Peasant Reform .............................................. .1

Liberal Reforms of the 60s-70s.......................................4

Establishment of zemstvos............................................ .4

Self-government in cities........................................ 6

Judicial reform............................................ 7

Military reform............................................... .8

Education reforms............................... ....10

Church in the period of reforms................................................. 11 Conclusion .......... ....................................…........ .thirteen

Peasant reform .

Russia on the eve of the abolition of serfdom . The defeat in the Crimean War testified to the serious military-technical lag of Russia from the leading European states. There was a threat of the country sliding into the category of minor powers. The government could not allow this. Along with the defeat came the understanding that the main reason for Russia's economic backwardness was serfdom.

The enormous costs of the war seriously undermined the monetary system of the state. Recruitment, the seizure of livestock and fodder, the growth of duties ruined the population. And although the peasants did not respond to the hardships of the war with mass uprisings, they were in a state of intense expectation of the tsar's decision to abolish serfdom.

In April 1854, a decree was issued on the formation of a reserve rowing flotilla ("sea militia"). With the consent of the landowner and with a written obligation to return to the owner, serfs could also be recorded in it. The decree limited the flotilla formation area to four provinces. However, he stirred up almost all of peasant Russia. A rumor spread in the villages that the emperor was calling volunteers for military service and for this he freed them forever from serfdom. Unauthorized registration in the militia resulted in a mass exodus of peasants from the landlords. This phenomenon took on an even broader character in connection with the manifesto of January 29, 1855, on the recruitment of warriors into the land militia, covering dozens of provinces.

The atmosphere in the "enlightened" society has also changed. According to the figurative expression of the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, Sevastopol hit stagnant minds. “Now the question of the emancipation of serfs is on everyone’s lips,” wrote the historian K. D. Kavelin, “they talk about it loudly, even those who previously could not hint at the fallibility of serfdom without causing nervous attacks think about it.” Even the tsar's relatives - his aunt, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, and younger brother Konstantin - advocated for the transformation.

Preparation of the peasant reform . For the first time, on March 30, 1856, Alexander II officially announced the need to abolish serfdom to representatives of the Moscow nobility. At the same time, knowing the mood of the majority of the landowners, he emphasized that it is much better if this happens from above than to wait until it happens from below.

On January 3, 1857, Alexander II formed a Secret Committee to discuss the issue of abolishing serfdom. However, many of its members, former Nicholas dignitaries, were ardent opponents of the liberation of the peasants. They hindered the work of the committee in every possible way. And then the emperor decided to take more effective measures. At the end of October 1857, Vilna Governor-General V. N. Nazimov, who in his youth was Alexander's personal adjutant, arrived in St. Petersburg. He brought the appeal of the nobles of the Vilna, Kovno and Grodno provinces to the emperor. They asked permission to discuss the issue of freeing the peasants without giving them land. Alexander took advantage of this request and sent on November 20, 1857 to Nazimov a rescript on the establishment of provincial committees from among the landowners to prepare draft peasant reforms. On December 5, 1857, St. Petersburg Governor-General P. I. Ignatiev received a similar document. Soon the text of the rescript sent to Nazimov appeared in the official press. Thus, the preparation of the peasant reform became public.

During 1858, "committees for improving the life of landlord peasants" were established in 46 provinces (officials were afraid to include the word "liberation" in official documents). In February 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich became its chairman. In March 1859 Editorial Commissions were established under the Main Committee. Their members were engaged in the consideration of materials coming from the provinces, and drawing up on their basis a general draft law on the emancipation of the peasants. General Ya. I. Rostovtsev, who enjoyed the emperor's special confidence, was appointed chairman of the commissions. He attracted to his work supporters of reforms from among the liberal officials and landowners - N. A. Milyutin, Yu. F. Samarin, V. A. Cherkassky, Ya. ". They advocated the release of the peasants with a land allotment for redemption and their transformation into small landowners, while the landownership was preserved. These ideas were fundamentally different from those expressed by the nobles in the provincial committees. They believed that even if the peasants were to be liberated, then without land. In October 1860, the editorial commissions completed their work. The final preparation of the reform documents was transferred to the Main Committee, then they were approved by the State Council.

The main provisions of the peasant reform. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed a manifesto “On granting serfs the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants and on the organization of their life”, as well as the “Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom”. According to these documents, the peasants, who previously belonged to the landlords, were declared legally free and received general civil rights. When they were released, they were given land, but in a limited amount and for ransom on special conditions. The land allotment, which the landowner provided to the peasant, could not be higher than the norm established by law. Its size ranged from 3 to 12 acres in various parts of the empire. If by the time of liberation there was more land in peasant use, then the landowner had the right to cut off the surplus, while land of better quality was taken from the peasants. According to the reform, the peasants had to buy the land from the landowners. They could get it for free, but only a quarter of the allotment determined by law. Until the redemption of their land plots, the peasants found themselves in the position of temporarily liable. They had to pay dues or serve corvee in favor of the landowners.

The size of allotments, dues and corvées were to be determined by an agreement between the landowner and the peasants - Charters. The temporary state could last for 9 years. At this time, the peasant could not give up his allotment.

The amount of the ransom was determined in such a way that the landowner would not lose the money that he had previously received in the form of dues. The peasant had to immediately pay him 20-25% of the value of the allotment. To enable the landowner to receive the redemption sum at a time, the government paid him the remaining 75-80%. The peasant, on the other hand, had to repay this debt to the state for 49 years with an accrual of 6% per annum. At the same time, calculations were made not with each individual, but with the peasant community. Thus, the land was not the personal property of the peasant, but the property of the community.

Peace mediators, as well as provincial presences for peasant affairs, consisting of the governor, government official, prosecutor and representatives of local landlords, were supposed to monitor the implementation of the reform on the ground.

The reform of 1861 abolished serfdom. The peasants became free people. However, the reform preserved serfdom remnants in the countryside, primarily landownership. In addition, the peasants did not receive full ownership of the land, which means they did not have the opportunity to rebuild their economy on a capitalist basis.

Liberal reforms of the 60-70s

Establishment of zemstvos . After the abolition of serfdom, a number of other transformations were required. By the beginning of the 60s. the former local administration showed its complete failure. The activities of the officials appointed in the capital who led the provinces and districts, and the detachment of the population from making any decisions, brought economic life, health care, and education to extreme disorder. The abolition of serfdom made it possible to involve all segments of the population in solving local problems. At the same time, when establishing new governing bodies, the government could not ignore the moods of the nobles, many of whom were dissatisfied with the abolition of serfdom.

On January 1, 1864, an imperial decree introduced the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which provided for the creation of elective zemstvos in the counties and provinces. Only men had the right to vote in the elections of these bodies. Voters were divided into three curia (categories): landowners, city voters and elected from peasant societies. Owners of at least 200 acres of land or other real estate in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles, as well as owners of industrial and commercial enterprises that generate income of at least 6 thousand rubles a year, could be a voter in the landowning curia. The small landowners, uniting, put forward only representatives in the elections.

The voters of the city curia were merchants, owners of enterprises or trading establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6,000 rubles, as well as owners of real estate worth from 600 rubles (in small towns) to 3,600 rubles (in large cities).

Elections but the peasant curia were multi-stage: at first, rural assemblies elected representatives to volost assemblies. Electors were first elected at volost gatherings, who then nominated representatives to county self-government bodies. At district assemblies, representatives from the peasants were elected to the provincial self-government bodies.

Zemstvo institutions were divided into administrative and executive. Administrative bodies - zemstvo assemblies - consisted of vowels of all classes. Both in the counties and in the provinces, vowels were elected for a period of three years. Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils, which also worked for three years. The range of issues that were resolved by zemstvo institutions was limited to local affairs: the construction and maintenance of schools, hospitals, the development of local trade and industry, etc. The legitimacy of their activities was monitored by the governor. The material basis for the existence of zemstvos was a special tax, which was imposed on real estate: land, houses, factories and trade establishments.

The most energetic, democratically minded intelligentsia grouped around the zemstvos. The new self-government bodies raised the level of education and public health, improved the road network and expanded agronomic assistance to the peasants on a scale that the state power was incapable of. Despite the fact that representatives of the nobility prevailed in the zemstvos, their activities were aimed at improving the situation of the broad masses of the people.

Zemstvo reform was not carried out in the Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, in Siberia, in Central Asia - where there was no noble land ownership or was insignificant. Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Right-Bank Ukraine, and the Caucasus did not receive local governments, since there were few Russians among the landowners.

self-government in cities. In 1870, following the example of the Zemstvo, a city reform was carried out. It introduced all-estate self-government bodies - city dumas, elected for four years. Vowels of the Dumas elected for the same term permanent executive bodies - city councils, as well as the mayor, who was the head of both the thought and the council.

The right to choose new governing bodies was enjoyed by men who had reached the age of 25 and paid city taxes. All voters, in accordance with the amount of fees paid in favor of the city, were divided into three curia. The first was a small group of the largest owners of real estate, industrial and commercial enterprises, who paid 1/3 of all taxes to the city treasury. The second curia included smaller taxpayers contributing another 1/3 of the city fees. The third curia consisted of all other taxpayers. At the same time, each of them elected an equal number of vowels to the city duma, which ensured the predominance of large owners in it.

The activity of city self-government was controlled by the state. The mayor was approved by the governor or the minister of the interior. The same officials could impose a ban on any decision of the city duma. To control the activities of city self-government in each province, a special body was created - the provincial presence for city affairs.

City self-government bodies appeared in 1870, first in 509 Russian cities. In 1874, the reform was introduced in the cities of Transcaucasia, in 1875 - in Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, in 1877 - in the Baltic states. It did not apply to the cities of Central Asia, Poland and Finland. For all the limitations, the urban reform of the emancipation of Russian society, like the Zemstvo one, contributed to the involvement of broad sections of the population in solving management issues. This served as a prerequisite for the formation of civil society and the rule of law in Russia.

Judicial reform . The most consistent transformation of Alexander II was the judicial reform carried out in November 1864. In accordance with it, the new court was built on the principles of bourgeois law: the equality of all classes before the law; publicity of the court"; independence of judges; competitiveness of prosecution and defense; irremovability of judges and investigators; electivity of some judicial bodies.

According to the new judicial statutes, two systems of courts were created - world and general. The magistrates' courts heard petty criminal and civil cases. They were created in cities and counties. Justices of the peace administered justice alone. They were elected by zemstvo assemblies and city councils. High educational and property qualifications were established for judges. At the same time, they received rather high wages - from 2200 to 9 thousand rubles a year.

The system of general courts included district courts and judicial chambers. Members of the district court were appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and considered criminal and complex civil cases. Consideration of criminal cases took place with the participation of twelve jurors. The juror could be a citizen of Russia aged 25 to 70 with an impeccable reputation, living in the area for at least two years and owning real estate in the amount of 2,000 rubles or more. Jury lists were approved by the governor. Appeals against the District Court's decision were made to the Trial Chamber. Moreover, an appeal against the verdict was allowed. The Judicial Chamber also considered cases of malfeasance of officials. Such cases were equated with state crimes and were heard with the participation of class representatives. The highest court was the Senate. The reform established the publicity of trials. They were held openly, in the presence of the public; newspapers printed reports on trials of public interest. The competitiveness of the parties was ensured by the presence at the trial of the prosecutor - the representative of the prosecution and the lawyer defending the interests of the accused. In Russian society, there was an extraordinary interest in advocacy. Outstanding lawyers F. N. Plevako, A. I. Urusov, V. D. Spasovich, K. K. Arseniev, who laid the foundations of the Russian school of lawyer-orators, became famous in this field. The new judicial system retained a number of vestiges of estates. These included volost courts for peasants, special courts for the clergy, military and senior officials. In some national areas, the implementation of judicial reform dragged on for decades. In the so-called Western Territory (Vilna, Vitebsk, Volyn, Grodno, Kyiv, Kovno, Minsk, Mogilev and Podolsk provinces), it began only in 1872 with the creation of magistrates' courts. Justices of the peace were not elected, but appointed for three years. District courts began to be created only in 1877. At the same time, Catholics were forbidden to hold judicial office. In the Baltics, the reform began to be implemented only in 1889.

Only at the end of the XIX century. judicial reform was carried out in the Arkhangelsk province and Siberia (in 1896), as well as in Central Asia and Kazakhstan (in 1898). Here, too, the appointment of magistrates took place, who simultaneously performed the functions of investigators, the jury trial was not introduced.

military reforms. Liberal transformations in society, the desire of the government to overcome backwardness in the military field, as well as to reduce military spending, necessitated fundamental reforms in the army. They were conducted under the leadership of Minister of War D. A. Milyutin. In 1863-1864. reform of military educational institutions began. General education was separated from special education: future officers received general education in military gymnasiums, and professional training in military schools. The children of the nobility studied mainly in these educational institutions. For those who did not have a secondary education, cadet schools were created, where representatives of all classes were admitted. In 1868, military progymnasiums were created to replenish the cadet schools.

In 1867 the Military Law Academy was opened, in 1877 the Naval Academy. Instead of recruitment sets, all-class military service was introduced. According to the charter approved on January 1, 1874, persons of all classes from the age of 20 (later - from the age of 21) were subject to conscription. The total service life for the ground forces was set at 15 years, of which 6 years - active service, 9 years - in reserve. In the fleet - 10 years: 7 - valid, 3 - in reserve. For persons who received an education, the period of active service was reduced from 4 years (for those who graduated from elementary schools) to 6 months (for those who received higher education).

The only sons and the only breadwinners of the family were released from service, as well as those recruits whose older brother was serving or had already served a term of active service. Those exempted from conscription were enlisted in the militia, which was formed only during the war. Clerics of all faiths, representatives of some religious sects and organizations, the peoples of the North, Central Asia, part of the inhabitants of the Caucasus and Siberia were not subject to conscription. Corporal punishment was abolished in the army, punishment with rods was retained only for fines), food was improved, barracks were re-equipped, and literacy was introduced for soldiers. There was a rearmament of the army and navy: smooth-bore weapons were replaced by rifled ones, the replacement of cast-iron and bronze guns with steel ones began; The rapid-fire rifles of the American inventor Berdan were adopted for service. The system of combat training has changed. A number of new charters, manuals, manuals were issued, which set the task of teaching soldiers only what was needed in the war, significantly reducing the time for drill training.

As a result of the reforms, Russia received a massive army that met the requirements of the time. The combat readiness of the troops has significantly increased. The transition to universal military service was a serious blow to the class organization of society.

Reforms in the field of education. The education system has also undergone a significant restructuring. In June 1864, the “Regulations on Primary Public Schools” were approved, according to which such educational institutions could be opened by public institutions and private individuals. This led to the creation of various types of primary schools - state, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday, etc. The term of study in them did not exceed, as a rule, three years.

Since November 1864, gymnasiums have become the main type of educational institution. They were divided into classical and real. In the classical, a large place was given to the ancient languages ​​- Latin and Greek. The term of study in them was at first seven years, and from 1871 - eight years. Graduates of classical gymnasiums had the opportunity to enter universities. Six-year real gymnasiums were called upon to prepare "for occupations in various branches of industry and trade."

The main attention was paid to the study of mathematics, natural science, technical subjects. Access to universities for graduates of real gymnasiums was closed, they continued their studies at technical institutes. The foundation was laid for women's secondary education - women's gymnasiums appeared. But the amount of knowledge given in them was inferior to what was taught in the men's gymnasiums. The gymnasium accepted children "of all classes, without distinction of rank and religion", however, at the same time, high tuition fees were set. In June 1864, a new charter for the universities was approved, restoring the autonomy of these educational institutions. The direct management of the university was entrusted to the council of professors, who elected the rector and deans, approved curricula, and resolved financial and personnel issues. Women's higher education began to develop. Since gymnasium graduates did not have the right to enter universities, higher women's courses were opened for them in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, and Kyiv. Women began to be admitted to universities, but as volunteers.

Orthodox Church in the period of reforms. Liberal reforms also affected the Orthodox Church. First of all, the government tried to improve the financial situation of the clergy. In 1862, a Special Presence was created to find ways to improve the life of the clergy, which included members of the Synod and senior officials of the state. Public forces were also involved in solving this problem. In 1864, parish guardianships arose, consisting of parishioners, who not only focused on the study of mathematics, natural science, and technical subjects. Access to universities for graduates of real gymnasiums was closed, they continued their studies at technical institutes.

The foundation was laid for women's secondary education - women's gymnasiums appeared. But the amount of knowledge given in them was inferior to what was taught in the men's gymnasiums. The gymnasium accepted children "of all classes, without distinction of rank and religion", however, at the same time, high tuition fees were set.

In June 1864, a new charter for the universities was approved, restoring the autonomy of these educational institutions. The direct management of the university was entrusted to the council of professors, who elected the rector and deans, approved curricula, and resolved financial and personnel issues. Women's higher education began to develop. Since gymnasium graduates did not have the right to enter universities, higher women's courses were opened for them in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, and Kyiv. Women began to be admitted to universities, but as volunteers.

Orthodox Church in the period of reforms. Liberal reforms also affected the Orthodox Church. First of all, the government tried to improve the financial situation of the clergy. In 1862, a Special Presence was created to find ways to improve the life of the clergy, which included members of the Synod and senior officials of the state. Public forces were also involved in solving this problem. In 1864, parish guardianships arose, consisting of parishioners who not only managed the affairs of the parish, but also had to help improve the financial situation of clergy. In 1869-79. incomes of parish priests increased significantly due to the abolition of small parishes and the establishment of an annual salary, which ranged from 240 to 400 rubles. Old-age pensions were introduced for the clergy.

The liberal spirit of the reforms carried out in the field of education also touched church educational institutions. In 1863, graduates of theological seminaries received the right to enter universities. In 1864, the children of the clergy were allowed to enroll in gymnasiums, and in 1866, in military schools. In 1867, the Synod passed resolutions on the abolition of the heredity of parishes and on the right to enter seminaries for all Orthodox without exception. These measures destroyed class partitions and contributed to the democratic renewal of the clergy. At the same time, they led to the departure from this environment of many young, gifted people who joined the ranks of the intelligentsia. Under Alexander II, the legal recognition of the Old Believers took place: they were allowed to register their marriages and baptisms in civil institutions; they could now hold certain public positions and freely travel abroad. At the same time, in all official documents, adherents of the Old Believers were still called schismatics, they were forbidden to hold public office.

Conclusion: During the reign of Alexander II in Russia, liberal reforms were carried out that affected all aspects of public life. Thanks to the reforms, significant segments of the population received the initial skills of management and public work. The reforms laid down traditions, albeit very timid ones, of civil society and the rule of law. At the same time, they retained the estate advantages of the nobles, and also had restrictions for the national regions of the country, where the free popular will determines not only the law, but also the personality of the rulers, in such a country political assassination as a means of struggle is a manifestation of the same spirit of despotism, the destruction of which in We set Russia as our task. The despotism of the individual and the despotism of the party are equally reprehensible, and violence is justified only when it is directed against violence.” Comment on this document.

The emancipation of the peasants in 1861 and the subsequent reforms of the 1960s and 1970s became a turning point in Russian history. This period was called the era of "great reforms" by liberal figures. Their consequence was the creation of the necessary conditions for the development of capitalism in Russia, which allowed it to follow the all-European path.

The pace of economic development has sharply increased in the country, and the transition to a market economy has begun. Under the influence of these processes, new sections of the population were formed - the industrial bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Peasant and landlord farms were increasingly involved in commodity-money relations.

The appearance of zemstvos, city self-government, democratic transformations in the judicial and educational systems testified to the steady, although not so fast, movement of Russia towards the foundations of civil society and the rule of law.

However, almost all reforms were inconsistent and incomplete. They retained the estate advantages of the nobility and state control over society. On the national outskirts of the reforms were implemented in an incomplete manner. The principle of the autocratic power of the monarch remained unchanged.

The foreign policy of the government of Alexander II was active in almost all main areas. Through diplomatic and military means, the Russian state succeeded in solving the foreign policy tasks facing it and restoring its position as a great power. At the expense of the Central Asian territories, the boundaries of the empire expanded.

The era of "great reforms" has become a time of transformation of social movements into a force capable of influencing power or resisting it. Fluctuations in the government's course and the inconsistency of the reforms led to an increase in radicalism in the country. The revolutionary organizations embarked on the path of terror, striving to raise the peasants to the revolution through the assassination of the tsar and high officials.

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. Slowly but steadily, the social composition of the population was changing due to growth 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, corvée 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 by 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 "peace", 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. one

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, 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.

Liberal reforms of the 60-70s

In the early 1960s, the need forthe possibility of introducing local self-government, about whichrum was declared by the liberal public: the government could not, on its own, raise theprovincial economy. 1st of January 1864 was accepted law on local government, establishedfor the management of economic affairs: construction maintenance and maintenance of local roads, schools, hospitals prostrate, almshouses, etc.

The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were gu-Bernese and county land meetings, performtelny - provincial and district land administrations. For the election of deputies - vowels- the county zemstvo assembly convened 3 electoral congresses: large landowners, urbanowners and peasants. District zemstvosassembly elected the vowels of the provincial zemstvoth meeting. Zemstvo assemblies were dominated noble landowners.

With the advent of the Zemstvo, the balance of power in the provinces began to change: a “third element” arose, ascalled zemstvo doctors, teachers, agronomists,tists. Zemstvos slowly but surely raisedlocal economy, improved the life of the village,education and health care. Soon the earthstva ceased to be purely economic organizationsnizations; associated with them is the appearance of the zemstvo liberalism, who dreamed of all-Russian elections oforderly power.

In 1870 was held city ​​government reform. Elections to the Duma were held by three election congresses: small, medium and largeny taxpayers. (Workers don't pay taxestili did not participate in the elections.) city ​​head and council elected by the Duma. Bodies of the cityself-governments successfully engaged in organizingher urban life, urban development, but in generalthey participated weakly in the movement.

In 1864, at the urging of the public, carried out judicial reform. Court in Russiaclassless, vowel, competitive, independentsim from the administration. central linkthe new judicial system became district Court. The prosecution was supported by the prosecutor, the interests ofdefendant defended defendant. Jury givers, 12 people, after listening to the court debate, rendered a verdict ("guilty", "not guilty", "vi-new, but deserving of indulgence"). Based onvaniya verdict, the court delivered a sentence. Such mouth-court courtship provided the greatest guaranteesfrom judicial errors.

Handling petty criminal and civil cases was engaged world judge, elected Zemstvo so- raniy or city council for 3 years. Ruler- the government could not, by its power, remove from a justice of the peace or judges of the district court.

Judicial reform was one of the mostsubsequent transformations of the 60-70s, but still it remained unfinished: it was notreformed the Senate, to parse small con-conflicts in the peasant environment remained classvolost court, which had the right to award to those forest punishments (until 1904).

A number of important military reforms held by D. A. Mi-Lutin, who was appointed Minister of War in 1861. The army was re-equipped according to modern requirements.novations. At the final stage, it shouldthere will be a transition, from recruitment to universalIndian duty. The conservative part of the generals for a number of years blocked this on-making; a turning point in the course of affairs was introduced by the Franco-Prussian the war of 1870-1871: contemporaries were struck by the speed of the mobilization of the Prussian army. On January 1, 1874, a law was passed abolishing the river rutchinu and distributing military obligations for men of all classes who have reached the age of 20 and fit for health. Service life benefitsbecome an additional incentive toeducation. The reform accelerated the breakdown of the class-th building; the abolition of recruitment increased the popularity Alexander II among the peasantry.

Reforms 60-70s, eliminating a number of experiences kov, creating modern self-government bodiesand ships, contributed to the development of the country, growthcivic consciousness of the population. These were only the first steps: the upper levels of power were not touched by the reforms.

The huge army, built on drill and long-term (25 years) service of part of the population, has not been reformed for 30 years. Outdated weapons were in service, outdated strategic and tactical combat schemes were used. The military bureaucracy squandered the huge budgetary money allocated for defense aimlessly. This prompted the beginning of military reforms in Russia.

The reforms began with the appointment in 1861 to the post of Minister of War D.A. Milyutin (elder brother of N.A. Milyutin), a professor at the Academy of the General Staff, who had outstanding military and personal talents, who adhered to liberal views. With the name D.A. Milyutin, who was Minister of War for 20 years, connected with the radical reorganization of the Russian army. On January 15, 1862, he provided Alexander II with a program of military reforms. It provided for the reduction of the armed forces in peacetime and their deployment at the expense of trained reserves during the war, the reorganization of the training of officers and the creation of a new army command structure. First of all, Milyutin achieved a reduction in the term of soldier's service to 15 years, while after 7-8 years of service the soldier was granted temporary leave. Then corporal punishment was abolished in the army - gauntlets, "cats", whips and lashes. Following this, the military command and control system was reorganized. According to the “Regulations” issued on August 6, 1864, the entire territory of Russia was divided into 15 military districts, each with its own department directly subordinated to the Military Ministry. Artillery, guards, engineering troops, military educational institutions (before that they had their own separate departments), and for the duration of hostilities - the active army were transferred to the subordination of the Military Ministry. In 1867, a new military judicial charter was adopted, built on the basis of the judicial reform of 1864. Three judicial instances were introduced - regimental, military district and chief military courts. During the war, the Main Military Field Court was established. The decisions of the military courts were subject to the approval of the regimental and district commanders, respectively, and, in the last resort, the minister of war.

In the mid-1960s, military educational institutions were reformed. In 1863, the cadet corps were transformed into military gymnasiums, similar in terms of the program of general education disciplines (in addition to special military ones) to real schools. The system of higher military education was expanded in military academies - the Academy of the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, Military Medical and in the newly established Military Law. In 1863, the Main Directorate of Military Educational Institutions was established as part of the Military Ministry, headed by N.V. Isakov, who became the direct leader of the reform of military education.

In 1872, the Academy opened the first women's courses for scientific midwives in Russia, where students received a higher medical education. In 1877, on the basis of the Academic Course of Marine Sciences, the Naval Academy was established. In total, by 1880, the number of military educational institutions included: 6 military academies, 6 military schools, 18 military gymnasiums, 16 cadet schools, 8 pro-gymnasiums, the Page and Finnish Corps with special classes, the preparatory boarding school of the Nikolaev Cavalry School and the Marine Corps.

The reform of military educational institutions made it possible to significantly reduce the shortage of officers and raise the level of their training.

Since the 60s, the rearmament of the Russian army began. Since 1866, smooth-bore weapons began to be replaced by rifled ones. A rapid-fire rifle of the Berdan system was adopted for service. The artillery park was replaced with new systems of steel rifled guns, and the construction of a military steam fleet began. The introduction of all-class conscription made it possible to increase the size of the army, create a trained reserve of up to 550 thousand people, necessary for the deployment of the army in wartime, and also contributed to the transformation of the Russian armed forces into a modern mass army. The state militia was supposed to include persons who did not undergo military service at all, as well as those who had served the prescribed number of years (active service and reserve). The age limit for being in the militia was set at 40 years. Later it was increased to 40 years. However, the law was not completely consistent. A significant part of the "foreign" population was eliminated from military service (natives of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, some peoples of the Far North).

Military factories have undergone a radical technological reconstruction. It required the creation of new industrial enterprises and industries. Several strategic railroads were laid to the western borders and to the south. In 1870, special railway troops were created. For the rearmament of artillery, the creation of the Obukhov and Perm steel cannon plants, as well as the achievement of Russian scientists and engineers P.M., was extremely important. Obukhova, N.V. Kalakutsky, A.S. Lavrova, N.V. Maievsky, and others. So, thanks to the discovery of P.M. Obukhov in Russia, for the first time in the world, gun barrels made of cast steel began to be created. As a result, in the 60s, Russia, along with Germany, became a monopoly in the production of steel tools. Nevertheless, in the conditions of general economic backwardness, it was not possible to completely overcome the dependence of the Russian army on foreign supplies.

In the field artillery in 1866, steel cannons of 9 and 4 pounds were installed as models of guns, and in 1970 quick-firing guns were introduced. In siege artillery, instead of smooth-bore guns, rifled ones were established, and instead of copper, steel ones. A lot of work on the rearmament of artillery was carried out under the direct supervision of General A.A. Barantsova. The restructuring of the fortresses began according to the plan drawn up by General E.I. Totleben. However, it was not completed due to lack of funds. The transition to new weapons encouraged the development of military theory. At this time, the works of major military theorists D.A. Milyutin, G.A. Leera, M.I. Dragomirova and others. Their works on questions of strategy, tactics, and military history had a great influence both on the course of the military reforms themselves and on the development of military art in the second half of the 19th century.

The rearmament of the army made significant adjustments to combat training. The task was to teach the troops only what was needed in the war. A number of new statutes, instructions and manuals were published. For example, in the Military Regulations on combat and infantry service of 1862, much attention was paid to solitary training. In 1863, the Disciplinary Regulations were introduced and a special order was issued for the training of recruits, which ordered them to be taught how to use a gun, loading and shooting, the rules of loose and rank order, with the indispensable condition of conscious assimilation.

Since 1876, military horse service was introduced: for the duration of the war, horse stock fit for military purposes was subject to mobilization with monetary compensation to its owners. In this regard, military horse censuses began to be regularly conducted.

In the field of foreign policy, one of the main tasks of the government of Alexander II was the struggle for the abolition of the humiliating articles of the Paris Peace Treaty, and the main one of them was the prohibition of Russia from having fortresses and a combat-ready navy on the Black Sea. This was done after the defeat of France in the war against Prussia in 1870. Despite British protests, Russia announced that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of this peace treaty.

The military administration has also undergone transformations. Already at the beginning of the reign, military settlements were destroyed. Degrading corporal punishment was abolished. 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 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.

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.

These transformations significantly improved the combat training of the Russian army. Universal conscription has long been introduced in many European countries. In Russia, for a long time, the recruiting system introduced by Peter I was preserved, which was one of the most advanced in Europe at that time, where recruitment and hiring dominated. But for the second half of the 19th century, when the era of mass armies began, it did not provide the army with a trained reserve. Actually, the problem of reserves arose already during the Patriotic War of 1812, but after it ended, the governments of Alexander I and Nicholas I took the path of increasing the size of the standing army and creating military settlements. However, it turned out that, having the largest peacetime army in terms of numbers, Russia, in the event of a war, cannot ensure its replenishment with trained people; had to resort to convening the militia. The main provision of the military reform, carried out by the Minister of War Dmitry Milyutin, was the introduction of universal military service.

Milyutin managed to prove to Alexander II the whole injustice of class military service and the need to abolish it. After all, military service was previously carried out only by the subject class, i.e. peasants and townspeople. However, to convince the king to introduce universal military service, it took a lot of time.

On January 1, 1874, Alexander II approved the "Charter of military service" and a special Manifesto about it. Under the law of 1874, clerics of all faiths, representatives of some religious sects and organizations (due to their religious beliefs), the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, some peoples of the Caucasus and the Far North were exempted from military service. In relation to the Russian population, military service actually extended to tax-paying estates, since the privileged estates, due to their education or training in military educational institutions, were practically exempted from military service. Class distinctions persisted in the army itself. The command staff of the Russian post-reform army was predominantly from the nobility, although formally persons from taxable estates had the right to enter military educational institutions and, in the future, become officers. An ordinary soldier could only rise to the rank of non-commissioned officer.

First, on the initiative of Milyutin, in 1862 a special commission was created to revise the recruiting charter, chaired by the State Council N.I. Bakhtin. This commission included a number of representatives of the War Ministry, headed by General F.L. Heiden.

The commission's work progressed very slowly. The idea of ​​equality of all classes for carrying out this grave military service has found irreconcilable opponents among those strata of society to which it has not yet extended. The feudal lords with all their might resisted all-class military service, which would force the "noble" nobility to serve it on an equal footing "with the peasants."

The intention to liquidate the obsolete recruiting system for the army was subjected to the strongest attacks.

Reactionary figures and publicists, referring to the manifesto on the freedom of the nobility, defended their class immunity. Shuvalov, for example, suggested keeping educated youth in the army "separately from the army."

Even the merchants were indignant at the fact that it would be impossible to pay off recruitment with money. As a result, the reform conceived in 1862 by Milyutin, who was supported by the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, was carried out only in 1874. The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 served as a strong impetus for this. developed soldiers, defeated France. On November 7, 1870, the Minister of War submitted a note "On the main grounds for personal military service", approved by the emperor. After 10 days, two commissions were created by the “highest command” to develop the proposed measures: one on the charter on military service, the other on the issue of reserve, local, reserve troops and state militia. General Heiden, Chief of the General Staff, was appointed Chairman of both commissions. The general management of their work was headed by D.A. Milyutin. The conscription commission was selected from representatives of various ministries and departments. Representatives of not only the highest bureaucracy, but also representatives of various classes and individual groups of the population were invited to its meetings.

For more qualified preparation of various chapters of the charter, the commission was divided into 4 departments. The first department worked out the issue of terms of service and benefits for serving military service, the second - on the return of those called up for service, the third - on conscription expenses, the fourth - on volunteers and military replacement.

Another, the so-called Organizing Commission, began work in early January 1871. It consisted mainly of the military and was divided into 9 departments: 1) on the organization of infantry units serving as personnel for the formation of reserve and reserve troops in wartime; 2) about artillery and engineering units; 3) about the personnel of the guards units; 4) about the personnel of the cavalry; 5) on the procedure for counting and calling up reserve ranks; 6) on commissary and artillery stocks and convoys; 7) about the Cossack troops; 8) about irregular militias; 9) about the state militia. In 1872, the Organizing Commission was significantly strengthened by the introduction of several commanders of military districts into its composition.

Of particular interest are the problems discussed at the meeting of this commission, connected with the possibility of applying the territorial system in Russia. As a rule, M.N. Osipov, these issues are again becoming relevant in connection with the ongoing reforms in the army. Recall that the territorial recruitment system provides for the replenishment of troops with personnel at the expense of draft contingents arriving near the places of deployment of military units. Such a system facilitates the dispatch of conscripts to their units, reduces the costs associated with this, makes it possible to attract conscripts for military training with a minimum interruption from productive work and to carry out the mobilization of troops in the shortest possible time. At the same time, this system, given the shortage of conscripts in the areas where military units are deployed, makes it difficult to equip them with the necessary specialists. There are other flaws as well. The organizing commission, recognizing the impossibility of the full application of the territorial system in Russia, unanimously came to the conclusion: “In the organization of the army, apply from the principles of the territorial system only what, according to the conditions of our fatherland, can be usefully applied, while maintaining the possibility of moving and concentrating troops, but allowing constant , from certain areas, recruiting each part of the army in peacetime and replenishing it to military strength, when brought to martial law.

Based on this, it was decided, according to the project of the General Staff, to divide the whole of European Russia into recruitment areas (on the territory of one or several counties). Each section was supposed to provide at least one infantry regiment, one separate battalion, two artillery batteries, one cavalry squadron. Upon completion of the work of the commission on military service, D.A. Milyutina on January 19, 1873, presented an extensive note to the State Council, similarly covering the course of her activities. As an annex to the note, drafts of the Charter on military service and the Regulations on the state militia were presented. When discussing the project of all-class military service on the State Council, a fierce and irreconcilable struggle unfolded. Some of the council members considered this reform premature, others demanded privileges for the nobility.

The establishment of compulsory military service, firstly, elevated the rank of a warrior, and secondly, attracted to the army a significant number of people who belonged to the upper classes and generally received an education, whereas, according to the laws in force, such persons were previously exempted from recruitment duty.

“Milyutin turned the cause of defending the motherland,” wrote A.F. Horses - from a severe burden for many to a high debt for all and from a single misfortune to a common duty.

The new law also influenced the composition of the army, making it younger, due to the reduction in active service, and homogeneous, according to the age of the lower ranks.

Significant transformations also extended to irregular troops (troops that did not have a single and permanent organization or differed from regular troops in the system of recruitment, service, etc. In Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries - Cossack troops, etc.).

By the beginning of 1871, the following Cossack troops were under the jurisdiction of the Military Ministry: Don, Tersk, Astrakhan, Ural, Orenburg, Siberian, Semirechensk, Transbaikal, Amur; Yenisei and Irkutsk cavalry regiments and three Cossack foot teams. New provisions on military service and military service of the Cossacks have been issued. The Cossacks received new weapons. Cossack units that were in active service were placed on an equal footing with regular troops.

All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness. Universal conscription gave the necessary effect only under the condition of the rapid mobilization of military reserves in the reserve, and this largely depends on the state of the means of communication.

Thus, the result of the reform was the creation of a small peacetime army with a significant trained reserve in case of war. Military reforms 1861 -1874 played an important role in improving the combat capability of the Russian army. However, the results of these reforms were not immediate. Military educational institutions could not yet make up for the acute shortage of officers, the process of rearmament of the army dragged on for several decades.

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 serf relations, 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 collateral 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.

And yet, 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”, the highest approved 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 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 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 very 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 councils.

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 the bodies of local self-government from the bodies of state administration, 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, incur 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, speaking either of “management”, then of “organization and maintenance”, then of “participation in care”, then of “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, but the jurisdiction of the provincial institutions are items relating to the entire province or several counties at once, and in 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 defender could take place in the event of a discrepancy between the position of the defender and the defendant, the professional weakness of the defender or his indifference to the client in the case of the defender'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 operation 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, in 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 responded 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 whole 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 people, 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 official duties in the 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 over the activities of military courts (up to the approval of their sentences) belonged to the executive authorities in the person of 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 are met with resolute opposition 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 an 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.