Peasant dress. Which of Peter's reforms took center stage

The central place in the reform was occupied by the question of land. The published law was based on the principle of recognizing the landlords' ownership of all the land in their estates, as well as the peasant's allotment. And the peasants were declared only as users of this land.

To become the owner of their allotment land, the peasants had to buy it from the landowner.

The complete landlessness of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the former income from the peasants, it would create a mass of millions of landless peasants and thereby could cause general peasant discontent. The demand for the provision of land was central to the peasant movement of the pre-reform years.

Whole territory European Russia was divided into 3 bands - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the "bands" were divided into "localities".

In the non-chernozem and chernozem "bands", the "higher" and "lower" norms of allotments were established. In the steppe one - the "narrow" norm.

The peasants used the pastures of the landlord free of charge, received permission to graze cattle in the landowner's forest, on a mowed meadow and a harvested landowner's field. The peasant, having received an allotment, did not yet become a full-fledged owner.

The communal form of land ownership excluded the possibility for the peasant to sell his allotment.

Under serfdom, some of the wealthy peasants had their own purchased land.

To protect the interests of the small landed nobility, special “rules” established a number of benefits for them, which created more difficult conditions for the peasants on these estates. The most deprived were the "peasants-donators", who received donations - "beggarly" or "orphan" allotments. According to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift allotment. Its receipt exempted from redemption payments, the donor completely broke with the landowner. But the peasant could go "to the gift" only with the consent of his landowner.

Most of the donations lost and ended up in distress. In 1881, Minister of the Interior N.P. Ignatiev wrote that the donors had reached the extreme degree of poverty.

The allocation of land to the peasants was compulsory: the landowner had to provide the allotment to the peasant, and the peasant to take it. By law, until 1870, the peasant could not refuse the allotment.

The “Redemption Regulations” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was very difficult. Figures of the reform of 1861 P.P. Semyonov noted that during the first 25 years, the purchase of individual plots of land and leaving the community was rare, but since the beginning of the 80s it has become “common”.

You can also find information of interest in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

More on the topic 2.5 Peasant allotment .:

1. 11. The victory of private ownership of the peasant allotment and the reasons for the ruin of the free Franks.
2. Service land plots: grounds for the emergence and termination of rights.
3. peasant movement. Formation of the All India Peasants' Union
4. 13) Free fixed-term use of land plots. Service wear.
5. The Peasant Question in Russia in the First Half of the 19th Century. An attempt to solve it. Preparation of the peasant reform.
6. 11.7. Legal regime of lands of peasant (farmer) households. The concept of a peasant (farm) economy as a subject of land law
7. 54. In accordance with the Law of the RSFSR “On the Peasant (Farmer) Economy” dated November 22, 1990, the peasant (farm) economy was established as:
8. 15. Social policy of Nicholas I. "Peasant question" in the second quarter of the XIX century and secret committees. Historiography of the "peasant question" in the second quarter of the 19th century

The provisions on February 19, 1861 were represented by 17 pieces of legislation. Of fundamental importance were: "General Regulations", four "Local Regulations on the land arrangement of peasants", provisions on redemption, on the arrangement of householders, on provincial institutions for peasant affairs, as well as rules on the procedure for enacting provisions on peasants of small landowners, about people assigned to private mining factories, etc. The effect of these legislative acts extended to 45 provinces, in which 100,428 landlords had 22,563 serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 serfs and 543 thousand assigned to private factories and factories.

The liquidation of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over more than two decades. The peasants did not receive full liberation immediately after the promulgation of the Manifesto and provisions. The Manifesto declared that the peasants for another two years (until February 19, 1863) were obliged to serve, although somewhat modified, but in fact the same duties as under serfdom.

It is necessary to emphasize the exceptional importance of the Manifesto. The demand for the representation of "will" was central to the centuries-old history of the peasant movement. Wealthy serfs made significant sacrifices in order to redeem themselves "free".

All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to an increase in the number of peasants leaving to work, and, consequently, to the formation of a labor market, and most importantly, it liberated the peasants morally.

Subsequent reforms in the field of courts, local government, education, military service expanded the rights of the peasantry: the peasant could be elected to the jurors of new courts, to zemstvo self-government bodies, he was given access to middle and higher educational establishments. Of course, this did not completely remove the class inequality of the peasantry. It continued to be the lowest, taxable class. The peasants were obliged to bear the capitation and all sorts of other monetary and in-kind duties, from which the privileged estates were exempted.

From the date of the promulgation of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, it was planned to introduce “peasant public administration” in the villages of the former landlord peasants within a nine-month period. reform P.D. Kiseleva.

The following rural and volost governments were introduced. The original cell was rural Society, formerly the landowner's estate. It could consist of one or more villages or part of a village. Rural society (community) was united by common economic interests - common lands and common obligations to the landowner.

The rural assembly was in charge of issues of communal land use, the layout of state and zemstvo duties, had the right to remove “harmful and vicious” from society, to exclude from participation in the gathering for three years those who had committed any misconduct. The decision of the gathering had legal force if the majority of those present spoke in favor of them. Several adjacent rural societies, in which there were a total of 300 to 200 male peasants, were parish.

An important role in the implementation of the peasant reform in the localities was played by the Founded in the summer of 1861. institute of conciliators. Intermediaries were entrusted with mediating and administrative functions: checking, approving and introducing statutory charters (determining the post-reform and land relations of peasants with landowners), certification of redemption acts when peasants were transferred to redemption, resolving disputes between peasants and landowners, approving village elders and volost foremen , supervision of the organs of peasant self-government.

Central to the reform was land question. The published law proceeded from the principle of recognizing landlords' ownership of land on estates, including peasant allotment, and the peasants were declared only users of this land, obliged to serve for it the duties established by the provisions ( quitrent or corvée). To become the owner of allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

When determining the norms of peasant allotments, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions. Based on this, the entire territory of European Russia was divided into three bands - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the bands, in turn, were divided into areas (from 10 to 15 in each band).

In the non-chernozem and chernozem zones, the "higher" and "lower" norms of allotments were established, and in the steppe - one so-called "indicated" norm. The law provided for cutting off a peasant allotment in favor of the landowner if the pre-reform size of the plot exceeded the “higher” or “specified” norm, and cutting if its size did not reach the “lower” norm.

The landownership of the peasants was "pressed" not only as a result of cuts from allotments, but also by striping, depriving the peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in some northern provinces). Under serfdom, the land use of the peasants was not limited to the allotments provided to them. The peasants used the pastures of the landlord free of charge, received permission to graze cattle in the landowner's forest, on the mowed meadow and the cleaned landowner's field.

With the abolition of serfdom, the peasants could use these landowners' lands for an additional fee. The law gave the landowner the right to transfer peasant estates to another place, and before the peasants went for redemption, to exchange their allotments for their own land if any minerals were discovered on the peasant allotment or this land turned out to be necessary for the landowner for his economic needs. Thus, having received an allotment, the peasant did not yet become its full owner.

The most deprived were the peasants - donors, who received beggarly or, as they were called, orphan allotments. There were 461 thousand male peasants. As a "gift" they were given 485 thousand acres at 1.05 acres per capita. Most of the donors were in the southern steppe, Volga and Central Black Earth provinces.

Formally, according to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift allotment. But often the peasants were placed in such conditions when they were forced to agree to a donation allotment, even to demand it, if their pre-reform allotment approached the lowest norm, and payments for land exceeded its market value. Receipt of a gift allotment exempted from high redemption payments. The donor completely broke with the landowner.

The allocation of land to the peasants was compulsory: the landowner was obliged to provide the allotment to the peasant, and the peasant to take it.

The “Redemption Regulations” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was extremely difficult: it was necessary to pay dues to the landowner for a year in advance, state, worldly and other fees, pay off arrears, etc.

The law provided for before the transition of the peasants to redemption, i.e. for the period of a temporarily obligated state, serving them for the granted land of service in the form of corvée and dues, the amounts of which were fixed in the law. For corvée estates, a single norm of corvée days was established (40 days for men and 30 for women for one shower allotment), for quitrents the amount of duty was determined depending on the fishing and trading "benefits" of the peasants.

In nine provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine (Vilna, Kovno, Grodno, Minsk, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Kiev, Podolsk and Volyn) by decrees of March 1, July 30 and November 2, 1863, the peasants were immediately transferred to a mandatory ransom, they were returned cut off from allotments of land, and duties are reduced by an average of 20%.

These measures proceeded from the desire of the tsarist government, in the context of the uprising that broke out in Poland in January 1863, to win over the Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian peasantry in the fight against the gentry national liberation movement and bring “calmness” to the peasant environment.

The situation was different in 36 Great Russian, Little Russian and Novorossiysk provinces. Here, the transfer of peasants for ransom took more than two decades. Only on December 28, 1881, a provision was issued according to which, starting from January 18, 1883, the peasants who remained in a temporarily obligated position were transferred to a mandatory redemption. At the same time, a decree was adopted to reduce by 12% redemption payments from peasants who had previously switched to redemption.

The ransom case was taken over by the state through redemption operation. To this end, in 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was established under the Ministry of Finance. The redemption transaction consisted in the fact that the treasury paid the landowners in money or securities interest-bearing securities 80% of the redemption amount, if the peasants of the estate received 75% of the “highest” allotment at the rate, if they were given an allotment less than the “highest”.

The remaining 20-25% of the redemption amount (the so-called "additional payment"), the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments, in cash or by working off (by mutual agreement). The redemption amount paid by the state to the landowner was considered as a loan granted to the peasants, which was then collected from them as a redemption payment in the amount of 6% of this loan annually for 49 years.

The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved important social and economic problems. The government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and, at the same time, saved them from direct clashes with the peasants.

Although the ransom cost the peasantry dearly, it contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. From the power of the landowner, the peasant fell under the power of money, under the conditions of commodity production. The transfer of the peasants for ransom meant the final separation of the peasant economy from the landlord. The ransom contributed not only to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave the landowner cash to transfer their economy to capitalist foundations. In general, the reform of 1861 created favorable conditions for a gradual transition from the feudal landowner economy to the capitalist one.

The peasant reform gave a number of freedoms to the peasants. The peasant could be elected to the jurors of the new courts, to the bodies of zemstvo self-government, he was given access to secondary and higher educational institutions. Freeing himself from dependence on the landowner, the peasant became dependent on commodity-money relations. Payment for land, dues, per capita, payment for the use of landowner lands made the situation of the peasants unbearable. The forcible liberation of the peasants introduced them into credit bondage. On the whole, the reform created favorable conditions for the development of capitalist relations.

"Regulations" on February 19, 1861 were presented by 17 legislative acts: " General provision", four "Local Regulations on the land arrangement of peasants", "Regulations" - on redemption, on the arrangement of courtyard people, on provincial institutions for peasant affairs, as well as "rules" - on the procedure for putting the "Regulations" into effect, on peasants of small estate owners , about people assigned to private mining factories, etc. The effect of these legislative acts extended to 45 provinces, in which 100,428 landowners had 22,563 thousand serfs of both sexes, including 1,467 thousand serfs and 543 thousand assigned to private plants and factories.

The liquidation of feudal relations in the countryside was not a one-time act of 1861, but a long process that stretched over more than two decades. The peasants did not receive full exemption immediately from the moment the Manifesto and the "Regulations" were promulgated on February 19, 1861. The Manifesto announced that the peasants for another two years (until February 19, 1863 - such a period was set for the implementation of the "Regulations") are obliged were serving, although somewhat modified, but, in fact, the same duties as under serfdom. Only the so-called "surcharges" in kind, especially hated by the peasants, were canceled - eggs, oil, flax, canvas, wool, mushrooms, etc. Usually, the entire burden of these taxes fell on women, so the peasants aptly dubbed their abolition "Woman's Will". In addition, landowners were forbidden to transfer peasants to yards. On corvee estates, the size of the corvee was reduced from 135-140 days from tax per year to 70, underwater duty was somewhat reduced, it was forbidden to transfer quitrent peasants to corvee. But even after 1863 the peasants long time were in position "temporary" those. they were obliged to bear the feudal duties established by the "Regulations" - to pay dues or to perform corvée. The final act of the elimination of feudal relations in the former landowner's village was the transfer of peasants for ransom. The final date of the transfer for redemption and, consequently, the termination of the temporarily obligated position of peasants was not determined by law. However, it was allowed to transfer the peasants for ransom immediately upon the promulgation of the "Regulations" - either by mutual agreement with the landowner, or at his unilateral demand.

According to the Manifesto, the peasants immediately received personal freedom. It is necessary to emphasize the exceptional importance of this act. The demand for the provision of "freedom" was central to the centuries-old history of the peasant movement. Wealthy serfs made significant sacrifices in order to redeem themselves "free". And so, in 1861, the former serf, who had previously been virtually the complete property of the landowner, who could take away from him all his property and himself with his family or sell, mortgage, donate separately from it, now received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, but also a number of general property and civil rights: on his own behalf, he could appear in court, conclude various kinds of property and civil transactions, open trade and industrial establishments, and move to other estates. All this gave more scope to peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to the growth of departure for earnings and, consequently, the folding of the labor market, and most importantly, it liberated the peasants morally.

True, the question of personal emancipation in 1861 had not yet received a final resolution. Features of non-economic coercion still continued to be preserved for the period of the temporarily obligated state of the peasants: the landowner retained the right of the patrimonial police on the territory of his estate, rural officials were subordinate to him during this period, he could demand the change of these persons, the removal of a peasant objectionable to him from the community, to interfere in decisions rural and volost gatherings. But with the transfer of the peasants for ransom, this guardianship over them by the landowner ceased.

Subsequent reforms in the field of courts, local government, education, military service expanded the rights of the peasantry: the peasant could be elected to the jurors of new courts, to zemstvo self-government bodies, he was given access to secondary and higher educational institutions. Of course, this did not completely remove the class inequality of the peasantry. It continued to be the lowest, taxable class. The peasants were obliged to bear the capitation and all sorts of other monetary and natural duties, were subjected to corporal punishment, from which other, privileged, classes were exempted.

From the date of the promulgation of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, it was planned to introduce former landlord peasants in the villages within nine months "peasant public administration". It was introduced during the summer of 1861. The peasant self-government in the state village, created in 1837-1841, was taken as a model. reform of P. D. Kiselev.

The following rural and volost governments were introduced. The original cell was rural Society, which previously constituted the estate of the landowner. It could consist of one or more villages or part of a village. Rural society (community) was united by common economic interests - common lands and common obligations to the landowner. The rural administration here consisted of a rural gathering, represented by all the householders, and elected for 3 years of the village headman, his assistant and tax collector. In addition to them, the village gathering hired a village clerk, appointed or elected a reserve baker, forest and field watchmen. At the village meeting, representatives were also elected to the volost meeting at the rate of one out of 10 households. The householder was allowed to send someone from his family to the village meeting instead of himself. Household owners who were under investigation and trial, placed under the supervision of the society, as well as those who bought their allotments ahead of schedule and thus separated from the community, were not allowed to participate in the affairs of the rural gathering. The rural gathering was in charge of issues of communal land use, the layout of state and zemstvo duties, had the right to remove "harmful and vicious members" from the society, to exclude from participation in the gathering for three years those who had committed any misconduct. The decisions of the meeting were valid if they were supported by the majority of those present at the meeting. Several adjacent rural societies, in which there were a total of 300 to 2 thousand male peasants, were parish. In total, 8750 volosts were formed in the former landowner villages in 1861. The volost gathering elected for 3 years the volost foreman, his assistants and the volost court consisting of 4 to 12 judges. Often, due to the illiteracy of the foreman, the key figure in the volost was the volost clerk, an employee of the gathering. The volost gathering was in charge of the layout of worldly duties, the compilation and verification of recruit lists and the order of recruitment duties. When considering recruiting cases, the meeting was attended by young men appointed to recruits and their parents. The volost foreman, like the village headman, performed a number of administrative and economic functions: he monitored "order and deanery" in the volost; his duty was to detain vagrants, deserters and, in general, all "suspicious" persons, "suppression of false rumors." The volost court considered peasant property litigations, if the amount of claims did not exceed 100 rubles, cases of minor offenses, guided by the norms of customary law. He could be sentenced to 6 days of community service, a fine of up to 3 rubles, keeping in "cold" up to 7 days, or punishment with rods up to 20 strokes. All cases were conducted by him orally, only the sentences passed were recorded in the "Book of decisions of the volost court". Village elders and volost foremen were obliged to unquestioningly comply with the requirements of the "established authorities": the mediator, the magistrate, the police representative.

An important role in the implementation of the peasant reform in the localities was played by the Founded in the summer of 1861. institute of peace mediators, who were entrusted with numerous mediating and administrative functions: checking, approving and introducing statutory charters (determining post-reform duties and land relations between peasants and landowners), certification of redemption acts when peasants were transferred to redemption, resolving disputes between peasants and landowners, approving village elders and volost foremen, supervision of peasant self-government bodies.

Peace mediators were appointed by the Senate from local hereditary landowning nobles on the proposal of the governors together with the provincial marshals of the nobility. There were from 30 to 50 peace mediators in the province, and a total of 1714 were appointed. Accordingly, the same number of peace sections were created, each consisting of 8 10 volosts. The mediators were accountable to the county congress of mediators (in other words, the "world congress"), and the congress was accountable to the provincial presence for peasant affairs. However, the law provided relative autonomy to mediators and independence from the local administration. The world mediators were called upon to pursue the government line - to take into account, first of all, state interests, to suppress the selfish encroachments of outright feudal lords and to demand from them to strictly adhere to the framework of the law. In practice, the majority of mediators were not "impartial mediators" of disagreements between peasants and landowners. Being landlords themselves, the mediators defended, first of all, the interests of the landowners, sometimes even breaking the law. However, among the mediators were representatives of the liberal opposition nobility, who criticized the unfair conditions of the reform of 1861 and advocated further transformations in the country. The most liberal was the composition of the peace mediators elected for the first triennium (the "first call" peace mediators). Among them were the Decembrists A. E. Rosen and M. A. Nazimov, the Petrashevists N. S. Kashkin and N. A. Speshnev, the writer L. N. Tolstoy and the famous surgeon N. I. Pirogov. Many other world mediators conscientiously performed their duty, adhering to the framework of the law, for which they incurred the wrath of local feudal landowners. However, they were all soon removed from their positions or resigned themselves.

Central to the reform was land question. The published law proceeded from the principle of recognizing the landowners' right of ownership to all the land on their estates, including the peasant allotment, and the peasants were declared only users of this land, obliged to serve for it the duties established by the "Regulations" ( quitrent or corvée). To become the owner of his allotment land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner.

During the preparation of the reform, as noted above, the principle of landless emancipation of the peasants was rejected. The complete landlessness of the peasants was an economically unprofitable and socially dangerous measure: depriving the landowners and the state of the opportunity to receive the former income from the peasants, it would create a mass of millions of landless proletariat, which threatened a general peasant uprising. This was repeatedly pointed out in their projects by the landowners and in the reports by representatives local authorities. The government could not ignore the fact that the demand for the provision of land was in the foreground in the peasant movement of the pre-reform years.

But if the complete deprivation of land by the peasants was impossible for the reasons indicated, then allocating them with a sufficient amount of land, which would put the peasant economy in an independent position from the landlord, was unprofitable for the landowner. Therefore, the drafters of the law determined such norms for the allotment, which, due to their insufficiency, would tie the peasant economy to the landowner's by the inevitable for the peasant to rent land from his former master. Hence the notorious "segments" from peasant allotments, which averaged over 20% throughout the country and in some provinces reached 30-40% of their pre-reform size.

When determining the norms of peasant allotments, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account. Proceeding from this, the entire territory of European Russia was divided into three bands - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, and the "bands", in turn, were divided into "localities" (from 10 to 15 in each "band"). In the non-chernozem and chernozem "bands", the "higher" and "lower" (1/3 "higher") norms of allotments were established, and in the steppe - one so-called decree norm. The law provided for cutting off a peasant allotment in favor of the landowner if its pre-reform size exceeded the "higher" or "indicated" norm, and cutting it off if it did not reach the "lower" norm. The gap between the "higher" and "lower" norms (three times) led in practice to the fact that segments became the rule, and cuttings became the exception. While 40-65% of the peasants were cut off in individual provinces, only 3-15% of the peasants were cut off. At the same time, the size of the lands cut off from the allotment was dozens of times greater than the size of the land attached to the allotment. Incidentally, in the final analysis, the cutting turned out to be even beneficial to the landlords: it brought the allotment to a certain minimum necessary for the preservation of the peasant economy, and in most cases was associated with an increase in duties. In addition, the law allowed cutting off peasant allotments even in cases where the landowner had less than 1/3 of the land in relation to the peasant allotment (and in the steppe zone - less than 1/2) or when the landowner provided the peasants free of charge ("as a gift" ) 1/4 of the "highest" norm of putting on.

The severity of the segments for the peasants was not only in their size. Of particular importance was what lands fell into the segment. Although it was forbidden by law to cut off arable land, it turned out that the peasants were deprived of the lands they most needed (meadows, pastures, watering holes), without which normal farming was impossible. The peasant was forced to rent these "cut-off lands". Thus, in the hands of the landlords, the cuts turned into a very effective remedy pressure on the peasants and become the basis of the labor-saving system of landowner farming (for more details, see Chapter 3).

The landownership of the peasants was "pressed" not only as a result of cuts from allotments, but also by striping, depriving the peasants of forest land (the forest was included in the peasant allotment only in some northern provinces). Under serfdom, the land use of the peasants was not limited to the allotments provided to them. The peasants also used the pastures of the landlord free of charge, received permission to graze cattle in the landowner's forest, on the mowed meadow and the cleaned landowner's field. With the abolition of serfdom, the peasants could use these landowners' lands for an additional fee. The law gave the landowner the right to transfer peasant estates to another place, and before the peasants went for redemption, to exchange their allotments for their own land if any minerals were discovered on the peasant allotment or this land turned out to be necessary for the landowner for his economic needs. Thus, having received an allotment, the peasant did not yet become its full owner.

When switching to redemption, the peasant received the name "peasant-owner". However, the land was not provided to a separate peasant household (with the exception of the peasants of the western provinces), but to the community. The communal form of land ownership excluded the possibility for the peasant to sell his allotment, and the lease of the latter was limited to the boundaries of the community.

Under serfdom, some of the wealthy peasants had their own purchased land. The law then forbade serfs to make purchases of real estate in their own name, so they were made in the name of their landowners. As a result, the landowners became the legal owners of these lands. Only in seven provinces of the Non-Chernozem region there were 270 thousand acres of purchased land from the landlord peasants. During the reform, many landowners tried to take possession of them. Documents from the archives reflect the dramatic struggle of the peasants for their purchased lands. The results of litigious cases were far from always in favor of the peasants.

To protect the interests of the small landed nobility, special "rules" established a number of benefits for him, which created even more difficult conditions for the peasants in these estates. Owners who had less than 21 male souls were considered small-scale. There were 41 thousand, or 42% of the total number of the landed nobility. They had a total of 340 thousand souls of peasants, which was about 3% of the total serf population. On one small estate, there were an average of 8 souls of peasants. There were especially many such small landowners in the Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Smolensk provinces. They numbered tens of thousands of noble families who owned from 3 to 5 souls of serfs. Such landowners were given the right not to allocate land to the peasants at all, if by the time of the abolition of serfdom they did not use it. Also, these landowners were not obliged to cut the land to the peasants if their allotments were less than the lowest norm. Peasants who belonged to these owners and did not receive a plot at all were given the right to move to state-owned lands with an allowance from the treasury to set up a household. Finally, a small landowner could transfer the peasants with their field plots to the treasury, for which he received a reward in the amount of 17 annual quitrents he levied from his peasants.

The most deprived were the "peasants-gifters", who received "beggarly", or, as they were called, "orphan" allotments. There were 461 thousand male peasants. "As a gift" they were given 485 thousand acres - 1.05 acres per capita. More than 3/4 of the donors were in the southern steppe, Volga and Central Black Earth provinces. Formally, according to the law, the landowner could not force the peasant to take a gift allotment. But often the peasants found themselves in such conditions when they were forced to agree to a donation allotment, even to demand it, if their pre-reform allotment approached the lowest norm, and payments for land exceeded its market value. Receiving a deed of gift exempted from high redemption payments, the donor completely broke with the landowner. But the peasant could go "to the gift" only with the consent of his landowner. The desire to go "to the gift" was predominantly manifested in the sparsely populated, land-rich provinces, and especially in the first years of the reform, when market and rental prices for land there were relatively small. Wealthy peasants, who had free cash to buy land, were especially eager to receive a deed of allotment. It was this category of donors who was able to establish an entrepreneurial economy on purchased land. Most of the donors lost and found themselves in a distressed situation. In 1881, the Minister of the Interior, N.P. Ignatiev, wrote that the donors had reached an extreme degree of poverty, so that “zemstvos were forced to provide them with annual cash benefits to feed them, and petitions were received from these farms to resettle them on state lands from aid from the government." As a result, 10 million male souls of the former landlord peasants received 33.7 million acres of land, and the landowners retained an amount of land that was 2.5 times greater than the allotment peasant. 1.3 million souls of the male iol (all yards, part of the donors and peasants of small landowners) actually turned out to be landless. The allotment of the rest of the peasants averaged 3.4 acres per capita, while for a normal standard of living through agriculture, according to the calculations of the then statistician Yu. Yu. Yanson, it was required (depending on the conditions of various regions) from 6 to 8 acres .

The allotment of land to the peasants was compulsory: the landowner was obliged to provide the allotment to the peasant, and the peasant to take it. According to the law, until 1870, the peasant could not refuse the allotment. But even after this period, the right to refuse the allotment was surrounded by conditions that reduced the hundred to nothing: he had to fully pay taxes and duties, including recruitment. As a result, after 1870, over the next 10 years, only 9.3 thousand male souls were able to abandon their allotments.

The “Redemption Regulations” allowed the peasant to leave the community, but it was extremely difficult: it was necessary to pay the dues to the landowner in advance for the goal, state, worldly and other fees, pay off arrears, etc. Therefore, only wealthy peasants could make an exit from the community, associated with large material costs, while for the rest it was practically impossible. The law provided for before the transition of the peasants to redemption, i.e. for the period of a temporarily obligated state, serving them for the provided land of service in the form of corvée and dues. The sizes of both were fixed in the law. If for corvee estates a single norm of corvée days was established (40 days for men and 30 for women for one shower allotment), then for quitrents the amount of duty was determined depending on the fishing and trading "benefits" of the peasants. The law established the following rates of dues: for the "highest" allotment in industrial provinces - 10 rubles, in estates located within 25 miles from St. Petersburg and Moscow, it increased to 12 rubles, and in the rest it was determined in the amount of 8-9 rubles . from a male soul. If the property is close to railway, a navigable river, to the commercial and industrial center, the landowner could apply for an increase in the amount of dues.

According to the law, it was impossible to increase the quitrent above the pre-reform one, if the land allotment did not increase. However, the law did not provide for a reduction in dues in connection with the reduction of the allotment. As a result of the cut off from the peasant allotment, there was an actual increase in quitrent per 1 tithe. "What kind of improvement is this? The quitrent was left to us as before, and the land was cut off," the peasants complained bitterly. The rates of dues established by law exceeded the yield from the land, especially in the non-chernozem provinces, although formally it was considered that this was payment for the land provided to the peasants. In reality, it was the price of personal freedom.

The discrepancy between the quitrent and the yield from the allotment was aggravated by the so-called gradation system. Its essence was that half of the dues fell on the first tithe, a quarter - on the second, and the other quarter was laid out on the remaining tithes. The system of "gradations" pursued the goal of establishing a maximum of duties for a minimum allotment. It also extended to the corvee: half of the corvee days were served for the first tithe, a quarter - for the second, the other quarter - for the remaining tithes. 2/3 of corvee work was served in the summer and 1/3 in the winter. The summer working day was 12 hours, and the winter day was 9 hours. At the same time, a “lesson system” was introduced: a certain amount of work (“lesson”) was established, which the peasant was obliged to complete during the working day. However, due to the massive poor performance of corvee work in the first years after the reform, corvee turned out to be so inefficient that the landlords began to quickly transfer the peasants to dues. Only for 1861 - 1863. the share of corvée peasants decreased from 71 to 33%.

As noted above, the final stage of the peasant reform was the transfer of peasants for redemption, but the law of February 19, 1861 did not establish any final deadline for the completion of such a transfer.

In 9 provinces of Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine (Vilna, Kovno, Grodno, Minsk, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Kiev, Podolsk and Volyn), the government, by decrees on March 1, July 30 and November 2, 1863, immediately transferred the peasants to compulsory redemption, as well as made a number of significant concessions: the peasants were returned the lands cut off from their allotments, and duties were reduced by an average of 20%. These measures proceeded from the desire of the tsarist government in the conditions of the uprising that broke out in Poland in January 1863 to win over the Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian peasantry in the struggle against the gentry national liberation movement and at the same time bring “calmness” to the peasant environment.

The situation was different in 36 Great Russian, Little Russian and Novorossiysk provinces. Here, the transfer of peasants for ransom took more than two decades. Only on December 28, 1881, the “Regulations” were issued, providing for the transfer of the peasants who were still in a temporarily obligated position for compulsory redemption, starting from January 1883. At the same time, a decree was adopted to reduce by 12% redemption payments from peasants who had previously switched to redemption. By 1881, only 15% of all former landlord peasants remained temporarily liable peasants. Their transfer for redemption was completed by 1895. As a result, as of January 1, 1895, 9159 thousand male peasants in areas with communal land ownership and thousands of householders with household land ownership were transferred for redemption. A total of 124,000 redemption transactions were concluded, of which 20% were by mutual agreement with the landlords, 50% by the unilateral demand of the landowners, and 30% by "government measure", i.e. transfer to compulsory redemption.

The ransom was based not on the real, market price of the land, but on feudal duties, i.e. the peasants had to pay not only for allotments, but also for their freedom - the loss of serf labor by the landowner. The amount of the ransom for the allotment was determined by the so-called rent capitalization. Its essence was as follows. The annual rent was equal to 6% of the capital x (this is the percentage that was accrued annually on bank deposits). Thus, if a peasant paid dues from 1 male soul in the amount of 10 rubles. per year, then the redemption amount x was: 10 rubles. : 6% x 100% = 166 rubles. 67 kop.

The ransom case was taken over by the state through "purchase transaction". For this purpose, in 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was established under the Ministry of Finance. The redemption transaction consisted in the fact that the treasury paid the landlords immediately in cash or securities of interest 80% of the redemption amount, if the peasants of the estate received the “highest” allotment at the rate, and 75% if they were given a less than “highest” allotment. The remaining 20-25% of the redemption amount (the so-called additional payment) the peasants paid directly to the landowner - immediately or in installments, in money or by working off (by mutual agreement). The redemption sum paid by the state to the landowner was regarded as a "loan" granted to the peasants, which was then collected from them as a "redemption payment" in the amount of 6% of this "loan" annually for 49 years. It is not difficult to determine that over the next half century, during which the redemption payments were stretched, the peasants had to pay up to 300% of the initial redemption amount. The market price of the land allotted to the peasants was in 1863-1872. 648 million rubles, and the redemption amount for it amounted to 867 million rubles.

The centralized redemption of peasant allotments by the state solved a number of important social and economic problems. Government credit provided the landowners with a guaranteed payment of the ransom and at the same time saved them from direct confrontation with the peasants. At the same time, the problem of returning to the treasury the landlord's debt in the amount of 425 million rubles, taken by the landlords on the security of serf souls, was also solved. This money was deducted from the ransom money. In addition, the ransom turned out to be a profitable operation for the state. According to official statistics, from 1862 to 1907. (until the cancellation of redemption payments), the former landlord peasants paid the treasury 1540.6 million rubles. (and still owed her). In addition, they paid 527 million rubles in the form of dues to the landowners themselves for the period of their temporarily obligated position.

Although the ransom cost the peasantry dearly, it undoubtedly contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the country. From the power of the landowner, the peasant fell under the power of money, into the conditions of commodity production. The transfer of the peasants for ransom meant the final separation of the peasant economy from the landlord. The ransom not only contributed to a more intensive penetration of commodity-money relations into the peasant economy, but also gave the landowner money to transfer his economy to a capitalist basis. In general, the reform of 1861 created favorable conditions for a gradual transition from the feudal landowner economy to the capitalist one.

Introduction

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The state in Russia throughout its history has played a significant role, and in the XVIII century. the strengthening of statehood turned Russia into a great power. As a result of the reforms of the XVIII century. a complex and branched state apparatus was formed, based on a strict separation of the functions of management and the court, the sole decision of issues in their collegiate preparation, and an institutionalized system of bodies monitoring the legality of its activities. In the XVIII century. to replace the class "sovereign" administrative and military service came public service, the process of formation of the Russian bureaucracy as a special privileged circle of persons exercising public administration was completed.

Relevance of the research topic.Central place in the history of Russia in the first half of the XVIII century. occupy the transformations of Peter I, Catherine I, Elizabeth Petrovna, and in the second half of the 18th century, of course, the reforms of Catherine II.

The reforms carried out by Peter I had great importance for the historical fate of Russia. The institutions of power he created lasted for hundreds of years. In the history of Russia, there are few such or other institutions of state power, created ever before or after Peter I, which would have existed for so long and would have had such a strong impact on all sides. public life. The Petrine era is a unique historical period, which marks an incredible historical example of successful reforms, unprecedented in scope and depth. Therefore, the study of this era has not lost its relevance, despite the huge amount of research by domestic and foreign authors: the field of activity is too large.

Many historians call the Russian 18th century the century of women. Undoubtedly, the brightest and most talented of them on the throne is Catherine II, the reign of Catherine II, which lasted more than 30 years, left a deep mark on Russian history.

The reform processes of the second half of the 18th century, associated with the reign of Catherine the Great, are of great interest, since their study in historical and legal terms is not only scientific and educational, but also practical, allowing in legal terms to compare the features of the processes of transformation of state-administrative institutions into various periods of Russian history.

The modern Russian state is currently solving complex problems in the field of reforming the management system, and many of these problems have deep historical roots. The Russian Empire of the middle of the 18th century and the Russian Federation of the beginning of the 21st century, due to historical conditions, are forced to solve the same problems - the strengthening of the central government, the unification of the administrative and judicial system over a vast territory. It is necessary, of course, to take into account that modern Russian society differs significantly from the society of the second half of the 18th century, and the nature of changes in the management system in Russian Empire era of Peter I, Catherine II and modern Russian Federation different, but today, in an era of significant change, it is necessary to take into account the national, both positive and negative, historical experience of transformations in the system of state and local government.

All of the above determines the relevance of the topic. this study.

By degree of developmentthis topic is quite well studied, which indicates the constant attention of historians and lawyers to various aspects of the development of the management system in Russia in the 18th century. Issues related to the transformations in the management system of Russia in the 18th century were dealt with by such scholars as historians and jurists as: Anisimov E.V., Bystrenko V.I., Migunova T.L., Omelchenko O.A., Pavlenko N.I. and other works of some of these authors are used in this course work.

objectresearch is the activities of the Russian rulers of the XVIII century in the field of state and local government of the Russian Empire.

Subjectstudies advocate reform of central organs government controlled and reforms of local government during the reign of Peter I, Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizabeth Petrovna, Catherine II, Paul I.

aimThis course work is the study of transformations in the management system of Russia in the XVIII century.

During the study, the following tasks:

give a general description of the system of higher central and local governments in Russia in the 18th century;

study the reforms of Peter I in public administration, namely: the reform of the central government and the reform of local government and self-government;

to analyze the transformations in the management system in Russia in the 20-60s. XVIII century, carried out by Catherine I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizaveta Petrovna;

to study the reforms of the management system carried out by Catherine II, to characterize the features of the provincial administrative-territorial

noah reform;

to study the activities carried out by Paul I, aimed at changing the management system of Catherine II.

When writing the course work, the following were used methods:the method of comparative state science and jurisprudence - with its help, it was possible to give a comparative description of the reforms carried out in the first and second half of the 18th century; the historical and legal method - its application to objectively consider the entire system of government in Russia in the eighteenth century, the system-structural method, its application in the study made it possible to reveal the essence of the very concept of reforming the management system. The materials that formed the basis of the study were studied and analyzed taking into account the chronology of events, the need to obtain historical and legal information from the scientific sources being studied.

Work structure. This course work consists of an introduction, which substantiates the relevance of the chosen topic, the main part, consisting of two chapters - the first gives the concept of the system of higher central and local governments that existed in Russia in the first half of the eighteenth century, studies the reforms carried out by Peter I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizaveta Petrovna; in the second chapter, the reforms of public administration of the second half of the 18th century are studied, namely, the reforms carried out by Catherine II and Paul I. At the end of the work, a conclusion is given containing conclusions on the study.

public administration reform ekaterina

Chapter 1. The system of higher central and local governments in Russia in the first half of the 18th century

Absolutism in Russia took shape as early as the second half of the 17th century, but its final approval and formalization dates back to the first quarter of the 18th century. The absolute monarchy exercised the dominance of the nobility in the presence of the emerging bourgeois class. Absolutism also enjoyed the support of the merchants and manufacturers, who increased their wealth thanks to the benefits they received, the promotion of trade and industry.

The assertion of absolutism was accompanied by increased centralization and bureaucratization of the state apparatus and the creation of a regular army and navy.

There were two stages in the implementation of public administration reforms. The first of them covers 1699-1711. - from the creation of the Burmister Chamber, or City Hall, and the first regional reform to the establishment of the Senate. Administrative transformations of this period were carried out hastily, without a clearly developed plan.

The second stage falls on quieter years, when the most difficult period of the Northern War was left behind. Carrying out transformations at this stage was preceded by a long and systematic preparation: the state structure of the Western European states was studied; with the participation of foreign jurists, the regulations of new institutions were drawn up.

So, let's consider the reforms of state and local government in Russia during the reign of Peter I, Anna Ioannovna, Elizaveta Petrovna.

1.1 Reforms of Peter I in the management system

During the reign of Peter the Great, reforms were carried out in all areas of the state life of the country. Many of these transformations are rooted in the 17th century - the socio-economic transformations of that time served as the prerequisites for Peter's reforms, the task and content of which was the formation of an absolutist bureaucratic apparatus of nobility.

The aggravated class contradictions led to the need to strengthen and strengthen the autocratic apparatus in the center and in the localities, centralize management, build a harmonious and flexible system of the administrative apparatus, strictly controlled by the highest authorities. It was also necessary to create a combat-ready regular military force to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy and suppress the growing popular movements. It was necessary to consolidate the dominant position of the nobility by legal acts and give it a central, leading place in public life. All this combined led to reforms in various fields the activities of the state.

In Russian historiography, two opposing views have developed on the era of Peter's reforms, on their causes and results. Some historians believe that Peter I violated the natural course of the country's development, others believe that Russia was prepared for these transformations by the entire previous course of historical development. But everyone agrees on one thing: the Petrine era was unprecedented in terms of the quantity and quality of reforms carried out by the supreme power. The life of the country - political, economic, socio-cultural - has changed radically over several decades. According to the doctor of historical sciences, professor of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov A. Utkin "Peter the Great made the greatest contribution to European history that time. During his reign, Russia, located on the eastern periphery of the Old World and transformed by him into an empire, began to play a leading role in Europe. Thanks to Peter's reforms, Russia made a powerful modernization breakthrough. This allowed our country to stand in the first row of leading European countries."

So let's take a closer look at the reforms of state and local government carried out by Peter I.

Reform of the central government

Of all the transformations of Peter, the central place was occupied by the reform of public administration, the reorganization of all its links. This is understandable, since the old clerk's apparatus, inherited by Peter, was not able to cope with the increasingly complex management tasks. Therefore, new orders and offices began to be created. The reform, while meeting the most pressing needs of autocratic power, was at the same time a consequence of the development of the bureaucratic trend. It was with the help of strengthening the bureaucratic element in management that Peter intended to solve all state issues.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. all the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial power was concentrated in the hands of the king. In 1711, the Boyar Duma was replaced by the highest body of executive and judicial power - the Senate. Members of the Senate were appointed by the king on the basis of merit. In the exercise of executive power, the Senate issued resolutions - decrees that had the force of law. In 1722, the Prosecutor General was placed at the head of the Senate, who was entrusted with control over the activities of all government agencies, he was supposed to perform the functions of "the sovereign's eye and ear."

At the beginning of the XVIII century. authorities central control there were orders that were bureaucratized. The reform of the central authorities was carried out gradually, in two stages:

) 1699 - the beginning of the 18th century, when a number of orders were united under the leadership of one person with the preservation of the apparatus of each order (44 orders were combined into 25 independent institutions). In connection with the needs of the Northern War, several new orders arose (Artillery, Provision, Admiralty, Hand-to-Hand Affairs, Preobrazhensky, etc.).

) The reform of 1718-1720, which abolished most of the orders and introduced 12 colleges. The transformation began with Peter's Decree of December 11, 1717 "On the selection of advisers and assessors." The orders were transformed because they hindered the implementation of the tasks of the state in the conditions of the transition from feudalism to capitalism that had begun. Colleges were created on the model of those that existed in Germany, Denmark, France, Sweden. The collegial method of solving cases was more progressive than the order, the case was more clearly organized in them, issues were resolved much faster.

In a number of colleges a system of sectoral local governments has developed.The apparatus of local authorities was located at the Berg Collegium and the Manufactory Collegium (which had commissariats); Justice Collegium (court courts); Chambers College (Chambers - and zemstvo commissars); Military college (governors); state office (rentmeisters).

In contrast to orders, collegiums (with rare exceptions) were built according to the functional principle and were endowed with competence in accordance with the functions assigned to them. Each collegium had its own circle of departments. Other boards were forbidden to interfere in matters not subject to their conduct. Governors, vice-governors, governors, offices were subordinate to the boards. Decrees were sent to the lower institutions of the collegium, and "denunciations" entered the Senate. Collegiums were given the right to report to the tsar about what they "considered the state benefit." The collegium consisted of a fiscal, and later a prosecutor who controlled their activities.

The number of colleges was not constant. In 1722, for example, the Revision College was liquidated, but later restored. To manage Ukraine in 1722, the Little Russian Board was created, a little later - the Board of Economy (1726), the Board of Justice, Livonian, Estonian and Finnish Affairs. The boards were led (they were their presidents) by the closest associates of Peter I: A.D. Menshikov, G.I. Golovkin, F.M. Apraksin and others.

Reform of local government and self-government

The years of the reign of Peter I are distinguished by his constant attempts to bring to life the initiative of the population. However, the goal of such transformations has always been the enslavement of all its layers. various types taxes (there were up to 60). All public aspirations of the emperor were subordinated to the fiscal needs of the state.

The largest administrative reform of local government was the creation of provinces. This reform completely changed the system of local government. She was dedicated to the Decree "On the establishment of provinces and on painting cities for them" dated December 18, 1708. According to this decree, the entire territory of Russia was divided into 8 provinces (headed by governors): Moscow, Ingermanland - later St. - Petersburg, Kyiv , Smolensk, Arkhangelgorod - later Arkhangelsk, Kazan, Azov, Siberian. In 1711 there were 9 provinces, and in 1714 - 11 (Astrakhan, Nizhny Novgorod, Riga). This was Peter's first administrative reform, and it was of a fiscal nature. In addition, the provincial reform strengthened the power of the landlords in the field.

Since 1719, Peter began the second administrative reform, because. the first, carried out from 1708, was mostly completed by 1719. In accordance with the second reform of local government, 11 provinces were divided into 45 provinces, which were headed by governors. The provinces were divided into districts - districts , where the chamber-collegium appointed such leaders as zemstvo commissars. Since 1724, a new tax began to be collected from the population - the poll tax. To collect the poll tax, the institution of new zemstvo commissars elected for 1 year by the local noble society is established. However, the institution of elected commissars did not last long, it faced the pronounced absenteeism of the local nobles (many of their congresses could not take place due to the absence of the nobles).

The zemstvo commissar, who handed over the poll tax to the colonel, became completely dependent on the latter. The dominance of the civilian bureaucracy in the province (governor, voivode, zemstvo commissar) was further complicated by the dominance of the military regimental authorities. Under the double pressure of both, the germs of self-government quickly withered away.

The transformations of state administration carried out by Peter I were of progressive importance for Russia. The institutions of state power he created lasted more than two centuries. The Senate, for example, operated from 1711 to December 1917; 206 years. An equally long fate was prepared for many other reforms of Peter the Great: the institutions of state power he created had a noticeable impact on all aspects of public life.

1.2 Transformations in the management system in Russia in the 20-60s. XVIII century

The transformations of Peter I became the axis around which the wheel revolved Russian history throughout the 18th century. The attitude towards them will be one of the main issues for the rulers of Russia after Peter the Great. But rather faceless heirs came to replace the Great Peter, and the fate of Peter's reforms turned out to be dramatic. The era of palace coups was called by V.O. Klyuchevsky 37-year period (1725-1762) in the history of Russia.

The change of rulers on the Russian throne did not mean any major changes or upheavals for the country. During this period, there were no major and significant reforms in the country. We can only talk about the reorganization of the central authorities and their adaptation to the needs of a particular ruler and his entourage.

The core of domestic policy in the era of palace coups was measures that expanded and strengthened the privileges of the nobility, often due to revisions of Peter's transformations. The weakening of Russia, the bureaucratization of the state apparatus, the decrease in the combat effectiveness of the army and navy, favoritism turned out to be characteristic features of this time.

So, let's consider the main transformations in the system of higher central and local governments in Russia in the 20-60s of the 18th century.

After the death of Peter I, the Russian throne was occupied by Catherine I. The power of Catherine I was established in the form absolute monarchy. Under Catherine I and beyond, there was an order in which all state institutions - the highest, central and local, legislative, executive and judicial - have their only source in the person of the emperor. All the fullness of state power was concentrated in the hands of one person, although outwardly it looked as if some of the highest authorities acted independently or made decisions collectively in the presence of the emperor. In fact, such decisions were only deliberative in nature. The formation of government bodies was influenced by the already strengthened signs of absolutism - the presence of a regular army, bureaucracy, organized financial system developing commodity-money relations. The highest authorities, acting on behalf of the sovereigns, were the backbone of absolutism.

Under Catherine I, on February 8, 1726, the Supreme Privy Council was created, which became the main government body under the Empress. Having become the highest institution in the state, the Supreme Privy Council was in charge of all important internal and external affairs. Its functions included the appointment of senior officials, financial management, reporting of the auditing board. The three most important boards were subordinate to the council - military, admiralty and foreign. The central body - the Secret Chancellery, created under Peter I, was liquidated in 1726, and control, search and supervisory functions were transferred to the Supreme Privy Council.

The Senate was subordinated to the Supreme Privy Council and lost the title of government, became known as high. In fact, the Supreme Privy Council, having broad powers and having a high position in the state, replaced the empress. The decree of August 4, 1726 allowed all laws to be signed either by the Supreme Privy Council or by the Empress.

After the death of Catherine I, he ascended the throne according to her will Peter II.Under Peter II, all power was also concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Privy Council. After the death of Peter II. The question of the successor to the throne was decided by the Supreme Privy Council, which rejected all candidates and opted for the Dowager Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna.

On March 4, 1730, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished. There have been changes in the higher authorities. The Senate continued to function, but its rights were not fully restored. Anna did not show the ability and desire to rule the country. All management work was undertaken by experienced administrators - members of the Cabinet of Ministers, newly created in the fall of 1731. Initially, the Cabinet of Ministers had only managerial function, but since November 1735 this authoritative body received wide powers and legislative rights.

After a short reign Ivan VIOn November 25, 1741, she ascended the Russian throne Elizabeth Petrovna.

By decree of December 12, 1741, Elizabeth restored the "Peter's offspring" - the Senate in the sense of the highest state body and liquidated the Cabinet of Ministers that stood above it, which had special powers. Instead, it was ordered "to have an Cabinet at Our Court in such strength as it was under Peter the Great." Thus, Peter's personal imperial office, the Cabinet, was restored. Part of the affairs of the former Cabinet of Ministers began to be decided by the Senate, while the other part came under the personal jurisdiction of the empress. Things went to her personal office - Her Majesty's Cabinet. Elizabeth received reports from various departments, the Senate, and reports from the Prosecutor General for consideration. Decrees were issued only with the personal signature of the Empress.

The ongoing reform of the highest state bodies in the 40s - 60s. 18th century increased the role of the monarch in the system of absolutism. The Empress decided not only important state issues, but also minor ones. To make state decisions, Elizabeth needed the advice of senior officials who constituted the elite in the administration of Russia. Therefore, she restored the Peter's "establishment" - emergency meetings of top dignitaries to discuss the most complex problems, especially in the field of foreign policy. Such meetings under Elizabeth were officially called "conferences", and their participants - "conference ministers".

In general, under the successors of Peter I Russian state more and more formalized as a policeman. For example, under Elizabeth there was a secret office, which in the 40-60s. conducted an investigation of rumors that discredited the queen. The police style regulated all the activities of the state apparatus. From the officials of all authorities required strict obedience without reasoning.

Palace coups and police regulation of the state system affected the changes in the structure and functions of both higher and central government institutions. At the top of the pyramid of authorities and administration of the Russian Empire stood the Emperor (Empress). It was followed by the highest state institutions - the Supreme Privy Council, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Conference at the highest court, which operated at different times. As for the Senate, headed by the Prosecutor General, its position has changed several times. This authority was supposed to be subordinate only to the emperor, but, at certain periods, it depended on the highest state institutions.

big group central state institutions of the second quarter of the 18th century. were collegiums that managed individual (special) economic and social issues. The structure of the colleges included departments, expeditions, offices and offices were gradually added. Formed by the middle of the XVIII century. the collegial system of government was motley. Its central state institutions (boards, orders, offices) differed in structure and powers. The college system was in a state of crisis. But at the same time, new principles of their organization and action appeared in the central government bodies.

The system of local institutions in the 20-60s of the 18th century also underwent significant changes. This was explained by the need to strengthen the noble state in the 20-30s, when an acute financial crisis broke out and the discontent of the masses intensified. The restructuring of local governments was carried out in the interests of the landowners. In 1727, Peter's expensive system of local institutions was actually liquidated (or sharply reduced).

At the end of the 20s. A regional counter-reform was carried out, which eliminated a number of administrative units. The reduction of the administrative apparatus in the provinces was quite severe, following the example of the central boards, where the staff was reduced to a minimum of 6 persons - the president, his deputy, two advisers and two of their assistants (assessors). And half of these officials were supposed to be "at work", and the other half were on vacation without pay.

The main cell in the field was the province, headed by the governor, whose powers increased dramatically. He even had the power to approve death sentences. There was no separation of administrative power from the judiciary. In cities and counties, power belonged to the governors.

The scheme of local authorities looked as follows: the governor with the provincial office, fixed by the instruction of September 12, 1728, then there was the governor in the province and his office, below - the governor in the county, also with a small office.

The restructuring of the local government system established a strict chain of command. The uyezd voivode reported only directly to the provincial voivode, and the latter to the governor. A strict hierarchy was established in the subordination of state institutions in the field. At that time, Russia was divided into 14 provinces, 47 provinces and more than 250 counties.

The competence of governors and governors was limited to practical tasks. Their duty included the execution of laws and orders of the supreme power, the Senate and collegiums, the maintenance of order on their territory, the fight against robbery, the maintenance of prisons, etc.

The magistrates, which began to operate again in 1743, were subordinate to the governors and governors and were also included in the general system of centralization of power. In the 60s. governors changed every 5 years. Governors were appointed for an indefinite term. A hierarchy of management levels, institutions and officials employed in them was taking shape.

The centralization of the state administration system from top to bottom, the formation of a service bureaucracy mainly from among the nobility, supported and strengthened the autocratic power. The bureaucracy became an elite stratum, emerging both from the old aristocratic part of the ruling class, and from the new nobles, who advanced in their personal qualities.

In the middle of the XVIII century. the government of Elizabeth Petrovna actively influenced the process of formation of the bureaucracy. Measures were taken to secure the office workers and their children who were in the service. The number of hereditary nobles among the officials decreased. To correct the situation in 1750-1754. the appointment of persons of non-noble origin to the secretaries was suspended, control over the training of junkers - candidates for secretarial positions was tightened different levels.

Chapter 2. Public Administration Reforms in the Second Half of the 18th Century

A series of palace coups 1725-1762. weakened Russian statehood, all levels of government. In the second half of the 18th century, the management system was still built on the foundation of the main pillars: autocracy, serfdom, patrimonial property, estates, which determined its social anti-people orientation, centralization and bureaucratization of all levels of the management system. The aggressive foreign policy affected the change in the functions and administrative structure of the management system, which tightened the tax pressure, the exploitation of the peasantry and other tax-paying strata of the population.

The quality of public administration was affected by the aggravation of social tension, the sharp separation of the estates, the growth of contradictions between the nobility and the peasantry, unrest and armed uprisings of the peasants. Favoritism, a kind of institution of power, which is a global and Russian phenomenon, also affected management.

Administrative reforms of the second half of the 18th century. were carried out in two stages: in the 60s and 70-90s, the demarcation sign between which was the reaction of Catherine II to the social upheavals of the empire in the early 70s.

Reorganization of the supreme and central administration

The palace coup that took place on June 28, 1762, during which Catherine overthrew her husband from the throne Peter III and became Empress Catherine II, served as the beginning of a new stage in the development of the Russian Empire. This empress, who ruled from 1762 to 1796, deservedly entered the national history as Catherine the Great. Before her, only Peter I was called the Great. After her, no one else on the Russian throne was awarded such an honor.

Catherine II was deeply and keenly interested in state affairs Moreover, she considered them her main vocation. She saw her task in continuing the grandiose transformations begun by Peter the Great, and, striving to be like him in both big and small, she spared no effort to bring Russia into the ranks of not only the most powerful, but also the most advanced countries in the world.

Catherine II did a lot to improve internal organization empire. Moreover, its transformations did not take place as violently, cruelly and painfully as under Peter I. It was a serious and profound work in which the customs, habits, age-old way of life of the Russian people were not destroyed, but were taken into account, used and adapted to Russian reality. According to scientists, "the personal influence of Catherine II on the state and legal transformations in the country was especially historically significant, comparable in Russian history only with the state role of Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century."

The reforms of Catherine II affected the entire system of state administration and they began from its upper floors, the role of which after Peter I either weakened or rose due to the repeated changes in their status and functions.

The reforms proceeded from the following goals:

elevate the nobility, make the administration strong enough to realize its interests in domestic and foreign policy;

strengthen their personal power, obtained illegitimately, illegally, as a result of the assassination of the emperor; subjugate the entire system of government.

Catherine, who made a coup on June 28, 1762 with the help of the noble guards, sought to rely on the army in governing the state. Immediately after the coup, she subjugated the army infantry of the Petersburg and Vyborg garrisons and cavalry through personally devoted commanders.

The reorganization of the Senate became noticeable. In the manifesto of December 15, 1763 "On the establishment of departments in the Senate, Justice, Votchinnaya and Revision Collegiums, on the division according to these cases," the state of the Senate administration was recognized as not meeting the needs of public administration. However, the Senate was given the status of only the highest executive body and court. The current functions of a number of abolished collegiums and offices were transferred to it. With the narrowed role of the Senate, the role of the Prosecutor General is especially exalted to a high-ranking official and trusted person.

The Senate lost its wide powers, was deprived of legislative rights, from the supreme governing body it was turned into an auxiliary administrative and judicial-appeal body at the level of not the highest, but the central administration. Gradually, the role of the departments also weakened, becoming only the highest judicial instances in connection with the creation of sectoral expeditions of the Senate.

The Senate Secret Expedition played a special role (office), which had the status of an independent public institution. The provisional supreme state body was the Legislative Commission, created to draw up a new "Code" (1767 - 1768). The commission was created as a class-representative institution. The deputies delivered 1465 "mandates" to the Commission. The commission was dissolved in connection with the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war, but its materials facilitated the development of further reforms.

The strengthening of Catherine's absolutism in government was also subordinated to the activities of the Council established in 1768 in connection with the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war at the Imperial Court. The role of the new personal office has increased in the field of management, created in 1763 for the administration of "Her Imperial Majesty's own affairs." Through secretaries of state, whose number grew, Catherine conducted the bulk of the affairs of government. This structure stood out from the imperial cabinet, embodied and determined the trend of further absolutization of state administration, which at the end of the 18th century. acquired a despotic form through the chancellery of His Imperial Majesty's own, which became the highest body of state administration. At the same time, the Cabinet of the Empress lost the functions of a state body.

There was also a status of the Main Palace Office , through which the management of the palace peasants, lands, economy, court states was carried out. She was subordinated to the court, gofintendant, stable and other similar offices.

The line of Catherine II to strengthen her personal role not only in higher, but also in central administration was embodied in a change in the collegiate system, where the role of the collegiate principle was belittled, and the principles of unity of command were introduced. Catherine II weakened the central government, transferred the affairs of most colleges to local provincial institutions. Many colleges were abolished. The role of the central administration was reduced to general executive direction and oversight.

Provincial reform of Catherine II

The line of Catherine II on strengthening absolutism in state administration, its centralization and policeization, subordination personally to the empress was embodied consistently in the provincial reform, which was carried out in two stages.

On April 1764, by the decree "Instruction to Governors", the institution of governorship, its state status and functions were improved. The governor was declared the representative of the imperial person, the head, owner and guardian of the province entrusted to him, the executor of the imperial will and laws. The governor received enormous power, customs, magistrates, various commissions, police, yam boards were subordinate to him - all "civilian places", "zemstvo governments" that had previously functioned outside the governor's and in the sphere of central subordination. On November 7, 1775, a Decree was issued " Institution for the administration of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire.

By transforming local government in this way, Catherine intended to ensure better and more accurate enforcement of royal laws, internal security and order in the empire. The new administrative structure was also subordinated to this:

a) disaggregation and more than doubling of the provinces - from 23 to 51;

b) elimination of 66 provinces as unnecessary intermediate between province and county;

c) a multiple increase in the number of counties;

d) the introduction of 19 governorships of two or three or more provinces each. The new administrative-territorial division is designed to increase the efficiency of tax, police, judicial, and all punitive policies.

Instead of the former provincial office, a provincial government was established, the presence of which consisted of the sovereign ruler and two advisers. Provincial institutions were built on a functional basis and performed strictly defined administrative, financial, judicial and other functions: the chambers of house-building affairs and the department of State revenues of imperial highness, criminal and civil courts.

In each province, a peculiar body was established - an order of public charity to manage public schools, hospitals, hospitals, almshouses, orphanages, strait and workhouses.

wide functions, high status was endowed with a state chamber, the head of which - the vice-governor was appointed by the Senate on behalf of the monarch. Her main task was to ensure the regular receipt of income. The State Collegium disposed of the collected state revenues.

county administration , subordinate to the provincial government, was represented by the lower zemstvo court, which became the main executive body, which had full power in the county. He ensured the observance of the laws of the empire, the execution of orders of the provincial government, court decisions, and had other functions of managing the county. Its head, the chairman of the zemstvo court in the person of the zemstvo police captain, was endowed with great powers, could take any measures to ensure law and order.

The institute of imperial governorship introduced by Catherine II became the connecting link between higher and local government. in the capital provinces, in large districts-regions covering several provinces. Catherine II appointed 19 governor-generals from among the most trusted elite aristocrats to the governorships, endowing them with emergency, unlimited powers, extraordinary functions, and personal responsibility to the crown.

The governor-general had his governorship as an executive body, several advisers, exercised a super-governor's position, carried out royal orders through the governors, acted as the head of the tsarist administration through the provincial administrative apparatus, courts, estates, police, troops located on the territory of the governorship, carried out general supervision of officials, could put pressure on the court, stop the execution of court sentences without interfering in legal proceedings.

The "Institution for the Administration of the Provinces" adopted in 1775 legalized a major regional reform, which strengthened the local government in the spirit of absolutism, created an extensive administrative management system, divided the administrative, financial and economic, judicial, police functions into separate provincial institutions, reflected the trends combinations of state and public principles in local government, its bureaucratization and centralization, empowering the nobility with power in the regions. The provincial reform embodied the autocratic traditionalism of imperial administration in the second half of the 18th century, a course towards strengthening the local tsarist administration.

Counter-perestroika of the management system of Catherine II by Paul I

Paul I, who ascended the throne in 1796, tried to "correct" everything that, in his opinion, was thrown into disarray by his mother, acting in the same vein of absolutist rule. He sought to strengthen and elevate the principle of autocracy, individual power according to the Prussian state models.

Paul I strengthened the autocratic power, he weakened the importance of the Senate, but strengthened the supervision of the Prosecutor General of the Senate over the central government and local prosecutors over the governors and other officials. Established military governorships in the capital and Moscow. He abolished a number of governorships, where governors-general showed independence.

Along the line of centralization of management, he recreated Manufaktura-, Kamer, Berg - and some other collegiums, put their directors at the head, endowed them with the right of a personal report to the tsar, independence of action from members of the collegiums. The Postal Department was separated from the Senate into an independent central institution. The Department of Water Communications also became independent. A central department was created to manage the lands and peasants of the royal family.

Paul I drew up a note "On the structure of various parts of the state administration", which contained a plan for the establishment of ministries instead of collegiums.

Paul I abandoned his mother's course with her reliance on the "enlightened" nobility, suspended many articles of the nobility's charter, limited noble privileges, rights and benefits, decided to restore the "brilliance of autocracy", reduce the influence of the nobles on the royal administration, obliged them to serve again, restored for them Physical punishment, introduced fees from the nobility for the maintenance of the provincial administration, abolished provincial and limited county noble assemblies, expanded the scope of the governor's intervention in noble elections, and reduced the number of noble voters by five.

Paul I also changed the provincial government - reduced the number of provinces and, accordingly, their institutions, closed the orders of public charity, returned the former structures and forms of government to the outskirts. He radically changed the city government in the German manner, combining with the police authorities the weak estate management in the cities. He abolished dumas and deanery councils in the provincial cities, established ratgauzes headed by presidents appointed by the emperor, who were controlled by the governors and the Senate, and included officials both appointed by the Senate and elected by the townspeople and approved by the emperor. The magistrates and town halls were subordinate to the Ratgauz.

In 1799, in the provincial and county towns, ordinances were created, headed by a police chief, a mayor or a commandant. The new military-police bodies were also in charge of the military court and prisons.

Paul I showed a clear desire to rely on the bureaucracy, he increased the number of officials in the central and local apparatus, and took a number of measures to strengthen official discipline. Paul I centralized administration to the extreme, strengthened its despotic form, personally intervened in all the details of administration through his own office, the Senate, the Synod, collegiums, strengthened the unity of command, the role of the bureaucracy, deepening the crisis state of the absolutist government system, which could not save Russia from a new aggravation of contradictions , anti-serfdom uprisings at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries, a bloody change of supreme power in the spring of 1801.

Conclusion

Thus, having considered the management system of Russia in the eighteenth century, we can make following conclusions:

The transformations that took place in Russia in the 18th century covered almost all aspects of the country's life: economy, politics, science, everyday life, foreign policy, political system. Particular attention was paid to the system of government, both state and local. At the same time, public administration, both in the first and in the second half of the 18th century. was aimed at strengthening the power of the absolute monarch, at the increasing centralization of bureaucratization.

The great reformer of the first half of the 18th century was Peter I. The transformations of Peter I became the axis around which the wheel of Russian history revolved throughout the 18th century. The merit of Peter I was that he correctly understood and realized the complexity of the tasks that faced the country, and purposefully began to implement them.

Among the transformations of Peter I, the central place was occupied by the reform of public administration, the reorganization of all its links, since the old clerk's apparatus, inherited by Peter, was unable to cope with the complicated tasks of management. Peter I created new governing bodies. The reforms of Peter I, while meeting the most urgent needs of autocratic power, were at the same time the result of the development of a bureaucratic trend. His reforms, while meeting the most pressing needs of autocratic power, were at the same time the result of the development of a bureaucratic trend.

Rather faceless heirs came to replace the Great Peter, and the fate of Peter's reforms turned out to be dramatic. The change of rulers on the Russian throne did not mean any major changes or upheavals for the country. During this period, there were no major and significant reforms in the country. We can only talk about the reorganization of the central authorities and their adaptation to the needs of a particular ruler and his entourage.

The transformations of Catherine II did not take place as violently, cruelly and painfully as under Peter I. It was a serious and profound work in which the customs, habits, age-old way of life of the Russian people were not destroyed, but were taken into account, used and adapted to Russian reality. The line of Catherine II on strengthening absolutism in state administration, its centralization and policeization, subordination to the empress personally was embodied consistently in the provincial reform.

The reforms of Paul I were aimed at creating a coherent centralized system of government, focused on the king. He restored some colleges, he decisively reformed the entire system of local government, created on the basis of the Institution of 1775, changed Paul I and the administrative-territorial division of the country, the principles of governing the outlying provinces.

Bibliography

1. Bystrenko V.I. History of public administration and self-government in Russia. Tutorial. M.: Norma, 1997. - 415p.

The World History. Encyclopedia. Volume 5. - M .: Publishing house of socio-economic literature, 1958 - 855s.

Grosul V.Ya. Russian society of the 18th - 19th centuries. - M.: Nauka, 2003. - 516 p.

Ignatov V.G. History of public administration in Russia. - M.: Unity - Dana, 2002. - 606 p.

History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Ed.Z.I. White. - M.: Novosibirsk, INFRA - M, 2008. - 470s.

Russian history. Textbook / Ed. MM. Shumilova. - St. Petersburg. Publishing house House "Neva", 2010. - 607 p.

History of Russia: From ancient times to the end of the XVIII century / Ed.L.E. Morozov. - M .: LLC "Publishing house AST: CJSC NPP" Yermak ", 2005. - 943 p.

Migunova T.L. Administrative-judicial and legal reforms of Catherine the Great (historical and legal aspect). The dissertation of the doctor of jurisprudence. - Vladimir.: FGOUVPO "Vladimir Law Institute", 2008. - 180p.

Minenko N.A. History of Russia from ancient times to the second half of the 19th century, - Yekaterinburg: USTU Publishing House, 1995. - 413p.

Omelchenko O.A. The monarchy of enlightened absolutism in Russia. The dissertation of the doctor of jurisprudence. - M.: MGIU Publishing House, 2001. - 156s.

Domestic History: From Ancient Times to the End of the 20th Century: Textbook for High Schools / Ed. M.V. Zotova. - M.: Logos, 2002. - 559 p.

Alkhazashvili D. The beginning of the reign of Catherine II // Questions of history. 2005, No. 7

Anisimov E.V. Peter I: the birth of an empire // Questions of History, 1987, No. 7.

Utkin A.I. Russian Europeanist // Questions of History. 2005, no. 7.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The central place in domestic policy was occupied by the agrarian question. The struggle of the peasants forced the government to cancel (November 1905) the redemption payments from 1906 by half, and from 1907 - completely. But that wasn't enough. The peasants demanded land. The government was forced to return to the idea of ​​abandoning communal and transitioning to private peasant land ownership. It was expressed as early as 1902, but then the government refused to implement it. P.A. Stolypin insisted on carrying out the reform and therefore it was called "Stolypin".

The reform was carried out in several ways. 1) The decree of November 9, 1906 allowed the peasant to leave the community, and the law of June 14, 1910 made it mandatory. 2) The peasant could demand that allotment plots be combined into a single cut and even move to a separate farm. 3) A fund was created from part of the state and imperial lands. 4) For the purchase of these and landowners' lands, the Peasants' Bank gave money loans. 5) Given the "land hunger" in the center of Russia, the government encouraged the resettlement of peasants beyond the Urals. Settlers were given loans for settling in a new place, state-owned warehouses of agricultural machinery were created, agronomic consultations, medical and veterinary care were provided.

The goal of the reform was to preserve landownership and at the same time accelerate the bourgeois evolution of agriculture, relieve social tension in the countryside and create a strong social support for the government in the person of the rural bourgeoisie.

The reform contributed to the rise of the country's economy. Agriculture has become sustainable. The purchasing power of the population and foreign exchange earnings associated with the export of grain increased.

However, the social goals set by the government were not achieved. Only 20-35% of the peasants left the community in different areas, since the majority retained a collectivist psychology and traditions. Only 10% of households started farming. The kulaks left the community more often than the poor. The former bought land from landlords and impoverished fellow villagers, and set up a profitable commodity economy. The poor went to the cities or became agricultural workers. 20% of the peasants who received loans from the Peasants' Bank went bankrupt. About 16% of the settlers were unable to settle in a new place, returned to the central regions of the country and joined the ranks of the proletarians. The reform accelerated social stratification - the formation of the rural bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The government did not find a strong social support in the countryside, since it did not satisfy the needs of the peasants in the land.