Lecture plan:

1. State reforms V 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 reform 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 reforms to be aimed at developing entrepreneurship as 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 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 structure of the Russian state in such a way that its transformation from an autocratic-absolutist into a bourgeois monarchy began. The peasant reform of 1861 changed the economic basis of the country (Russia firmly took the path of capitalist development), and the reforms of the 60-70s. 19th century brought the old political superstructure into line with the new basis.

1. State reforms in the Russian Empire (second half of the 19th century). On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II approved the main normative acts of the peasant reform: (1) Manifesto on the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants, and on the organization 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 were local provisions are accepted. 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 - corvee 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 letters were drawn up by landowners or mediators (the latter were appointed from the noble landowners 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 allotments that were inconvenient for cultivation, since the landlords retained the best land. 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. Thus, 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 go to court, having received equal rights with others procedural rights by estates. Initially, the period of stay in a temporarily obligated state was not established, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, about 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed from the mandatory transition to redemption within two years. Within this period, redemption transactions should have been concluded or the right to land should have been lost. In 1883, the category of temporarily liable persons disappeared, thereby actually completing the transition to the next stage of the peasant reform. The second stage of the reform. At this stage, the peasant had to become the owner. To do this, he had to redeem the estate and field lands (the user of which he was from the moment he received the allotment). To ensure the reality of the redemption of land, the government organized the so-called redemption operation. It paid the redemption sum for the peasants, thus providing the peasants with a loan. This loan had to be repaid over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan (this capitalized 6% quitrent was equal to the pre-reform annual income of the landowner). Thus, the redemption amount was based not on the actual value of the land, but on the amount of dues that the landowner received before the reform (the redemption operation was based not on capitalist, but on feudal criteria). The redemption price significantly (1.5 times) exceeded the actual value earth. In fact, the value of the land of peasant plots was estimated at 544 million rubles, taking into account annual 6%, this amount was 867 million rubles, but taking into account the growth in interest, the peasants actually paid an amount almost four times the actual value of the land - until 1907, the peasants paid 1540 million rubles. Not without reason, for most peasants, redemption payments stretched until 1905-1907, when the government canceled the redemption for land. Consequently, the peasants paid not only for 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 other half would be paid by the community (the community was used to extort redemption 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 patch 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 transaction, and in the growth of the size of redemption payments, etc.; (2) the allotments of the former landlord peasants decreased compared to pre-reform ones; (3) payments (compared to the old dues) increased; (4 ) the community actually lost its rights to use forests, meadows and reservoirs; (5) courtyard people were freed without land; (6) in addition to redemption payments for land, peasants paid a poll tax to the state, as well as local and state taxes and fees; the rural society was responsible for the correctness of the payments of its members and could apply coercive measures to faulty payers: taking away income from real estate, giving it to work or guardianship, forced sale of the debtor's movable and immovable property, taking away part or all of the allotment. The attitude of the peasants to the reform is best expressed by the official statistics of peasant unrest, of which 1860 were registered during 1861. Zemstvo and city reforms. Land reform. The pre-reform system of local government had such characteristic features as (1) representation and protection of the interests of the noble-landlord class; (2) the predominance of the principles of bureaucracy and centralism in the activities of these bodies, disregard for local conditions and local interests; (3) the lack of separation of administrative, judicial and economic powers. Therefore, the implementation of the peasant reform required an urgent restructuring of the local government system. It is believed 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 economy and local interests, but not having their own executive bodies and passing their decisions through the police and bureaucratic apparatus of the state. However, the creation of zemstvo institutions was hindered 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 district 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) city curia - suffrage was received by city 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: "people's 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 chronological framework under consideration, attracted the attention of zemstvos, since, according to the majority of vowels, they were inextricably linked with any other area. economic activity in post-reform Russia, and were the specifics of the traditional and national economic structure. 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 the city self-government bodies on the government administration). City Council could only be elected by city taxpayers. 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 the data of searches, documents, matching testimony of several "reliable" witnesses, and the testimony of men was given more weight than the testimony of women. Preference was given to the testimony of the noble over the humble, the rich over the poor, the clergy over the secular. The testimonies of "gentiles" against the Orthodox were not taken into account. Only clear evidence was needed to convict. In the absence of "reliable" evidence, despite the totality of circumstantial evidence, the defendant could not be convicted and was left by the court "in suspicion" or "in strong suspicion." Many years of judicial red tape was a common practice. The clerical nature of legal proceedings, the requirement for various certificates led to the fact that cases, even in the court of first instance, were considered for years. Even according to the law, more than three years were allotted for consideration of a criminal case with an appeal only in the next instance. The decisions of the criminal chambers were approved by the governor. The ranks of the III Branch could freely interfere in the affairs of the courts. According to most lawyers and historians, the judicial system could be modernized, however, it did not meet the interests of the bourgeoisie, which was gaining strength, so the judicial reform of 1864 introduced a new judicial system and legal proceedings in the country, built mainly on the principles of bourgeois law. True, it must be remembered that in some regions of Russia the reform was not carried out at all (for example, in certain provinces of Siberia), and in some regions it was carried out in a truncated form (without world courts and without district courts with juries). On November 20, 1864, the main normative acts of judicial reform were approved: (1) Establishment of judicial institutions; (2) the Statute of Criminal Procedure; (3) Statute of Civil Procedure; (4) The Statute on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace. According to these normative acts, the judicial power of the landowners over the peasants was abolished, the role of estate courts was reduced (there were spiritual courts), 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 not exceeding 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. (V countryside), not less than 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 complaints were allowed, filed in the case when the parties considered that the procedural forms of legal proceedings were violated during the consideration of the case in court. The second instance - appeal and cassation - in the system of world courts was congress of magistrates, which included all district and honorary judges of the district. They elected a chairman from among their members for a term of three years. The meetings of the congress took place at the dates appointed by the zemstvo assemblies or city dumas. According to the final decisions of the justices of the peace, the congress considered only cassation protests and complaints. According to non-final decisions, the congress accepted appeals for review of the case on the merits. One of the associate prosecutors of the district court took part in the meeting of the congress of justices of the peace, who gave opinions on the cases under consideration. The decisions of the congress were final and could only be overruled by the Senate on appeal. General court system. According to the Judicial Statutes of 1864, criminal and civil cases that were not under the jurisdiction of justices of the peace were considered in district courts(in 1865-1866 two judicial districts were created - St. Petersburg and Moscow, the rest were created before the end of the century). Judicial districts did not always coincide with the administrative division: in some provinces there were several district courts (as a rule, one judicial district included several counties). The district court consisted of the chairman, his associates (their number depended on the category of the court) and members of the court ( crown court). The district courts were divided into divisions, headed by comrades of the chairman. The associations of these departments constituted the general meeting. Crown judges were appointed by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice from among persons with a higher legal education and at least three years of work experience in law enforcement agencies. Members of the district court could not be transferred from one city to another without their consent. The removal of a judge from office was allowed only by a court decision in the event that the judge committed a criminal offense (the principle of the irremovability of judges). At the district courts established forensic investigators. They had judicial titles, were members of district courts. They were subject to the rule of irremovability. They were assigned to certain areas. Later, positions of investigators for major and especially important cases were established at some courts. The first, at the direction of the court or the prosecutor's office, investigated criminal cases throughout the territory of the district court, in which the investigator was a member; the latter conducted investigations on the territory of the entire Russian Empire at the direction of the Minister of Justice. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the indictment chamber of the judicial chamber, with the participation of the prosecutor, brought the accused to trial. Formally, the judicial investigator was not subordinate to the prosecutor, but in fact he was dependent on him. The prosecutor led the investigation, he gave instructions to the investigator, and gave a conclusion on whether the investigation had been completed sufficiently. Cases in district courts were heard by jurors or without them. Jurors were involved in the consideration of such cases, in which punishment was provided, connected with the restriction or deprivation of the rights of the state. The restriction of the rights of the state was expressed: (1) in the deprivation of certain personal rights and advantages: for the nobles, this meant a prohibition to be in state or public service; for persons of clergy - deprivation of clergy; (2) in the deprivation of all special rights and advantages: meant, in addition to the above restrictions, the loss of the nobility, the deprivation of honorary titles, ranks and distinctions; (3) as well as in the deprivation of marital and parental rights and property rights. The jury had to decide on the guilt of the defendant, and in the event of a conviction, 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. The jurors could be Russian subjects of all classes, who had a certain property qualification and were not in the service of private individuals (that is, not to 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. Trial in the district court was public, conducted orally and passed on the principle of adversarial 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. Jury trial was the crown judicial reform 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 supervised the activities of all judicial institutions and acted as the highest cassation instance on the final verdicts of the 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 senior officials 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, 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 decisions such as temporary or permanent prohibition to act as an attorney could be appealed to the Trial Chamber. The important powers of the Council also included the appointment of defenders to persons who enjoyed the so-called "right of poverty" (that is, persons who are unable to pay for the services of a lawyer in court). In those judicial districts that did not have 20 sworn attorneys, the functions of the Council were assigned to the local district court. Along with sworn attorneys, there were assistants to sworn attorneys who underwent a 5-year internship under the guidance of the most experienced lawyers. In the legislation, this institution has not received a clear regulation. The practice has followed the path of presenting the same requirements to assistants of sworn attorneys as to sworn attorneys. With a shortage of sworn attorneys, the interests of the litigants could be represented private attorneys. They could be persons without a legal education, elected participants in the process and received special permission from the court to conduct civil or criminal cases. A system was created in provincial and district cities notary offices. The task of the notary was to certify various business papers. military reform. Holding military reform 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 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. The head of the district was chief boss district, he is 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 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. 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), Mikhailovskaya Artillery, Nikolaev Engineering, Alexander Military Law and Quartermaster Academies were engaged in the training and retraining of officers (only officers, served several years in the ranks). But main(fourth)stage military reform was directly related to the transition from recruitment to universal conscription. The recruiting system made it necessary to keep a huge mass of people under arms even in peacetime. At the same time, not all the male population of the country underwent military training, which deprived the army of a reserve in case of war. Initially, the term of service for recruits was reduced from 25 years to 15 years. On January 1, 1874, the Charter on military service was approved, according to which (1) recruitment sets were abolished; (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 as part of 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 directed the state-owned industry, and also provided financial assistance to private industry. Due to the lack of funds for the construction of railways, the government encouraged the activities of the bourgeoisie to participate in railway construction. In 1865, the Ministry of Railways was formed, which began to coordinate the construction of railways. Later, railways began to be built at the expense of state funds. At the beginning of the first stage, the III Branch of the Tsar's 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 of the III Department was to conduct inquiries into the affairs of populists. But it clearly could not cope with this task, and therefore it became necessary to restructure the entire system of organizing bodies involved in political and state security issues. In February 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection of State Order and Public Peace was created, headed by General M.T . Loris-Melikov. He was in favor of a firm dictatorship in the fight against the revolutionary movement, but he believed that too harsh measures could damage tsarism. The Supreme Commission temporarily subordinated the III Division and the corps of gendarmes, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, governors-general, and the military department. The commission conducted an investigation into cases of political crimes in St. Petersburg and its environs. In addition, she supervised such cases throughout the country. Its main task was to unite all punitive organs to fight the revolutionary movement. At the end of 1880, the Supreme Administrative Commission was abolished. In July 1880, the III Branch was abolished, and the functions of political investigation were transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were significantly expanded. In 1861, a Zemsky department was created as part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the land management and management of the peasantry of post-reform Russia. In 1865, the Main Directorate for Press Affairs was created in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was in charge of censorship, which was previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. In 1879, the prison reform was carried out, as a result of which the Main Prison Department was formed within the Ministry of Internal Affairs as the highest controlling and administrative body, whose competence included the central management of the penitentiary system. Restraint and workhouses, debtor's prisons were liquidated; large prisons with central subordination began to be created (centrals, for example, Aleksandrovsky central near Irkutsk). With the liquidation of 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 gendarmerie provincial administration appeared. In order to maintain order in railways and stations in 1861, police gendarmerie departments on the railways were formed. By the decree of Emperor Alexander II of December 25, 1862, the “Temporary rules on the general organization of the police in the cities and counties of the provinces, according to the General Establishment of the Managed” were approved. 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 officers were introduced), distributed by the governors of 46 provinces by county; (2) the officers were subordinate to the bailiffs, supervising, in turn, the sot and ten. With the adoption of judicial charters in 1864, judicial and investigative functions were completely removed from the competence of the police. Only on December 31, 1866, the first special unit appeared in St. Petersburg - a special detective unit under the office of the chief police officer.

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

3. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. State regulated rate. The reforms carried out by Alexander II gave rise to a movement towards a constitution, that is, a transition to a constitutional monarchy in Russia. It was this process that led to the appearance of the plan of the Minister of the Interior, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, called the Constitution of Loris-Melikov. The essence of this plan was as follows. On January 22, 1881, Loris-Melikov submitted to Alexander II a report on the formation of two temporary preparatory commissions (financial and administrative) to develop a project for the transformation of the State Council and provincial administration, revision of zemstvo and city regulations, as well as bills on certain economic and financial issues. The final recommendations were supposed to be accepted by a certain General Commission. But on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by the Narodnaya Volya. On March 8, 1881, an expanded meeting of the Council of Ministers was held in the Winter Palace for a new discussion of the Loris-Melikov plan. Having criticized all the reforms of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev concluded: “And now, sir, they are offering you a new supreme talking shop based on a foreign model.” Pobedonostsev recalled that one such "talking shop", namely the French General States, which were convened by Louis XVI as an advisory and class body, first declared themselves on June 17, 1789, the National Assembly, and on July 9, 1789 - the Constituent Assembly (that is, 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 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 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 estate representatives. Lists of estate 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 tsar. 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 proceedings in certain crimes" according to a special By decree of the king, some political cases were to be considered by a special procedure 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 areas or throughout the empire, a regime of enhanced or emergency protection could be introduced, in which the governors-general acquired broad powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting from 1881, detective departments began to form in Moscow, Kiev, Riga, Odessa, Baku, etc. But in most cities and in all counties 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 also 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 rules of civil law, it was given great attention regulation of various relations connected with 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 labor 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 length of 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). 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

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

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

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

First half of the 19th century characterized by a single period in the socio-economic development of Russia, but this period had its own characteristics. During the reign of Alexander I (1801 - 1825) there was a more liberal domestic politics, especially before the Patriotic War of 1812. During the reign of Nicholas I (1825 - 1855), reactionary-protective measures of the autocracy and an attempt to rebuild the state apparatus to the emerging new historical realities were noted.

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

relations and the feudal-serf system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a layer of service people, intelligentsia and persons with high property qualifications. Decrees 1848 - 1856 further increased the rank, the achievement of which gave the right to hereditary nobility. It was possible to become a full-fledged nobleman only by reaching the ranks of the fifth and fourth classes in the civil service, and the eighth - ninth in the military, respectively. Representatives of non-noble estates who did not reach sufficiently high ranks became honorary citizens. According to the decree of 1815, the right to receive hereditary nobility was given to a serving personal nobleman, whose father and grandfather had served the state without blemish for 20 years.

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

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

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

only directly (clergymen and a small number of black clergy (about 30 thousand monks and novices). The achievement of this goal was facilitated voluntarily - coercive measures of the first quarter of the 19th century. All priests who did not have positions in churches were ordered to switch to secular service or enroll in taxable estate. public service hereditary honorary citizenship was granted, that is, class privileges were preserved for them. In the second quarter of the XIX century. the clergy were gradually transferred to a monetary allowance from the treasury, forcing the jobless clergy, left without a livelihood, to move on to "another occupation."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or military service. The development of serfdom in the XVIII century. led to the opposite definition of the serfdom of the peasant. By the beginning of the XIX century. the landlord peasant was defined as movable property, conditionally correlated with real estate, by means of " revision tales"A serf, at the will of the owner, could be sold, mortgaged, alienated from the land. Therefore, in the 19th century, the landlord peasant was also considered outside the list of immovable property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political system. Changes in the state mechanism

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 more and more drawn into its orbit former peasants. 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 overwhelming 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. Working hours and size wages almost arbitrarily determined by 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 being created for the emergence of bourgeois political parties, however, they are formed later.

The main contradiction in the development of Russian society, which was born in the previous century, arose from the imminent formational changes: capitalism was approaching to replace feudalism. Already in the previous period, the crisis of the feudal system of economy was revealed. Now it's coming with increasing force. Feudalism is increasingly showing its economic failure. At the same time, the crisis of the feudal-serf system becomes comprehensive, covering all the most important spheres of the economy.

In industry, serf manufacture cannot withstand competition with capitalist manufacture, with the bourgeois organization of production. Capitalism ensures immeasurably greater labor productivity and works with extraordinary flexibility and resourcefulness in difficult conditions, when all the foundations of feudalism, primarily serfdom, prevent it from attracting labor force into production and narrow the home market. The victory of bourgeois production is ensured by the use of hired labor and the introduction of machinery. Manufactory is replaced by a factory. During this period, the industrial revolution begins. From 1825 to 1860 the number of large manufacturing enterprises and workers employed in it has tripled. And it is no coincidence that in this industry by 1860 4/5 of the workers were already hired. At the same time, the share of serf workers in the entire industry was another 44%.

Wage labor created an incentive to increase the productivity of a worker interested in the results of production, and the use of machines saved labor power, which was so scarce under feudalism and serfdom. Attempts to use machines in the serf industry run up against the low professional level of the serf worker, and most importantly, his unwillingness to work, since he is not interested in raising labor productivity, but quite the opposite - in saving his labor, simply speaking, in working as possible less.

Violation of the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the nature of the productive forces is also evident in agriculture.

In the 19th century Western Europe is increasingly in need of Russian bread. From 1831 to 1860 the average annual export of grain from Russia increased from 18 million to 69 million poods. At the same time, the domestic market also grew: the sale of bread on it was 9 times higher than exports. Meanwhile, the grain yield at the beginning of the century averaged 2.5 (i.e., 1 sack of seed yielded 2.5 sacks of harvested grain). Consequently, the yield did not differ significantly from what it was centuries ago.

The landowners are trying by various means to increase the marketability of their estates. Some do this by putting even greater pressure on the peasant. In the "exemplary" estate of Count Orlov-Davydov, the whole life of a serf was strictly regulated, for which a special Code was issued. This patrimonial "law" provided for a complex system of punishments for the peasants' negligence to work and even for failure to marry on time: the landowner needed constant replenishment of the labor force.

Other landlords are trying to increase the profitability of their estates by innovation, but this does not give them success. Innovations fail because of the same lack of interest of the peasant in his work.

All-round pressure on the peasant only engenders the growth of class resistance. After a lull at the very beginning of the century, peasant unrest grows, especially intensifying at certain moments. Thus, after the Patriotic War of 1812, which gave rise to some illusions among the peasantry, widespread indignation broke out among the peasants when their hopes of making life easier did not come true. A new wave of peasant protests swept in connection with the accession of Nicholas I to the throne. In 1826 alone, 178 peasant uprisings were registered. At the end of the reign of Nicholas, the number of peasant unrest increased by 1.5 times.

The ever-increasing development of bourgeois relations in the economy, the crisis of the serf economy cannot but be reflected in the social structure of society, where capitalism is maturing in the depths of feudalism.

The most important moment determining the changes in the social structure during this period is that instead of the former main classes, the main classes of bourgeois society are gradually taking shape - the capitalists and wage workers, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The formation of new classes, as before, is due to the decomposition of the old ones. The bourgeoisie was formed mainly from the merchant class and the top of the peasantry, who managed to get rich in one way or another. Such peasants, sometimes even landowners, were released by their master for quitrent, enriched themselves, bringing the master a much greater benefit than if they worked on arable land. A significant part of the Ivanovo factory owners came from the wealthy serfs who exploited tens of thousands of their own fellow villagers. The Russian bourgeoisie of the first half of the 19th century, growing in numbers and getting richer, remained, however, a weak political force. In any case, she, as in previous centuries, did not even think about political power. The Russian bourgeoisie was not a revolutionary force. The first troublemakers in Russia in the XIX century. the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists and Herzen became, and then - the revolutionary democrats-raznochintsy.

Due to the decomposition of the old classes, the proletariat also took shape. It was formed from artisans and the urban lower classes, but the main source of its formation was, again, the peasantry. The landowners of predominantly non-Chernozem provinces, as already noted, often let their peasants go to work on the condition of paying dues. These peasants entered factories and plants and were exploited as hired workers.

Such a form of capitalist organization of production was also widespread, when an entrepreneur distributed work among peasant huts, thus not caring about either the premises or the equipment. The serf became a worker without even noticing it.

The formation of new social classes gave rise to fundamentally new class antagonisms, the struggle of labor against capital. Already in the 1930s and 1940s, a labor movement emerged. Tsarism has to take this new factor into account in its policy: in 1835 and 1845. the first labor laws are issued, protecting the elementary rights of workers, albeit to a negligible extent.

The formation of new classes took place within the framework of the former estate system. The division of society into estates remained in principle unshakable. 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 growing bourgeoisie. In 1832, a new state was introduced as part of the class of urban residents - honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were an exempt estate, in their status close to the nobility. This concession to the bourgeoisie also had the goal of protecting the nobility from the penetration of socially alien elements into it, inasmuch as the isolation of the nobility is intensifying. In 1810, Alexander I allowed the top merchants to acquire inhabited lands from the treasury, specifically stipulating that this, however, does not give the buyer any noble rights. At the same time, as early as 1801, the distribution of new estates to the nobles was prohibited. Under Nicholas I, measures are being taken to make it difficult to acquire the nobility in the service. In 1845, the requirements for civil servants applying for the nobility were sharply increased. To acquire hereditary nobility, it was now necessary to rise to the rank of headquarters officer in the army and to the 5th class in civilian service. Among the nobles themselves, inequality was established depending on their property status in favor, of course, of the largest, richest landowners. In 1831, a procedure was introduced according to which only large landowners and peasant owners could directly participate in the elections of the nobility, while others voted only indirectly. I must say that the property status of the nobility was very heterogeneous. In the second quarter of the XIX century. There were more than 250 thousand nobles, of which about 150 thousand did not have peasants, more than 100 thousand were themselves engaged in arable farming.

The economic development of the country, the peasant movement forced to take some steps towards the weakening of serfdom. Even the chief of the gendarmes, Benckendorff, wrote to the tsar about the need for a gradual emancipation of the peasants. In 1803, the well-known Decree on free cultivators was adopted, in 1842 landowners were allowed to transfer land to peasants for certain duties, in 1848 peasants were allowed to buy real estate. It is obvious that these steps towards the emancipation of the peasants did not introduce significant changes in their legal status. It is only important to note that institutions were tested in the legislation on the peasantry, which would later be used in the peasant reform of 1861. (repurchase of land, "obligated state", etc.).

The class and estate division of Russian society was supplemented by an ethnic division. Russia, which has been a multi-ethnic state since time immemorial, has become even more multi-ethnic in this period. It included areas that stood at different levels economic development, and this could not but affect the social structure of the empire. At the same time, all the territories that again entered the Russian Empire were typologically related to the feudal formation, although at different stages of development. Consequently, their class and estate structure was, in principle, of the same type.

The accession of new territories to Russia meant the inclusion of foreign feudal lords in the general structure of Russian feudal lords, and the feudal-dependent population - in the composition of the exploited. However, such inclusion did not take place mechanically, but had certain features. Back in the 18th century the tsarist government granted all the rights of the Russian nobility to the Baltic barons. Moreover, they received privileges even in comparison with the Russian nobles. The Polish feudal lords also initially received Russian rights. Moldavian boyars in Bessarabia also acquired the rights of Russian nobles. In 1827, the Georgian nobles also received such rights. In the 19th century, as before, people were accepted into the civil service, regardless of their nationality. In the official lists of officials there was not even a column about nationality.

As for the workers, the peasants of other nationalities had certain advantages over the Great Russians. In the Baltics, the emancipation of the peasants was carried out earlier than in Central Russia. Personal freedom was preserved for the peasants of the Kingdom of Poland and Finland. Moldovan peasants were given the right to move. In Northern Azerbaijan, the tsarist government confiscated the lands of recalcitrant feudal lords, which accounted for 3/4 of all land holdings in the region. At the same time, the peasants who lived on such lands were exempted from the duties of their former feudal lords and moved to the position of state peasants. Kazakhs also received the rights of state peasants. Moreover, they were allowed to move to other classes. Slavery, which still took place in Kazakhstan, was banned. The Kazakh population was freed from recruitment, which oppressed the Russian peasants with a heavy oppression.

Thus, non-national peasants either gained or, at least, did not lose anything from joining Russia.

As for the lords, their interests continue to clash with the interests of the Russian feudal lords, and this gives rise to a certain wave of local nationalism. True, tsarism pursued a rather flexible policy towards foreign feudal lords, trying to win them over to its side, and in most cases it succeeded.

Changes in the state mechanism

In the development of the Russian state stands out as an independent period from the beginning of the XIX century. until 1861. At this time, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, absolutism reaches its zenith. All power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the emperor of all Russia. In the Fundamental Laws that open the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, the idea of ​​autocracy is formulated clearly and categorically: “The Emperor of Russia is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. God himself commands to obey his supreme authority not only out of fear, but also out of conscience. As before, as we see, autocracy is ideologically justified by divine origin. At the same time, a new idea appears - the idea of ​​the legitimacy of the power of the monarch.

The emperor in this period sought to personally intervene even in the minutiae of state administration. Of course, such an aspiration was limited by real human capabilities: the tsar was not able to do without state bodies that would carry out his desires, his policies. The Russian ambassador in London, Count S. R. Vorontsov, wrote in a private letter in 1801: “The country is too vast for the sovereign, even if he was a second Peter the Great, to do everything himself under the existing form of government without a constitution, without firm laws, without irremovable and independent courts”.

There were talks about the constitution under Alexander I. Even two drafts were drawn up - M. M. Speransky, and later - Η. Η. Novosiltsev. Despite the fact that they were drawn up with the expectation not to shake the foundations of the autocracy in any way, things did not go beyond the author's exercises.

Quietly doing without a constitution, the Russian emperors could not at the same time do without improving the state apparatus, without adapting it to the needs of the new time. According to modern researchers, the need for reform was due to two main circumstances. First, the development of bourgeois relations in Russia and the bourgeois revolution in the West required that the state apparatus be adapted so that it could defend the feudal system. Secondly, the nobility, its elite, including the top officials, wanted to keep the emperor in their hands so that he would not take it into his head to encroach on their class privileges, the objective need to limit which was long overdue.

The development of the state mechanism as a whole is characterized in the pre-reform period by conservatism and reactionaryness. The changes that have taken place in it are small and relate mainly to the very beginning of the century, when the young Alexander I, with a circle of like-minded aristocrats, decided to carry out liberal reforms. These reforms, however, stopped at the establishment of ministries and the Council of State.

Having received an order from the emperor to develop a project for the transformation of the state mechanism, M. M. Speransky proposed the creation of the State Duma - a representative body elected by the owners of real estate, which was given legislative prerogatives. At the same time, it was proposed to create a purely bureaucratic State Council, which would also be entrusted with legislative and, at the same time, administrative duties. The idea of ​​the State Duma was resolutely rejected, because it was seen as an attempt to limit the autocracy, and the State Council was created in 1810.

All bills had to pass through the Council of State. He himself had to develop the most important of them. At the same time, in the "Formation of the State Council" it was emphasized that not a single project can become a law without the approval of its emperor. The State Council was also responsible for financial management.

The council consisted of a general meeting and 4 departments: the department of laws, departments of military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, and state economy. The emperor himself was considered the chairman of the State Council. However, it was envisaged that he could entrust the chairmanship function to one of the members of the Council. Practically during the period under review, the tsar himself never presided over the Council.

Even earlier, the sectoral management bodies were reformed. Petrovsky collegiums already during the 18th century. gradually withered. The principle of collegiality that existed in these bodies was increasingly replaced by the one-man command of their presidents, and the collegiums themselves were abolished one after another under Catherine II. At the very beginning of his reign, in 1802, Alexander I introduced new bodies of branch management - ministries. The experience of their work was summarized and consolidated in 1811 by the "General Establishment of Ministries". Ministries of foreign affairs, military, financial, justice, etc. were created. The circle of ministries changed throughout the period.

The main difference between ministries and collegiums was the approval of the principle of unity of command. The minister was fully responsible for the management of the branch of government entrusted to him and had all the powers to carry out this task. He was like an autocrat in his field of activity.

Simultaneously with the ministries, the Committee of Ministers was created. True, the regulation on it was published ten years later, in 1812. It was an advisory body under the tsar, which had, first of all, interdepartmental and supra-departmental functions, that is, it resolved issues relating to several ministries at once or exceeding the competence of the minister. In addition, he also had his own terms of reference, in particular. The committee oversaw governors and provincial boards. The Committee of Ministers included chairmen of departments of the State Council, ministers, heads of departments, and the Secretary of State.

The institution, which most clearly reflected the absolutist order of the structure of the highest governing bodies, was His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Under Nicholas, she actually stood over the entire apparatus of government. The fate of the state was decided by a small handful of people who were directly subordinate to the king. Under Nicholas I, 6 departments were created in this office, the rights of which almost did not differ from the rights of the ministries. Particularly well known is the notorious III Section, which waged a struggle against revolutionary and, in general, progressive moods in society. He was given a corps of gendarmes, the chief of which was considered the chief head of the III department. The whole country was divided into gendarmerie districts.

The secret police existed even before Nicholas. Upon accession to the throne, Alexander I abolished the secret expedition that had existed since the 18th century. However, already in 1805, leaving for the war with Napoleon, he created the Provisional Committee of the Higher Police to monitor public opinion. After the peace of Tilsit, this committee was transformed into the Committee of Public Safety, which was also charged with the duty of perusing private letters. At the end of the reign of Alexander I, bodies of political surveillance were created in the army as well.

Another kind of fame was given to the II Department of the Imperial Chancellery. It has carried out colossal work on the systematization of Russian legislation.

Local government did not undergo significant changes during this period.



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). The features of the old and new social order were intertwined in the social structure.

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. She gradually gained economic strength, but played a minor 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 most numerous social group. Having received freedom in 1861, they hardly adapted to their new social position. For this estate, 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 rural population 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.