The main provisions of the peasant reform. Reforms of public administration in Russia in the 18th century

The issue of land occupied a central place in the reform. The published law recognized the landowners' ownership of all the land on their estates, including the peasant allotment, and the peasants were declared only users of this land, obliged to serve for it the duties established by the "Regulations" (quitrent or corvee). To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

Even during the preparation of the reform, the principle of landless emancipation of peasants was clearly rejected. Complete dispossession of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the same income from the peasants, it would create a multimillion-dollar mass of landless peasantry and thereby could cause general peasant discontent up to the point of uprising. The government could not help but take into account the fact that the demand for land was the main one in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years.

But if complete dispossession of the peasants was impossible, then providing them with a sufficient amount of land, which would put the peasants in an independent position from the landowners, was unprofitable for them. Therefore, the developers of the law determined such norms of allotment that would tie the peasant economy to the landowner's through the inevitable lease of land from his former master. Hence, “cuts” from peasant plots were born, amounting to an average of over 20% in the country and reaching 30-40% of their pre-reform size in some provinces.

When determining the norms for peasant plots, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account. Based on this, the entire territory of European Russia was divided into three stripes - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the “strips” were in turn divided into “terrains” (29 in total). For each “locality”, based on the ratio of population density and soil quality, per capita allotment standards were established, that is, a plot of land for each soul, regardless of the number of actual workers. In the non-chernozem and chernozem “strips”, “higher” and “lower” (one-third of the “highest”) norms of allotments were established, and in the steppe - one, so-called “decree” norm. The law provided for a cut from the peasant plot in favor of the landowner if its pre-reform size exceeded the “higher” or “decree” norms, and an additional cut if it did not reach the “lower” norm. At that time, cut-offs for individual provinces were carried out for 40-65% of peasants, while cut-offs affected only 3-15% of peasants. At the same time, the size of the lands cut off from the allotment was tens of times greater than the size of the lands attached to the allotment. However, the increase turned out to be even beneficial to the landowner: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary to preserve the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties.

The difficulty of the sections for the peasants lay not only in their size. Of particular importance was what lands fell into the segment. Although it was forbidden by law to cut off arable land, it turned out that the peasants were deprived of the land they most needed, without which normal farming would have been impossible. The peasant was forced to rent these “cut-off lands.” Thus, in the hands of the landowners, the cut-offs turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and became the basis of the working-out system of managing the landowner's economy. Peasant land ownership was “constrained” not only by land plots, but also by striping, depriving peasants of forest land. Under serfdom, peasants' land use was not limited to the plots allocated to them. With the abolition of serfdom, peasants could use landowners' lands and forests for an additional fee. The law gave the landowner the right to transfer peasant land to another place, and before the peasants transferred to a ransom, exchange their allotments for their own land, if any minerals were discovered on the peasant allotment or this land turned out to be necessary for the landowner for his economic needs. Thus, the peasant, having received an allotment, did not yet become its full owner.

When switching to redemption, the peasant received the title of “peasant owner.” However, land was provided not to a separate peasant household (with the exception of peasants in the western provinces), but to the community. The communal form of land ownership excluded the peasant from the opportunity to sell his plot, and the lease of the latter was limited to the boundaries of the community.

To protect the interests of the small landed nobility, special “rules” established a number of benefits for them, which created even more difficult conditions for the peasants on these estates. Small estates were considered to be those who had less than 21 male souls. These owners were given the right not to allocate land to the peasants at all if they were not using it by the time serfdom was abolished. In addition, small-scale owners were not obliged to allocate land to peasants if their allotments were less than the “lowest” norm. If the peasants of small-scale owners did not receive allotments at all, then they were given the right to move to state-owned lands and receive benefits from the treasury to start a farm. Finally, the small estate owner could transfer the peasants with their field plots to the treasury, for which he received a reward in the amount of 17 annual quitrents, which he had previously collected from his peasants.

The most deprived were the “peasants - donors”, who received donative - “beggarly” plots. There were 461 thousand donors. male. According to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift. But peasants often found themselves in such conditions when they were forced to agree to a donative allotment and even demand it if their pre-reform allotment was close to the “lower” norm, and payments for the land exceeded its market value. Receiving a donation allotment freed him from high redemption payments; the donor completely broke with the landowner. But the peasant could switch to “donation” only with the consent of his landowner.

As a result, 10 million male souls of former landowner peasants received 33.7 acres of land, and the landowners retained land that was 2.5 times the size of the peasant allotment. 1.3 million male souls (all courtyard servants, some donors and peasant smallholders) actually found themselves landless. The allotment of the remaining peasants amounted to an average of 3.4 dessiatines per capita, while to ensure a normal standard of living, 6 to 8 dessiatines per capita were required.

The allocation of land to peasants was of a compulsory nature: the landowner was obliged to provide the plot to the peasant, and the peasant to take it. According to the law, until 1870, a peasant could not refuse an allotment. But even after this period, the right to refuse the allotment was surrounded by conditions that reduced it to nothing: he had to fully pay taxes and duties, including recruitment.

The “redemption provision” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was extremely difficult: it was necessary to pay rent to the landowner a year in advance, government, secular and other fees, to pay off arrears, etc. Moreover, it was mainly the poorest and most bankrupt who sought to buy back their plots, in order to then immediately resell them.

The issue of land occupied a central place in the reform. The law issued was based on the principle of recognizing landowners' ownership of all land on their estates, as well as peasant allotments. And the peasants were declared only users of this land. To become the owner of their allotment land, peasants had to buy it from the landowner.

Complete dispossession of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the same income from the peasants, it would create a multimillion-dollar mass of landless peasantry and thereby could cause general peasant discontent. The demand for land was the main one in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years.

The entire territory of European Russia was divided into 3 stripes - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the “strips” were divided into “terrains”.

In the non-chernozem and chernozem “strips”, “higher” and “lower” norms of allotments were established. In the steppe there is one - a “narrow” norm.

The peasants used the landowner's pastures for free and received permission to graze cattle in the landowner's forest, on the mown meadow and the landowner's harvested field. The peasant, having received an allotment, did not yet become a full owner.

The communal form of land ownership excluded the peasant from the opportunity to sell his plot.

Under serfdom, some of the wealthy peasants had

own purchased lands.

To protect the interests of the small landed nobility, special “rules” established a number of benefits for them, which created more difficult conditions for the peasants on these estates. The most deprived were the “peasants-gifts” who received gifts of gift – “beggarly” or “orphan” plots. According to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift. Receiving it freed him from redemption payments; the donor completely broke with the landowner. But the peasant could switch to “donation” only with the consent of his landowner.

Most of the deeds lost and found themselves in dire straits. In 1881, Minister of Internal Affairs N.P. Ignatiev wrote that the donors had reached extreme poverty.

The allocation of land to peasants was of a compulsory nature: the landowner had to provide the plot to the peasant, and the peasant had to take it. According to the law, until 1870, a peasant could not refuse an allotment.

The “redemption provision” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was very difficult. Figures of the reform of 1861 P.P. Semyonov noted: during the first 25 years, the purchase of individual plots of land and exit from the community was rare, but since the beginning of the 80s it has become a “common occurrence.”

Modern theory
Modern ideas about the origin of the Russian state include the following provisions. 1. Rurik is a real historical figure and he comes from the Varangians (Normans). 2. From the very beginning, the Old Russian state was formed in close cooperation with other peoples and states, which made it possible to talk about the presence...

The history of the appearance of alcohol in Rus'. The emergence of alcoholism in Rus'
The exact date of the appearance of distilleries in Rus' is unknown, but the most likely period can be considered the period from 1448-1478. Somewhere during this period of time, Russian distillation was created and the technology for distilling grain alcohol was invented. It is known that in 1478, bread wine was already so popular that a state monopoly was introduced...

Development of GC systems in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods
At the beginning of the 20s, the Soviet state made a transition to the NEP; the essence of this policy was a partial return to market mechanisms. A certain economic revival and some ordering of public life created the conditions for the revival of large cities and for the restoration of urban economic systems. For r...

TOPIC 19 Abolition of serfdom. Reforms 1863 -1874 PLAN

1. The historical need for the abolition of serfdom and the preparation of peasant reform.

3. Liberal reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX century: zemstvo, city, judicial, financial, public education, press. Military reform 1861 -1874, the role of D.A. Milyutin in its implementation.

4. The significance of the reforms of 1863 - 1874.

The historical need for the abolition of serfdom

and preparation of peasant reform.

By the middle of the 19th century. the preconditions that led to the collapse of the serfdom system had finally matured. First of all, it has outlived its usefulness economically. The landowner economy, based on the labor of serfs, fell increasingly into decline. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landowners.

Objectively, serfdom also hindered the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, the increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.

The need to abolish serfdom was also determined by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not help but influence the government's position.

The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods fell sharply. The new foreign policy situation that emerged after the Paris Peace indicated that Russia had lost its international authority and threatened the loss of influence in Europe.

Thus, the abolition of serfdom was determined by political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also determined the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs.

Preparations for the reform began immediately after the end of the Crimean War. In 1857, a Secret Committee was formed “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants,” which secretly began to develop a plan for the emancipation of the peasants. The Committee began to receive various projects. Thus, Polish and Lithuanian nobles asked to free peasants without land, Tver landowners offered to free peasants with land for a ransom.

In November 1857, Alexander II instructed the Vilna and St. Petersburg governors to establish provincial committees to prepare local projects for improving the life of landowner peasants. Thus, the reform began to be developed in an atmosphere of openness. All projects were submitted to the Main Committee, headed by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich.

In 1859, two so-called Editorial Commissions were created under the Main Committee to review materials prepared by provincial committees and to draw up a draft law on the emancipation of peasants. In fact, both commissions merged, retaining the plural name - “Editorial commissions”. The commission was headed by General Ya.I. Rostovtsev, who attracted liberal landowners and officials to the work - N.A. Milyutin, Yu.F. Samarin, N.P. Semenov. and others. In the summer of 1859, the draft “Regulations on Peasants” was prepared; later, at different stages of discussion, it underwent changes and clarifications.

When discussing the reform project, landowners put forward various proposals regarding the conditions for the liberation of peasants:

· large feudal landowners proposed to free the peasants, preserving the landlord's ownership of the land, and to allow the peasants to use the land for corvee and quitrents;

· middle-class nobles of the non-black soil zone offered to free the peasants with land, but for a huge ransom;

· the nobles of the black earth strip proposed to release the peasants only with small plots, in order to then force the peasants to rent land or work as farm laborers;

· liberal landowners proposed to free the peasants with land, that is, with arable plots, but leave the rest of the land with the landowners;

· democrats (Herzen A.I., Chernyshevsky N.G.) believed that it was necessary to free the peasants with land, without ransom, and Dobrolyubov N.A. actually called for a revolutionary solution to the land issue.

On February 19, 1861, in the State Council, Alexander II signed the “Regulations on Reform” (they included 17 legislative acts) and the “Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom.” These documents were published in print on March 5, 1861.

The “Regulations” of February 19, 1861 include 17 legislative acts: “General Regulations”, four “Local Regulations on the Land Organization of Peasants”, “Regulations” - “On Redemption”, “On the Organization of Household People”, “On Provincial Affairs for Peasant Affairs” institutions”, as well as “Rules” - “On the procedure for putting into force the Regulations”, “On peasants of small landowners”, “On people assigned to private mining factories”, etc. The effect of these legislative acts extended to 45 provinces, in which 100 428 landowners, there were 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand household servants and 543 thousand assigned to private factories.

The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over more than two decades. The peasants did not receive complete liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Provisions” were promulgated on February 19, 1861. The Manifesto announced that the peasants were obliged to were to serve, although in a slightly modified form, but in essence the same duties as under serfdom.

According to the Manifesto, peasants immediately received personal freedom. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of this act: the provision of “will” was the main requirement in the centuries-old history of the peasant movement.

Subsequent reforms in the field of court, local government, education, and military service expanded the rights of the peasantry: the peasant could be elected to the jury of new courts, to the bodies of zemstvo self-government, and he was given access to secondary and higher educational institutions. Of course, this did not completely remove the class inequality of the peasantry. It continued to remain the lowest, tax-paying class.

From the date of promulgation of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, it was envisaged to introduce “peasant public administration” in the villages of former landowner peasants within nine months. It was introduced during the summer of 1861.

Of great importance in implementing the peasant reform locally was the institution of peace intermediaries created in the summer of 1861, who were entrusted with numerous intermediary and administrative functions: verification, approval and introduction of statutory charters (which determined post-reform duties and land relations of peasants with landowners), certification redemption acts when peasants transfer to redemption, analysis of disputes between peasants and landowners, confirmation of village elders and volost elders in positions, supervision of peasant self-government bodies. Peace mediators were appointed by the Senate from local hereditary landowners on the proposal of the governors together with the provincial leaders of the nobility.

The issue of land occupied a central place in the reform. The law issued was based on the principle of recognizing landowners' ownership of all the land on their estates, including peasant allotments, and peasants were declared only users of this land, obliged to serve for it the duties established by the “Regulations” (quitrent or corvee). To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

Under serfdom, peasants' land use was not limited to the plots allocated to them. The peasants also used the landowner's pastures for free and received permission to graze cattle in the landowner's forest, on the mown meadow and the landowner's harvested field. With the abolition of serfdom, peasants could use these landowners' lands (as well as forests) for an additional fee.

The law gave the landowner the right to move peasant estates to another place, and before the peasants transferred to a ransom, exchange their allotments for their own land, if any minerals were discovered on the peasant allotment or this land turned out to be necessary for the landowner for his economic needs. Thus, the peasant, having received an allotment, did not yet become its full owner.

To protect the interests of the small landed nobility, special “rules” established a number of benefits for them, which created even more difficult conditions for the peasants on these estates. Small-scale owners were considered those who had less than 21 husbands. floor. There were 41 thousand of them, or 42% of the total number of local nobility.

Small-scale owners were also given the right not to allocate land to peasants at all if they were not using it by the time serfdom was abolished. In addition, small-scale owners were not obliged to allocate land to peasants if their allotments were less than the lowest standard. If the peasants of small-scale owners did not receive allotments at all, then they were given the right to move to state-owned lands and receive benefits from the treasury to start a farm.

Finally, the small estate owner could transfer the peasants with their field plots, for which he received a reward in the amount of 17 annual quitrents that he had previously collected from his peasants.

Receiving a donation allotment freed him from high redemption payments; the donor completely broke with the landowner. But the peasant could switch to “donation” only with the consent of his landowner. The desire to switch to “donation” was predominantly manifested in sparsely populated provinces with a lot of land and mainly in the first years of the reform, when market and rental prices for land were relatively low in these provinces.

The “Redemption Provision” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was extremely difficult: it was necessary to pay rent to the landowner a year in advance, government, secular and other fees, to pay off arrears, etc.

The law provided for the transfer of peasants to redemption, i.e. for the period of temporary obligatory state, they serve for the provided land duties in the form of corvee and quitrent. The sizes of both were fixed in law. If for corvee estates a single standard of corvée days was established (40 days for men and 30 for women for one per capita allotment), then for quitrents the size of the quitrent was determined depending on the fishing and trade “benefits” of the peasants. The law established the following standards for quitrent: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in estates located within 25 versts from St. Petersburg and Moscow, it increased to 12 rubles, and in the rest the quitrent was set at 8-9 rubles. husband from the heart floor. If the estate was close to a railway, a navigable river, or a commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the size of the quitrent.

According to the law, it was impossible to increase the size of quitrents above pre-reform levels if the land allotment did not increase. However, the law did not provide for a reduction in quitrent due to a reduction in the allotment. As a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrents per 1 dessiatine.

The discrepancy between the quitrent and the yield from the plot was aggravated by the so-called “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the rent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was distributed among the remaining tithes. The “gradation” system pursued the goal of establishing a maximum of duties for a minimum allotment. It also applied to corvée: half of the corvée days were served for the first tithe, a quarter for the second, and another quarter for the remaining tithes. 2/3 of corvée labor was served in the summer and 1/3 in the winter. The summer working day was 12, and the winter working day was 9 hours. At the same time, a “lesson system” was established, i.e. a certain amount of work (“lesson”) that the peasant was obliged to complete during the working day. However, due to the widespread poor performance of corvee work by peasants in the first years after the reform, corvée turned out to be so ineffective that landowners began to quickly transfer peasants to quitrent. In this regard, in a relatively short time (1861-1863) the proportion of corvee peasants decreased from 71 to 33%.

As noted above, the final stage of the peasant reform was the transfer of peasants to ransom, but the law of February 19, 1861 did not establish a final deadline for the completion of such a transfer.

The basis for the redemption was not the real, market price of the land, but feudal duties, i.e. the peasants had to pay not only for their plots, but also for their freedom - the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The size of the redemption for the allotment was determined by the so-called “capitalization of the quitrent.” Its essence was as follows. The annual rent was equal to 6% of capital (this is the percentage that was accrued annually on bank deposits).

The state took over the ransom business by conducting a buyout operation. For this purpose, in 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was established under the Ministry of Finance. The redemption operation consisted in the fact that the treasury immediately paid the landowners in money or securities interest-bearing papers 80% of the redemption amount if the peasants of the estate received the highest allotment according to the norm, and 75% if they were given an allotment less than the highest. The remaining 20-25% of the redemption amount (the so-called “additional payment”) was paid by the peasants directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments, in money or in labor (by mutual agreement). The redemption amount paid by the state to the landowner was considered as a “loan” provided to the peasants, which was then collected from them as a “redemption payment” in the amount of 6% of this “loan” annually for 49 years.

In general, the reform of 1861 created favorable conditions for a gradual transition from a feudal landowner economy to a capitalist one.

The value of canceling cr rights

The peasant reform of 1861, despite its inconsistency and contradictory nature, was ultimately the most important historical act of progressive significance. It became a turning point, the line between serf Russia and free enterprise Russia, creating the necessary conditions for the establishment of capitalism in the country. Compared to the serf era, the pace of economic development sharply increased, a new social structure characteristic of a capitalist country emerged: new social strata of the population were formed - the proletariat and the industrial bourgeoisie. The peasantry also changed. The dark, downtrodden, patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant who had worked in the city, seen a lot and learned a lot. In the conditions of relatively rapid economic development of Russia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. and the rise of culture, a significant layer of people of intellectual work was formed in various fields of science and technology, literature and art, school and medicine.

The abolition of serfdom and the implementation of reforms in the courts, education, the press, in the field of finance, military affairs, and the implementation of a number of government measures for the industrial development of the country ensured Russia's strong position among the largest world powers.

Liberal reforms of the 60s and 70s. XIX c.: zemstvo, city, judicial, financial, public education, press. Military reform 1861-1874, the role of Milyutin D.A. in its implementation.

Establishment of zemstvos . The abolition of serfdom made it possible to involve all segments of the population in solving local problems. At the same time, when establishing new governing bodies, the government could not help but take into account the sentiments of the nobles, many of whom were dissatisfied with the abolition of serfdom.

On January 1, 1864, an imperial decree introduced the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions,” which provided for the creation of elected zemstvos in districts and provinces. Only men enjoyed the right to vote in the elections of these bodies. Voters were divided into three curia (categories): landowners, urban voters and elected from peasant societies. Owners of at least 200 dessiatines of land or other real estate worth at least 15 thousand rubles, as well as owners of industrial and commercial enterprises generating income of at least 6 thousand rubles per year could be voters in the landowner curia. Small landowners, uniting, nominated only authorized representatives for elections.

The voters of the city curia were merchants, owners of enterprises or trading establishments with an annual turnover of at least six thousand rubles, as well as owners of real estate worth from 600 rubles (in small towns) to 3.6 thousand rubles (in large cities).

Elections for the peasant curia were multi-stage: first, village assemblies elected representatives to volost assemblies. At volost assemblies, electors were first elected, who then nominated representatives to county government bodies. Representatives from peasants to provincial self-government bodies were elected at district assemblies.

Zemstvo institutions were divided into administrative and executive. The administrative bodies - zemstvo assemblies - consisted of members of all classes. In both districts and provinces, councilors were elected for a term of three years. Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils, which also worked for three years. The range of issues that were resolved by zemstvo institutions was limited to local affairs: the construction and maintenance of schools, hospitals, the development of local trade and industry, etc. The governor monitored the legality of their activities. The material basis for the existence of zemstvos was a special tax that was levied on real estate: land, houses, factories and commercial establishments.

Despite the fact that representatives of the nobility predominated in the zemstvos, their activities were aimed at improving the situation of the broad masses.

Zemstvo reform was not carried out in the Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, in Siberia, in Central Asia - where noble land ownership was absent or insignificant. Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Right Bank Ukraine, and the Caucasus also did not receive local government bodies, since there were few Russians among the landowners there.

Self-government in cities. In 1870, following the example of the zemstvo, an urban reform was carried out. She introduced all-class self-government bodies - city councils elected for four years. Voters of the Duma elected permanent executive bodies - city councils - for the same term, as well as the city mayor, who was the head of both the Duma and the council.

The right to elect members of the new governing bodies was given to men who had reached the age of 25 and paid city taxes. All voters, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid to the city, were divided into three curiae. The first was a small group of the largest owners of real estate, industrial and commercial enterprises, who paid 1/3 of all taxes to the city treasury. The second curia included smaller taxpayers, contributing another 1/3 of city taxes. The third curia consisted of all other taxpayers. Moreover, each of them elected an equal number of members to the city duma, which ensured the predominance of large property owners in it.

The activities of city government were controlled by the state. The mayor was approved by the governor or the minister of internal affairs. These same officials could impose a ban on any decision of the city council. To control the activities of city self-government, a special body was created in each province - the provincial presence for city affairs.

Despite all its limitations, the urban reform of the emancipation of Russian society, like the zemstvo reform, contributed to the involvement of broad sections of the population in solving management issues. This served as a prerequisite for the formation of civil society and the rule of law in Russia.

Judicial reform

An important step in a number of liberal reforms was judicial reform. On November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved judicial statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. Elected jurors took part in the trial and determined the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The punishment was determined by the judge and his two assistants - members of the court. The highest court of cassation was the Senate. For the analysis of minor offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles. In counties and cities, a magistrate's court was established with simplified proceedings (orality and publicity).

The chairmen and members of the court were approved by the emperor, justices of the peace - by the Senate, as a result of which they were not subject to either administrative dismissal or temporary removal from office. Judges could be removed from office only if they were brought to criminal liability by court decision.

The judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of sworn attorneys, the bar and the institution of judicial investigators - officials of the judicial department, to whom the conduct of preliminary investigations in criminal cases was transferred from the police. All members of the court, judicial investigators and sworn attorneys were required to have a higher legal education, and lawyers, in addition, had five years of experience in judicial practice. Supervision over the legality of the actions of the judiciary was carried out by prosecutors directly subordinate to the Minister of Justice.

The judicial reform was the most consistent, although it retained the features of class (ecclesiastical court, special court for senior officials). The reform was carried out at a time when the liberal movement was in decline, and the reactionary “party” in the highest spheres was gaining increasing influence and making attempts to curtail the reform. In 1872, laws were passed that limited the publicity of court hearings and their coverage in the press. The law of 1878 transferred political cases from jury trials to military courts.

In the 80s political reaction attempts were made to curtail the judicial reform: the magistrate court was abolished (restored in 1912) and a special government body was established - “special meetings” “to find measures to better protect peace and security in the empire”, i.e. for administrative decisions in political cases.

Financial reforms.

Carrying out in the 60s of the 19th century. A series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing financial affairs and affected mainly the financial management apparatus. Decree of 1860 The State Bank was established, which replaced the previous credit institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, preserving the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the preferential right to lend to commercial and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law 1862 established a new procedure for drawing up estimates by individual departments. The Minister of Finance became the sole responsible manager of all income and expenses. From the same time, a list of income and expenses began to be publicly published.

In 1864 state control was transformed. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers, independent of governors and other departments. The control chambers monthly checked the income and expenses of all local institutions. Since 1868 Annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control, began to be published.

The tax farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but into the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still fell on the tax-paying population. The poll tax was retained for peasants, townspeople, and artisans. The privileged classes were exempt from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for over 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of expenses in the state budget went to maintaining the army and administrative apparatus, up to 35% - to paying interest on public debts, issuing subsidies, etc. Expenditures on public education, medicine, and charity amounted to less than 1/10 of the state budget.

3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.

Reforms of government, court and army logically required a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the gymnasium” and “Regulations on public schools that regulated primary and secondary education” were approved. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real. They accepted children of all classes who could pay the tuition fees. In the 70s The beginning of higher education for women was laid.

In 1865, “Temporary Rules” on the press were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books aimed at the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also maintained. Since the late 60s. The government began to issue decrees that largely negated the main provisions of education reform and censorship.

Military reforms. Liberal reforms in society, the government's desire to overcome backwardness in the military field, and also to reduce military spending necessitated radical reforms in the army. They were carried out under the leadership of Minister of War D. A. Milyutin... In 1863-1864. reform of military educational institutions began. General education was separated from special education: future officers received general education in military gymnasiums, and professional training in military schools. Mostly children of nobles studied in these educational institutions. For people who did not have a secondary education, cadet schools were created, where representatives of all classes were accepted. In 1868, military gymnasiums were created to replenish the cadet schools.

In 1867 the Military Law Academy was opened, in 1877 the Naval Academy. Instead of conscription, all-class military service was introduced. According to the charter approved on January 1, 1874, persons of all classes from the age of 20 (later from the age of 21) were subject to conscription. The total service life for the ground forces was set at 15 years, of which 6 years were active service, 9 years were in reserve. In the navy - 10 years: 7 - active, 3 - in reserve. For persons who received an education, the period of active service was reduced from 4 years (for those who graduated from primary schools) to 6 months (for those who received higher education).

The only sons and the only breadwinners of the family were exempt from service, as well as those conscripts whose older brother was serving or had already served his term of active service. Those exempt from conscription were enlisted in the militia, which was formed only during the war. Not subject to conscription were clergy of all faiths, representatives of some religious sects and organizations, peoples of the North, Central Asia, and some residents of the Caucasus and Siberia. In the army, corporal punishment was abolished, punishment with canes was retained only for penal prisoners, food was improved, barracks were re-equipped, and literacy training for soldiers was introduced. The army and navy were being rearmed: smooth-bore weapons were replaced by rifled ones, the replacement of cast iron and bronze guns with steel ones began; Rapid-firing rifles by the American inventor Berdan were adopted. The combat training system has changed. A number of new regulations, instructions, and training manuals were published, which set the task of teaching soldiers only what was necessary in war, significantly reducing the time for combat training.

As a result of the reforms, Russia received a massive army that met the requirements of the time. The combat effectiveness of the troops has increased significantly. The transition to universal military service was a serious blow to the class organization of society.

The significance of the reforms of 1863-1874.

The reforms of the 50-70s of the 19th century, starting with the abolition of serfdom, marked significant changes in the political system of Russia. The general course of Russia's socio-economic development has created an urgent need for reforms, which in turn gave impetus to the rapid growth of the country's economy and culture. However, the bourgeois reforms of the 60s and 70s were not consistent and incomplete. Along with bourgeois principles in the new local government bodies, the judicial system, public education, etc. At the same time, the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and actually preserved the unequal position of the tax-paying classes. The concessions made primarily to the big bourgeoisie did not in the least violate the privileges of the nobility. New local government bodies, schools and press were subordinated to the tsarist administration. The contradictory policies of Emperor Alexander II combined both reformism and reactionary tendencies. The latter openly declared themselves after the assassination attempt on Alexander II by D.V. Karakozov. in 1866. These trends slowed down the progress of reforms and in some cases distorted their nature. While carrying out reforms, the autocracy at the same time applied old administrative and police methods of management and supported class in all spheres of the country's socio-political life. This created the conditions for a series of “counter-reforms” during the reign of Alexander III.

Began in the second half of the 17th century. The transformations found their logical conclusion in the reign of Peter I (son of Alexei Mikhailovich).

Peter was proclaimed king in 1682 g., but in reality there was a so-called “triple rule”, i.e. together with his brother Ivan and Princess Sophia, who concentrated all power in her hands. Peter and his mother lived in the villages of Preobrazhenskoye, Kolomenskoye, and Semenovskoye near Moscow.

IN 1689 Mr. Peter, with the support of many boyars, nobles and even the Moscow Patriarch, deprived Sophia of power, imprisoning her in a monastery. Until 1696 (until his death) Ivan remained a “ceremonial king,” i.e. formally shared power with Peter.

Since the 90s of the 17th century. A new era begins, associated with the transformations of Peter I, which affected all aspects of the life of Russian society. As ardent admirers of Peter figuratively noted, in fact, the 18th century began earlier than the grandiose fireworks display arranged in Moscow on January 1, 1700 on the occasion of the new century.

Military reforms

The reforms of Peter I were guided by the conditions of his time. This king did not know peace, he fought all his life: first with his sister Sophia, then with Turkey, Sweden. Not only to defeat the enemy, but also to take a worthy place in the world, Peter I began his reforms. The starting point for the reforms was Azov campaigns (1695-1696).

In 1695, Russian troops besieged Azov (a Turkish fortress at the mouth of the Don), but due to a lack of weapons and the absence of a fleet, Azov was not captured. Realizing this, Peter, with his characteristic energy, set about building a fleet. It was decided to organize Kumpanstvos, which would be engaged in the construction of ships. The United Kumpanstvo, which consisted of merchants and townspeople, was obliged to build 14 ships; Admiralty - 16 ships; one ship is an obligation for every 10 thousand landowner peasants and 8 thousand monastery peasants. The fleet was built on the Voronezh River at its confluence with the Don. In 1696, Russian naval forces won their first victory - Azov was taken. The following year, Peter sent the so-called Great Embassy of 250 people to Europe. Among its members, under the name of the sergeant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, Pyotr Mikhailov, was the Tsar himself. The embassy visited Holland, England, Vienna. As he believed, the idea of a trip abroad (Grand Embassy) arose from Peter I as a result of the ongoing transformations. The king went to Europe for knowledge and experience in 1697-1698. Researcher A.G. Brickner, on the contrary, believed that it was after his trip to Europe that Peter I developed a reform plan.

In the summer of 1698, the trip was interrupted due to a report received about a mutiny of the archers. The Tsar took personal part in the executions, Sophia was tonsured a nun. The Streltsy army was to be disbanded. The Tsar began to reorganize the army and continued the construction of the fleet. It is interesting to note that in addition to providing general leadership, Peter was directly involved in the creation of the fleet. The tsar himself, without the help of foreign specialists, built the 58-gun ship "Predestination" ("God's Foresight"). Back in 1694, during a sea voyage organized by the Tsar, the Russian white-blue-red flag was raised for the first time.

With the outbreak of the war with Sweden, the construction of a fleet began in the Baltic. By 1725, the Baltic fleet consisted of 32 battleships armed with 50 to 96 cannons each, 16 frigates, 85 galleys and many other smaller ships. The total number of Russian military sailors was about 30 thousand. Peter personally compiled Marine charter, where it was written “Only that sovereign has both hands who has both a land army and a fleet.”

Peter I chose a new principle for recruiting the army: recruitment kits. From 1699 to 1725 53 recruitments were carried out, giving the army and navy more than 280 thousand people. Recruits underwent military training and received government-issued weapons and uniforms. “Willing people” from free peasants were also recruited into the army with a salary of 11 rubles a year.

Already in 1699, Peter formed, in addition to two guards regiments - Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky - 29 infantry and 2 dragoons. By the end of his reign, the total number of the Russian army was 318 thousand people.

Peter strictly obliged all nobles to perform military service, starting with the rank of soldier. In 1716 it was published Military regulations, which regulated order in the army in war and peacetime. Officer training was carried out in two military schools - Bombardier (artillery) and Preobrazhenskaya (infantry). Subsequently, Peter opened naval, engineering, medical and other military schools, which allowed him, at the end of his reign, to completely refuse to invite foreign officers to Russian service.

Public Administration Reform

Of all the transformations of Peter I, the central place is occupied by the reform of public administration, the reorganization of all its links.

The main goal of this period was to provide a solution to the most important problem - victory in. Already in the first years of the war, it became clear that the old state management mechanism, the main elements of which were orders and districts, did not meet the growing needs of the autocracy. This manifested itself in a shortage of money, provisions, and various supplies for the army and navy. Peter hoped to radically solve this problem with the help of regional reform- creation of new administrative entities - provinces, uniting several districts. IN 1708 g. was formed 8 provinces: Moscow, Ingermanland (St. Petersburg), Kiev, Smolensk, Arkhangelsk, Kazan, Azov, Siberian.

The main goal of this reform was to provide the army with everything it needed: a direct connection was established between the provinces and the army regiments, which were distributed among the provinces. Communication was carried out through a specially created institution of Kriegskomissars (the so-called military commissars).

An extensive hierarchical network of bureaucratic institutions with a large staff of officials was created locally. The former “order - district” system was doubled: “order (or office) - province - province - district.”

IN 1711 Senate was created. Autocracy, which strengthened significantly in the second half of the 17th century, no longer needed the institutions of representation and self-government.

At the beginning of the 18th century. Meetings of the Boyar Duma actually cease, management of the central and local state apparatus passes to the so-called “Concilia of Ministers” - a temporary council of heads of the most important government departments.

Particularly important was the reform of the Senate, which occupied a key position in Peter’s state system. The Senate concentrated judicial, administrative and legislative functions, was in charge of colleges and provinces, and appointed and approved officials. The unofficial head of the Senate, consisting of the first dignitaries, was prosecutor general, endowed with special powers and subordinate only to the monarch. The creation of the post of prosecutor general laid the foundation for an entire institution of the prosecutor's office, the model for which was the French administrative experience.

IN 1718 - 1721. The system of command administration of the country was transformed. Was established 10 boards, each of which was in charge of a strictly defined industry. For example, the Collegium of Foreign Affairs - with foreign relations, the Military Collegium - with the ground armed forces, the Admiralty Collegium - with the fleet, the Chamber Collegium - with revenue collection, the State Office Collegium - with state expenses, and the Commerce Collegium - with trade.

Church reform

Became a kind of collegium Synod, or Spiritual College, established in 1721 The destruction of the patriarchate reflected the desire of Peter I to eliminate the “princely” system of church power, unthinkable under the autocracy of Peter’s time. By declaring himself the de facto head of the church, Peter destroyed its autonomy. Moreover, he made extensive use of church institutions to carry out his policies.

Monitoring the activities of the Synod was entrusted to a special government official - chief prosecutor.

Social politics

Social policy was pro-noble and serfdom in nature. Decree of 1714 on unified inheritance established the same procedure for inheritance of immovable estates, without distinction between estates and estates. The merger of two forms of feudal land ownership - patrimonial and local - completed the process of consolidation of the feudal class into a single class - estate nobles and strengthened its dominant position (often, in the Polish manner, the nobility was called the gentry).

To force the nobles to think about service as the main source of well-being, they introduced primogeniture- prohibited the sale and mortgage of land holdings, including ancestral ones. The new principle reflected in Table of ranks 1722. strengthened the nobility due to the influx of people from other classes. Using the principle of personal service and strictly specified conditions for promotion up the ladder of ranks, Peter turned the mass of servicemen into a military-bureaucratic corps, completely subordinate to him and dependent only on him. The table of ranks divided the military, civil and court services. All positions were divided into 14 ranks. An official who reached the eighth grade (collegiate assessor) or an officer received hereditary nobility.

Urban reform

The reform in relation to city residents was significant. Peter decided to unify the social structure of the city, introducing Western European institutions into it: magistrates, guilds and guilds. These institutions, which had deep roots in the history of the development of the Western European medieval city, were brought into Russian reality by force, through administrative means. The chief magistrate supervised the magistrates of other cities.

The townspeople's population was divided into two guilds: the first was made up of the “first-class”, which included the upper classes of the settlement, rich merchants, artisans, townspeople of intelligent professions, and second the guild included small shopkeepers and artisans, who, in addition, were united in workshops on a professional basis. All other townspeople who were not included in the guilds were subject to verification in order to identify runaway peasants among them and return them to their previous places of residence.

Tax reform

The war absorbed 90% of government expenditures; peasants and townspeople bore numerous duties. In 1718 - 1724 A capitation census of the male population was conducted. Landowners and monasteries were ordered to submit “tales” (information) about their peasants. The government instructed guards officers to conduct an audit of the submitted statements. Since then, censuses began to be called audits, and the “soul” became the unit of taxation instead of the peasant household. The entire male population had to pay capitation tax.

Development of industry and trade

As a result of the transformations of Peter I, manufacturing began to actively develop and industry was created. By the end of the 17th century. There were about 30 manufactories in the country. During the years of Peter the Great's rule there were more than 100 of them. A movement begins towards overcoming the technical and economic backwardness of Russia. Large industries are growing in the country, especially metallurgy (in the Urals), textiles and leather (in the center of the country), new industries are emerging: shipbuilding (St. Petersburg, Voronezh, Arkhangelsk), glass and earthenware, paper production (St. Petersburg, Moscow).

Russian industry was created under conditions of serfdom. Worked in factories sessional(bought by breeders) and attributed(who paid taxes to the state not with money, but with work at the factory) peasants. Russian manufacturing was actually like a serf fiefdom.

The development of industrial and handicraft production contributed to the development of trade. The country was in the process of creating an all-Russian market. In order to encourage the merchants, the first trade tariff was introduced in 1724, taxing the export of Russian goods abroad.