The abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 necessitated 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 reforms carried out in 1863-1874 pursued precisely this goal. The bourgeois reforms of this period are characterized by incompleteness, immediacy and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.
One of these reforms was the creation of institutions that were supposed to deal with local business. Zemstvo reform was supposed to weaken the 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 the Interior under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law “On economic and distribution 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 importance. In April 1860, Milyutin presented Alexander II with a note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. In April 1861, under pressure from reactionary court circles, N.A. Milyutin and Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky as "liberals" was dismissed.
The new Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, who was also appointed chairman of the commission to prepare the reform of local self-government, was known for his conservative views, but in the face of the rise of the revolutionary movement in the country, he did not dare to eliminate the basic principles of the Zemstvo reform developed by the Milyutin commission - electivity and classlessness. He only 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 an advantage to landowners and the big bourgeoisie.
The rise of the socio-democratic movement in the country (the unprecedented growth of peasant unrest, the intensification of the revolutionary movement in Poland and Finland, student unrest, the growth of the constitutional claims of the nobility), forced the autocracy to go even further than the tasks that it had previously set for the Milyutin commission. Valuev was given the task of drafting a "new institution of the State Council." According to this project, it was proposed 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. When the revolutionary wave was repulsed, the autocracy abandoned its intention to allow "representatives of the population to participate in legislation" and limited itself to the reform of local government.
In March 1863, a draft “Regulations for provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by Alexander II and received the force of law. This law in Russian society was adopted ambiguously. Here is what the famous public figure A.I. Koshelev in his notes: “Many were dissatisfied with the Regulations”, “They found that the scope of the zemstvo institutions and the rights granted to the zemstvo were too limited. Others, including myself, argued that at first it was quite enough that we were given; that we should diligently engage in the development and use of this small, measured to us, and that if we fulfill this duty of ours conscientiously and with meaning, then society will come by itself.
According to the 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 district zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into three 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, as well as landowners authorized by the clergy 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 large urban bourgeoisie, as well as by nobles who owned urban real estate.
The third curia consisted of representatives of rural communities, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia - also as representatives of "rural societies". 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. Here are data on the social composition of zemstvo institutions for the first three years of their existence (1865-1867). In the county zemstvo assemblies, nobles made up 42%, peasants - 38%, merchants - 10%, clergy - 6.5%, others - 3%. An even greater predominance of the nobility was in the provincial zemstvo councils: the nobility already accounted for 89.5%, the peasants - only 1.5%, others - 9%.
The representatives of the county and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the county and provincial marshals of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo assemblies, while the chairman of the county zemstvo council was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of the interior. The vowels of the zemstvo assemblies were convened annually at the session to consider the annual reports of the executive bodies-managements, to approve the plan of the zemstvo economy, estimates of income and expenses. Vowels of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvo councils acted constantly. Members of the councils received a certain salary. In addition, zemstvos received the right to support (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Zemstvo fees were collected from the population for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions. The Zemstvo received the right to collect income from commercial and industrial establishments, movable and immovable property by special collection. In practice, the main burden of zemstvo dues was assigned to the peasantry (the zemstvo tax was 11.5 kopecks for a tithe of peasant lands, and 5.3 kopecks for a tithe of the rest). The main expenses of the zemstvos (80-85%) went to the maintenance of zemstvo institutions and the police; 8% were spent on medicine and 5% of Zemstvo funds were spent on public education.
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. However, the execution of local economic and administrative functions by the zemstvos was considered by the government itself not even as a rule, but as the duty of the zemstvos: previously the administration was engaged in this, now concerns about local affairs were shifted to the zemstvos. Members and employees of zemstvos were brought to justice if they went beyond their competence.
However, even within the limits of their competence, 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, recognizing it as "contrary to laws or general state benefits." Many of the resolutions of the zemstvo assemblies could not come into force without the approval of the governor or the minister of the interior. Zemstvos themselves had no executive power. In order to fulfill their orders (for example, the collection of underpayments for zemstvo dues, the requirement to perform natural duties, etc.), the zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.
The regulation of January 1, 1864 on zemstvo institutions provided for the introduction of zemstvos in 34 provinces, i.e. in about half of the country's provinces. Zemstvo reform did not extend to Siberia, Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where there was no or almost no landownership, as well as to the national outskirts of Russia - Poland, Lithuania, the Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Central Asia. But even in those 34 provinces to which the law of 1864 applied, zemstvo institutions were not introduced immediately. By the beginning of 1866 they were introduced in 19 provinces, by 1867 - in 9 more, and in 1868-1879. - in the remaining 6 provinces.
The competence and activities of the zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative measures. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and "clarifications" by 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, recognized by the governor as "unreliable", made Zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies.
In 1867, the zemstvos of different provinces were prohibited from communicating one after another and communicating their decisions to each other, as well as printing reports on their meetings without the permission of the local provincial authorities. The chairmen of the zemstvo assemblies were obliged, under threat of punishment, to close the meetings of the assemblies if they discussed issues "not consistent with the law." Circulars and Decrees 1868-1874 made zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, restricted the freedom of debate in zemstvo assemblies, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings - pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.
Nevertheless, the zemstvos played a big role in solving local economic and cultural issues; in the organization of local small credit through the formation of peasant savings and loan associations, in the organization of post offices, road construction, in the organization of medical care in the countryside, and public education. By 1880, 12,000 zemstvo schools had been established in the countryside. Zemstvo schools were considered the best. Medical institutions in the countryside, although small and imperfect (there were an average of 3 doctors per county), were entirely formed by the zemstvo. Still, it was a step forward compared to the pre-reform period, when the number of rural schools was absolutely negligible, and medical care in the countryside was completely absent. The role of zemstvos is also great in the statistical study of the state of the national economy, especially the peasant economy.
Zemstvos, despite the fact that they primarily dealt with economic issues, nevertheless became a kind of political school through which many representatives of the liberal and democratic social trends passed. In this regard, the Zemstvo reform can be assessed as bourgeois in nature.
The development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of urban reform. The bourgeoisie waged a struggle for the creation of stateless organs of city government on the basis of the fact that it would obtain sufficiently strong positions there.
The city self-government was reformed on the same principles as the zemstvo self-government. In 1862, all-estate commissions were organized in 509 cities to develop the foundations for the upcoming reform. In 1864, the draft of the new city position was already ready, but then it was revised several times, and only on June 16, 1870, Alexander P. finally approved it.
According to the city regulation of 1870, city dumas (introduced by Catherine II), composed of deputies from estate groups, were replaced by non-estate ones, whose members - vowels - were elected for four years on the basis of a property qualification. The total number of vowels varied in different cities from 30 to 72; in Moscow the number of vowels was 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The city duma elected the city council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more members.
All city tax payers participated in the election of vowels - they were homeowners, owners of commercial and industrial enterprises, banks, etc., and they were divided into three electoral meetings: the largest payers participated in the first meeting, paying a third of the total amount of taxes in a given city, in the second - average payers, who also paid a total of one third of taxes, in the third - all the rest.
Each assembly elected a third of the total number of vowels established for a given city. Thus, the predominance of the largest payers of city taxes was ensured in the dumas and the city governments elected by them, i.e. the largest (on the scale of a given city) bourgeoisie.
Workers, employees, intellectuals, who did not pay city taxes, did not participate in the elections of vowels. So, in 1871 in Moscow, with a population of 602 thousand people, only 20.6 thousand people (about 3.4%) had the right to elect and be elected to the city duma, of which 446 people made up the first electoral meeting, 2200 - the second and 18 thousand people - the third.
The competence of city self-government, like that of the zemstvo, was limited to purely economic issues: the external improvement of the city, the organization of markets and bazaars, the care of local trade and industry, health care and public education, precautions against fires, the maintenance of the police, prisons, and charity work.
City institutions did not have coercive power to execute their decisions either - they were subordinate to the supervision of the governor and the minister of internal affairs: the mayors of provincial cities were approved in office by the minister, the heads of other cities - by the governor. In a word, city self-government, like the zemstvo one, was not a local government body, but only an auxiliary body of the government on local economy issues.
During the 1970s, the new urban status was introduced throughout Russia, with the exception of Poland, Finland (where the old urban structure was preserved) and the newly conquered regions of Central Asia.
Without introducing zemstvos in the Caucasus, the tsarist government handed over here a huge local economy into the hands of an official. But, fearing that the development of trade and industry would not slow down if the urban economy was left in the hands of the bureaucracy, the government introduced the "City Regulations of 1870", also in the Caucasus. In the North Caucasus "The situation of 1870" was introduced in all major cities, in Transcaucasia - only in Tiflis, Baku, Kutaisi and Erivan; in Gori and Akhaltsikhe it was introduced in a simplified form. In all other cities and towns of Transcaucasia, the urban economy remained under the jurisdiction of the local police authorities. For the same purpose of assisting the bourgeoisie, city banks were established in the cities of the North Caucasus, and a Commercial Bank was opened in Tiflis.
The implementation of the law on city self-government was extremely constrained and bore a bright imprint of the autocratic system and the interests of the nobility. The bodies of city self-government, as well as the zemstvos, were charged with a number of "obligatory" expenses, most of which, in essence, had to be paid from national funds.
The main sources of city income were the valuation fee on real estate and taxes on trade and crafts. In Moscow in the late 70s, these sources accounted for 76% of the revenue budget. Since the leading role in urban self-government belonged to a more or less big bourgeoisie, the latter tried to shift the burden of city taxes onto the less well-off strata of the population. The valuation of property and income was the responsibility of the city self-government, i.e. actually in the hands of the big bourgeoisie.
The largest item of city expenditures, counting the above-mentioned expenditures for national needs, was the cost of improving the city: in Moscow in the late 70s, expenditures under this item amounted to about 31% of the expenditure budget.
In the center of a large city, where rich merchants and manufacturers lived, there were pavements and sidewalks, and street lighting, sometimes a horse tram, while the outskirts, inhabited by the poor, were buried in mud and darkness and were deprived of convenient means of communication with the center. In small towns, however, there was practically no improvement; in all cities of 50 provinces of European Russia, improvement costs averaged about 15% in the early 80s.
The cares of city self-government about public education, public health and "public charity" were very small: in all cities of 50 provinces in the early 80s, about 3 million rubles were spent on educational institutions, on hospitals, shelters, almshouses, etc., - about 2.5 million; in total, this represented about 13% of the citywide budget.
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 governments with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city governments played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city . At the same time, the city dumas participated weakly in the social movement, since the merchants and manufacturers were little interested in politics.
Thus, for all its half-heartedness, the reform of local self-government was a step forward. Meetings of city dumas and zemstvo assemblies were public, and reports about them could be published in newspapers. New self-government bodies, both in the city and in the countryside, based on bourgeois law, contributed to the capitalist development of the country. But the bodies of city self-government, as well as the bodies of zemstvo self-government, were under the constant captious control of the tsarist administration. All power in the localities was still in the hands of governors and other administrators appointed by the authorities.
The governor, as in the 18th century, had full administrative rights, as well as certain judicial rights, including the dismissal of any officials of the province. The military garrisons were also under the jurisdiction of the governor. In the event of any emergency, the governor was obliged to take all necessary measures, without waiting for orders from above and help from the central government. All local bodies of sectoral departments, including customs, border and other services, were subordinate to the governor. Once every three years, he was obliged to go around the subject territory, auditing all state bodies, revealing all sorts of lawlessness, especially extortion. In a word, the governor was like a miniature monarch. The governor was assigned an office to perform his functions. Under him, the provincial board was established as an advisory body. The post of vice-governor was established, who was an assistant to the governor and at the same time headed the Treasury Chamber, a body of local financial management.
The governor also supervised the activities of the new local government bodies: presences for peasant affairs, for urban and zemstvo self-government, factory inspections, and so on. The key position in the county was the post of police officer.
On August 14, 1881, the Decree was adopted on measures to limit the state order and public peace. The repressive bodies were actually granted unlimited powers.
In 1882, a special law on police supervision was adopted, which significantly strengthened the system of these measures.
The liberal period in the development of Russian statehood was ending, and the era of counter-reforms was beginning.
They began during the reign of Alexander III and were marked by a real reaction and a retreat from the reforms of the 60-70s. The counter-reforms affected both the zemstvo and city reforms. The point here is the following. The introduction of zemstvos strengthened the influence of the bourgeoisie and objectively weakened the positions of the nobility. In a number of provinces, there was a "shortage" of vowels from the nobility due to a reduction in the number of landowning nobles. In the industrial provinces, the representation of nobles in the zemstvos was reduced due to the strengthening of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and new landowners from merchants and wealthy peasants.
The government was concerned about oppositional sentiments and the constitutional claims of zemstvo leaders. These sentiments were especially pronounced in the liberal opposition movement at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s.
Government reaction therefore set itself the task of strengthening the role of the nobility in the zemstvos by providing this class with a more complete and stable dominance in zemstvo institutions, limiting the representation and rights of bourgeois elements, in the ownership of the peasantry, and at the same time still more strengthening control over the activities of the zemstvos by the administrative authorities. . The reactionary nobility demanded that the no-estate and elective zemstvos be abolished altogether. In this regard, a project was developed on the transformation of zemstvo institutions, the author of which was the director of the office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. HELL. Sinus. When discussing the project in the State Council, the government did not dare to satisfy these claims of the most reactionary part of the nobility.
On June 12, 1890, a new “Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was approved. Formally, it retained the principles of non-estate and elective zemstvos, but these principles were greatly curtailed, which was the meaning of the zemstvo counter-reform. Thus, the agricultural curia, in which previously landowners of all classes could run, now became the curia of the nobles of landowners. The qualification for the nobles was halved, and the number of vowels of the landowning curia increased significantly; accordingly, the number of vowels in the remaining curiae - urban and rural - decreased. The peasants were deprived of elective representation: now they elected only candidates for zemstvo vowels, the list of which was considered by the county congress of zemstvo chiefs, and on the proposal of this congress the governor approved the vowels. The clergy were deprived of voting rights. The electoral qualification for the city curia increased sharply, as a result of which more than half of the voters in this curia were deprived of the right to participate in elections to the zemstvos. As a result, the proportion of nobles in county zemstvo assemblies increased from 42 to 55%, in provincial assemblies - from 82 to 90%, in county zemstvo councils the proportion of nobles increased from 55 to 72%, and in provincial ones from 90-94%. Vowels from the peasants now amounted to: in district zemstvo assemblies 31% (instead of the previous 37%), in provincial assemblies - 2% (instead of the previous 7%). The share of vowels from the bourgeoisie was reduced from 17 to 14% in district zemstvo assemblies and from 11 to 8% in provincial ones.
However, the counter-reform of 1890 did not introduce cardinal changes in the social composition of the zemstvos, because even earlier, despite the emerging trend towards the “bourgeoisization” of the zemstvos, the nobility prevailed in them.
Ensuring the decisive predominance of the nobility in the zemstvos, the zemstvo counter-reform went on to further restrict the rights of this noble zemstvo. Now the governor actually completely controlled the activities of zemstvo institutions. He could cancel any decision of the zemstvos, put any issue for discussion by the zemstvo assemblies. Introducing a new administrative link - the provincial zemstvo presence (an intermediate authority between the zemstvo and the governor), which checked the "legality" and "expediency" of the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies.
The zemstvo counter-reform, although it slowed down, still could not prevent the objective process of "bourgeoisization" of the zemstvos. The hopes of the government to suppress the Zemstvo liberal movement, which continued to grow, failed. On the whole, the counter-reform of 1890 did not turn the zemstvos into noble institutions. It should also be noted that bourgeois nobles played an important role in the zemstvos. The same goals were pursued by the autocracy during the city counter-reform. On June 11, 1892, a new "City Regulation" was issued, according to which the electoral rights of the urban population were significantly curtailed. Not only the working masses of the city, but also the petty bourgeoisie - petty merchants, clerks and others were now excluded from participation in city self-government. This was achieved by a significant increase in the property qualification. The advantage was given to the noble householders and the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie. As a result, the number of voters themselves in city dumas has sharply decreased; for example: in St. Petersburg - from 21 thousand to 8 thousand voters, in Moscow - from 20 thousand to 8 thousand voters. Thus, even in these two capital cities, no more than 0.7% of the population used the right to participate in elections to city self-government. In other cities, the number of voters decreased by 5-10 times, so that the number of voters often equaled the number of those participating in the elections. At the same time, more than half of the cities did not have elected city self-government at all.
According to the "City Regulations" of 1892, the system of guardianship and administrative interference in the affairs of city self-government was further strengthened. The governor not only controlled, but also directed all the activities of city dumas and city councils. The city dumas could not now take even a step without proper "permission, permission and approval." Mayors themselves and members of city governments were now viewed as civil servants, and not as "chosen" representatives of the urban population. However, in the future, in practice, the city counter-reform, like the rest of the counter-reforms of the 80-90s, was not fully implemented: the objective socio-economic processes of development of the Russian post-reform city turned out to be stronger than the attempts of the autocracy to strengthen the class-noble element in the city.
The monarchy was never able to overcome the opposition of city dumas. With the increase in the role of the nobility in them, the number of educated noble intelligentsia increased, which supported the bourgeoisie.
Thus, the transition of the autocracy in the early 1880s to direct and open reaction became possible as a result of the weakness of the peasant and workers' movement, the impotence of the liberal opposition. The autocracy succeeded in carrying out a series of counter-reforms in the question of estates, in the field of education and the press, and in the sphere of local government. The main task that the autocracy set itself was to strengthen its social base - the class of landlords - whose positions were undermined by the peasant reform of 1861, and other reforms of the 60-70s.
However, the reaction failed to carry out the program of counter-reforms to the extent that it had been conceived. The reaction's attempt to go further along the path of "correcting the fatal mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s" (bourgeois reforms) was frustrated by the new upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the country that began in the mid-1990s.
At that time there was no unity in the “tops” themselves: along with the reactionary direction, which demanded a decisive “revision” of the reforms of the 60-70s, there was also an opposition one, which demanded “concessions” to the spirit of the times. Even among the conservatives, their most far-sighted representatives (M.M. Kovalevsky, V.I. Semevsky, I.A. Vyshnegradsky and others) understood the impossibility of restoring the old order in the country.
Moreover, in the context of the revolutionary upsurge of the 1990s, the government failed to fully implement in practice the reactionary measures that were set out in the laws issued in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The reaction proved powerless to reverse historical progress.
The problem of modernization, i.e. radical renewal of all spheres of life from the economy to the state system, faced Russia again at the turn of the century. Modernization had to be carried out in a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions. Domestic policy was based on great-power principles. Growing social tension, due to the rapid development of new economic forms.
The conflict between the landlord and peasant sectors of the economy deepened. The post-reform community was already able to contain the social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing Russian bourgeoisie claimed a political role in society, meeting opposition from the nobility and state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility was losing its monopoly on power. The autocracy hardly made political concessions, moving from reforms to repressions. The system of higher authorities and administration was designed to strengthen the power of the emperor.
The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which led to defeat, further increased the tension. The country was on the verge of a revolution. It began after the execution of a peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905, and in a short time covered the whole country.
Under the pressure of the revolution, the autocracy was forced to make concessions. On August 6, 1905, Nicholas II signed a manifesto, by which the system of state power was approved by the legislative State Duma, called "Bulyginskaya" after the then Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin, who developed his project. The Duma was created for the "preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals, ascending in terms of the strength of the fundamental laws, through the State Council to the supreme autocratic power." The draft of the legislative Duma no longer satisfied anyone, especially since the revolution was expanding. In October, the All-Russian political strike began in the country, the railways stopped, the work of industrial enterprises was paralyzed. In this situation, Nicholas II had no choice but to announce the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, which emphasized the constitutional path of the country's development and the granting of civil liberties and proclaimed the legislative nature of the representative body - the State Duma. The Duma, as the lower house of the Parliament, considered and approved the budget, adopted laws. However, for their entry into force, the approval of the State Council (upper house) and the Emperor was required. On April 23, 1906, the tsar approved the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire in a new edition. They secured the creation of the State Duma, the State Council and the Council of Ministers. The characterization of the emperor's power as "unlimited" has been eliminated. However, his main prerogatives remained.
As a result of changes in the state system, Russia acquired some features of a constitutional monarchy, which was enshrined in the Fundamental State Laws as amended in 1906: the State Council was reformed and a new regulation on the Council of Ministers was adopted, according to which the executive power became autonomous from the head of state. A new image of Russian parliamentarism was being created.
The procedure for the formation of the State Duma is set out in the law of July 3, 1907, compared with the law of December 11, 1905, the circle of voters was sharply narrowed. Entire segments of the population - women, military personnel, the so-called "wandering foreigners" (i.e., nomadic cattle breeders), were deprived of the right to vote and be elected. Elections were supposed to be two-stage, separate for provinces and regions and for large cities. The number of electors participating in the assemblies by provinces and regions was established by a special list for each administrative unit separately. For meetings, electors in the cities, a single quota was established: 160 people in the capitals and 80 people in other cities. As for the members of the State Duma, elected by electors at meetings, their number was determined by a separate list for each province, region, city. In total, the list included 412 mandates, including 28 from cities.
Although a number of restrictions on participation in elections to the Duma cannot be considered reasonable, in particular, the removal of officials from the administration and the police from the elections, nevertheless, their general social orientation is obvious: to prevent confusion and freethinking in the Duma. These goals were primarily served by a high property and age qualification and the exclusion of students from participation in elections, limiting the number of members of the Duma elected from cities. It seems that a government body formed according to such principles can be called representative only with a certain degree of conventionality.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia remained an agrarian country, so the resolution of the agrarian issue was of great importance to it. The agrarian reform of the beginning of the 20th century is associated with the name of the head of the government P.A. Stolypin. Its implementation is associated with the revolutionary events of 1905-1907.
On April 5, 1905, a decree “On granting relief to the population for the payment of debts” is adopted. On its basis, exemption from collected arrears on the food collection that existed before 1866 was carried out and debts on loans for food were cancelled.
In September 1906, by decree “On the transfer of office lands to the disposal of the Main Department of Agriculture and Land Management for the formation of resettlement plots, the resettlement policy of the government begins.
In October 1906, a decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former castes” was adopted. Uniform rights were proclaimed for all those filed in relation to the public service (with the exception of "foreigners"). On January 9, 1906, a decree was adopted "On supplementing some of the provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership and land use." They proclaimed a free order of exit from the community, and allotments were assigned to the property at any time. The application for allocation through the headman was brought to the village society, which, by a simple majority of votes and within a month, was obliged to determine the peasant's plot. Otherwise, it was carried out by the zemstvo chief. The peasant could demand the reduction of the plots allocated to him together or monetary compensation. Agrarian decrees were enshrined in laws adopted by the Duma.
But even these half-hearted attempts at reform ended in failure. After the coup of June 3, 1907, in essence, any guarantees of rights and freedoms were abolished, limited legislative powers were taken away from the Duma, and it actually turned into a legislative body. Attempts at constitutional reforms ended in failure, and those problems that should have been solved in a parliamentary, civilized way, were solved by violent revolutionary methods.
Thus, the changes that took place in the state system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century allowed the bourgeoisie to strengthen its position, but in no way solved the problems put forward by the working people of the country, and the first Russian revolution, despite the defeat, only pushed and accelerated the development of the revolutionary process in Russia.
2. Why did Alexander 1 refuse to introduce a constitution in Russia after the war?
A) Peasant riots prevented; B) the war of 1812 prevented; C) the nobility resisted the reforms.
3. Decree on free cultivators of 1803:
A) granted personal freedom to state peasants; B) consolidated the privileges of single-palace peasants; C) allowed the landowners to release their peasants for ransom.
4. What part of the population of the Russian village was affected by the reforms of P. D. Kiselyov? A) state peasants; b) landowners; c) serf yard peasants; d) serfs plowed peasants;; e) residents of military settlements.
5. What obligations did Russia take on under the Treaty of Tilsit? A) had to recognize France for all territorial changes in Europe; B) became an ally of France in the war against England; C) was obliged to enter the war against England.
6. Determine who is it?“I was born into the family of a poor landowner. In 1808-1810. served as minister of war. Since 1815, he actually led the State Council and the activities of the ministries. He was distinguished by impeccable honesty. Executive official. He was merciless and even inhuman in his diligence. And it was these traits that caused a negative attitude towards him from those around him. A) N. Novosiltsev; B) M. Speransky; C) A. Arakcheev.
7. What is the purpose of military settlements? A) suppress the wave of peasant uprisings; b) reduce government spending on the maintenance of the army, c) organize mass training of reserves.
8. Who led the Russian army before Kutuzov was appointed to this post? A) M. Barclay de Tolly; b) P. Bagration, c) I. Murat.
9. Determine who is it?“His family coat of arms was decorated with the motto “Loyalty and Patience”. He enjoyed a reputation as an honest, cold-blooded and selfless officer. He commanded the Russian armies in several wars. On the eve of the Patriotic War of 1812, he was minister of war and commanded the first army. The court careerists did not like him. Many accused him of the retreat of the Russian troops and even talked about his betrayal.
A) M. Kutuzov; B) M. Barclay de Tolly; C) P. Bagration
10. On May 23, 1816, Alexander 1 approved the regulation on the Estonian peasants, according to which in the Baltic provinces:
A) increased serfdom; B) serfdom was abolished;
C) the duties of the peasants were determined depending on the quantity and quality of land.
11. The first secret organization of the future Decembrists was called:
a) "Union of Salvation", b) "Union of Prosperity", c) "Union of Officers"
12. "Constitution" N. Muravyov assumed: a) maintaining serfdom; b) the liberation of peasants without land; c) the preservation of landownership.
13.What system was established in Russia according to the project of P. Pestel? A) a constitutional monarchy, b) a democratic republic, c) an autocratic monarchy.
14. Recruitment is: a) the duty of the peasants to work in state-owned manufactory; b) setting up a certain number of people from the taxable estate to serve the needs of the army; c) the state tax from the peasants for the upkeep of the army; d) the obligation of the taxable estate to expose a certain number of soldiers.
15. The brake on the development of the Russian economy was: a) patrimonial land ownership; b) craft workshops; c) serfdom; d) lack of support from the state.
16. Which of the following was part of the Zemstvo reform of 1864:
A) the elective nature of zemstvos; b) zemstvos were elected on the basis of a property qualification; c) provincial officials could be appointed only with the consent of the zemstvos; d) in a number of provinces it was decided not to create zemstvos; e) zemstvos maintained hospitals, schools, roads, and prisons.
E) at the head of all provincial zemstvos was the central zemstvo; g) zemstvos were created to later replace the central government.
local government
Code of provincial institutions 1
Art. 1. The empire, in relation to the order of its local civil administration, is divided into provinces, regions and townships. 2
Art. 2. Each of these parts of the Empire is governed either by a General Institution or by a Special Institution. 3
General institution provincial
7. Each province consists of counties and cities.
14. Provincial places and authorities are: the chief head of the province; governor; provincial government; statistical committee; provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs or provincial presence for city affairs; provincial presence or provincial presence for peasant affairs; provincial conscription presence; provincial trade tax presence; provincial housing tax presence; provincial presence on real estate tax in cities, towns and towns; provincial presence on affairs about societies; treasury; provincial administrative committee; management of agriculture and state property; provincial presence for factory and mining affairs and presence for workers' insurance. In some provinces there are provincial guardianship offices, forestry committees, orders of public charity, provincial zemstvo assemblies, provincial zemstvo councils and provincial committees and councils for zemstvo affairs. 4
15. County places and authorities are: county police officer; county congress or county presence for peasant affairs; county conscription presence; county doctors; county committees of public health and smallpox; noble guardianship; county administrative committee; county zemstvo assembly; county zemstvo government; county committee and county council for zemstvo affairs.
16. City authorities and places are: in the cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopol, Kerch, Nikolaev, Rostov-on-Don, together with Nakhichevan 5 and in the city of Baku: mayor; in cities with a separate police force from the district police - the chief of police; city doctors; city council; city government; city mayor; orphan's court; city tax presence and other city regulations and ranks.
17. Where the Regulations on zemstvo district chiefs have been introduced, each zemstvo district has a zemstvo district chief. 6
201. The chiefs of the provinces are the rulers of these, determined with the title of governors by the highest discretion.
202. In some provinces, governed by the General Establishment, but having a special position, there are, in addition to governors, chiefs of the provinces under the name of governors-general. 7
208. In the order of general provincial administration, governors-general are the main guardians of the inviolability of the supreme rights of the autocracy, the benefit of the state and the exact execution of laws and orders of the highest government in all parts of the administration in the region entrusted to them.
270. The governors, as the direct superiors of the provinces entrusted to them by the Emperor’s Highest Sovereign will, are the first guardians of the inviolability of the supreme rights of the autocracy, the benefits of the state and the universal exact implementation of laws, charters, royal orders, decrees of the Governing Senate and instructions of the authorities. Having constant and careful care for the welfare of the inhabitants of all estates of the region they rule and delving into its true situation and needs, they are obliged by the action of the power given to them to protect everywhere public peace, the safety of everyone and everyone, and the observance of the established rules of order and decorum. They are also entrusted with taking measures to preserve public health, provide food for the province, deliver proper care to the suffering helpless and the highest supervision over the speedy execution of all legal decrees and requirements.
Notes
1 Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. 1892 edition. T. 2. St. Petersburg, b. G.
2 By 1913, the Russian Empire was divided into 79 provinces (among them - 8 provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland), 21 regions, 2 districts and 8 townships. The main administrative-territorial unit was the province. Mostly on the outskirts of the empire, in addition to the provinces, there were regions and districts. Some large cities formed administrative-territorial units - townships.
3 "General Provincial Institution" - the most important legislative act that regulated the organization of local government of the Russian Empire. In terms of content, it basically went back to the "Institutions for the management of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" (1775). By 1913, 50 provinces of European Russia were governed in accordance with the "General Institution". "Special Institutions" (rules), i.e. special legislative acts determined the organization of the administrative apparatus in other regions of the empire (the Kingdom of Poland, Siberia, Central Asia, etc.).
4 In connection with some changes in the administrative-territorial division of the empire, in the organization of provincial and district authorities in Art. 14-16 of the "General Institution of the Provincial" edition of 1892, certain corrections were made by 1913. See: Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Continuation of 1912. Part 2 SPb., b. d. In this publication, these articles are given in the edition in which they were valid in 1913.
5 This refers to the city of Nakhichevan on the Don, located near Rostov-on-Don. Subsequently, this city merged with Rostov, becoming one of its districts.
6 The Institute of zemstvo district chiefs, called upon to oversee the activities of peasant class self-government bodies, was established in 1889 in 40 provinces of European Russia, the rural territory of the county was divided into zemstvo sections subordinate to the corresponding zemstvo chiefs.
7 Governor-generals were usually appointed to manage several provinces or regions, which in this case formed a special administrative-territorial unit - the governor-general or region, as well as the capital provinces - St. Petersburg and Moscow. The governor-generals represented the central authority in the Grand Duchy of Finland. By 1913, the institution of governors-general was mainly preserved on the outskirts of the empire, where the corresponding "Special Institutions" operated (see note 3). The provinces, regions and districts of the Caucasus in 1913 were united in the governorship headed by governors.
Governors. 1913
Total 68 people
estate origin
Peasants |
Hereditary honorary citizens |
Clergy |
Children of officers and officials |
No information |
||||
Availability of ranks
Had titles |
||||||
adjutant general and retinue general |
chamberlain |
secretary of state |
||||
| Military and naval | ||||||
| Civil | ||||||
| courtiers | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
* One governor, having the court rank of master of ceremonies, was also a real state councilor (civil rank IV class
Religion
Over 65 |
||||||||
Education
Degree |
Inferior, including domestic |
|||||
civil |
civil |
|||||
Availability of land
Having other property
The number of persons who served and were in active public service in 1913 *
| Office of the Orthodox Confession | |
| Ministry of Trade and Industry | |
| Imperial Humanitarian Society | |
| Ministry of Public Education | |
| Ministry of Finance | |
| Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
| Ministry of Justice | |
| Ministry of the Imperial Court | |
| Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture | |
| Vicegerency of His Imperial Majesty in the Caucasus | |
| Office of the Council of Ministers | |
| Main Department of the State Horse Breeding | |
| Institutions of Empress Maria | |
| Department of Institutions of Empress Maria | |
| Children's shelters | |
| State Chancellery and State Printing House | |
| Ministry of Railways | |
| State control | |
| Lyceum | |
| Office of His Imperial Majesty for the Acceptance of Petitions | |
| Total |
* RGIA. F. 1409. 0p.14. 1913, D. 407. L. 5.
** Data for 1912.
Zemstvo and city self-government of the Russian Empire
N.G. Queen
Local self-government was represented in Russia by zemstvo (since 1864) and city (since 1870) elected representative institutions - zemstvo provincial and district assemblies and their executive bodies - governments, in cities - city dumas and city governments. They were in charge of matters related exclusively to local economic "benefits and needs": issues of improvement, construction and maintenance of roads, public education and health, food business, care for the development of local industry and trade, veterinary and fire services, charitable institutions, etc. .P. The basis of the budget was the estimated taxation of real estate (land, buildings, industrial and commercial establishments), duties, income from municipal enterprises and property, donations, etc.
Elections to representative bodies of local self-government were held on the basis of the curia-property system. Zemsky "Regulations" of June 12, 1890 established two electoral congresses for the election of zemstvo vowels: for participation in the first congress, which was composed of county landowners, a qualification was set - from 125 to 300 dessiatins. (depending on the region); for participation in the second congress (from cities and urban-type settlements) the qualification was 12 thousand rubles. from turnover. The participation of the peasants was not direct: rural and volost meetings elected candidates, from whom the governor appointed vowels. After the revolution of 1905-1907. The county electoral congress from rural societies was restored. In cities, elections to city dumas were held according to the so-called "three-class" electoral system - in in accordance with the amount of the fee paid in favor of the city. The law of June 2, 1892 replaced the tax qualification with a property one: owners of immovable property valued at least 1-1.5 thousand rubles received the right to vote. in provincial, 300-500 rubles. county towns and up to 300 rubles. - urban-type settlements.
Zemstvo self-government until the beginning of the 20th century. was introduced in 34 provinces of European Russia, in 1911-1912. it was extended to 6 more western provinces (Vitebsk, Volyn, Mogilev, Minsk, Podolsk, Kyiv).
Information about the composition and activities of local self-government bodies was received by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which from time to time published them in the Statistical Yearbook of Russia. During the winter session of 1913/1914. only a part of zemstvos and city dumas published their estimates. To fill the gap, the Council of Congresses of Representatives of Industry and Trade used the information it received from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, publishing them in its Yearbook. The statistics given in the handbook is practically the only published summary document on zemstvo and city incomes and expenditures on the eve of the First World War.
Table 1
Class and property composition of provincial vowels
Estates |
Over 5 qualifications |
1-5 qualifications * |
Less than 0.1 qualification |
Allotment lands |
Without real estate |
|||
Vowels elected by county assemblies |
||||||||
| nobles | ||||||||
| Peasants | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| % | ||||||||
Vowels included by position |
||||||||
| nobles | ||||||||
| Peasants | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| % | ||||||||
General composition of vowels |
||||||||
| nobles | ||||||||
| Peasants | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| % | ||||||||
Distribution of vowels by type of real estate |
||||||||
| Land | ||||||||
| non-land: | ||||||||
| in the county | ||||||||
| in the town | ||||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| % | ||||||||
Source: RGIA. F.1288. 0p.2. 1906. D.113. L.34-40; Dyakin V.S. Zemstvo in the Third June Monarchy. Historical notes. T.115. P.98. The discrepancy between the results in the distribution of vowels by class and type of property is explained by the lack of data on the type of property of II vowels.
* 1 qualification fluctuated in different provinces from 150 to 300 dess.
table 2
The general composition of the voters of the first and second assemblies of 1912-1913.
Provinces * |
Land qualification |
non-land qualification |
Total about | ||||
incomplete |
incomplete |
||||||
| Petersburg | |||||||
| Northwestern | |||||||
| North Eastern | |||||||
| Central industrial | |||||||
| Volga | |||||||
| Central Black Earth | |||||||
| Southern | |||||||
| Ukrainian | |||||||
| Total for 33 provinces | |||||||
| % | |||||||
| % to the total of 1906-1907 | |||||||
Source: Dyakin V.S. Zemstvo in the Third June Monarchy. (Historical notes. T. 115. P. 98.).
* Northwestern provinces: Novgorod and Pskov; North-Eastern: Vyatka, Vologda, Perm, Olonets; Central Industrial: Vladimir, Kaluga, Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, Smolensk, Tver, Yaroslavl; Volga region: Kazan, Penza, Samara, Saratov, Simbirsk, Ufa; Central Black Earth: Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Ryazan, Tambov, Tula; Southern: Bessarabian, Tauride, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson; Ukrainian: Poltava, Chernihiv, Kharkiv.
Table 3
Zemstvo income in 1913 (in thousand rubles)
| provinces | Accounts of previous years |
Income from property and quitrent items belonging to the Zemstvo |
Miscellaneous fees |
Zemstvo allowances and reimbursement of expenses |
Miscellaneous receipts |
From certificates for the right to trade and crafts |
From real estate |
For provincial needs |
|
| Bessarabian | |||||||||
| Vladimirskaya | |||||||||
| Vologda | |||||||||
| Voronezh | |||||||||
| Vyatskaya | |||||||||
| Yekaterinoslavskaya | |||||||||
| Kazanskaya | |||||||||
| Kaluga | |||||||||
| Kostroma | |||||||||
| Kursk | |||||||||
| Moscow | |||||||||
| Nizhny Novgorod | |||||||||
| Novgorod | |||||||||
| Olonetskaya | |||||||||
| Orlovskaya | |||||||||
| Penza | |||||||||
| Perm | |||||||||
| Poltava | |||||||||
| Pskovskaya | |||||||||
| Ryazan | |||||||||
| Samara | |||||||||
| St. Petersburg | |||||||||
| Saratov | |||||||||
| Simbirskaya | |||||||||
| Smolensk | |||||||||
| Tauride | |||||||||
| Tambov | |||||||||
| Tverskaya | |||||||||
| Tula | |||||||||
| Ufa | |||||||||
| Kharkiv | |||||||||
| Kherson | |||||||||
| Chernihiv | |||||||||
| Yaroslavskaya | |||||||||
| Total for 34 lips. | |||||||||
| Vitebsk | |||||||||
| Volyn | |||||||||
| Kyiv | |||||||||
| Minsk | |||||||||
| Mogilevskaya | |||||||||
| Podolskaya | |||||||||
| A total of 40 lips. |
Source: Statistical Yearbook for 1914, St. Petersburg, pp. 430-431.
Table 4
Zemstvo expenses in 1913 (in thousand rubles)
provinces |
Participation in government spending |
Arrangement and maintenance of places of detention |
road service |
public education |
public charity |
Medical unit |
|
| Bessarabian | |||||||
| Vladimirskaya | |||||||
| Vologda | |||||||
| Voronezh | |||||||
| Vyatskaya | |||||||
| Yekaterinoslavskaya | |||||||
| Kazanskaya | |||||||
| Kaluga | |||||||
| Kostroma | |||||||
| Kursk | |||||||
| Moscow | |||||||
| Nizhny Novgorod | |||||||
| Novgorod | |||||||
| Orlovskaya | |||||||
| Penza | |||||||
| Perm | |||||||
| Poltava | |||||||
| Pskovskaya | |||||||
| Ryazan | |||||||
| Samara | |||||||
| St. Petersburg | |||||||
| Saratov | |||||||
| Simbirskaya | |||||||
| Smolensk | |||||||
| Tauride | |||||||
| Tambov | |||||||
| Tverskaya | |||||||
| Tula | |||||||
| Ufa | |||||||
| Kharkiv | |||||||
| Kherson | |||||||
| Chernihiv | |||||||
| Yaroslavskaya | |||||||
| Total for 34 lips. | |||||||
| Vitebsk | |||||||
| Volyn | |||||||
| Kyiv | |||||||
| Minsk | |||||||
| Mogilevskaya | |||||||
| Podolskaya | |||||||
| A total of 40 lips. |
Table 4 (continued)
Veterinary |
Promoting Economic Welfare |
Payment of debts |
Miscellaneous expenses |
Deduction for the formation of capital |
Spare amounts |
For provincial needs and arrears of zemstvo dues |
|
