The abolition of serfdom inevitably entailed reforms in the field of central and local government, courts, military affairs, and education. The reform of 1861 changed the economic basis of the country, and the superstructure changed accordingly, i.e. political, legal, military, cultural institutions serving this basis. The same need for national development, which made the reform of 1861 necessary, mainly forced tsarism to carry out the reforms of 1862-1874.

The second reason for the reforms of 1862-1874 was the rise of a mass and revolutionary movement in the country. Tsarism faced an alternative: either reform or revolution. All the reforms of that time were by-products of the revolutionary struggle.

Finally, she pushed tsarism to the reforms of 1862-1874. the strength of public opinion, pressure from the bourgeoisie and part of the landowners who have embarked on the capitalist track and are therefore interested in bourgeois reforms. The feudal landlords and the tsar himself would prefer to do without reforms. Back in 1859, Alexander II called local self-government, freedom of the press and jury trials "Western tomfoolery," not suggesting that in two or three years circumstances would force him to introduce these tomfoolery in his own empire. The main reforms of 1862-1874. there were four: zemstvo, city, judicial and military. They deservedly stand on a par with the peasant reform of 1861 and after it as great reforms.

The Zemskaya reform changed local government. Previously, it was caste and non-electoral. The landowner reigned unrestrictedly over the peasants, ruled over them and judged them at his own discretion. After the abolition of serfdom, such management became impossible. Therefore, in parallel with the peasant reform, it was being prepared in 1859-1861. and zemstvo reform. During the years of democratic upsurge (1859-1861), the liberal N.A. Milyutin, but in April 1861, when the "upper circles" considered that the abolition of serfdom would defuse tensions in the country dangerous for tsarism, Alexander II replaced Milyutin with the conservative P.A. Valuev. The Milyutinsky project was corrected by Valuev in favor of the nobles, in order to make them, as they called themselves, "the leading army of the zemstvo." The final version of the reform, set out in the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", Alexander II signed on January 1, 1864/201 /

The Zemstvo reform was based on two new principles - lack of class and electivity. Regulatory authorities zemstvos, those. new local government, there were zemstvo assemblies: in the uyezd - uyezd, in the province - provincial (in the volost zemstvo was not created). Elections to county zemstvo assemblies were held on the basis of property qualifications. All voters were divided into three curia: 1) county landowners, 2) urban voters, 3) elected from rural societies.

The first curia included the owners of at least 200 acres of land, immovable property worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or annual income over 6 thousand rubles. The owners of less than 200 (but not less than 10) dessiatines of land were united, and from the number of them who collectively owned a land mass of 200 (at least) dessiatines, one authorized person was elected to the congress of the first curia.

The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of real estate for at least 500 rubles. in small and 2 thousand rubles. in large cities or commercial and industrial establishments with an annual turnover of more than 6 thousand rubles.

The third curia consisted mainly of officials of the peasant government, although local nobles and rural clergy could also run here. So, in the Saratov and Samara provinces, even five leaders of the nobility were voted by the peasants. For this curia, unlike the first two, the elections were not direct, but multi-stage: the village gathering elected representatives to the volost gathering, electors were elected there, and then the county congress of electors elected deputies ( vowels, as they were called) to the district zemstvo assembly. This was done in order to "weed out" unreliable elements from the peasants and generally to restrict peasant representation. As a result, according to the data for 1865-1867, noblemen made up 42% of the county vowels, peasants - 38%, others - 20%.

Elections to provincial zemstvo assemblies took place at uyezd zemstvo assemblies on the basis of one provincial vowel for six uyezd assemblies. Therefore, in provincial assemblies, the predominance of nobles was even greater: 74.2% versus 10.6% of peasants and 15.2% of others. The chairman of the zemstvo assembly was not elected, his position was the leader of the nobility: in the uyezd - uyezd, in the province - provincial.

This is how the administrative bodies of the zemstvo looked like. Its executive bodies were zemstvo boards - district and provincial. They were elected at zemstvo meetings (for 3 years, as well as meetings). The chairman of the county government was approved by the governor, and the provincial government - by the minister of the interior. In the zemstvo councils, the nobles prevailed absolutely: 89.5% of the vowels of all provincial councils against 1.5% of the peasants and 9% of others. / 202 /

It is significant that in those provinces where noble landownership was absent or weak (in the Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan provinces, in Siberia and Central Asia), as well as in national regions with a small number of russians landowners (Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Western Ukraine, the Caucasus), the zemstvo was not created. In total, by the end of the 70s, it was introduced in 34 out of 50 provinces of European Russia.

The predominance of the nobility in the zemstvo institutions made them safe for the government. However, tsarism did not dare to give real power even to such institutions. They were deprived of any political functions and dealt exclusively with the economic needs of the county or province: food, local crafts, property insurance, mail, schools, hospitals. But even such activities of the zemstvo were placed under the vigilant control of the central authorities. Any resolution of the zemstvo assemblies could be canceled by the governor or the minister of internal affairs.

The Zemstvo was politically weak. IN AND. Lenin called it "the fifth wheel in the cart of Russian government." M.N. Katkov evaluated the zemstvo even more derogatory: “They (zemstvo institutions. N.T.) as if a hint of something, as if the beginning of something unknown, and resemble the grimace of a person who wants to sneeze, but cannot. "

Nevertheless, the zemstvo as a progressive institution contributed to the national development of the country. Its employees adjusted statistics on the economy, culture and life, disseminated agronomic innovations, organized agricultural exhibitions, built roads, raised local industry, trade and especially public education and health care, opening hospitals and schools, replenishing the staff of teachers and doctors. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools had been opened in the countryside, which made up almost half of all schools in the country. Before the introduction of the zemstvos, there were no doctors at all (except for rare cases when the landowner himself opened a hospital at his own expense and invited a paramedic). The zemstvos supported specially trained rural doctors (their number quadrupled in 1866-1880). Zemsky doctors (as well as teachers) were deservedly considered the best. Therefore, one can understand K.D. Kavelin, who proclaimed the zemstvo as a "multi-significant phenomenon", the seed for the development of the "multi-branched tree of progress."

The second local government reform was the city reform. Its preparation began in 1862, i.e. again in a revolutionary situation. In 1864, the reform project was prepared, but by that time the democratic onslaught was repelled, and the government began to revise the project: it was redone twice / 203 /, and only on June 16, 1870 the tsar approved the final version of the "City Regulation".

The urban reform was built on the same, only even more narrowed, principles as the zemstvo one. According to the "City Regulation" of 1870, the City Duma remained the administrative body of the city administration. However, if until 1870 the city dumas that existed in Russia since the time of Catherine II's “City status” (1785) consisted of deputies from class groups, now they were becoming non-class.

Deputies (vowels) of the City Duma were elected on the basis of a property qualification. Only the city tax payers participated in the elections of the vowels; owners of real estate (businesses, banks, houses, etc.). All of them were divided into three electoral meetings: 1) the largest taxpayers, who together paid one third of the total amount of taxes in the city; 2) medium payers, who also paid a total of a third of all taxes, 3) small payers, who contributed the remaining third of the total tax amount. Each assembly elected the same number of vowels, although the number of assemblies was dramatically different (in St. Petersburg, for example, the 1st curia was 275 voters, the 2nd - 849, and the 3rd - 16355). This ensured the predominance in the thoughts of the big and middle bourgeoisie, which comprised two electoral meetings out of three. In Moscow, the first two assemblies did not have even 13% of the total number of voters, but they elected 2/3 of the vowels. As for the workers, office workers, and the intelligentsia who did not own real estate (i.e., the overwhelming majority of the urban population), they did not have the right to participate in city elections at all. In the ten largest cities of the empire (with a population of more than 50 thousand people), 95.6% of the inhabitants were thus barred from participating in the elections. In Moscow, 4.4% of city residents received voting rights, in St. Petersburg - 3.4%, in Odessa - 2.9%.

The number of vowels in city councils ranged from 30 to 72. Two councils stood apart - Moscow (180 vowels) and St. Petersburg (250). The executive body of the city government was the city government, which was elected by the city council (for 4 years, like the council itself). The mayor was at the head of the council. His position was the chairman of the city duma. Besides him, the council included 2-3 vowels.

The "city status" of 1870 was introduced in 509 cities of Russia. At first, it operated only in the indigenous Russian provinces, and in 1875-1877. tsarism extended it to the national outskirts of the empire, except for Poland, Finland and Central Asia, where the pre-reform city structure was preserved. / 204 /

The functions of the city administration, like the zemstvo one, were purely economic: city improvement (street paving, water supply, sewerage), fire fighting, care for local industry, trade, health care, education. Nevertheless, the city government was even stricter than the zemstvo government, controlled by the central government. The mayor was approved by the governor (for the district town) or the minister of the interior (for the provincial center). The minister and the governor could cancel any resolution of the city council. A provincial presence for city affairs, chaired by the governor, was created specifically to control urban governance in each province.

City councils, like zemstvos, did not have coercive power. To carry out their decisions, they were forced to request assistance from the police, which were subordinate not to city dumas, but to government officials - city governors and governors. These latter (but by no means urban self-government) exercised real power in cities - both before and after the “great reforms”.

And yet, in comparison with the purely feudal “city status” of Catherine II, the city reform of 1870, based on the bourgeois beginning of the property qualification, was a significant step forward. It created much better conditions than before for the development of cities, since now city councils and councils were guided not by class, but by the general civil interests of the townspeople.

The reform of the court has become much more consistent than the zemstvo and city reforms. Of all the reforms of 1861-1874. in judicial reform, the bourgeois principle was expressed with the greatest force. It `s naturally. After all, the judicial system and the procedure for legal proceedings are one of the main criteria of human civilization. Meanwhile, this criterion in pre-reform Russia looked as odious as nothing else. The pre-reform court was class-based, it was based on "serfdom's justice":

That court was entirely dependent on the administration, which, according to the Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lanskoy, “went to justice”. The secrecy of judicial proceedings, the use of corporal punishment, arbitrariness, venality and red tape that prevailed in the pre-reform court were the talk of the town, the eternal themes of folk proverbs: "Crooked court and a just cause will twist," "," It is useful for the judge to get into his pocket "," Better to drown yourself than to sue. " Even / 205 / the Minister of Justice of Alexander I D.P. Troshchinsky defined the pre-reform court as "a great sea in which there are countless reptiles."

In Russia until 1864 there was no institute of the legal profession. Nicholas I, who believed that it was lawyers who "ruined France" at the end of the 18th century, bluntly said: "As long as I reign, Russia does not need lawyers, we will live without them." And so it happened. “In the courts, it’s black with a lie, black” (in the words of AS Khomyakov) Russia has been for centuries, but after the abolition of serfdom it could not remain so. Alexander II understood this and, to his honor (and most importantly, to the good of Russia), he instructed a commission of the best lawyers to prepare judicial reform, which was actually headed by a remarkable lawyer and patriot, State Secretary of the State Council S.I. Zarudny. To him, more than to anyone else, Russia is obliged by the Judicial Charters of 1864.

Preparations for judicial reform began in the fall of 1861, at the highest point of the country's democratic upsurge, and was completed by the fall of 1862. But only on November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved the new Judicial Charters. Instead of feudal estates courts, they introduced civilized judicial institutions common to persons of all estates with the same procedure.

From now on, for the first time in Russia, four cornerstone principles of modern law were approved: independence of the court from the administration, irremovability of judges, publicityand competitiveness legal proceedings. The judicial apparatus was significantly democratized. In criminal courts, the institution of jurors was introduced from the population, elected on the basis of a moderate property qualification (at least 100 acres of land or any other real estate in 2000 rubles in capitals and 1000 rubles in provincial cities). For each case, 12 jurors were appointed by lot to decide whether the defendant was guilty or not, after which the court released the innocent and determined the punishment for the guilty. The institution of lawyers (attorneys at law) was created to provide legal assistance to those in need and to defend the accused, and the preliminary investigation of criminal cases, previously in the hands of the police, has now passed to the judicial investigators. Attorneys at law and forensic investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and the former, in addition, still had five years of experience in judicial practice.

The number of courts under the Charters of 1864 was reduced, and their competence was strictly delimited. Three types of courts were created: the magistrate court, the district court, and the judicial chamber. / 206 /

Justices of the peace were elected by county zemstvo assemblies or city councils on the basis of a high property qualification (at least 400 acres of land or other real estate worth at least 15,000 rubles), and members of district courts and court chambers were appointed by the king.

The Magistrate's Court (consisting of one person - the magistrate) considered minor misdemeanors and civil claims in a simplified procedure. The decision of the magistrate could be appealed at the county congress of justices of the peace.

A district court (composed of a president and two members) operated in each judicial district equal to one province. The apparatus of the district court included the prosecutor and his associates (ie assistants), judicial investigators, and lawyers were involved. The District Court had jurisdiction over all civil and almost all (with the exception of particularly important) criminal cases. The decisions taken by the district court with the participation of the jury were considered final and not subject to appeal on the merits, they could only be appealed in cassation (i.e., in case of violation of the law in the proceedings). The decisions of the district court, taken without the participation of a jury, were appealed to the court chamber. Cases were considered without a jury in which the accused was not threatened with deprivation or restriction of civil rights.

The judicial chamber (consisting of four members and three estate representatives: the leader of the nobility, the mayor and the volost foreman) was established one for several provinces. Its apparatus was similar to the apparatus of the district court (the prosecutor, his comrades, investigators, lawyers), only of a larger size. The judicial chamber considered especially important criminal and almost all (except the most important) political cases. Its decisions were considered final and could only be appealed on appeal.

The most important political cases were to be heard by the Supreme Criminal Court, which did not function permanently, but was appointed in exceptional cases by the highest command. Such cases in the XIX century. there were only two, and both of them were associated with attempts on the life of Alexander II - in 1866 (the case of D.V. Karakozov) and 1879 (the case of A.K.Soloviev).

The single cassation instance for all courts of the empire was the Senate - with two departments: criminal and civil. He could overturn the decision of any court (except for the Supreme Criminal), after which the case was returned for secondary consideration by the same or another court. / 207 /

Judicial reform was completed after the democratic upsurge subsided. Therefore, tsarism considered it possible to limit the bourgeois principle here too, and in the following years infringed upon it even more. So, the lack of estates of the court was immediately violated, since special courts for peasants (volost court) and clergy (consistory) were preserved. There is also a departmental court for the military. The 1871 law handed over political inquiries to the gendarmerie. In 1872, all major political cases were removed from the jurisdiction of the judicial chambers and transferred to the specially established Special Presence of the Governing Senate (OPSS), and in 1878 some of these cases (about "resistance to the authorities") went to the military courts.

Irremovability of judges turned out to be very conditional, inquisitorial methods of investigation, arbitrariness, venality and red tape in the courts remained. Although in 1863 corporal punishment with gauges, whips, branding, etc. was abolished, the "privilege of being a whip" with rods for peasants (according to the decisions of volost courts), as well as for exiles, convicts and penal soldiers, was preserved. ... An example of red tape in the post-reform court is the case with the claim of mining workers against the Ural industrialist Stroganov, which lasted 51 years (from 1862 to 1913).

Even territorially, the judicial reform (as well as other reforms of 1861-1874) was limited. New judicial statutes were introduced only in 44 out of 82 provinces of the empire. They did not apply to Belarus, Siberia, Central Asia, the northern and northeastern outskirts of European Russia.

Nevertheless, the judicial reform of 1864 was the largest step in the history of Russia towards the rule of law. All its principles and institutions (especially its two most democratic institutions - the jury and the legal profession), despite the restrictions and even oppression from the tsarist regime, contributed to the development of civilized norms of law and justice in the country. The jurors, contrary to the hopes and direct pressure of the authorities, sometimes passed defiantly independent sentences, acquitting, for example, Vera Zasulich in 1878, and in 1885, the Morozov weavers. As for the Russian legal profession, it has managed to place itself - both legally and even politically - at an extraordinary height for an autocratic country. By 1917, there were 16.5 thousand lawyers in Russia, i.e. per capita more than in the USSR in 1977 (as we said then, in the state of "developed socialism"). Most importantly, Russian pre-revolutionary lawyers have won national and global recognition for their self-governing corporation (attorneys at law), nominating a constellation of top-notch legal talents and political fighters. The names of V.D. Spasovich and F.N. Plevako, D.V. Stasov and N.P. Karabchevsky, P.A. Alexandrova and / 208 / S.A. Andreevsky, V.I. Taneeva and A.I. Urusova and many others were known throughout the country and far beyond its borders, and the long series of trials they won in the struggle for the right and truth caused a national and global resonance. Today's Russia, unfortunately, can only dream of such a strong and authoritative advocacy that tsarism tolerated with itself.

So the landowner boasted in N. A. Nekrasov's poem "Who Lives Well in Russia".

The trial with the participation of the jury was vividly depicted by L.N. Tolstoy in the novel "Resurrection".

Each county with a city located in it, and sometimes a large city separately, constituted a world district. It was divided into sections, and a magistrate acted in each section.

The liberal reforms of Alexander II brought the Russian Empire to a new qualitative level. The government of the emperor developed and carried out a whole range of reforms of the Russian state, some of which were judicial reform, military reform, and the reform of public education. The judicial reform set itself the goal of creating an all-estate judicial system and its improvement. The military reform was intended to increase the quality and combat effectiveness of the Russian army. The reform of public education sought to create an all-class education in the country and increase literacy among the population. You will learn about all this in more detail in this lesson.

The judicial reform was carried out in Russia in 1864. The general meaning of the reform was to expand the possibilities of courts, introduce equal legal proceedings for all, and create new types of courts. In the course of it, two types of courts were created: crown (state) and world (community).

The magistrates' court was community. The members of these courts, justices of the peace (Fig. 2), were elected through elections held by zemstvo or city assemblies. Thus, a situation arose in Russia where citizens could themselves influence the people who carried out legal proceedings. The independence of judges and their irremovability was officially proclaimed, that is, it was possible to remove a judge from office only if he committed a crime.

Fig. 2. Justice of the Peace ()

The above measures were taken so that the authorities could not influence the courts.However, soon the authorities began to move judges from place to place, and in 1885 the Minister of Justice was given the right to remove judges who were objectionable to the authorities.

As for the functions of the magistrates' courts, they dealt with minor cases of criminal and civil violations.

Formally, in the course of the judicial reform of 1864, the all-estate was proclaimed, that is, representatives of all estates had to apply to the same courts. In practice, this principle was constantly violated. In Russia, special courts continued to exist for the military, clergy, and senior officials. The senior members of society were tried by the Senate.

The emergence of new participants in the trial - judicial investigators, lawyers and jurors - was of great importance. Until 1864, the judicial investigation and the court in Russia were not separated - this influenced the objectivity of the judges. Now the institution of forensic investigators appeared, who had to investigate the case themselves and submit ready-made documents to the court. The judge could now simply consider these documents and evidence and decide whether the person is guilty or not.

Another very important moment of the reform was the emergence of lawyers, or attorneys at law (Fig. 3). Lawyers are professional human rights defenders who provide legal assistance on a professional basis. Institute of the Bar in Russia until the 1860s. just didn't exist. Its appearance allowed the courts to conduct business on a more professional basis. That is, now not only the punishing, administrative, power knew the legislation, but the accused party could defend itself professionally.

Fig. 3. Three lawyers talking ()

During the judicial reform of AlexanderIIIn addition to professional judges, jury trials also appeared (Fig. 4). They consisted of ordinary people - ordinary people who took an oath that they would judge honestly and impartially. Such jury trials provided an opportunity for the inhabitants of the Russian Empire to influence the legal proceedings themselves.

Fig. 4. Session of the new jury trial ()

However, judicial reform did not address the most important category of political cases before the courts. Beginning in 1871, political investigations were carried out not by ordinary investigators, but by the gendarmerie (Fig. 5) - the political police, and from 1878 the decision of such cases was transferred to military courts. This was a step backward, which very seriously impeded the judicial reform of Alexander II. Nevertheless, this reform had a positive impact on the judicial system of the Russian Empire.

Fig. 5. The uniform of the gendarmes in the Russian Empire ()

Critical was a series of military reforms,conducted by Alexander II from 1861 to 1876. The initiator of these reforms and the person responsible for them was the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin (Fig. 6). All the transformations carried out in the military sphere at this time can be conditionally divided into three groups.

Fig. 6. D.A. Milyutin - Minister of War of Russia ()

The first direction was the centralization of army control. In 1864, Russia was divided into 15 military districts, directly subordinate to the Ministry of War. In 1867, the so-called special troops, which previously had their own command and control bodies, were transferred to the jurisdiction of the War Ministry. All this was consolidated by the introduction of a military judicial charter, which created a unified system of judicial proceedings in the army. The military court system was headed by the Chief Military Court, and in wartime - the Chief Military Court.

The second line of reforms was associated with a change in the principle of manning the army. The terms of service of recruits in Russia in the early 1860s were reduced from 20 to 12 years. In addition, officers were trained differently (Fig. 7). Military educational institutions were opened or transformed, for example, the Academy of the General Staff. But if the Artillery, Medical and other academies were intended for the nobles, then the bulk of the officers graduated from open cadet schools and colleges, where representatives of all classes were accepted. This increased the personnel potential of the army.

Fig. 7. Russian officers of the second half of the XIX century. ()

Finally, in 1874, the principle of manning the army was radically changed. This was the third line of the complex of military reforms of the era of Alexander II. The recruitment was done away with - instead of it, universal military service was introduced (Fig. 8). According to the adopted law, men over the age of 20 were drafted into the army. This created a surplus of potential soldiers. Because of this, a wide system of benefits was introduced. Only sons, the only breadwinners in the family, as well as those whose older brothers had already served or are serving, were exempted from military service. Thanks to this, the plans for conscription in the Russian Empire were fulfilled and overfulfilled every year.

Among other things, the service life was drastically reduced - from 25 to 7 years. It was this that made it possible to significantly reduce the size of the army in peacetime, since it had a large trained reserve that could be quickly mobilized in case of war.

Fig. 8. Liable for military service ()

The significance of the introduction of universal conscription was primarily in improving the quality of soldiers. Formally, the size of the Russian army was reduced by 40%, but its combat effectiveness increased. In the army, soldiers were trained to read and write. For those who were already educated, benefits were provided - they served less.

In the course of the military reform, the technical rearmament of the army began, although it went on rather slowly... Even then, smoothbore guns began to be replaced with rifled ones. The technical supply of the troops was also improved. In 1876, military conscription was introduced: the population at their own expense had to supply the army with horses. This was the only way to ensure the maneuverability of the army and the ability to quickly transfer troops from one sector to another. Steam ships were also built, although this was also not an easy task, and even at the end of the 19th century. some part of the Russian navy was sailing.

Historians assess Alexander's military reformII more than positive. As a result, a powerful combat-ready army was created in the Russian Empire, which managed to win the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. and play a prominent role in the military campaigns of the early XX century.

The third group of reforms carried out by the government of AlexanderII, - these are reforms in the field of education, or public education. The need for them was caused by the low level of literacy in the country. By the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, the number of illiterates in the state exceeded 80%. Another task of the reforms in the field of education was the task of creating an all-class education. Russia needed a large number of smart and educated people who would have the opportunity to get an education, despite their social status.

Reforms in the field of education began in 1863 with the adoption of a new University Charter. He returned to universities the autonomy, which was abolished in 1835 by Emperor Nicholas I. Universities could now solve their financial and economic problems themselves, hire professors, adopt such curricula as they saw fit, even coordinating them with the Ministry of Public Education.

In addition to the then existing universities in Russia, two more were added under Alexander - Novorossiysk (Fig. 9) and Warsaw (Fig. 10). The number of students in Russian universities grew. Higher education in the Russian Empire until the 1860s. received 5,500 people a year, and by the end of the reign of Alexander II - up to 16,500 people a year.

Fig. 9. Novorossiysk University in the XIX century. ()

Fig. 10. Warsaw University in the XIX century. ()

In 1864, the Charter of the gymnasium and the regulation on public schools were issued.According to these documents, in fact, an accessible all-class education system was created in the country. Now, in addition to state educational institutions, it was possible to create private ones, but under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Education. The number of primary and secondary educational institutions in Russia during the reign of Alexander II increased 3.5 times and reached 22,700. By the end of the 19th century. their number increased to 100,000, and more than a million people studied in them at the same time.

Several dozen students studied at the zemstvo schools at the same time, and in some of them the number of students did not exceed ten. According to the educational reform, gymnasiums and schools in Russia were divided into classical (Fig. 11) and real (Fig. 12).Classical gymnasiums provided liberal arts education, while real ones - mathematics and natural science. Thus, now the inhabitants of the Russian Empire could study the subjects that they liked.

Fig. 11. Classical gymnasium in the 19th century. ()

Fig. 12. Real school in the XIX century. ()

However, one problem remained - education in Russia was paid and was inaccessible for most of its inhabitants. For the poor, primarily peasants, there remained parish and zemstvo schools that appeared a little later, which could not be compared with gymnasiums in terms of education. Most importantly, such schools did not issue a document confirming their graduation, that is, it was almost impossible to continue education.

An important innovation of the era of Alexander II in the field of education was the creation of women's education in Russia. In 1862 a regulation was issued according to which it was possible to open women's gymnasiums. Before that, girls could only receive home education. Seven years later, when girls began to graduate from gymnasiums, a system of higher education for women appeared - a system of courses. One of the first were the Lubyanka women's courses in St. Petersburg, then the Bestuzhev courses also appeared. In Moscow, in 1872, the Higher Women's Courses of Professor V.I. Guerrier.

Thus, the reforms of Alexander II affected almost the entire Russian society. The enlightened people hoped that the emperor would continue to rule in a liberal spirit and grant the country a Constitution.

List of references

1. Great reforms of Russia. 1856-1874: Collection / Under. ed. L.G. Zakharova, B. Eklof, J. Bushnell. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow University, 1992
2. B.V. Vilensky Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia. - Saratov, 1969.
3. Lazukova N.N., Zhuravleva O.N. Russian history. 8th grade. - M .: "Ventana-Graf", 2013.
4. Lonskaya S.V. World Justice in Russia. - Kaliningrad, 2000.
5. M.V. Nechkina Reform of 1861 as a by-product of the revolutionary struggle // Revolutionary situation in Russia 1859-1861.
6. Fedorov N.V. On judicial reform in Russia // State and Law. - M .: Nauka, 1992. - No. 6.
7. Chugunov P.B. The history of Russia in reforms. - S.-P., 1994.

1. Russian Military Historical Society ().
2. Grandars.ru ().
3. Studopedia.ru ().
4. Biofile.ru ().

Homework

1. Describe the judicial reform of Russia in 1864. Why was this reform so important?
2. What was the military reform of Russia in 1861-1876? What was the outcome?
3. How was the reform of public education carried out in the Russian Empire during the reign of Alexander II? What has this reform contributed to?

1. The reasons for the abolition of serfdom. Reform projects.

2. Abolition of serfdom. The content and essence of the reform. Its historical significance.

3. The beginning of the formation of civil society in the 60s - 70s. XIX century:

Zemskaya reform.

Urban reform.

Judicial reform.

Military reform.

Reform in the field of education.

4. Socio-economic and political consequences of reforms.

5. The movement of the populists. The populist circles. "Going to the People".

Terms: "sections", "going to the people", temporarily liable peasants, ransom payments, zemstvo, populism, jurors.

Historical figures: Alexander II, M.T. Loris-Melikov, D.A. Milyutin, K.P. Pobedonostsev.

January 1857 - Creation of the Secret Committee to draw up a draft agrarian reform.

November 1857 - the creation of provincial noble committees to discuss the conditions for the liberation of the peasants.

1858 - The Secret Committee is transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Liberation of specific peasants.

1859 - the creation of editorial commissions to study the materials of the provincial committees.

1861 - the formation of the secret society "Land and Freedom".

June 18, 1863 - the adoption of the liberal university charter, the beginning of the implementation of the reform in the field of education.

Spring - summer 1874 - “going to the people”.

1876 \u200b\u200b- creation of the renewed revolutionary populist organization "Land and Freedom".

Summer 1879 - the formation on the basis of "Land and Freedom" of new populist organizations: "Narodnaya Volya" and "Black Redistribution".

Map: the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

The main documents of the era: "Manifesto of February 19, 1861"; "Regulations on the peasants who emerged from serfdom" (1861); "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" (1864); "Establishment of judicial rulings" (1864); "Regulations on elementary public schools" (1864); "City status June 16, 1870"; "Charter on military service" (1874).

Questions for self-examination of the studied material:

What are the reasons for the peasant reform?

What are the reasons for dissatisfaction with the reform of 1861 of landowners, peasants, representatives of the liberal and revolutionary camps?

What strata of the population was the Russian bourgeoisie formed from?

What stages can you identify in the development of bourgeois reforms of the 60s - 70s? XIX century.

What do you see as the reasons that prompted Alexander II to accept the Zemstvo reform? What did conservatives, liberals, revolutionaries expect from her? Whose expectations did it meet?

Usually, the judicial reform of 1864 is called the most consistent bourgeois reform of the 60s and 70s. XIX century. Do you agree with this? Why?

Why is the reform project of M.T. Is Loris-Melikov called a "constitution"?

What do you see as the reasons for the murder of Alexander II by the revolutionaries?

Tasks and exercises:

1. Compare the proposals of government officials, liberals, revolutionaries in the field of state structure, local government, the solution of the agrarian question on the eve of the reforms of the 60s. XIX century. And after them. What do you see as the reasons for the differences in their positions?

Required literature:

Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 M., 1992.

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkaev I.N. Russian History: From Catherine the Great to Alexander II. M., 1994.

A. V. Zayonchkovsky Implementation of the peasant reform of 1861, M., 1958.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. Abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1968.

Zakharova L.G. Autocracy and the abolition of serfdom in Russia. 1856 - 1861 M., 1984.

Lyashenko L.M. Tsar-Liberator: The Life and Deeds of Alexander II. M., 1994.

Russian autocrats. M., 1992.

Additional literature:

Ananich B., Chernukha V. Ink changes // Rodina. 1991. No. 11 - 12.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century M., 1978.

The history of Russia in portraits. In 2 volumes, T. 1. Smolensk, 1996.

Klyuchevsky V.O. The course of Russian history // Works: In 9 volumes.Vol. 5.M., 1989.

Litvak B.G. The coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reformist alternative was not realized. M., 1991.

Lyashenko L.M. Revolutionary populists. M., 1989.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century): In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Troitsky N. Ya. The Madness of the Brave: Russian Revolutionaries and the Punitive Policy of Tsarism. 1866 - 1882 M., 1978.

Utopian socialism in Russia. M., 1985.

Topics of reports, abstracts, messages:

Contemporaries on the bourgeois reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX century.

Alexander II: man and sovereign.

- "Prussian" and "American" ways of development of capitalism in agriculture in post-reform Russia.

Questions for discussion:

Alternatives for the country's development in the middle of the 19th century.

Reforms of the 60s - 70s XIX century: delayed or accelerated the fall of the autocracy in Russia?

The abolition of serfdom posed new serious problems for the authorities. For centuries, the serfdom determined in Russia the organization of the system of administration and justice, the principles of manning the army, etc. The collapse of this system dictated the need for further reforms.

Zemsky and city reforms

The abolition of serfdom created many empty spaces in the previously existing system of local government. this latter was closely connected with serfdom. So, before, each landowner on his estate was for his peasants the personification of power. And in the district and provincial administration, most of the posts since the time of Catherine II were filled at the choice of the nobility and from among its representatives. After the abolition of serfdom, this entire system collapsed. The local economy was already extremely neglected. There was practically no medical assistance in the village. Epidemics claimed thousands of lives. The peasants did not know the basic rules of hygiene. Public education could never get out of its embryonic state. Some landowners who maintained schools for their peasants closed them immediately after the abolition of serfdom. Nobody cared about the country roads. Thus, it was necessary to urgently look for a way out of this intolerable situation, given that the state treasury was depleted and the government could not raise the local economy on its own. Therefore, it was decided to meet the liberal community (especially from non-black earth provinces), which petitioned for the introduction of local all-estates self-government.

These ideas were expressed by N.A. Milyutin in a note addressed to the emperor. Once approved by the latter, they became guidelines for reform. These principles were expressed in the formula: to give local government as much confidence as possible, as much independence as possible and as much as possible unity.

On January 1, 1864, the law on zemstvo self-government was approved. Zemstvo reform began, during which a system of local self-government bodies was created in Russia at two territorial levels - in the district and the province. The administrative bodies of the zemstvo were uyezd and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and the executive bodies were uyezd and provincial zemstvo councils. Elections to zemstvo bodies were held every three years. In each county, three electoral congresses (curiae) were created for the election of the clerks of the county zemstvo assembly. The first curia (private landowners) included persons, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 dessiatins. land (the land qualification for different counties was not the same). The second (rural societies) - elected from volost gatherings. The third curia (city voters) included city owners with a certain property qualification. Each of the congresses elected a certain equal number of vowels (for a period of three years). The county zemstvo assemblies elected members of the provincial zemstvo. To fulfill their tasks, the zemstvos received the right to impose a special tax on the population.

As a rule, nobles prevailed in the zemstvo assemblies. Despite conflicts with the liberal landowners, the autocracy considered the local nobility as its main support. Therefore, the heads of the district assemblies automatically (according to their position) became the district leaders of the nobility, and of the provincial assemblies - the provincial leaders. Zemstvo was introduced only in 34 provinces of European Russia. He was not in Siberia and in the Arkhangelsk province, because there were no landlords. Zemstvo was not introduced in the Don Cossack Oblast, in the Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where Cossack self-government existed.

The functions of the zemstvos were quite diverse. They were in charge of the local economy (construction and maintenance of local roads, etc.), public education, medicine, statistics. However, they could deal with all these matters only within the boundaries of their district or province. Zemstvo people had no right not only to solve any problems of a national character, but even to put them up for discussion. Moreover, the provincial zemstvos were forbidden to communicate with each other and coordinate their activities even in such matters as the fight against hunger, epidemics, and the death of livestock.

Milyutin did not insist on expanding the competence of zemstvos, but believed that in their sphere of activity they should enjoy complete independence and independence from local administrative authorities, subordinate only to the Senate, and that governors should only be given the right to supervise the legality of their actions.

The shortcomings of the zemstvo reform were obvious: the incompleteness of the structure of the zemstvo bodies (the absence of a higher central body), the artificial creation of a numerical advantage for the local nobility, and the limited scope of activity. At the same time, this reform was of great importance. The very fact of the emergence in Russia of a system of self-government that was fundamentally different from the dominant bureaucratic system was important. The election of the zemstvo bodies, their relative independence from bureaucratic structures made it possible to count on the fact that these bodies, with all their shortcomings, would proceed from the interests of the local population and bring them real benefits. On the whole, these hopes were justified. Soon after the creation of zemstvos, Russia was covered with a network of zemstvo schools and hospitals.

With the advent of the zemstvo, the balance of power in the provinces began to change. Previously, all affairs in the counties were handled by government officials, together with the landowners. Now that the network of schools has expanded. hospitals and statistical bureaus, a "third element" appeared, as they began to call zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists, statisticians. Many representatives of the rural intelligentsia showed high standards of service to the people. The peasants trusted them, the councils listened to their advice. Government officials have watched with dismay the growing influence of the “third element”.

As soon as they were born, the zemstvos met with an extremely hostile attitude towards themselves from all government bodies - central and local, soon lost a significant part of their already small powers, which led to the fact that many worthy leaders of the zemstvo movement grew cold towards him and left the zemstvo councils and meetings.

By law, zemstvos were purely economic organizations. But they soon began to play an important political role. In those years, the most enlightened and humane landowners usually went to the zemstvo service. They became vowels of zemstvo assemblies, members and chairmen of councils. They stood at the origins of the Zemstvo liberal movement. And the representatives of the “third element” were gravitating towards the left, democratic, currents of social thought. Hope arose in society for further steps in the radical reorganization of the state system in Russia. Liberal leaders, who heartily welcomed the reform, indulged themselves with the dream of "crowning the building" - the creation of an all-Russian representative body on the basis of a zemstvo, which would be an advance towards a constitutional monarchy. But the government took a completely different path. As it turned out later, in 1864 she gave the maximum self-government that she considered possible. Government policy towards the zemstvo in the second half of the 1860s - 1870s was aimed at depriving him of any independence. The governors received the right to refuse to approve any person elected by the zemstvo; even greater rights were given to them in relation to "persons serving for hire" - zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians: at the slightest provocation they were not only expelled from the zemstvo, but also expelled from the province. In addition, the governor became a censor of all printed publications zemstvos - reports, journals of meetings, statistical research.Central and local authorities deliberately stifled any initiative of zemstvos, fundamentally suppressed any incline of their independent activity.In case of conflict situations, the government did not stop before the dissolution of zemstvo assemblies, the exile of their members and other punitive measures.

As a result, instead of moving forward towards representative government, the authorities stubbornly backed up, trying to include the zemstvo bodies in the bureaucratic system. This fettered the activities of the zemstvos and undermined their authority. Nevertheless, the zemstvos managed to achieve serious success in their specific work, especially in the field of public education and medicine. But they were never destined to become full-fledged organs of self-government and serve as the basis for building a constitutional order.

On similar grounds, in 1870, the City Regulation (the law on the reform of city government) was published. Trusteeship of city councils and administrations were subject to issues of improvement (lighting, heating, water supply, cleaning, transport, arrangement of city passages, embankments, bridges, etc.), as well as the management of school, medical and charitable affairs, care for the development of trade and industry. Obligatory expenses for the maintenance of the fire brigade, police, prisons, barracks were assigned to the City Duma (these expenses absorbed from 20 to 60% of the city budget). The city status eliminated the estate principle in the formation of city self-government bodies, replacing it with a property qualification. The elections to the City Duma were attended by males who had reached the age of 25 in three electoral congresses (curiae) (small, medium and large taxpayers) with equal total amounts of city tax payments. Each curia elected 1/3 of the members of the City Duma vowels. Along with private individuals, departments, companies, monasteries, etc., which paid taxes to the city budget, received the right to vote. Workers who did not pay taxes to the city did not participate in the elections. The number of dumas was established taking into account the number of the population from 30 to 72 vowels, in Moscow - 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The mayor, his comrade (deputy) and the council were elected by the duma. The mayor headed both the Duma and the Council, coordinating their activities. The body for supervising the observance of the rule of law in the activities of the city government was the Provincial City Office Presence (chaired by the governor).

Within the limits of their competence, the City Dumas enjoyed relative independence and independence. They carried out a lot of work on the improvement and development of cities, but in the social movement they were not as noticeable as the zemstvos. This was due to the long-standing political inertia of the merchants and the entrepreneurial class.

Judicial reform

In 1864, a judicial reform was carried out, which radically transformed the structure of the Russian court and the entire process of legal proceedings. The previous courts have existed without any significant changes since the time of Catherine II, although the need for judicial reform was recognized by Alexander I. The main vices of the old judicial system consisted of estates (each estate had its own court and its own laws), complete subordination of the administration and the closedness of the judicial process (which opened opportunities for abuse and lawlessness). The defendant was not always informed even of all the grounds on which the charges brought against him were based. The verdict was passed on the basis of the totality of the formal evidence system, and not on the inner conviction of the judge. The judges themselves often lacked not only legal education, but none at all.

It was possible to tackle the reform only after the abolition of serfdom, which forced to abandon the principle of estate and change the conservative Minister of Justice Gr. V.N. Panin. The author of the judicial reform was a longtime supporter of changes in this area, the State Secretary of the State Council (one of the few who spoke in the State Council in 1861 for approving the peasant reform) Sergei Ivanovich Zarudny. In 1862, the emperor approved the main provisions of the judicial reform developed by him: 1) the lack of estate of the court, 2) equality of all citizens before the law, 3) complete independence of the court from the administration (which was guaranteed by the irremovability of judges), 4) careful selection of judicial personnel and their sufficient material support.

The old estate courts were abolished. Instead of them, a magistrate court and a crown court were created - two systems independent from each other, which were united only by submission to one supreme judicial body - the Senate. The magistrate court with a simplified procedure was introduced in the counties to deal with cases of minor offenses and civil cases with a minor claim (for the first time this category of cases was separated from the general mass). More serious cases were tried in the Crown Court, which had two instances: the District Court and the Trial Chamber. In the event of a violation of the legal order of legal proceedings, the decisions of these bodies could be appealed to the Senate.

The new ones differed from the old courts, which conducted business in a purely bureaucratic manner, primarily in that they were public, i.e. open to the public and the press. In addition, the court procedure was based on an adversarial process, during which the accusation was formulated, substantiated and supported by the prosecutor, and the interests of the defendant were defended by a lawyer from among the sworn lawyers. The prosecutor and the lawyer had to clarify all the circumstances of the case, interrogating witnesses, analyzing material evidence, etc. After hearing the pleadings, the jury (12 people), who were chosen by lot from representatives of all classes, passed their verdict on the case (“guilty”, “innocent”, “guilty, but deserves leniency”). On the basis of the verdict, the crown court (represented by the chairman and two members of the court) passed the verdict. Only in case of a clear violation of procedural norms (non-hearing by the court of one of the parties, failure to call witnesses, etc.), the parties could, by filing a cassation appeal, transfer the case (civil - from the judicial chamber, criminal - from the district court) to the Senate, which, in the event confirmation of violations, transferred the case without consideration to another court, or to the same, but in a different composition. A feature of the reform was that both the investigators who prepared the case for legal proceedings and the judges who directed the entire judicial procedure, although appointed by the government, were irreplaceable for the entire term of their powers. In other words, as a result of the reform, it was planned to create a court as independent as possible and to protect it from outside influences, primarily from pressure from the administration. At the same time, cases of state and certain judicial crimes, as well as cases of the press, were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury.

The Magistrate's Court, whose task was to provide the Russian people with a "quick, right and merciful" court, consisted of one person. The magistrate was elected by zemstvo assemblies or city councils for three years. The government could not, by its own power, remove him from office (as well as the judges of the district crown court). The task of the magistrate's court was to reconcile the guilty, and if the parties did not want to, the judge was given considerable scope in sentencing - depending not on any external formal data, but on his inner conviction. The introduction of magistrates' courts significantly relieved the crown courts from the mass of small cases.

Yet the judicial reform of 1864 remained incomplete. For the analysis of conflicts in the peasant environment, the estate volost court was retained. This was partly due to the fact that peasant legal concepts were very different from general civil ones. A magistrate with the Code of Laws would often be powerless to judge the peasants. The volost court, which consisted of peasants, judged on the basis of the customs existing in the area. But he was too susceptible to the influence of the wealthy elite of the village and all kinds of authorities. The rural municipality court and the conciliator had the right to order corporal punishment. This shameful phenomenon existed in Russia until 1904. There was a separate ecclesiastical court for the clergy (for specifically ecclesiastical affairs).

In addition, soon after the start of the implementation of judicial reform, largely under the influence of the unprecedented scale of terrorism, the authorities began to subordinate the courts to the dominant bureaucratic system. In the second half of the 1860s - 1870s, the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press was significantly limited; the dependence of judicial officials on the local administration increased: they were ordered to unquestioningly “obey the legal requirements” of the provincial authorities. The principle of irremovability was also undermined: instead of investigators, “acting” investigators were increasingly appointed, to whom the principle of irremovability did not apply. : Investigation into these cases began to be conducted not by investigators, but by gendarmes; legal proceedings were carried out not by jury trials, but specially for this purpose created by the Special Presence of the Governing Senate.Since the late 1870s, a significant part of political cases began to be considered by military courts.

And yet, one can admit without hesitation that the judicial reform was the most radical and consistent of all the Great reforms of the 1860s.

Military reforms

In 1861, General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin was appointed Minister of War. Taking into account the lessons of the Crimean War, he spent in the 1860s - I half. 1870s a series of military reforms. One of the main tasks of the military reforms was to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and to create the opportunity for a significant increase in it in wartime. This was achieved by reducing the non-combat element (non-combatant, local and auxiliary troops) and the introduction in 1874 (under the influence of the successful actions of the Prussian army in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871) of universal conscription, replacing the pre-reform recruitment. Compulsory military service extended to the entire male population, aged 21-40, without distinction of class. For the ground forces, a 6-year active service period and a 9-year reserve period were established; for the fleet - 7 years of active service and 3 years in reserve. Then those liable for military service were transferred as warriors to the State Militia, where those who were released from the draft were enrolled. In peacetime, no more than 25 - 30% of the total number of conscripts were taken on active service. A significant part of the conscripts were exempted from service for family benefits (the only son with parents, the only breadwinner in the family, etc.), for physical unsuitability, for occupation (doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, educators and teachers); the rest drew lots. Representatives of the peoples of the North and Central Asia, some peoples of the Caucasus, the Urals and Siberia (Muslims) were not subject to conscription. Cossacks underwent military service under special conditions. Service terms were shortened depending on education. If the educated person entered active service voluntarily (as a volunteer), then the service life was further reduced by half. Under this condition, conscripts with secondary education served only seven months, and higher education - three. These benefits have become an additional incentive for the spread of education. In the course of the Milyutin reforms, the conditions of service for the lower ranks (soldiers) were significantly changed: corporal punishment was abolished (punishment with rods was left only for the category of “fines”); improved food, uniforms and barracks; strict measures were taken to stop the beating of soldiers; introduced systematic literacy training for soldiers (in company schools). The abolition of recruitment, along with the abolition of serfdom, significantly increased the popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.

Simultaneously, a harmonious, strictly centralized structure was created to streamline the system of military command. In 1862 - 1864. Russia was divided into 15 military districts directly subordinate to the War Ministry. In 1865, the General Staff was established - the central body for command and control of troops. The transformations in the field of military education were also of serious importance: instead of closed cadet corps, military gymnasiums were established, close in program to a secondary school (gymnasium) and opened the way to any higher educational institution. Those who wished to continue their military education entered the schools established in the 1860s. specialized cadet schools - artillery, cavalry, military engineering. An important feature of these schools was their all-estate, which opened access to the officer corps to persons of non-noble origin. Higher military education was given by the academy - the General Staff. artillery, military medical, naval, and others. Rearmament of the army was carried out (the first rifled breech-loading guns, Berdan rifles, etc.).

Military reforms met with strong opposition from the conservative circles of the generals and society; the main opponent of the reforms was Field Marshal Prince. A.I. Baryatinsky. The military "authorities" criticized the reforms for their bureaucratic nature, diminishing the role of the command staff, overthrowing the age-old foundations of the Russian army.

Results and significance of the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s

The reforms of the 60s and 70s are a major phenomenon in the history of Russia. New, modern self-government bodies and courts contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of civic consciousness of the population, the spread of education, and an improvement in the quality of life. Russia was involved in the pan-European process of creating advanced, civilized forms of statehood based on the initiative of the population and its expression of will. But these were only the first steps. Remnants of serfdom were strong in local government, and many noble privileges remained intact. The reforms of the 60s and 70s did not affect the upper echelons of power. The autocracy and police system inherited from past eras were preserved.

wiki.304.ru / History of Russia. Dmitry Alkhazashvili.

In politics, as in all social life, not going forward means being thrown back.

Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

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

The main reasons for reforming Russia

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

1. Defeat in the Crimean War.
2. The growing discontent of the people.
3. Loss of economic competition to Western countries.
4. The progressive entourage of the emperor.

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

What reforms were carried out

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

Financial reform 1860 - 1864... A state bank, zemstvo and commercial banks were created. Banks' activities were mainly aimed at supporting industry. In the last year of reforms, control bodies are created, independent of the local government, to audit the financial performance of the government.

Zemsky reform of 1864... With its help, the task of attracting the broad masses of the population to solve everyday problems was solved. Elected bodies of zemstvo and local self-government were created.

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

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

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

Urban reform of 1870... Mainly aimed at improving cities, developing markets, health care, education, establishing sanitary standards, and so on. Reforms were introduced in 509 of the 1,130 cities in Russia. The reform was not applied to cities located in Poland, Finland and Central Asia.

Military reform of 1874... Mainly aimed at modernizing weapons, developing the fleet and training personnel. As a result, the Russian army again became one of the leading in the world.

The consequences of the reforms

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

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

Defeat in the Crimean War as a justification for reforms

Russia lost the Crimean War for several reasons:

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

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

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