Alexander's financial reform 2 meaning. Alexander's reforms2: judicial, military, education and press, financial. Values. What reforms have been carried out

In politics, as in all social life, not moving forward means being thrown back.
Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

Alexander 2 went down in history as a reformer. During his reign, significant changes took place in Russia, the main of which concerns the solution of the peasant question. In 1861, Alexander II abolished serfdom. Such a cardinal step was long overdue, but its implementation was associated with large quantity complexities. The abolition of serfdom required the emperor to carry out other reforms that were supposed to return Russia to a leading position on the world stage. A huge number of problems have accumulated in the country that have not been resolved since the era of Alexander 1 and Nicholas 1. The new emperor had to place great emphasis on solving these problems, carrying out largely liberal reforms, since the previous path of conservatism did not lead to positive consequences.

The main reasons for reforming Russia

Alexander 2 came to power in 1855, and he immediately faced an acute problem in carrying out reforms in almost all spheres of state life. The main reasons for the reforms of the era of Alexander 2 are as follows:

Defeat in the Crimean War.
Growing public discontent.
Losing economic competition to Western countries.
Progressive entourage of the emperor.

Most of the transformations were carried out in the period 1860 - 1870. They went down in history under the name "liberal reforms of Alexander 2". Today, the word "liberal" often scares people, but in fact it was in this era that the basic principles of the functioning of the state were laid down, which lasted until the end of the existence of the Russian Empire. Here it is also important to understand that even though the previous era was called the "apogee of autocracy", it was flattery. Nicholas 1 drank victory in Patriotic War, and seeming dominance over European countries. He was afraid to make significant changes in Russia. Therefore, the country actually reached a dead end, and his son Alexander 2 was forced to solve the gigantic problems of the Empire.

What reforms have been carried out

We have already said that major reform Alexander 2 is the abolition of serfdom. It was this transformation that put the country in front of the need to modernize all other areas. Briefly, the main changes were as follows.

Financial reform 1860 - 1864. A state bank, zemstvo and commercial banks are being created. The activity of banks was mainly aimed at supporting industry. AT Last year the implementation of reforms, control bodies are created, independent from local governments, which audit the financial activities of government bodies.

Zemstvo reform of 1864. With its help, the problem of attracting broad masses people to solve everyday problems. Elective bodies of zemstvo and local self-government were created.

Judicial Reform of 1864. After the reform, the court became more "legal". Under Alexander 2, a jury trial was first introduced, publicity, the ability to bring any person to court, regardless of his position, the independence of the court from local administrations, corporal punishment was abolished, and much more.

Education reform of 1864. This reform completely changed the system that Nicholas 1 tried to build, who sought to delimit the population from knowledge. Alexander 2 promoted the principle of public education, which would be accessible to all classes. For this, new primary schools and gymnasiums. In particular, it was in the Alexander era that the opening of a women's gymnasium began and women were admitted to public service.

1865 censorship reform. These changes absolutely supported the previous course. As before, control was exercised over everything that is published, since the activities of a revolutionary nature in Russia were extremely active.

City reform of 1870. It was mainly directed to the improvement of cities, the development of markets, health care, education, the establishment of sanitary standards, and so on. Reforms were introduced in 509 cities out of 1130 that were in Russia. The reform was not applied to cities located in Poland, Finland and Central Asia.

Military reform of 1874. It was mainly directed to the modernization of weapons, the development of the fleet and the training of personnel. As a result Russian army again became one of the leading in the world.

Consequences of the reforms

The reforms of Alexander 2 had the following consequences for Russia:

Prospects for building a capitalist model of the economy have been created. The level of state regulation of the economy was reduced in the country, and a free labor market was created. However, the industry was not 100% ready to accept the capitalist model. This required more time.
The foundations for the formation of civil society have been laid. The population received more civil rights and freedoms. This applies to all areas of activity, from education to real freedom of movement and work.
Strengthening of the opposition movement. The main part of the reforms of Alexander 2 were liberal, so the liberal movements, which were ranked by Nicholas the First, began to gain strength again. It was in this era that the key aspects that led to the events of 1917 were laid.

Defeat in the Crimean War as a rationale for reforms

Russia lost the Crimean War for several reasons:

Lack of communications. Russia is a huge country and it is very difficult to move an army across it. Nicholas 1 began the construction of a railway to solve this problem, but this project was not implemented due to banal corruption. The money intended for the construction of the railway connecting Moscow and the Black Sea region was simply cut off.
Discord in the army. Soldiers and officers did not understand each other. Between them there was a whole abyss, both class and educational. The situation was aggravated by the fact that Nicholas 1 demanded severe punishment for soldiers for any offense. It is from here that the nickname of the Emperor among the soldiers comes - "Nikolai Palkin".
Military-technical lag behind Western countries.

Today, many historians say that the scale of the defeat in the Crimean War was simply gigantic, and this is the main factor indicating that Russia needed reforms. This idea is supported and supported, including in Western countries. After the capture of Sevastopol, all European publications wrote that autocracy had outlived itself in Russia, and the country needed changes. But the main problem lay elsewhere. In 1812 Russia won great victory. This victory created an absolute illusion among the emperors that the Russian army was invincible. And so the Crimean War dispelled this illusion, the Western armies demonstrate their superiority in technical terms. All this led to the fact that officials, who pay great attention to the opinion from abroad, accepted the national inferiority complex and began to try to transmit it to the entire population.

But the truth is that the extent of the defeat in the war is grossly overestimated. Of course, the war was lost, but this does not mean that Alexander 2 ruled a weak Empire. It must be remembered that in the Crimean War, Russia was opposed by the best and most developed countries of Europe at that time. And despite this, England and its other allies still recall with horror this war and the valor of Russian soldiers.

In order to modernize the financial system of the Russian Empire, which was supposed to correspond to the new (capitalist) type of economy. The draft of the transformations was prepared by the state controller V. A. Tatarinov.

The implementation of reforms began on May 22, 1862 with the introduction of the "Rules on the preparation, consideration and execution of the state list and financial estimates of ministries and main departments." The first step was the introduction of the principle of transparency into finance and the beginning of the publication of the state budget. The departments received requests for the preparation of detailed reports and estimates explaining all expenditures of funds and available for public viewing. This measure was aimed at minimizing embezzlement. The general outline of the state budget was subject to approval by the State Council and the emperor and henceforth had the force of law.

Modernization fundamentally reorganized the state financial system, making it more open and more efficient. Strict accounting of the state budget has put the economy on new way development, corruption decreased, the treasury was spent on important items and events, officials became more responsible for managing money. Thanks to the new system, the state was able to overcome the crisis and mitigate the negative consequences peasant reform.

Reforms of 1860 - 1870s
Russia in 1855 - 1881

The financial reforms of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century laid the foundation for the subsequent economic boom in the second half of the 19th century.

Financial reform 1860-1864

Before all, even before the abolition of serfdom, the financial system reform, which found itself in an extremely deplorable and upset state after an expensive Crimean War (1853-1856).

A prominent Russian economist and a brilliant expert on the financial system, Secretary of State, played a major role in carrying out this reform. V.A. Tatarinov, at the suggestion of which, for the revival of industry and trade in May 1860AlexanderII signed Decree about the creation State Bank, to which all the deposits of the abolished credit institutions were transferred - Borrowed and Commercial banks, Accounts Chamber and others. Besides, National Bank received the pre-emptive right to lend to all industrial and commercial enterprises, as well as targeted government programs.

At the same time, based on disappointing data tax commission, in September 1860 AlexanderII signed Decree"On the abolition of private farms", according to which January 1863 throughout the country canceled the old ransom and introduced a new excise system for collecting indirect taxes. The introduction of a new system of state excises was of great positive significance, since huge sums of money from the tight pockets of private tax-farmers suddenly flowed into the emaciated state treasury.

AT 1862 to centralize the entire financial system of the country, at the suggestion of the same V. Tatarinova issued another Imperial Decree, according to which: 1. The only manager of all state revenues and expenditures was Ministry of Finance Russian Empire; 2. The entire state budget was to be approved by State Council, and list of government revenues and expenditures published in the press; 3. All activities Ministry of Finance became accountable State Control Department, whose new chairman, in the rank of minister, was appointed a real Privy Councilor V. Tatarinov.

AT 1864 for the development of this reform in all provinces of the country were created control chambers, independent of the local administration and subordinate state controller.

Rice. 1. Monograph dedicated to the reforms of Tatarinov ()

Unfortunately, financial reformV. Tatarinova(Fig. 2) did not affect the archaic tax system created by PeterI, and poll tax was canceled only May 1882 Therefore, the main share of all state taxes was still paid only by taxable estates of the Russian Empire.

Rice. 2. Tatarinov V. ()

Local Government Reforms

AT 1864-1870 government AlexandraII carried out a reform of local government, which since the publication "Letter of Letters to Cities" in 1785 remained virtually unchanged. As part of these transformations, first zemstvo, and then urban reform.

a) Zemstvo reform of 1864

Also in March 1859 at Ministry of the Interior a commission was set up to draft the law "On economic and administrative management in the county" which was headed ON THE. Milyutin. At the same time, the members of the commission were strictly pointed out that the projected local governments in no way should not go beyond purely economic functions, i.e., the reform of local government was based on theory of "community self-government", whose authors were I. Gneist, G. Stein and other prominent representatives of the German law school.

AT April 1860 N. Milyutin introduced AlexanderII project "Temporary rules on local government", which was built on principles of election and non-association. However, in April 1861 under pressure from reactionary court circles N. Milyutin and his boss, Count S. Lanskoy, were dismissed, and the new head Ministry of the Interior was appointed Pavel Alexandrovich Valuev who had more conservative views. As an ardent defender of corporate privileges and the rights of the nobility, P. Valuev still did not dare to go for the elimination of the basic principles zemstvo reform- electoral and non-estate. But he managed to change the system of elections to zemstvo institutions in favor of the landowning nobility and the big bourgeoisie.

To March 1863 project "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" was prepared and submitted for discussion in State Council, after the approval of which January 1, 1864 AlexanderII signed it and it received the force of law.

Regarding this "Regulation" in all the Great Russian provinces of the Russian Empire, land institutions, which consisted of administrative(county and provincial zemstvo assemblies) and executive(county and provincialzemstvo councils) organs. Both of them were elected for a three-year term. However, the electoral system was quite confusing.

Rice. 3. Postcard with views of Moscow ()

Elections of deputies of county zemstvo assemblies elected by the population were carried out on the basis of property qualification and three curiae: 1. To the first curia belonged county landowners who had at least 200 acresland, or owners real estate in 15 thousand rubles or those landowners whose annual income exceeded 6 thousand rubles; 2. The second curia was merchants of all three guilds, as well as owners urban real estate valued at 2 thousand rubles or commercial and industrial establishments with an annual turnover of more than 6 thousand rubles; 3. Third curia - elected from rural societies- were represented by officials of the rural and volost administration. According to this curia, unlike the first two, the elections were not direct, but multistage: rural gathering elected representatives for parish gathering, electors were elected there, and then county electoral convention elected deputies (vowels) in county assembly. chairmen provincial and zemstvo district assemblies, in accordance with the law, were the leaders of the county and provincial nobility.

Elections in provincial zemstvo assemblies took place on county zemstvo assemblies at the rate of one provincial vowel for six county vowels. Therefore, in provincial zemstvo assemblies the predominance of nobles was even greater: 74% vowels against 10% peasant deputies. provincial and county governments were elected to zemstvo meetings. Chairman county government the governor said, provincial government- Minister of Internal Affairs. In the executive bodies of the zemstvos, the predominance of nobles was overwhelming: in the counties - 55%, and in the provinces 89%.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions, and the scope of their activities was limited exclusively economic issues local importance. But even such a meager activity of the zemstvos was placed under the vigilant control of provincial and central government bodies. Any decision of the zemstvo assemblies could be canceled by the governor or the minister of the interior. It is no coincidence that many politicians that time, in particular M. Katkov and V. Ulyanov (Lenin) called zemstvos "the fifth wheel in the cart of the Russian government controlled» .

b) City reform of 1870

AT July 1862 AlexanderII instructed the Minister of the Interior P. Valuev start developing a new "City position". To this end, in 509 cities of the European part of Russia, special commissions were created, the materials of which formed the basis for the draft of a new "City position", which in 1864 presented to the emperor. This project was first submitted to coding committee, and then, in March 1866, he was included in State Council where it was considered for several years. Only June 16, 1870 project "City position" has been approved AlexanderII and acquired the force of law.

Rice. 4. Bryansk in the XIX century ()

In line with the new "Regulations" in 509 cities of the Russian Empire, new all-estate administrative bodies of city government were introduced - city councils elected for four years. City dumas elected for the same term permanent executive bodies - city councils as part of mayor, his deputy and several members. At the same time, the mayor was the chairman as City Council, and city government. In major provincial cities mayor approved by the Minister of the Interior, and in county towns - by the governor. To control the city government under the chairmanship of the governor were created provincial offices for city affairs.

Only the owners of urban real estate had the right to vote in the bodies of city self-government, who, depending on the amount of the total tax, were divided into more than three curia. Each curia elected the same number of vowels, although their numbers varied greatly. For example, in Petersburg left the first curia 275 voters, the second curia - 850 voters, etc.

The competence of city self-government, as well as Zemstvo, was limited by a decision purely economic issues: improvement of cities, care for the development of urban industry, trade, health, education, etc. However, city self-government was placed under even tighter control by the state authorities. Beyond approval mayor, the minister of internal affairs and the governor could cancel any decision of the city dumas.

city councils and councils did not have coercive authorities and, in order to carry out their decisions, they had to resort to the help of the police, which was subordinate to the mayors and governors, who had real power in the cities.

Later, in 1874-1877 city government was built on the same principles in 202 cities of Little Russia, Belarus, the Baltic states and Transcaucasia.

Judicial reform of 1864

Training judicial reform started in October 1861, when AlexanderII instructed State Chancellery start developing "The main provisions of the transformation of the judiciary in Russia". Major Russian lawyers were involved in the preparation of this reform, including K.P. Pobedonostsev, YES. Rovinsky, N.I. Stoyanovskiy and Count D.N. fornication who after death MM. Speransky, with 1839 led IIBranchImperial office. However, the most significant role in the preparation of judicial reform was played by the Secretary of State State CouncilS.I. Zarudny, Minister of Justice DI. Zamyatin and chairman of the law department State Council prince P.P. Gagarin.

After discussing projects "Judicial statutes" in State Council, in September 1862 they were sent for recall to Russian and foreign universities, and then, after their approval State Council, November 20, 1864AlexanderII approved these "Statutes", among which the most important were "Institutions of Judicial Establishments", "Charter of Criminal Proceedings", "Charter of Civil Proceedings" and "Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace".

In accordance with the new "judicial statutes" in 44 provinces The Russian Empire created a classless court, independent of state authorities, based on the irremovability of judges and forensic investigators, equality of all classes before the law, competition and publicity of the trial with the participation of jurors and a lawyer. The number of court instances was significantly reduced, and their competence was strictly delineated (Fig. 5).

Rice. 5. During the break of the court session ()

The entire judiciary was local and general courts:

local courts divided into: 1. Urban and countymagistrates' courts who were courts Iauthorities and were created to consider minor civil claims and minor administrative offenses. Magistrate's Court who was directly subordinate to Ministry of Justice, functioned as part of justice of the peace, without jurors and lawyer with simplified workflow. 2. County Congress of Justices of the Peace was the court IIauthorities who could overturn all illegal decisions world judge.

General courts consisted of root court, consisting of two instances - District Court(courtIauthorities) and Court of Justice (CourtIIauthorities). District Court consisting of a chairman and two members, he acted in each judicial district and consisted of a prosecutor, his deputies, judicial investigators and lawyers. The District Court was General Presence and departments on criminal and civil affairs.District Court were subject to all civil and all (with the exception of especially serious) criminal cases. Decisions taken District Court with jurors, could be appealed only in cassation, i.e. in Senate, and the sentences passed District Court without participation jurors, appealed to Judicial Chamber.Trial Chamber consisting of the chairman, three judges and three estate representatives (leader of the nobility, mayor and volost foreman) functioned within several judicial districts. As part of Judicial Chamber were General Presence and criminal departments and civil affairs, who considered especially important criminal and almost all political cases. Its decisions were considered final and could only be appealed in cassation to Senate. Chairs and members Judicial chambers and district courts approved personally by the emperor. They could only be persons with a higher legal education and work experience of at least five years.

The most important political cases were considered Supreme Criminal Court, which did not function on a permanent basis and was appointed personally by the king in exceptional cases. Such cases in the second half XIXin. turned out to be only two, and both of them were connected with the assassination attempt AlexandraII - the case of D.V. Karakozova (1866) and the case of A.K. Solovyov (1879).

The highest court for all courts was Governing Senate (courtIIIauthorities), in the composition special presence and cassation departments for criminal and civil cases. He could overrule the decisions of any court (except Supreme Criminal), and, without considering cases on the merits, return them for secondary consideration to lower courts. Headed Senate Attorney General, who was also the Minister of Justice.

In accordance with the new "judicial statutes" created for the first time in Russia jury trial who attended only the meetings district courts and took out verdict on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The specific measure of punishment, with a positive verdict of the jury, was determined only by the judges.

Supervision of the courts of general jurisdiction was carried out by the Chief Prosecutor Senate prosecutors and their deputies, who were part of the staff Ministry of Justice and were subordinate to the head of the ministry, who was also the prosecutor general Senate. Simultaneously with the reform of the prosecutor's office, institute of sworn attorneys (advocacy) who, on an equal footing with prosecutors, participated in the trial.

Military reform 1862-1874

The main reasons that prompted the government AlexandraII start wide-ranging military reforms were: 1. Russian defeat in Crimean War, which exposed all the viciousness of the old recruiting system of recruiting troops and the military-technical backwardness of the Russian army; 2. Huge expenditures of the state budget for the maintenance of the largest, two million strong army in the world; 3. A significant increase in the expansionist sentiments of the great world powers and their rearmament with the latest technology.

Rice. 6. Officer of the Russian army in the 60s of the XIX century. ()

Back in the period Crimean War, in July 1855, was created "Commission for the improvement of the military" which was headed by the Minister of War, General F.V. Rediger. However, real military reforms began only in late 1861 when a general was appointed to the post of Minister of War Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin.

AT January 1862 he introduced AlexanderII a program of military transformations, which provided for a significant reduction in the armed forces in peacetime and the creation of a powerful reserve in case of war, a radical reorganization of the command and control system and the training of officers (Fig. 6). After discussing this program in State Council its gradual implementation began.

AT 1863-1864 the entire system of military educational institutions. Younger officers began to undergo general military training in the former cadet corps, which were transformed into military gymnasiums. The middle officers received professional education in military schools. And for the teaching of special military education (for cavalrymen, engineers and artillerymen) were created junker schools. Senior officers underwent retraining and education at higher educational institutions - the Academy of the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, Military Medical and Military Law Academies. At the same time, the rearmament of the Russian army with the latest types of small arms and artillery began. In particular, in 1864-1868 for changing smoothbore rifle sample 1810 comes rifled rifle American designer X. Berdan sample 1862, which was considered the best small arms in the world.

AT August 1864 was published "Regulations on military districts", in accordance with which the entire command and control system in the field was radically rebuilt. The entire territory of the Russian Empire was divided into 15 military regions headed by the commanders of the districts, to whom the entire military district administration was directly subordinate (headquarters, council, district office) and the entire local military structure.

Then, in the second half of the 1860s, the reorganization of the central military administration began. First, in 1866 on the base Main Directorate of the General Staff and military inspection department was created Main Headquarters, the head of which, personally appointed by the emperor, became the first deputy minister of war, to whose jurisdiction all issues of operational command and control of troops, their recruitment, deployment, etc. were transferred. Secondly, in 1869 was published "Regulations onWar Ministry", in accordance with which the Ministry included the Imperial Headquarters, the Imperial Military Camping Office, the Military Council, the General Staff, the Office of the Minister of War, etc. In addition, the powers of the Minister of War were significantly expanded, and all branches of military administration were transferred to his subordination , which previously had a privileged value and reported directly to the emperor: guard, artillery and engineering troops.

On the at the turn of the 1860-1870s. with active participation D. Milyutina and prominent military theorists generals M.I. Dragomirova, N.N. Obruchev and G.A. Leer but qualitative changes were made to military theory and fundamentally new regulations were created, in particular "Disciplinary Charter" (1869) and "Charter of the internal service" (1871).

All these transformations significantly increased the combat readiness of the Russian army. However, a radical reorganization of military affairs could be carried out only if the recruiting system for manning the army was replaced by universal military service. AT 1870 general D. Milyutin introduced AlexanderII report on the introduction of all-class military service, which received the highest approval. Soon a special Commission to prepare a new military regulations, and in 1873 D. Milyutin submitted a draft "Charter on military service" for consideration in State Council. The discussion around this project was extremely heated. The most active opponents of the introduction of universal military service were the Governor-General of the Caucasus, Field Marshal A.I. Baryatinsky, chief Separate Corps of Gendarmes general P.A. Shuvalov, chief prosecutor Holy Synod graph YES. Tolstoy and even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chancellor Prince A.M. Gorchakov. However AlexanderII, recognizing the need to continue military reforms, strongly supported General D. Milyutina and January 1, 1874 approved a new "Charter on military service". Regarding this Charter All Russian armed forces were divided into four types: regular army and fleet, irregular (Cossack) troops,reserve troops and militia. Military service extended to the entire Orthodox male population who had reached 21 years of age, without distinction of classes. For land regular troops, a six-year period of validity was established. military service. Those who served this term were discharged into a nine-year reserve, after which they were enrolled in the militia until 40 years of age. For the fleet, a seven-year term of active military service and a three-year term of stay in the reserve were established.

The introduction of universal military service was of great importance for increasing the combat capability of the Russian army. It allowed to significantly reduce its number to 750 thousand bayonets and cavalry and quickly mobilize the army with reservists and militias in the event of a war.

Political reform and its collapse

The first timid attempt to modernize the political regime in Russia was made in late 1861,AlexanderII instructed the new Minister of the Interior, General P. Valuev prepare a draft "The New Establishment of the State Council", in which it was supposed to create an elected lower house - Congress of state vowels consisting of representatives provincial zemstvos and city councils. AT February 1862 AlexanderII approved this project, and it was sent for discussion to the noble assemblies. However, in early 1863 under pressure from influential conservatives, the emperor abandoned this project, which, according to a number of historians (V. Chernukha), would have turned The State Council is like a bicameral parliament.

Then the idea of popular representation was raised more than once in government circles, not only by liberals, but also by conservatives, in particular by the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich (1866), graph P. Shuvalov (1873), secretary of state A. Polovtsev (1877) and others.

The last attempt to introduce constitutional government in Russia was made in February 1880, when after another assassination attempt AlexanderII established "Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection of State Order and Public Peace", chaired by General Mikhail Tarielovich Loris-Melikov. This commission was given emergency powers to deal with revolutionary movement and terrorist organizations in the country. It is in the bowels Supreme Administrative Commission a new draft of political reform was prepared - the so-called "Constitution of Loris-Melikov", after which in August 1880 it was dissolved, and the general M. Loris-Melikov occupied the key positions of Minister of the Interior and chief Separate Corps of Gendarmes.

AT January 1881M. Loris-Melikov introduced AlexanderII report summarizing the activities Supreme Administrative Commission and laid out a blueprint for a new political reform. According to this project, it was supposed: 1. Create at State Council two preparatory commissions on financial and administrative issues from representatives of zemstvos and city dumas, which were supposed to develop new projects zemstvo and city "Regulations"; 2. Enter into composition State Council 10-15 representatives zemstvo and city administration for consideration, discussion and adoption of these bills.

AT mid-February 1881 AlexanderII encouraged the project M. Loris-Melikova and appointed to March 4 joint meeting State Council and Committee of Ministers. However March 1, 1881 the reformer tsar was killed by terrorists, and Russia forever lost its historical chance to become a constitutional monarchy.

References on the topic "Reforms of 1860 - 1870s":

Zayonchkovsky P.A. Military reforms of the 1860s-1870s in Russia. - M., 1952.
Zayonchkovsky P.A. The crisis of autocracy at the turn of the 1870-1880s. - M., 1964.
Korotkikh M.G. Autocracy and Judicial Reform of 1864 in Russia. - M., 1989.
Lapteva L.E. Zemstvo institutions in Russia. - M., 1993.
Lyashenko L.M. Tsar-liberator6 life and deeds of Alexander II. - M., 1994.
Lyashenko L.M. Alexander II: victory and tragedy. - M., 2011.
Tolmachev E.P. Alexander II and his time. - M., 1998.
Troitsky N.A. Story Russia XIX century. - M., 2003.
Eidelman N.Ya. Revolution from above in Russia. - M., 1989.
Chernukha V.G. Domestic politics tsarism from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s. 19th century - M., 1978.

"Skepsis" - scientific and educational journal ().
Internet portal KM.ru ().
Internet portal Radiolubite.narod.ru ().
Internet portal REF.RF().
Central Scientific Library ().

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on www.allbest.ru

Introduction

Reform of the budget and state control

Cancellation of wine leases

Conclusion

List of used sources and literature

reform financial Alexander payoff

Introduction

The second half of the 19th century in Russia is the time when the need for transformations in society became obvious, both for the people and for the ruling circles. In the 1860s and 70s, peasant, financial, judicial, zemstvo, military, as well as education and press reforms were carried out. The most famous was the peasant reform of 1861. This can be explained by the fact that the peasant question in Russian society was one of the most painful, both from an economic and political point of view. But against its background, the significance of other reforms cannot be belittled, because transformations in the country could not be carried out only in one area of life, but a significant revision of views and laws affecting other areas was required. One such area that has long needed serious reforms was the economy. Corruption and bureaucracy reigned in Russia, free peasant labor was widely used, all this hindered the economic development of the country.

Financial reform was gradual, complex and controversial. The transformation in the country did not take place in one day, and not even in one year. A number of laws that affected taxation, the monetary system, and banking activities can be attributed to the financial reform: wine farming was abolished, a monetary reform took place, soft loans were no longer issued to the nobles, the railway network expanded, etc. Not all of these transformations were successful, but there is no doubt that they gave impetus to the Russian economy for the transition from the feudal to the capitalist way of life.

Analysis of historiography sources

There are completely different opinions about the financial reform of Alexander II. This can be explained by the fact that scientists dealt with this problem while living in different countries, in different time under different political regimes. In my work, I considered the points of view of three modern Russian scientists (A.G. Kolomiets, T.E. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakova), three foreign scientists who participated in a scientific conference on the Great Reforms at the University of Pennsylvania in 1989 (D. Christian, S. Hawk, P. Gotrell) and the Soviet scientist A.P. Pogrebinsky.

THOSE. Novitskaya and O.I. Chistyakova assess the reform positively. In the introductory article to their book “The Reforms of Alexander II,” they write: “In the works of most scientists who studied the reforms, and politicians who analyzed them, dissatisfaction with the half-heartedness and inconsistency of reforms slips. But reform is not revolution. Therefore, when evaluating the reforms, one can only say that they opened the way for the gradual, rather slow development of Russia along the capitalist path. THOSE. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakov "Reforms of Alexander II", M. Publishing House of Legal Literature 1998, p. 16 They attach special importance to V.A. Tatarinov - the author of the reform.

A.G. Kolomiets, the author of the article “The Burden of the “Great Reforms”: Russia's Finances in the Reign of Alexander II”, does not give an unambiguous assessment, he describes and analyzes various laws separately. For example, he calls state support for joint-stock companies "a bitter experience", but at the same time he does not deny the favorable impact of these on the development of the country's economy. In my opinion, A.G. Kolomiets is one of the most objective authors, because he wrote his article based on facts and drawing logical conclusions, and not just retelling the opinions that were popular at this stage in the development of society.

In the book by A.P. Pogrebinsky "Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)" describes in sufficient detail the state of finance before and after the reforms, as well as the reform itself, and gives its full analysis. But this is done extremely biased, taking into account the Soviet ideology. He assesses the actions of the government as illogical, superficial, aimed at taking money from the people and nothing more. A.P. Pogrebinsky writes: “Summing up the general results, it should be noted that the bourgeois reform of finance, carried out in the early 60s, only to a small extent updated the completely outdated financial system. tsarist Russia, eliminated the greatest abnormalities of the old budgetary rules, created some, albeit far from complete, control over the expenditure of public funds. The tax system retained a number of serf remnants. The autocracy failed to achieve budgetary equilibrium. » A.P. Pogrebinsky "Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)", M. publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. 70

S. Hock speaks negatively about the financial reform, as well as about the economic situation in the country. He speaks particularly sharply about the redemption operation and the financing of railways: “It was the fateful decision of the autocracy to entrust transport development financing to the undeveloped private capital market, a decision that slowed down economic growth, raised interest rates, reduced the cost of redemption papers and burdened the peasants for decades. high annual payments. S. Hock “Banking Crisis, Peasant Reform and Redemption Operation in Russia. 1857 -1861 ", collection" Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874 "published by Moscow State University 1992, p. 104

P. Gotrell speaks ambiguously about the reform and emphasizes the need for a cautious attitude towards it. He believes that the reform was not a turning point, but was a natural result of the pre-reform economic recovery: "The reform coincided with a period of accelerated economic growth, and did not initiate it." P. Gotrell “The Significance of the Great Reforms in the History of the Russian Economy”, collection “Great Reforms in Russia 1856-1874”, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1992, p. 124

D. Christian, unlike his colleagues at the conference, evaluates the reform positively, he attaches special importance to the abolition of wine taxation, comparing the Russian taxation system with the French one. He believes that the reform had not only economic, but also social significance, such as reducing alcohol consumption by the population, fighting corruption, etc. In his opinion, “the reform meant the transition of society to more modern forms of state structure» D. Krischn “The Forgotten Reform: The Abolition of Wine Farming in Russia”, collection “Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874”, Moscow State University Publishing House 1992, p. 137. He characterizes the opinions of other historians as follows: “Fiscal reforms of this kind - far from the most exciting historical event, and when they also seem so ephemeral, they can simply get lost. It is quite understandable, therefore, that historians dealing with the period of the 60s of the last century usually did not study this reform, but concentrated their attention on other transformations. D. Krischn "Forgotten reform: the abolition of wine farming in Russia", collection "Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874" Publishing House of Moscow State University 1992, p. 127

Reform of the budget and state control bodies

In November 1858, at the direction of the Council of Ministers, led by Alexander II, a commission was created to restructure finances. AD Guryev was appointed its chairman. The commission included the initiator of the reform, V. A. Tatarinov, the Minister of Finance, A. M. Knyazhevich, and a number of other top dignitaries of pre-reform Russia.

Six months later, the Guryev Commission completed its activities, having approved the foundations for the transformation of the budgetary affairs, proposed by Tatarinov. The latter was also instructed to develop the adopted provisions and develop legislative and circular material necessary for the restructuring of the budget and budgeting and control bodies.

On May 22, 1862, Alexander II approved the new "Rules on the preparation, review, approval and execution of the state list and financial estimates of the Ministries and Main Departments", which primarily provided for the implementation of the principle of budgetary unity. Individual departments and ministries were asked to draw up estimates annually in the prescribed form. When approving estimates, it was necessary to take into account the results of budget execution in the previous year.

Before the financial reform, only the total amount of income and expenditure of each department and ministry was indicated in the state list. The distribution of these expenses for various needs was left to the discretion of the heads of departments. Funds were issued in gross amounts and kept in departmental cash desks. In contrast to such an order, which gave rise to complete lack of control and arbitrariness, the new rules required that each department and ministry submit detailed estimates with indication of individual articles and paragraphs. Thus, the Ministry of Finance was able to analyze and determine in more detail the amount of public funds spent on various needs. After the approval of the budget, the managers of the departments were obliged to strictly follow the approved nomenclature of expenditures. The budget list included all types of government revenues and expenditures. Special capitals and incomes were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of individual ministries and institutions and transferred only to the Ministry of Finance.

Along with budgetary unity, the commission developed practical measures leading to the implementation of the unity of the cash desk. All state revenues were concentrated in the cash offices of the state treasury. Expenses were made from the same cash desks in accordance with budget estimates and cash schedules. introduced throughout Russia one system budget accounting and reporting.

The implementation of the provisions developed by Tatarinov met with resistance from a number of departments and ministries who did not want to give up their own extra-budgetary capital and struggled to establish more effective control over the spending of public funds. The main opponents of any changes were the Minister of State Property M. N. Muravyov and the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count Tolstoy.

The special departmental cash desks that existed until then were abolished. Along with this, a new branched network of local cash desks of the state treasury was created. Fearing a sharp break in the existing financial system and carrying out all the reforms slowly, the tsarist government dragged out the planned transformation of the cash department for a number of years. At the direction of Alexander II in 1864, it was allowed only in the form of an experiment to implement the unity of the cash desk in St. Petersburg. In 1865, new cash rules were introduced in 12 provinces. The creation of a widely branched system of cash desks of the state treasury and the widespread reform of cash management throughout the empire were completed only by 1868.

In addition to budgetary and cash unity, the financial reform of 1862 proclaimed the principle of openness of the budget. The tsarist government was forced to take this step in order to increase Russia's creditworthiness in the international money market. The foreign banks, to which it turned more and more frequently, wanted to be aware of its financial affairs.

In a special presentation to the Finance Committee in February 1861, the Minister of Finance Kniazhevich explained the need to establish a public budget as follows: system, the rule is that the annual list of state revenues and expenditures be published annually by general note» A.P. Pogrebinsky “Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)”, Moscow publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. obligations assumed by the treasury, and that the government is steadily and in good faith striving to improve public finances.

The Finance Committee agreed with the opinion on the need to publish budget lists and in December 1861 adopted a special decision on this, which was then approved by Alexander II. Since 1862, the state budget became public: annual paintings were published in Russian and foreign journals. In Russia, the budget list of 1862 was first published in the journal "Northern Post". In subsequent years, such a publication was made in other Russian newspapers and magazines.

An important part of the financial reform of the 60s was the transformation of the state control system according to the new regulation developed by V. A. Tatarinov. State control turned into a single audit body, having the right to documentary checks of all state (both central and local) institutions, including those supplying the army. Control bodies were created locally: provincial control chambers and their branches. This made it possible to establish more rapid and effective control over the spending of public funds than in the pre-reform period. Control was also established over the receipt of certain types of state revenues (drinking, sugar, from the postal department, etc.). According to the new regulation, the state control was also entrusted with the task of preliminary consideration of the annual estimates submitted by the departments when compiling the budget list, and the annual report on the execution of the state budget.

The reform of 1862 in the field of state control thus represented some step forward. To some extent, it contributed to the weakening of that arbitrariness in the spending of public funds, which was characteristic of Nikolaev Russia.

The conservative ministers of Alexander II sought a significant limitation of Tatarinov's original project to transform the control case. The principle of prior control has been particularly attacked. Even during the discussion of this issue in the commission chaired by Guryev, the majority of ministers spoke out against preliminary control and demanded a significant restriction of this principle. The commission adopted a decision, according to which the state control was given the right not to suspend, but to appeal to the heads of central departments of incorrect orders on the expenditure of state funds. However, even such a half-hearted decision did not satisfy the conservative tsarist ministers. Treasury Minister Reitern also considered ex ante controls to be impracticable. With the final approval of the reform, Alexander II excluded the section on preliminary control.

A very unsuccessful attempt was made to establish control over the financial activities of private and state-owned railways. Thanks to the resolute resistance of the Ministry of Railways, all attempts to put this largest branch of the state economy, plundered by all kinds of capitalist businessmen and officials, under constant control were unsuccessful.

Reform of the credit sector, the creation of the State Bank and the redemption operation

Late 50s - 60s years XIX century, Russia was seized by a fever of establishing joint-stock companies. The government encouraged this movement, and for 5 years from 1856 to 1860. rose to 108, i.е. 5 times as compared to the past five years.

In July 1857, the interest rate on private deposits in banking institutions was lowered to 4%, and from October of the same year to 3%. By this measure, the government tried to limit the inflow of deposits into credit institutions and to encourage owners of money to invest in joint-stock companies. A.G. Kolomiets explains this as follows: “During the war years, due to the increased issuance of money into circulation and the revival of commercial and industrial activities and the growth of monetary incomes of the population, the influx of deposits into state credit institutions increased sharply. When the government was no longer in dire need of "borrowing", the banks could not find a use for such deposits, because commercial activity was secondary to them. » A.G. Kolomiets, “The Burden of the “Great Reforms”: Russia’s Finances in the Reign of Alexander II”, Finance magazine 2000, No. 11, p. 62 At the same time, the possibility of withdrawing a significant part of these funds at the first request of depositors made the position of state credit institutions very unstable. By lowering interest on deposits, the government also hoped to reduce the burden of Treasury interest payments on "borrowed" funds to lending institutions. The return on investment in joint-stock companies was stated to be significantly higher than the interest on deposits in credit institutions. From the latter began a rapid outflow of deposits.

In 1857, customs tariffs were lowered for a number of imported goods, and the ban on the export of gold was lifted. All these factors contributed to the outflow of capital from the country, which led to the bankruptcy of many joint-stock companies. The government not only did not receive the expected economic results, but also faced a crisis in state credit institutions, and was forced to turn to external borrowing.

In 1859, a decision was made on the final elimination of state credit institutions, in which there were deposits of almost a billion rubles. To settle accounts with depositors, 5% tickets were created, which were supposed to be redeemed within 37 years through annual circulations. But the tickets were not popular, so they could not be used as a direct means of payment.

Soon the deposits were transferred to the State Bank established on May 30, 1860. The return of deposits by the State Bank in case of insufficiency of assets was to be provided at the expense of the State Treasury.

The reform of credit institutions had numerous opponents. The monopoly position of these institutions was incompatible with the development of private entrepreneurial initiative in the credit sector. However, the way in which the new system of credit institutions was created was considered controversial even by the supporters of the reform.

Subsequently, the State Bank received the right to issue credit notes against the security of tickets issued by the State Treasury. At the same time, the amount of issued credit notes became a debt of the Ministry of Finance to the Bank.

The State Bank was also entrusted with carrying out the redemption operation, which had a decisive influence on the state of Russia's finances in the post-reform period. To develop a financial mechanism for the redemption operation, back in April 1859, a Financial Commission was created consisting of 8 members: N.Kh. Bunge, Yu.A. Gagemeister, E.I. Lamansky, M.Kh. Reitern, N.A. Milyutin. According to the main acts of the reform, serfs received civil and property rights, and also retained the right to use agricultural land. For the right to use the land, the peasants received the status of "temporarily obliged" and had to pay the landowner corvée and dues. They could become completely free by buying the land they used. This transaction was concluded through the mediation of the state and was conceived so that no additional expenses were required from the treasury.

Cancellation of wine leases in Russia

One of the most successful measures of the financial reform was the abolition of wine farming. It led to the successful reorganization of such an important source of income for the Russian government as taxes on the liquor trade. The consequence of this reform was a noticeable reorientation of entrepreneurs (merchants and nobles) from such a sphere of commerce as drinking farms to banking, railway construction, oil fields, freight transportation, etc., i.e. on industries that really contributed to the development of the Russian economy, as well as the elimination of sources of corruption among officials, which, of course, contributed to the establishment of law and order in the country.

An important role in promoting this reform was played by such people as Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and General Ya.I. Rostovtsev. They were able to convince the emperor that the government should deal with the abolition of farming immediately after the abolition of serfdom. By 1860, a powerful coalition had formed within the government, extremely opposed to wine farming and armed with strong arguments in favor of the need to do away with them. Soon this coalition won a victory in the Council of State, to which the emperor referred this issue. And in November 1860, the State Council created a special commission headed by A.P. Zabolotsky-Desyatovsky, who took up the preparation of the main provisions of the reform. The bill for the abolition of wine taxation was first published on July 4, 1861 under the title "Regulations on Drinking Collection". But despite this, the reform was again postponed, because. in 1862, a group of especially influential tax farmers offered the Ministry of Finance to build 2,800 miles of railway across the country in exchange for keeping the tax farms. This proposal was rejected only after the Ministry of Finance was headed by M.Kh. Reitern, one of the supporters of the reforms, who managed to dissuade Alexander II from this unfavorable proposal.

On January 1, 1863, the Russian government enacted an extremely complex law in its structure, consisting of 279 articles. The meaning of the long-awaited law was very important: the government intended to change the way taxes were levied on the wine trade, and the complicated system of wine farming was replaced by a unified taxation system, in which excises were levied from distillers, and patent fees from wholesalers and retailers.

The system of taxation in the drinking industry and trade until 1863 was not only complex, it also had a number of regional features. The two main regions were: 30 Great Russian provinces and the Baltic provinces + 16 western provinces, which enjoyed special privileges, i.e. the local nobility, as well as some other groups of people, for example, the Cossacks, enjoyed the ancient right to freely manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages ("propination right"). In the Great Russian provinces, on the contrary, the government exercised strong, both fiscal and political control over the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. The farming system has been widespread here since 1767. Farmers were one of the varieties of commercial entrepreneurship: tax farmers, usually private individuals, entered into an agreement with the government, according to which they paid it a fixed amount, and in return they received the right to collect drinking fees in their favor, profiting from the monopoly provided by them D. Christian "Forgotten Reform: abolition of wine leases in Russia”, collection “Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874”, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1992, p. 129. In the years 1767-1863 taxes from the liquor trade accounted for an average of 33% of all government revenues, and in the 50s of the 19th century this figure was already 40%. At the same time, the collection of taxes from the wine trade was extremely cheap, because. The farmers paid most of the administrative expenses. But along with numerous advantages, there were also serious disadvantages of this system. Most of all, the government was concerned about the widespread corruption generated by wine farming. It adopted a number of laws that regulated prices and product quality, but were not actually enforced; tax-farmers constantly paid bribes to officials. It seems quite probable that at the end of the 50s of the 19th century tax farmers gave most of the highest provincial officials such bribes that were practically equal to the salaries received by these officials from the government of D. Krischn “The Forgotten Reform: the abolition of wine taxation in Russia”, collection “Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874 "published by Moscow State University 1992. Pp. 132. This caused constant dissatisfaction with the government. In the 20s of the 19th century, the farming system was abolished for a short time, after which, until the end of the 50s, discussions were held about its abolition, which was equivalent in importance to the abolition of serfdom.

Australian scholar David Christian, in his article "Forgotten Reform: Abolition of Wine Farming", describes in detail the mood that reigned in society after the government announced the impending abolition of wine farming. When the government allowed the press to widely discuss the upcoming changes, the extent of corruption in the wine trade immediately became a sore point. It began to be discussed that the profits of the tax-farmers were constantly growing due to the fact that they increasingly used the dilution of liquor or illegal price increases as the main method of generating income, while the incomes of the landowners-producers and the government did not increase. For this reason, dissatisfaction increased among the tax-farmers, who never wanted to part with a profitable source of income. But there were no less dissatisfied among the producers and consumers of alcohol, because. the former wanted to increase their profits, while the latter were not satisfied with the constant rise in prices and the constant decline in product quality.

Despite the fact that the new excise system existed only until the 90s of the 19th century, the significance of the abolition of wine taxation was enormous. As I mentioned earlier, the abolition of the taxpayer system was able to reduce the amount of bribery among officials and improve the quality of products. Nobles, merchants and other classes were completely removed from such a state function as tax collection, which they were engaged in, albeit in an indirect form. The negative consequence of this reform was another blow to the nobility, who had to compete with other producers, having lost their traditional privileges and sales markets.

Attempt to carry out monetary reform

The development of capitalism in Russia in the post-reform period required the strengthening of the monetary system. The Crimean War led to the issuance of a large amount of paper money and a decrease in the percentage of their metal backing. By the end of the war, 735 million rubles were in circulation. credit notes, while the reserves of specie amounted to only 119 million rubles. As a result, the exchange rate of the ruble fell and commodity prices rose significantly.

Paper money inflation contributed to the widespread speculation in currency, even greater disorganization of money circulation. The interests of the development of Russia's capitalist economy, the task of increasing its prestige on the international stock exchange demanded from the government decisive measures aimed at restoring the exchange rate and strengthening the credit ruble.

After the end of the war, the Treasury repeatedly tried to reduce the amount of paper money in circulation. To this end, in the course of 1857, it confiscated and burned credit notes worth 60 million rubles. and put into circulation for 31 million rubles. voiced coin. This event had little to do with the general conditions for the development of public finance and credit on the eve of the reform. Already in 1859-60, the tsarist government, thanks to the operation it had undertaken, which caused the withdrawal of deposits from credit institutions, was forced to issue 67 million rubles. new, unsecured paper money. An attempt to reduce the amount of paper money in circulation was unsuccessful. The situation was aggravated by the growing outflow of gold from the country, caused by the huge expenses of Russian aristocrats abroad. According to the Ministry of Finance, the number of Russian "tourists" abroad increased from 17,000 to 275,000 between 1856 and 1860.

During the period from 1856 to 1861, the tsarist government spent 81 million rubles from the treasury. to artificially maintain the exchange rate abroad. Since 1857, Russian voiced coins have actually disappeared from circulation. Since 1858, the government officially stopped the exchange of credit money for gold and silver: the paper ruble became inexchangeable.

After the financial reform in the early 60s, the tsarist government, on the initiative of the Minister of Finance, M. Kh. Reitern, decided to carry out a monetary reform by exchanging paper money for silver at a gradually increasing rate. The strengthening of the paper ruble and the resumption of its exchange for specie was supposed to improve the economic situation of the country and eliminate the discontent of the population, suffering from the fall in the purchasing power of money.

According to the former manager of the state bank, E. I. Lamansky, in his memoirs, since the end of 1861, in the circle of prominent economists and officials of the Ministry of Finance, which included the author of the memoirs, Reitern, Vernadsky and others, the nature of the monetary reform and methods for its implementation were discussed. . According to Lamansky's project, the issuance of credit notes should have been removed from the hands of the government and concentrated in a state-owned bank, which was supposed to be reorganized into a private joint-stock commercial bank. The project provided for the provision of the entire state gold and silver fund to the central issuing bank. However, the Ministry of Finance, according to Lamansky, "limited itself to an attempt to restore the exchange rate of the credit ruble by only opening an exchange, without reforming the emission system of Russia" A.P. Pogrebinsky "Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)", M. publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. 66.

The tsarist officials, who controlled the circulation of money, believed that the only means of strengthening it could be a metal fund sufficient to announce the exchange. Reitern's predecessor, Minister of Finance Kniazhevich, emphasized that in order to carry out a monetary reform, it was necessary to accumulate a sufficient metal fund. Knyazhevich insisted on the sale of the Nikolaev railway to the Main Society of Railways in order to replenish the change fund for the upcoming reform. This point of view was also widespread in the bourgeois press of the 1960s. The newspaper "Birzhevye Vedomosti" considered the sale of state property, especially land, as an important, if not the only, source for paying off state debts.

The tsarist government did not take into account the complexity of the forthcoming reform and did not see the connection between the circulation of money and the financial and economic situation of the country. Meanwhile, by the beginning of the 60s, the economic conditions that existed in Russia did not favor the implementation of the monetary reform. Immediately after the abolition of serfdom, a temporary decline was observed in the industry and trade of the country, caused by the transition to a new economic system. According to P.I. Lyashchenko, the absolute size of the production of the main industries in this period either increased to the smallest extent, or even decreased. Pogrebinsky “Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)”, Moscow publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. 67 .. Only from the end of the 60s did the development of capitalist industry go faster.

Having started to carry out measures to streamline monetary circulation, the tsarist government failed to eliminate the budget deficit. Without eliminating the deficit of the state budget, it was impossible to create a stable monetary circulation. The Ministry of Finance considered the operation to stabilize the ruble in isolation from the state of finance and the economy of post-reform Russia, pinning all its hopes on foreign loans, which allegedly could provide for the exchange operation.

The Ministry of Finance did not accumulate the necessary funds to strengthen the credit ruble: it began to implement the monetary reform with a clearly insufficient change fund. To carry out monetary reform, the tsarist government in 1862 entered into a five percent loan in London for 15 million pounds. Art. Net income from this loan in the amount of 94 million rubles. failed, however, to fully turn to the strengthening of the metal exchange fund. Most of this amount went to cover the resulting budget deficit. Only 40 million rubles were spent to increase the change fund of specie. The total change fund on the eve of the reform was only 120 million rubles, while paper money in circulation was over 700 million rubles.

On April 25, 1862, Alexander II promulgated a special decree, according to which it was prescribed from May 1 to start exchanging credit notes for gold and silver at the rate of 1 ruble. 10 kop. paper money for a metal ruble. The same decree announced that from August 1 of the same year, 1 ruble would have to be paid for each silver or gold ruble. 8 1/2 kop. paper money. In the future, the exchange was to be carried out at a constantly increasing rate until a complete coincidence of the rates of paper and metal money was established.

Having begun the monetary reform, the tsarist government counted on a continuous and parallel with the official quotation, an increase in the exchange rate of paper money in the market. But these calculations turned out to be wrong. Knowing in advance the conditions for exchanging paper money for gold and silver, currency speculators, when the decree was announced, deposited specie into the cash registers of the state treasury, for which they received credit notes. With depreciation precious metals they began to present paper money for exchange in huge quantities. By the end of 1863, the gold and silver reserves of the tsarist government were already half exhausted: instead of 120 million rubles. it amounted to only about 55 million rubles. Meanwhile, there were still 636 million rubles worth of credit notes in circulation. It became clear that the exchange operation had failed. In addition, the outbreak of the Polish uprising further undermined the credibility of the tsarist paper money. The suppression of the uprising required extraordinary financial expenditures. Under these conditions, Minister of Finance Reitern had to abandon his idea.

Railway construction as a way of economic development

In the post-reform period, the state finances of Russia and the financial policy of the autocracy were in close and multifaceted connection with railway construction. The growth of public debt, and with it the country's increasing dependence on foreign creditors, the increase in budget expenditures and the tax burden were largely due to the construction and operation of railways that had been widely developed since the early 60s.

The most important financial source of railway construction was loans, which were made both directly by the state and by private joint-stock companies, but with a government guarantee. In the second case, the state acted as a borrower in an open form, since, guaranteeing the payment of interest and regular payments, it actually placed this debt on the budget all the time. During the 1960s-1980s, railway expenses accounted for 12-20% of the total budget, and in the 1990s, during the construction of the Siberian railway, their share increased even more. Such growth was associated with the exceptional high cost of construction and corruption of officials. On this occasion, A.P. Pogrebinsky writes: “The extremely complex and multilateral financial relationships between the treasury and the railway kings were deliberately confused by tsarist officials in order to hide from public opinion the blatant embezzlement and robbery of public funds that reigned in this area” A.P. Pogrebinsky "Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)", M. publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. 131.

Before the reform of 1861, only the first experiments were made in the construction of railways. By the time of the abolition of serfdom, the total length of railway lines in the country was only about 1.5 thousand miles.

In Russia, the development of large-scale industry and the capitalist restructuring of agriculture were inextricably linked with the creation of an extensive railway network in the country. Starting very late in the creation of railway transport, the tsarist government was forced to speed up the pace of road construction.

In 1857, with great support from the treasury, the Main Society of Russian Railways was created. The founders of the latter were the largest French and German banking businessmen: the Pereira brothers, the banker Mendelssohn, Baron Stieglitz and others. Expecting to create a railway network with a length of 3,900 versts through the Main Society, the tsarist government guaranteed the shares of this society in the amount of 100 million rubles. However, his hopes to attract foreign capital did not materialize. The shares of the Main Company were placed only in Russia; thus, this organization not only did not contribute to the inflow of foreign capital, but led to the outflow of Russian capital abroad. Government guarantees to the General Railways Society eliminated any risk to its shareholders. This led to a significant increase in the stock price and contributed to the formation of huge founders' profits. Having enriched themselves on speculative transactions in the sale of shares, the founders of the company lost all interest in the construction of new lines and demanded ever more favorable conditions from the government. According to the Minister of Railways Melnikov, cited by A.P. Pogrebinsky: “The main society of railways did not so much care about the economic arrangement of roads for their profitable operation, guaranteed by the government, but counted on profits from the sale of shares and bonds” A.P. Pogrebinsky “Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)”, Moscow publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, p. 135. By 1868, it had a share capital of 75 million rubles, and its debt was 135 million ., of which 92 million - to the government.

The attempts made in the early 1960s to attract new Russian and foreign companies to the construction of separate lines were also extremely unsuccessful. Several private companies that took over the construction of the railway turned out to be insolvent: they had to give up their concessions. As noted by the Ministry of Railways, since 1865, the influx of private capital into railway construction has completely stopped. Undoubtedly, one of the most important reasons for this phenomenon was the disorder of money circulation and the depreciation of the ruble.

Unable to attract private capitalist companies to new construction, the tsarist government decided to take it into their own hands.

In 1864, the government began construction of the Moscow-Kursk railway, which cost 62,000 credit rubles per mile, but it was much cheaper than private concession construction. In the same period, government lines were built from Balta to Elizavetgrad and from Kyiv to Balta. Both the government and the bourgeoisie were forced to recognize the results of state-owned construction as extremely insignificant.

It should be borne in mind that all-round financial assistance from the state to private railway construction was by no means a peculiarity of Russia. The construction of railways, necessary for the development of the capitalist economy and increasing the military power of the state, in most capitalist countries was carried out to a large extent at the expense of state funds. The creation of railway transport required such large and long-term investments that were beyond the power of private companies. In order to move this matter forward, the ruling circles had to give special support to the latter, create especially favorable conditions for them, and in every possible way interest entrepreneurs in railway construction.

Conclusion

The reforms of Alexander II in the field of economy and finance were ambiguous. In Russia, both positive and negative transformations were carried out. Among the positive ones, I can attribute the introduction of a transparent and unified budget and the abolition of wine farming: corruption and waste of public money have decreased, which undoubtedly gave an impetus to economic development Russia. The negative ones include, for example, the construction of railways. It is itself a positive phenomenon that promotes the development of trade, industry, entrepreneurship, etc. But the methods by which it was carried out were not ideal and only ruined the treasury. Also extremely unsuccessful was an attempt at monetary reform, which was aimed at raising the rate of paper money. She did not fulfill her goal, but only gave speculators another opportunity to enrich themselves.

The financial reform did not change, but simply slightly corrected the situation in the country. In my opinion, its significance is undeniable, because an attempt to change something is always better than a complete lack of desire to do something. Not all of its consequences were expected, but they all contributed to Russia's entry into the path of capitalism.

List of used sources and literature:

Literature:

A.P. Pogrebinsky "Essays on the finances of pre-revolutionary Russia (XIX-XX centuries)", M. publishing house GOSFINIZDAT 1954, 266 pages.

A.G. Kolomiets "The burden of the "Great Reforms": Russia's finances in the reign of Alexander II", Finance magazine 2000 No. 11, pp. 62-66

THOSE. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakov "Reforms of Alexander II", M. Publishing House of Legal Literature 1998, 460 pages.

D. Krischn "Forgotten reform: the abolition of wine farming in Russia", collection "Great Reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874" Publishing House of Moscow State University 1992, pp. 126-139

P. Gotrell “The Significance of the Great Reforms in the History of the Russian Economy”, collection “Great Reforms in Russia 1856-1874”, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1992, pp. 106-126

S. Hock “Banking Crisis, Peasant Reform and Redemption Operation in Russia. 1857 -1861 ", collection" Great reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874 "published by Moscow State University 1992, pp. 90-106

Sources:

"Rules on the preparation, consideration, approval and execution of the state list and financial estimates of the Ministries and Main Departments (May 22, 1862)", T.E. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakov "Reforms of Alexander II", M. Publishing House of Legal Literature 1998, pp. 191-203.

"Regulations on drinking collection (July 4, 1861)", T.E. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakova "Reforms of Alexander II", M. Publishing House of Legal Literature 1998, pp. 144-190

"Temporary regulation on local control institutions (January 3, 1866)", T.E. Novitskaya, O.I. Chistyakov "Reforms of Alexander II", M. Publishing House of Legal Literature 1998, pp. 204-210

Hosted on www.allbest.

...