social order of the 19th century. The social system of Russia in the first half of the 19th century
By the middle of the XIX century. Russia's lagging behind the advanced capitalist states in the economic and socio-political spheres was clearly manifested. That's why main goal domestic policy of the government in the second half of the XIX century. was bringing the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time while maintaining autocracy. Peasant question since the middle of the XIX century. has become a major problem in Russia. The need to eliminate serfdom was due to a number of reasons: 1. The serf system has outlived itself economically: the landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, increasingly fell into decay. 2. Serfdom interfered with the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital. 3. The peasants openly protested against serfdom. 4. Among the European states, serfdom remained only in Russia, which was a shame for her and relegated the country to the category of backward states. The preparation of the peasant reform was carried out by the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs. On February 19, 1861, the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was published. The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. The peasant was freed from the personal guardianship of the landowner, he could own property and make deals. At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited to the preservation of the community. During the liberation, the peasants were provided with plots of land that were 20% smaller than those plots that they used under serfdom. For the land, the peasants had to pay the landowners a ransom, the value of which was 1.5 times the market value of the land. 80% of the ransom was paid to the landowners by the state. Peasants within 15 years had to pay the debt to the state with interest. The reform of 1861 brought freedom to more than 30 million serfs and contributed to the formation of capitalist relations in the countryside. However, the reform made it possible to preserve landownership and doomed the peasants to lack of land and poverty. Thus, the reform of 1861 did not remove the agrarian question in Russia. The abolition of serfdom in Russia entailed zemstvo, city, judicial, military and other reforms. In 1864, local self-government, the zemstvo, was introduced. Representatives of all estates elected county zemstvo assemblies, which sent deputies to the provincial zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos were in charge of economic issues, schools, and medicine. In 1870, self-government bodies were created in the cities. City voters elected the city duma, which formed the council. In 1864, a judicial reform was carried out. Class, closed court was abolished. More simple cases were referred to magistrates and judicial chambers. The jury decided on the guilt of the defendant. The trial became oral, public, adversarial. In 1863, the university charter was approved, which returned autonomy to universities: the election of rectors and deans was introduced, the university council received the right to independently resolve a number of issues. In 1864, a new provision was introduced on primary public schools, according to which the state, church and society were to be involved in the education of the people. In 1865 preliminary censorship was abolished for publications in the capital. The reforms also affected the army. The country was divided into 15 military regions. Since 1871, universal military service was introduced for men over the age of 20 (the term of service in ground forces up to 6 years, and in the Navy - up to 7 years). The reforms carried out were progressive. Russia, to a certain extent, approached the advanced European model for that time. However, many reforms were characterized by inconsistency and incompleteness. In addition, they were closely connected with the personality of Alexander II himself. After the death of Alexander II from a terrorist bomb, his son became emperor in 1881 Alexander III. The tsar's inner circle consisted of the most reactionary politicians: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, Minister of the Interior Count D. A. Tolstoy, and publicist M. N. Katkov. In domestic politics Russia began the era of reaction. In April 1881, the manifesto "On the inviolability of autocracy" was promulgated, and in August the "Regulation on enhanced protection" followed, which gave the government the right to introduce state of emergency and military courts. Since 1883, security departments began to operate. In order to strengthen the positions of the nobility in the system of local government and limit the functions of zemstvos, a new "Regulations on provinces and county zemstvo institutions" (1890) and "City Regulations" (1892) were adopted. The government sought to completely subdue secondary school control of the state and church. In 1887, a circular about "cook's children" was introduced, which did not allow children from the lower classes to enter the gymnasium. In 1884, the new University Charter eliminated the autonomy of universities. The Provisional Rules on the Press of 1882 put an end to the liberal censorship policy of the 1960s. Not only the Ministry of the Interior, but also the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod received the right to close any publication. Reactionary transformations of the 1880s - 1890s were called counter-reforms. They actually canceled many results of the reforms of the 1860s, mothballed the crisis and paved the way for the crisis of the early twentieth century.
45. Judicial reform of 1864.
The judicial system of Russia until the 60s of the XIX century. was determined by the provisions of the Institution of the provinces in 1775. The court was not separated from the administration and had a pronounced estate character. The judicial system was extremely complex. The legal proceedings, as before, were of a clerical nature, the theory of formal evaluation of evidence continued to be applied in it, there was no publicity of the process, there was no equality of the parties, the accused did not have the right to defense. The shortcomings of the judicial system and legal proceedings caused dissatisfaction even among the privileged classes (not only the bourgeoisie, but also the nobility) ". In 1864, after a long preparation, the following documents were approved, which constituted the judicial reform as a whole: 1) Institutions of judicial institutions; 2) The Charter of criminal justice 3) Charter of Civil Procedure 4) Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace Judicial reform of 1864 proclaimed the bourgeois principles of the judiciary and legal proceedings: independence and separation of the court from the administration, creation of an all-class court, equality of all before the court, introduction of jurors, the creation of a clearer system of judicial instances.The judicial statutes of November 20, 1864, decisively broke with the pre-reform judiciary and legal proceedings. ness of legal proceedings; when considering criminal cases in the district court, the participation of jurors was envisaged. It's all characteristics bourgeois court. The world court was created in counties and cities to consider minor criminal cases. The magistrate's court had jurisdiction over cases for which a punishment in the form of a reprimand, remark or suggestion, a fine not exceeding 300 rubles, arrest not more than three months, or imprisonment not more than a year followed. When considering criminal cases in the district court, the institution of jurors was provided. It was introduced despite the resistance of conservative forces and even the reluctance of Alexander II himself. They motivated their negative attitude towards the idea of jurors by the fact that the people had not grown up to this yet, and such a trial would inevitably have a "political character". According to the judicial statutes, a juror could be a citizen of Russia aged 25 to 70, who was not under trial and investigation, who was not excluded from service in court and was not subjected to public condemnation for vices, who was not under guardianship, who did not suffer from mental illness, blindness, dumb and lived in this county for at least two years. A relatively high property qualification was also required. The second instance for district courts was the Judicial Chamber, which had departments. Its chairman and members were approved by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. It served as the appellate court for civil and criminal cases heard in district courts without a jury. The Senate was regarded as the supreme court of cassation and had criminal and civil cassation departments. Senators were appointed by the king on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. The prosecutor's office was reorganized, it was included in the judicial department, it was headed by the prosecutor general, who is also the minister of justice. Chairmen of courts, prosecutors and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and judicial investigators were irremovable, they were assigned high salaries in order to secure honest professionals for judicial institutions. The largest step towards the introduction of the principles of bourgeois justice was the establishment of the institution of the Bar. On November 20, 1866, it was allowed "to print in all time-based publications about what happens in the courts." Court reports reporting on Russian and foreign trials are becoming a prominent phenomenon in the press.
46. Zemstvo reform 1864.
On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” - a legislative act that introduced the zemstvo. It must be borne in mind that for a country whose majority of the population were peasants who had just freed themselves from serfdom, the introduction of local governments was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various estates of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-class organizations, such as noble assemblies. The feudal lords were indignant at the fact that on the bench in the zemstvo assembly "a slave of yesterday is sitting next to his recent master." Indeed, various estates were represented in the zemstvos - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, industrialists, philistines and peasants. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels. The chairmen of the meetings were the leaders of the noble self-government - the leaders of the nobility. The meetings formed the executive bodies - district and provincial zemstvo councils. Zemstvos received the right to collect taxes for their needs and to hire employees. The sphere of activity of the new bodies of all-estate self-government was limited only to economic and cultural affairs: the maintenance of local means of communication, care for the medical care of the population, public education, local trade and industry, national food, etc. New bodies of all-estate self-government were introduced only at the level of provinces and districts. There was no central zemstvo representation, and there was no small zemstvo unit in the volost. Contemporaries wittily called the Zemstvo "a building without a foundation and a roof." The slogan "crowning the building" has since become the main slogan of the Russian liberals for 40 years - until the creation of the State Duma.
47. City reform of 1870.
Russia's entry onto the path of capitalism was marked by the rapid development of cities, a change in the social structure of their population, and led to an increase in the role of cities as centers of the economic, socio-political and cultural life of the country. The city reform of 1870 created all-estate bodies of local self-government. Administrative functions were no longer assigned to the entire city society, but to its representative body - the Duma. Elections to the Duma took place every four years. The number of members of the Duma - vowels - was quite significant: depending on the number of voters in the city - from 30 to 72 people. There were much more vowels in the capital's dumas: in Moscow - 180, St. Petersburg - 252. At a meeting of the duma, an executive body of public administration was elected - the council and the mayor, who was the chairman of both the executive and administrative bodies. Suffrage was based on the bourgeois property qualification. The right to participate in elections, regardless of class, was given to owners of immovable property taxed in favor of the city, as well as persons paying certain commercial and industrial fees to it. Various departments, institutions, societies, companies, churches, monasteries also used the right to vote as a legal entity. Only men who had reached the age of 25 were allowed to take part in the voting personally. Women who had the necessary electoral qualifications could participate in elections only through their proxies. In fact, hired workers, the overwhelming majority of whom did not own real estate, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population, people of mental labor: engineers, doctors, teachers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, turned out to be deprived of the right to vote, but rented apartments. The tasks of managing the municipal economy were entrusted to new public institutions. A wide range of issues of urban economy and improvement were transferred to their jurisdiction: water supply, sewerage, street lighting, transport, landscaping, urban planning problems, etc. City dumas were also obliged to take care of the “public welfare”: to assist in providing the population with food, to take measures against fires and other disasters, to help protect “public health” (set up hospitals, help the police in carrying out sanitary and hygienic measures), to take measures against beggary, promote the spread public education(establish schools, museums, etc.)
In the first half of the 19th century, Russia was an absolutist and feudal state. At the head of the empire was the king, who concentrated everything more and more; control threads in their hands. However, officially the entire population was still divided into four estates: the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry and urban residents.
Nobility, as in the previous period, was the economically and politically dominant class. The nobles owned most of the land, they had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. They formed the basis of the state apparatus, occupying all command positions in it.
Clergy still divided into black (monastic) and white (parish). However, the legal status of this class, which finally turned into a service class, has changed significantly. On the one hand, the ministers of the church themselves received even greater privileges. On the other hand, the autocracy sought to limit the clergy only to persons directly serving in churches.
feudal dependents peasants constituted the bulk of the population. They were subdivided into landlord, state, sessional and appanage belonging to the royal family. Particularly difficult, as in previous years, was the situation of the landlord peasants. In the 10th volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (civil and boundary laws), serfs were ranked as movable property. Since 1816 part of the state peasants was transferred to the position of military settlers. They should have been doing agriculture, handing over half of the harvest to the state, and carry out military service.
Merchants and tradesmen constituted only a few percent of the population.
was in a special position Cossacks- a paramilitary class that performed the function of protecting the border areas of the state.
With the beginning of the industrial revolution, the formation of a new social stratum is associated - civilian workers. Poor townspeople, state peasants and serfs were employed at manufactories and factories, who left to work with the permission of their masters. By 1860, 4/5 of the workers were civilians.
In the second half of the XIX social development Russia was determined by the conditions and the course of the implementation of the peasant reform and the development of capitalist relations.
The class division of society has been preserved. Each class (nobles, peasants, merchants, philistines, clergy) had clearly defined privileges or restrictions. The development of capitalism gradually changed the social structure and appearance of estates, formed two new social groups - the classes of capitalist society (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). AT social structure intertwined features of the old and new social order.
The dominant position in the country still belonged to nobles. The nobility remained the backbone of the autocracy, occupied key positions in the bureaucracy, the army and public life. Some nobles, adapting to new conditions, actively participated in industrial and financial activities.
grew fast bourgeoisie, which was formed from the merchants, bourgeoisie, representatives of the wealthy peasantry. It gradually gained economic strength, but played an insignificant role in political life countries. Weak and unorganized, it supported the autocracy, which ensured the expansionist foreign policy and the possibility of exploitation of workers.
Peasants remained the largest social group. Having received freedom in 1861, they hardly adapted to their new social position. For this estate, numerous restrictions continued to be maintained in a wide variety of ways. social spheres. The community remained unshakable, limiting the legal, economic and personal life of the peasant. The community slowed down the social stratification of the peasants, but could not prevent it. It was moving at a slow pace. However, the penetration of capitalist relations into the countryside contributed to the division of the villagers into kulaks (rural bourgeoisie) and the bulk of the poor and half-ruined peasantry.
The impoverished peasantry and the urban poor served as a source of formation proletariat. The peculiarity of the working class in Russia was that it did not break its ties with the countryside. Therefore, the maturation of the cadre proletariat proceeded at a slow pace.
The main contradiction in the development Russian society, born in the previous century, followed from the imminent formational changes: capitalism was approaching to replace feudalism. Already in the previous period, the crisis of the feudal system of economy was revealed. Now it's coming with increasing force. Feudalism is increasingly showing its economic failure. At the same time, the crisis of the feudal-serf system becomes comprehensive, covering all the most important spheres of the economy.
In industry, serf manufacture cannot withstand competition with capitalist manufacture, with the bourgeois organization of production. Capitalism ensures an immeasurably greater productivity of labor and works with extraordinary flexibility and resourcefulness in difficult conditions, when all the foundations of feudalism, primarily serfdom, prevent it from attracting labor force into production and narrow the home market. The victory of bourgeois production is ensured by the use of hired labor and the introduction of machinery. Manufactory is replaced by a factory. During this period, the industrial revolution begins. From 1825 to 1860 number large enterprises the manufacturing industry and the workers employed in it has tripled. And it is no coincidence that in this industry by 1860 4/5 of the workers were already hired. At the same time, the share of serf workers in the entire industry was another 44%.
Wage labor created an incentive to increase the productivity of a worker interested in the results of production, and the use of machines saved labor power, which was so scarce under feudalism and serfdom. Attempts to use machines in the serf industry run up against the low professional level of the serf worker, and most importantly, his unwillingness to work, since he is not interested in raising labor productivity, but quite the opposite - in saving his labor, simply speaking, in working as possible less.
Violation of the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the nature of the productive forces is also evident in agriculture.
In the 19th century Western Europe is increasingly in need of Russian bread. From 1831 to 1860 the average annual export of grain from Russia increased from 18 million to 69 million poods. At the same time, the domestic market also grew: the sale of bread on it was 9 times higher than exports. Meanwhile, the grain yield at the beginning of the century averaged 2.5 (i.e., 1 sack of seed yielded 2.5 sacks of harvested grain). Consequently, the yield did not differ significantly from what it was centuries ago.
The landowners are trying by various means to increase the marketability of their estates. Some do this by putting even greater pressure on the peasant. In the "exemplary" estate of Count Orlov-Davydov, the whole life of a serf was strictly regulated, for which a special Code was issued. This patrimonial "law" provided for a complex system of punishments for the peasants' negligence to work and even for failure to marry on time: the landowner needed constant replenishment of the labor force.
Other landlords are trying to increase the profitability of their estates by innovation, but this does not give them success. Innovations fail because of the same lack of interest of the peasant in his work.
All-round pressure on the peasant only engenders the growth of class resistance. After a lull at the very beginning of the century, peasant unrest grows, especially intensifying at certain moments. Yes, after Patriotic War 1812, which gave rise to some illusions in the peasantry, widespread indignation of the peasants broke out when their hopes for making life easier did not come true. A new wave of peasant protests swept in connection with the accession of Nicholas I to the throne. In 1826 alone, 178 peasant uprisings were registered. At the end of the reign of Nicholas, the number of peasant unrest increased by 1.5 times.
The ever-increasing development of bourgeois relations in the economy, the crisis of the feudal economy cannot but be reflected in the social structure of society, where capitalism is maturing in the depths of feudalism.
The most important moment determining the changes in the social structure during this period is that instead of the former main classes, the main classes of bourgeois society are gradually taking shape - the capitalists and wage workers, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The formation of new classes, as before, is due to the decomposition of the old ones. The bourgeoisie was formed mainly from the merchant class and the top of the peasantry, who managed to get rich in one way or another. Such peasants, sometimes even landlords, were released by their master for rent, enriched themselves, bringing the master a much greater benefit than if they worked on arable land. A significant part of the Ivanovo factory owners came from the wealthy serfs, who exploited tens of thousands of their own fellow villagers. The Russian bourgeoisie of the first half of the 19th century, growing in numbers and getting richer, remained, however, weak political force. In any case, she, as in previous centuries, did not even think about political power. The Russian bourgeoisie was not a revolutionary force. The first troublemakers in Russia in the XIX century. the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists and Herzen became, and then - the revolutionary democrats-raznochintsy.
Due to the decomposition of the old classes, the proletariat also took shape. It was formed from artisans and the urban lower classes, but the main source of its formation was, again, the peasantry. The landowners of predominantly non-Chernozem provinces, as already noted, often let their peasants go to work on the condition of paying dues. These peasants entered factories and plants and were exploited as hired workers.
Such a form of capitalist organization of production was also widespread, when an entrepreneur distributed work among peasant huts, thus not caring about either the premises or the equipment. The serf became a worker without even noticing it.
The formation of new social classes gave rise to fundamentally new class antagonisms, the struggle of labor against capital. Already in the 1930s and 1940s, a labor movement emerged. Tsarism has to take this new factor into account in its policy: in 1835 and 1845. the first labor laws are issued, protecting the elementary rights of workers, albeit to a negligible extent.
The formation of new classes took place within the framework of the former class system. The division of society into estates remained in principle unshakable. Despite all the shifts in the economy, the legal status of certain groups of the population was the same. However, a small concession had to be made to the growing bourgeoisie. In 1832, a new state was introduced as part of the class of urban residents - honorary citizenship. Honorary citizens were an exempt estate, in their status close to the nobility. This concession to the bourgeoisie also had the goal of protecting the nobility from the penetration of socially alien elements into it, inasmuch as the isolation of the nobility is intensifying. In 1810, Alexander I allowed the top merchants to acquire inhabited lands from the treasury, specifically stipulating that this, however, does not give the buyer any noble rights. At the same time, as early as 1801, the distribution of new estates to the nobles was prohibited. Under Nicholas I, measures are being taken to make it difficult to acquire the nobility in the service. In 1845, the requirements for civil servants applying for the nobility were sharply increased. To acquire hereditary nobility, it was now necessary to rise to the rank of headquarters officer in the army and to the 5th class in civilian service. Among the nobles themselves, inequality was established depending on their property status in favor, of course, of the largest, richest landowners. In 1831, a procedure was introduced according to which only large landowners and peasant owners could directly participate in the elections of the nobility, while others voted only indirectly. I must say that the property status of the nobility was very heterogeneous. In the second quarter of the XIX century. There were more than 250 thousand nobles, of which about 150 thousand did not have peasants, more than 100 thousand were themselves engaged in arable farming.
The economic development of the country, the peasant movement forced to take some steps towards the weakening of serfdom. Even the chief of the gendarmes, Benckendorff, wrote to the tsar about the need for a gradual emancipation of the peasants. In 1803, the well-known Decree on free cultivators was adopted; in 1842, landowners were allowed to transfer land to peasants for certain duties; in 1848, peasants were allowed to buy real estate. It is obvious that these steps towards the emancipation of the peasants did not introduce significant changes in their legal status. It is only important to note that institutions were tested in the legislation on the peasantry, which would later be used in the peasant reform of 1861. (repurchase of land, "obligated state", etc.).
The class and estate division of Russian society was supplemented by an ethnic division. Russia, which has been a multi-ethnic state since time immemorial, has become even more multi-ethnic in this period. It included areas that stood at different levels economic development, and this could not but affect the social structure of the empire. At the same time, all the territories that again entered the Russian Empire were typologically related to the feudal formation, although at different stages of development. Consequently, their class and estate structure was, in principle, of the same type.
The accession of new territories to Russia meant the inclusion of foreign feudal lords in the general structure of Russian feudal lords, and the feudal-dependent population - in the composition of the exploited. However, such inclusion did not take place mechanically, but had certain features. Back in the 18th century the tsarist government granted all the rights of the Russian nobility to the Baltic barons. Moreover, they received privileges even in comparison with the Russian nobles. The Polish feudal lords also initially received Russian rights. Moldavian boyars in Bessarabia also acquired the rights of Russian nobles. In 1827, the Georgian nobles also received such rights. In the 19th century, as before, people were accepted into the civil service, regardless of their nationality. In the official lists of officials there was not even a column about nationality.
As for the workers, the peasants of other nationalities had certain advantages over the Great Russians. In the Baltics, the emancipation of the peasants was carried out earlier than in Central Russia. Personal freedom was preserved for the peasants of the Kingdom of Poland and Finland. Moldovan peasants were given the right to move. In Northern Azerbaijan, the tsarist government confiscated the lands of recalcitrant feudal lords, which accounted for 3/4 of all land holdings in the region. At the same time, the peasants who lived on such lands were exempted from the duties of their former feudal lords and moved to the position of state peasants. Kazakhs also received the rights of state peasants. Moreover, they were allowed to move to other classes. Slavery, which still took place in Kazakhstan, was banned. The Kazakh population was freed from recruitment, which oppressed the Russian peasants with a heavy oppression.
Thus, non-national peasants either gained or, at least, did not lose anything from joining Russia.
As for the lords, their interests continue to clash with the interests of the Russian feudal lords, and this gives rise to a certain wave of local nationalism. True, tsarism pursued a rather flexible policy towards foreign feudal lords, trying to win them over to its side, and in most cases it succeeded.
Changes in the state mechanism
In development Russian state stands out as an independent period from the beginning of the XIX century. until 1861. At this time, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, absolutism reaches its zenith. All power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the emperor of all Russia. In the Fundamental Laws that open the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, the idea of autocracy is formulated clearly and categorically: “The Emperor of Russia is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. God himself commands to obey his supreme authority not only out of fear, but also out of conscience. As before, as we see, autocracy is ideologically justified by divine origin. At the same time, a new idea appears - the idea of the legitimacy of the power of the monarch.
The emperor in this period sought to personally intervene even in the minutiae of state administration. Of course, such an aspiration was limited by real human capabilities: the tsar was not able to do without state bodies that would carry out his desires, his policies. The Russian ambassador in London, Count S. R. Vorontsov, wrote in a private letter in 1801: “The country is too vast for the sovereign, even if he is the second Peter the Great, to do everything himself under the existing form of government without a constitution, without firm laws, without irremovable and independent courts”.
There were talks about the constitution under Alexander I. Even two drafts were drawn up - M. M. Speransky, and later - Η. Η. Novosiltsev. Despite the fact that they were drawn up with the expectation not to shake the foundations of the autocracy in any way, things did not go beyond the author's exercises.
Quietly doing without a constitution, Russian emperors could not at the same time do without improving the state apparatus, without adapting it to the needs of the new time. According to modern researchers, the need for reform was due to two main circumstances. First, the development of bourgeois relations in Russia and the bourgeois revolution in the West required that the state apparatus be adapted so that it could defend the feudal system. Secondly, the nobility, its elite, including the top officials, wanted to keep the emperor in their hands so that he would not take it into his head to encroach on their class privileges, the objective need to limit which was long overdue.
The development of the state mechanism as a whole is characterized in the pre-reform period by conservatism and reactionaryness. The changes that have taken place in it are small and refer mainly to the very beginning of the century, when the young Alexander I, with a circle of like-minded aristocrats, decided to carry out liberal reforms. These reforms, however, stopped at the establishment of ministries and the Council of State.
Having received an order from the emperor to develop a project for the transformation of the state mechanism, M. M. Speransky proposed the creation of the State Duma - a representative body elected by the owners of real estate, which was given legislative prerogatives. At the same time, it was proposed to create a purely bureaucratic State Council, which would also be entrusted with legislative and, at the same time, administrative duties. The idea of the State Duma was resolutely rejected, because it was seen as an attempt to limit the autocracy, and the State Council was created in 1810.
All bills had to pass through the Council of State. He himself had to develop the most important of them. At the same time, in the "Formation of the State Council" it was emphasized that not a single project can become a law without the approval of its emperor. The State Council was also responsible for financial management.
The council consisted of a general meeting and 4 departments: the department of laws, departments of military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, and state economy. The emperor himself was considered the chairman of the State Council. However, it was envisaged that he could entrust the chairmanship function to one of the members of the Council. Practically during the period under review, the tsar himself never presided over the Council.
Even earlier, the sectoral management bodies were reformed. Petrovsky collegiums already during the 18th century. gradually withered. The principle of collegiality that existed in these bodies was increasingly replaced by the one-man command of their presidents, and the collegiums themselves were abolished one after another under Catherine II. At the very beginning of his reign, in 1802, Alexander I introduced new bodies of branch management - ministries. The experience of their work was summarized and consolidated in 1811 by the "General Establishment of Ministries". Ministries of foreign affairs, military, financial, justice, etc. were created. The circle of ministries changed throughout the period.
The main difference between ministries and collegiums was the approval of the principle of unity of command. The minister was fully responsible for the management of the branch of government entrusted to him and had all the powers to carry out this task. He was like an autocrat in his field of activity.
Simultaneously with the ministries, the Committee of Ministers was created. True, the regulation on it was published ten years later, in 1812. It was an advisory body under the tsar, which had, first of all, interdepartmental and supra-departmental functions, that is, it resolved issues relating to several ministries at once or exceeding the competence of the minister. In addition, he also had his own terms of reference, in particular. The committee oversaw governors and provincial boards. The Committee of Ministers included chairmen of departments of the State Council, ministers, heads of departments, and the Secretary of State.
The institution, which most clearly reflected the absolutist order of the structure of the highest governing bodies, was His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Under Nicholas, she actually stood over the entire apparatus of government. The fate of the state was decided by a small handful of people who were directly subordinate to the king. Under Nicholas I, 6 departments were created in this office, the rights of which almost did not differ from the rights of the ministries. Particularly well known is the notorious III Section, which waged a struggle against revolutionary and, in general, progressive moods in society. He was given a corps of gendarmes, the chief of which was considered the chief head of the III department. The whole country was divided into gendarmerie districts.
The secret police existed even before Nicholas. Upon accession to the throne, Alexander I abolished the secret expedition that had existed since the 18th century. However, already in 1805, leaving for the war with Napoleon, he created the Provisional Committee of the Higher Police to monitor public opinion. After the peace of Tilsit, this committee was transformed into the Committee of Public Safety, which was also charged with the duty of perusing private letters. At the end of the reign of Alexander I, bodies of political surveillance were created in the army as well.
Another kind of fame was given to the II Department of the Imperial Chancellery. It has carried out colossal work on the systematization of Russian legislation.
Local government did not undergo significant changes during this period.
The abolition of serfdom and the implementation of a number of bourgeois reforms brought about significant changes in the social system. A wide path was opened for the development of capitalism in Russia. However, even after the reform numerous vestiges of feudalism remained, especially in agriculture.
For some time, one of the methods of conducting landowner economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for working off. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.
Capitalist relations were steadily developing in the countryside. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the obstacles created by the communal system, there was a stratification of the peasantry. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.
But the main line of struggle in the countryside ran between the landlords and the peasants. The peasantry as a whole waged a struggle against the landowners for the return of the peasant land that had been cut off in favor of the landowners during the peasant reform. Increasingly, the question of transferring all the landowners' land to the peasants was raised.
The lack of land among the peasants prompted them to look for extra work not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor to capitalist enterprises. The city was drawing the former peasants into its orbit more and more. As a result, they established themselves in capitalist production, and then their families also moved to the city. In the future, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into professional workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians. Insofar as the peasant escaped from the power of the serf-owner, to the extent that he became under the power of money, he fell into the conditions of commodity production, and became dependent on the nascent capital.
In the post-reform period, new plants and factories were built in Russia. The bourgeoisie, using a large influx of cheap labor, is developing industry at a gigantic pace, deriving superprofits from it. In the main branches of industry, the industrial revolution (the transition from manufactories to machine production) is being completed, and labor productivity is increasing.
Russia is rapidly overcoming its industrial backwardness. This was facilitated by the fact that Russian capitalists, creating new factories and plants (and the vast majority of new enterprises), equipped them with the most modern equipment for that time.
Russian industry was gaining such a powerful pace of development that by the end of the 19th century. prerequisites for the country's entry into a higher stage arose.
An important consequence of the development of capitalism in Russia was the formation of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which enter the political arena, actively joining in the struggle for their class interests.
The development of capitalism in Russia increasingly increases the importance of the bourgeoisie in society. However, its political positions are still not strong enough. Political power is still firmly held in the hands of the noble landowners. The preservation of class privileges gives the nobility significant political advantages: it continues to occupy key positions in the state apparatus.
The working class was brutally exploited. The length of the working day and the amount of wages were determined almost arbitrarily by the manufacturers and breeders. The capitalists were able to employ workers on conditions of low wages and long hours of work. The work and life of the workers were extremely difficult.
In the second half of the XIX century. the proletariat is actively fighting for its rights. As one of the means of protecting his interests, he uses the strike struggle.
In the 90s. social-democratic workers' organizations arise. Professional revolutionaries are active in defending the interests of the proletariat. The revolutionary propaganda of Marxism is being widely developed. Conditions are ripening for the creation in Russia of a political party of the working class. In 1898, the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was convened.
In the 70s. populist movement emerges. By the end of the century, conditions were created for the formation of a peasant political party.
By the end of the XIX century. prerequisites are also created for the emergence of bourgeois political parties, but they are formed later.
The entire population continued to be divided into nobles, clergy, peasantry and townspeople.
The nobility continued to exert a huge influence on state affairs.
Serfdom and serfdom with all its orders were the basis of noble power.
Legal status clergy is changing. It gets additional privileges. Corporal punishment of priests, deacons and their children has been abolished. The clergy were exempted from land tax (1807) and from lodging (1821).
The bulk of the population was serf peasantry. Alexander 1 and his friends condemned serfdom from a moral and ethical standpoint, but he was not a supporter of drastic measures, but hoped that the goal would be achieved through slow and cautious steps. So, in 1803, a decree “On free cultivators” was issued, giving landowners the right to release their peasants with land for a ransom by agreement of the parties.
The most difficult situation was landlord peasants. Half of the peasant income went to the landowner in the form of dues.
Urban population was divided into honorary citizens, merchants, guilds, philistines and working people.
honorary citizenship was introduced with the aim of separating the top of the emerging bourgeoisie from the general mass of the urban people. It was divided into hereditary and personal. The first was assigned by birthright, the second - on the proposal of ministers or personal request. Honorary citizens enjoyed a number of privileges: freedom of movement, exemption from corporal punishment and from personal forced labor. But the most important thing was their exemption from all taxes and taxes.
Merchants were assigned to one of the two guilds (wholesale trade - the first guild; retail - the second). Along with general rights (freedom of movement, the right to be awarded ranks and orders, freedom from corporal punishment), merchants of the first guild had the right to visit the imperial court, wear a provincial uniform, and receive the title of commercial and manufactory advisers.
Artisans divided into masters and apprentices. Only an apprentice who had been in this rank for at least three years could become a master.
Political system Russia in the first half of the 19th century.
According to the form of government Russia in the 1st half. 19th century remained an absolute monarchy. The emperor was at the head of the state apparatus. In his activity in governing the state, the tsar relied on branched ranks. apparatus.
Until 1801, the Council at the Highest Court acted as the highest deliberative body, which included the close associates of the king. In the period 1801-1810. the Permanent Council functioned, consisting of 12 representatives of the titled nobility and performing exclusively advisory functions. In 1810, the State Council was established by the tsar's manifesto - the highest legislative body Russian Empire.
The State Council consisted of five departments: laws, military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, state economy, affairs of the Kingdom of Poland. Office work was carried out by the office, headed by the Secretary of State. The State Council was liquidated in 1917. From the second quarter of the 19th century bills began to be developed in the royal office. His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery gradually became the body that led the system of central organs government controlled. It consisted of six departments, which, in turn, were subdivided into expeditions. The chancellery kept the tsar informed of all issues of state administration.
In 1802 a ministerial reform began. In accordance with the tsarist manifesto "On the Establishment of Ministries", ministries were formed instead of collegiums: the military ground forces, naval forces, foreign affairs, justice, internal affairs, finance, commerce and public education. The ministries were governed by the principle of unity of command. The ministers were entrusted with executive power within the limits of the activities of the ministries entrusted to them.
Prerequisites for the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s
The reforms carried out by Alexander II were a serious political step, which made it possible to significantly accelerate the pace of Russia's economic development and take the first steps towards the democratization of the political life of society. However, these decisions were half-hearted as objective reasons(the impossibility of instant introduction of developed capitalist forms into the economy and politics), and subjectively (fear of weakening autocratic power). The bourgeois reforms of the 1960s and 1970s could not be decisive and consistent because the ruling class was the feudal nobility, which had little interest in bourgeois transformations and in their replacement.
Of all the reforms considered special place occupies the peasant reform, which abolished serfdom and the monopoly of the nobles on populated lands. After the peasant reform, the tsarist government was forced to carry out some other transformations, including in the system of local self-government. The judicial system of Russia until the 60s of the XIX century. was determined by the provisions of the Institution of the provinces in 1775. The court was not separated from the administration and had a pronounced estate character. The judicial system was extremely complex.
The reform of the police was being prepared simultaneously with the peasant reform. The abolition of serfdom (not immediately and not completely) led to the liquidation of the patrimonial police of the landlords. This circumstance, as well as the intensification of the class struggle in the country, determined the need to create an extensive and more centralized system of police agencies.
The need to reorganize the army, based on conscription and built on a purely feudal basis, was sharply felt already in the period Crimean War 1853-1856, which revealed the complete unsuitability of the Russian armed forces, directly related to the general backwardness of the country.
In connection with the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform, the Peasant and Noble Banks were created. In 1860, the State Bank was established, as well as a network of commercial banks.
The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire continued to operate in Russia. The reforms carried out made significant changes to it, but a new codification was not carried out. An attempt to codify civil law was unsuccessful - the draft civil code, prepared at the end of the 19th century, was not approved.
Preparation and implementation of the peasant reform of 1861
It was a turning point when Alexander II reigned. He, unlike his father, understood that it was better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it was abolished from below, in connection with which he was created special secret committee on peasant issues(on changing the life and way of life of peasants).
1) the peasants received personal freedom, freedom of movement, which, of course, was not complete, since, having freed themselves from the landlords, they became dependent on the peasant communities
2) received the right to education, except for especially privileged educational institutions
3) engage public service
But the issue of land was not resolved immediately.
4) the peasants are in the position of temporarily liable until they bought out a piece of land for themselves, the amount of work or quitrent was stipulated by law, and the law regulated the size of the allotment and the amount of payment, depending on the quitrent.
6. The peasant reform of 1861. The legal status of the peasants after the abolition of serfdom.
Peasants received personal and property rights:
Marry on your own
conclude contracts,
Engage in trade, industry,
The right to conduct their own legal affairs,
The right to participate in the work of public self-government bodies,
The right to enter the service, to study,
The right to acquire movable/immovable property.
But the peasants actually received these rights on a deferment, because within 2 years it was necessary to draw up statutory letters. Exactly charter and regulated the relationship between the peasant and the landowner. Really diplomas status
landowners. The letters themselves were certified by peace mediators who smoothed out conflicts between peasants and landlords.
After the conclusion of the statutory charter, the peasants received an allotment. With the help of the allotment, the legal status of the peasant changed. He moved into the category of temporary debt. This suggested that the land was still the property of the landowner. And the peasant bears a duty for the use of the land.
The autocracy well prepared a ref-mu in order to compensate for the losses of the landowners:
1) the land was redistributed, the entire territory of the country was divided depending on the quality of the land into several regions, for each state a mandatory allotment was established.
2) The size of the allotment was determined as a result of negotiations between a particular landowner and his peasants. (This is the meaning of the Charter)
Outcome: The peasant ref-ma was extremely inconsistent. She eliminated such a feudal relic as serfdom. But she kept the serf community unchanged.
By the end of the 19th century most of the former landowner's land actually passed to the new social. group - Russian bourgeoisie.
7. Zemskaya 1864 and city 1870 reforms. Their role in the development of local self-government.
On January 1, 1864, the law on zemstvo self-government was approved. Zemstvo reform began, during which a system of local self-government bodies was created in Russia at two territorial levels - in the county and the province. The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and the executive bodies were county and provincial zemstvo councils. Zemstvo elections were held every three years. In each county, three electoral congresses (curia) were created to elect deputies of the county zemstvo assembly.
K 1st Curia(county landowners) included persons, regardless of class, who had at least 200-800 acres of land (the land qualification for different counties was not the same).
Co 2nd Curia(urban voters).
3rd curia(elected from rural communities). Electors of a given county were elected at volost gatherings, who then elected deputies of the county zemstvo assembly. Since an approximately equal number of vowels were elected from each curia, the peasants were always in the minority.
The functions of the zemstvos were quite diverse. They were in charge of the local economy (construction and maintenance of local roads, etc.), public education, medicine, and statistics. However, they could deal with all these matters only within their county or province.
Zemstvo reform had many opponents. Cause: according to the legislation of the Russian Empire, any watered. activity was prohibited! She was considered exclusive competence government. Zemstvos- these are organs of self-management, => apparatus. In this regard, the government feared that a political force would be formed on the basis of the Zemstvos, which would become in opposition to the government.
To avoid this situation, a number of restrictions have been introduced:
1) in to a large extent d-th zemstvo bodies were controlled by the governor;
2) zemstvo organs of self-government were created only in individual provinces;
3) there was no all-Russian zemstvo and self-government at the volost level;
4) the zemstvos of one province were forbidden to enter into contacts with the zemstvo institutions of other provinces.
Zemstvos played a huge role in the development of the local economy. For the normal existence of the zemstvos and to solve their problems, a special tax was established. The consequence of the work of the zemstvos was that a new social society was formed. Group - land intelligentsia. First of all, they are doctors, teachers, extras.
On June 16, 1870, the "City Regulation" was approved, which fixed the system of city self-government bodies, elected by the population for a period of 4 years.
The administrative body of the city government was city council, executive - City government which was headed mayor
Vowels in the City Duma could only be elected by payers of city taxes (homeowners)
All voters were divided into 3 curiae:
1. large taxpayers
2. average taxpayers
3. small owners