Chronology

1855 - 1881 Reign of Alexander II Nikolaevich
1861, February 19 Abolition of serfdom in Russia
1864 Carrying out judicial, zemstvo and school reforms
1870 Urban reform introduced
1874 Military reform

Zemstvo reform (1864)

On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” - a legislative act that introduced zemstvos.

It must be taken into account that for a country where the majority of the population were peasants who had just been freed from serfdom, the introduction of local governments was a significant step in the development of political culture. Elected by various classes of Russian society, zemstvo institutions were fundamentally different from corporate-class organizations, such as noble assemblies. The serf owners were indignant at the fact that on the bench in the zemstvo assembly “yesterday’s slave was sitting next to his recent master.” Indeed, various classes were represented in the zemstvos - nobles, officials, clergy, merchants, industrialists, townspeople 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 hire employees.

The scope of activity of the new bodies of all-class self-government was limited only to economic and cultural affairs: the maintenance of local communications, care for medical care of the population, public education, local trade and industry, national food, etc. New bodies of all-class 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 or a roof.” The slogan of “crowning the building” has since become the main slogan of Russian liberals for 40 years - until the creation of the State Duma.

Urban reform (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 increasing role of cities as centers of the economic, socio-political and cultural life of the country.

The city reform of 1870 created all-estate local government bodies. 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 Duma members - councilors - was quite significant: depending on the number of voters in the city - from 30 to 72 people. In the capital's dumas there were much more vowels: in the Moscow Duma - 180, St. Petersburg - 252. At the meeting of the Duma, the 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 real estate taxed in favor of the city, as well as persons paying it certain commercial and industrial fees.

Suffrage as a legal entity was also used by various departments, institutions, societies, companies, churches, and monasteries. Only men over 25 years of age were allowed to vote in person. Women who had the necessary voting qualifications could participate in elections only through their proxies. In fact, wage workers, the vast majority of whom did not own real estate, were deprived of the right to vote, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population, people of mental work: engineers, doctors, teachers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, but rented apartments. A wide range of urban management and improvement issues were transferred to their jurisdiction: water supply, sewerage, street lighting, transport, landscaping, urban planning problems, etc. City councils were obliged to take care of “public welfare”: provide assistance in providing the population with food, take measures against fires and other disasters, help protect “public health” (establish hospitals, help the police in carrying out sanitary and hygienic measures), take measures against beggary, promote the spread of public education (establish schools, museums, etc.).

Judicial reform (1864)

The judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 decisively broke with the pre-reform judicial system and legal proceedings. The new court was built on non-estate principles, the irremovability of judges, the independence of the court from the administration, publicity, orality and adversarial proceedings were proclaimed; When considering criminal cases in the district court, the participation of jurors was provided. These are all characteristic features of a bourgeois court.

Magistrate's Court was created in counties and cities to consider minor criminal cases. The magistrate's court had jurisdiction over cases for which the commission was punishable in the form of a reprimand, reprimand or suggestion, a fine of not more than 300 rubles, arrest of not more than three months, or imprisonment of not more than a year.

When considering criminal cases in the district court, it was provided jury institute. 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 juries by the fact that the people were not yet mature enough for this, and such a trial would inevitably be of a “political nature.” According to judicial statutes, a juror could be a citizen of Russia between the ages of 25 and 70, who was not under trial or investigation, was not excluded from service by court and was not subject to public condemnation for vices, was not under guardianship, did not suffer from mental illness, blindness, mute and lived in this district for at least two years. A relatively high property qualification was also required.

The second instance for district courts was court chamber, had departments. Its chairman and members were approved by the Tsar on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. It served as an appellate court for civil and criminal cases tried in district courts without juries.

The Senate was considered 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, and it was headed by the prosecutor general, who was also the minister of justice.

Court chairmen, prosecutors and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education or solid legal practice. Judges and judicial investigators were permanent, they were assigned high salaries in order to assign honest professionals to judicial institutions.

The biggest step towards introducing the principles of bourgeois justice was the establishment of the institution of the legal profession.

On November 20, 1866, it was allowed “to print in all timely publications about what is happening in the courts.” Court reports reporting on Russian and foreign trials are becoming a noticeable phenomenon in the press.

Military reforms (60s - 70s)

By revising military reform one should take into account its dependence not only on the socio-economic situation in the country, but also on the realities of the international situation of those years. Second half of the 19th century. characterized by the formation of relatively stable military coalitions, which increased the threat of war and led to the rapid build-up of the military potential of all powers. Appeared in the middle of the 19th century. the decomposition of the Russian state system affected the state of the army. Fermentation in the army was clearly evident, cases of revolutionary uprisings were noted, and military discipline was in decline.

The first changes were made in the army already in the late 50s - early 60s. Military settlements were finally abolished.

WITH 1862 A gradual reform of local military administration was begun based on the creation of military districts. A new system of military command and control was created that eliminated excessive centralization and contributed to the rapid deployment of the army in the event of war. The War Ministry and the General Staff were reorganized.

IN 1865 began to be carried out military judicial reform. Its foundations were built on the principles of transparency and competitiveness of the military court, on the rejection of the vicious system of corporal punishment. Three courts have been established: regimental, military district and main military courts, which duplicated the main links of the general judicial system of Russia.

The development of the army largely depended on the presence of a well-trained officer corps. In the mid-60s, more than half of the officers had no education at all. It was necessary to resolve two important issues: significantly improve the training of officers and open access to officer ranks not only for nobles and distinguished non-commissioned officers, but also for representatives of other classes. For this purpose, military and cadet schools were created with a short period of study - 2 years, which accepted persons who graduated from secondary educational institutions.

On January 1, 1874, the charter on military service was approved. The entire male population over 21 years of age was subject to conscription. For the army, a 6-year period of active service and a 9-year stay in the reserve was generally established (for the navy - 7 and 3). Numerous benefits were established. The only son of his parents, the only breadwinner in the family, some national minorities, etc. were exempt from active service. The new system made it possible to have a relatively small peacetime army and significant reserves in case of war.

The army has become modern - in structure, weapons, education.

Education reforms

The economic process and the further development of social life in Russia were seriously hampered by the low educational level of the population and the absence of a system of mass training of specialists. In 1864, a new provision was introduced about primary public schools, according to which the state, church and society (zemstvos and cities) were to be jointly involved in the education of the people. In the same year it was approved regulations of gymnasiums, which proclaimed the availability of secondary education for all classes and religions. Was accepted a year earlier university charter, which returned autonomy to universities: the election of rector, deans, and professors was introduced; The university council received the right to independently decide all scientific, educational, administrative and financial issues. The results were immediate: by 1870, there were 17.7 thousand primary schools of all types, with about 600 thousand students; the number of students at universities increased by 1.5 times. This was, of course, little, but incomparably more than in pre-reform times.

Internal unity and liberal orientation of the entire set of reforms 60s - 70s allowed Russia to take an important step towards bourgeois monarchy and introduce new legal principles into the functioning of the state mechanism; gave impetus to the formation of civil society and caused social and cultural upsurge in the country. These are undoubted achievements and positive results of the reforms of Alexander II.

Topic: Transformations of Alexander II: liberal measures and strong power

University: Oryol Banking College

Year and city: Orel 2016

Introduction 3

1 Preparation of the reforms of Alexander II 5

1.1 Prerequisites for reforms 5

1.2 Expectations of different segments of society 7

2 Liberal reforms of Alexander II 10

2.1 Peasant reform 10

2.2 Judicial reform 12

2.3 Military reform 14

2.4 Reforms in the field of education, press and censorship 16

3 Results of the reign of Alexander II 19

3.1 Significance of the Great Reforms 19

3.2 Views of modern historians on the era of Alexander II 20

Conclusion 22

Bibliography 24

Appendix A Table: Prerequisites for reforms 25

Appendix B Photocopy of the painting “Reading the Manifesto” 26

Appendix E Diagram: Judicial reform of 1864 29

Appendix E Scheme: Military reform 1861-1874 30

Appendix G Scheme: Reforms in the field of public education 1863 - 1864 31

Appendix I Photocopy of the portrait “Alexander II” 32

Appendix K Photocopy of the painting “Zemstvo Assembly in the Province” 33

Appendix L Scheme: Great reforms of the 60s - 70s 34

Introduction

By the middle of the 19th century. Russia's lag in the economic and socio-political spheres from the advanced capitalist countries was clearly expressed. A number of international events have revealed a significant weakening of the Russian state in the foreign policy field. This was fully exposed by the Crimean War (1853-1856), which revealed the internal problems of Russian society. And as a result, the need arose to carry out a complete transformation of many areas of public life.

This need for reform became more and more tangible and urgent every day. But on the path of any improvement, an insurmountable obstacle stood - serfdom. Therefore, the main goal of the government’s domestic policy in the second half of the 19th century. was to bring the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, an equally important task was to preserve the autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.

The reforms of Alexander II and their consequences are of no small importance for the development of the state and historical science. After all, if you study in detail the reforms of our predecessors, correctly understand and analyze them from all positions, and evaluate their results, then you can avoid many mistakes in the present and future. In order to correctly navigate the events of today, it is necessary to comprehend the historical events of the past of our Fatherland.

This is what determines the relevance of the chosen topic.

The purpose of this work is to assess the historical role and significance of the Great Reforms of Alexander II for the further development of Russia.

To achieve this goal, it was necessary to solve the following tasks:

characterize the prerequisites for liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century
analyze the mood of various segments of society regarding reforms

characterize and evaluate the effectiveness of liberal reforms
summarize the reign of Alexander II
highlight the significance of the Great Reforms
compare the views of modern historians on the era of Alexander II

The object of the course work is the liberal reforms of Alexander II.

The subject of the course work is the Great Reforms carried out by Alexander II in the period from 1861 to 1874.

The practical significance of the course work is that the data obtained can be used to prepare for practical and seminar classes in the discipline “History”.

Research methods: chronological presentation of events, analysis, comparison, classification, generalization.

The theoretical and information base was the work of:

P.A. Zayonchkovsky, S.M. Troitsky.

P.A. Zayonchkovsky, in his book “Abolition of Serfdom in Russia,” briefly described the prerequisites for liberal reforms in the period from 1861 to 1874.

CM. Troitsky, in the book “Russia in the 19th Century,” the author describes in detail the main provisions of all the reforms of Alexander II and affects the life of society after they were carried out.

The structure of the course work includes: introduction, 3 sections, conclusion and list of references and applications.

The introduction determines the relevance of the research topic, goals, as well as the tasks that need to be solved to achieve the goal, the object and subject of the study.

The first section examines the prerequisites for liberal reforms and their expectations among various sectors of society.

The second section gives the main provisions of peasant, judicial, military, zemstvo and urban reforms, as well as reforms in the field of education, caesura and the press.

The third section gives the significance of the Great Reforms and the views of modern historians on them.

In conclusion, the results of the study are summed up and an assessment of the reforms of Alexander II is given.

The total volume of work is 24 pages of text and 10 appendices.

1 Preparation of the reforms of Alexander II

1.1 Prerequisites for reforms

At the beginning of the 19th century, the socio-political prerequisites for the start of liberal reforms in Russia took shape. Serfdom hindered the development of the market and peasant entrepreneurship. Landowners fell into the market, that is, those who could not adapt to the new economic conditions lost their lands, which were mortgaged. The defeat in the Crimean War stimulated the rapid development of industry and showed the inefficiency of Russia's social and economic systems.

At the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. The feudal system of agricultural organization was experiencing a period of disintegration and crisis. The transition to various improvements was observed mainly among state-owned and landowner peasants who were on quitrent. This was expressed in some improvements in agricultural tools, raising purebred livestock, sowing industrial crops, etc.

At the beginning of the 19th century. There is a huge growth in commodity-money relations, which, in the conditions of the introduction of new, capitalist technology and the small use of civilian labor, characterized the crisis of the feudal-serf system. The forms of use of serfs were determined by economic conditions that gave the landowner the opportunity to receive the greatest income in the form of corvee or quitrent. The quitrent system provided great opportunities for the stratification of the peasantry. Most of the landowners ran their households the old fashioned way, increasing their incomes not by improving farming, but by increasing the exploitation of serfs. The desire of a small part of landowners to switch to rational methods of farming in conditions of serf labor was not very effective, because the presence of free serf labor did not stimulate the introduction of machines and factories where peasants could work of their own free will.

New productive forces in agriculture could not receive any significant development in the first half of the 19th century due to the dominance of feudal-serf relations. The final establishment of new production relations was impossible in the conditions of the preservation of feudal forms of economy, which were an insurmountable barrier to any progress. Peasants in Russia were divided into three main groups: landowners, state and appanage. Landowner peasants were divided into two groups: peasants who were engaged in agriculture on the landowner's land, and courtyards who did not have the means of production and fulfilled the personal needs of the landowner. According to the forms of exploitation, the landowner peasants were divided into corvée and quitrent. The corvée peasants were in a more difficult situation. Work in the corvee is the everyday communication of the peasantry with representatives of the landowners' authorities, which entailed violence and arbitrariness against the individual. Life was especially difficult for peasants who performed corvee labor in patrimonial manufactories. Often landowners transferred such peasants to monthly work, forcing them to work continuously in the factory. Landowners had the right to sell and buy peasants, both with and without land, and very often families were separated forever. The sale of serfs amounted to the real slave trade.

The second group of the peasantry consisted of state peasants. State peasants as a legally formalized new class arose at the beginning of the 18th century. as a result of the military and financial reforms of Peter I. The state peasants included the rural population, who were dependent on the state. Along with the quitrent, the peasants performed a number of other duties: underwater, construction, road, and paid other monetary taxes: the poll tax. The situation of state peasants who were in corvee labor was more difficult. However, the legal status of state peasants was slightly better than that of landowners. They had the right to choose their occupation, move to another class, and acquire property in their name. The villages of state peasants, numbering approximately 3 thousand souls, were united into a volost. At the head of the volost was the volost self-government. In the 18th century state peasants served as a kind of repository from which “grants” were given to various royal favorites. In the 19th century, when “grants” were abolished, state peasants were either transferred to the military villagers or included in the number of appanages.

The third group of the peasantry consisted of appanage peasants. They were the property of the imperial family and were previously called palace ones. All appanage peasants were on quitrent. The amount of quitrent during the first half of the 19th century. has been steadily increasing. Along with monetary duties, there were also natural ones (road, stationary, underwater). In addition, the peasants had to cultivate the so-called public plowing, the harvest from which was supplied to food supply stores, from which bread was distributed to the peasants in lean years.

So, having traced the position of all three main groups of the peasantry, we can draw the following conclusions during the first half of the 19th century. there is an increase in the exploitation of serfs, carried out in the form of an increase in quitrent or corvee; The legal situation of peasants is also deteriorating, which is inextricably linked with increased exploitation.

In the field of industrial development at the beginning of the 19th century. characterized by the process of decomposition of the feudal-serf economy and the development of new productive forces.

1.2 Expectations of different segments of society

By 1856, Alexander II did not have a complete understanding of his task in its entirety. The emperor's decision, which was not finalized, was met with ambiguity in society. During the reign of Alexander II, several opposition groups emerged, which later united into an anti-reform movement. Firstly, the Russian nobility, which sharply rejected all innovations, seeing them as a threat to their existence. Secondly, these were people who did not want to lose their monopoly on the public service and give privileges to the peasants, since they considered only the nobility the best thing in Russian life. Thirdly, those who spoke about the loss of national values during the reforms, because reforms should be built by analogy with European ones, which showed their instability in the 1840-1850s. There were, of course, voices supporting the emperor, but against the general background of discontent and mistrust they died down.

The Tsar preferred that the nobility itself initiate the abolition of serfdom. Already in the summer of 1858, Alexander II began to persuade landowners to take this step: “Unfortunately, hostile feelings between peasants and landowners exist, and as a result there have already been several cases of disobedience to landowners. I am convinced. That sooner or later we must come to this. I think that you are of the same opinion as me: therefore, it is much better for this to happen from above than from below.” Supporters of the reform found themselves in a large minority and were in constant tension. In December 1858, deep within the Ministry of the Interior, a government program for peasant reform was prepared. Alexander II finally breathed a sigh of relief.

Firstly, the issue was able to get off the ground, and secondly, the emperor was able to take an advantageous position as an arbitrator, whose main task was to find a compromise between the positions of the leading public camps in Russia. These positions themselves were clearly outlined in the works of the noble committees and, in short, they talked about the following: a) without serfdom we will perish; b) the current situation is intolerable, we need to be freed from the peasants. Deputies among the nobles could be divided into three groups. The first stated that the liberation of the peasants meant the complete ruin of the soul owners. The latter declared that they agreed to grant freedom to the peasants, but at the same time proposed to create an economic management department. Still others demanded to convene commissioners from the nobles, who, under the leadership of the emperor, would create a new reform project. Some deputies saw in the draft of the Editorial Commissions an open desire of the authorities to remove the nobility from any influence on the peasantry.

Thus, before the reform of 1861, there were constant debates in all major social circles of Russian society about the future situation of Russian serfs. No one has come to complete agreement. There were disagreements from the peasant, noble, merchant and clergy sides.

The reform was half-hearted. It was an uneasy compromise between landowners and peasants. Naturally, no one was going to give complete freedom to the peasants right away, otherwise the monarchy would have lost the support of the nobility. Therefore, the reform preserved landownership and doomed the peasants to land shortage, poverty and economic dependence on the landowners. The reform could not solve the agrarian question in Russia, which was central at that time, but the main thing was already unchanged - serfdom in Russia was coming to an end.

2 Liberal reforms of Alexander II

2.1 Peasant reform

The content of the peasant reform was set out in a document entitled: “Regulations of February 19, 1861 on peasants emerging from serfdom.” Its essence was this. Landowner peasants received personal freedom, as well as an estate and field plot for permanent use, which they could refuse no earlier than after 9 years. During this 9-year period, peasants had to continue to serve corvée for their allotment or pay quitrent. The size of the allotment and the scope of the peasants' duties were recorded in charters, the preparation of which took two years. The landowners had to draw up the charters, and they had to be checked by the peace intermediaries, who were appointed from among the local landowners. It turned out that the same landowners turned out to be intermediaries between peasants and landowners. Charter charters were concluded not with individual peasants, but with all the peasants of one or another landowner.

In order to establish and record in the charter the size of the allotment, both landowners and peasants must take into account the norms of allotment plots - the highest and the lowest. Peasants could not demand an allotment above the established maximum, and landowners could not demand an allotment below the established minimum. On the one hand, if before the reform a peasant had an allotment in use that was less than the minimum established after the reform, the landowner did not always cut off his land to the minimum, but on the condition that the landowner would have at least a third of convenient land left. On the other hand, if the allotment that the peasant used before the reform exceeded the pre-reform maximum, the landowner cut off the “surplus” from it. The main thing is that the very norms of peasant plots were calculated so that there were as many segments from them as possible, and correspondingly fewer additions to them.

As a result, landowner peasants received an average of 3.3 tithes per capita, i.e. per man (land was not allocated to women). This turned out to be less than the land they used before the reform, and did not provide them with a living wage. All land that the peasants received for “permanent use” legally remained the property of the landowners until the redemption transaction was concluded. Until this deal was concluded, the peasants were considered “temporarily obligated,” i.e. They still bear duties for the use of the land.

On December 28, 1881, a law on compulsory redemption followed - a law according to which all temporarily liable peasants were transferred to redemption, but not immediately, but from January 1, 1883. Thus, the legal liquidation of serfdom lasted for 22 years, and this was in the central provinces. On the outskirts, temporary relationships lasted up to half a century.

For the use of land, peasants had to perform two types of duties - quitrent and corvee. The size of the quitrent varied in different regions from 8 to 12 rubles. in year. As before the reform, the quitrent represented the landowner’s income not only from the land, but also from the actions of the peasant, because in provinces with developed industry, peasants paid the landowners the money they received from various types of crafts, rather than from their allotment. As for corvée, as before the reform, all peasants had to serve it - men from 18 to 55 years old and women from 17 to 50 years old. Only after the reform was carried out, the corvee regime was somewhat streamlined, and the arbitrariness of the landowners was partially curbed. The duties of temporarily liable peasants differed from the duties of serfs only in that they were more precisely regulated by law. That's why the peasants were so reluctant to sign charter documents. They thought that their signature would enslave them again and hoped for “genuine, real freedom,” spreading the rumor among themselves that freedom itself would come in two years.

The reform gave peasants the right to buy their estates and field plots. The ransom amount was determined by capitalizing from 6% of the quitrent established for the allotment, i.e., wanting to receive the required ransom amount, they calculated how much money should be deposited in the bank so that with 6% of the annual growth, the landowner would have an income equal to the quitrent. The role of intermediary between peasants and landowners in the redemption process was assumed by the state, which profited from the redemption operation.

Household servants, of whom there were 1.5 million at that time, were exempted in a somewhat special way, i.e. 6.5% of landowner peasants. They were released without ransom, but not immediately, but after two years, and, most importantly, they did not receive either an estate, or a field allotment, or any kind of remuneration for their work for the landowner. The sick, elderly, and disabled were literally thrown out onto the street, since they had nothing but freedom... to go around the world. These were the conditions for the liberation of the landowner peasants.

Even later, on June 24, 1866, the “Provisions of February 19” were extended to state peasants, who were considered personally free, but paid feudal rent to the treasury. All of them retained the lands that were in their use, and could, at their own request, either, as before, pay the quitrent tax to the state, or enter into a redemption transaction with the treasury, subject to a one-time contribution of such capital, the interest on which would be equal to the amount of the quitrent tax.

The most important result of the peasant reform was that peasants received personal freedom, the right to independently, without the interference of the master, decide their own destiny, the acquisition of property rights, the opportunity to change class status, and receive an education. However, in truth, the manifesto did not make a particularly strong impression on the people, due partly to its heavy bookish-official style, partly to its very large volume and abundance of small details. The peasants did not receive material benefits from the reform. The landowners and the state won here. But still, the main task set before the reform - to destroy serfdom - was completed. Slavery fell, the village entered the path of capitalism without civil war.

2.2 Judicial reform

The preparation of judicial reform was carried out by a commission of the best lawyers, headed by State Secretary of the State Council S.I. Zarudny. The reform was developed in the autumn of 1861, at the highest point of the democratic rise in the country, and was completed by the autumn of 1862. But only on November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved the new Judicial Charters. They introduced, instead of feudal class courts, civilized judicial institutions, common to persons of all classes with the same procedure for legal proceedings.

From now on, for the first time in Russia, four principles of modern law were affirmed: independence of the court from the administration, irremovability of judges, openness and competitiveness of legal proceedings. The judicial apparatus has been significantly democratized. In criminal courts, the institution of jurors from the population was introduced, elected on the basis of a moderate property qualification (at least 100 acres of land or any other real estate worth 2,000 rubles in capitals and 1,000 rubles in provincial cities). For each case, 12 jurors were appointed to decide whether the defendant was guilty or not, after which the court freed the innocent and determined the punishment for the guilty. An institute of lawyers was created to provide legal assistance and to protect the accused, and preliminary investigations in criminal cases, previously in the hands of the police, were now transferred to judicial investigators. Forensic investigators had to have a higher legal education, and the first ones, in addition, had to have five years of experience in judicial practice.

Three types of courts were created: the magistrate's court, the district court and the judicial chamber. Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies or city dumas on the basis of a high property qualification (at least 400 acres of land or other real estate worth not less than 15,000 rubles), and members of district courts and judicial chambers were appointed by the tsar.

The magistrate's court, consisting of one person, considered minor offenses and civil claims in a simplified procedure. The decision of the magistrate could be appealed at the district congress of magistrates.

The district court, consisting of a chairman and two members, operated in each judicial district equal to one province. The apparatus of the district court included the prosecutor and his comrades, judicial investigators, and lawyers were involved. The district court had jurisdiction over all civil and almost all criminal cases. Decisions made by the district court with the participation of jurors were considered final and were not subject to appeal on the merits; they could only be appealed in cassation (i.e. if there was a violation of the law in the proceedings of the case). The decisions of the district court, made without the participation of jurors, were appealed in the judicial chamber. Cases in which the accused was not threatened with deprivation or restriction of civil rights were tried without a jury.

A judicial chamber was established for several provinces. Its apparatus was similar to that of the district court, only larger in size. The Trial Chamber considered particularly important criminal and almost political cases. Its decisions were considered final and could only be appealed in cassation.

The most important political cases were to be considered by the Supreme Criminal Court, which did not function permanently, but was appointed in exceptional cases by the highest order. The single instance of cassation for all courts of the empire was the Senate, with two departments: criminal and civil. He could overturn the decision of any court except the Supreme Criminal Court, after which the case was returned for a second hearing by the same or another court.

2.3 Military reform

Transformations in the army lasted for 12 years, from 1862 to 1874. Three reasons forced the tsarism to reform the army. First of all, Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War had an impact; the revolutionary upsurge in the country prompted the autocracy to strengthen the army as its main support, and finally, it was necessary to streamline spending on the army, which by 1861 had been reduced to 1.5 million people.

The initiator and leader of the military reform was Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin, a general in service and a liberal by conviction. For 20 years (1861-1881) he served as Minister of War and was the most outstanding of the military ministers in the entire history of Russia.

Overcoming the resistance of the feudal opposition led by the victor of Shamil, Field Marshal A.I. Baryatinsky, D. A. Milyutin carried out a 12-year cycle of military reforms.

The conditions of military service were eased, and corporal punishment from the whip and spitzrutens to rods was abolished. Milyutin tried to change the very image of the Russian soldier from almost a convict to an honorable one: “defender of the Fatherland.”

The combat training of troops has improved. Unlike the time of Nikolaev, soldiers began to be trained more for war than for parades. Since 1862, the army began to be re-equipped with rifled weapons instead of smooth-bore weapons. Mining engineer Colonel P.M. Obukhov invented in Zlatoust a method for producing cast steel by decarbonizing cast iron with iron oxide, which made it possible to establish the production of steel artillery pieces.

Officer training has become more modern. Some of the old noble cadet corps were reorganized into military gymnasiums, the volume of knowledge in which, compared to cadet programs, more than doubled. Some of the military gymnasiums allowed admission to persons of all classes. From now on, junior officers were trained at cadet schools. In them, the percentage of people of non-noble origin rose higher than in military gymnasiums, but the general educational level of those entering was significantly lower.

The last major reform of the government of Alexander II was the introduction of universal military service on January 1, 1874, which made it possible to form the army on principles that were more progressive at that time.

If earlier, from 1705, only tax-paying classes (peasants, workers, artisans) served military service in the order of recruitment, now it had to be served by the entire male population of the empire from the age of 20, without distinction of classes. Since there were many more men who had reached the age of 20 than were required for conscription, only 25-30% of their number were enlisted for active service. The rest of the conscripts were exempted from service due to health reasons, marital status and by lot. Up to half of them stayed at home on family benefits (the only son of their parents, the only breadwinner in the family with young brothers and sisters, etc.).

The law of 1874 significantly shortened the terms of military service: instead of 25 years of conscription, for soldiers - 6 years of active service, after which they were transferred to the reserve for 9 years, and then to the militia; for sailors - 7 years of active service and 3 years of reserve. Persons with education served even less: those who graduated from universities - 6 months, gymnasiums - 1.5 years, primary schools - 4 years. In fact, only the illiterate served for 6-7 years, but they then made up 80% of the conscripts.

The new law allowed the state to maintain a reduced cadre army in peacetime with a reserve of trained reserves, and in case of war, by calling up reserves and militia, to obtain a mass army. In general, the military transformations of D.A. Milyutin rebuilt the Russian army in a modern way. Milyutin's reform was beneficial for Russia even purely economically, because it contributed to the accelerated growth of railways as a necessary condition for mobilization and demobilization actions in such a vast country as the Russian Empire. But under autocracy, military reform could not be completely consistent. It was also accompanied by remnants of the old serfdom system.

2.4 Reforms in the field of education, press and censorship

Censorship reform was of particular importance in the chain of reforms of the 19th century. Even on the eve of the reforms A.I. Herzen said that in his opinion, Russia especially needs: the liberation of the peasants from the landowners, the liberation of the tax-paying classes from beatings and the liberation of the press from censorship. The government was well aware of the importance of the printed word. That is why, understanding the need to free the press from censorship restrictions, for a long time it did not dare to implement this, perhaps the only reform, which did not require any material costs.

Count D.A. decided to implement the secondary school reform (1864). Tolstoy. Even at the very beginning of the emperor’s reign, access to gymnasiums was open to children of all classes. Gymnasiums were divided into 2 types: classical, with the study of humanities subjects, which prepared for entry into college, and real, teaching subjects of the natural and mathematical cycle and prepared for entry into higher education institutions. In 1871, Count Tolstoy drew up a new charter for the gymnasium, approved by the sovereign. Classical gymnasiums became the only type of general education and all-class schools. Graduates of these schools had the right to enter the university. Real gymnasiums were replaced by "real schools", their purpose was to provide education to people of all classes, but adapted to the acquisition of practical knowledge.

As for universities, on June 18, 1863, a new university charter was adopted. He returned to universities the autonomy first granted under Alexander I in 1804 and abolished in 1835 under Nicholas I.

Since 1863, all issues of the life of any university, including the awarding of academic degrees and titles, foreign business trips of scientists, the opening and closing of some departments, were decided by its Council, and the positions of rector, vice-rectors, deans, and professors became elective. On November 19, 1864, Alexander II approved the new charter of gymnasiums. Merchants, townspeople, and peasants again received the right to study in gymnasiums, which was granted to them in 1803 by Alexander I and taken away in 1828 by Nicholas I. Thus, there was progress, but even in this sense, progress is relative, since the charter of 1864 . introduced such a high tuition fee that it denied access to the gymnasium to the majority of the common people.

In the early 70s, higher education for women finally became possible in Russia.

All layers of society, from revolutionaries to conservatives, demanded, if not abolishing, then curbing censorship. Back in 1855, reform began

censorship and new rules about the press began to be developed. From the end of 1857, it was allowed to discuss materials about the peasant reform in the press. By 1861, freedom of the press reached its maximum, and revolutionary programs and ideas began to appear in the press.

A reform of the censorship statute was being prepared. After the events of 1862 (fires that were blamed on radicals and nihilists), new rules were developed that limited freedom of the press, especially radical periodicals. A commission was created within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which by 1865 developed a draft of the Temporary Rules, which lasted 40 years. According to the rules, preliminary censorship for book publications was eliminated; its periodic abolition or introduction depended on the Minister of the Interior. He also decided on the opening of new press organs.

Thus, education became accessible to all classes; zemstvos, public organizations and individuals were allowed to open educational institutions. Women were allowed to receive higher education, and later they were allowed to attend universities, but only as auditors. In 1861, when the easing of censorship led to the printing of revolutionary programs, a reform of the censorship statute was carried out, which began to strictly monitor printed publications.

Summing up the results of the liberal reforms of Alexander II, it should be noted that they opened the way for the development of capitalism in Russia; an important step was taken towards equality of all classes, the formation of a rule of law state and civil society.

3 Results of the reign of Alexander II

3.1 Significance of the Great Reforms

155 years ago, without exaggeration, a great event took place in Russia. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, according to which more than 23 million serfs (almost 40% of the empire's population) became free people.

The peasant reform of 1861 was liberal in content, since it created the conditions necessary for the victory of the capitalist mode of production. The main one of these conditions was the personal liberation of 23 million landowner peasants, who formed the market for hired labor. Since the feudal lords and serf owners carried out the bourgeois reform, it also took on serf-like features. The peasants were deceived and robbed, they went from slavery to the landowners into bondage to the same landowners. The half-heartedness of the reform was expressed in the fact that the economic basis became new, capitalist, and within it the remnants of the old feudal-serf system were preserved - first of all, landownership and the labor system, i.e. cultivation of landowners' lands by peasants for land rent, cash loans, etc. Remnants of serfdom hampered the development of a country that had already firmly taken the path of capitalism. Therefore, the class struggle after 1861 did not subside, but, on the contrary, as we will see, flared up even more intensely.

The judicial reform of 1864 was the largest step towards the rule of law in the history of Russia. All its principles and institutions, despite restrictions and even oppression from tsarism, contributed to the development of civilized norms of legality and justice in the country. The jurors, contrary to hopes and direct pressure from the authorities, sometimes delivered defiantly independent verdicts. As for the Russian legal profession, it has managed to place itself—both legally and even politically—at an unusual height for an autocratic country. Most importantly, Russian pre-revolutionary lawyers won national and world recognition for their self-governing corporation, putting forward a constellation of first-class legal talents and political fighters. All reforms of 1861-1874. transformed the economic, social and political structure of the Russian state so that its transformation from a feudal to a bourgeois monarchy began. The peasant reform of 1861 changed the economic basis of the country. Russia has firmly taken the path of capitalist development. Reforms 1862-1874 brought the old political superstructure into conformity with the new basis. From now on, Russia moved forward faster than ever before to the heights of world civilization. Despite the sometimes flagrant abuses involving high-ranking officials, the development of maritime and railway transport continued. Thanks to the significant growth of Russian exports, by the mid-70s the budget deficit was eliminated, and the position of the Russian ruble became strong.

However, none of the reforms of 1861-1874. has not become fully consistent. Each of them retained remnants of feudal antiquity, which limited its progressiveness, complicated the course of Russia's national development after 1861 and, in comparison with the opportunities that opened up, slowed it down.

3.2 Views of modern historians on the era of Alexander II

Alexander II is a significant figure in the modern history of Russia and an important subject of the historical policy of modern Russian authorities, carrying out the modernization of Russia, a kind of “revolution from above,” like the one that this emperor started at the turn of the 1850-1860s. Russian President D.A. Medvedev emphasized in 2011: “Alexander II and, of course, his like-minded people abandoned the traditional way of life, although it was monstrously difficult, and showed Russia the path to the future; ultimately, on a historical scale, it was Nikolai who was right I or Stalin."

This is what some modern historians think about the policies of Alexander II:

Mironenko Sergey Vladimirovich: “I want to focus my main attention on the question of why it turned out to be unsuccessful. It turned out to be unsuccessful, in my opinion, quite obviously, since if 70 years after its start, Stalinist collective farms appeared and serfdom was revived, then one can hardly talk about the success of this reform... I am deeply convinced that the liberal bureaucracy, for all its charm it is not capable of fundamental reforms. She is flesh and blood of the old society after all. Yes, she realized, yes, she absorbed the ideas, but she was not able to destroy the system that, in fact, gave birth to it. And this is precisely where, from my point of view, lies the duality of this peasant reform...”

Zubov Andrey Borisovich: “Let's imagine for a moment that these reforms would not have passed. Russia under Nikolai Pavlovich degraded not only in a moral sense, not only in the eyes of Europe, it degraded in a purely economic sense. The most important economic indicators - iron smelting and coal mining - have decreased. Russia was clearly going down. On the other hand, every year the number of peasant uprisings increased, the number of identified excesses of serfdom increased..."

Oreshkin Dmitry Borisovich: “The task of the reform of 1961 was, in modern terms, to significantly increase the number of economically, socially and legally active entities that compete with each other. And it seems to me that this problem has been solved. In any case, after this we observe a surge in the growth of urban settlements, the rapid development of the road network, decentralization of management and the emergence, albeit of a very lazy, slow, passive zemstvo, but still zemstvo hospitals, zemstvo schools and zemstvo roads...”

As a result, the opinions of historians are different, but in most cases they have a common meaning - the reforms were carried out in the interests of the ruling class, because he was the main support of the autocracy. Landownership and peasants' land shortage were preserved, which hampered the economic development of the country and, ultimately, caused the revolution of 1905-1907.

Conclusion

Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, thanks to the reforms of Alexander II, Russia was reborn from feudal to bourgeois Russia.

A new socio-economic system was born, which still had a long way to become in society, but the most difficult step had already been taken by Alexander II. A step that many rulers conceived, but were afraid to take on, was the liberation of the peasants from slavery and the oppression of the landowners.

Many historians quite appropriately assess the revolution as a “revolution from above,” but for a number of reasons unfinished:

The peasant reform gave freedom to the peasants, however, socio-economic contradictions were not resolved, since landownership and other feudal-serfdom remnants remained.

The judicial reform was not completed, because among the peasantry, the class volost court with the frequent use of corporal punishment remained for a long time.

The military reform could not immediately reduce the size of the army in peacetime, because later Alexander II supplemented it with a law on universal male military service with a reduction in service life.

The reform of education and the press introduced accessible education for all classes, abolished censorship for books and magazines, but retained it for newspapers and literature for the people.

Although the reforms were not complete, they were still able to create the foundation for the creation of a right-wing state and civil society.

With the abolition of serfdom, new opportunities for private enterprise arose, due to the rapid development of industry, hundreds of thousands of workers poured into the cities, Russia was able to resolve numerous conflicts with neighboring countries, and concluded new contracts with European powers.

The historical significance of the “great reforms” was that thanks to them, Russia received a powerful impetus for the capitalist development of the country without any serious shocks or social cataclysms, and was able to emerge from the deepest economic and political crisis.

We have examined the main transformations and reforms carried out by Alexander II, and now we can summarize the results of his reforms.

The reforms have significantly advanced Russia along the path of economic and political modernization. However, Russia still remained an autocratic monarchy.

The reforms provoked harsh criticism, and sometimes complete rejection, from both radicals and conservatives.

Since the mid-60s. government activities begin to be aimed at conservative tendencies, and the reform potential is almost exhausted.

As a result, the reforms were not brought to their logical conclusion. They did not end with constitutional reform. The emergence of parliamentarism did not materialize. Therefore, the “revolution from above” did not take place. Failed attempts to create a constitutional reform and the policy of counter-reforms alienated the liberal layers of society from the government, and also in combination with unresolved agrarian, social, and national problems, ultimately led Russia to the revolutions of 1905-1907 and 1917.

Bibliography:

Dzhanshiev, G.A. The era of great reforms. / G. A. Dzhanshiev [Text]. - M.: Territory of the Future, 2008. - 478 p.
Zayonchkovsky, P.A. Abolition of Serfdom in Russia. / P.A. Zayonchkovsky [Text]. -M.: Gospolitizdat, 1954. - 292 p.
Isaev, I.A. History of state and law of Russia: a textbook for law schools. / I. A. Isaev [Text]. - M.: Yurist, 1996. - 544 p.
Klyuchevsky, V.O. Russian history. / V.O. Klyuchevsky [Text]. - M.: AST, 2003. - 479 p.
Lyashenko, L.M. Alexander II or the story of three solitudes. / L.M. Lyashenko [Text]. - M.: Molodaya Gvardiya Publishing House, 2002. - 357 p.
Troitsky, S.M. Russia in the 19th century. / CM. Trinity [Text]. - M.: Nauka, 1982. - 254 p.
Chistyakov, O.I. Reforms of Alexander II / O. I. Chistyakov [Text]. - M.: Legal literature, 1998. - 464 s.
Yakovlev, A. I. Alexander II and his era / A. I Yakovlev [Text]. - M.: Terra - Book Club, 2003. - 784 p.
Rostovsky, E. and Sosnitsky, D. What Alexander II was like in art and textbooks. E. Rostovsky and D. Sosnitsky [Text] // Motherland. -2014.- No. 4.
Vitukhnovskaya, M. Alexander II in the historical memory of Russia and Finland. M. Vitukhnovskaya [Text] // Flight. - 2011. - No. 3.
Materials from the official website of Radio Liberty Electronic resource: - Access mode - http://www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/2332258.html

Liked? Click on the button below. To you not difficult, and for us Nice).

To download for free Coursework at maximum speed, register or log in to the site.

Important! All coursework presented for free downloading is intended for drawing up a plan or basis for your own scientific works.

Friends! You have a unique opportunity to help students just like you! If our site helped you find the job you need, then you certainly understand how the work you add can make the work of others easier.

If the course work, in your opinion, is of poor quality, or you have already seen this work, please let us know.

Liberal reforms of Alexander II (60-70s of the 19th century): reasons, historical significance

Alexander Nikolaevich, the eldest son of Emperor Nicholas I and his wife Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, ascended the throne on February 18, 1855. Alexander II was crowned on August 26, 1856 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

In historical science, traditionally the 50s and 60s. XIX century considered a revolutionary situation, which is understood as a set of characteristics independent of the will of individual groups, classes or parties, making a social revolution quite possible. Russian revolutionary situation of the 50-60s. XIX century had its own characteristics:

) the crisis of the feudal-serf system - the stage of the decomposition of feudalism, when feudal relations of production reached a dead end and became fetters in the development of capitalism;

) the extraordinary severity of the agrarian (peasant) question - the question of relations regarding land ownership and the associated socio-political struggle (according to statistics, by the middle of the 19th century in Russia there were 22 million serfs for every 110 thousand landowners);

) the most severe national catastrophe - defeat in the Crimean War (1853 - 1855): according to the Treaty of Paris (1856), Russia lost Southern Bessarabia and the mouth of the Danube; It was forbidden not only to have a fleet, fortresses and arsenals in the Black Sea (the so-called principle of neutralization of the sea), but also to participate in the struggle of the Slavic peoples of the Balkans against Turkish rule. In addition, the war revealed Russia's technical and military lag behind the advanced European countries - England and France.

Thus, reforms were a vital necessity, otherwise the revolutionary situation threatened to develop into a revolution, the result of which, given the characteristics and specifics of Russia, was impossible to predict. Failures in the Crimean War caused a wave of public discontent. The social movement intensified noticeably after the death of Nicholas I in February 1855. As always, in Russia special hopes were placed on the new emperor. The so-called "era of glasnost" The government's actions were accelerated by the socio-political movement that developed after the war for the abolition of serfdom, since this problem was of paramount importance. In 1855 - 1857 Writers, publicists, scientists, and government officials submitted 63 notes to the emperor with options for resolving this issue. The approach to the problem and the program of practical action were different, but everyone was united by an understanding of the need for fundamental changes. In the social movement, three main directions were clearly distinguished.

The left-radical movement was grouped around the Sovremennik magazine and foreign publications of A.I. Herzen. Supporters of this trend criticized the entire socio-political system of Russia. On the very extreme flank were N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, who rejected all kinds of compromises and projects for the liberation of the peasants from above, through the actions of the government. They considered the most desirable a mass movement of peasants and the abolition of serfdom from below, since they were adherents of socialist ideas and dreamed of a new social structure of society based on equality, justice and universal inspired labor.

The moderate-liberal current was the most influential and included the flower of the then Russian intelligentsia. Its composition was heterogeneous and included Slavophiles (Yu.F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev), Westerners (B.N. Chicherin, K.D. Kavelin, A.M. Unkovsky), as well as many major officials of various ministries and departments of the tsarist government. The program of the liberal camp was outlined by K.D. Kavelin in his “Note on the Liberation of Peasants in Russia,” intended for the Tsar, but which received wide publicity. The document sharply criticized serfdom, which was a “ticking time bomb” that in a few decades would “explode the entire state.” Therefore, the government needs to quickly abolish serfdom, allocate land to the peasants by voluntary agreement with the landowners and for ransom, and provide financial support to the peasants. The liberal program, after some hesitation, became the basis of government policy on the peasant issue.

The conservative direction was supported by the majority of the nobility. Understanding the need for change, it believed that this should be done gradually, without breaking the foundations of landownership. The conservative program received concrete embodiment in the notes of 1855 - 1856. Alexander II, compiled by the Poltava landowner M.P. Posen: peasants receive personal freedom for ransom; land purchase is carried out only with the consent of the landowner; The government must provide loans to peasants for this.

Thus, followers of all social movements agreed on the need for change. The fear of an explosion of peasant discontent, a “new Pugachevism,” united liberals and conservatives. The differences were in the depth, path and pace of the inevitable reforms. The liquidation of the serfdom historically matured not only in the course of the objective development of the country, but also in the minds of people. Under the existing political system in Russia, reforms could be carried out at the will of the emperor. The opinion prevailing in historical literature about the possibility of liberating the peasants “from below”, through a general revolt, is unrealistic and would only lead to chaos and destruction. And there were no prerequisites for a general peasant uprising at that time.

Reforms of the 60s - 70s. XIX century associated with the name of Emperor Alexander II (1855 - 1881). In the conditions of the Russian autocratic system, the sovereign played a decisive role. There are different opinions about the character and personal qualities of Alexander II. He was not an outstanding personality like Peter I. A student of the famous poet V.A. Zhukovsky, the tsar did not have a broad outlook and was not a convinced reformer, but he realistically perceived the events taking place and had sufficient determination to carry out radical changes to strengthen and preserve the existing autocratic building. The heir to the Russian throne, brought up in the spirit of European humanism of the first half of the 19th century, knew how to select talented assistants who could implement his ideas, as well as listen to public opinion and change their positions if necessary.

The abolition of serfdom radically changed the structure of social relations. The changed system required the adoption of new laws and the introduction of new management institutions. This task was fulfilled to a certain extent by the reforms of the 60s and 70s. XIX century

Judicial reform (1864). The reform was prepared by professional lawyers - N.A. Budkovsky, S.I. Zarudny, K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Rovinsky, N.I. Stoyanovsky.

Preparations for the reform began in 1861. According to the new judicial statutes (November 20, 1864), the trial was organized as a competition between a lawyer (defense side) and a prosecutor (prosecution side). The meetings were held publicly. When considering criminal cases, there were jurors (12 people) representing society (elected from local citizens of all classes). The next lists included men between the ages of 25 and 70, Russians who owned property worth at least 200 rubles, and peasants with experience working in the local government system. Judges were appointed for life and therefore were independent from the administration.

The principle of classlessness of the court was introduced (its decisions did not depend on the class affiliation of the accused). The main judicial authorities were the magistrate's court (decided minor criminal and civil cases): magistrates were elected by all classes at county assemblies for a period of three years and approved by the government), as well as the crown court: district judges, judicial chambers, the government Senate as the supreme court of cassation .

Zemstvo reform (1864). The reform of local self-government was developed by a commission under the Ministry of Internal Affairs since 1859, chaired by N.A. Milyutin and since 1861 by P.A. Valuev. The administrative bodies of zemstvos were district and provincial assemblies, whose members were called vowels. From among the members of the assembly, executive zemstvo bodies were elected - councils consisting of a chairman and several members), as well as commissions for developing local economic issues: collecting state taxes and taxes, caring for health care and public education, etc.

Elections to zemstvos were held once every three years. Voters were divided into three curia (electoral assemblies): landowning, urban and peasant. To participate in elections for the first two curiae, you had to have a certain property qualification (from 500 rubles and above). Small owners who did not have full qualifications could participate in elections through representatives whom they elected at their congresses.

The number of authorized representatives was equal to the number of full qualifications, which was given by adding the value of the property of small owners. Elections for the peasant curia were multi-stage: first, candidates were elected, who then selected the required number of vowels from among themselves.

The members of the provincial zemstvo assembly were elected by the district assemblies from among their members. It was impossible to implement all the tasks assigned to the zemstvos with the help of the vowels alone, so the zemstvos received the right to invite specialists in certain sectors of the economy to work - doctors, teachers, agronomists, etc. - who were called zemstvo employees. Contrary to the expectations of the government, the zemstvos did not confine themselves to solving local economic affairs, but actively participated in the political struggle, becoming the basis of the liberal movement in Russia.

Urban reform (1870). Its preparation was carried out simultaneously with the zemstvo reform. N.A. Milyutin, Yu.F. Samarin and other famous Russian reformers stood at its origins. The basis for city management was the “City Charter” of 1785. The new “City Regulations” were adopted in 1870. City self-government was built on the same principles as zemstvo.

The representative bodies of city self-government were city councils, elected for four years from among city owners - payers of city taxes. Voters were listed in order of decreasing amount of tax they paid. Then the list was divided into three equal parts, from each of which a third of the deputies (vocals) were elected to the city duma. Persons who did not own property and did not pay city taxes did not participate in the elections. The City Duma elected members of the city government and the mayor (executive bodies of city government).

Military reforms (1862 - 1874). They were carried out under the leadership of D.A. Milyutin, F.A. Heiden, N.A. Isakov, N.N. Obruchev, E.I. Gotleben participated in the development of military reform projects. After the defeat in the Crimean War and the signing of the shameful Peace of Paris, the government was forced to take a number of measures to improve the army and increase its combat effectiveness:

) change in the system of leadership of the armed forces (1862 - 1864 - formation of military districts and increased centralization in the management of ground forces; 1865 - creation of the General Staff as the central link in army control; 1868 - reorganization of the Ministry of War);

) rearmament of the army;

) replenishment of the officer corps with qualified personnel (expansion of the network of military educational institutions, creation of cadet schools in 1863 - 1866);

) change in tactical techniques (adoption of new military regulations);

) abolition of the recruiting system for the army (1874) and the introduction of universal conscription;

) reduction in service life (service in the ground forces and navy consisted of active (up to 6 - 7 years) and in the reserve (3 - 9 years). Family (only son) and public (clergy, scientists), as well as education provided benefits for exemption from military service or reduction of its term);

) reorganization of the army (1871) with the allocation of field (active) and local (auxiliary, reserve) troops.

Reforms in the field of public education (1863 - 1864). During the reign of Alexander II, the number of educational institutions increased significantly, incl. for children from low-income, usually peasant, families. In post-reform Russia, women's education has received widespread development. Women's gymnasiums were opened, at which pedagogical courses were created. For the daughters of clergy, diocesan schools were created to train teachers for primary schools. In 1878, social activists led by St. Petersburg University professor K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin achieved the opening of Higher Women's Courses in the capital, equivalent to a university. The same courses were opened in Moscow under the leadership of Professor V.I. Gerye. The beginning of women's medical education was laid. Reform in the educational sphere has given rise to a new type of Russian intellectual: widely educated, critically thinking, striving for active social and practical activity.

Censorship reform (1865). A commission chaired by Prince worked on the first draft of the censorship law. YES. Obolensky under the Ministry of Public Education (A.V. Golovnin), and the second draft was drawn up by the new commission of D.A. Obolensky under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (P.A. Valuev). The law was put into effect on September 1, 1865. In two cities of the empire - St. Petersburg and Moscow - the order and conditions for the publication of books and the press partially changed. Serious scientific books and expensive periodicals could be printed without prior censorship with the permission of the Minister of the Interior. If a “harmful” trend was detected in them, the perpetrators (author, publisher, translator or editor) were prosecuted by the court. A system of administrative penalties was introduced - warnings from the Minister of Internal Affairs with the right to suspend a periodical for up to 6 months or its final ban by the highest decision.

In politics, as in all public life, not to move forward means to be thrown back.
Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

Alexander 2 went down in history as a reformer. During his reign, significant changes took place in Russia, the main one of which concerns the solution of the peasant question. In 1861, Alexander II abolished serfdom. Such a radical step was long overdue, but its implementation was associated with a large number of difficulties. The abolition of serfdom required the emperor to carry out other reforms that were supposed to return Russia to a leading position on the world stage. The country has accumulated a huge number of problems that have not been resolved since the era of Alexander 1 and Nicholas 1. The new emperor had to place great emphasis on solving these problems, carrying out largely liberal reforms, since the previous path of conservatism did not lead to positive consequences.

The main reasons for reforming Russia

Alexander 2 came to power in 1855, and he immediately faced an acute problem in carrying out reforms in almost all spheres of state life. The main reasons for the reforms of the era of Alexander 2 are as follows:

Defeat in the Crimean War.
Growing discontent of the people.
Losing economic competition to Western countries.
Progressive entourage of the emperor.

Most of the transformations were carried out in the period 1860 - 1870. They went down in history under the name “liberal reforms of Alexander 2.” Today the word “liberal” often scares people, but in fact, it was during this era that the basic principles of the functioning of the state were laid down, which lasted until the end of the Russian Empire. It is also important to understand here that even though the previous era was called “the apogee of autocracy,” this was flattery. Nicholas 1 reveled in the victory in the Patriotic War and his apparent dominance over European countries. He was afraid to make significant changes in Russia. Therefore, the country actually reached a dead end, and his son Alexander 2 was forced to solve the gigantic problems of the Empire.

What reforms were carried out

We have already said that the main reform of Alexander 2 was the abolition of serfdom. It was this transformation that confronted the country with the need to modernize all other areas. In short, the main changes were as follows.

Financial reform 1860 - 1864. A state bank, zemstvo and commercial banks are created. The activities of banks were mainly aimed at supporting industry. In the last year of reforms, control bodies are created, independent of local authorities, which audit the financial activities of authorities.

Zemstvo reform of 1864. With its help, the problem of attracting the broad masses of the population to solve everyday issues was solved. Elected bodies of zemstvo and local self-government were created.

Judicial reform of 1864. After the reform, the court became more “legal.” Under Alexander 2, jury trials were introduced for the first time, transparency, the ability to bring any person to trial regardless of his position, the independence of the court from local administrations, corporal punishment was abolished, and much more.

Educational reform of 1864. This reform completely changed the system that Nicholas 1 tried to build, who sought to separate the population from knowledge. Alexander 2 promoted the principle of public education, which would be accessible to all classes. For this purpose, new primary schools and gymnasiums were opened. In particular, it was during the Alexander era that women's gymnasiums began to open and women were admitted to the civil service.

Censorship reform of 1865. These changes absolutely supported the previous course. Control continued to be exercised over everything that was published, since revolutionary activities in Russia were extremely active.

Urban reform of 1870. It was mainly used for the improvement of cities, the development of markets, healthcare, education, the establishment of sanitary standards, and so on. Reforms were introduced in 509 cities out of 1,130 in Russia. The reform was not applied to cities located in Poland, Finland and Central Asia.

Military reform of 1874. It was mainly spent on the modernization of weapons, the development of the fleet and the training of personnel. As a result, the Russian army again became one of the leading in the world.

Consequences of reforms

The reforms of Alexander 2 had the following consequences for Russia:

Prospects have been created for building a capitalist model of the economy. The level of state regulation of the economy was reduced in the country, and a free labor market was created. However, the industry was not 100% ready to accept the capitalist model. This required more time.
The foundations for the formation of civil society have been laid. The population received more civil rights and freedoms. This applies to all areas of activity, from education to real freedoms of movement and work.
Strengthening the opposition movement. The bulk of the reforms of Alexander 2 were liberal, so the liberal movements, which were attributed to Nicholas the First, began to gain strength again. It was during this era that the key aspects that led to the events of 1917 were laid down.

Defeat in the Crimean War as a justification for reforms

Russia lost the Crimean War for several reasons:

Lack of communications. Russia is a huge country and it is very difficult to move an army across it. To solve this problem, Nicholas 1 began the construction of a railway, but this project was not implemented due to banal corruption. The money intended for the construction of a railway connecting Moscow and the Black Sea region was simply torn apart.
Disagreement in the army. The soldiers and officers did not understand each other. There was a whole gulf between them, both class and educational. The situation was aggravated by the fact that Nicholas 1 demanded severe punishment of soldiers for any offense. This is where the nickname of the Emperor among the soldiers comes from - “Nikolai Palkin”.
Military-technical lag behind Western countries.

Today, many historians say that the scale of the defeat in the Crimean War was simply gigantic, and this is the main factor indicating that Russia needed reforms. This idea is supported and supported also in Western countries. After the capture of Sevastopol, all European publications wrote that autocracy in Russia had outlived its usefulness, and the country needed changes. But the main problem was different. In 1812 Russia won a great victory. This victory created among the emperors the absolute illusion that the Russian army was invincible. And now the Crimean War dispelled this illusion, Western armies demonstrate their superiority in technical terms. All this led to the fact that officials, who pay great attention to opinions from abroad, accepted a national inferiority complex and began to try to convey it to the entire population.

But the truth is that the scale of defeat in the war is extremely overestimated. Of course, the war was lost, but this does not mean that Alexander 2 ruled a weak Empire. It must be remembered that in the Crimean War Russia was opposed by the best and most developed countries of Europe at that time. And despite this, England and its other allies still remember this war and the valor of Russian soldiers with horror.

Topic 7. The Soviet state between the two world wars (1918-1939)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 198

Topic 8. The USSR on the eve and the initial period of the Second World War. Great Patriotic War (1939-1945)……………………………………. 218

Topic 9. USSR in the post-war years (1945-1985)…………………………. 241

Topic 10. The Soviet Union and Russia at the end of the 20th century. (1985-2000)….. 265

Introduction

Topic 1. Introduction to the course "History"

1.1. History as a science.

1.2. Formational and civilizational approaches to historical knowledge. The concept of civilization as a typological unit of history.

1.3. Typology of civilizations

1.4. Russia in the system of world civilizations. Features of the Russian historical process.

Topic 2. Main trends in the formation of medieval society. Eastern Slavs in ancient times. Old Russian state in the 9th – early 12th centuries.

2.1. The problem of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs: theories of origin and settlement.

2.2. Formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs. The role of Norman influence on the development of the Old Russian state.

2.3. Adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The role of the Orthodox Church in the formation of Russian medieval society.

2.4. Socio-economic and socio-political system of Ancient Rus'.

Topic 3. Russian lands on the eve and during the formation of a centralized state. "New period" in Russian history (XII-XVII centuries)

3.1. Transition to the specific period: prerequisites, reasons, significance.

3.2. Main trends in the socio-economic and political development of Rus' in the XIII-XV centuries.

3.4. The Russian state at the turn of the 16th - 17th centuries. Time of Troubles: causes, essence, results.

3.5. The Russian state after the Time of Troubles. The reign of the first kings of the Romanov dynasty.

Topic 4. XVIII century in Western European and Russian history: modernization and enlightenment

4.1. Russian power at the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Prerequisites for Peter's reforms.

4.2. The beginning of Russia's modernization. Reforms of Peter I.

4.3. Results and significance of Peter's reforms. The problem of the civilizational split in Russian society.

4.4. Russian Empire 1725–1762 The era of "palace coups".

4.5. The policy of "enlightened absolutism" in Russia. Reign of Catherine II.

Topic 5. Main trends in the development of world history in the 19th century. Russian state in the 19th century

5.1. The reign of Alexander I: the struggle between liberal and conservative tendencies.

5.2. The main directions of the foreign policy of Alexander I. Patriotic War of 1812

5.3. Regime of Nicholas I. Crisis of the feudal-serf system.

5.4. Social thought in Russia in the first half of the 19th century.

1. Decembrists.

2. Liberation movement and socio-political thought in Russia in the 20–50s. XIX century

5.5. Liberal reforms of Alexander II (60–70s of the 19th century): reasons, historical significance.

5.6. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. The contradictory nature of the post-reform modernization of Russia.

5.7. Socio-political movements in Russia in the second half of the 19th century: directions, character, features.

Topic 6. The place of the twentieth century in the world historical process. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century

6.1. Economic and socio-political development of the country at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. Revolution 1905 – 1907 In Russia: reasons, character, features, results.

6.2. Formation of political parties: prerequisites, programs and tactics.

6.3. Changes in the state and political system of the empire. Experience of Russian parliamentarism.

6.4. The essence of the June Third political system. Reforms of P.A. Stolypin: goals, content, results.

6.5. Causes and nature of the First World War. Political crisis in Russia during the war.

6.6. February revolution in Russia. The alignment of political forces in the country and the problem of historical choice.

6.7. October events of 1917 in Petrograd: problems, assessments, alignment of political forces. Establishment of Soviet power.

Topic 7. The Soviet state between the two world wars (1918 – 1939)

7.1. Civil war and intervention in Russia: causes, goals, stages, means, results.

7.2. Socio-political and economic crisis in Russia after the end of the Civil War. The essence and content of the NEP.

7.3. Political struggle in the 1920s. Search for a model for building socialism.

7.4. The USSR on the path of accelerated construction of socialism (30s). Results of the country's socio-economic development.

7.5. The political system of Soviet society in the 30s. Stalin's model of socialism: theory and practice.

Topic 8. World War II. Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people (1939–1945)

8.1. Origins of the Second World War. Pre-war political crisis.

8.2. Foreign policy activities of the Soviet state on the eve and during the initial period of World War II.

8.3. The beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Defeats of the Red Army and their causes.

8.4. The main stages and battles of the Great Patriotic War.

8.5. The price and lessons of victory over fascism in the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War.

Topic 9. USSR and the post-war world (1945–1985)

9.1. Polarization of the post-war world. The USSR in the global balance of power. "Cold War": causes, features, stages.

9.2. Restoration of the destroyed economy of the USSR. Return to pre-war domestic policy.

9.3. Soviet society after the death of Joseph Stalin. The beginning of changes in the social life of the country.

9.4. The first attempts to liberalize Soviet society: N.S. Khrushchev’s reforms and their results.

9.5. The growth of crisis phenomena in society in the mid-60s - early 80s. The need for change.

Topic 10. From perestroika to a renewed Russia (second half of the 80s of the 20th century - beginning of the 21st century)

10.1. The USSR is on the path to radically reforming society (second half of the 1980s). The policy of "perestroika".

10.2. The collapse of the USSR and the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

10.3 Russia is a sovereign state: internal politics and geopolitical situation.

Glossary

List of literature for the course “History”

5.5. Liberal reforms of Alexander II (60–70s of the 19th century): reasons, historical significance.

In historical science, the 50s and 60s are traditional. XIX century consider revolutionary situation, which is understood as a set of characteristics independent of the will of individual groups, classes or parties that make a social revolution quite possible. IN AND. Lenin, in his work “The Collapse of the Second International,” identified three signs of a revolutionary situation: the inability of the ruling class to maintain its power unchanged - a “crisis at the top”; an aggravation of the needs and misfortunes of the masses above the usual level - a “crisis at the bottom”; an increase above the usual in the political activity of the masses . As you know, not every revolutionary situation develops into a revolution. For a powerful social explosion, in addition to three objective signs, a revolutionary class is also needed, capable of displacing the existing government. Russian revolutionary situation of the 50s–60s. XIX century had its own characteristics:

The crisis of the feudal-serf system is a stage of the decomposition of feudalism, when feudal relations of production reached a dead end and became fetters in the development of capitalism.

Extraordinary sharpness agricultural(peasant) question - question about relations regarding land ownership and the associated socio-political struggle (according to statistics, by the middle of the 19th century in Russia there were 22 million serfs for every 110 thousand landowners).

The most severe national catastrophe was defeat in the Crimean War (1853 - 1855): according to the Treaty of Paris (1856), Russia lost Southern Bessarabia and the mouth of the Danube; she was prohibited not only from having a fleet, fortresses and arsenals in the Black Sea (the so-called principle of neutralization of the sea), but also from participating in the struggle of the Slavic peoples of the Balkans against Turkish rule. In addition, the war revealed Russia's technical and military lag behind the advanced European countries - England and France.

Left radical direction grouped around the Sovremennik magazine and foreign publications of A.I. Herzen. Supporters of this trend criticized the entire socio-political system of Russia.

On the very extreme flank were N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, who rejected all kinds of compromises and projects for the liberation of the peasants from above, through the actions of the government. They considered the most desirable a mass movement of peasants and the abolition of serfdom from below, since they were adherents of socialist ideas and dreamed of a new social structure of society based on equality, justice and universal inspired labor. was the most influential and included the color of the then Russian intelligentsia. Its composition was heterogeneous and included Slavophiles (Yu.F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev), Westerners (B.N. Chicherin, K.D. Kavelin, A.M. Unkovsky), as well as many major officials of various ministries and departments of the tsarist government.

The program of the liberal camp was outlined by K.D. Kavelin in his “Note on the Liberation of Peasants in Russia,” intended for the Tsar, but received wide publicity. The document sharply criticized serfdom, which was a “ticking time bomb” that in a few decades would “explode the entire state.” Therefore, the government needs to quickly abolish serfdom, allocate land to the peasants by voluntary agreement with the landowners and for ransom, and provide financial support to the peasants. The liberal program, after some hesitation, became the basis of government policy on the peasant issue. Conservative direction

supported by the majority of the nobility. Understanding the need for change, it believed that this should be done gradually, without breaking the foundations of landownership. The conservative program received concrete embodiment in the notes of 1855–1856. Alexander II, compiled by the Poltava landowner M.P. Pozen: peasants receive personal freedom for ransom; land purchase is carried out only with the consent of the landowner; The government must provide loans to peasants for this.

Thus, followers of all social movements agreed on the need for change.

Preparation for the most important reform of the reign of Alexander II - the peasant reform - began with timid attempts to improve the serfdom and went through several stages from the creation of a secret committee (1857) to the signing of the Manifesto and Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom (February 19, 1861). According to these documents, serfdom in Russia was abolished, peasants became free rural inhabitants and received a number of personal and property rights. The allocation of land to peasants was subject to a number of conditions. According to the law, the landowner retained ownership of the land, but had to provide the peasant with an allotment for a ransom. In accordance with the legislative documents on the abolition of serfdom, Russia was conditionally divided into three zones - black earth, non-black earth and steppe, in each of which the size of the peasant land allotment was established: the minimum (the one less than which the landowner should not offer the peasant) and the maximum (the one , more than which the peasant should not have demanded from the landowner). In each specific case, the size of the allotment was determined by an agreement between the landowner and the peasant, formalized in the form of a charter. In general, peasants received 10–40% less land than the amount they used before the reform. The plots of land seized from the peasants—“cuts”—passed to the landowner. Subsequently, the “cuts” became a source of social tension and acute conflicts in the village. The estate land was purchased in a short time, and the transition to the purchase of plots dragged on for 20 years. Until the completion of the redemption transaction, the peasants remained in the position of temporary workers. Personally, they were free, but were obliged to serve duties regulated by law - corvée or quitrent, the size of which was determined depending on the size of the allotment. The mixed form of exploitation, the most difficult for peasants, was abolished.

To monitor the implementation of the conditions of the buyout transaction formulated in the charter charter, as well as to resolve possible disputes, a position was established global mediators, to which local nobles were appointed. The peasants received the land not as their own, but for indefinite, free use. The government was primarily concerned with preserving the peasantry as a tax-paying class capable of regularly performing state duties. This explains the preservation and strengthening of patriarchal forms of peasant life and management after the reform.

The collapse of the serfdom entailed a radical change in the way of life, in the everyday life of millions of people. The liberation of the peasants led to the emergence of free labor and an increase in hired labor in industry, which gave impetus to the economic development of the country. In the village, landownership and the lack of land of peasants have been preserved as a relic. This contradiction reflected the incompleteness of the peasant reform and brought the agrarian question into the category of priority problems of Russian reality. The abolition of serfdom changed the social structure of society, but the class division remained, being a relic of feudal relations and coming into conflict with the real balance of social forces in society. In post-reform Russia, four classes emerged: landowners, peasants, bourgeoisie, workers. Not all nobles were landowners. Some nobles did not have estates and received their livelihood from public service. These, as a rule, were either bankrupt nobles - landowners, or officials who received the nobility based on their length of service. Peasants Although they were equal in class, they united into a community, but their property status was different. In the second half of the 19th century. The process of stratification of the peasantry into poor peasants, middle peasants and kulaks is accelerating. The community held back this process, but was unable to stop it. Bourgeoisie And proletariat- these are the new classes of the developing capitalist society. Their appearance was not provided for by the class hierarchy, so the composition of these classes was replenished by representatives of different classes: the bourgeoisie - nobles, merchants, peasants, honorary citizens and burghers (they had capital and invested it in commercial or industrial business); workers - peasants and townspeople. Throughout the entire period of its existence, the Russian bourgeoisie was politically weak and dependent on the government.

Judicial reform (1864). The reform was prepared by professional lawyers - N.A. Budkovsky, S.I. Zarudny, K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Rovinsky, N.I. Stoyanovsky. Preparations for the reform began in 1861. According to the new judicial statutes (November 20, 1864), the trial was organized as competition lawyer (defense side) and prosecutor (prosecution side). The meetings were held. When considering criminal cases, there were jurors (12 people) representing society (elected from local citizens of all classes). The next lists included men between the ages of 25 and 70, Russians who owned property worth at least 200 rubles, and peasants with experience in the local government system. Judges were appointed for life and therefore were independent from the administration. The principle was introduced lack of class court (its decisions did not depend on the class of the accused). The main judicial authorities were the magistrate's court (resolved minor criminal and civil cases): magistrates

were elected all classes at district assemblies for a period of three years and approved by the government), as well as the crown court: district judges, judicial chambers, the government Senate as the supreme court of cassation. Zemstvo reform (1864). The reform of local self-government was developed by a commission under the Ministry of Internal Affairs since 1859, chaired by N.A. Milyutin and since 1861 by P.A. Valueva. The administrative bodies of zemstvos were district and provincial assemblies, whose members were called vowels . The executive bodies of the zemstvo were elected from the members of the assembly - councils consisting of a chairman and several members), as well as a commission for developing local economic issues: collecting state taxes and taxes, taking care of healthcare and public education, etc. Elections to zemstvos were held once every three years. Voters were divided into three curia(electoral assemblies): landowner, city and peasant. To participate in elections for the first two curiae, you had to have a certain property qualification (from 500 rubles and above). Small owners who did not have full qualifications could participate in elections through authorized. Contrary to the expectations of the government, the zemstvos did not confine themselves to solving local economic affairs, but actively participated in the political struggle, becoming the basis of the liberal movement in Russia.

Urban reform (1870) . Its preparation was carried out simultaneously with the zemstvo reform. N.A. Milyutin, Yu.F. Samarin and other famous Russian reformers stood at its origins.

The basis for city management was the “City Charter” of 1785. The new “City Regulations” were adopted in 1870. City self-government was built on the same principles as zemstvo. The representative bodies of city self-government were city councils, elected for four years from among city owners - payers of city taxes. Voters were listed in order of decreasing amount of tax they paid. Then the list was divided into three equal parts, from each of which a third of the deputies (vocals) were elected to the city duma. Persons who did not own property and did not pay city taxes did not participate in the elections. The City Duma elected members of the city council and the mayor (executive bodies of city government).

Military reforms (1862–1874).

They were carried out under the leadership of D.A. Milyutin, F.A. Heiden, N.A. Isakov, N.N. Obruchev, E.I. Gotleben participated in the development of military reform projects. After the defeat in the Crimean War and the signing of the shameful Peace of Paris, the government was forced to take a number of measures to improve the army and increase its combat effectiveness:

change in the system of leadership of the armed forces (1862 - 1864 - formation of military districts and increased centralization in the management of ground forces; 1865 - creation of the General Staff as the central link in army control; 1868 - reorganization of the Ministry of War);

rearmament of the army;

replenishment of the officer corps with qualified personnel (expansion of the network of military educational institutions, creation of cadet schools in 1863 - 1866);

change in tactical techniques (adoption of new military regulations);

reorganization of the army (1871) with the allocation of field (active) and local (auxiliary, reserve) troops.

Reforms in public education (1863–1864) . During the reign of Alexander II, the number of educational institutions increased significantly, incl. for children from low-income, usually peasant, families. In post-reform Russia, women's education has received widespread development. Women's gymnasiums were opened, at which pedagogical courses were created. For the daughters of clergy, diocesan schools were created to train teachers for primary schools. In 1878, social activists led by St. Petersburg University professor K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin achieved the opening of Higher Women's Courses in the capital, equivalent to a university. The same courses were opened in Moscow under the leadership of Professor V.I. Gerye. The beginning of women's medical education was laid. Reform in the educational sphere has given rise to a new type of Russian intellectual: widely educated, critically thinking, striving for active social and practical activity.

Censorship reform (1865). A commission chaired by Prince worked on the first draft of the censorship law. YES. Obolensky under the Ministry of Public Education (A.V. Golovnin), and the second draft was drawn up by the new commission of D.A. Obolensky under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (P.A. Valuev). The law was put into effect on September 1, 1865. In two cities of the empire - St. Petersburg and Moscow - the order and conditions for the publication of books and the press partially changed. Serious scientific books and expensive periodicals could be printed without prior censorship with the permission of the Minister of the Interior. If a “harmful” trend was detected in them, the perpetrators (author, publisher, translator or editor) were prosecuted by the court. A system of administrative penalties was introduced - warnings from the Minister of Internal Affairs with the right to suspend a periodical for up to 6 months or its final ban by the highest decision.

In the historical literature, the reforms of the 60–70s. XIX century received a definition "revolutions from above", which generally correctly reflects the biggest turn in the life of the country. A new stage of its development has begun.

From the second half of the 60s. There are noticeable fluctuations in the government policy. Under the influence of the growing social movement and the actions of revolutionaries, the government is tightening control over the activities of zemstvos, making changes to the judicial statutes of 1864, strengthening censorship, and leading an offensive against liberal trends in the field of education. At the end of the 70s. The influence of the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. increased. Loris-Melikov, who considered it necessary to politically stabilize the regime to carry out some reforms, to call on local representatives to discuss the most important issues in the life of the country, and to somewhat weaken censorship. After much hesitation, Alexander II decided on new reforms. However, the assassination of the emperor on March 1, 1881 strengthened the position of extreme conservatives, who received the unconditional support of the new emperor Alexander III. M.T. Loris-Melikov and his supporters were dismissed. The time has come for reaction and counter-reforms.