FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION
SIBERIAN STATE AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY IM. ACADEMICIAN M.F. RESHETNEV
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
ESSAY
Topic: Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century:
background and consequences.
Completed by: student of the IUT-61 group
Nechaev Mikhail
Checked by: Shushkanova E. A.
Krasnoyarsk 2006
Plan
Introduction
Introduction
towards the middle XIXin. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. The international events of the middle of the century showed its significant weakening in the foreign policy field as well. Therefore, the main goal of the government was to bring the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was to preserve the autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.
The development of capitalist relations in pre-reform Russia came into even greater conflict with the feudal-serf system. The deepening of the process of social division of labor, the growth of industry, domestic and foreign trade disintegrated the feudal economic system. The growing conflict between the new, capitalist relations and the obsolete serfdom lay at the heart of the crisis of feudalism. A vivid expression of this crisis was the intensification of the class struggle in the serf countryside.
The defeat in the Crimean War undermined the international prestige of Russia, accelerated the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of military reforms in the 60-70s.XIXin. The Russian autocracy had to take the path of carrying out urgent social, economic and political reforms in order to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country and to strengthen the social and economic base of absolutism.
This path began with the implementation of the most important reform of the abolition of serfdom, as well as a number of other important bourgeois reforms: courts, self-government, education and the press, etc. in the 60-70s.XIXc. necessary for Russia.
Having decided on the topic of the essay, I set myself the goal of selecting the relevant literature and, on its basis, learning more about the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXc., their background and consequences.
There are many books, articles, scientific discussions on this topic. In accordance with this, I chose the most suitable material for my topic.
The topic I have chosen is also relevant at this time, since reforms are also being carried out now, and an analysis of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXin. allows us to correlate them with the reforms of our time, to identify shortcomings and, accordingly, the consequences of these shortcomings, to identify the impact of these reforms on the further development of our country.
The goals and objectives of my work: to consider the main points of the reforms of the 60-70s.XIXcentury, their prerequisites and consequences, as well as the impact of these reforms on the further development of Russia.
1. Prerequisites for reforms.
The agrarian-peasant question towards the middleXIXin. became the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among the European states, serfdom remained only in it, hindering economic and socio-political development. The preservation of serfdom is due to the peculiarities of the Russian autocracy, which, since the formation of the Russian state and the strengthening of absolutism, relied exclusively on the nobility, and therefore had to take into account its interests.
In the end XVIII- middle XIXin. even the government and conservative circles did not stand aside from understanding the solution of the peasant question. However, the attempts of the government to soften serfdom, to give the landlords a positive example of managing the peasants, to regulate their relations proved to be ineffective due to the resistance of the serfs. towards the middleXIXin. the prerequisites that led to the collapse of the feudal system have finally matured. First of all, it has outlived itself economically. The landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landowners.
Objectively, serfdom also interfered with the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, an increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
The need to abolish serfdom was also conditioned by the fact that the peasants openly protested against it. The popular movement could not but influence the position of the government.
The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Exports and imports of goods dropped sharply. The new foreign policy situation that developed after the Peace of Paris testified to Russia's loss of its international prestige and threatened to lose influence in Europe.
Thus, the abolition of serfdom was due to political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. These prerequisites also led to the implementation of other important bourgeois reforms: in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs.
2. Peasant reform of 1861
2.1. Reform preparation
For the first time, the need to abolish serfdom was officially announced by AlexanderIIin a speech he delivered on March 30, 1856 to the rulers of the Moscow nobility. In this speech AlexanderII, speaking of his unwillingness to "give freedom to the peasants", was forced to declare the need to start preparing his liberation in view of the danger of further preservation of serfdom, pointing out that "it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it is itself abolished from below." January 3, 1856 under the chairmanship of AlexanderIIA secret committee was formed "to discuss measures to arrange the life of the landlord peasants." Made up of ardent feudal lords, the Secret Committee acted indecisively, but the further growth of the peasant movement forced the government at the end of 1857 to start preparing the reform in earnest.
Initially, the government tried to force the landlords themselves to take the initiative. On November 20, 1857, a rescript was given: (instruction) to the Governor-General of the Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) V.I. Nazimov on the establishment of three provincial committees from among the local landowners and one general commission in Vilna to prepare local projects "improving the life of the landlord peasants." The program of the government, which formed the basis of this rescript, was developed in the Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1856. It granted civil rights to the serfs, but retained the patrimonial power of the landowner. The landowner retained ownership of all the land on his estate; the peasants were given allotment land for use, for which they were obliged to bear in favor of the landowner feudal duties regulated by law. In other words, the peasants were granted personal freedom, but feudal production relations were preserved.
During 1857-1858. similar rescripts were given to the rest of the governors, and in the same year in the provinces in which the landlord peasants were located, "governor committees on improving the life of the landlord peasants" began to operate. With the publication of the rescripts on December 24, 1858, and the beginning of the work of the committees, the preparation of the reform gained publicity. On February 16, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Along with the main committee, at the beginning of March 1858, a Zemsky department was created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, chaired at first by A.I. Levshin, and then N.A. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in the preparation of the reform. The issue of its preparation began to be widely discussed in the press.
Although the fate of the peasantry was decided by the landlords in the provincial committees and central government institutions preparing the reform, and the peasants were excluded from participation in matters relating to their vital interests, nevertheless, neither the landowners nor the government could not ignore the moods of the peasantry, which had a significant impact for the preparation of the reform. Under the pressure of mass peasant unrest, the Main Committee on December 4, 1858. adopted a new program that provided for the provision of peasants with their allotments in property through redemption and the complete release of the peasants who bought their allotments from feudal duties.
March 4, 1859 under the Main Committee, editorial commissions were approved to consider materials prepared by the provincial committees and draw up a draft law on the emancipation of the peasants. One commission was to prepare a draft "General Regulations" for all provinces, the other - "local regulations" for individual regions. In fact, the commissions merged into one, retaining the plural name "Editorial Commissions".
By the end of August 1859, the draft "Regulations on the Peasants" was basically prepared.
The editorial commissions made some concessions to the demands of the landlords: in a number of districts of agricultural provinces, the norms of peasant inheritances were lowered, and in non-chernozem, mainly industrial provinces, the amount of quitrent was increased and the so-called re-rent (i.e., a further increase in quitrent) was provided 20 years after the publication of the law about the emancipation of the peasants.
2.2. Promulgation of the manifesto "Regulations February 19, 1861".
On February 19, 1961, the State Council completed the discussion of the draft Regulations. And on February 29, they were signed by the king and received the force of law. On the same day, the tsar signed the Manifesto announcing the liberation of the peasants.
The government was well aware that the law being passed would not satisfy the peasants and would provoke a mass protest on their part against its predatory conditions. Therefore, already from the end of 1860, it began to mobilize forces to suppress peasant unrest. "Regulations February 19, 1861" extended to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 22,563,000 souls of both sexes of serfs, including 1,467,000 serfs and 543,000 assigned to private factories and factories.
The elimination of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over several decades. The peasants did not receive full liberation immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the “Regulations of February 19, 1861” were promulgated. The manifesto declared that the peasants for two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called additional fees were canceled (eggs, oil, flax, linen, wool, etc.), the corvée was limited to 2 women's and 3 men's days from tax per week, underwater duty was somewhat reduced, it was forbidden to transfer peasants from quitrent to corvée and to yard. The final act in the liquidation of feudal relations was the transfer of peasants for redemption.
2.3. The legal status of peasants and peasant institutions.
According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. The former serf, from whom the landowner could previously take away all his property, and sell, donate, mortgage it himself, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of civil rights: on his own behalf, they will conclude various civil and property transactions, open trade and industrial establishments, move to other classes. All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to the growth of departure for earnings and, consequently, the folding of the labor market. However, the question of the personal emancipation of the peasants has not yet received a complete, consistent solution. Features of non-economic coercion continued to persist. The class inferiority of the peasants, their attachment to the place of residence, to the community, also remained. The peasantry continued to be the lowest, taxable estate, which was obliged to bear recruitment, capitation and various other monetary and in-kind duties, was subjected to corporal punishment, from which the privileged estates (nobility, clergy, merchants) were exempted.
In June-July 1861, bodies of peasant “public administration” appeared in the villages of the former landlord peasants. The peasant "self-government" in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P. D. Kiselyov.
The peasant "Public administration" was responsible for the behavior of the peasants and ensuring the proper serving of duties by the peasants in favor of the landowner and the state. The law of 1861 preserved the community, which the government and the landlords used as a fiscal and police cell in the post-reform village.
In June 1861, the institution of peace mediators was created, to which the government entrusted the execution of numerous administrative and police functions related to the implementation of the reform: the approval and introduction of charters (determining post-reform duties and land relations between peasants and landlords), certification of redemption acts at the transition of peasants to redemption, the resolution of disputes between peasants and landowners, the management of the delimitation of peasant and landlord lands, supervision of peasant self-government.
First of all, the peace mediators protected the interests of the landowners, sometimes even breaking the law. However, among the mediators were representatives of the liberal opposition nobility, who criticized the difficult conditions for the peasants of the reform of 1861 and demanded a series of bourgeois reforms in the country. However, their proportion was very small, so they were quickly removed from their positions.
2.3.1. Peasant dress.
The solution of the agrarian question occupied a leading place in the reform of 1861. The law proceeded from the principle of recognizing the landowner's right of ownership to all the land on the estate, including the peasant's allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve their duties for it. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.
The allocation of land to the peasants was dictated by the need to preserve the peasant economy as an object of exploitation and ensure social security in the country: the government knew that the demand for the provision of land was very loud in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years. The complete landlessness of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive their former income from the peasants, it created a multi-million army of a landless proletariat and threatened a peasant uprising.
But if the complete deprivation of land by the peasants was impossible for the reasons indicated, then the endowment of the peasants with a sufficient amount of land that would put the peasant economy in an independent position from the landowners was not beneficial to the landowner. Therefore, the task was to provide the peasants with land in such an amount that they were tied to their allotment, and, due to the insufficiency of the latter, to the landowner's economy.
The allocation of land to the peasants was compulsory. The law forbade the peasants within 9 years after its publication (until 1870) to refuse the allotment, but even after this period the right to refuse the allotment was furnished with such conditions that it was actually reduced to nothing.
When determining the norms of the allotment, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account.
The law provided for a cut off from a peasant allotment if it exceeded the higher or indicated norm determined for a given locality, and cutting if the allotment did not reach the lower norm. The law allowed cutting off in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land in the estate in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasant free of charge ("as a gift") ¼ of the highest allotment ( "donation"). The gap between higher and lower norms has made cuts the rule and cuts the exception. Yes, and the size of the segment was dozens of times greater than the cut, and the best lands were cut off from the peasants, and the worst lands were cut. Cutting, ultimately, was also carried out in the interests of the landowners: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary to preserve the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties. As a result, peasant land use in the country as a whole decreased by more than 1/5.
The severity of the segments was not only in their size. As a rule, the most valuable, and most importantly, necessary for the peasants, lands were cut off, without which the normal functioning of the peasant economy was not possible: meadows, pastures, watering places, etc. The peasant was forced to rent these "cut-off lands" on enslaving terms. In the hands of the landlords, the cuts turned into a very effective means of putting pressure on the peasants and became the basis of a well-established system in the post-reform period.
The landownership of the peasants was oppressed not only by cuts, but also by striping, depriving the peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in the wooded northeastern provinces). The law gave the landowner the right to transfer peasant estates to another place, to exchange their allotments for their own land before the peasants went for redemption, if any minerals were suddenly discovered on the peasant allotment, or simply this land turned out to be necessary for one or another need of the landowner. The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but even further increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million souls of peasants (724,000 households, 461,000 donators, and 137,000 belonging to small landowners) actually turned out to be landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 dessiatinas per capita, while for the normal provision of the necessary standard of living for the peasant at the expense of agriculture, with the then agricultural technology, from 6 to 8 dessiatinas per capita was required (depending on different areas). The lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants, they were forced to replenish by enslaving rent, partly by purchase or third-party earnings. That is why the agrarian question assumed such acuteness at the turn of theXIX— XXcenturies and was the "nail" of the revolution of 1905-1907.
2.3.2. Duties.
Prior to the transition to redemption, the peasants were obliged to serve their duties in the form of corvée or dues for the allotments granted to them for use. The law established the following rates of dues: for the highest allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in the rest - 8-9 rubles. from 1 male soul (in estates located no further than 25 miles from St. Petersburg - 12 rubles). In the case of the proximity of the estates to the railway, navigable river, to the commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the rate of dues. In addition, the law provided for a “repurchase” after 20 years, i.e. an increase in dues in anticipation of an increase in rental and sale prices for land. According to the law, the pre-reform dues could not be increased if the allotment did not increase, however, the law did not provide for a decrease in the dues in connection with the reduction of the allotment. As a result, as a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrent per 1 tithe. The rates of dues established by law exceeded the profitability of land, especially in non-chernozem provinces. The exorbitant burden of the allotment was also achieved by the “gradation” system. Its essence was that half of the quitrent fell on the first tithe of the allotment, a quarter on the second, and the other quarter was laid out on the remaining tithes of the allotment. Consequently, the smaller the size of the allotment, the higher the amount of dues per 1 tithe, i.e. the more expensive the peasant put on. In other words, where the pre-reform allotment did not reach its highest standard and the landowner could not rob the peasants by cutting off the allotment, a system of gradations came into force, which thus pursued the goal of squeezing the maximum of duties out of the peasants for the minimum allotment. The system of gradations also extended to corvee.
Corvee for the highest shower allotment was set at 70 working days (40 men's and 30 women's) from the tax per year, with 3/5 days in summer and 2/5 in winter. The working day was 12 hours in summer and 9 hours in winter. The volume of work during the day was determined by a special "urgent position". However, the low productivity of corvee labor and especially widespread sabotage of corvee work by the peasants forced the landlords to transfer the peasants to quitrent and introduce a labor-work system that was more efficient than the old corvée. For 2 years, the proportion of corvée peasants decreased from 71 to 35%.
2.3.3. ransom
The transfer of peasants for ransom was the final stage in their liberation from serfdom. "Regulations February 19, 1861" no final date for the termination of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants and their transfer to ransom was not determined. Only the law of December 28, 1881 established the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption starting from January 1, 1883. By this time, 15% of the peasants remained in a temporarily liable position. Their transfer for ransom was completed by 1895. However, this law applied only to 29 "Great Russian provinces." In Transcaucasia, the transfer of peasants for ransom was not completed even by 1917. The situation was different in 9 provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine, where, under the influence of the Polish uprising of 1863 and a broad peasant movement, peasants in the amount of 2.5 million male souls were transferred to compulsory redemption as early as 1863. Here, more preferential, in comparison with other provinces of Russia, conditions for liberation were established: the lands cut off from allotments were returned, duties were reduced by an average of 20%.
The terms of redemption for the bulk of the peasants were very difficult. The ransom was based on feudal duties, and not on the actual, market price of the land. In other words, the peasants had to pay not only for the reduced allotment, but also for the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The redemption amount was determined by "capitalization of quitrent". Its essence was that the annual rent paid by the peasant was equated to an annual income of 6% of the capital. The calculation of this capital meant the determination of the redemption sum.
The state took over the ransom by carrying out a ransom operation. It was expressed in the fact that the treasury paid the landowners immediately in money and securities 80% of the redemption amount if the peasants of the given province received the highest allotment, and 75% if they were given a less than the highest allotment. The remaining 20-25% (the so-called additional payment) the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments. The redemption amount paid by the state to the landlords was then collected from the peasants at a rate of 6% per year for 49 years. Thus, during this time, the peasant had to pay up to 300% of the “loan” provided to him.
The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved a number of important social and economic problems. Government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and saved them from direct confrontation with the peasants. The ransom turned out to be an extremely profitable operation for the state. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was set at 867 million rubles, while the market value of these plots was 646 million rubles. From 1862 to 1907, the former landlord peasants paid the treasury 1,540,570 thousand rubles. ransom payments and still owed her. By carrying out the redemption operation, the treasury also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from the landowners. By 1861, 65% of the serfs were mortgaged and re-mortgaged by their owners in various credit institutions, and the amount of debt to these institutions amounted to 425 million rubles. This debt was deducted from the ransom loan to the landowners. Thus, the reform of 1861 freed the landowners from debt and saved them from financial bankruptcy.
The inconsistency of the reform of 1861, the interweaving of feudal and capitalist features in it, was most clearly manifested in the issue of redemption. On the one hand, the ransom was of a predatory, feudal nature, on the other hand, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. The redemption contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave the landowners money to transfer their economy to capitalist foundations. The transfer of the peasants for ransom meant a further separation of the peasant economy from the landowners. The ransom accelerated the process of social stratification of the peasantry.
2.4. The response of the peasants to the reform.
1861 Promulgation of the Manifesto and the "provisions of February 19, 1861", the content of which deceived the hopes of the peasants for "full freedom", caused an explosion of peasant protest in the spring of 1861. During the first 5 months of this year, 1340 mass peasant unrest took place, in just one year - 1859 unrest. In fact, there was not a single province in which, to a greater or lesser extent, the peasants would not protest against the "granted" to them "will". Continuing to rely on the “good” tsar, the peasants could not believe in any way that such laws came from him, which for 2 years left them in their former subordination to the landlords, still forced them to perform corvée and pay dues, deprived them of a significant part of the land, and the allotments remaining in their use were declared noble property. The peasants considered the promulgated laws to be fake documents drawn up by the landowners and officials who agreed with them at the same time, hiding the “real”, “royal will”.
The peasant movement assumed the greatest scope in the central black earth provinces, in the Volga region and in the Ukraine, where the bulk of the peasants were on corvee, and the agrarian question was especially acute. The strongest were the unrest in early April 1861 in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), in which tens of thousands participated and which ended in their bloody pacification - hundreds of peasants were killed and wounded.
By the summer of 1861 the government, with the help of large military units, by executions and mass sections with rods, managed to weaken the explosion of peasant protest. However, in the spring of 1862 a new wave of peasant uprisings arose, connected with the introduction of statutory charters, which fixed the specific conditions for the release of peasants to freedom in individual estates. More than half of the charters were not signed by the peasants. The refusal to accept statutory charters, called by the peasants by force, often resulted in major unrest, which in 1862. happened 844.
Aggravation of the class struggle in the countryside in 1861-1863. influenced the development of the revolutionary democratic movement. Revolutionary circles and organizations spring up, revolutionary appeals and proclamations are circulated. At the beginning of 1862, the largest revolutionary organization after the Decembrists, Land and Freedom, was created, which set as its main task the unification of all revolutionary forces with the peasantry for a general attack on the autocracy. The struggle of the peasantry in 1863 did not acquire the sharpness that was observed in 1861 - in 1862. In 1863 there were 509 unrest. The most massive peasant movement in 1863 was in Lithuania, Belarus and the Right-Bank Ukraine, which is associated with the influence of the Polish uprising in 1863.
The peasant movement of 1861-1863, despite its scope and mass character, resulted in spontaneous and scattered riots, easily suppressed by the government. It was also important that by carrying out reforms at different times in the landlord, appanage and state villages, as well as in the national outskirts of Russia, the government managed to localize the outbreaks of the peasant movement. The struggle of the landlord peasants in 1861-1863. was not supported by specific and state peasants.
2.5. Reform in the specific and state village.
Preparations for the reform in the state countryside began in 1861. By that time, there were 9,644,000 state peasants males. On November 24, 1866, the law "On the land arrangement of state peasants" was issued. Rural societies retained the lands that were in their use, but not more than 8 acres per male capita in small-land and 15 acres in large-land provinces. The land use of each rural society was recorded by "ownership records". The implementation of the reform of 1866 in the state village also led to numerous conflicts between the peasants and the treasury, caused by cuts from allotments that exceeded the norms established by law, and an increase in duties. The land, according to the law of 1866, was recognized as the property of the treasury, and the redemption of allotments was made only after 20 years according to the law of June 12, 1886 "On the transformation of the quitrent tax of former state peasants into redemption payments."
2.6. Significance of the peasant reform of 1861
The reform of 1861 was a turning point, a line between two eras - feudalism and capitalism, creating conditions for the establishment of capitalism as the dominant formation. The personal emancipation of the peasants abolished the monopoly of the landlords on the exploitation of peasant labor, contributed to a more rapid growth of the labor market for developing capitalism both in industry and in agriculture. Conditions for the reforms of 1861. ensured the gradual transition of the feudal economy to the capitalist economy for the landowners.
Bourgeois in content, the reform of 1861. at the same time, it was also feudal; it could not have been otherwise, for it was carried out by the feudal lords. Serfdom features of the reform of 1861. led to the preservation of numerous feudal-serf remnants in the social, economic, political system in reformed Russia. The main relic of serfdom was the preservation of landownership - the economic basis of the political domination of the landowners. The landowner latifundia preserved semi-serf relations in the villages in the form of labor compensation or bondage. Reform of 1861 retained the feudal estate system: the estate privileges of the landlords, the inequality of estates and the isolation of the peasantry. The feudal political superstructure was also preserved - autocracy, which expressed and personified the political domination of the landowners. Taking steps towards becoming a bourgeois monarchy, the Russian autocracy not only adapted to capitalism, but also actively intervened in the economic development of the country, sought to use new processes to strengthen its positions.
The reform of 1861 did not solve the problem of the final elimination of the feudal-serf system in the country. Therefore, the reasons that led to the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s. 19th century and the fall of serfdom continued to operate. The reform of 1861 only delayed, but did not eliminate the revolutionary denouement. The feudal nature of the reform of 1861, its duality and inconsistency gave particular urgency to the socio-economic and political conflicts in post-reform Russia. The reform "gave birth" to the revolution not only by preserving the survivals of serfdom, but also by the fact that, by "opening a certain valve, giving some boost to capitalism", it contributed to the creation of new social forces that fought to eliminate these survivals. In post-reform Russia, a new social force was being formed - the proletariat, which, no less than the peasantry, was interested in the radical elimination of the remnants of serfdom in the socio-economic and political system of the country. By 1905, the peasantry was different from the peasantry of the serf era. The downtrodden patriarchal peasant was replaced by a peasant of the capitalist era, who visited the city, at the factory, saw a lot and learned a lot.
3. Bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874
The abolition of serfdom in Russia made it necessary to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, while preserving its class, noble-landlord essence.
The development of these reforms began in a revolutionary situation at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century. However, the preparation and implementation of these reforms dragged on for a decade and a half and took place at a time when the revolutionary wave in the country had already been repulsed and the autocracy emerged from a political crisis. The bourgeois reforms of 1863-1874 are characterized by their incompleteness, inconsistency and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.
3.1 Reforms in the field of local self-government.
One of the concessions "which the wave of public excitement and revolutionary onslaught repulsed from the autocratic government", V. I. Lenin called the Zemstvo reform, through which the autocracy sought to weaken the social movement in the country, win over a part of the "liberal society", strengthen its social support - the nobility.
In March 1859 Under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the chairmanship of N. A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law "On economic and administrative management in the county." It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created local government bodies should not go beyond purely economic issues of local significance. April 1860. Milyutin introduced AlexanderIIa note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. April 1861. under pressure from reactionary court circles, N. A. Milyutin and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of S. S. Lansky, as "liberals", were dismissed. P. A. Valuev was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. He changed the system of elections to the planned zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave advantages to the noble landowners and the big bourgeoisie.
Valuev was instructed to prepare a project for a "new establishment of the State Council." According to this project, it was planned to form a “congress of state councilors” under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before submitting them to the State Council.
By March 1863, a draft “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by AlexanderIIand received the force of law. According to this law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - county and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of uyezd vowels in different uyezds ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial vowels - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at uyezd zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 county vowels. Elections to uyezd zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into 3 curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned immovable property worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or those who received an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as authorized by the clergy and landowners who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by noble landowners and partly by the big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of commercial and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate worth at least 500 rubles. in small and 2 thousand rubles. - in large cities. This curia was represented mainly by the big urban bourgeoisie, as well as by the nobility. The third curia consisted of representatives of rural communities, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia. If for the first two curiae the elections were direct, then for the third one they were multistage: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which the electors were chosen, and then the county congress of electors elected the deputies to the county zemstvo assembly. The multi-stage elections for the third curia pursued the goal of bringing the most wealthy and "trustworthy" vowels from the peasants to the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies in choosing representatives to the zemstvos from among themselves. It is important to note that according to the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels were elected to the zemstvos as in the other two, which ensured the predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility.
The chairmen of the county and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the county and provincial representatives of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo meetings, while the chairman of the county rural council was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of internal affairs. Vowels of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvos received the right to support on their salaries (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Rural dues from the population were collected for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions.
Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions whatsoever. The sphere of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The zemstvos were given the arrangement and maintenance of local means of communication, zemstvo mail, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters, "care" of local trade and industry, veterinary service, mutual insurance, local food business, even the construction of churches, the maintenance of local prisons and houses for the insane.
The zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the minister of the interior, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos themselves did not have executive power. In order to carry out their decisions, the zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.
The competence and activities of zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative methods. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and "clarifications" from the Ministry of the Interior and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse to approve any official elected by the Zemstvo, made Zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies, and limited the ability of Zemstvos to tax trade and industrial establishments. . (which significantly undermined their financial capabilities). In 1867, zemstvos of different provinces were prohibited from communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other. Circulars and decrees made zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, hampered the freedom of debate in zemstvo meetings, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings, and pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.
Nevertheless, the zemstvos played a significant role in solving local economic and cultural issues: in organizing local small loans, by forming peasant savings associations, in organizing post offices, road construction, in organizing medical care in the countryside, public education. By 1880, 12,000 zemstvo schools, which were considered the best, had been created in the countryside.
In 1862, preparations began for the reform of city self-government. Local commissions appeared in 509 cities. The Ministry of the Interior compiled a summary of the materials of these commissions and, on the basis of it, by 1864 developed a draft "City Regulation". In March 1866, the project was submitted for discussion by the State Council, where it lay motionless for another 2 years. The preparation of the urban reform took place in the conditions of strengthening the reactionary course of the autocracy. Only on June 16, 1870, the amended draft of the “City Regulations” was approved by AlexanderII and became law.
According to this law, new, formally non-estate, city government bodies were introduced in 509 cities of Russia - city dumas, elected for 4 years. The city duma elected its permanent executive body - the city council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more of its members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of the Duma and the city council. The right to elect and be elected was received only by the payers of city taxes who had a certain property qualification. According to the amount of tax they paid to the city, they were divided into three electoral meetings: the first included the largest payers, paying a third of the total amount of city taxes, the second, the average taxpayers, who also paid a third of city taxes, and the third, small taxpayers, paying the remaining third of the total. city taxes. Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was nevertheless a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city government with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city self-government bodies played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city.
3.2. Judicial reform.
In 1861, the State Chancellery was instructed to start developing the "Basic Provisions for the Transformation of the Judiciary in Russia." Major lawyers of the country were involved in the preparation of the judicial reform. A prominent role here was played by the well-known lawyer, State Secretary of the State Council S. I. Zarudny, under whose leadership, by 1862, the basic principles of the new judiciary and legal proceedings were developed. They got Alexander's approvalII, were published and sent for feedback to judicial institutions, universities, well-known foreign lawyers and formed the basis of judicial statutes. The developed draft judicial statutes provided for the non-estate court and its independence from administrative authorities, the irremovability of judges and judicial investigators, the equality of all estates before the law, the oral nature, competitiveness and publicity of the trial with the participation of jurors and lawyers (sworn attorneys). This was a significant step forward compared to the feudal class court, with its silence and clerical secrecy, lack of protection and bureaucratic red tape.
November 20, 1864 AlexanderIIapproved the statutes. They introduced crown and magistrate courts. The Crown Court had two instances: the first was the district court, the second - the judicial chamber, uniting several judicial districts. Elected jurors established only the guilt or innocence of the defendant; the measure of punishment was determined by the judges and two members of the court. Decisions made by the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final, and without their participation they could be appealed to the judicial chamber. Decisions of district courts and judicial chambers could be appealed only in case of violation of the lawful order of legal proceedings. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate, which was the highest instance of cassation, which had the right of cassation (review and cancellation) of court decisions.
To deal with petty offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles in counties and cities, a world court was established with simplified legal proceedings.
Judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of sworn attorneys - the bar, as well as the institution of forensic investigators - special officials of the judicial department, who were transferred to the preliminary investigation in criminal cases, which was withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the police. Chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, sworn attorneys and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education, and a sworn attorney and his assistant, in addition, had to have five years of experience in judicial practice. A person who had an educational qualification not lower than average and who had served at least three years in the public service could be elected a justice of the peace.
Supervision over the legality of the actions of judicial institutions was carried out by the chief prosecutor of the Senate, prosecutors of the judicial chambers and district courts. They reported directly to the Minister of Justice. Although the judicial reform was the most consistent of the bourgeois reforms, it retained many features of the estate-feudal political system, subsequent instructions introduced into the judicial reform an even greater deviation from the principles of the bourgeois court. The spiritual court (consistory) for spiritual matters and military courts for the military were preserved. The highest royal dignitaries - members of the State Council, Senators, ministers, generals - were judged by a special Supreme Criminal Court. In 1866, court officials were actually made dependent on the governors: they were obliged to appear before the governor on the first call and "obey his legal requirements." In 1872, the Special Presence of the ruling Senate was created specifically to deal with cases of political crimes. The law of 1872 limited the publicity of court sessions and their coverage in the press. In 1889 the world court was liquidated (restored in 1912).
Under the influence of the public democratic upsurge during the years of the revolutionary situation, the autocracy was forced to agree to the abolition of corporal punishment. The law issued on April 17, 1863 abolished public punishments by verdicts of civil and military courts with whips, gauntlets, "cats", and branding. However, this measure was inconsistent and had a class character. Corporal punishment has not been completely abolished.
3.3. financial reforms.
The needs of the capitalist country and the disorder of finances during the years of the Crimean War imperatively demanded that all financial affairs be streamlined. Conducted in the 60s of the 19th century. a series of financial reforms was aimed at centralizing the financial affairs and affected mainly the apparatus of financial management. Decree of 1860. The State Bank was established, which replaced the former lending institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, while maintaining the treasury and orders of public charity. The State Bank received the pre-emptive right to lend to trade and industrial establishments. The state budget was streamlined. Law of 1862 established a new procedure for the preparation of estimates by individual departments. The only responsible manager of all income and expenses was the Minister of Finance. From the same time, the list of income and expenses began to be published for general information.
In 1864 the state control was reorganized. In all provinces, departments of state control were established - control chambers independent of governors and other departments. The Chambers of Control audited the revenues and expenditures of all local institutions on a monthly basis. Since 1868 began to publish annual reports of the state controller, who was at the head of state control.
The farming system was abolished, in which most of the indirect tax went not to the treasury, but to the pockets of tax farmers. However, all these measures did not change the general class orientation of the government's financial policy. The main burden of taxes and fees still lay on the taxable population. The poll tax for peasants, philistines, and artisans was preserved. The privileged classes were exempted from it. The poll tax, quitrent and redemption payments accounted for more than 25% of state revenues, but the bulk of these revenues were indirect taxes. More than 50% of the expenditures in the state budget went to the maintenance of the army and the administrative apparatus, up to 35% to the payment of interest on public debts, the issuance of subsidies, and so on. Expenses for public education, medicine, and charity accounted for less than 1/10 of the state budget.
3.4. military reform.
The defeat in the Crimean War showed that the Russian regular army, based on recruitment, cannot withstand more modern European ones. It was necessary to create an army with a trained reserve of personnel, modern weapons and well-trained officers. The key element of the reform was the law of 1874. on the all-word conscription of men who have reached the age of 20. The term of active service was set in the ground forces up to 6, in the navy - up to 7 years. The terms of active service were significantly reduced depending on the educational qualification. Persons with higher education served only six months.
In the 60s. the rearmament of the army began: the replacement of smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones, the introduction of a system of steel artillery pieces, and the improvement of the equestrian fleet. Of particular importance was the accelerated development of the military steam fleet.
For the training of officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and academies were created - the General Staff, Artillery, Engineering, etc. The command and control system of the armed forces has been improved.
All this made it possible to reduce the size of the army in peacetime and at the same time increase its combat effectiveness.
3.5. Reforms in the field of public education and the press.
Reforms of administration, courts and the army logically demanded a change in the education system. In 1864, a new “Charter of the Gymnasium” and “Regulations on Public Schools” were approved, which regulated primary and secondary education. The main thing was that all-class education was actually introduced. Along with the state schools, zemstvo, parochial, Sunday and private schools arose. Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real ones. They accepted children of all classes capable of paying tuition fees, mainly the children of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In the 70s. was the beginning of higher education for women.
In 1863, the new Statute returned autonomy to the universities, which had been abolished by NicholasIin 1835. They restored the independence of solving administrative-financial and scientific-pedagogical issues.
In 1865, "Provisional Rules" on printing were introduced. They abolished preliminary censorship for a number of printed publications: books designed for the wealthy and educated part of society, as well as central periodicals. The new rules did not apply to the provincial press and mass literature for the people. Special spiritual censorship was also preserved. From the end of the 60s. the government began to issue decrees, largely nullifying the main provisions of the education reform and censorship.
3.6. Significance of bourgeois reforms.
The transformations carried out were progressive in nature. They began to lay the foundation for the evolutionary path of the country's development. Russia to a certain extent approached the advanced for that time European socio-political model. The first step was taken to expand the role of the country's social life and turn Russia into a bourgeois monarchy.
However, the process of modernization of Russia had a specific character. It was primarily due to the traditional weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and the political inertia of the masses. The performances of the radicals only activated the conservative forces, frightened the liberals and hampered the reformist aspirations of the government. Bourgeois reforms contributed to the further development of capitalism in the country. However, they carried capitalist features. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these dust reforms are half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the estate advantages of the nobility and practically preserved the disenfranchised status of the taxable estates. The new governing bodies, the school and the press were completely subordinated to the tsarist administration. Along with the reforms, the autocracy supported the old administrative-police management methods and estates in all spheres of the country's socio-political life, which made it possible to switch to reaction and carry out a series of counter-reforms in the 80-90s.
Conclusion
After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, capitalism in Russia established itself as the dominant formation. From an agrarian country, Russia turned into an agrarian-industrial one: a large-scale machine industry developed rapidly, new types of industry arose, new areas of capitalist industrial and agricultural production took shape, an extensive network of railways was created, a single capitalist market was formed, important and social changes took place in the country. V. I. Lenin called the peasant reform of 1861 a “coup”, similar to the Western European revolutions, which opened the way for a new, capitalist formation. But since this coup took place in Russia not through a revolution, but through a reform carried out "from above", this led to the preservation in the post-reform period of numerous remnants of serfdom in the economic, social, and political system of the country.
For the development of capitalism in Russia, an agrarian country, those phenomena that took place in the countryside, primarily in the peasantry, are especially indicative. Here it is necessary to single out the process of decomposition of the peasantry on the basis of the social stratification that began even under serfdom. In the post-reform period, the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. The process of decomposition of the peasantry played an important role in the formation of two antagonistic classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The reform period of the 60-70s.XIXin. was of great importance for our country, as it determined its further development and the transition from feudal to capitalist relations and the transformation of Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. All reforms were of a bourgeois nature, opening up opportunities for the development of capitalist relations in the economic and socio-political fields.
The reforms, although they were a significant step forward for Russia, nevertheless they, bourgeois in their content, carried feudal traits. Carried out from above by the autocracy, these reforms were half-hearted and inconsistent. Along with the proclamation of bourgeois principles in administration, courts, public education, etc., the reforms protected the class advantages of the nobility and in fact preserved the disenfranchised status of the taxable estates. The concessions made primarily to the big bourgeoisie did not in the least violate the privileges of the nobility.
So, it should be noted that the main tasks that the government set for itself were fulfilled, although not in full. And the consequences of these reforms were not always positive, for example, as a result of the peasant reform, a lot of people died during the uprisings. In addition, the landlords, trying to somehow get out of a disadvantageous situation for them, tried to get as much benefit from the peasants as possible, as a result of which the peasant economy was greatly reduced.
But the most important thing, in my opinion, is that the peasants began to break up into classes, and to a lesser extent depend on the landowners. It is also important to emphasize that the principles laid down in the reforms of the court, education, press, and military affairs greatly influenced the position of the country in the future, and allowed Russia to be considered one of the world powers.
Bibliography
Zakharevich A.V. History of the Fatherland: Textbook. - M, Publishing house "Dashkov and K o", 2005.
Orlov A.S., Georgiev V.A., Sivokhina T.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook. - M. "PBOYUL L.V. Rozhnikov, 2000.
Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. - M. "Enlightenment".
M.V. Ponomarev, O.V. Volobuev, V.A. Klokov, V.A. Rogozhkin. Russia and the World: Textbook Grade 10.
Kapegeler A. Russia is a multinational empire. Emergence. History. Decay. M., 2000.
Encyclopedia: History of Russia and its nearest neighbors. Head. Ed. M.D. Aksenova. – M.: Avanta+, 2000.
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 subordinate to the Ministry of War. 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 first in Russia women's courses for scientific midwives were opened at the academy, 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 guns 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 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 troops of the military district. This position may also be assigned to the local governor-general. In some districts, an assistant to the commander of the troops is also appointed.
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 its end, 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 certain religious sects and organizations (because of their religious beliefs), the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and 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 taxable 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 gravest 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 Nikolayevich, 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 "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 warrior, and secondly, attracted to the army a significant number of persons belonging to the upper classes and generally educated, 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.
capitalism tsarism revolutionary populist
The sixties of the XIX century were for Russia a time of major and profound reforms in their consequences. They covered not only the economy, but also the socio-political structure of society.
What was Russia like in the middle of the 19th century, why did it embark on "the path of reforms? Russia was the largest state in Europe both in terms of territory and population. 73 million people lived in a multinational empire. The social composition of the population was slowly but steadily changing due to working class and the urban population. In the first half of the 19th century, certain progress was also made in the development of industry, primarily in metallurgical and manufacturing industries. And yet, the country, as it were, stood on the side of the road of development of world civilization, along which the United States and many countries of the European "continent" were rapidly moving forward.
The development of capitalism in Russia was held back by the existing feudal-serf relations and the absence of a free labor market. The number of free civilian workers in factories and factories was still insignificant. The bulk of the workers consisted of the same peasants, released by the landowners for rent, from state peasants and other legally dependent people.
Serfdom with its attributes (tire, corvee and land scarcity) caused acute discontent, which was reflected in the growth of peasant uprisings. Only in the three pre-reform years their number increased 1.5 times: from 86 in 1858 to 126 in 1860. Peasant uprisings took place almost everywhere, from the central black earth provinces to Belarus - in the west, Podolia - - in the south, the Volga region and the Urals - in the east. Life imperiously demanded the destruction of the fetters of serfdom. Thus, the need for reforms was caused by the needs of the country's economic development, and the laws of development of capitalism. There were also political reasons: the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56), which showed the rottenness and weakness of the feudal-serf system, the growth of discontent in wide circles of the Russian public.
The autocracy was faced with a choice: either reforms from above, or continuous war with the peasantry. Without waiting for the peasants to liberate themselves from below, Alexander II embarked on the path of reforms. On February 19, 1861, he signed the Manifesto on the Emancipation of the Peasants (“On the most gracious granting to serfs of the rights and status of free rural inhabitants and the arrangement of their life”), as well as a special “Regulation on peasants who have emerged from serfdom”.
What was the essence of land reform? According to the Manifesto, the peasants were declared legally free people, that is, they received the right to trade, own movable and immovable property, conclude deals, etc. But there was still a considerable distance from the proclamation of freedom to its real economic security.
The fact is that the land still remained the property of the landowners. By agreement between the landowners and peasants (the so-called statutory charters), the peasants received plots of land. Their sizes varied depending on local conditions from 3 to 12 acres. If the land plots of the peasants were more than the prescribed norms, then the landowner had the right to cut off the surplus from them. It was these lands, taken from the peasants during the reform period, that were called “cuts”. And this was a considerable land wedge: on average in Russia 20% of peasant lands, and in the Saratov and Samara provinces - up to 40%. If before the reform the average peasant allotment was 4.4 acres, then after the reform it was equal to 3.6 acres. There were frequent cases when the landowners took away the best land, and the peasants were allocated inconveniences.
Peasants, with the consent of the landowners, could buy out estate and allotment land. Only those who redeemed the land became peasant owners, and the rest were called temporarily liable before the redemption. They were obliged either to pay dues or to serve corvee. The temporary condition was determined at 9 years old, but in fact it stretched up to 20 years.
The main burden of paying for the redemption of land from the landlords was assumed by the state - 75-80% of the value of the allotments, and the rest was paid by the peasants. To facilitate the possibility of redemption, they were given a loan for 49 years at 6% per annum.
But even after the redemption of the land, not all peasants became its owners. In many parts of the country, the redemption of land was carried out through the community, where there were periodic "repartitions of land allotments, mutual responsibility and the so-called peasant self-government. The land became the property of the peasant community. The community was ruled by the "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 limitations 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.
World-historical theory
materialist historians(I. A. Fedosov and others) define the period of the abolition of serfdom as a sharp transition from a feudal socio-economic formation to a capitalist one. They believe that the abolition of serfdom in Russia late, and the reforms that followed it were carried out slowly and incompletely. Half-heartedness in carrying out reforms caused indignation of the advanced part of society- the intelligentsia, which then resulted in terror against the king. Marxist revolutionaries believed that the country was "led" along the wrong path of development- "slow cutting off the rotting parts", but it was necessary to "lead" along the path of a radical solution of problems - the confiscation and nationalization of landowners' lands, the destruction of the autocracy, etc.
liberal historians, contemporaries of events, V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911), S.F. Platonov (1860-1933) and others, welcomed both the abolition of serfdom and subsequent reforms. The defeat in the Crimean War, they believed, revealed technical lag of Russia from W apad and undermined the international prestige of the country.
Later liberal historians ( I. N. Ionov, R. Pipes and others) began to note that in In the middle of the 19th century, serfdom reached the highest point of economic efficiency. The reasons for the abolition of serfdom are political. The defeat of Russia in the Crimean War dispelled the myth of the military power of the Empire, caused irritation in society and a threat to the stability of the country. The interpretation focuses on the price of reforms. Thus, the people were not historically prepared for drastic socio-economic changes and "painfully" perceived the changes in their lives. The government did not have the right to abolish serfdom and carry out reforms without comprehensive social and moral preparation of the entire people, especially nobles and peasants. According to liberals, the centuries-old way of Russian life cannot be changed by force.
ON THE. Nekrasov in the poem “To whom it is good to live in Russia” writes:
The great chain is broken
broke and hit:
one end along the master,
others - like a man! ...
Historians of the technological direction (V. A. Krasilshchikov, S. A. Nefedov, etc.) believe that the abolition of serfdom and subsequent reforms are due to the stage of Russia's modernization transition from a traditional (agrarian) society to an industrial one. The transition from traditional to industrial society in Russia was carried out by the state during the period of influence from the 17th-18th centuries. European cultural and technological circle (modernization - westernization) and acquired the form of Europeanization, that is, a conscious change in traditional national forms according to the European model.
“Machine” progress in Western Europe “forced” tsarism to actively impose an industrial order. And this determined the specifics of modernization in Russia. The Russian state, while selectively borrowing technical and organizational elements from the West, simultaneously conserved traditional structures. As a result, the country has situation of “overlapping of historical epochs”(industrial - agrarian), which later led to social shocks.
Industrial society introduced by the state at the expense of the peasants, came into sharp conflict with all the fundamental conditions of Russian life and was bound to give rise to protest both against the autocracy, which did not give the desired freedom to the peasant, and against the private owner, a figure previously alien to Russian life. The industrial workers who appeared in Russia as a result of industrial development inherited the hatred of the entire Russian peasantry, with its centuries-old communal psychology, for private property.
Tsarism is interpreted as a regime that was forced to begin industrialization, but failed to cope with its consequences.
Local historical theory.
The theory is represented by the works of Slavophiles and Narodniks. Historians believed that Russia, unlike Western countries, follows its own, special path of development. They substantiated the possibility in Russia of a non-capitalist path of development to socialism through the peasant community.
Reforms of Alexander II
Land reform. Main issue in Russia during the XVIII-XIX centuries there was a land-peasant. Catherine II raised this issue in the work of the Free Economic Society, which considered several dozen programs for the abolition of serfdom, both Russian and foreign authors. Alexander I issued a decree "On free cultivators", allowing landowners to free their peasants from serfdom along with land for ransom. Nicholas I during the years of his reign, he created 11 secret committees on the peasant question, whose task was the abolition of serfdom, the solution of the land issue in Russia.
In 1857, by decree of Alexander II started to work secret committee on the peasant question, the main task of which was the abolition of serfdom with the obligatory allocation of land to the peasants. Then such committees were created for the provinces. As a result of their work (and the wishes and orders of both landlords and peasants were taken into account) was a reform was developed to abolish serfdom for all regions of the country, taking into account local specifics. For different areas were the maximum and minimum values of the allotment transferred to the peasant are determined.
Emperor February 19, 1861 signed a number of laws. Was here Manifesto and Regulations on the Granting of Freedom to the Peasants us, documents on the entry into force of the Regulations, on the management of rural communities, etc.
Abolition of serfdom was not a one-time event. First, the landlord peasants were released, then the specific and assigned to the factories. Peasants got personal freedom, but the land remained the property of the landowners, and while allotments were assigned, the peasants were in the position of "temporarily liable" carried duties in favor of the landowners, which in essence did not differ from the former, serfs. The plots handed over to the peasants were, on average, 1/5 less than those that they cultivated before. To these lands purchase agreements were signed, after that the "temporarily liable" state ceased, the treasury paid off for the land with the landlords, the peasants - with the treasury for 49 years at the rate of 6% per annum (redemption payments).
Land use, relations with the authorities were built through the community. She kept as a guarantor of peasant payments. The peasants were attached to society (the world).
As a result of reforms serfdom was abolished- that “obvious and tangible evil for everyone”, which in Europe was directly called “ Russian slavery. However, the land problem was not resolved, since the peasants, when dividing the land, were forced to give the landlords a fifth of their allotments.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the first Russian revolution broke out in Russia, a peasant revolution in many respects in terms of the composition of the driving forces and the tasks that confronted it. This is what made P.A. Stolypin to implement land reform, allowing the peasants to leave the community. The essence of the reform was to resolve the land issue, but not through the confiscation of land from the landlords, as the peasants demanded, but through the redistribution of the land of the peasants themselves.
Liberal reforms of the 60-70s
Zemstvo and city reforms. The principle carried out in 1864. zemstvo reform was electiveness and ignorance. In the provinces and districts of Central Russia and part of Ukraine Zemstvos were established as local self-government bodies. Elections to zemstvo assemblies were carried out on the basis of property, age, educational and a number of other qualifications. Women and employees were denied the right to vote. This gave an advantage to the wealthiest segments of the population. Assemblies elected zemstvo councils. Zemstvos were in charge affairs of local importance, promoted entrepreneurship, education, health care - carried out work for which the state did not have funds.
Held in 1870 urban reform in character was close to the zemstvo. In major cities city councils were established on the basis of all-class elections. However, elections were held on a census basis, and, for example, in Moscow only 4% of the adult population participated in them. City councils and the mayor decided issues of internal self-government, education and health care. For control for zemstvo and city activities was created presence on city affairs.
Judicial reform. Newjudicial statutes were approved on November 20, 1864. Judicial power was separated from the executive and legislative. A classless and public court was introduced, the principle of the irremovability of judges was affirmed. Two types of court were introduced - general (crown) and world. The general court was in charge of criminal cases. The trial became open, although in a number of cases cases were heard behind closed doors. The competitiveness of the court was established, the positions of investigators were introduced, the bar was established. The question of the guilt of the defendant was decided by 12 jurors. The most important principle of the reform was the recognition of the equality of all subjects of the empire before the law.
For the analysis of civil cases was introduced institute of magistrates. Appellate authority for the courts were judicial chambers you. position was introduced notary. Since 1872, major political cases were considered in Special Presence of the Governing Senate which became at the same time the highest instance of cassation.
military reform. After his appointment in 1861, D.A. Milyutin as Minister of War begins the reorganization of the command and control of the armed forces. In 1864, 15 military districts were formed, directly subordinate to the Minister of War. In 1867, a military-judicial charter was adopted. In 1874, after a long discussion, the tsar approved the Charter on universal military service. A flexible conscription system was introduced. Recruitment was canceled, the entire male population over the age of 21 was subject to conscription. The term of service was reduced in the army to 6 years, in the navy to 7 years. Clerics, members of a number of religious sects, the peoples of Kazakhstan and Central Asia, as well as some peoples of the Caucasus and the Far North were not subject to conscription into the army. The only son, the only breadwinner in the family, was released from service. In peacetime, the need for soldiers was much less than the number of conscripts, so all those fit for service, with the exception of those who received benefits, drew lots. For those who graduated from elementary school, the service was reduced to 3 years, for those who graduated from a gymnasium - up to 1.5 years, a university or institute - up to 6 months.
financial reform. In 1860 was the State Bank was established, happened cancellation of the pay-off 2 system, which was replaced by excises 3(1863). Since 1862 the only responsible manager of budget revenues and expenditures was the Minister of Finance; the budget is made public. Was made attempt at currency reform(free exchange of credit notes for gold and silver at the established rate).
Education reforms. "Regulations on Primary Public Schools" of June 14, 1864 liquidated the state-church monopoly on education. Now both public and private institutions were allowed to open and maintain elementary schools. persons under the control of district and provincial school councils and inspectors. The charter of the secondary school introduced the principle of equality of all classes and religions. y, but introduced tuition fee.
Gymnasiums were divided into classical and real nye. In classical gymnasiums, humanitarian disciplines were mainly taught, in real ones - natural ones. After the resignation of the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovnin (in 1861 D.A. Tolstoy was appointed instead of him) was accepted new gymnasium charter, retaining only classical gymnasiums, real gymnasiums were replaced by real schools. Along with male secondary education there was a system of women's gymnasiums.
University Us tav (1863) provided Universities had broad autonomy, elections of rectors and professors were introduced. School management handed over to the Council of Prof. Essorov, to whom the students were subordinate. Were Universities were opened in Odessa and Tomsk, higher courses for women were opened in St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Moscow, Kazan.
As a result of the publication of a number of laws in Russia, a harmonious education system was created, including primary, secondary and higher educational institutions.
Censorship reform. In May 1862 censorship reform began, were introduced "temporary rules”, which in 1865 was replaced by a new censorship charter. Under the new charter, preliminary censorship was abolished for books of 10 or more printed sheets (240 pages); editors and publishers could only be prosecuted in court. Periodicals were also exempted from censorship by special permission and upon payment of a deposit of several thousand rubles, but they could be suspended administratively. Only government and scientific publications, as well as literature translated from a foreign language, could be published without censorship.
The preparation and implementation of reforms were an important factor in the socio-economic development of the country. Administrative reforms were quite well prepared, but public opinion did not always keep pace with the ideas of the reformer tsar. The variety and speed of transformations gave rise to a feeling of uncertainty and confusion in thoughts. People lost their bearings, organizations appeared, professing extremist, sectarian principles.
For economy post-reform Russia is characterized by rapid development commodity-money relations. noted growth in acreage and agricultural production, but agricultural productivity remained low. Yields and food consumption (except for bread) were 2-4 times lower than in Western Europe. At the same time, in the 1980s compared to the 50s. the average annual grain harvest increased by 38%, and its export increased by 4.6 times.
The development of commodity-money relations led to property differentiation in the countryside, the middle peasant farms were ruined, the number of poor peasants grew. On the other hand, strong kulak farms appeared, some of which used agricultural machinery. All this was part of the plans of the reformers. But quite unexpectedly for them in the country the traditionally hostile attitude towards trade That is, to all new forms of activity: to the kulak, the merchant, the fence - to the successful entrepreneur.
In Russia large-scale industry was created and developed as a state. The main concern of the government after the failures of the Crimean War were enterprises that produced military equipment. The military budget of Russia in general terms was inferior to the English, French, German, but in the Russian budget it had more significant weight. Particular attention was paid to development of heavy industry and transport. It was in these areas that the government directed funds, both Russian and foreign.
The growth of entrepreneurship was controlled by the state on the basis of the issuance of special orders, that's why the big bourgeoisie was closely connected with the state. Fast an increase in the number of industrial workers However, many workers retained economic and psychological ties with the countryside, they carried a charge of discontent among the poor who lost their land and were forced to seek food in the city.
The reforms laid the foundation new credit system. For 1866-1875. It was 359 joint-stock commercial banks, mutual credit societies and other financial institutions have been established. Since 1866, they began to actively participate in their work. major European banks. As a result of state regulation, foreign loans and investments went mainly to railway construction. The railroads ensured the expansion of the economic market in the vast expanses of Russia; they were also important for the operational transfer of military units.
In the second half of the 19th century, the political situation in the country changed several times.
During the preparation of the reforms, from 1855 to 1861, the government retained the initiative of action, attracted all the supporters of the reforms - from the highest bureaucracy to the democrats. Subsequently, the difficulties with reforms exacerbated the domestic political situation in the country. The struggle of the government against opponents from the "left" acquired a cruel character: the suppression of peasant uprisings, the arrests of liberals, the defeat of the Polish uprising. The role of the III Security (gendarme) department was strengthened.
IN 1860s radical movement entered the political arena populists. Raznochintsy intelligentsia, based on revolutionary democratic ideas and nihilism DI. Pisarev, created the theory of revolutionary populism. The populists believed in the possibility of achieving socialism, bypassing capitalism, through the liberation of the peasant community - the rural "peace". "Rebel" M.A. Bakunin predicted a peasant revolution, the fuse of which was to be lit by the revolutionary intelligentsia. P.N. Tkachev was the theorist of a coup d'état, after which the intelligentsia, having carried out the necessary transformations, would liberate the community. P.L. Lavrov substantiated the idea of thorough preparation of the peasants for the revolutionary struggle. IN 1874 began a mass "going to the people”, but the agitation of the populists failed to ignite the flame of a peasant uprising.
In 1876 arose organization "Land and freedom", which in 1879 split into two groups.
Group " Black redistribution” headed by G.V. Plekhanov focused on propaganda;
« Narodnaya Volya” headed by A.I. Zhelyabov, N.A. Morozov, S.L. Perovskaya in brought to the fore political struggle. The main means of struggle, in the opinion of the Narodnaya Volya, was individual terror, regicide, which was supposed to serve as a signal for a popular uprising. In 1879-1881. Narodnaya Volya held a series assassination attempt on Alexander II.
In a situation of acute political confrontation, the authorities embarked on the path of self-defense. February 12, 1880 was established "Supreme Administrative Commission for the Protection of State Order and Public Peace» headed by M.P. Loris-Melikov. Having received unlimited rights, Loris-Melikov achieved a suspension of the terrorist activities of the revolutionaries and some stabilization of the situation. In April 1880 the commission was liquidated; Loris-Melikov was appointed Minister of the Interior and began to prepare the completion of the "great cause of state reforms". The drafting of the final reform laws was entrusted to the "people" - temporary preparatory commissions with a wide representation of zemstvos and cities.
On February 5, 1881, the submitted bill was approved by Emperor Alexander II. " Constitution of Loris-Melikov” provided for the election of “representatives from public institutions ...” to the highest bodies of state power. In the morning March 1, 1881 the emperor appointed a meeting of the Council of Ministers to approve the bill; in just a few hours Alexander II was killed members of the People's Will organization.
New Emperor Alexander III March 8, 1881 held a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss the Loris-Melikov project. At the meeting, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev and head of the State Council S.G. Stroganov. The resignation of Loris-Melikov soon followed.
IN May 1883 Alexander III proclaimed a course called in the historical-materialist literature " counter-reforms», and in the liberal-historical one - "adjustment of reforms". He expressed himself as follows.
In 1889, to strengthen supervision over the peasants, the positions of zemstvo chiefs with broad rights were introduced. They were appointed from local landowning nobles. The clerks and small merchants, other poor sections of the city, lost their suffrage. Judicial reform has undergone a change. In the new regulation on the zemstvos of 1890, the representation of estates and nobility was strengthened. In 1882-1884. many publications were closed, the autonomy of universities was abolished. Primary schools were transferred to the church department - the Synod.
These activities showed the idea of an "official nation"» times of Nicholas I - the slogan « Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Spirit of Humility was consonant with the slogans of a bygone era. The new official ideologists of K.P. Pobedonostsev (Chief Prosecutor of the Synod), M.N. Katkov (editor of Moskovskie Vedomosti), Prince V. Meshchersky (publisher of the newspaper Grazhdanin) omitted the word "people" from the old formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy and the people" as "dangerous"; they preached the humility of his spirit before the autocracy and the church. In practice, the new policy resulted in an attempt to strengthen the state by relying on the traditionally loyal to the throne nobility. Administrative measures were reinforced economic support for landowners.
Ancient time in Russia- The place and role of history in the system of human knowledge. The subject and objectives of the course of the history of the Fatherland
- Ancient peoples on the territory of Russia. The population of ancient Bashkiria
- Formation of early feudal states. Economic and political relations between them
- The role of religion in the formation of statehood and culture
- The struggle for the independence of the early feudal states against aggression from the West and East
- Unification of Russian lands around Moscow. Relations with the Golden Horde and the Principality of Lithuania
- Formation of statehood. Political system and social relations
- Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. Strengthening the regime of personal power
- Change of the ruling dynasty. The evolution of the state system
- The main directions of Russian foreign policy in the XVII century. Bashkiria in the 17th century
- Reforms of Peter I. Completion of the design of absolutism in Russia
- Foreign policy of Russia during the proclamation of the empire
- "Enlightened absolutism" in Russia. Domestic policy of Catherine II
- Government circles and public thought about the ways of further development of the country
- Socio-economic development of the country. Bashkiria in the first half of the 19th century
- Socio-economic development of the country and its features
- Witte's economic policy. Stolypin's agrarian reform
- Socio-political forces in Russia. Revolution of 1905 - 1907
- Formation of political parties: social composition, program and tactics
- State Duma - the first experience of Russian parliamentarism
- Changes in the alignment of political forces from February to October 1917. Alternatives for the development of events
- The Soviet state and the world in the 20-30s. The Great Patriotic War (1941-1945): results and lessons
- The objective need for change. Reforms of the political system
- Finding Ways to Transition to a Market Economy: Problems and Solutions
Reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century
February 19, 1861 Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the "Regulations" on the new structure of the peasants. According to the "Regulations", serfs (22.6 million people) received personal freedom and a number of civil rights: to conclude transactions, open trade and industrial establishments, transfer to other classes, etc. The law proceeded from the principle of recognizing the right of ownership to the landowner to all the land on the estate, including the peasant allotment. Peasants were considered only users of allotment land, obliged to serve the established duties for it - quitrent or corvée. To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner. The redemption operation was undertaken by the state: the treasury paid the landowners immediately 75-80% of the redemption amount, the rest was paid by the peasant.
The reform of 1861 not only preserved, but even more increased landownership by reducing peasant ownership. 1.3 million peasants actually remained landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3-4 acres, while for a normal living standard of a peasant, at the expense of agriculture, with the existing agricultural technology, from 6 to 8 acres of land were required.
In 1863, the reform was extended to appanage and palace peasants, in 1866 - to state peasants.
The lack of almost half of the land needed by the peasants, the preservation in the village of enslaving, semi-serf forms of exploitation of the peasants, the artificial increase in prices when selling and renting land were the source of poverty and backwardness of the post-reform village and ultimately led to a sharp aggravation of the agrarian question at the turn of the 19th century. XX centuries
The abolition of serfdom necessitated other reforms in the country - in the field of administration, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They, too, were of a half-hearted nature, retained their dominant positions for the nobility and the highest bureaucracy, and did not give real scope for the independent manifestation of social forces.
In 1864, zemstvos were created in the counties and provinces of Russia. Landowners, merchants, manufacturers, homeowners and rural communities received the right to elect zemstvo vowels from among themselves. District councilors met once a year at zemstvo meetings, at which they elected the executive body - the zemstvo Council and vowels to the provincial assembly. Zemstvos were in charge of: the construction of local roads, public education, health care, fire insurance, veterinary service, local trade and industry. The zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the minister of the interior, who had the right to suspend any decisions of the zemstvos.
In 1870 city self-government was introduced. City dumas, elected for 4 years, appeared in 509 cities of Russia. The competence of city elected bodies was in many respects similar to the functions of county zemstvos. They paid the main attention to the financial and economic condition of the cities. A significant part of the city budget was spent on the maintenance of the police, city government, military posts, etc.
Along with the reform of local government, the government began to address the problem of reforming the judiciary.
In 1864, judicial statutes were approved, introducing bourgeois principles of the judiciary and legal proceedings in Russia. A court independent of the administration, the irremovability of judges, publicity of the court, the liquidation of class courts (with the exception of spiritual and military courts) were proclaimed, the institutes of jurors, advocacy and recognition of equality before the court were introduced. An adversarial process was introduced: the prosecution was supported by the prosecutor, the defense - by a lawyer (sworn attorney). Several judicial instances were established - world and district courts. Judicial chambers were created as appellate instances (the Ural provinces were under the jurisdiction of the Kazan Court of Justice).
The needs of an emerging market called for the need to streamline the financial business. By decree of 1860, the State Bank was established, which replaced the former credit institutions - zemstvo and commercial banks, a safe treasury and orders of public charity. The state budget was streamlined. The only responsible manager of all income and expenses was the Minister of Finance. From that time on, a list of income and expenses began to be published for general information.
In 1862-1864. reforms were carried out in the field of education: seven-year gymnasiums for girls were established, the principle of equality for all classes and religions was proclaimed in men's gymnasiums. The university statute of 1863 granted universities broad autonomy: the university council received the right to decide all scientific, financial and educational issues, the election of rectors, vice-rectors and deans was introduced.
The result of glasnost was the "Provisional Rules" of 1865 on censorship, which abolished preliminary censorship for publications published in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Government and scientific publications were completely freed from censorship.
The military reform of 1874, in the preparation and implementation of which the Minister of War D. A. Milyutin played an important role, legally consolidated the transformations in military affairs that had begun back in the 60s. Corporal punishment was canceled, instead of recruitment sets, universal military service was introduced. The 25-year term of military service was gradually reduced to 6-7 years. When serving military service, a number of benefits were provided according to marital status and education. The soldiers in the service were taught to read and write, measures were taken for the technical re-equipment of the army, to improve the level of officer training.
Reforms of the 60-70s XIX century, which began with the abolition of serfdom, despite their half-heartedness and inconsistency, contributed to the development of capitalism in the country, the acceleration of the socio-economic development of Russia.
