By the middle of the 19th century. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. International events (the Crimean War) showed a significant weakening of Russia in the foreign policy field as well. Therefore, the main goal of the internal policy of the government in the second half of the 19th century. was bringing the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time.

In the domestic policy of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. there are three stages:

1) the second half of the 50s - the beginning of the 60s - the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform;

2) - 60-70s carrying out liberal reforms;

3) 80-90s economic modernization, strengthening of statehood and social stability by traditional conservative administrative methods.

Defeat in the Crimean War played the role of an important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, because it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the socio-political system of the country. Russia has lost international prestige and almost lost influence in Europe. The eldest son of Nicholas 1 - Alexander 11 came to the throne in 1855, went down in history as the tsar "Liberator". His phrase about “it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to be abolished from below” meant that the ruling circles finally came to the idea of ​​the need to reform the state.

Members of the royal family, representatives of the highest bureaucracy took part in the preparation of the reforms - Minister of Internal Affairs Lanskoy, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs - Milyutin, Adjutant General Rostovtsev. After the abolition of the kr.prav, it became necessary to change local government in 1864. zemstvo reform. Zemstvo institutions (zemstvos) were created in provinces and districts. These were elected bodies from representatives of all estates. The entire population was divided into 3 electoral groups - curia. 1 curia - landowners with > 2 acres of land or owners of real estate from 15,000 rubles; 2 curia - urban, urban industrialists and merchants with a turnover of at least 6,000 rubles / year were allowed here; 3 curia - rural. For the rural curia, the elections were multistage. The curiae were dominated by landowners. Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The scope of their activities was limited to solving economic issues of local importance: the arrangement and maintenance of communication lines, zemstvo schools and hospitals, care for trade and industry. The zemstvos were under the control of the central and local authorities, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly. Despite this, the zemstvos played a huge role in the development of education and health care. And they became the centers of the formation of the liberal noble and bourgeois opposition. The structure of zemstvo institutions: It is a legislative and executive body. The chairmen were local marshals of the nobility. Provincial and county assemblies worked independently of each other. They met only once a year to coordinate actions. Executive bodies - provincial and district councils were elected at zemstvo meetings. Solved the problem of tax collection, while a certain% remained in place. Zemstvo institutions were subordinate only to the Senate. The governor did not interfere in the activities of local institutions, but only monitored the legality of actions.

Positivity in the reform:

omnisoslovnost

Flaws:

election

the beginning of the separation of powers is admitted to the center of the state institution,

the beginning of the formation of civil society consciousness could not influence the policy of the center

Unequal voting rights were delivered

contacts between zemstvos were prohibited

urban reform. (1870) "City Regulations" created all-estate bodies in the cities - city dumas and city councils headed by the mayor. They dealt with the improvement of the city, took care of trade, provided educational and medical needs. The leading role belonged to the big bourgeoisie. It was under the strict control of the government administration.

The candidacy of the mayor was approved by the governor.

Judicial reform :

1864 - New court statutes promulgated.

Provisions:

the estate system of courts was abolished

all were declared equal before the law

publicity was introduced

competitiveness of legal proceedings

presumption of innocence

irremovability of judges

unified system of justice

There are two types of courts:

1. Magistrates' courts - considered minor civil cases, the damage for which did not exceed 500 rubles. Judges were elected at county assemblies and approved by the senate.

2. General courts were of 3 types: Criminal and grave - in district court. Particularly important state and political crimes were considered in judicial chamber. The highest court was Senate. Judges in general courts were appointed by the tsar, and jurors were elected at provincial assemblies.

Flaws: small estate courts continued to exist - for the peasants. For political processes, a Special Presence of the Senate was created, meetings were held behind closed doors, which violated the attack of publicity.

Military reform :

1874 - Charter on military service on the all-class military service of men who have reached the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces - 6 years, in the navy - 7 years. Recruitment was abolished. The terms of active military service were determined by the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served 0.5 years. To raise the competence of the top military leadership, the military ministry was transformed into general staff. The whole country was divided into 6 military regions. The army was reduced, military settlements were liquidated. In the 60s, the rearmament of the army began: the replacement of smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, the introduction of steel artillery pieces, the improvement of the horse park, the development of the military steam fleet. For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, cadet schools and academies were created. All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and, at the same time, to increase its combat effectiveness.

They were exempted from military duty if there was 1 child in the family, if they had 2 children, or if elderly parents were on his payroll. Cane discipline was abolished. Humanization of relations in the army has passed.

Reform in the field of education :

1864 In fact, an accessible all-estate education was introduced. Along with the state schools, zemstvo, parish, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. The curriculum in gymnasiums was determined by universities, which created the possibility of a system of succession. During this period, secondary education for women was developed, and women's gymnasiums began to be created. Women are beginning to be admitted to universities as free students. University arr.: Alexander 2 gave the universities more freedom:

students could create student orgs

received the right to create their own newspapers and magazines without censorship

all volunteers were admitted to the universities

students were given the right to choose a rector

stud self-management was introduced in the form of a council of a fact

corporative systems of students and teachers were created.

Significance of reforms:

contributed to the more rapid development of capitalist relations in Russia.

contributed to the beginning of the formation of bourgeois freedoms in the Russian society (freedom of speech, personality, organizations, etc.). The first steps were taken to expand the role of the public in the life of the country and turn Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.

contributed to the formation of civic consciousness.

contributed to the rapid development of culture and education in Russia.

The initiators of the reforms were some top government officials, the “liberal bureaucracy”. This explained the inconsistency, incompleteness and narrowness of most of the reforms. The assassination of Alexander II changed the course of the government. And the proposal of Loris-Melikov was rejected.

The implementation of reforms gave impetus to the rapid growth of capitalism in all areas of industry. A free labor force appeared, the process of capital accumulation became more active, the domestic market expanded and ties with the world grew.

Features of the development of capitalism in the industry of Russia had a number of features:

1)Industry wear multilayered character, i.e. large-scale machine industry coexisted with manufacturing and small-scale (handicraft) production.

2) uneven distribution of industry across the territory of Russia. Highly developed areas of St. Petersburg, Moscow. Ukraine 0 - highly developed and undeveloped - Siberia, Central Asia, Far East.

3)Uneven development by industry. Textile production was the most advanced in terms of technical equipment, heavy industry (mining, metallurgical, oil) was rapidly gaining momentum. Mechanical engineering was poorly developed. Characteristic for the country was state intervention in the industrial sector through loans, government subsidies, government orders, financial and customs policies. This laid the foundation for the formation of a system of state capitalism. The insufficiency of domestic capital caused an influx of foreign capital. Investors from Europe were attracted by cheap labor, raw materials and, consequently, the possibility of making high profits. Trade. In the second half of the 18th century completed the formation of the all-Russian market. The main commodity was agricultural products, primarily bread. Trade in manufactured goods grew not only in the city, but also in the countryside. Iron ore and coal were widely sold. Wood, oil. Foreign trade - bread (export). Cotton was imported (imported) from America, metals and cars, luxury goods from Europe. Finance. The State Bank was created, which received the right to issue banknotes. State funds were distributed only by the Ministry of Finance. A private and state credit system was formed, it contributed to the development of the most important industries (railway construction). Foreign capital was invested in banking, industry, railway construction and played a significant role in the financial life of Russia. Capitalism in Russia was established in 2 stages. 60-70 years were the 1st stage, when the restructuring of industry was going on. 80-90 economic recovery.

RUSSIAN HISTORY

ABSTRACT

Great reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century. Alexander II .

Content:

I.I.Alexander II before the coronation and in the first years of his reign.

II.II."Great Reforms" of 1863-1874.

A. The need for reform.

B. The abolition of serfdom.

B. Zemstvo reform.

D. Urban reform.

D. Judicial reform.

E. Military reform.

J. Financial reforms.

Z. Reforms in the field of education.

I. Reforms in the field of printing.

III.III.The assassination of the emperor.

IV.IV.The significance of the reforms of Alexander II in the history of the state.

I. I. Alexander II before the coronation and in the first years of his reign.

A Alexander II - Emperor of All Russia, the eldest son of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, was born in Moscow on April 17, 1818.

Naturally, great importance was given to the upbringing and education of the future monarch. His educators were General Merder (company commander at the school of guards ensigns, who had remarkable pedagogical abilities, “a meek disposition and a rare mind”), M. M. Speransky, E. F. Kankrin. No less significant was the influence of another mentor - the famous poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, the head of his class studies. I would like to take a closer look at the Zhukovsky education system, which provided not only general knowledge of the then accepted extensive set of subjects and four foreign languages, but also purely specialized knowledge: about the state, its laws, finances, foreign policy and formed a system of worldview. The basic principles of the upbringing of the Tsarevich looked like this:

WHO AM I? The doctrine of man, united by Christian doctrine.

WHAT WAS I? History, sacred history.

WHAT SHOULD I BE? Private and public morality.

WHAT AM I DESIGNATED FOR? Revelation religion, metaphysics, the concept of God and the immortality of the soul.

And at the end (and not at the beginning) law, social history, state economy, statistics arising from everything.

The acquired knowledge was reinforced by numerous travels. He was the first of the royal family to visit (in 1837) Siberia, and the result of this visit was to mitigate the fate of political exiles. Later, while in the Caucasus, the Tsarevich distinguished himself during the attack of the highlanders, for which he was awarded the Order of St. George 4th degree. In 1837, at the request of Nicholas I, he undertook a trip to Europe for educational purposes. He traveled to Switzerland, Austria, Italy and stayed for a long time in Berlin, Weimar, Munich, Vienna, Turin, Florence, Rome and Naples.

An important role in the life of Alexander II was played by a visit to Darmstadt, where he met Princess Maximiliana-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria (born July 27, 1824), the adopted daughter of Louis II, Duke of Hesse, who soon became the wife of the Tsarevich, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna.

From the age of 16, Alexander successfully took part in management affairs, first sporadically, and then systematically. At the age of 26 he became a "full general" and had a fairly professional military training. In the last years of the reign of Emperor Nicholas and during his travels, he repeatedly replaced his father.

Alexander II ascended the throne on February 19, 1855 at the age of 36. He was to go down in history under the name of the Liberator. Already on the day of the coronation, August 26, the new manifesto of the sovereign was marked by a number of favors. Recruitment was suspended for three years, all state arrears, miscalculations, etc., were forgiven; various criminals were released, or at least the punishment was mitigated, including an amnesty for political prisoners - the surviving Decembrists, Petrashevites, participants in the Polish uprising of 1831; Recruitment of minor Jews was canceled, and recruitment between the latter was ordered to be carried out on a general basis; free travel abroad was allowed, etc. But all these measures were only the threshold of those global reforms that marked the reign of Alexander II.

During this period, the Crimean War was in full swing and took an unfavorable turn, where Russia had to deal with the combined forces of almost all the major European powers. Despite his peacefulness, which was also known in Europe, Alexander expressed his firm determination to continue the struggle and achieve peace, which was soon achieved. Representatives of seven states (Russia, France, Austria, England, Prussia, Sardinia and Turkey) gathered in Paris, and on March 18, 1856, a peace treaty was concluded. The peace of Paris, although not beneficial for Russia, was nevertheless honorable for her in view of such numerous and powerful opponents. However, its disadvantageous side - the limitation of Russian naval forces on the Black Sea - was eliminated during the life of Alexander II.

II. "Great reforms" of the 60-70s.

A. The need for reform.

P At the end of the Crimean War, many internal shortcomings of the Russian state were revealed. Changes were needed, and the country was looking forward to them. Then the emperor uttered the words that became for a long time the slogan of Russia: "Let her internal improvement be affirmed and improved; let truth and mercy reign in her courts; let the desire for enlightenment and all useful activity develop everywhere and with renewed vigor ..."

In the first place, of course, was the idea of ​​liberating the serfs. In his speech to representatives of the Moscow nobility, Alexander II said: "It is better to cancel it from above than to wait until it is itself canceled from below." There was no other way out, since every year the peasants expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing system more and more. The corvée form of exploitation of the peasant expanded, which caused crisis situations. First of all, the productivity of the labor of the serfs began to decline, as the landowners wanted to produce more products and thereby undermined the strength of the peasant economy. The most far-sighted landlords realized that forced labor was much inferior in productivity to hired labor (For example, a large landowner A.I. Koshelev wrote about this in his article “Hunting more than captivity” in 1847). But hiring workers required considerable expenses from the landowner at a time when serf labor was free. Many landowners tried to introduce new farming systems, apply the latest technology, purchase improved varieties of thoroughbred cattle, and so on. Unfortunately, such measures led them to ruin and, accordingly, to increased exploitation of the peasants. The debts of landowners' estates to credit institutions grew. Further development of the economy on the serf system was impossible. In addition, having existed in Russia much longer than in European countries, it has taken very strict forms.

However, there is another point of view regarding this reform, according to which, by the middle of the 19th century, serfdom was still far from exhausting its capabilities and opposition to the government was very weak. Neither economic nor social catastrophe threatened Russia, but by retaining serfdom, it could drop out of the ranks of the great powers.

The peasant reform entailed the transformation of all aspects of state and public life. A number of measures were envisaged to restructure local government, the judiciary, education and, later, the army. These were really major changes, comparable only to the reforms of Peter I.

B. The abolition of serfdom.

3 January 1857, the first significant step was taken, which served as the beginning of the reform: the creation of the Secret Committee under the direct supervision and chairmanship of the emperor himself. It included: Prince Orlov, Count Lanskoy, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count V.F. Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, Prince P.P. Gagarin, Baron M.A. Korf and Ya.I. Rostovtsev. The purpose of the committee was designated as "discussion of measures to organize the life of the landlord peasants." Thus, the government tried to get initiative from the nobility in resolving this issue. The word "liberation" has not yet been spoken. But the committee acted very sluggishly. More precise actions began to be carried out later.

February 1858. The secret committee was renamed the “Main Committee on the Landlord Peasants Coming Out of Serfdom”, and a year later (March 4, 1859), Editorial Commissions were established under the committee, which reviewed the materials prepared by the provincial committees and drafted a law on the emancipation of the peasants. . There were two opinions here: the majority of the landlords proposed to free the peasants without land at all or with small allotments, while the liberal minority proposed to release them with land for redemption. At first, Alexander II shared the majority's point of view, but then he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to allocate land to the peasants. Historians usually associate such a decision with the strengthening of the peasant movement: the Tsar was afraid of a repetition of the “Pugachevism”. But no less important role was played by the presence in the government of an influential grouping, called the "liberal bureaucracy".

The draft "Regulations on the Peasants" was practically prepared at the end of August 1859, but for some time it was subject to minor corrections and clarifications. In October 1860, the Editorial Commissions, having completed their work, handed over the draft to the Main Committee, where it was discussed again and underwent further changes, but this time in favor of the landowners. On January 28, 1861, the project was submitted for consideration by the last instance - the State Council, which adopted them with some changes, in the sense of reducing the size of the peasant allotment.

Finally, on February 19, 1861, the "Regulations on the peasants who emerged from serfdom", which included 17 legislative acts, were signed by Alexander II. On the same day, the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants” followed, in which it was proclaimed the release of 22.6 million peasants from serfdom.

The "Regulations" applied to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 112,000 landowners' estates. First of all, it was declared obligatory for the landowner to allocate his former peasants, in addition to the estate land, arable and haymaking in a certain amount. Secondly, it was declared obligatory for the peasants to accept the allotment and keep in their use, for the duties established in favor of the landowner, the secular land allotted to them during the first nine years (until February 19, 1870). After nine years, individual members of the community were given the right both to leave it and to refuse to use field lands and lands if they bought their estate; the society itself also receives the right not to accept for its use such plots that individual peasants refuse. Thirdly, with regard to the size of the peasant allotment and the payments associated with it, according to general rules, it is customary to base on voluntary agreements between landowners and peasants, for which purpose to conclude a charter charter through mediators established by the situation, their congresses and provincial presences for peasant affairs, and in western provinces - and special verification commissions.

The “Regulation”, however, was not limited to the rules for allocating land to the peasants for permanent use, but made it easier for them to buy the allotted plots into their property with the help of a state redemption operation, and the government gave the peasants a certain amount on credit for the land they acquired with payment by installments for 49 years and, giving this amount to the landowner in state interest-bearing papers, he took all further settlements with the peasants upon himself. Upon approval by the government of the redemption transaction, all obligatory relations between the peasants and the landowner were terminated, and the latter entered the category of peasant proprietors.

"Regulations" were gradually extended to the peasants of the palace, appanage, ascribed and state.

But as a result of this, the peasantry remained bound by the community, and the land allocated to it turned out to be clearly insufficient to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The peasant remained completely dependent on the rural community (the former “world”), which, in turn, was completely controlled by the authorities; personal allotments were transferred to the ownership of peasant societies, which periodically redistributed them “equalizing”.

In the spring and summer of 1861, the peasants, who did not receive, as expected, "full freedom", organized many uprisings. Outrage was caused by such facts as, for example: for two years the peasants remained subordinate to the landowner, were obliged to pay dues and perform corvée, were deprived of a significant part of the land, and those allotments that were given to them as property had to be redeemed from the landowner. During 1861 there were 1860 peasant uprisings. Peasant performances in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, are considered one of the largest. Subsequently, disappointment with the inconsistency of the reform was growing not only among former serfs: articles by A. Herzen and N. Ogarev in Kolokol, N. Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik.

B. Zemstvo reform.

P After the peasant "Regulations" in a number of administrative reforms, one of the most important places is occupied, without any doubt, by the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which was published on January 1, 1864.

According to the regulation, non-estate elected bodies of local self-government - zemstvos - were introduced. They were elected by all estates for a three-year term and consisted of administrative bodies (county and provincial zemstvo assemblies) and executive bodies (county and provincial zemstvo councils). Elections to zemstvo administrative bodies - meetings of vowels (deputies) - were held on the basis of a property qualification, by curia. The first curia (landowners) consisted of owners of land from 200 to 800 acres or real estate worth from 15,000 rubles. The second curia (city) united the owners of urban industrial and commercial establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6,000 rubles and owners of real estate for at least 2,000 rubles. The elections for the third curia (rural peasant societies) were multistage. Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils - consisting of a chairman and several members.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions, their activities were limited mainly to solving local issues. They were responsible for public education, for public health, for the timely delivery of food, for the quality of roads, for insurance, for veterinary care, and much more.

All this required a lot of money, so the zemstvos were allowed to introduce new taxes, impose duties on the population, and form zemstvo capitals. With its full development, zemstvo activity was supposed to cover all aspects of local life. New forms of local self-government not only made it all-class, but also expanded the range of its powers. Self-government was so widespread that many were understood as a transition to a representative form of government, so the government soon became noticeable desire to keep the activities of zemstvos at the local level, and not allow zemstvo corporations to communicate with each other.

In the late 1970s, zemstvos were introduced into 35 out of 59 Russian provinces.

G. Urban reform (in continuation of the Zemstvo).

1 On June 6, 1870, the "City Regulations" were published, according to which in 509 out of 1130 cities elective self-government was introduced - city dumas elected for four years. The city duma (administrative body) elected its permanent executive body - the city government, which consisted of the mayor (also elected for four years) and several members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of both the city duma and the city government. City councils were under the control of government officials.

The right to elect and be elected to the city duma had the right only to residents with a property qualification (mainly owners of houses, commercial and industrial establishments, banks). The first electoral assembly included large taxpayers who contributed a third of city taxes, the second - smaller ones, paying another third of taxes, the third - all the rest. In the largest cities, the number of vowels (elected) averaged 5.6% of the population. Thus, the bulk of the urban population was excluded from participation in urban self-government.

The competence of city self-government was limited to solving purely economic issues (improvement of cities, construction of hospitals, schools, care for the development of trade, fire prevention measures, city taxation).

D. Judicial reform.

IN among the reforms, one of the leading places, undoubtedly, belongs to the judicial reform. This deeply thought-out reform had a strong and direct influence on the entire system of state and public life. She introduced into it completely new, long-awaited principles - the complete separation of the judiciary from the administrative and accusatory, the publicity and openness of the court, the independence of judges, the advocacy and the adversarial procedure for legal proceedings.

The country was divided into 108 judicial districts.

The essence of judicial reform is as follows:

The court is made oral and public;

The power of the judiciary is separated from the prosecution and belongs to the courts without any participation of the administrative power;

The main form of legal proceedings is the adversarial process;

The case on the merits can be dealt with no more than in two instances. Two types of courts were introduced: world and general. The magistrate's courts, represented by a magistrate, tried criminal and civil cases, the damage in which did not exceed 500 rubles. Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies, approved by the Senate, and could be dismissed only at their own request or by court order. The general court consisted of three instances: the district court, the judicial chamber, the Senate. The district courts heard serious civil suits and criminal (juror) cases. The Trial Chambers heard appeals and were the court of first instance for political and state affairs. The Senate was the highest judicial instance and could cancel the decisions of the courts submitted for cassation.

In cases of crimes involving punishments, connected with the deprivation of all or some of the rights and advantages of the state, the determination of guilt is left to jurors, elected from local residents of all classes;

Eliminates clerical secrecy;

Both for intercession in cases and for the defense of defendants, there are sworn attorneys at the courts, who are under the supervision of special councils composed of the same corporation.

Judicial statutes extended to 44 provinces and were introduced into them for more than thirty years.

In 1863, a law was passed that abolished corporal punishment with gauntlets, whips, whips and brands on the verdicts of civil and military courts. Women were completely exempted from corporal punishment. But the rods were kept for the peasants (according to the verdicts of the volost courts), for the exiled, hard labor and penal soldiers.

E. Military reform.

IN military administration has also undergone transformations.

Already at the beginning of the reign, military settlements were destroyed. Degrading corporal punishment was abolished.

Particular attention was paid to raising the level of general education of army officers through the reform of military educational institutions. Military gymnasiums and cadet schools with a two-year term of study were created. They included persons of all classes.

In January 1874, all-class military service was proclaimed. The Supreme Manifesto on this occasion said: "Protection of the throne and the Fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject ...". Under the new law, all young people who have reached the age of 21 are called up, but the government determines the required number of recruits every year, and draws only this number from the recruits (usually no more than 20-25% of recruits were called up for service). The call was not subject to the only son of the parents, the only breadwinner in the family, and also if the older brother of the recruit is serving or has served his service. Those enlisted in the service are listed in it: in the ground forces 15 years: 6 years in the ranks and 9 years in the reserve, in the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in the reserve. For those who have received primary education, the term of active service is reduced to 4 years, those who have graduated from a city school - up to 3 years, a gymnasium - up to one and a half years, and those who have higher education - up to six months.

Thus, the result of the reform was the creation of a small peacetime army with a significant trained reserve in case of war.

The system of military command and control has undergone fundamental changes in order to strengthen control over the locations of troops. The result of this revision was approved on August 6, 1864 "Regulations on the military district administrations." Based on this "Regulations", nine military districts were initially organized, and then (August 6, 1865) four more. In each district, a chief commander was appointed, appointed at the direct highest discretion, bearing the title of commander of the troops of the military district. This position may also be assigned to the local governor-general. In some districts, an assistant to the commander of the troops is also appointed.

By the end of the 19th century, the number of the Russian army was (per 130 million people): officers, doctors and officials - 47 thousand, lower ranks - 1 million 100 thousand. Then these figures declined and reached 742,000 people, while the military potential was maintained.

In the 60s, at the insistence of the Ministry of War, railways were built to the western and southern borders of Russia, and in 1870 railway troops appeared. During the 70s, the technical re-equipment of the army was basically completed.

Caring for the defenders of the Motherland was manifested in everything, even in small things. For example, for more than a hundred years (until the 80s of the XIX century), boots were sewn without distinction between the right and left legs. It was believed that during a combat alarm, a soldier had no time to think about which boot to wear, on which leg.

Special treatment was given to the prisoners. Soldiers who were taken prisoner and were not in the service of the enemy, upon returning home, received a salary from the state for the entire time they were in captivity. The prisoner was considered a victim. And those who distinguished themselves in battles were waiting for military awards. Orders of Russia were especially highly valued. They gave such privileges that they even changed the position of a person in society.

J. Financial reforms.

One of the main means of raising the economic power of the country was considered to be the construction of a network of railways linking the central regions of the European part of Russia. In connection with it, foreign leave increased 10 times, and the import of goods almost also increased. The number of commercial and industrial enterprises increased markedly, as well as the number of factories and plants. Credit institutions appeared - banks, headed by the State Bank (1860).

It was at this time that the first coal-mining and metallurgical enterprises were created in Ukraine and oil-producing enterprises in Baku.

Z. Reforms in the field of education.

H public education also attracted the attention of the king. Of particular importance in this regard was the publication of a new and general charter of Russian universities on July 18, 1863, in the development of which, on the initiative of the Minister of Education A.V. Golovkin, participated in a special commission at the main board of schools, composed mainly of professors from St. Petersburg University. The charter granted the universities a fairly broad autonomy: the election of the rector, deans, professors was introduced, the University Council received the right to independently resolve all scientific, educational, administrative and financial issues. And in connection with the development of universities, science began to develop at a rapid pace.

According to the Regulations on Primary Public Schools approved on June 14, 1864, the state, church and society (zemstvos and cities) were to jointly educate the people.

On November 19, 1864, a new regulation on gymnasiums appeared, which proclaimed equality in admission to all estates. But because of the high pay, it was available only to children of wealthy parents.

Attention was also paid to women's education. Already in the 60s, instead of the former closed women's institutions, open ones began to be arranged, with the admission of girls of all classes, and these new institutions were under the authority of the institutions of Empress Maria. Similar gymnasiums began to be approved by the Ministry of Public Education. In 1870, on May 24, a new Regulation on Women's Gymnasiums and Progymnasiums of the Ministry of Public Education was approved. The need for higher female education led to the establishment of pedagogical courses and higher female courses in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kazan and Odessa.

I. Reforms in the field of printing.

In 1857, the government put the question of revising the censorship charter on the agenda. After the permission in 1858 to discuss in the press the problems of public life and the activities of the government, the number of periodicals (1860 - 230) and book titles (1860 -2058) increased sharply.

Already in 1862, the main department of censorship was closed and part of its duties was assigned to the Ministry of the Interior, and the other - directly to the Minister of Education.

On April 6, 1865, the “Temporary Rules on the Press” were approved, which exempted from preliminary censorship original works of at least ten, and translated - at least twenty sheets, and some periodicals at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior. For periodicals, a large cash deposit was additionally required. Official and scientific publications were exempted from censorship.

The "Temporary Rules on the Press" operated practically unchanged for 40 years.

III. III. The assassination of the emperor.

AND Emperor Alexander II, who caused delight and surprise of enlightened people of the whole world, also met ill-wishers. Pursuing incomprehensible goals, the organizers created a number of attempts on the life of the sovereign, who was the pride and glory of Russia. On March 1, 1881, the sovereign, for whom a large population was ready to lay down his life, died a martyr's death from a villainous hand that threw an explosive projectile.

On this fateful day, Emperor Alexander II decided to make a divorce (the procedure for sending out daily guards for a shift). The path lay along a narrow street, made up of the garden of the Grand Duchess, fenced with a stone fence the height of a man and a lattice of the Catherine Canal. The terrain is very impassable, and if it is true that the sovereign chose it in view of the anonymous threats he received, then it is difficult to imagine why an ambush awaited him precisely on this path, except because they noticed a large, against the usual, number of police on it. Be that as it may, but when the sovereign's carriage reached the Theater Bridge, there was an explosion that broke the back of the carriage, which immediately stopped. The sovereign emerged from it unharmed, but one of the escorts, galloping behind, and a sapper officer, walking along the sidewalk along the stone wall of the Mikhailovsky Garden, were mortally wounded by a thrown bomb. The sovereign's coachman, sensing trouble, turned to him from the goat: "Let's go, sovereign!" The chief of police, galloping behind, jumped out of the sleigh with the same request to go faster. But the emperor did not listen and took a few steps back: "I want to see my wounded." At this time, the crowd managed to stop a healthy kid who threw a bomb. The sovereign turned to him: “So it was you who wanted to kill me?” But he did not succeed in finishing, as the second bomb exploded in front of him, and he lowered himself with the words: “Help.” They rushed to him, lifted him up, put the chief of police in the sledge (who himself received 45 wounds from small fragments of the bomb, but not a single fatal one) and drove him away. A little over an hour later, at 3:35 pm, Tsar Alexander II died in the Winter Palace.

The eminent Russian philosopher V.V. Rozanov called the assassination of the emperor “a mixture of Madness and Meanness”.

The political testament of Alexander II was destroyed. Alexander III, in the consciousness of his past delusions and in an effort to return to the ideal of the kings of Moscow, turned to the people with a manifesto, which affirmed the inviolability of autocratic power and the exclusive responsibility of the autocrat before God.

The Russian Empire thus returned to the old traditional paths on which it had once found glory and prosperity.

IV. Significance of the reign of Alexander II in the history of Russia.

A Alexander II left a deep mark on history, he managed to do what other autocrats were afraid to take on - the liberation of the peasants from serfdom. We enjoy the fruits of his reforms to this day.

The internal reforms of Alexander II are comparable in scale only to the reforms of Peter I. The reformer tsar made truly grandiose transformations without social cataclysms and fratricidal war.

With the abolition of serfdom, commercial and industrial activity "resurrected", a stream of workers poured into the cities, and new areas for entrepreneurship opened up. Old ties were restored between cities and counties and new ones were created.

The fall of serfdom, the equalization of all before the court, the creation of new liberal forms of social life led to the freedom of the individual. And the feeling of this freedom awakened the desire to develop it. Dreams were created about the establishment of new forms of family and social life.

During his reign, Russia firmly strengthened its relations with the European powers, and resolved numerous conflicts with neighboring countries.

The tragic death of the emperor greatly changed the further course of history, and it was this event that 35 years later led Russia to death, and Nicholas II to a martyr's wreath.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE.

1. 1. S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history", Moscow, publishing house "Higher School", 1993.

2. 2. V.V. Kargalov, Yu.S. Savelyev, V.A. Fedorov “History of Russia from ancient times to 1917”, Moscow, publishing house “Russian Word”, 1998.

3. 3. "History of Russia from antiquity to the present day", edited by M.N. Zuev, Moscow, "Higher School", 1998.

4. 4. “A Handbook on the History of the Fatherland for Applicants to Universities” edited by A.S. Orlov, A.Yu. Polunov and Yu.A. Shchetinov, Moscow, publishing house "Prostor", 1994.

capitalism tsarism revolutionary populist

The sixties of the XIX century were for Russia a time of major and profound reforms in their consequences. They covered not only the economy, but also the socio-political structure of society.

What was Russia like in the middle of the 19th century, why did it embark on "the path of reforms? Russia was the largest state in Europe both in terms of territory and population. 73 million people lived in a multinational empire. The social composition of the population was slowly but steadily changing due to working class and the urban population. In the first half of the 19th century, certain progress was also made in the development of industry, primarily in metallurgical and manufacturing industries. And yet, the country, as it were, stood on the side of the road of development of world civilization, along which the United States and many countries of the European "continent" were rapidly moving forward.

The development of capitalism in Russia was held back by the existing feudal-serf relations and the absence of a free labor market. The number of free civilian workers in factories and factories was still insignificant. The bulk of the workers consisted of the same peasants, released by the landowners for rent, from state peasants and other legally dependent people.

Serfdom with its attributes (tire, corvee and land scarcity) caused acute discontent, which was reflected in the growth of peasant uprisings. Only in the three pre-reform years their number increased 1.5 times: from 86 in 1858 to 126 in 1860. Peasant uprisings took place almost everywhere, from the central black earth provinces to Belarus - in the west, Podolia - - in the south, the Volga region and the Urals - in the east. Life imperiously demanded the destruction of the fetters of serfdom. Thus, the need for reforms was caused by the needs of the country's economic development, and the laws of development of capitalism. There were also political reasons: the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56), which showed the rottenness and weakness of the feudal-serf system, the growth of discontent in wide circles of the Russian public.

The autocracy was faced with a choice: either reforms from above, or continuous war with the peasantry. Without waiting for the peasants to liberate themselves from below, Alexander II embarked on the path of reforms. On February 19, 1861, he signed the Manifesto on the Emancipation of the Peasants (“On the most gracious granting to serfs of the rights and status of free rural inhabitants and the arrangement of their life”), as well as a special “Regulation on peasants who have emerged from serfdom”.

What was the essence of land reform? According to the Manifesto, the peasants were declared legally free people, that is, they received the right to trade, own movable and immovable property, conclude deals, etc. But there was still a considerable distance from the proclamation of freedom to its real economic security.

The fact is that the land still remained the property of the landlords. By agreement between the landowners and peasants (the so-called statutory charters), the peasants received plots of land. Their sizes varied depending on local conditions from 3 to 12 acres. If the land plots of the peasants were more than the prescribed norms, then the landowner had the right to cut off the surplus from them. It was these lands, taken from the peasants during the reform period, that were called “cuts”. And this was a considerable land wedge: on average in Russia 20% of peasant lands, and in the Saratov and Samara provinces - up to 40%. If before the reform the average peasant allotment was 4.4 acres, then after the reform it was equal to 3.6 acres. There were frequent cases when the landowners took away the best land, and the peasants were allocated inconveniences.

Peasants, with the consent of the landowners, could buy out estate and allotment land. Only those who redeemed the land became peasant owners, and the rest were called temporarily liable before the redemption. They were obliged either to pay dues or to serve corvee. The temporary condition was determined at 9 years old, but in fact it stretched up to 20 years.

The main burden of paying for the redemption of land from the landlords was assumed by the state - 75-80% of the value of the allotments, and the rest was paid by the peasants. To facilitate the possibility of redemption, they were given a loan for 49 years at 6% per annum.

But even after the redemption of the land, not all peasants became its owners. In many parts of the country, the redemption of land was carried out through the community, where there were periodic "repartitions of land allotments, mutual responsibility and the so-called peasant self-government. The land became the property of the peasant community. The community was ruled by the "world", i.e., the peasant assembly, at which the headman was elected. He performed the functions of executive power: he observed the economy of the village, its life, carrying out the decisions of the gatherings.

The Russian community, as a manifestation of direct democracy and as a grassroots cell of local self-government, certainly played a useful role. It is impossible not to note its importance from the point of view of preserving the peasant way of life, morality and traditions of the multimillion-strong Russian peasantry. At the same time, the autocracy used the community as a convenient tool for collecting various taxes and duties from the peasants, and for recruiting for the army.

Under the conditions of rapidly developing capitalism, the community, with its shortcomings such as periodic redistribution of land and various obstacles to the exit of peasants, became a brake on social development, fettering the freedom and economic initiative of the peasantry. A peasant, even legally free, could not dispose of his allotment (sell or inherit, leave the village).

The peasant reform, breaking the fetters of serfdom and opening the way to a free labor market, thus created the prerequisites for rapid industrial progress. But, despite its certainly progressive character, it did not eliminate the basic social contradiction between peasants and landowners. Landownership was preserved, which means that there was also an objective basis for social conflicts and upheavals in the future.

And it was not for nothing that this reform was sharply criticized by Herzen and Chernyshevsky, who called it an abomination and a deceit. And the peasantry met it with a wide wave of mass demonstrations in the Penza, Tambov and Kazan provinces, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus.

The zemstvo reform (“Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”) began to be carried out in January 1864. It provided for the introduction of new bodies of local self-government - elected county and provincial zemstvos.

According to the "Regulations" zemstvo institutions were to consist of representatives of all classes. However, elections to zemstvos were not equal, universal and direct. Suffrage was subject to property qualification. Zemstvo vowels (representatives from estates) were elected for three

The first group included large landowners, as well as owners of large commercial and industrial enterprises. Small landowners (at least 10 acres). Uniting, they nominated only their representatives. In the cities, representatives of the big and middle bourgeoisie received the right to vote. The petty bourgeoisie, artisans, and workers did not participate in the election of councillors.

The structure of elections in the village was multi-stage:

Thus, the system of elections to zemstvo assemblies ensured the predominance of representatives of the landlords, who, together with representatives of the bourgeoisie, constituted an overwhelming majority. In 1865-1867. in 30 provinces of Russia, the composition of vowels in district zemstvo assemblies was as follows: nobles and officials - 42%, merchants and others - 20%, peasants - 38%. In the provincial zemstvo assemblies, nobles and officials accounted for 74%, peasants - 11%.

District and provincial zemstvo assemblies were endowed with administrative functions, and the executive bodies were district and provincial councils. The chairman of the provincial council was approved by the minister of internal affairs, and the county one - by the governor. The governor and the minister could cancel the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies, which ensured complete control: the government. 1

Right-bank Ukraine, in the Caucasus, i.e., in those regions where there were few Russian landowners.

The second reform of local self-government was the introduction of the "City" regulation on June 16, 1870. It "was carried out on the same narrow, truncated foundations as the Zemstvo. In accordance with the "Regulations" city Dumas were elected in the cities. They were. Control and administrative bodies. The functions of the executive power were performed by city councils and mayors elected by the Duma and approved by the Minister of the Interior or the Governor.

Elections of vowels of the Duma were held in three curiae, depending on the amount of tax paid. Each curia elected an equal number of vowels for a period of 4 years. This nature of the elections ensured the predominance in the Dumas of the "fathers of the city" - industrialists and merchants.

The competence of city self-government included all issues of city life: improvement, trade, fire safety, medical care, public education, and so on.

And yet, despite its narrowness and limitations, the city reform "was of a bourgeois nature, contributed to the formation of capitalist social relations, was a step forward in comparison with the estate city Duma that had existed since the time of Catherine II.

On guard of feudal-serf relations, their inviolability "was the judicial system and the order of legal proceedings created by Peter I. They were characterized by the class limitation of the judiciary, the multi-level judicial instances, the secrecy of judicial proceedings without the participation of the parties, the widespread use of corporal punishment. The courts were dominated by arbitrariness and red tape, the bribe had omnipotent significance.From the point of view of bourgeois law, this system was the most backward and untenable.

In November 1864, Alexander II signed the Decree and the “New Judicial Charters”, which introduced changes to the judicial system and legal proceedings.

In accordance with the Decree, the court and legal proceedings were built on the basic principles of bourgeois law: the equality of all classes before the law, the openness and publicity of the court, the independence of judges, the adversarial nature of the prosecution and defense, the presence of jurors.

Under the new judicial statutes, petty crimes were considered by magistrates elected by zemstvo assemblies and city Dumas. More complex civil and criminal cases were heard by district courts by jury, whose decisions were final. If the court was without a jury, then it was possible to file appeals to the judicial chamber, which considered cases of state and political crimes. The highest judicial authority was the Senate, which could overturn the decisions of other judicial instances by way of cassation.

In the 60-70s, on the initiative of the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin also carried out a military reform. The defeat in the Crimean War pushed the government to it. It set as its main goal the creation of a cadre army of the bourgeois type and envisaged not only the rearmament of the army, but also a change in its structure, the principle of recruitment and training of personnel. First of all, the military ministry was reorganized, the country was divided into military districts, and a network of military gymnasiums, colleges, and academies was created to train officers.

In 1874, the Charter on Compulsory Military Service was adopted, according to which the so-called recruitment sets were canceled and the male population of all classes was regularly drafted into the army upon reaching 20 years of age. The terms of military service also changed. Instead of 25 years for soldiers, a 6-year term of active service was established, after which they were transferred to the reserve for 9 years. "In the fleet, the active service lasted 7 years, and the state in the reserve - three years. The service life was reduced for those who received an education. The only son in the family was released from service if he was the breadwinner. For persons of the Muslim, Jewish and some other religions, military service did not spread, since for tsarism it was an “unreliable” element.

The new conditions of the economic and social life of post-reform Russia urgently demanded trained and literate people. It was necessary to significantly expand the "base of public education. To this end, since 1864, a reform of public education began.

The reform was regulated by a number of legislative acts adopted in the 60-70s of the XIX century. According to the “Regulations” of 1864, public organizations and individuals were allowed to open elementary public schools. In rural areas, a little later they began to be called parochial schools with a 3-year term of study. They taught children from the people to read, write and count. Much attention was paid to the study of the law of God and church (choral) "singing.

In the middle level of education (secondary school) there were "paid gymnasiums, they were divided into classical and real ones. Real gymnasiums were then transformed into real schools.

In classical gymnasiums, much attention was paid to the study of Greek and Latin languages, and the humanities. They prepared young people for university entrance. At first, the term of study in them was seven years, and since 1871 - eight years.

In real schools, on the contrary, preference was given to the study of natural and technical disciplines. They prepared young people for entering technical universities.

Formally, the gymnasium opened access for children of all classes. But high tuition fees were a serious obstacle for the children of ordinary people, especially peasants.

Women's education was initiated in the 1960s. For these purposes, women's gymnasiums and higher women's courses were created in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kazan.

In 1863 a new charter for the universities was adopted. It provided for the restoration of the autonomy abolished by Nicholas I. The direct management of universities was entrusted to the council of professors, which elected rectors, deans of faculties and teaching staff. But the autonomy did not exclude the possibility of supervision, and sometimes even interference by the Minister of Public Education or the trustee (curator) of the district. Student organizations at universities were not allowed.

In the mid-1860s (1865) the government was forced to introduce some indulgences in the sphere of the press as well. Censorship was abolished when printing books of considerable volume (10–20 pp.), as well as for periodicals. But it was reserved for mass literature. The government also retained the right to take action for violations of the law. It could ban retail sales, temporarily suspend a periodical or close it altogether, and in some cases sue printers, editors, authors of articles and pamphlets.

The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, despite their limitedness and half-heartedness, became a powerful impetus for accelerating economic growth and changing the entire way of Russian life. Thanks to them, Russia embarked on the common path of development of world civilization. However, the movement along this road was uneven, and sometimes strained, due to the potholes and blockages of the old serf system.

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

SIBERIAN STATE AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY IM. ACADEMICIAN M.F. RESHETNEV

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

ABSTRACT

Subject: Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century:

background and consequences.

Completed by: student of the IUT-61 group

Nechaev Mikhail

Checked by: Shushkanova E. A.

Krasnoyarsk 2006

Plan

Introduction

Introduction

towards the middle XIXV. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. The international events of the middle of the century showed its significant weakening in the foreign policy field as well. 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 to preserve the 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 growing conflict between the new, capitalist relations and the obsolete serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A vivid expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf countryside.

The defeat in the Crimean War undermined the international prestige of Russia, accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60-70s.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 to strengthen the social and economic base 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.XIXc. necessary for Russia.

Having decided on the topic of the essay, I set myself the goal of selecting the relevant literature and, on its basis, learning more about the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXc., their background and consequences.

There are many books, articles, scientific discussions on this topic. In accordance with this, I chose the most suitable material for my topic.

The topic I have chosen is also 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. became the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among the 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 stand aside from understanding the solution of the peasant question. However, the attempts of the government to soften serfdom, to give the landlords a positive example of managing the peasants, to regulate their relations proved to be ineffective due to the resistance of the serfs. towards the middleXIXV. the prerequisites that led to the collapse of the feudal system have finally matured. First of all, it has outlived itself economically. The landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landowners.

Objectively, serfdom also interfered with the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, an increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.

The need to abolish serfdom was also conditioned by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not but influence the position of the government.

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 dropped sharply. The new foreign policy situation that developed after the Peace of Paris testified to Russia's loss of its international prestige and threatened to lose influence in Europe.

Thus, the abolition of serfdom was due to political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also led to 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. Reform preparation

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 of his unwillingness to "give freedom to the peasants", he was forced to declare the need to start preparing for his liberation in view of the danger of further preservation of serfdom, pointing out that "it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it is itself abolished from below." January 3, 1856 under the chairmanship of AlexanderIIA secret committee was formed "to discuss measures to arrange the life of the landlord 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 start preparing the reform in earnest.

Initially, the government tried to force the landlords 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 from among the local landowners and one general commission in Vilna to prepare local projects "improving the life of the landlord peasants." The program of the government, which formed the basis of this rescript, was developed in the Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1856. It granted civil rights to the serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; the peasants were given allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear in favor of the landowner feudal duties regulated by law. In other words, the peasants were granted personal freedom, but feudal production relations 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 landlord peasants were located, "governor's committees on improving the life of the landlord peasants" began to operate. With the publication of the rescripts on December 24, 1858, and the beginning of the work of the committees, the preparation of the reform gained publicity. 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, a Zemsky department was created under the Ministry of the Interior, chaired at first by A.I. Levshin, and then N.A. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in the preparation of the reform. The issue of its preparation began to be widely discussed in the press.

Although the fate of the peasantry was decided by the landlords in the provincial committees and central government institutions preparing the reform, and the peasants were excluded from participation in matters relating to their vital interests, nevertheless, neither the landlords nor the government could not ignore the moods of the peasantry, which had a significant impact for the 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 peasants with their allotments in property through redemption and the complete release of the peasants who bought their allotments from feudal duties.

March 4, 1859 under the Main Committee, editorial commissions were approved to consider materials prepared by the provincial committees and draw up a draft law on the emancipation of the 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 "Editorial Commissions".

By the end of August 1859, the draft "Regulations on the Peasants" was basically prepared.

The editorial commissions made some concessions to the demands of the landlords: in a number of counties of agricultural provinces, the norms of peasant inheritances were lowered, and in non-chernozem, mainly industrial provinces, the amount of quitrent was increased and the so-called re-rent (i.e., a further increase in quitrent) was provided 20 years after the publication of the law about the emancipation of the peasants.

2.2. Promulgation of the manifesto "Regulations February 19, 1861".

On February 19, 1961, the State Council completed the 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 the Manifesto announcing the liberation of the peasants.

The government was well aware that the law being passed would not satisfy the peasants and would provoke a 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. "Regulations February 19, 1861" extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563,000 serfs of both sexes, including 1,467,000 serfs and 543,000 assigned to private factories and factories.

The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over several decades. The peasants did not receive full liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Regulations of February 19, 1861” were promulgated. The manifesto declared that the peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called additional fees were canceled (eggs, oil, flax, linen, wool, etc.), the corvée was limited to 2 women's and 3 men's days from tax per week, underwater duty was somewhat reduced, it was forbidden to transfer peasants from quitrent to corvée and to yard. The final act in the liquidation of feudal relations was the transfer of peasants for redemption.

2.3. The legal status of peasants and peasant institutions.

According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The former serf, from whom the landowner could previously take away all his property, and sell, donate, mortgage it himself, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of civil rights: on his own behalf, they will conclude various civil and property transactions, open trade and industrial establishments, move to other classes. All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to the growth of departure for earnings and, consequently, the folding of the labor market. However, the question of the personal emancipation of the peasants has not yet received a complete, consistent solution. Features of non-economic coercion continued to persist. The class inferiority of the peasants, their attachment to the place of residence, to the community, also remained. The peasantry continued to be the lowest, taxable class, which was obliged to bear recruitment, capitation and various other monetary and in-kind duties, was subjected to corporal punishment, from which the privileged estates (nobility, clergy, merchants) were exempted.

In June-July 1861, bodies of peasant “public administration” appeared in the villages of the former landlord peasants. The 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 the proper serving of duties by the peasants in favor of the landowner and the state. The law of 1861 preserved the community, which the government and the landlords used as a fiscal and police cell in the post-reform village.

In June 1861, the institution of peace mediators 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 between peasants and landowners), certification of redemption acts at the transition of peasants to redemption, the resolution of disputes between peasants and landowners, the management of the delimitation of peasant and landlord lands, supervision of peasant self-government.

First of all, the peace mediators protected the interests of the landowners, sometimes even breaking the law. However, among the mediators were representatives of the liberal opposition nobility, who criticized the difficult conditions for the peasants of the reform of 1861 and demanded a series of bourgeois reforms in the country. However, their proportion was very small, so they were quickly removed from their positions.

2.3.1. Peasant dress.

The solution of the agrarian question occupied a leading place in the reform of 1861. The law proceeded from the principle of recognizing the landowner's right of ownership to all the land on the estate, including the peasant's allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve their duties for it. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

The allocation of land to the peasants was dictated by the need to preserve the peasant economy as an object of exploitation and ensure social security in the country: the government knew that the demand for the provision of land was very loud in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years. The complete landlessness of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the former income from the peasants, it created a multi-million army of a landless proletariat and threatened a peasant uprising.

But if the complete landlessness of the peasants was impossible for the reasons indicated, then the allocation of the peasants with a sufficient amount of land that would put the peasant economy in an independent position from the landowners was not beneficial to the landowner. Therefore, the task was to provide the peasants with land in such an amount that they were tied to their allotment, and, due to the insufficiency of the latter, to the landowner's economy.

The allocation of land to the peasants was compulsory. The law forbade the peasants within 9 years after its publication (until 1870) to refuse the allotment, but even after this period the right to refuse the allotment was furnished with such conditions that it was actually reduced to nothing.

When determining the norms of the allotment, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account.

The law provided for a cut off from the peasant allotment if it exceeded the highest or indicated norm determined for the given locality, and cutting if the allotment did not reach the lower norm. The law allowed cutting off in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land in the estate in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasant free of charge (“as a gift”) ¼ of the highest allotment ( "donation"). The gap between higher and lower norms has made cuts the rule and cuts the exception. Yes, and the size of the segment was dozens of times greater than the cut, and the best lands were cut off from the peasants, and the worst lands were cut. 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 in the country as a whole decreased by more than 1/5.

The severity of the segments was not only in their size. As a rule, the most valuable, and most importantly, necessary for the peasants, lands were 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 landlords, the cuts turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and became the basis of a well-established system in the post-reform period.

The landownership of the peasants was hampered not only by cuts, but also by striping, depriving the 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 transfer peasant estates to another place, to exchange their allotments for their own land before the peasants went for redemption, 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 even further increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million souls of peasants (724,000 households, 461,000 donators, and 137,000 belonging to small landowners) actually turned out to be landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 tithes per capita, while for the normal provision of the necessary standard of living for the peasant at the expense of agriculture, with the agricultural technology of that time, from 6 to 8 dessiatinas per capita was required (depending on different areas). The lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants, they were forced to replenish by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or third-party earnings. That is why the agrarian question assumed such acuteness at the turn of theXIX— XXcenturies and was the "nail" of the revolution of 1905-1907.

2.3.2. Duties.

Prior to the transition to redemption, the peasants were obliged to serve their duties in the form of corvée or dues for the allotments granted to them for use. The law established the following rates of dues: 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 miles from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). In the case of the proximity of the estates to the railway, navigable river, to the commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the rate of dues. In addition, the law provided for a “repurchase” after 20 years, i.e. an increase in dues in anticipation of an increase in rental and sale prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform dues could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, however, the law did not provide for a decrease in the dues in connection with the reduction of the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrent per 1 tithe. The rates of dues 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 quitrent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was laid out on the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the amount of dues per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the peasant put on. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest standard 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 out of the peasants for the minimum allotment. The system of gradations extended to corvee as well.

Corvee for the highest shower allotment was set at 70 working days (40 men's and 30 women's) from the 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 volume of work during the day was determined by a special "urgent position". However, the low productivity of corvée labor and especially widespread sabotage of corvée work by the peasants forced the landowners to transfer the peasants to quitrent and introduce a labor-work system that was more efficient than the old corvée. For 2 years, the proportion of corvée peasants decreased from 71 to 35%.

2.3.3. ransom

The transfer of peasants for ransom was the final stage in their liberation from serfdom. "Regulations February 19, 1861" no final date for the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants and their transfer to redemption was not determined. Only the law of December 28, 1881 established the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption starting from January 1, 1883. By this time, 15% of the peasants remained in a temporarily liable position. Their transfer for 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 a broad peasant movement, peasants in the amount of 2.5 million male souls were transferred to compulsory redemption already in 1863. Here, more preferential, compared to other provinces of Russia, conditions for liberation were established: the lands cut off from allotments were returned, duties were reduced by an average of 20%.

The terms of redemption 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 quitrent". Its essence was that the annual rent paid by the peasant was equated to an annual income of 6% of the capital. The calculation of this capital meant the determination of the redemption sum.

The state took over the ransom by carrying out a ransom 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 the given province received the highest allotment, and 75% if they were given a less than the highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landlords was then collected from the peasants at a rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time, the peasant had to pay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.

The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved a number of important social and economic problems. The government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from a direct confrontation with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was set at 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, the former landlord 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 the landowners. By 1861, 65% of the serfs were mortgaged and re-mortgaged 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 ransom loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed the landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.

The inconsistency of the reform of 1861, the interweaving of feudal and capitalist features in it, was most clearly manifested in the issue of redemption. On the one hand, the ransom was of a predatory, feudal nature, on the other hand, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. The redemption contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave the landowners money to transfer their economy to capitalist foundations. The transfer of the peasants for 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. The response of the peasants to the reform.

1861 Promulgation of the Manifesto and the "provisions of February 19, 1861", the content of which deceived the hopes of the peasants for "full freedom", caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. In the first 5 months of this year, there were 1340 mass peasant unrest, in just one year - 1859 unrest. In fact, there was not a single province in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the peasants would not protest against the "granted" to them "will". Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe in any way that such laws came from him, which for 2 years left them in their former subordination to the landowners, still forced them to perform corvée and pay dues, deprived them of a significant part of the land, and the allotments remaining in their use were declared noble property. The peasants considered the promulgated laws to be fake documents drawn up by the landowners and officials who agreed with them at the same time, hiding the “real”, “royal will”.

The peasant movement assumed the greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, in the Volga region and in the Ukraine, where the bulk of the peasants were on corvee, and the agrarian question was especially acute. The strongest were the unrest in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands participated 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, by executions and mass sections with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862 a new wave of peasant uprisings arose, connected with the introduction of statutory charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants to freedom in individual estates. More than half of the charters were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called by the peasants by force, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. happened 844.

Aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. influenced the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations spring up, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are circulated. 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 sharpness that was observed in 1861 - in 1862. In 1863 there were 509 unrest. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and the Right-Bank Ukraine, which is 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 landlord, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize the outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landlord peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by specific and state peasants.

2.5. Reform in the specific and state village.

Preparations for the reform in the state countryside began in 1861. By that time, there were 9,644,000 state peasants males. On November 24, 1866, the law "On the land arrangement of state peasants" was issued. Rural societies retained the lands that were in their use, but not more than 8 acres per male capita in small-land and 15 acres in large-land provinces. The land use of each rural society was recorded by "ownership records". The implementation of the reform of 1866 in the state village also led to numerous conflicts between the peasants and the treasury, caused by cuts from allotments that exceeded the norms established by law, and an increase in duties. The land, according to the law of 1866, was recognized as the property of the treasury, and the redemption of allotments was made only after 20 years according to the law of June 12, 1886 "On the transformation of the quitrent tax of former state peasants into redemption payments."

2.6. Significance of the peasant reform of 1861

The reform of 1861 was a turning point, a line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants abolished the monopoly of the landlords on the exploitation of peasant labor, contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism both in industry and in agriculture. Conditions for the reforms of 1861. ensured the gradual transition of the feudal economy to the capitalist economy for the landowners.

Bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861. at the same time, it was also feudal; it could not have been otherwise, for it was carried out by the feudal lords. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861. led to the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, political system in reformed Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. The landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor compensation or bondage. Reform of 1861 retained the feudal estate system: the estate privileges of the landlords, the inequality of estates and the isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political domination of the landowners. Taking steps towards becoming a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively intervened in the country's economic development, 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. 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary denouement. The feudal 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 rise" to the revolution not only by preserving the survivals of serfdom, but also by the fact that, by "opening a certain valve, giving a certain boost to capitalism", it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought for the elimination of these survivals. 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 visited the city, at the factory, saw a lot and learned a lot.

3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874

The abolition of serfdom in Russia made it necessary to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, while preserving its class, noble-landlord essence.

The development of these reforms began in a 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 emerged from a political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.

3.1 Reforms in the field of local self-government.

One of the concessions "which the wave of public excitement and revolutionary onslaught repulsed from the autocratic government", V. I. Lenin called the Zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, win over a part of the "liberal society", 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 a law "On economic and administrative management in the county." It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created local government bodies should not go beyond purely economic issues of local importance. April 1860. Milyutin introduced AlexanderIIa note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. April 1861. under pressure from reactionary court circles, N. A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of S. S. Lansky, as "liberals", were dismissed. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the planned 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 the noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

Valuev was instructed to prepare a project for a "new establishment of the State Council." According to this project, it was planned to form a “congress of state councilors” under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before submitting them to the State Council.

By March 1863, a 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 - county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive - county 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 uyezd vowels in different uyezds ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial vowels - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at uyezd zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 county vowels. Elections to uyezd zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural communities. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned immovable property worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or those who received an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as authorized by the clergy and landowners who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by noble landowners and partly by the big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of commercial and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate worth at least 500 rubles. in small and 2 thousand rubles. - in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the big urban bourgeoisie, as well as by the nobility. The third curia consisted of representatives of rural communities, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia. If for the first two curiae the elections were direct, then for the third one they were multistage: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which the electors were elected, and then the county congress of electors elected the deputies to the county zemstvo assembly. The multi-stage elections for the third curia pursued the goal of bringing the most wealthy and “reliable” peasants to 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 the dominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility.

The chairmen of the county and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the county and provincial representatives of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo meetings, while the chairman of the county rural council was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of internal affairs. Vowels of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvos received the right to support on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Rural dues from the population were collected for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions whatsoever. The sphere of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The zemstvos were given the arrangement and maintenance of local means of communication, zemstvo mail, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters, "care" of local trade and industry, veterinary service, mutual insurance, local food business, even the construction of churches, the maintenance of local prisons and houses for the insane.

The 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 decision of the zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. In order to carry out their decisions, the 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 the Interior and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse to approve any official elected by the Zemstvo, made Zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies, and limited the ability of Zemstvos to tax trade and industrial establishments. . (which significantly undermined their financial capabilities). In 1867, zemstvos of different provinces were prohibited from communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other. Circulars and decrees made the zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, hampered the freedom of debate in zemstvo meetings, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings, and pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.

Nevertheless, the zemstvos played a significant role in solving local economic and cultural issues: in organizing local small loans, through the formation of peasant savings associations, in organizing post offices, road construction, in organizing medical care in the countryside, and public education. By 1880, 12,000 zemstvo schools, which were considered the best, had been created in the countryside.

In 1862, preparations began for the reform of city self-government. Local commissions appeared in 509 cities. The Ministry of the Interior compiled a summary of the materials of these commissions and, on the basis of it, by 1864 developed a draft "City Regulation". In March 1866, the project was submitted for discussion by the State Council, where it lay motionless for another 2 years. The preparation of the urban reform took place in the conditions of strengthening the reactionary course of the autocracy. Only on June 16, 1870, the amended draft of the “City Regulations” was approved by AlexanderII and became law.

According to this law, new, formally non-estate, 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 council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more of its members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of the Duma and the city council. The right to elect and be elected was received only by the payers of city taxes who had a certain property qualification. According to the size of the tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: the first included the largest payers, paying a third of the total amount of city taxes, the second - the average taxpayers, also paying a third of city taxes, and the third - small taxpayers, paying the remaining third of the total city ​​taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was nevertheless a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city self-government bodies 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 start developing the "Basic Provisions for the Transformation of the Judiciary in Russia." Major lawyers of the country were involved in the preparation of the judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the well-known lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S. I. Zarudny, under whose leadership, by 1862, the basic principles of the new judicial system and legal proceedings were developed. They got 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 of the judicial statutes provided for the non-estate court and its independence from the administrative authorities, the irremovability of judges and judicial investigators, the equality of all estates 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 class court, with its silence and clerical secrecy, lack of protection and bureaucratic red tape.

November 20, 1864 AlexanderIIapproved the statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. The Crown Court had two instances: the first was the district court, the second - the judicial chamber, uniting several judicial districts. Elected jurors established only the guilt or innocence of the defendant; the measure of 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 lawful order of legal proceedings. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate, which was the highest instance of cassation, which had the right of cassation (review and cancellation) of court decisions.

To deal with petty offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles in counties and cities, a world court was established with simplified legal proceedings.

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, who were transferred to the preliminary investigation in criminal cases, which was withdrawn from the police. Chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, sworn attorneys and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and a sworn attorney and his assistant, in addition, had to have five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification not lower than average and who had served at least three years in the public service could be elected 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 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 judged 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 on the first call and "obey his legal requirements." In 1872, the Special Presence of the ruling Senate was created specifically to deal with cases of political crimes. The law of 1872 limited the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the world 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 agree to the abolition of corporal punishment. The law issued on April 17, 1863 abolished public punishments by verdicts of civil and military courts with whips, gauntlets, "cats", and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment has not been completely abolished.

3.3. financial reforms.

The needs of the capitalist country and the disorder of finances during the years of the Crimean War imperatively demanded that all financial affairs be streamlined. Conducted in the 60s of the 19th century. a series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing the financial affairs and affected mainly the apparatus of financial management. Decree of 1860. The State Bank was established, which replaced the former lending institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, while maintaining the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the pre-emptive right to lend to trade and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law of 1862 established a new procedure for the preparation of estimates by individual departments. The only responsible manager of all income and expenses was the Minister of Finance. From the same time, the list of income and expenses began to be published for general information.

In 1864 the state control was reorganized. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers independent of governors and other departments. The Chambers of Control audited the revenues and expenditures of all local institutions on a monthly basis. Since 1868 began to publish annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control.

The farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but to 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 lay on the taxable population. The poll tax for peasants, philistines, and artisans was preserved. The privileged classes were exempted from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for more than 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of the expenditures in the state budget went to the maintenance of the army and the administrative apparatus, up to 35% to the payment of interest on public debts, the issuance of subsidies, and so on. Expenses for public education, medicine, and charity accounted for 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 recruitment, cannot withstand 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 the all-word conscription of men who have reached the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces up to 6, in the navy - up to 7 years. The terms of active service were significantly reduced depending on the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served only six months.

In the 60s. the rearmament of the army began: the replacement of smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, the introduction of a system of steel artillery pieces, and the improvement of the equestrian fleet. Of particular importance was the accelerated development of the military steam fleet.

For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The command and control system 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 administration, courts and the army logically demanded a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the Gymnasium” and “Regulations on Public Schools” were approved, which regulated primary and secondary education. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with the state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. They accepted children of all classes capable of paying tuition fees, mainly the children of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In the 70s. was the beginning of higher education for women.

In 1863, the new Statute returned autonomy to the universities, which had been abolished by NicholasIin 1835. They restored the independence of solving administrative-financial and scientific-pedagogical issues.

In 1865, "Provisional Rules" on printing were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books designed for 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 preserved. From the end of the 60s. the government began to issue decrees, largely nullifying the main provisions of the education reform and censorship.

3.6. Significance of bourgeois reforms.

The transformations carried out were progressive in nature. They began to lay the foundation for the evolutionary path of the country's development. Russia to a certain extent approached the advanced for that time European socio-political model. The first step was taken to expand the role of the country's social life and turn Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.

However, the process of modernization of Russia had a specific character. It was primarily due to the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The performances of the radicals only activated the conservative forces, frightened the liberals and hampered the reformist aspirations of the government. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these dust reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the estate advantages of the nobility and practically preserved the disenfranchised status of the taxable estates. The new governing bodies, the school and the press were completely subordinated to the tsarist administration. Along with the reforms, the autocracy supported the old administrative-police management methods and estates in all spheres of the country's socio-political life, which made it possible to switch to reaction and carry out 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 agrarian country, Russia turned into an agrarian-industrial one: a large-scale machine industry rapidly developed, new types of industry arose, new areas of capitalist industrial and agricultural production took shape, an extensive network of railways was created, a single capitalist market was formed, important and social changes took place in the country. V. I. Lenin called the peasant reform of 1861 a “coup”, similar to the Western European revolutions, which opened the way for a new, capitalist formation. But since this coup did not take place in Russia through a revolution, but through a reform carried out "from above", this led to the preservation in the post-reform period of numerous remnants of serfdom in the economic, social, and political system of the country.

For the development of capitalism in Russia, an agrarian country, those phenomena that took place in the countryside, primarily in the peasantry, are especially indicative. Here it is necessary to single out the process of decomposition of the peasantry on the basis of the social stratification that began even under serfdom. In the post-reform period, the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. The process of decomposition of the peasantry played an important role in the formation of two antagonistic classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

The reform period of the 60-70s.XIXV. was of great importance for our country, as it determined its further development and the transition from feudal to capitalist relations and the transformation of Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. All reforms were of a bourgeois nature, opening up opportunities for the development of capitalist relations in the economic and socio-political fields.

The reforms, although they were a significant step forward for Russia, nevertheless they, bourgeois in their content, carried feudal traits. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these reforms were half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the estate advantages of the nobility and actually preserved the powerless position of the taxable estates. 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, a lot of 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 from the peasants as possible, 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 break up into classes, and to a lesser extent depend 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 position of the country 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 Grade 10.

Kapegeler A. Russia is a multinational empire. Emergence. Story. Decay. M., 2000.

Encyclopedia: History of Russia and its nearest neighbors. Head. Ed. M.D. Aksenova. – M.: Avanta+, 2000.

The reforms of the 60s of the 19th century occupy a special place in the history of reforming Russia.

They were carried out by the government of Emperor Alexander II and were aimed at improving Russian social, economic, social and legal life, adapting its structure to developing bourgeois relations.

The most important of these reforms were: Peasant (the abolition of serfdom in 1861), Zemstvo and Judicial (1864), Military reform, reforms in the press, education, etc. They went down in the history of the country as the “epoch of great reforms” .

The reforms were difficult and contradictory. They were accompanied by a confrontation between various political forces of the society of that time, among which ideological and political trends clearly manifested themselves: conservative-protective, liberal, revolutionary-democratic.

Prerequisites for reforms

By the middle of the 19th century, the general crisis of the feudal peasant system had reached its apogee.

The fortress system has exhausted all its possibilities and reserves. The peasants were not interested in their work, which ruled out the possibility of using machines and improving agricultural technology in the landlord economy. A significant number of landlords still saw the main way to increase the profitability of their estates in the imposition of more and more duties on the peasants. The general impoverishment of the countryside and even famine led to an even greater decline in the landed estates. The state treasury did not receive tens of millions of rubles in arrears (debts) on state taxes and fees.

Dependent serf relations hindered the development of industry, in particular, mining and metallurgical industries, where the labor of sessional workers, who were also serfs, was widely used. Their work was inefficient, and the owners of the factories tried their best to get rid of them. But there was no alternative, since it was practically impossible to find a civilian force, society was divided into classes - landowners and peasants, who were mostly serfs. There were also no markets for the nascent industry, since the impoverished peasantry, which constitutes the vast majority of the country's population, did not have the means to purchase the goods produced. All this aggravated the economic and political crisis in the Russian Empire. Peasant unrest increasingly worried the government.

The Crimean War of 1853-1856, which ended in the defeat of the tsarist government, accelerated the understanding that the serf system should be eliminated, since it was a burden on the country's economy. The war showed the backwardness and impotence of Russia. Recruitment, excessive taxes and duties, trade and industry, which are in their infancy, exacerbated the need and misery of the slavishly dependent peasantry. The bourgeoisie and the nobility finally began to understand the problem and became a weighty opposition to the feudal lords. In this situation, the government considered it necessary to begin preparations for the abolition of serfdom. Soon after the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty, which ended the Crimean War, Emperor Alexander II (who succeeded Nicholas I, who died in February 1855), speaking in Moscow to the leaders of noble societies, said, referring to the abolition of serfdom, which is better, so that it happens from above rather than from below.

Abolition of serfdom

Preparations for the peasant reform began in 1857. For this, the tsar created a Secret Committee, but already in the autumn of that year it became an open secret for everyone and was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. In the same year, editorial commissions and provincial committees were created. All these institutions consisted exclusively of nobles. Representatives of the bourgeoisie, not to mention the peasants, were not admitted to lawmaking.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto, the General Regulations on the Peasants who Abandoned Serfdom, and other acts on the peasant reform (17 acts in total).

Hood. K. Lebedev "Sale of serfs at auction", 1825

The laws of February 19, 1861 resolved four issues: 1) on the personal emancipation of the peasants; 2) on land allotments and duties of the liberated peasants; 3) on the redemption by peasants of their land plots; 4) on the organization of peasant administration.

The provisions of February 19, 1861 (General Regulations on Peasants, Regulations on Redemption, etc.) proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, approved the right of peasants to land allotment and the procedure for making redemption payments for it.

According to the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the land was allocated to the peasants, but the use of land plots was significantly limited by the obligation to buy them out from the former owners.

The subject of land relations was the rural community, and the right to use the land was granted to the peasant family (peasant household). The laws of July 26, 1863 and November 24, 1866 continued the reform, leveling the rights of specific, state and landlord peasants, thereby legislating the concept of "peasant class".

Thus, after the publication of documents on the abolition of serfdom, the peasants received personal freedom.

The landlords could no longer resettle the peasants to other places, they also lost the right to interfere in the private life of the peasants. It was forbidden to sell people to other persons with or without land. The landowner retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who emerged from serfdom.

The property rights of the peasants also changed, first of all, their right to land, although the former serfdom was preserved for two years. It was assumed that during this period the transition of the peasants to a temporarily liable state was to take place.

The allocation of land took place in accordance with local regulations, in which for various regions of the country (chernozem, steppe, non-chernozem) the upper and lower limits of the amount of land provided to the peasants were determined. These provisions were concretized in the statutory letters containing information on the composition of the land transferred for use.

Now, from among the noble landowners, the Senate appointed peace mediators who were supposed to regulate the relationship between landowners and peasants. Candidates for the Senate were presented by governors.

Hood. B. Kustodiev "Liberation of the Peasants"

Conciliators were supposed to draw up charters, the contents of which were brought to the attention of the relevant peasant gathering (gatherings, if the charter concerned several villages). Charters could be amended in accordance with the comments and proposals of the peasants, the same conciliator resolved controversial issues.

After reading the text of the charter, it came into force. The conciliator recognized its content as complying with the requirements of the law, while the consent of the peasants to the conditions provided for by the charter was not required. At the same time, it was more profitable for the landowner to obtain such consent, since in this case, with the subsequent redemption of the land by the peasants, he received the so-called additional payment.

It must be emphasized that as a result of the abolition of serfdom, the peasants in the country as a whole received less land than they had until then. They were infringed both in the size of the land and in its quality. The peasants were given plots that were inconvenient for cultivation, and the best land remained with the landowners.

A temporarily liable peasant received land only for use, and not property. Moreover, he had to pay for the use of duties - corvee or dues, which differed little from his previous serf duties.

In theory, the next stage in the liberation of the peasants was to be their transition to the state of owners, for which the peasant had to buy out the estate and field lands. However, the redemption price significantly exceeded the actual value of the land, so in fact it turned out that the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal liberation.

The government, in order to ensure the reality of the ransom, organized a ransom operation. Under this scheme, the state paid the redemption amount for the peasants, thus providing them with a loan that had to be repaid in installments over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan. After the conclusion of the redemption transaction, the peasant was called the owner, although his ownership of the land was surrounded by various restrictions. The peasant became the full owner only after the payment of all redemption payments.

Initially, the temporarily liable state was not limited in time, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, about 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed on the mandatory transition to redemption within two years, in which it was required to conclude redemption transactions or the right to land plots was lost.

In 1863 and 1866 the reform was extended to appanage and state peasants. At the same time, the specific peasants received land on more favorable terms than the landlords, and the state peasants retained all the land that they used before the reform.

For some time, one of the methods of conducting landowner economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for working off. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, capitalist relations gradually developed in the countryside. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the fact that the village had lived as a community since ancient times, it was no longer possible to stop the stratification of the peasantry. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.

The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to seek additional income not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor to industrial enterprises.

The city attracted more and more former peasants. As a result, they found work in industry, and then their families moved to the city. In the future, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into professional workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians.

The second half of the 19th century is marked by significant changes in the social and state system. The reform of 1861, having freed and robbed the peasants, opened the way for the development of capitalism in the city, although it placed certain obstacles in its path.

The peasant received just enough land to tie him to the countryside, to restrain the outflow of the labor force needed by the landowners to the city. At the same time, the peasant did not have enough allotment land, and he was forced to go into a new bondage to the former master, which actually meant serfdom, only on a voluntary basis.

The communal organization of the village somewhat slowed down its stratification and, with the help of mutual responsibility, ensured the collection of redemption payments. The class system gave way to the emerging bourgeois system, a class of workers began to form, which was replenished at the expense of former serfs.

Prior to the agrarian reform of 1861, peasants had practically no rights to land. And only starting from 1861, the peasants individually within the framework of the land communities act as bearers of rights and obligations in relation to the land under the law.

On May 18, 1882, the Peasant Land Bank was founded. His role was to somewhat simplify the receipt (acquisition) of land plots by peasants on the basis of the right of personal ownership. However, prior to the Stolypin reform, the Bank's operations did not play a significant role in expanding ownership of peasant lands.

Further legislation, up to the reform of P. A. Stolypin at the beginning of the 20th century, did not introduce any special qualitative and quantitative changes in the rights of peasants to land.

Legislation of 1863 (laws of June 18 and December 14) limited the rights of allotment peasants in matters of redistribution (exchange) of pledge and alienation of land in order to strengthen and speed up the payment of redemption payments.

All this allows us to conclude that the reform to abolish serfdom was not entirely successful. Built on compromises, it took into account the interests of the landlords much more than the peasants, and had a very short "resource of time." Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.

Nevertheless, the peasant reform of 1861 was of great historical significance, not only creating for Russia the possibility of a broad development of market relations, but giving the peasantry liberation from serfdom - the centuries-old oppression of man by man, which is unacceptable in a civilized, legal state.

Zemstvo reform

The system of zemstvo self-government, formed as a result of the reform of 1864, with certain changes, lasted until 1917.

The main legal act of the ongoing reform was the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", approved by the highest on January 1, 1864, based on the principles of all-estate zemstvo representation; property qualification; independence only within the limits of economic activity.

This approach was supposed to provide advantages for the local nobility. It is no coincidence that the chairmanship of the electoral congress of landowners was entrusted to the district marshal of the nobility (Article 27). The frank preference given by these articles to the landowners was to serve as compensation to the nobility for depriving them in 1861 of the right to manage the serfs.

The structure of zemstvo self-government bodies according to the Regulations of 1864 was as follows: the district zemstvo assembly elected for three years the zemstvo council, which consisted of two members and the chairman and was the executive body of zemstvo self-government (Article 46). The appointment of monetary allowance to members of the zemstvo council was decided by the county zemstvo assembly (Article 49). The provincial zemstvo assembly was also elected for three years, but not directly by the voters, but by the vowels of the county zemstvo assemblies of the province from among them. It elected the provincial zemstvo council, which consisted of a chairman and six members. The chairman of the zemstvo council of the province was approved in his position by the Minister of the Interior (Article 56).

Interesting from the point of view of its creative application was Article 60, which approved the right of zemstvo councils to invite outsiders for “permanent classes on matters entrusted to the management of councils” with the appointment of remuneration for them by mutual agreement with them. This article marked the beginning of the formation of the so-called third element of the zemstvos, namely, the zemstvo intelligentsia: doctors, teachers, agronomists, veterinarians, statisticians who carried out practical work in the zemstvos. However, their role was limited only to activities within the framework of decisions made by zemstvo institutions; they did not play an independent role in zemstvos until the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus, the reforms were beneficial primarily to the nobility, which was successfully implemented in the course of all-class elections to zemstvo self-government bodies.

Hood. G. Myasoedov "Zemstvo is having lunch", 1872

The high property qualification in elections to zemstvo institutions fully reflected the legislator's view of zemstvos as economic institutions. This position was supported by a number of provincial zemstvo assemblies, especially in provinces with a developed grain economy. Opinions were often heard from there about the urgency of granting the right to large landowners to participate in the activities of zemstvo assemblies on the rights of vowels without elections. This was rightly justified by the fact that each large landowner is most interested in the affairs of the zemstvo because he has a significant part of the zemstvo duties, and if he is not elected, he is deprived of the opportunity to defend his interests.

It is necessary to highlight the features of this situation and refer to the division of zemstvo expenses into mandatory and optional. The first included local duties, the second - local "needs". In zemstvo practice, for more than 50 years of existence of zemstvos, the focus was on “optional” expenses. It is quite indicative that, on average, the zemstvos over the entire period of its existence spent a third of the funds collected from the population on public education, a third on public health, and only a third on all other needs, including compulsory duties.

The established practice, therefore, did not confirm the arguments of the supporters of the abolition of the elective principle for large landowners.

When, in addition to the distribution of duties, the zemstvos had the duties of taking care of public education, enlightenment, and food affairs, by necessity put by life itself above the worries about the distribution of duties, persons receiving huge incomes could not objectively be interested in these matters, while for the average - and low-income people, these subjects of conducting zemstvo institutions were an urgent need.

The legislators, guaranteeing the very institution of zemstvo self-government, nevertheless limited its powers by issuing laws regulating the economic and financial activities of local authorities; defining their own and delegated powers of zemstvos, establishing the rights to supervise them.

Thus, considering self-government as the implementation by local elected bodies of certain tasks of state administration, it must be recognized that self-government is effective only when the implementation of decisions taken by its representative bodies is carried out directly by its executive bodies.

If the government retains the implementation of all the tasks of state administration, including at the local level, and considers self-government bodies only as advisory bodies to the administration, without giving them their own executive power, then there can be no talk of real local self-government.

The Regulations of 1864 granted zemstvo assemblies the right to elect special executive bodies for a period of three years in the form of provincial and district zemstvo councils.

It should be emphasized that in 1864 a qualitatively new system of local government was created, the first zemstvo reform was not only a partial improvement of the old zemstvo administrative mechanism. And no matter how significant the changes introduced by the new Zemsky regulation of 1890 were, they were only minor improvements in the system that was created in 1864.

The law of 1864 did not consider self-government as an independent structure of state administration, but only as the transfer of economic affairs that were not essential for the state to counties and provinces. This view was reflected in the role assigned by the Regulations of 1864 to zemstvo institutions.

Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos not only did not receive police power, but were generally deprived of coercive executive power, could not independently put their orders into effect, but were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies. Moreover, initially, according to the Regulations of 1864, zemstvo institutions were not entitled to issue decrees binding on the population.

The recognition of zemstvo self-government institutions as social and economic unions was reflected in the law and in determining their relationship to government agencies and private individuals. The zemstvos existed side by side with the administration, without being connected with it into one common system of administration. In general, local government turned out to be imbued with dualism, based on the opposition of the zemstvo and state principles.

When zemstvo institutions were introduced in 34 provinces of central Russia (in the period from 1865 to 1875), the impossibility of such a sharp separation of state administration and zemstvo self-government was very soon discovered. According to the Law of 1864, the Zemstvo was endowed with the right of self-taxation (that is, the introduction of its own system of taxes) and, therefore, could not be placed by law in the same conditions as any other legal entity of private law.

No matter how the legislation of the 19th century separated local governments from government bodies, the system of the economy of the community and the Zemstvo was a system of “compulsory economy”, similar in its principles to the financial economy of the state.

The regulation of 1864 defined the subjects of the zemstvo as matters relating to local economic benefits and needs. Article 2 provided a detailed list of cases to be handled by zemstvo institutions.

Zemstvo institutions had the right, on the basis of general civil laws, to acquire and alienate movable property, conclude contracts, accept obligations, act as a plaintiff and defendant in courts in property cases of the Zemstvo.

The law, in a very vague terminological sense, indicated the attitude of zemstvo institutions to various subjects of their jurisdiction, talking either about “management”, then about “organization and maintenance”, then about “participation in care”, then about “participation in affairs”. However, systematizing these concepts used in the law, we can conclude that all cases under the jurisdiction of zemstvo institutions could be divided into two categories:

Those on which the zemstvo could make decisions independently (this included cases in which zemstvo institutions were given the right to "manage", "device and maintenance"); - those for which the Zemstvo had only the right to promote "government activities" (the right to "participate in care" and "rehabilitation").

Accordingly, the degree of power granted by the Law of 1864 to zemstvo self-government bodies was distributed according to this division. Zemstvo institutions did not have the right to directly coerce private individuals. If there was a need for such measures, the Zemstvo had to turn to the assistance of the police authorities (Articles 127, 134, 150). The deprivation of the organs of zemstvo self-government of coercive power was a natural consequence of the recognition of only an economic nature for the zemstvo.

Hood. K. Lebedev "In the Zemstvo Assembly", 1907

Initially, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the right to issue decrees binding on the population. The law granted provincial and district zemstvo assemblies only the right to submit petitions to the government through the provincial administration on subjects relating to local economic benefits and needs (Article 68). Apparently, too often the measures deemed necessary by the zemstvo assemblies exceeded the limits of the power granted to them. The practice of the existence and work of the zemstvos showed the shortcomings of such a situation, and it turned out to be necessary for the fruitful implementation of the zemstvos of their tasks to endow their provincial and district bodies with the right to issue binding decisions, but first on quite specific issues. In 1873, the Regulations on measures against fires and on the construction part in the villages were adopted, which secured the right of the zemstvo to issue binding decisions on these issues. In 1879, the zemstvos were allowed to issue mandatory acts to prevent and stop "generalized and contagious diseases."

The competence of the provincial and district zemstvo institutions was different, the distribution of subjects of jurisdiction between them was determined by the provision of the law that although both of them are in charge of the same range of affairs, but the jurisdiction of the provincial institutions are items relating to the entire province or several counties at once, and in the jurisdiction of the county - relating only to this county (Articles 61 and 63 of the Regulations of 1864). Separate articles of the law determined the exclusive competence of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies.

Zemstvo institutions functioned outside the system of state bodies and were not included in it. Service in them was considered a public duty, vowels did not receive remuneration for participating in the work of zemstvo meetings, and officials of zemstvo councils were not considered civil servants. Their wages were paid from zemstvo funds. Consequently, both administratively and financially, the zemstvo bodies were separated from the state ones. Article 6 of the Regulations of 1864 noted: “Zemstvo institutions in the circle of affairs entrusted to them act independently. The law determines the cases and procedure in which their actions and orders are subject to the approval and supervision of the general government authorities.

Zemstvo self-government bodies were not subordinate to the local administration, but acted under the control of the government bureaucracy represented by the Minister of the Interior and the governors. Zemstvo self-government bodies were independent within their powers.

It can be stated with certainty that the law of 1864 did not assume that the state apparatus would participate in the functioning of zemstvo self-government. This is clearly seen in the example of the position of the executive bodies of the zemstvos. Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos were deprived of coercive executive power, and were unable to independently implement their orders, so they were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies.

Judicial reform

The starting point of the Judicial Reform of 1864 was dissatisfaction with the state of justice, its inconsistency with the development of society of that era. The judicial system of the Russian Empire was inherently backward and had not developed for a long time. In the courts, the consideration of cases sometimes dragged on for decades, corruption flourished at all levels of the judiciary, since the salaries of workers were truly beggarly. Chaos reigned in the legislation itself.

In 1866, in the St. Petersburg and Moscow judicial districts, which included 10 provinces, a jury trial was first introduced. On August 24, 1886, its first meeting took place in the Moscow District Court. The case of Timofeev, who was accused of burglary, was considered. The specific participants in the debate of the parties remained unknown, but it is known that the debate itself was held at a good level.

It was as a result of the judicial reform that a court appeared, built on the principles of publicity and competitiveness, with its new judicial figure - a sworn attorney (a modern lawyer).

On September 16, 1866, the first meeting of sworn attorneys took place in Moscow. PS Izvolsky, a member of the Judicial Chamber, presided. The meeting made a decision: in view of the small number of voters, to elect the Moscow Council of Attorneys at Law in the amount of five people, including the chairman and deputy chairman. As a result of the elections, M. I. Dobrokhotov was elected to the Council, Ya. I. Lyubimtsev as a deputy chairman, members: K. I. Richter, B. U. Benislavsky and A. A. Imberkh. The author of the first volume of "The History of the Russian Advocacy" I. V. Gessen considers this very day to be the beginning of the creation of the estate of sworn attorneys. Exactly repeating this procedure, the advocacy was formed in the field.

The Institute of Attorneys at Law was created as a special corporation attached to the judicial chambers. But she was not part of the court, but enjoyed self-government, although under the control of the judiciary.

Sworn attorneys (lawyers) in the Russian criminal process appeared along with the new court. At the same time, Russian sworn attorneys, unlike their English counterparts, were not divided into solicitors and defenders (barristers - preparing the necessary papers, and attorneys - speaking in court sessions). Often, assistants to sworn attorneys independently acted as lawyers in court sessions, but at the same time, assistants to a sworn attorney could not be appointed by the chairman of the court as defenders. Thus, it was determined that they could act in the processes only by agreement with the client, but did not participate as intended. In 19th-century Russia, there was no monopoly on the right to defend a defendant only by a barrister in the Russian Empire. Article 565 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure provided that “defendants have the right to choose defense counsel both from jurors and private attorneys, and from other persons who are not forbidden by law to intercede in other people's cases.” At the same time, a person excluded from the composition of the jury or private attorneys was not allowed to defend. Notaries were also not allowed to exercise judicial protection, but nevertheless, in some special cases, justices of the peace were not forbidden to be attorneys in cases considered in general judicial presences. It goes without saying that at that time women were not allowed as protectors. At the same time, when appointing a defense counsel, at the request of the defendant, the chairman of the court could appoint a defense counsel not from among the sworn attorneys, but from among the candidates for judicial positions held by this court and, as it was especially emphasized in the law, “known to the chairman by their reliability”. It was allowed to appoint an official of the office of the court as a defender in the event that the defendant had no objections to this. Defense lawyers appointed by the court, in the event that the fact of receiving remuneration from the defendant, were subjected to quite severe punishment. However, it was not forbidden for sworn attorneys, exiled administratively under the open supervision of the police, to act as defense counsel in criminal cases.

The law did not prohibit a lawyer from defending two or more defendants if "the essence of the defense of one of them does not contradict the defense of the other ...".

The defendants could change counsel during the trial or ask the presiding judge in the case to change the defense counsel appointed by the court. It can be assumed that the replacement of the defense counsel could take place in the event of a discrepancy between the positions of the defense counsel and the defendant, the professional weakness of the defense counsel or his indifference to the client in the case of the defense counsel's work as intended.

Violation of the right to defense was possible only in exceptional cases. For example, if the court did not have sworn attorneys or candidates for judicial positions, as well as free officials of the court office, but in this case the court was obliged to notify the defendant in advance in order to give him the opportunity to invite defense counsel by agreement.

The main question that the jurors had to answer during the trial was whether the defendant was guilty or not. They reflected their decision in the verdict, which was proclaimed in the presence of the court and the parties to the case. Article 811 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure stated that “the solution of each question must consist of an affirmative “yes” or a negative “no” with the addition of the word that contains the essence of the answer. So, to the questions: has a crime been committed? Is the defendant guilty? Did he act with intent? affirmative answers, respectively, should be: “Yes, it happened. Yes, guilty. Yes, with intent." However, it should be noted that the jurors had the right to raise the issue of leniency. Thus, Article 814 of the Charter stated that “if, on the question raised by the jurors themselves about whether the defendant deserves leniency, there are six affirmative votes, then the foreman of the jury adds to these answers: “The defendant deserves leniency due to the circumstances of the case.” The decision of the jurors was heard standing. If the jury declared the defendant not guilty, then the presiding judge declared him free, and if the defendant was held in custody, he was subject to immediate release. In the event of a guilty verdict by the jury, the presiding judge in the case invited the prosecutor or private prosecutor to express his opinion regarding the punishment and other consequences of the jury finding the defendant guilty.

The gradual, systematic spread of the principles and institutions of the Judicial Charters of 1864 throughout all the provinces of Russia continued until 1884. Thus, as early as 1866, judicial reform was introduced in 10 provinces of Russia. Unfortunately, the trial with the participation of jurors on the outskirts of the Russian Empire never began to operate.

This can be explained by the following reasons: the introduction of the Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire would require not only significant funds, which simply were not in the treasury, but also the necessary personnel, which were more difficult to find than finances. To do this, the king instructed a special commission to develop a plan for the introduction of the Judicial Charters into action. V. P. Butkov, who previously headed the commission that drafted the Judicial Charters, was appointed chairman. S. I. Zarudny, N. A. Butskovsky and other well-known lawyers at that time became members of the commission.

The commission did not come to a unanimous decision. Some demanded the introduction of the Judicial Charters immediately in 31 Russian provinces (with the exception of Siberian, western and eastern lands). According to these members of the commission, it was necessary to open new courts immediately, but in smaller numbers of judges, prosecutors and judicial officials. The opinion of this group was supported by the Chairman of the State Council P. P. Gagarin.

The second, larger group of commission members (8 people) proposed the introduction of Judicial Statutes in a limited area, first 10 central provinces, but which will immediately have the entire full complement of persons both exercising judicial power and guaranteeing the normal functioning of the court - prosecutors, officials judiciary, jurors.

The second group was supported by the Minister of Justice D.N. Zamyatin, and it was this plan that formed the basis for the introduction of the Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire. The arguments of the second group took into account not only the financial component (there was never enough money for reforms in Russia, which explains their slow progress), but also the lack of personnel. There was rampant illiteracy in the country, and those who had a higher legal education were so few that they were not enough to implement the Judicial Reform.

Hood. N. Kasatkin. "In the corridor of the district court", 1897

The adoption of the new court showed not only its advantages in relation to the pre-reform court, but also revealed some of its shortcomings.

In the course of further transformations aimed at bringing a number of institutions of the new court, including those with the participation of jurors, into line with other state institutions (researchers sometimes call them judicial counter-reform), while at the same time correcting the shortcomings of the Judicial Charters of 1864 that have come to light in practice, not a single of the institutions has not undergone as many changes as the court with the participation of jurors. So, for example, soon after Vera Zasulich was acquitted by a jury trial, all criminal cases related to crimes against the state system, attempts on government officials, resistance to state authorities (that is, cases of a political nature), as well as cases of malfeasance. Thus, the state reacted quite quickly to the acquittal of the jurors, which caused a great public outcry, found V. Zasulich not guilty and, in fact, justified the terrorist act. This was explained by the fact that the state understood the full danger of justifying terrorism and did not want a repetition of this, since impunity for such crimes would give rise to more and more crimes against the state, government and statesmen.

Military reform

Changes in the social structure of Russian society showed the need to reorganize the existing army. Military reforms are associated with the name of D. A. Milyutin, who was appointed Minister of War in 1861.

Unknown artist, 2nd half of the 19th century "Portrait of D. A. Milyutin"

First of all, Milyutin introduced a system of military districts. In 1864, 15 districts were created covering the entire territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the conscription and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief of the district, who was also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. The military district had a district headquarters, quartermaster, artillery, engineering, military medical departments, and an inspector of military hospitals. Under the commander, a Military Council was formed.

In 1867, a military judicial reform took place, which reflected some of the provisions of the judicial charters of 1864.

A three-level system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and the main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction about the same as the magistrate's court. Large and medium-sized cases were under the jurisdiction of the military district courts. The highest court of appeal and review was the chief military court.

The main achievements of the Judicial Reform of the 60s - the Judicial Charters of November 20, 1864 and the Military Judicial Charter of May 15, 1867, divided all courts into higher and lower.

The lower ones included magistrates and their congresses in the civil department, regimental courts in the military department. To the highest: in the civil department - district courts, judicial chambers and cassation departments of the Governing Senate; in the military department - the military district courts and the Main Military Court.

Hood. I. Repin "Seeing the recruit", 1879

Regimental courts had a special arrangement. Their judicial power did not extend to the territory, but to a circle of persons, since they were established under the regiments and other units, the commanders of which used the power of the regimental commander. When changing the dislocation of the unit, the court was also relocated.

The regimental court is a government court, since its members were not elected, but appointed by the administration. It partly preserved the class character - it included only staff and chief officers, and only the lower ranks of the regiment were under jurisdiction.

The power of the regimental court was wider than the power of the justice of the peace (the most severe punishment is solitary confinement in a military prison for lower ranks who do not enjoy special rights of states, for those who have such rights - punishments not related to limitation or loss), but he also considered relatively minor offenses.

The composition of the court was collegiate - the chairman and two members. All of them were appointed by the authority of the commander of the corresponding unit under the control of the head of the division. There were two conditions for appointment, apart from political reliability: at least two years of military service and integrity in court. The chairman was appointed for one year, the members - for six months. The chairman and members of the court were released from the performance of their official duties in their main position only for the duration of the sessions.

The regimental commander was in charge of supervising the activities of the regimental court, he also considered and made decisions on complaints about its activities. Regimental courts considered the case almost immediately on the merits, but at the direction of the regimental commander, if necessary, they themselves could conduct a preliminary investigation. The verdicts of the regimental court came into force after their approval by the same regimental commander.

The regimental courts, like the justices of the peace, were not in direct contact with the higher military courts, and only in exceptional cases their sentences could still be appealed to the military district court in a manner similar to that of appeal.

Military district courts were established in each military district. They included a chairman and military judges. The Main Military Court performed the same functions as the Cassation Department for Criminal Cases of the Senate. It was planned to create under him two territorial branches in Siberia and the Caucasus. The composition of the Chief Military Court included the chairman and members.

The procedure for appointing and rewarding judges, as well as material well-being determined the independence of judges, but this did not mean their complete irresponsibility. But this responsibility was based on the law, and not on the arbitrariness of the authorities. It could be disciplinary and criminal.

Disciplinary liability came for omissions in office that were not a crime or misdemeanor, after a mandatory trial in the form of a warning. After three warnings within a year, in the event of a new violation, the perpetrator was subject to a criminal court. The judge was subject to him for any misconduct and crimes. It was possible to deprive the title of judge, including the world one, only by a court verdict.

In the military department, these principles, designed to ensure the independence of judges, were only partially implemented. When appointed to judicial positions, in addition to the general requirements for a candidate, a certain rank was also required. The chairman of the district military court, the chairman and members of the Main Military Court and its branches were to have the rank of general, the members of the military district court were to be staff officers.

The procedure for appointment to positions in the military courts was purely administrative. The Minister of War selected candidates, and then they were appointed by order of the emperor. Members and the chairman of the Main Military Court were appointed only personally by the head of state.

In procedural terms, military judges were independent, but they had to comply with the requirements of the charters in matters of rank. Also, all military judges were subordinate to the Minister of War.

The right of irremovability and non-movability, as in the civil department, was enjoyed only by judges of the Main Military Court. The chairmen and judges of the military district courts could be moved from one to another without their consent by order of the Minister of War. Removal from office and dismissal from service without a petition was carried out by order of the Chief Military Court, including without a verdict in a criminal case.

In military justice, there was no jury institution; instead, the institution of temporary members was established, something in between jurymen and military judges. They were appointed for a period of six months, and not to consider a specific case. The appointment was carried out by the Chief Commander of the military district according to a general list compiled on the basis of lists of units. In this list, officers were placed in order of seniority. According to this list, the appointment was made (that is, there was no choice, even the Chief Commander of the military district could not deviate from this list). Temporary members of the military district courts were released from official duties for all six months.

In the military district court, temporary members, on an equal footing with the judge, decided all issues of legal proceedings.

Both civil and military district courts, due to the large jurisdictional territory, could create temporary meetings to consider cases in areas far removed from the location of the court itself. In the civil department, the decision was made by the district court itself. In the military department - Chief of the military district.

The formation of military courts, both permanent and temporary, took place on the basis of orders from military officials, who also had a significant influence on the formation of its composition. In cases necessary for the authorities, permanent courts were replaced by special presences or commissions, and often by certain officials (commanders, governors-general, the minister of the interior).

Supervision of the activities of military courts (up to the approval of their sentences) belonged to the executive authorities represented by the regiment commander, district commanders, the minister of war and the monarch himself.

In practice, the class criterion for staffing the composition of the court and organizing the trial was preserved, there were serious deviations from the principle of competition, the right to defense, etc.

The 60s of the 19th century are characterized by a whole range of changes that have taken place in the social and state system.

The reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, starting with the peasant reform, opened the way for the development of capitalism. Russia has taken a major step towards transforming an absolute feudal monarchy into a bourgeois one.

Judicial reform pursues quite consistently the bourgeois principles of the judiciary and process. The military reform introduces an all-class universal conscription.

At the same time, the liberal dreams of a constitution remain only dreams, and the hopes of zemstvo leaders for the crowning of the zemstvo system by all-Russian bodies are met with resolute opposition from the monarchy.

In the development of law, certain shifts are also noticeable, although smaller ones. The peasant reform dramatically expanded the range of civil rights of the peasant, his civil legal capacity. The judicial reform fundamentally changed the procedural law of Russia.

Thus, large-scale in nature and consequences, the reforms marked significant changes in all aspects of the life of Russian society. The era of reforms in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century was great, since the autocracy for the first time took a step towards society, and society supported the authorities.

At the same time, one can come to the unequivocal conclusion that with the help of the reforms, all the goals set were not achieved: the situation in society was not only not discharged, but was also supplemented with new contradictions. All this in the next period will lead to enormous upheavals.