Reforms of Alexander II. Briefly

Story. Seminar. Topic 10.

Liberal reforms of Alexander II and their significance

A life-loving, European-educated pragmatist, Alexander II (1855–1881) decided not to put off reforms indefinitely. Having shown the courage and independence necessary in such cases, he preferred to act ahead of events, neglected the opinion of the retrograde nobles (and they were a clear majority) and formed a team of reformers, which included his sailor brother. book Konstantin, Ya. I. Rostovtsev, brothers N. A. and D. A. Milyutin, etc. The opinion of representatives of the liberal public was also taken into account - K. D. Kavelin, Yu. F. Samarin, V. A. Cherkassky and even publishers of the London Bell, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.

The growth of the peasant movement also played a certain, although not decisive, role in the reform process. So, only in 1858–1860. in Russia there were about 1,700 peasant unrest, i.e. 1.5 times more than during the entire first quarter of the 19th century, and only slightly less than during the entire reign of Nicholas I. Centuries-old peasant patience and the absence of a strong revolutionary organization, capable of captivating the multi-million masses of the rural population, practically excluded the possibility of a revolutionary explosion in Russia at that time. This objectively increased the role of government reformism, which at the turn of the 1850s–1860s. after half a century of marking time, it has entered a new, generally very fruitful, stage.

The transformations initiated by Alexander II were complex in nature and included the abolition of serfdom, the creation of local governments, judicial, military and a number of other reforms, the true meaning of which can only be understood in such a “bundle.” Now, following Russian liberal historiography of the 19th – early 20th centuries. The reforms of Alexander II are often called Great, and the emperor himself is called the Tsar-Liberator. However, this term also has its opponents, who draw attention to the shadow sides of these reforms. In fact, they did not affect the political sphere (Russia did not receive a parliament, a constitution, or freedom of speech and assembly), preserved the outdated system of noble preferences, did not solve the agrarian question and did not create a class of small landowners as a pillar of stability and order in country. They were unable to overcome the separation of power from society that had already become traditional for Russia, and ultimately did not save Russia from the revolutionary upheavals of the early twentieth century.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to overestimate the significance of the very act of abolishing serfdom in Russia (February 19, 1861). However, the conditions for the liberation of the peasants were by no means optimal (large “cuts” from peasant plots in favor of the landowners, huge redemption payments, a significant lengthening of the process of transition to a new system of relations between peasants and landowners, which was clearly unprofitable for the peasants). The peasant question received a half-hearted, compromise solution that did not fully satisfy either the peasants or the landowners. As a result, the agrarian question in Russia turned out to be even more complicated than before, and this was one of the reasons for the violent peasant uprisings in 1905–1907 and 1917. And although the reform of 1861 hit the majority of landowners who were unadapted to a market economy, the situation of peasants in post-reform Russia was immeasurably more difficult.

They were distinguished by much greater democracy and courage zemstvo, judicial and military reforms, which, for all their inconsistency and subsequent conservative and protective adjustments, brought Russia the greatest results. With the implementation of these reforms, the country has taken an important step towards creating civil society, overcoming class and caste differences in the position of individual segments of the population, publicity. The zemstvo reform of 1864 undoubtedly contributed to the introduction of the village to culture and a more civilized way of life, the revival of the liberal movement, and strengthened the connection between the intelligentsia and the people. Perhaps the most consistent and democratic in spirit was judicial reform 1864 g.: court in Russia, as in countries Western Europe, became all-class, transparent, competitive (the institution of the bar and jurors was introduced), independent of the administration. Military reform of 1874 consisted of a significant reduction in service life (in ground forces from 15 to 6 years old), the abolition of conscription and the extension of military service to the entire male population of the country who has reached the age of 20, changing the officer training system. The system of benefits for conscripts was also very reasonable. marital status and education (graduates of higher educational institutions, for example, served in the army for only six months). All this taken together had a positive effect on the state of the Russian army and navy, although it could not eliminate the gap between the position of the soldier mass and the officer corps, as well as the military-technical lag of Russia from the West in a number of vital parameters.

Great importance There were also reforms in the field of public education and the press. In 1864, the regulations on primary public schools (state, zemstvo, parish, Sunday) were approved and a new charter of gymnasiums was adopted, introducing high school the principle of equal rights to education for children of all classes. The new university charter of 1863 restored the autonomy of universities in deciding scientific and administrative matters, although students did not receive any corporate rights, and women were still not allowed access to universities. Nevertheless female education in Russia at this time the pace began to quickly pick up (women's gymnasiums, higher women's courses, etc.). Finally, in 1865. a new one appeared, which existed until 1906 censorship regulations, which was quite liberal in nature and exempted all St. Petersburg periodicals and the bulk of books from preliminary censorship.

Thus, the government of Alexander II proposed to Russian society and implemented a whole package of social, administrative and cultural reforms, which, although cannot be called a “revolution from above,” should be recognized as a huge step forward in the modernization and Europeanization of the country. And yet the reforms proceeded with great difficulty. The government encountered resistance both “from below”, from the masses of the people, who wanted to receive much more than the government gave them, and “from above”, from conservative-minded noble-bureaucratic circles, who believed that the people were given too much. In 1861, 1900 peasant unrest occurred in Russia, the student movement sharply intensified, and in 1863 an uprising began in Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. The radically minded part of the intelligentsia also became more active, advocating complete democratization of the socio-political system of Russia, a genuine revolution in land relations in favor of the peasants, and sometimes going as far as calling for physical violence against the “imperial party” (N.G. Chernyshevsky and his entourage, revolutionary organization "Land and Freedom", proclamations of 1861–1863, circle of N. A. Ishutin, etc.).

All this could not help but frighten Alexander II, who was by no means a convinced liberal at heart, and bitterly stated the “ungratefulness” of the people. After D. Karakozov made an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the emperor in St. Petersburg in 1866, obvious shifts to the right began in the government policy, and Alexander II himself noticeably cooled down to the continuation of reforms, which in addition required significant financial resources and educated personnel. The attention of the king, whose personal life was also very difficult (the death of his son-heir, the cooling of relations with his wife, a difficult love story with Ekaterina Dolgorukaya), increasingly switched to foreign policy problems: the conquest of Central Asia, the end of the Caucasian War, diplomatic maneuvers between France, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the war with Turkey (1877–1878), etc.

The further, the more the split grew in Russian society between the democratic forces that quickly evolved to the left and the conservatives, who managed to win over the tsar to their side. At the same time, the liberal “center”, which could balance the extreme movements, was still very weak, subject to attacks and persecution by the authorities and merciless criticism from the revolutionaries. Its main postulates were: the free development of the human personality, state guarantees of respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, the inviolability of private property, freedom of economic competition, ideological and political pluralism, the denial of revolutionary violence and adherence to evolutionary methods social development. Translated into the language of practical politics, this meant that the liberals were supporters of the elimination of all class privileges, the attraction of zemstvo and urban public figures to lawmaking and governance of the country, alleviating the situation of the peasantry and introducing them to culture. The most prominent representatives of liberalism in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. there were K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, V. A. Goltsev, and among the liberal press organs, the magazines “Bulletin of Europe”, “Russian Thought” and others stood out. However, in the conditions of autocratic Russia, liberalism was doomed for a long period " uterine" development, remaining organizationally unformed and trying to find a foothold in zemstvos, city councils, universities and various scientific societies.

If we talk about ideology, then the position of Alexander Nikolaevich can hardly be defined unambiguously as liberal or, say, conservative. And not at all because he was politically omnivorous or, as political scientists put it, a conformist. He was sincerely and confidently ready to act according to the circumstances, but these actions were determined not so much by his political sympathies as by the pragmatic wishes of the head of state, the monarch. “Due to historical circumstances, Alexander II and his immediate circle, as already noted, felt the breath of time better than anyone else in Russia and, if they did not blink their eyes, did not try to impose their point of view on time, then they had a real chance to lead the country along the path gradual but necessary changes without unnecessary losses and shocks.

As mentioned above, Alexander II never - neither in his youth nor in his mature years - adhered to any specific theory or concept in his views on the history of Russia and the tasks government controlled. His general views were characterized by the idea of ​​the inviolability of the autocracy and the existing statehood of Russia as a stronghold of its unity, and of the divine origin of tsarist power. He confesses to his father, having become acquainted with Russia on a trip: “I consider myself happy that God has ordained me to devote my whole life to it.” Having become an autocrat, he identified himself with Russia, considering his role, his mission as serving the sovereign greatness of the Fatherland.

And later, from the time of his activities in the public sphere, he made decisions based not on his own desires, but on the needs of Russia.

The first of the important decisions of Alexander II, delimiting the new reign from Nicholas's - the conclusion of the Paris Peace in March 1856 - revealed in him the ability to abandon erroneous views and assessments (until the end of 1855 he stood for the continuation of the war), the ability to overcome opposition ( in this case - adamant patriots), prefer common sense outdated concepts and traditions. Without giving up imperial claims and interests (decisive victories in the Caucasian War were won in the first years of his reign), Alexander II realized the priority and need for internal reforms to restore the greatness of Russia, its place and role in Europe after defeat in the war.

The situation was the same in solving the peasant question. In his views and concepts, he was not a liberal at all. On the contrary, as chairman of two Secret Committees on Peasant Affairs, 1846 and 1848, he declared himself a champion of serfdom more decisive and outspoken than the monarch father himself. The argumentation of this position in the journal of the Secret Committee of 1846, signed by him, is interesting: “Until Russia, due to unforeseen fates, loses its unity and power, until then other powers cannot serve as an example to it. This colossus requires a different foundation and different concepts of freedom not only for peasants, but also for all classes,” freedom in Russia must consist in obedience to all laws emanating from one supreme source.” But nevertheless, “For five years, until the adoption of the “Regulations of February 19, 1861,” he showed an unshakable will in the decision to abolish serfdom. His firmness, his stubborn opposition to reaction were fueled not by commitment or sympathy for liberalism, but by the confidence that the sovereign interests of Russia, its greatness and place in the family of peoples of Europe required the abolition of serfdom as an outdated and obsolete institution. This confidence supported and strengthened the will of the monarch, which was not at all powerful by nature. The unshakable determination of Alexander II to abolish serfdom in the conditions of the autocratic-monarchical system of Russia was the main guarantor of its implementation during the entire period of preparation of the peasant reform.”

Reassured by the beginning of the implementation of the peasant reform, the emperor considered that the remaining transformations could be carried out purely at the top, excluding the opinions and wishes of the reform-minded part of society. Ultimately, the trouble of Alexander II was not that he did not give the country a constitution, but that that he entrusted the conduct of important political events to the highest bureaucracy. As a result, another paradox emerged: zemstvo, judicial, university, and censorship reforms, despite all their necessity, did not serve to reconcile society and government, but alienated them from each other.

In this neglect of the welfare of the people, one of the prominent representatives of the liberal bureaucracy, the Minister of Public Education in 1861-1866, foresaw a great danger to the entire cause of reform and the reigning dynasty. A.V. Golovnin. Sent by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich in the summer of 1860 to the central provinces of Russia to familiarize himself with the situation in the village, he came to conclusions that were striking in their insight and depth. “I admit that the future seems extremely worrying to me,” he wrote on July 24, 1860 to the governor of the Caucasus and friend of Alexander II, Prince A.I. Baryatinsky. - I spent this summer in the center of Russia, among the population of truly Russian people who, forming a compressed colossal mass, speak the same language, profess the same faith, have the same interests, constituting the true strength of Russia and representing a whole power in itself. Looking closely at the state of the country and remembering the state budgets, I find that over the past 40 years the government has taken a lot from the people and given them very little. It took people, direct and indirect taxes, hard work, etc. - took most income, and then the people, thanks to bad administration, paid much more than the treasury received. What did the government do at the same time for these places, in return for all the taxes? Nothing... State income, half of which is based on the immorality of the people, or, rather, on their corruption, wine farming, was spent on paying interest on the debt, on the army, navy and on this distant Petersburg... So, the money received from taxes was not spent on their real needs, the most necessary. All this was a great injustice; and since every injustice is always punished, I am sure that this punishment will not be long in coming. It will come when the peasant children, who are now only infants, will grow up and understand everything I just talked about. This can happen during the reign of the grandson of the real sovereign.”

serfdom alexander political reform

Chronology

• 1855 - 1881 Reign of Alexander II Nikolaevich
• 1861, February 19 Abolition of serfdom in Russia
• 1864 Carrying out judicial, zemstvo and school reforms
• 1870 Urban reform introduced
• 1874 Military reform

Zemstvo reform (1864)

On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” - a legislative act that introduced zemstvos.

It must be taken into account that for a country where the majority of the population were peasants who had just been freed from serfdom, the introduction of local governments was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various classes of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-class organizations, such as noble assemblies. The serf owners were indignant at the fact that on the bench in the zemstvo assembly “yesterday’s slave was sitting next to his recent master.” Indeed, various classes were represented in the zemstvos - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, industrialists, townspeople and peasants.

Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels. The chairmen of the meetings were the leaders of the noble self-government - the leaders of the nobility. The meetings formed the executive bodies - district and provincial zemstvo councils. Zemstvos received the right to collect taxes for their needs and hire employees.

The scope of activity of the new bodies of all-estate self-government was limited only to economic and cultural affairs: the maintenance of local communications, care for medical care population, public education, local trade and industry, national food, etc. New bodies of all-class self-government were introduced only at the level of provinces and districts. 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 or a roof.” The slogan of “crowning the building” has since become the main slogan of Russian liberals for 40 years - until the creation of the State Duma.

Urban reform (1870)

Russia's entry onto the path of capitalism was marked by the rapid development of cities, a change in the social structure of their population, and led to an increasing role of cities as centers of the economic, socio-political and cultural life of the country.

The city reform of 1870 created all-estate local government bodies. Administrative functions were no longer assigned to the entire city society, but to its representative body - the Duma. Elections to the Duma took place every four years. The number of Duma members - councilors - was quite significant: depending on the number of voters in the city - from 30 to 72 people. In the capital's dumas there were much more vowels: in the Moscow Duma - 180, 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.

Suffrage was based on the bourgeois property qualification. The right to participate in elections, regardless of class, was given to owners of real estate taxed in favor of the city, as well as persons paying it certain commercial and industrial fees. Suffrage as legal entity also used by various departments, institutions, societies, companies, churches, monasteries. Only men over 25 years of age were allowed to vote in person. Women who had the necessary voting qualifications could participate in elections only through their proxies. In fact, wage workers, the vast majority of whom did not own real estate, were deprived of the right to vote, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population, people of mental work: engineers, doctors, teachers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, but rented apartments.

New public institutions were entrusted with the tasks of managing the municipal economy. A wide range of urban management and improvement issues were transferred to their jurisdiction: water supply, sewerage, street lighting, transport, landscaping, urban planning problems, etc. City councils were obliged to take care of “public welfare”: provide assistance in providing the population with food, take measures against fires and other disasters, help protect “public health” (establish hospitals, help the police in carrying out sanitary and hygienic measures), take measures against beggary, promote the spread of public education (establish schools, museums, etc.).

Judicial reform (1864)

The judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 decisively broke with the pre-reform judicial system and legal proceedings. The new court was built on non-estate principles, the irremovability of judges, the independence of the court from the administration, publicity, orality and adversarial proceedings were proclaimed; When considering criminal cases in the district court, the participation of jurors was provided. This is all characteristic features bourgeois court.

Magistrate's Court was created in counties and cities to consider minor criminal cases. The magistrate's court had jurisdiction over cases for which the commission was punishable in the form of a reprimand, reprimand or suggestion, a fine of not more than 300 rubles, arrest of not more than three months, or imprisonment of not more than a year.

When considering criminal cases in the district court, it was provided jury institute. It was introduced despite the resistance of conservative forces and even the reluctance of Alexander II himself. They motivated their negative attitude towards the idea of ​​juries by the fact that the people were not yet mature enough for this, and such a trial would inevitably be of a “political nature.” According to judicial statutes, a juror could be a citizen of Russia between the ages of 25 and 70, who was not under trial or investigation, was not excluded from service by court and was not subject to public condemnation for vices, was not under guardianship, did not suffer from mental illness, blindness, mute and lived in this district for at least two years. A relatively high property qualification was also required.

The second instance for district courts was court chamber, had departments. Its chairman and members were approved by the Tsar on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. It served as an appellate court for civil and criminal cases tried in district courts without juries.

The Senate was considered 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, and it was headed by the prosecutor general, who was also the minister of justice.

Court chairmen, prosecutors and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and judicial investigators were permanent, they were assigned high salaries in order to assign honest professionals to judicial institutions.

The biggest step towards 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 timely publications about what is happening in the courts.” Court reports reporting on Russian and foreign trials are becoming a noticeable phenomenon in the press.

Military reforms (60s - 70s)

By revising military reform one should take into account its dependence not only on the socio-economic situation in the country, but also on the realities of the international situation of those years. Second half of the 19th century. characterized by the formation of relatively stable military coalitions, which increased the threat of war and led to the rapid build-up of the military potential of all powers. Appeared in the middle of the 19th century. the decomposition of the Russian state system affected the state of the army. Fermentation in the army was clearly evident, cases of revolutionary uprisings were noted, and military discipline was in decline.

The first changes were made in the army already in the late 50s - early 60s. Military settlements were finally abolished.

WITH 1862 A gradual reform of local military administration was begun based on the creation of military districts. A new system of military command and control was created that eliminated excessive centralization and contributed to the rapid deployment of the army in the event of war. The War Ministry and the General Staff were reorganized.

IN 1865 began to be carried out military judicial reform. Its foundations were built on the principles of transparency and competitiveness of the military court, on the rejection of the vicious system of corporal punishment. Three courts have been established: regimental, military district and main military courts, which duplicated the main links of the general judicial system of Russia.

The development of the army largely depended on the presence of a well-trained officer corps. In the mid-60s, more than half of the officers had no education at all. It was necessary to resolve two important issues: significantly improve the training of officers and open access to officer ranks not only for nobles and distinguished non-commissioned officers, but also for representatives of other classes. For this purpose, military and cadet schools were created with a short period of study - 2 years, which accepted persons who graduated from secondary educational institutions.

On January 1, 1874, the charter on military service was approved. The entire male population over 21 years of age was subject to conscription. For the army, a 6-year period of active service and a 9-year stay in the reserve was generally established (for the navy - 7 and 3). Numerous benefits were established. Exempted from active service The only son from parents, the only breadwinner in the family, some national minorities, etc. The new system made it possible to have a relatively small peacetime army and significant reserves in case of war.

The army has become modern - in structure, weapons, education.

Education reforms

The economic process and further development of social life in Russia were seriously hampered by low educational level population and the lack of a system of mass training of specialists. In 1864, a new provision was introduced about primary public schools, according to which the state, church and society (zemstvos and cities) were to be jointly involved in the education of the people. In the same year it was approved regulations of gymnasiums, which proclaimed the availability of secondary education for all classes and religions. Was accepted a year earlier university charter, which returned autonomy to universities: the election of rector, deans, and professors was introduced; The university council received the right to independently decide all scientific, educational, administrative and financial issues. The results were immediate: by 1870, there were 17.7 thousand primary schools of all types, with about 600 thousand students; the number of students at universities increased by 1.5 times. This was, of course, little, but incomparably more than in pre-reform times.

Internal unity and liberal orientation of the entire complex of reforms 60s - 70s allowed Russia to take an important step towards bourgeois monarchy and introduce new legal principles into the functioning of the state mechanism; gave impetus to the formation of civil society and caused social and cultural upsurge in the country. These are undoubted achievements and positive results of the reforms of Alexander II.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http:// www. allbest. ru/

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Saratovsky State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky

Institute of History and International Relations

on the topic: “Liberal reforms of Alexander II in 1860-1870.”

Prepared by:

Khanzhov G.A.

Kochukova O.V.

Saratov 2016

Introduction

Chapter 1. Peasant reform

1.1 Need for reforms

1.2 Peasant reform

1.3 Implementation of the reform

1.5 Size of plots

1.6 Duties of temporarily liable peasants

2.1 Urban reform

2.2 City public administration

2.3 Duma elections

2.4 Zemstvo reform

Chapter 3. Judicial reform

3.2 Preliminary work of the State Chancellery

3.3 Development and adoption of new Judicial statutes

3.4 Introduction of Judicial Statutes

Chapter 4. Military reform

4.1 Military reform

4.2 Significance of military reform

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

By the middle of the 19th century. Russia's lag in the economic and socio-political spheres from the advanced capitalist countries was clearly expressed. A number of international events have revealed a significant weakening Russian state in the foreign policy field. This was fully exposed by the Crimean War (1853-1856), which revealed the entire internal inconsistency of our fatherland and our former way of life. And as a result, the need arose to carry out a complete transformation of many areas of public life.

This need for reform became more and more tangible and urgent every day. But on the path of any improvement, an insurmountable obstacle stood - serfdom. Therefore, the main goal of the government’s domestic policy in the second half of the 19th century. was to bring the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was to preserve the autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.

The reign of Emperor Alexander II (1855-1881) was marked by a number of “great reforms” that significantly advanced Russian life. Of these transformations, the most important are: the liberation of the peasants in 1861 and the publication of the “regulations on the structure of the peasants”, the granting of a public, fair, speedy, merciful and dear court to subjects in 1864, zemstvo and city self-government, the publication in 1874 of the charter on military service, mandatory for all classes of the state, the establishment of a number of universities, the opening of women's gymnasiums and pre-gymnasiums, and the improvement of communications.

Chapter 1. Peasant reform

1.1 Need for reforms

At the end of the Crimean War, many internal shortcomings of the Russian state were revealed. Change was needed, and the country was looking forward to it. Then the emperor uttered words that became for a long time the slogan of Russia: “Let its internal order be established and improved; let truth and mercy reign in its courts; let it develop everywhere and with new strength desire for enlightenment and all useful activities..."

In the first place, of course, was the idea of ​​emancipating the serfs. In his speech to representatives of the Moscow nobility, Alexander II said: “it is better to abolish it from above than to wait for it to be abolished from below.” There was no other way out, since every year the peasants increasingly expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing system. The corvee form of exploitation of the peasant expanded, which caused crisis situations. First of all, the labor productivity of serfs began to decline, as landowners wanted to produce more products and thereby undermined the strength of the peasant economy. The most far-sighted landowners realized that forced labor was much inferior in productivity to hired labor (For example, large landowner A.I. Koshelev wrote about this in his article “Hunting is worse than bondage” in 1847). But hiring workers required considerable expenses from the landowner at a time when serf labor was free. Many landowners tried to introduce new farming systems, use the latest technology, purchase improved varieties of purebred livestock, etc. Unfortunately, such measures led them to ruin and, accordingly, to increased exploitation of the peasants. The debts of landowners' estates to credit institutions grew. Further development of the economy using the serf system was impossible. Moreover, having existed in Russia much longer than in European countries took on very harsh forms.

However, there is another point of view regarding this reform, according to which by the middle of the 19th century, serfdom had not yet exhausted its capabilities and protests against the government were very weak. Neither economic nor social catastrophe threatened Russia, but by maintaining serfdom, it could drop out of the ranks of the great powers.

The peasant reform entailed the transformation of all aspects of state and public life. A number of measures were envisaged to restructure local government, the judicial system, education and, later, the army. These were truly major changes, comparable only to the reforms of Peter I.

1.2 Peasant reform

As historians point out, in contrast to the commissions of Nicholas I, where neutral persons or specialists on the agrarian issue predominated (including Kiselyov, Bibikov, etc.), now the preparation of the peasant issue was entrusted to large landowners-serf owners (including ministers Panin and Muravyov, who replaced Kiselyov and Bibikov, and the Chairman of the Secret Committee on Landowner Peasants A.F. Orlov), which largely predetermined the results of the reform. At the same time, the historian L.G. Zakharova points out that among them there were also representatives of the “liberal bureaucracy” (N.A. Milyutin), who were guided by the moral idea of ​​​​the abolition of serfdom.

On January 3, 1857, a new Secret Committee for Peasant Affairs was established, consisting of 11 people ( former boss gendarmes A.F. Orlov, M.N. Muravyov, P.P. Gagarin, etc.) On July 26, the Minister of Internal Affairs and committee member S.S. Lansky presented an official draft reform. It was proposed to create noble committees in each province that would have the right to make their own amendments to the draft. This program was legalized on November 20 in a rescript addressed to the Vilna Governor-General V. I. Nazimov.

The government program, set out in the rescript of Emperor Alexander II dated November 20, 1857 to the Vilna Governor-General V.I. Nazimov, provided for the destruction of the personal dependence of the peasants while maintaining all the land in the ownership of the landowners (patrimonial power over the peasants also, according to the document, remained with the landowners) ; providing peasants with a certain amount of land, for which they will be required to pay quitrents or serve corvee, and, over time, the right to buy out peasant estates (a residential building and outbuildings). Legal dependence was not eliminated immediately, but only after a transition period (10 years). According to Nazimov’s rescript, the work of the provincial committees to discuss the reform should have included: the provincial leader of the nobility, one elected representative of the nobility from each district and two experienced and authoritative landowners of the same province. The general commission was to consist of two members of each of the provincial committees of their choice, one experienced landowner from each province appointed by the governor general, and one member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The rescript was published and sent to all governors of the country.

The nobles greeted the rescript given to Nazimov with complete misunderstanding. And they were completely surprised when literally next came a circular from the Ministry of Internal Affairs with approximately the following content: “Since the St. Petersburg nobility has expressed a desire to improve the situation of the peasants, they are allowed to set up a committee, etc.” The nobility was perplexed as to why they gave such a reason to the sovereign and the minister. The whole situation took on a completely phantasmagoric appearance for the Russian nobility. In fact, the background to the last circular is as follows: somehow, while introducing himself to the emperor, the Voronezh governor Smirin turned to S.S. Lansky for clarification of the sovereign’s words about improving the situation of the serfs and for receiving some instructions in this regard for the Voronezh nobility. The Ministry of Internal Affairs immediately remembered that the St. Petersburg nobility had expressed a similar desire to find out the exact position of peasant duties in favor of landowners. However, this appeal was abandoned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Here they immediately remembered him, pulled him out of the paper pile and drew up a rescript addressed to the St. Petersburg Governor General Count Ignatiev. The result was the distribution of such “tortured” and “cunning” state documents to the regions to set up committees to resolve the peasant issue. Resistance to the Secret Committee (reformed as the Main Committee) now became dangerous, and the nobility was forced to begin discussing reform. In the provinces, provincial committees began to open in 1858. The first is in the Ryazan province. The last one was in Moscow, since the Moscow nobility opposed the reform most of all.

Within the committees, a struggle began over measures and forms of concessions between liberal and reactionary landowners. The committees were subordinate to the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs (transformed from the Secret Committee). The fear of an all-Russian peasant revolt forced the government to change the government program of peasant reform, the projects of which were repeatedly changed in connection with the rise or decline of the peasant movement.

The new program of the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was approved by the Tsar on April 21, 1858. The program was built on the principles of the rescript to Nazimov. The program provided for the mitigation of serfdom, but not its elimination. At the same time, peasant unrest became more frequent. The peasants, not without reason, were worried about landless liberation, arguing that “will alone will not feed bread.”

On December 4, 1858, a new peasant reform program was adopted: providing peasants with the opportunity to buy out land and creating peasant public administration bodies. Unlike the previous one, this program was more radical, and the government was largely pushed to adopt it by numerous peasant unrest (along with pressure from the opposition). This program was developed by Ya. I. Rostovtsev. Basic provisions new program were as follows:

Peasants gain personal freedom

· providing peasants with plots of land (for permanent use) with the right of purchase (especially for this purpose, the government allocates a special loan to peasants)

· approval of a transitional (“urgently obligated”) state

To consider projects of provincial committees and develop peasant reform, in March 1859, Editorial Commissions were created under the Main Committee (in fact, there was only one commission) chaired by Ya. I. Rostovtsev. In fact, the work of the Editorial Commissions was led by N. A. Milyutin. The project drawn up by the Editorial Commissions by August 1859 differed from that proposed by the provincial committees by increasing land plots and reducing duties.

At the end of August 1859, deputies from 21 provincial committees were summoned. In February of the following year, deputies from 24 provincial committees were summoned. The “second convocation” turned out to be even more conservative. He was determined to finally slow down the abolition of serfdom. In October 1859, Ya. I. Rostovtsev noted in his letter to the emperor that “the commissions wanted with all their hearts to balance the interests of the peasants with the interests of the landowners,” but this balance “has not yet been achieved.” Unable to withstand the intensity of relations between the government and the nobility, Ya. I. Rostovtsev dies - an emotional person who took everything to heart. After the death of Rostovtsev, the place of chairman of the Editorial Commissions was taken by the conservative and serf owner V. N. Panin. The more liberal project aroused discontent among the local nobility, and in 1860, with the active participation of Panin, allotments were slightly reduced and duties increased. The editorial commissions, led by Count V.N. Panin, completed their work in October 1860, drawing up five drafts of general and local provisions on the structure of the peasants; the collection of all materials developed, discussed and compiled by the Editorial Commissions took up 35 printed volumes. In total, the Editorial Commissions reviewed in detail 82 projects of provincial committees. When considering the reform in the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs in October 1860, and when discussing it in the State Council from the end of January 1861, a conservative mood prevailed. On January 28, 1861, Emperor Alexander II made a speech at the State Council in which he demanded that the State Council complete the matter of liberating the peasants in the first half of February of the current year, so that it would be announced before the start of field work. The emperor decisively declared: “I repeat, and this is my absolute will, that this matter be over now... Any further delay could be detrimental to the state.”

On February 19, 1861, in St. Petersburg, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens to Serfs” and “Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom,” which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto was published in Moscow on March 5 (Art.

Art.) 1861, on Forgiveness Sunday in churches after mass, in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. In the Mikhailovsky Manege, the decree was read out to the people by the Tsar personally. In some remote places - during March of the same year.

1.3 Implementation of the reform

The “Manifesto” and “Regulations” were published from March 7 to April 10 (in St. Petersburg and Moscow - March 5). Fearing the dissatisfaction of the peasants with the conditions of the reform, the government took a number of precautions (relocation of troops, sending members of the imperial retinue to places, appeal of the Synod, etc.). The peasantry, dissatisfied with the enslaving conditions of the reform, responded to it with mass unrest. The largest of them were the Bezdnensky and Kandievsky uprisings.

In total, during 1861 alone, 1,176 peasant uprisings were recorded, while in 6 years from 1855 to 1860. there were only 474 of them. Thus, the number of peasant uprisings in 1861 was 2.5 times higher than the previous “record” of the second half of the 1850s. According to other sources, from January to June alone there were 1,340 peasant uprisings, and in 718 cases the unrest was eliminated with the help of the army. The uprisings did not subside in 1862 and were suppressed very brutally. In the two years after the reform was announced, the government had to use military force in 2,115 villages. This gave many people a reason to talk about the beginning of a peasant revolution. So, M.A. Bakunin was in 1861-1862. I am convinced that the explosion of peasant uprisings will inevitably lead to a peasant revolution, which, as he wrote, “essentially has already begun.” “There is no doubt that the peasant revolution in Russia in the 60s was not a figment of a frightened imagination, but a completely real possibility...” wrote N. A. Rozhkov, comparing its possible consequences with the Great French Revolution. As P. A. Zayonchkovsky noted, the government feared that the troops used to suppress the peasant uprisings might go over to the latter’s side.

The implementation of the Peasant Reform began with the drawing up of statutory charters, which was basically completed by mid-1863. The statutory charters were concluded not with each peasant individually, but with the “world” as a whole. "The World" was a society of peasants who were owned by an individual landowner. On January 1, 1863, peasants refused to sign about 60% of the charters. It is interesting that the nobles also paid keen attention to the conditions of the reform, when the peasant was forced to acquire land, and not receive it for free. So, in 1862, an address was drawn up for the monarch from the Tver nobility. In it, the nobles noted that this state of affairs puts “society in a hopeless situation, threatening the death of the state.” In this address, the Tver nobility appealed to the sovereign with a request to extend the payment of taxes to the nobility, and to the peasants - the opportunity to choose “people to govern the state.”

The problem is that the purchase price of the land significantly exceeded its market value at that time; in the non-chernozem zone on average 2-2.5 times (in 1854-1855 the price of all peasant land was 544 million rubles, while the ransom amounted to 867 million). As a result of this, in a number of regions, peasants sought to receive gift plots, and in some provinces (Saratov, Samara, Ekaterinoslav, Voronezh, etc.) a significant number of peasant gift holders appeared.

Under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863, changes occurred in the conditions of the Peasant Reform in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine: the law of 1863 introduced compulsory redemption; redemption payments decreased by 20%; peasants who were dispossessed of land from 1857 to 1861 received their allotments in full, while those previously dispossessed of land received them partially.

The peasants' transition to ransom lasted for several decades. By 1881, 15% remained in temporary obligations. But in a number of provinces there were still many of them (Kursk 160 thousand, 44%; Nizhny Novgorod 119 thousand, 35%; Tula 114 thousand, 31%; Kostroma 87 thousand, 31%). The transition to ransom proceeded faster in the black earth provinces, where voluntary transactions prevailed over compulsory ransom. Landowners who had large debts, more often than others, sought to speed up the redemption and enter into voluntary transactions.

The transition from “temporarily obligated” to “redemption” did not give the peasants the right to leave their plot (that is, the promised freedom), but significantly increased the burden of payments. The redemption of land under the terms of the reform of 1861 for the vast majority of peasants lasted for 45 years and represented real bondage for them, since they were not able to pay such amounts. The amount of arrears on redemption payments was constantly increasing. Thus, in 1871, there were eight provinces in which arrears exceeded 50% of the salary (of which in five they were over 100%); in 1880 there were already 14 of them (of which in 10 provinces the arrears were more than 100%, in one of them - Smolensk - 222.2%). And by 1902, the total amount of arrears on peasant redemption payments amounted to 420% of the amount of annual payments; in a number of provinces this figure already exceeded 500%. Only in 1906, after the peasants burned about 15% of the landowners' estates in the country during 1905, the redemption payments and accumulated arrears were canceled, and the "redemption" peasants finally received the freedom promised to them 45 years ago.

The abolition of serfdom also affected appanage peasants, who, by the “Regulations of June 26, 1863,” were transferred to the category of peasant owners through compulsory redemption under the terms of the “Regulations of February 19.” In general, their plots were significantly smaller than those of the landowner peasants. The average size of the former appanage peasant's allotment was 4.8 tithes per capita. The purchase of land by appanage peasants was carried out on the same conditions as serfs (that is, capitalization of 6% of the quitrent). Unlike landowner peasants, who were transferred to redemption after 20 years, appanage peasants were transferred to redemption after 2 years.

The law of November 24, 1866 began the reform of state peasants. They retained all the lands in their use. According to the law of June 12, 1886, state peasants were transferred to redemption. By at will the peasant could either continue to pay the quitrent to the state, or enter into a redemption deal with it. The average size of a state peasant's allotment was 5.9 dessiatines.

In relation to state peasants there were no cuts or inflated prices - as D. Blum points out, redemption payments for tithes were on average 2-2.5 times lower than for serfs, therefore, in general they corresponded to market prices for land . However, earlier, during the preparation of this law, the Minister of State Property, a large landowner M. Muravyov, hatched a plan to take away part of their lands from state peasants and worsen the terms of redemption, similar to what was done in relation to serfs. Perhaps his resignation in 1862 and refusal to worsen the terms of redemption for state peasants were associated with the outbreak that began in 1861-1862. "peasant revolution".

The peasant reform of 1861 entailed the abolition of serfdom in the national outskirts of the Russian Empire. On October 13, 1864, a decree was issued on the abolition of serfdom in the Tiflis province; a year later it was extended, with some changes, to the Kutaisi province, and in 1866 to Megrelia. In Abkhazia, serfdom was abolished in 1870, in Svaneti - in 1871. The conditions of the reform here retained the remnants of serfdom to an even greater extent than under the “Regulations of February 19”. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, peasant reform was carried out in 1870-1883. and was no less enslaving in nature than in Georgia. In Bessarabia, the bulk of the peasant population was made up of legally free landless peasants - tsarans, who, according to the “Regulations of July 14, 1868,” were allocated land for permanent use in exchange for service. The redemption of this land was carried out with some derogations on the basis of the “Redemption Regulations” of February 19, 1861.

The peasant reform of 1861 marked the beginning of the process of rapid impoverishment of the peasants. The average peasant allotment in Russia in the period from 1860 to 1880 decreased from 4.8 to 3.5 dessiatinas (almost 30%), many ruined peasants and rural proletarians appeared who lived on odd jobs - a phenomenon that practically disappeared in mid-19th century

1.4 Main provisions of the reform

The main act is " General position about peasants emerging from serfdom" - contained the main conditions of the peasant reform:

· Peasants ceased to be considered serfs and began to be considered “temporarily obliged”; peasants received the rights of “free rural inhabitants”, that is, full civil legal capacity in everything that did not relate to their special class rights and responsibilities - membership in rural society and ownership of allotment land.

· Peasant houses, buildings, and all movable property of peasants were recognized as their personal property.

· Peasants received elected self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government was the rural society, the highest (administrative) unit was the volost.

· The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with a “homestead settlement” (a house plot) and a field allotment for use; Field allotment lands were not provided to peasants personally, but for the collective use of rural societies, which could distribute them among peasant farms at their own discretion. The minimum size of a peasant plot for each locality was established by law.

· For the use of allotment land, peasants had to serve corvee or pay quitrent and did not have the right to refuse it for 49 years.

· The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in charter documents, which were drawn up by landowners for each estate and verified by the peace intermediaries.

· Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field allotment, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who bought the plot were called “peasant owners.” Peasants could also refuse the right of redemption and receive from the landowner a free plot in the amount of a quarter of the plot that they had the right to redeem; when a free allotment was allocated, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.

· The state, on preferential terms, provided landowners with financial guarantees for receiving redemption payments (redemption operation), taking over their payment; peasants, accordingly, had to pay redemption payments to the state.

1.5 Allotment size

According to the reform, maximum and minimum dimensions peasant plots. Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landowners, as well as upon receipt of a gift allotment. If peasants had smaller plots of land for use, the landowner was obliged to either cut off the missing land from the minimum amount (the so-called “cuts”), or reduce duties. Reductions took place only if the landowner retained at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 men's and 30 women's working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest one, then the landowner cut off the “extra” land for his own benefit. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties were reduced, but not proportionally.

As a result, the average size of the peasant allotment in the post-reform period was 3.3 dessiatines per capita, which was less than before the reform. In the black earth provinces, landowners cut off a fifth of their lands from the peasants. The Volga region peasants suffered the greatest losses. In addition to sections, other instruments for infringing on the rights of peasants were resettlement to infertile lands, deprivation of pastures, forests, reservoirs, paddocks and other lands necessary for every peasant. The striping also posed difficulties for the peasants, forcing the peasants to rent land from the landowners, who protruded like wedges into the peasant plots.

1.6 Duties of temporarily obliged peasants

The peasants were in a temporary state of obligation until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. At first, the duration of this condition was not indicated. On December 28, 1881, by the Decree of Alexander III “On the redemption of plots by peasants still in obligatory relations with the landowners in the provinces consisting of Great Russian and Little Russian local provisions on February 19, 1861,” it was finally established. According to the decree, all temporarily obliged peasants were transferred to redemption from January 1, 1883. Similar situation took place only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obliged state of the peasants remained until 1912-1913.

In the temporarily obligated state, peasants had to pay rent for the use of land or work as corvee labor. The quitrent for a full allotment was 8-12 rubles per year. The profitability of the allotment and the size of the quitrent were in no way connected. The highest quitrent (12 rubles per year) was paid by the peasants of the St. Petersburg province, whose lands were extremely infertile. On the contrary, in the black earth provinces the amount of quitrent was significantly lower.

Another flaw of the quitrent was its gradation, when the first tithe of land was valued more expensive than the rest. For example, in non-chernozem lands, with a full allotment of 4 dessiatines and a quitrent of 10 rubles, for the first tithe the peasant paid 5 rubles, which was 50% of the quitrent amount (for the last two dessiatines, the peasant paid 12.5% ​​of the total quitrent amount). This forced peasants to buy land, and gave landowners the opportunity to profitably sell infertile land.

All men aged 18 to 55 and all women aged 17 to 50 were required to serve corvée. Unlike the previous corvee, the post-reform corvee was more limited and streamlined. For a full allotment, a peasant was supposed to work in corvee no more than 40 men's and 30 women's days.

Chapter 2. Self-government reform

2.1 Urban reform

In 1862, work began on preparing the reform. 509 commissions were created in provincial and district cities intended to develop proposals. But the innovation proposed by many to grant voting rights to all classes did not suit the government; in many ways it slowed down the reform.

Based on a summary of materials developed by the commissions, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the leadership of Pyotr Aleksandrovich Valuev, compiled the “City Regulations” in 1864. The regulation was sent to the State Council, where it remained for another two years. When there was no other choice, Alexander II had to accept the principle of “all class”, and on June 16, 1870, the amended law was adopted. It marked the beginning of the second local government reform.

2.2 City public administration

Article 2 of the “City Regulations” introduced city public administrations, which were in charge of economic issues: external improvement of the city, food supply, fire safety, construction of piers, exchanges and credit institutions, etc.

Article 15 declared that the institutions of city self-government meant the city electoral assembly, the Duma and the city government.

The main function of the electoral assembly was to elect members of the city council every 4 years.

The Duma was elected for 4 years, and according to Article 35, anyone who has voting rights, exception - the number of non-Christians should not exceed 1/3 of the total number of vowels. The city mayor headed the Duma (he could not be a Jew).

The main functions of the Duma were “the appointment of elected officials and the affairs of social order", "purpose of content officials city ​​public administration and determination of its size”, “establishment, increase and decrease of city fees and taxes” and others. The costs of maintaining the Duma were the responsibility of the governor. Duma meetings could be scheduled “at the discretion of the mayor,” at the request of the governor, or at the request of at least one-fifth of the councilors.

The city government was elected by the city duma for 4 years, its functions were:

· “Direct management of municipal affairs and public administration”

· Gathering the necessary information for the Duma

· Drawing up city estimates

· Collection and expenditure of city fees, reporting to the Duma on their activities

2.3 Duma elections

In 509 cities of Russia, dumas were introduced - classless bodies of city self-government. They were elected once every 4 years by tax-paying townspeople who had a certain property qualification. Based on the amount of tax paid, voters were divided into three electoral assemblies. The requirements for the voter were as follows:

· He had to be a subject of the Russian Empire

· Be over 25 years old

· Ownership of property

· No arrears in tax collection

The voter must not have been convicted, removed from office or under investigation. According to Article 24 of the City Regulations, a list of voters was compiled, sorted by taxes paid for the year. The first electoral group (assembly, category) included those who paid one third of the total tax collection, the second included those who also paid a third, and the third included all other voters. The compiled list by category was sent for approval by the City Duma. The city mayor was elected by the governor (in major cities- Minister of Internal Affairs) from among the public. The voting was secret.

The reform of 1870 served as an impetus for the commercial and industrial development of cities; it consolidated the system of urban public administration bodies. One of the results of the reforms of Alexander II was the inclusion of society in civil life. The foundation was laid for a new Russian political culture.

But after the reform of city government, provincial cities faced a new problem - according to the law, part of the income was allocated to the maintenance of government agencies, the police and other government agencies. Because of this, they experienced some difficulties in solving urban problems.

2.4 Zemstvo reform

The zemstvo reform project was developed since 1859 by a commission under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (chaired by N. A. Milyutin, since 1861 by P. A. Valuev). Reformers sought to replace the system of bureaucratic management in regional institutions, in which regional life was controlled by directives from the center, which led to erroneous and belated decisions. The main argument in support of the reform was the belief that local conditions are well known only to permanent residents of the region, and the sent officials accurately implement the program received at the center, without taking into account local specifics. The “Regulations” of 1864 reflected the various interests of the noble groups.

During the reform, provincial and district zemstvo assemblies and zemstvo councils were created - both of them elected, on the basis of classlessness. Voters were divided into 3 curia: county landowners, city voters and elected representatives of rural societies. The right to participate in elections for the 1st curia was enjoyed by owners of at least 200 acres of land, owners of industrial, commercial enterprises or other real estate worth at least 15 thousand rubles. or generating income of at least 6 thousand rubles. per year, as well as representatives from landowners, societies and institutions that owned at least 1/20 of the qualifications of the 1st curia. Voters of the city curia were persons who had merchant certificates, owners of enterprises or trading establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of real estate worth more than 500 rubles. (in small cities) up to 3 thousand rubles. (in large cities). Elections for the peasant curia were multi-level: rural societies elected representatives to volost assemblies, those elected electors, and the latter elected representatives to the district zemstvo assembly.

Provincial and district zemstvo councils consisted of 6 people appointed by zemstvo assemblies. Meetings were convened once a year, but in emergency situations they could meet more often. The councils worked on a permanent basis. The meetings gave orders and monitored their implementation, and the councils were actually involved in implementing the decisions. Zemstvo assemblies can be compared to local parliaments, and councils - to governments. The leaders of the nobility were the chairmen of provincial and district congresses.

Zemstvo assemblies and councils were deprived of the right as institutions to communicate with each other; they had no coercive power, since the police were not subordinate to them; their activities were controlled by the governor and the minister of internal affairs, who had the right to suspend the execution of any resolution of the zemstvo assembly.

Zemstvo assemblies and councils were in charge of local economic affairs: the maintenance of communication routes; construction and maintenance of schools and hospitals; hiring doctors and paramedics; the establishment of courses for training the population and the establishment of sanitary units in cities and villages; “care” for the development of local trade and industry, provision of food for the people (establishment of grain warehouses, seed depots); taking care of livestock and poultry farming; collection of taxes for local needs, etc. peasant reform judicial charter

The zemstvo reform was not carried out everywhere and not simultaneously. By the end of the 1870s, zemstvos were introduced in 34 provinces of European Russia, in Bessarabia and the Don Army region (where they were liquidated in 1882). Later, zemstvo bodies appeared on the outskirts: in the Stavropol, Astrakhan, and Orenburg provinces. Many national and other regions of the Russian Empire did not have zemstvos. The law on zemstvos in the western provinces was adopted only in 1911.

The zemstvo reform contributed to the development of local initiative, economy and culture. During the period of counter-reforms, many achievements of the Zemstvo reform were curtailed according to the Zemstvo Regulations of 1890.

Chapter 3. Judicial reform

3.1 Preparation and implementation of judicial reform

Activities of Count D. N. Bludova.

A major dignitary, Count D.N. Bludov, has been taking initiatives related to improving the judicial system since the mid-1840s. In 1844, he submitted a detailed note to Nicholas I proposing significant changes to judicial procedures. Nicholas I, although he repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the work of the courts, was not inclined to carry out reforms. Count Bludov's legislative work during his reign proceeded sluggishly and was ineffective. After the accession of Alexander II, in 1858, Bludov, at that time the chief manager of the II department of the Own E.I.V. chancellery, submitted his note again and received support from the emperor. The II department was tasked with developing and submitting proposals to the State Council to improve the judicial system. In 1857-1860, 14 bills were submitted to the State Council for consideration on the judicial system, organization of the legal profession, improvement of criminal and civil proceedings; many of them were developments of ideas 10-20 years ago.

Count Bludov's proposals turned out to be an intermediate stage between the old legislation and the new Judicial Statutes adopted in 1864. On the one hand, the proposals provided for public and partially oral proceedings, a broad right to legal defense, and the creation of a professional bar. But myself trial at the same time, it did not provide for adversarial litigation - the parties could only once declare their disagreement with the report considered by the court; there was no provision for checking the preliminary investigation in the criminal court. The existing judicial system was preserved in its main features; it was proposed to continue to elect the majority of judges at the provincial and district level based on the nobility, but with the introduction of an educational or professional qualification. The class court of magistrates and town halls was abolished. There was no provision for a jury trial. It was proposed to replace the Zemsky Court (police institution), which dealt with minor offenses, by an independent magistrate's court elected by the population. In formally transparent legal proceedings, the parties were still required to submit all explanations in writing, and the formal gradation of evidence, permeated with mistrust of judges, remained. A significant drawback of Bludov's proposals was their fragmentation and lack of complexity. This was explained by the history of the bills: initially Count Bludov believed that it was enough to improve the legislation with some private amendments; As his work progressed, he became increasingly convinced of the need to completely replace the judicial procedure and principles of legal proceedings. Though, legislative work, which began as a set of disconnected laws, never became a single whole. By the time the bills were submitted to the State Council, Bludov was already old (he was born in 1785) and did not have confidence that he would be able to complete his work. By the beginning of 1861, plans for judicial reform in the form in which they were formed under the leadership of D.N. Bludov did not enjoy widespread support in the State Council; the Minister of Justice, Count V.N. Panin, was opposed to any changes; the future of the bills seemed uncertain.

One of the reforms designed by Bludov was implemented. In July 1860, the investigation was removed from the jurisdiction of the police and a special institute of forensic investigators was created, subordinate to the chambers of the criminal court.

3 .2 Preliminary work of the State Chancellery

The consideration of the bills in the State Council (in the United Departments of Law and Civil) led to an unexpected result: the State Council suggested that it was inappropriate to consider the bills further and act by introducing changes and amendments to them, but instead it was necessary to create a unified concept of the proposed judicial reform, discuss and approve it, and then develop the Judicial Statutes anew. In October 1861, Alexander II requested a report from the State Council on the progress of judicial reform; an extensive note setting out the views of the Departments, compiled by i.d. State Secretary S.I. Zarudny, was soon reported to the emperor by State Secretary V.P. Butkov. Alexander II completely agreed with the opinion of the State Council, and on October 23, 1861, the Highest Order ordered the United Departments to draw up “a general note on everything that can be recognized as relating to the main, basic principles of assumptions for the organization of the judiciary in the Empire » , with the direct assignment of this work to the officials of the State Chancellery. This was a turning point in the history of judicial reform -- Bludov's projects were essentially discarded, and the matter was transferred to the hands of a reform-minded group of statesmen

The State Chancellery formed a group responsible for drawing up the concept, including I.D. State Secretaries S.I. Zarudny and N.I. Stoyanovsky, Assistant Secretaries of State P.N. Danevsky and D.P. Shubin, Chief Prosecutor of the Senate N.A. Butskovsky, Assistant Chief Prosecutor of the Senate K.P. Pobedonostsev, Moscow provincial prosecutor D. A. Rovinsky, officials of the State Chancellery A. P. Vilinbakhov and A. M. Plavsky. Bludov continued to be formally considered the leader of the work, but in reality he lost all influence. The choice of employees turned out to be successful. The officials involved in the work were relatively young, energetic, well educated people, interested in the assigned work and had a reformist attitude. The leader, the “soul of the matter,” was S.I. Zarudny, whom the participants in the events recognized as the person who made the greatest contribution to the creation of new Judicial Statutes. Zarudny, who knew four foreign languages, was a good expert in modern European legislation.

The State Chancellery worked quickly, and in January-March 1862, “Considerations” were drawn up, an extensive preliminary draft of judicial reform, covering issues of judicial system, civil and criminal proceedings. On April 9, 1862, Alexander II ordered that the “Considerations” be submitted for consideration to the United Departments of Law and the Civil State Council. The United Departments, devoting 16 meetings to the matter, made a huge decision (the journal of the decision consists of 370 pages), representing, in general, approval and further elaboration of the proposed reform. Conservative members of the State Council, who raised numerous objections (Count V.N. Panin, A.S. Norov, Prince Peter of Oldenburg), invariably found themselves in the minority. The resolution of the United Departments was then considered in 3 meetings by the General Assembly of the State Council and presented to Alexander II. On September 4, 1862, the Emperor ordered the development of new Judicial Statutes to begin, setting a completion date of January 15, 1863; On September 29, the emperor approved the “Basic provisions for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia” (an abbreviated summary of the project) and ordered the publication of this document. In October 1862, an active supporter of judicial reform, D.N. Zamyatnin, was appointed Minister of Justice, through whose efforts some humanization of substantive law was begun: in April 1863, the most cruel types of corporal punishment were abolished.

3 .3 Development and adoption of new Judicial statutes

The State Council formed a commission to develop new Judicial Statutes, which included all persons who had previously worked on bills. The commission was chaired by State Secretary V.P. Butkov, and in his absence by A.M. Plavsky. The commission was divided into three sections, the department of judicial system was headed by A. M. Plavsky, the department of criminal proceedings - N. A. Butskovsky, the department of civil proceedings - S. I. Zarudny. In total, the commission included 34 people. The development of legislation on legal proceedings in magistrates' courts was carried out by the II Department of the Own E.I.V. office.

In December 1864, the commission completed its work and submitted bills to the United Departments. The new Judicial Statutes consisted of four main laws: the Establishment of Judicial Places, the Charter of Criminal Proceedings, the Charter of Civil Proceedings, the Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace, and were accompanied by a number of technical norms defining the staffing of judicial institutions and transitional provisions in the process of their introduction. In March-July 1864, the bills were considered by the United Departments, which approved them practically without disagreement, and in September-October by the General Assembly of the State Council. On November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved new Judicial Charters. The imperial decree announced to the Senate: “Having examined these projects, we find that they are fully consistent with Our desire to establish in Russia a court that is quick, just, merciful and equal for all Our subjects, to elevate the judicial power, give it proper independence and generally establish it among Our people.” that respect for the law, without which public welfare is impossible.”

3 .4 Introduction of Judicial Statutes

When adopting the Judicial Statutes, the State Council spoke in favor of extending them to the entire empire within 4 years. In reality, the process dragged on for more than 25 years, and when the Charters were introduced in many places, significant deviations from their original ideas were made.

The first new courts were opened in 1866 in St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, Vladimir, Kaluga, Ryazan, Tver, Tula and Yaroslavl provinces. The opening of the first courts in the capitals in April 1866 was accompanied by a solemn ceremony with the participation of the Minister of Justice D.N. Zamyatnin, numerous honored guests and foreign diplomats. In 1868 new judicial system was extended in full to the Kharkov, Kursk, Oryol and Voronezh provinces, to the Transcaucasian region (Stavropol, Tiflis, Baku, Kutaisi, Erivan, Elisavetpol provinces), and in 1869 - to Bessarabian, Ekaterinoslav, Nizhny Novgorod, Poltava, Tauride and Kherson province In 1870-1871, new courts were fully introduced in the Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov, Penza, Tambov, Smolensk and Kostroma provinces, in the Don Army Region. In 1871, judicial institutions were introduced in the Perm province and in part of the Vologda province. In 1873, new judicial institutions were introduced in the Chernigov and Vyatka provinces, and in 1876 - in all 10 Privislensky provinces (Kingdom of Poland). In 1878, new judicial institutions were supposed to be introduced in 9 provinces Western region, but the process was stopped due to the Russian-Turkish War; in 1880, the reform was carried out only in the Kyiv, Podolsk and Volyn provinces. In 1879, new Judicial Statutes, also with exceptions, were extended to the Batumi and Kars regions. Thus, in the first 14 years, the new Judicial Statutes were extended, partially or completely, to 54 provinces and regions.

In 1883, new judicial institutions were introduced in the North-Western region (Vilna, Kovno, Grodno, Minsk, Mogilev and Vitebsk provinces), after which the process of introducing a new court was suspended, and resumed only 7 years later. In 1890, new judicial institutions, with significant changes, were introduced in the Baltic provinces (Livonia, Courland and Estland provinces). In 1894, Judicial statutes were introduced in full in the Olonets, Orenburg, Ufa and Astrakhan provinces. Thus, during the reign of Alexander III, the Judicial Charters were extended to another 13 provinces.

In 1896, new courts were opened in the Arkhangelsk province, and in 1897 (with significant changes) - in Siberia (Irkutsk, Yenisei, Tobolsk and Tomsk provinces, Transbaikal, Yakutsk, Amur, Kamchatka, Primorsk and Sakhalin region). In 1899, also with significant deviations, Judicial Statutes were introduced in Central Asia and in the northern part of the Vologda province, which completely completed the process of distribution of the Judicial Statutes of 1864.

When opening new courts, the Ministry of Justice had to solve a difficult personnel problem: people with a legal education, judicial experience and an impeccable reputation had to be appointed to the reformed courts. The first post-reform ministers of justice, D.N. Zamyatnin and Count K.N. Palen, made great efforts to properly select personnel; they personally traveled around the provinces and got acquainted with possible candidates. In general, in the first decade the new judicial system was completed the best personnel, transferred from provinces with old courts, and then lawyers with sufficient experience, who grew out of candidates for judicial positions, began to appear within the new courts. Personnel policy The ministry turned out to be extremely successful, the new judiciary from the first day was distinguished by competence, dedication and honesty.

Simultaneously with the beginning of the gradual opening of new courts, limited reforms were carried out in the remaining old courts, which were similar to the previous proposals of D. N. Bludov. In October 1865, Temporary Rules were adopted, which abolished clerical secrecy, gave defendants the right to be present when their cases were reported to the courts and to present objections, deprived governors of the right to overturn court decisions, shortened procedural deadlines, and canceled some of the procedures for transferring cases to higher authorities. The temporary and partial reform proved to be effective, and the rate at which cases were processed through the old judicial institutions increased markedly.

Chapter 4. Military reform

4.1 Military reform

The lessons of the Crimean War, which revealed the military-technical backwardness of the Russian army, showed that war machine Feudal Russia is clearly unable to resist the advanced armies of Western European states. A radical restructuring of the entire military system was necessary.

In 1861, 45-year-old General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin, brother of N.A., was appointed to the post of Minister of War. Milyutin, highly educated and military and statesman, known for his liberal views. The personnel choice of Alexander II turned out to be spoiled.

Dmitry Alekseevich rose to the rank of professor at the Academy of the General Staff. Wrote a number of major works on military history, among them " Italian campaign Suvorov." At the end of the 50s, he was appointed head of the Caucasian Army, participated in the development of the operation to capture Shamil, which served to end hostilities in this region. Having excellent theoretical training, the necessary combat experience and skills, and also possessing outstanding personal talents , D. A. Milyutin, like no one else, corresponded to the task set: to reorganize the military power of Russia.

Similar documents

Prerequisites and preparation for the reform February 19, 1864 Alexander II as a reformer. Prerequisites and reasons for the abolition of serfdom. Carrying out the reform and its features. Duties of temporarily obliged peasants and redemption operation. Results of the peasant reform.

course work, added 10/25/2014


Basic prerequisites and preparation for peasant reform. Legislative acts of the "Regulations" February 19, 1861. The right position of the peasants. Peasant public administration. Duties of temporarily obliged peasants. Results and main consequences of the reform.

test, added 11/09/2010


The crisis of the serfdom system, peasant unrest, which especially intensified during the Crimean War, are the main reasons for the peasant reform. The main provisions of the reforms. The size of allotments, the duties of temporarily obliged peasants, the release of domestic peasants.

abstract, added 12/01/2013


abstract, added 01/16/2014


Personality of Alexander II. Socio-political situation in the first years of the reign of Alexander II. Abolition of serfdom. The meaning of the abolition of serfdom. Zemstvo reform. Judicial reform. Military reform. Education and press reforms.

abstract, added 03/25/2004


Prerequisites for reforms. The state of the Russian economy by the middle of the 19th century. Financial transformations of Alexander II. Formation of the Secret Committee on the Peasant Question. Military reforms, introduction of all-class conscription. Results and assessments of the reforms of Alexander II.

abstract, added 04/01/2011


The origins of liberalism. The origin and development of liberalism in tsarist Russia. Reforms of Alexander II. Abolition of serfdom. Zemstvo and city reforms. Judicial and military reform. Reforms of the education system and censorship. Counter-reforms of the 80-90s.

abstract, added 11/23/2006


Getting to know the personality of Emperor Alexander II, his short biography. Bourgeois reforms 60-70 years of the XIX century, held in Russia. The historical significance of the abolition of serfdom, the significance of the peasant reform. Zemstvo, judicial and military reforms.

course work, added 07/13/2012


Introduction to children's and teenage years life of Alexander I. The story of his accession to the throne. Transformations of higher government bodies and the education sector. Carrying out ministerial and financial reform. Approval of the project for the liberation of peasants.

presentation, added 11/30/2010


Characteristics and prerequisites of judicial, zemstvo, university, financial, military, censorship reform, reform of public education in the second half of the 19th century. in the Russian Empire. The most significant changes in the state after the reforms.

It has come to a very difficult period for Russia. The defeat in the Crimean War revealed the military backwardness of Russia, and also pointed to one of the main reasons for the defeat - the serf couple. Awareness of this fact set the task of carrying out fundamental reforms. Primarily peasant.

In January, a secret committee was formed to discuss urgent measures to organize the life of the landowners. Already at the beginning of the next year, the secret committee was renamed the main one, and a year later a commission was created to review projects and draw up laws on the emancipation of peasants.

The atmosphere is of the highest elevation. All layers of Russian society were discussed. After a comprehensive discussion, in January 1861 the regulation on peasants was adopted. The State Council, where Alexander II spoke at the first meeting, indicated that further delay would be possible. detrimental to the state, calling for the adoption of this provision as soon as possible.

17 legislative acts were attached to the Regulations. Total number the number of serfs subject to emancipation numbered 22 million. According to the regulations, all peasants who were subject to serfdom:

1. Personal freedom was given
2. Peasant self-government was established during peasant gatherings led by volost elders. The peasant community was not touched.
3. According to their status, the peasants received an allotment of land and the right to dispose of the land they received as an allotment, as well as to assign duties to this community, incl. and recruitment, the right to leave. However, if personal independence was given immediately, then the transfer of land into ownership lasted for several decades. The peasants received the land not for ownership, but for use. To become an owner, you had to buy the land from the landowner. In addition, the peasants within two years should have serve the same duties for the landowner, but to a much lesser extent. The period for full payment was set at 49 years, and before the end of this period, if the peasant did not immediately pay, then they were in a temporarily obligated position and were considered temporarily obligated. The exact date for the end of this provision was not established. In December 1881 - the provision on the termination of temporary duty peasants; there remained 15% of them.

However, the government was well aware that the peasants did not have the means to pay for the ransom. Therefore, the state took upon itself the responsibility of redemption payments and paid most of the cost of the plots in cash or securities, and kept the rest to pay off debts or loans borrowed from landowners.

In turn, the peasants returned the amount paid by the state to the landowners within 49 years.

But there were also negative consequences.

This took into account natural and economic conditions. The entire territory of European Russia was divided into three stripes:

• Chernozemnaya
• Non-chernozem
• Stepnaya

There were no serfs in Siberia and the Caucasus!

In the first two, both the highest and lowest forms of land allotment were established, and in the steppe - the specified norm. If the norm was exceeded, then the law provided for their cut; if less, then an additional cut. As a result, after the reform, peasant allotment land ownership decreased by 1.5; on the contrary, the portions in favor of the landowner increased.

But despite this oppression, the landowners considered themselves disadvantaged, since they had lost their monopoly on the exploitation of free peasant labor and were forced to give the land to the peasants. Therefore, the landowners wrote letters of complaint to the tsar, which spoke of the ruin of the landowners' plots and the weakening of faith and strength in the tsar. The king did not react.

Local government reform. Zemstvo reform. Began in January 1864. According to this reform, local government bodies - zemstvos - were introduced. They were elected by all classes for a three-year term and consisted of administrative bodies - zemstvo assemblies and executive bodies - zemstvo councils. They were introduced gradually, and not throughout Russia. Where there was no landownership - Siberia, Arkhagelsk, Astrakhan, Poland, the Baltic states, the Caucasus. Central Asia and Kazakhstan - zemstvos were not introduced. Zemstvos dealt exclusively with local economic issues - cultural significance. Construction of schools, hospitals, churches, etc. Doctors and teachers were hired to serve the population.

Since the summer of 1870, the city self-government reform was called. Same principles. The body became the city council, elected for a term of 4 years. The executive body is the city government, headed by the mayor, who was both a representative of the Duma and the city council. The deputies were called vowels. From 100-250 people. The townspeople who owned the property. A property qualification was introduced. Competence was limited only to the framework of household and cultural activities.

Court reform. 1864 The court is all-class and public. Jurors, the bar, the notary were introduced, and to resolve issues related to minor offenses, a magistrate court was introduced, which was also elected at the zemstvo assembly. For political criminals - a special presence in the Senate.

Educational reform, mid-1860s. Graduate School.

1863 - new university charter. Widest autonomy. In particular, the university council received the right to independently resolve all scientific, educational and administrative issues. Including award academic degrees, the right to choose the rector, projector. The university received the right to freely issue books and newspapers without checking them at customs. The only limitation is that students create own organizations. All students were divided into self-kasht students - they paid fees and government-kasht students - all those who had difficulty paying - lived at the university and for its maintenance.

Konstantin Bestuzhev-Ryumin opened women's courses. New higher education institutions.

Secondary schools have also undergone reform. New regulations for gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums. According to the charter, gymnasiums were divided into two categories - real and classical. Classic - liberal arts education with compulsory study of classical languages, Greek and Latin. But in real gymnasiums the main emphasis was on mathematics and eating. Sciences. Pro-gymnasiums with 4 classes were also established, upon completion of which they immediately entered the 5th grade of the gymnasium.

New press regulations were adopted. All censorship was abolished for original works of 10 printed sheets, as well as for translated works of 20 printed sheets. The central press was also exempt from censorship at the discretion of the internal ministries. cases and with a publisher's pledge in the amount of 3-4 thousand rubles. For violation, either a fine or arrest.

This was the greatest gift to revolutionaries of all stripes and shades in Russia.

Military reforms 60-70 61-74. With the appointment of the famous liberal Miluten to the post of Minister of War, with the advent of the reform, cadet corps were transformed into military and cadet schools for the training of engineers, cavalrymen and artillerymen. A new charter on military service was established. All military forces Russian Empire divided into:

1. Regular army and navy
2. Irregular army - Cossacks
3. Reserve troops
4. Militia

But most importantly, a new army recruitment system was introduced. The old conscription system was abolished, the system of universal conscription. Service life - 15 years. However, the period of active service was 6 years for the land, and for the navy - 7 years, then in the reserve.

Wide system of benefits. Released due to family or property status, physical unfitness. All clergy were freed, as well as peoples Central Asia, Kazakhstan and some peoples of the Caucasus and the Far North.

Everyone on military service and those without education in the army were taught to read and write; for those who had education, their service life was shortened by two or three years.

At the same time, smooth-fired weapons began to be replaced by rifled weapons, the Berdan system, and the construction of a steam fleet.

Increased the combat effectiveness of the Russian army. Provided a number of brilliant victories for Russian weapons.

However, not all liberal reforms had a positive outcome. Thus, liberal reform in the field of press, education and local self-government threatened the very state structure of Russia.

For future Russia especially important had a university. The fate of Russia was tied to the fate of the university. As a means of education, the university served as an antidote against the dangerous hobbies of liberalism. Only the university was able to stop the powerful pressure of passion for innovation, which covered the entire social thought of the second half of the 19th century. Therefore, the university did not need any radical reforms; only minor adjustments to certain provisions of its charter were required.

However, the university received the right to issue journals without any inspection at customs. This led to an abundance of extremely dangerous liberal literature from the West.

In the same direction of disruption, the temporary rules on the press acted, granting it virtually complete freedom. Freedom of the press, especially the periodical press, which has mainly political significance, is necessary only where there is political life.

But in Russia at that time there was no political life in the form of parties or parliament. And if it does not exist, then freedom of the press, as a rule, leads to the moral and mental decay of society, i.e. The moral potential of society is falling.

Therefore, the press turned into an element that corrupted the moral substance of Russian society; it brought Russia not light, but darkness of reason and gave birth to the Chernyshevskys, Belinskys, Dobrolyubovs, Pisarevs and their numerous followers.

This is where liberal experiments with the press and the university brought particular danger. Youth, greedy for all innovations. The reform of local self-government is also a danger, since the reform degenerated zemstvo, city, and university self-government into arbitrariness hostile to the monarchy.

But, fearing to suppress someone's rights, the liberal state power gave in, as a result of which these self-government bodies became a kind of state within a state. Each of the lower classes strove for its own goals, alien to the state structure, demanding more and more concessions from the state, not allowing anyone to interfere in its own affairs, which were separated from the state power, and not allowing any supervision.

As a result, instead of a saving autocracy, a period of disastrous plurality of power began in the country.

The reforms of Alexander 2 also had a detrimental effect on the socio-economic development of the country, since they led to the abandonment of the policy of protectionism and the subordination of the Russian economy to the financial interests of European powers.

As a result, the country found itself with a deficit budget. Russia's dependence on foreign capital increased every year. But the main thing is that enormous damage was done to the very foundation of the state system. The final result of the reforms of Alexander II was the following: he was killed by the People's Volunteers. He was killed by his ideas, as his reforms led to the rise of the revolutionary movement.

In general, this time was included under the definition of “the time of great reforms”, which radically changed the face of the state.