"Freedom" and "property" in the Russian legislation in the 1st quarter of the 19th century: concepts and reality

In article use analysis in texts of acts of Russia of the first quarter of a 19 th century of concepts «freedom» and «property» is carried out. The central research problem - to reveal a parity of course proclaimed emperor Alexander on legal fastening of principles of inviolability of the property, freedom of press, a freedom of commerce, «freedom of transition from one condition in another» and the Russian validity. The carried out analysis of acts has allowed to reveal a duality of a policy of the Supreme power. Concerning the property right two are accurately traced разнонаправленные tendencies: expansion of the circle of persons, possessing the property right and, simultaneously, differentiation of this right depending on a number of objective and subjective conditions. Similar position has developed and concerning personal freedom borders in social and economic space: Its volume was defined by political expediency, and also a class and national-religious accessory. On a boundary of 18 th -the first quarter of 19 th century «freedom» and «property» both for the state, and for the separate individual were original markers of social identification which allowed to define accurately a place of the person in system of social relations, borders of its admissible behaviour and level of possibilities for self-realisation. The originality of position in Russia the beginnings of 19 th century was shown that the power itself initiated a question on necessity of legal fastening of the right to freedom and the property, but in practice it has led still mainly to social differentiation. The fragmentariness, internal discrepancy of the legislation were reflexion of class and intraclass differentiation of the Russian society, an illegibility of division of concepts «possession» and «property», and also existence of logic interrelation of the property right with personal «freedom» of the individual without which its property rights were conditional and could be limited essentially.