The era of great reforms in Russia (60s of the 19th century). The era of great reforms in Russia (60s of the 19th century) Reforms in the field of public education and the press
FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY
SIBERIAN STATE AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER ACADEMICIAN M.F. RESHETNEVA
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
Subject: Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century:
prerequisites and consequences.
Krasnoyarsk 2006
Plan
| Introduction | |
| 1. Prerequisites for reforms | |
| 2. Peasant reform of 1861 | |
| 2.1. Preparation of reform | |
| 2.2. Promulgation of the manifesto “Regulations of February 19, 1861” | |
| 2.3.1. Peasant allotment | |
| 2.3.2. Duties | |
| 2.3.3. Ransom | |
| 2.4. Peasants' response to reform | |
| 2.5. Reform in the specific and state villages | |
| 2.6. The significance of the peasant reform of 1861 | |
| 3. Bourgeois reforms 1863-1874 | |
| 3.1. Local government reforms | |
| 3.2. Judicial reform | |
| 3.3. Financial reform | |
| 3.4. Military reform | |
| 3.5. Reforms in public education and the press | |
| 3.6. The importance of bourgeois reforms | |
| Conclusion | |
Introduction
By the middle of the 19th century. Russia's lag behind advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres became clear. International events of the mid-century showed its significant weakening in the foreign policy field. Therefore, the main goal of the government was to bring the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was the preservation of autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.
The development of capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into even greater conflict with the feudal-serf system. The deepening of the process of social division of labor, the growth of industry, domestic and foreign trade disintegrated the feudal economic system. The intensifying conflict between new, capitalist relations and the outdated serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A clear expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf village.
The defeat in the Crimean War undermined Russia's international prestige and accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60s and 70s. XIX century The Russian autocracy had to take the path of carrying out urgent social, economic and political reforms in order to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country and strengthen the social and economic basis of absolutism.
This path began with the implementation of the most important reform of the abolition of serfdom, as well as a number of other important bourgeois reforms: courts, self-government, education and the press, etc. in the 60-70s. XIX century, necessary for Russia.
Having decided on the topic of the essay, I set myself the goal of selecting the appropriate literature and, on its basis, learning more about the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century, their prerequisites and consequences.
There are many books, articles, and scientific discussions on this topic. Accordingly, I chose the most suitable material for my topic.
The topic I have chosen is relevant at this time, since reforms are also being carried out now, and an analysis of the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century allows us to correlate them with the reforms of our time, to identify shortcomings and, accordingly, the consequences of these shortcomings, to identify the impact of these reforms on the further development of our country.
The goals and objectives of my work: to consider the main points of the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century, their prerequisites and consequences, as well as the impact of these reforms on the further development of Russia.
1. Prerequisites for reforms.
The agrarian-peasant question by the middle of the 19th century. has become the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among European states, serfdom remained only in it, hindering economic and socio-political development. The preservation of serfdom is due to the peculiarities of the Russian autocracy, which, since the formation of the Russian state and the strengthening of absolutism, relied exclusively on the nobility, and therefore had to take into account its interests.
At the end of the 18th - mid-19th centuries. even the government and conservative circles did not remain aloof from understanding the solution to the peasant issue. However, the government's attempts to soften serfdom, give landowners a positive example of managing peasants, and regulate their relationships turned out to be ineffective due to the resistance of the serf owners. By the middle of the 19th century. the preconditions that led to the collapse of the serfdom system had finally matured. First of all, it has outlived its usefulness economically. The landowner economy, based on the labor of serfs, fell increasingly into decline. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landowners.
Objectively, serfdom also hindered the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, the increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
The need to abolish serfdom was also determined by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not help but influence the government's position.
The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods fell sharply. The new foreign policy situation that emerged after the Paris Peace indicated that Russia had lost its international authority and threatened the loss of influence in Europe.
Thus, the abolition of serfdom was determined by political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also determined the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs.
2. Peasant reform of 1861
2.1. Preparation of reform
For the first time, the need to abolish serfdom was officially stated by Alexander II in a speech he delivered on March 30, 1856 to the rulers of the Moscow nobility. In this speech, Alexander II, speaking about his reluctance to “give freedom to the peasants,” was forced to declare the need to begin preparing for their liberation in view of the danger of further maintaining serfdom, pointing out that “it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for it to be canceled from below." On January 3, 1856, under the chairmanship of Alexander II, a Secret Committee was formed “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Composed of ardent serf owners, the Secret Committee acted indecisively, but the further growth of the peasant movement forced the government at the end of 1857 to begin preparing the reform.
Initially, the government tried to force the landowners themselves to take the initiative. On November 20, 1857, a rescript was given: (instruction) to the Governor-General of the Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) V.I. Nazimov on the establishment of three provincial committees and one general commission in Vilna from among local landowners for the preparation of local projects “improving the life of landowner peasants.” The government program that formed the basis of this rescript was developed at the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the summer of 1856. It provided civil rights to serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; peasants were allocated allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear feudal duties regulated by law in favor of the landowner. In other words, the peasants were given personal freedom, but feudal relations of production were preserved.
During 1857-1858. similar rescripts were given to the rest of the governors, and in the same year, in the provinces in which the landowner peasants were located, “governor’s committees for improving the life of the landowner peasants” began to operate. With the publication of rescripts on December 24, 1858 and the start of the work of committees, the preparation of the reform became public. On February 16, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Along with the main committee, at the beginning of March 1858, the Zemstvo Department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, first chaired by A.I. Levshina, and then N.A. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in preparing the reform. The question of its preparation began to be widely discussed in the press.
Although the fate of the peasantry was decided by the landowners in the provincial committees and central government institutions that were preparing the reform, and the peasants were excluded from participating in matters related to their vital interests, nevertheless, neither the landowners nor the government could ignore the sentiments of the peasantry, which had a significant impact on the progress of preparation of the reform. Under the pressure of mass peasant unrest, the Main Committee on December 4, 1858. adopted a new program that provided for the provision of ownership of their plots to the peasants through redemption and the complete exemption of the peasants who bought their plots from feudal duties.
March 4, 1859 Under the Main Committee, Editorial Commissions were approved to review materials prepared by provincial committees and draw up a draft law on the emancipation of peasants. One commission was to prepare a draft “General Regulations” for all provinces, the other – “local regulations” for individual regions. In fact, the commissions merged into one, retaining the plural name “Editing commissions”.
By the end of August 1859, the draft “Regulations on Peasants” was basically prepared.
The editorial commissions made some concessions to the demands of the landowners: in a number of districts of agricultural provinces, the norms of peasant allotments were lowered, and in non-chernozem, mainly industrial provinces, the size of the quitrent was increased and the so-called re-assignment (i.e., a further increase in the quitrent) was provided 20 years after the publication of the law about the liberation of the peasants.
On February 19, 1961, the State Council completed its discussion of the draft “Regulations”. And on February 29, they were signed by the king and received the force of law. On the same day, the Tsar signed a Manifesto announcing the liberation of the peasants.
The government was well aware that the law being issued would not satisfy the peasants and would cause mass protest on their part against its predatory conditions. Therefore, already from the end of 1860, it began to mobilize forces to suppress peasant unrest. "Provisions of February 19, 1861" extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand household servants and 543 thousand assigned to private factories.
The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process stretching over several decades. The peasants did not receive complete liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Regulations of February 19, 1861” were promulgated. The manifesto announced that peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called additional taxes (eggs, oil, flax, canvas, wool, etc.) were abolished, corvee was limited to 2 women's and 3 men's days per week per week, underwater duty was slightly reduced, the transfer of peasants from quitrent to corvee and to courtyards. The final act in the liquidation of feudal relations was the transfer of peasants for ransom.
2.3. Legal status of peasants and peasant institutions.
According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The former serf, from whom previously the landowner could take away all his property, and sell it, donate it, or mortgage it, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of civil rights: in his own name they would conclude various kinds of civil and property transactions, open commercial and industrial establishments, move to other classes. All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to an increase in departure for earnings and, consequently, to the formation of a labor market. However, the question of the personal liberation of the peasants has not yet received a complete, consistent solution. Features of non-economic coercion continued to persist. The class inferiority of peasants and their attachment to their place of residence, to the community, also remained. The peasantry continued to remain the lowest, tax-paying class, which was obliged to bear conscription, capitation and various other monetary and in-kind duties, and was subjected to corporal punishment, from which the privileged classes (nobility, clergy, merchants) were exempted.
In June–July 1861, bodies of peasant “public administration” appeared in the villages of former landowner peasants. Peasant “self-government” in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P. D. Kiselyov.
The peasant “Public Administration” was responsible for the behavior of the peasants and ensuring that the peasants regularly served their duties in favor of the landowner and the state. The law of 1861 preserved the community, which the government and landowners used as a fiscal and police cell in the post-reform village.
In June 1861, the institute of peace intermediaries was created, to which the government entrusted the execution of numerous administrative and police functions related to the implementation of the reform: approval and introduction of charters (determining post-reform duties and land relations of peasants with landowners), certification of redemption acts when transition of peasants to ransom, analysis of disputes between peasants and landowners, management of the delimitation of peasant and landowner lands, supervision of peasant self-government bodies.
Peace mediators primarily protected the interests of landowners, sometimes even breaking the law. However, among the world mediators there were also representatives of the liberal opposition nobility, who criticized the difficult conditions for the peasants of the reform of 1861 and demanded a number of bourgeois reforms in the country. However, their share was very small, so they were quickly removed from their positions.
2.3.1. Peasant allotment.
The solution to the agrarian question occupied a leading place in the reform of 1861. The law was based on the principle of recognizing the landowner's ownership of all land on the estate, including the peasant allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve duties for it. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.
The provision of land to peasants was dictated by the need to preserve the peasant economy as an object of exploitation and to ensure social security in the country: the government knew that the demand for land was very loud in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years. Complete dispossession of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the same income from the peasants, it created a multi-million army of landless proletariat and threatened a peasant uprising.
But if the complete dispossession of the peasants due to the above considerations was impossible, then providing the peasants with a sufficient amount of land that would put the peasant economy in an independent position from the landowner’s was not beneficial to the landowner. Therefore, the task was set to provide the peasants with land in such an amount that they would be tied to their allotment, and, due to the insufficiency of the latter, to the landowner’s economy.
The allocation of land to peasants was compulsory. The law prohibited peasants from abandoning their allotment for 9 years after its publication (until 1870), but even after this period, the right to refuse allotment was subject to such conditions that it was virtually nullified.
When determining allotment standards, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account.
The law provided for a cut off from a peasant's allotment if it exceeded the highest or decree norm determined for a given area, and an additional cut if the allotment did not reach the lower norm. The law allowed land plots in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land on his estate in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasant with free (“as a gift”) ¼ of the highest allotment ( "donation allotment") The gap between the highest and lowest standards made cuts the rule and cuts the exception. And the size of the cut was tens of times larger than the cut-off, and the best lands were cut off from the peasants, and the worst lands were cut off. The cutting, ultimately, was also carried out in the interests of the landowners: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary to preserve the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties. As a result, peasant land use throughout the country decreased by more than 1/5.
The severity of the segments lay not only in their size. As a rule, the most valuable, and most importantly, the most necessary land for the peasants, was cut off, without which the normal functioning of the peasant economy was not possible: meadows, pastures, watering places, etc. The peasant was forced to rent these “cut-off lands” on enslaving terms. In the hands of the landowners, the cuttings turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and were the basis of the well-established system in post-reform times.
Peasant land ownership was constrained not only by land plots, but also by striping, depriving peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in the wooded northeastern provinces). The law gave the landowner the right to move peasant estates to another place, and, before the peasants transferred to the redemption, to exchange their allotments for their own lands, if any minerals were suddenly discovered on the peasant allotment, or simply this land turned out to be necessary for certain needs of the landowner. The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but further increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million souls of peasants (724 thousand household servants, 461 thousand gift-givers and 137 thousand belonging to small-scale owners) actually found themselves landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 dessiatines per capita, while in order to normally ensure the necessary standard of living of the peasant through agriculture, with the agricultural technology of that time, from 6 to 8 dessiatines per capita were required (depending on different regions). They were forced to make up for the lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or outside earnings. That is why the agrarian question became so acute at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. and was the “highlight” of the revolution of 1905-1907.
2.3.2. Duties.
Before the transition to redemption, peasants were required to serve duties in the form of corvee or quitrent for the plots of land provided to them for use. The law established the following quitrent rates: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in the rest - 8-9 rubles. from 1 male soul (in estates located no further than 25 versts from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). If the estates were close to a railroad, a navigable river, or a commercial and industrial center, the landowner could petition for an increase in the quitrent rate. In addition, the law provided for a “re-registration” after 20 years, i.e. increase in rent in anticipation of an increase in rental and sales prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform quitrent could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, but the law did not provide for a reduction in quitrent due to a reduction in the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrents per 1 dessiatine. The rates of quitrent established by law exceeded the profitability of land, especially in non-chernozem provinces. The exorbitant burden of the allotment was also achieved by the “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the rent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was distributed among the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the size of the quitrent per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the allotment was for the peasant. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest norm and the landowner could not rob the peasants by cutting off the allotment, a system of gradations came into force, which thus pursued the goal of squeezing the maximum of duties from the peasants for a minimum allotment. The gradation system also extended to corvee labor.
The corvee for the highest per capita allotment was set at 70 working days (40 men's and 30 women's) per tax per year, with 3/5 days in summer and 2/5 in winter. The working day was 12 hours in summer and 9 hours in winter. The amount of work during the day was determined by a special “work schedule.” However, the low productivity of corvee labor and the especially widespread sabotage of corvee labor by peasants forced the landowners to transfer peasants to quitrent and introduce a labor system that was more effective than the old corvee system. Over 2 years, the proportion of corvee peasants decreased from 71 to 35%.
2.3.3. Ransom
The transfer of peasants to ransom was the final stage of their liberation from serfdom. "Provisions of February 19, 1861" no final deadline was determined for the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants and their transfer to redemption. Only the law of December 28, 1881 established the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption starting January 1, 1883. By this time, 15% of the peasants remained in a temporarily obligated position. Their transfer to ransom was completed by 1895. However, this law applied only to 29 “Great Russian provinces.” In Transcaucasia, the transfer of peasants for ransom was not completed even by 1917. The situation was different in 9 provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, where, under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863 and the broad peasant movement, peasants in the amount of 2.5 million male souls were transferred to compulsory redemption already in 1863. More preferential conditions for liberation were established here, compared to other provinces of Russia: lands cut off from allotments were returned, duties were reduced by an average of 20%.
The redemption conditions for the bulk of the peasants were very difficult. The ransom was based on feudal duties, and not on the actual market price of the land. In other words, the peasants had to pay not only for the reduced allotment, but also for the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The redemption amount was determined by “capitalization of the quitrent.” Its essence was that the quitrent paid annually by the peasant was equal to an annual income of 6% from capital. Calculating this capital meant determining the redemption amount.
The state took over the ransom business by conducting a buyout operation. It was expressed in the fact that the treasury paid the landowners immediately in money and securities 80% of the redemption amount if the peasants of a given province received the highest allotment, and 75% if they were given a less than highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) was paid by the peasants directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landowners was then collected from the peasants at the rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time the peasant had to repay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.
The state's centralized purchase of peasant plots solved a number of important social and economic problems. The government loan provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from direct conflict with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was determined to be 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, former landowner peasants paid the treasury 1,540,570 thousand rubles. ransom payments and still owed her. By carrying out the redemption operation, the treasury also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from landowners. By 1861, 65% of serfs were mortgaged and remortgaged by their owners in various credit institutions, and the amount of debt to these institutions amounted to 425 million rubles. This debt was deducted from the redemption loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.
The contradictory nature of the reform of 1861, the interweaving of serfdom and capitalist features in it, was most clearly manifested in the issue of redemption. On the one hand, the ransom was of a predatory, serfdom nature, on the other hand, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. The ransom contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave landowners the funds to transfer their economy to capitalist principles. The transfer of peasants to ransom meant a further separation of the peasant economy from the landowners. The ransom accelerated the process of social stratification of the peasantry.
2.4. Peasants' response to the reform.
1861 The promulgation of the Manifesto and the “provisions of February 19, 1861,” the content of which deceived the peasants’ hopes for “full freedom,” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. In the first 5 months of this year, 1340 mass peasant unrest occurred, in just one year – 1859 unrest. In fact, there was not a single province in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the peasants did not protest against the “will” “given” to them. Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe that such laws were coming from him, which for 2 years left them in the same subordination to the landowners, still forced them to perform corvée and pay dues, deprived them of a significant part of the land, and the plots remaining in their use were declared the property of the nobility. The peasants considered the promulgated laws to be fake documents drawn up by landowners and officials who had agreed with them at the same time, hiding the “real,” “royal will.”
The peasant movement assumed its greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, the Volga region and Ukraine, where the bulk of the peasants were in corvee labor, and the agrarian question was especially acute. The most violent unrest was at the beginning of April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), which involved tens of thousands and which ended in their bloody pacification - hundreds of peasants were killed and wounded.
By the summer of 1861 The government, with the help of large military units, through executions and mass beatings with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862. A new wave of peasant uprisings arose related to the introduction of charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants on individual estates. More than half of the charter documents were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called force by the peasants, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. 844 happened.
Intensification of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. had an impact on the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations arise, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are distributed. At the beginning of 1862, the largest revolutionary organization after the Decembrists, “Land and Freedom,” was created, which set as its main task the unification of all revolutionary forces with the peasantry for a general attack on the autocracy. The struggle of the peasantry in 1863 did not acquire the severity that was observed in 1861 - 1862. In 1863, 509 unrest occurred. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine, which was associated with the influence of the Polish uprising in 1863.
The peasant movement of 1861-1863, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. It was also important that by carrying out reforms at different times in the landowner, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landowner peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by appanage and state peasants.
2.5. Reform in the specific and state villages.
Preparations for reform in the state village began in 1861. By this time there were 9,644 thousand male souls of state peasants. On November 24, 1866, the law “On the land structure of state peasants” was issued. Rural societies retained the lands that were in their use, but not more than 8 dessiatines per male soul in land-poor provinces and 15 dessiatines in provinces with a lot of land. The land use of each rural society was recorded by “ownership records.” The implementation of the reform of 1866 in the state village also entailed numerous conflicts between peasants and the treasury, caused by cuts from allotments exceeding the norms established by law and an increase in duties. According to the law of 1866, the land was recognized as the property of the treasury, and the redemption of the plots was carried out only 20 years later according to the law of June 12, 1886 “On the transformation of the quitrent tax of former state peasants into redemption payments.”
2.6. The significance of the peasant reform of 1861.
The reform of 1861 was a turning point, the line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating the conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants eliminated the landowners' monopoly on the exploitation of peasant labor and contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism in both industry and agriculture. Conditions of the reforms of 1861 provided landowners with a gradual transition from serfdom to capitalism.
The reform of 1861 was bourgeois in content. At the same time, it was also feudal; it could not be otherwise, for it was carried out by serf owners. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861 determined the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, and political system of reform Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. Landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor or bondage. Reform 1861 preserved the feudal class system: class privileges of landowners, class inequality and isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political dominance of the landowners. Taking steps towards becoming a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively intervened in the economic development of the country and sought to use new processes to strengthen its positions.
The reform of 1861 did not solve the problem of the final elimination of the feudal-serf system in the country. Therefore, the reasons that led to the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s. The 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary outcome. The serfdom nature of the reform of 1861, its duality and inconsistency gave particular urgency to the socio-economic and political conflicts in post-reform Russia. The reform “gave birth” to the revolution not only because it preserved the remnants of serfdom, but also because, “by opening a certain valve, giving some growth to capitalism,” it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought for the elimination of these remnants. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who had been in the city, in the factory, seen a lot and learned a lot.
3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874.
The abolition of serfdom in Russia caused the need to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and in military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, preserving its class, noble-landowner essence.
The development of these reforms began during the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century. However, the preparation and implementation of these reforms dragged on for a decade and a half and took place at a time when the revolutionary wave in the country had already been repulsed and the autocracy had emerged from the political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Not everything that was projected in the context of social democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.
3.1 Reforms in the field of local government.
V.I. Lenin called the zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, attract part of the “liberal society” to its side, and strengthen its social support - the nobility.
In March 1859 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop the law “On economic and administrative management in the county.” It was already foreseen in advance that the newly created local government bodies would not go beyond the scope of purely economic issues of local importance. In April 1860 Milyutin presented Alexander II with a note on the “temporary rules” of local government, which was built on the principle of election and classlessness. In April 1861 under pressure from reactionary court circles N.A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky were dismissed as “liberals”. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the projected zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave advantages to noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.
Valuev was instructed to prepare a project for the “new establishment of the State Council.” This project envisaged the formation at the State Council of a “congress of state representatives” from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before introducing them to the State Council.
By March 1863, the draft “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by Alexander II and received the force of law. According to this law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - district and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - district and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of county councilors in different counties ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial councilors - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo councilors were elected at district zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel for every 6 district councilors. Elections to district zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curiae). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned real estate worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or those who received an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as those authorized by the clergy and landowners who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by landowners-nobles and partly by the large commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of trade and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of city real estate worth at least 500 rubles. in small ones and for 2 thousand rubles. - in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the large urban bourgeoisie, as well as nobles. The third curia consisted of representatives of rural societies, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for office in this curia. If for the first two curias the elections were direct, then for the third they were multi-level: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which electors were chosen, and then the district congress of electors elected the vowels to the district zemstvo assembly. The multi-level nature of the elections for the third curia was aimed at bringing the wealthiest and most “reliable” members of the peasantry into the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies in choosing representatives to the zemstvos from among themselves. It is important to note that in the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels were elected to the zemstvos as in the other two, which ensured a predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility.
The chairmen of the district and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the district and provincial representatives of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo meetings, while the chairman of the district rural government was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council was approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The members of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvos received the right to maintain on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Rural taxes were collected from the population for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions.
Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The scope of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The zemstvos were in charge of the organization and maintenance of local communications, zemstvo post office, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters, “care” of local trade and industry, veterinary service, mutual insurance, local food business, even the construction of churches, maintenance of local prisons and houses for the insane.
Zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the Minister of Internal Affairs, who had the right to suspend any resolution of the zemstvo assembly. The zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. To carry out their decisions, zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.
The competence and activities of zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative methods. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and “clarifications” from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse approval of any official elected by the zemstvo, made zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies, and limited the ability of zemstvos to impose fees on commercial and industrial establishments . (which significantly undermined their financial capabilities). In 1867, there were bans on zemstvos of different provinces communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other. Circulars and decrees made zemstvos even more dependent on the authority of the governor, constrained freedom of debate in zemstvo assemblies, limited the openness and publicity of their meetings, and pushed zemstvos away from the management of school education.
And yet, zemstvos played a significant role in solving local economic and cultural issues: in organizing local small credit, through the formation of peasant ship-savings partnerships, in setting up post offices, road construction, in organizing medical care in the village, and public education. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools were created in the countryside, which were considered the best.
In 1862, preparations began for the reform of city government. Local commissions have emerged in 509 cities. The Ministry of Internal Affairs compiled a summary of the materials of these commissions and, on the basis of it, by 1864, developed a draft “City Regulations”. In March 1866, the project was submitted for discussion to the State Council, where it lay motionless for another 2 years. Preparations for urban reform took place in the context of the strengthening of the reactionary course of the autocracy. Only on June 16, 1870, the amended draft of the “City Regulations” was approved by Alexander II and became law.
According to this law, new, formally classless, city government bodies were introduced in 509 cities of Russia - city dumas, elected for 4 years. The City Duma elected its permanent executive body - the city government, which consisted of the mayor and two or more of its members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of the Duma and the city government. Only city tax payers who had a certain property qualification received the right to vote and be elected. According to the amount of tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: in the first, the largest taxpayers, paying a third of the total amount of city taxes, participated, in the second, medium-sized taxpayers, who also paid a third of city taxes, and in the third, small taxpayers, paying the remaining third of the total. amounts of city taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was still a major step forward, since it replaced the old, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government bodies with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualifications. The new bodies of city government played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city.
3.2. Judicial reform.
In 1861, the State Chancellery was instructed to begin developing “Basic provisions for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia.” The country's leading lawyers were involved in the preparation of judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the famous lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S.I. Zarudny, under whose leadership by 1862 the basic principles of a new judicial system and legal proceedings were developed. They received the approval of Alexander II, were published and sent for feedback to judicial institutions, universities, famous foreign lawyers, and formed the basis of judicial statutes. The developed draft judicial statutes provided for the absence of class status of the court and its independence from administrative power, the irremovability of judges and judicial investigators, the equality of all classes before the law, the oral nature, competitiveness and publicity of the trial with the participation of jurors and lawyers (sworn attorneys). This was a significant step forward compared to the feudal estate court, with its silence and clerical secrecy, lack of protection and bureaucratic red tape.
On November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved judicial statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. The Crown Court had two instances: the first was the district court, the second was the judicial chamber, which united several judicial districts. Selected jurors determined only the guilt or innocence of the defendant; The punishment was determined by the judges and two members of the court. Decisions made by the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final, and without their participation they could be appealed to the judicial chamber. Decisions of district courts and judicial chambers could be appealed only in case of violation of the legal order of legal proceedings. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate, which was the highest cassation authority, which had the right to cassate (review and cancel) court decisions.
To deal with minor offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles, a magistrate’s court with simplified proceedings was established in counties and cities.
The judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of sworn attorneys - the bar, as well as the institution of judicial investigators - special officials of the judicial department, to whom the preliminary investigation in criminal cases was transferred from the jurisdiction of the police. The chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, sworn attorneys and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and the sworn attorney and his assistant had, in addition, five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification of at least average and who had served at least three years in public service could be elected as a justice of the peace.
Supervision over the legality of the actions of judicial institutions was carried out by the chief prosecutor of the Senate, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and district courts. They reported directly to the Minister of Justice. Although the judicial reform was the most consistent of the bourgeois reforms, it also retained many of the features of the estate-feudal political system; subsequent instructions introduced into the judicial reform an even greater deviation from the principles of the bourgeois court. The spiritual court (consistory) for spiritual matters and military courts for the military were preserved. The highest royal dignitaries - members of the State Council, Senators, ministers, generals - were tried by a special Supreme Criminal Court. In 1866, court officials were actually made dependent on the governors: they were obliged to appear before the governor upon first summons and “obey his legal demands.” In 1872, the Special Presence of the Government Senate was created specifically to consider cases of political crimes. The 1872 law limited the publicity of court hearings and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the magistrates' court was liquidated (restored in 1912).
Under the influence of the public democratic upsurge during the years of the revolutionary situation, the autocracy was forced to abolish corporal punishment. The law, issued on April 17, 1863, abolished public punishments based on sentences of civil and military courts with whips, spitzrutens, “cats,” and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment was not completely abolished.
3.3. Financial reforms.
The needs of a capitalist country and the financial disorder during the Crimean War imperatively demanded the streamlining of all financial affairs. Carrying out in the 60s of the 19th century. A series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing financial affairs and affected mainly the financial management apparatus. Decree of 1860 The State Bank was established, which replaced the previous credit institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, preserving the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the preferential right to lend to commercial and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law 1862 established a new procedure for drawing up estimates by individual departments. The Minister of Finance became the sole responsible manager of all income and expenses. From the same time, a list of income and expenses began to be publicly published.
In 1864 state control was transformed. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers, independent of governors and other departments. The control chambers monthly checked the income and expenses of all local institutions. Since 1868 Annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control, began to be published.
The tax farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but into the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still fell on the tax-paying population. The poll tax was retained for peasants, townspeople, and artisans. The privileged classes were exempt from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for over 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of expenses in the state budget went to maintaining the army and administrative apparatus, up to 35% - to paying interest on public debts, issuing subsidies, etc. Expenditures on public education, medicine, and charity amounted to less than 1/10 of the state budget.
3.4. Military reform.
The defeat in the Crimean War showed that the Russian regular army, based on conscription, could not withstand the more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874. on universal military service for men over 20 years of age. The period of active service was established in the ground forces up to 6 years, in the navy - up to 7 years. The length of active service was largely reduced depending on educational qualifications. Persons with higher education served for only six months.
In the 60s The rearmament of the army began: replacing smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, introducing a system of steel artillery pieces, and improving the horse park. The accelerated development of the military steam fleet was of particular importance.
To train officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The system of command and control of the armed forces has been improved.
All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness.
3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.
Reforms of government, court and army logically required a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the gymnasium” and “Regulations on public schools that regulated primary and secondary education” were approved. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real. They accepted children of all classes who were able to pay tuition fees, mainly the children of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In the 70s The beginning of higher education for women was laid.
In 1863, the new Charter returned the autonomy to universities, abolished by Nicholas I in 1835. Independence in solving administrative, financial, scientific and pedagogical issues was restored.
In 1865, “Temporary Rules” on the press were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books aimed at the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also maintained. Since the late 60s. The government began to issue decrees that largely negated the main provisions of education reform and censorship.
3.6. The meaning of bourgeois reforms.
The reforms carried out were progressive. They began to lay the foundation for the evolutionary path of development of the country. Russia, to a certain extent, came closer to the advanced European socio-political model of that time. The first step was taken to expand the role of the country's public life and transform Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.
However, the process of modernization in Russia had a specific character. It was primarily determined by the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The radicals' speeches only activated conservative forces, frightened liberals and slowed down the government's reform aspirations. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Conducted from above by the autocracy, these reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, court, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and practically preserved the powerless position of the tax-paying classes. The new governing bodies, the school and the press were completely subordinated to the tsarist administration. Along with reforms, the autocracy supported the old administrative and police methods of management and class in all spheres of the country's socio-political life, which made possible the transition to reaction and a series of counter-reforms in the 80-90s.
Conclusion
After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, capitalism in Russia established itself as the dominant formation. From an agricultural country, Russia was turning into an agrarian-industrial one: a large machine industry was rapidly developing, new types of industry were emerging, new areas of capitalist industrial and agricultural production were emerging, an extensive network of railways was being created, a single capitalist market was being formed, and important social changes were taking place in the country. V.I. Lenin called the peasant reform of 1861 a “revolution”, similar to the Western European revolutions, which opened the way for a new, capitalist formation. But since this revolution took place in Russia not through revolution, but through reform carried out “from above,” this led to the preservation of numerous remnants of serfdom in the economic, social, and political system of the country during the post-reform period.
For the development of capitalism in Russia, an agrarian country, especially indicative are those phenomena that took place in the countryside, primarily among the peasantry. Here it is necessary to highlight the process of decomposition of the peasantry on the basis of the social stratification that began under serfdom. In post-reform times, the peasantry as a class is decomposing. The process of disintegration of the peasantry played an important role in the formation of two antagonistic classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The period of reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century was of great importance for our country, as it determined its further development and transition from feudal to capitalist relations and the transformation of Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. All reforms were bourgeois in nature, opening up opportunities for the development of capitalist relations in the economic and socio-political fields.
Although the reforms were a significant step forward for Russia, they were still bourgeois in content and carried feudal features. Implemented from above by the autocracy, these reforms were half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, court, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and actually preserved the powerless position of the tax-paying classes. The concessions made primarily to the big bourgeoisie did not in the least violate the privileges of the nobility.
So, it should be noted that the main tasks that the government set for itself were fulfilled, although not in full. And the consequences of these reforms were not always positive, for example, as a result of the peasant reform, many people died during the uprisings. In addition, the landowners, trying to somehow get out of a disadvantageous situation for them, tried to get as much benefit as possible from the peasants, as a result of which the peasant economy was greatly reduced.
But the most important thing, in my opinion, is that the peasants began to be divided into classes, and to be less dependent on the landowners. It is also important to emphasize that the principles laid down in the reforms of the court, education, press, and military affairs greatly influenced the country’s position in the future, and allowed Russia to be considered one of the world powers.
Bibliography
1. Zakharevich A.V. History of the Fatherland: Textbook. - M, Publishing House "Dashkov and Co", 2005.
2. Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook. – M. “PBOYUL L.V. Rozhnikov", 2000.
3. Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. - M. “Enlightenment”.
4. M.V. Ponomarev, O.V. Volobuev, V.A. Klokov, V.A. Rogozhkin. Russia and the World: Textbook 10th grade.
5. Kapegeler A. Russia is a multinational empire. Emergence. Story. Decay. M., 2000.
6. Encyclopedia: History of Russia and its closest neighbors. Head. Ed. M.D. Aksenov. – M.: Avanta+, 2000.
Emperor Alexander II (nicknamed the Liberator) carried out a number of liberal reforms in Russia. The reason for holding them became the backwardness of the state system, its inflexibility and injustice. The Russian economy and the authority of the state suffered from it. Orders and instructions from the authorities practically did not reach their destinations.
The purpose of the reforms there was also a relief of tension in society, the indignation that was caused by the too strict policies of the state and those in power. So, here is a table with a list of reforms.
Abolition of serfdom
1. Landowners are deprived of property rights over peasants. Now it is impossible to sell or buy peasants, separate their families, prevent them from leaving the village, and so on.
2. Peasants were obliged to buy back their land plots from landowners (at high prices) or rent it.
3. For renting land from the landowner, the peasant was obliged to serve corvee or pay quitrent, but this corvee was now limited.
4. A peasant who used a leased plot of land from a landowner did not have the right to leave the village for 9 years.
The importance of peasant reform did not appear immediately. Although formally people became free, the landowners continued to treat them as serfs for a long time, punishing them with rods and so on. The peasants did not receive any land. However, the reform was the first step in overcoming slavery and violence against the individual.
Judicial reform
An elective position of justice of the peace is being introduced. From now on, he is elected by representatives of the population, rather than appointed “from above.”
The court becomes legally independent from administrative authorities.
The court becomes transparent, that is, it is obliged to give the population access to its decisions and processes.
A district jury court was established.
The importance of judicial reform became the protection of the judicial system from the arbitrariness of the authorities and the wealthy, the protection of the integrity of justice.
Zemstvo reform
The establishment of the zemstvo as a government body to which the local population elected representatives.
Peasants could also participate in zemstvo elections.
The significance of the zemstvo reform there was a strengthening of local self-government and the participation of citizens of all classes in the life of society.
Urban reform
City government bodies have been established, the members of which are elected by city residents.
They are called city councils and city councils.
Local taxes have been reduced.
The police were transferred under the subordination of the central government.
The importance of urban reform strengthening of local self-government and at the same time limiting the arbitrariness of local authorities.
Education reform
1. It is allowed to choose deans and rectors at universities.
2. The first university for women was opened.
3. Real schools were founded, where the emphasis was on teaching technical and natural sciences.
The Importance of Education Reform there was an improvement in technical and women's education in the country.
Military reform
1. Service life has been reduced from 25 years to 7 years.
2. Limitation of military service to 7 years.
3. Now not only recruits are called up for military service (previously these were the poorest segments of the population, forcibly driven), but also representatives of all classes. Including nobles.
4. The previously bloated, ineffective army has been reduced by almost half.
5. A number of military schools have been created to train officers.
6. Corporal punishment has been abolished, except for caning in special cases.
The importance of military reform very large. A modern, combat-ready army has been created that does not consume many resources. The military became motivated to serve (previously, conscription was considered a curse; it completely ruined the conscript’s life).
The abolition of serfdom posed new serious problems for the authorities. For centuries, the serf system in Russia determined the organization of the management and judicial system, the principles of recruiting the army, etc. The collapse of this system dictated the need for further reforms.
Zemstvo and city reforms
The abolition of serfdom created many empty spaces in the previously existing system of local government, because this latter was closely connected with serfdom. Thus, before, each landowner on his estate was the personification of power for his peasants. And in the district and provincial administration, most of the positions since the time of Catherine II were filled by the choice of the nobility and from among its representatives. After the abolition of serfdom, this entire system collapsed. The local economy was already extremely neglected. There was practically no medical care in the village. Epidemics claimed thousands of lives. The peasants did not know basic hygiene rules. Public education could not get out of its infancy. Some landowners who maintained schools for their peasants closed them immediately after the abolition of serfdom. No one cared about the country roads. Thus, it was urgent to find a way out of this intolerable situation, given that the state treasury was depleted and the government could not improve the local economy on its own. Therefore, it was decided to meet the liberal public halfway (especially from non-black earth provinces), which petitioned for the introduction of local all-class self-government.
These ideas were expressed by N.A. Milyutin in a note addressed to the emperor. Once approved by the latter, they became the guiding principles of the reform. These principles were expressed in the formula: give local government as much confidence as possible, as much independence as possible and as much unity as possible.
On January 1, 1864, the law on zemstvo self-government was approved. The zemstvo reform began, during which a system of local self-government bodies was created in Russia at two territorial levels - in the district and the province. The administrative bodies of the zemstvo were the district and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and the executive bodies were the district and provincial zemstvo councils. Elections of zemstvo bodies were held every three years. In each district, three electoral congresses (curia) were created for the election of members of the district zemstvo assembly. The first curia (private landowners) included persons, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 dessiatines. land (land qualifications were different in different counties). The second (rural societies) - elected from volost assemblies. The third curia (city voters) included city property owners with a certain property qualification. Each of the congresses elected a certain equal number of vowels (for a period of three years). District zemstvo assemblies elected members of the provincial zemstvo. To carry out their tasks, zemstvos received the right to impose a special tax on the population.
As a rule, nobles predominated in zemstvo assemblies. Despite conflicts with liberal landowners, the autocracy considered the landed nobility its main support. Therefore, the chairmen of district assemblies automatically (ex officio) became the district leaders of the nobility, and the chairmen of provincial assemblies - the provincial leaders. Zemstvos were introduced only in 34 provinces of European Russia. He was not in Siberia and the Arkhangelsk province, because... there were no landowners there. Zemstvos were not introduced in the Don Army Region, in the Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where Cossack self-government existed.
The functions of zemstvos were quite diverse. They were in charge of the local economy (construction and maintenance of local roads, etc.), public education, medicine, and statistics. However, they could engage in all these matters only within the boundaries of their district or province. Zemstvo members had no right not only to solve any problems of a national nature, but even to raise them for discussion. Moreover, provincial zemstvos were forbidden to communicate with each other and coordinate their activities even on such issues as the fight against hunger, epidemics, and livestock deaths.
Milyutin did not insist on expanding the competence of zemstvos, but believed that in their field of activity they should enjoy complete autonomy and independence from local administrative authorities, subordinate only to the Senate, and that governors should only be given the right to oversee the legality of their actions.
The shortcomings of the zemstvo reform were obvious: the incompleteness of the structure of zemstvo bodies (the absence of a higher central body), the artificial creation of a numerical advantage for the landed nobility, and limited scope of activity. At the same time, this reform was of serious importance. The very fact of the emergence in Russia of a system of self-government, fundamentally different from the dominant bureaucratic system, was important. The election of zemstvo bodies and their relative independence from bureaucratic structures made it possible to count on the fact that these bodies, with all their shortcomings, would proceed from the interests of the local population and bring them real benefits. These hopes were generally justified. Soon after the creation of zemstvos, Russia was covered with a network of zemstvo schools and hospitals.
With the advent of the zemstvo, the balance of power in the province began to change. Previously, all affairs in the districts were carried out by government officials together with the landowners. Now that a network of schools has expanded. hospitals and statistical bureaus, the “third element” appeared, as zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists, and statisticians began to be called. Many representatives of the rural intelligentsia showed high examples of serving the people. The peasants trusted them, and the government listened to their advice. Government officials watched with alarm the growing influence of the “third element.”
As soon as they were born, zemstvos met with an extremely hostile attitude towards themselves from all government bodies - central and local, and soon lost a significant part of their already small powers, which led to the fact that many worthy figures of the zemstvo movement cooled towards it and left the zemstvo councils and meetings.
According to the law, zemstvos were purely economic organizations. But they soon began to play an important political role. In those years, the most enlightened and humane landowners usually entered the zemstvo service. They became members of zemstvo assemblies, members and chairmen of councils. They stood at the origins of the zemstvo liberal movement. And representatives of the “third element” gravitated towards left-wing, democratic, currents of social thought. There was hope in society for further steps in a radical restructuring of the Russian state system. Liberal leaders, who wholeheartedly welcomed the reform, consoled themselves with the dream of “crowning the building” - the creation of an all-Russian representative body on a zemstvo basis, which would be progress towards a constitutional monarchy. But the government took a completely different path. As it turned out later, in 1864 she gave the maximum self-government that she considered possible. Government policy towards zemstvos in the second half of the 1860s - 1870s. was aimed at depriving him of all independence. Governors received the right to refuse confirmation to office of any person elected by the zemstvo; even greater rights were given to them in relation to “employees” - zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians: at the slightest provocation they were not only expelled from the zemstvo, but also expelled outside the province. In addition, the governor became the censor of all printed publications zemstvos - reports, journals of meetings, statistical studies. The central and local authorities purposefully stifled any initiative of the zemstvos, radically suppressed any attempt by them towards independent activity. When conflict situations arose, the government did not hesitate to dissolve zemstvo assemblies, exile their members and other punitive measures.
As a result, instead of moving forward towards representative government, the authorities stubbornly moved backward, trying to include zemstvo bodies into the bureaucratic system. This constrained the activities of the zemstvos and undermined their authority. Nevertheless, the zemstvos managed to achieve serious success in their specific work, especially in the field of public education and medicine. But they were never destined to become full-fledged bodies of self-government and serve as the basis for the construction of a constitutional system.
On similar grounds, the City Regulations (a law on the reform of city government) were published in 1870. Issues of improvement (lighting, heating, water supply, cleaning, transport, construction of city passages, embankments, bridges, etc.), as well as the management of school, medical and charitable affairs, and care for the development of trade and industry were subject to the trusteeship of city councils and councils. The City Duma was charged with mandatory expenses for maintaining the fire department, police, prisons, and barracks (these expenses absorbed from 20 to 60% of the city budget). The city regulations eliminated the class principle in the formation of city self-government bodies, replacing it with a property qualification. The elections to the city duma were attended by males who had reached 25 years of age in three electoral congresses (curias) (small, medium and large taxpayers) with equal total amounts of payments of city taxes. Each curia elected 1/3 of the City Duma. Along with private individuals, departments, companies, monasteries, etc., who paid fees to the city budget, received the right to vote. Workers who did not pay taxes to the city did not participate in the elections. The number of dumas was established taking into account the population from 30 to 72 vowels, in Moscow - 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The mayor, his comrade (deputy) and the council were elected by the duma. The mayor headed both the Duma and the Council, coordinating their activities. The body supervising compliance with the law in the activities of city government was the Provincial Presence for City Affairs (chaired by the governor).
Within their competence, City Dumas had relative independence and autonomy. They carried out a lot of work on the improvement and development of cities, but in the social movement they were not as noticeable as the zemstvos. This was explained by the long-standing political inertia of the merchant and business class.
Judicial reform
In 1864, a judicial reform was carried out, radically transforming the structure of the Russian court and the entire legal process. The old courts existed without any significant changes since the time of Catherine II, although the need for judicial reform was recognized even by Alexander I. The main defects of the old judicial system were estate (each estate had its own court and its own laws), complete subordination to the administration and the closed nature of the judicial process (which opened up unprecedented opportunities for abuse and lawlessness). The defendant was not always informed of all the grounds on which the charges brought against him were based. The verdict was made based on the totality of the system of formal evidence, and not on the internal conviction of the judge. The judges themselves often had not only no legal education, but none at all.
It was possible to take up the reform only after the abolition of serfdom, which forced the abandonment of the principle of class and the change of the conservative Minister of Justice, Count. V.N. Panina. The author of the judicial reform was a long-time supporter of changes in this area, the State Secretary of the State Council (one of the few who spoke in the State Council in 1861 for the approval of the peasant reform) Sergei Ivanovich Zarudny. In 1862, the emperor approved the main provisions of the judicial reform developed by him: 1) the absence of class of the court, 2) equality of all citizens before the law, 3) complete independence of the court from the administration (which was guaranteed by the irremovability of judges), 4) careful selection of judicial personnel and their sufficient number material support.
The old class courts were abolished. Instead, a world court and a crown court were created - two systems independent from each other, which were united only by subordination to one supreme judicial body - the Senate. A magistrate's court with a simplified procedure was introduced in counties to deal with cases of minor offenses and civil cases with a minor claim (for the first time this category of cases was separated from the general mass). More serious cases were dealt with in the crown court, which had two instances: the district court and the trial chamber. In case of violation of the legal order of judicial proceedings, the decisions of these bodies could be appealed to the Senate.
From the old courts, which conducted business in a purely bureaucratic manner, the new ones differed primarily in that they were public, i.e. open to the public and press. In addition, the judicial procedure was based on an adversarial process, during which the charge was formulated, substantiated and supported by the prosecutor, and the interests of the defendant were defended by a lawyer from among the sworn lawyers. The prosecutor and lawyer had to find out all the circumstances of the case, questioning witnesses, analyzing physical evidence, etc. After hearing the judicial debate, the jury (12 people), chosen by lot from representatives of all classes, made their verdict on the case (“guilty”, “innocent”, “guilty, but deserves leniency”). Based on the verdict, the crown court (represented by the chairman and two members of the court) passed a sentence. Only in case of an obvious violation of procedural norms (failure to hear one of the parties by the court, failure to call witnesses, etc.) could the parties, by filing a cassation appeal, transfer the case (civil - from the judicial chamber, criminal - from the district court) to the Senate, which, in the event confirmation of violations, transferred the case without consideration to another court, or to the same court, but with a different composition. A feature of the reform was that both the investigators who prepared the case for trial and the judges who led the entire judicial procedure, although appointed by the government, were irremovable for the entire term of their powers. In other words, as a result of the reform it was supposed to create a court that was as independent as possible and protect it from outside influences, primarily from pressure from the administration. At the same time, cases of state and some judicial crimes, as well as cases of the press, were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury.
The World Court, whose task was to provide the Russian people with a “quick, just and merciful” court, consisted of one person. The justice of the peace was elected by zemstvo assemblies or city dumas for three years. The government could not by its own power remove him from office (as well as the judges of the district crown court). The task of the magistrate's court was to reconcile the guilty, and if the parties were unwilling, the judge was given considerable scope in imposing punishment - depending not on any external formal data, but on his inner conviction. The introduction of magistrates' courts significantly relieved the crown courts of the mass of small cases.
Yet the judicial reform of 1864 remained unfinished. To resolve conflicts among the peasantry, the estate volost court was retained. This was partly explained by the fact that peasant legal concepts were very different from general civil ones. A magistrate with a “Code of Laws” would often be powerless to judge the peasants. The volost court, consisting of peasants, judged on the basis of the customs existing in the area. But he was too exposed to influence from the wealthy upper classes of the village and all kinds of authorities. The volost court and the magistrate had the right to impose corporal punishment. This shameful phenomenon existed in Russia until 1904. There was a separate church court for the clergy (for specifically church matters).
In addition, soon after the start of the implementation of judicial reform, largely under the influence of the unprecedented scale of terrorism, the government began to subordinate the courts to the dominant bureaucratic system. In the second half of the 1860s - 1870s, the publicity of court hearings and their coverage in the press was significantly limited; The dependence of judicial officials on the local administration increased: they were ordered to unquestioningly “obey the legal requirements” of the provincial authorities. The principle of irremovability was also undermined: instead of investigators, “acting” investigators were increasingly appointed, to whom the principle of irremovability did not apply. Innovations relating to political cases were especially characteristic : the investigation in these cases began to be conducted not by investigators, but by gendarmes; legal proceedings were carried out not by jury trials, but by the Special Presence of the Governing Senate created specifically for this purpose. Since the late 1870s, a significant part of political cases began to be tried by military courts.
And yet, one can without hesitation admit that judicial reform was the most radical and consistent of all the Great Reforms of the 1860s.
Military reforms
In 1861, General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin was appointed Minister of War. Taking into account the lessons of the Crimean War, he spent the 1860s - I half. 1870s a number of military reforms. One of the main objectives of military reforms was to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and create the opportunity for a significant increase in it in wartime. This was achieved by reducing the non-combatant element (non-combatant, local and auxiliary troops) and introducing in 1874 (under the influence of the successful actions of the Prussian army in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 - 1871) universal conscription, replacing the pre-reform conscription. Military service extended to the entire male population, aged 21-40, without distinction of class. For ground forces, a 6-year period of active service and 9 years in reserve was established; for the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in reserve. Then those liable for military service were transferred as warriors to the State Militia, where those exempt from conscription were also enrolled. In peacetime, no more than 25 - 30% of the total number of conscripts were taken into active service. A significant part of conscripts were exempted from service due to family benefits (the only son of their parents, the only breadwinner in the family, etc.), due to physical unfitness, or due to their occupation (doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, educators and teachers); the rest drew lots. Representatives of the peoples of the North and Central Asia, some peoples of the Caucasus, the Urals and Siberia (Muslims) were not subject to conscription. Cossacks underwent military service under special conditions. Service life was shortened depending on education. If the person who received the education entered active service voluntarily (as a volunteer), then the service life was further shortened by another half. Under this condition, conscripts who had a secondary education served only seven months, and higher education - three. These benefits became an additional incentive for the spread of education. During the Milyutin reforms, the conditions of service for the lower ranks (soldiers) were significantly changed: corporal punishment was abolished (punishment with rods was reserved only for the category of “fine”); improved food, uniforms and barracks; Strict measures have been taken to stop beatings of soldiers; Systematic literacy training for soldiers was introduced (in company schools). The abolition of conscription, along with the abolition of serfdom, significantly increased the popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.
At the same time, a harmonious, strictly centralized structure was created to streamline the military command system. In 1862 - 1864 Russia was divided into 15 military districts, directly subordinate to the War Ministry. In 1865, the General Staff was established - the central authority for command and control of troops. Transformations in the sphere of military education were also of serious importance: instead of closed cadet corps, military gymnasiums were established, which were close in curriculum to a secondary school (gymnasium) and opened the way to any higher educational institution. Those who wished to continue their military education entered the institutions established in the 1860s. specialized cadet schools - artillery, cavalry, military engineering. An important feature of these schools was their all-class status, which opened access to the officer corps to persons of non-noble origin. Higher military education was provided by the Academy of the General Staff. artillery, military medical, naval, etc. The army was rearmed (the first rifled breech-loading guns, Berdan rifles, etc.).
Military reforms met with strong opposition from conservative circles of the generals and society; The main opponent of the reforms was Field Marshal Prince. A.I. Baryatinsky. Military “authorities” criticized the reforms for their bureaucratic nature, diminishing the role of the command staff, and overthrowing the centuries-old foundations of the Russian army.
Results and significance of the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s.
The reforms of the 60-70s are a major phenomenon in the history of Russia. New, modern bodies of self-government and courts contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of civic consciousness of the population, the spread of education, and the improvement of the quality of life. Russia joined the pan-European process of creating advanced, civilized forms of statehood based on the initiative of the population and its expression of will. But these were only the first steps. Remnants of serfdom were strong in local government, and many noble privileges remained intact. The reforms of the 60-70s did not affect the upper levels of power. The autocracy and police system inherited from past eras were preserved.
wiki.304.ru / History of Russia. Dmitry Alkhazashvili.
FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY
SIBERIAN STATE AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER ACADEMICIAN M.F. RESHETNEVA
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
ABSTRACT
Subject: Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century:
prerequisites and consequences.
Completed by: student of group IUT-61
Nechaev Mikhail
Checked by: Shushkanova E. A.
Krasnoyarsk 2006
Plan
Introduction
Introduction
Towards the middle XIXV. Russia's lag behind advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres became clear. International events of the mid-century showed its significant weakening in the foreign policy field. Therefore, the main goal of the government was to bring the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was the preservation of autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.
The development of capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into even greater conflict with the feudal-serf system. The deepening of the process of social division of labor, the growth of industry, domestic and foreign trade disintegrated the feudal economic system. The intensifying conflict between new, capitalist relations and the outdated serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A clear expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf village.
The defeat in the Crimean War undermined Russia's international prestige and accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60s and 70s.XIXV. The Russian autocracy had to take the path of carrying out urgent social, economic and political reforms in order to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country and strengthen the social and economic basis of absolutism.
This path began with the implementation of the most important reform of the abolition of serfdom, as well as a number of other important bourgeois reforms: courts, self-government, education and the press, etc. in the 60-70s.XIXin., necessary for Russia.
Having decided on the topic of the essay, I set myself the goal of selecting the appropriate literature and, on its basis, learning more about the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXc., their prerequisites and consequences.
There are many books, articles, and scientific discussions on this topic. Accordingly, I chose the most suitable material for my topic.
The topic I have chosen is relevant at this time, since reforms are also being carried out now, and an analysis of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXV. allows us to correlate them with the reforms of our time, to identify shortcomings and, accordingly, the consequences of these shortcomings, to identify the impact of these reforms on the further development of our country.
The goals and objectives of my work: to consider the main points of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXcentury, their prerequisites and consequences, as well as the impact of these reforms on the further development of Russia.
1. Prerequisites for reforms.
The agrarian-peasant question towards the middleXIXV. has become the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among European states, serfdom remained only in it, hindering economic and socio-political development. The preservation of serfdom is due to the peculiarities of the Russian autocracy, which, since the formation of the Russian state and the strengthening of absolutism, relied exclusively on the nobility, and therefore had to take into account its interests.
At the end XVIII– middle XIXV. even the government and conservative circles did not remain aloof from understanding the solution to the peasant issue. However, the government's attempts to soften serfdom, give landowners a positive example of managing peasants, and regulate their relationships turned out to be ineffective due to the resistance of the serf owners. Towards the middleXIXV. the preconditions that led to the collapse of the serfdom system had finally matured. First of all, it has outlived its usefulness economically. The landowner economy, based on the labor of serfs, fell increasingly into decline. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landowners.
Objectively, serfdom also hindered the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, the increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
The need to abolish serfdom was also determined by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not help but influence the government's position.
The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods fell sharply. The new foreign policy situation that emerged after the Paris Peace indicated that Russia had lost its international authority and threatened the loss of influence in Europe.
Thus, the abolition of serfdom was determined by political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also determined the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs.
2. Peasant reform of 1861
2.1. Preparation of reform
For the first time, the need to abolish serfdom was officially announced by AlexanderIIin a speech he delivered on March 30, 1856 to the rulers of the Moscow nobility. In this speech, AlexanderII, speaking about his reluctance to “give freedom to the peasants,” was forced to declare the need to begin preparing for their liberation due to the danger of further maintaining serfdom, pointing out that “it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it itself is abolished from below.” January 3, 1856, chaired by AlexanderIIA Secret Committee was formed “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Composed of ardent serf owners, the Secret Committee acted indecisively, but the further growth of the peasant movement forced the government at the end of 1857 to begin preparing the reform.
Initially, the government tried to force the landowners themselves to take the initiative. On November 20, 1857, a rescript was given: (instruction) to the Governor-General of the Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) V.I. Nazimov on the establishment of three provincial committees and one general commission in Vilna from among local landowners for the preparation of local projects “improving the life of landowner peasants.” The government program that formed the basis of this rescript was developed at the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the summer of 1856. It provided civil rights to serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; peasants were allocated allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear feudal duties regulated by law in favor of the landowner. In other words, the peasants were given personal freedom, but feudal relations of production were preserved.
During 1857-1858. similar rescripts were given to the rest of the governors, and in the same year, in the provinces in which the landowner peasants were located, “governor’s committees for improving the life of the landowner peasants” began to operate. With the publication of rescripts on December 24, 1858 and the start of the work of committees, the preparation of the reform became public. On February 16, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Along with the main committee, at the beginning of March 1858, the Zemstvo Department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, first chaired by A.I. Levshina, and then N.A. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in preparing the reform. The question of its preparation began to be widely discussed in the press.
Although the fate of the peasantry was decided by the landowners in the provincial committees and central government institutions that were preparing the reform, and the peasants were excluded from participating in matters related to their vital interests, nevertheless, neither the landowners nor the government could ignore the sentiments of the peasantry, which had a significant impact on the progress of preparation of the reform. Under the pressure of mass peasant unrest, the Main Committee on December 4, 1858. adopted a new program that provided for the provision of ownership of their plots to the peasants through redemption and the complete exemption of the peasants who bought their plots from feudal duties.
March 4, 1859 Under the Main Committee, Editorial Commissions were approved to review materials prepared by provincial committees and draw up a draft law on the emancipation of peasants. One commission was to prepare a draft “General Regulations” for all provinces, the other – “local regulations” for individual regions. In fact, the commissions merged into one, retaining the plural name “Editing commissions”.
By the end of August 1859, the draft “Regulations on Peasants” was basically prepared.
The editorial commissions made some concessions to the demands of the landowners: in a number of districts of agricultural provinces, the norms of peasant allotments were lowered, and in non-chernozem, mainly industrial provinces, the size of the quitrent was increased and the so-called re-assignment (i.e., a further increase in the quitrent) was provided 20 years after the publication of the law about the liberation of the peasants.
2.2. Promulgation of the manifesto “Regulations of February 19, 1861”.
On February 19, 1961, the State Council completed its discussion of the draft “Regulations”. And on February 29, they were signed by the king and received the force of law. On the same day, the Tsar signed a Manifesto announcing the liberation of the peasants.
The government was well aware that the law being issued would not satisfy the peasants and would cause mass protest on their part against its predatory conditions. Therefore, already from the end of 1860, it began to mobilize forces to suppress peasant unrest. "Provisions of February 19, 1861" extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand household servants and 543 thousand assigned to private factories.
The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process stretching over several decades. The peasants did not receive complete liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Regulations of February 19, 1861” were promulgated. The manifesto announced that peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called additional taxes (eggs, oil, flax, canvas, wool, etc.) were abolished, corvee was limited to 2 women's and 3 men's days per week per week, underwater duty was slightly reduced, the transfer of peasants from quitrent to corvee and to courtyards. The final act in the liquidation of feudal relations was the transfer of peasants for ransom.
2.3. Legal status of peasants and peasant institutions.
According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The former serf, from whom previously the landowner could take away all his property, and sell it, donate it, or mortgage it, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of civil rights: in his own name they would conclude various kinds of civil and property transactions, open commercial and industrial establishments, move to other classes. All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to an increase in departure for earnings and, consequently, to the formation of a labor market. However, the question of the personal liberation of the peasants has not yet received a complete, consistent solution. Features of non-economic coercion continued to persist. The class inferiority of peasants and their attachment to their place of residence, to the community, also remained. The peasantry continued to remain the lowest, tax-paying class, which was obliged to bear conscription, capitation and various other monetary and in-kind duties, and was subjected to corporal punishment, from which the privileged classes (nobility, clergy, merchants) were exempted.
In June–July 1861, bodies of peasant “public administration” appeared in the villages of former landowner peasants. Peasant “self-government” in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P. D. Kiselyov.
The peasant “Public Administration” was responsible for the behavior of the peasants and ensuring that the peasants regularly served their duties in favor of the landowner and the state. The law of 1861 preserved the community, which the government and landowners used as a fiscal and police cell in the post-reform village.
In June 1861, the institute of peace intermediaries was created, to which the government entrusted the execution of numerous administrative and police functions related to the implementation of the reform: approval and introduction of charters (determining post-reform duties and land relations of peasants with landowners), certification of redemption acts when transition of peasants to ransom, analysis of disputes between peasants and landowners, management of the delimitation of peasant and landowner lands, supervision of peasant self-government bodies.
Peace mediators primarily protected the interests of landowners, sometimes even breaking the law. However, among the world mediators there were also representatives of the liberal opposition nobility, who criticized the difficult conditions for the peasants of the reform of 1861 and demanded a number of bourgeois reforms in the country. However, their share was very small, so they were quickly removed from their positions.
2.3.1. Peasant allotment.
The solution to the agrarian question occupied a leading place in the reform of 1861. The law was based on the principle of recognizing the landowner's ownership of all land on the estate, including the peasant allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve duties for it. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.
The provision of land to peasants was dictated by the need to preserve the peasant economy as an object of exploitation and to ensure social security in the country: the government knew that the demand for land was very loud in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years. Complete dispossession of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the same income from the peasants, it created a multi-million army of landless proletariat and threatened a peasant uprising.
But if the complete dispossession of the peasants due to the above considerations was impossible, then providing the peasants with a sufficient amount of land that would put the peasant economy in an independent position from the landowner’s was not beneficial to the landowner. Therefore, the task was set to provide the peasants with land in such an amount that they would be tied to their allotment, and, due to the insufficiency of the latter, to the landowner’s economy.
The allocation of land to peasants was compulsory. The law prohibited peasants from abandoning their allotment for 9 years after its publication (until 1870), but even after this period, the right to refuse allotment was subject to such conditions that it was virtually nullified.
When determining allotment standards, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account.
The law provided for a cut off from a peasant's allotment if it exceeded the highest or decree norm determined for a given area, and an additional cut if the allotment did not reach the lower norm. The law allowed land plots in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land on his estate in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasant with free (“as a gift”) ¼ of the highest allotment ( "donation allotment") The gap between the highest and lowest standards made cuts the rule and cuts the exception. And the size of the cut was tens of times larger than the cut-off, and the best lands were cut off from the peasants, and the worst lands were cut off. The cutting, ultimately, was also carried out in the interests of the landowners: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary to preserve the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties. As a result, peasant land use throughout the country decreased by more than 1/5.
The severity of the segments lay not only in their size. As a rule, the most valuable, and most importantly, the most necessary land for the peasants, was cut off, without which the normal functioning of the peasant economy was not possible: meadows, pastures, watering places, etc. The peasant was forced to rent these “cut-off lands” on enslaving terms. In the hands of the landowners, the cuttings turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and were the basis of the well-established system in post-reform times.
Peasant land ownership was constrained not only by land plots, but also by striping, depriving peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in the wooded northeastern provinces). The law gave the landowner the right to move peasant estates to another place, and, before the peasants transferred to the redemption, to exchange their allotments for their own lands, if any minerals were suddenly discovered on the peasant allotment, or simply this land turned out to be necessary for certain needs of the landowner. The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but further increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million souls of peasants (724 thousand household servants, 461 thousand gift-givers and 137 thousand belonging to small-scale owners) actually found themselves landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 dessiatines per capita, while in order to normally ensure the necessary standard of living of the peasant through agriculture, with the agricultural technology of that time, from 6 to 8 dessiatines per capita were required (depending on different regions). They were forced to make up for the lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or outside earnings. That is why the agrarian question became so acute at the turnXIX— XXcenturies and was the “highlight” of the revolution of 1905-1907.
2.3.2. Duties.
Before the transition to redemption, peasants were required to serve duties in the form of corvee or quitrent for the plots of land provided to them for use. The law established the following quitrent rates: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in the rest - 8-9 rubles. from 1 male soul (in estates located no further than 25 versts from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). If the estates were close to a railroad, a navigable river, or a commercial and industrial center, the landowner could petition for an increase in the quitrent rate. In addition, the law provided for a “re-registration” after 20 years, i.e. increase in rent in anticipation of an increase in rental and sales prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform quitrent could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, but the law did not provide for a reduction in quitrent due to a reduction in the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrents per 1 dessiatine. The rates of quitrent established by law exceeded the profitability of land, especially in non-chernozem provinces. The exorbitant burden of the allotment was also achieved by the “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the rent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was distributed among the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the size of the quitrent per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the allotment was for the peasant. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest norm and the landowner could not rob the peasants by cutting off the allotment, a system of gradations came into force, which thus pursued the goal of squeezing the maximum of duties from the peasants for a minimum allotment. The gradation system also extended to corvee labor.
The corvee for the highest per capita allotment was set at 70 working days (40 men's and 30 women's) per tax per year, with 3/5 days in summer and 2/5 in winter. The working day was 12 hours in summer and 9 hours in winter. The amount of work during the day was determined by a special “work schedule.” However, the low productivity of corvee labor and the especially widespread sabotage of corvee labor by peasants forced the landowners to transfer peasants to quitrent and introduce a labor system that was more effective than the old corvee system. Over 2 years, the proportion of corvee peasants decreased from 71 to 35%.
2.3.3. Ransom
The transfer of peasants to ransom was the final stage of their liberation from serfdom. "Provisions of February 19, 1861" no final deadline was determined for the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants and their transfer to redemption. Only the law of December 28, 1881 established the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption starting January 1, 1883. By this time, 15% of the peasants remained in a temporarily obligated position. Their transfer to ransom was completed by 1895. However, this law applied only to 29 “Great Russian provinces.” In Transcaucasia, the transfer of peasants for ransom was not completed even by 1917. The situation was different in 9 provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, where, under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863 and the broad peasant movement, peasants in the amount of 2.5 million male souls were transferred to compulsory redemption already in 1863. More preferential conditions for liberation were established here, compared to other provinces of Russia: lands cut off from allotments were returned, duties were reduced by an average of 20%.
The redemption conditions for the bulk of the peasants were very difficult. The ransom was based on feudal duties, and not on the actual market price of the land. In other words, the peasants had to pay not only for the reduced allotment, but also for the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The redemption amount was determined by “capitalization of the quitrent.” Its essence was that the quitrent paid annually by the peasant was equal to an annual income of 6% from capital. Calculating this capital meant determining the redemption amount.
The state took over the ransom business by conducting a buyout operation. It was expressed in the fact that the treasury paid the landowners immediately in money and securities 80% of the redemption amount if the peasants of a given province received the highest allotment, and 75% if they were given a less than highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) was paid by the peasants directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landowners was then collected from the peasants at the rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time the peasant had to repay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.
The state's centralized purchase of peasant plots solved a number of important social and economic problems. The government loan provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from direct conflict with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was determined to be 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, former landowner peasants paid the treasury 1,540,570 thousand rubles. ransom payments and still owed her. By carrying out the redemption operation, the treasury also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from landowners. By 1861, 65% of serfs were mortgaged and remortgaged by their owners in various credit institutions, and the amount of debt to these institutions amounted to 425 million rubles. This debt was deducted from the redemption loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.
The contradictory nature of the reform of 1861, the interweaving of serfdom and capitalist features in it, was most clearly manifested in the issue of redemption. On the one hand, the ransom was of a predatory, serfdom nature, on the other hand, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. The ransom contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave landowners the funds to transfer their economy to capitalist principles. The transfer of peasants to ransom meant a further separation of the peasant economy from the landowners. The ransom accelerated the process of social stratification of the peasantry.
2.4. Peasants' response to the reform.
1861 The promulgation of the Manifesto and the “provisions of February 19, 1861,” the content of which deceived the peasants’ hopes for “full freedom,” caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. In the first 5 months of this year, 1340 mass peasant unrest occurred, in just one year – 1859 unrest. In fact, there was not a single province in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the peasants did not protest against the “will” “given” to them. Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe that such laws were coming from him, which for 2 years left them in the same subordination to the landowners, still forced them to perform corvée and pay dues, deprived them of a significant part of the land, and the plots remaining in their use were declared the property of the nobility. The peasants considered the promulgated laws to be fake documents drawn up by landowners and officials who had agreed with them at the same time, hiding the “real,” “royal will.”
The peasant movement assumed its greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, the Volga region and Ukraine, where the bulk of the peasants were in corvee labor, and the agrarian question was especially acute. The most violent unrest was at the beginning of April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), which involved tens of thousands and which ended in their bloody pacification - hundreds of peasants were killed and wounded.
By the summer of 1861 The government, with the help of large military units, through executions and mass beatings with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862. A new wave of peasant uprisings arose related to the introduction of charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants on individual estates. More than half of the charter documents were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called force by the peasants, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. 844 happened.
Intensification of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. had an impact on the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations arise, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are distributed. At the beginning of 1862, the largest revolutionary organization after the Decembrists, “Land and Freedom,” was created, which set as its main task the unification of all revolutionary forces with the peasantry for a general attack on the autocracy. The struggle of the peasantry in 1863 did not acquire the severity that was observed in 1861 - 1862. In 1863, 509 unrest occurred. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine, which was associated with the influence of the Polish uprising in 1863.
The peasant movement of 1861-1863, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. It was also important that by carrying out reforms at different times in the landowner, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landowner peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by appanage and state peasants.
2.5. Reform in the specific and state villages.
Preparations for reform in the state village began in 1861. By this time there were 9,644 thousand male souls of state peasants. On November 24, 1866, the law “On the land structure of state peasants” was issued. Rural societies retained the lands that were in their use, but not more than 8 dessiatines per male soul in land-poor provinces and 15 dessiatines in provinces with a lot of land. The land use of each rural society was recorded by “ownership records.” The implementation of the reform of 1866 in the state village also entailed numerous conflicts between peasants and the treasury, caused by cuts from allotments exceeding the norms established by law and an increase in duties. According to the law of 1866, the land was recognized as the property of the treasury, and the redemption of the plots was carried out only 20 years later according to the law of June 12, 1886 “On the transformation of the quitrent tax of former state peasants into redemption payments.”
2.6. The significance of the peasant reform of 1861.
The reform of 1861 was a turning point, the line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating the conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants eliminated the landowners' monopoly on the exploitation of peasant labor and contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism in both industry and agriculture. Conditions of the reforms of 1861 provided landowners with a gradual transition from serfdom to capitalism.
The reform of 1861 was bourgeois in content. At the same time, it was also feudal; it could not be otherwise, for it was carried out by serf owners. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861 determined the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, and political system of reform Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. Landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor or bondage. Reform 1861 preserved the feudal class system: class privileges of landowners, class inequality and isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political dominance of the landowners. Taking steps towards becoming a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively intervened in the economic development of the country and sought to use new processes to strengthen its positions.
The reform of 1861 did not solve the problem of the final elimination of the feudal-serf system in the country. Therefore, the reasons that led to the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s. The 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary outcome. The serfdom nature of the reform of 1861, its duality and inconsistency gave particular urgency to the socio-economic and political conflicts in post-reform Russia. The reform “gave birth” to the revolution not only because it preserved the remnants of serfdom, but also because, “by opening a certain valve, giving some growth to capitalism,” it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought for the elimination of these remnants. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who had been in the city, in the factory, seen a lot and learned a lot.
3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874.
The abolition of serfdom in Russia caused the need to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and in military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, preserving its class, noble-landowner essence.
The development of these reforms began during the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century. However, the preparation and implementation of these reforms dragged on for a decade and a half and took place at a time when the revolutionary wave in the country had already been repulsed and the autocracy had emerged from the political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Not everything that was projected in the context of social democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.
3.1 Reforms in the field of local government.
V.I. Lenin called the zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, attract part of the “liberal society” to its side, and strengthen its social support - the nobility.
In March 1859 under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop the law “On economic and administrative management in the county.” It was already foreseen in advance that the newly created local government bodies would not go beyond the scope of purely economic issues of local importance. In April 1860 Milyutin introduced AlexandraIIa note on the “temporary rules” of local government, which was built on the principle of election and classlessness. In April 1861 under pressure from reactionary court circles N.A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky were dismissed as “liberals”. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the projected zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave advantages to noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.
Valuev was instructed to prepare a project for the “new establishment of the State Council.” This project envisaged the formation at the State Council of a “congress of state representatives” from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before introducing them to the State Council.
By March 1863, the draft “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by AlexanderIIand received the force of law. According to this law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - district and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - district and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of county councilors in different counties ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial councilors - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo councilors were elected at district zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel for every 6 district councilors. Elections to district zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curiae). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned real estate worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or those who received an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as those authorized by the clergy and landowners who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by landowners-nobles and partly by the large commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of trade and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of city real estate worth at least 500 rubles. in small ones and for 2 thousand rubles. - in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the large urban bourgeoisie, as well as nobles. The third curia consisted of representatives of rural societies, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for office in this curia. If for the first two curias the elections were direct, then for the third they were multi-level: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which electors were chosen, and then the district congress of electors elected the vowels to the district zemstvo assembly. The multi-level nature of the elections for the third curia was aimed at bringing the wealthiest and most “reliable” members of the peasantry into the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies in choosing representatives to the zemstvos from among themselves. It is important to note that in the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels were elected to the zemstvos as in the other two, which ensured a predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility.
The chairmen of the district and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the district and provincial representatives of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo meetings, while the chairman of the district rural government was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council was approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The members of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvos received the right to maintain on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Rural taxes were collected from the population for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions.
Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The scope of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The zemstvos were in charge of the organization and maintenance of local communications, zemstvo post office, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters, “care” of local trade and industry, veterinary service, mutual insurance, local food business, even the construction of churches, maintenance of local prisons and houses for the insane.
Zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the Minister of Internal Affairs, who had the right to suspend any resolution of the zemstvo assembly. The zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. To carry out their decisions, zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.
The competence and activities of zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative methods. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and “clarifications” from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse approval of any official elected by the zemstvo, made zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies, and limited the ability of zemstvos to impose fees on commercial and industrial establishments . (which significantly undermined their financial capabilities). In 1867, there were bans on zemstvos of different provinces communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other. Circulars and decrees made zemstvos even more dependent on the authority of the governor, constrained freedom of debate in zemstvo assemblies, limited the openness and publicity of their meetings, and pushed zemstvos away from the management of school education.
And yet, zemstvos played a significant role in solving local economic and cultural issues: in organizing local small credit, through the formation of peasant ship-savings partnerships, in setting up post offices, road construction, in organizing medical care in the village, and public education. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools were created in the countryside, which were considered the best.
In 1862, preparations began for the reform of city government. Local commissions have emerged in 509 cities. The Ministry of Internal Affairs compiled a summary of the materials of these commissions and, on the basis of it, by 1864, developed a draft “City Regulations”. In March 1866, the project was submitted for discussion to the State Council, where it lay motionless for another 2 years. Preparations for urban reform took place in the context of the strengthening of the reactionary course of the autocracy. Only on June 16, 1870, the amended draft of the “City Regulations” was approved by AlexanderII and became a law.
According to this law, new, formally classless, bodies of city government were introduced in 509 cities of Russia - city dumas, elected for 4 years. The City Duma elected its permanent executive body - the city government, which consisted of the mayor and two or more of its members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of the Duma and the city government. Only city tax payers who had a certain property qualification received the right to vote and be elected. According to the amount of tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: in the first, the largest taxpayers, paying a third of the total amount of city taxes, participated, in the second, medium-sized taxpayers, who also paid a third of city taxes, and in the third, small taxpayers, paying the remaining third of the total. amounts of city taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was still a major step forward, since it replaced the old, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government bodies with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualifications. The new bodies of city government played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city.
3.2. Judicial reform.
In 1861, the State Chancellery was instructed to begin developing “Basic provisions for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia.” The country's leading lawyers were involved in the preparation of judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the famous lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S.I. Zarudny, under whose leadership by 1862 the basic principles of a new judicial system and legal proceedings were developed. They received Alexander's approvalII, were published and sent for feedback to judicial institutions, universities, well-known foreign lawyers and formed the basis of judicial statutes. The developed draft judicial statutes provided for the absence of class status of the court and its independence from administrative power, the irremovability of judges and judicial investigators, the equality of all classes before the law, the oral nature, competitiveness and publicity of the trial with the participation of jurors and lawyers (sworn attorneys). This was a significant step forward compared to the feudal estate court, with its silence and clerical secrecy, lack of protection and bureaucratic red tape.
November 20, 1864 AlexanderIIapproved judicial statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. The Crown Court had two instances: the first was the district court, the second was the judicial chamber, which united several judicial districts. Selected jurors determined only the guilt or innocence of the defendant; The punishment was determined by the judges and two members of the court. Decisions made by the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final, and without their participation they could be appealed to the judicial chamber. Decisions of district courts and judicial chambers could be appealed only in case of violation of the legal order of legal proceedings. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate, which was the highest cassation authority, which had the right to cassate (review and cancel) court decisions.
To deal with minor offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles, a magistrate’s court with simplified proceedings was established in counties and cities.
The judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of sworn attorneys - the bar, as well as the institution of judicial investigators - special officials of the judicial department, to whom the preliminary investigation in criminal cases was transferred from the jurisdiction of the police. The chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, sworn attorneys and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and the sworn attorney and his assistant had, in addition, five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification of at least average and who had served at least three years in public service could be elected as a justice of the peace.
Supervision over the legality of the actions of judicial institutions was carried out by the chief prosecutor of the Senate, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and district courts. They reported directly to the Minister of Justice. Although the judicial reform was the most consistent of the bourgeois reforms, it also retained many of the features of the estate-feudal political system; subsequent instructions introduced into the judicial reform an even greater deviation from the principles of the bourgeois court. The spiritual court (consistory) for spiritual matters and military courts for the military were preserved. The highest royal dignitaries - members of the State Council, Senators, ministers, generals - were tried by a special Supreme Criminal Court. In 1866, court officials were actually made dependent on the governors: they were obliged to appear before the governor upon first summons and “obey his legal demands.” In 1872, the Special Presence of the Government Senate was created specifically to consider cases of political crimes. The 1872 law limited the publicity of court hearings and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the magistrates' court was liquidated (restored in 1912).
Under the influence of the public democratic upsurge during the years of the revolutionary situation, the autocracy was forced to abolish corporal punishment. The law, issued on April 17, 1863, abolished public punishments based on sentences of civil and military courts with whips, spitzrutens, “cats,” and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment was not completely abolished.
3.3. Financial reforms.
The needs of a capitalist country and the financial disorder during the Crimean War imperatively demanded the streamlining of all financial affairs. Carrying out in the 60s of the 19th century. A series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing financial affairs and affected mainly the financial management apparatus. Decree of 1860 The State Bank was established, which replaced the previous credit institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, preserving the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the preferential right to lend to commercial and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law 1862 established a new procedure for drawing up estimates by individual departments. The Minister of Finance became the sole responsible manager of all income and expenses. From the same time, a list of income and expenses began to be publicly published.
In 1864 state control was transformed. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers, independent of governors and other departments. The control chambers monthly checked the income and expenses of all local institutions. Since 1868 Annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control, began to be published.
The tax farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but into the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still fell on the tax-paying population. The poll tax was retained for peasants, townspeople, and artisans. The privileged classes were exempt from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for over 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of expenses in the state budget went to maintaining the army and administrative apparatus, up to 35% - to paying interest on public debts, issuing subsidies, etc. Expenditures on public education, medicine, and charity amounted to less than 1/10 of the state budget.
3.4. Military reform.
The defeat in the Crimean War showed that the Russian regular army, based on conscription, could not withstand the more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874. on universal military service for men over 20 years of age. The period of active service was established in the ground forces up to 6 years, in the navy - up to 7 years. The length of active service was largely reduced depending on educational qualifications. Persons with higher education served for only six months.
In the 60s The rearmament of the army began: replacing smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, introducing a system of steel artillery pieces, and improving the horse park. The accelerated development of the military steam fleet was of particular importance.
To train officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The system of command and control of the armed forces has been improved.
All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness.
3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.
Reforms of government, court and army logically required a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the gymnasium” and “Regulations on public schools that regulated primary and secondary education” were approved. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real. They accepted children of all classes who were able to pay tuition fees, mainly the children of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In the 70s The beginning of higher education for women was laid.
In 1863, the new Charter returned the autonomy to universities, abolished by NicholasIin 1835. Independence in solving administrative, financial, scientific and pedagogical issues was restored.
In 1865, “Temporary Rules” on the press were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books aimed at the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also maintained. Since the late 60s. The government began to issue decrees that largely negated the main provisions of education reform and censorship.
3.6. The meaning of bourgeois reforms.
The reforms carried out were progressive. They began to lay the foundation for the evolutionary path of development of the country. Russia, to a certain extent, came closer to the advanced European socio-political model of that time. The first step was taken to expand the role of the country's public life and transform Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.
However, the process of modernization in Russia had a specific character. It was primarily determined by the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The radicals' speeches only activated conservative forces, frightened liberals and slowed down the government's reform aspirations. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Conducted from above by the autocracy, these reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, court, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and practically preserved the powerless position of the tax-paying classes. The new governing bodies, the school and the press were completely subordinated to the tsarist administration. Along with reforms, the autocracy supported the old administrative and police methods of management and class in all spheres of the country's socio-political life, which made possible the transition to reaction and a series of counter-reforms in the 80-90s.
Conclusion
After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, capitalism in Russia established itself as the dominant formation. From an agricultural country, Russia was turning into an agrarian-industrial one: a large machine industry was rapidly developing, new types of industry were emerging, new areas of capitalist industrial and agricultural production were emerging, an extensive network of railways was being created, a single capitalist market was being formed, and important social changes were taking place in the country. V.I. Lenin called the peasant reform of 1861 a “revolution”, similar to the Western European revolutions, which opened the way for a new, capitalist formation. But since this revolution took place in Russia not through revolution, but through reform carried out “from above,” this led to the preservation of numerous remnants of serfdom in the economic, social, and political system of the country during the post-reform period.
For the development of capitalism in Russia, an agrarian country, especially indicative are those phenomena that took place in the countryside, primarily among the peasantry. Here it is necessary to highlight the process of decomposition of the peasantry on the basis of the social stratification that began under serfdom. In post-reform times, the peasantry as a class is decomposing. The process of disintegration of the peasantry played an important role in the formation of two antagonistic classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The period of reforms of the 60-70s.XIXV. was of great importance for our country, as it determined its further development and transition from feudal to capitalist relations and the transformation of Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. All reforms were bourgeois in nature, opening up opportunities for the development of capitalist relations in the economic and socio-political fields.
Although the reforms were a significant step forward for Russia, they were still bourgeois in content and carried feudal features. Implemented from above by the autocracy, these reforms were half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, court, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and actually preserved the powerless position of the tax-paying classes. The concessions made primarily to the big bourgeoisie did not in the least violate the privileges of the nobility.
So, it should be noted that the main tasks that the government set for itself were fulfilled, although not in full. And the consequences of these reforms were not always positive, for example, as a result of the peasant reform, many people died during the uprisings. In addition, the landowners, trying to somehow get out of a disadvantageous situation for them, tried to get as much benefit as possible from the peasants, as a result of which the peasant economy was greatly reduced.
But the most important thing, in my opinion, is that the peasants began to be divided into classes, and to be less dependent on the landowners. It is also important to emphasize that the principles laid down in the reforms of the court, education, press, and military affairs greatly influenced the country’s position in the future, and allowed Russia to be considered one of the world powers.
Bibliography
Zakharevich A.V. History of the Fatherland: Textbook. - M, Publishing house "Dashkov and K" o", 2005.
Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook. – M. “PBOYUL L.V. Rozhnikov", 2000.
Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. — M. “Enlightenment.”
M.V. Ponomarev, O.V. Volobuev, V.A. Klokov, V.A. Rogozhkin. Russia and the World: Textbook 10th grade.
Kapegeler A. Russia is a multinational empire. Emergence. Story. Decay. M., 2000.
Encyclopedia: History of Russia and its closest neighbors. Head. Ed. M.D. Aksenov. – M.: Avanta+, 2000.
Political system
During the post-reform period, Russia maintained an absolute monarchy, the emperor
enjoys unlimited power.
The State Council remained the highest advisory body,
carried out the consideration of bills and codification of laws. With him
Various commissions and committees operated.
The Senate remained the highest body of judicial oversight. On the eve of the reforms there was
a supreme state body was established - the Council of Ministers, consisting of a chairman
State Council, members of the Committee of Ministers, chief administrators.
Its chairman is the emperor.
During this period, serious changes occurred in the structure of ministries and departments.
changes, some ministries formed their own local bodies, new ones were created
ministries. During the period of increasing development of capitalism in Russia, the
the role and importance of such government bodies as the Ministry of State
properties, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Railways.
The work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of its local bodies has been improved
Provincial boards, provincial presences, district police departments, etc.
Subsequently, the repressive functions of the state apparatus are strengthened, in
in relation primarily to political opponents of the regime. According to the law of 1871
political cases began to be removed from the jurisdiction of judicial investigators and transferred
gendarmerie. In 1882, a special law on police supervision was adopted.
In 1866-1867 in order to strengthen autocratic power, power sharply increased
governors. All local institutions and officials were now subordinate to them,
the right to close zemstvo assemblies was introduced if they violated the rules, and
Zemstvos were forbidden to maintain contacts with each other and publish without
the governor authorizes his regulations and reports.
The Ministry of Justice exercised control over the country's judicial system,
the Minister of Justice was in charge of the selection of judicial personnel and performed supervisory functions.
Russia, aggravated as a result of defeat in the Crimean War, could be overcome
only by carrying out fundamental reforms, the main of which is the abolition of serfdom
law, which served as the main brake on the development of market relations in the country. 52
Alexander II, spoke in 1856 to the Moscow nobility, convinced them of
the need to abolish serfdom, indicating that it is better to destroy it from above,
rather than wait until it begins to be destroyed from below.
In 1857, the Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was created, which
was subsequently transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, based on
in his work on the provincial noble committees, from which proposals and
reform projects.
During the preparation of the reform, there was a sharp struggle between various
groupings of the nobility, which were divided into liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives advocated maintaining all land ownership in the hands of landowners
and the landless liberation of peasants, and liberals - for the liberation of peasants with land
and giving them civil rights.
As a result, the prepared reform was of a compromise nature and was
aimed, on the one hand, at preserving landownership, and on the other -
generally ensured that the peasants retained their pre-reform plots of land for
approved the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom.” IN
compliance with the new laws, the serfdom of landowners against peasants was abolished
forever, and the peasants were declared free rural residents with the endowment of
civil rights and freedoms - freedom to marry, independent
conclusion of contracts, the right to go to court, engage in business and
trade, change of residence, transition to another class, etc.
At the same time, the reform did not equalize peasants with landowners in their civil
rights The peasants of each village who emerged from serfdom united in
rural society. Several rural societies formed a volost. In villages and
In the volosts, peasants were granted self-government. Self-government body
rural society there was a gathering at which the peasants elected for 3 years a rural
headman and tax collector. The self-government body of the volost was also a gathering, at
which elected a volost board headed by a volost elder and a volost
a judge to resolve cases of minor offenses and lawsuits of peasants.
The peasant was secured by the community and mutual guarantee in the community. Leave
community could only be paid off half of the remaining debt and provided that
the other half will be paid by the community.
position, titles, ranks of class organizations - provincial and district nobles
meetings, Political power even after the reform of 1861 remained in the hands of the nobility.
The abolition of serfdom required a radical renovation
state apparatus of Russia in the direction of gradual reform
absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. This has led to the adoption of a number
government reforms, including:
Financial reform 1862-1868 Financial reform was previously
all in the centralization of the financial economy of Russia in the hands of the Minister of Finance and
financing of all government expenditures through the Ministry of Finance.
The state budget was compiled by the Ministry of Finance, and was reviewed by
approved by the State Council.
The old taxes - capitation and wine farming - were replaced by land tax
and excise taxes (they were levied on wine, tobacco, salt, sugar), which led to an increase in revenue
state budget. At the same time, government spending also increased.
In 1860, the State Bank was created, as well as a network of commercial
banks. Redemption operations were carried out by peasants established for these purposes53
and noble banks. The State Bank was also entrusted with the function of
financing of commercial and industrial enterprises. Accounting has been centralized
and control of state budget funds.
Military reform 1864-1874 The defeat in the Crimean War showed all
backwardness of the Russian military machine. The question arose about conducting radical
transformations in the military sphere. In 1874, the "Charter on Military
conscription", which introduced universal military service for the entire male population.
Males who had reached the age of 20 were conscripted for military service by
by lot. Those who were not included in the service were enlisted in the militia. Duration of military service -
six years followed by enlistment in the reserves for 9 years and in the navy, respectively, seven
years of service, 3 years in reserve.
For persons who graduated from higher educational institutions, the service life was reduced to 6
months, gymnasiums - up to one and a half years, city schools - up to 3 years and primary schools -
Officer cadres were trained in cadet schools, military gymnasiums and
military academies, preference for admission to them was given to the nobility.
Military reform had a progressive significance. She saved the population from
recruitment, accelerated the breakdown of the class system, contributed to the development
railway network, since without railways it was not possible to carry out
widespread mobilization of those transferred to the reserve.
Judicial reform of 1864. The pre-reform legal system was
archaic and confusing. Historically, class courts were established for nobles, townspeople,
peasants, there were military, spiritual, commercial, and boundary courts. Consideration
cases in the courts took place behind closed doors. Judicial functions were often performed
administrative bodies. In serf Russia, trials and reprisals against serfs were often
was done by the landowner himself. With the fall of serfdom, judicial reform became
inevitable.
In 1864, the main acts of judicial reform were approved: Establishment
judicial rulings, Charter of criminal proceedings, Charter of civil
legal proceedings, Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace. In accordance with
These acts created two systems of courts - local and general. To the locals
included:
1. Justices of the peace;
2. Congresses of justices of the peace.
General courts included:
1. District courts for several counties;
2. Trial chambers for civil and criminal cases established in each
a district consisting of several provinces or regions;
3. Cassation departments of the Senate.
The new judicial bodies were all-class, i.e. they considered criminal and
civil affairs of all subjects of the empire, no matter what class they belonged to.
The reform of the judicial system was based on new principles: equality of all
before the law and the court, separation of the court from the administration and the administration of justice
only by the court, the creation of an all-estate court, the transparency of the trial,
competitiveness of the parties, irremovability of judges and investigators, prosecutorial supervision,
election of justices of the peace and jurors.
During the judicial reform, new institutions were created, such as an elected
magistrate's court, institutions of forensic investigators, jurors, the bar,
Prosecutors with one or more comrades (deputies) were established at the courts.
The judicial reform was the most radical of all carried out in the country
bourgeois reforms. Thanks to her, Russian justice has become on a par with the justice of the most54
advanced countries. As a result, there was a separation of the judiciary from other authorities,
preliminary investigation from the police and the court, the most democratic court was created
jurors.
The disadvantages of judicial reform include: limiting the role of the court
jury, lack of unity of the judicial system, non-admission of defense at the stage
preliminary investigation, etc.
During the police reform of 1862, city and county police were
united into a single police system, including a police officer in the volost and
a bailiff in the city, and at the county level - a police officer. In the provincial cities at the head
police there was a police chief, who was subordinate to the governor, and was in charge of the entire
the country's police system is the Minister of the Interior. In 1880 into the police system
provincial gendarmerie departments were included. Detective and
security departments.
Prison reform. In 1879, the management of prison institutions was
entrusted to the Main Prison Directorate. The situation of prisoners in some
relations improved, a medical care system was created. However, to
prisoners could also be subject to special punishments: corporal punishment,
placement in a punishment cell. Only in 1863 was corporal punishment for women abolished and
branding, but rods were used in places of deprivation of liberty until the February
revolution of 1917. Various types of imprisonment were used - in a fortress, in
house of correction, arrest, punishment in the form of exile to Sakhalin. Those who served hard labor
were transferred to the exile settlers.
Zemstvo reform. Zemstvos were created to manage the local economy,
trade, public education, medical care, public
Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, according to which they were created
bodies of all-class self-government - zemstvo assemblies. Elections of deputies to the zemstvo
the assembly was carried out in 3 curiae, were unequal and indirect:
1. Curia of district landowners with at least 200-800 acres of land (in
it was mainly a curia of landowners);
2. City curia, whose participants had to have high
property qualification, which cut off the poor. Workers and
artisans were also excluded from elections.
3. The rural curia had a system of three-stage elections: peasants,
nominated to the volost assembly, sent their electors to the meeting,
which elected the deputies (vocals) of the zemstvo.
District and provincial zemstvo assemblies met annually for 2-3 weeks to
solving the tasks assigned to them - and this is the approval of cost and income estimates, elections
executive bodies.
Unlike zemstvo assemblies, zemstvo councils were permanent
bodies that were in charge of all zemstvo affairs. The establishment of zemstvos was large
a step forward in the democratization of the entire management system of Russia, historically
short period of their existence, a huge amount of work has been done to improve
welfare of the people, development of entrepreneurship, trade, education,
healthcare. Zemstvos raised a whole galaxy of liberal and
democratic direction, which played a big role in all spheres of life
society.
The disadvantages of the reforms include its incompleteness - there were no lower
(volost) and higher (all-Russian) levels of the zemstvo system. Management and control of
zemstvos were carried out by the nobility. Zemstvos were limited in material
funds, although they had the right to impose taxes and duties on the population for zemstvo55
needs, and also did not have their own executive apparatus, which reduced their
efficiency and increased dependence on government agencies.
Urban reform. In 1870, the “City Regulations” were approved, which
the system of all-estate self-government was extended to cities. Any
the urban inhabitant, regardless of class, had the right to vote in
election of deputies (vocals) under the following conditions:
1) Russian citizenship;
2) Age at least 25 years;
3) Compliance with property qualifications;
4) No arrears in city taxes.
Women participated in elections through representatives. Voting was
secret. All voters, in accordance with property qualifications, elected a third
deputies to the city duma. Thanks to this, the majority of vowels were elected from
wealthy segments of the population.
The Duma and the council were elected for 4 years. Half of the council had to be renewed
every two years. The Duma and the council were headed by the same person - the mayor,
which was approved by the governor or the Minister of the Interior. Activity
city authorities was aimed at solving city affairs, primarily in the field
city property and various fees, development of culture, education,
healthcare, etc.
Thus, the establishment of city government gave impetus to the development
Russian cities, contributed to the formation of political social and
cultural organizations, the development of entrepreneurship and trade. Disadvantage
reform was that city government bodies were controlled and
were subordinate to the tsarist administration, their independence was strictly limited,
the material base is insufficient.
