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 the noble historiography, the personality of Alexander II himself and, in general, all of his reformatory activities were idealized, evaluated exclusively from the positive side. Liberal historians, 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 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 direction of the reforms on the development of entrepreneurship was erroneous. They believed that a non-capitalist path of development through the peasant community was 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 settlement settled; (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 liberation 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 canceled ... 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 the quality of the soil, the population, the level of commercial, industrial and transport development. For each locality, its own norms of land allotments were established: for non-chernozem and chernozem ones - 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 agreements 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 a law was passed from the mandatory transition to the ransom within two years. During this period, it was necessary to conclude redemption transactions 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 had 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 growth of 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 most peasants the redemption payments stretched out 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. So, for lending to the reform, the Peasant and Noble banks were formed. And the police and the fiscal apparatus were instructed to ensure the timely return of the loans received from the state by the peasants. The peasant community was retained, which in most regions became the subject of ownership of the land being bought out. The community bound its members with a mutual guarantee - 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 in the 1870s was 10-11 dessiatines per yard. 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 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, liberation took place in accordance with special rules. Thus, in Poland, peasants received land on more favorable terms. 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 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 the calculation of redemption payments, both in the redemption operation procedure, and in the growth of redemption payments, etc.; (2) the allotments of the 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 land. 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. It is believed that in the course of this reform, the government sought to create the necessary conditions for the creation of all-estate zemstvo organizations. In March 1863, a specially created commission prepared the final drafts of the regulation on 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. to concentrate all local power 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 to 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 were created: (1) the curia of county landowners - included the 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 had the right to vote (without property qualification), but a three-stage system of elections was introduced. 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, the nobles received 74% of the vowels, the 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 the zemstvo institutions included: (1) managing the capital, property and money of the zemstvo; (2) maintaining zemstvo buildings and communication lines; (3) measures "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 formed an interest in literacy, brought the learning process closer to the daily life of the city and village. In addition, the problems of lending and peasant land shortages, already in the chronological framework under consideration, attracted the attention of zemstvos, since, in the opinion of most vowels, they were inextricably linked with any other area. economic activity in post-reform Russia, and were the specifics of the traditional and national economic structure. City 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 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 confirmed 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 council. 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, partnerships, churches and monasteries that own real estate in cities. property status all voters were divided into three curiae. 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 dumas and councils. The poor were practically deprived of voting 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 estate, 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 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 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 a 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”. Long-term legal red tape was 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 most 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 procedure; (3) Charter of Civil Procedure; (4) Statute on Punishments Imposed 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 under 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 size 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 trial 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 court members ( 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 a member; 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 trial 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 the restriction or deprivation of the rights of the state. The limitation 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 the 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 measure of punishment, which was appointed 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 prepared the next list from the general 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 judicial 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 of the court, but it was not subordinate to the judicial administration. Internally, its structure was based on the principles of strict centralization and subordination of lower prosecutorial officials to higher ones. At the head of the Prosecutor's Office was the Minister of Justice, who was also the Prosecutor General; all subordinate prosecutors were subordinate to 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 the sentence, over places of detention, over the activities of administrative bodies, etc. 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 the elected general meeting council (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 attorneys. 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 without legal education, elected by the participants in the process and receiving special permission from the court to conduct 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 submitted 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 were subject to appeal only on appeal to the Chief Military Court. The preliminary investigation was carried out either by judicial (for ordinary 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 the court were appointed; attorneys at law could also be appointed for common crimes, or the defendants themselves chose their own defenders (however, neither the prosecution nor the defense were allowed in the regimental courts). Accordingly, in the navy, the military judicial authorities were: crew ships, naval and Chief 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: the 1st Pavlovskoe, the 2nd Konstantinovskoe (in St. Petersburg) and the 3rd Aleksandrovskoe (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 enter military schools was held by young men who had reached the age of 16 and who 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 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 abolished; (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 ground forces was established at 15 years (in the Navy - 12 years), of which active service lasted six years (in the Navy - seven years), the remaining years - it was 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-Russian peoples, especially the Eastern ones, were exempted from active service.
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 Section became part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Section IV was transformed into an independent institution in charge of charitable institutions (1880), and Section II was abolished (1882). 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 to manage 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 directed 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 began to be built at the expense of state funds. At the beginning of the first stage, the III Department of the Tsar's Chancellery continued to function. As its subsidiary body in 1862 was formed Commission of inquiry for the dissemination of revolutionary appeals. In 1866, after Dmitry Karakozov's assassination attempt on Alexander II, the St. Petersburg mayor created the 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. In the 1870s, the main task of the III Department was to conduct 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, within 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 Main Prison Administration, which was supposed to supervise the places of detention; on the ground, these functions were carried out by the provincial prison inspectorates, which included officials from the Main Prison Administration, the judicial department 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. " According to this regulation In 1862, the police reform was carried out, which made important changes in the organization of the local police. The police departments of the provincial cities retained their independence. In the cities, police bodies were headed by mayors (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, "Temporary regulations on police officers in 46 provinces, according to the General Institution of Controlled" were adopted, according to which: (1) 5000 posts were introduced police officers (in September 1879, an additional 550 positions were introduced), distributed by the governors of 46 provinces to 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 involved in 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 in 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, an 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 provided the basis for the 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 were 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, 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 defendants in cases harmful to the state and society. An example is the case of the Nechaevites, when 42 out of 78 prosecuted 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 affair also played a role in the growth of terrorist tendencies in the populist movement. During 1878-1879. terrorist attacks followed one another. The most notorious of them were the murder 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 a tough reaction towards 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 gendarme 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 for the proceedings 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 officials... These cases were heard by military courts. In 1881, the Regulation on measures to protect 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 empire, a regime of enhanced or emergency protection could be introduced, under which governor-generals 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 sharply narrowed).
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 the 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 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 a peace mediator or a peace judge 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 (Zemsky 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 the magistrates, but not transferred to the zemstvo chiefs.
In cities, instead of justices of the peace, city judges appeared, appointed by the Minister of Justice.
In 1890, the Statute on provincial and district zemstvo institutions was revised - the order of 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 all districts of Russia, detective police were not created, and the fight against criminal offenses 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 communications), military field (field gendarme squadrons in the military department), palace (in the department of the Ministry ), 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 of various relations associated with further development industry and trade. Industrial and commercial charters appeared that regulated the legal status of 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 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 the 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 signs, 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) established (since 1897) holidays; (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 about the right of their employers to establish business associations and societies) was enshrined. 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
The entire population continued to be divided into nobles, clergy, peasantry and townspeople
The nobility continued to exert enormous influence on state affairs.
Serfdom and serfdom with all its orders were the basis of noble power.
Legal status clergy is changing. It receives additional privileges. The corporal punishment of priests, deacons and their children has been abolished. The clergy are exempted from land tax (1807) and from stay (1821).
The bulk of the population was serf peasantry. Alexander 1 and his friends condemned serfdom from a moral and ethical standpoint, but he was not a supporter of drastic measures, but hoped that the goal would be achieved through slow and careful steps. Thus, in 1803, a decree "On free farmers" was issued, which provided landowners with the right to free their peasants with land for ransom by agreement of the parties.
The most difficult situation remained landlord peasants. Half of the peasant income went to the landowner in the form of quitrent.
Urban population was divided into honorary citizens, merchants, guilds, townspeople and working people.
Honorary Citizenship was introduced in order to separate the top of the emerging bourgeoisie from the general mass of urban people. It was divided into hereditary and personal. The first was assigned by birthright, the second - at the request of ministers or personal request. Honorary citizens enjoyed a range of privileges: freedom of movement, exemption from corporal punishment, and personal forced labor. But the most essential was their exemption from all taxes and taxes.
Merchants were assigned to one of the two guilds (wholesale trade - the first guild; retail - the second). Along with general rights (freedom of movement, the right to award ranks and orders, freedom from corporal punishment), merchants of the first guild had the right to come to the imperial court, wear a provincial uniform, and receive the title of commercial and manufacturing advisors.
Artisans were divided into masters and apprentices. Only an apprentice who had held this title for at least three years could become a master.
The state system of Russia in the first half of the XIX century.
According to the form of government, Russia in the 1st half. XIX century. remained an absolute monarchy. The emperor stood at the head of the state apparatus. In his activities in governing the state, the tsar relied on the ramified officials. apparatus.
Until 1801, the Council at the Imperial Court operated as the highest advisory body, which included the tsar's associates. In the period 1801-1810. the Indispensable Council functioned, consisting of 12 representatives of the titled nobility and performing exclusively advisory functions. In 1810, the Tsar's manifesto established the State Council, the highest legislative body of the Russian Empire.
The State Council consisted of five departments: laws, military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, state economy, affairs of the kingdom of Poland. Office work was carried out by the office, headed by the Secretary of State. The State Council was liquidated in 1917. From the second quarter of the XIX century. bills began to be developed in the royal office. His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery gradually became the body that headed the system of central government bodies. It consisted of six sections, which, in turn, were subdivided into expeditions. The Chancellery kept the tsar informed of all issues of government.
In 1802, ministerial reform began. In accordance with the tsarist manifesto "On the Establishment of Ministries", instead of collegiums ministries were formed: naval forces, foreign affairs, justice, internal affairs, finance, commerce and public education. The ministries were governed by the principle of one-man management. The ministers were entrusted with executive power within the limits of the activities of the ministries assigned to them.
Preconditions for the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s
The reforms carried out by Alexander II were a serious political step that made it possible to significantly accelerate the pace of economic development in Russia and take the first steps towards democratizing the political life of society. However, these decisions were half-hearted, both for objective reasons (the impossibility of the instant introduction of developed capitalist forms into the economy and politics) and for subjective reasons (fear of a weakening of autocratic power). The bourgeois reforms of the 60s and 70s could not be decisive and consistent because the ruling class was the feudal nobility, with little interest in bourgeois transformations and their replacement.
Of all the reforms considered, a special place is occupied by the peasant reform, which abolished serfdom and the monopoly of the nobles on inhabited lands. After the peasant reform, the tsarist government was forced to carry out some other reforms, including in the system of local government. The judicial system of 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 police reform was being prepared simultaneously with the peasant reform. The abolition of serfdom (not immediately and not fully) led to the elimination of the patrimonial police of landowners. This circumstance, as well as the strengthening of the class struggle in the country, determined the need to create an extensive and more centralized system of police bodies.
The need to reorganize the army, based on recruitment and built on a purely feudal basis, was sharply felt already during the Crimean War of 1853-1856, which revealed the complete unsuitability of the Russian armed forces, directly related to the country's general backwardness.
In connection with the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform, the Peasant and Noble banks were created. In 1860, the State Bank was created, as well as a network of commercial banks.
The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire continued to operate in Russia. The reforms carried out made significant changes to it, but no new codification was carried out. An attempt to codify civil law was unsuccessful - the draft civil code, prepared at the end of the 19th century, was not approved.
Preparation and implementation of the peasant reform of 1861
It was a turning point when Alexander II reigned. Unlike his father, he understood that it was better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it was canceled from below, in connection with which it was created special secret committee on peasant issues (on changing the life and life of the peasants).
1) the peasants received personal freedom, freedom of movement, which of course was not complete, since, having freed themselves from the landowners, they became dependent on the peasant communities
2) have acquired the right to education, except for especially privileged educational institutions
3) engage in public service
But the land issue was not immediately resolved.
4) the peasants are in the position of temporarily obligated until they redeemed their allotment of land, the amount of work or quitrent was stipulated by the law and the law regulated the size of the allotment and the amount of payment, depending on the quitrent.
6. Peasant reform of 1861. The legal status of peasants after the abolition of serfdom.
The peasants received personal and property rights:
Marry yourself,
Conclude contracts,
Engage in trade, industry,
The right to conduct their own court cases,
The right to participate in the work of public self-government bodies,
The right to enter the service, to study,
The right to acquire movable / immovable property.
But the peasants received these rights on a deferred basis, because within 2 years it was necessary to draw up statutory letters. Exactly charter and regulation of the relationship between the peasant and the landowner. Really literacy
landlords. The letters themselves were certified by world mediators, who smoothed out conflicts between peasants and landowners.
After the conclusion of the charter, the peasants received the allotment. With the help of the allotment, the legal status of the peasant changed. He passed into the category of temporarily liable. This assumed that the land was still the property of the landowner. And for the use of land the peasant bears a duty.
The autocracy prepared the ref-mu well in order to compensate for the losses of the landowners:
1) the land was redistributed, the entire territory of the country was divided, depending on the quality of the land, into several regions, for each state a mandatory allotment was established.
2) The size of the allotment was determined as a result of negotiations between a specific landowner and his peasants. (This is the meaning of the Charter)
Outcome: The peasant ref-ma was extremely inconsistent. She eliminated such a feudal survival as serfdom. But she kept the serf community unchanged.
By the end of the 19th century, most of the former landowners' land actually passed to the new social. group - the Russian bourgeoisie.
7. Zemskaya 1864 and urban 1870 reforms. Their role in the formation of local self-government.
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 of zemstvo bodies were held every three years. In each uyezd, three electoral congresses (curiae) were created for the election of members of the district zemstvo assembly.
To the 1st curiae(county landowners) included persons, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 dessiatines of land (the land qualification for different counties was not the same).
To the 2nd curiae (urban voters).
3rd curia (elected from rural communities). At volost meetings, electors of a given district were elected, who then elected the vowels of the district zemstvo assembly. Since approximately equal number of vowels were elected from each curia, the peasants were always in the minority.
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.
The Zemskaya reform had many opponents. Cause: under the legislation of the Russian Empire, any polit. activity was banned! She was considered exclusive competence government. Zemstvos - these are organs of self-control, \u003d\u003e apparatus. In this regard, the government feared that a political force would be formed on the basis of the zemstvos, which would become in opposition to the government.
To avoid this situation, a number of restrictions were introduced:
1) to a large extent the e-zemstvo bodies were controlled by the governor;
2) zemstvo self-government bodies were created only in individual provinces;
3) there was no all-Russian zemstvo and self-government at the volost level;
4) the zemstvo of one province was forbidden to enter into contacts with the zemstvo institutions of other provinces.
Zemstvos played a huge role in the development of the local economy. For the normal existence of the zemstvo and for the solution of their tasks, a special tax was established. The consequence of the work of the zemstvos was that a new social service was formed. Group - zemstvo intelligentsia.These are primarily doctors, teachers, extras.
On June 16, 1870, the "City Statute" was approved, which consolidated the system of city government bodies, elected by the population for a period of 4 years.
The governing body of the city was City Council, executive - City governmentled by mayor
Vowels in the City Duma could be elected only by city tax payers (homeowners)
All voters were divided into 3 curiae:
1.large taxpayers
2.average tax payments
3.small owners
The abolition of serfdom and the implementation of a number of bourgeois reforms brought about significant changes in the social system. A broad path was opened for the development of capitalism in Russia. However, even after the reform, numerous remnants of feudalism survived, especially in agriculture.
For some time, one of the methods of running a landlord's economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for labor. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.
Capitalist relations developed steadily in the countryside. There was a rural proletariat - farming. Despite the obstacles created by the communal system, the peasantry was stratified. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners, exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.
But the main line of struggle in the countryside was between the landowners and the peasants. The peasantry as a whole fought against the landowners for the return of the peasant land, cut off in favor of the landowners during the peasant reform. Increasingly, the question of transferring the entire landlord's land to the peasants was raised.
The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to look for extra work not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor into capitalist enterprises. The city was increasingly drawing former peasants into its orbit. As a result, they became entrenched in capitalist production, and then their families moved to the city. Later, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into cadre workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians. Inasmuch as the peasant escaped from the power of the serf-owner, in so far as he fell under the power of money, fell into the conditions of commodity production, and found himself dependent on the emerging capital.
During the post-reform period, new plants and factories were built in Russia. The bourgeoisie, using a large inflow of cheap labor, is developing industry at a gigantic pace, extracting superprofits from this. In the main branches of industry, the industrial revolution (the transition from manufactories to machine production) is being completed, and labor productivity is increasing.
Russia is rapidly overcoming its industrial backwardness. This was facilitated by the fact that Russian capitalists, creating new factories and plants (and there were the overwhelming majority of new enterprises), equipped them with the most modern equipment for that time.
Russian industry was gaining such a powerful pace of development that by the end of the 19th century. the preconditions for the country's entry into a higher stage arose.
An important consequence of the development of capitalism in Russia was the formation of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which enter the political arena, actively participating in the struggle for their class interests.
The development of capitalism in Russia is increasingly increasing the importance of the bourgeoisie in society. However, its political positions are still not strong enough. Political power is still firmly held in their hands by the noble landowners. The preservation of estate privileges gives the nobility significant political advantages: it continues to occupy key positions in the state apparatus.
The working class was brutally exploited. The length of the working day and the amount of wages were determined almost arbitrarily by the manufacturers and breeders. The capitalists had the opportunity to employ workers on low wages and long working hours. Work and life of the workers were extremely difficult.
In the second half of the XIX century. the proletariat is actively fighting for its rights. As one of the means of protecting his interests, he uses the strike struggle.
In the 90s. social democratic workers' organizations are emerging. Professional revolutionaries are active in defending the interests of the proletariat. The revolutionary propaganda of Marxism is being developed widely. Conditions are ripening for the creation of a political party of the working class in Russia. In 1898, the I Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was convened.
In the 70s. a populist movement appears. By the end of the century, conditions were created for the formation of a peasant political party.
By the end of the XIX century. preconditions for the emergence of bourgeois political parties are also created, but they are formed later.
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 government's internal policy in the second half of the nineteenth century. was the bringing of the economic and socio-political system of Russia in accordance with the needs of the time while maintaining 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 preparation of the peasant reform was carried out by the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. 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. When emancipated, 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 made it possible to preserve landlord ownership 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 metropolitan 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, his son Alexander III became emperor in 1881. 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 bring the high school completely under the 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 counterreforms. 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 judicial system of 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. The shortcomings of the judicial system and judicial procedure aroused discontent even among the privileged estates (not only the bourgeoisie, but also the nobility). "In 1864, after a long preparation, the following documents were approved, which constituted the whole of the judicial reform: 1) Institutions of judicial institutions; 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-estates court; equality of all before the court; introduction of jurors; establishment Prosecutor's 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, publicity, orality and adversary ness of legal proceedings; when considering criminal cases in the district court, the participation of a jury was envisaged. These are all characteristic features of a 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 of not more than 300 rubles, arrest for not more than three months or imprisonment for not more than 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 excluded 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. Presidents of courts, prosecutors and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and examining magistrates were irreplaceable, and high salaries were assigned to them in order to secure honest professionals in the judiciary. 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 "to print in all time-based publications what was 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 where the majority of the population were peasants who had just freed themselves from serfdom, the introduction of local government bodies was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various estates of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-estate organizations, such as noble assemblies. 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 economic, socio-political and cultural life countries. The city reform of 1870 created all-estate bodies of local self-government. 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. At the meeting of the Duma, the executive body of public administration was elected - the council 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, landscaping, 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 arrange 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.)
First half of the 19th century - The Russian Empire was one of the largest states in the world. The population of the country reached 69 million by the middle of the 19th century. Russia was an agrarian country, the state had large territories not occupied by agriculture and the state pursued a policy of colonization.
The increasing demand for agricultural products within the country and in Europe presented new opportunities for Russia. However, the feudal-serf system hindered the development of economic sectors.
In the 1830s - 1840s. in Russia, an industrial revolution began, which, due to the inhibiting influence of the feudal-serf system, dragged on until the 1870s - 1880s. Manufacturing production in pre-reform Russia received competition in the form of factory production. The first steamships and railways appeared in Russia.
First half of the 19th century characterized by a single period in the socio - economic development of Russia, but this period had its own characteristics. During the reign of Alexander I (1801 - 1825), a more liberal domestic policy was observed, especially before the Patriotic War of 1812. During the reign of Nicholas I (1825 - 1855), reactionary and protective measures of the autocracy and an attempt to rebuild the state apparatus to the emerging new historical realities.
Partial internal political transformations of autocracy in the first half of the 19th century. could not resolve the accumulating contradictions between the emerging capitalist
relations and the feudal - serf system.
The contradictions between the nascent capitalist and decaying feudal relations are clearly visible in the social structure of society and the policy of the autocracy in relation to the estates. Officially, the country's population was divided into the nobility, clergy, rural and urban inhabitants. In fact, there already existed new strata of the population - classes that differed from each other in their property, that is, in relation to the means of production. The new, emerging classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The nobility continued to be the smallest class and was subdivided into personal and hereditary. The nobles made up about 1.5% of the country's population. The nobles, as before, were the social pillar of absolutism and the policy of the autocracy was aimed at consolidating this class, preserving their class privileges. Many of the nobles were not landowners. Only hereditary nobles had the right to own estates and have serfs, and there were no more than 600 thousand of them (1% of the total population of the country). Of these, only 109 thousand families actually owned estates, mostly small. In such an estate, on average, there were 7 serfs, and the landowners themselves were forced to manage the economy on an equal basis with their peasants. The landowners were forced to mortgage their estates and by the middle of the XIX century. more than half of the estates were mortgaged.
The government tried to support the nobility with economic and social measures. Alexander I restored the validity of the Charter to the Nobility, canceled by Paul I. For the same purpose, in 1827 the nobles received the right to trade with merchants and have unions in cities, and the decree of 1845
Introduced a ban on alienation and division of estates. Noble estates could only be bequeathed to an elder
son. This measure revived similar legislation of the 18th century. The nobility could have been economically supported by the classical feudal method - by transferring state peasants to the nobility, but the autocracy opposed this measure. Only in difficult for the government 1810 - 1817. Alexander I reluctantly went to sell 10 thousand serfs to the nobles. Instead of these measures, the government tried to issue loans to some of the landowners and promote prudent economic management, but such half-way measures to change the situation were
impossible. More successful were the government's actions in limiting the ability of the nobles to buy estates and reducing the influx of representatives of other classes into the nobility. At the same time, in its class policy, the government tried to rely not on all nobles, but only on large landowners. The rest were pushed by economic measures to continue carrying out the civil service.
In 1831 - 1832. the government limited the right of small-land nobles to be elected to public positions in noble assemblies, significantly increase the property qualification. Those who reached such a property qualification (100 serfs or 3 thousand dessiatines of land), as a rule, were hereditary, even well-born nobles. The same goal was achieved by the introduced in 1832. gradation of honorary citizens into hereditary and personal. The category of honorary citizens included persons who had achieved a high educational qualification and officials who had reached the ninth rank. Of these citizens, only merchants of the first guild, scientists and artists received the rank of hereditary, honorary citizens. Honorary citizens were not a taxable estate, they were exempted from conscription, from 1848 they received the right to purchase unpopulated land, had other privileges, but were not nobles. Thus, the state cut off from the nobility a whole
a layer of service people, intellectuals and individuals with a high property qualification. Decrees of 1848 - 1856 the rank was further increased, the achievement of which gave the right to hereditary nobility. It was possible to become a full-fledged nobleman only by reaching the rank of the fifth and fourth grade in the civil service and the eighth - ninth in the military, respectively. Representatives of non-nobility estates who did not reach sufficiently high ranks became honorary citizens. According to the decree of 1815, the right to receive hereditary nobility was given to an employee, a personal nobleman, whose father and grandfather had served the state for 20 years.
In the XIX century. they began to consider hereditary nobles as nobles themselves. This included persons to whom this state was bestowed by a personal royal decree, merits in carrying out military or state service. As hereditary nobles were recognized "ancient noble families" and the offspring of foreign aristocrats
In contrast to the 18th century, when public service and a successful career made it possible to obtain a noble state, the class policy of the first half of the 19th century. consisted in the following interpretation of the law: "The more difficult the elevation to the nobility, the more useful it will be for the state." Thus, the state tried to preserve the consolidated privileged estate as servants to the throne and to accommodate the small Russian nobility and new historical conditions.
The clergy of the first half of the 19th century was the smallest class and numbered a total of 150 thousand people. The government's policy towards this estate tried to keep it closed, hereditary, inaccessible to representatives of other, primarily taxable estates. At the beginning of the XIX century. the tendency of transformation of the clergy into employees has intensified. These measures led to the fact that the clergy were treated
only directly (clergy and a small number of black clergy (about 30 thousand monks and novices). The achievement of this goal was facilitated voluntarily - compulsory measures of the first quarter of the 19th century. All priests who did not have positions in churches were ordered to switch to secular service or enroll in Those who transferred to the civil service were granted hereditary honorary citizenship, that is, class privileges were retained for them.In the second quarter of the 19th century, the clergy was gradually transferred to monetary allowances from the treasury, forcing the homeless clergy, who were left without means of subsistence, to switch to " classes ".
The property and legal status of those who remained in the "clergy" steadily increased. In the first quarter of the XIX century. clergymen were exempted from corporal punishment and land tax, and their houses were exempted. In the second quarter of the XIX century. the white clergy began to grant the title of nobility, were allowed to buy real estate, the maintenance of monasteries improved. The state promoted spiritual, educational and charitable activities of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Urban population. By 1861, the urban population reached 6.5 million people, which was 8% of the population of Russia. Capitalist relations in the first half of the 19th century. developed most rapidly in cities, therefore, they mostly affected the urban population. The policy of the autocracy also affected the development of the urban estate. Paul I abolished the Charter of Charity in 1785, and replaced the estate system of city government in Moscow and St. Petersburg with rigid administration, and in 1800 extended it to all cities in Russia. At the head of the city was the "Commission on the supply of the residence with supplies, the order of apartments and other parts owned by the police", which has been subordinate to the governors since 1801.
The "Commission" consisted of the city government (ratgauz) and two offices for food supply and urban improvement.
The rights of the city estates were restored by Alexander I, who abolished the non-estate city administration and reintroduced the Letters of Charter to the cities.
The reduction in the number of clergymen, the dismissal of non-noble officers from the army, and the increase in the number of ruined nobles led to the formation in the cities of a new group - commoners, that is, "people of different ranks."
The raznochintsy were not a taxable estate, since they legally belonged to those classes from which they passed. The raznochintsy were the city intelligentsia and small employees. In Russia, there were 24 thousand commoners. In addition to commoners, peasants who received "free" peasants, some of the odnodvor and foreigners, sometimes settled in the cities. In 1840, many of the possessional workers were transferred to the ranks of the bourgeoisie, thereby adding to the urban population.
The urban population had a number of benefits. The decree of December 12, 1801 gave urban residents the right to buy unpopulated land. In 1807, the "first-class merchant class" was established. In this social group included eminent citizens who declared capital over 30 thousand rubles, engaged in foreign trade, ship owners. The first-class merchants had the right to "come to the court of His Imperial Majesty", to be a supplier of goods to the court. The social position was confirmed by the right to wear a sword (like nobles), the first-class merchants were entered into the so-called "velvet book". First-class merchants were awarded orders and medals, and had other economic and social benefits.
"Secondary merchants" had the right to carry out retail trade, for which it was allowed to establish and develop trade, production enterprises, and when declaring
fortune of 30 thousand rubles could become a first-class merchant.
Thus, the division of merchants into three gil was canceled? days and the gradation of this layer was introduced into two articles.
In 1832, the first-class merchants began to be called honorary citizens. Honorary citizens were divided into hereditary and personal. The children of personal nobles, clergymen, the above-mentioned big bourgeoisie, scientists, and the creative intelligentsia were hereditary. All other layers of the intelligentsia, for example, teachers, engineers, and also adopted by the nobility belonged to personal honorary citizens.
Honorary citizens did not carry recruiting duties, were exempted from poll taxwere not subject to corporal punishment.
The following groups of the population were taxable. This included guild craftsmen and burghers. These urban dwellers were small owners, but differed in the type of activity and property status. Some of them joined the honorary citizens, the other part passed into the composition of the lower group of the urban population, the so-called working people.
The working people made up a group of hired workers, many of whom did not have property in the city, did not pay taxes or paid them incorrectly, and therefore could not be considered bourgeois. According to the police, there were also marginal elements, that is, people with "bad behavior", among the workers. Working people made up the population of factory and factory suburbs. This part of the urban population grew faster than others due to the newly arrived representatives of peasants, possession workers, and so on. The working people were the backbone of the emerging Russian proletariat.
Peasants in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. accounted for more than 90% of the country's population. The peasants were divided into three large groups, distinguished by their departmental
accessories. The three main categories of peasants were called state (state), "proprietor" (landlord), and specific. There were also minor minor subgroups of peasants (possessional - no more than 12 thousand souls, peasants of military settlements - they totaled up to 1/3 of the strength of the army and one-yard palaces - there were 2 million of them). Some researchers tend to distinguish between two groups: ("rural inhabitants" and serfs). The peasants also differed in their property status, for example, "settled on their own lands", "foreigners", peasants of the southern, richer regions. As in the previous period, the state and specific (until 1797 palace) peasants were in a more advantageous position.
Regardless of its affiliation, the development of capitalism influenced the stratification of the peasantry. A small part of the peasants was involved in capitalist relations, and seasonal work became widespread. In the industrial provinces of the country, up to 40% of the male population went to work. The peasants who left for long-term earnings, as in the 18th century. passports were issued to those sent for short-term work, so-called tickets were issued. In the cities, those were counted as workers, in factories as civilians. However, according to their departmental affiliation, they all remained peasants. In general, the classification of peasants, as noted in 1826 by M.M. Speransky, is a rather difficult question.
Peasants, regardless of their affiliation, professional distinctions, property status, were entered in the revision lists, were subject to recruitment, corporal punishment and were a taxable population. The size of the capitation tax during this period increased from 1 rub. 26 kopecks. up to 3 rubles. 30 kopecks There was a community in the peasant environment,
and in large estates it had the functions of self-government.
The state (state) peasants remained in a more advantageous position. However, this group of peasants was not homogeneous and split into several groups. Along with the term "state peasants" in the first quarter of the XIX century. the term "black-sowed peasants" continues to be used (mainly the population of the northern provinces of Russia). The black-haired peasants, like the state peasants, were not subject to transfer to serfdom (Alexander I, Nicholas I were against this kind of "awards"). State peasants were a taxable estate, in addition to the poll tax established by law, they paid a fixed quitrent and were subject to recruitment. They could be transferred to military settlements, and until the 1840s. could be leased (owned) to individuals. At the same time, the "state" peasants really enjoyed the privileges that the government gave them.
By decree of December 12, 1801, state peasants had the right to buy unpopulated land (serfs began to have this right 47 years later). Decree of December 28, 1818. gave the right to all peasants (including landowners) to start factories and plants, but these rights were more often enjoyed by more prosperous state peasants. In 1827. state peasants received the right to own houses in cities, and 21 years later they were allowed to buy real estate in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The state peasants traditionally lived compactly, in large groups, for this reason, patriarchal communal relations were maintained among them. For example, the Circular of 1829 prescribed to consider the land of state peasants - communal. In 1810, as an experiment, the first military settlements appeared, which from 1816 - 1818. began to be introduced everywhere, and during the reign of Nicholas I the number of military settlers was
already 800 thousand. The essence of the reform was as follows. Soldiers were added to the state peasants, while both were declared military settlers. On the one hand, they were soldiers and were required to carry out military service. On the other hand, the "military settlers" were peasants and had to farm themselves and provide themselves with food. In some cases, the soldiers settled on the empty "Novorossiysk lands". Military settlers - soldiers, "soldier's wives" and "soldier's children" served and ran their household, strictly obeying the charter, even the daily routine was regulated (from getting up to lights out). Children of military settlers carried out military service with their fathers from the age of 7, they were obliged to study at school and military affairs, and from the age of 18 they were transferred to military units for junior command positions. It should be noted that the position of the military settlers as a category of state peasants was the most burdensome and difficult.
A small group was homogeneous. Some of them owned more than 20 thousand serfs. The homogeneous people are descendants of the service people of the 17th century, the Landmilitia of the 18th century During the reign of Nicholas I, they lost the right to purchase, and then to own the serfs. Subsequently, the social status of homogeneous people was equal to the rest of the state peasants.
In the social policy in relation to the peasantry, the reform of the state village of 1837-1841 was of great importance, which influenced the subsequent reform of 1861. The reform was carried out by P.D. Kiselev, who was put at the head of the created Ministry of State Property. Several legislative acts of this period introduced a four-stage system of community management (province, district, parish, rural society). In addition to a clear administrative structure, legislation determined local elected self-government bodies in volosts and rural societies.
The collection system was reorganized. In accordance with the census of 1836 and the land cadastre (assessment and demarcation of land), the system for collecting the quitrent was streamlined. The rent was calculated on the basis of male "souls" in accordance with the size of land plots and their quality. Other measures stimulated the development of agriculture. In particular, peasants moved to the south of the country, issued preferential loans, promoted and economically encouraged the cultivation of "new" agricultural crops - potatoes and sunflowers.
The appanage peasants received this name in 1797 from the Department of Appanages, to which the peasants who belonged personally to the imperial family were transferred. In total, there were over 830 thousand male peasants, they were subdivided into "sovereign" and "stable". The specific peasants were a taxable population, they bore the same duties in favor of the state, but paid the rent in favor of their feudal lord, that is, the tsar. Specific peasants occupied an intermediate position between state and landowners.
The largest group of "rural inhabitants" were still landlords, that is, "proprietors", peasants. These numbered over 11 million male souls, which accounted for more than 50% of the total peasant population of the country. The forms and methods of exploitation of serfs differed, changed in connection with domestic politics autocracy. Already at the beginning of the XIX century. contemporaries distinguished duality, inconsistency in the definition of the serf, landlord peasant. According to the old norms of law of the 17th - early 18th centuries. there was a provision that the serf peasant is an integral part of the estate, that is, real estate, and this explains the word "serf". The landowner is only the owner of the peasants, in exchange for the state
or military service. Development of serfdom in the 18th century led to the opposite definition of the serf state of the peasant. By the beginning of the 19th century. the landlord peasant was defined as movable property, conditionally related to real estate, by means of "revision tales". At the will of the owner, a serf could be sold, mortgaged, alienated from the land. Therefore, in the XIX century. the landlord peasant was also considered outside the list of real estate.
The forms of exploitation of the peasants have also undergone changes. Instead of the "old corvee" limited in 1797 to three days a week, the quitrent was distributed, which grew 3.5 times in the central and 2.5 times in the black earth provinces. The corvee intensified in the form of a month. It was impossible to keep the peasant in corvee for more than three days, but it was quite possible to transfer to courtyards, to seize the land allotment and force the peasant to work the landlord's land six days a week in exchange for a minimum monthly ration, a kind of wage. This form of exploitation practically did not differ from slavery and spread in the black earth provinces, where there were up to 1.5 million household peasants. In addition, corvee was generally accepted among leased (possessory) peasants, that is, the actual distribution of corvee was wider.
The legislation almost did not restrict the landowner in the forms and methods of exploiting the peasants. In addition to the already mentioned limitation to three-day corvee (1797) and the general recommendations of the autocracy to alleviate the fate of the peasant, the government took several measures to reduce the degree of serfdom.
In 1816. Alexander I finally banned the sale of peasants assigned to factories and plants (before that, the decree of Paul I was in force, allowing such sales). A 1801 decree prohibited the publication of sale advertisements in newspaper
household peasants, in 1808 the publication of the sale of peasants at fairs at retail was prohibited. In 1809, the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia for insignificant income was abolished, and the withdrawal from the landowner of the right of a criminal trial over peasants was generally confirmed. It was impossible to torture, maim the peasants. Similar decrees were issued later, in the second quarter of the 19th century.
In the last decades of serfdom, there was a surge in the social activity of peasants. Nicholas I himself and his government have repeatedly noted that "the present state of the peasantry is evil," and that "the state is, as it were, on a powder keg." In this regard, some changes are introduced into the legislation "on the serfdom". In total, from 1825 to 1860. more than 100 such laws were issued, continuing the "restrictions" of the previous autocrat. Here are the most important ones. In 1827 the landowners were again prohibited from separating movable property or real estate and giving the peasants to factories during the sale. In 1828. limited the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia. The decree of May 2, 1833 forbade the sale of peasants at auction in public and dividing peasant families when selling.
According to other generally accepted norms, the rule was confirmed that "once he has received freedom cannot be enslaved again," the peasant becomes free upon his return from military service from captivity or from abroad. The landowners were not supposed to ruin their peasants, and in lean years the landowner was obliged to feed the peasants and provide them with the necessary minimum of sowing material to resume agricultural activity.
The leaders of the nobility, that is, the same landowners, had to monitor the observance of these restrictions by the landowners. It is clear that with such supervision, even these minor restrictions were not enforced, and the position of the serf was entirely dependent on the lordly will and whim.
The development of capitalism, the growth of anti-feudal struggle pushed the government to take measures that helped the peasants to get out of serfdom. However, the withdrawal of the peasants from serfdom was possible only with the consent of the landlords. Therefore, in the first half of the XIX century. several laws were issued, the actions of which were possible only with the consent of the landowners.
On February 20, 1803, Alexander I signed a decree "On free farmers". The decree provided for the release of the peasants at will for a ransom, the size of which was established with the mutual consent of the landlord and the serf. This law, which was originally called "On the release of their peasants to freedom by landowners upon the conclusion of conditions based on mutual consent," provided for the release of peasants at will with a land allotment, so that "the peasants, thus dismissed, could remain in the state of free farmers without being obliged to enter in another under life. " The minimum allotment was determined, equal to 8 tithes. In terms of their social status, free farmers were equated with state peasants, that is, they were a tax-paying population, carried recruitment and other duties. By the decree in the first half of the XIX century. took advantage of about 150 thousand male souls.
Other acts also proceeded from the observance of mutual interests when concluding transactions. At the same time, in solving the "serf issue", the interests of the state were necessarily taken into account - to preserve the peasant as an agricultural producer. In particular, the decree "On the price of the auditor's soul" of August 3, 1806 ordered that in transactions with peasants proceed from the cost of the male auditor's soul at 75 silver rubles, the female half of this value. (Subsequently, the price of a peasant rose to 100 rubles).
By the decree of July 20, 1809 "On the suppression of vagrancy" (the search for fugitive peasants), it was ordered to return the peasants to their owners, or to hand over these peasants to the Order of Public Charity.
On April 2, 1842, a decree was issued "On the proposal to landowners to conclude agreements with peasants for the release of plots of land to them for use for agreed obligations with the acceptance by the peasants who concluded the agreement, the names of obliged peasants." This decree became known under the name "On Obliged Peasants" and developed the provisions of the previous legislation, in particular, the decree "On Free Farmers". Since the peasants were not able to contribute the entire redemption amount to the landowner at a time, it was determined that the serfs were obliged to serve the corresponding duties or pay the amount agreed with their owner in parts in the form of quitrent. The peasants received freedom as if on credit. During the period of redemption at the will of oneself and one's family, the serfdom remained, it was called temporarily obligated. The contract could be terminated if the peasants did not comply with its terms. The decree of 1841 was also not widespread, six landowners took advantage of it, releasing 27,173 peasants.
The peasants who received freedom according to the named laws, redeemed or received "freedom" for other reasons, became personally free rural inhabitants, settled on their own lands (if they had land allotments).
In relation to the overwhelming mass of the peasantry, which remained in a serfdom, the government took measures to restrict entrepreneurial activity. The peasants could not leave the estates without the permission of the landowner, in the cities they did not have the right to maintain shops, and could trade only in the market. These restrictions were established in the XVIII
century, and now confirmed by decrees of 1810 and 1812 peasants by decree 12
december 1801 did not have the right to buy land, but in order to develop industry they could, according to the law on December 28, 1818. organize factories and plants. Subsequently, the property rights of peasants were expanded by a law of March 3, 1848.
On June 12, 1844, a decree appeared that allowed the peasants to be released by their mutual consent with the landowner, and from 1853 the right to lease peasants to non-nobles was limited. By the decree of November 8, 1847, the peasants received the privilege of buying themselves out at will when the estates of the ruined landowners were sold at auction. In total, about 960 thousand souls of peasants took advantage of this decree. They were transferred to the category of "personally free rural inhabitants, settled on their own lands," since they bought their allotments with personal freedom. In other cases, such peasants were called "unqualified" because they owned their own land, which means that they did not pay quitrent in favor of the state. The dynamics of the redemption of peasants at will, shows the depth of the crisis of feudalism, when the peasants turned out to be wealthier than their owners, who mortgaged their estates.
The peasant question was repeatedly raised before the governments of Alexander I and Nicholas I. In the 1830s - 1850s. the problem of the serfdom of the peasants was repeatedly considered at the meetings of various "secret committees", but because of the opposition of the nobles, the political reaction of 1848-1855. the terms of the peasant reform were constantly postponed. As a result, the social activity of the peasants grew, and the situation in Russia before the abolition of serfdom can be called revolutionary. The government could not cope with the growing protest of the peasants, it was afraid of a new "Pugachevism", and Alexander II, who ascended the throne, was forced to admit the need for an early solution of the peasant question "from above" until the peasants themselves liberated themselves in a revolutionary way "from below".