same way throughout the entire subsequent history. Such an attitude towards retired people is quite understandable: where else was it possible to impose a capitation salary on persons who spent their entire lives in military service, lost or spoiled their health on it and lost, if not entirely, then at least partially, their working ability … obviously there was nothing to take. But not only that. It was not enough to confine oneself to this privilege - exemption from taxes! It was also necessary to think about how, in addition, how to attach them and ensure their existence. This is the task the government sets for itself throughout the era we are studying (18th century). But what means were there for its implementation?
Of course, those of the retired who could find a secure existence in their former homes, with their former landowners or relatives, or in some other way, it freely allowed this and then could no longer take care of them. Meanwhile, this was not the case with everyone, and then there were such retired people who did not have any food and the care of whom directly fell on the state, “so that they, serving Her Imperial Majesty for several years, would not be left without any charity and around the world. staggered and did not suffer gladness3”.
But what could the state do for them? Of course, he did not have any institutions for the charity of retired people in the first half of the 18th century. His financial resources were extremely strained. True, the state had vast expanses of free lands on the outskirts and, of course, the simplest solution to the problem would have been to endow the retired with such lands. Such permission would be beneficial to the government also because it would contribute to the colonization of the outskirts and the establishment of Russian power there. It would most of all contribute to the subsistence economy that prevailed at that time. The government, as we will see below, resorted to this permission whenever possible. But it was not always possible. After all, those of the retired who were completely unsuitable for colonization were in need of care most of all … Therefore, the state had no choice but to turn its eyes to a special category of land property, and, moreover, quite significant - we mean the land holdings of the clergy. The state decided to entrust the duties of charity to the retired monasteries, which were to bear it until they were taken away from them, i.e. until 1764. After 1764, the state took over the care of the retired.
2. Reasons for resignation and types of resignation
As mentioned above, no time limit was set for military service throughout almost the 18th century: every soldier had to continue it as long as it was in his power. Until he became incapable of it - “for wounds, for diseases, for injuries, for old age and decrepitude” 4. We very often find this rule in the legislation of the 18th century, where it was repeated in every way.5 Meanwhile, there are more precise indications of what should be considered old age. Decrepancy, what diseases make a soldier incapable of continuing his service, etc. - we do not find. Legislation in this regard suffered from great uncertainty and did not go beyond general guidelines6. In view of this, the question of those bodies that gave the resignation acquires great importance. We will dwell on this issue below.
The situation described has undergone significant changes since 1793 … (When some decrees began to define a 25-year service life - VB).
So we see that throughout the 18th century there is a lot of uncertainty about the reasons for resignation. This uncertainty is all the more important because the fate that awaited the soldier after his retirement differed mainly depending on the state of his health and working capacity.
What was this fate?
First of all, already under Peter, our army was divided into two categories of regiments: field and garrison, and this division remained throughout the entire 18th century, and passed into the 19th. Service in the garrison regiments was easier and calmer than in the field. Therefore, a soldier incapable of the latter could still be suitable for the former. In this case, he resigned from the field service. In order to be assigned to the garrison regiment and continue to serve here.
If further, the soldier turned out to be incapable of either field service or garrison service, then he received a complete resignation from military service. But that didn't mean it yet. That the state would no longer have any claims to him. If he was fit. The state tried to use him for other purposes: it assigned him to the civil service (to mailers, counters, watchmen, etc.) or to one of the teams consisting of different places of presence, or sent him to a settlement on one of the outskirts (first in Kazan, and then to other provinces).
Only in the event that a soldier turned out to be incapable of either one or the other, it finally dismissed him from any service - both military and civil - and from the settlement. And gave him a complete resignation. But here, too, there could be two cases: if a soldier could survive on his own funds (or on the funds of relatives, a former landowner, etc.), then he was set aside for his own food. If he couldn't get enough. Then it was determined until 1764 - in monasteries and almshouses. And after 1764 - for the disabled.
So we have only five types of resignation:
- Dismissal from the field service to the garrison.
- Determination to serve in the presence of a civilian department.
- Reference to the settlement.
- Dismissal for their own food.
- Determination in monasteries or almshouses and for invalids.
Accurately, there is no information on the characteristics by which separate categories were delineated. On the other hand, if it is quite clear that the establishment of a new economy in the sparsely populated outskirts seems to be more difficult than serving in public places, then the above quotation does not quite clearly limit the definition of the garrison service from being sent to the settlement. From other laws we see that priority was given to the first and only those unfit for it were sent to the settlement. But in this case, it remains not entirely clear why the settlement seemed easier than serving in the garrison regiments. But besides all this, the given instruction of the military collegium on the existing practice raises in us other doubts. So, in 1739, it was made obligatory to send to the Kazan province to settle all suitable retired, except for those who had their own land. For this, it was ordered everywhere to analyze the retired, already previously dismissed from the service for their food. Meanwhile, only those soldiers who were already unsuitable for any service - the nickname of the garrison, nor the civilian (and therefore, moreover, were not suitable for sending to a settlement) were dismissed for their food. One has to assume the overcrowding of public places with former soldiers. Although there was no such overflow!
So, it should be admitted that the sequence of individual types of resignation and the signs that guided the distribution of retired persons among them were in many ways very unclear7.
Dismissal from service could be accompanied by a promotion of one rank, and this promotion, in those cases when it gave the dismissed chief officer rank, was important for his estate position.
Such an increase of one rank for blameless service was authorized by the Decree of 17198 and confirmed in 17229 for those who served "long and well." More detailed information about that. What conditions were required for this increase and how often it was given - we did not have it until the 1760s …
3. Bodies that made the resignation
We now turn to a consideration of those bodies. By whom the resignation was made. In view of the ambiguity of the law on reasons for resignation, etc. this issue is gaining in importance.
Initially, such a body was the military collegium itself. Which subject the rejected to a special examination. In 1724, a significant simplification was made - the resignation was ordered to be made by "complete generals with other generals acquired with the commands" - without members of the military collegium, whose patrols were canceled.
This was the case until the beginning of the forties, when, as a result of the war with Sweden, the retirement from service was first completely suspended (1742), and then it was prescribed (1743), so that henceforth the resignation would be given “as it was during the life of the Emperor Peter the Great”, - that is, the previous order was restored, when the general staff together with the members of the military collegium gave resignation. This order was then established for a long time (This decree, by the way, ordered "the entire generals to declare by decrees that if someone in resignation would present someone capable of service, he himself will be forever written as a soldier" …
4. Sending retired people to settle in Kazan and other provinces
One of the most curious pages in the history of retired soldiers during the 18th century is the role they played in the colonization of the outskirts of then Russia, mainly in the east.10 As you know, the most important event in the history of colonization of the East was the conquest of the Kazan kingdom. To strengthen the Russian power, the government founded cities in the newly conquered kingdom, which it inhabited by military people. Meanwhile, to the south of the Kazan kingdom were located vast expanses of empty, uninhabited lands. Long ago served as a field for nomadic peoples. Among the latter, at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, the Nogais were increasingly moving forward, divided into three hordes.
… In view of the above, the Moscow government had to think about taking measures to defend itself against a new enemy. Initially, these measures were somewhat sporadic11. But soon the government had to take up a more systematic struggle. Moreover, the influx of population in the Trans-Kama region continued. Already in 1651, servicemen were sent to work out a plan for a new fortified line. The project drawn up by them was approved by the government and, already in 1652. Work was started12. This is how the so-called Zakamskaya line arose, the construction of which was completed by September 1652. The line began at the banks of the Volga River and stretched to Menzelinsk. Along this stretch, it included the following cities or forts: Bely Yar (near the banks of the Volga River), Erykklinsk, Tiinsk, Bilyarsk, Novosheshminsk, Kichuevsk, Zainsk and Menzelinsk. To settle these fortifications, 1,366 families13 were transferred here, which were settled for a large part by settlements located near the cities, with the endowment of them here, in the vicinity of cities, with land … … These new settlers were made up of various elements, but the largest group among them represented by Smolensk foreigners, whose number was 478 families.
So, we see that the Zakamskaya line, which consisted of a number of "suburbs", was drawn in the middle of the 17th century to fence off a part of the eastern border of Russia. Located from the Volga along the Cheremshan and further to Menzelinsk … After several decades, the government, wishing to seize a large territory, decided to move the western part of the Zakamsk line further south. In 1731, for this purpose, a secret adviser, Naumov, was sent, who was entrusted with both the construction of new fortresses and a set of landmilitia regiments for their settlement. The new line did not last long, since 1734 the creation of the Orenburg line began, which deprived the Zakamsk line of its significance and which, in turn, needed people to protect and populate the places cut by it. In view of this, in 1739, the inhabitants of the old suburbs who were transferred to the new Zakamskaya line were ordered to be relocated to the Orenburgskaya line.
From the previous it follows that in the first half of the 1730s, the suburbs located in the western part of the old Zakamskaya line were empty. Meanwhile, if the government moved the line further south, then, of course, it was not at all in its interests to leave the places behind it empty, all the more so. That these places were not yet safe from the steppe neighbors. Thus, the idea arose to populate these places with retired soldiers14. Even earlier, the government thought to use retired soldiers for defensive and colonization purposes, and moreover, this time in relation to the Orenburg line itself. Namely, at the beginning of 1736, “retired dragoons, soldiers, sailors were allowed. With free passports. Whoever wants to be in our service "to settle" in Orenburg and in other new places there "is why the builder of the Orenburg line, State Councilor Kirilov, was ordered to accept such people for the settlement. Allot them 20-30 quarters of land per family, provide them with the necessary weapons and a loan with money and bread for travel and acquire "at the discretion of the way and time, while they will receive food from their own arable land." 15 However, at the end of the same 1736, the government changed its plan and. instead of sending the retired to the Orenburg line, he decided to use them to populate the empty suburbs of the old Zakamsk line. For this purpose, a remarkable in many respects Imperial Decree of December 27, 1736, No. 7136, and a complementary resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of July 6, 1737, No. 7315, were issued. The main provisions of these legalizations were as follows. The following empty lands near the borders are assigned to the settlement of "retired … non-commissioned officers, privates and non-combatants who do not have their own villages and food": "along the Volga River and along the rivers flowing into it, on the Volga Cossacks remaining from the settlement and in others Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan places. In the Kazan province, in the suburbs of Old Sheshminsk, Novy Sheshminsk, Zainsk, Tiinsk, Eryklinsk, Bilyarsk, of which servicemen were assigned to the Landmilitia and transferred to the Zakamsk line, in the same province along the Kondurche river, starting from the Zakamsk line to the town of Krasny Yar and in other tamos near the Bashkir people. " This was a very vast territory intended for the settlement of retired in the first of the named legalizations. The second ordered to start this settlement along the river. Kondurche and then, after settling all the empty places there, move on to other places.
The settlement was to be carried out - for safety, in large settlements of 100 or more yards. Nobody was to be forced to settle, only those who were retired were invited to the settlement. They had to appear to the local governors, who, according to the examination of their passports, had to supply them with pass letters to go to the places of their settlement. Here they were to receive 20-30 quarters of land per family (following the example of the former services of service people and the Landmilitia), as well as a loan from the treasury in the amount of 5-10 rubles per family.16 Then the law lists in detail those categories of children of retired soldiers, which the latter could and could not take with them to the settlement. The second category included children who were born before their fathers entered the service, and from the rest - those who were recorded or were subject to a note in some kind of salary and, according to the decree of 1732, were not subject to military service (About this - in the corresponding section - V. B.).
Very interesting, further, are those provisions of the laws under consideration that dealt with the nature of land tenure in new settlements. The fact is that they established two principles, of which the second is only very rarely found in the history of Russian legislation, namely, INALIENCE and UNHERITAGE. The land allotted to the retired could only be inherited and could not be sold, mortgaged, or given as a dowry, etc. At the same time, they had to pass by inheritance to ONE of the sons, who had to feed the young brothers. Then, as the latter kept pace with the service, they were to receive special plots. In the absence of sons, daughters should have inherited. However, on the condition that they marry "the soldiers' children, and not to other ranks of people, so that between them there would be no foreign possession." Needless to say, with the abundance of land in the settlements of retired people, the application of the principle of single inheritance could not meet the difficulties that it now leads to.
To the above, it remains to add that in the new settlements it was ordered to build churches, and schools with them, to teach soldiers' children "to read and write" (this training had to be carried out by the clergy for a special fee). However, those of the children who wanted to study "higher sciences", if they had not yet ripened for service, had to be sent to garrison schools (!). The settlement was ordered to appoint a "reliable person" with an appropriate number of assistants and 4 surveyors. At first, the post of head of the settlement was taken by the brigadier Dubasov. Special instructions must be given to him17. The stated decisions were ordered to be published for general information by "printed decrees", and to report the progress of the settlement to the Senate "often".
These were the provisions of the two decrees we have named. After issuing them, the government waited for the results. Meanwhile, October 1737 came, and the government did not receive any news on this matter. Therefore, a new decree of 11.10.1737 No. 7400 was issued, confirming the previous ones and again inviting the retired to appear for sending to the settlement. However, April 1738 also came, and there was still no information. The government lost patience and sent out a decree that within a week after receiving it from the provinces and provinces, statements about the number of retired persons, both willing to settle and sent to the places designated for it, should be sent to the Senate. In addition, it was ordered by the military collegium that henceforth, the decree of 1736-27-12 was announced to all those who were retiring. However, apparently, even when issuing the decree in question, the government was planning further measures …
What was the information. Received in response to this by the Senate?
It turned out that the settlement was going very hard. According to reports received from governors, etc. until September 11, 1738, the number of all retired "in the provinces, provinces and cities" ("according to the notes of passports") was 4152 people, and of them, despite the two-time publication, only 6 people wished to settle, "koi and sent" … The Government, however, did not lose heart and decided to immediately cut the Goridian knot: in January 1739 it ordered. So that out of the 4152 named people, all "who are not very decrepit and there is hope that they can marry and maintain their homes" were sent to the settlement. Moreover, it was ordered to continue to do so with all receiving resignation, soldiers, for which purpose, and in the passports issued to them, write that they must appear to Dubasov. At the same time, the governors and the voivode were obliged to dismantle all the retirees in their department and send from them to the Kazan province all those who met the above requirements, "except for those who have their own villages and lands." Further, they were instructed to retired "in their passage … to repair possible help."
So, we see that the government's tempting proposals seemed to the retired little tempting. At the same time, the settlement business enters a new phase: from voluntary it becomes compulsory. At the same time, however, the government wondered about the reasons for such a weak influx of hunters to the settlement, and saw these reasons in the poverty of the retired, making it impossible for them - without outside help - the long way to the place of settlement and existence until they will acquire arable land, etc. especially since it was impossible to find work in the places of settlements. In view of this, the government considered it necessary to make the settlement more accessible for retired people, and at the same time more attractive for them, and following the example of the conditions for their settlement in the Orenburg province. It ordered that all retired people sent to the Kazan province, in addition to the previous loan, receive: for the passage of a monetary salary and provisions for two months. Further, already at the place of settlement, for a while, until they acquire (but within no more than 2 years) - one soldier's provisions and, finally, for seeding - 1 quarter of rye and 2 quarters of oats. However, all these aids were established only for the first settlers, "who will now be sent." Those who followed were still to receive only a cash loan18. Then, and in 1743, it was ordered to give out to the settled retired "proper provisions for food and seeds." But only borrowed, with the condition to return what was received after the first harvest.
The measures described have had their effect, less than two years have passed since the decree of January 10, 1739 was issued, when the state councilor Obolduev, who replaced Dubasov, already reported that by November 1, 1740, 967 retired people had been sent to the settlement from different places. About the form in which the retired came to the settlement. The following words of Obolduev testify: "and these retired many are without clothes, barefoot and naked, and are in great need."These words show that the government's diagnosis given above regarding the reasons for the small number of retired hunters before settling was not far from the truth - at least in the sense of indicating one of the reasons for the weak influx of retired people willing to settle.
In addition, the success of the government's measures was expressed in the fact that volunteers began to appear in the settlement of retired people. In 1743, the same Obolduev reported that such volunteers were in greater numbers, and besides, “in the old years”: they asked to be accepted into the settlement, declaring that they “had no food and were idling idly”. The Senate, in response to Obolduev's question, ordered to accept all those fit for settlement among these volunteers.
This was the first step …
We saw that in its new phase, i.e. after the measures taken by the government in 1739 - the settlement of retired began to grow rapidly and at the end of 1740 included 967 settlers. Meanwhile, this rapid growth continued only for the first few years, and then it began to decrease more and more until it completely stopped. By 1750, the total number of retired people settled by decree of 1736 was only 1,173 people, i.e. slightly more than in the previous 1, 5 - 2 years. At the same time, the second revision revealed that retired soldiers were not always willing to go to the settlement: for example, it turned out that many of them had lived in the Kazan province for 4-5 years in their former dwellings. In Tatar and Chuvash villages, "leaving the settlement."
In 1753 the government confirmed all previous laws. So that all those soldiers were settled in the Kazan province, -
- who received resignation and were still fit for settlement, as well as those
- which have already been dismissed. But they did not have food and "stagger idly" …
The question now arises, what places did the new settlers occupy and what was their position on the newly occupied lands?
As for the first question, we saw that the settlement was ordered to begin along the course of the Kondurchi river. Meanwhile, the actual course of settlement was somewhat different: the above-mentioned six suburbs (see above, Zainsk among them - VB), abandoned by the former inhabitants or, at the beginning, perhaps some of them, were subject to settlement. True, they were all located near the river. Kondurchi, but still not with its flow. Subsequently, the territory of the population expanded somewhat. Above we saw that in 1739 the new Zakamskaya line ceased to exist, the inhabitants of which were ordered to be transferred to the Orenburgskaya line. At the same time, it was then ordered to sell the huts and other buildings that remained after them in favor of the treasury or private individuals, depending on who owned them. Meanwhile, there were no buyers for them. Therefore, in 1744, it was decided to transfer these vacant places from residents to the department of management of the settlement of retirees, headed by State Councilor Ushakov instead of Obolduev …
Thus, new spaces were opened up for the settlement of retired people: but they were not located along the Kondurche river, but along the Soka, Kinelini and Samara rivers, as well as along the Cheremshan, Sheshma and Kichuyu rivers. The fortresses of Cheremshansk, Sheshchminsk and Kichuevsk were located along the last rivers, and here they began to settle the retired from 1744, and moreover with such success that by 1762 the places near these fortresses were already completely inhabited and no longer contained free lands, while there were still sufficient numbers in the suburbs of Novosheshminsk, Zainsk and Tiinsk. Therefore, in 176219, further settlement of these suburbs began. As for the rest (western) parts of the new line, located along the Soka, Kineli and Samara rivers, then, according to our data, the settlement of these new lands began only in 1778.
Regarding the second question, our information, unfortunately, is very scanty. The retired people came to the settlement either one by one, or were brought there in whole lots. That not everyone made it to their destination. - this has already been said above. If a retired person assigned to the settlement died, then the widow who remained after him with his family nevertheless settled, and all the rights of the deceased were transferred to her. The law motivated this by the fact that “these widows who have sons will really remain in their areas, from which their sons can serve. And those who do not have sons can accept to themselves or to their daughters in the house of the same retired children, and therefore the same courtyard will be like the others”(Decree of 16.05.1740, 1807, item 16). Upon arrival at the place of destination, the retired was to receive provisions and a monetary award. We do not know how timely the retired received provisions, but we know about the monetary reward that, at least in the second half of the 1740s, the retired did not receive it for a year or more, which is why they had to “live idly . Therefore, in 1750, a faster payment was confirmed. If the retired had a family in his former home, the law allowed the settlement authorities to let him go there to take her away. As for the innermost life in the settlement, it remains completely closed to us. We do not even know whether the new settlers lived in poverty, or, on the contrary, quickly achieved prosperity, at least on the basis of abundance and, moreover, still fertile land, with various assistance (at least at first) from the government and with freedom from taxes, it followed to think that they quickly came into prosperity. But these are only assumptions. From the facts that have come down to us, we can indicate that there have been cases of escape from the settlement, but, having no data either on the size of this phenomenon, or on the reasons that led to it, we cannot draw any conclusions from it. (Decree of November 27, 1742, No. 8623, clause 5 speaks of retired people who took a salary and then left, and prescribes, in order to better keep the retired from escaping, “entrust them with mutual responsibility”.
We are equally little aware of the actual order that was established in the settlements of retired people in the field of land tenure. Only regarding the size of the latter, the decree of 1742 confirmed the norm established earlier in the decree of December 27, 1736 (20-30 quarters per family). But, unfortunately, we do not know anything about how the principles of inalienability and single inheritance were implemented in practice. We only know that widows and daughters of retired people were not particularly willing to submit to the restrictions imposed on them in the choice of spouses. The related decree of the decree of 1737 was interpreted in the sense that this restriction extended to all widows and daughters of settled retired. Meanwhile, the decree of November 2, 1750, No. 9817 complains that the widows and daughters of retired people flee from the settlement and marry one-family villagers, and yasak and monastery peasants, and that, thus, the given reward and two-year provisions given out for their share of the specified reward are wasted … In view of this, clause 8 of this decree confirmed the prohibition to give the widows or daughters of retired soldiers to anyone else. In addition to the retired soldiers or soldiers' children available in the settlement, and to ensure the implementation of this prohibition, he took very strict measures: for widows and daughters who had already married outsiders, it was ordered to collect withdrawal money of 10 rubles. And if such cases recur in the future - 50 rubles each. The lands remaining after them were ordered to be given to their heirs in the settlement, and in their absence - to other retired sent to the settlement. We see from the above. That the government was as free to dispose of the land of the retired at its discretion, as well as their personality and the personality of their wives and daughters.
We can only say a few more words about the rudiments of cultural activity that the government wanted to show in the settlement. We mean building churches and schools. The first ones were actually being built. By 1778, as we will see below, there were already 17 of them). Regarding the latter, the law of 1750 ordered “not to build special schools for excessive government losses,” instead of which the clergy was obliged to train soldiers' children in their homes with a fee of 50 kopecks. for everyone. You can guess. What kind of training it was.
If we go then to a further era. Then we will see that since 1750 the settlement of retired people continued to grow and, moreover, much faster than in the decade 1740-50, although still slowly. By July 1758, the number of retired retirees and their male children settled in the Kazan province was 3489 (Of these, 1477 retired themselves, and their children in 2012 - the decree of 1762-12-08). Asked about the slowness of population growth, the government still found one of them in the poverty of retired …
… But the "description" is of interest not only for the data concerning the retired, but also for the information they provide about their neighbors. Unfortunately, this information concerns only those of them with which they came in contact …
We already know from the previous presentation. That along with the construction of the new Zakamskaya line, residents of the suburbs of the old Zakamskaya line were transferred to it, and that then in 1739 they were ordered to transfer from the new line to the Orenburgskaya line. We will dwell on the course of this movement elsewhere, but here we will only point out that it ended only in 1747. Meanwhile, as can be seen, however, from the previous exposition, the translation to the new, and then the Orenburg line did not apply to all residents who inhabited and defended the old, but only on the service people of the old suburbs who were not included in the capitation salary. Thus, as neighbors of the newly settled retired soldiers, on the one hand, some categories of service people remained, and on the other, the peasants who themselves settled in this area.
Among the first, one should first of all name those former services of service people who were included in the capitation salary and, therefore, were not subject to transfer. They were still left in a capitation salary and were supposed to support two land militia regiments: Sergievsky cavalry and Alekseevsky infantry. Some of them appear to have been neighbors of the newly settled retired.
Instruction to Obolduev dated May 16, 1740, 8107, clause 6 mentions the newly baptized Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod provinces living in the suburb of Zainsk "by themselves without decree", some of which were put on a capitation salary, while others were not. They are ordered to investigate where they came from and where they are paid, and then make an appropriate decision. They were ordered not to be sent to the new settlement. Further, in the decree of 11/2/1750, 9817, it is said about the Tatar and Chuvash villages that settled in the vicinity of the Cheremshan fortress and the Sheshminsky and Kichuevsky feldshants (i.e. already on the new Zakamskaya line) and it is ordered to provide information about their number and land ownership and about that where they settled from.
Let us now cite the data that are available in Miller's “description” of the neighbors of retired soldiers and their land tenure, which has already been quoted many times. The total area of the territory of 6 suburbs and 3 fortresses was about 282,000 dessiatines. Of these, about 187,000 dessiatines were allotted to retired persons, and about 1,000 dessiatines to churches (17 churches). Smolensk gentry about 6,000 dess. 26 neighboring villages about 42,000 dess. As for the neighboring villages, there are mentioned settlements of newly baptized Mordovians, then baptized and unbaptized Yasak Tatars, Chuvash and Mordovians, servicemen and Yasak Chuvash, who settled “by themselves” from the economic peasants. These are the data on the state of the settlement of retired people in 1773. (Miller).
Let us add here the information on this issue that is found in the travel diary of Rychkov (son), relating approximately to the same time. Rychkov visited the suburbs of Bilyarsk, Novosheshminsk and Zainsk with the Aleksandrovskaya settlement located 10 versts away. The main office, managing all the settlements of retired soldiers, was located in Bilyarsk. The number of philistine households was 400 in Bilyarsk, 200 in Novosheshminsk and more than 100 in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (there is no information about Zainsk). The occupation of all retired people was agriculture and cattle breeding. In Zainsk, beekeeping was also added here, why "this village surpasses Bilyarsk and its inhabitants are much more prosperous than the first." However, Rychkov remained apparently very pleased with the residents of Bilyarsk, as can be seen from the following opinion of him about them: “every peasant, having received a dismissal from service and coming to the place assigned to his village, receives a sufficient amount of money from the treasury, so that with the help of these he could start all economic needs and could live the rest of his life in perfect peace and pleasure. In this way they are corrected by everything necessary for agriculture and diligently process the data given to them in the possession of the land21.
This is not particularly rich information that we have about the settlement of retired people in the early 1770s. Meanwhile. for a later time, we also do not have such data, which is why we must be content with the information that has come down to us, which is of an accidental and fragmentary nature …
… … In 1777, the Senate on this issue presented the most vigorous report, the content of which was as follows:
1. Retired, settled and henceforth settled in the Kazan, Orenburg and Siberian provinces are free from all services, extortions and layouts;
2. Before the expiration of 15 years from the time of the settlement of the fathers, the children of their m. should not be included in the salary, after this period it should be rewritten, and those of them who have "residence and arable farming" with their fathers (or, after their death, after them) should be included in the capitation salary equally with state black-haired peasants with the obligation to serve and recruitment;
3. Henceforth, the aforementioned children, as subject to a capitation salary, should not be taken to state-supported schools. Leaving them to their fathers to teach them to read and write. But this matter remained unresolved …
Seven years later, the Senate issued a decree, according to which it was ordered that those of the settled soldiers' children who should forever remain in the settlement, to be included in the capitation salary on an equal basis with other state settlers. This decree concerned only the Simbirsk line, but soon it spread to other provinces. Namely on the Ufa (Decree of 21.08.1784, No. 16046) and Kazan. As explained by the law of 1787, the aforementioned soldiers' children were also obliged to carry out recruitment on a general basis.
Meanwhile, the situation created by these laws did not last long, and already at the end of the 1780s, the government decided to replace the capitation salary with service. Namely, in 1789, it was ordered that all children of retired settled soldiers (in all provinces) be excluded "forever" from the per capita salary with the addition of the accumulated arrears, so that they would not be relied on in the future. Instead, it was ordered to leave with each father for arable farming only one son (of his choice). So that the rest, upon reaching 20 years old, were taken to staff the troops (especially the Guards, Life Grenadier and Life Cuirassier regiments), in which they had to serve for 15 years. Upon returning from service, they had to receive land from the treasury, if they did not have it before, but nothing more. The family was supposed to give them the help to get them, since they served for it. (Decree of 23.01.1789, No. 16741. This decree for children settled in the Orenburg province of retired soldiers was confirmed in the decree of 30.12.1797 No. 18299, which ordered to recruit from them the Orenburg division, leaving one son for arable farming. decree, retired soldiers appear under the name of "arable" soldiers - a name that was later consolidated behind them - see "Veshnyakov. Historical review of the origin of state peasants." the name appears more than once.
Having established these beginnings. At the same time, the law of 1789 introduced the registration of soldiers' children: it entrusted the elders with the obligation to submit, through the zemstvo authorities to the Senate and the military collegium, semi-annual and annual lists of births and deaths signed by the parish priest, m. And f. The status of the children of retired settled soldiers, established by the law of 1789, did not change during the rest of the era we are studying.
Decree No. 16741 of January 23, 1789, clause 8, prescribed that the settled retired in all provinces were governed by elected elders under the supervision of the zemstvo authorities of the corresponding governorship, and that they would depend on the directors of the economy for "house-building".
