Last quarter of the 19th century. Reasons for the uniqueness of the cycles of the last quarter of the 19th century

Alexander III (1881–1894) was the second son of Alexander II. He was not prepared for reign; after the death of his eldest son, Nicholas, he became the heir to the throne. Alexander III went down in history as a peacemaker king; he was a staunch opponent of solving international problems by military means. Even during the period when the emperor was only the heir to the throne, a conservative environment formed around him (“the party of the Anichkov Palace”), in which he became the main figure K.P. Pobedonostsev. Pobedonostsev was opposed to the development of Western European democratic institutions (self-government bodies, zemstvos) on Russian soil, believing that such “talking shops” would erode the country’s state foundations and would ultimately lead to collapse. After the regicide of Alexander II, he finally decided conservative course of the new emperor:

1) politically, Alexander III considered it necessary to strengthen autocracy and class orders;

2) he rejected the project of liberal reforms supported by Alexander II;

3) in 1881, the Manifesto “On the Inviolability of Autocracy” was approved, and later the “Order on Measures to Preserve State Order and Public Peace,” according to which central power was strengthened in Russia, an emergency management regime was introduced (military courts, exile of objectionable persons , closure of liberal newspapers, elimination of autonomy of universities, etc.);

4) the country entered a stage of its development, called the period counter-reforms:

– many liberal achievements in the country were canceled, the principles that reigned in Russian life under Nicholas I were revived;

- in 1890, the “Regulations on Precinct Zemstvo Chiefs” were published, according to which zemstvos were subject to the supervision of governors, and the role of nobles was strengthened in them. The election system was transformed, a high property qualification was introduced, which reduced the number of voters several times. Zemstvo commanders had the right to apply corporal punishment to offending peasants;

– restrictions were introduced in the field of legal proceedings. Restrictions were introduced regarding the tenure of judges, the elected magistrate court was abolished, and the circle of persons from whom jurors were appointed was narrowed;

– “Temporary Rules on the Press” (1882) tightened censorship;

5) the political system of the country began to acquire the features of a police state. Security departments were created to monitor public order and security;

6) Alexander III sought to preserve the unitary nature of the state. The basis of the emperor's course is the Russification of the national borderlands. The independence of the outskirts of the empire was limited. The government of Alexander III, however, had to take a number of measures that allowed stabilize the country's social development: 1) the temporary obligation of peasants was abolished; 2) the amount of redemption payments was reduced; 3) the gradual abolition of the poll tax began; 4) in 1882, the Peasant Bank was established, which gave loans to peasants to purchase land; 5) democratization of the officer corps has begun; 6) in 1885, night work by minor children and women was prohibited; 7) in 1886, a document was adopted that regulated the conditions of hiring and dismissal and limited the amount of fines levied on workers.

Strengthening police control over society under Alexander III led to a temporary decline in the revolutionary movement. The foreign policy of Alexander the “Peacemaker” was very successful, during whose reign the country avoided participation in wars.

Territory and population. At the beginning of the 20th century. Russia remained an agrarian-industrial country. Its population was 130 million people, of whom about 75% lived in rural areas. St. Petersburg and Moscow had more than 1 million inhabitants. Russia was divided into 97 provinces. More than a hundred peoples lived on the territory of the empire, differing in their spiritual traditions, religion, and level of education.

Industry and transport. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. was covered by rapid modernization processes. Industry and transport developed especially rapidly during the period of work Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte (1892–1902):

1) a network of new railways was built, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, the chemical industry, and urban construction developed;

2) the introduction of a state wine monopoly (since 1895) was of great importance, which brought enormous revenues to the treasury from the sale of alcoholic beverages; the export of bread became an important source of income;

3) in order to make the Russian economy more reliable and attractive for investment, Witte carried out the monetary reform of 1897. Agricultural sector. A lot of feudal remnants remained in the countryside: 1) the peasant community, striped land, regular land redistributions, which fettered the economic initiative of the peasants; 2) the peasant economy was depleted by endless extortions, and arrears continued to be collected on the redemption payments of the reform of 1861.

Russia is beginning to confidently enter the world economy, as evidenced by: 1) its participation in the global crisis of overproduction in 1899–1903; 2) Russia’s entry into a new, monopolistic stage of capitalism: the mechanisms of bourgeois competition developed, monopolistic associations of enterprises were created to effectively repel competitors, cartels and syndicates (unification of only commercial activities), trusts and concerns (commercial and production activities were united).

Although the Russian economy was still dominated by a multi-structure system, handicrafts, craft workshops, and manufactories that used a low level of mechanization were preserved.

The state continued to strictly control the process of economic development in the country, so a system of state-monopoly capitalism was emerging in Russia.

Political development. At the beginning of the 20th century. Russia remained the only European power that did not have a constitution, maintained an absolute monarchy, and did not guarantee basic democratic freedoms. Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich (1894–1917) refused to make concessions.

At the beginning of the century there was a revival of liberal activity. Supporters of a constitutional monarchy in 1904 united in the “Union of Liberation” (P.N. Milyukov); and the zemstvo liberals organized in 1903 the “Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists” (D.N. Shipov).

In 1901, the party of socialist revolutionaries, “Socialist Revolutionaries” (V.M. Chernov), emerged, which continued the work of the populist conspirators. In 1898, the First Congress of the RSDLP, the party of Russian Marxists, was held in Minsk. In 1903, at the Second Congress (in Brussels and London) of the RSDLP, the Marxists were divided into 2 factions: the Bolsheviks (V.I. Lenin), the Mensheviks (Yu.O. Martov). The Bolsheviks opposed cooperation with the liberals and favored strict discipline, obliging all party members to carry out the decisions of party meetings.

The development of industry led to the formation of a new social class - the worker. At the beginning of the 20th century. strikes and demonstrations by workers became very frequent and numerous. The largest was the general strike of workers in the south of Russia (1903).

Government bodies. During the reign of Alexander III, monarchical power was significantly strengthened, somewhat shaken during the era of Alexander II's reforms. All the highest functions of power (legislative, executive and judicial) were concentrated in the hands of the emperor. The implementation of each of them was carried out through a system of state institutions.

The State Council remained the highest legislative and advisory body. It consisted of ministers and persons appointed by the king. For the most part, these were famous dignitaries, many of whom were very advanced in age, which allowed the salon public to call them State Soviet elders.

The State Council actively discussed bills submitted to it by either the monarch or the government.

In some cases, when a particular issue affected the interests of several departments, special interdepartmental commissions were created. Their conclusions were discussed at meetings of the State Council. The project acquired the force of law after its approval by the emperor.

The main executive body was the Committee of Ministers. It was headed by a chairman, whose functions were very limited. The Committee of Ministers included not only ministers, but also heads of departments and government administrations. Cases requiring approval from various ministries were brought before the Committee for consideration. The Committee of Ministers was not a single body coordinating the activities of individual departments. This was a meeting of administratively independent dignitaries.

Each minister had the right to report directly to the emperor and was guided by his orders.

By the beginning of the 1890s, there were 15 ministries and equivalent government institutions operating in the country. Two ministries had the most extensive competence: internal affairs and finance.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for maintaining order in the empire, carried out censorship, was in charge of general statistics, mail and telegraph, as well as class institutions and zemstvo self-government, veterinary and medical affairs, public charity and affairs of confessions (except for the Orthodox).

The Ministry of Finance was in charge of finance, trade and industry, taxes, customs duties, wine monopoly, merchant shipping, and railway tariff policy.

The emperor was considered the head of the court and judicial administration, and all court proceedings were carried out in his name. The monarch's competence did not extend to specific legal proceedings; he played the role of supreme arbiter. The autocrat carried out his supervision over the court and administration through the Governing Senate, which strictly monitored the execution of the orders of the supreme power.

Administrative-territorial structure. Administratively, Russia was divided into 78 provinces and 18 regions. Sakhalin Island was considered a separate administrative unit. Since 1809, the Russian Empire also included Finland (Grand Duchy of Finland), the head of which was the Russian Emperor and which had broad internal autonomy: its own government (Senate), customs, police, and currency.

The cities of St. Petersburg, Odessa, Sevastopol and Kerch - major Russian ports and strategically important points - were removed from the provinces and were governed by mayors subordinate to the central government.

The provinces were divided into districts, and the regions into districts. The district was the lowest administrative unit, and its further division had a special purpose: volost (for peasant self-government), districts of zemstvo chiefs, districts of judicial investigators, etc. Zemstvo self-government was introduced only in 34 provinces of European Russia. In other areas, government agencies were in charge of local economic affairs.

Questions and tasks

1. What were the features of the political system of Russia in the second half of the 19th century?
2. Name the highest governing bodies of the country. What rights was given to the State Council? Remember when and on whose initiative it was created.
3. Which ministries had the most extensive competencies? What matters were they in charge of?
4. List the major Russian cities that were governed by mayors.
5. Describe the administrative-territorial structure of the Russian Empire. What is a province, region, district?

In terms of the massive renewal and expansion of fixed capital in industry, in terms of the scale of railway construction, in terms of the size of the increase in production and the physical volume of foreign trade, the cyclical rise of the early 80s was therefore significant. There is no doubt that the productive forces of capitalism developed relatively quickly during this period. But it was precisely the increase in the productive forces of capitalism in the 70s and 80s that was accompanied by such an exacerbation of its contradictions, which led to phenomena that gave rise to complaints from entrepreneurs about “hard times,” about the “great depression.” At the end of 1882, Engels wrote to Bebel:
“...The productive forces have never, in any period of prosperity, grown to such an extent as in 1871-1877, and hence - this is reminiscent of 1837-1842 - chronic difficulties in the main industries and in England , and in Germany, especially in cotton and iron..."
The rise of the early 80s brought a new serious increase in the capacity of the production apparatus of the capitalist industry.
thinking, and this further increased economic contradictions and sales difficulties in the main capitalist countries.
How significant the growth of industry was can be judged by the following figures. Years of cyclical highs are compared.
World iron smelting*
(in thousand tons)

* England, USA, Germany, France, Russia.

Each of the last two cycles thus gave almost the same increase as the three previous cycles (1837-1866) combined. The dynamics of the power apparatus of industry and transport are approximately the same.
Power of steam engines in the world*
(in millions of years)

	1840	1870	1880	Growth over the period
				184 0- 1870	I 870 - 1880
Stationary. . . Transport. . .	0,83 0,82	4,10 14,36	7,67 26,48	3,27 13,54	3,57 12,12

After Midhallt The Dictionary of Statistics, London 1909, p. 539,540.

during this period approximately eight times, and the share of steam ships in it - from 6 to 66%.
The technical progress of communications was of the greatest importance. Telegraph network of Europe for 1860-1887. increased from 126 to 652 thousand km. Throughout the world, its length is close to 1.5 million km. Of these, more than 200 thousand km were submarine cables. Telegraph technology was so improved that it became possible to transmit eight telegrams simultaneously over one wire. The telephone became widespread, and the problem of international telephone communication via telegraph wires was successfully resolved.
The growth of productive villages took place on the basis of major technical changes, especially in heavy industry. The twenty-year period after the crisis of 1866 was marked by such technical discoveries as the creation of an economical internal combustion engine, successful experiments in transmitting electricity over distances, numerous inventions in the field of electrical engineering, etc. etc. These discoveries, which marked the beginning of the age of electricity and the automobile, still had little effect on the dynamics of the economy in the 80s. But the revolution in steelmaking was of greatest importance. The development of truly mass production of steel was an important source of technological progress in a variety of industries. Steel quickly replaced cast iron and iron in rail rolling and shipbuilding. The introduction of steel into the production of machines contributed to their improvement, increasing speed and power. There was further progress in the mechanization of production. Labor productivity, concentration of production, and the share of large-scale factory industry grew due to the displacement of manual labor and domestic capitalist production.
The growth of the productive forces was extremely uneven and was accompanied by profound changes in the role of individual countries and industries in the world economy. For 1846-1883 world iron smelting increased approximately 5 times, coal production more than 6 times, cotton consumption only 3.6 times. Light industry still retained its predominance, but the share of heavy industry increased greatly, and its role in the economic life of the main capitalist countries increased sharply.
Even more significant changes were caused by the uneven development of individual countries. The most important result was the loss of England's industrial monopoly.
It is difficult to overestimate the role of England in the world economy of the third quarter of the 19th century. Its capital and engineers, its metal and machinery

We participated in the construction of railways and industrial enterprises on all continents, the vast majority of the world's steamship fleet was built in its shipyards. The production apparatus of its own industry expanded at a rapid pace. England's economic power grew rapidly. More than ever, its gospel was unlimited free trade. Duty-free import of raw materials and food made it easier to reduce production costs by saving both constant and variable capital. Not needing tariffs to protect the domestic market from the competition of foreign industry, the English bourgeoisie fought for their abolition in all other countries, wherever they made it difficult to sell British manufactured goods. True, English agriculture suffered greatly from competition from imported food. But the cost of labor was falling, British demand for imported agricultural products accelerated the development of commodity-money relations in agricultural countries, expanded their demand for English factories, delivered additional income to shipping companies and new orders to shipyards. This was as much a source of the growth of her industrial superiority as the ruin of the crafts of India and China by the competition of English manufactured goods. And the opening of the Suez Canal, and railway construction in America, and the settlement of the Western states in the USA, and the gold mines of California and Australia, and the great achievements of technology and engineering - all brought new markets and additional profits to the English bourgeoisie. England's industrial monopoly reached its zenith by the end of the 60s. But this was also the beginning of her decline. England itself brought its collapse closer by accelerating the development of American capitalism with its export of capital.
American and German rates of industrial development were higher than English ones. Already from the middle of the 19th century. The share of these countries in world industry began to grow slowly. But the absolute growth of their products and production apparatus was much inferior to that of England, and their lag behind England in terms of production continued to increase. Since the 70s, the situation has changed. The unevenness of development became greatly aggravated, and the economic levels of these countries rapidly leveled off.
On the rise 1868-1873 The United States of America has overtaken England in absolute terms of real accumulation and industrial construction. In the next cyclical rise, they left England behind in terms of absolute growth in production. In 1886, the United States took first place in the world in steel production, in 1890 in iron production, in 1892 in cotton consumption, in 1899 in coal mining. By the end of the 1980s, American industry had more mechanical engines than English industry. These processes developed unevenly in a number of areas. For example, in shipbuilding England retained its superiority at the beginning of the 20th century. But in general, it irretrievably lost in the last quarter of the 19th century. not just an industrial monopoly. but also industrial championship. The countries of young capitalism, which were building industry anew, began to overtake it in the field of technology. An interesting example is ferrous metallurgy.
Average annual smelting of pig iron per operating blast furnace (thousand pg)

In the early 70s, English blast furnaces were 2 times more productive than American and German ones. By 1889 their average capacity had doubled, and the progress of technology was therefore great in this most important branch of heavy industry in England. And yet, in this short period the United States and Germany not only caught up, but also overtook England. In the steel industry of England, the average power of converters in 1882 was 3 times less than in American factories.
In a number of industries, England began to lag behind the United States in terms of the degree of mechanization of production. Some new industries - electrical engineering, a number of chemical industries - developed faster in the USA and Germany than in England.
It would be a mistake to generalize these facts and on their basis to draw a conclusion about the backwardness of the entire English industry in the 80s of the last century. But they expressed the main trend of development, a deep turn that was taking place in the balance of power in the world economy.
What shifts occurred as a result of these processes in world markets is shown by the example of international trade in ferrous metals (see table on page 197).
The growth of English exports of iron and steel has stagnated since 1882, and the net export figure for that year (4.2 million tons) has never been reached again. The largest consumers of English metal - Germany and somewhat later the United States of America - have become dangerous competitors
Foreign trade of ferrous metals (thousand tons)

* 1873

England, penetrating even into its domestic market, and the amount of foreign metal is rapidly increasing.
The position of the English cotton industry, the flourishing of which was the most important basis of England's industrial monopoly, also changed significantly. The river dock of the European continent and the United States of America was largely closed to it already before the American Civil War. In the 70s, the decline in England's share of world production accelerated.
Share in cotton consumption*
(IN %)
* Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, London 1886, p. 104.

was also 25%. The young industry of India began to squeeze England in the Far Eastern markets.
Export of paper fabrics and yarn from England and India to China and Japan*
/>* Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, London 1886, p. 321.

The industrial championship was taken away from England by the United States of America, but Germany became its main rival in foreign markets. The growth of the German domestic market was limited by the Prussian development of capitalism in agriculture and the miserable living conditions of the workers, whose wages were kept low by agrarian overpopulation and large reserves of labor concentrated in the crafts. Faced with the narrowness of the domestic market, German industry fought even harder for foreign markets, using cheap labor and advanced technology as its most important weapons. The report of the royal commission that examined the state of industry and trade in England in the mid-80s stated:
“The entrepreneurial spirit and perseverance of the Germans can be felt in all parts of the world. In production we have few, or almost no, advantages over them; and in knowledge of the world market, in the desire to adapt to local tastes, in the ability to consolidate their positions, the Germans are beginning to surpass us.”
The British also complained about competition from American machinery and textiles, Belgian iron, Indian cotton mills, etc. A campaign arose for the introduction of duties to protect English industry from competition from imported goods. There was a lot of exaggeration in these complaints. But they reflected the extreme intensification of competition, the enormous difficulties that England now had to overcome in the struggle for markets. The protectionists were not successful in England. English industry, which placed a huge share of its products on foreign markets, was vitally interested in the destruction of everything that impeded international trade, and it could not set an example for the introduction of customs restrictions. But the very discussion in England about industrial protectionism was an important symptom of profound changes in its position in the world market. This was also a recognition of England's inability to stop the beginning of the decline of the reign of free trade. Already the turn of the United States of America in the 60s to protectionism dealt him a big blow. But back then it might have seemed like an isolated and temporary phenomenon. The duties introduced by Bismarck in the late 70s, the growth of protectionism in Russia, and the slingshots erected for industrial imports in a number of other countries revealed the illusory nature of these hopes. The Prussian Junkers were the original ally of the English free traders. With the progress of industrialization, Germany began to transform from a country exporting food to a country importing food. The Junkers began to suffer from foreign competition within the country. The ground was created for their agreement with industrialists on comprehensive protectionism. But German industrial duties were no longer a means of protecting the domestic market from the destructive competition of the British. German metallurgy, which most actively advocated protectionism, was no longer inferior to the English in terms of technology, in terms of production costs, and successfully squeezed it out on the world market. Duties were introduced as a means of monopolization domestic market for sale on it at increased prices and the creation of financial reserves for the purpose of attacking the world market. This was protectionism of a new type, which meant an unprecedented intensification of the struggle for markets, typical of the emerging imperialist stage of capitalism. The replacement of the era of the dominance of free competition with the era of the dominance of monopolies, which took place in the last third of the 19th century, was prepared by all the processes noted above: the creation of a new, higher level of productive forces, a huge increase in the share of highly concentrated heavy industry, an extraordinary increase in the concentration and centralization of capital and production, which were intensified by a sharp increase in competition, the long duration of crises and depressions .

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION OF THE RF

State educational institution of higher professional education

"CHITA STATE UNIVERSITY"

TEST

discipline: History of the Russian state and law

Topic 21. State and law of the Russian Empire in the last quarter of the 19th century.

Checked by: Mamkina I.N.

Plan

Introduction

1. State structure and reforms of the last quarter of the 19th century

2. Novels in civil law

3. Novels in criminal law

4. Legal proceedings

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

State reforms of the 60s and 70s. reflected bourgeois tendencies in the development of the state apparatus, but at the same time sought to maintain the dominant position of the nobility in the political and state systems.

The Emperor retained the status of an unlimited monarch enshrined in the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire: “God himself commands to obey his supreme power not only out of fear, but also out of conscience.”

The State Council remained the highest deliberative institution, which, during the reform, was tasked with considering a large number of bills and codifying work.

In 1884, a Special Presence was created under the State Council to consider complaints against the determinations of the Senate. Thus, the Senate came under the control of the highest bureaucratic body.

In February 1861, the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was transformed into a permanent Main Committee for the Organization of Rural Conditions, which controlled the progress of peasant reform. This Committee acted in close connection with the State Council.

Under the State Council, various committees were formed (Western, Caucasian, on affairs of the rural population) and commissions (on the protection of state order, a Special Meeting for the Protection of Peace). One of these committees eventually turned into an important government body - the Committee of Ministers.

The position of the Senate as the highest judicial and supervisory body was strengthened after the reform of 1864. Back in 1862, the Basic Principles for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia, prepared by a special commission, were approved. By 1864, judicial statutes were prepared, introducing new principles of the judicial system and legal proceedings.

1. State structure and reforms of the last quarter of the 19th century

In 1880, the issue of streamlining the peasant social structure and management was discussed, in connection with which the question arose of organizing all-class volost bodies. They were supposed to become the first link in the system of local government.

At the end of 1881, a special commission was created to develop the reform.

According to the project, the head of the volost administration was to be headed by a special zemstvo clerk (volostel), elected by the zemstvo assembly from local residents.

The commission completed its work by 1884, but the volost zemstvo was never formed (it would appear only in 1917).

Reactionary tendencies in public administration began to clearly manifest themselves in the spring of 1882, when the leadership of the government passed to Count Tolstoy. In its activities, the government begins to focus on the interests of the nobility, primarily the hereditary one.

In 1885, the Noble Bank was opened, supporting local land ownership with its preferential loans. The development of a number of bills began aimed at restoring the prerogatives lost by the nobility. The result of this work was the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs of 1889 and the new Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions of 1890. According to these laws, the nobles were supposed to take a leading position in the system of local government, and zemstvo bodies were included in the national system of government, i.e. from self-government bodies turned into state authorities. Zemstvo councils were subordinate to the governor's authority, chairmen of the councils were appointed by the government, and decisions of zemstvo assemblies were controlled by governors. The classless zemstvo of the 1864 model was supposed to turn into a class structure in which the nobility enjoyed advantage.

In connection with this goal, the electoral system was changed: the class structure within the electoral curiae was strengthened, the number of vowels from the peasants was reduced, and governors were given the right to choose vowels from among the candidates elected by the volosts. The number of vowels from the nobility should be increased. The project was not carried out in its original form, but many of its provisions and the main trend (strengthening the role of the nobility in zemstvos) were preserved in the Regulations on Zemstvos adopted by the State Council.

The adoption of the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs was preceded by the introduction of a law on hiring for agricultural work and a law on peasant family divisions, which defended the proprietary interests of the nobility.

In the State Council, when discussing the law on zemstvo chiefs, a proposal was made to replace them with justices of the peace (according to the English model), but the result of the discussion turned out to be completely different - the justices of the peace were replaced by zemstvo chiefs, who combined administrative and judicial functions in their activities.

In 1882, Temporary Rules on the Press were adopted, which introduced preliminary censorship and gave a special meeting (of four ministers - public education, internal affairs, justice and chief prosecutor of the Synod) the right to completely close certain press organs.

In 1891, a new customs tariff was issued, which consolidated the state's protectionist policy and contributed to pressure on the foreign money market. However, the new tariff had an adverse impact on the agricultural sector of the domestic economy. The interests of developing industry were placed above the interests of agriculture, which infringed on the position of landowners-nobles.

In 1892, a new City Regulation was adopted. If previously almost all tax payers were allowed to participate in elections to city government bodies, then according to the new law only persons with a certain property qualification (depending on the value of the property they owned) could be included in the electors.

The city regulations of 1892 replaced the tax qualification with a property qualification for voters. Only citizens who owned real estate received voting rights. The number of voters also included owners of commercial and industrial enterprises who had guild certificates. The petty bourgeoisie was losing voting rights.

For small towns, the Regulations introduced “simplified governance”: a meeting of city householders elected a meeting of commissioners, and it elected a city mayor. Many localities and regions (especially on the outskirts of the empire) did not receive city government at all.

The government, forced in the 60-80s. under the threat of a revolutionary situation, to carry out reforms that were bourgeois in nature, in the 80s and 90s. dealt a blow to almost all newly emerging institutions.

The era of counter-reforms made a significant shift “to the right” in all areas of social, political and state development of Russia.

2. Novels in civil law

Development of law in the second half of the 19th century. is reflected in Russian legislation. The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire continued to operate, which was replenished with new legalizations during reissues. Thus, Volume X of the Code was eventually supplemented by judicial statutes, Temporary Rules on the Volost Court, the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs of 1889 and other innovations.

In 1863, under the control of the Senate, the periodical publication “Collection of Legislation and Government Orders” began. It generalized Senate practice, absorbed current ministerial resolutions, included charters of joint-stock companies, credit institutions, etc.

The “Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments” of 1845 was also reissued as a valid one. Of particular importance is the last reissue in 1885, indicating that criminal law in Russia has become a complex and capacious branch of law, the level of which corresponded to the level and achievements of world legal Sciences.

These sources make it possible to judge the changes in law and process that took place in the country after the reforms of the 1860s.

In civil law, the concept of a legal entity was finally formalized. This concept was previously applied to the state, educational institutions, and monasteries. Now, with the growth of the commodity-money economy and market, all merchant, industrial, entrepreneurial organizations, partnerships, joint-stock companies, etc. acquired the status of a legal entity.

The law divided all legal entities into public, private, associations of persons and institutions. This division remained until 1917.

Of the novelties of property and inheritance law, only norms aimed at preserving the peasant community can be noted. They date back to the 1890s. These are: 1) A ban on peasant societies pledging allotment lands (those that were received as a result of the reform of 1861 and purchased with the help of the state) to private individuals. Now allotment lands began to be considered as secular (community) property. 2) In 1895, “estate settlement” (estate plot), which was previously considered personal property, was also included in this category of property. 3) Family members could inherit only the property of the peasant household, while allotment land could only be inherited by persons assigned to the rural society. These could be family members, but also strangers who became members of the court: adopted children, foster children, illegitimate children, daughters who married a primak who became part of the family. 4) The division of the peasant yard was still limited, which could only be carried out with the consent of the community. 5) Mutual responsibility for the payment of taxes was maintained.

These measures were aimed at artificially curbing the process of community disintegration and pauperization of the population. They did not contribute to the formation of a sense of ownership among the peasants. The institution of private farming in the countryside emerged very late.

In family law: 1) The principle of separation of spouses' property has become more clearly implemented. 2) The Church continued to regulate the conclusion and dissolution of marriage and other personal relationships of spouses. 3) The dissolution of marriage was carried out by a church court - a consistory, and only if there were compelling reasons (adultery, deprivation of all rights to the estate, unknown absence of a spouse, impotence). 4) Until 1904, the punishment for adultery remained. They were condemned to celibacy.

However, the Charter of Criminal Procedure of 1864 significantly limited the competence of the church court in the field of family relations. Cases of marriages “committed through violence, deception or insanity” of one or both spouses were transferred to the secular court. Only after his verdict could the consistory make a decision on the validity or invalidity of such a marriage and on the responsibility of the persons who performed the marriage. In other cases (about polygamy of persons of the Christian confession, about incest, about marriage in unauthorized degrees of kinship and affinity, etc.), the cases were transferred to the criminal court after the end of the spiritual trial of the perpetrators. Cases of violation of the sanctity of marriage (adultery) were decided either by ecclesiastical or secular courts, depending on where the offended party applied.

In total, most novelties were recorded in the law of obligations, which was associated with the development of market relations. Here, old standards are maintained and improved and new ones are actively developed. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of laws regulating contractual relations. In the second half of the 19th century. Statutes on factory and factory industry were in effect. Craft and Trade Charters, Exchange and Bill Charters, Trade Insolvency Charter. Labor and commercial legislation, a law on hiring for agricultural work, etc. appeared. and so on.

All types of agreements known to us are in force in Russia at this time. Contracts and supply agreements (materials, supplies, cargo, things, people, construction, repairs, alterations of buildings, etc.) are very widely used. The loan agreement could be concluded at home and by a notary (the notary appeared during the judicial reform in 1864). It was declared invalid if it was concluded falsely, to the detriment of other creditors, when playing cards, without money. The interest on the loan was determined by the parties themselves, if not, based on the already accepted 6% per annum. The loan agreement could be transferred to third parties with the obligation to repay the entire debt.

The law more clearly defined a partnership agreement as an agreement by virtue of which several persons undertake to join their efforts to achieve a goal. Types of partnerships were established: general (all members are responsible for the transactions of the partnership with all their property), trust or by contributions (some members are responsible with all the property, and some - “investors” - only with the contributions made), partnership by shares (sections) or joint stock a company (liability only for contributions made - shares), an artel or a labor partnership, the members of which are bound by mutual responsibility, have a common account. To establish a partnership, registration with a government agency was required, and for a joint stock company, government permission was required.

An insurance contract appeared, by virtue of which a special insurance company was obliged, for a certain fee, to compensate for damage in the event of damage to property or its destruction. The contract was drawn up in writing and was called a policy.

Services of a special nature were guaranteed by a power of attorney agreement, when one person undertook to be the representative of another person, primarily in the legal field. This is the execution of legal transactions on behalf of and in favor of another person (management of an estate, factory, receiving a salary, pension, etc.). The power of attorney was valid only for a year.

Legislation regulated the sphere of personal hiring. Its duration is no more than 5 years, the purposes of hiring are the same: domestic services, agricultural, craft, factory work, in general, all kinds of work not prohibited by law. A number of restrictions remained: peasants could not be hired without a passport, city residents - without a residence permit, married women - without the permission of their husband. There was a return for public and private work for a period of no more than 6 months for the bourgeoisie, convicted of dissolute behavior, and peasants who could not pay taxes.

In the 1890s. A new legal sphere began to take shape - labor legislation. The Workers' Liability Act of 1893 provided for monetary compensation for work-related injuries. Laws were then passed to ensure the safety of workers in the gunpowder, mining, railroad, and other industries. The labor of children under 12 years of age was prohibited, but those between 12 and 15 years of age could only be used with restrictions. Night child labor was banned everywhere. The Punishment Code of 1885 introduced penalties for factory owners in the form of a fine or short-term arrest for “harassing” workers.

Russia was one of the first countries in the world to introduce legal restrictions on the working day in 1897. It was 11.5 hours, and on the eve of the holidays it was 10 hours. This was less than in France (12 hours), but more than in Austria (11 hours) and Switzerland (10.5 hours). In England, Germany and the USA, the length of the working day at this time was not yet limited by law. In Italy, a 12-hour working day was introduced only for women. At the enterprises there was a factory inspectorate, consisting of government employees, which resolved labor conflicts between workers and factory owners. Inspectors considered workers' complaints, eliminated reasons for strikes, approved fines for absenteeism, lateness to work, etc. According to the law, the fine could not exceed 1/3 of the salary. Fines went into a special fund, which was used for the needs of workers. In 1805, trade unions appeared in Russia to protect the interests of workers, and in 1912 social insurance was introduced.

3. Novels in criminal law

property pre-revolutionary criminal reform

In criminal law, 4 important principles are finally established in the understanding of a criminal act: 1) there is no crime not provided for by law, 2) there is no punishment not provided for by law, 3) prosecution can only take place in case of guilt, 4) presumption of innocence (accused becomes guilty only on the basis of a court verdict, proof of guilt).

The approval of these principles required the regulation of the grounds for criminal prosecution, and jurisprudence developed the concept of corpus delicti. This is the totality of the necessary elements to prove the charge. There are 4 of them: subject, object, illegal action and guilt. At the same time, a clear division of criminal law into general and special parts took shape.

The subject of the crime remained a sane person who had reached the age of 10 (up to 10 years - complete insanity, from 10 to 14 - conditional). Full criminal liability began at the age of 21, and from this age the death penalty could be applied. The objective side was understood as an action or inaction of a criminal nature, and guilt was a state in which a person was aware or could be aware of the nature of his actions. In the category of state crimes, naked intent, threat of arson, threat of arson, unreality, preparation for a crime and attempted crime were still pursued.

The law established the forms of intent: premeditated and sudden (direct and indirect). Intentional crimes, in turn, were divided into those committed in cold blood and in a state of passion. Forms of negligence began to differ: severe, moderate and light, which entailed different punishments.

The latest edition of the Penal Code provided for at least 2,000 offenses, the main groups of which already existed in the 1845 edition. Encroachment on person, property, state interests, etc., which has already been discussed, was prosecuted. The dependence of punishment on the severity of the crime was established: 1) serious crimes entailed the death penalty (its only type was retained - hanging), hard labor, settlement, 2) crimes (simple) - imprisonment in a fortress, prison, correctional home, 3) for misdemeanors they were punished arrest, fine, suggestions.

Actions in pursuance of the law or order, with the permission of the authorities, and the exercise of professional duties were not considered crimes and were not punished. Of equal importance were extreme necessity and necessary defense.

Russian law limited the death penalty as much as possible. According to ordinary legislation at this time, it was relied upon for some serious state crimes and quarantine crimes. According to military law (under martial law) for looting, robbery, violence, treason, etc. Since 1891, there has not been a single death sentence in Russia by a civil court. Unlike a number of leading European countries, England, Germany, France, Russia did not apply the death penalty for murder, even premeditated murder.

After the abolition of serfdom, the Russian public, which had previously opposed corporal punishment, demanded its abolition. The issue of them was considered by a special commission in 1861, which recognized that they were “contrary to Christianity and Orthodoxy,” and most importantly, that “freedom and the right of property are valid only when protecting honor and personal dignity,” which are infringed by corporal punishment. Their destruction began with the decree of 1863, which abolished corporal punishment for women, branding and the imposition of other marks on criminals, and limited the use of rods. From now on, they could no longer be applied to the clergy, teachers, or peasant administration at all. The army abolished spitzrutens, cats, molting and other means of corporal punishment.

Since 1866, rods as an independent type of punishment could be used only by verdicts of volost courts and only in specially specified cases: for the repetition within a year of an offense for which the perpetrator had already been arrested; for committing several misdemeanors, each of which required arrest or more severe punishment; for theft, fraud, embezzlement, extravagance and drunkenness, disrupting the peasant economy. But even in these cases, the permission of the zemstvo chief was required, who could replace this punishment by the verdict of the volost court with another. In 1900 the cane was abolished everywhere, even as corporal punishment for tramps. They were preserved only in punishment cells in places of deprivation of liberty until February 1917.

By the end of the 19th century. criminal law was one of the most developed branches of law in Russia, the level of which corresponded to the level and achievements of the world science of jurisprudence.

4. Legal proceedings

The process in Russia until the reform of 1864 remained mainly inquisitorial, but a decree of 1801 prohibited the use of torture in the investigation of cases. It took place in deep secrecy and was based on written evidence obtained during the investigation. There was no live direct perception of evidence, personal familiarization of the judges with the case materials, or direct oral examination of the accused in court. And the evidence was assessed, as before, according to a formal system enshrined in the Code of Laws. Their strength was determined in advance by law, which firmly established what could and could not serve as evidence.

The law divided them into perfect and imperfect and established the degree of their reliability. The basis for a verdict could only be perfect evidence that could not be refuted by the defendant. Among them, one’s own confession stood out, considered since the time of Peter I “the best evidence of the whole world.” Then came the written evidence admitted by the accused, expert opinions, and the concurring testimony of two witnesses not withdrawn from the defendant. The imperfect ones included the extrajudicial confession of the accused, confirmed by witnesses, the testimony of one witness, a general search, and evidence.

As a rule, witnesses and experts were not called to court. And the accused himself was called only to clarify the question of whether unauthorized methods were used against him during the investigation. That is, the process was written and unspoken. In the most serious cases, the court of first instance (Nizhny Zemsky, City Magistrate and Nizhnyaya Raspaska) did not make a decision, but an opinion, which was sent to the chamber of the criminal court, which passed the sentence. The verdicts were not final and were often reviewed by higher courts. If there was a lack of evidence, the practice was to leave the defendant under suspicion, who was either given bail, military service, or exiled to Siberia for a settlement.

As a result of the reform, the theory of formal assessment of evidence was abolished and was replaced by another - the theory of free assessment of evidence. According to it, the task of the court is to search for objective (material) truth. Court decisions and sentences must be based on true facts and not on speculation. This requires a thorough analysis of cases and a comprehensive analysis of all available evidence, without any outside interference. The measure of credibility could only be the internal conviction of the judges. The courts were required to examine all written and material evidence, analyze the testimony of witnesses and expert opinions. In sentences and decisions, the court was obliged to cite all the circumstances on which they were based. All procedural actions (search, examination, choice of preventive measure, etc.) were regulated in detail by law.

The judicial process established principles guaranteeing individual rights. Therefore, the parties, both in civil and criminal proceedings, received equal procedural rights. The court was obliged to listen equally to both the plaintiff and the defendant. Each party received equal rights to present evidence, give explanations, refute the conclusions of the opposing party, challenge jurors, witnesses, and judges.

All this led to the replacement of the inquisitorial process with an adversarial one. The trial became oral and public, and trial materials began to be published in the press.

According to the Charter of Civil Procedure of 1864, the beginning of the case was given by a petition filed by the interested party in writing or orally. It indicated the circumstances of the case and the price of the claim. The defendant was summoned to court by summons. With the personal appearance of both parties in court, the consideration of the case could take place without preliminary preparation. The verbal proceedings with consideration of the parties' evidence ended with the adoption of a decision.

In other cases, the hearing was preceded by written preliminary preparation. Both parties could prepare 4 pleadings (2 each): a statement of claim, a response submitted to the court before the deadline for appearance, an objection from the plaintiff and a refutation by the defendant. The report of the case and the verbal contest, at which the parties presented evidence, evidence, and petitions, took place in an open court session. A case could be heard in camera at the request of the parties or by court order due to the fact that “publicity” could be “reprehensible to religion, public order or morals.” The main burden of proof, naturally, lay on the party bringing the claim. The court itself did not collect evidence or certificates, but based its decision “solely on the evidence presented by the litigants.” An obligatory, but often formal, attempt by the judges to end the case peacefully.

At the beginning or during the proceedings, the claim could be secured in proportion to its value, if it seemed justified. The types of security included the provision of a ban on immovable property, seizure of movable property and surety. The type of security was chosen by the applicant. But the law allowed the replacement of all methods of securing a claim with a sufficient amount of cash without the consent of the plaintiff.

Once the decision was made, it was finalized within 3 days, the legal costs and who were charged with them were determined: one of the litigants or both parties. The latter had the right to appeal the decision in the second instance (from the district court to the judicial chamber). Cassation appeals were considered by the Senate.

Based on the decision made, a writ of execution was drawn up, which clearly stated the court's ruling, which entered into legal force. The executor was a bailiff, and all local authorities, including the police and military, were obliged to provide him with “appropriate assistance without any delay.”

Conclusion

So, at the end of the 19th century, Russia was a state with a feudal-serf economic system. In terms of population and military power, Russia was the first state in Europe, but its economy was weak. And without a solid economy, the state will not develop stably. Only 5% of landowners were able to move to a new stage of development and modernize their farms. The rest of the landowners pushed Russia backward: in an effort to get more profit, they did not modernize their economy, but began to increase corvee and quitrent. This was largely due to the poor economic policies of the tsarist government.

But the most important obstacle to bourgeois development remained serfdom. The Crimean War fully demonstrated this.

The ideologists and conductors of the internal political course that determined the entire reign of Alexander III (1881 - 1894) were staunch conservatives: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, publisher of the Moskovskiye Vedomosti M. N. Katkov and Minister of Internal Affairs D. A. Tolstoy . All these figures had a negative attitude towards the reforms of the 1860s and 1870s, hoping to neutralize their impact on Russian life through counter-reforms. The most significant measures taken by the government in this direction were the creation of a new local administration in the person of zemstvo chiefs (1889) and zemstvo counter-reform (1890). Other reforms followed: urban reform, judicial reform, military reforms. Still, these reforms could not dramatically change the situation of the people, but contributed to the further bourgeois development of Russia.

List of used literature

1. Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. - M.: Yurist, 1996.

2. History of Russia. From the beginning of the 18th to the end of the 19th century, Rev. ed. A. N. Sakharov. - M.: Publishing house. AST, 1996.

3. Eroshkin N.P. History of state institutions of pre-revolutionary Russia. - M.: Vyssh., school, 1983.

4. Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. - M., 1961.

Posted on the site

Similar documents

Transformations of the government system. Characteristics of autocracy. Analysis of the development of autocracy in Rus'. Transformations carried out at the beginning of the 19th century. legislation of the first quarter of the 19th century. Law at the beginning of the 19th century. Work of the State Council.

abstract, added 07/15/2008


Political and administrative reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century, the main ideas of Peter’s reforms and features of the transition from a traditional to a rational model of public administration. Transformations in the system of higher and central management.

certification work, added 05/15/2010


Characteristic features of the state system of the Russian Empire in the second quarter of the 18th century. Study of basic terms and concepts in the program section: "The Emergence of State and Law in Rus'." Determination of the features of the judicial process of Moscow Rus'.

test, added 02/18/2010


Sources of criminal law. Military article as a set of military criminal legislation. The concept of crime, types of crimes, types of punishments. Main features of criminal legislation.

test, added 09/03/2007


Studying the ways of formation and development of domestic statehood and legal system. Analysis of the general patterns of development of the absolute monarchy in Russia. The process of reorganization of central and local government during the reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century.

abstract, added 03/09/2011


Management of cities from Ancient Rus' to the 16th century. Models of government. City government in the XIV-XVI centuries. Principles of public administration under Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander I, Nicholas I. Features of the reforms of Alexander II.

course work, added 02/22/2012


Study of the history of the development of constitutional law in pre-revolutionary Russia. Review of pre-revolutionary Russian legislative acts of a constitutional nature. Principles of constitutional public administration. The formation of the modern Constitution.

abstract, added 04/23/2015


Prerequisites for local government reforms in Russia in 1870. Institutions of city public administration. Elections to the City Duma. The results of urban reform in the cities of the Russian Empire and its significance for the political life of the country.

test, added 08/14/2008


Prerequisites and reasons for military reforms in Russia in the mid-19th century. Military reform plan. Characteristics of reforms in the field of organization, recruitment of the army and command and control. Rearmament of the army, major changes in the field of troop training.

course work, added 11/28/2011


The essence and main tasks of reforms in the political life of the state. Adaptation mechanisms for reform transformation. Features of the latest Russian reform. Conditions for the effective implementation of reform actions. Passage of the Reform Act.

ON THE. BOIKO,

senior lecturer at Pyatigorsk State University

The reforms of the 60s of the 19th century served as an important factor in the development of local self-government in the Russian Empire. During the reforms, legislative acts were adopted that determined the basis for the creation and development of zemstvo and city self-government. Elected bodies were created in provinces, districts and cities, which, in accordance with the prevailing economic theory of local self-government, were called upon to resolve economic issues at the local level. The state authorities transferred to local governments not only those issues that were directly within their competence, but also a number of other functions that they considered burdensome for themselves.

In 1881, after the assassination of the Tsar-Liberator, “the line of government policy, the essence of which was liberal reforms, ended.” Alexander III became Emperor, and the reforms gave way to counter-reforms, which were carried out as a conservative system of measures aimed at tightening government control of state and public life. In the conditions of revolutionary terror, the Manifesto on the Strengthening of Autocracy (April 1881) proclaimed the strengthening of Christian-monarchist ideology, the suppression of terrorism and revolutionary propaganda. The Regulations on Measures to Preserve State Order and Public Peace dated August 14, 1881 allowed the declaration of certain areas as being in a “state of enhanced security.” Within these localities, governors and mayors received the right to issue mandatory decrees on issues of public order and state security, impose penalties for violating these decrees, prohibit all meetings, close commercial and industrial establishments, conduct closed trials, transfer certain court cases to military courts for considering them according to the laws of war.

Subsequently, the government of Alexander III took a number of measures to abolish some of the most radical provisions of the bourgeois reforms of the previous reign. Temporary press regulations in 1882 increased censorship. The University Charter of 1884 established the appointment by the Ministry of Education of the rector, deans, and professors who had previously been elected. In 1889, elected justices of the peace began to be appointed.

Counter-reforms also affected the system of local self-government, the development of which depended on the mood and intentions of the central government. As noted by A.V. Kruzhkov, “in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a well-defined tradition of reforming local self-government - reforms were carried out “from above”, on the initiative of the authorities; the state strictly controlled local government; his rights and freedoms were infringed both in law and in practice.” According to the English researcher P. Waldron, after 1881 it soon became clear that Alexander III and his ministers did not intend to take any steps to increase the role of popular representation in Russia. The situation was aggravated by the fact that a number of zemstvo leaders began to show certain political aspirations, which clearly contradicted the guidelines of the autocracy.

Counter-reforms in the field of local self-government were carried out on the basis of several regulatory legal acts, which introduced a number of changes to the procedure for the formation and functioning of the relevant bodies. According to the Regulations on Zemstvo Precinct Chiefs dated June 12, 1889, each county was divided into zemstvo sections, in which the post of Zemstvo Precinct Chief was established. The zemstvo chief was appointed from among the hereditary nobles, served as a justice of the peace, and also monitored the peasant public administration, could suspend the verdicts of village gatherings, and subject them to 3-day arrest.

On June 12, 1890, a new zemstvo Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions (hereinafter referred to as the 1890 Regulations) appeared, which actually discredited the ideas of expanding local power and threw Russia back. The reformed Regulations of 1890 somewhat changed the procedure for elections to zemstvo self-government bodies. A two-stage election system was also introduced for small landowners, and not only for rural societies, as provided for in Art. 30 of the previous Regulations. According to Art. 15 of the Regulations of 1890, in each district, after 3 years, zemstvo electoral assemblies and volost assemblies were convened to elect zemstvo councilors, as well as zemstvo electoral congresses to elect authorized persons to zemstvo electoral assemblies.

In accordance with the Regulations of 1890, the class structure in zemstvos increased, for which the number of vowels was reduced and the order of their elections was changed. 3 groups of voters were formed. The first included nobles of all categories, the second included all other voters and legal entities, and the third included peasants. At their assemblies, the peasants elected only candidates for councilors. From among them, the governor appointed the number of vowels established in the schedule.

The nobles received absolute predominance, and a large group of people lost their voting rights (clergy, church parish, peasant partnerships, peasants who owned land as private property, owners of commercial and industrial establishments, merchants, people of the Jewish faith). The composition of provincial vowels by class in 1897 was as follows: nobles and officials - 89.5%; commoners - 8.7; peasants - 1.8%. At the same time, the total number of vowels from each county was reduced by 1%.

The regulations of 1890 significantly limited the rights of peasants in zemstvo elections. In accordance with Art. 26 peasants who belonged to rural societies were deprived of the right to participate in electoral meetings and congresses, even if there was an established property qualification. Vowels from rural societies could be elected only at volost assemblies, while the elected vowels were subject to Art. 51 mandatory approval by the governor. The governor also determined the procedure for the replacement of vowels from the peasants in the place of retired vowels.

The right to participate in zemstvo electoral congresses of small landowners was enjoyed by male persons at least 25 years of age who were Russian citizens (Article 24 of the 1890 Regulations). These persons must have owned at least one year before the election within the county on the right of ownership or lifelong ownership of land of at least one tenth of the tithes established for each county separately, or other real estate within the county, assessed for levying a tax to the treasury in the amount not less than 1500 rub. They had no right to entrust their vote to other persons.

In addition to representatives of small landowners, individuals and legal entities who owned land in the county for one or more years in the amount determined for each county by schedule individually, or other real estate, the value of which for the purpose of collecting fees was not less than 15 thousand rubles. (Article 16 of the 1890 Regulations).

Chairmen and members of councils could only be persons who had the right to public service, which deprived peasants and merchants of the right to occupy this position. The governor, based on the principle of expediency, could suspend any decisions of zemstvos (Article 87 of the 1890 Regulations).

Certain norms of the Regulations of 1890 seriously violated the very principle of election, on which zemstvo self-government was based. Yes, Art. 53 gave the Minister of Internal Affairs the right, in the event of the election of less than two-thirds of the councilors assigned by the county schedule, to extend the powers of the councilors for a period of up to 3 years or to independently appoint for the same period the chairman and members of the zemstvo government, who exercised city self-government without the zemstvo assembly. However, it was not established how many times the minister had the right to extend the powers of the zemstvo assembly or zemstvo government. Thus, there was the possibility of replacing elected self-government with appointed ones, which, in turn, undermined the foundations of the institution of local self-government.

According to the Regulations of 1890, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the status of public self-government and were introduced into the system of public administration. The legal status of zemstvo employees also changed, many of whom could become government officials and receive ranks, titles, orders, and other privileges.

Changes in the legislation on zemstvo institutions were caused not only by subjective, but also by objective reasons. The class composition of society changed under the development of capitalism, and quite quickly. After the peasant reform of 1861, the land of some nobles began to rapidly decline. The qualifications were too high even for the 1860s. In the subsequent period, when noble land ownership quickly became fragmented and became smaller, high qualification requirements affected the legal capacity of the nobility to take part in zemstvo affairs.

The situation of 1890 strengthened the position of the nobility in the zemstvos. Now they began to send more representatives to zemstvo assemblies than peasants and townspeople combined. One vowel from the nobles represented 3 voters, and from the peasants - 3 thousand.

An important point was the problem of the relationship between zemstvo self-government bodies and the local government system, primarily with governors. This issue has been studied extensively for several years.

As noted by A.A. Yartsev, “taking into account the opinions of governors, based on their own observations and conclusions and, undoubtedly, with an eye on political trends in the higher spheres, the drafters of the new Zemstvo Regulations of 1890 came to the conclusion that the existing system of supervision of governors over zemstvo self-government bodies is not entirely effective. Therefore, in line with the zemstvo counter-reform of 1890, the government simplifies the institutional system for submitting protests from governors to zemstvos, grants the right of direct complaints against self-government bodies to the Senate to honest individuals and institutions, and creates a special provincial authority for the prompt analysis of zemstvo-provincial disputes - the provincial office for zemstvo and city affairs presence". According to the fair opinion of the same author, “the purpose of introducing such a body was rather not political, but pragmatic... The presence made it possible to resolve disputes that arose between self-government and local administration on the spot, quickly and collectively.”

The provincial presence for zemstvo affairs included the governor, the vice-governor, the manager of the treasury chamber, the prosecutor of the district court, the chairman of the provincial zemstvo council (also the provincial leader of the nobility) and the vowel. This body checked every resolution of zemstvo institutions for its compliance with the law.

Along with the restrictions on the voting rights of a large category of citizens, some positive aspects of the new legislation on zemstvo self-government can be noted, namely:

· some increase in the competence of zemstvos, expansion of the list of subjects on which they could issue mandatory decrees;

· expansion of the circle of persons subject to election (they could be not only public officials, but also persons who had electoral qualifications);

· full restoration of zemstvo rights to free mailing of correspondence.

The activities of the zemstvos were dominated by the state principle, associated with the strengthening of government control over local self-government.

Zemstvo legislation also had a certain social orientation. In accordance with Art. 2 of the Regulations of 1890, the matters under the jurisdiction of zemstvo institutions included the management of zemstvo medical and charitable institutions, care for the poor, incurable sick and insane, the orphaned and crippled, and the provision of benefits to the needy population in ways permitted by law. In necessary cases, zemstvo institutions could establish fees for the needs of public charity.

According to Professor G.A. Gerasimenko, the revision of zemstvo legislation indicated that “even in such a critical situation for the zemstvos, in the conditions of a powerful counter-offensive of the feudal landowners, the authorities could not eliminate the zemstvos completely. The development of capitalist relations by that time had reached such a height that was sufficient to protect the zemstvos from defeat.”

After the adoption of the Regulations of 1890, the activity of zemstvos did not weaken, but intensified. This may indicate, on the one hand, an increase in public need for self-government bodies, and on the other, the presence of positive aspects in legislation.

Counter-reforms led to changes in the system of not only zemstvo, but also city self-government, which was reflected in the adoption of the City Regulations of June 11, 1892. The high property qualification that existed before ensured the predominance of merchants in city institutions of local government. The composition of public councils often included not the best representatives of this class, which was reflected in the work of city self-government bodies. The position of the noble class in the city councils turned out to be somewhat cramped, and, supported by the government, it could not put up with this. As a result, the state authorities came to the conclusion that it was necessary to carry out radical reforms not only of zemstvo, but also of city self-government.

The property qualification in the City Regulations of 1892 was significantly strengthened compared to the previous regulations on city self-government. New requirements for participation in city elections, formulated in Art. 24, deprived of voting rights not only to workers and intellectuals, but also to a considerable part of real estate owners and industrialists. The norms of this article gave the right to participate in elections of councilors only to Russian citizens at least 25 years of age who, for one or more years, have owned real estate within an urban settlement, assessed for the collection of a city tax in the amount of at least 3 thousand rubles. - in capitals; not less than 1.5 thousand rubles. - in large provincial cities with a population of over 100 thousand people and Odessa; 1 thousand rub. - in other provincial and regional cities that were part of the city administrations; not less than 300 rub. - in small urban settlements. Persons who ran commercial and industrial enterprises in an urban settlement for one or more years, requiring receipt of a certificate of the 1st guild in the capitals and the 1st or 2nd guild in other cities, could also take part in the elections.

Charitable, educational, industrial, commercial and other institutions could issue their representatives a power of attorney to participate in elections if these institutions met the established property requirements.

In addition, the list of persons who did not have the right to participate in elections personally or through representatives was expanded. Not only the chairman and members of the local presence for zemstvo and city affairs, persons holding police and prosecutorial positions in the province, but also all ministers of Christian denominations could not take part in the voting (Article 32 of the City Regulations of 1892). Article 33 deprived of the right to vote, except for criminals and insolvent debtors, all persons removed from public office for 3 years from the time of removal, who were under the public supervision of the police and the owners of wine shops and drinking houses.

The city regulations of 1892 abolished the three-stage curial election system enshrined in the previous regulatory legal act on the formation of city councils. To conduct elections, one electoral assembly was formed (Article 34). If there were a large number of voters, the assembly could be divided into polling stations at the proposal of city councils, but only with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs in the capitals (St. Petersburg and Moscow), and in other cities - with the permission of the governor.

Counter-reforms of local self-government in the 1890s, which radically changed the order of organization of zemstvo and city institutions, led to a significant limitation of the ability to participate in zemstvo life for all classes of the Russian Empire, with the exception of nobles - landowners and representatives of the big bourgeoisie. This circumstance caused serious discontent in society, and also further strengthened the contradictions between different segments of the population.

The results of legislation on reforming local self-government were manifested in the activities of local government bodies in the implementation of their direct functions enshrined in law. Among the main areas of activity of zemstvo institutions, it is necessary to note, first of all, health care, public education, and statistics. The implementation of these directions was positively affected by the Regulations of 1890. After its adoption, zemstvo expenses increased significantly, not only due to taxation, but also due to direct subsidies from the government.

As noted by G.A. Gerasimenko, in the second half of the 1880s, “zemstvo statistics were placed in unbearable conditions and ceased to exist... In 1893, a law appeared obliging zemstvos to resume statistical work. Moreover, it (the government - N.B.) began to annually allocate up to 1 million rubles for zemstvo statistics.”

As a result, the scope of statistical work began to expand, and the profession of statistics became in demand. The level of reliability of statistical information has been raised to a level that modern statistics cannot reach in many respects.

Zemstvo spending on public education doubled 10 years after the adoption of the 1890 Regulations. The number of zemstvo schools increased, and teachers received salaries that were quite high for that time. At the same time, the content of education turned out to be beyond the competence of zemstvos, which could not influence the curriculum.

The number of zemstvo hospitals has increased. In fact, they turned out to be almost the only medical institutions where the rural population could receive medical care. Payments for the medical personnel of such hospitals were also carried out by zemstvos.

As part of the provision of veterinary care to the population of the zemstvos, they successfully fought the plague epidemic that affected cattle in many places in Russia. They set up hospitals for livestock and began to vaccinate.

Counter-reforms in the field of local self-government did not lead to a decrease in the positive activity of zemstvo institutions, which developed the main directions of their activities under conditions of strict control by the local administration. Local governments, having become, as a result of counter-reforms, de facto governing bodies included in the general state system, began to work more efficiently.

Gradually, zemstvos began to try to go beyond the local economy, discuss political issues, and draw the attention of the authorities to the need to expand their political rights. At the same time, the new legislation did not fundamentally affect the social composition of the zemstvos - the nobility continued to predominate in them.

Trying to combat the growth of liberal sentiments among local government officials, the government began to cut sources of its funding. On June 12, 1900, Model Rules establishing maximum zemstvo taxation were adopted. This document prohibited zemstvo institutions from increasing their estimates by more than 3% compared to the previous year. At the same time, zemstvos were prohibited from dealing with issues of helping starving areas, placing this problem on the zemstvo leaders. It is difficult to assume that these measures were dictated by the tsarist government’s concern for the people; rather, it was a desire to limit the activities of local government. However, such measures did not lead to a curtailment of the activities of zemstvo institutions. On the contrary, this activity has constantly increased.

Thus, the procedure for elections to local government bodies, established by the new, reformed legislation, was not democratic, since the elections were class-based and carried out on the basis of property qualifications. Most of the country's population was generally deprived of voting rights in the elections of zemstvo and city institutions. However, for a period when the feudal structure dominated social relations, such elections were not something unusual; on the contrary, the creation of local government bodies that were elected by the population can be considered as an important positive step. It was associated with the development of capitalist production relations, which in all countries was accompanied by the inclusion of the population in local self-government.

Local government bodies, primarily zemstvo institutions, which successfully dealt with issues of local economy, public education, health care, statistics and veterinary medicine, played an important positive role in the social development of the Russian Empire.

Bibliography

1 Zakharova L.G. Russia at the turning point (autocracy and reforms 1861-1874) // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries. - M., 1991. P. 322.

2 Kruzhkov A.V. Local self-government in Russia: an unfulfilled project // Polis. 2004. No. 6.

3 See: Waldron P. The End of Imperial Russia. 1855-1917. - Camb., 2002. P. 19.

4 See: Emelyanov N.A. Local self-government in pre-revolutionary Russia. - Tula, 1992. P. 25.

5 Yartsev A.A. Zemstvo self-government and local bodies of administrative justice in 1890-1904. (based on materials from the North-West of Russia) // State and law. 2004. No. 10. P. 102.

6 Ibid. pp. 103-104.

7 Gerasimenko G.A. History of zemstvo self-government. - Saratov, 2003. P. 30.

8 Gerasimenko G.A. Decree. slave. P. 31.