Resistance, Repression, and Reform 30~I shall reform [the settlements] and organize them in such a way that this coul·
never occur again.'^32 Hitherto he had con fined himself to relatively mino
administrative changes designed to dismantle the settlements' top-heav
Uu1tau~racy and to biing them under his O'.vn direct centre!. NO'.'.' •there \1:^1 a
a complete separation of the military from the economic personnel in eat'
district'.^33 Although both groups remained under military jurisdiction an
much of the old system continued in being, a big step was taken toward
civilianization. To understand this apparent contradiction, we must look at th
reforms a little more closely.
The settlements in the north-west underwent the most substantial change~
The relevant decrees were issued in November 1831 and March 1832,^34 as
result of which these settlers were redesignated 'farming soldiers' (pakhatnJ
or pakhotnye soldaty). Essentially three things happened: (a) their functior
were redefined; (b) a purge was carried out; (c) the administration was in pa1
civilianized. In their new status they no longer had to undergo military trainin!
perform guard duty, shave their heads, or wear uniform; but they were sti
required to produce foodstuffs and provide quarters for the active troops; t~
latter might belong to any regiment stationed in the locality, instead of bein
allotted to them permanently as before.35 They were made subject to t~
general recruit levy and had to pay a high rent (obrok) of 60 roubles a year.
On the second point, only those settlers who initially had been selected fr01
among state peasants were considered reliable enough to become 'farmir
soldiers'. Those who had previously been soldier~ were either transferred t
regular units or discharged; those who wished to stay on their farms could d
so only as state peasants, not as 'farming soldiers'.
On the third point, the existing districts (okruga) were retained, but tl
regimental and company (volost ·) committees became semi-civilian bodie
That is to say, they were still under the authority of army officers at distri
level and above. If an offence was committed, it was dealt with by a milita
tribunal. The chief post was held by a general who had been associated wi
the settlements in this area since their origin. As one foreign visitor put it, ti
settlers became 'peasants rather than soldiers, although constantly subject
the orders of their generals and colonels'.^30 Another observed that, althou1
the active soldiers and the farmers were placed under separate administratior
the brigade commander had the final word.^37 The districts were no long
associated with particular regiments but bore numbers instead. The econorr
infrastructure was maintained, and indeed developed. Military administrate
32 Ferguson, 'Se11lements, 1825-66', p. 115. The following paragraphs owe much to this artil
JJ Ibid., p. 117.
J4 II PSZ vi(ii), 4927 (8 Nov. 1831), vii. 5251 (25 Mar. 1832), 'ummariled by Ferguson, ·se11
ments', pp. 227-31; id., 'Settlement,, 1825-66'. pp. 116-19.
\j In 1841, for instance. guanhmcn were invohcd: l'ajl>l lo de Dalmalle, 4 Oct. 1841, 1(..1
M et D, Russie 37 ( 1831-S:!), r. 196 '.
-'~ Ibid.
. n Marmon!, VoyuRe. i. 204.