State system in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Social system of the Russian Empire

Lecture plan:

1. State reforms in the Russian Empire (second half of the 19th century).

2. State system in the second half of the XIX century.

3. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. State regulated exchange rate.

4. Development of law in the second half of the XIX century.

The changes that took place in Russia in the second half of the 19th century were ambiguously assessed by contemporaries and researchers of the Great Reforms. In aristocratic historiography, the personality of Alexander II himself and, in general, all his reformatory activities were idealized, evaluated exclusively from the positive side. Liberal historians and contemporaries of the events V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov, A.A.Kornilov and others welcomed both the abolition of serfdom and the subsequent reforms. The defeat in the Crimean War, they believed, revealed Russia's technical lag behind the West and forced the government to carry out reforms. But they also noted the contradictory nature of the transformative activities of Alexander II. A.E. Presnyakov (1870-1929) his observations about the main lines of development of the XVII-XIX centuries. presented in the first volume of the historical collection “Three centuries. Russia from Troubles to our time ”, which was published by ID Sytin in 1912-1913. to the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov. The transformations of the 1860s, according to A.E. Presnyakov, not only shook the foundations of the Russian state law and the socio-political system developed during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, but they marked the beginning of a new, "transitional", "critical" period, which dragged on for half a century. The historian defined this period (1861-1905-1907) as "burning modernity", the results of the struggle in which the new and the old are not obvious. The Narodniks (M. Bakunin, N. Mikhailovsky and others) welcomed the abolition of serfdom, but they believed that the focus of reforms on the development of entrepreneurship was wrong. They considered a non-capitalist path of development through the peasant community possible in Russia. Soviet historiography was based on the concept of V.I. Lenin on the pro-bourgeois reforms as the first step towards the transformation of an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. IN AND. Lenin emphasized the influence of the abolition of serfdom and the entire chain of reformation of the post-reform period on the formation of the bourgeois order in the country. According to the Saratov historian, professor N.A. Troitsky, reforms of 1861-1874. transformed the economic, social and political structure of the Russian state so that it began its transformation from an autocratic absolutist into a bourgeois monarchy. The peasant reform of 1861 changed the economic basis of the country (Russia firmly took the path of capitalist development), and the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century. brought the old political superstructure into line with the new basis.

1.State reforms in the Russian Empire (second half of the 19th century).On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II approved the main normative acts of the peasant reform: (1) Manifesto on the all-merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants, and on the structure of their life; (2) General provisions on peasants who emerged from serfdom; ( 3) Regulations on the redemption of peasants who have emerged from serfdom, their settled settlement; (4) Rules on the procedure for enacting the Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom. In accordance with these legislative acts, local regulations were adopted. The main ideas of all these acts were that the peasants received personal freedom and before the conclusion of the redemption deal with the landowner, the land was transferred to their use. The release of the peasants had to go through two stages. The first stage of the reform. From the moment the Manifesto was promulgated, peasants received personal freedom. The landowners lost the right to interfere in the private life of the peasants, could not move them to other areas, and even more so could not sell them. The landowners retained only a few rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who had emerged from serfdom. For two years from the moment of liberation, the former serfdom was essentially preserved, the peasants were transferred to temporarily liable a state with some restrictions on the disposal of land and with the obligation to bear some feudal duties in favor of the landlords for the right to use the land - corvee and quitrent (although their size was reduced), small in kind taxes (eggs, butter, etc.) were not abolished ... The allotment of land was carried out by a voluntary agreement between the landlord and the peasant: the landowner could not give a land allotment less than the lower rate established by the local regulation, the peasant could not demand an allotment more than the maximum rate provided for in the same regulation. All land in 34 provinces was divided into three categories: non-black earth , black earth and steppe. Each category was divided into several localities, taking into account soil quality, population size, level of commercial, industrial and transport development. For each locality, its own norms of land allotments were established: for non-black earth and black earth - higher and lower; on the steppe, one - "indicated" (the size of field allotments ranged from 1 to 12 dessiatines). These provisions were concretized in the charter, which indicated what land the peasants received. Charters were drawn up by landowners or conciliators (the latter were appointed from among the noble landowners by the Senate on the proposal of the governors). Only males were allocated land. In the country as a whole, the peasants received less land than they had before. The peasants were not only constrained by the size of the land; they, as a rule, received allotments that were inconvenient for cultivating, since the best land remained with the landowners. In addition, since the peasants, being in a temporarily liable state, were not the owners of their allotments, but only users, a number of additional rights were assigned to the landlords. So, the landowner could demand the forced exchange of peasant allotments if minerals were discovered on their territory or the landowner was going to build any structures. The liberated peasants were subject to the general civil laws: (1) the peasants received the right to enter into obligations and contracts with private individuals. and the treasury, acquiring movable and immovable property into their own property; (2) peasants received the right to engage in trade, open enterprises, join guilds, enter the service, leave their place of residence; (3) peasants could go to court, having received equal estates procedural rights. Initially, the period of stay in a temporarily liable state was not established, so many peasants delayed the transition to ransom. By 1881, such peasants remained about 15%. Then the law was passed from the obligatory transition to the ransom within two years. During this period, it was necessary to conclude redemption deals or lose the right to land. In 1883, the category of temporarily liable persons disappeared, thereby practically completing the transition to the next stage of the peasant reform. The second stage of the reform. At this stage, the peasant had to become the owner. To do this, he had to redeem the estate and field land (the user of which he was from the moment he received the allotment). To ensure the reality of the land redemption, the government organized a so-called redemption operation. It paid a redemption sum for the peasants, thus providing the peasants with a loan. This loan was to be repaid over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan (this capitalized 6% quitrent was equal to the pre-reform annual income of the landowner). Thus, the redemption amount was based not on the actual value of the land, but on the amount of rent that the landowner received before the reform (the redemption operation was based not on the capitalist, but on the feudal criterion). The redemption price was significantly (1.5 times) higher than the actual value land. In fact, the cost of the land of peasant allotments was estimated at 544 million rubles, taking into account the annual 6%, this amount was 867 million rubles, but taking into account the increase in interest, the peasants actually paid an amount almost four times higher than the actual cost of the land - until 1907 the peasants paid 1,540 million rubles. It is not for nothing that for the majority of peasants the redemption payments stretched until 1905-1907, when the government canceled the ransom for the land. Consequently, the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal release. The redemption agreement between the landlord and the peasant (or community) was approved by the government authority. , after which the peasant received ownership rights to the land, but he became the full owner only after the payment of all redemption payments. In the framework of the peasant reform, measures were taken to ensure its implementation. Thus, the Peasant and Noble banks were formed to finance the reform. And the police and the fiscal apparatus were instructed to ensure the timely return of the loans received by the peasants from the state. The peasant community was retained, which in most regions became the subject of ownership of the land being purchased. The community bound its members with mutual responsibility - it was possible to leave it only by paying half of the remaining debt, and with the guarantee that the other half would be paid by the community (the community was used to squeeze out redemption payments), etc. The peasants received during the reform of 1861 in an average of 4.8 tithes per male head, or 14.4 tithes per household. According to economist Yu.E. Janson, the subsistence minimum for a peasant family was 10-11 dessiatines per yard in the 1870s. Thus, in general, the land received was sufficient. The main problems of the Russian countryside by the beginning of the XX century. there was a rapid demographic growth (in 1858-1914 the peasant population increased by 2.2 times and, accordingly, the average per capita share decreased by the same amount). According to French historians, "despite all the restrictions, the Russian reform turned out to be infinitely more generous than a similar reform in neighboring countries, Prussia and Austria, where serfs were given completely naked freedom, without the slightest piece of land". In 1863 and 1866. the reform was extended to specific and state peasants. Specific peasants received land on more favorable terms than landowners. The state peasants retained all the land they used before the reform. On the national outskirts, the liberation took place in accordance with special rules. Thus, in Poland, peasants received land on more favorable terms. The reform provided for organization of peasant self-government (community).Village and volost communal assemblies and volost courts were created. Peasant public self-government functioned under the control of the police. On the whole, the peasant reform was of a bourgeois nature and contributed to the development of capitalist relations in Russia: (1) the reform was carried out in many ways in the interests of the government, this was manifested in order the calculation of redemption payments, both in the redemption operation procedure, and in the growth of redemption payments, etc.; (2) the allotments of former landowners' peasants decreased compared to the pre-reform ones; (3) payments (compared to the old quitrent) increased; (4 ) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and reservoirs; (5) courtyards were freed without land; (6) in addition to redemption payments for land, peasants paid a poll tax to the state, as well as local and state taxes and fees; the rural society was responsible for the correctness of payments of its members and could apply coercive measures to faulty payers: withdrawal of income from real estate, giving to work or custody, forced sale of movable and immovable property of the debtor, taking away part or all of the allotment. Peasants' attitude to the reform is best expressed by the official statistics of peasant unrest, of which 1860 were recorded during 1861. Zemskaya and city reforms. Zemskaya reform. The pre-reform system of local government had such characteristic features as (1) representation and protection of the interests of the noble-landowner class; (2) the predominance of the principles of bureaucracy and centralism in the activities of these bodies, disregard for local conditions and local interests; (3) the lack of separation of administrative, judicial and economic powers. Therefore, the implementation of the peasant reform required an urgent restructuring of the local government system. There is an opinion that in the course of this reform the government sought to create the necessary conditions for the creation of all-estate zemstvo organizations. zemstvo institutions and temporary rules for them. According to these projects, zemstvo institutions were viewed as local and public bodies dealing exclusively with local economic issues and local interests, but without their own executive bodies and carrying out their decisions through the police and bureaucratic apparatus of the state. However, the creation of zemstvo institutions was hampered by the actions of the nobility, who did not agree with the government's attempts. concentrate all local authorities in the hands of bureaucratic bodies. So, in 1859, the police power in the district was handed over to the district zemstvo presence, consisting of a police chief, a nobleman and two rural assessors. Management of the entire city and district police was concentrated at the police chief in the district administration. Thus, the government was forced to leave the future zemstvo institutions only a narrow range of local economic issues. January 1, 1864 it was approved “ Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions". In accordance with it, in the counties and provinces were created zemstvo meetingswhose members were elected by three electoral curiae. district zemstvo assemblies were elected... At the same time, the following curia was created: (1) the curia of county landowners - included noble landowners (to participate in the elections, they were required to have land of a certain size, from 200 to 800 acres in certain localities); large traders and industrialists who had enterprises in the county worth at least 15 thousand rubles. or with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles. per year; (2) city curia - urban residents who had merchant certificates, owners of commercial and industrial enterprises within the city with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of real estate in the amount of 500 rubles or more up to 3 thousand rubles. (depending on the size of the city); (3) rural (peasant) curia - all peasant householders (without property qualification) had the right to vote, but a three-stage system of elections was introduced. Since each curia elected approximately equal number of vowels, the peasants always found themselves in the minority. At the very first elections in 29 provinces, the vowels of county zemstvo assemblies were 42% of noblemen and 38% of peasants. provincial zemstvo assemblies... The distribution of the number of vowels by curia turned out to be even more in favor of the possessing classes: in the same 29 provinces, nobles received 74% of vowels, peasants - 11%. Provincial and district zemstvo assemblies elected their executive bodies for three years - zemstvo councilsconsisting of a chairman and two members. The chairman of the county government was confirmed in office by the governor, the chairman of the provincial government - by the minister of internal affairs. The competence of zemstvo institutions included: (1) management of capital, property and money of the zemstvo; (2) maintenance of zemstvo buildings and communication lines; (3) measures to ensure "National food"; (4) charity events, mutual land insurance of property; (5) care for the development of local trade and industry; (6) sanitary measures, participation in economic relations in the field of health and education. Lands became that political school, through which many representatives of the liberal-democratic direction have passed. True, one should not forget about the contribution made by zemstvos to the development of the local economy, the health care system and public education. The increase in the productivity of national labor in Russia made it necessary to look for and introduce new labor technologies. This circumstance significantly raised the value of professional knowledge, made a competent worker in demand. In the context of modernization of the country, zemstvo institutions have formed an interest in literacy, brought the learning process closer to the everyday life of the city and village. In addition, the problems of lending and peasant land shortages, already under consideration chronological framework, attracted the attention of zemstvos, since, in the opinion of most vowels, they were indissolubly associated with any other region economic activity in post-reform Russia, and were the specifics of the traditional and national economic structure. Urban reform. The further development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of the city reform. On June 16, 1870, the emperor approved “ City position", According to which the bodies of city self-government were created, elected by the population (regardless of class affiliation) for a period of four years. The bodies of city self-government were created: (1) city \u200b\u200belectoral meetings (met once every four years to elect vowels of the city council; included all voters); (2) city \u200b\u200bcouncils - administrative bodies of city self-government; (3) city \u200b\u200bcouncils - executive bodies. The chairman of the city council and the city government was the same person - mayor... The mayor of the county town elected by the vowels of the city duma was approved by the governor, the provincial city - by the minister of internal affairs (this manifested the dependence of the city government on the government administration). Only the payers of city taxes could elect vowels to the city duma. In general, the voters were: (1) Russian citizens who have reached the age of 25, who own property, etc., who do not have arrears on city taxes; (2) appointed representatives of departments, institutions, societies, companies, associations, churches and monasteries that own real estate in cities. Depending on their property status, all voters were divided into three curia. Each of the curiae had an equal number of votes, electing 1/3 of the vowels to the city duma. The first curia included the largest taxpayers, the second — medium-sized, and the third — smaller owners. The first two curiae had 2/3 vowels, although they accounted for only 13% of the total number of voters. A clear predominance of representatives of the richest strata of the city was ensured in the councils and councils. The poor were practically deprived of electoral rights. The city government was mainly entrusted with the care and management of the urban economy and the improvement of cities. . Judicial reform. The pre-reform court was built on the principle of estates, its activities were complex and confusing. However, it did not require destruction, it could be brought in line with the time and tasks of the authorities. The general state justice was divided into three main categories: (1) county courts; (2) provincial judicial chambers for criminal and civil cases; (3) Government Senate. The first instance for minor criminal and civil cases was county courts... For the townspeople (not nobles) there was a special court - city \u200b\u200bmagistrate... Trade claims were pending in commercial courts ... There were special courts for the clergy (headed by the Synod), as well as courts of various departments - military, naval, etc. On decisions of county and city courts, it was allowed to submit an appeal to the provincial criminal or civil chamber. These chambers were also able, on their own initiative, to review the decisions of the lower courts. In some important cases, these chambers were the first instance courts, with the Senate as the highest court of appeal in most cases. But in the event of a disagreement in the Senate, the case was considered in the Council of State. The Senate was the court of first instance in the cases of the largest dignitaries. Temporary special judicial bodies were created to try political, "state criminals". The preliminary investigation was in the hands of the police or special officials. It was conducted for a long time, often with gross violation of laws. Police investigation documents were often the only material on which a court decision was made. In a large category of cases classified as insignificant, the judicial functions belonged to the police: it was given the right to punish the offender. The proceedings were bureaucratic, clerical in nature. Cases were considered without the participation of the parties behind closed doors. According to the secretary's note, setting out the essence of the case, the judges made decisions. All evidence was divided into perfect and imperfect. The best evidence of guilt was considered the consciousness of the defendant, which was called "the queen of evidence." The evidence could be the data of the searches, documents, coinciding testimony of several "reliable" witnesses, and the testimony of men was given more importance than the testimony of women. The preference was given to the testimony of the noble over the ignorant, the rich over the poor, the clergy over the secular. The testimony of the "infidels" against the Orthodox was not taken into account. Only clear evidence was required for conviction. In the absence of "reliable" evidence, despite the totality of circumstantial evidence, the defendant could not be convicted and was left by the court "in suspicion" or "in strong suspicion." Years of judicial red tape were common practice. The clerical nature of the proceedings, the requirement for various certificates led to the fact that cases, even in the court of first instance, were considered for years. Even under the law, more than three years were given for consideration of a criminal case with an appeal only in the next instance. The decisions of the criminal chambers were approved by the governor. The ranks of the III Section could freely interfere in the affairs of the courts. In the opinion of the majority of lawyers and historians, the judicial system could be modernized, however, it did not meet the interests of the growing bourgeoisie, therefore the judicial reform of 1864 introduced a new judicial system and legal procedure in the country, built mainly on the principles of bourgeois law. True, it must be remembered that in some regions of Russia the reform was not carried out at all (for example, in some provinces of Siberia), and in some regions it was carried out in a truncated form (without magistrates' courts and without district jury courts). On November 20, 1864, the main normative acts of judicial reform were approved: (1) The establishment of judicial regulations; (2) the statute of criminal proceedings; (3) Charter of Civil Procedure; (4) Statute on Punishments by Justices of the Peace. According to these normative acts, the judicial power of the landowners over the peasants was abolished, the role of the estate courts was reduced (the spiritual courts remained), the judicial activity was separated from the administrative and legislative ones. In fact, two independent judicial systems were created in the country - the system of magistrates' courts and the system of general courts. Magistrates' courts. Judicial reform introduced institute of elected justices of the peace... The magistrate single-handedly considered cases on charges of crimes for the commission of which one of the following punishments could be determined: reprimand, reprimand, suggestion, monetary penalty in the amount of not more than 300 rubles, arrest for a period of not more than three months, imprisonment for a term up to one year. In the field of civil relations, justices of the peace were subject to disputes over contracts worth up to 300 rubles; cases related to compensation for damage in an amount not exceeding 500 rubles; claims of insults and grievances, etc. A candidate for justices of the peace could be a resident of the area, possessing a certain property qualification: ownership of a land plot in the amount of at least 400 dessiatines (the specific amount of land ownership was established separately for each county) or other real estate in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles. (in rural areas), at least 3 thousand rubles. (in cities), at least 6 thousand rubles. (in capitals). It also required the presence of a certain education. Justices of the peace were elected for three years by the vowels of the zemstvo assemblies and city councils, after which they were approved by the Senate. Each magistrate exercised judicial power in a certain territory - a district. A certain number of sites was world district... In addition to the district justices of the peace, the same procedure and for the same term were elected honorary justices of the peace... Persons who agreed to be honorary justices of the peace did not receive salaries and performed judicial duties from time to time. Usually these were large landowners, retired officials and the military. Honorary justices of the peace had all the rights of a district judge. Their competence included the examination of cases within the entire world district in the event that both interested parties preferred to turn to this honorary judge, and not to the district one. They also replaced a district judge on vacation or sick. The Justice of the Peace was obliged to accept petitions anywhere, and sometimes to try cases where they arose. He conducted the proceedings orally and decided the question of guilt or innocence alone "by his inner conviction." The parties had the right to resort to the help of attorneys. The decisions of the magistrate on guilt and punishment were considered final if the sentence on the monetary penalty did not exceed 15 rubles, and the arrest was three days. On the final decisions, only cassation appeals and cassation appeals were allowed, filed when the parties believed that the procedural forms of legal proceedings were violated during the consideration of the case in court. The second instance - appeal and cassation - in the system of magistrates' courts was congress of justices of the peace, which included all precinct and honorary judges of this district. They elected a chairman from among their members for a term of three years. The sessions of the congress took place on the dates fixed by the zemstvo assemblies or city councils. On the final decisions of the justices of the peace, the congress considered only cassation protests and complaints. On non-final decisions, the congress accepted appeals to review the case, on the merits. One of the assistant prosecutors of the district court took part in the session of the congress of justices of the peace, who gave opinions on the cases under consideration. The decisions of the congress were final and could be overturned by the Senate only on appeal. Common Courts System. According to the Judicial Charters of 1864, criminal and civil cases not subject to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace were considered in district courts (in 1865-1866 two judicial districts were created - Petersburg and Moscow, the rest were created until the end of the century). The judicial districts did not always coincide with the administrative division: in some provinces there were several district courts (as a rule, one judicial district included several counties). The district court consisted of the chairman, his comrades (their number depended on the category of the court) and members of the court ( crown court). The district courts were divided into divisions headed by the comrades of the chairman. The amalgamation of these branches constituted a general meeting. Crown judges were appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice from among persons with a higher legal education and work experience in law enforcement agencies for at least three years. District court members could not be transferred from one city to another without their consent. Removal of a judge from office was allowed only by a court decision in the event that the judge committed a criminal offense (the principle of the irremovability of judges). At the district courts were established forensic investigators... They had judicial titles, were members of district courts. They were subject to the rule of irremovability. They were assigned to certain areas. Later, in some courts, the posts of investigators for the most important and especially important cases were established. The former, by order of the court or the prosecutor's office, investigated criminal cases throughout the territory of the district court, under which the investigator was; the latter conducted investigations throughout the entire Russian Empire at the direction of the Minister of Justice. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the indictment chamber of the court chamber with the participation of the prosecutor brought the accused to trial. Formally, the investigator was not subordinate to the prosecutor, but in fact he was dependent on him. The prosecutor supervised the investigation, he gave instructions to the investigator, and gave an opinion on whether the investigation was carried out sufficiently fully. Cases in the district courts were considered with the participation jurors or without them. Jurors were involved in such cases, in which punishment was provided for, combined with restriction or deprivation of the rights of the state. The restriction of the rights of the state was expressed: (1) in the deprivation of certain personal rights and advantages: for the nobles, this meant a ban on being in the state or public service; for persons of clergy - deprivation of the clergy; (2) in deprivation of all special rights and advantages: meant, in addition to the above restrictions, the loss of nobility, deprivation of honorary titles, ranks and insignia; (3) as well as deprivation of spousal and parental rights and property rights. The jury had to decide the question of the guilt of the defendant, and in case of conviction, also the question of whether the defendant deserved leniency in determining the punishment that was imposed by the crown judges in accordance with the law. The jurors could be Russian subjects of all classes who had a certain property qualification and were not in the service of private individuals (that is, not to be a servant or a hired worker). All persons who had the right to be jurors were included in the so-called general lists. Special commissions appointed by the county zemstvo assemblies from general list preparing another list. The choice was made on the basis of trustworthiness. The trial in the district court was public, was conducted orally and was held on the principle of adversarial parties. The District Court's jury sentences were considered final. They could be appealed on appeal in the Senate. But there was one exception: if the district court judges unanimously admitted that the jury had convicted an innocent, then the case was referred to a new jury, whose decision was considered final. The jury was the pinnacle of the Judicial Reform of 1864. On the basis of the Judicial Charters of 1864, in cases decided by the District Court without the participation of a jury, an appeal to the second instance was allowed - judicial chamber... One court chamber was established for several provinces (by 1914, 14 court chambers were formed). The chamber was subdivided into departments (criminal and civil), which consisted of a chairman and members. The appellate decisions of the chambers were considered final and could be canceled by the Senate only on cassation complaints and protests. The Trial Chamber was also a court of first instance in relation to such categories of cases as (1) in cases of malfeasance of high-ranking officials, chairmen and members of county zemstvo councils and assemblies, jurors of this judicial district; (2) in cases of state crimes. These cases were dealt with without a jury, but with the participation of estate representatives: from the nobility - the provincial and one of the district leaders of the nobility, from the townspeople - the mayors of the provincial cities, from the peasants - the volost foremen. The highest judicial body was Senate with two cassation departments - for criminal and civil cases. The Senate supervised the activities of all judicial institutions and acted as the highest court of cassation on the final verdicts of congresses of justices of the peace, district courts with the participation of jurors and court chambers. In cases of malfeasance resolved in the court chamber, the Senate considered appeals, and in cases of high-ranking officials it was the court of first instance. Prosecutor's office and advocacy. As part of the judicial department, the prosecutor's office was established at the district courts and chambers, but it was not subordinate to the judicial administration. Internally, its structure was based on the principles of strict centralization and subordination of lower-ranking prosecutors to higher-ranking ones. At the head of the Prosecutor's Office was the Minister of Justice, who was also the Prosecutor General; all subordinate prosecutors obeyed him. The rule of irremovability did not apply to the officials of the prosecutor's supervision. The comrades of the prosecutors of the district courts were appointed by the Minister of Justice on the proposal of the prosecutors of the judicial chambers, the prosecutors of the district courts, the associate prosecutors of the judicial chambers, the comrades of the chief prosecutors of the Senate - by the decree of the tsar on the proposal of the Minister of Justice, the prosecutors of the judicial chambers and the chief prosecutors of the Senate - by a special "personalized highest decree" ... The competence of the prosecutor's office included: initiating criminal cases, supervising the bodies of preliminary investigation and inquiry, maintaining charges in court, issuing cassation opinions, supervising the execution of sentences, places of detention, activities of administrative bodies, etc. Special functions were performed by two chief prosecutors of the Senate and their comrades, who gave opinions on the legality and validity of the cassation protests received by the Senate. To provide defense in criminal cases and conduct civil cases in courts, advocacy... Lawyers (called attorneys at law) were united by a council elected at the general meeting (if there were at least 20 attorneys at law in the district). The council was endowed with administrative and disciplinary powers. The administrative functions of the Council were limited to admission to the Bar. The attorneys at law could be persons with a higher legal education, five years of experience in the judiciary, or the same experience of work as an assistant to a sworn attorney, who had reached the age of 25. Persons deprived or limited in rights, previously excluded from the jury, women, foreign nationals could not be enrolled in the Bar. Also, the council was entrusted with control over the activities of attorneys at law and their assistants, the examination of complaints received against them. The council also considered materials on the disciplinary misconduct of attorneys at law. His decisions on warnings and reprimands were final, and decisions such as a temporary or permanent ban on acting as an attorney could be appealed to the court of justice. An important authority of the Council was also the appointment of defense lawyers to persons who enjoyed the so-called “right of poverty” (that is, persons unable to pay for the services of a lawyer in court). In those judicial districts that did not have 20 attorneys at law, the functions of the council were assigned to the local district court. Along with the attorneys at law, there were attorney assistants who underwent 5 years of training under the guidance of the most experienced lawyers. This institution has not received clear regulation in the legislation. The practice followed the path of presenting the same requirements to the assistants to the attorney at law as to the attorney at law. With a lack of attorneys at law, the interests of the litigants could be represented by private attorneys... They could be persons who do not have a legal education, elected by the participants in the process and received special permit courts for conducting civil or criminal cases. In provincial and district cities, a system was created notary offices... The task of the notary was to certify various business papers. Military reform. Military reform is associated with the name YES. Milyutin, who became Minister of War in 1861. In the course of military reform, four main stages can be distinguished. On first stage (1864) a system of military districts was introduced: 15 countiescovering the entire territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the conscription and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief chief of the district, who is also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. In the military district there were: a military council under the commander, a district headquarters, a quartermaster department, an artillery department, an engineering department, a military medical department, an inspector of military hospitals. second stage (1867), a military-judicial reform was carried out, which reflected some provisions of the judicial charters of 1864. A three-tier system of military courts was created: regimental courts, military district courts, and the main military court (the highest cassation and supervisory instance). Regimental courts were established at each separate military unit from combat officers, consisting of a chairman (appointed for one year) and two members (appointed for six months). Only cases of lower ranks were subject to consideration by regimental courts within the limits close to the competence of magistrates' courts. The regimental courts tried cases orally and, as a rule, behind closed doors. The verdict was presented to the regiment commander for approval, who could mitigate the sentence to two degrees or, if he disagreed with the verdict, send it to the military district court. The defendant's appeal against the verdict approved by the regiment commander was not allowed. Military District Courts consisted of permanent and temporary members: permanent (chairman and military judges) were appointed from the ranks of the military-judicial department, temporary - from combat officers (for four months). The verdicts of the military district courts were considered final and could only be appealed on appeal to the Chief Military Court. The preliminary investigation was carried out either by judicial (for common crimes) or by military investigators (for military crimes). The military prosecutor's office supported the charge in military courts. To defend the defendants, candidates for military judicial positions or officers assigned to court were appointed; attorneys at law could also be appointed for common crimes, or the defendants themselves chose their own defenders (however, in regimental courts, neither the prosecution nor the defense were allowed). Accordingly, in the navy, the military judicial authorities were: crew ships, naval and the Main Naval Court. In the same year, 1867, the Military Judicial Charter (for the land army) and the Naval Judicial Charter (for the Navy) were issued. On third stage (1860s) cadet corps (in which only children of noblemen studied for seven years) were abolished, and a wide network of military educational institutions was created to train officers, including military gymnasiums, military and cadet schools. Already in May 1863, three military schools were established: 1st Pavlovskoe, 2nd Konstantinovskoe (in St. Petersburg) and 3rd Alexandrovskoe (in Moscow). Cadets of the senior classes of the former cadet corps were automatically transferred to them. By 1867, four more military schools were formed - the Nikolaev cavalry, Mikhailovskoe artillery, Nikolaev engineering (all in St. Petersburg) and the Orenburg school (for service in the troops of the Siberian districts). The artillery and engineering military schools had a three-year course of study, the rest - two years. The right to enroll in military schools was held by young men who had reached the age of 16 and belonged to "estates not obliged to recruit." Preference was given to graduates of military schools. The task of these schools was to train the elite of the officer corps (therefore, their staff was small, and they recruited mainly representatives of the nobility). By 1914, 13 military schools, three cavalry schools, two Cossack schools, four artillery schools, two engineering schools, and a military topographic school were created. The bulk of the officers were to be trained cadet schools... According to the "Regulations on the cadet schools", approved by the tsar on March 16, 1868, the course of the cadet schools was designed for two years, but unlike the course of the military schools, it was more applied in nature. In the cadet schools, wide access was opened to all segments of the population (they required less general education). Since 1869, the right to enter the cadet schools was granted to persons promoted to non-commissioned officers from among the soldiers called up in the course of recruiting; however, long terms of service were set for them. Already in 1864-1867. 13 cadet schools were formed (in 1873 their number reached 16). In 1910, the cadet schools were renamed military, although they retained their own rules for the admission and release of cadets. In addition, until 1917, the Corps of Pages, the Nikolaev military (until 1909 - the General Staff), the Mikhailovskaya artillery, the Nikolaev engineering, the Aleksandrovskaya military-legal and the Quartermaster academies were engaged in the preparation and retraining of officers (only officers had the right to enter the academy, who served for several years in the ranks). But main(fourth) stage military reform was directly related to the transition from recruitment to general conscription... The recruiting system made it necessary to keep under arms a huge mass of people even in peacetime. At the same time, not all of the country's male population underwent military training, which deprived the army of a reserve in case of war. Initially, the service life of the recruits was reduced from 25 years to 15 years. On January 1, 1874, the Charter on military service was approved, according to which (1) recruitment kits were canceled; (2) compulsory military service was established for all males, regardless of class, who had reached the age of 21 (of these persons were called up for active service by lot ; those who did not get into the permanent troops were enlisted in the militia); (3) the total service life in the ground forces was set at 15 years (in the navy - 12 years), of which active service took six years (in the navy - seven years), the remaining years - it was a reserve service; (4) for persons with higher education, the term of active service was six months, for persons with secondary education - 1.5 years, for persons with primary education - four years; (5) many non-Russians were exempted from active service peoples, especially the eastern ones.

2. The state system in the second half of the XIX century.The changes in the state mechanism that took place in the era of reforms were a step towards the transformation of the absolutist monarchy into a bourgeois one. The development of the Russian state in the second half of the XIX century. conditionally speaking, two stages passed: the stage of bourgeois reforms of the 1860-1870s and the stage of counterreforms of the 1880-1890s. In 1861 a new supreme body was created - the Council of Ministers, the chairman of which was the emperor. The Council of Ministers was charged with considering the most important state issues. It was an advisory body, despite its rather representative composition (ministers, chiefs of main departments, chairman of the Committee of Ministers, chairman of the State Council, other high officials). The Committee of Ministers remained, but it considered mainly current affairs. Under Alexander III, the Committee of Ministers became the main advisory body. At this time (especially during the reign of Alexander III), the importance of the Council of State began to weaken, whose members were appointed for life and sometimes behaved relatively independently. The Senate continued to be the highest judicial and supervisory body. The Imperial Chancellery ( SEIV) ceased to exercise law enforcement functions at the beginning of 1880, after its III Department became part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Department IV was transformed into an independent institution in charge of charitable institutions (1880), and Department II was abolished (1882). After the Peasant Reform. In 1861, the role of the Ministry of Finance increased - it was entrusted with conducting redemption operations throughout the country. In this regard, a special Main Redemption Institution was created within the Ministry of Finance. Since Russia embarked on the path of capitalist development, it was necessary to strengthen the activities of government bodies for the management of industry and trade. The need arose to encourage the development of private capital. Therefore, the Department of Trade and Manufactures was formed in the apparatus of the Ministry of Finance. He was in charge of state-owned industry and also provided financial assistance to private industry. Due to the lack of funds for the construction of railways, the government encouraged the bourgeoisie to participate in railway construction. In 1865, the Ministry of Railways was formed, which began to coordinate the activities on the construction of railways. Later railways At the beginning of the first stage, the Third Department of the Tsar's Chancellery continued to function. In 1862, the Commission of Inquiry for the dissemination of revolutionary appeals was formed as its subsidiary body. In 1866, after Dmitry Karakozov's assassination attempt on Alexander II, the St. Petersburg mayor created a Department for the maintenance of order and public peace (in 1883, such departments were formed in almost all large cities). The main task of such departments, called in everyday life "security", was the fight with the help of secret agents against underground revolutionary organizations. the main task Section III was in charge of inquiries on the affairs of the populists. But it clearly did not cope with this task, and therefore it became necessary to restructure the entire system of organization of bodies dealing with political and state security. In February 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection state order and public peace, led by General M.T. Loris-Melikov. He was in favor of a firm dictatorship in the struggle against the revolutionary movement, but believed that too drastic measures could damage tsarism. The Supreme Commission was temporarily subordinated to the III Branch and the corps of gendarmes, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, governors-general, and the military department. The commission was investigating political crimes in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area. In addition, she supervised such cases throughout the country. Its main task was to unite all the punitive organs to fight the revolutionary movement. At the end of 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission was abolished. In July 1880, Section III was abolished, and the functions of political investigation were transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were significantly expanded. In 1861, a Zemsky department was created as part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for land management and management of the peasantry in post-reform Russia. In 1865, in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Main Directorate for Press Affairs was created, in charge of censorship, previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. In 1879 a prison reform was carried out, as a result of which, within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Main Prison Directorate was formed as the highest controlling and administrative body, whose competence included the central leadership of the penal system. Restraint and work houses, debt prisons were liquidated; large prisons with central subordination began to be created (central centers, for example, the Aleksandrovsky Central near Irkutsk). With the liquidation of Section III, political prisons (for example, the Peter and Paul Fortress) came under the jurisdiction of the Main Prison Administration. The number of convict prisons began to grow, and the Prison Inspectorate was established as part of the General Prison Administration, which was supposed to supervise the places of detention; on the spot, these functions were carried out by the provincial prison inspectorates, which included officials from the General Prison Administration, the judiciary and the prosecutor's office). In December 1895, the places of detention were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice (correspondingly, the Main Prison Administration was transferred to the system of justice bodies). On August 6, 1880, the State Police Department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (from February 18, 1883 to March 10, 1917). - Police Department), headed by a director appointed by order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. A separate corps of gendarmes acted in contact with him, which entered the Ministry of Internal Affairs (the Minister of Internal Affairs became the chief of the gendarmes). The gendarme districts were abolished. In each province, a gendarme provincial administration appeared. In order to maintain order on the railways and stations, police gendarme offices on the railways were formed in 1861. By decree of Emperor Alexander II of December 25, 1862, the “Provisional Regulations on the General Structure of the Police in cities and counties of provinces, governed by the General institution. " In accordance with this normative act, the police reform of 1862 was carried out, which made important changes in the organization of the local police. Police departments of the provincial cities retained their independence. In the cities, the police bodies were headed by city governors (in large cities) and chiefs of police. They had special offices that were in charge of police matters. Cities were divided into parts or sections and districts, at the head of which were district bailiffs and district warders. In order to increase the number of rural police, on June 9, 1878, the "Temporary Regulation on Police Officers in 46 provinces, according to the General Institution of Controlled" was adopted, according to which: (1) 5000 posts were introduced police officers (in September 1879 g. an additional 550 posts of constables were introduced), distributed by the governors of 46 provinces by counties; (2) the police officers were subordinate to the police officers, leading, in turn, the sotsk and ten. With the adoption of the judicial statutes of 1864, the judicial and investigative functions were completely removed from the competence of the police. For a long time, there were no special units dealing with the search for criminals. Only on December 31, 1866, the first special unit appeared in St. Petersburg - a special detective unit under the office of the chief of police.

The study of the state, prospects for the development of Russian statehood and the identification of deep internal contradictions of the outwardly harmonious coexistence of the autocratic-monarchist, absolutist empire made it possible to come to the conclusion that in the conditions of capitalist expansion into the country, the artificially created feeling of hatred of the people for the privileged class, the tsarist government moved away from state paternalism and began to violently destroy the traditional way of life, imposing alien values, carrying out transformations according to European standards.

3. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. State regulated exchange rate. The reforms carried out by Alexander II gave rise to a movement towards the constitution, that is, the transition to a constitutional monarchy in Russia. It was this process that led to the appearance of the plan of the Minister of the Interior, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, called the Constitution of Loris-Melikov. The essence of this plan was as follows. On January 22, 1881, Loris-Melikov presented to Alexander II a report on the formation of two temporary preparatory commissions (financial and administrative) to develop a project for transforming the State Council and provincial administration, revising the zemstvo and city regulations, as well as bills on specific economic and financial issues. The final recommendations were supposed to be accepted by a certain General Commission. But on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by the People's Will. On March 8, 1881, an expanded meeting of the Council of Ministers was held in the Winter Palace to discuss the Loris-Melikov plan again. Having criticized all the reforms of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev concluded: "And now, sir, they are offering you a new supreme talking shop based on a foreign model." Pobedonostsev recalled that one such "talking shop", namely the French States General, which had been convened by Louis XVI as a deliberative and estate body, declared themselves first on June 17, 1789, the National Assembly, and on July 9, 1789 - the Constituent Assembly (that is the highest legislative body of France). After this speech K.P. Pobedonostsev's meeting of the Council of Ministers proposed to form a new commission to revise the plan of Loris-Melikov. But this Commission was never convened. Russia began a period that is still characterized as counter-reforms. Sources indicate that, in essence, the government has reached an impasse with pro-Western flirting and transformation. Especially, the most pro-Western of all reforms - the judicial one - demonstrated the discrepancy with the traditionalist foundations of the legislative right of absolutism. The liberal-democratic principles of the organization and activities of the court were in contradiction with the autocratic system and the social order of life of the peoples of the country. Trial chambers with liberal representatives sometimes acquitted the defendants on cases harmful to the state and society. An example is the case of the nechaevites, when 42 out of 78 brought to trial were released. The accused turned the court into an arena of struggle against state power, traditional values \u200b\u200band foundations of popular belief. The attempt on the life of Vera Zasulich (in January 1878 g. ) on the life of the Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepova. The acquittal of V. Zasulich by the jury was perceived by the liberal part of society as a condemnation of the authorities. The Zasulich case also played a role in the growth of terrorist tendencies in the populist movement. During the years 1878-1879. terrorist attacks followed one another. The most notorious of them were the assassination of S.M.Kravchinsky in August 1878, the chief of the gendarmes, Mezentsev, and the attempt on the life of A.K.Soloviev on Alexander II in April 1879. From these actions, even in liberal circles, the desire to conduct response to the abolition of the independence of the court, the irremovability of judges and the transparency of the process. There have also been proposals to abolish the jury trial. Thus, the undermining of the basic provisions of the judicial statutes was reflected in the law of May 19, 1871, which transferred to the ranks of the gendarmes corps inquest in cases of political crimes. The materials collected by the gendarmes were handed over to the Minister of Justice, who could send them to court, and could apply administrative measures (the note to Article 1 of the Charter of Criminal Procedure gave the administrative authorities the right to apply "administrative", that is, extrajudicial, measures. In accordance with the law of June 7, 1872 The Special Presence of the Governing Senate was assigned to consider cases of the most important crimes against the state.It considered cases consisting of a first-present (chairman), five senators and four representatives of the estate. Members of the court and representatives of estates were appointed annually by decrees of the tsar. Consideration of criminal cases by special presence was carried out, as a rule, with significant restrictions on publicity. In accordance with the Law of May 9, 1878 "On temporary change of jurisdiction and procedure on some crimes "by a special decree of the tsar, some political cases were to be considered by a special procedure in the Supreme Criminal Court, which was created each time on a specific case by a special decree of the tsar. Since 1874, cases on the organization of "illegal societies" and on participation in them began to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of general courts; since 1878 - cases of opposition or resistance to the authorities and attempts on the life of officials. These cases were heard by military courts. In 1881, the Regulation on measures for the protection of state order and public peace was adopted , according to which a special meeting was established in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, endowed with the right of exile under the administrative supervision of the police or expulsion from a certain area for up to five years in an administrative manner (that is, without a trial or investigation). If necessary, in certain localities or throughout the entire empire, a regime of enhanced or emergency protection could be introduced, under which governors-general acquired broad powers.

In 1885, the Supreme Disciplinary Presence was formed in the Senate, which, bypassing the principle of the irremovability of judges, received the right to remove them from office for committed offenses.

In 1887, all courts were granted the right to consider cases behind closed doors (in 1891, the publicity of civil proceedings was sharply reduced).

Local landowners sought to abolish the magistrates' courts, trying to return, at least partially, the former traditional way of life to the village. They demanded the guardianship of peasant self-government and the protection of the activities of the volost courts. And in 1889 the Regulations on zemstvo district chiefs came into effect. In the districts (with the exception of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa) the magistrates' courts were abolished; instead of justices of the peace, the institute of zemstvo chiefs was introduced, which could only be persons who are hereditary nobles, who have a high property qualification, higher education or who have held the position of peace mediator or magistrate for several years. Zemsky chiefs considered some of the cases previously subordinate to justices of the peace, and also exercised control over rural and volost bodies of peasant self-government, led the police, supervised volost courts (zemstvo chiefs selected candidates for volost courts, carried out audits, fined and arrested volost judges).

Simultaneously with the zemstvo chiefs, uyezd members of the district court began to operate in the districts, considering cases confiscated from justices of the peace, but not transferred to the zemstvo chiefs.
In the cities, instead of justices of the peace, there were city judges, appointed by the Minister of Justice.

In 1890, the Statute on provincial and district zemstvo institutions was revised - the procedure for election to zemstvos was changed:
the first curia began to include only hereditary and personal nobles, and for them the property qualification was reduced; in the second (city) curia the property qualification was increased; in the third (peasant) curia, the peasants chose only candidates for the district zemstvo assemblies, from which the governor appointed vowels.

Accordingly, the composition of the provincial vowels in 1897 was as follows: nobles and officials - 89.5%, commoners - 8.7%, peasants - 1.8%. At the same time, the number of zemstvo vowel assemblies was reduced by 30%.

In 1892, a new City Regulation came into force, according to which clerks and small traders were deprived of the right to elect to city councils; the number of residents who had voting rights decreased significantly (six to eight times) compared to 1870; the number of vowels of city councils has been halved; the dominant position in the city government was taken by the owners of city real estate; mayors and members of councils were considered to be in the public service (the governor gave them instructions and instructions).

Starting in 1881, detective departments began to be formed in Moscow, Kiev, Riga, Odessa, Baku, etc. But in most cities and in all districts of Russia, the detective police were not created, and the fight against criminality was still carried out by divisions of the general police.

In connection with the rapid growth of the urban population and the stratum of industrial workers (in the conditions of the industrial upsurge of 1893-1900), on February 1, 1899, the Law "On strengthening the police force in the areas of industrial establishments" was adopted, in accordance with which a factory police.

The departmental police continued to function: customs (in the financial department), forest and mining (in the department of the State Property Management), river (in the department of railways), military field (field gendarme squadrons in the military department), palace (in the department of the Ministry of the Court ), etc. The organization of a private police was also allowed.

In 1895, the Passport and Residence Permit Act was adopted.

4. Development of law in the second half of the XIX century.The main sources of law in the second half of the 19th century were the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (its 2nd and 3rd editions were published) and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (Volume XVI appeared). During the post-reform period, a large number of various legislative and departmental acts were issued, in which detailed regulation of relations was given. But, despite the many laws, at the specified time, they could not always be observed and executed in accordance with their exact meaning. Civil law. After the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, the scope of civil law expanded. The peasants became active participants in civil relations. In the norms of civil law, great attention was paid to the regulation different relationshipsassociated with the further development of industry and trade. Industrial and commercial charters appeared to regulate legal position private enterprises. The principle of contractual freedom has been entrenched in the law of obligations. This made it possible to intensify the exploitation of workers through the conclusion of enslaving deals (for example, between landlords and peasants). Freedom of contract of employment led to extremely brutal exploitation of workers in capitalist enterprises: the interests of entrepreneurs were not limited to anything; workers, concluding enslaving contracts, had to work up to 18 hours a day. The development of industry and the growth of the labor movement contributed to the adoption of a number of legislative acts regulating issues of labor and wages of workers. So a special branch of law began to form - labor legislation (it was understood as the intervention of state authorities in the relationship between the employer and the employer in order to protect and protect the weakest side - the workers), which included laws of June 1, 1882, June 3, 1885, April 24, 1890 and June 2, 1897 . The main areas of state intervention in labor relations between the capitalist entrepreneur and workers: protection of workers' rights to ensure their work and earnings; work insurance (providing for disabled persons); development of the law of unions and assemblies (coalition law). The main provisions of the labor legislation in the field of labor protection were as follows: (1) the labor of minors under 12 years of age was prohibited; (2) established an 8-hour working day for minors between the ages of 12 and 15; the same persons could not be involved in work at night; (3) the work of minors (aged 12 to 15) was prohibited in a number of hazardous industries (in tanneries, etc.); (4) night work of women in a number of industries was prohibited; (5) it was forbidden (since 1886) to settle with workers not in money, but in coupons, conventional symbols, bread or other goods; (6) the law of 1897 established the maximum working time per day - 11.5 hours (for workers employed only during the day), 10 hours (for workers employed at night, on Saturdays and on the eve of certain holidays); at the same time, at least 1 break (at least 1 hour) was established for rest and eating; (7) were established (since 1897) holidays recreation; (8) overtime work was allowed (in unlimited amounts by agreement between the employer and the workers); moreover, overtime work could even be obligatory for workers in accordance with the technical conditions of production. Until 1905, there was a ban on the activities of workers' unions, including their actions in the form of strikes. Only in 1906 was the right of workers to organize trade unions (and on the right of their employers to create business associations and societies) enshrined. In 1866, entrepreneurs were given the obligation to arrange hospital premises at factories at the rate of one bed per 100 workers, while it was forbidden to charge workers for the provision of medical care (this decree was implemented only in large factories, moreover, in 1909 the Senate declared it invalid). Benefits and pensions paid to workers (since 1903) in case of injury to them were insignificant; such benefits were not available in all sectors; the need to pay them was to be established by the court. The law did not provide for any material assistance to elderly workers, female workers in labor, widows and children of deceased and perished workers. Criminal law. In 1863 corporal punishment and the imposition of brands were abolished. In 1866, a new version of the 1845 Penal Code was adopted (its content was reduced to 652 articles); this edition retained the application of such a measure as beating with rods (to the peasants under the sentence

Capitalism also penetrated the peasant economy, contributing to the process of social stratification and the growth of contradictions in the countryside. While the majority of the peasants were getting poorer, rich peasants appeared in the villages who were engaged in trade, started industries, and invested their capital in industry.

The feudal-serf system slowed down the development of capitalist relations in industry. However, the use of hired labor, especially in private manufactories, gradually increased. Even in the metallurgical industry, which was previously dominated by serf labor, many works (procurement of ore, charcoal, etc.) began to be performed by hired workers, which was more profitable for the breeders. In the 30-50s of the XIX century. manufactories began to turn into capitalist factories based on the use of steam engines. The first railways were built. New classes developed - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, whose interests, which consisted in the abolition of serfdom, coincided at this stage.

The wars in which Russia took part had a great influence on the intensification of the crisis in Russian society. So, if the consequence of the Patriotic War of 1812 was the movement of the "Decembrists" and their uprising on December 14, 1825, then the results of the Russian-Turkish war of 1853-1856. served as a powerful impetus to the abolition of serfdom.

The population of the empire was still divided into classes - the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie, to which the merchants were closely associated. The dominant class remained the nobility. Its economic and political power was based on land ownership and the right to exploit the peasants, most of whom were considered their property. Representatives of the nobility held almost all important positions in the state apparatus.

Emperor Alexander I restored the "Charter to the Nobility" (1785), which was abolished by his father Paul I. The nobility retained all the old privileges and even received new rights: to own factories and plants, to trade on a par with the merchants. The feudal state provided economic support to the nobles through the State Loan Bank and other credit institutions.

At the same time, stratification among the nobility increased. Many of them were homeless (in 1835 - 14%), while the rich nobles (1.1%) owned 33% of the serfs. The autocratic power sought to strengthen its main support - the large landowners. For this, in 1834, the land qualification was increased during the elections of noble estate bodies, which increased the influence of wealthy landowners on local government.

In order to preserve large landowners' holdings, a law was passed (July 16, 1845), which prohibited the fragmentation of reserved noble estates (maiorats). They were to be inherited only to the eldest son and were not subject to alienation in favor of outsiders.

Most of the landowners fully approved of the government's policies in the interests of the nobility. At the same time, in the first quarter of the 19th century, among a small part of the nobility, under the influence of the French and American revolutions, a liberal movement arose, the leaders of which (P.I.Pestel, N.M. Muravyov, etc.) advocated the abolition of serfdom and limitation, or even destruction, of the autocratic system. The apogee of the development of this movement was the armed uprising in St. Petersburg on December 14, 1825, which became known as the "Decembrist uprising" and was brutally suppressed by Emperor Nicholas I.

The clergy, the second privileged class, continued to be divided into black (monastic) and white (parish). In the development of the legal status of the clergy, the following features should be noted. On the one hand, all of its representatives received even greater privileges. So, in 1801 they personally, and since 1835 and their families, were exempted from corporal punishment. Since 1807, the houses of the clergy were exempted from land tax, and since 1821 - from the military post. The priests awarded with orders acquired noble rights. Only for the period 1825-1845. over 10 thousand clergy received noble rights. At the same time, the hereditary nobility complained only to representatives of the white clergy, and the black clergy, together with the order, received the so-called "commanding", that is, the right to use a plot of inhabited land for the purpose of generating income.

On the other hand, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and controlled social group... The black clergy was reduced in number, and the rest was limited only to persons directly associated with the performance of church services. To this end, the states of monasteries were limited, an educational qualification was established for all candidates for church positions. According to the decree of 1828, the children of clergymen, "for excess", were asked to enter civil or military service at their choice. Those who did not do this for a year had to "certainly" be registered in one of the taxable estates. After 1831 recruitment of out-of-place priests into the army was stopped. Since 1842, a gradual transfer of the parish clergy to state support was carried out.

On the whole, the Russian clergy took a conservative, loyal position. But the persecution of the schismatics, albeit on a smaller scale, continued. Many representatives of the Catholic clergy were subjected to repression by the government, especially after the Polish uprising of 1831-1832.

Feudal-dependent peasants made up the bulk of the population. Among them were landlord (proprietor), state, possessory and specific peasants. Particularly difficult, as before, remained the position of the landlord peasants, who were considered the property of their owners. In the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (1835), serfs were classified as movable property.

Under Alexander I, attempts were made to start a peasant reform, but the matter did not go beyond discussions and the adoption of some minor measures. Still, it should be noted as a positive fact that an end was put to the expansion of serfdom: the distribution of state estates into private ownership was prohibited.

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 "On Free Plowmen", the landowners received the right to release their peasants with land allotments for a ransom set by the landowners themselves. However, only a few peasants could pay it. Until 1861, only 112 thousand souls became "free farmers".

In order to develop industry, a decree was issued in 1818, which allowed all landowners, including peasants, to establish factories and plants.

After the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, in order to reduce the expenses of the treasury for the maintenance of the army, part of the state peasants (their total number reached 400 thousand souls) was transferred to the position of military settlers. Inhabitants of the military settlements created in 1816 by the fierce General A.A. Arakcheev, pledged to engage in agriculture and at the same time to carry out military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their whole life was shackled by strict rules of military discipline. This aroused hatred of the "Arakcheyev" system in society, and among the military settlers - riots. Not having fulfilled their purpose, after a series of uprisings in military settlements (1831), they began to be gradually abolished and were completely eliminated in the 50s. At the same time, the former military settlers turned into either state or individual peasants.

In 1842, the Decree on Obliged Peasants was adopted. He allowed the landowners to lease the land to the peasants, for which they had to fulfill the obligations established by the contract. However, only six landowners took advantage of this permission.

In 1847, the Ministry of State Property was established, which was entrusted with the management of state peasants. It streamlined the quitrent taxation, increased the land holdings of state peasants and determined the rules for the work of the bodies of peasant self-government: volost gathering, volost administration, village gathering and village headman.

Possessional peasants dominated in a number of industrial sectors. So, in 1860 in the manufacturing industry, they numbered up to 85% of all workers. For the factory owners, they were less profitable than the hired workers, since their wages included the cost of the quitrent. In 1835 the right of landlords to recall the possessory peasants was limited. In 1840, the State Council decided to begin the liquidation of the possession enterprises, and the breeders were allowed to release the possession peasants, turning them into freelance workers.

The position of the specific peasants in comparison with the previous period did not change.

Conclusions on the issue... Russian history inherited from the previous period not only the form of government, but also the entire social organization. The nobility continued to exert enormous influence on state affairs. Additional privileges are received by the clergy, who are exempt from land tax and from dormitories. The formation of new classes (bourgeoisie) took place within the framework of the old estate system. Despite all the shifts in the economy, the legal status of certain groups of the population was the same. However, I had to make a small concession to the bourgeoisie.

By the middle of the XIX century. Russia's lag behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. Therefore, the main goal of the internal policy of the government in the second half of the nineteenth century. was bringing the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time while preserving the autocracy. The peasant question from the middle of the 19th century. became the most acute problem in Russia. The need to abolish serfdom was due to a number of reasons: 1. The serfdom system outlived its usefulness economically: the landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. 2. Serfdom hindered the industrial modernization of the country, as it hindered the formation of a free labor market and the accumulation of capital. 3. The peasants openly protested against serfdom. 4. Among European states, serfdom remained only in Russia, which was a shame for her and relegated the country to the category of backward states. The main committee for peasant affairs was engaged in the preparation of the peasant reform. On February 19, 1861, the Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom was published. The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and civil rights. The peasant was freed from the personal tutelage of the landowner, he could own property and conclude transactions. At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited to the preservation of the community. During the emancipation, the peasants were provided with plots of land, which were 20% less than those plots that they used under serfdom. For the land, the peasants had to pay the landlords a ransom, the value of which was 1.5 times higher than the market value of the land. 80% of the ransom was paid to the landlords by the state. The peasants had to pay the debt to the state with interest for 15 years. The reform of 1861 brought freedom to more than 30 million serfs and contributed to the establishment of capitalist relations in the countryside. However, the reform allowed to maintain landed estates and doomed the peasants to land shortages and poverty. Thus, the reform of 1861 did not remove the agrarian question in Russia. The abolition of serfdom in Russia entailed zemstvo, city, judicial, military and other reforms. In 1864, local government was introduced - the zemstvo. Representatives of all estates elected district zemstvo assemblies, which sent deputies to the provincial zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos were in charge of economic issues, schools, medicine. In 1870, self-government bodies were created in the cities. City voters elected the city council, which formed the council. In 1864, a judicial reform was carried out. The estate, closed court was canceled. Simpler cases were referred to justices of the peace and chambers of the courts. The jury made a decision on the guilt of the defendant. The trial became oral, public, adversarial. In 1863, the university charter was approved, which returned autonomy to universities: the election of rectors and deans was introduced, the university council received the right to independently decide a number of issues. In 1864, a new provision was introduced on elementary public schools, according to which the state, church and society were to be engaged in the education of the people. In 1865, preliminary censorship was abolished for the capital publications. The reforms also affected the army. The country was divided into 15 military districts. From 1871, universal military service was introduced for men who reached 20 years of age (service life in the ground forces up to 6 years, and in the navy - up to 7 years). The reforms carried out were of a progressive nature. Russia to a certain extent approached the advanced European model for that time. However, many reforms were inconsistent and incomplete. In addition, they were closely associated with the personality of Alexander II himself. After the death of Alexander II from a terrorist bomb in 1881, his son became emperor Alexander III... The tsar's closest circle consisted of the most reactionary political figures: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev, Minister of Internal Affairs Count D.A.Tolstoy and publicist M.N. Katkov. The era of reaction began in Russia's domestic policy. In April 1881, the manifesto "On the inviolability of autocracy" was promulgated, and in August, the "Provision on enhanced protection" followed, which gave the government the right to impose a state of emergency and military courts. Since 1883, security departments began to operate. With the aim of strengthening the position of the nobles in the system of local government and limiting the functions of zemstvos, a new "Statute on provinces and district zemstvo institutions" (1890) and "City position" (1892) were adopted. The government sought to completely subjugate high school control of the state and the church. In 1887, a circular was introduced about "cook's children", which did not allow children from the lower classes to enter the gymnasium. In 1884, the new University Charter eliminated the autonomy of universities. The Provisional Regulations on the Press of 1882 put an end to the liberal censorship policy of the 1960s. Not only the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but also the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod received the right to close any publication. Reactionary transformations of the 1880s - 1890s were called counter-reforms. They actually reversed many of the results of the reforms of the 1860s, mothballed crisis phenomena and paved the way for the crisis of the early 20th century.

45. Judicial reform of 1864.

The system of the judiciary in Russia until the 60s of the XIX century. was determined by the provisions of the Institution of Provinces in 1775. The court was not separated from the administration and had a pronounced class character. The judicial system was extremely complex. The legal proceedings, as before, were of a clerical nature, the theory of formal assessment of evidence continued to be applied in it, there was no publicity of the process, there was no equality of arms, the accused had no right to defense. disadvantages judicial system and legal proceedings displeased even the privileged estates (not only the bourgeoisie, but also the nobility). "In 1864, after a lengthy preparation, the following documents were approved, which constituted the whole of the judicial reform: 1) Institutions of judicial regulations; 2) Charter of criminal proceedings; 3) Charter of civil proceedings; 4) Charter of punishments imposed by justices of the peace Judicial reform of 1864 proclaimed the bourgeois principles of the judicial system and legal proceedings: independence and separation of the court from the administration; creation of an all-estate court; equality of all before the court; introduction of jurors; establishment of prosecutorial supervision; creation of a clearer system of judicial instances Judicial charters decisively broke with the pre-reform judicial system and legal proceedings on November 20, 1864. The new court was built on an unofficial basis, the irremovability of judges, the independence of the court from the administration, transparency, orality and adversarial proceedings were proclaimed; consideration of criminal cases in the district court provided for the participation of a jury. It's all characteristic signs bourgeois court. The Magistrates' Court was created in counties and cities to consider minor criminal cases. The Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction over cases, for the commission of which there was a punishment in the form of a reprimand, remark or suggestion, a fine not exceeding 300 rubles, arrest not exceeding three months, or imprisonment not exceeding a year. When considering criminal cases in the district court, the institution of a jury was envisaged. It was introduced despite the resistance of the conservative forces and even the reluctance of Alexander II himself. They motivated their negative attitude towards the idea of \u200b\u200bjurors by the fact that the people had not yet matured to this, and such a trial would inevitably be of a "political character." According to the judicial statutes, the jury could be a citizen of Russia aged 25 to 70, who was not under trial and investigation, who was not expelled from service by court and who was not publicly condemned for vices, who was not under guardianship, who did not suffer from mental illness, blindness, dumb and lived in this district for at least two years. A relatively high property qualification was also required. The second instance for the district courts was the judicial chamber, which had departments. The chairman and its members were approved by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. She served as an appellate court for civil and criminal cases tried in district courts without a jury. The Senate was viewed as the supreme court of cassation and had criminal and civil cassation departments. Senators were appointed by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. The Prosecutor's Office was reorganized, it was included in the judicial department, headed by the Prosecutor General, who is also the Minister of Justice. Court presidents, prosecutors and forensic investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and examining magistrates were irremovable, and high salaries were assigned to them in order to secure honest professionals in the judicial institutions. The largest step in introducing the principles of bourgeois justice was the establishment of the institution of the legal profession. On November 20, 1866, it was allowed "in all time-based publications to publish what is happening in the courts." Court reports reporting on Russian and foreign trials are becoming prominent in the press.

46. \u200b\u200bZemskaya reform of 1864.

On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" - a legislative act that introduced zemstvo. It should be borne in mind that for a country whose majority of the population were peasants who had just freed themselves from serfdom, the introduction of local self-government bodies was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various classes of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-estate organizations, such as noble meetings... The serf-owners were outraged by the fact that on the bench in the zemstvo assembly “yesterday’s slave was sitting next to his recent master”. Indeed, various estates were represented in the zemstvos - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, industrialists, bourgeois and peasants. Members of the zemstvo assemblies were called vowels. The meeting was chaired by the leaders of the noble self-government - the leaders of the nobility. The meetings were formed by executive bodies - county and provincial zemstvo boards. Zemstvos received the right to collect taxes for their needs and to hire employees. The sphere of activity of the new bodies of all-estates self-government was limited only to economic and cultural affairs: the maintenance of local communication routes, care for the medical assistance of the population, public education, local trade and industry, national food, etc. New bodies of all-estate self-government were introduced only at the level of provinces and counties. There was no central zemstvo representation, and there was no small zemstvo unit in the volost. Contemporaries wittily called the zemstvo “a building without a foundation and a roof”. The slogan “crowning the building” has since become the main slogan of Russian liberals for 40 years - right up to the creation of the State Duma.

47. City reform of 1870.

The entry of Russia on the path of capitalism was marked by the rapid development of cities, a change in the social structure of their population, led to an increase in the role of cities as centers of the country's economic, socio-political and cultural life. The city reform of 1870 created all-estates local government bodies. Administrative functions were no longer assigned to the entire urban society, but to its representative body - the Duma. Duma elections were held every four years. The number of members of the Duma - vowels - was quite significant: depending on the number of voters in the city - from 30 to 72 people. In the metropolitan Duma there were much more vowels: in Moscow - 180, in St. Petersburg - 252. The executive body of public administration was elected at the meeting of the Duma - the government and the mayor, who was the chairman of both the executive and administrative bodies. The right to vote was based on the bourgeois property qualification. The right to participate in elections, regardless of class, was given to the owners of immovable property taxed in favor of the city, as well as persons who pay certain commercial and industrial fees to it. Various departments, institutions, societies, companies, churches, monasteries also enjoyed the right to vote as a legal entity. Only men over the age of 25 were allowed to take part in the voting in person. Women with the necessary electoral qualifications could participate in elections only through their proxies. In fact, hired workers, who in the overwhelming majority did not own real estate, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population, people of mental labor: engineers, doctors, teachers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, but rented apartments, were practically deprived of the right to vote. The new public institutions were entrusted with the tasks of managing the municipal economy. They were in charge of a wide range of issues of urban economy and improvement: water supply, sewerage, street lighting, transport, gardening, urban planning problems, etc. City councils were obliged to take care of the "public welfare": to assist in providing the population with food, to take measures against fires and other disasters, to promote the protection of "public health" (to set up hospitals, to help the police in carrying out sanitary and hygienic measures), to take measures against poverty, promote the spread of public education (establish schools, museums, etc. )

In the second half of the XVIII - early XIX century. there was a process of decomposition of the feudal-serf system and the development of bourgeois relations, which led to a change in the class structure of Russian society. New classes were born - bourgeoisie and proletariat. The entire population was still divided into four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and city dwellers.

The dominant class was nobility. The economic and political power of the nobles was based on land ownership and the right to exploit the peasants who lived on the lands belonging to the nobles. They had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. Representatives of the nobility held all important positions in government bodies. The feudal state sought to strengthen the position of the nobles.

The title of nobility was considered as inalienable, hereditary and hereditary, which extended to all members of the nobleman's family. The nobility had such privileges as the freedom of nobles to serve, leave service, travel to other states, and renounce citizenship.

Among personal rights of nobles it can be noted: the right to noble dignity, the right to protection of honor, personality and life, exemption from corporal punishment, etc. the property rights of the nobility included the following: property rights; the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property; the right to have factories and plants in cities; the right to trade on an equal basis with merchants, etc.

With magnification land qualification during the elections, the role of large landowners in the noble estate bodies and their influence on local government increased.

Since 1798, non-noblemen have not been promoted to officer rank, and all non-noble officers have been dismissed from military service.

Clergy as before, it was divided into "black" (monastic) and "white" (parish). In the development of the legal position of the clergy, it is necessary to note two following points.

On the one hand, representatives of the clergy received great privileges: they and their children were exempted from corporal punishment, the houses of the clergy were exempted from land tax, from standing, etc.

On the other hand, the autocracy tried limit the clergy only by persons directly serving in churches.

The authorities sought to tie the most devoted servants of the church to their social environment, where the noble aristocracy prevailed. The clergy awarded with orders acquired noble rights. Thus, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and manageable social group.

The bulk of the population was made up of feudal-dependent peasants. They were subdivided into landlord, state, possessory and specific.

In 1801, a decree was adopted, according to which merchants, bourgeois and all peasants (landlord peasants - by the Decree of 1803) were granted the right to buy land.

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 on free farmers, landowners received the right to release their peasants to freedom for a ransom set by the landowners themselves. Before the peasant reform of 1861, about 112 thousand people became free farmers.

In 1816, some of the state peasants were transferred to the position military settlers. They were required to engage in agriculture and military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their life was regulated by the Military Regulations.

In order to develop industry in 1818. a decree was issued, which allowed all peasants to establish factories and plants.

In 1842 was adopted Decree on obligated peasants. In accordance with this act, landowners could provide peasants with land for lease, for which they had to fulfill the obligations established by the contract.

In 1847, to manage the state peasants, Ministry of State Property. Also, quitrent taxation was streamlined, the land plots of state peasants were increased and the bodies of peasant self-government were regulated: volost gathering, volost administration, village gathering, village headman.

First half of the 19th century characterized by rapid urban growth: the number of urban population, the process of its stratification is intensified.

In 1832, a personal and hereditary honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were given some privileges: they did not pay the poll tax, did not carry recruiting duties, and were exempted from corporal punishment.

Due to the interest of the state in the development of trade and industry, wealthy merchants were endowed with special rights. Merchants was divided into two guilds: the first guild consisted of wholesalers, the second guild - retail.

Group workshop was also the artisans assigned to the guilds. They were divided into masters and apprentices. The workshops had their own controls.

Working people to whom persons who were not accepted into the bourgeois societies belonged, constituted the lowest group of the urban population.

Part personal rights of burghers included: the right to protect honor and dignity, personality, life, the right to move, the right to travel abroad, etc. Among property rights of the bourgeoisiecan be distinguished: the right of ownership of property, the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property, the right to own industrial enterprises and industries, the right to conduct trade, etc.

The townspeople had their own estate court

The main contradiction in the development of Russian society, which was born in the previous century, stemmed from the maturing formational changes: capitalism was advancing to replace feudalism. Already in the previous period, the crisis of the serf system of economy was revealed. Now he walks with increasing strength. Feudalism is increasingly showing its economic failure. At the same time, the crisis of the feudal-serf system becomes all-encompassing, covering all the most important spheres of the economy.

In industry, serf manufactory cannot withstand competition with capitalist manufacture, with the bourgeois organization of production. Capitalism provides immeasurably greater labor productivity and works with extraordinary flexibility and resourcefulness in difficult conditions when it is hindered by all the foundations of feudalism, primarily serfdom, which hinders the attraction of labor to production and narrows the domestic market. The victory of bourgeois production is ensured by the employment of wage labor and the introduction of machinery. Manufacture is replaced by a factory. In this period, an industrial revolution begins. From 1825 to 1860 the number of large manufacturing enterprises and workers employed in it has tripled. And it is no coincidence that in this industry by 1860, 4/5 of the workers were already hired. At the same time, in the entire industry, the share of serf workers was another 44%.

Hired labor created an incentive to increase the productivity of an employee interested in the results of production, and the use of machines saved labor, which was so scarce under the conditions of feudalism and serfdom. Attempts to use machines in the serf industry run up against the low professional level of the serf worker, and most importantly, his unwillingness to work, since he is not interested in increasing labor productivity, but quite the opposite - in saving his labor, simply put, in working like as little as possible.

Violation of the law of the obligatory conformity of production relations with the nature of the productive forces is also evident in agriculture.

In the XIX century. Western Europe is increasingly in need of Russian bread. From 1831 to 1860 the average annual export of grain from Russia increased from 18 million to 69 million poods. At the same time, the domestic market also grew: the sale of bread there exceeded export by 9 times. Meanwhile, the grain yield at the beginning of the century averaged 2.5 (i.e., 1 bag of seed brought 2.5 bags of harvested grain). Consequently, the yield did not differ significantly from what it was centuries ago.

The landlords are trying by various means to increase the marketability of their estates. Some do this by putting even more pressure on the peasant. In the "exemplary" estate of Count Orlov-Davydov, the whole life of a serf peasant was strictly regulated, for which a special Code was issued. This patrimonial "law" provided for a complex system of punishments for peasants' negligence to work and even for not getting married on time: the landlord needed constant replenishment of the labor force.

Other landlords are trying to increase the profitability of their estates through innovations, but this does not give them success. Innovations fail because of the same disinterest of the peasant in his work.

All-round pressure on the peasant only generates an increase in class resistance. After some lull at the very beginning of the century, peasant unrest is growing, especially intensifying at certain moments. Thus, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which gave rise to some illusions in the peasantry, widespread indignation of the peasants spread when their hopes for an easier life were not justified. A new wave of peasant uprisings swept through in connection with the accession of Nicholas I to the throne. In 1826 alone, 178 peasant uprisings were recorded. At the end of the reign of Nicholas, the number of peasant unrest increased by 1.5 times.

The increasing development of bourgeois relations in the economy, the crisis of the serf economy cannot but find reflection in social structure a society where capitalism is ripening in the depths of feudalism.

The most important factor determining the changes in the social structure during this period is that instead of the previous main classes, the main classes of bourgeois society are gradually taking shape - the capitalists and wage workers, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The formation of new classes, as before, is due to the decomposition of old ones. The bourgeoisie consisted mainly of the merchants and the top of the peasantry, which managed to get rich in one way or another. Such peasants, sometimes even landowners, were let out by their master for rent, enriched themselves, bringing the master much more profit than if they worked on arable land. A significant part of the Ivanovo factory owners came from among the rich serfs who exploited tens of thousands of their own fellow villagers. The Russian bourgeoisie was the first half of XIX century, growing quantitatively and getting richer, remained, however, a weak political force. In any case, she, like in previous centuries, did not even think about political power. The Russian bourgeoisie was not a revolutionary force. The first troublemakers in Russia in the 19th century. became the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists and Herzen, and then the revolutionary democrats-raznochintsy.

Due to the disintegration of the old classes, the proletariat also took shape. It was formed from artisans and the urban lower class, but the main source of its formation was again the peasantry. The landowners of the predominantly non-black earth provinces, as already noted, often let their peasants go to work on the condition of paying the quitrent. These peasants entered factories and plants and were exploited as wage workers.

Such a form of capitalist organization of production was also widespread, when an entrepreneur distributed work to peasant huts, thus not caring about either the premises or the equipment. The serf peasant became a worker without even noticing it himself.

The formation of new social classes also gave rise to fundamentally new class antagonisms, the struggle between labor and capital. Already in the 30s and 40s, a labor movement emerged. Tsarism has to take this new factor into account in its policy: in 1835 and 1845. the first labor laws were issued, protecting the elementary rights of workers, albeit to an insignificant extent.

The formation of new classes took place within the framework of the old estate system. The division of society into estates remained in principle unshakable. Despite all the shifts in the economy, the legal status of certain groups of the population was the same. However, a small concession had to be made to the growing bourgeoisie. In 1832, a new state was introduced in the composition of the class of urban residents - honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were a non-taxable class, close in status to the nobility. This concession to the bourgeoisie also had the goal of protecting the nobility from the penetration of socially alien elements into it, since the isolation of the nobility is increasing. In 1810, Alexander I allowed the top of the merchant class to acquire populated lands from the treasury, having specifically stipulated that this did not, however, give the buyer any noble rights. At the same time, back in 1801, the distribution of new estates to nobles was prohibited. Under Nicholas I, measures were taken to hinder the acquisition of the nobility through service. In 1845, the requirements for civil servants applying for the nobility were sharply increased. To acquire hereditary nobility, it was now necessary to rise to the staff officer rank in the army and to the 5th grade in civil service. Among the nobles themselves, inequality was established depending on the property status in favor, of course, of the largest, richest landowners. In 1831, a procedure was introduced according to which only large landowners and peasant owners could directly participate in the noble elections, others voted only indirectly. It must be said that the property status of the nobility was very heterogeneous. In the second quarter of the XIX century. there were more than 250 thousand nobles, of which about 150 thousand did not have peasants, over 100 thousand were themselves engaged in arable farming.

The economic development of the country, the peasant movement forced to take some steps to weaken serfdom. Even the chief of gendarmes Benckendorff wrote to the tsar about the need for the gradual liberation of the peasants. In 1803, the well-known Decree on Free Plowmen was adopted, in 1842 the landowners were allowed to transfer the land to the peasants for certain duties, in 1848 the peasants were allowed to buy real estate. It is obvious that these steps towards the emancipation of the peasants did not make significant changes in their legal status. It is only important to note that the legislation on the peasantry tested the institutions that will then be used in peasant reform 1861 (land redemption, "obligated state", etc.).

The class and estate division of Russian society was supplemented by ethnic division. Russia, which from time immemorial was a multiethnic state, in this period has become even more multinational. It included regions at different levels of economic development, and this could not but affect the social structure of the empire. At the same time, all the territories that had re-entered the Russian Empire typologically belonged to the feudal formation, albeit at different stages of development. Consequently, their class and estate structure was, in principle, the same type.

The annexation of new territories to Russia meant the inclusion of non-national feudal lords into the general structure of Russian feudal lords, and the feudal-dependent population - into the exploited. However, this inclusion did not take place mechanically, but had certain features. Back in the 18th century. The tsarist government granted all the rights of the Russian nobility to the Baltic barons. Moreover, they received privileges even in comparison with the Russian nobles. Initially, Polish feudal lords also received the rights of Russians. Moldavian boyars in Bessarabia also acquired the rights of Russian nobles. In 1827 the Georgian nobles also received such rights. In the 19th century, as before, persons were recruited to the civil service regardless of their nationality. There was not even a column on nationality in the official lists of officials.

As for the working people, the foreign peasants had certain advantages over the Great Russian ones. In the Baltic states, the emancipation of the peasants was carried out earlier than in Central Russia. Personal freedom was preserved for the peasants of the Kingdom of Poland and Finland. Moldovan peasants were given the right to move. In Northern Azerbaijan, the tsarist government confiscated the lands of the rebellious feudal lords, which accounted for 3/4 of all land holdings of the region. At the same time, the peasants who lived on such lands were freed from duties to their former feudal lords and switched to the position of state peasants. The Kazakhs also received the rights of state peasants. Moreover, they were allowed to move to other classes. Slavery, which still took place in Kazakhstan, was prohibited. The Kazakh population was freed from recruitment, which crushed the Russian peasants with heavy oppression.

Thus, foreign peasants either gained from joining Russia, or at least lost nothing.

As for the gentlemen, their interests the further, the more they begin to clash with the interests of the Russian feudal lords, and this generates a certain wave of local nationalism. True, tsarism pursued a rather flexible policy in relation to foreign feudal lords, trying to win them over to its side, and in most cases it succeeded.

Changes in the state machinery

In the development of the Russian state, the period from the beginning of the 19th century stands out as an independent one. until 1861 At this time, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, absolutism reaches its apogee. All power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the emperor of all Russia. In the Basic Laws that open the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, the idea of \u200b\u200bautocracy is formulated clearly and categorically: “The Russian Emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. God himself commands obedience to his supreme authority not only for fear, but also for conscience. " As before, as we see, autocracy is ideologically based on divine origin. At the same time, a new idea appears - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe legitimacy of the power of the monarch.

The emperor during this period sought to personally intervene even in the little things of government. Of course, such an aspiration was limited by real human capabilities: the tsar was unable to do without state bodies that would carry out his desires, his policies. The Russian ambassador to London, Count S. R. Vorontsov, wrote in a private letter in 1801: “The country is too vast for the sovereign, even if he was the second Peter the Great, to do everything himself under the existing form of government without a constitution, without firm laws, without irreplaceable and independent courts ”.

Talks about a constitution were conducted under Alexander I. Even two drafts were drawn up - by M. M. Speransky, and later by Η. Η. Novosiltsev. Despite the fact that they were drawn up with the expectation not to shake the foundations of autocracy in any way, things did not go beyond the author's exercises.

Calmly dispensing with a constitution, Russian emperors could not at the same time do without improving the state apparatus, without adapting it to the needs of the new time. According to modern researchers, the need for reforms was due to two main circumstances. First, the development of bourgeois relations in Russia and the bourgeois revolution in the West required adapting the state apparatus so that it could defend the feudal order. Secondly, the nobility, its elite, including the top officials, wanted to keep the emperor in their hands, so that he would not try to encroach on their class privileges, the objective need to limit which was long overdue.

The development of the state mechanism as a whole is characterized by conservatism and reactionaryism in the pre-reform period. The changes that have taken place in it are small and relate mainly to the very beginning of the century, when the young Alexander I with a circle of like-minded aristocrats decided to carry out liberal reforms. These reforms, however, stopped at the establishment of ministries and the Council of State.

Having received an order from the emperor to develop a project for the transformation of the state mechanism, M.M.Speransky proposed to create the State Duma - a representative body elected by the owners of real estate, which was given legislative prerogatives. At the same time, it was proposed to create a purely bureaucratic State Council, which would also be entrusted with legislative and at the same time administrative duties. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe State Duma was resolutely rejected, because they saw in it an attempt to limit the autocracy, and the State Council was created in 1810.

All bills were to pass through the State Council. He himself had to develop the most important of them. At the same time, the "Formation of the State Council" emphasized that no project can become law without its approval by the emperor. The Council of State was also responsible for financial management.

The council consisted of a general meeting and 4 departments: a department of laws, departments of military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, and state economy. The emperor himself was considered the chairman of the State Council. However, it was envisaged that he could assign the chairmanship function to one of the members of the Council. During the period under review, the tsar himself never once presided over the Council.

Even earlier, the sectoral management bodies were reformed. Peter's collegiums already in the 18th century. gradually decayed. The principle of collegiality that existed in these bodies was increasingly replaced by the one-man command of their presidents, and the collegia themselves under Catherine II were abolished one after another. At the very beginning of his reign, in 1802, Alexander I introduced new bodies of sectoral management - ministries. The experience of their work was summarized and consolidated in 1811 by the "General institution of ministries." Ministries of foreign affairs, military, financial, justice, and others were created. The circle of ministries changed over the period.

The main difference between ministries and collegia was the approval of the principle of one-man management. The minister was fully responsible for the management of the branch of government entrusted to him and had all the powers to carry out this task. He was, as it were, an autocrat in his field of activity.

Simultaneously with the ministries, the Committee of Ministers was created. True, the regulation on him was issued ten years later, in 1812. It was an advisory body under the tsar, which had, first of all, interdepartmental and supra-departmental functions, that is, it resolved issues concerning several ministries at once or exceeding the competence of the minister. In addition, he also had his own terms of reference, in particular. The committee oversaw the governors and provincial governments. The Committee of Ministers included chairmen of departments of the State Council, ministers, chief executive departments, and the secretary of state.

The institution in which the most vividly reflected the absolutist order of the structure of the highest governing bodies was His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Under Nicholas, she actually stood over the entire administrative apparatus. The fate of the state was decided by a small handful of people who were directly subordinate to the king. Under Nicholas I, 6 branches were created in this chancellery, the rights of which almost did not differ from the rights of ministries. Especially famous is the notorious III Branch, which fought against revolutionary and generally progressive sentiments in society. He was assigned a corps of gendarmes, the chief of which was considered the chief chief of the III department. The whole country was divided into gendarme districts.

The secret police existed even before Nikolai. During his accession to the throne, Alexander I abolished a secret expedition that had existed since the 18th century. However, already in 1805, leaving for the war with Napoleon, he created the Provisional Committee of the Higher Police to monitor public opinion. After the Peace of Tilsit, this committee was transformed into the Committee of Public Security, which was charged with the duty of reproducing private letters. At the end of the reign of Alexander I, political surveillance bodies were created in the army.

The second branch of the Imperial Chancellery received a different kind of fame. It has done a tremendous job of systematizing Russian legislation.

Local government did not undergo significant changes during this period.