FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

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

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

ESSAY

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

background and consequences.

Completed by: student of the IUT-61 group

Nechaev Mikhail

Checked by: Shushkanova E. A.

Krasnoyarsk 2006

Plan

Introduction

Introduction

towards the middle XIXin. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. The international events of the middle of the century showed its significant weakening in the foreign policy field as well. Therefore, the main goal of the government was to bring the economic and social political system Russia in accordance with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was to preserve the autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.

Development capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into even greater contradiction with the feudal-serf system. The deepening of the process of social division of labor, the growth of industry, domestic and foreign trade disintegrated the feudal economic system. The growing conflict between the new, capitalist relations and the obsolete serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A vivid expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf countryside.

Defeat in Crimean War undermined the international prestige of Russia, accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60-70s.XIXin. The Russian autocracy had to take the path of carrying out urgent social, economic and political reforms in order to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country and to strengthen the social and economic base of absolutism.

This path began with the implementation of the most important reform of the abolition of serfdom, as well as a number of other important bourgeois reforms: courts, self-government, education and the press, etc. in the 60-70s.XIXc. necessary for Russia.

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

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

The topic I have chosen is also relevant at this time, since reforms are also being carried out now, and an analysis of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXin. allows us to correlate them with the reforms of our time, to identify shortcomings and, accordingly, the consequences of these shortcomings, to identify the impact of these reforms on the further development of our country.

The goals and objectives of my work: to consider the main points of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXcentury, their prerequisites and consequences, as well as the impact of these reforms on the further development of Russia.

1. Prerequisites for reforms.

The agrarian-peasant question towards the middleXIXin. became the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among the European states, serfdom remained only in it, hindering economic and socio-political development. The preservation of serfdom is due to the peculiarities of the Russian autocracy, which, since the formation of the Russian state and the strengthening of absolutism, relied exclusively on the nobility, and therefore had to take into account its interests.

In the end XVIII- middle XIXin. even the government and conservative circles did not stand aside from understanding the solution of the peasant question. However, the attempts of the government to soften serfdom, to give the landlords a positive example of managing the peasants, to regulate their relations proved to be ineffective due to the resistance of the serfs. towards the middleXIXin. the prerequisites that led to the collapse of the feudal system have finally matured. First of all, it has outlived itself economically. The landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landlords.

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

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

The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods dropped sharply. The new foreign policy situation that developed after the Peace of Paris testified to Russia's loss of its international prestige and threatened to lose influence in Europe.

Thus, the abolition of serfdom was due to political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also led to the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field local government, court, education, finance, in military affairs.

2. Peasant reform of 1861

2.1. Reform preparation

For the first time, the need to abolish serfdom was officially announced by AlexanderIIin a speech he delivered on March 30, 1856 to the rulers of the Moscow nobility. In this speech AlexanderII, speaking of his unwillingness to "give freedom to the peasants", was forced to declare the need to start preparing his liberation in view of the danger of further preservation of serfdom, pointing out that "it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it is itself abolished from below." January 3, 1856 under the chairmanship of AlexanderIIA secret committee was formed "to discuss measures to arrange the life of the landlord peasants." Made up of ardent serf-owners, the Secret Committee acted indecisively, but further growth peasant movement forced the government at the end of 1857 to come to grips with the preparation of the reform.

Initially, the government tried to force the landlords themselves to take the initiative. On November 20, 1857, a rescript was given: (instruction) to the Governor-General of the Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) V.I. Nazimov on the establishment of three provincial committees from among the local landowners and one general commission in Vilna to prepare local projects "improving the life of the landlord peasants." The program of the government, which formed the basis of this rescript, was developed in the Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1856. It granted civil rights to the serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; the peasants were given allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear in favor of the landowner feudal duties regulated by law. In other words, the peasants were granted personal freedom, but feudal production relations were preserved.

During 1857-1858. similar rescripts were given to the rest of the governors, and in the same year in the provinces in which the landlord peasants were located, "governor committees on improving the life of the landlord peasants" began to operate. With the publication of the rescripts on December 24, 1858, and the beginning of the work of the committees, the preparation of the reform gained publicity. On February 16, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Along with the main committee, at the beginning of March 1858, a Zemsky department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, chaired at first by A.I. Levshin, and then N.A. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in the preparation of the reform. The issue of its preparation began to be widely discussed in the press.

Although the fate of the peasantry was decided by the landlords in the provincial committees and central government institutions preparing the reform, and the peasants were excluded from participation in matters relating to their vital interests, nevertheless, neither the landowners nor the government could not ignore the moods of the peasantry, which had a significant impact for the preparation of the reform. Under the pressure of mass peasant unrest, the Main Committee on December 4, 1858. adopted a new program that provided for the provision of peasants with their allotments in property through redemption and the complete release of the peasants who bought their allotments from feudal duties.

March 4, 1859 under the Main Committee, editorial commissions were approved to consider materials prepared by the provincial committees and draw up a draft law on the emancipation of the peasants. One commission was to prepare a draft " general position" for all provinces, the other - "local provisions" for certain areas. In fact, the commissions merged into one, retaining the plural name "Editorial Commissions".

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

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

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

On February 19, 1961, the State Council completed the discussion of the draft Regulations. And on February 29, they were signed by the king and received the force of law. On the same day, the tsar signed the Manifesto announcing the liberation of the peasants.

The government was well aware that the law being passed would not satisfy the peasants and would provoke a mass protest on their part against its predatory conditions. Therefore, already from the end of 1860, it began to mobilize forces to suppress peasant unrest. "Regulations February 19, 1861" extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563,000 serfs of both sexes, including 1,467,000 serfs and 543,000 assigned to private factories and factories.

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

2.3. Legal status peasants and peasant institutions.

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

In June-July 1861, bodies of peasant “public administration” appeared in the villages of the former landlord peasants. The peasant "self-government" in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P. D. Kiselyov.

The peasant "Public administration" was responsible for the behavior of the peasants and ensuring the proper serving of duties by the peasants in favor of the landowner and the state. The law of 1861 preserved the community, which the government and the landlords used as a fiscal and police cell in the post-reform village.

In June 1861, the institution of peace mediators was created, to which the government entrusted the execution of numerous administrative and police functions related to the implementation of the reform: the approval and introduction of charters (determining post-reform duties and land relations between peasants and landlords), certification of redemption acts at the transition of peasants to redemption, the resolution of disputes between peasants and landowners, the management of the delimitation of peasant and landlord lands, supervision of peasant self-government.

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

2.3.1. Peasant dress.

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

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

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

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

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

The law provided for a cut off from the peasant allotment if it exceeded the highest or indicated norm determined for the given locality, and cutting if the allotment did not reach the lower norm. The law allowed cutting off in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land in the estate in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasant free of charge ("as a gift") ¼ of the highest allotment ( "donation"). The gap between higher and lower norms has made cuts the rule and cuts the exception. Yes, and the size of the segment was dozens of times greater than the cut, and the best lands were cut off from the peasants, and the worst lands were cut. Cutting, ultimately, was also carried out in the interests of the landowners: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary to preserve the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties. As a result, peasant land use in the country as a whole decreased by more than 1/5.

The severity of the segments was not only in their size. As a rule, the most valuable, and most importantly, necessary for the peasants, lands were cut off, without which the normal functioning of the peasant economy was not possible: meadows, pastures, watering places, etc. The peasant was forced to rent these "cut-off lands" on enslaving terms. In the hands of the landlords, the cuts turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and became the basis of a well-established system in the post-reform period.

The landownership of the peasants was hampered not only by cuts, but also by striping, depriving the peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in the wooded northeastern provinces). The law gave the landowner the right to transfer peasant estates to another place, to exchange their allotments for their own land before the peasants went for redemption, if any minerals were suddenly discovered on the peasant allotment, or simply this land turned out to be necessary for one or another need of the landowner. The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but even further increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million souls of peasants (724,000 households, 461,000 donators, and 137,000 belonging to small landowners) actually turned out to be landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 dessiatinas per capita, while for the normal provision of the necessary standard of living for the peasant at the expense of agriculture, with the then agricultural technology, from 6 to 8 dessiatinas per capita was required (depending on different areas). The lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants, they were forced to replenish by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or third-party earnings. That's why agrarian question took such sharpness at the turnXIX— XXcenturies and was the "nail" of the revolution of 1905-1907.

2.3.2. Duties.

Prior to the transition to redemption, the peasants were obliged to serve their duties in the form of corvée or dues for the allotments granted to them for use. The law established the following rates of dues: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in the rest - 8-9 rubles. from 1 male soul (in estates located no further than 25 miles from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). In the case of the proximity of the estates to the railway, navigable river, to the commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the rate of dues. In addition, the law provided for a “repurchase” after 20 years, i.e. an increase in dues in anticipation of an increase in rental and sale prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform dues could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, however, the law did not provide for a decrease in the dues in connection with the reduction of the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrent per 1 tithe. The rates of dues established by law exceeded the profitability of land, especially in non-chernozem provinces. The exorbitant burden of the allotment was also achieved by the “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the quitrent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was laid out on the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the amount of dues per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the peasant put on. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest standard and the landowner could not rob the peasants by cutting off the allotment, a system of gradations came into force, which thus pursued the goal of squeezing the maximum of duties out of the peasants for the minimum allotment. The system of gradations also extended to corvee.

The corvee for the highest shower allotment was set at 70 working days (40 for men and 30 for women) from the tax per year, with 3/5 days in summer and 2/5 in winter. The working day was 12 hours in summer and 9 hours in winter. The volume of work during the day was determined by a special "urgent position". However, the low productivity of corvee labor and especially widespread sabotage of corvee work by the peasants forced the landlords to transfer the peasants to quitrent and introduce a labor-work system that was more efficient than the old corvée. For 2 years, the proportion of corvée peasants decreased from 71 to 35%.

2.3.3. ransom

The transfer of peasants for ransom was the final stage in their liberation from serfdom. "Regulations February 19, 1861" no final date for the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants and their transfer to redemption was not determined. Only the law of December 28, 1881 established the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption starting from January 1, 1883. By this time, 15% of the peasants remained in a temporarily liable position. Their transfer for ransom was completed by 1895. However, this law applied only to 29 "Great Russian provinces." In Transcaucasia, the transfer of peasants for ransom was not completed even by 1917. The situation was different in 9 provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, where, under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863 and a broad peasant movement, peasants in the amount of 2.5 million male souls were transferred to compulsory redemption already in 1863. Here, more preferential, compared to other provinces of Russia, conditions for liberation were established: the lands cut off from allotments were returned, duties were reduced by an average of 20%.

The terms of redemption for the bulk of the peasants were very difficult. The ransom was based on feudal duties, and not on the actual, market price of the land. In other words, the peasants had to pay not only for the reduced allotment, but also for the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The redemption amount was determined by "capitalization of quitrent". Its essence was that the annual rent paid by the peasant was equated to an annual income of 6% of the capital. The calculation of this capital meant the determination of the redemption sum.

The state took over the ransom by carrying out a ransom operation. It was expressed in the fact that the treasury paid the landowners immediately in money and securities 80% of the redemption amount if the peasants of the given province received the highest allotment, and 75% if they were given a less than the highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landlords was then collected from the peasants at a rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time, the peasant had to pay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.

The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved a number of important social and economic problems. The government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from a direct confrontation with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was set at 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, the former landlord peasants paid the treasury 1,540,570 thousand rubles. ransom payments and still owed her. By carrying out the redemption operation, the treasury also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from the landowners. By 1861, 65% of the serfs were mortgaged and re-mortgaged by their owners in various credit institutions, and the amount of debt to these institutions amounted to 425 million rubles. This debt was deducted from the ransom loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed the landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.

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

2.4. The response of the peasants to the reform.

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

The peasant movement assumed the greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, in the Volga region and in the Ukraine, where the bulk of the peasants were on corvee, and the agrarian question was especially acute. The unrest was the strongest in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands participated and which ended in their bloody pacification - hundreds of peasants were killed and wounded.

By the summer of 1861 the government, with the help of large military units, by executions and mass sections with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862 a new wave of peasant uprisings arose, connected with the introduction of statutory charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants to freedom in individual estates. More than half of the charters were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called by the peasants by force, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. happened 844.

Aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. influenced the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations spring up, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are circulated. At the beginning of 1862, the largest revolutionary organization after the Decembrists, Land and Freedom, was created, which set as its main task the unification of all revolutionary forces with the peasantry for a general attack on the autocracy. The struggle of the peasantry in 1863 did not acquire the sharpness that was observed in 1861 - in 1862. In 1863 there were 509 unrest. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and the Right-Bank Ukraine, which is associated with the influence of the Polish uprising in 1863.

The peasant movement of 1861-1863, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. It was also important that by carrying out reforms at different times in the landlord, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize the outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landlord peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by specific and state peasants.

2.5. Reform in the specific and state village.

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

2.6. Significance of the peasant reform of 1861

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

Bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861. at the same time, it was also feudal; it could not have been otherwise, for it was carried out by the feudal lords. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861. led to the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, political system in reformed Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. The landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor compensation or bondage. Reform of 1861 retained the feudal estate system: the estate privileges of the landlords, the inequality of estates and the isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political domination of the landlords. Taking steps towards becoming a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively intervened in the economic development of the country, sought to use new processes to strengthen its positions.

The reform of 1861 did not solve the problem of the final elimination of the feudal-serf system in the country. Therefore, the reasons that led to the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s. 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary denouement. The feudal nature of the reform of 1861, its duality and inconsistency gave particular urgency to the socio-economic and political conflicts in post-reform Russia. The reform "gave rise" to the revolution not only by preserving the survivals of serfdom, but also by the fact that, by "opening a certain valve, giving a certain boost to capitalism", it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought for the elimination of these survivals. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who visited the city, at the factory, saw a lot and learned a lot.

3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874

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

The development of these reforms began in a revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century. However, the preparation and implementation of these reforms dragged on for a decade and a half and took place at a time when the revolutionary wave in the country had already been repulsed and the autocracy emerged from a political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.

3.1 Reforms in the field of local self-government.

One of the concessions "which the wave of public excitement and revolutionary onslaught repulsed from the autocratic government", V. I. Lenin called the Zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, win over a part of the "liberal society", strengthen its social support - the nobility.

In March 1859 Under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the chairmanship of N. A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law "On economic and administrative management in the county." It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created bodies of local government should not go beyond purely economic issues. local importance. April 1860. Milyutin introduced AlexanderIIa note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. April 1861. under pressure from reactionary court circles, N. A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of S. S. Lansky, as "liberals", were dismissed. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the planned zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave advantages to the noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

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

By March 1863, a draft “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by AlexanderIIand received the force of law. According to this law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - county and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of uyezd vowels in different uyezds ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial vowels - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at uyezd zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 county vowels. Elections to uyezd zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned immovable property worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or those who received an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as authorized by the clergy and landowners who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by noble landowners and partly by the big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of commercial and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate worth at least 500 rubles. in small and 2 thousand rubles. - in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the big urban bourgeoisie, as well as by the nobility. The third curia consisted of representatives of rural communities, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia. If for the first two curiae the elections were direct, then for the third one they were multistage: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which the electors were elected, and then the county congress of electors elected the deputies to the county zemstvo assembly. The multi-stage elections for the third curia pursued the goal of bringing the most wealthy and "trustworthy" vowels from the peasants to the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies in choosing representatives to the zemstvos from among themselves. It is important to note that according to the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels were elected to the zemstvos as in the other two, which ensured the predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility.

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

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

The zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the minister of internal affairs, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. In order to carry out their decisions, the zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.

The competence and activities of zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative methods. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and "clarifications" from the Ministry of the Interior and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse to approve any official elected by the Zemstvo, made Zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies, and limited the ability of Zemstvos to tax trade and industrial establishments. . (which significantly undermined their financial capabilities). In 1867, zemstvos of different provinces were prohibited from communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other. Circulars and decrees made zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, hampered the freedom of debate in zemstvo assemblies, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings, and pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.

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

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

According to this law, new, formally non-estate, city government bodies were introduced in 509 cities of Russia - city dumas, elected for 4 years. The city duma elected its permanent executive body - the city council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more of its members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of the Duma and the city council. The right to elect and be elected was received only by the payers of city taxes who had a certain property qualification. According to the size of the tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: the largest payers participated in the first, paying a third total amount city ​​taxes, the second - medium taxpayers, who also pay a third of city taxes, and the third - small taxpayers, who pay the remaining third of the total city taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was nevertheless a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city self-government bodies played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city.

3.2. Judicial reform.

In 1861, the State Chancellery was instructed to start developing the "Basic Provisions for the Transformation of the Judiciary in Russia." Major lawyers of the country were involved in the preparation of the judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the well-known lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S. I. Zarudny, under whose leadership, by 1862, the basic principles of the new judicial system and legal proceedings were developed. They got Alexander's approvalII, were published and sent for feedback to judicial institutions, universities, well-known foreign lawyers and formed the basis of judicial statutes. The developed draft judicial statutes provided for the non-estate court and its independence from administrative authorities, the irremovability of judges and judicial investigators, the equality of all estates before the law, the oral nature, competitiveness and publicity of the trial with the participation of jurors and lawyers (sworn attorneys). This was a significant step forward compared to the feudal class court, with its silence and clerical secrecy, lack of protection and bureaucratic red tape.

November 20, 1864 AlexanderIIapproved the statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. The Crown Court had two instances: the first was the district court, the second - the judicial chamber, uniting several judicial districts. Elected jurors established only the guilt or innocence of the defendant; the measure of punishment was determined by the judges and two members of the court. Decisions made by the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final, and without their participation they could be appealed to the judicial chamber. Decisions of district courts and judicial chambers could be appealed only in case of violation of the lawful order of legal proceedings. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate, which was the highest instance of cassation, which had the right of cassation (review and cancellation) of court decisions.

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

Judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of sworn attorneys - the bar, as well as the institution of forensic investigators - special officials of the judicial department, who were transferred to the preliminary investigation in criminal cases, which was withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the police. Chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, sworn attorneys and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and the attorney at law and his assistant, in addition, have five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification not lower than average and who had served at least three years in the public service could be elected a justice of the peace.

Supervision over the legality of the actions of judicial institutions was carried out by the chief prosecutor of the Senate, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and district courts. They reported directly to the Minister of Justice. Although the judicial reform was the most consistent of the bourgeois reforms, it retained many features of the estate-feudal political system, subsequent instructions introduced into the judicial reform an even greater deviation from the principles of the bourgeois court. The spiritual court (consistory) for spiritual matters and military courts for the military were preserved. The highest royal dignitaries - members of the State Council, Senators, ministers, generals - were judged by a special Supreme Criminal Court. In 1866, judicial officials were actually made dependent on the governors: they were obliged to appear before the governor on the first call and "obey his legal requirements." In 1872, the Special Presence of the ruling Senate was created specifically to deal with cases of political crimes. The law of 1872 limited the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the world court was liquidated (restored in 1912).

Under the influence of the public democratic upsurge during the years of the revolutionary situation, the autocracy was forced to agree to the abolition of corporal punishment. The law issued on April 17, 1863 abolished public punishments by verdicts of civil and military courts with whips, gauntlets, "cats", and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment has not been completely abolished.

3.3. financial reforms.

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

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

The farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but to the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still lay on the taxable population. The poll tax for peasants, philistines, and artisans was preserved. The privileged classes were exempted from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for more than 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of the expenditures in the state budget went to the maintenance of the army and the administrative apparatus, up to 35% to the payment of interest on public debts, the issuance of subsidies, and so on. Expenses for public education, medicine, and charity accounted for less than 1/10 of the state budget.

3.4. military reform.

The defeat in the Crimean War showed that the Russian regular army, based on a recruiting set, cannot withstand more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874. about the all-word conscription men over the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces up to 6, in the navy - up to 7 years. The terms of active service were significantly reduced depending on the educational qualification. Persons who had higher education served only six months.

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

For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The command and control system of the armed forces has been improved.

All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness.

3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.

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

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

In 1865, "Provisional Rules" on printing were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books designed for the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also preserved. From the end of the 60s. the government began to issue decrees, largely nullifying the main provisions of the education reform and censorship.

3.6. Significance of bourgeois reforms.

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

However, the process of modernization of Russia had a specific character. It was primarily due to the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The performances of the radicals only activated the conservative forces, frightened the liberals and hampered the reformist aspirations of the government. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these dust reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the estate advantages of the nobility and practically preserved the disenfranchised status of the taxable estates. The new governing bodies, the school and the press were completely subordinated to the tsarist administration. Along with the reforms, the autocracy supported the old administrative-police management methods and estates in all spheres of the country's socio-political life, which made it possible to switch to reaction and carry out a series of counter-reforms in the 80-90s.

Conclusion

After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, capitalism in Russia established itself as the dominant formation. From an agrarian country, Russia turned into an agrarian-industrial one: a large-scale machine industry developed rapidly, new types of industry arose, new areas of capitalist industrial and agricultural production took shape, an extensive network of railways was created, a single capitalist market was formed, important and social changes took place in the country. V. I. Lenin called the peasant reform of 1861 a “coup”, similar to the Western European revolutions, which opened the way for a new, capitalist formation. But since this coup took place in Russia not through a revolution, but through a reform carried out "from above", this led to the preservation in the post-reform period of numerous remnants of serfdom in the economic, social, and political system of the country.

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

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

The reforms, although they were a significant step forward for Russia, nevertheless they, bourgeois in their content, carried feudal traits. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these reforms were half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and in fact preserved the disenfranchised status of the taxable estates. The concessions made primarily to the big bourgeoisie did not in the least violate the privileges of the nobility.

So, it should be noted that the main tasks that the government set for itself were fulfilled, although not in full. And the consequences of these reforms were not always positive, for example, as a result of the peasant reform, a lot of people died during the uprisings. In addition, the landowners, trying to somehow get out of a disadvantageous situation for them, tried to get as much benefit from the peasants as possible, as a result of which the peasant economy was greatly reduced.

But the most important thing, in my opinion, is that the peasants began to break up into classes, and to a lesser extent depend on the landowners. It is also important to emphasize that the principles laid down in the reforms of the court, education, press, and military affairs greatly influenced the position of the country in the future, and allowed Russia to be considered one of the world powers.

Bibliography

Zakharevich A.V. History of the Fatherland: Textbook. - M, Publishing house "Dashkov and K o", 2005.

Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook. - M. "PBOYUL L.V. Rozhnikov, 2000.

Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. - M. "Enlightenment".

M.V. Ponomarev, O.V. Volobuev, V.A. Klokov, V.A. Rogozhkin. Russia and the World: Textbook Grade 10.

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

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

capitalism tsarism revolutionary populist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRIEFLY: Judicial reform. Since 1864, a new structure of courts (general and global) and a jury trial were introduced. The court became open, competitive and independent. The equality of estates before the court was proclaimed. Zemstvo reform (1864). Zemstvos are elected bodies of local self-government. They were elected on the basis of a property qualification for three curias (groups of voters), headed by local marshals of the nobility and in charge of education, health care, and improvement in rural areas. City reform. In 1870, local self-government bodies were introduced in cities (city duma and council). They were also chosen on the basis of a property qualification and dealt with the same issues in the cities as the zemstvos in the countryside. The military reform was carried out. New military educational institutions were created, the army was re-equipped. In 1874, universal military service was introduced instead of recruitment. The education system was reorganized. The autonomy of universities was introduced. Liberal reforms reduced Russia's lag behind Europe, leading it along the bourgeois path of development, but did not solve the main problem - the peasant one.

Zemstvo reform of 1864 Russia approached the peasant reform with an extremely backward and neglected local (zemstvo, as they used to say) economy. Honey. 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 guide households. affairs: the construction and maintenance of local roads, schools, hospitals, almshouses, for the organization of 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, for the election of vowels of the county zemstvo assembly, created. three elect. congress. 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 liber. 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 developed, 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 have watched the rise of the "third element" with concern.

Urban reform of 1870 In 1870, following the Zemskaya type, a city reform was carried out to replace the former class dumas, created in accordance with the “Charter of Letters to Cities” of 1785, with all-class elective city institutions - city dumas and city councils.

The right to elect to the city duma was used by persons who had reached the age of 25 and paid city taxes. All voters, in accordance with the amount of fees paid in favor of the city, were divided into three curiae. The first curia consisted of a small group of the largest owners of real estate, industrial and commercial enterprises, who paid 1/3 of all taxes to the city treasury. The second curia included smaller taxpayers who contributed another 1/3 of the city fees. The third curia consisted of all other taxpayers. At the same time, each curia elected equal number vowels in the city duma, which ensured the predominance of representatives of the big financial and commercial and industrial bourgeoisie in it.

City public self-government was in charge of the decision of households. issues: the improvement of the city, the development of local trade and industry, health care and public education, the maintenance of the police, prisons, etc.

The activity of city self-government was controlled by the state. The mayor elected by the city duma was approved by the governor or the minister of the interior. The same officials could impose a ban on any decision of the Duma. To control the activities of city self-government in each province, a special body was created - the provincial presence for city affairs. However, for all its limitations, the urban reform was a step forward compared to the pre-reform organization of urban government during the Ec II. She, like the zemstvo reform, contributed to the involvement of the general population in solving management issues, which served as a prerequisite for the formation of civil society and the rule of law in Russia.

Judicial reform of 1864 The most consistent transformation of A II was the judicial reform carried out on the basis of new judicial charters adopted in November 1864. In accordance with it, the new court was built on the principles of bourgeois law: the formal equality of all classes before the law; publicity of the court; the independence of judges; competitiveness of prosecution and defense; the election of certain judicial bodies.

According to the new judicial statutes, two systems of courts were created - world and general.

The magistrates' courts heard petty criminal and civil cases. They were created in cities and counties. Justices of the peace administered justice alone. They were elected by county zemstvo assemblies, and in the capitals - by city dumas. For judges, a high educational and property qualification was established - not lower than secondary education and ownership of real estate in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles or 400 acres of land. At the same time, the judges received a fairly high wages- from 2200 to 9000 rubles per year,

The system of general courts included district courts and judicial chambers

The district court was appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and considered complex criminal and civil cases. Consideration of criminal cases took place with the participation of 12 jurors. A juror could be a citizen of Russia between the ages of 25 and 70 with an impeccable personal record, who had lived in the area for at least two years. A rather significant property qualification was also established - possession of real estate in the amount of at least 2 thousand rubles. Lists of jurors approved. governor.

The Court of Appeal for the District Court was the Trial Chamber. Moreover, an appeal against the verdict handed down by the jury was not allowed.

The Judicial Chamber considered cases of malfeasance committed by persons who had a rank higher than the titular adviser (that is, from the VIII class of the table of ranks). Such cases were equated with state. crimes and obeyed with the participation of class representatives. The highest court was the Senate.

The reform established the publicity of trials, which began to be held openly, the public was admitted to them, newspapers printed reports on courts of public interest. The principle of competitiveness of the parties was ensured by the presence at the trial of the prosecutor - the representative of the prosecution and the lawyer who defended the interests of the accused. In Russian society, there was an extraordinary interest in advocacy.

And although the new judicial system still retained a number of feudal vestiges (the existence of a special volost court for peasants, courts for the clergy, military and senior officials), nevertheless, it was the most advanced.

Liberal reforms of the 60-70s

In the early 1960s, the need forthe possibility of introducing local self-government, about whichrum was declared by the liberal public: the government could not, on its own, raise theprovincial economy. 1st of January 1864 was accepted law on local government, establishedfor the management of economic affairs: construction maintenance and maintenance of local roads, schools, hospitals prostrate, almshouses, etc.

The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were gu-Bernese and county land meetings, performtelny - provincial and district land administrations. For the election of deputies - vowels- the county zemstvo assembly convened 3 electoral congresses: large landowners, urbanowners and peasants. District zemstvosassembly elected the vowels of the provincial zemstvoth meeting. Zemstvo assemblies were dominated noble landowners.

With the advent of the Zemstvo, the balance of power in the provinces began to change: a “third element” arose, ascalled zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists,tists. Zemstvos slowly but surely raisedlocal economy, improved the life of the village,education and health care. Soon the earthstva ceased to be purely economic organizationsnizations; associated with them is the appearance of the zemstvo liberalism, who dreamed of all-Russian elections oforderly power.

In 1870 was held city ​​government reform. Elections to the Duma were held by three election congresses: small, medium and largeny taxpayers. (Workers don't pay taxestili did not participate in the elections.) city ​​head and council elected by the Duma. Bodies of the cityself-governments successfully engaged in organizingher urban life, urban development, but in generalthey participated weakly in the movement.

In 1864, at the urging of the public, carried out judicial reform. Court in Russiaclassless, vowel, competitive, independentsim from the administration. central linkthe new judicial system became district Court. The prosecution was supported by the prosecutor, the interests ofdefendant defended defendant. Jury givers, 12 people, after listening to the court debate, rendered a verdict ("guilty", "not guilty", "vi-new, but deserving of indulgence"). Based onvaniya verdict, the court delivered a sentence. Such mouth-court courtship provided the greatest guaranteesfrom judicial errors.

Handling petty criminal and civil cases was engaged world judge, elected Zemstvo so- raniy or city council for 3 years. Ruler- the government could not, by its power, remove from a justice of the peace or judges of the district court.

Judicial reform was one of the mostsubsequent transformations of the 60-70s, but still it remained unfinished: it was notreformed the Senate, to parse small con-conflicts in the peasant environment remained classvolost court, which had the right to award to those forest punishments (until 1904).

A number of important military reforms held by D. A. Mi-Lutin, who was appointed Minister of War in 1861. The army was re-equipped according to modern requirements.novations. At the final stage, it shouldthere will be a transition, from recruitment to universalIndian duty. The conservative part of the generals for a number of years blocked this on-making; a turning point in the course of affairs was introduced by the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871: contemporaries were struck by the speed of mobilization Prussian army. On January 1, 1874, a law was passed abolishing the river rutchinu and distributing military obligations for men of all classes who have reached the age of 20 and fit for health. Service life benefitsbecome an additional incentive toeducation. The reform accelerated the breakdown of the class-th building; the abolition of recruitment increased the popularity Alexander II among the peasantry.

Reforms 60-70s, eliminating a number of experiences kov, creating modern self-government bodiesand ships, contributed to the development of the country, growthcivic consciousness of the population. These were only the first steps: the upper levels of power were not touched by the reforms.

Zemstvo, urban, judicial, military and other reforms were a natural continuation of the abolition of serfdom in Russia. Their main goal is to bring political system and administration in accordance with the new social structure, in which the multi-million peasantry received personal freedom. They were the product of the desire of the "liberal bureaucracy" to continue the political modernization of the country. This required adapting the autocracy to the development of capitalist relations and using the bourgeoisie in the interests of the ruling class.

Reorganization of local government. After the abolition of serfdom, it became necessary to change local government. In 1864, the zemstvo reform was carried out. Zemstvo institutions (zemstvos) were created in provinces and districts. These were elected bodies from representatives of all estates. The high property qualification ensured the predominance of landlords in them. Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The scope of their activities was limited exclusively to 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 special role in the development of education and health care. In addition, they became centers for the formation of the liberal noble and bourgeois opposition.

The next step was urban reform. The "City Regulations" of 1870 created all-estate bodies of city dumas in the cities. They dealt with the improvement of the city, took care of trade, provided educational and medical needs. In city dumas, in connection with the high property electoral qualification, the leading role belonged to the big bourgeoisie. Like the zemstvos, they were under the strict control of the government administration.

Judicial reform."New Judicial Charters" of 1864 were introduced in Russia in principle new system legal proceedings. They provided for the all-estate court, its independence from the administration, the irremovability of judges, the publicity and competitiveness of the trial." | The question of the guilt of the accused was decided by jurors. The competence of different judicial instances was strictly delineated. district. Particularly important state and political crimes were considered in the court of justice. The Senate became the highest court. The created system reflected the most progressive trends in world judicial practice. However, while carrying out the reform, the government left many loopholes for interference in legal proceedings. Some principles were only declared. For example Peasants were subject to their class court.Special courts were created for political trials, during the meetings of which the principle of publicity was often violated.

military reform. The defeat in the Crimean War showed that the Russian regular army, based on recruitment, cannot withstand more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874 on all-class military service for men over the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces up to 6 years, in the navy up to 7 years .. The terms of active service were significantly reduced depending on the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served only six months.

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

For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies of the General Staff were created. Artillery, Engineering, etc. The system of command and control of the armed forces has improved.

All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and, at the same time, to increase its combat effectiveness.

Reforms in education and the press. Reforms of administration, courts and the army logically demanded a change in the education system. In 1864, the "Charter of Gymnasiums" and "Regulations on Public Schools" were published, which regulated primary and secondary education. The main thing was that an accessible all-class education was actually introduced. Along with the state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. They accepted children of all classes capable of paying tuition fees.

In 1863, the new Statute returned autonomy to the universities, which had been abolished by Nicholas I in 1835. They restored independence in dealing with administrative, financial, scientific and pedagogical issues.

In 1865, "Provisional Rules" on printing were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books designed for the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. From the end of the 1960s, the government began to issue decrees that largely nullified the main provisions of the education reform and censorship.

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

However, the process of modernization of Russia had a specific character. It was primarily due to the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The radicals (the sixties and revolutionary populists) lacked the strength to radically reorganize society. Their speeches only activated the conservative forces, frightened the liberals and hampered the reformist aspirations of the government. Therefore, the initiators of the reforms were some of the highest government officials, the "liberal bureaucracy." This explained the inconsistency, incompleteness and narrowness of most of the reforms.

A logical continuation of the reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century. I beg you to accept the moderate constitutional proposals developed in the late 70s by the Minister of the Interior, General M.T. Loris-Melikov. However, the assassination of Emperor Alexander II by Narodnaya Volya on March 1, 1881 changed the general direction of the government's course.