Lecture plan:

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

2. Political system in the second half of the 19th century.

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

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

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

1. State reforms in the Russian Empire (second half of the 19th century). On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II approved the main normative acts of the peasant reform: (1) Manifesto on the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants, and on the arrangement of their life; (2) General provisions on peasants who emerged from serfdom; ( 3) Regulations on the redemption by peasants who emerged from serfdom of their estate settlement; (4) Rules on the procedure for putting into effect the Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom. In accordance with these legislative acts, local regulations were also adopted. The main ideas of all these acts were that the peasants received personal freedom and, before the conclusion of a redemption deal with the landowner, the land passed into their use. The liberation of the peasants had to go through two stages. The first stage of the reform. Since the publication of the Manifesto, the peasants have received personal freedom. The landowners lost the right to interfere in the private life of the peasants, could not resettle them in other areas, and even more so could not sell them. The landowners retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who emerged from serfdom. For two years from the moment of liberation, the former serfdom was essentially preserved, the peasants were transferred to temporarily liable a state with some restrictions on the disposal of land and with the obligation to bear some feudal duties in favor of the landowners for the right to use the land - corvée and dues (although their sizes were reduced), small natural requisitions (eggs, butter, etc.) were not canceled . The allocation of land was carried out by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasant: the landowner could not give a land plot less than the lower norm established by the local regulation, the peasant could not demand an allotment more than the maximum norm provided for in the same provision. All land in 34 provinces was divided into three categories: non-chernozem , chernozem and steppe. Each category was divided into several areas, taking into account the quality of the soil, the population, the level of commercial, industrial and transport development. For each locality, their own norms for land allotments were established: for non-chernozem and chernozem - the highest and lowest; on the steppe one - "indicated" (the size of the field plots ranged from 1 to 12 acres). These provisions were specified in charter letters, which indicated what kind of land the peasants received. Statutory charters were drawn up by landlords or mediators (the latter were appointed from the noble landlords by the Senate on the proposal of the governors). Only males were allocated land. In the country as a whole, the peasants received less land than they had before. The peasants were not only disadvantaged in the size of the land; they, as a rule, received plots that were inconvenient for processing, since the most best land remained with the landowners. In addition, since the peasants, being in a temporarily obligated state, were not the owners of their allotments, but only users, a number of additional rights were assigned to the landowners. So, the landowner could demand a forced exchange of peasant allotments if minerals were discovered on their territory or the landowner was going to build any structures. The liberated peasants were subject to general civil laws: (1) the peasants received the right to enter into obligations and contracts with private individuals and the treasury, acquiring movable and immovable property in their ownership; (2) peasants received the right to engage in trade, open enterprises, join guilds, enter the service, leave their place of residence; (3) peasants could apply to the court, having received equal rights with others procedural rights by estates. Initially, the period of stay in a temporarily obligated state was not established, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, about 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed from the mandatory transition to redemption within two years. Within this period, redemption transactions should have been concluded or the right to land should have been lost. In 1883, the category of temporarily liable persons disappeared, thereby actually completing the transition to the next stage of the peasant reform. The second stage of the reform. At this stage, the peasant had to become the owner. To do this, he had to redeem the estate and field lands (the user of which he was from the moment he received the allotment). To ensure the reality of the redemption of land, the government organized the so-called redemption operation. It paid the redemption sum for the peasants, thus providing the peasants with a loan. This loan had to be repaid over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan (this capitalized 6% quitrent was equal to the pre-reform annual income of the landowner). Thus, the redemption amount was based not on the actual value of the land, but on the amount of dues that the landowner received before the reform (the redemption operation was based not on capitalist, but on feudal criteria). The redemption price significantly (1.5 times) exceeded the actual value earth. In fact, the value of the land of peasant plots was estimated at 544 million rubles, taking into account annual 6%, this amount was 867 million rubles, but taking into account the growth in interest, the peasants actually paid an amount almost four times the actual value of the land - until 1907, the peasants paid 1540 million rubles. Not without reason, for most peasants, redemption payments stretched until 1905-1907, when the government canceled the redemption for land. Consequently, the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal release. The redemption agreement between the landowner and the peasant (or community) was approved by the government , after which the peasant received property rights to the land, but he became the full owner only after the payment of all redemption payments. As part of the peasant reform, measures were taken to ensure its implementation. So, for lending to the reform, the Peasant and Noble banks were formed. And the police and fiscal apparatus were instructed to ensure the timeliness of the return of the loans received from the state by the peasants. The peasant community was preserved, which in most regions became the subject of ownership of the redeemed land. The community bound its members with a mutual guarantee - it was possible to leave it only by paying half of the remaining debt, and with a guarantee that the community would pay the other half (the community was used to extort ransom payments), etc. The peasants received during the reform of 1861 in an average of 4.8 tithes per male, or 14.4 tithes per household. According to economist Yu.E. Janson, the subsistence minimum for a peasant family in the 1870s was 10-11 acres per yard. Thus, in general, the received land was enough. The main problems of the Russian village by the beginning of the 20th century. was rapid demographic growth (in 1858-1914, the peasant population increased by 2.2 times and, accordingly, the average per capita allotment decreased by the same amount). According to French historians, "despite all the restrictions, the Russian reform turned out to be infinitely more generous than a similar reform in neighboring countries, Prussia and Austria, where the serfs were given completely bare freedom, without the slightest piece of land." In 1863 and 1866. The reform was extended to appanage and state peasants. Specific peasants received land on more favorable terms than landowners. The state peasants retained all the land that they used before the reform. On the national outskirts, the liberation took place in accordance with special rules. So, in Poland, peasants received land on more favorable terms. The reform provided for organization of peasant self-government (community). Rural and volost community gatherings, a volost court were created. Peasant public self-government functioned under the control of police authorities. In general, the peasant reform was of a bourgeois nature and contributed to the development of capitalist relations in Russia: (1) the reform was carried out largely in the interests of the government, this manifested itself in the order calculation of redemption payments, and in the procedure of the redemption operation, and in the growth of the size of redemption payments, etc.; (2) the allotments of the former landlord peasants decreased compared to pre-reform ones; (3) payments (compared to the old dues) increased; (4 ) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and reservoirs; (5) courtyard people were freed without land; (6) in addition to redemption payments for land, peasants paid a poll tax to the state, as well as local and state taxes and fees; the rural society was responsible for the correctness of the payments of its members and could apply coercive measures to faulty payers: taking away income from real estate, giving it to work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor’s movable and immovable property, taking away part or all of the allotment. The attitude of the peasants to the reform is best expressed by the official statistics of peasant unrest, of which 1860 were registered during 1861. Zemstvo and city reforms. Land reform. The pre-reform system of local government had such characteristic features as (1) representation and protection of the interests of the noble-landlord class; (2) the predominance of the principles of bureaucracy and centralism in the activities of these bodies, disregard for local conditions and local interests; (3) the lack of separation of administrative, judicial and economic powers. Therefore, the implementation of the peasant reform required an urgent restructuring of the local government system. There is an opinion that in the course of this reform, the government sought to create the necessary conditions for the creation of all-estate zemstvo organizations. In March 1863, a specially created commission prepared the final drafts of the regulation on zemstvo institutions and temporary rules for them. According to these projects, zemstvo institutions were considered as local and public bodies dealing exclusively with local economic issues and local interests, but without their own executive bodies and passing their decisions through the police and bureaucratic apparatus of the state. However, the creation of zemstvo institutions was hampered by the actions of the nobility, who disagreed with the government to concentrate all local power in the hands of the bureaucratic bodies. So, in 1859, the police power in the county was handed over to the county zemstvo presence, consisting of a police officer, a nobleman and two rural assessors. The management of the entire city and county police was concentrated at the police officer in the county administration. Thus, the government was forced to leave the future zemstvo institutions only a narrow range of local economic issues. On January 1, 1864, it was approved “ Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions". In accordance with it, counties and provinces created zemstvo meetings, whose members were elected by three electoral curiae. First of all, elected county zemstvo assemblies. At the same time, the following curia were created: (1) the curia of county landowners - included noble landowners (to participate in elections they needed to own land of a certain size, from 200 to 800 acres in some areas); large merchants and industrialists who had enterprises in the county worth at least 15 thousand rubles. or with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles. per year; (2) urban curia - suffrage was given to urban residents who had merchant certificates, owners of commercial and industrial enterprises within the city with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of real estate in the amount of 500 rubles. up to 3 thousand rubles (depending on the size of the city); (3) rural (peasant) curia - all peasant householders had the right to vote (without a property qualification), but a three-stage election system was introduced. Since an approximately equal number of vowels were elected from each curia, the peasants always turned out to be in the minority. At the very first elections in 29 provinces, vowel district zemstvo assemblies were 42% from nobles, 38% from peasants. provincial zemstvo assemblies. The distribution of the number of vowels among the curias here turned out to be even more in favor of the propertied classes: in the same 29 provinces, the nobles received 74% of the vowels, the peasants - 11%. The provincial and district zemstvo assemblies elected their executive bodies for three years - zemstvo councils consisting of a chairman and two members. The chairman of the county council was approved in office by the governor, the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of the interior. The competence of the zemstvo institutions included: "national food"; (4) charity events, mutual zemstvo insurance of property; (5) care for the development of local trade and industry; (6) sanitary measures, participation in economic relations in the field of health and education. Zemstvos became the political school through which many representatives of the liberal-democratic trend went. True, we should not forget about the contribution made by the zemstvos to the development of the local economy, the health care system and public education. Performance increase people's labor in Russia forced to seek and introduce new labor technologies. This circumstance significantly raised the importance of professional knowledge, made a competent worker in demand. In the context of the modernization of the country, zemstvo institutions formed an interest in literacy, brought the learning process closer to the everyday life of the city and village. In addition, the problems of lending and peasant land shortages, already within the considered chronological framework, attracted the attention of zemstvos, since, according to the majority of vowels, they were inextricably linked with any other area of ​​economic activity in post-reform Russia, and were the specifics of the traditional and national economic way of life. urban reform. The further development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of the city reform. On June 16, 1870, the emperor approved “ City position”, according to which city self-government bodies were created, elected by the population (regardless of class affiliation) for a period of four years. The following were created as city self-government bodies: (1) town electoral meetings(Meeted once every four years to elect members of the City Duma; included all voters); (2) city ​​councils- administrative bodies of city self-government; (3) city ​​councils- executive bodies. The same person was the chairman of the city duma and the city government - mayor. The mayor of the county town, elected by the councilors of the city duma, was approved by the governor, the provincial city - by the minister of internal affairs (this manifested the dependence of city governments on the government administration). Vowels in the city duma could only be elected by payers of city taxes. In general, the voters were: (1) citizens of Russia who have reached the age of 25, own property, etc., who do not have arrears in city taxes; (2) appointed representatives of departments, institutions, societies, companies, partnerships, churches and monasteries that own real estate in cities. Depending on the property status, all voters were divided into three curia. Each of the curia had an equal number of votes, electing 1/3 of the vowels to the city duma. The first curia included the largest taxpayers, the second - the middle ones, and the third - smaller owners. The first two curiae had 2/3 of the vowels, although they accounted for only 13% of the total number of voters. In the councils and councils, a clear predominance of representatives of the richest strata of the city was ensured. The poor were practically deprived of voting rights. The bodies of urban self-government were mainly entrusted with the care and disposal of the urban economy and the improvement of cities . Judicial reform. The pre-reform court was built on the principle of class, its activities were complex and confusing. However, it did not require destruction, it could be brought into line with the time and tasks of the authorities. National justice was divided into three main categories: (1) county courts; (2) provincial judicial chambers for criminal and civil cases; (3) Governing Senate. The first instance for petty criminal and civil cases was county courts. For townspeople (not nobles) there was a special court - city ​​magistrate. Trade claims were dealt with in commercial courts . There were special courts for the clergy (headed by the Synod), as well as courts of various departments - military, naval, etc. The decisions of county and city courts were allowed to appeal to the provincial criminal or civil chamber. These chambers could also, on their own initiative, revise the decisions of lower courts. In some important cases, these chambers were the court of first instance. The highest appellate court in most cases was the Senate. But in the event of disagreement in the Senate, the case was considered in the Council of State. In cases of major dignitaries, the Senate was the court of first instance. Temporary special judicial bodies were created to try political, "state criminals". The preliminary investigation was in the hands of the police or special officials. It was conducted for a long time, often with gross violation of laws. The documents of the police investigation were often the only material on which the court decision was made. In a large category of cases classified as minor, judicial functions belonged to the police: they were given the right to punish the guilty. Judicial proceedings were of a bureaucratic, clerical nature. Cases were considered without the participation of the parties behind closed doors. According to the secretary's note, setting out the essence of the case, the judges made decisions. All proofs were divided into perfect and imperfect. The best evidence of guilt was considered the consciousness of the defendant, which was called the "queen of evidence." Evidence could be search data, documents, concurring testimonies of several "reliable" witnesses, and the testimonies of men were given more weight than the testimonies of women. Preference was given to the testimony of the noble over the humble, the rich over the poor, the clergy over the secular. The testimonies of "gentiles" against the Orthodox were not taken into account. Only clear evidence was needed to convict. In the absence of "reliable" evidence, despite the totality of circumstantial evidence, the defendant could not be convicted and was left by the court "in suspicion" or "in strong suspicion." Many years of judicial red tape was a common practice. The clerical nature of legal proceedings, the requirement for various certificates led to the fact that cases, even in the court of first instance, were considered for years. Even according to the law, more than three years were allotted for consideration of a criminal case with an appeal only in the next instance. The decisions of the criminal chambers were approved by the governor. The ranks of the III Branch could freely interfere in the affairs of the courts. According to most lawyers and historians, the judicial system could be modernized, however, it did not meet the interests of the bourgeoisie, which was gaining strength, so the judicial reform of 1864 introduced a new judicial system and legal proceedings in the country, built mainly on the principles of bourgeois law. True, it must be remembered that in some regions of Russia the reform was not carried out at all (for example, in certain provinces of Siberia), and in some regions it was carried out in a truncated form (without world courts and without district courts with juries). On November 20, 1864, the main normative acts of judicial reform were approved: (1) Establishment of judicial institutions; (2) the Statute of Criminal Procedure; (3) Statute of Civil Procedure; (4) The Statute on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace. According to these normative acts, the judicial power of the landowners over the peasants was abolished, the role of estate courts was reduced (ecclesiastical courts remained), judicial activity was separated from administrative and legislative. In fact, two independent judicial systems were created in the country - the system of world courts and the system of general courts. world courts. Judicial reform introduced institute of elected magistrates. The magistrate single-handedly considered cases on charges of crimes, for which one of the following punishments could be determined: reprimand, reprimand, suggestion, monetary penalty in the amount of not more than 300 rubles, arrest for a term of not more than three months, imprisonment for a term up to one year. In the sphere of civil relations, justices of the peace had jurisdiction over disputes under contracts worth up to 300 rubles; cases related to compensation for damage in the amount of not more than 500 rubles; lawsuits for insults and insults, etc. A candidate for justice of the peace could be a resident of the area, having a certain property qualification: possession of a land plot in the amount of at least 400 acres (the specific amount of land ownership was established separately for each county) or other real estate in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles. (in rural areas), at least 3 thousand rubles. (in cities), not less than 6 thousand rubles. (in the capitals). It also required the presence of a certain education. Justices of the peace were elected for three years by vowels of zemstvo assemblies and city dumas, after which they were approved by the Senate. Each magistrate exercised judicial power in a certain territory - a section. A certain number of plots was world district. In addition to district justices of the peace, the same procedure and for the same term were elected honorary magistrates. Persons who agreed to be honorary magistrates did not receive a salary and performed judicial duties periodically. Usually these were large landowners, retired officials and the military. Honorary justices of the peace had all the rights of a district judge. Their competence included the trial of cases within the entire world district in the event that both interested parties preferred to turn to this honorary judge, and not to the district judge. They also replaced a district judge who was on vacation or fell ill. The magistrate was obliged to accept petitions in any place, and sometimes to sort out cases where they arose. He conducted the proceedings orally and decided the question of guilt or innocence alone "by inner conviction." The parties had the right to resort to the help of attorneys. Decisions of the justice of the peace on guilt and punishment were considered final if the sentence on monetary punishment did not exceed 15 rubles, and the arrest did not exceed three days. According to the final decisions, only cassation protests and cassation appeals were allowed, filed in the case when the parties considered that the procedural forms of legal proceedings were violated during the consideration of the case in court. The second instance - appeal and cassation - in the system of world courts was congress of magistrates, which included all district and honorary judges of the district. They elected a chairman from among their members for a term of three years. The meetings of the congress took place at the dates appointed by the zemstvo assemblies or city dumas. According to the final decisions of the justices of the peace, the congress considered only cassation protests and complaints. According to non-final decisions, the congress accepted appeals for review of the case on the merits. One of the associate prosecutors of the district court took part in the meeting of the congress of justices of the peace, who gave opinions on the cases under consideration. The decisions of the congress were final and could only be overruled by the Senate on appeal. General court system. According to the Judicial Statutes of 1864, criminal and civil cases that were not under the jurisdiction of justices of the peace were considered in district courts(in 1865-1866 two judicial districts were created - St. Petersburg and Moscow, the rest were created before the end of the century). Judicial districts did not always coincide with the administrative division: in some provinces there were several district courts (as a rule, one judicial district included several counties). The district court consisted of the chairman, his associates (their number depended on the category of the court) and members of the court ( crown court). The district courts were divided into divisions, headed by comrades of the chairman. The associations of these departments constituted the general meeting. Crown judges were appointed by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice from among persons with a higher legal education and at least three years of work experience in law enforcement agencies. Members of the district court could not be transferred from one city to another without their consent. The removal of a judge from office was allowed only by a court decision in the event that the judge committed a criminal offense (the principle of the irremovability of judges). At the district courts established forensic investigators. They had judicial titles, were members of district courts. They were subject to the rule of irremovability. They were assigned to certain areas. Later, positions of investigators for major and especially important cases were established at some courts. The first, at the direction of the court or the prosecutor's office, investigated criminal cases throughout the territory of the district court, in which the investigator was a member; the latter conducted investigations on the territory of the entire Russian Empire at the direction of the Minister of Justice. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the indictment chamber of the judicial chamber, with the participation of the prosecutor, brought the accused to trial. Formally, the judicial investigator was not subordinate to the prosecutor, but in fact he was dependent on him. The prosecutor led the investigation, he gave instructions to the investigator, and gave a conclusion on whether the investigation had been completed sufficiently. Cases in district courts were heard by jurors or without them. Jurors were involved in the consideration of such cases, in which punishment was provided, connected with the restriction or deprivation of the rights of the state. The restriction of the rights of the state was expressed: (1) in the deprivation of certain personal rights and advantages: for the nobles, this meant a prohibition to be in state or public service; for persons of clergy - deprivation of clergy; (2) in the deprivation of all special rights and advantages: meant, in addition to the above restrictions, the loss of the nobility, the deprivation of honorary titles, ranks and distinctions; (3) as well as in the deprivation of marital and parental rights and property rights. The jury had to decide whether the defendant was guilty, and if found guilty, also the question of whether the defendant deserved leniency in determining the measure of punishment, which was appointed by the crown judges in accordance with the law. Jurors could be Russian citizens of all classes, who had a certain property qualification and were not in the service of private individuals (that is, not be servants or hired workers). All persons who had the right to be jurors were included in the so-called general lists. Special commissions appointed by district zemstvo assemblies prepared the next list from the general list. The choice was made on the principle of reliability. The trial in the district court was public, conducted orally and proceeded according to the principle of competition of the parties. The verdicts of the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final. They could be appealed in cassation to the Senate. But there was one exception: if the judges of the district court unanimously recognized that the jury convicted the innocent, then the case was transferred to a new jury, whose decision was considered final. The jury trial was the crowning achievement of the Judicial Reform of 1864. On the basis of the judicial charters of 1864, in cases decided by the district court without the participation of jurors, an appeal to the second instance was allowed - judicial chamber. One judicial chamber was established for several provinces (by 1914, 14 judicial chambers had been formed). The Chamber was divided into departments(criminal and civil), which consisted of a chairman and members. The appeal decisions of the chambers were considered final and could be canceled by the Senate only on cassation complaints and protests. The Judicial Chamber was also the court of first instance in relation to such categories of cases as (1) in cases of malfeasance of high-ranking officials, chairmen and members of county zemstvo councils and assemblies, jurors of a given judicial district; (2) in cases of state crimes. These cases were dealt with without jurors, but with the participation of class representatives: from the nobility - the provincial and one of the county leaders of the nobility, from the townspeople - the mayors of provincial cities, from the peasants - volost foremen. The highest judicial body was Senate with two cassation departments - for criminal and civil cases. The Senate oversaw the activities of all judicial institutions and acted as the highest court of cassation on the final verdicts of congresses of justices of the peace, district courts with the participation of jurors and judicial chambers. In cases of malfeasance decided in the judicial chamber, the Senate considered appeals, and in cases of high officials it was the court of first instance. Prosecutor's Office and Advocacy. As part of the judicial department, the prosecutor's office was established at the district courts and judicial chambers, but it was not subordinate to the judicial administration. Internally, its structure was based on the principles of strict centralization and subordination of lower prosecutorial ranks to higher ones. At the head of the prosecutor's office was the Minister of Justice, who was also the Prosecutor General; all subordinate prosecutors were subordinate to him. The rule of irremovability did not apply to officials of prosecutorial supervision. Fellow prosecutors of district courts were appointed by the Minister of Justice on the proposal of the prosecutors of the judicial chambers, prosecutors of district courts, fellow prosecutors of the judicial chambers, comrades of the chief prosecutors of the Senate - by decree of the tsar on the proposal of the Minister of Justice, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and chief prosecutors of the Senate - by a special "nominal imperial decree" . The competence of the prosecutor's office included: the initiation of criminal cases, supervision of the bodies of preliminary investigation and inquiry, the maintenance of charges in court, the issuance of cassation opinions, supervision of the execution of the sentence, the places of detention, the activities of administrative bodies, etc. Special functions were performed by two chief prosecutors of the Senate and their comrades, who gave opinions on the legality and validity of the cassation protests received by the Senate. To carry out defense in criminal cases and conduct civil cases in courts, a advocacy. Lawyers (called sworn attorneys) were united by a council elected at a general meeting (if there were at least 20 sworn attorneys in the district). The Council was endowed with administrative and disciplinary power. The administrative functions of the Council were reduced to admission to the bar. Attorneys at law could be persons with a higher legal education, five years of work experience in the judiciary or the same length of service as an assistant to a sworn attorney who had reached the age of 25. Persons deprived of or restricted in their rights, previously excluded from the jury, women, foreign nationals could not be enrolled in the bar. Also, the council was entrusted with control over the activities of sworn attorneys and their assistants, and the examination of complaints received against them. The Council also considered materials on disciplinary offenses of sworn attorneys. His decisions on cautions and reprimands were final, and such decisions as temporary or permanent prohibition to act as an attorney could be appealed to the Trial Chamber. The important powers of the Council also included the appointment of defenders to persons who enjoyed the so-called "right of poverty" (that is, persons who are unable to pay for the services of a lawyer in court). In those judicial districts that did not have 20 sworn attorneys, the functions of the Council were assigned to the local district court. Along with sworn attorneys, there were assistants to sworn attorneys who underwent a 5-year internship under the guidance of the most experienced lawyers. In the legislation, this institution has not received a clear regulation. The practice has followed the path of presenting the same requirements to assistants of sworn attorneys as to sworn attorneys. With a shortage of sworn attorneys, the interests of the litigants could be represented private attorneys. They could be persons without a legal education, elected participants in the process and received special permission from the court to conduct civil or criminal cases. A system was created in provincial and district cities notary offices. The task of the notary was to certify various business papers. military reform. The implementation of the military reform is associated with the name YES. Milyutin, who became Minister of War in 1861. In the course of the military reform, four main stages can be distinguished. On the first stage(1864) a system of military districts was introduced: 15 districts covering the entire territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the recruitment and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief chief of the district, who was also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. The military district had: a military council under the commander, a district headquarters, a quartermaster department, an artillery department, an engineering department, a military medical department, an inspector of military hospitals. second stage(1867), a military judicial reform was carried out, which reflected some of the provisions of the judicial charters of 1864. A three-tier system of military courts was created: regimental courts, military district courts, the main military court (the highest cassation and supervisory instances). Regimental courts were established at each separate military unit from combat officers consisting of a chairman (appointed for one year) and two members (appointed for six months). The cases of lower ranks were subject to consideration by the regimental courts only within the limits close to the competence of the justice of the peace courts. Regimental courts heard cases orally and, as a rule, behind closed doors. The verdict was submitted for approval by the regiment commander, who could reduce the punishment to two degrees or, if he disagreed with the verdict, send it to the military district court. The defendants were not allowed to appeal against the verdict approved by the regiment commander. Military District Courts consisted of permanent and temporary members: permanent (chairman and military judges) were appointed from the ranks of the military judicial department, temporary - from combat officers (for four months). The verdicts of the military district courts were considered final and subject to appeal only on cassation to the Main Military Court. Preliminary investigation was carried out either by judicial (for ordinary crimes) or military investigators (for military crimes). The prosecution in the military courts was supported by the military prosecutor's office. Candidates for military judicial posts or officers seconded to the court were appointed to defend the defendants; for ordinary crimes, sworn attorneys could also be appointed, or the defendants themselves chose their own defense lawyers (although neither representatives of the prosecution nor representatives of the defense were allowed in the regimental courts). Accordingly, in the navy, the military judicial bodies were: crew courts, naval courts and the Main Naval Court. In the same year, 1867, the Military Judicial Charter (for the land army) and the Naval Judicial Charter (for the navy) were published. On the third stage(1860s) the cadet corps (in which only the children of the nobility studied for seven years) were abolished, and a wide network of military educational institutions was created for the training of officers, including military gymnasiums, military and cadet schools. Already in May 1863, three military schools were established: the 1st Pavlovsky, the 2nd Konstantinovsky (in St. Petersburg) and the 3rd Alexandrovsky (in Moscow). The cadets of the senior classes of the former cadet corps were automatically transferred to them. By 1867, four more military schools were formed - the Nikolaev Cavalry, Mikhailovskoe Artillery, Nikolaev Engineering (all in St. Petersburg) and the Orenburg School (for service in the troops of the Siberian districts). In the artillery and engineering military schools there was a three-year course of study, in the rest - a two-year course. The right to enter military schools had young men who had reached the age of 16 and belonged to "classes not obligated to recruit duty." Preference was given to graduates of military gymnasiums. The task of these schools was to train the elite of the officer corps (therefore, their staff was small, and they recruited mainly representatives of the nobility). By 1914, 13 military schools, three cavalry schools, two Cossack schools, four artillery schools, two engineering schools, and a military topographic school were established. The bulk of the officers were to be trained cadet schools. According to the “Regulations on the cadet schools”, approved by the tsar on March 16, 1868, the course of the cadet schools was designed for two years, but unlike the course of military schools, it was more applied in nature. The cadet schools were given wide access to all segments of the population (there required less general education). Since 1869, the right to enter the cadet schools was granted to persons promoted to non-commissioned officers from soldiers called up during recruitment; True, long periods of service were established for them. Already in 1864-1867. 13 cadet schools were formed (in 1873 their number reached 16). In 1910, the cadet schools were renamed into military schools, although they retained their rules for the admission and graduation of junkers. In addition, until 1917, the Page Corps, the Nikolaev Military (until 1909 - the General Staff), the Mikhailovskaya Artillery, Nikolaev Engineering, Alexander Military Law and Quartermaster Academies were engaged in the training and retraining of officers (only officers, served several years in the ranks). But main(fourth)stage military reform was directly related to the transition from recruitment to universal conscription. The recruiting system made it necessary to keep a huge mass of people under arms even in peacetime. At the same time, not all the male population of the country underwent military training, which deprived the army of a reserve in case of war. Initially, the term of service for recruits was reduced from 25 years to 15 years. On January 1, 1874, the Charter on military service was approved, according to which (1) recruitment sets were canceled; (2) compulsory military service was established for all males, regardless of class, who had reached the age of 21 (of these persons were called up for active service by lot ; those who did not get into the permanent troops were enrolled in the militia); (3) the total service life in the ground forces was set at 15 years (in the navy - 12 years), of which active service took six years (in the navy - seven years), the remaining years - it was service in the reserve; (4) for persons with higher education, the term of active service was six months, for persons with secondary education - 1.5 years, for persons with primary education- four years; (5) many non-Russian peoples, especially the eastern ones, were exempted from active service.

2.State system in the second half of the XIX century. The changes in the state mechanism that took place during the era of reforms were a step towards the transformation of the absolutist monarchy into a bourgeois one. The development of the Russian state in the second half of the XIX century. relatively speaking, two stages passed: the stage of bourgeois reforms of the 1860s-1870s and the stage of counter-reforms of the 1880s-1890s. In 1861, a new supreme body was created - the Council of Ministers, whose chairman was considered the emperor. The Council of Ministers was entrusted with the consideration of the most important state issues. It was an advisory body, despite its rather representative composition (ministers, heads of main departments, chairman of the Committee of Ministers, chairman of the State Council, and other senior officials). The Committee of Ministers was preserved, but it considered mainly current affairs. Under Alexander III, the Committee of Ministers became the main deliberative body. At this time (especially during the reign of Alexander III), the importance of the State Council began to weaken, whose members were appointed for life and sometimes behaved relatively independently. The Senate continued to remain the highest judicial and supervisory body. The Imperial Chancellery ( SEIV) ceased to exercise law enforcement functions at the beginning of 1880, after its III Division became part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Division IV was transformed into an independent institution in charge of charitable institutions (1880), and Division II was abolished (1882). After the Peasant Reform In 1861, the role of the Ministry of Finance was strengthened - it was entrusted with carrying out redemption operations throughout the country. In this regard, a special Main Redemption Institution was created within the Ministry of Finance. Since Russia embarked on the path of capitalist development, it was necessary to strengthen the activities of government bodies to manage industry and trade. There was a need to encourage the development of private capital. Therefore, the Department of Trade and Manufactories was formed in the apparatus of the Ministry of Finance. He led the state-owned industry, and also provided financial assistance to private industry. Due to the lack of funds for the construction of railways, the government encouraged the activities of the bourgeoisie to participate in railway construction. In 1865, the Ministry of Railways was formed, which began to coordinate the construction of railways. Later, railways began to be built at the expense of state funds. At the beginning of the first stage, the III Branch of the Tsar's Chancellery continued to function. In 1862, an Investigative Commission for the dissemination of revolutionary appeals was formed as its subsidiary body. In 1866, after Dmitry Karakozov's assassination attempt on Alexander II, a Department for the Protection of Order and Public Peace was created under the St. Petersburg mayor (in 1883, such departments were formed in almost all major cities). The main task of such departments, commonly referred to as "security" ones, was to fight with the help of secret agents against underground revolutionary organizations. In the 1870s, the main task of the III Department was to conduct inquiries into the affairs of populists. But it clearly could not cope with this task, and therefore it became necessary to restructure the entire system of organizing bodies involved in political and state security. In February 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection of State Order and Public Peace was created, headed by General M.T. . Loris-Melikov. He was in favor of a firm dictatorship in the fight against the revolutionary movement, but he believed that too harsh measures could damage tsarism. The Supreme Commission temporarily subordinated the III Division and the corps of gendarmes, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, governors-general, and the military department. The commission conducted an investigation into cases of political crimes in St. Petersburg and its environs. In addition, she supervised such cases throughout the country. Its main task was to unite all punitive organs to fight the revolutionary movement. At the end of 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission was abolished. In July 1880, the III Branch was abolished, and the functions of political investigation were transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were significantly expanded. In 1861, a Zemsky department was created as part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the land management and management of the peasantry of post-reform Russia. In 1865, the Main Directorate for Press Affairs was created in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was in charge of censorship, which was previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. In 1879, the prison reform was carried out, as a result of which the Main Prison Department was formed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs as the highest controlling and administrative body, whose competence included the central management of the penitentiary system. Restraint and workhouses, debtor's prisons were liquidated; large prisons with central subordination began to be created (centrals, for example, Aleksandrovsky central near Irkutsk). With the liquidation of Section III, political prisons (for example, Peter-Pavel's Fortress) came under the jurisdiction of the Main Prison Directorate. The number of hard labor prisons began to grow. As part of the Main Prison Department, the Prison Inspectorate was established, which was supposed to exercise control over places of detention; on the ground, these functions were carried out by provincial prison inspectorates, which included officials from the Main Prison Department, the judicial department and the prosecutor's office). In December 1895, the places of detention were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice (respectively, the Main Prison Directorate was transferred to the system of justice bodies). On August 6, 1880, the State Police Department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (from February 18, 1883 to March 10, 1917. - Police Department) headed by a director appointed by order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In contact with him, the Separate Corps of Gendarmes operated, which entered the Ministry of Internal Affairs (the Minister of the Interior became the chief of the gendarmes). The gendarme districts were abolished. In each province, a provincial gendarmerie administration appeared. In order to maintain order at the railways and stations, police gendarmerie administrations on the railways were formed in 1861. By the decree of Emperor Alexander II of December 25, 1862, the “Temporary rules on the general structure of the police in cities and districts of the provinces, according to the General Establishment of the Ruled. In accordance with this normative act, the police reform of 1862 was carried out, which introduced important changes in the organization of the local police. The police departments of provincial cities retained their independence. In the cities, police agencies were headed by mayors (in large cities) and police chiefs. They had special offices, which were in charge of police matters. Cities were divided into parts or districts and districts, headed by district bailiffs and district guards. maintaining order in in public places in order to increase the number of rural police officers, on June 9, 1878, the “Temporary regulation on police officers in 46 provinces, according to the General Institution of the Managed” was adopted, according to which: (1) 5,000 posts of police officers were introduced (in September In 1879, an additional 550 positions of officers were introduced), distributed by the governors of 46 provinces by counties; (2) the police officers were subordinate to the bailiffs, leading, in turn, to the sot and ten. long time there were no special units involved in the search for criminals. Only on December 31, 1866, the first special unit appeared in St. Petersburg - a special detective unit under the office of the chief police chief.

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

3. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. State regulated rate. The reforms carried out by Alexander II gave rise to a movement towards a constitution, that is, a transition to a constitutional monarchy in Russia. It was this process that led to the appearance of the plan of the Minister of the Interior, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, called the Constitution of Loris-Melikov. The essence of this plan was as follows. On January 22, 1881, Loris-Melikov submitted to Alexander II a report on the formation of two temporary preparatory commissions (financial and administrative) to develop a project for the transformation of the State Council and provincial administration, revision of zemstvo and city regulations, as well as bills on certain economic and financial issues. The final recommendations were supposed to be accepted by a certain General Commission. But on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by the Narodnaya Volya. On March 8, 1881, an expanded meeting of the Council of Ministers was held in the Winter Palace for a new discussion of the Loris-Melikov plan. Having criticized all the reforms of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev concluded: “And now, sir, they are offering you a new supreme talking shop based on a foreign model.” Pobedonostsev recalled that one such "talking shop", namely the French General States, which were convened by Louis XVI as an advisory and class body, first declared themselves on June 17, 1789, the National Assembly, and on July 9, 1789 - the Constituent Assembly (that is, higher legislature France). After this speech, K.P. The Pobedonostsev meeting of the Council of Ministers proposed that a new commission be formed to revise the Loris-Melikov plan. But this Commission was never convened. In Russia, a period began that is still characterized as counter-reforms. Sources indicate that, in essence, the government has reached a dead end with pro-Western flirtations and transformations. Especially, the most pro-Western of all reforms - the judiciary - demonstrated the inconsistency with the traditionalist foundations of the legislative law of absolutism. The liberal-democratic principles of the organization and activities of the court were in conflict with the autocratic system and the social way of life of the peoples of the country. Trial chambers with liberal representatives sometimes acquitted defendants in cases harmful to the state and society. An example is the case of the Nechaevs, when out of 78 brought to trial, 42 were released. The defendants turned the court into an arena of struggle against state power, traditional values ​​and foundations of the people's faith. Vera Zasulich's attempt (in January 1878) on the life of the St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov. V. Zasulich's acquittal by the jury was perceived by the liberal part of society as a condemnation of the authorities. The Zasulich case also played a role in the growth of terrorist tendencies in the populist movement. During 1878-1879. terrorist acts followed one after another. The most notorious of them were the assassination by S. M. Kravchinsky in August 1878 of the chief of the gendarmes Mezentsev and the attempt by A. K. Solovyov on Alexander II in April 1879. From these actions, even in liberal circles, the desire to carry out a tough reaction towards the abolition of the independence of the court, the irremovability of judges and the publicity of the process. There were also proposals to abolish jury trials. So the undermining of the main provisions of the judicial statutes was reflected in the law of May 19, 1871, which transferred to the ranks of the corps of gendarmes an inquiry into cases of political crimes. The materials collected by the gendarmes were handed over to the Minister of Justice, who could send them to the court, or could apply administrative measures (a note to Article 1 of the Charter of Criminal Procedure granted the administrative authorities the right to apply "administrative", that is, extrajudicial, measures. In accordance with the law of June 7, 1872 d. the consideration of cases of the most important state crimes was transferred to the Special Presence of the Governing Senate. It considered cases in the composition of the first present (chairman), five senators and four estate representatives. Lists of class representatives were prepared by the Minister of the Interior and the Governor of St. Petersburg, and represented by the Minister of Justice. Members of the court and class representatives were appointed annually by decrees of the king. Consideration of criminal cases by the Special Presence was carried out, as a rule, with significant restrictions on publicity. In accordance with the Law of May 9, 1878 “On the Temporary Change of the Jurisdiction and Procedure for Proceedings in Certain Crimes”, by a special decree of the king, some political cases were to be considered in a special order in the Supreme Criminal Court, which was created each time for a specific case by a special decree king. Since 1874, cases on the organization of "illegal societies" and participation in them began to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the general courts; since 1878 - cases of opposition or resistance to the authorities and attempts on officials. These cases were tried by military courts. In 1881, the Regulations on measures to protect state order and public peace were adopted. , according to which a Special Meeting was established in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, endowed with the right to exile under the administrative supervision of the police or exile from a certain area for up to five years in an administrative manner (that is, without trial or investigation). If necessary, in certain localities or throughout the entire empire, a regime of enhanced or emergency protection could be introduced, in which the governors-general acquired broad powers.

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

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

In the localities, the landowners sought the abolition of the magistrates' courts, striving to return, at least in part, the former, traditional way of life to the countryside. They demanded guardianship of the peasant self-government and protection of the activities of the volost courts. And in 1889, the Regulations on Zemstvo district chiefs came into effect. In the districts (with the exception of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa), world courts were abolished; instead of magistrates, the institution of zemstvo chiefs was introduced, which could only be persons who were hereditary nobles with a high property qualification, higher education or who have held the position of conciliator or justice of the peace for several years. Zemstvo chiefs considered some of the cases that were previously under the jurisdiction of magistrates, and also exercised control over rural and volost bodies of peasant self-government, led the police, supervised the volost courts (zemstvo chiefs selected candidates for volost courts, carried out audits, fined and arrested volost judges).

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

In 1890, the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions were revised - the procedure for choosing zemstvos was changed:
the first curia began to include only hereditary and personal nobles, and for them the property qualification was reduced; in the second (city) curia, the property qualification was raised; in the third (peasant) curia, the peasants elected only candidates for district zemstvo assemblies, from among whom the governor appointed vowels.

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

In 1892, a new city regulation came into force, according to which clerks and small merchants were deprived of the right to elect to city dumas; the number of citizens who had voting rights decreased significantly (six to eight times) compared with 1870; the number of vowel city dumas has been halved; the dominant position in the bodies of city self-government was occupied by the owners of city real estate; mayors and members of councils were considered to be in the public service (the governor gave them orders and instructions).

Starting from 1881, detective departments began to form in Moscow, Kyiv, Riga, Odessa, Baku, etc. But in most cities and in all districts of Russia, detective police were not created, and the fight against criminal crime was still carried out there by units of the general police.

In connection with the rapid growth of the urban population and the layer of industrial workers (in the conditions of the industrial boom of 1893-1900), on February 1, 1899, the Law “On Strengthening the Police Composition in the Areas of Industrial Establishments” was adopted, in accordance with which a factory police.

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

In 1895, the Law "On Passports and Residence Permits" was adopted.

4. Development of law in the second half of the XIX century. The main sources of law in the second half of the 19th century were the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (its 2nd and 3rd editions were published) and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (the 16th volume appeared). In the post-reform period, a large number of various legislative and departmental acts were issued, in which detailed regulation of relations was given. But, despite the multitude of laws, at the indicated time, they could not always be observed and executed in accordance with their exact meaning. Civil law. After the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, the scope of civil law expanded. Peasants became active participants in civil relations. In the norms of civil law, much attention was paid to the regulation of various relations related to the further development of industry and trade. Industrial and commercial charters appeared that regulated the legal status of private enterprises. In the law of obligations, the principle of contractual freedom was entrenched. This made it possible to intensify the exploitation of the working people through the conclusion of enslaving deals (for example, between landowners and peasants). The freedom of the contract of employment led to extremely cruel exploitation of workers in capitalist enterprises: the interests of entrepreneurs were not limited by anything; workers, concluding enslaving contracts, had to work up to 18 hours a day. The development of industry and the growth of the labor movement contributed to the adoption of a number of legislative acts regulating labor and wages for workers. Thus, a special branch of law began to form - labor law (it was understood as the intervention of state power in the relationship between the employer and the hired person in order to protect and protect the weakest side - the workers), which included the laws of June 1, 1882, June 3, 1885, April 24, 1890, and June 2, 1897 . The main areas of state intervention in labor relations between a capitalist entrepreneur and workers are: protection of the rights of workers to ensure their work and earnings; work insurance (providing disabled persons); development of the right of unions and meetings (coalition law). The main provisions of labor legislation in the field of labor protection were as follows: (1) the work of minors under 12 years of age was prohibited; (2) established an 8-hour working day for minors between the ages of 12 and 15; these same persons could not be involved in work at night; (3) the work of minors (aged 12 to 15 years) in a number of hazardous industries (at tanneries, etc.) was prohibited; (4) night work of women was prohibited in a number of industries; (5) it was forbidden (since 1886) to settle with workers not in money, but in coupons, conventional signs, bread or other goods; (6) the law of 1897 established the maximum working time per day - 11.5 hours (for workers employed only during the day), 10 hours (for workers employed at night, on Saturdays and on the eve of certain holidays); at the same time, at least 1 break (at least 1 hour) was set for rest and eating; (7) holidays were established (since 1897); (8) overtime work was allowed (in unlimited amounts by agreement between the employer and the workers); moreover, overtime work could even be mandatory for workers on specifications production. Until 1905, there was a ban on the activities of workers' unions, including their actions in the form of strikes. Only in 1906 was the right of workers to organize trade unions (and the right of their employers to create business associations and societies) secured. it was forbidden to charge workers for the provision of medical care (this decree was implemented only in large factories, moreover, in 1909 the Senate recognized it as invalid). Benefits and pensions paid to workers (since 1903) in case they received injuries were insignificant; such benefits could not be received in all sectors; the need to pay them had to be established by the court. The law did not provide for any material assistance to elderly workers, laborers in childbirth, widows and children of dead and dead workers. Criminal law. In 1863, corporal punishment and branding were abolished. In 1866, a new edition of the Penal Code of 1845 was adopted (its content was reduced to 652 articles); this edition retained the use of such a measure as beating with rods (to peasants by sentence

The abolition of serfdom and the implementation of a number of bourgeois reforms brought about significant changes in the social system. A wide path was opened for the development of capitalism in Russia. However, even after the reform numerous vestiges of feudalism remained, especially in agriculture.

For some time, one of the methods of conducting landowner economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for working off. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.

Capitalist relations were steadily developing in the countryside. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the obstacles created by the communal system, there was a stratification of the peasantry. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.

But the main line of struggle in the countryside ran between the landlords and the peasants. The peasantry as a whole waged a struggle against the landowners for the return of the peasant land that had been cut off in favor of the landowners during the peasant reform. Increasingly, the question of transferring all the landowners' land to the peasants was raised.

The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to look for extra work not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor to capitalist enterprises. The city was drawing the former peasants into its orbit more and more. As a result, they established themselves in capitalist production, and then their families also moved to the city. In the future, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into professional workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians. Insofar as the peasant escaped from the power of the serf-owner, to the extent that he became under the power of money, he fell into the conditions of commodity production, and became dependent on the nascent capital.

In the post-reform period, new plants and factories were built in Russia. The bourgeoisie, using a large influx of cheap labor, is developing industry at a gigantic pace, deriving superprofits from it. In the main branches of industry, the industrial revolution (the transition from manufactories to machine production) is being completed, and labor productivity is increasing.

Russia is rapidly overcoming its industrial backwardness. This was facilitated by the fact that Russian capitalists, creating new factories and plants (and the vast majority of new enterprises), equipped them with the most modern equipment for that time.

Russian industry was gaining such a powerful pace of development that by the end of the 19th century. prerequisites for the country's entry into a higher stage arose.

An important consequence of the development of capitalism in Russia was the formation of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which enter the political arena, actively joining in the struggle for their class interests.

The development of capitalism in Russia increasingly increases the importance of the bourgeoisie in society. However, its political positions are still not strong enough. political power while firmly held in their hands by the noble landowners. The preservation of class privileges gives the nobility significant political advantages: it continues to occupy key positions in the state apparatus.

The working class was brutally exploited. The length of the working day and the amount of wages were determined almost arbitrarily by the manufacturers and breeders. The capitalists had the opportunity to employ workers on conditions of low wages and long hours of work. The work and life of the workers were extremely difficult.

In the second half of the XIX century. the proletariat is actively fighting for its rights. As one of the means of protecting his interests, he uses the strike struggle.

In the 90s. social-democratic workers' organizations arise. Professional revolutionaries are active in defending the interests of the proletariat. The revolutionary propaganda of Marxism is being widely developed. Conditions are ripening for the creation in Russia of a political party of the working class. In 1898, the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was convened.

In the 70s. populist movement emerges. By the end of the century, conditions were created for the formation of a peasant political party.

By the end of the XIX century. prerequisites are also created for the emergence of bourgeois political parties, but they are formed later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and manageable social group. The black clergy were reduced in number, and the rest was limited only to persons directly related to the performance of the church service. For these purposes, the states of monasteries were limited, an educational qualification was established for all candidates for church positions. By decree of 1828, the children of clergymen, "out of excess", were asked to enter the civil or military service of their choice. Those who did not do this during the year were to “certainly” be recorded in one of the taxable estates. After 1831, the recruitment of unemployed priests into the army was stopped. Since 1842, a gradual transfer of the parish clergy to state support was carried out.

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

Feudal-dependent peasants made up the bulk of the population. Among them stood out landlord (ownership), state, sessional and appanage peasants. Particularly difficult, as before, was the position of the landlord peasants, who were considered the property of their owners. In the "Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" (1835), serfs were ranked as movable property.

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

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 "On free cultivators", the landlords received the right to release their peasants into the wild with land plots for a ransom established by the landowners themselves. However, only a few peasants could pay it. Until 1861, only 112,000 souls became "free cultivators".

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

After the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, in order to reduce the cost of the treasury for the maintenance of the army, part of the state peasants (their total number reached 400 thousand souls) was transferred to the position of military settlers. Residents of military settlements created in 1816 by the ferocious General A.A. Arakcheev, were obliged to engage in agriculture and at the same time to carry out military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their whole life was shackled by strict rules of military discipline. This caused hatred for the "Arakcheev" system in society, and among the military settlers - riots. Having failed to fulfill their purpose, after a series of uprisings in military settlements (1831), they gradually began to be abolished and were completely eliminated in the 50s. At the same time, former military settlers turned into either state or specific peasants.

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

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

In a number of industries, the predominant place was occupied by the sessional peasants. So, in 1860, in the manufacturing industry, they accounted for up to 85% of all workers. For manufacturers, they were less profitable than civilian workers, since their wages included the cost of dues. In 1835 the right of the landowners to recall the possessive peasants was limited. In 1840, the State Council decided to begin the liquidation of the property-based enterprises, and the breeders were allowed to free the property-based peasants, turning them into civilian workers.

The position of the specific peasants has not changed in comparison with the previous period.

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

By the middle of the XIX century. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. Therefore, the main goal of the internal policy of the government in the second half of the XIX century. was bringing the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time while maintaining autocracy. Peasant question since the middle of the XIX century. has become a major problem in Russia. The need to eliminate serfdom was due to a number of reasons: 1. The serf system has outlived itself economically: the landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. 2. Serfdom interfered with the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital. 3. The peasants openly protested against serfdom. 4.Among European states serfdom remained only in Russia, which was a shame for her and relegated the country to the category of backward states. The preparation of the peasant reform was carried out by the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs. On February 19, 1861, the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was published. The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. The peasant was freed from the personal guardianship of the landowner, he could own property and make deals. At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited to the preservation of the community. During the liberation, the peasants were provided with plots of land that were 20% smaller than those plots that they used under serfdom. For the land, the peasants had to pay the landowners a ransom, the value of which was 1.5 times the market value of the land. 80% of the ransom was paid to the landowners by the state. Peasants within 15 years had to pay the debt to the state with interest. The reform of 1861 brought freedom to more than 30 million serfs and contributed to the formation of capitalist relations in the countryside. However, the reform made it possible to preserve landownership and doomed the peasants to lack of land and poverty. Thus, the reform of 1861 did not remove the agrarian question in Russia. The abolition of serfdom in Russia entailed zemstvo, city, judicial, military and other reforms. In 1864, local self-government, the zemstvo, was introduced. Representatives of all estates elected county zemstvo assemblies, which sent deputies to the provincial zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos were in charge of economic issues, schools, and medicine. In 1870, self-government bodies were created in the cities. City voters elected the city duma, which formed the council. In 1864, a judicial reform was carried out. Class, closed court was abolished. More simple cases were referred to magistrates and judicial chambers. The jury decided on the guilt of the defendant. The trial became oral, public, adversarial. In 1863, the university charter was approved, which returned autonomy to the universities: the election of rectors and deans was introduced, the university council received the right to independently resolve a number of issues. In 1864, a new provision was introduced on elementary public schools, according to which the state, church and society were to be involved in the education of the people. In 1865 preliminary censorship was abolished for publications in the capital. The reforms also affected the army. The country was divided into 15 military regions. Since 1871, universal military service was introduced for men over 20 years old (service life in the ground forces is up to 6 years, and in the navy - up to 7 years). The reforms carried out were progressive. Russia, to a certain extent, approached the advanced European model for that time. However, many reforms were characterized by inconsistency and incompleteness. In addition, they were closely connected with the personality of Alexander II himself. After the death of Alexander II from a terrorist bomb, his son Alexander III became emperor in 1881. The tsar's inner circle consisted of the most reactionary politicians: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, Minister of the Interior Count D. A. Tolstoy, and publicist M. N. Katkov. The era of reaction began in Russia's domestic policy. In April 1881, the manifesto "On the Inviolability of Autocracy" was published, and in August the "Regulation on Enhanced Security" followed, which gave the government the right to introduce a state of emergency and military courts. Since 1883, security departments began to operate. In order to strengthen the position of the nobility in the system of local government and limit the functions of zemstvos, a new "Regulations on provinces and county zemstvo institutions" (1890) and "City Regulations" (1892) were adopted. The government sought to completely subordinate the secondary school to the control of the state and the church. In 1887, a circular about "cook's children" was introduced, which did not allow children from the lower classes to enter the gymnasium. In 1884, the new University Charter eliminated the autonomy of universities. The Provisional Rules on the Press of 1882 put an end to the liberal censorship policy of the 1960s. Not only the Ministry of the Interior, but also the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod received the right to close any publication. Reactionary transformations of the 1880s - 1890s were called counter-reforms. They actually canceled many results of the reforms of the 1860s, mothballed the crisis and paved the way for the crisis of the early twentieth century.

45. Judicial reform of 1864.

The judicial system of Russia until the 60s of the XIX century. was determined by the provisions of the Institution of the provinces in 1775. The court was not separated from the administration and had a pronounced estate character. The judicial system was extremely complex. The legal proceedings, as before, were of a clerical nature, the theory of formal evaluation of evidence continued to be applied in it, there was no publicity of the process, there was no equality of the parties, the accused did not have the right to defense. The shortcomings of the judicial system and legal proceedings caused dissatisfaction even among the privileged classes (not only the bourgeoisie, but also the nobility) ". In 1864, after a long preparation, the following documents were approved, which constituted the judicial reform as a whole: 1) Institutions of judicial institutions; 2) The Charter of criminal justice 3) Charter of Civil Procedure 4) Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace Judicial reform of 1864 proclaimed the bourgeois principles of the judiciary and legal proceedings: independence and separation of the court from the administration, creation of an all-class court, equality of all before the court, introduction of jurors, the creation of a clearer system of judicial instances.The judicial statutes of November 20, 1864, decisively broke with the pre-reform judiciary and legal proceedings. ness of legal proceedings; when considering criminal cases in the district court, the participation of jurors was envisaged. It's all characteristics bourgeois court. The world court was created in counties and cities to consider minor criminal cases. The magistrate's court had jurisdiction over cases for which a punishment in the form of a reprimand, remark or suggestion, a fine not exceeding 300 rubles, arrest not more than three months, or imprisonment not more than a year followed. When considering criminal cases in the district court, the institution of jurors was provided. 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 ​​jurors by the fact that the people had not grown up to this yet, and such a trial would inevitably have a "political character". According to the court statutes, a juror could be a citizen of Russia aged 25 to 70, who was not under trial and investigation, who was not excluded from service in court and was not subjected to public condemnation for vices, who was not under guardianship, did not suffer from mental illness, blindness, dumbness, and lived in this county for at least two years. A relatively high property qualification was also required. The second instance for district courts was the Judicial Chamber, which had departments. Its chairman and members were approved by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. It served as the appellate court for civil and criminal cases heard in district courts without a jury. The Senate was regarded 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, it was headed by the prosecutor general, who is also the minister of justice. Chairmen of courts, prosecutors and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and judicial investigators were irremovable, they were assigned high salaries in order to secure honest professionals for judicial institutions. The largest step towards the introduction of the principles of bourgeois justice was the establishment of the institution of the Bar. On November 20, 1866, it was allowed "to print in all time-based publications about what happens in the courts." Court reports reporting on Russian and foreign trials are becoming a prominent phenomenon in the press.

46. ​​Zemstvo reform of 1864.

On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” - a legislative act that introduced the zemstvo. It must be borne in mind that for a country whose majority of the population were peasants who had just freed themselves from serfdom, the introduction of local governments was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various estates of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-class organizations, such as noble assemblies. The feudal lords were indignant at the fact that on the bench in the zemstvo assembly "a slave of yesterday is sitting next to his recent master." Indeed, various estates were represented in the zemstvos - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, industrialists, philistines 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 to hire employees. The sphere of activity of the new bodies of all-estate self-government was limited only to economic and cultural affairs: the maintenance of local means of communication, care for the medical care of the population, public education, local trade and industry, national food, etc. New bodies of all-estate self-government were introduced only at the level of provinces and 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 and a roof." The slogan "crowning the building" has since become the main slogan of the Russian liberals for 40 years - until the creation of the State Duma.

47. City reform of 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 increase in the role of cities as centers of economic, socio-political and cultural life countries. The city reform of 1870 created all-estate bodies of local self-government. Administrative functions were no longer assigned to the entire city society, but to its representative body - the Duma. Elections to the Duma took place every four years. The number of members of the Duma - vowels - was quite significant: depending on the number of voters in the city - from 30 to 72 people. There were much more vowels in the capital's dumas: in Moscow - 180, St. Petersburg - 252. At a meeting of the duma, an 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 immovable property taxed in favor of the city, as well as persons paying certain commercial and industrial fees to it. Various departments, institutions, societies, companies, churches, monasteries also used the right to vote as a legal entity. Only men who had reached the age of 25 were allowed to take part in the voting personally. Women who had the necessary electoral qualifications could participate in elections only through their proxies. In fact, hired workers, the overwhelming majority of whom did not own real estate, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population, people of mental labor: engineers, doctors, teachers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, turned out to be deprived of the right to vote, but rented apartments. The tasks of managing the municipal economy were entrusted to new public institutions. A wide range of issues of urban economy and improvement were transferred to their jurisdiction: water supply, sewerage, street lighting, transport, landscaping, urban planning problems, etc. City dumas were also obliged to take care of the “public welfare”: to assist in providing the population with food, to take measures against fires and other disasters, to help protect “public health” (set up hospitals, help the police in carrying out sanitary and hygienic measures), to take measures against begging, promote public education (to establish schools, museums, etc.)

First half of the 19th century - Russian empire was one of the largest states in the world. The population of the country by the middle of the XIX century reached 69 million people. Russia was an agrarian country, the state had large territories not occupied by agriculture, and the state pursued a policy of colonization.

The increase in demand for agricultural products within the country and in Europe presented Russia with new opportunities. However, the feudal-serf system hindered the development of economic sectors.

In the 1830s - 1840s. In Russia, an industrial revolution began, which, due to the inhibitory influence of the feudal-serf system, dragged on until the 1870s-1880s. Manufactory production in pre-reform Russia received competition in the form of factory production. The first steamships and railways appeared in Russia.

First half of the 19th century characterized by a single period in the socio-economic development of Russia, but this period had its own characteristics. During the reign of Alexander I (1801-1825), a more liberal domestic policy was observed, especially before the Patriotic War of 1812. historical realities.

Partial internal political transformations of the autocracy in the first half of the 19th century. could not resolve the accumulating contradictions between the emerging capitalist

relations and the feudal-serf system.

The contradictions between the nascent capitalist and decaying feudal relations are clearly visible in the social structure of society and the policy of the autocracy in relation to the estates. Officially, the country's population was divided into nobility, clergy, rural and urban inhabitants. In fact, new strata of the population already existed - classes that differed from each other in their property, that is, in their relationship to the means of production. The new emerging classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The nobility continued to be the smallest estate and was divided into personal and hereditary. Nobles made up about 1.5% of the country's population. The nobles, as before, were the social pillar of absolutism, and the policy of the autocracy was aimed at consolidating this class, preserving their class privileges. Many of the nobles were not landowners. Only hereditary nobles had the right to own estates and have serfs, and there were no more than 600 thousand of them (1% of the total population of the country). Of these, only 109,000 families actually owned estates, mostly small ones. In such an estate, on average, there were 7 souls of serfs, and the landowners themselves were forced to manage their household on an equal basis with their peasants. The landowners were forced to mortgage their estates and by the middle of the 19th century. more than half of the estates were mortgaged.

The government tried to support the nobility with economic and social measures. Alexander I restored the effect of the Charter to the nobility, canceled by Paul I. With the same purpose, in 1827, the nobles received the right to trade with merchants and have unions in cities, and the decree of 1845

Introduced a ban on the alienation and fragmentation of estates. Noble estates could be bequeathed only to the eldest

son. This measure revived similar legislation in the 18th century. It would be economically possible to support the nobility in the classical feudal way - by transferring state peasants to the ownership of the nobles, but the autocracy opposed this measure. Only in difficult for the government 1810 - 1817. Alexander I reluctantly went to sell 10,000 serfs to the nobles. Instead of these measures, the government tried to issue loans to some of the landlords and promote prudent housekeeping, but such half-hearted measures were to change the situation.

impossible. More successful were the actions of the government in limiting the ability of the nobles to buy estates and reducing the influx of representatives of other classes into the nobility. At the same time, in its estate policy, the government tried not to rely on all the nobles, but only on large landowners. The rest were encouraged by economic measures to continue their public service.

In 1831 - 1832. the government limited the right of small landed nobles to be elected to public positions in the noble assemblies, and significantly increase the property qualification. Those who reached such a property qualification (100 souls of serfs or 3 thousand acres of land), as a rule, were hereditary, even well-born nobles. The same goal was achieved by the introduced in 1832. gradation of honorary citizens into hereditary and personal. The category of honorary citizens included persons who had reached a high educational qualification and officials who had reached the ninth rank. Of these citizens, only merchants of the first guild, scientists and artists received the rank of hereditary, honorary citizens. Honorary citizens were not a taxable estate, they were exempted from recruitment duty, from 1848 they received the right to purchase uninhabited lands, they had other privileges, but they were not nobles. Thus, the state cut off from the nobility a whole

a layer of service people, intelligentsia and persons with high property qualifications. Decrees 1848 - 1856 further increased the rank, the achievement of which gave the right to hereditary nobility. It was possible to become a full-fledged nobleman only by reaching the ranks of the fifth and fourth classes in the civil service, and the eighth - ninth in the military, respectively. Representatives of non-noble estates who did not reach sufficiently high ranks became honorary citizens. According to the decree of 1815, the right to receive hereditary nobility was given to a serving personal nobleman, whose father and grandfather served the state for 20 years.

In the 19th century actually nobles began to be considered hereditary nobles. This included persons to whom this state was granted by a nominal royal decree, merits in military or public service. "Ancient noble families" and offspring of foreign aristocrats were recognized as hereditary nobles.

Unlike the 18th century, when public service and a successful career made it possible to obtain a noble state, the estate policy of the first half of the 19th century. was the following interpretation of the law: "The more difficult the elevation to the nobility, the more useful it will be for the state." Thus, the state tried to maintain a consolidated privileged class as servants of the throne and to adapt the few Russian nobility to new historical conditions.

The clergy of the first half of the XIX century. was the smallest estate and totaled 150 thousand people. The policy of the government in relation to this estate tried to keep it closed, hereditary, inaccessible to representatives of other, primarily tax-paying estates. At the beginning of the XIX century. the trend of transformation of the clergy into employees intensified. These measures led to the fact that the clergy were treated

only directly (clergymen and a small number of black clergy (about 30 thousand monks and novices). The achievement of this goal was facilitated voluntarily - coercive measures of the first quarter of the 19th century. All priests who did not have positions in churches were ordered to switch to secular service or enroll in In the second quarter of the 19th century, the clergy were gradually transferred to a monetary allowance from the treasury, forcing the jobless clergy, left without a livelihood, to move to "a different kind occupations".

The property and legal status of those who remained in the "clergy" steadily increased. In the first quarter of the XIX century. the clergy were exempted from corporal punishment and land tax, and their houses from the post. In the second quarter of the XIX century. the white clergy began to be granted the title of nobility, they were allowed to buy real estate, the maintenance of monasteries improved. The state contributed to the spiritual, educational, charitable activities of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Urban population. The urban population by 1861 reached 6.5 million people, which accounted for 8% of the population of Russia. Capitalist relations in the first half of the XIX century. developed most rapidly in cities, therefore, to a greater extent affected urban population. The policy of the autocracy also affected the development of the urban class. Paul I canceled the Charter of 1785, and replaced the class system of city government in Moscow and St. Petersburg with strict administration, in 1800 he extended it to all cities of Russia. At the head of the city was the "Commission on supplying the residence with supplies, the order of apartments and other parts belonging to the police," which since 1801 was subordinate to the governors.

The "Commission" included the city government (ratgauz) and two offices for food supply and urban improvement.

The rights of the urban estates were restored by Alexander I, who abolished the non-estate city government and re-enacted the Letter of Complaint to the cities.

The reduction in the number of clergy, the dismissal of non-noble officers from the army, and the increase in the number of bankrupt nobles led to the formation of a new group in the cities - raznochintsy, that is, "people of different ranks."

The raznochintsy were not a taxable class, since they legally belonged to those estates from which they passed. Professionally, the raznochintsy were the urban intelligentsia and minor employees. In Russia, there were 24 thousand raznochintsy. In addition to raznochintsy, peasants who received "freedom" sometimes settled in the cities, some of the same palaces and foreigners. In 1840, many of the sessional workers were transferred to the category of petty bourgeois, thereby replenishing the urban population.

The urban population had a number of benefits. The Decree of December 12, 1801 gave the inhabitants of the city the right to buy uninhabited land. In 1807, the "primary merchant class" was established. This social group included eminent citizens who declared a capital of more than 30 thousand rubles, carried out foreign trade, and ship owners. The first-class merchants had the right to "come to the court of His Imperial Majesty", to be a supplier of goods to the court. The social position was confirmed by the right to wear a sword (like the nobles), the first-class merchants were entered in the so-called "velvet book". First-class merchants were awarded orders and medals, had other economic and social benefits.

"Secondary merchants" had the right to carry out retail trade, for which it was allowed to establish and develop trade, manufacturing enterprises, and when declaring

a fortune of 30 thousand rubles could become a first-class merchant.

Thus, the division of merchants into three gils was canceled? days and the gradation of this layer into two articles was introduced.

In 1832 first class merchants began to be called honorary citizens. Honorary citizens were divided into hereditary and personal. Hereditary children included the children of personal nobles, clergy, the above-mentioned big bourgeoisie, scientists, and the creative intelligentsia. All other layers of the intelligentsia, for example, teachers, engineers, and also adopted by nobles, were treated as personal honorary citizens.

Honorary citizens did not bear recruitment duty, were exempted from poll tax, were not subject to corporal punishment.

The following population groups were taxable. This included craftsmen and tradesmen. These urban dwellers were small proprietors, but differed in the type of activity and property status. Some of them joined the honorary citizens, the other part became part of the lower group of the urban population, the so-called working people.

Working people made up a group of people who worked for hire, many of them did not have property in the city, did not pay taxes or paid them incorrectly, and therefore could not be considered philistines. According to the police, there were also marginal elements among the working people, that is, people with "bad behavior". Working people made up the population of factory and factory settlements. This part of the urban population grew faster than others due to the newly arriving representatives of the peasants, sessional workers, and so on. Working people were the basis of the emerging Russian proletariat.

Peasants in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. accounted for more than 90% of the country's population. The peasants were divided into three large groups, distinguished by their departmental

accessories. The three main categories of peasants were called state (state), "ownership" (landlords), appanage. There were also minor small subgroups of peasants (possession - no more than 12 thousand souls, peasants of military settlements - they numbered up to 1/3 of the size of the army and single-palaces - there were 2 million of them). Some researchers tend to distinguish between two groups: ("rural inhabitants" and serfs). The peasants also differed in their property status, for example, "settled on their own lands", "foreigners", peasants of the southern, richer regions. As in the previous period, state and specific (before 1797 palace) peasants found themselves in a more advantageous position.

Regardless of their affiliation, the stratification of the peasantry was influenced by the development of capitalism. A small part of the peasants was involved in capitalist relations, and otkhodnichestvo became widespread. In the industrial provinces of the country, up to 40% of the male population went to work. Peasants who left for long-term earnings, as in the XVIII century. passports were issued to those who went on short-term work, so-called tickets were issued. In the cities, such people were counted as working people, in manufactories as civilians. However, according to departmental affiliation, they all remained peasants. In general, the classification of peasants, as noted in 1826 by M.M. Speransky, is a rather complicated question.

Peasants, regardless of their affiliation, professional differences, property status, were entered in the audit lists, were subject to recruitment, corporal punishment and were taxable population. The size of the poll tax during this period increased from 1 rub. 26 kop. up to 3 rubles 30 kop. In the peasant environment there was a community,

and in large estates, it had the functions of self-government.

State (state) peasants remained in a more advantageous position. However, this group of peasants was not homogeneous and broke up into several groups. Along with the term "state peasants" in the first quarter of the XIX century. the term "black-eared peasants" continues to be used (mainly the population of the northern provinces of Russia). Chernososhnye, like state-owned peasants, were not subject to transfer to serfdom (Alexander I, Nicholas I were against this kind of "grants"). The state peasants were a taxable class, in addition to the poll tax established by law, they paid a fixed dues, were subject to recruitment duty. They could be transferred to military settlements, and until the 1840s. could lease (possession) to private individuals. At the same time, the "official" peasants really enjoyed the benefits that the government had given them.

By decree of December 12, 1801, state peasants had the right to buy uninhabited land (serfs began to have such a right 47 years later). Decree of December 28, 1818 gave the right to all peasants (including landlords) to start factories and plants, but these rights were more often used by more prosperous state peasants. In 1827 state peasants received the right to own houses in cities, and 21 years later they were allowed to purchase real estate in Moscow and St. Petersburg. State peasants traditionally lived compactly, in large groups, for this reason, patriarchal communal relations were preserved among them. For example, the Circular of 1829 ordered that the land of state peasants be considered communal. In 1810, in the form of an experiment, the first military settlements appeared, which from 1816 - 1818. began to be introduced everywhere, and during the reign of Nicholas I, the number of military settlers was

already 800 thousand. The essence of the reform was as follows. Soldiers were settled with the state peasants, and both of them were declared military settlers. On the one hand, they were soldiers and were obliged to carry out military service. On the other hand, the "military settlers" were peasants and had to farm and provide themselves with food. In some cases, the soldiers settled in the empty "Novorossiysk lands". Military settlers - soldiers, "soldiers' wives" and "soldiers' children" served and ran their household, strictly obeying the charter, even the daily routine was regulated (from wake up to lights out). The children of military settlers served in the military with their fathers from the age of 7, they necessarily studied at school and military affairs, and from the age of 18 they were transferred to military units to junior command posts. It should be noted that the position of military settlers as a category of state peasants was the most burdensome and difficult.

A small group were of the same kind. Some of them owned over 20,000 serfs. Odnorodtsy are the descendants of the service people of the 17th century, the landmilitia of the 18th century. During the reign of Nicholas I, they lost the right to purchase, and then the ownership of serfs. Subsequently, the social status of the odnorodtsy became equal to the rest of the state peasants.

In social policy in relation to the peasantry, the reform of the state village of 1837 - 1841 was of great importance, which influenced the subsequent reform of 1861. The reform was carried out by P.D. Kiselev, who was put at the head of the created Ministry of State Property. Several legislative acts of this period introduced a four-stage system of community management (province, district, volost, rural society). In addition to a clear administrative structure, legislation determined local elected self-government bodies in volosts and rural communities.

The collection system was subject to reorganization. In accordance with the 1836 census and the conducted land cadastre (assessment and demarcation of land), the quitrent collection system was streamlined. The quitrent was calculated according to the "souls" of the male sex in accordance with the size of land plots and their quality. Other measures stimulated the development of agriculture. In particular, the peasants moved to the south of the country, soft loans were issued, the cultivation of "new" crops - potatoes and sunflowers - was promoted and economically encouraged.

Appanage peasants received this name in 1797 from the Department of Appanages, which was given over to the management of peasants who personally belonged to the imperial family. In total, the specific peasants numbered over 830 thousand male souls, they were divided into "sovereign" and "stable". The appanage peasants were a taxable population, they carried the same duties in favor of the state, but the quitrent was paid in favor of their feudal lord, that is, the king. Specific peasants occupied an intermediate position between state and landowners.

The largest group of "rural inhabitants" was still made up of landowners, that is, "ownership" peasants. There were over 11 million male souls, which accounted for more than 50% of the entire peasant population of the country. The forms and methods of exploitation of the serfs varied and changed in connection with internal politics autocracy. Already at the beginning of the XIX century. contemporaries distinguished duality, inconsistency in the definition of a serf, landlord peasant. According to the old rules of law XVII - early XVIII century. there was a provision that a serf was an integral part of the estate, that is, real estate, this explains the word "serf". The landowner is only the owner of the peasants, in exchange for state

or military service. The development of serfdom in the XVIII century. led to the opposite definition of the serfdom of the peasant. By the beginning of the XIX century. the landlord peasant was defined as movable property, conditionally related to real estate, through "revision tales". The serf, at the will of the owner, could be sold, mortgaged, alienated from the land. Therefore, in the XIX century. the landlord peasant was also considered outside the list of immovable property.

The forms of exploitation of the peasants also underwent changes. Instead of the "old corvée" limited in 1797 to three days a week, quitrent was distributed, which increased 3.5 times in the central and 2.5 times in the black earth provinces. Corvee intensified in the form of a month. It was impossible to keep a peasant on corvée for more than three days, but it was quite possible to be transferred to the courtyards, to withdraw the land allotment and force the peasant to work the lord's land six days a week in exchange for a minimum monthly ration, a kind of wage. This form of exploitation practically did not differ from slavery and spread in the black earth provinces, where there were up to 1.5 million household peasants. In addition, corvée was generally accepted among leased (possession) peasants, that is, the actual distribution of corvée was wider.

Legislation almost did not limit the landowner in the forms and methods of exploitation of the peasants. In addition to the limitation already mentioned three-day corvée(1797) and the general recommendations of the autocracy to alleviate the fate of the peasant, the government took several measures that reduced the degree of serfdom.

In 1816 Alexander I finally forbade the sale of peasants assigned to factories and factories (before that, the decree of Paul I was in effect, which allowed such sales). Decree of 1801 forbade the publication in newspaper advertisements for the sale

yard peasants, in 1808 it was forbidden to publish the sale of peasants at retail fairs. In 1809, the right of the landowners to exile peasants to Siberia for insignificant income was abolished, and the removal of the landowner's right to criminal trial of the peasants was generally confirmed. It was impossible to torture, maim the peasants. Similar decrees were issued later, in the second quarter of the 19th century.

In the last decades of serfdom, there was a surge in the social activity of the peasants. Nicholas I himself and his government repeatedly noted that "the current state of the peasantry is evil," and that "the state is, as it were, on a powder keg." In this regard, some changes are introduced into the legislation "on the serf issue." In total from 1825 to 1860. more than 100 such laws were issued to continue the "restrictions" of the previous autocrat. Here are the most important ones. In 1827, the landlords were again forbidden to separate movable property or real estate during the sale and give the peasants to the factories. In 1828 limited the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia. The decree of May 2, 1833 forbade the sale of peasants at auction in public and the separation of peasant families during the sale.

According to other generally accepted norms, the rule was confirmed, "once received freedom cannot be enslaved again", a peasant becomes free upon returning from military service from captivity or from abroad. The landowners were not supposed to ruin their peasants, and in lean years the landowner was obliged to feed the peasants and provide them with the necessary minimum of seed material for the resumption of agricultural activity.

The leaders of the nobility, that is, the same landowners, had to monitor the observance by the landowners of the above restrictions. It is clear that with such supervision, even these minor restrictions were not enforced, and the position of a serf was entirely dependent on the lord's will and whim.

The development of capitalism, the growth of the anti-feudal struggle pushed the government to take measures that contributed to the exit of the peasants from serfdom. However, it was possible to carry out the withdrawal of peasants from serfdom only with the consent of the landowners. Therefore, in the first half of the XIX century. several laws were issued, the actions of which were possible only with the consent of the landowners.

On February 20, 1803, Alexander I signed a decree "On free cultivators". The decree provided for the release of peasants to freedom for a ransom, the amount of which was established with the mutual consent of the landowner and serf. This law, which was originally called "On the release of landowners of their peasants to freedom upon the conclusion of conditions based on mutual consent," provided for the release of peasants to freedom with a plot of land, so that "the peasants, thus dismissed, could remain in the state of free farmers, without being obliged to enter in another sub-life." The minimum allotment equal to 8 acres was determined. According to their social status, free cultivators were equated with state peasants, that is, they were a taxable population, they carried recruit and other duties. The action of the decree in the first half of the XIX century. about 150 thousand male souls took advantage.

Other acts also proceeded from the observance of mutual interests when concluding transactions. At the same time, in resolving the "serf issue" the interests of the state were necessarily taken into account - to preserve the peasant as an agricultural producer. In particular, the decree "On the Price of the Revision Soul" of August 3, 1806 ordered transactions with peasants to be based on the cost of the male revision soul at 75 silver rubles, and the female half of this value. (Subsequently, the price of a peasant rose to 100 rubles).

Decree July 20, 1809 "On the suppression of vagrancy" (searching for fugitive peasants) ordered the return of the peasants to their owners or to betray these peasants in the order of public charity.

On April 2, 1842, a decree was issued "On the proposal to the landlords to conclude agreements with the peasants on the transfer of plots of land to them for use for agreed duties, with the peasants who concluded the agreement accepting the names of the obliged peasants." This decree became known under the name "On obligated peasants" and developed the provisions of previous legislation, in particular, the decree "On free cultivators". Since the peasants did not have the opportunity to pay the landowner the entire redemption sum at a time, it was determined that the serfs were obliged to serve the corresponding duties or pay the amount agreed with their owner in installments in the form of dues. The peasants received their freedom as if on credit. During the time of redemption to the will of himself and his family, serfdom was preserved, it was called temporarily indebted. The agreement could be terminated if the peasants did not comply with its terms. The decree of 1841 was also not widespread, six landowners took advantage of its action, setting free 27,173 peasants.

Peasants who received freedom under these laws, who bought themselves out or received "freedom" for other reasons, became personally free rural inhabitants, settled on their own lands (if they had land plots).

In relation to the overwhelming mass of the peasantry, which remained in a serf state, the government took measures that limited entrepreneurial activity. The peasants could not leave the estates without the permission of the landowner, they did not have the right to maintain shops in the cities, and they could trade only in the market. These restrictions were also established in the XVIII

century, and now confirmed by decrees of 1810 and 1812 Peasants by decree 12

December 1801 they did not have the right to buy land, but for the development of industry they could, according to the law on December 28, 1818. organize factories and plants. Subsequently, the property rights of the peasants were expanded by the law of March 3, 1848.

On June 12, 1844, a decree appeared that allowed peasants to be released into the wild by mutual agreement with the landowner, and from 1853 the right to lease peasants to non-nobles was limited. By decree of November 8, 1847, the peasants received the benefits of redeeming themselves at will when selling the estates of bankrupt landowners at auction. In total, about 960 thousand souls of peasants took advantage of this decree. They were transferred to the category of "personally free rural dwellers settled on their own lands", since they redeemed their allotments with personal freedom. In other cases, such peasants were called "leaves" because they owned their own land, which means they did not pay dues to the state. The dynamics of the redemption of peasants to freedom shows the depth of the crisis of feudalism, when the peasants turned out to be wealthier than their owners, who mortgaged their estates.

The peasant question was repeatedly raised before the governments of Alexander I and Nicholas I. In the 1830s - 1850s. the problem of the serfdom of the peasants was repeatedly considered at meetings of various "secret committees", but because of the opposition of the nobles, the political reaction of 1848 - 1855. the terms of the Peasant Reform were constantly pushed back. As a result, grew social activity peasants, and the situation in Russia before the abolition of serfdom can be called revolutionary. The government could not cope with the growing protest of the peasants, was afraid of a new "Pugachevism", and Alexander II, who ascended the throne, was forced to recognize the need for a speedy solution of the peasant question "from above", until the peasants themselves liberate themselves in a revolutionary way "from below".

CHAPTER 6. Russian state and law in the first half of the XX century.

Political system. Changes in the state mechanism