There are two aspects of Liberalism within Imperial Russia that are important to grasp. One, Russia had unique political and social conditions that were absent within other European states during this timeframe. For example, Russian Liberalism had to contend not only with an autocratic government, but also the institution of serfdom. Second, increased exposure to European ideas meant that Russian Liberals often sought to design themselves after other Liberal organizations found in Europe. So being a Russian Liberal added a level of cosmopolitanism that put it at odds with the increasing vocal slavophile elements within the Russian body politic.

As for what a portrait of a "typical" 1840/50s Liberal would be a young, university-educated male employed within the mid-level of the imperial bureaucracy. They would most likely be ethnically Great Russian and Russian Orthodox (although Baltic Germans were a distinct minority). Many would have fallen into Liberal ideas during their time at university which was one of the relatively free intellctual zones within the Russian Empire. For example, Alexandr Herzen's first real activism grew out of his university experience. Most Liberals would have regarded serfdom as an archaic institution that needed to be eliminated if Russia were to make the full transition to a European state. Other Liberals would go further and advocate that Russia needed a constitution to fully change. Overall, many would recognize the need for drastic change if Russia were to progress.

However, the method used to achieve reform was a great source of contention. Some Liberals saw the a reformed tsarist institution as the vehicle for change. The Great Reforms of Alexander II gave these Liberals a false hope that the tsar would be the agent of change. But the Great Reforms of the 1860s only achieved a halfway measures; they didn't allow for formal political parties and its abolition of serfdom was piecemeal. However, the Great Reforms fed the desire to reform through the state. This culminated in the Kadet movement of the twentieth century.

Another group of educated Liberals parted ways with their state-centric brethren in the 1850s. This loose grouping of young bureaucrats and intellectuals identified less with the Russian state and more with the Russian people. This meant they tended to be more slavophilic and increasingly rejected the cosmopolitan Eurocentrism that typified the educated society (obshchestvennost') of Imperial Russia. In more extreme cases, this found expression in terrorist populism like Narodnaya Volya which assassinated Tsar Alexander II. A more common route for populist liberals was a move towards an intellectual bent, celebrating the "people" in poems, novels, and other artistic endeavors.

Up until 1905, there were not real organized political parties within Imperial Russia. While there were conservative political voices in the 1840s and 50s, the tsarist state did not look kindly upon any formal expression of political ideology, even one that celebrated traditional values. The state also looked askance at even Great Russian nationalism, despite its celebration of the tsar as the symbolic father of the Russian people. Tsar Nicholas I preferred to regard his subjects as servitors based upon personal loyalty to the autocrat.

Sources

Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West. Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Verhoeven, Claudia. The Odd Man Karakozov: Imperial Russia, Modernity, and the Birth of Terrorism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Wortman, Richard. Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.