capitalism tsarism revolutionary populist

The sixties of the XIX century were for Russia a time of major and profound reforms in their consequences. They covered not only the economy, but also the socio-political structure of society.

What was Russia like in the middle of the 19th century, why did it embark on "the path of reforms? Russia was the largest state in Europe both in terms of territory and population. 73 million people lived in a multinational empire. The social composition of the population was slowly but steadily changing due to working class and the urban population. In the first half of the 19th century, certain progress was also made in the development of industry, primarily in metallurgical and manufacturing industries. And yet, the country, as it were, stood on the side of the road of development of world civilization, along which the United States and many countries of the European "continent" were rapidly moving forward.

The development of capitalism in Russia was held back by the existing feudal-serf relations and the absence of a free labor market. The number of free civilian workers in factories and factories was still insignificant. The bulk of the workers consisted of the same peasants, released by the landowners for rent, from state peasants and other legally dependent people.

Serfdom with its attributes (tire, corvee and land scarcity) caused acute discontent, which was reflected in the growth of peasant uprisings. Only in the three pre-reform years their number increased 1.5 times: from 86 in 1858 to 126 in 1860. Peasant uprisings took place almost everywhere, from the central black earth provinces to Belarus - in the west, Podolia - - in the south, the Volga region and the Urals - in the east. Life imperiously demanded the destruction of the fetters of serfdom. Thus, the need for reforms was caused by the needs of the country's economic development, and the laws of development of capitalism. There were also political reasons: the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56), which showed the rottenness and weakness of the feudal-serf system, the growth of discontent in wide circles of the Russian public.

The autocracy was faced with a choice: either reforms from above, or continuous war with the peasantry. Without waiting for the peasants to liberate themselves from below, Alexander II embarked on the path of reforms. On February 19, 1861, he signed the Manifesto on the Emancipation of the Peasants (“On the most gracious granting to serfs of the rights and status of free rural inhabitants and the arrangement of their life”), as well as a special “Regulation on peasants who have emerged from serfdom”.

What was the essence of land reform? According to the Manifesto, the peasants were declared legally free people, that is, they received the right to trade, own movable and immovable property, conclude deals, etc. But there was still a considerable distance from the proclamation of freedom to its real economic security.

The fact is that the land still remained the property of the landowners. By agreement between the landowners and peasants (the so-called statutory charters), the peasants received plots of land. Their sizes varied depending on local conditions from 3 to 12 acres. If the land plots of the peasants were more than the prescribed norms, then the landowner had the right to cut off the surplus from them. It was these lands, taken from the peasants during the reform period, that were called “cuts”. And this was a considerable land wedge: on average in Russia, 20% of peasant lands, and in the Saratov and Samara provinces - up to 40%. If before the reform the average peasant allotment was 4.4 acres, then after the reform it was equal to 3.6 acres. There were frequent cases when the landowners took away the best land, and the peasants were allocated inconveniences.

Peasants, with the consent of the landowners, could buy out estate and allotment land. Only those who redeemed the land became peasant owners, and the rest were called temporarily liable before the redemption. They were obliged either to pay dues or to serve corvee. The temporary condition was determined at 9 years old, but in fact it stretched up to 20 years.

The main burden of paying for the redemption of land from the landlords was assumed by the state - 75-80% of the value of the allotments, and the rest was paid by the peasants. To facilitate the possibility of redemption, they were given a loan for 49 years at 6% per annum.

But even after the redemption of the land, not all peasants became its owners. In many parts of the country, the redemption of land was carried out through the community, where there were periodic "repartitions of land allotments, mutual responsibility and the so-called peasant self-government. The land became the property of the peasant community. The community was ruled by the "world", i.e., the peasant assembly, at which the headman was elected. He performed the functions of executive power: he observed the economy of the village, its life, carrying out the decisions of the gatherings.

The Russian community, as a manifestation of direct democracy and as a grassroots cell of local self-government, certainly played a useful role. It is impossible not to note its importance from the point of view of preserving the peasant way of life, morality and traditions of the multimillion-strong Russian peasantry. At the same time, the autocracy used the community as a convenient tool for collecting various taxes and duties from the peasants, and for recruiting for the army.

Under the conditions of rapidly developing capitalism, the community, with its shortcomings such as periodic redistribution of land and various obstacles to the exit of peasants, became a brake on social development, fettering the freedom and economic initiative of the peasantry. A peasant, even legally free, could not dispose of his allotment (sell or inherit, leave the village).

The peasant reform, breaking the fetters of serfdom and opening the way to a free labor market, thus created the prerequisites for rapid industrial progress. But, despite its certainly progressive character, it did not eliminate the basic social contradiction between peasants and landowners. Landownership was preserved, which means that there was also an objective basis for social conflicts and upheavals in the future.

And it was not for nothing that this reform was sharply criticized by Herzen and Chernyshevsky, who called it an abomination and a deceit. And the peasantry met it with a wide wave of mass demonstrations in the Penza, Tambov and Kazan provinces, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus.

The zemstvo reform (“Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”) began to be carried out in January 1864. It provided for the introduction of new bodies of local self-government - elected county and provincial zemstvos.

According to the "Regulations" zemstvo institutions were to consist of representatives of all classes. However, elections to zemstvos were not equal, universal and direct. Suffrage was subject to property qualification. Zemstvo vowels (representatives from estates) were elected for three

The first group included large landowners, as well as owners of large commercial and industrial enterprises. Small landowners (at least 10 acres). Uniting, they nominated only their representatives. In the cities, representatives of the big and middle bourgeoisie received the right to vote. The petty bourgeoisie, artisans, and workers did not participate in the election of councillors.

The structure of elections in the village was multi-stage:

Thus, the system of elections to zemstvo assemblies ensured the predominance of representatives of the landlords, who, together with representatives of the bourgeoisie, constituted an overwhelming majority. In 1865-1867. in 30 provinces of Russia, the composition of vowels in district zemstvo assemblies was as follows: nobles and officials - 42%, merchants and others - 20%, peasants - 38%. In the provincial zemstvo assemblies, nobles and officials accounted for 74%, peasants - 11%.

District and provincial zemstvo assemblies were endowed with administrative functions, and the executive bodies were district and provincial councils. The chairman of the provincial council was approved by the minister of internal affairs, and the county one - by the governor. The governor and the minister could cancel the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies, which ensured complete control: the government. 1

Right-bank Ukraine, in the Caucasus, i.e., in those regions where there were few Russian landowners.

The second reform of local self-government was the introduction of the "City" regulation on June 16, 1870. It "was carried out on the same narrow, truncated foundations as the Zemstvo. In accordance with the "Regulations" city Dumas were elected in the cities. They were. Control and administrative bodies. The functions of the executive power were performed by city councils and mayors elected by the Duma and approved by the Minister of the Interior or the Governor.

Elections of vowels of the Duma were held in three curiae, depending on the amount of tax paid. Each curia elected an equal number of vowels for a period of 4 years. This nature of the elections ensured the predominance in the Dumas of the "fathers of the city" - industrialists and merchants.

The competence of city self-government included all issues of city life: improvement, trade, fire safety, medical care, public education, and so on.

And yet, despite its narrowness and limitations, the city reform "was of a bourgeois nature, contributed to the formation of capitalist social relations, was a step forward in comparison with the estate city Duma that had existed since the time of Catherine II.

On guard of feudal-serf relations, their inviolability "was the judicial system and the order of legal proceedings created by Peter I. They were characterized by the class limitation of the judiciary, the multi-level judicial instances, the secrecy of judicial proceedings without the participation of the parties, the widespread use of corporal punishment. The courts were dominated by arbitrariness and red tape, the bribe had omnipotent significance.From the point of view of bourgeois law, this system was the most backward and untenable.

In November 1864, Alexander II signed the Decree and the “New Judicial Charters”, which introduced changes to the judicial system and legal proceedings.

In accordance with the Decree, the court and legal proceedings were built on the basic principles of bourgeois law: the equality of all classes before the law, the openness and publicity of the court, the independence of judges, the adversarial nature of the prosecution and defense, the presence of jurors.

Under the new judicial statutes, petty crimes were considered by magistrates elected by zemstvo assemblies and city Dumas. More complex civil and criminal cases were heard by district courts by jury, whose decisions were final. If the court was without a jury, then it was possible to file appeals to the judicial chamber, which considered cases of state and political crimes. The highest judicial authority was the Senate, which could overturn the decisions of other judicial instances by way of cassation.

In the 60-70s, on the initiative of the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin also carried out a military reform. The defeat in the Crimean War pushed the government to it. It set as its main goal the creation of a cadre army of the bourgeois type and envisaged not only the rearmament of the army, but also a change in its structure, the principle of recruitment and training of personnel. First of all, the military ministry was reorganized, the country was divided into military districts, and a network of military gymnasiums, colleges, and academies was created to train officers.

In 1874, the Charter on Compulsory Military Service was adopted, according to which the so-called recruitment sets were canceled and the male population of all classes was regularly drafted into the army upon reaching 20 years of age. The terms of military service also changed. Instead of 25 years for soldiers, a 6-year term of active service was established, after which they were transferred to the reserve for 9 years. "In the fleet, the active service lasted 7 years, and the state in the reserve - three years. The service life was reduced for those who received an education. The only son in the family was released from service if he was the breadwinner. For persons of the Muslim, Jewish and some other religions, military service did not spread, since for tsarism it was an “unreliable” element.

The new conditions of the economic and social life of post-reform Russia urgently demanded trained and literate people. It was necessary to significantly expand the "base of public education. To this end, since 1864, a reform of public education began.

The reform was regulated by a number of legislative acts adopted in the 60-70s of the XIX century. According to the “Regulations” of 1864, public organizations and individuals were allowed to open elementary public schools. In rural areas, a little later they began to be called parochial schools with a 3-year term of study. They taught children from the people to read, write and count. Much attention was paid to the study of the law of God and church (choral) "singing.

In the middle level of education (secondary school) there were "paid gymnasiums, they were divided into classical and real ones. Real gymnasiums were then transformed into real schools.

In classical gymnasiums, much attention was paid to the study of Greek and Latin languages, and the humanities. They prepared young people for university entrance. At first, the term of study in them was seven years, and since 1871 - eight years.

In real schools, on the contrary, preference was given to the study of natural and technical disciplines. They prepared young people for entering technical universities.

Formally, the gymnasium opened access for children of all classes. But high tuition fees were a serious obstacle for the children of ordinary people, especially peasants.

Women's education was initiated in the 1960s. For these purposes, women's gymnasiums and higher women's courses were created in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kazan.

In 1863 a new charter for the universities was adopted. It provided for the restoration of the autonomy abolished by Nicholas I. The direct management of universities was entrusted to the council of professors, which elected rectors, deans of faculties and teaching staff. But the autonomy did not exclude the possibility of supervision, and sometimes even interference by the Minister of Public Education or the trustee (curator) of the district. Student organizations at universities were not allowed.

In the mid-1860s (1865) the government was forced to introduce some indulgences in the sphere of the press as well. Censorship was abolished when printing books of considerable volume (10–20 pp.), as well as for periodicals. But it was reserved for mass literature. The government also retained the right to take action for violations of the law. It could ban retail sales, temporarily suspend a periodical or close it altogether, and in some cases sue printers, editors, authors of articles and pamphlets.

The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, despite their limitedness and half-heartedness, became a powerful impetus for accelerating economic growth and changing the entire way of Russian life. Thanks to them, Russia embarked on the common path of development of world civilization. However, the movement along this road was uneven, and sometimes strained, due to the potholes and blockages of the old serf system.

The reforms of the 60s of the 19th century occupy a special place in the history of reforming Russia.

They were carried out by the government of Emperor Alexander II and were aimed at improving Russian social, economic, social and legal life, adapting its structure to developing bourgeois relations.

The most important of these reforms were: Peasant (the abolition of serfdom in 1861), Zemstvo and Judicial (1864), Military reform, reforms in the press, education, etc. They went down in the history of the country as the “epoch of great reforms” .

The reforms were difficult and contradictory. They were accompanied by a confrontation between various political forces of the society of that time, among which ideological and political trends clearly manifested themselves: conservative-protective, liberal, revolutionary-democratic.

Prerequisites for reforms

By the middle of the 19th century, the general crisis of the feudal peasant system had reached its apogee.

The fortress system has exhausted all its possibilities and reserves. The peasants were not interested in their work, which ruled out the possibility of using machines and improving agricultural technology in the landlord economy. A significant number of landlords still saw the main way to increase the profitability of their estates in the imposition of more and more duties on the peasants. The general impoverishment of the countryside and even famine led to an even greater decline in the landed estates. The state treasury did not receive tens of millions of rubles in arrears (debts) on state taxes and fees.

Dependent serf relations hindered the development of industry, in particular, mining and metallurgical industries, where the labor of sessional workers, who were also serfs, was widely used. Their work was inefficient, and the owners of the factories did their best to get rid of them. But there was no alternative, since it was practically impossible to find a civilian force, society was divided into classes - landowners and peasants, who were mostly serfs. There were also no markets for the nascent industry, since the impoverished peasantry, which constitutes the vast majority of the country's population, did not have the means to purchase the goods produced. All this aggravated the economic and political crisis in the Russian Empire. Peasant unrest increasingly worried the government.

The Crimean War of 1853-1856, which ended in the defeat of the tsarist government, accelerated the understanding that the serf system should be eliminated, since it was a burden on the country's economy. The war showed the backwardness and impotence of Russia. Recruitment, excessive taxes and duties, trade and industry, which are in their infancy, exacerbated the need and misery of the slavishly dependent peasantry. The bourgeoisie and the nobility finally began to understand the problem and became a weighty opposition to the feudal lords. In this situation, the government considered it necessary to begin preparations for the abolition of serfdom. Soon after the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty, which ended the Crimean War, Emperor Alexander II (who succeeded Nicholas I, who died in February 1855), speaking in Moscow to the leaders of noble societies, said, referring to the abolition of serfdom, which is better, so that it happens from above rather than from below.

Abolition of serfdom

Preparations for the peasant reform began in 1857. For this, the tsar created a Secret Committee, but already in the autumn of that year it became an open secret for everyone and was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. In the same year, editorial commissions and provincial committees were created. All these institutions consisted exclusively of nobles. Representatives of the bourgeoisie, not to mention the peasants, were not admitted to lawmaking.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto, the General Regulations on the Peasants who Abandoned Serfdom, and other acts on the peasant reform (17 acts in total).

Hood. K. Lebedev "Sale of serfs at auction", 1825

The laws of February 19, 1861 resolved four issues: 1) on the personal emancipation of the peasants; 2) on land allotments and duties of the liberated peasants; 3) on the redemption by peasants of their land plots; 4) on the organization of peasant administration.

The provisions of February 19, 1861 (General Regulations on Peasants, Regulations on Redemption, etc.) proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, approved the right of peasants to a land allotment and the procedure for making redemption payments for it.

According to the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the land was allocated to the peasants, but the use of land plots was significantly limited by the obligation to buy them out from the former owners.

The subject of land relations was the rural community, and the right to use the land was granted to the peasant family (peasant household). The laws of July 26, 1863 and November 24, 1866 continued the reform, leveling the rights of appanage, state and landlord peasants, thereby legislating the concept of "peasant class".

Thus, after the publication of documents on the abolition of serfdom, the peasants received personal freedom.

The landlords could no longer resettle the peasants to other places, they also lost the right to interfere in the private life of the peasants. It was forbidden to sell people to other persons with or without land. The landowner retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who emerged from serfdom.

The property rights of the peasants also changed, first of all, their right to land, although the former serfdom was preserved for two years. It was assumed that during this period the transition of the peasants to a temporarily liable state was to take place.

The allocation of land took place in accordance with local regulations, in which for various regions of the country (chernozem, steppe, non-chernozem) the upper and lower limits of the amount of land provided to the peasants were determined. These provisions were concretized in the statutory letters containing information on the composition of the land transferred for use.

Now, from among the noble landowners, the Senate appointed peace mediators who were supposed to regulate the relationship between landowners and peasants. Candidates for the Senate were presented by governors.

Hood. B. Kustodiev "Liberation of the Peasants"

Conciliators were supposed to draw up charters, the contents of which were brought to the attention of the relevant peasant gathering (gatherings, if the charter concerned several villages). Charters could be amended in accordance with the comments and proposals of the peasants, the same conciliator resolved controversial issues.

After reading the text of the charter, it came into force. The conciliator recognized its content as complying with the requirements of the law, while the consent of the peasants to the conditions provided for by the charter was not required. At the same time, it was more profitable for the landowner to obtain such consent, since in this case, with the subsequent redemption of the land by the peasants, he received the so-called additional payment.

It must be emphasized that as a result of the abolition of serfdom, the peasants in the country as a whole received less land than they had until then. They were infringed both in the size of the land and in its quality. The peasants were given plots that were inconvenient for cultivation, and the best land remained with the landowners.

A temporarily liable peasant received land only for use, and not property. Moreover, he had to pay for the use of duties - corvee or dues, which differed little from his previous serf duties.

In theory, the next stage in the liberation of the peasants was to be their transition to the state of owners, for which the peasant had to buy out the estate and field lands. However, the redemption price significantly exceeded the actual value of the land, so in fact it turned out that the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal liberation.

The government, in order to ensure the reality of the ransom, organized a ransom operation. Under this scheme, the state paid the redemption amount for the peasants, thus providing them with a loan that had to be repaid in installments over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan. After the conclusion of the redemption transaction, the peasant was called the owner, although his ownership of the land was surrounded by various restrictions. The peasant became the full owner only after the payment of all redemption payments.

Initially, the temporarily liable state was not limited in time, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, about 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed on the mandatory transition to redemption within two years, in which it was required to conclude redemption transactions or the right to land plots was lost.

In 1863 and 1866 the reform was extended to appanage and state peasants. At the same time, the specific peasants received land on more favorable terms than the landlords, and the state peasants retained all the land that they used before the reform.

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.

Nevertheless, capitalist relations gradually developed in the countryside. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the fact that the village had lived as a community since ancient times, it was no longer possible to stop the 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.

The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to seek additional income not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor to industrial enterprises.

The city attracted more and more former peasants. As a result, they found work in industry, and then their families 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.

The second half of the 19th century is marked by significant changes in the social and state system. The reform of 1861, having freed and robbed the peasants, opened the way for the development of capitalism in the city, although it placed certain obstacles in its path.

The peasant received just enough land to tie him to the countryside, to restrain the outflow of the labor force needed by the landowners to the city. At the same time, the peasant did not have enough allotment land, and he was forced to go into a new bondage to the former master, which actually meant serfdom, only on a voluntary basis.

The communal organization of the village somewhat slowed down its stratification and, with the help of mutual responsibility, ensured the collection of redemption payments. The class system gave way to the emerging bourgeois system, a class of workers began to form, which was replenished at the expense of former serfs.

Prior to the agrarian reform of 1861, peasants had practically no rights to land. And only starting from 1861, the peasants individually within the framework of the land communities act as bearers of rights and obligations in relation to the land under the law.

On May 18, 1882, the Peasant Land Bank was founded. His role was to somewhat simplify the receipt (acquisition) of land plots by peasants on the basis of the right of personal ownership. However, prior to the Stolypin reform, the Bank's operations did not play a significant role in expanding ownership of peasant lands.

Further legislation, up to the reform of P. A. Stolypin at the beginning of the 20th century, did not introduce any special qualitative and quantitative changes in the rights of peasants to land.

Legislation of 1863 (laws of June 18 and December 14) limited the rights of allotment peasants in matters of redistribution (exchange) of pledge and alienation of land in order to strengthen and speed up the payment of redemption payments.

All this allows us to conclude that the reform to abolish serfdom was not entirely successful. Built on compromises, it took into account the interests of the landlords much more than the peasants, and had a very short "resource of time." Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.

Nevertheless, the peasant reform of 1861 was of great historical significance, not only creating for Russia the possibility of a broad development of market relations, but giving the peasantry liberation from serfdom - the centuries-old oppression of man by man, which is unacceptable in a civilized, legal state.

Zemstvo reform

The system of zemstvo self-government, formed as a result of the reform of 1864, with certain changes, lasted until 1917.

The main legal act of the ongoing reform was the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", approved by the highest on January 1, 1864, based on the principles of all-estate zemstvo representation; property qualification; independence only within the limits of economic activity.

This approach was supposed to provide advantages for the local nobility. It is no coincidence that the chairmanship of the electoral congress of landowners was entrusted to the district marshal of the nobility (Article 27). The frank preference given by these articles to the landowners was to serve as compensation to the nobility for depriving them in 1861 of the right to manage the serfs.

The structure of the zemstvo self-government bodies according to the Regulations of 1864 was as follows: the district zemstvo assembly elected for three years the zemstvo council, which consisted of two members and the chairman and was the executive body of the zemstvo self-government (Article 46). The appointment of monetary allowance to members of the zemstvo council was decided by the county zemstvo assembly (Article 49). The provincial zemstvo assembly was also elected for three years, but not directly by the voters, but by the vowels of the county zemstvo assemblies of the province from among them. It elected the provincial zemstvo council, which consisted of a chairman and six members. The chairman of the zemstvo council of the province was approved in his position by the Minister of the Interior (Article 56).

Interesting from the point of view of its creative application was Article 60, which approved the right of zemstvo councils to invite outsiders for “permanent classes on matters entrusted to the management of councils” with the appointment of remuneration for them by mutual agreement with them. This article marked the beginning of the formation of the so-called third element of the zemstvos, namely, the zemstvo intelligentsia: doctors, teachers, agronomists, veterinarians, statisticians who carried out practical work in the zemstvos. However, their role was limited only to activities within the framework of decisions made by zemstvo institutions; they did not play an independent role in zemstvos until the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus, the reforms were beneficial primarily to the nobility, which was successfully implemented in the course of all-class elections to zemstvo self-government bodies.

Hood. G. Myasoedov "Zemstvo is having lunch", 1872

The high property qualification in elections to zemstvo institutions fully reflected the legislator's view of zemstvos as economic institutions. This position was supported by a number of provincial zemstvo assemblies, especially in provinces with a developed grain economy. Opinions were often heard from there about the urgency of granting the right to large landowners to participate in the activities of zemstvo assemblies on the rights of vowels without elections. This was rightly justified by the fact that each large landowner is most interested in the affairs of the zemstvo because he has a significant part of the zemstvo duties, and if he is not elected, he is deprived of the opportunity to defend his interests.

It is necessary to highlight the features of this situation and refer to the division of zemstvo expenses into mandatory and optional. The first included local duties, the second - local "needs". In zemstvo practice, for more than 50 years of existence of zemstvos, the focus was on "optional" expenses. It is quite indicative that, on average, the zemstvo for the entire time of its existence spent a third of the funds collected from the population on public education, a third on public health, and only a third on all other needs, including compulsory duties.

The established practice, therefore, did not confirm the arguments of the supporters of the abolition of the elective principle for large landowners.

When, in addition to the distribution of duties, the zemstvos had the duties of taking care of public education, enlightenment, and food affairs, by necessity put by life itself above the worries about the distribution of duties, persons receiving huge incomes could not objectively be interested in these matters, while for the average - and low-income people, these subjects of conducting zemstvo institutions were an urgent need.

The legislators, guaranteeing the very institution of zemstvo self-government, nevertheless limited its powers by issuing laws regulating the economic and financial activities of local authorities; defining their own and delegated powers of zemstvos, establishing the rights to supervise them.

Thus, considering self-government as the implementation by local elected bodies of certain tasks of state administration, it must be recognized that self-government is effective only when the implementation of decisions taken by its representative bodies is carried out directly by its executive bodies.

If the government retains the implementation of all the tasks of state administration, including at the local level, and considers self-government bodies only as advisory bodies to the administration, without giving them their own executive power, then there can be no talk of real local self-government.

The Regulations of 1864 granted zemstvo assemblies the right to elect special executive bodies for a period of three years in the form of provincial and district zemstvo administrations.

It should be emphasized that in 1864 a qualitatively new system of local government was created, the first zemstvo reform was not only a partial improvement of the old zemstvo administrative mechanism. And no matter how significant the changes introduced by the new Zemsky regulation of 1890 were, they were only minor improvements in the system that was created in 1864.

The law of 1864 did not consider self-government as an independent structure of state administration, but only as the transfer of economic affairs that were not essential for the state to counties and provinces. This view was reflected in the role assigned by the Regulations of 1864 to zemstvo institutions.

Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos not only did not receive police power, but were generally deprived of coercive executive power, could not independently put their orders into effect, but were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies. Moreover, initially, according to the Regulations of 1864, zemstvo institutions were not entitled to issue decrees binding on the population.

The recognition of zemstvo self-government institutions as social and economic unions was reflected in the law and in determining their relationship to government agencies and private individuals. The zemstvos existed side by side with the administration, without being connected with it into one common system of administration. In general, local government turned out to be imbued with dualism, based on the opposition of the zemstvo and state principles.

When zemstvo institutions were introduced in 34 provinces of central Russia (in the period from 1865 to 1875), the impossibility of such a sharp separation of state administration and zemstvo self-government was very soon discovered. According to the Law of 1864, the Zemstvo was endowed with the right of self-taxation (that is, the introduction of its own system of taxes) and, therefore, could not be placed by law in the same conditions as any other legal entity of private law.

No matter how the legislation of the 19th century separated local governments from government bodies, the system of the economy of the community and the Zemstvo was a system of “compulsory economy”, similar in its principles to the financial economy of the state.

The regulation of 1864 defined the subjects of the zemstvo as matters relating to local economic benefits and needs. Article 2 provided a detailed list of cases to be handled by zemstvo institutions.

Zemstvo institutions had the right, on the basis of general civil laws, to acquire and alienate movable property, conclude contracts, accept obligations, act as a plaintiff and defendant in courts in property cases of the Zemstvo.

The law, in a very vague terminological sense, indicated the attitude of zemstvo institutions to various subjects of their jurisdiction, talking either about “management”, then about “organization and maintenance”, then about “participation in care”, then about “participation in affairs”. However, systematizing these concepts used in the law, we can conclude that all cases under the jurisdiction of zemstvo institutions could be divided into two categories:

Those on which the zemstvo could make decisions independently (this included cases in which zemstvo institutions were given the right to "manage", "device and maintenance"); - those for which the Zemstvo had only the right to promote "government activities" (the right to "participate in care" and "rehabilitation").

Accordingly, the degree of power granted by the Law of 1864 to zemstvo self-government bodies was distributed according to this division. Zemstvo institutions did not have the right to directly coerce private individuals. If there was a need for such measures, the Zemstvo had to turn to the assistance of the police authorities (Articles 127, 134, 150). The deprivation of the organs of zemstvo self-government of coercive power was a natural consequence of the recognition of only an economic nature for the zemstvo.

Hood. K. Lebedev "In the Zemstvo Assembly", 1907

Initially, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the right to issue decrees binding on the population. The law granted provincial and district zemstvo assemblies only the right to submit petitions to the government through the provincial administration on subjects relating to local economic benefits and needs (Article 68). Apparently, too often the measures deemed necessary by the zemstvo assemblies exceeded the limits of the power granted to them. The practice of the existence and work of the zemstvos showed the shortcomings of such a situation, and it turned out to be necessary for the fruitful implementation of the zemstvos of their tasks to endow their provincial and district bodies with the right to issue binding decisions, but first on quite specific issues. In 1873, the Regulations on measures against fires and on the construction part in the villages were adopted, which secured the right of the zemstvo to issue binding decisions on these issues. In 1879, the zemstvos were allowed to issue mandatory acts to prevent and stop "generalized and contagious diseases."

The competence of the provincial and district zemstvo institutions was different, the distribution of subjects of jurisdiction between them was determined by the provision of the law that although both of them are in charge of the same range of affairs, the provincial institutions are in charge of subjects relating to the entire province or several counties at once, and the jurisdiction of the county - relating only to this county (Articles 61 and 63 of the Regulations of 1864). Separate articles of the law determined the exclusive competence of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies.

Zemstvo institutions functioned outside the system of state bodies and were not included in it. Service in them was considered a public duty, vowels did not receive remuneration for participating in the work of zemstvo meetings, and officials of zemstvo councils were not considered civil servants. Their wages were paid from zemstvo funds. Consequently, both administratively and financially, the zemstvo bodies were separated from the state ones. Article 6 of the Regulations of 1864 noted: “Zemstvo institutions in the circle of affairs entrusted to them act independently. The law determines the cases and procedure in which their actions and orders are subject to the approval and supervision of the general government authorities.

Zemstvo self-government bodies were not subordinate to the local administration, but acted under the control of the government bureaucracy represented by the Minister of the Interior and the governors. Zemstvo self-government bodies were independent within their powers.

It can be stated with certainty that the law of 1864 did not assume that the state apparatus would participate in the functioning of zemstvo self-government. This is clearly seen in the example of the position of the executive bodies of the zemstvos. Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos were deprived of coercive executive power, and were unable to independently implement their orders, so they were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies.

Judicial reform

The starting point of the Judicial Reform of 1864 was dissatisfaction with the state of justice, its inconsistency with the development of society of that era. The judicial system of the Russian Empire was inherently backward and had not developed for a long time. In the courts, the consideration of cases sometimes dragged on for decades, corruption flourished at all levels of the judiciary, since the salaries of workers were truly beggarly. Chaos reigned in the legislation itself.

In 1866, in the St. Petersburg and Moscow judicial districts, which included 10 provinces, a jury trial was first introduced. On August 24, 1886, its first meeting took place in the Moscow District Court. The case of Timofeev, who was accused of burglary, was considered. The specific participants in the debate of the parties remained unknown, but it is known that the debate itself was held at a good level.

It was as a result of the judicial reform that a court appeared, built on the principles of publicity and competitiveness, with its new judicial figure - a sworn attorney (a modern lawyer).

On September 16, 1866, the first meeting of sworn attorneys took place in Moscow. PS Izvolsky, a member of the Judicial Chamber, presided. The meeting made a decision: in view of the small number of voters, to elect the Moscow Council of Attorneys at Law in the amount of five people, including the chairman and deputy chairman. As a result of the elections, M. I. Dobrokhotov was elected to the Council, Ya. I. Lyubimtsev as a deputy chairman, members: K. I. Richter, B. U. Benislavsky and A. A. Imberkh. The author of the first volume of "The History of the Russian Advocacy" I. V. Gessen considers this very day to be the beginning of the creation of the estate of sworn attorneys. Exactly repeating this procedure, the advocacy was formed in the field.

The Institute of Attorneys at Law was created as a special corporation attached to the judicial chambers. But she was not part of the court, but enjoyed self-government, although under the control of the judiciary.

Sworn attorneys (lawyers) in the Russian criminal process appeared along with the new court. At the same time, Russian sworn attorneys, unlike their English counterparts, were not divided into solicitors and defenders (barristers - preparing the necessary papers, and attorneys - speaking in court sessions). Often, assistants to sworn attorneys independently acted as lawyers in court sessions, but at the same time, assistants to a sworn attorney could not be appointed by the chairman of the court as defenders. Thus, it was determined that they could act in the processes only by agreement with the client, but did not participate as intended. In 19th-century Russia, there was no monopoly on the right to defend a defendant only by a barrister in the Russian Empire. Article 565 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure provided that “defendants have the right to choose defense counsel both from jurors and private attorneys, and from other persons who are not forbidden by law to intercede in other people's cases.” At the same time, a person excluded from the composition of the jury or private attorneys was not allowed to defend. Notaries were also not allowed to exercise judicial protection, but nevertheless, in some special cases, justices of the peace were not forbidden to be attorneys in cases considered in general judicial presences. It goes without saying that at that time women were not allowed as protectors. At the same time, when appointing a defense counsel, at the request of the defendant, the chairman of the court could appoint a defense counsel not from among the sworn attorneys, but from among the candidates for judicial positions held by this court and, as it was especially emphasized in the law, “known to the chairman by their reliability”. It was allowed to appoint an official of the office of the court as a defender in the event that the defendant had no objections to this. Defense lawyers appointed by the court, in the event that the fact of receiving remuneration from the defendant, were subjected to quite severe punishment. However, it was not forbidden for sworn attorneys, exiled administratively under the open supervision of the police, to act as defense counsel in criminal cases.

The law did not prohibit a lawyer from defending two or more defendants if "the essence of the defense of one of them does not contradict the defense of the other ...".

The defendants could change counsel during the trial or ask the presiding judge in the case to change the defense counsel appointed by the court. It can be assumed that the replacement of the defense counsel could take place in the event of a discrepancy between the positions of the defense counsel and the defendant, the professional weakness of the defense counsel or his indifference to the client in the case of the defense counsel's work as intended.

Violation of the right to defense was possible only in exceptional cases. For example, if the court did not have sworn attorneys or candidates for judicial positions, as well as free officials of the court office, but in this case the court was obliged to notify the defendant in advance in order to give him the opportunity to invite defense counsel by agreement.

The main question that the jurors had to answer during the trial was whether the defendant was guilty or not. They reflected their decision in the verdict, which was proclaimed in the presence of the court and the parties to the case. Article 811 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure stated that “the solution of each question must consist of an affirmative “yes” or a negative “no” with the addition of the word that contains the essence of the answer. So, to the questions: has a crime been committed? Is the defendant guilty? Did he act with intent? affirmative answers, respectively, should be: “Yes, it happened. Yes, guilty. Yes, with intent." However, it should be noted that the jurors had the right to raise the issue of leniency. Thus, Article 814 of the Charter stated that “if, on the question raised by the jurors themselves about whether the defendant deserves leniency, there are six affirmative votes, then the foreman of the jury adds to these answers: “The defendant deserves leniency due to the circumstances of the case.” The decision of the jurors was heard standing. If the jury declared the defendant not guilty, then the presiding judge declared him free, and if the defendant was held in custody, he was subject to immediate release. In the event of a guilty verdict by the jury, the presiding judge in the case invited the prosecutor or private prosecutor to express his opinion regarding the punishment and other consequences of the jury finding the defendant guilty.

The gradual, systematic spread of the principles and institutions of the Judicial Charters of 1864 throughout all the provinces of Russia continued until 1884. Thus, as early as 1866, judicial reform was introduced in 10 provinces of Russia. Unfortunately, the trial with the participation of jurors on the outskirts of the Russian Empire never began to operate.

This can be explained by the following reasons: the introduction of the Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire would require not only significant funds, which simply were not in the treasury, but also the necessary personnel, which were more difficult to find than finances. To do this, the king instructed a special commission to develop a plan for the introduction of the Judicial Charters into action. V. P. Butkov, who previously headed the commission that drafted the Judicial Charters, was appointed chairman. S. I. Zarudny, N. A. Butskovsky and other well-known lawyers at that time became members of the commission.

The commission did not come to a unanimous decision. Some demanded the introduction of the Judicial Charters immediately in 31 Russian provinces (with the exception of Siberian, western and eastern lands). According to these members of the commission, it was necessary to open new courts immediately, but in smaller numbers of judges, prosecutors and judicial officials. The opinion of this group was supported by the Chairman of the State Council P. P. Gagarin.

The second, larger group of commission members (8 people) proposed the introduction of Judicial Statutes in a limited area, first 10 central provinces, but which will immediately have the entire full complement of persons both exercising judicial power and guaranteeing the normal functioning of the court - prosecutors, officials judiciary, jurors.

The second group was supported by the Minister of Justice D.N. Zamyatin, and it was this plan that formed the basis for the introduction of the Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire. The arguments of the second group took into account not only the financial component (there was never enough money for reforms in Russia, which explains their slow progress), but also the lack of personnel. There was rampant illiteracy in the country, and those who had a higher legal education were so few that they were not enough to implement the Judicial Reform.

Hood. N. Kasatkin. "In the corridor of the district court", 1897

The adoption of the new court showed not only its advantages in relation to the pre-reform court, but also revealed some of its shortcomings.

In the course of further transformations aimed at bringing a number of institutions of the new court, including those with the participation of jurors, into line with other state institutions (researchers sometimes call them judicial counter-reform), while at the same time correcting the shortcomings of the Judicial Charters of 1864 that have come to light in practice, not a single of the institutions has not undergone as many changes as the court with the participation of jurors. So, for example, soon after Vera Zasulich was acquitted by a jury trial, all criminal cases related to crimes against the state system, attempts on government officials, resistance to state authorities (that is, cases of a political nature), as well as cases of malfeasance. Thus, the state reacted quite quickly to the acquittal of the jurors, which caused a great public outcry, found V. Zasulich not guilty and, in fact, justified the terrorist act. This was explained by the fact that the state understood the full danger of justifying terrorism and did not want a repetition of this, since impunity for such crimes would give rise to more and more crimes against the state, government and statesmen.

Military reform

Changes in the social structure of Russian society showed the need to reorganize the existing army. Military reforms are associated with the name of D. A. Milyutin, who was appointed Minister of War in 1861.

Unknown artist, 2nd half of the 19th century "Portrait of D. A. Milyutin"

First of all, Milyutin introduced a system of military districts. In 1864, 15 districts were created covering the entire territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the conscription and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief of the district, who was also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. The military district had a district headquarters, quartermaster, artillery, engineering, military medical departments, and an inspector of military hospitals. Under the commander, a Military Council was formed.

In 1867, a military judicial reform took place, which reflected some of the provisions of the judicial charters of 1864.

A three-level system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and the main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction about the same as the magistrate's court. Large and medium-sized cases were under the jurisdiction of the military district courts. The highest court of appeal and review was the chief military court.

The main achievements of the Judicial Reform of the 60s - the Judicial Charters of November 20, 1864 and the Military Judicial Charter of May 15, 1867, divided all courts into higher and lower.

The lower ones included magistrates and their congresses in the civil department, regimental courts in the military department. To the highest: in the civil department - district courts, judicial chambers and cassation departments of the Governing Senate; in the military department - the military district courts and the Main Military Court.

Hood. I. Repin "Seeing the recruit", 1879

Regimental courts had a special arrangement. Their judicial power did not extend to the territory, but to a circle of persons, since they were established under the regiments and other units, the commanders of which used the power of the regimental commander. When changing the dislocation of the unit, the court was also relocated.

The regimental court is a government court, since its members were not elected, but appointed by the administration. It partly preserved the class character - it included only staff and chief officers, and only the lower ranks of the regiment were under jurisdiction.

The power of the regimental court was wider than the power of the justice of the peace (the most severe punishment is solitary confinement in a military prison for lower ranks who do not enjoy special rights of states, for those who have such rights - punishments not related to limitation or loss), but he also considered relatively minor offenses.

The composition of the court was collegiate - the chairman and two members. All of them were appointed by the authority of the commander of the corresponding unit under the control of the head of the division. There were two conditions for appointment, apart from political reliability: at least two years of military service and integrity in court. The chairman was appointed for one year, the members - for six months. The chairman and members of the court were released from the performance of their official duties in their main position only for the duration of the sessions.

The regimental commander was in charge of supervising the activities of the regimental court, he also considered and made decisions on complaints about its activities. Regimental courts considered the case almost immediately on the merits, but at the direction of the regimental commander, if necessary, they themselves could conduct a preliminary investigation. The verdicts of the regimental court came into force after their approval by the same regimental commander.

The regimental courts, like the justices of the peace, were not in direct contact with the higher military courts, and only in exceptional cases their sentences could still be appealed to the military district court in a manner similar to that of appeal.

Military district courts were established in each military district. They included a chairman and military judges. The Main Military Court performed the same functions as the Cassation Department for Criminal Cases of the Senate. It was planned to create two territorial branches under him in Siberia and the Caucasus. The composition of the Chief Military Court included the chairman and members.

The procedure for appointing and rewarding judges, as well as material well-being determined the independence of judges, but this did not mean their complete irresponsibility. But this responsibility was based on the law, and not on the arbitrariness of the authorities. It could be disciplinary and criminal.

Disciplinary liability came for omissions in office that were not a crime or misdemeanor, after a mandatory trial in the form of a warning. After three warnings within a year, in the event of a new violation, the perpetrator was subject to a criminal court. The judge was subject to him for any misconduct and crimes. It was possible to deprive the title of judge, including the world one, only by a court verdict.

In the military department, these principles, designed to ensure the independence of judges, were only partially implemented. When appointed to judicial positions, in addition to the general requirements for a candidate, a certain rank was also required. The chairman of the district military court, the chairman and members of the Main Military Court and its branches were to have the rank of general, the members of the military district court were to be staff officers.

The procedure for appointment to positions in the military courts was purely administrative. The Minister of War selected candidates, and then they were appointed by order of the emperor. Members and the chairman of the Main Military Court were appointed only personally by the head of state.

In procedural terms, military judges were independent, but they had to comply with the requirements of the charters in matters of rank. Also, all military judges were subordinate to the Minister of War.

The right of irremovability and non-movability, as in the civil department, was enjoyed only by judges of the Main Military Court. The chairmen and judges of the military district courts could be moved from one to another without their consent by order of the Minister of War. Removal from office and dismissal from service without a petition was carried out by order of the Chief Military Court, including without a verdict in a criminal case.

In military justice, there was no jury institution; instead, the institution of temporary members was established, something in between jurymen and military judges. They were appointed for a period of six months, and not to consider a specific case. The appointment was carried out by the Chief Commander of the military district according to a general list compiled on the basis of lists of units. In this list, officers were placed in order of seniority. According to this list, the appointment was made (that is, there was no choice, even the Chief Commander of the military district could not deviate from this list). Temporary members of the military district courts were released from official duties for all six months.

In the military district court, temporary members, on an equal footing with the judge, decided all issues of legal proceedings.

Both civil and military district courts, due to the large jurisdictional territory, could create temporary meetings to consider cases in areas far removed from the location of the court itself. In the civil department, the decision was made by the district court itself. In the military department - Chief of the military district.

The formation of military courts, both permanent and temporary, took place on the basis of orders from military officials, who also had a significant influence on the formation of its composition. In cases necessary for the authorities, permanent courts were replaced by special presences or commissions, and often by certain officials (commanders, governors-general, the minister of the interior).

Supervision of the activities of military courts (up to the approval of their sentences) belonged to the executive authorities represented by the regiment commander, district commanders, the minister of war and the monarch himself.

In practice, the class criterion for staffing the composition of the court and organizing the trial was preserved, there were serious deviations from the principle of competition, the right to defense, etc.

The 60s of the 19th century are characterized by a whole range of changes that have taken place in the social and state system.

The reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, starting with the peasant reform, opened the way for the development of capitalism. Russia has taken a major step towards transforming an absolute feudal monarchy into a bourgeois one.

Judicial reform pursues quite consistently the bourgeois principles of the judiciary and process. The military reform introduces an all-class universal conscription.

At the same time, liberal dreams of a constitution remain only dreams, and the hopes of zemstvo leaders for the crowning of the zemstvo system by all-Russian bodies meet with resolute resistance from the monarchy.

In the development of law, certain shifts are also noticeable, although smaller ones. The peasant reform dramatically expanded the range of civil rights of the peasant, his civil legal capacity. The judicial reform fundamentally changed the procedural law of Russia.

Thus, large-scale in nature and consequences, the reforms marked significant changes in all aspects of the life of Russian society. The era of reforms in the 60-70s of the XIX century was great, since the autocracy for the first time took a step towards society, and society supported the authorities.

At the same time, one can come to the unequivocal conclusion that with the help of the reforms, all the goals set were not achieved: the situation in society was not only not discharged, but was also supplemented with new contradictions. All this in the next period will lead to enormous upheavals.

Carried out in the 60-70s of the 19th century brought with them cardinal changes that affected all the most important aspects of the life of not only the state, but also society. In such a relatively short period of time, a number of reforms were implemented in such areas as the economy, education, culture, administration, and military affairs. In this article, bourgeois reforms will be briefly reviewed and described on all counts.

Russian emperor Alexander 2

In 1855, during a cannonade that thundered near the walls of the besieged Sevastopol, Nicholas 1 suddenly died. The title of emperor passes to his eldest son. Later, he will go down in the great history of Russia as Alexander 2 the Liberator.

The new emperor ascended the throne as an already formed personality - at the age of 36. I must say that up to this point he did not have his own specific political or economic program, since he was not an adherent of either liberals or reactionaries.

Prerequisites

Alexander Nikolayevich did not perceive and did not share ideas and worldviews that were far from life. He preferred to act, but at the same time he did not go ahead. He was well aware that without compromises and some concessions on his part, it was impossible to effectively manage the state. Therefore, Alexander 2 was sure of the need for transformations in the political circles that govern the state.

The new emperor sought to change the established order that had existed for centuries on the territory of Russia. And he began by returning the Decembrists from Siberia and allowing citizens to freely travel abroad. In addition, he placed new people, more intelligent and educated, in many very important government posts. Also, his brother Konstantin, a staunch liberal, appeared in the Cabinet of Ministers.

In the middle of the 19th century, the new government, as well as conservative circles, already clearly understood that the peasant question must be resolved at all costs. Attempts by the authorities to somehow soften serfdom did not lead to anything, since a whole army of landowners opposed this.

Finally, the prerequisites for bourgeois reforms in Russia regarding the peasant question have finally matured. Serfdom has outlived itself economically. The landlord households, which were kept afloat only thanks to the labor of enslaved peasants, fell into decay. This greatly worried the authorities and the government, which allocated huge amounts of money to support the landowners and their farms.

Abolition of serfdom

The bourgeois reforms of the 1960s and 1970s could not but affect the main part of the population of the Russian Empire - the peasantry. Many agreed that reforms in this area should be carried out in the first place. To do this, in 1857 the government created the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs.

To carry out this reform, Alexander 2 issued an order. It spoke of the need to create a number of committees that would develop a project for the liberation of the peasants. Here are the main provisions of this regulation:

• all land must be kept by the landowners as their personal property;
• peasants could receive land plots from the landowner only for working off or dues;
• give peasants permission to buy their estate from the landowner.

Based on this, the Main Committee presented its draft reform and sent it to the State Council for consideration. On February 19, 1861, the tsar approved the "Regulations on the Peasants". Metropolitan Philaret also drew up a royal manifesto on this occasion. And already on March 5, both documents were made public, and from that moment on, the bourgeois reforms of Alexander 2, concerning the peasant question, were launched.

What conditions were placed before them so that they could free themselves from serfdom? Of course, they were not profitable for the peasants. The provisions of 1861 created the most favorable conditions for maintaining the enslaving dependence of the main population of the country on the landowners. In addition, the bourgeois reforms of the 19th century forced the peasants to lease their masters' lands on obviously difficult conditions.

Zemstvo reform

It began on January 1, 1864. The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, concerning not only county, but also provincial zemstvo institutions, assumed the creation of fundamentally new local governments. Prior to this law, they were bureaucratic bureaucrats and estates. This meant that the peasants were judged by the landlords, and the noblemen guarded their dominance at the state level.

Now, in accordance with the new "Regulations", zemstvo institutions were required to consist of representatives (elected vowels) of all estates without exception, but taking into account the property qualification, i.e. ownership of a business or land. The election of vowels was carried out separately and assumed 3 groups of voters: landowners, city dwellers and peasants.

As a result, the bourgeois reforms of Alexander 2, which introduced the so-called all-estate zemstvo, again transferred the entire leading role to the bourgeoisie and landowners, and the problems that they could solve concerned only local and economic needs. In addition, all their activities were under the control of the leaders of the nobility and governors.

urban reform

It was published on June 16, 1870. According to this provision, city dumas were created, which played the role of administrative bodies, as well as city councils in the form of executive bodies. Thus, the bourgeois reforms of the 1860-1870s, concerning both local zemstvo and city self-government, were built on the same basis.

New provisions did not allow them to go beyond the narrow framework of solving only economic issues. City councils, for example, were engaged in the improvement of the city, developed fire-fighting measures, equipped schools and hospitals, took care of trade, etc. The dependence of city self-government not only on the governors, but also on the government was even greater than that of the zemstvos.

Judicial reform

New commercial and industrial activities, industrial relations, as well as city and zemstvo councils needed updated courts. The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century could not but affect such important areas of public relations.

The courts had to be reformed in such a way that they became free from any influence of the noble administration. In addition, they had to guarantee legal equality for all classes and protect the right to property. To do this, Alexander 2 on November 20, 1864 signed an order on the introduction of judicial reform, supplemented by new charters. They established the principle of universality.

As part of the new reform, 2 types of courts were created. The first is the district, whose duties included the proceedings in civil and criminal cases and the court chambers, which play the role of cassation instances. The second type were magistrates' courts, considering only various minor offenses. An institute of sworn attorneys or lawyers was also created, which provided legal assistance to citizens.

Bourgeois reforms 60-70 years. they also introduced the presence of military courts, which were intended to conduct political trials. But at the same time, special volost courts for peasants and special courts for clergy remained. And this, it should be noted, violated the new principle of all-estate.

Military conversions

The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century also affected the army. This need was caused, first of all, by the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War and those foreign policy tasks that could be solved solely with the help of the army. She at all times stood guard over the preservation of the unity of the state, and without her it was impossible to resolve issues relating to interstate relations.

Also, the army is the most important body of the tsarist autocracy, with the help of which it fought the unrest that flared up from time to time in many parts of the country. It must always be strong, politically stable, and most importantly combat-ready.

The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s, concerning the transformation of the army, were the first to update the War Ministry, and the entire state was divided into military districts. Recruitment sets of soldiers have been cancelled. Instead, they introduced universal military service. It concerned men over the age of 20 years. Also changed the terms of military service. Instead of the previous 25, a 6-year term was established for soldiers and a 7-year term for employees in the navy.

Education reform

Alexander 2 understood that the bourgeois reforms in Russia would not give the desired effect if the country did not have literate and well-trained specialists. To do this, they began to create new types of educational institutions. Gymnasiums were divided into classical ones with an 8-year term of study and real ones, later called schools. The latter trained specialists for various branches of industry and trade. In addition, new universities have opened in different cities of the country. Higher education was also introduced for women.

Importance of Reforms

The significance of the bourgeois reforms can hardly be overestimated. After serfdom was abolished, capitalism in Russia was finally and irrevocably established. From a backward agricultural country, it began to rapidly turn into an agrarian-industrial one.

Also, the abolition of serfdom led to the decomposition of the peasantry itself as a class. This process played an extremely important role in the formation of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century were of great importance for the Russian Empire and its further development. Thanks to them, the country turned into a bourgeois monarchy. But, despite the fact that the reforms were very important, they still turned out to be half-hearted and somewhat inconsistent.

out of serfdom. "This document outlined the main conditions for the abolition of serfdom. The peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property. The landlords, while retaining their property, were obliged to provide the peasants with a private plot for permanent use, as well as a field plot. For use peasants were obliged to fulfill duties - corvée or pay dues to the landowner's land. They did not have the right to refuse a field allotment in the first ten years. The size of the allotment and duty were to be determined by agreement (charter) between the landowners and peasants. The term for signing the charter letters was determined in two years. The drafting of letters was entrusted to the landowners themselves, and their verification - to the world mediators, who were also nobles. The letters were not concluded with an individual peasant, but with the rural community. The peasants were given the right to buy out the estate, and the redemption of the field plot was determined by the will of the landowner. their allotments were called peasant proprietors. Until the redemption of their allotments, the peasants had to perform feudal duties in favor of the landowners and were called temporarily liable. To determine the land allotment for the Great Russian, Little Russian and Belarusian provinces, the entire territory was divided into non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe zones. The size of the land allotment provided to peasants in various parts of the empire ranged from 3 to 12 acres. The largest allotment was established where the land was of little value, for example, in the northern districts of the Vologda province. The peasant could redeem the allotment received for use with the consent of the landowner. The government organized a "redemption organization" to facilitate the implementation of the agreement between the landowner and the peasants. The peasants received a redemption loan issued by the state to the landowner, which the peasants gradually repaid. Moreover, the issuance of redemption loans extended only to peasants who paid dues. The conditions of the redemption operation assumed the issuance of a loan in the amount of 80% of the cost of the quitrent, provided that the allotment corresponded to its size according to the charter and a loan in the amount of 75% in the event of a decrease in the allotment compared to the charter. The peasants were obliged to repay the redemption amount received from the government for 49 years at 6% annually.

zemstvo institutions. Zemstvo reform introduced local governments: district and provincial zemstvos. Zemstvo institutions were to consist of representatives of all classes - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, bourgeois, industrialists, peasants. All voters were divided into three curia. In the first curia - county landowners - included owners who had at least 200 acres, as well as owners of large commercial and industrial enterprises and real estate worth at least 15 thousand rubles.Merchants, owners of real estate, which was estimated from 500 to 3000 rubles. For participation and elections in the third curia - rural societies - there was no property qualification. But in fact, the dominant position in the zemstvos was occupied by the landlords. So, in the first elections to the county zemstvos, the average for the country was - 41.7 clergy - 6.5, merchants - 10.4, peasants - 38.4 Zemstvos met annually at zemstvo meetings.At the meetings, an executive body was elected - the zemstvo council, headed by the chairman. The sphere of activity of the new bodies was limited to economic and cultural affairs. They were in charge of the construction of local communications, health care, public education, local trade and industry. New bodies of all-estate self-government were only at the level of provinces and districts. Zemstvos were not created in the volosts. The activities of the zemstvos were controlled by the government. So, the governor had the right to stop the execution of the decree of the Zemstvo. Among the bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s, the judicial reform, which was adopted on November 24, 1864, was the most radical. A system of judicial independence was introduced. The court became public. The trial took place openly, publicly, a competitive process was introduced. Both sides - the accused and the prosecutor - participated in the development of the case. The prosecutor and defenders in the person of sworn attorneys or lawyers spoke. The fate of the accused was decided by jurors. According to the law, a juror could be a person with Russian citizenship, aged 25 to 70 years old and living for at least two years in the county where the jury was elected. Jurors were appointed by zemstvos and city councils. A single court was introduced for the entire population - an all-class court, although the volost court was preserved for the peasants. There were special courts for the clergy, for senior officials, the military. The court reform was the most consistent reform. It not only eliminated the imperfection of the pre-reform judicial system, but also provided a significant degree of protection for the subjects of the Russian Empire. The principle of the priority of legality and law gradually began to be introduced in the political system. The lessons of the Crimean War showed that the Russian army needed a radical reorganization. Military reforms in the 60s began to be carried out under the leadership of Minister of War D.A. Milyutin. To improve the training of officers, special military schools were established, the contingent for which was trained by military gymnasiums. Military academies were also created, a naval school was created. The whole territory of Russia in 1864. divided into 10 military districts. At the head of the district was the commander, who led the troops. January 1, 1874 A new military charter was adopted, according to which the country introduced universal military service for males who have reached the age of 20. Some of the annually called-up persons were enrolled in active service in the army, the other part - in the militia. The charter provided for a reduction in the term of military service in the ground forces to 6 years and in the navy to 7 years. Persons who had an education were allowed to serve in the position of volunteers for a period of 6 months to 4 years. Exemption from military service was obtained by marital status, for example, if the only son was the breadwinner. Russian army 1877-1878 became more modern in structure, armament, education.

Alexander II before the coronation and in the first years of his reign.

Alexander II - Emperor of All Russia, the eldest son of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, was born in Moscow on April 17, 1818.

Naturally, great importance was given to the upbringing and education of the future monarch. His educators were General Merder (company commander at the school of guards ensigns, who had remarkable pedagogical abilities, “a meek disposition and a rare mind”), M. M. Speransky, E. F. Kankrin. No less significant was the influence of another mentor - the famous poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, the head of his class studies. I would like to take a closer look at the Zhukovsky education system, which provided not only general knowledge of the then accepted extensive set of subjects and four foreign languages, but also purely specialized knowledge: about the state, its laws, finances, foreign policy and formed a system of worldview. The basic principles of the upbringing of the Tsarevich looked like this:

Where I am? Nature, its laws. In this part of the program, natural science subjects are connected with the idea of ​​"God in nature".

Who am I? The doctrine of man, united by Christian doctrine.

What was I? History, sacred history.

What should I be? Private and public morality.

What am I meant for? Revelation religion, metaphysics, the concept of God and the immortality of the soul.

And at the end (and not at the beginning) law, social history, state economy, statistics arising from everything.

The acquired knowledge was reinforced by numerous travels. He was the first of the royal family to visit (in 1837) Siberia, and the result of this visit was to mitigate the fate of political exiles. Later, while in the Caucasus, the Tsarevich distinguished himself during the attack of the highlanders, for which he was awarded the Order of St. George 4th degree. In 1837, at the request of Nicholas I, he undertook a trip to Europe for educational purposes. He traveled to Switzerland, Austria, Italy and stayed for a long time in Berlin, Weimar, Munich, Vienna, Turin, Florence, Rome and Naples.

A major role in the life of Alexander II was played by a visit to Darmstadt, where he met Princess Maximilian-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria (born July 27, 1824), the adopted daughter of Louis II, Duke of Hesse, who soon became the wife of the Tsarevich, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna.

From the age of 16, Alexander successfully took part in management affairs, first sporadically, and then systematically. At the age of 26 he became a "full general" and had a fairly professional military training. In the last years of the reign of Emperor Nicholas and during his travels, he repeatedly replaced his father.

Alexander II ascended the throne on February 19, 1855 at the age of 36. He was to go down in history under the name of the Liberator. Already on the day of the coronation, August 26, the new manifesto of the sovereign was marked by a number of favors. Recruitment was suspended for three years, all state arrears, miscalculations, etc., were forgiven; various criminals were released, or at least the punishment was mitigated, including an amnesty for political prisoners - the surviving Decembrists, Petrashevites, participants in the Polish uprising of 1831; Recruitment of minor Jews was canceled, and recruitment between the latter was ordered to be carried out on a general basis; free travel abroad was allowed, etc. But all these measures were only the threshold of those global reforms that marked the reign of Alexander II.

During this period, the Crimean War was in full swing and took an unfavorable turn, where Russia had to deal with the combined forces of almost all the major European powers. Despite his peacefulness, which was also known in Europe, Alexander expressed his firm determination to continue the struggle and achieve peace, which was soon achieved. Representatives of seven states (Russia, France, Austria, England, Prussia, Sardinia and Turkey) gathered in Paris, and on March 18, 1856, a peace treaty was concluded. The peace of Paris, although not beneficial for Russia, was nevertheless honorable for her in view of such numerous and powerful opponents. However, its disadvantageous side - the limitation of Russian naval forces on the Black Sea - was eliminated during the life of Alexander II.

Reforms of the 60-70s under Alexander II.

The need for reform.

At the end of the Crimean War, many internal shortcomings of the Russian state were revealed. Changes were needed, and the country was looking forward to them. Then the emperor uttered the words that became for a long time the slogan of Russia: "Let her internal improvement be affirmed and improved; let truth and mercy reign in her courts; let the desire for enlightenment and all useful activity develop everywhere and with renewed vigor ..."

In the first place, of course, was the idea of ​​liberating the serfs. In his speech to representatives of the Moscow nobility, Alexander II said: "It is better to cancel it from above than to wait until it is itself canceled from below." There was no other way out, since every year the peasants expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing system more and more. The corvée form of exploitation of the peasant expanded, which caused crisis situations. First of all, the productivity of the labor of the serfs began to decline, as the landowners wanted to produce more products and thereby undermined the strength of the peasant economy. The most far-sighted landowners realized that forced labor was much inferior in productivity to hired labor (For example, a large landowner A.I. Koshelev wrote about this in his article “Hunting more than captivity” in 1847). But hiring workers required considerable expenses from the landowner at a time when serf labor was free. Many landowners tried to introduce new farming systems, apply the latest technology, purchase improved varieties of thoroughbred cattle, and so on. Unfortunately, such measures led them to ruin and, accordingly, to increased exploitation of the peasants. The debts of landowners' estates to credit institutions grew. Further development of the economy on the serf system was impossible. In addition, having existed in Russia much longer than in European countries, it has taken very strict forms.

However, there is another point of view regarding this reform, according to which, by the middle of the 19th century, serfdom was still far from exhausting its capabilities and opposition to the government was very weak. Neither economic nor social catastrophe threatened Russia, but by retaining serfdom, it could drop out of the ranks of the great powers.

The peasant reform entailed the transformation of all aspects of state and public life. A number of measures were envisaged to restructure local government, the judiciary, education and, later, the army. These were really major changes, comparable only to the reforms of Peter I.

Abolition of serfdom.

On January 3, 1857, the first significant step was taken, which served as the beginning of the reform: the creation of the Secret Committee under the direct supervision and chairmanship of the emperor himself. It included: Prince Orlov, Count Lanskoy, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count V.F. Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, Prince P.P. Gagarin, Baron M. A. Korf and Ya. I. Rostovtsev. The purpose of the committee was designated as "discussion of measures to organize the life of the landlord peasants." Thus, the government tried to get initiative from the nobility in resolving this issue. The word "liberation" has not yet been spoken. But the committee acted very sluggishly. More precise actions began to be carried out later.

February 1858. The secret committee was renamed the “Main Committee on the Landlord Peasants Coming Out of Serfdom”, and a year later (March 4, 1859), Editorial Commissions were established under the committee, which reviewed the materials prepared by the provincial committees and drafted a law on the emancipation of the peasants. . There were two opinions here: the majority of the landlords proposed to free the peasants without land at all or with small allotments, while the liberal minority proposed to release them with land for redemption. At first, Alexander II shared the majority's point of view, but then he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to allocate land to the peasants. Historians usually associate such a decision with the strengthening of the peasant movement: the Tsar was afraid of a repetition of the “Pugachevism”. But no less important role was played by the presence in the government of an influential grouping, called the "liberal bureaucracy".

The draft "Regulations on the Peasants" was practically prepared at the end of August 1859, but for some time it was subject to minor corrections and clarifications. In October 1860, the Editorial Commissions, having completed their work, handed over the draft to the Main Committee, where it was discussed again and underwent further changes, but this time in favor of the landowners. On January 28, 1861, the project was submitted for consideration by the last instance - the State Council, which adopted them with some changes, in the sense of reducing the size of the peasant allotment.

Finally, on February 19, 1861, the "Regulations on the peasants who emerged from serfdom", which included 17 legislative acts, were signed by Alexander II. On the same day, the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants” followed, in which it was proclaimed the release of 22.6 million peasants from serfdom.

The "Regulations" applied to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 112,000 landowners' estates. First of all, it was declared obligatory for the landowner to allocate his former peasants, in addition to the estate land, arable and haymaking in a certain amount. Secondly, it was declared obligatory for the peasants to accept the allotment and keep in their use, for the duties established in favor of the landowner, the secular land allotted to them during the first nine years (until February 19, 1870). After nine years, individual members of the community were given the right both to leave it and to refuse to use field lands and lands if they bought their estate; the society itself also receives the right not to accept for its use such plots that individual peasants refuse. Thirdly, with regard to the size of the peasant allotment and the payments associated with it, according to general rules, it is customary to base on voluntary agreements between landowners and peasants, for which purpose to conclude a charter charter through mediators established by the situation, their congresses and provincial presences for peasant affairs, and in western provinces - and special verification commissions.

The “Regulation”, however, was not limited to the rules for allocating land to the peasants for permanent use, but made it easier for them to buy the allotted plots into their property with the help of a state redemption operation, and the government gave the peasants a certain amount on credit for the land they acquired with payment by installments for 49 years and, giving this amount to the landowner in state interest-bearing papers, he took all further settlements with the peasants upon himself. Upon approval by the government of the redemption transaction, all obligatory relations between the peasants and the landowner were terminated, and the latter entered the category of peasant proprietors.

"Regulations" were gradually extended to the peasants of the palace, appanage, ascribed and state.

But as a result of this, the peasantry remained bound by the community, and the land allocated to it turned out to be clearly insufficient to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The peasant remained completely dependent on the rural community (the former “world”), which, in turn, was completely controlled by the authorities; personal allotments were transferred to the ownership of peasant societies, which periodically redistributed them “equalizing”.

In the spring and summer of 1861, the peasants, who did not receive, as expected, "full freedom", organized many uprisings. Outrage was caused by such facts as, for example: for two years the peasants remained subordinate to the landowner, were obliged to pay dues and perform corvée, were deprived of a significant part of the land, and those allotments that were given to them as property had to be redeemed from the landowner. During 1861 there were 1860 peasant uprisings. Peasant performances in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province, are considered one of the largest. Subsequently, disappointment with the inconsistency of the reform was growing not only among former serfs: articles by A. Herzen and N. Ogarev in Kolokol, N. Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik.

Land reform.

After the peasant "Regulations" in a number of administrative reforms, one of the most important places is occupied, without any doubt, by the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which was published on January 1, 1864.

According to the regulation, non-estate elected bodies of local self-government - zemstvos - were introduced. They were elected by all estates for a three-year term and consisted of administrative bodies (county and provincial zemstvo assemblies) and executive bodies (county and provincial zemstvo councils). Elections to zemstvo administrative bodies - meetings of vowels (deputies) - were held on the basis of a property qualification, by curia. The first curia (landowners) consisted of owners of land from 200 to 800 acres or real estate worth from 15,000 rubles. The second curia (city) united the owners of urban industrial and commercial establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6,000 rubles and owners of real estate for at least 2,000 rubles. The elections for the third curia (rural peasant societies) were multistage. Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils - consisting of a chairman and several members.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions, their activities were limited mainly to solving local issues. They were responsible for public education, for public health, for the timely delivery of food, for the quality of roads, for insurance, for veterinary care, and much more.

All this required a lot of money, so the zemstvos were allowed to introduce new taxes, impose duties on the population, and form zemstvo capitals. With its full development, zemstvo activity was supposed to cover all aspects of local life. New forms of local self-government not only made it all-class, but also expanded the range of its powers. Self-government was so widespread that many were understood as a transition to a representative form of government, so the government soon became noticeable desire to keep the activities of zemstvos at the local level, and not allow zemstvo corporations to communicate with each other.

In the late 1970s, zemstvos were introduced into 35 out of 59 Russian provinces.

City reform (in continuation of the Zemstvo).

On June 16, 1870, the "City Regulations" were published, according to which elective self-government was introduced in 509 out of 1130 cities - city dumas elected for four years. The city duma (administrative body) elected its permanent executive body - the city government, which consisted of the mayor (also elected for four years) and several members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of both the city duma and the city government. City councils were under the control of government officials.

The right to elect and be elected to the city duma had the right only to residents with a property qualification (mainly owners of houses, commercial and industrial establishments, banks). The first electoral assembly included large taxpayers who contributed a third of city taxes, the second - smaller ones, paying another third of taxes, the third - all the rest. In the largest cities, the number of vowels (elected) averaged 5.6% of the population. Thus, the bulk of the urban population was excluded from participation in urban self-government.

The competence of city self-government was limited to solving purely economic issues (improvement of cities, construction of hospitals, schools, care for the development of trade, fire prevention measures, city taxation).

Judicial reform.

Among the reforms, one of the leading places undoubtedly belongs to the judicial reform. This deeply thought-out reform had a strong and direct influence on the entire system of state and public life. She introduced into it completely new, long-awaited principles - the complete separation of the judiciary from the administrative and accusatory, the publicity and openness of the court, the independence of judges, the advocacy and the adversarial procedure for legal proceedings.

The country was divided into 108 judicial districts.

The essence of judicial reform is as follows:

The court is made oral and public;

The power of the judiciary is separated from the prosecution and belongs to the courts without any participation of the administrative power;

The main form of legal proceedings is the adversarial process;

The case on the merits can be dealt with no more than in two instances. Two types of courts were introduced: world and general. The magistrate's courts, represented by a magistrate, tried criminal and civil cases, the damage in which did not exceed 500 rubles. Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies, approved by the Senate, and could be dismissed only at their own request or by court order. The general court consisted of three instances: the district court, the judicial chamber, the Senate. The district courts heard serious civil suits and criminal (juror) cases. The Trial Chambers heard appeals and were the court of first instance for political and state affairs. The Senate was the highest judicial instance and could cancel the decisions of the courts submitted for cassation.

In cases of crimes involving punishments, connected with the deprivation of all or some of the rights and advantages of the state, the determination of guilt is left to jurors, elected from local residents of all classes;

Eliminates clerical secrecy;

Both for intercession in cases and for the defense of defendants, there are sworn attorneys at the courts, who are under the supervision of special councils composed of the same corporation.

Judicial statutes extended to 44 provinces and were introduced into them for more than thirty years.

In 1863, a law was passed that abolished corporal punishment with gauntlets, whips, whips and brands on the verdicts of civil and military courts. Women were completely exempted from corporal punishment. But the rods were kept for the peasants (according to the verdicts of the volost courts), for the exiled, hard labor and penal soldiers.

military reform.

The military administration has also undergone transformations.

Already at the beginning of the reign, military settlements were destroyed. Degrading corporal punishment was abolished.

Particular attention was paid to raising the level of general education of army officers through the reform of military educational institutions. Military gymnasiums and cadet schools with a two-year term of study were created. They included persons of all classes.

In January 1874, all-class military service was proclaimed. The Supreme Manifesto on this occasion said: "Protection of the throne and the Fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject ...". Under the new law, all young people who have reached the age of 21 are called up, but the government determines the required number of recruits every year, and draws only this number from the recruits (usually no more than 20-25% of recruits were called up for service). The call was not subject to the only son of the parents, the only breadwinner in the family, and also if the older brother of the recruit is serving or has served his service. Those enlisted in the service are listed in it: in the ground forces 15 years: 6 years in the ranks and 9 years in the reserve, in the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in the reserve. For those who have received primary education, the term of active service is reduced to 4 years, those who have graduated from a city school - up to 3 years, a gymnasium - up to one and a half years, and those who have higher education - up to six months.

Thus, the result of the reform was the creation of a small peacetime army with a significant trained reserve in case of war.

The system of military command and control has undergone fundamental changes in order to strengthen control over the locations of troops. The result of this revision was approved on August 6, 1864 "Regulations on the military district administrations." Based on this "Regulations", nine military districts were initially organized, and then (August 6, 1865) four more. In each district, a chief commander was appointed, appointed at the direct highest discretion, bearing the title of commander of the troops of the military district. This position may also be assigned to the local governor-general. In some districts, an assistant to the commander of the troops is also appointed.

By the end of the 19th century, the number of the Russian army was (per 130 million people): officers, doctors and officials - 47 thousand, lower ranks - 1 million 100 thousand. Then these figures declined and reached 742,000 people, while the military potential was maintained.

In the 60s, at the insistence of the Ministry of War, railways were built to the western and southern borders of Russia, and in 1870 railway troops appeared. During the 70s, the technical re-equipment of the army was basically completed.

Caring for the defenders of the Motherland was manifested in everything, even in small things. For example, for more than a hundred years (until the 80s of the XIX century), boots were sewn without distinction between the right and left legs. It was believed that during a combat alarm, a soldier had no time to think about which boot to wear, on which leg.

Special treatment was given to the prisoners. Soldiers who were taken prisoner and were not in the service of the enemy, upon returning home, received a salary from the state for the entire time they were in captivity. The prisoner was considered a victim. And those who distinguished themselves in battles were waiting for military awards. Orders of Russia were especially highly valued. They gave such privileges that they even changed the position of a person in society.

financial reforms.

One of the main means of raising the economic power of the country was considered to be the construction of a network of railways linking the central regions of the European part of Russia. In connection with it, foreign leave increased 10 times, and the import of goods almost also increased. The number of commercial and industrial enterprises increased markedly, as well as the number of factories and plants. Credit institutions appeared - banks, headed by the State Bank (1860).

It was at this time that the first coal-mining and metallurgical enterprises were created in Ukraine and oil-producing enterprises in Baku.

Reforms in the field of education.

Public education also attracted the attention of the king. Of particular importance in this regard was the publication of a new and general charter of Russian universities on July 18, 1863, in the development of which, on the initiative of the Minister of Education A. V. Golovkin, a special commission at the main board of schools, composed mainly of professors from St. Petersburg University, participated. The charter granted the universities a fairly broad autonomy: the election of the rector, deans, professors was introduced, the University Council received the right to independently resolve all scientific, educational, administrative and financial issues. And in connection with the development of universities, science began to develop at a rapid pace.

According to the Regulations on Primary Public Schools approved on June 14, 1864, the state, church and society (zemstvos and cities) were to jointly educate the people.

On November 19, 1864, a new regulation on gymnasiums appeared, which proclaimed equality in admission to all estates. But because of the high pay, it was available only to children of wealthy parents.

Attention was also paid to women's education. Already in the 60s, instead of the former closed women's institutions, open ones began to be arranged, with the admission of girls of all classes, and these new institutions were under the authority of the institutions of Empress Maria. Similar gymnasiums began to be approved by the Ministry of Public Education. In 1870, on May 24, a new Regulation on Women's Gymnasiums and Progymnasiums of the Ministry of Public Education was approved. The need for higher female education led to the establishment of pedagogical courses and higher female courses in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kazan and Odessa.

Reforms in the field of printing.

The reform of the press also had a profound and beneficial effect on the development of public consciousness.

In 1857, the government put the question of revising the censorship charter on the agenda. After the permission in 1858 to discuss in the press the problems of social life and the activities of the government, the number of periodicals (1860 - 230) and book titles (1860 -2058) increased sharply.

Already in 1862, the main department of censorship was closed and part of its duties was assigned to the Ministry of the Interior, and the other - directly to the Minister of Education.

On April 6, 1865, the “Temporary Rules on the Press” were approved, which exempted from preliminary censorship original works of at least ten pages, and translated works of at least twenty sheets, and some periodicals at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior. For periodicals, a large cash deposit was additionally required. Official and scientific publications were exempted from censorship.

The "Temporary Rules on the Press" operated practically unchanged for 40 years.

The assassination of the emperor.

Emperor Alexander II, who caused delight and surprise of enlightened people of the whole world, also met ill-wishers. Pursuing incomprehensible goals, the organizers created a number of attempts on the life of the sovereign, who was the pride and glory of Russia. On March 1, 1881, the sovereign, for whom a large population was ready to lay down his life, died a martyr's death from a villainous hand that threw an explosive projectile.

On this fateful day, Emperor Alexander II decided to make a divorce (the procedure for sending out daily guards for a shift). The path lay along a narrow street, made up of the garden of the Grand Duchess, fenced with a stone fence the height of a man and a lattice of the Catherine Canal. The terrain is very impassable, and if it is true that the sovereign chose it in view of the anonymous threats he received, then it is difficult to imagine why an ambush awaited him precisely on this path, except because they noticed a large, against the usual, number of police on it. Be that as it may, but when the sovereign's carriage reached the Theater Bridge, there was an explosion that broke open the back of the carriage, which immediately stopped. The sovereign emerged from it unharmed, but one of the escorts, galloping behind, and a sapper officer, walking along the sidewalk along the stone wall of the Mikhailovsky Garden, were mortally wounded by a thrown bomb. The sovereign's coachman, sensing trouble, turned to him from the goat: "Let's go, sovereign!" The chief of police, galloping behind, jumped out of the sleigh with the same request to go faster. But the emperor did not listen and took a few steps back: "I want to see my wounded." At this time, the crowd managed to stop a healthy kid who threw a bomb. The sovereign turned to him: “So it was you who wanted to kill me?” But he did not succeed in finishing, as the second bomb exploded in front of him, and he lowered himself with the words: “Help.” They rushed to him, lifted him up, put the chief of police in the sledge (who himself received 45 wounds from small fragments of the bomb, but not a single fatal one) and drove him away. A little over an hour later, at 3:35 pm, Tsar Alexander II died in the Winter Palace.

The eminent Russian philosopher V. V. Rozanov called the assassination of the emperor "a mixture of Madness and Meanness."

The political testament of Alexander II was destroyed. Alexander III, in the consciousness of his past delusions and in an effort to return to the ideal of the kings of Moscow, turned to the people with a manifesto, which affirmed the inviolability of autocratic power and the exclusive responsibility of the autocrat before God.

The Russian Empire thus returned to the old traditional paths on which it had once found glory and prosperity.

Significance of the reign of Alexander II in the history of Russia.

Alexander II left a deep mark on history, he managed to do what other autocrats were afraid to take on - the liberation of the peasants from serfdom. We enjoy the fruits of his reforms to this day.

The internal reforms of Alexander II are comparable in scale only to the reforms of Peter I. The reformer tsar made truly grandiose transformations without social cataclysms and fratricidal war.

With the abolition of serfdom, commercial and industrial activity "resurrected", a stream of workers poured into the cities, and new areas for entrepreneurship opened up. Old ties were restored between cities and counties and new ones were created.

The fall of serfdom, the equalization of all before the court, the creation of new liberal forms of social life led to the freedom of the individual. And the feeling of this freedom awakened the desire to develop it. Dreams were created about the establishment of new forms of family and social life.

During his reign, Russia firmly strengthened its relations with the European powers, and resolved numerous conflicts with neighboring countries.

The tragic death of the emperor greatly changed the further course of history, and it was this event that 35 years later led Russia to death, and Nicholas II to a martyr's wreath.