Description of the presentation Liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century on slides
Plan for studying the topic 1. The reasons for the reforms of the 60–70s. 19th century 2. Reforms of local self-government. a) Zemstvo reform b) City reform 3. Judicial reform. 4. Reforms of the education system. a) School reform. b) University reform 5. Military reform.
Reforms of Alexander II (1855 - 1881) Peasant (1861) Zemskaya (1864) City (1870) Judicial (1864) Military (1874) Education (1863 -1864)
*Historians of the 19th – early 20th centuries. these reforms were rated as great (K. D. Kavelin, V. O. Klyuchevsky, G. A. Dzhanshiev). * Soviet historians considered them incomplete and half-hearted (M. N. Pokrovsky, N. M. Druzhinina, V. P. Volobuev).
Name The content of the reform Their meaning Their shortcomings Peasant (1861) Zemskaya (1864) City (1870) Judicial (1864) Military (1874)
6 Peasant reform: Manifesto and Regulations February 19, 1861 Results of the peasant reform Opened the way for the development of bourgeois relations in Russia Was unfinished, gave rise to social antagonisms (contradictions) "Will" without land
Reforms Their meaning Their shortcomings Peasant (1861) Turning point, the line between feudalism and capitalism. Created the conditions for the approval of the capitalist way of life as the dominant one. Preserved serf remnants; the peasants did not receive land in full ownership, they had to pay a ransom, they lost part of the land (cuts).
The reform of local self-government in 1864 introduced the "Regulations on zemstvo institutions". Local self-government bodies, zemstvos, were created in uyezds and provinces.
9 Zemskaya reform (Zemskaya reform (1864). “Regulations on the provinces). “Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions” and county zemstvo institutions” Content of the reform Creation of provincial and county zemstvos - elected bodies of local self-government in rural areas Functions of zemstvos Maintenance of local schools, hospitals; construction of local roads; organization of agricultural statistics, etc.
11 Zemskaya reform (Zemskaya reform (1864).). “Regulations on provincial “Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions” and county zemstvo institutions” on a qualification basis on a class basis, gathered annually
Zemstvo reform Representatives of all estates worked together in the Zemstvo, including in its permanent bodies (upravas). But the nobles still played the leading role, looking down on the "male" vowels. And the peasants often treated participation in the work of the zemstvo as a duty and elected short-receivers to the vowels. Zemstvo assembly in the province. Engraving after a drawing by K. A. Trutovsky.
Curia - categories into which voters were divided according to property and social characteristics in pre-revolutionary Russia during elections.
Zemstvo reform 1 vowel (deputy) for landowning and peasant curia was elected from every 3 thousand peasant allotments. According to the city curia - from the owners of property equal in value to the same amount of land. How many votes of peasants was equal to the voice of a landowner with 800 dessiatins. if the shower allotment was 4 des. ? In this case, 1 vote of the landowner = 200 votes of the peasants. Why, when the zemstvo bodies were created, was not equal suffrage provided for peasants, townspeople and landowners? Because in this case, the educated minority would "sink" into the illiterate, ignorant peasant masses. ?
Zemstvo reform Zemstvo assemblies met once a year: district assemblies for 10 days, provincial assemblies for 20 days. Estate composition of Zemstvo assemblies? Why was the share of peasants among the provincial councilors noticeably lower than among the county ones? Nobles Merchants Peasants Other Uyezd zemstvo 41, 7 10, 4 38, 4 9, 5 Provincial zemstvo 74, 2 10, 9 10, 6 4, 3 The peasants were not ready to deal with provincial affairs far from their daily needs. And getting to the provincial town was far and expensive.
Zemstvo reform Zemstvo assembly in the provinces. Engraving after a drawing by K. A. Trutovsky. Zemstvos received the right to invite specialists in certain sectors of the economy - teachers, doctors, agronomists - Zemstvo employees were introduced at the level of counties and provinces Zemstvos not only solve local economic affairs, but are also actively involved in the political struggle
Your comments. Zemstvos. The Moscow nobleman Kireev wrote about the zemstvos: “We, the nobles, are vowels; merchants, philistines, clergy - consonants, peasants - mute. Explain what the author wanted to say?
Zemstvo reform Zemstvos dealt exclusively with economic issues: building roads, fighting fires, agronomic assistance to peasants, creating food stocks in case of crop failure, maintaining schools and hospitals. For this collected zemstvo taxes. Zemstvo assembly in the province. Engraving after a drawing by K. A. Trutovsky. 1865? What groups are the vowels of the zemstvos divided into in K. Trutovsky's drawing?
Thanks to zemstvo doctors, rural residents received qualified medical care for the first time. The zemsky doctor was a generalist: a therapist, surgeon, dentist, obstetrician. Sometimes operations had to be done in a peasant's hut. Off-road in the Tver province. Country doctor. Hood. I. I. Tvorozhnikov.
Zemstvo reform Teachers played a special role among the zemstvo employees. What do you think this role was? Zemsky teacher not only taught children arithmetic and literacy, but often was the only literate person in the village. The arrival of the teacher in the village. Hood. A. Stepanov. ? Thanks to this, the teacher became a bearer of knowledge and new ideas for the peasants. It was among the zemstvo teachers that there were especially many liberal and democratically minded people.
Zemstvo reform In 1865–1880. in Russia there were 12 thousand rural zemstvo schools, and in 1913 - 28 thousand. Zemstvo teachers taught more than 2 million peasant children, including girls, to read and write. True, primary education never became compulsory. The training programs were developed by the Ministry of Education. Lesson in the zemstvo school of the Penza province. 1890s ? What, judging by the photograph, distinguished the zemstvo school from the state or parish?
23 Zemskaya reform (Zemskaya reform (1864).). “Regulations on provincial“Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions”and county zemstvo institutions” Significance contributed to the development of education, health care, local improvement; became centers of the liberal social movement Restrictions were initially introduced in 35 provinces (by 1914 they operated in 43 out of 78 provinces) were not sodaned volost zemstvos acted under the control of the administration (governors and the Ministry of Internal Affairs)
Zemskaya (1864) The most energetic, democratic intelligentsia grouped around the zemstvos. The activity was aimed at improving the situation of the masses. Estates of the elections; the range of issues addressed by the zemstvos is limited. Reforms Their importance Their shortcomings
The city reform began to be prepared in 1862, but because of the assassination attempt on Alexander II, its implementation was delayed. The city regulation was adopted in 1870. The City Duma remained the highest body of city self-government. Elections were held in three curiae. Curia were formed on the basis of a property qualification. A list of voters was compiled in descending order of the amount of city taxes they paid. Each curia paid 1/3 of taxes. The first curia was the richest and smallest, the third the poorest and most numerous. ? What do you think: city elections were held on an all-estate or non-estate basis?
City reform City self-government: Voters of the 1st curia Voters of the 2nd curia Voters of the 3rd curia. City Council (administrative body) City government (executive body) elects the Mayor
City reform The head of city self-government was the elected mayor. In large cities, a nobleman or a rich guild merchant was usually chosen as the head of the city. Like zemstvos, city dumas and councils were in charge of exclusively local landscaping: paving and street lighting, maintaining hospitals, almshouses, orphanages and city schools, taking care of trade and industry, organizing water supply and urban transport. Samara Mayor P. V. Alabin.
28 City reform of 1870 – – “City regulation”
City (1870) Contributed to the involvement of the general population in management, which served as a prerequisite for the formation of civil society and the rule of law in Russia. The activity of city self-government was controlled by the state. Reforms Their importance Their shortcomings
Judicial reform - 1864 Zemstvo assembly in the province. Engraving after a drawing by K. A. Trutovsky. Principles of legal proceedings Inconsistency - the decision of the court does not depend on the class of the accused Election - the justice of the peace and the jury Publicity - the public could attend the court sessions, the press could report on the progress of the trial Independence - the administration could not influence the judges Competitiveness - the participation of the prosecutor in the trial (prosecution) and lawyer (defence)
33 Judicial Reform 1864 Judge appointed by the Ministry of Justice (principle of irremovability of judges) Sentencing in accordance with the law on the basis of the jury's verdict Basis for reform Judicial Statutes introduction of jury trial
34 Judicial reform of 1864 Jurors are selected from representatives of all classes (!) On the basis of a property qualification 12 people Pass a verdict (decision) on the guilt, its degree or innocence of the defendant
Judicial Reform Judges received high salaries. The decision on the guilt of the accused was made by the jury after hearing witnesses and debates between the prosecutor and the lawyer. A Russian citizen from 25 to 70 years old could become a juror (qualifications - property and residence). The decision of the court could be appealed.
36 Judicial Reform of 1864 Additional Elements of Judicial Reform Established: Special courts for military personnel Special courts for clergy World courts for petty civil and criminal offenses
37 Judicial reform of 1864. The structure of the judiciary in Russia The Senate is the highest judicial and cassation (cassation - appeal, protest against the sentence of a lower court) body Judicial chambers courts for considering the most important cases and appeals (complaint, appeal for review of the case) against decisions of district courts District Courts Courts of First Instance. Considers complex criminal and civil cases Lawyer Prosecutor Magistrates' Courts petty criminal and civil cases 12 jurors (qualification)
Judicial reform Minor offenses and civil litigation (the amount of the claim is up to 500 rubles) were dealt with by the Magistrate's Court. The justice of the peace decided cases on his own, could impose fines (up to 300 rubles), arrest for up to 3 months, or imprisonment for up to 1 year. Such a trial was simple, quick and cheap. World judge. Modern drawing.
Judicial Reform The justice of the peace was elected by zemstvos or city dumas from among persons over 25 years of age, with an education not lower than secondary, and judicial experience of three years. The magistrate was supposed to own real estate for 15 thousand rubles. It was possible to appeal against the decisions of the magistrate at the county congress of magistrates. District Congress of Justices of the Peace of the Chelyabinsk District.
Judicial reform Public participation: 12 non-professional judges - jurors participated in the process. The jurors delivered a verdict: "guilty"; "guilty but deserving of leniency"; "innocent". Based on the verdict, the judge pronounced the verdict. Modern drawing.
Judicial Reform Jurors were elected by provincial zemstvo assemblies and city dumas on the basis of a property qualification, without regard to class affiliation. Jurors. Drawing from the beginning of the 20th century. ? What can be said about the composition of the jury, judging by this picture?
Judicial reform Competitiveness: In criminal proceedings, the prosecution was supported by the prosecutor, and the defense of the accused was carried out by a lawyer (sworn attorney). In a jury trial, where the verdict did not depend on professional lawyers, the role of the lawyer was enormous. The largest Russian lawyers: K. K. Arseniev, N. P. Karabchevsky, A. F. Koni, F. N. Plevako, V. D. Spasovich. Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako (1842–1908) speaking in court.
Judicial reform Glasnost: The public began to be allowed into court sessions. Court reports were published in the press. Special court reporters appeared in the newspapers. Lawyer V. D. Spasovich: “To a certain extent, we are knights of the word of the living, free, freer now than in print, which will not be calmed down by the most zealous and ferocious chairmen, because while the chairman is considering stopping you, the word has already galloped three miles away and his not return." Portrait of the lawyer Vladimir Danilovich Spasovich. Hood. I. E. Repin. 1891.
44 The Judicial Reform of 1864 Significance of Judicial Reform The most advanced judicial system in the world at that time was created. A big step in the development of the principle of "separation of powers" and democracy Preservation of elements of bureaucratic arbitrariness: administrative punishment, etc. retained a number of vestiges of the past: special courts.
45 Military reform in the 60s - 70s. XIX XIX century. Military reform of the 60s - 70s. XIX-XIX centuries The immediate impetus was the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
Directions of military reform Result - a mass army of a modern type
Military reform The first step in military reform was the abolition in 1855 of military settlements. In 1861, at the initiative of the new Minister of War D. A. Milyutin, the service life was reduced from 25 years to 16 years. In 1863 corporal punishment was abolished in the army. In 1867, a new military judicial charter was introduced, based on general principles judicial reform (publicity, competitiveness). Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin (1816–1912), Minister of War in 1861–1881
Military reform In 1863, military education was reformed: the cadet corps were transformed into military gymnasiums. Military gymnasiums provided a broad general education (Russian and foreign languages, mathematics, physics, natural science, history). The teaching load has doubled, but the physical and general military training has been reduced. Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin (1816–1912), Minister of War in 1861–1881
1) The creation of military gymnasiums and schools for the nobility, cadet schools for all classes, the opening of the Military Law Academy (1867) and the Naval Academy (1877)
According to the new charters, the task was to teach the troops only what was necessary in the war (shooting, loose formation, sapper business), the time for drill training was reduced, and corporal punishment was prohibited.
Military reform What measure was to become the main one in the course of military reform? Recruitment cancellation. What were the shortcomings of the recruiting system? The inability to quickly increase the army in wartime, the need to maintain a large army in peacetime. Recruitment was suitable for serfs, but not for free people. Non-commissioned officer of the Russian army. Hood. V. D. POLENOV Fragment. ? ?
Military reform What could replace the recruiting system? Universal conscription. The introduction of universal conscription in Russia with its vast territory required the development of a road network. Only in 1870 was a commission established to discuss this issue, and on January 1, 1874, the Manifesto was published on the replacement of recruitment service with universal military service. Commander of the Dragoon Regiment. 1886?
Military Reform All males aged 21 were subject to conscription. Service life was 6 years in the army and 7 years in the navy. The only breadwinners and only sons were exempted from conscription. What principle was put in the basis of the military reform: all-estate or non-estate? Formally, the reform was without estates, but in fact, estates were largely preserved. "Behind" . Hood. P. O. Kovalevsky. Russian soldier 1870s in full travel gear. ?
Military reform What were the remnants of estates in the Russian army after 1874? The fact that the officer corps remained mainly noble, the rank and file - peasant. Portrait of Lieutenant of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment Count G. Bobrinsky. Hood. K. E. Makovsky. Drummer of the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment. Hood. A. Detail. ?
Military reform During the military reform, benefits were established for recruits who had a secondary or higher education. Those who graduated from the gymnasium served 2 years, those who graduated from the university - 6 months. In addition to a reduced service life, they had the right to live not in the barracks, but in private apartments. Volunteer of the 6th Klyastitsky Hussar Regiment
Smooth-bore weapons were replaced with rifled ones, cast-iron guns were replaced with steel ones, the Kh. Berdan rifle (Berdanka) was adopted by the Russian army, and the construction of a steam fleet began.
Military reform In what social groups do you think the military reform aroused discontent and what were its motives? The conservative nobility was dissatisfied with the fact that people from other classes got the opportunity to become officers. Some nobles resented the fact that they could be called up as soldiers along with the peasants. Particularly dissatisfied was the merchant class, previously not subject to recruitment duty. The merchants even offered to take over the maintenance of the disabled if they were allowed to pay off the draft. ?
59 Military reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX XIX century. Military reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX-XIX century The most important element of the reform is the replacement of the recruitment system with universal military service Compulsory military service for men of all classes from the age of 20 (6 years in the army, 7 years in the navy) with subsequent stay in the reserve Provided benefits for persons with higher and secondary education (the rights of volunteers), the clergy and some other categories of the population were released Importance of the creation of massive combat-ready armed forces; increasing the country's defense capability
The meaning of the reform: the creation of a mass army of a modern type, the authority of military service was raised, a blow to the class system. Shortcomings of the reform: miscalculations in the system of organization and armament of the troops. Military reform of 1874
62 Education reforms. Educational reforms School reform of 1864 Formation of a new structure of primary and secondary education Folk schools Uyezd 3 years of study Parish schools since 1884 Parish schools 3 years of study Progymnasium 4 years of study Urban 6 years of study Primary education
School Reform (Secondary Education) Classical and real gymnasiums were intended for the children of nobles and merchants. "Charter of gymnasiums and progymnasiums" November 19, 1864 Progymnasium. Duration of study 4 years Classical gymnasium 7-class, term of study 7 years Real gymnasium 7-class Duration of study 7 years The program of classical gymnasiums was dominated by ancient and foreign languages, ancient history, ancient literature. Mathematics, physics and other technical subjects prevailed in the program of real gymnasiums. Prepared to enter high school. They were located in county towns.
School reform In 1872, the term of study in classical gymnasiums was increased to 8 years (the 7th grade became two years old), and from 1875 they officially became 8th grade. Real gymnasiums retained a 7-year term of study and in 1872 were transformed into real schools. If graduates of classical gymnasiums entered universities without exams, then realists had to take exams in ancient languages. Without exams, they entered only technical universities. What caused such restrictions for graduates of real schools? In classical gymnasiums, the children of nobles more often studied, in real ones - the children of merchants and commoners. ?
The university reform was the first after the abolition of serfdom, which was caused by student unrest. A new university charter to replace the Nikolaev charter of 1835 was adopted on June 18, 1863. The Minister of Education A. V. Golovnin became the initiator of the new charter. The universities were given autonomy. Councils of universities and faculties were created, which elected the rector and deans, awarded academic titles, distributed funds among departments and faculties. Andrey Vasilyevich Golovnin (1821 -1886), Minister of Education in 1861–1866
University reform Universities had their own censorship, received foreign literature without customs inspection. The universities had their own court and security, the police did not have access to the territory of the universities. Golovnin suggested creating student organizations and involving them in university self-government, but the State Council rejected this proposal. Andrey Vasilyevich Golovnin (1821 -1886), Minister of Education in 1861–1866 ? Why was this proposal removed from the university charter?
Classic. Reform in the field of public education Changes in the education system University charter of 1863 School charter of 1864 Autonomy Gymnasiums Real Prepared for admission to the university Prepared for admission to higher technical educational institutions. A university council was created, which decided all internal issues. The election of the rector and teachers. Restrictions for students were removed (their misconduct was considered by the student court)
Women's education In the 60s and 70s. In Russia, women's higher education appeared. Women were not admitted to universities, but in 1869 the first Higher Women's Courses were opened. The courses opened by V. I. Gerrier in Moscow (1872) and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin in St. Petersburg (1878) acquired the greatest fame. Only the Faculty of Literature and History was included in Guerrier's courses. On Bestuzhev courses - mathematical and verbal-historical departments. 2/3 of the students studied mathematics. Student. Hood. N. A. Yaroshenko.
Reforms in the field of education (1863 -1864) Significance of reforms: expansion and improvement of education at all levels. Shortcomings of the reforms: inaccessibility of secondary and higher education for all segments of the population.
Judicial (1864) The most advanced judicial system in the then world. Preserved a number of vestiges: special courts. Military (1874) Creation of a mass army of a modern type, the authority of military service was raised, a blow to the class system. Miscalculations in the system of organization and armament of the troops. In the field of education (1863 -1864) Expansion and improvement of education at all levels. Inaccessibility of secondary and higher education for all segments of the population. Reforms Their importance Their shortcomings
71 The results and significance of the reforms They led to a significant acceleration of the country's development brought Russia closer to the level of the leading powers of the world They were incomplete and incomplete. In the 80s were replaced by counter-reforms of Alexander III
Significance of the reforms Zemsky Assembly in the provinces. Engraving after a drawing by K. A. Trutovsky. The country's advancement along the path of capitalist development, along the path of turning a feudal monarchy into a bourgeois one and the development of democracy The reforms were a step from the landlord state to the rule of law. The reforms demonstrated that positive changes in society can be achieved not by revolutions, but by transformations from above, by peaceful means
Summing up What is the historical significance of the reforms of the 1960s and 1970s? ? Thanks to the reforms of the 60-70s. many issues of everyday life were transferred from the jurisdiction of the bureaucracy to the jurisdiction of society represented by zemstvos and city dumas; the equality of Russian citizens before the law was established; significantly increased the level of literacy of the population; Universities received a greater degree of freedom for scientific and learning activities; censorship for the central press and book publishing was softened; the army began to be built on the basis of classless universal military service, which corresponded to the principle of equality before the law and made it possible to create trained reserves. ?
By the middle of the 19th century. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. International events (the Crimean War) showed a significant weakening of Russia in the foreign policy field as well. Therefore, the main goal of the internal policy of the government in the second half of the 19th century. was bringing the economic and social political system Russia in accordance with the needs of the time. In the domestic policy of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. three stages are distinguished: 1) the second half of the 50s - the beginning of the 60s - the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform; 2) - 60-70s carrying out liberal reforms; 3) 80-90s economic modernization, strengthening of statehood and social stability by traditional conservative administrative methods. The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of an important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, because it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Russia has lost international prestige and nearly lost influence in Europe. Eldest son of Nicholas 1 - Alexander 11 ascended the throne in 1855. He was quite well prepared for the management of the state. He received an excellent education and upbringing. His mentor was the poet Zhukovsky and he influenced the formation of the personality of the future tsar. From a young age, Alexander joined the military service and by the age of 26 he became a “full general”. Traveling in Russia and Europe expanded the horizons of the heir. His father attracted him to public service. He was in charge of the activities of the Secret Committees on the Peasant Question.
And the 36-year-old emperor was psychologically and practically prepared to become the initiator of the liberation of the peasants as the first person in the state. That's why he went down in history as Tsar "Liberator". His phrase about “it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it begins to be abolished from below” meant that the ruling circles finally came to the idea of the need to reform the state. Members took part in the preparation of the reforms royal family, representatives of the highest bureaucracy - Minister of Internal Affairs Lanskoy, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs - Milyutin, Adjutant General Rostovtsev. After the abolition of the kr.prav, it became necessary to change local government in 1864. zemstvo reform. Zemstvo institutions (zemstvos) were created in provinces and districts. These were elected bodies from representatives of all estates. The entire population was divided into 3 electoral groups - curia. 1 curia - landowners with > 2 acres of land or owners of real estate from 15,000 rubles; 2 curia - urban, urban industrialists and merchants with a turnover of at least 6,000 rubles / year were allowed here; 3 curia - rural. For the rural curia, the elections were multistage. The curiae were dominated by landlords. Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions.
The scope of their activities was limited to solving economic issues of local importance: the arrangement and maintenance of communication lines, zemstvo schools and hospitals, care for trade and industry. The zemstvos were under the control of the central and local authorities, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly. Despite this, the zemstvos played a huge role in the development of education and health care. And they became the centers of the formation of the liberal noble and bourgeois opposition. The structure of zemstvo institutions: It is a legislative and executive body. The chairmen were local marshals of the nobility. Provincial and county assemblies worked independently of each other. They met only once a year to coordinate actions. Executive bodies - provincial and district councils were elected at zemstvo meetings. Solved the problem of tax collection, while a certain% remained in place. Zemstvo institutions were subordinate only to the Senate. The governor did not interfere in the activities of local institutions, but only monitored the legality of actions.
urban reform. (1870) "City Regulations" created in the cities all-estate bodies - city dumas and city councils headed by the city head. They dealt with the improvement of the city, took care of trade, provided educational and medical needs. The leading role belonged to the big bourgeoisie. It was under the strict control of the government administration.
The candidacy of the mayor was approved by the governor.
Electivity was granted for 3 curiae: 1 - industrialists and merchants (1/3 of taxes), 2 - medium-sized entrepreneurs (1/3), 3 - all the population of the mountains. Of the 707 provinces, 621 received a ref. MSU. The competencies are the same, the disadvantages are the same.
Judicial reform:
1864 - New court statutes promulgated.
Provisions:
the estate system of courts was abolished
all were declared equal before the law
publicity was introduced
competitiveness of legal proceedings
presumption of innocence
irremovability of judges
unified system of justice
a court of two types was created: 1. Magistrates' courts - they considered minor civil cases, the damage in which did not exceed 500 rubles. Judges were elected at county assemblies and approved by the senate. 2. General courts were of 3 types: Criminal and grave - in district court. Particularly important state and political crimes were considered in judicial chamber. The highest court was Senate. Judges in general courts were appointed by the tsar, and jurors were elected at provincial assemblies.
Disadvantages: small class courts continued to exist - for the peasants. For political processes, a Special Presence of the Senate was created, meetings were held behind closed doors, which violated the attack of publicity.
Military reform: 1874 - Charter on military service on the all-class military service of men who have reached the age of 20. The term of active service was established in the ground forces - 6 years, in the navy - 7 years. Recruiting was abolished. The terms of active military service were determined by the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served 0.5 years. To raise the competence of the top military leadership, the military ministry was transformed into general staff. The whole country was divided into 6 military regions. The army was reduced, military settlements were liquidated. In the 60s, the rearmament of the army began: the replacement of smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, the introduction of steel artillery pieces, the improvement of the horse park, the development of the military steam fleet. For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, cadet schools and academies were created. All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and, at the same time, to increase its combat effectiveness.
They were exempted from military duty if there was 1 child in the family, if they had 2 children, or if elderly parents were on his payroll. Cane discipline was abolished. Humanization of relations in the army has passed.
Reform in the field of education: 1864 In fact, an accessible all-estate education was introduced Along with state schools, zemstvo, parish, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. The curriculum in gymnasiums was determined by universities, which created the possibility of a system of succession. During this period, secondary education for women was developed, and women's gymnasiums began to be created. Women are beginning to be admitted to universities as free students. University arr.: Alexander 2 gave the universities more freedom:
students could create student orgs
received the right to create their own newspapers and magazines without censorship
all volunteers were admitted to the universities
students were given the right to choose a rector
stud self-management was introduced in the form of a council of a fact
corporative systems of students and teachers were created.
Significance of reforms:
contributed to the more rapid development of capitalist relations in Russia.
contributed to the beginning of the formation of bourgeois freedoms in the Russian society (freedom of speech, personality, organizations, etc.). The first steps were taken to expand the role of the public in the life of the country and turn Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.
contributed to the formation of civic consciousness.
contributed to the rapid development of culture and education in Russia.
The initiators of the reforms were some top government officials, the “liberal bureaucracy”. This explained the inconsistency, incompleteness and narrowness of most of the reforms. The logical continuation of the reforms of 60-70 could be the adoption of moderate constitutional proposals developed in 1881 by the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov. They assumed the development of local self-government, the involvement of zemstvos and cities (with an advisory vote) in the discussion of national issues. But the assassination of Alexander II changed the course of the government. And the proposal of Loris-Melikov was rejected. The reforms gave impetus to the rapid growth of capitalism in all areas industry. A free labor force appeared, the process of capital accumulation became more active, the domestic market expanded and ties with the world grew. Features of the development of capitalism in the industry of Russia had a number of features: 1) Industry wore multilayered character, i.e. large-scale machine industry coexisted with manufacturing and small-scale (handicraft) production. Also observed 2) uneven distribution of industry across the territory of Russia. Highly developed areas of St. Petersburg, Moscow. Ukraine 0 - highly developed and undeveloped - Siberia, Central Asia, Far East. 3) Uneven development by industry. Textile production was the most advanced in terms of technical equipment, heavy industry (mining, metallurgical, oil) was rapidly gaining momentum. Mechanical engineering was poorly developed. Characteristic for the country was state intervention in the industrial sector through loans, government subsidies, government orders, financial and customs policy. This laid the foundation for the formation of a system of state capitalism. The insufficiency of domestic capital caused an influx of foreign capital. Investors from Europe were attracted by cheap labor, raw materials and, consequently, the possibility of making high profits. Trade. In the second half of the 18th century completed the formation of the all-Russian market. The main commodity was agricultural products, primarily bread. Trade in manufactured goods grew not only in the city, but also in the countryside. Iron ore and coal were widely sold. Wood, oil. Foreign trade - bread (export). Cotton was imported (imported) from America, metals and cars, luxury goods from Europe. Finance. The State Bank was created, which received the right to issue banknotes. State funds were distributed only by the Ministry of Finance. A private and state credit system took shape, it contributed to the development of the most important industries (railway construction). Foreign capital was invested in banking, industry, railway construction and played a significant role in the financial life of Russia. Capitalism in Russia was established in 2 stages. 60-70 years were the 1st stage, when the restructuring of industry was going on. 80-90 economic recovery.
Hypermarket of Knowledge >>History >>History Grade 8 >>Liberal reforms of the 60-70s. 19th century
§ 21-22. Liberal reforms of the 60-70s. 19th century
Local government reforms.
After cancellation serfdom a number of other changes were required.
One of the most important reforms of Alexander II was the creation of local governments - zemstvos.
By the beginning of the 60s. the former local administration showed its complete failure. The activities of the officials appointed in the capital who led the provinces and districts, and the detachment of the population from making any decisions brought economic life, healthcare, enlightenment to extreme frustration. The abolition of serfdom made it possible to involve all segments of the population in solving local problems.
At the same time, when establishing zemstvos, the government could not ignore the mood of the nobility, a significant part of which was dissatisfied with the abolition of serfdom. “The nobility,” wrote K. D. Kavelin, “cannot come to terms with the idea that the government freed the peasants as it wanted, and not as the nobles wanted, that the nobility was not even decently listened to. The role of the first estate of the empire in a matter of such importance turned out to be pathetic and humiliating. Therefore, one of the reasons for the Zemstvo reforms there was a desire to compensate for the nobles - at least partially - the loss of their former power.
By creating local self-government bodies, the government also hoped that their activities would be able to distract the most active part of society “from political dreams”, and force them to engage in specific useful deeds.
On January 1, 1864, an imperial decree introduced the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which provided for the creation of new elected bodies of local government - zemstvos in counties and provinces (zemstvos were not created in volosts).
Owners of at least 200 acres of land or other real estate in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles, as well as owners of industrial and commercial enterprises generating income of at least 6 thousand rubles, could be voters in the landowning curia. rubles in year. The small landowners, uniting, put forward only their representatives.
The voters of the city curia were merchants, owners of enterprises or trading establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of real estate in the amount of 600 rubles (in small towns) to 3.6 thousand rubles (in large ones).
Elections for the peasant curia were multistage: at first, the village assemblies elected representatives to the volost assemblies. Electors were first elected at volost gatherings, who then nominated representatives to county self-government bodies. Representatives were elected at district zemstvo assemblies peasants to provincial governments.
Zemstvo bodies were divided into administrative and executive. Administrative - zemstvo assemblies - consisted of representatives of all classes in the person of elected vowels (deputies). Vowels both in the county and in the provinces were elected for 3 years.
Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils, which also worked for 3 years. The leader of the nobility was the chairman of the zemstvo assembly.
The range of issues that the zemstvo institutions decided was limited to local affairs: the construction of communication lines, the construction and maintenance of schools, hospitals, the development of local trade and industry, etc. The governor monitored the legality of the actions of the zemstvos.
The material basis for the activities of the zemstvos was a special tax, which was imposed on real estate: land, houses, factories and trade establishments.
Zemstvos were not introduced in the Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, in Siberia, in Central Asia- where there was no noble land ownership or it was insignificant. Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Right-bank Ukraine, the Caucasus did not receive local governments, since the landowners there were not Russian.
Zemstvo reform had flaws. First of all, the principle of all estates was inconsistently maintained. Elections were actually built on a class basis. At the same time, distribution by curia gave significant advantages to the nobles. The range of issues addressed by the zemstvos was limited.
Nevertheless, the creation of zemstvo institutions was a success for the supporters of constitutional government. The most energetic, democratically minded intelligentsia grouped around the zemstvos. Over the years of their existence, the zemstvos have raised the level of education and public health, improved the road network and expanded agronomic assistance to the peasants on a scale that the state power was incapable of. Despite the fact that representatives of the nobility prevailed in the zemstvos, their activities were aimed at improving the situation of the broad masses of the people.
In 1870, a city reform was carried out in the style of a zemstvo. It replaced the former class city dumas with all-class elected city institutions - city dumas and city councils.
The right to elect to the city duma was enjoyed by men 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 curia. The first curia consisted of a small group of the largest owners of houses, 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 an equal number of vowels, which ensured the predominance of large owners.
City public self-government was in charge of solving economic 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.
For all its limitations, the city reform was a step forward in the matter of city self-government. It, 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.
The most consistent transformation of Alexander 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: equality of all estates 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 zemstvo assemblies and city councils. Only a "local resident" of at least 25 years of age, who had an impeccable reputation, could become a justice of the peace. For judges, a high educational and property qualification was established: higher or secondary education and ownership of real estate are twice as high as in elections to zemstvos by the landowning curia. At the same time, they received rather high wages - from 2.2 to 9 thousand rubles a year.
The system of general courts included district courts and judicial chambers. Members of the district court were appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and considered criminal and complex civil cases. Consideration of criminal cases took place with the participation of twelve jurors. The juror could be a citizen of Russia aged 25 to 70 with an impeccable reputation, who had lived in the area for at least two years and owned real estate in the amount of 2,000 rubles or more. Jury lists were approved by the governor.
Appeals against the District Court's decision were made to the Trial Chamber. Moreover, an appeal against the verdict handed down by the jury was not allowed. The Judicial Chamber also considered cases of malfeasance of officials. Such cases were equated with state crimes and were heard with the participation of class representatives. The highest court was the Senate.
The reform established the publicity of the conduct of courts. They began to be held openly, the public was admitted to them, newspapers printed reports on courts of public interest. The 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. Outstanding lawyers F.N. Plevako, Prince A.I. Urusov and others became famous in this field, laying the foundations of the Russian school of lawyer-orators. Although the new judicial system still retained a number of vestiges of the past (special volost courts for peasants, courts for the clergy, military and high officials), nevertheless it turned out to be the most advanced in the then world.
military reforms.
Liberal transformations in society, the desire of the government to overcome the backlog in the military field, as well as to reduce military spending, necessitated fundamental reforms in the army.
They were carried out under the leadership of Minister of War D. A. Milyutin, who took up this position in November 1861. The reforms stretched over several years and covered all aspects of army life. Taking into account the experience of a number of European countries, D. A. Milyutin considered one of the main tasks of the reforms to reduce the army in peacetime, with the possibility of a significant increase in the war period by creating a trained reserve. In 1863-1864. military educational institutions were reformed. General education was separated from special education: future officers received general education in military gymnasiums, and professional training in military schools. The children of the nobility studied mainly in these educational institutions. For those who did not have a secondary education, cadet schools were created. They welcomed representatives of all classes. In 1868, military progymnasiums were created to replenish the cadet schools. The programs of higher military educational institutions were revised and improved. In 1867, the Military Law Academy was opened, in 1877 - the Naval Academy.
The procedure for replenishing the army changed radically: instead of the recruitment sets that had existed since the time of Peter I, all-class military service was introduced. According to the charter approved on January 1, 1874, persons of all classes were subject to conscription from the age of 20 (later - from the age of 21). The total service life in the ground forces was set at 15 years, of which 6 years - active service, 9 years - in reserve. In the fleet - 10 years: 7 years - valid, 3 years - in reserve. For persons who received an education, the term of active service was reduced from 4 years (for those who graduated from elementary schools) to 6 months (for those who had higher education).
The only sons and the only breadwinners of the family were exempted from active military service. Those exempted from conscription were enlisted in the militias, collected only in time of war. Representatives of the peoples of the North, Central Asia, part of the inhabitants of the Caucasus and Siberia were not subject to conscription.
Corporal punishment was abolished in the army; improved nutrition; the network of soldiers' schools expanded.
The army and navy were being re-equipped: in 1867 rifled guns were introduced instead of smooth-bore guns, the replacement of cast-iron and bronze guns with steel ones began; in 1868, rifles created by Russian inventors with the assistance of American Colonel X. Berdan (Berdanka) were adopted. The system of combat training has changed. A number of new charters, manuals, manuals were issued, which set the task of teaching soldiers only what was needed in the war, significantly reducing the time for drill training.
As a result of military reforms, Russia received a mass army of a modern type. Drilling and cane discipline with cruel corporal punishment were largely expelled from it. Most of the soldiers were now taught not only military affairs, but also literacy, which significantly raised the authority of military service. The transition to universal military service was a serious blow to the class organization of society.
Reforms in the field of education.
The education system has undergone a significant restructuring that has affected all three of its levels: primary, higher and secondary.
In June 1864, the Regulations on Primary Public Schools were approved. From now on, such schools could be opened by public institutions and private individuals. This led to the creation primary schools various types- state, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday. The term of study in such schools did not exceed, as a rule, three years.
Since November 1864, gymnasiums have become the main type of educational institution of the secondary level. They were divided into classical and real. In the classics, a large place was given to the ancient languages - Latin and ancient Greek. They prepared young people for university entrance. The term of study in classical gymnasiums was at first seven years, and since 1871 - eight years. Real gymnasiums were called upon to prepare "for occupations in various branches of industry and trade." Their training was seven years. The main attention was paid to the study of mathematics, natural science, technical subjects. Access to universities for graduates of real gymnasiums was closed. They could continue their studies in technical higher educational institutions.
The gymnasium accepted children "of all classes, without distinction of rank and religion", however, at the same time, high tuition fees were set.
The foundation was laid for women's secondary education - women's gymnasiums appeared. But the amount of knowledge given in them was inferior to what was taught in the men's gymnasiums.
In June 1864, a new charter for the universities was approved, which restored the autonomy of these educational institutions. The direct management of the university was entrusted to the council of professors, who elected the rector and deans, approved educational plans dealt with financial and personnel issues.
Women's higher education began to develop. Since gymnasium graduates could not enter universities, higher women's courses were opened for them in Moscow, Petersburg, Kazan, Kyiv. In the future, girls began to be admitted to universities, but as volunteers.
Implementation of reforms. The implementation of the reforms was very difficult. Even in the course of their development, Alexander II more than once showed a desire to make “corrections” in them in a conservative spirit, in order to thus protect the country from shocks. In practice, this was expressed in the fact that the reforms were developed by young liberal officials, and they were put into practice by old conservative officials.
Almost immediately after the promulgation of the peasant reform, its active participants were dismissed - Minister of the Interior S. S. Lanskoy and his closest assistant N. A. Milyutin. Conservative P. A. Valuev was appointed Minister of the Interior. He announced that his main task was "the strict and precise implementation of the provisions of February 19, but in a conciliatory spirit." The conciliatory spirit of Valuev was expressed in the fact that he began the persecution of those world mediators who too zealously defended, in his opinion, the interests of the peasants during the reform. He arrested the organizers of the congress of conciliators in Tver, at which it was stated that the congress of conciliators would be guided in their activities not by government orders, but by the views of society.
However, it was no longer possible to stop the course of the peasant reform, and the conservatives launched an attack on other reforms. The impetus for this was the attempt in 1866 by a member of the secret revolutionary organization D. Karakozov on Alexander II, which ended in failure. The conservatives accused the liberal Minister of Education A. V. Golovnin of corrupting the youth with the ideas of nihilism and forced his resignation.
Golovnin's departure was followed by the resignations of other senior officials. Representatives of conservative forces were appointed to their places. The post of Minister of Education was taken by D. A. Tolstoy, General Count P. A. Shuvalov was appointed chief of the gendarmes, and General F. F. Trepov was appointed head of the St. Petersburg police. Nevertheless, Alexander II retained some liberals in the government, so that reformist activity was not curtailed. Its main guide was Minister of War D. A. Milyutin, brother of N. A. Milyutin, leader of the peasant reform.
In 1871, D. A. Tolstoy submitted a report to Alexander II, in which he sharply criticized real gymnasiums. He argued that the spread of natural science and a materialistic worldview in them leads to an increase in nihilism among young people. Having received the approval of the emperor, Tolstoy carried out in the same year a reform of secondary school education, which amounted to the elimination of real gymnasiums and the introduction of a new type of classical gymnasiums, in which natural science was practically excluded and ancient languages were introduced to an even greater extent. From now on, education in gymnasiums was built on the strictest discipline, unquestioning obedience, and encouragement of denunciation.
Instead of real gymnasiums, real schools were created, the term of study in which was reduced to 6 years. They were freed from the task of preparing students for higher education and provided only narrow technical knowledge.
Not daring to change the university charter, Tolstoy nevertheless significantly increased the number of bodies supervising higher educational institutions.
In 1867, the conservatives succeeded in significantly limiting the rights of the zemstvos. On the one hand, the powers of the chairmen of zemstvo assemblies (leaders of the nobility) were expanded, and on the other hand, control over their activities by government bodies was strengthened. The publicity of zemstvo assemblies was limited, and the printing of zemstvo reports and reports was constrained.
Constitutional throwing. "Dictatorship of the Heart"
Despite all the restrictions, many of the innovations that appeared in Russia as a result of the reforms came into conflict with the principles of the autocratic system and required significant changes in the political system. The logical conclusion of the zemstvo reform should have been the expansion of representative institutions, both downwards - in the volosts, and upwards - to the national level.
The emperor was convinced that autocratic power was the most acceptable form of government for a multinational and huge Russian Empire. He repeatedly stated "that he opposes the establishment of a constitution, not because he values his power, but because he is convinced that this would be a misfortune for Russia and would lead to its disintegration." Nevertheless, Alexander II was forced to make concessions to the supporters of constitutional government. The reason for this was the terror unleashed against senior officials, and the constant attempts to assassinate the emperor himself by members of secret revolutionary organizations.
After the second unsuccessful assassination attempt on Alexander in April 1879, the tsar appointed provisional governor-generals in St. Petersburg, Kharkov and Odessa by a special decree, who were granted emergency powers. In order to calm the agitated population and cool the heads of the revolutionaries, popular military leaders were appointed as governors general - I. V. Gurko, E. I. Totleben and M. T. Loris-Melikov.
However, in February 1880, a new assassination attempt on the emperor was made in the Winter Palace itself. A few days later, Alexander II established the Supreme Administrative Commission and appointed Kharkiv Governor-General M.T. Loris-Melikov, who received the powers of the de facto ruler of the country, as its head.
Mikhail Tarielovich Loris-Melikov (1825-1888) was born into an Armenian family. He was known as an outstanding general who became famous in the war with Turkey. For courage and personal courage, Loris-Melikov was granted the title of count. His merit was the victory over the plague that raged in the Astrakhan province. Appointed by the Kharkiv governor-general, Loris-Melikov began to restore order in the province by curbing the arbitrariness of local officials, which earned the sympathy of the population.
In his political views, Loris-Melikov was not a fan of constitutional government. He was afraid that the people's representatives gathered together would bring with them a mass of just complaints and reproaches, to which it would be very difficult for the government at the moment to give a satisfactory answer. Therefore, he considered it necessary to fully implement the plans of all reforms, and only then allow some participation of representatives of the population in the discussion of state affairs. Loris-Melikov saw his primary task in the fight against the anti-government movement, not stopping at "any strict measures to punish criminal acts."
Loris-Melikov began his activities in the new post with the restructuring of the police authorities. The III branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery was attached to the Ministry of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior became Chief of the Gendarmes. All security agencies were concentrated in one hand - the Ministry of the Interior. As a result, the fight against terrorists began to be conducted more successfully, the number of assassination attempts began to decline.
Realizing the role of newspapers and magazines, Loris-Melikov weakened censorship, contributed to the opening of previously banned and the emergence of new publications. He did not prevent criticism of the government, public discussion of policy issues, with the exception of only one problem - the introduction of the constitution. With respect to the press, Loris-Melikov did not apply prohibitions and punishments, preferring to conduct personal conversations with editors, during which he gave mild advice on topics desirable for the government for discussion in newspapers and magazines.
Listening to public opinion, Loris-Melikov began to replace some of the top officials. He insisted on the dismissal of the Minister of Public Education, Count D. A. Tolstoy, and by this step attracted sympathy in wide circles of the public.
The time when Loris-Melikov was at the head of the internal policy of the state was called by his contemporaries "the dictatorship of the heart." The number of terrorist attacks decreased, the situation in the country seemed to have become more calm.
On February 28, 1881, Loris-Melikov submitted a report to the tsar, in which he proposed to complete the “great work of state reforms” and attract social forces for this purpose in order to finally calm the country. He believed that in order to develop appropriate laws, it was necessary to create two temporary commissions from representatives of zemstvos and cities - administrative and economic and financial. The composition of the commissions was to be determined by the emperor himself. Loris-Melikov proposed to send the draft laws prepared in them for discussion to the General Commission, composed of elected representatives of the zemstvo and city self-government. After approval by the General Commission, the bills would go to the State Council, which would also be attended by 10-15 elected members who worked in the General Commission. This is the content of the project, which was called the "Constitution of Loris-Melikov."
This project had little resemblance to a real constitution, since the measures proposed in it could not significantly affect the political structure of the Russian Empire. But its implementation could be the beginning of creating the foundations of a constitutional monarchy.
On the morning of March 1, 1881, Alexander II approved the Loris-Melikov project and scheduled a meeting of the Council of Ministers for March 4 for its final approval. But a few hours later the emperor was killed by terrorists.
During the reign of Alexander II in Russia, liberal reforms were carried out that affected all aspects of public life. However, the emperor failed to complete the economic and political transformations.
? Questions and tasks
1. Why, after the abolition of serfdom, the state faced the need for other reforms?
2. What circumstances led to the creation of local government? Describe the Zemstvo reform. What do you see as its pros and cons?
3. What principles formed the basis of judicial reform? Why do you think the judicial reform turned out to be the most consistent?
4. What changes have taken place in the army? Why did recruitment no longer meet the needs of the state?
5. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the education reform?
6. Give an assessment of the project of M. T. Loris-Melikov. Can this project be considered constitutional?
The documents
From the regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions. January 1, 1864
Art. 1. For the management of affairs relating to the local economic benefits and needs of each province and each district, provincial and district zemstvo institutions are formed ...
Art. 2. Cases subject to the conduct of zemstvo institutions ...
I. Management of property, capital and collections of zemstvos.
II. Arrangement and maintenance of buildings belonging to the Zemstvo, other structures and means of communication ...
III. Measures to ensure people's food.
IV. Management of zemstvo charitable institutions and other charity measures; ways to end begging; church building...
VI. Care for the development of local trade and industry.
VII. Participation, mainly in economic terms ... in the care of public education, about public health and about prisons.
VIII. Assistance in the prevention of livestock deaths, as well as in the protection of grain crops and other plants from extermination by locusts, ground squirrels and other harmful insects and animals ...
About the new court (from the memoirs of the popular singer P. I. Bogatyrev)
The fascination with justices of the peace has not subsided yet, quickly, without any formalities and overhead costs, publicly examining civil and criminal cases, acting equally in defense of the personal and property rights of both noble and common people, using arrest for arbitrariness and riot, even if it was perpetrated by a rich man in the street, who was previously insured against such punishment and got off with an unspoken monetary contribution. Too great was the charm of the magistrate's court among the Moscow petty people, the humble townspeople, burghers, artisans and domestic servants, for whom the magistrate's court after the police massacre was a revelation. In the early years, the chambers of the justices of the peace were daily filled, in addition to those participating in the case, with an outside audience ... The meetings of the district court with jurors made the strongest impression on society at that time. Before their introduction, many voices were heard warning against this form of court in Russia, on the grounds that our jurors, among whom even illiterate peasants were initially admitted, would not understand the duties assigned to them, would not be able to fulfill them, and, perhaps, they will be bribe-able judges. Such rumors further increased the public's interest in the first steps of the newly-minted jurors, and regardless of this, the first speeches of the public prosecutor - the prosecutor and, as defenders - members of the estate of sworn attorneys, seemed extremely curious. And from the very first hearings of the court, it became obvious that the fear for our jurors was completely unfounded, since they, being thoughtful and aware of moral responsibility and the importance of the new case, faithfully and correctly performed the task assigned to them and contributed to the administration of justice what Until now, our pre-reform criminal courts lacked a lively sense of justice, not constrained by formalities, knowledge of life in its most diverse manifestations and public understanding and assessment, which do not always agree with the written law of other crimes, as well as humanity. The verdicts of the jury were hotly discussed in society, causing, of course, different opinions and passionate disputes, but in general Moscow was pleased with the new court, and the townsfolk of all classes went to court hearings in civil, especially criminal cases and watched the course of the process with intense attention and the speeches of the parties.
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 socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was to preserve the autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.
The development of capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into even greater conflict with the feudal-serf system. The deepening of the process of social division of labor, the growth of industry, domestic and foreign trade disintegrated the feudal economic system. The growing conflict between the new, capitalist relations and the obsolete serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A vivid expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf countryside.
The defeat in the Crimean War undermined the international prestige of Russia, accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60-70s.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 landowners.
Objectively, serfdom also interfered with the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, an increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
The need to abolish serfdom was also conditioned by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not but influence the position of the government.
The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods dropped sharply. The new foreign policy situation that developed after the Peace of Paris testified to Russia's loss of its international prestige and threatened to lose influence in Europe.
Thus, the abolition of serfdom was due to political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also led to the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs.
2. Peasant reform of 1861
2.1. Reform preparation
For the first time, the need to abolish serfdom was officially announced by AlexanderIIin a speech he delivered on March 30, 1856 to the rulers of the Moscow nobility. In this speech AlexanderII, speaking of his unwillingness to "give freedom to the peasants", 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 feudal lords, the Secret Committee acted indecisively, but the further growth of the peasant movement forced the government at the end of 1857 to start preparing the reform in earnest.
Initially, the government tried to force the landlords themselves to take the initiative. On November 20, 1857, a rescript was given: (instruction) to the Governor-General of the Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) V.I. Nazimov on the establishment of three provincial committees from among the local landowners and one general commission in Vilna to prepare local projects "improving the life of the landlord peasants." The program of the government, which formed the basis of this rescript, was developed in the Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1856. It granted civil rights to the serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; the peasants were given allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear in favor of the landowner feudal duties regulated by law. In other words, the peasants were granted personal freedom, but feudal production relations were preserved.
During 1857-1858. similar rescripts were given to the rest of the governors, and in the same year in the provinces in which the landlord peasants were located, "governor 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 individual regions. In fact, the commissions merged into one, retaining the plural name "Editorial Commissions".
By the end of August 1859, the draft "Regulations on the Peasants" was basically prepared.
The editorial commissions made some concessions to the demands of the landlords: in a number of 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 souls of both sexes of serfs, including 1,467,000 serfs and 543,000 assigned to private factories and factories.
The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over several decades. Complete release peasants did not receive immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Regulations of February 19, 1861” were promulgated. The manifesto declared that the peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called additional fees were canceled (eggs, oil, flax, linen, wool, etc.), the corvée was limited to 2 women's and 3 men's days from tax per week, underwater duty was somewhat reduced, it was forbidden to transfer peasants from quitrent to corvée and to yard. The final act in the liquidation of feudal relations was the transfer of peasants for redemption.
2.3. The legal status of peasants and peasant institutions.
According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The former serf, from whom the landowner could previously take away all his property, and sell, donate, mortgage it himself, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of civil rights: on their own behalf will conclude different kind 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". 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. but specific gravity there were very few of them, 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 remedy pressure on the peasants and were the basis of the system worked out in the post-reform period.
The landownership of the peasants was oppressed 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). They were forced to make up for the lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or third-party earnings. That is why the agrarian question assumed such acuteness at the turn of theXIX— XXcenturies and was the "nail" of the revolution of 1905-1907.
2.3.2. Duties.
Prior to the transition to redemption, the peasants were obliged to serve their duties in the form of corvée or dues for the allotments granted to them for use. The law established the following rates of dues: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in the rest - 8-9 rubles. from 1 male soul (in estates located no further than 25 miles from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). In the case of the proximity of the estates to the railway, navigable river, to the commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the rate of dues. In addition, the law provided for a “repurchase” after 20 years, i.e. an increase in dues in anticipation of an increase in rental and sale prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform dues could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, however, the law did not provide for a decrease in the dues in connection with the reduction of the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrent per 1 tithe. The rates of dues established by law exceeded the profitability of land, especially in non-chernozem provinces. The exorbitant burden of the allotment was also achieved by the “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the quitrent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was laid out on the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the amount of dues per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the peasant put on. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest standard and the landowner could not rob the peasants by cutting off the allotment, a system of gradations came into force, which thus pursued the goal of squeezing the maximum of duties out of the peasants for the minimum allotment. The system of gradations 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 as early as 1863. Here, more preferential, in comparison with 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 cash and securities 80% of the redemption amount, if the peasants of the given province received the highest allotment, and 75%, if they were given a less than the highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landlords was then collected from the peasants at a rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time, the peasant had to pay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.
The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved a number of important social and economic problems. The government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from a direct confrontation with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was set at 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, the former landlord peasants paid the treasury 1,540,570 thousand rubles. ransom payments and still owed her. By carrying out the redemption operation, the treasury also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from the landowners. By 1861, 65% of the serfs were mortgaged and re-mortgaged by their owners in various credit institutions, and the amount of debt to these institutions amounted to 425 million rubles. This debt was deducted from the ransom loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed the landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.
The inconsistency of the reform of 1861, the interweaving of feudal and capitalist features in it, was most clearly manifested in the issue of redemption. On the one hand, the ransom was of a predatory, feudal nature, on the other hand, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. The redemption contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave the landowners money to transfer their economy to capitalist foundations. The transfer of the peasants for ransom meant a further separation of the peasant economy from the landowners. The ransom accelerated the process of social stratification of the peasantry.
2.4. The response of the peasants to the reform.
1861 Promulgation of the Manifesto and the "provisions of February 19, 1861", the content of which deceived the hopes of the peasants for "full freedom", caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. 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 strongest were the unrest in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands participated and which ended in their bloody pacification - hundreds of peasants were killed and wounded.
By the summer of 1861 the government, with the help of large military units, by executions and mass sections with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862 a new wave of peasant uprisings arose, connected with the introduction of statutory charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants to freedom in individual estates. More than half of the charters were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called by the peasants by force, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. happened 844.
Aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. influenced the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations spring up, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are circulated. At the beginning of 1862, the largest revolutionary organization after the Decembrists, Land and Freedom, was created, which set as its main task the unification of all revolutionary forces with the peasantry for a general attack on the autocracy. The struggle of the peasantry in 1863 did not acquire the sharpness that was observed in 1861 - in 1862. In 1863 there were 509 unrest. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and the Right-Bank Ukraine, which is associated with the influence of the Polish uprising in 1863.
The peasant movement of 1861-1863, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. It was also important that by carrying out reforms at different times in the landlord, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize the outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landlord peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by specific and state peasants.
2.5. Reform in the specific and state village.
Preparations for the reform in the state countryside began in 1861. By that time, there were 9,644,000 state peasants males. On November 24, 1866, the law "On the land arrangement of state peasants" was issued. Rural societies retained the lands that were in their use, but not more than 8 acres per male capita in small-land and 15 acres in large-land provinces. The land use of each rural society was recorded by "ownership records". The implementation of the reform of 1866 in the state village also led to numerous conflicts between the peasants and the treasury, caused by cuts from allotments that exceeded the norms established by law, and an increase in duties. The land, according to the law of 1866, was recognized as the property of the treasury, and the redemption of allotments was made only after 20 years according to the law of June 12, 1886 "On the transformation of the quitrent tax of former state peasants into redemption payments."
2.6. Significance of the peasant reform of 1861
The reform of 1861 was a turning point, a line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants abolished the monopoly of the landlords on the exploitation of peasant labor, contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism both in industry and in agriculture. Conditions for the reforms of 1861. ensured the gradual transition of the feudal economy to the capitalist economy for the landowners.
Bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861. at the same time, it was also feudal; it could not have been otherwise, for it was carried out by the feudal lords. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861. led to the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, political system in reformed Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. The landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor compensation or bondage. Reform of 1861 retained the feudal estate system: the estate privileges of the landlords, the inequality of estates and the isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political domination of the landowners. Taking steps along the path of transformation into a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively invaded economic development countries, sought to use new processes to strengthen its position.
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 birth" to the revolution not only by preserving the survivals of serfdom, but also by the fact that, by "opening a certain valve, giving some boost to capitalism", it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought to eliminate these survivals. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who visited the city, at the factory, saw a lot and learned a lot.
3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874
The abolition of serfdom in Russia made it necessary to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, while preserving its class, noble-landlord essence.
The development of these reforms began in a revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century. However, the preparation and implementation of these reforms dragged on for a decade and a half and took place at a time when the revolutionary wave in the country had already been repulsed and the autocracy emerged from a political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.
3.1 Reforms in the field of local self-government.
One of the concessions "which the wave of public excitement and revolutionary onslaught repulsed from the autocratic government", V. I. Lenin called the Zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, win over a part of the "liberal society", strengthen its social support - the nobility.
In March 1859 Under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the chairmanship of N. A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law "On economic and administrative management in the county." It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created local government bodies should not go beyond purely economic issues of local significance. April 1860. Milyutin introduced AlexanderIIa note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. April 1861. under pressure from reactionary court circles, N. A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of S. S. Lansky, as "liberals", were dismissed. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the planned zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave advantages to the noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.
Valuev was instructed to prepare a project for a "new establishment of the State Council." According to this project, it was planned to form a “congress of state councilors” under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before submitting them to the State Council.
By March 1863, a draft “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by AlexanderIIand received the force of law. According to this law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive - county and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of uyezd vowels in different uyezds ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial vowels - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at uyezd zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 county vowels. Elections to uyezd zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural 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 chosen, 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 the interior, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos themselves did not possess executive branch. 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 meetings, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings, and pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.
Nevertheless, the zemstvos played a significant role in solving local economic and cultural issues: in organizing local small loans, 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 amount of tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: the first included the largest payers, paying a third of the total amount of city taxes, the second, the average taxpayers, who also paid a third of city taxes, and the third, small taxpayers, paying the remaining third of the total. city taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was nevertheless a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city self-government bodies played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city.
3.2. Judicial reform.
In 1861, the State Chancellery was instructed to start developing the "Basic Provisions for the Transformation of the Judiciary in Russia." Major lawyers of the country were involved in the preparation of the judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the well-known lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S. I. Zarudny, under whose leadership, by 1862, the basic principles of the new judiciary 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 a sworn attorney and his assistant, in addition, had to have five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification not lower than average and who had served at least three years in the public service could be elected a justice of the peace.
Supervision over the legality of the actions of judicial institutions was carried out by the chief prosecutor of the Senate, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and district courts. They reported directly to the Minister of Justice. Although the judicial reform was the most consistent of the bourgeois reforms, it retained many features of the estate-feudal political system, subsequent instructions introduced into the judicial reform an even greater deviation from the principles of the bourgeois court. The spiritual court (consistory) for spiritual matters and military courts for the military were preserved. The highest royal dignitaries - members of the State Council, Senators, ministers, generals - were judged by a special Supreme Criminal Court. In 1866, court officials were actually made dependent on the governors: they were obliged to appear before the governor on the first call and "obey his legal requirements." In 1872, the Special Presence of the ruling Senate was created specifically to deal with cases of political crimes. The law of 1872 limited the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the world court was liquidated (restored in 1912).
Under the influence of the public democratic upsurge during the years of the revolutionary situation, the autocracy was forced to agree to the abolition of corporal punishment. The law issued on April 17, 1863 abolished public punishments by verdicts of civil and military courts with whips, gauntlets, "cats", and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment has not been completely abolished.
3.3. financial reforms.
The needs of the capitalist country and the disorder of finances during the years of the Crimean War imperatively demanded that all financial affairs be streamlined. Conducted in the 60s of the 19th century. a series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing the financial affairs and affected mainly the apparatus of financial management. Decree of 1860. The State Bank was established, which replaced the former lending institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, while maintaining the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the pre-emptive right to lend to trade and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law of 1862 established a new procedure for the preparation of estimates by individual departments. The only responsible manager of all income and expenses was the Minister of Finance. From the same time, the list of income and expenses began to be published for general information.
In 1864 the state control was reorganized. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers independent of governors and other departments. The Chambers of Control audited the revenues and expenditures of all local institutions on a monthly basis. Since 1868 began to publish annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control.
The farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but to the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still lay on the taxable population. The poll tax for peasants, philistines, and artisans was preserved. The privileged classes were exempted from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for more than 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of the expenditures in the state budget went to the maintenance of the army and the administrative apparatus, up to 35% to the payment of interest on public debts, the issuance of subsidies, and so on. Expenses for public education, medicine, and charity accounted for less than 1/10 of the state budget.
3.4. military reform.
Defeat in Crimean war showed that the Russian regular army, based on recruitment, cannot withstand more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874. on the all-word conscription of men who have reached the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces up to 6, in the navy - up to 7 years. The terms of active service were significantly reduced depending on the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served only six months.
In the 60s. the rearmament of the army began: the replacement of smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, the introduction of a system of steel artillery pieces, and the improvement of the equestrian fleet. Of particular importance was the accelerated development of the military steam fleet.
For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The command and control system of the armed forces has been improved.
All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness.
3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.
Reforms of administration, courts and the army logically demanded a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the Gymnasium” and “Regulations on Public Schools” were approved, which regulated primary and secondary education. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with the state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. They accepted children of all classes capable of paying tuition fees, mainly the children of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In the 70s. was the beginning of higher education for women.
In 1863, the new Statute returned autonomy to the universities, which had been abolished by NicholasIin 1835. They restored the independence of solving administrative-financial and scientific-pedagogical issues.
In 1865, "Provisional Rules" on printing were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books designed for the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also preserved. From the end of the 60s. the government began to issue decrees, largely nullifying the main provisions of the education reform and censorship.
3.6. Significance of bourgeois reforms.
The transformations carried out were progressive in nature. They began to lay the foundation for the evolutionary path of the country's development. Russia to a certain extent approached the advanced for that time European socio-political model. The first step was taken to expand the role of the country's social life and turn Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.
However, the process of modernization of Russia had a specific character. It was primarily due to the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The performances of the radicals only activated the conservative forces, frightened the liberals and hampered the reformist aspirations of the government. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these dust reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class 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 of 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 landlords, 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. History. Decay. M., 2000.
Encyclopedia: History of Russia and its nearest neighbors. Head. Ed. M.D. Aksenova. – M.: Avanta+, 2000.
Zemstvo and city reforms
Reform demands state apparatus, in particular local government, the judiciary, the police, censorship, were expressed by the liberal layers of the nobility during the preparation of the peasant reform. After the introduction of the peasant reform, the government became convinced that these reforms could not be avoided, and began their preparation. One of the largest reforms was the establishment of local self-government.
Land reform. On January 1, 1864, Emperor Alexander II approved the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions." In accordance with this provision, provincial and district zemstvo assemblies were elected in each province and in each district. These meetings, in turn, elected executive and administrative bodies - county and provincial zemstvo councils. Zemstvo assemblies and councils were elected for a term of three years. The provincial zemstvo assembly was elected by the members of the district assemblies. The chairman of the county council was approved in office by the governor, the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of the interior.
The elections were classless, but women, students, folk teachers, "in the service of private individuals" were excluded from participation in them (this category, along with servants, also included workers and employees of private industrial enterprises), etc., as well as army and police, as they were considered outside politics. Only members of the county zemstvo assemblies were elected by the population, and the voters were divided into three electoral curia: county landowners, city voters and elected from rural communities . If for the voters of the first two curia, who had a high property qualification, the elections were direct, then for the peasants, who elected according to the third curia, the elections were multistage. The provincial zemstvo assemblies were elected deputies (they were called "vowels") of the county zemstvo assemblies. The electoral system was drawn up in such a way as to ensure the actual predominance of the nobility in the zemstvo self-government bodies, although formally these bodies were all-class. City reform. Following the model of zemstvo institutions, in 1870 class bodies of city self-government were created.
In accordance with the "City Regulations" on June 16, 1870, city Dumas were elected in the cities for a period of 4 years, which in turn created executive and administrative bodies - city councils headed by the mayor. The right to participate in elections to city Dumas was enjoyed only by payers of city taxes. All those who participated in the elections were divided into three electoral meetings: the first included the largest taxpayers, who paid a total of 1/3 of all city taxes; the second meeting was attended by smaller taxpayers who paid the second third of taxes; in the third meeting, all other small taxpayers who paid the remaining third of the total amount of taxes. Such a system of elections gave advantages in city dumas to the big bourgeoisie and the big nobility, who owned city manor houses. So, in Moscow, the first two curia, which elected 2/3 of the members of the city duma, accounted for only 13% of all voters. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the number of voters was small. It, for example, in St. Petersburg and Moscow at that time did not exceed 20-21 thousand people, i.e. 5% of the adult population of these cities. Novitskaya T.E. Reforms of Alexander II. // Bulletin of Moscow University. - ser. 11, Right. - 1998 S. 21
Taking into account that the leading role was assigned to the nobility both in zemstvo and city institutions, local self-government bodies were not created in those areas where there was no nobility, as, for example, in Siberia, or it was non-Russian by nationality (Poland, Lithuania, Right-bank Ukraine, western regions of Belarus, the Caucasus). And in the Russian provinces, the creation of zemstvo institutions dragged on for many decades and was completed only after the revolution of 1905-1907. The competence of the City Duma included the following issues: the appointment of elected officials, the establishment of city fees, the addition of arrears, the establishment of rules on the management of city property, the acquisition of city real estate, and loans. Supervision of the activities of city dumas and councils was carried out by the provincial presence for city affairs, which consisted of officials, chaired by the governor. The Presence received complaints about the actions of city governments and controlled their economic activities.
The Duma's expenses consisted of administration expenses, public buildings and premises, city loans, educational and charitable institutions, maintenance of military units, police and prisons. The governor controlled the cost and income estimates.
The governors were given the right to suspend the decisions of self-government bodies, refuse to approve any official of local institutions (including self-government bodies), close meetings of various private clubs, societies and artels. A characteristic detail: the resolutions of the self-government bodies were supposed to be enforced by the police, but they did not obey them, but carried out only the orders of the governor. Consequently, the implementation of the decision of the local government directly depended on the governor. But in general, the creation of new self-government bodies contributed to the formation of socio-political and cultural life, helped the commercial and industrial development of Russian cities.
Judicial reform
The structure of the pre-reform judicial system was made up of a variety of historically established bodies that made it complex and confusing. The old pre-reform court was especially contrary to the needs of the bourgeois development of the country. Firstly, the court was completely dependent on the administration, which interfered in the decisions of court cases, and was purely estate in nature (each estate had its own judicial bodies). The investigation was carried out by the police, the publicity of the trial did not exist, nor was there any competition. Indescribable red tape reigned in the courts (cases dragged on for many years), bribery and wild arbitrariness. All this caused general dissatisfaction with the existing judicial system. The preparation of the judicial reform began as early as 1861. On November 20, 1864, after consideration in the State Council, the tsar approved the judicial statutes. In total, four acts were put into effect:
Judicial establishments;
Charter of criminal proceedings;
Charter of Civil Procedure;
The charter about the punishments imposed by justices of the peace.
The very order of legal proceedings was restructured on the basis of the following principles of equality of all before the law and the court, separation of the court from the administration and administration of justice only by the court, the creation of an all-class court, competitiveness, irremovability of judges and investigators, publicity, oral speech, immediacy, the right of the accused to defense, prosecutorial supervision , election (magistrates and jurors). Evaluation of evidence based on internal judicial conviction has been introduced instead of a system of formal evidence. Judicial statutes provided for the creation of non-estate judicial institutions of two types - general courts and magistrates' courts. Magistrates' Courts were established to hear petty criminal and civil cases. Cases were decided by magistrates alone in the order of summary proceedings. Justices of the peace, and there were several in each county and city, were elected by county zemstvo assemblies from persons who had a higher or secondary education, a high property qualification, which was somewhat reduced only for retired officers. The verdict or decision of the magistrate could be appealed to the county congress of magistrates (on appeal), and, finally, on cassation to the Senate. The system of general courts consisted of district courts and judicial chambers. The district court was the first instance of the system of general courts. There were 106 of them. Usually the judicial district coincided with the territory of the province. It was in the district court that the bulk of court cases, both criminal and civil, were considered. Those criminal cases in which the defendants were threatened with punishments related to the deprivation or restriction of civil rights were considered with the participation of jurors. Court verdicts handed down with the participation of jurors were not subject to appeal, but could only be appealed to the Senate in cassation on the basis of a formal violation of the procedural law. The second instance in all criminal and civil cases (with the exception of criminal cases decided with the participation of a jury) was the judicial chambers. There were only 14 of them, each of them directed the activities of 8-10 district courts. At the same time, the judicial chamber considered, as the first instance, cases on charges of state, official and some other crimes. Great reforms in Russia / Ed.L.G. Zakharova, B. Eklof, J. Bushnell. M., 1992 P.123
The Senate became the highest court, in which cassation departments were created. In addition, under the Senate in 1872, a Special Presence of the Senate was established to consider especially important political cases. Finally, cases of high officials and especially important cases could be considered in the Supreme Criminal Court, the composition of which for each specific case was appointed by the emperor.
The judicial reform was the most consistent bourgeois reform compared to others. But she also retained serious remnants of the feudal system. The separation of the court from the administration was inconsistent: the Senate, the country's highest judicial body, was also an administrative institution. Local courts were actually controlled by the governors The government also bypassed the principle of irremovability of judges and judicial investigators. The world and general courts, which were non-classified according to the principles of organization, actually almost completely consisted of nobles, since in those days it was mainly nobles who had higher education and the necessary property qualification.
Pure estate courts were also preserved - spiritual ones, which, in addition to the cases of the clergy, also considered some secular cases (for example, divorce cases), peasant volost courts, which dealt with petty lawsuits between peasants. Since the second half of the 1960s, the government has launched an offensive against new judicial statutes, seeking to eliminate the type of irremovability of judges and limit the competence of the jury. In 1866, cases of crimes in the press were transferred from the district courts to the judicial chambers, in 1878 - cases of disobedience to the authorities, insulting the authorities, violent actions against officials. Jurors were excluded from deciding these categories of cases. Investigation on political affairs handed over to the gendarmes. This offensive led to the fact that in 1889 the institute of justices of the peace in most of the country was abolished and replaced by the institute of zemstvo district chiefs.
Military reform
The Crimean War showed the fundamental defects of the feudal organization of the armed forces, which turned out to be incapable of ensuring the defense of the country in a military clash with the bourgeois states. So, although Russia surpassed France and England in terms of population, Russia did not have trained reserves, and during the war the Russian army had nothing to replenish. This was explained by the fact that the Russian army was recruited from tax-paying estates (peasants and philistines). The soldiers served for 25 years, that is, almost for life. Therefore, the army, both in peacetime and in wartime, had actually the same number. There was practically no military-trained reserve for deploying the army during the war and replenishing combat losses. The officer corps was recruited from the nobility, that is, appointments to command positions were made not for merit and knowledge, but according to the principle of class affiliation under patronage. Hence the extremely weak general and combat training of command personnel, especially the highest.
An intricate, chaotic system of military command and control, outdated weapons (as a result of the backwardness of industry), extremely poor maneuverability of troops forced to move to the place of hostilities on foot, sometimes thousands of kilometers due to the underdevelopment of the railway network - all this complemented the overall unsightly picture of the state of the army. The need for military reform was clear even to the autocratic government. Her training began in 1862.
The essence of the military reform consisted primarily in changing the system of manning the army and navy. Instead of a set of recruits from among the taxable estates, universal conscription without estates was introduced. The terms of active service were set as follows: in the army 6 years and 9 years in the reserve; in the Navy - 7 years and 3 years in reserve. Thus, the new recruitment system made it possible to create a reserve of military personnel for the deployment of the armed forces during the war. However, this reserve was relatively small due to too long active service periods (6 and 7 years). The army was not able to accept all who were subject to the annual call. Therefore, the conscripts drew lots. The one who got it by lot was enrolled in active service, and the rest - in the militia of the II category, which was practically not called up for service.
Too long periods of active service in the army reduced the number of the military reserve, had a negative impact on the country's defense capability. But the army was intended by the tsarist government not only for the defense of the country, but was also considered as a powerful instrument of domestic policy, an armed support of state power. To suppress peasant revolts, a trained soldier was needed, dutifully carrying out any order of the officers.
An important task of the reform was the strengthening and renewal of officer cadres, the creation of a reserve of officers in case of war. A wide network of military schools was created. In peacetime, officers, as a rule, were made by persons who graduated from military schools and passed the relevant state exams. In order to train an officer reserve in case of war, the institute of "volunteers" was established. Persons with higher education were called up for active service for 6 months, and with an average - for 1.5 years, then they passed an exam for an officer's rank and were transferred to the reserve as junior officers.
The reform opened the way to the officer corps of the raznochintsy intelligentsia, but only to the positions of junior officers. Generals and senior officers were still mostly well-born nobles. The military command and control apparatus was reorganized, all branches of which became subordinate to the Minister of War (and for the Navy, to the Minister of Marine). Whereas earlier a number of branches of military administration (commander of the guards, artillery, etc.) were headed by the grand dukes, who, as members of the imperial family, had the right to report directly to the tsar, obeyed the minister and acted uncontrollably. The territory of the country was divided into 15 military districts, headed by the commanders of the troops of the military districts. Thus, a coherent, uniform system of military command and control was created. A military judicial reform was carried out and corporal punishment was abolished in the army. However, the beating of soldiers by officers continued, as before, between the privileged officer corps and the disenfranchised soldier mass, there was an abyss that separated the "master" from the "muzhik". important integral part military reform was the re-equipment of the army with modern weapons for those times and the construction of a steam armored fleet. New military regulations were introduced and the training of the troops was reorganized.
9. Acceleration of the capitalist development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Changes in the social structure of the population. Beginning of the labor movement. Marxism on Russian soil. The beginning of the formation of the social democratic movement in Russia. G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin
The development of capitalism in Russia accelerated the formation of the working class, whose ranks were quickly replenished by the ruined poorest peasants of the post-reform village and the lone handicraftsmen who could not withstand competition. The position of the Russian worker during this period was characterized by complete legal lack of rights, extra-long working hours (with extremely low wages), constant fines, and injuries at work (associated with a lack of safety equipment). In the event of illness, accidents and old age, the workers had no social guarantees, and the situation with the provision of housing was poor. All this affected the activity of the workers, which already in the 1960s and 1970s began to manifest itself in the form of spontaneous uprisings. In the 60s, unrest was observed at the factories of the Urals and in the central provinces (the Maltsevsky plant in Kaluga province, Morozov factory in Orekhovo-Zuevo, etc.). Only in 1861 there were 4 strikes and 12 unrest of industrial workers. The number of these protests grew rapidly (according to P.A. Khromov, over 200 strikes and 100 unrest were registered in the 1970s). The strikes at the Neva paper-spinning mill (1870) and the Krenholm manufactory (1872), which took place in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the empire, acquired a special scope.
In December 1878, the "Northern Union of Russian Workers" was formed in St. Petersburg (headed by V.P. Obnorsky and S.N. Khalturin), which included about 200 active members who had previously been members of various St. Petersburg circles. The organization issued a program document - an appeal "To the Russian Workers", which clearly indicated the need for political struggle, demanded political freedoms, called on workers to unite and internationalism. The appeal spoke of the need to abolish private ownership of land and establish communal land ownership, the creation of workers' associations to organize production. Already in January next year the government made arrests of members of the organization. S.N. Khalturin managed to avoid arrest and subsequently engaged in terror (the organization of an explosion in the Winter Palace). In 1880, the members of the organization published the first issue of a workers' newspaper ("Working Dawn"), but the printing house was destroyed, and the issue of the newspaper was confiscated, which actually meant the termination of the organization's activities.
The workers' organizations of the 1970s contributed to the growth of the activity and solidarity of the Russian proletariat, introduced it to the experience and traditions of the international workers' movement, and prepared the rise of the movement in the 1980s. In the 70s. the number of strikes was equal to 326.
It was in the 1980s that a transition was observed in Russia from scattered actions of the proletariat to a mass labor movement. By that time, the structure of the working class had changed, and a certain amount of experience in the struggle had been accumulated. Among the performances of the early 80s, one should single out strikes at Khludov's Yartsevskaya manufactory in the Smolensk province, tobacco factories in Baku (1881), strikes at the Krenholm manufactory (1882), Zharardovskaya manufactory in the Kingdom of Poland (1883), etc.
The most important action of the workers of Russia in the mid-1880s was the Morozov strike (1885), which was distinguished not only by its scope, but also by its organization and steadfastness. The workers, driven to despair by the difficult working conditions, made demands to the Vladimir governor, including the establishment of state legislation regulating relations between the manufacturer and the workers, which gave the strike a political overtone. The leaders of the strike (P. Moiseenko, L. Abramenkov, and others) were participants in the labor movement of the 1970s. Through numerous arrests and expulsions of workers, the government managed to restore work at the factory. The trial that followed made the whole of Russia talk about the strike. The government was forced to issue a new factory law in 1886, which somewhat limited the arbitrariness of employers in terms of hiring, firing and fines. However, it was established criminal penalty participants and especially strike leaders. Compared to the 70s. the number of strikes increased to 446. serfdom reform capitalist democratic
The 80-90s is a transitional period from the revolutionary-democratic to the proletarian stage of the liberation movement in Russia.
The rising role of the working class in the economic and political life of the country, the rise of the strike struggle, and the growth of the consciousness of the workers aroused keen interest in the proletariat on the part of the advanced intelligentsia, who more and more clearly sensed the collapse of populist theories. Thus, not only the social composition of the movement changed, in which the proletarian replaced the revolutionary raznochintsy, but also new ideas appeared that were reflected in the program and tactical guidelines. During these years, Marxism spread and the first Russian Social Democratic groups and circles were created.
