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 did 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 exacerbated the economic and political crisis in 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.
February 19, 1861 Alexander II signs the Manifesto, General position about peasants who emerged from 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 a 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 appanage, 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 with his 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 was marked by significant changes in 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 serf relations, 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 the 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 the 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 lands. 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 zemstvo for the entire time 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. Judicial system 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 Judicial statutes throughout the Russian Empire would require not only significant Money, which the treasury simply did not have, but also the necessary personnel, which were more difficult to find than finance. 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 representatives of the authorities, resistance to the state power(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 official duties in the 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 magistrates, 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 two territorial branches under him 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.
Ancient time in Russia- The place and role of history in the system of human knowledge. The subject and objectives of the course of the history of the Fatherland
- Ancient peoples on the territory of Russia. The population of ancient Bashkiria
- Formation of early feudal states. Economic and political relations between them
- The role of religion in the formation of statehood and culture
- The struggle for the independence of the early feudal states against aggression from the West and East
- Unification of Russian lands around Moscow. Relations with the Golden Horde and the Principality of Lithuania
- Formation of statehood. Political system and social relations
- Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. Strengthening the regime of personal power
- Change of the ruling dynasty. The evolution of the state system
- The main directions of Russian foreign policy in the XVII century. Bashkiria in the 17th century
- Reforms of Peter I. Completion of the design of absolutism in Russia
- Foreign policy of Russia during the proclamation of the empire
- "Enlightened absolutism" in Russia. Domestic policy of Catherine II
- Government circles and public thought about the ways of further development of the country
- Socio-economic development of the country. Bashkiria in the first half of the 19th century
- Socio-economic development of the country and its features
- Witte's economic policy. Stolypin's agrarian reform
- Socio-political forces in Russia. Revolution of 1905 - 1907
- Formation of political parties: social composition, program and tactics
- State Duma - the first experience of Russian parliamentarism
- Changes in the alignment of political forces from February to October 1917. Alternatives for the development of events
- The Soviet state and the world in the 20-30s. The Great Patriotic War (1941-1945): results and lessons
- The objective need for change. Reforms of the political system
- Finding Ways to Transition to a Market Economy: Problems and Solutions
Reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century
February 19, 1861 Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the "Regulations" on the new structure of the peasants. According to the "Regulations", serfs (22.6 million people) received personal freedom and a number of civil rights: to conclude transactions, open trade and industrial establishments, transfer to other classes, etc. The law proceeded from the principle of recognizing the right of ownership to the landowner to all the land on the estate, including the peasant allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve the established duties for it - quitrent or corvée. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner. The redemption operation was undertaken by the state: the treasury paid the landowners immediately 75-80% of the redemption amount, the rest was paid by the peasant.
The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but even more increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million peasants actually remained landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3-4 tithes, while for a normal living standard of a peasant, due to Agriculture with the existing agricultural technology, from 6 to 8 acres of land were required.
In 1863, the reform was extended to appanage and palace peasants, in 1866 - to state peasants.
The lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants, the preservation in the countryside of enslaving, semi-serf forms of exploitation of the peasants, the artificial increase in prices when selling and renting land were the source of poverty and backwardness of the post-reform village and ultimately led to a sharp aggravation of the agrarian question at the turn of the 19th century. XX centuries
The abolition of serfdom necessitated other reforms in the country - in the field of administration, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They, too, were of a half-hearted nature, retained their dominant positions for the nobility and the highest bureaucracy, and did not give real scope for the independent manifestation of social forces.
In 1864, zemstvos were created in the counties and provinces of Russia. Landowners, merchants, manufacturers, homeowners and rural communities received the right to elect zemstvo vowels from among themselves. District councilors met once a year at zemstvo meetings, at which they elected the executive body - the zemstvo Council and vowels to the provincial assembly. Zemstvos were in charge of: the construction of local roads, public education, health care, fire insurance, veterinary service, local trade and industry. 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 decisions of the zemstvos.
In 1870 city self-government was introduced. City dumas, elected for 4 years, appeared in 509 cities of Russia. The competence of city elected bodies was in many respects similar to the functions of county zemstvos. They paid the main attention to the financial and economic condition of the cities. A significant part of the city budget was spent on the maintenance of the police, city government, military posts, etc.
Along with the reform of local government, the government began to address the problem of reforming the judiciary.
In 1864, judicial statutes were approved, introducing bourgeois principles of the judiciary and legal proceedings in Russia. A court independent of the administration, the irremovability of judges, publicity of the court, the liquidation of class courts (with the exception of spiritual and military ones) were proclaimed, the institutes of jurors, advocacy and recognition of equality before the court were introduced. An adversarial process was introduced: the prosecution was supported by the prosecutor, the defense - by a lawyer (sworn attorney). Several judicial instances were established - world and district courts. Courts of justice were created as courts of appeal (the Ural provinces were under the jurisdiction of the Kazan Court of Justice).
The needs of an emerging market called for the need to streamline the financial business. By decree of 1860, the State Bank was established, which replaced the former credit institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, safe treasury and orders of public charity. The state budget was streamlined. The only responsible manager of all income and expenses was the Minister of Finance. From that time on, a list of income and expenses began to be published for general information.
In 1862-1864. reforms were carried out in the field of education: seven-year gymnasiums for girls were established, and the principle of equality for all classes and religions was proclaimed in men's gymnasiums. The university statute of 1863 granted universities broad autonomy: the university council received the right to decide all scientific, financial and educational questions, the election of rectors, vice-rectors and deans was introduced.
The result of glasnost was the "Provisional Rules" of 1865 on censorship, which abolished preliminary censorship for publications published in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Government and scientific publications were completely freed from censorship.
The military reform of 1874, in the preparation and implementation of which the Minister of War D. A. Milyutin played an important role, legislated the transformations in military affairs that had begun back in the 60s. Corporal punishment was canceled, instead of recruitment sets, universal military service was introduced. The 25-year term of military service was gradually reduced to 6-7 years. When serving military service, a number of benefits were provided according to marital status and education. The soldiers in the service were taught to read and write, measures were taken for the technical re-equipment of the army, to improve the level of officer training.
Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century, which began with the abolition of serfdom, despite their half-heartedness and inconsistency, contributed to the development of capitalism in the country, the acceleration of the socio-economic development of Russia.
History of Russia from the beginning of the XVIII to the end of the XIX century Bokhanov Alexander Nikolaevich
§ 4. Liberal reforms of the 60-70s
Russia approached the peasant reform with an extremely backward and neglected local (zemstvo, as they used to say) economy. Medical assistance in the village was practically non-existent. Epidemics claimed thousands of lives. The peasants did not know the elementary rules of hygiene. Public education could not get out of its infancy. Individual landowners who maintained schools for their peasants closed them immediately after the abolition of serfdom. Nobody cared about country roads. Meanwhile, the state treasury was exhausted, and the government could not raise the local economy on its own. Therefore, it was decided to meet the needs of the liberal public, which petitioned for the introduction of local self-government.
On January 1, 1864, the law on zemstvo self-government was approved. It was established to manage economic affairs: the construction and maintenance of local roads, schools, hospitals, almshouses, to organize food assistance to the population in lean years, for agronomic assistance and the collection of statistical information.
The administrative bodies of the zemstvo were provincial and district zemstvo assemblies, and the executive bodies were district and provincial zemstvo councils. To fulfill their tasks, the zemstvos received the right to impose a special tax on the population.
Zemstvo elections were held every three years. In each county, three electoral congresses were created to elect deputies of the county zemstvo assembly. The first congress was attended by landowners, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 dessiatins. land (the land qualification for different counties was not the same). The second congress included city owners with a certain property qualification. The third, peasant, congress was attended by elected representatives from volost assemblies. Each of the congresses elected a certain number of vowels. District zemstvo assemblies elected provincial zemstvo councillors.
As a rule, nobles predominated in zemstvo assemblies. Despite conflicts with liberal landlords, the autocracy considered the local nobility to be its main support. Therefore, the Zemstvo was not introduced in Siberia and in the Arkhangelsk province, where there were no landowners. Zemstvo was not introduced in the Don Cossack Region, in the Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where Cossack self-government existed.
Zemstvos have played a large positive role in improving the life of the Russian countryside, in the development of education. Soon after their creation, Russia was covered with a network of zemstvo schools and hospitals.
With the advent of the Zemstvo, the balance of power in the Russian provinces began to change. Previously, all affairs in the counties were handled by government officials, together with the landowners. Now, when a network of schools, hospitals and statistical bureaus has unfolded, a “third element” has appeared, as zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists, and statisticians have come to be called. Many representatives of the rural intelligentsia showed high standards of service to the people. They were trusted by peasants, councils listened to their advice. Government officials watched with concern the growing influence of the "third element".
According to the law, the Zemstvos were purely economic organizations. But soon they began to play an important political role. In those years, the most enlightened and humane landowners usually went to the zemstvo service. They became vowels of zemstvo assemblies, members and chairmen of administrations. They stood at the origins of the zemstvo liberal movement. And the representatives of the "third element" were attracted to the left, democratic, currents of social thought.
On similar grounds, in 1870, a reform of city self-government was carried out. The issues of improvement, as well as the management of school, medical and charitable affairs were subject to the patronage of city dumas and councils. Elections to the City Duma were held in three electoral congresses (small, medium and large taxpayers). Workers who did not pay taxes did not participate in the elections. The mayor and the council were elected by the Duma. The mayor headed both the Duma and the Council, coordinating their activities. City dumas carried out a lot of work on the improvement and development of cities, but in social movement were not as visible as the zemstvos. This was due to the long-standing political inertia of the merchants and the business class.
Simultaneously with the Zemstvo reform, in 1864, a judicial reform was carried out. Russia received a new court: classless, public, competitive, independent of the administration. The court sessions became open to the public.
The central element of the new judicial system was the district court with jurors. The prosecution was supported by the prosecutor. The defender objected. Jurors, 12 people, were appointed by lot from representatives of all classes. After hearing the arguments, the jury returned a verdict (“guilty”, “not guilty”, or “guilty but deserves leniency”). Based on the verdict, the court issued a sentence. Russian general criminal law at that time did not know such a measure of punishment as the death penalty. Only special judicial bodies (military courts, the Special Presence of the Senate) could sentence to death.
Small cases were dealt with by the world court, which consisted of one person. The magistrate was elected by the zemstvo assemblies or city dumas for three years. The government could not by its own power remove him from office (as well as the judges of the district court). The principle of irremovability of judges ensured their independence from the administration. The judicial reform was one of the most consistent and radical transformations of the 60s and 70s.
Yet the judicial reform of 1864 remained unfinished. To resolve conflicts among the peasantry, the estate volost court was retained. This was partly due to the fact that peasant legal concepts were very different from general civil ones. A magistrate with a "Code of Laws" would often be powerless to judge the peasants. The volost court, which consisted of peasants, judged on the basis of the customs existing in the area. But he was too exposed to the influence of the wealthy upper classes of the village and all sorts of bosses. The volost court and the mediator had the right to award corporal punishment. This shameful phenomenon existed in Russia until 1904.
In 1861, General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin (1816–1912) was appointed minister of war. Taking into account the lessons of the Crimean War, he carried out a number of important reforms. They had the goal of creating large trained reserves with a limited peacetime army. At the final stage of these reforms, in 1874, a law was passed that abolished recruitment and extended the obligation to serve in the army to men of all classes who had reached the age of 20 and were fit for health reasons. In the infantry, the service life was set at 6 years, in the navy - at 7 years. For graduates of higher educational establishments service life was reduced to six months. These benefits have become an additional incentive for the dissemination of education. The abolition of recruitment, along with the abolition of serfdom, significantly increased the popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.
The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s are a major phenomenon in the history of Russia. New, modern self-government bodies and courts contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of civil consciousness of the population, the spread of education, and the improvement of the quality of life. Russia joined the pan-European process of creating advanced, civilized forms of statehood based on the self-activity of the population and its will. But these were only the first steps. The remnants of serfdom were strong in local government, and many noble privileges remained intact. The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s did not affect the upper levels of power. The autocracy and the police system, inherited from past eras, were preserved.
This text is an introductory piece. From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century author Froyanov Igor YakovlevichThe internal policy of tsarism in the 60-70s of the XIX century. Bourgeois reforms The peasant reform of 1861 led to changes in the economic structure of society, which necessitated the transformation of the political system. New bourgeois reforms wrested from the government in
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century author Froyanov Igor YakovlevichMilitary reforms of the 60-70s The need to increase the combat capability of the Russian army, which became obvious already during the Crimean War and clearly declared itself during the European events of the 60-70s, when the Prussian army demonstrated its combat capability (association
From the book History of Korea: from antiquity to the beginning of the XXI century. author Kurbanov Sergey Olegovich§ 1. The Sino-Japanese War and the Kabo and Yilmi Reforms The Sino-Japanese War, as already mentioned, was objectively caused by the achievement of relative parity in the economic presence of the two countries on the Korean Peninsula under the political dominance of China.
From the book Domestic History (until 1917) author Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich§ 2. The domestic policy of Alexander II in the 1860s-1870s. Liberal reforms The peasant reform of 1861 led to changes in the economic structure of society, which necessitated the transformation of the political system. Reforms in Russia were not a cause, but a consequence
From the book History of Georgia (from ancient times to the present day) the author Vachnadze Merab§2. Reforms of the 60s-70s of the XIX century The peasant reform of 1861 undermined the socio-economic basis of feudal-serf Russia and gave a powerful impetus to the development of capitalism. It soon became apparent that other reforms were needed. In the 60s and 70s of the 19th century
author Yasin Evgeny Grigorievich4. 4. The Liberal Reforms of Alexander II The Tsar and the Representation of the People Other episodes in the development of the Russian democratic tradition, if we are not talking about individual thinkers and failed projects, but about the movement and expression of the will of fairly wide sections of the population,
From the book Will Democracy Take root in Russia author Yasin Evgeny Grigorievich6. 2. Liberal reforms in the economy economic reforms will continue, moreover, will receive a new energetic impetus. economic development favored by the fact that – for the first time since 1992 –
From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown44. LIBERAL REFORMS 1860-1870 Administrative reform was launched on January 1, 1864 by the signing by Alexander II of the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions. In accordance with it, the zemstvos were all-class elective institutions. Elections in them
From the book Southeast Asia in the XIII - XVI centuries author Berzin Eduard OskarovichChapter 8 VIETNAM FROM THE 70'S OF THE XIV C. BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE XV CENTURY REFORMS OF HO KUI LI In 1369 Chan Zu Tong died without leaving an heir. A power struggle ensued within the royal family. The most legitimate claimant was Prince Tran Nge Tong, son of King Tran Minh Tong by Minh Thu's younger wife and
From the book Political Portraits. Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov author Medvedev Roy AlexandrovichReforms and counter-reforms of 1964–1965 The removal of N. S. Khrushchev from the post of head of the party and state and the promotion of L. I. Brezhnev and A. N. Kosygin to these posts were not accompanied at first by any serious personnel changes, except for a few
From the book History of India. XX century. author Yurlov Felix NikolaevichCHAPTER 27 REFORM IN THE 1990s Nehru-Gandhi Political Dynasty Ended Four months after Chandrashekhar's government came to power, Congress withdrew its support in his favor. The government was forced to resign, but continued
From the book Nobility, power and society in provincial Russia of the 18th century author Team of authorsAdministrative reforms of Catherine II in the early 1760s Catherine II began the fight against corruption from the very first days of her reign. On July 18, 1762, a decree was issued to combat bribery in the state apparatus. Bribery of officials has been severely
author Team of authorsChapter IX THE FALL OF serfdom. BOURGEOIS REFORMS OF THE 60-70s Late 50s - early 60s of the XIX century. became a turning point in the history of Russia, including Ukraine. During these years, the first revolutionary situation took shape, which clearly showed the impossibility of
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume four author Team of authors6. BOURGEOIS REFORMS OF THE 60-70s After the abolition of serfdom, reforms were carried out in the field of administration, courts, education, military affairs and finance. Their goal was to preserve the autocratic power of the tsar and the dominance of the class of noble landowners,
From the book Serbia in the Balkans. 20th century author Nikiforov Konstantin VladimirovichReforms of the 1960s In 1964-1965 Yugoslavia began to carry out the most radical reforms in the economy during the entire self-government experiment. In the literature, they are usually combined under the general name "socio-economic reform of 1965." It should be noted,
From Zagogulin's book in the president's briefcase author Lagodsky Sergey Alexandrovich2.2. Reforms of the 1990s: from cooperation to privatization At the end of the 1980s, an atmosphere of discontent dominated Soviet society economic situation countries. The growth of production, its efficiency, and the improvement of the living standards of the population have come to a halt. Priority
Abolition of serfdom
Economic and political background of the peasant reform
In the middle of the XIX century. serfs made up about 37% of the total population of the country. Among European countries, serfdom remained only in Russia, hindering its economic and socio-political development. The long-term preservation of serfdom was due to the nature of the Russian autocracy, which throughout its history relied exclusively on the nobility, and therefore had to take into account its interests. Yet by the middle of the nineteenth century there were both economic and political prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom.
The defeat in the Crimean War testified to the serious military-technical lag of Russia from the leading European states. Along with the defeat came the understanding that one of the main reasons for the economic backwardness of Russia was serfdom. The landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, fell into decay more and more due to its inefficiency. The shortage of civilian labor hampered the development of industry. Serfdom held back the process of the emergence of qualified personnel in enterprises, the use of complex machines on a massive scale. Since otkhodnichestvo was a seasonal phenomenon and there was no worker's interest in the results of production, labor productivity remained low. Thus, serfdom hindered the industrial modernization of the country, predetermined the low rates of Russia's development.
Along with the economic, there were also political prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom. The liberation of the peasants was the secret goal of many monarchs on the Russian throne. Even Catherine II, in her letters to Voltaire, declared her desire to abolish slavery in Russia. This topic was discussed in the Unspoken Committee of her grandson Alexander I, and the touchstone of the future peasant reform was the Baltic States in 1816-1819. During the reign of Nicholas I, secret committees on the peasant question were created, a reform of the state peasants was carried out, a number of specific steps were taken, which served as the basis for further transformations of the privately owned village. The need to abolish serfdom was also caused by the direct action of the peasants themselves. The bourgeois-liberal movement against the existence of serfdom also revived. Numerous notes were developed on the abnormality, immorality and economic unprofitability of the serfdom of the peasants. The most famous was the “Note on the Liberation of the Peasants”, compiled by a lawyer K.D. Kavelin. Called for the liberation of the peasants A.I. Herzen in "The Bell" N.G. Chernyshevsky And ON THE. Dobrolyubov in "Contemporary". Publicistic speeches by representatives of different political trends gradually prepared the country's public opinion for the solution of the peasant question.
For the first time on the need to abolish serfdom Alexander II (1855-1881 ) stated in 1856 in a speech at a meeting of the leaders of the nobility of the Moscow province. At the same time, knowing the mood of the majority of the landowners, he emphasized that it is much better if this happens from above than to wait for it to happen from below. January 3, 1857 was educated Secret committee to discuss the abolition of serfdom. However, many of its members, former Nikolaev dignitaries, hindered the work of the committee. Under these conditions, Alexander II instructed the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov to appeal to the emperor on behalf of the Livonian nobility with a request to create commissions to develop a draft reform. In response to the appeal on November 20, 1857, V.I. Nazimov on the creation of provincial committees "to improve the life of landlord peasants." During 1858 such committees were established in 46 provinces. Thus, for the first time, the preparation of the reform began to be carried out publicly.
IN February 1858 The Secret Committee was renamed Main Committee. Its chairman was Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. IN February 1859 under the Main Committee were established editorial committees. They had to collect all the projects coming from the provinces. The commission was chaired by General ME AND. Rostovtsev. He recruited reformers to work - ON THE. Milyutina, Yu.F. Samarina, Ya.A. Solovyov, P.P. Semenov.
In projects coming from localities, the size of peasant allotments and duties depended on the fertility of the soil. In the non-chernozem counties, the middle nobility received the main income from quitrent, so it offered to free the peasants with land, but for a large ransom. In the chernozem districts, land provided the main income; there the landowners demanded the release of the peasants without land in order to make them farm laborers. The government offered an intermediate option: to release the peasants with a small allotment for a large ransom. Thus, the nobility as a whole advocated a gradual bourgeois transformation of the countryside while maintaining actual power in their hands.
In October 1860, the editorial commissions completed their work. On February 17, 1861, the draft reform was approved by the State Council. February 19, 1861 signed by Alexander II. He announced the abolition of serfdom Manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants." The practical conditions for emancipation were defined in the "Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom."
Basic principles and conditions for the abolition of serfdom
According to these documents, the content of the peasant reform consisted of four main points. First there was a personal release without ransom of 22 million peasants (the population of Russia, according to the revision of 1858, was 74 million people.). Second point - the right of peasants to redeem the estate (the land on which the yard stood). Third - land allotment (arable, hay, pasture land) - redeemed by agreement with the landowner. Fourth point - the land bought from the landowner became not the private property of the peasant, but the incomplete property of the community (without the right to alienate). After the landlord was deprived of power in the countryside, a class peasant self-government was created.
The most important achievement of the reform was the provision of peasants personal freedom, the status of "rural inhabitants", economic and civil rights. A peasant could own movable and immovable property, make deals, act as a legal entity. He was freed from the personal guardianship of the landowner, could enter the service and in educational institutions, move to another class: become a tradesman, merchant, marry without the consent of the landowner.
However, the liberated peasants remained to live in peasant community. She, in turn, distributed the land among the community members, made a decision on the withdrawal of peasants from the community or the admission of new members, was responsible for the administrative order, as well as the collection of taxes (according to the system of mutual responsibility). The community periodically redistributed the land in connection with the appearance of new members and thus did not create an incentive to improve the soil. That is, the freedom of the peasant was limited by the framework of the peasant community. In addition, the peasantry was subject to recruitment duty, paid poll tax and could be subjected to corporal punishment.
"Regulations" regulated allotment of land to peasants. The size of the allotment received by each peasant depended on the fertility of the soil. The territory of Russia was conditionally divided into three zones: black earth, non-black earth and steppe. In each of them, the highest and lowest sizes of the peasant field allotment were established. In various parts of the empire, it ranged from 3 to 12 acres. And if by the time of liberation there was more land in peasant use, then the landowner had the right "cut off" surplus, while land was taken best quality. In the country as a whole, the peasants thus lost up to 20% of the land that they cultivated before the reform.
Before the redemption of their land plots, the peasants found themselves in a position temporarily liable. They had to pay dues or serve corvee in favor of the landowner. The size of the allotment, redemption, as well as the duties that the peasant carried before the start of the redemption operation (two years were allotted for this), were determined with the consent of the landowner and the peasant community and were recorded mediator in the charter. It should be noted that the law did not force the purchase of land, the purchase of the estate was mandatory. But it was forbidden to give up the allotment until 1870, since the landowner then lost his labor force. The allotment was redeemed either by voluntary agreement with the landowner, or at his request. Thus, the temporarily obligated condition of the peasant could last for 9 years.
When receiving land, the peasants were obliged to pay its cost. Size ransom the field allotment was determined in such a way that the landowner would not lose the money that he had previously received in the form of dues. The peasant had to immediately pay him 20-25% of the value of the allotment. To enable the landowner to receive the redemption sum at a time, the government paid him the remaining 75-80%. The peasant, on the other hand, had to repay this debt to the state for 49 years with an accrual of 6% per annum. At the same time, calculations were made not with each individual, but with the peasant community. Peace mediators, as well as provincial presences for peasant affairs, consisting of a governor, a government official, a prosecutor, and a representative from local landlords, were supposed to monitor the implementation of the reform on the ground.
As a result, the reform of 1861 created a special peasant status. First of all, the law emphasized that the land owned by the peasant (yard, share of communal property) is not private property. This land could not be sold, bequeathed or inherited. But the peasant could not refuse the "right to land". It was possible to refuse only practical use, for example, when leaving for the city. The passport was given to the peasant only for 5 years, and the community could claim it back. On the other hand, the peasant never lost his “right to the land”: upon returning, even after a very long absence, he could make a claim for his share of the land, and the world had to accept him.
The allotment land of the peasants was worth about 650 million rubles, the peasants paid about 900 million for it, and in total, until 1905, they made more than 2 billion redemption payments with interest. Thus, the allotment of land and the redemption transaction were carried out exclusively in the interests of the nobility. Redemption payments took away all the savings in the peasant economy, prevented him from reorganizing and adapting to a market economy, and kept the Russian countryside in a state of poverty.
Of course, the peasants did not expect such a reform. Having heard about the near “freedom”, they indignantly perceived the news that they had to serve the corvee and dues. There was a rumor in the countryside that the "Manifesto" and "Regulations" were fake, that the landlords concealed the "real will." As a result, peasant riots took place in many provinces of the European part of Russia. Statistics confirm: in 1861-1863. there were over 2 thousand peasant unrest. The largest uprisings took place in the village of Bezdna in the Kazan province and Kandeevka in the Penza province. The riots were crushed by the troops, there were killed and wounded. Only from the end of 1863 did the peasant movement begin to wane.
There was no unity in the assessment of the Manifesto among people who were considered advanced for that period of time. For example, A.I. Herzen enthusiastically wrote: “Alexander II did a lot, a lot: his name now already stands above his predecessors ... We greet him with the name “Liberator”. CM. Solovyov spoke on this subject in a diametrically opposite tone. “Transformations,” he wrote, “are carried out by Peter the Great; but it’s a disaster if Louis XVI and Alexandra II are mistaken for them.”
Significance of the reform of 1861
It can be said without exaggeration that the abolition of serfdom was a turning point in the history of Russia. It gave freedom to millions of serfs, gave a powerful impetus to the economic and social progress of the country, opened up the possibility of a broad development of market relations. The liberation of the peasants changed the moral climate in the country and influenced the development of social thought and culture in general. The reform largely prepared the conditions for subsequent transformations in Russian society and the state. At the same time, the reform testified that the interests of the state and the landlords were taken into account in it more than the interests of the peasants. This predetermined the preservation of a number of remnants of serfdom, and the agrarian question itself retained its acuteness throughout the pre-revolutionary history of Russia.
Concepts:
- Temporarily liable peasants- after 1861, former landlord peasants who had not yet bought their land from the landowner and therefore were temporarily obliged to perform certain duties or contribute money for the use of the land.
- Redemption payments- a state credit operation carried out by the government in connection with the Peasant Reform of 1861. To redeem land allotments from landowners, peasants were given a loan.
- World mediator- an official from the nobility, appointed to approve charter letters and resolve disputes between peasants and landowners.
- Segments- part of the peasant lands that were in use, cut off after the reform of 1861 in favor of the landowners, if the peasant allotment exceeded the maximum norm established by the "Regulations".
- Rescript- a letter from the monarch in the form of a specific prescription.
- Statutory letters - documents establishing the amount of land provided by the landowner to the rural community for permanent use by the temporarily liable, and the amount of duties due to him for this.
To the begining
Bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century
Objectives of transformations and methods for their implementation
Serfdom in Russia determined the structure of the local administration, the courts, and the army. Therefore, after the liberation of the peasants, it was necessary to rebuild all spheres of the life of the Russian state. And for this, reforms were needed. They had to bring the judiciary, local governments, education, the armed forces in line with the changed social and economic conditions. The reforms were supposed to provide favorable conditions for the accelerated development of domestic industry and capitalist relations. They were held for the sake of strengthening the state and military power of Russia, returning to it the lost position of a great power and its former international influence.
Transformations in the 60s and 70s 19th century were carried out gradually, peacefully, from above, i.e. based not so much on society as on the bureaucracy and with the expectation of avoiding social and political upheavals.
Local government reform
The course of bourgeois reforms taken by the government of Alexander II required certain changes in the political superstructure. There was a strong opinion in society about the need to create representative non-estate bodies. There were a number of projects in the government for the formation of such bodies both at the local and all-Russian levels. However, the autocracy did not dare to go for the introduction of an all-Russian representation. As a result January 1, 1864 introduced in Russia "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which provided for the creation of elective zemstvos in counties and provinces. The reform of local self-government can be called the second most important after the peasant reform of 1861. Every three years, representatives of different estates elected a county zemstvo assembly (from 10 to 96 members - vowels), and it sent deputies to the provincial zemstvo assembly. District and zemstvo assemblies formed the executive bodies - zemstvo councils. The range of issues that were resolved by zemstvo institutions was limited to local affairs: the construction and maintenance of schools, hospitals, the development of local trade and industry, etc. The legitimacy of their activities was monitored by the governor. The material basis for the existence of zemstvos was a special tax, which was imposed on real estate: land, houses, factories and trade establishments.
The introduction of electivity, self-government, independence from the administration and all-estate was a great progress. But the government artificially created a preponderance of nobles in the zemstvos: in the 60s. they made up 42% of county and 74% of provincial vowels. The chairmen of the zemstvo assemblies were the heads of the class bodies of the nobility - the leaders of the nobility. Self-government did not have its own coercive authorities. If necessary, I had to contact the governor. As a result, according to contemporaries, the zemstvo came out as a “building without a foundation and a roof”: it had no organs at the level below the county in the volost and at the all-Russian level. Zemstvos were introduced only in European Russia (34 provinces). Despite this, they played a special role in the development of education and health. In addition, they became centers for the formation of the liberal noble opposition.
In 1870 following the example of the Zemstvo was carried out urban reform. Every four years, a city council was elected in the cities, which formed the city council. The city head supervised over a thought and uprava. Men who had reached the age of 25 had the right to choose new governing bodies. All classes were allowed to vote, but the high property qualification severely limited the circle of voters. So, in Moscow it included only 34% of the population. The activity of city self-government was controlled by the state. The mayor was approved by the governor or the minister of the interior. The same officials could impose a ban on any decision of the city duma.
City self-government bodies appeared in 1870, first in 509 Russian cities. In 1874, the reform was introduced in the cities of Transcaucasia, in 1875 - in Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, in 1877 - in the Baltic cities not covered by the reform.
Thus, in the course of the bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s. only representative local bodies were created that were in charge of cultural and economic issues and completely devoid of political functions. Nevertheless, these bodies played a significant role in the social development of post-reform Russia and the involvement of broad sections of the population in solving management issues and shaping the traditions of Russian parliamentarism.
Judicial reform
The most consistent transformation of Alexander II was judicial reform. It began with an introduction to 1864 new judicial statutes. Previously, the courts were class-based, the investigation was conducted by the police, who often intimidated and tortured the accused. The trial was held silently, in the absence of the defendant deprived of protection, on the basis of clerical information about the case, often - at the behest of the authorities and under the influence of a bribe.
Judicial reform introduced new principles of legal proceedings and judicial system. The court became irrelevant. The investigation was conducted by a forensic investigator. The defendant was defended in the presence of the public by a lawyer - sworn attorney, the prosecution supported prosecutor, those. an oral, public and competitive process was introduced. The decision on the guilt of the defendant - the "verdict" - was made jurors(representatives of society, drawn by lot). In the whole country, except for the capitals, about 60% of the jury were peasants, about 20% were petty bourgeois, so the reactionaries said that a "street court" had been introduced in Russia. The judges were given high salaries, they, like the investigators, were irremovable and independent of the administration.
According to the new judicial statutes, two systems of courts were created - world and general. Less important cases were referred to elected magistrates. They were created in cities and counties. Justices of the peace administer justice alone. They were elected by zemstvo assemblies and city councils. The magistrate's court of second instance was the district congress of justices of the peace. The system of general courts included district courts and judicial chambers. Members of the district court were appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and considered criminal and complex civil cases. Appeals against the District Court's decision were made to the Trial Chamber. She also considered cases of malfeasance of officials. It was possible to appeal the decisions of all instances in the Senate - the highest judicial instance.
But remnants also remained in the judicial sphere: the volost court for the peasantry, special courts for the clergy, military and senior officials. It was impossible to challenge the actions of officials in court. In some national areas, the implementation of judicial reform dragged on for decades. In the so-called Western Territory, it began only in 1872, in the Baltic States - in 1877. Only at the end of the 19th century. it was held in the Arkhangelsk province and Siberia, etc. Nevertheless, the judicial reform contributed to the liberalization of public life, became a step towards a legal society. The judicial system in Russia has approached the standards of Western justice.
Military reform
Over ten years carried out reforms in the army YES. Milyutin- Minister of War, brother of the author of the peasant reform. The command and control of the troops was centralized and streamlined. The country was divided into fifteen military districts, directly subordinate to the Minister of War. For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created.
IN 1874 recruitment, which lay on the taxable estates, was replaced universal military service. Every year, from all men over the age of 20, the government selected by lot the required number of recruits (usually 20-30% of recruits). They served in the army for six years and were in the reserve for nine years, in the navy - seven years and three years in the reserve. The only sons and the only breadwinners of the family were exempted from service. Those exempted from conscription were enrolled in the militia, which was formed only during the war. Clerics of all faiths, representatives of some religious sects and organizations, the peoples of the North, Central Asia, part of the inhabitants of the Caucasus and Siberia were not subject to conscription. Significant benefits were given taking into account education: a graduate of an elementary school served for four years, a secondary one for a year and a half, and a higher one for six months. Illiterate conscripts were trained during the service. This stimulated the growth of education in the country. The soldier's service from class duty turned into the performance of a general civil duty, instead of the Nikolaev drill, the troops sought to cultivate a conscious attitude to military affairs.
An important component of the military reform was the re-equipment of the army and navy: smooth-bore weapons were replaced by rifled ones, the replacement of cast-iron and bronze guns with steel ones, etc. began. Of particular importance was the accelerated development of the military steam fleet. The system of combat training has changed. A number of charters and instructions were issued, the task of which was to train soldiers in what was necessary during the war. The reform in the army made it possible to reduce its strength in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness. The transition to universal military service was a serious blow to the class organization of society.
Education reform
Changes in the economy, new courts, the army, zemstvos demanded educated people, demanded the development of science. Therefore, the reforms could not but affect the education system. The charter of 1863 returned to the universities taken from them under Nicholas I autonomy. The election of the rector, deans, professors was introduced. The University Council itself began to solve all scientific, educational and administrative issues, and the representative of the government administration - the trustee of the educational district - only watched his work. At the same time, students (unlike professors) did not receive corporate rights. This led to tensions in the universities, periodic student unrest.
Gymnasium charter of 1864 introduced equality in secondary education for all classes and religions. Two types of gymnasiums were established. In the classical gymnasiums, the humanities were studied more deeply, in the real ones, the natural and exact sciences. The term of study in them was at first seven years, and from 1871 - eight years. Graduates of classical gymnasiums had the opportunity to enter universities. There was a secondary and higher school for women. Regulations on Primary Schools (1864) entrusted public schools to the joint management of the state, society (zemstvos and cities), and the church. The term of study in them did not exceed, as a rule, three years.
The press has become freer. In 1865, preliminary censorship for books and the metropolitan press was abolished. Now they were punished for already published materials (punitive censorship). To do this, the Minister of the Interior had a "whip": either prosecution or administrative penalties - a warning (after three warnings, a magazine or newspaper was closed), a fine, suspension of publication. Censorship was maintained for the provincial press and mass popular publications. There was also a special spiritual censorship.
Liberal reforms affected and Orthodox Church. The government tried to improve the financial situation of the clergy. In 1862, a Special Presence was created to find ways to improve the life of the clergy. Public forces were also involved in solving this problem. In 1864, parish trustees arose, consisting of parishioners who not only managed the affairs of the parish, but also had to contribute to the improvement financial situation spiritual persons. In 1863, graduates of theological seminaries received the right to enter universities. In 1864, the children of the clergy were allowed to enroll in gymnasiums, and in 1866, in military schools. The Synod adopted a decision to abolish the heredity of parishes and on the right to enter seminaries for all Orthodox Christians without exception. These measures contributed to the democratic renewal of the clergy.
Results and features of the reforms of the 60-70s. 19th century
Thus, during the reign of Alexander II, reforms were carried out that dramatically changed the face of Russia. Contemporaries called the reforms of those years "Great", historians now speak of a "revolution from above". They opened the way for the intensive development of capitalism in the Russian economy. At the same time, they significantly changed the social and partly political life of the country. Millions of former serfs, having received civil rights, were included in public life. An important step was taken towards the equality of all classes, towards the formation civil society and the rule of law. In general, these changes were of a liberal nature.
Carrying out reforms, the autocracy kept pace with the century. After all, 1860-1870. for many countries were a time of modernization (the abolition of slavery and Civil War in the United States of America 1861-1865, the beginning of the Europeanization of Japan - the Meiji Revolution of 1867-1868, the completion of the unification of Italy in 1870 and Germany in 1871). The administrative and social system of Russia, while retaining many vestiges, nevertheless became much more flexible, more dynamic, closer to the European way of life, to the requirements of the times.
In general, the reforms of Alexander II, which marked the beginning of a comprehensive modernization of the country, due to the inconsistency of the internal political course, periodic retreats of the authorities from reforms, complicated the process of restructuring the socio-economic, political and spiritual structures, which was extremely painful for the masses.
Concepts:
- military service - the statutory duty of the population to carry out military service in the armed forces of their country. It was introduced in 1874 during the military reform.
- Vowels - elected members of governing bodies.
- Zemstvo- the system of local all-estate self-government, which included elected bodies of local self-government - zemstvo assemblies, zemstvo councils. Introduced during the Zemstvo reform of 1864
- World judge - after the judicial reform of 1864 and before 1889, as well as in 1912-1917. a judge chosen or appointed to deal with petty cases and who decides alone.
- Constitutional state- a system in which the rule of law is ensured in all spheres of society, the protection of individual rights and the mutual responsibility of citizens and the state.
- Jurors - twelve elected officials who sit in court to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in criminal cases and take an oath "to cast a decisive vote in the essential truth and conviction of conscience."
- Attorney at Law- a lawyer, according to judicial reform, defended the defendant in the presence of the public.
Reforms of the 60s - 70s of the 19th century in Russia, their consequences
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 domestic politics Russia in the second half of the 19th century. three stages are distinguished: 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. The 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 country's socio-political system. 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. He was quite well prepared for the management of the state. He received an excellent education and upbringing. His mentor was the poet Zhukovsky and he influenced the formation of the personality of the future tsar. From a young age, Alexander joined the military service and by the age of 26 he became a “full general”. Traveling in Russia and Europe expanded the horizons of the heir. His father attracted him to public service. He was in charge of the activities of the Secret Committees on the Peasant Question. And the 36-year-old emperor was psychologically and practically prepared to become the initiator of the liberation of the peasants as the first person in the state. Therefore, he went down in history as the "Liberator" king. 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:
all-estate Flaws:
electivity
the beginning of the separation of powers was not 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
were given unequal voting rights
contacts between zemstvos were forbidden
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.
Electivity was granted for 3 curiae: 1 - industrialists and merchants (1/3 of taxes), 2 - medium-sized entrepreneurs (1/3), 3 - all the population of the mountains. Of the 707 provinces, 621 received a ref. MSU. The competencies are the same, the disadvantages are the same.
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
a court of two types was created: 1. Magistrates' courts - they considered minor civil cases, the damage in 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 war ministry was converted to 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. Zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose along with state schools. 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 logical continuation of the reforms of 60-70 could be the adoption of moderate constitutional proposals developed in 1881 by the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov. They assumed the development of local self-government, the involvement of zemstvos and cities (with an advisory vote) in the discussion of national issues. But 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 wore multilayered character, i.e. large-scale machine industry coexisted with manufacturing and small-scale (handicraft) production. Also observed 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. Public funds 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.
