A number of significant features that distinguished them from the reform of the era of Peter the Great, possessed in Russian history mid-nineteenth century reforms

Causes

As is well known, Russia's loss of the Crimean War of 1853-1856 was the immediate impetus for the beginning of the reforms. The war destroyed the image of lasting well-being Russian Empire. She showed with her own eyes that in the military and economic fields Russia was hopelessly behind the advanced industrial powers. During the war, Russian admirals were forced to sink sailing ships, blocking the entrance to the Sevastopol Bay, because they understood that a direct collision with well-equipped military ships of the British and French would lead to complete extermination Russian fleet. The land battle near Alma turned into a real execution of Russian columns, since the range of Russian guns was sharply inferior to the enemy’s weapons. Sailboats against steamships, a smoothbore gun against a rifled one, backward artillery and many other things led to the fact that the country, which had not lost a war for a hundred and fifty years, suffered a crushing defeat.

The shock impression of the outcome of the war was intensified by the fact that the Anglo-French troops in the Crimea, i.e. many thousands of kilometers from the metropolises, they were supplied much better than the Russian troops: in Russia, the delivery of fodder, food, military materials was carried out by antediluvian means; the only railway that existed at that time was the road between St. Petersburg and Moscow (opened in 1851). The military reserves moving in marching order did not have time to arrive at the main theater of operations.

In fact, even before the start of the Crimean War in Russia, a general structural crisis of the feudal-serf system was objectively ripe. Serfdom hindered the development of commodity-money relations, especially commercial agriculture. Serfs made up about 35% of the subjects of the empire, but the natural increase among this group of the population in the 30-50s. 19th century was very small. Nevertheless, if there were no failure in the Crimea, Russia could sleep in its former state for several more decades. The country's economy was by no means falling apart; there was enough grain and other food. As N. Eidelman points out, referring to the opinion of experts, “another 50-70 years serfdom, slowing down the economy, still would not have brought the country to a complete starvation collapse - after all, most of the serfs were middle peasants.

As in the period preceding Gorbachev's "perestroika", the structural crisis of the moribund system did not at all coincide with a direct decline in production. Moreover, the overall production figures in the reign of Nicholas I even doubled, but there was a growing lag behind the most dynamic, advanced countries. It took a nationwide shake-up, the shame of the loss of Sevastopol, so that society and, first of all, the leaders realized that it was impossible to live like this any longer. The forced comparison with the advanced powers, revealed in battles (the volume of English industry increased by more than 30 times in the first half of the 19th century), convinced everyone who had not lost the ability to think of the universal backwardness of the empire.

Until recently domestic historiography(under the influence of M.V. Nechkina and her school) proceeded from the fact that the liberal reforms were “torn out” from tsarism by the peasant movement and the general revolutionary situation of 1859-1861. Supporters of this point of view referred to the facts of more frequent peasant uprisings: in 1848 there were 161 peasant uprisings, in 1857 - 192, in 1858 - 528, in 1859 - 938. Compared with the reign of Nicholas I, the thaw of the late 1850s. indeed characterized by increased fermentation among the peasants. However, if we compare the social situation in Russia and in Western Europe, our fatherland would look like a completely pacified state. This, by the way, gave individual feudal lords a reason to portray serfdom as a guarantor of social peace and prosperity. On the whole, the newest historiography does not support the opinion that there were in Russia in the period 1859-1861. revolutionary situation: the amorphous, full of monarchical illusions, the peasant movement did not yet pose a great threat to the autocracy.

However, as the prominent historian L.G. Zakharov, overcoming the tendency to exaggerate the role of the peasant movement in the history of the abolition of serfdom, one should not go to the other extreme. The growing unrest among the peasants on the eve of 1861, the memory of the former peasant wars, especially about Pugachev, about the participation of the European peasantry in the revolutions "repeatedly increased the fear of the "top" before the "lower classes" .

All this taken together prompted Emperor Alexander II to declare to representatives of the Moscow nobility in March 1856 that he was not going to abolish serfdom immediately. “But of course,” the king added, “and you yourself know that the existing order of the possession of souls cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will of itself begin to be abolished from below. I ask you, gentlemen, to think about how to bring this to fruition.

• Article reprinted from: Market and Reforms and Russia: Historical and Theoretical Background. Moscow State Archive, 1995. S. 8-43.

The liberal reforms of Alexander II brought the Russian Empire to a new qualitative level. The government of the emperor developed and carried out a whole range of reforms of the Russian state, one of which was judicial reform, military reform and the reform of public education. The judicial reform set itself the goal of creating an all-class judicial system and its improvement. Military reform was designed to increase the quality and combat effectiveness Russian army. The reform of public education sought to create an all-class education in the country and increase literacy among the population. You will learn more about all this in this lesson.

Judicial reform was carried out in Russia in 1864. The general meaning of the reform was to expand the capacity of courts, introduce equal justice for all, and create new types of courts. In the course of it, two types of courts were created: crown (state) and world (community).

The World Court was communal. The members of these courts, justices of the peace (Fig. 2), were elected through elections held by zemstvo or city assemblies. Thus, a situation arose in Russia when citizens themselves could influence the people who carried out the legal proceedings. The independence of judges and their irremovability were officially proclaimed, that is, it was possible to remove a judge from office only if he committed a crime.

Rice. 2. Magistrate ()

The above measures were taken to ensure that the authorities could not influence the courts. However, soon the authorities began to move judges from place to place, and in 1885 the Minister of Justice received the right to remove judges who were objectionable to the authorities.

As for the functions of the magistrates' courts, they dealt with petty cases of criminal and civil offenses.

Formally, in the course of the judicial reform of 1864, all estates were proclaimed, that is, representatives of all estates had to apply to the same courts. In practice, this principle was constantly violated. In Russia, special courts continued to exist for the military, the clergy, senior officials. The trial of the highest members of society was carried out by the Senate.

The emergence of new participants in the trial - judicial investigators, lawyers and jurors - was of great importance. Until 1864, the judicial investigation and the court in Russia were not separated - this affected the objectivity of judges. Now the institution of forensic investigators appeared, who were supposed to investigate the case themselves and present ready-made documents to the court. The judge could now simply examine these documents and evidence and decide whether the person is guilty or not.

Another very important point reform was the emergence of lawyers, or sworn attorneys (Fig. 3). Lawyers are professional human rights defenders who provide legal assistance on a professional basis. Institute of Advocacy in Russia until the 1860s. just didn't exist. Its appearance allowed the courts to conduct cases on a more professional basis. That is, now not only the punitive, administrative, authorities knew the law, but the accused party could also defend itself professionally.

Rice. 3. Three lawyers in conversation ()

During the judicial reform of AlexanderIIIn addition to professional judges, jury trials also appeared (Fig. 4). They consisted of ordinary people- ordinary people who swore an oath that they would judge honestly and impartially. Such jury trials made it possible for the inhabitants of the Russian Empire to influence the judicial process themselves.

Rice. 4. Meeting of the new court with jurors ()

However, judicial reform did not address the most important category of political cases heard in the courts. Starting from 1871, the investigation of political cases was carried out not by ordinary investigators, but by the gendarmerie (Fig. 5) - the political police, and from 1878 the decision of such cases was transferred to military courts. This was a step backwards, which seriously hampered the judicial reform of Alexander II. Nevertheless, this reform had a positive impact on the judicial system of the Russian Empire.

Rice. 5. The uniform of the gendarmes in the Russian Empire ()

The most important was a series of military reforms,conducted by Alexander II from 1861 to 1876. The initiator of these reforms and the person responsible for them was Minister of War D.A. Milyutin (Fig. 6). All the transformations carried out in the military sphere at that time can be conditionally divided into three groups.

Rice. 6. D.A. Milyutin - Minister of War of Russia ()

The first direction was the centralization of command and control of the army. In 1864, Russia was divided into 15 military districts, which were directly subordinate to the military ministry. In 1867, the so-called special troops, which had previously had their own governing bodies, were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of War. All this was reinforced by the introduction of a military judicial charter, which created single system judiciary in the army. The military judiciary was headed by the Chief Military Court, and in war time- Chief Military Court.

The second line of reforms was associated with a change in the principle of manning the army. Service life of recruits in Russia in the early 1860s. were reduced from 20 to 12 years. In addition, officers began to be trained in a different way (Fig. 7). Military educational institutions were opened or transformed, such as the General Staff Academy. But if the Artillery, Medical and other academies were intended for the nobility, then the bulk of the officers graduated from open cadet schools and colleges, where representatives of all classes were accepted. This increased the personnel potential of the army.

Rice. 7. Russian officers of the second half of XIX V. ()

Finally, in 1874 the principle of manning the army was radically changed. This was the third line of the complex of military reforms of the era of Alexander II. Recruitment was over - instead of it, universal military service was introduced (Fig. 8). According to adopted law men over the age of 20 were drafted into the army. This created an overabundance of potential soldiers. Because of this, a wide system of benefits was introduced. The only sons, the only breadwinners in the family, as well as those whose older brothers have already served or are serving, were exempted from military service. Thanks to this, conscription plans in the Russian Empire were fulfilled and overfulfilled every year.

Among other things, the service life was radically reduced - from 25 to 7 years. It was this that made it possible to significantly reduce the size of the army in peacetime, since it had a large trained reserve that could be quickly mobilized in case of war.

Rice. 8. Conscripts ()

The significance of the introduction of universal military service was primarily to improve the quality of soldiers. Formally, the size of the Russian army was reduced by 40%, but its combat effectiveness increased. In the army, soldiers were taught to read and write. For those who were already educated, benefits were provided - they served less.

In the course of the military reform, the technical re-equipment of the army began, although it went rather slowly.. Even then, smoothbore guns began to be replaced by rifled ones. Improved and the technical supply of troops. In 1876, military horse service was introduced: the population had to supply the army with horses at their own expense. It was the only way to ensure the maneuverability of the army and the possibility of a rapid transfer of troops from one sector to another. Steam ships were also built, although this was also not an easy task, and even at the end of the 19th century. some part of the Russian navy was sailing.

Historians evaluate Alexander's military reformIImore than positive. As a result, a powerful efficient army who managed to win Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878 and play a prominent role in the military companies of the early 20th century.

The third group of reforms carried out by the government of AlexanderII, are reforms in the field of education, or public education. The need for them was caused by the low level of literacy in the country. By the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, the number of illiterates in the state exceeded 80%. Another task of reforms in the field of education was the task of creating an all-class education. Russia needed a large number of smart and educated people who would have the opportunity to get an education, regardless of their social status.

The implementation of reforms in the field of education began in 1863 with the adoption of a new University Charter. He returned autonomy to the universities, which was abolished in 1835 by Emperor Nicholas I. The universities themselves could now solve their financial and economic problems, hire professors, accept such educational plans which they considered necessary, even coordinating them with the Ministry of Public Education.

Two more universities were added to the universities that already existed in Russia under Alexander - Novorossiysk (Fig. 9) and Warsaw (Fig. 10). Number of students in Russian universities grew. Higher education in the Russian Empire until the 1860s. received 5,500 people a year, and by the end of the reign of Alexander II - up to 16,500 people a year.

Rice. 9. Novorossiysk University in the XIX century. ()

Rice. 10. Warsaw University in the XIX century. ()

In 1864, the Charter of the gymnasium and the regulation on public schools were published. According to these documents, in fact, an accessible all-class education system was created in the country. Now, apart from the state educational institutions, it was possible to create private ones, but under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Education. The number of primary and secondary educational institutions in Russia during the reign of Alexander II increased 3.5 times and reached 22,700. late XIX V. their number grew to 100,000, and more than a million people studied in them at the same time.

Several dozen students studied at the same time in zemstvo schools, and in some of them the number of students did not exceed ten. According to the education reform, gymnasiums and schools in Russia were divided into classical (Fig. 11) and real (Fig. 12). Classical gymnasiums gave liberal education, while the real ones are mathematical and natural science. Thus, now the inhabitants of the Russian Empire could study those subjects that they liked.

Rice. 11. Classical gymnasium in the XIX century. ()

Rice. 12. Real school in the XIX century. ()

However, one problem remained - education in Russia was paid and for the majority of its inhabitants inaccessible. For the poor, especially the peasants, there were parochial and zemstvo schools that appeared a little later, which could not be compared with gymnasiums in terms of education. Most importantly, such schools did not issue a document on their completion, that is, it was almost impossible to continue education.

An important innovation of the era of Alexander II in the field of education was the creation of women's education in Russia. In 1862, a regulation was issued according to which it was possible to open women's gymnasiums. Before that, girls could only receive home education. Seven years later, when girls began to graduate from gymnasiums, a system of higher education for women appeared - a system of courses. One of the first were the Lubyanka Women's Courses in St. Petersburg, then the Bestuzhev Courses appeared. In Moscow, in 1872, the Higher Women's Courses of Professor V.I. Guerrier.

Thus, the reforms of Alexander II affected almost all Russian society. Enlightened people hoped that the emperor would continue to rule in a liberal spirit and grant the country a Constitution.

Bibliography

1. Great reforms in Russia. 1856-1874: Collection / Under. ed. L.G. Zakharova, B. Eklof, J. Bushnell. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow University, 1992
2. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia. - Saratov, 1969.
3. Lazukova N.N., Zhuravleva O.N. Russian history. 8th grade. - M.: "Ventana-Count", 2013.
4. Lonskaya S.V. World justice in Russia. - Kaliningrad, 2000.
5. Nechkina M.V. Reform of 1861 as a by-product of the revolutionary struggle//Revolutionary situation in Russia 1859-1861.
6. Fedorov N.V. On judicial reform in Russia // State and Law. - M.: Nauka, 1992. - No. 6.
7. Chugunov P.B. History of Russia in reforms. - S.-P., 1994.

1. Russian Military Historical Society ().
2. Grandars.ru ().
3. Studopedia.ru ().
4. Biofile.ru ().

Homework

1. Describe the judicial reform in Russia in 1864. Why was this reform so important?
2. What was the military reform of Russia in 1861-1876? What was its outcome?
3. How was the reform of public education carried out in the Russian Empire during the reign of Alexander II? What contributed to this reform?

1. Reasons for the abolition of serfdom. reform projects.

2. The abolition of serfdom. The content and essence of the reform. Its historical significance.

3. The beginning of the formation of civil society in the 60s - 70s. 19th century:

Land reform.

City reform.

Judicial reform.

military reform.

Reform in the field of education.

4. Socio-economic and political consequences of reforms.

5. Populist movement. Populist circles. "Journey to the People".

Terms: "segments", "going to the people", temporarily liable peasants, redemption payments, zemstvo, populism, jurors.

Historical figures: Alexander II, M.T. Loris-Melikov, D.A. Milyutin, K.P. Pobedonostsev.

January 1857 - Formation of the Secret Committee to draft agrarian reform.

November 1857 - the creation of provincial noble committees to discuss the conditions for the liberation of the peasants.

1858 - The Secret Committee was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Liberation of specific peasants.

1859 - the creation of editorial commissions to study the materials of the provincial committees.

1861 - formation of the secret society "Land and Freedom".

June 18, 1863 - adoption of the liberal university charter, the beginning of the implementation of the reform in the field of education.

Spring - summer 1874 - "going to the people."

1876 ​​- the creation of a renewed revolutionary populist organization "Land and Freedom".

Summer 1879 - the formation on the basis of "Land and Freedom" of new populist organizations: "Narodnaya Volya" and "Black Redistribution".

Map: the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

The main documents of the era: "Manifesto February 19, 1861"; "Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom" (1861); "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" (1864); "The Establishment of Judicial Institutions" (1864); "Regulations on Primary Public Schools" (1864); "City position June 16, 1870"; "Charter on military service" (1874).

Questions for self-examination of the studied material:

What are the reasons peasant reform?

What are the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the reform of 1861 of the landowners, peasants, representatives of the liberal and revolutionary camps?

What strata of the population formed the Russian bourgeoisie?

What stages can you single out in the development of bourgeois reforms in the 60s and 70s? 19th century

What do you see as the reasons that prompted Alexander II to accept the Zemstvo reform? What did conservatives, liberals, revolutionaries expect from her? Whose expectations did she live up to?

Usually the judicial reform of 1864 is called the most consistent bourgeois reform of the 60s-70s. 19th century Do you agree with this? Why?

Why is the draft reform of M.T. Is Loris-Melikov called a “constitution”?

What do you see as the reasons for the assassination of Alexander II by the revolutionaries?

Tasks and exercises:

1. Compare the proposals of government officials, liberals, revolutionaries in the field of government, local self-government, solving the agrarian issue on the eve of the reforms of the 60s. 19th century And after they are done. What do you see as the reasons for the differences in their positions?

Mandatory literature:

Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 M., 1992.

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkaev I.N. Russian History: From Catherine the Great to Alexander II. M., 1994.

Zayonchkovsky A.V. Implementation of the peasant reform of 1861. M., 1958.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1968.

Zakharova L.G. Autocracy and the abolition of serfdom in Russia. 1856 - 1861 M., 1984.

Lyashenko L.M. Tsar Liberator: The Life and Deeds of Alexander II. M., 1994.

Russian autocrats. M., 1992.

Additional literature:

Ananyich B., Chernukha V. Ink changes // Motherland. 1991. No. 11 - 12.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century. M., 1978.

History of Russia in portraits. In 2 vols. T. 1. Smolensk, 1996.

Klyuchevsky V.O. The course of Russian history // Works: In 9 vols. T. 5. M., 1989.

Litvak B.G. The coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reformist alternative was not realized. M., 1991.

Lyashenko L.M. Revolutionary Populists. M., 1989.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century): In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Troitsky N.Ya. Madness of the brave: Russian revolutionaries and the punitive policy of tsarism. 1866 - 1882 M., 1978.

Utopian socialism in Russia. M., 1985.

Topics of reports, abstracts, messages:

Contemporaries about the bourgeois reforms of the 60s - 70s. 19th century

Alexander II: man and sovereign.

- "Prussian" and "American" ways of development of capitalism in agriculture post-reform Russia.

Questions for discussion:

Alternatives for the development of the country in the middle of the XIX century.

Reforms of the 60s - 70s XIX century: delayed or accelerated the fall of the autocracy in Russia?

1. Reasons for the abolition of serfdom. reform projects.

2. The abolition of serfdom. The content and essence of the reform. Its historical significance.

3. The beginning of the formation of civil society in the 60s - 70s. 19th century:

Land reform.

City reform.

Judicial reform.

military reform.

Reform in the field of education.

4. Socio-economic and political consequences of reforms.

5. Populist movement. Populist circles. "Journey to the People".

Terms: "segments", "going to the people", temporarily liable peasants, redemption payments, zemstvo, populism, jurors.

Historical figures: Alexander II, M.T. Loris-Melikov, D.A. Milyutin, K.P. Pobedonostsev.

January 1857 - Formation of the Secret Committee to draft agrarian reform.

November 1857 - the creation of provincial noble committees to discuss the conditions for the liberation of the peasants.

1858 - The Secret Committee was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Liberation of specific peasants.

1859 - the creation of editorial commissions to study the materials of the provincial committees.

1861 - formation of the secret society "Land and Freedom".

June 18, 1863 - adoption of the liberal university charter, the beginning of the implementation of the reform in the field of education.

Spring - summer 1874 - "going to the people."

1876 ​​- the creation of a renewed revolutionary populist organization "Land and Freedom".

Summer 1879 - the formation on the basis of "Land and Freedom" of new populist organizations: "Narodnaya Volya" and "Black Redistribution".

Map: the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

The main documents of the era: "Manifesto February 19, 1861"; "Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom" (1861); "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" (1864); "The Establishment of Judicial Institutions" (1864); "Regulations on Primary Public Schools" (1864); "City position June 16, 1870"; "Charter on military service" (1874).

Questions for self-examination of the studied material:

What are the reasons for the peasant reform?

What are the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the reform of 1861 of the landowners, peasants, representatives of the liberal and revolutionary camps?

What strata of the population formed the Russian bourgeoisie?

What stages can you single out in the development of bourgeois reforms in the 60s and 70s? 19th century

What do you see as the reasons that prompted Alexander II to accept the Zemstvo reform? What did conservatives, liberals, revolutionaries expect from her? Whose expectations did she live up to?

Usually the judicial reform of 1864 is called the most consistent bourgeois reform of the 60s-70s. 19th century Do you agree with this? Why?

Why is the draft reform of M.T. Is Loris-Melikov called a “constitution”?

What do you see as the reasons for the assassination of Alexander II by the revolutionaries?

Tasks and exercises:

1. Compare the proposals of government officials, liberals, revolutionaries in the field of government, local self-government, solving the agrarian issue on the eve of the reforms of the 60s. 19th century And after they are done. What do you see as the reasons for the differences in their positions?

Mandatory literature:

Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 M., 1992.

Zaichkin I.A., Pochkaev I.N. Russian History: From Catherine the Great to Alexander II. M., 1994.

Zayonchkovsky A.V. Implementation of the peasant reform of 1861. M., 1958.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1968.

Zakharova L.G. Autocracy and the abolition of serfdom in Russia. 1856 - 1861 M., 1984.

Lyashenko L.M. Tsar Liberator: The Life and Deeds of Alexander II. M., 1994.

Russian autocrats. M., 1992.

Additional literature:

Ananyich B., Chernukha V. Ink changes // Motherland. 1991. No. 11 - 12.

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century. M., 1978.

History of Russia in portraits. In 2 vols. T. 1. Smolensk, 1996.

Klyuchevsky V.O. The course of Russian history // Works: In 9 vols. T. 5. M., 1989.

Litvak B.G. The coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reformist alternative was not realized. M., 1991.

Lyashenko L.M. Revolutionary Populists. M., 1989.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century): In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Troitsky N.Ya. Madness of the brave: Russian revolutionaries and the punitive policy of tsarism. 1866 - 1882 M., 1978.

Utopian socialism in Russia. M., 1985.

Topics of reports, abstracts, messages:

Contemporaries about the bourgeois reforms of the 60s - 70s. 19th century

Alexander II: man and sovereign.

- "Prussian" and "American" ways of developing capitalism in agriculture in post-reform Russia.

Questions for discussion:

Alternatives for the development of the country in the middle of the XIX century.

Reforms of the 60s - 70s XIX century: delayed or accelerated the fall of the autocracy in Russia?

The abolition of serfdom posed new serious problems for the authorities. For centuries, the serf system determined the organization of the system of administration and legal proceedings in Russia, the principles of recruiting the army, etc. The collapse of this system dictated the need for further reforms.

Zemstvo and city reforms

The abolition of serfdom created many empty places in the previously existing system of local government, because. this latter was closely connected with serfdom. So, before each landowner in his estate was for his peasants the personification of power. And in the county and provincial administration, most of the posts since the time of Catherine II were filled at the choice of the nobility and from among its representatives. After the abolition of serfdom, the whole system collapsed. And without that, the local economy was extremely neglected. Health care practically non-existent in the village. Epidemics claimed thousands of lives. The peasants did not know the elementary rules of hygiene. Public education could not get out of its infancy. Individual landowners who maintained schools for their peasants closed them immediately after the abolition of serfdom. Nobody cared about country roads. Thus, it was urgent to find a way out of this intolerable situation, given that the state treasury was exhausted, and the government could not raise the local economy on its own. Therefore, it was decided to meet the needs of the liberal public (especially from the non-Chernozem provinces), which petitioned for the introduction of local all-estate self-government.

These ideas were expressed by N.A. Milyutin in a note addressed to the emperor. Once approved by the latter, they became the guiding principles of the reform. These principles were expressed in the formula: to give local self-government as much confidence as possible, as much independence as possible, and as much unity as possible.

On January 1, 1864, the law on zemstvo self-government was approved. Zemstvo reform began, during which a system of local self-government bodies was created in Russia at two territorial levels - in the county and the province. The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and the executive bodies were county and provincial zemstvo councils. Zemstvo elections were held every three years. In each county, three electoral congresses (curia) were created to elect deputies of the county zemstvo assembly. The first curia (private landowners) included persons, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 dessiatins. land (the land qualification for different counties was not the same). To the second (rural societies) - elected from volost gatherings. The third curia (city voters) included city owners with a certain property qualification. Each of the congresses elected a certain equal number vowels (for a period of three years). District zemstvo assemblies elected provincial zemstvo councillors. To fulfill their tasks, the zemstvos received the right to impose a special tax on the population.

As a rule, nobles predominated in zemstvo assemblies. Despite conflicts with liberal landlords, the autocracy considered the local nobility to be its main support. Therefore, district leaders of the nobility automatically (by position) became chairmen of county assemblies, and provincial leaders became chairmen of provincial assemblies. Zemstvo was introduced only in 34 provinces of European Russia. He was not in Siberia and in the Arkhangelsk province, because. there were no landlords. Zemstvos were not introduced in the Region of the Don Cossacks, in Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces where Cossack self-government existed.

The functions of the zemstvos were quite diverse. They were in charge of the local economy (construction and maintenance of local roads, etc.), public education, medicine, and statistics. However, they could deal with all these matters only within their county or province. Zemstvo had no right not only to solve any problems of a national nature, but even to put them up for discussion. Moreover, the provincial zemstvos were forbidden to communicate with each other and coordinate their activities even in such matters as the fight against hunger, epidemics, and the loss of livestock.

Milyutin did not insist on expanding the competence of the zemstvos, but he believed that in their field of activity they should enjoy complete autonomy and independence from local administrative authorities, reporting only to the Senate, and that the governors should be given only the right to oversee the legality of their actions.

The shortcomings of the zemstvo reform were obvious: the incompleteness of the structure of the zemstvo bodies (the absence of a higher central body), the artificial creation of a numerical advantage for the landed nobility, and the limited scope of activities. At the same time, this reform was of great importance. The very fact of the appearance in Russia of a system of self-government, radically different from the dominant bureaucratic system, was important. The electivity of the zemstvo bodies, their relative independence from bureaucratic structures made it possible to expect that these bodies, for all their shortcomings, would proceed from the interests of the local population and bring real benefits to them. These hopes were generally justified. Soon after the creation of zemstvos, Russia was covered with a network of zemstvo schools and hospitals.

With the advent of the Zemstvo, the balance of power in the provinces began to change. Previously, all affairs in the counties were handled by government officials, together with the landowners. Now that a network of schools has unfolded. hospitals and statistical bureaus, a “third element” appeared, as zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists, and statisticians began to be called. Many representatives of the rural intelligentsia showed high standards of service to the people. They were trusted by peasants, councils listened to their advice. Government officials have watched the rise of the "third element" with concern.

As soon as they were born, the zemstvos met with an extremely hostile attitude towards them from all government bodies - central and local, they soon lost a significant part of their already small powers, which led to the fact that many worthy figures of the zemstvo movement cooled off towards it and left the zemstvo administrations and assemblies.

According to the law, the Zemstvos were purely economic organizations. But soon they began to play an important political role. In those years, the most enlightened and humane landowners usually went to the zemstvo service. They became vowels of zemstvo assemblies, members and chairmen of administrations. They stood at the origins of the zemstvo liberal movement. And the representatives of the "third element" were attracted to the left, democratic, currents of social thought. Hope arose in society for further steps in the radical reorganization of the state system in Russia. Liberal activists, who sincerely welcomed the reform, consoled themselves with the dream of "crowning the building" - the creation of an all-Russian representative body on the basis of the Zemstvo, which would be an advance towards a constitutional monarchy. But the government took a completely different path. As it turned out later, in 1864 she gave the maximum of self-government, which she considered possible. Government policy towards the Zemstvo in the second half of the 1860s - 1870s. aimed at depriving him of any independence. The governors received the right to refuse to approve any person elected by the Zemstvo; even greater rights were given to them in relation to "employees" - zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians: on the slightest occasion they were not only expelled from the zemstvo, but also sent outside the province. In addition, the governor became the censor of all printed publications zemstvos - reports, journals of meetings, statistical studies. The central and local authorities deliberately stifled any initiative of the zemstvos, rooted out any inclination towards independent activity. When conflict situations the government did not stop before the dissolution of Zemstvo assemblies, the exile of their members and other punitive measures.

As a result, instead of moving forward towards representative government, the authorities stubbornly backed away, trying to include the zemstvo bodies in the bureaucratic system. This fettered the activities of zemstvos and undermined their authority. Nevertheless, the zemstvos managed to achieve serious success in their specific work, especially in the field of public education and medicine. But they were never destined to become full-fledged self-government bodies and serve as the basis for building a constitutional order.

On similar grounds, in 1870, the City Regulations (the law on the reform of city self-government) was published. Improvement issues (lighting, heating, water supply, cleaning, transport, construction of city driveways, embankments, bridges, etc.) were subject to the guardianship of city dumas and councils, as well as the management of school, medical and charitable affairs, care for the development of trade and industry. Compulsory expenses for the maintenance of the fire department, police, prisons, barracks were assigned to the City Dumas (these expenses absorbed from 20 to 60% of the city budget). The city position eliminated the class principle in the formation of city self-government bodies, replacing it with a property qualification. In the elections in City Council participants were males who had reached the age of 25 in three electoral congresses (curia) (small, medium and large taxpayers) with equal total amounts of city tax payments. Each curia elected 1/3 of the members of the City Duma. Along with private individuals, departments, companies, monasteries, etc., who paid fees to the city budget, received the right to vote. Workers who did not pay taxes to the city did not participate in the elections. The number of dumas was established taking into account the population from 30 to 72 vowels, in Moscow - 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The mayor, his friend (deputy) and the council were elected by the duma. The mayor headed both the Duma and the Council, coordinating their activities. The supervisory body for the observance of the rule of law in the activities of city self-government was the Provincial Presence for City Affairs (under the chairmanship of the governor).

Within the limits of their competence, the City Dumas had relative independence and self-sufficiency. They did a lot of work on the improvement and development of cities, but in social movement were not as visible as the zemstvos. This was due to the long-standing political inertia of the merchants and the business class.

Judicial reform

In 1864, a judicial reform was also carried out, which radically transformed the structure of the Russian court and the entire process of legal proceedings. The former courts have existed without any significant changes since the time of Catherine II, although the need for judicial reform was recognized even by Alexander I. The main vices of the old judicial system were estates (each estate has its own court and its own laws), complete subordination to the administration and closeness litigation(which opened up unprecedented opportunities for abuse and lawlessness). The defendant was not always informed of even all the grounds on which the charges brought against him were based. The verdict was passed on the totality of the system of formal evidence, and not on the inner conviction of the judge. The judges themselves often did not have not only legal education, but not at all.

It was possible to take up the reform only after the abolition of serfdom, which forced the abandonment of the principle of class and the change of the conservative Minister of Justice, Count. V.N. Panin. The author of the judicial reform was a longtime supporter of changes in this area, State Secretary of the State Council (one of the few who spoke in the State Assembly in 1861 for the approval of the peasant reform) Sergei Ivanovich Zarudny. In 1862, the emperor approved the main provisions of the judicial reform developed by him: 1) the absence of estates of the court, 2) the equality of all citizens before the law, 3) the complete independence of the court from the administration (which was guaranteed by the irremovability of judges), 4) the careful selection of judicial personnel and their sufficient material support.

The old class courts were abolished. Instead of them, a world court and a crown court were created - two systems independent of each other, which were united only by subordination to one supreme judicial body - the Senate. The magistrate's court with a simplified procedure was introduced in the counties to deal with cases of minor offenses and civil cases with a minor claim (for the first time this category of cases was separated from the general mass). More serious cases were dealt with in the crown court, which had two instances: the district court and the judicial chamber. In case of violation of the lawful order of legal proceedings, the decisions of these bodies could be appealed to the Senate.

From the old courts, which conducted business in a purely bureaucratic manner, the new ones differed primarily in that they were public, i.e. open to the public and press. In addition, the judicial procedure was based on an adversarial process, during which the accusation was formulated, substantiated and supported by the prosecutor, and the interests of the defendant were defended by a lawyer from among the sworn lawyers. The prosecutor and the lawyer had to find out all the circumstances of the case, interrogating witnesses, analyzing material evidence, etc. After listening to the judicial debate, their verdict in the case (“guilty”, “not guilty”, “guilty, but deserves leniency”) was passed by jurors (12 people), who were chosen by lot from representatives of all classes. Based on the verdict, the crown court (represented by the chairman and two members of the court) pronounced a sentence. Only in case of a clear violation of procedural norms (non-hearing by the court of one of the parties, non-summoning of witnesses, etc.), the parties could, having filed a cassation appeal, transfer the case (civil - from the court chamber, criminal - from the district court) to the Senate, which, in the event confirmation of violations, transferred the case without consideration to another court, or to the same, but in a different composition. A feature of the reform was that both the investigators who prepared the case for trial and the judges who led the entire judicial procedure, although they were appointed by the government, were irremovable for the entire term of their powers. In other words, as a result of the reform, it was supposed to create a court as independent as possible and protect it from extraneous influences, primarily from pressure from the administration. At the same time, cases of state and certain judicial crimes, as well as cases of the press, were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the jury.

The world court, whose task was to provide the Russian people with a court “quick, right and merciful,” consisted of one person. The magistrate was elected by the zemstvo assemblies or city dumas for three years. The government could not by its power remove him from office (as well as the judges of the district crown court). The task of the magistrate's court was to reconcile the guilty, and if the parties were unwilling, the judge was given considerable scope in imposing punishment - depending not on any external formal data, but on his inner conviction. The introduction of magistrates' courts significantly relieved the crown courts from the mass of petty cases.

Yet the judicial reform of 1864 remained unfinished. To resolve conflicts among the peasantry, the estate volost court was retained. This was partly due to the fact that peasant legal concepts were very different from general civil ones. A magistrate with a "Code of Laws" would often be powerless to judge the peasants. The volost court, which consisted of peasants, judged on the basis of the customs existing in the area. But he was too exposed to the influence of the wealthy upper classes of the village and all sorts of bosses. The volost court and the mediator had the right to award corporal punishment. This shameful phenomenon existed in Russia until 1904. There was a separate church court for the clergy (for specifically church matters).

In addition, soon after the start of the implementation of the judicial reform, largely under the influence of the unprecedented scope of terrorism, the authorities began to subordinate the courts to the dominating bureaucratic system. In the second half of the 1860s - 1870s, the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press were significantly limited; the dependence of judicial officials on the local administration increased: they were ordered to unquestioningly “submit to the lawful demands” of the provincial authorities. The principle of irremovability was also undermined: instead of investigators, “acting” investigators were increasingly appointed, to whom the principle of irremovability did not apply. Innovations relating to political cases were especially characteristic : the investigation of these cases began to be conducted not by investigators, but by gendarmes; legal proceedings were carried out not by jury trials, but by the Special Presence of the Governing Senate, created specifically for this purpose.Since the end of the 1870s, a significant part of political cases began to be considered by military courts.

And yet, it can be said without hesitation that judicial reform was the most radical and consistent of all the Great Reforms of the 1860s.

Military reforms

In 1861, General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin was appointed Minister of War. Given the lessons of the Crimean War, he spent in the 1860s - I half. 1870s a series of military reforms. One of the main tasks of the military reforms was to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and create the possibility for a significant increase in it in wartime. This was achieved by reducing the non-combat element (non-combatant, local and auxiliary troops) and introducing in 1874 (under the influence of the successful actions of the Prussian army in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871) universal military service, which replaced the pre-reform recruitment. Military service extended to the entire male population, aged 21-40, without distinction of class. For the ground forces, a 6-year term of active service and 9 years in the reserve were established; for the fleet - 7 years of active service and 3 years in reserve. Then those liable for military service were transferred as warriors to the State Militia, where those released from conscription were also enrolled. In peacetime, no more than 25 - 30% of total number conscripts. A significant part of the recruits were exempted from service on family benefits (the only son of the parents, the only breadwinner in the family, etc.), due to physical unsuitability, according to the occupation (doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, educators and teachers); the rest drew lots. Representatives of the peoples of the North and Central Asia, some peoples of the Caucasus, the Urals and Siberia (Muslims). Under special conditions, the Cossacks served in the military. Terms of service were reduced depending on education. If the educated person entered active service voluntarily (volunteer), then the term of service was further reduced by half. Under this condition, conscripts who had a secondary education served only seven months, and a higher education - three. These benefits have become an additional incentive for the dissemination of education. In the course of Milyutin's reforms, the conditions of service for the lower ranks (soldiers) were significantly changed: corporal punishment was abolished (punishment with rods was left only for the category of "penalized"); improved food, uniforms and barracks; strict measures have been taken to stop the beatings of soldiers; the systematic training of soldiers in literacy was introduced (in company schools). The abolition of recruitment, along with the abolition of serfdom, significantly increased the popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.

At the same time, a well-ordered, strictly centralized structure was created to streamline the military command and control system. In 1862 - 1864 Russia was divided into 15 military districts directly subordinate to the War Ministry. Established in 1865 Main Headquarters- the central command and control body of the troops. The transformations in the field of military education were also of great importance: instead of closed cadet corps military gymnasiums were established, close in program to high school(gymnasium) and opened the way to any higher educational institution. Those who wish to continue military education, entered the institutions established in the 1860s. specialized cadet schools - artillery, cavalry, military engineering. An important feature of these schools was their all-class nature, which opened access to the officer corps to persons of non-noble origin. Higher military education was given by the academy - General Staff. artillery, military medical, naval, etc. The army was re-equipped (the first rifled breech-loading guns, Berdan rifles, etc.).

Military reforms met with strong opposition from conservative circles of the generals and society; The main opponent of the reforms was Field Marshal Prince. A.I. Baryatinsky. Military "authorities" criticized the reforms for their bureaucratic nature, belittling the role of the commanding staff, overthrowing the age-old foundations of the Russian army.

The results and significance of the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s.

The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s are a major phenomenon in the history of Russia. New, modern self-government bodies and courts contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of civil consciousness of the population, the spread of education, and the improvement of the quality of life. Russia joined the pan-European process of creating advanced, civilized forms of statehood based on the self-activity of the population and its will. But these were only the first steps. The remnants of serfdom were strong in local government, and many noble privileges remained intact. The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s did not affect the upper levels of power. The autocracy and the police system, inherited from past eras, were preserved.

wiki.304.ru / History of Russia. Dmitry Alkhazashvili.