Lecture plan:

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

2. State system in the second half of the XIX century.

3. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. State regulated 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 from the positive side. Liberal historians, contemporaries of the events V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov, A. A. Kornilov and others welcomed both the abolition of serfdom and subsequent reforms. Defeat in Crimean War, they believed, revealed the technical backlog of Russia from 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 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. transformed the economic, social and political order Russian state so 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 the majority of 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. Pre-reform system 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. The increase in the productivity of people's labor in Russia made it necessary to look for 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. City reform. The further development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of the city reform. On June 16, 1870, the emperor approved “ City position”, according to which 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 regulations, the judicial power of the landlords 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 assembly. Crown judges were appointed by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice from among persons with a higher legal education and work experience in law enforcement agencies at least three years. 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 a servant or hired worker). 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 who did not have 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. However, military training not the entire male population of the country passed, 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 in the era of reforms were a step towards the transformation of the absolutist monarchy into a bourgeois one. The development of the Russian state in the second half of the XIX century. relatively speaking, two stages passed: the stage of bourgeois reforms of the 1860-1870s and the stage of counter-reforms of the 1880s-1890s. In 1861, a new supreme body was created - the Council of Ministers, the chairman of which 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 they began to be built at the expense of public funds. At the beginning of the first stage, the III Department of the Tsar's Office continued to function. In 1862, an Investigative Commission for the dissemination of revolutionary appeals was formed as its subsidiary body. In 1866, after the assassination attempt by Dmitry Karakozov 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", was to fight with the help of secret agents against underground revolutionary organizations. In the 1870s, the main task III The department was in charge of conducting inquiries on 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 issues. In February 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection of Public 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 the III Department, political prisons (for example, the Peter and Paul 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. The protection of order in public places was carried out by police officers subordinate to the police officer. In order to increase the number of rural police, 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) 5000 posts were introduced police officers (in September 1879 an additional 550 positions of officers were introduced), distributed by the governors of 46 provinces by counties; (2) the officers were subordinate to the bailiffs, leading, in turn, 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 the provincial administration, revision of the 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, the highest legislative body of 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. The assassination attempt on Vera Zasulich found a great response (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 transferred 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 The consideration of cases on 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 class representatives. Lists of class representatives were prepared by the Minister of the Interior and the St. Petersburg Governor, and represented by the Minister of Justice. Members of the court and representatives of the estates were appointed annually by decrees of the king.The consideration of criminal cases by a 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 jurisdiction and the procedure for the production of cases for some 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 of the 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 members of public service(the governor gave them prescriptions 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 due to the technical conditions of production. Until 1905, there was a ban on the activities of workers' unions, including their actions in the form of strikes. Only in 1906 was the right of workers to organize trade unions (and 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 is still firmly held in the hands of 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 Russian-Turkish war 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.

In the first half of the 19th century, Russia was an absolutist and feudal state. At the head of the empire was the king, who concentrated everything more and more; control threads in their hands. However, officially the entire population was still divided into four estates: the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and urban residents.

Nobility, as in the previous period, was the economically and politically dominant class. The nobles owned most of the land, they had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. They formed the basis of the state apparatus, occupying all command positions in it.

Clergy still divided into black (monastic) and white (parish). However, the legal status of this class, which finally turned into a service class, has changed significantly. On the one hand, the ministers of the church themselves received even greater privileges. On the other hand, the autocracy sought to limit the clergy only to persons directly serving in churches.

feudal dependents peasants constituted the bulk of the population. They were subdivided into landlord, state, sessional and appanage belonging to the royal family. Particularly difficult, as in previous years, was the situation of the landlord peasants. In the 10th volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (civil and boundary laws), serfs were ranked as movable property. Since 1816 part of the state peasants was transferred to the position of military settlers. They were supposed to be engaged in agriculture, handing over half of the harvest to the state, and to carry out military service.

Merchants and tradesmen constituted only a few percent of the population.

was in a special position Cossacks- a paramilitary class that performed the function of protecting the border areas of the state.

With the beginning of the industrial revolution, the formation of a new social stratum is associated - civilian workers. Poor townspeople, state peasants and serfs were employed at manufactories and factories, who left to work with the permission of their masters. By 1860, 4/5 of the workers were civilians.

In the second half of the XIX Russia's social development was determined by the conditions and course of the implementation of the peasant reform and the development of capitalist relations.

The class division of society has been preserved. Each class (nobles, peasants, merchants, philistines, clergy) had clearly defined privileges or restrictions. The development of capitalism gradually changed the social structure and appearance of estates, formed two new social groups - the classes of capitalist society (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). AT social structure intertwined features of the old and new social order.

The dominant position in the country still belonged to nobles. The nobility remained the backbone of the autocracy, occupied key positions in the bureaucracy, the army and public life. Some nobles, adapting to new conditions, actively participated in industrial and financial activities.

grew fast bourgeoisie, which was formed from the merchants, bourgeoisie, representatives of the wealthy peasantry. It gradually gained economic strength, but played an insignificant role in the political life of the country. Weak and unorganized, it supported the autocracy, which ensured the expansionist foreign policy and the possibility of exploitation of workers.

Peasants remained the largest social group. Having received freedom in 1861, they hardly adapted to their new social position. For this class, numerous restrictions continued to be maintained in a wide variety of social spheres. The community remained unshakable, limiting the legal, economic and personal life of the peasant. The community slowed down the social stratification of the peasants, but could not prevent it. It was moving at a slow pace. However, the penetration of capitalist relations into the countryside contributed to the division of the villagers into kulaks (rural bourgeoisie) and the bulk of the poor and half-ruined peasantry.

The impoverished peasantry and the urban poor served as a source of formation proletariat. The peculiarity of the working class in Russia was that it did not break its ties with the countryside. Therefore, the maturation of the cadre proletariat proceeded at a slow pace.

In the second half of the XVIII - early XIX century. there was a process of decomposition of the feudal serf system and the development of bourgeois relations, which led to a change in the class structure of Russian society. New classes were born bourgeoisie and proletariat. The entire population was still divided into four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and city dwellers.

The ruling class was nobility. The economic and political power of the nobles was based on land ownership and the right to exploit the peasants who lived on the lands belonging to the nobles. They had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. Representatives of the nobility occupied all important positions in government. The feudal state sought to strengthen the position of the nobility.

The title of nobility was considered as an inalienable, hereditary and hereditary, extending to all members of the nobleman's family. The nobility had such privileges as the freedom of the nobles to serve, leave the service, travel to other states, and renounce citizenship.

Among personal rights of nobles it can be noted: the right to noble dignity, the right to protect honor, personality and life, exemption from corporal punishment, etc. The property rights of the nobility included the following: property rights; the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property; the right to have factories and plants in cities; the right to trade on an equal footing with the merchants, etc.

With the increase land qualification the elections strengthened the role of large landowners in the noble class bodies and their influence on local government.

Since 1798, military personnel who were not nobles were not presented to the officer rank, and all non-noble officers were dismissed from military service.

Clergy still divided into "black" (monastic) and "white" (parish). In the development of the legal status of the clergy, the following two points should be noted.

On the one hand, the clergy received great perks: they and their children were freed from corporal punishment, the houses of the clergy were freed from land tax, from lodging, etc.

On the other hand, the autocracy tried limit the clergy only by persons directly serving in the churches.

The authorities sought to tie the most devoted ministers of the church to their social environment where the noble aristocracy dominated. The clergy awarded with orders acquired noble rights. Thus, the autocracy wanted to turn the clergy into a small and manageable social group.

The bulk of the population were feudal-dependent peasants. They were subdivided into landlord, state, sessional and appanage.

In 1801, a Decree was adopted, according to which merchants, philistines and all peasants (landlord peasants - by Decree of 1803) were granted the right to buy land.

In accordance with the Decree of 1803 on free cultivators, the landlords received the right to release their peasants into the wild for a ransom set by the landowners themselves. Before the peasant reform of 1861, about 112 thousand people became free farmers.

In 1816, part of the state peasants was transferred to the position military settlers. They were obliged to engage in agriculture and carry out military service. They were forbidden to trade, go to the city, their life was regulated by the Military Charter.

In order to develop industry in 1818. A decree was issued that allowed all peasants to establish factories and plants.

In 1842 was adopted Decree on obligated peasants. In accordance with this act, the landlords could provide the peasants with land for lease, for which they had to fulfill the obligations established by the contract.

In 1847, to manage the state peasants, a Ministry of State Property. The quitrent taxation was also streamlined, the land allotments of state peasants were increased and the organs of peasant self-government were regulated: the volost gathering, the volost administration, the rural assembly, the village headman.

First half of the 19th century characterized by the rapid growth of cities: the number of urban population, the process of its stratification intensifies.

In 1832, a personal and hereditary honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were granted certain privileges: they did not pay the poll tax, did not bear recruitment duty, and were exempted from corporal punishment.

Due to the interest of the state in the development of trade and industry, rich merchants were endowed with special rights. Merchants It was divided into two guilds: the first guild included wholesalers, the second guild - retailers.

group guild composed and artisans assigned to the workshops. They were divided into masters and apprentices. The workshops had their own governing bodies.

working people, which included persons who were not accepted into the philistine societies, constituted the lowest group of the urban population.

Part personal rights of the burghers included: the right to protect honor and dignity, personality, life, the right to move, the right to travel abroad, etc. Among property rights of the bourgeoisie we can distinguish: the right to own property, the right to acquire, use and inherit any type of property, the right to own industrial enterprises and crafts, the right to trade, etc.

The townspeople had their own class court