The Zemsky counter-reform assumed. Counter-reforms of Alexander III. Zemsky assemblies and councils

Development of the world court.

In the 80s of the XIX century, with the strengthening of the negative attitude towards all the reforms of Emperor Alexander II, attacks on the world court began to appear more and more often. There were unsuccessful decisions of justices of the peace, they were generalized and talked about the failure of justices of the peace in general. It happened several times in twenty years that in the counties the sessions of the magistrates' court could not take place due to the non-arrival of the judges; it happened that some judges were slow to decide cases. Isolated cases picked up, hushed up the exemplary work of other world congresses (in large centers they turned into permanent institutions), ignored the fact that the decisions, in general, were good, and the fact that justices of the peace were overwhelmed with work. Demands arose for fundamental transformations: the appointment of the chairman of the world congress from the government, the subordination of justices of the peace to the district courts, the abolition of the elective principle, i.e. put the magistrate's court under administrative control. An alarming symptom in 1888 was the sharp criticism from a conscientious publicist (P.P. Obniskov), ardently devoted to the basic principles of the Judicial Charters. The assumption that in the county zemstvo assemblies the elections of a magistrate are determined by nepotism, and justices of the peace are not able to create a court due to the lack of legal education, so that in fact the case of justice passed into the hands of a private intercessor - all this led the criticism to the idea that it is necessary to destroy the elective principle and appoint judges from the government from among the lawyers.

When the judicial counter-reform was carried out, the magistrate's court was abolished in most of the country. In 1889, Alexander Sh approved two normative acts: the Law on Zemstvo Chiefs on July 12, 1889 and the Rules on the Proceedings of Court Cases Subordinate to Zemstvo Chiefs and City Judges, December 29, 1889. Instead of world justice, a completely new judicial system was established: district zemstvo chiefs who enjoyed both administrative and judicial power over peasants, city judges and members of the district court. Honorary Justices of the Peace have not been abolished.

After 1889, the elected justices of the peace survived in St. Petersburg with its district, in Moscow, Kazan, Chisinau, Nizhny Novgorod, Odessa, Saratov and Kharkov, as well as in the Don Army Region. More fortunate was the institution of justices of the peace appointed by the government. They not only remained where they were introduced earlier (except for the above-mentioned localities in the Central Asian region and in the Izmailovsky district of the Bessarabian province), but, in the very year of the abolition of justices of the peace for internal Russia, they were introduced in the provinces of the Baltic and Arkhangelsk, they are also preserved in the new The Black Sea province, and since 1896 they are introduced in Siberia (following the example of the Transcaucasus in terms of competence and authorities, but with the unlimited right of the Minister of Justice to dismiss and overturn judges).

New judicial bodies.

Zemsky chiefs were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs on the proposal of the governors. They could be:

persons who have served for at least three years in the position of the leader of the nobility, the presence of property and educational qualifications was not required;

local hereditary nobles who have reached the age of 25, have a higher education or have served at least three years in the position of a conciliator, a magistrate in the presence of 0.5 qualification required to participate in elections to the county zemstvo assembly, or who have other real estate at least 7,500 rubles.

Another body to which the functions of the abolished magistrate's court were transferred was the city judge.

Zemsky chiefs and city judges considered civil cases in disputes and claims not exceeding 500 rubles, cases on the restoration of a disturbed property, if no more than 6 months have passed since the violation, cases on losses and other damage to fields and lands, when the amount of damage did not exceed 500 rubles and all other claims for an amount not exceeding 500 rubles. They had jurisdiction over the criminal cases provided for by the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, with the exception of Art. 170, which established liability for theft by means of burglary from locked vaults using master keys, as well as a case on the free sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

The second, appellate instance for cases under the jurisdiction of zemstvo chiefs and city judges, was the so-called county congress represented by its judicial presence. It was headed by the district leader of the nobility, and in areas where no noble elections were held, by a special chairman. The composition of the judicial presence included: a district member of the district court, honorary magistrates, city judges and zemstvo chiefs of this district.

The cassation instance for cases considered by zemstvo chiefs and city judges was the provincial presence, established in each province under the chairmanship of the governor, consisting of the vice-governor, the provincial leader of the nobility, the prosecutor of the district court or his comrade and two permanent members. In addition, the chairman or one of the members of the local district court took part in the work of the provincial presence.

Finally, the third judicial body, created to replace the liquidated magistrates' courts, were the so-called members of the district court, appointed by the Minister of Justice, one in each county. All criminal and civil cases previously referred to the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court and beyond the jurisdiction of the zemstvo chiefs and city judges were transferred to them. County members of the district court participated in the sessions of this court, could be involved in the work of the latter if there were a shortage of its members. The appellate instance for the member of the circuit court was the circuit court, and the cassation instance was the relevant (criminal or civil) department of the Senate.

Thus, the establishment of the zemstvo chiefs put in the place of a judge, called upon to preserve the peace and instill a sense of legality, a judge-administrator, called upon to restore custody of the peasant population. Only in cities, with the exception of the least significant, the functions of justices of the peace were transferred not to zemstvo chiefs, but partly to city judges, partly to district members of district courts, who were in charge of affairs that were not included in the competence of zemstvo chiefs.

Of course, one cannot idealize the transformations of the second half of the 19th century. in Russia. They were held in a country that had just freed itself from serfdom, survivals of which were preserved both in the economy and in the minds of people, in a country where the estate system remained with its privileges and restrictions, where the form of government was an absolute monarchy. A certain limitation, inconsistency, incompleteness were in the texts of the Judicial Charters. And the norms and principles that looked ideal in the law, when faced with Russian reality, did not act as intended, or even did not act at all.

However, the success of the magistrate's court among the people exceeded all expectations. From the moment of its establishment, the magistrate's court gradually spread in all zemstvo provinces. The fact that justices of the peace would be a boon for the population was not difficult to foresee just because they should replace a large number of judicial and administrative positions. In both capitals, as soon as the news of the new court spread among the people, people were drawn to the magistrate with such "petty" litigations and offenses that had not been discussed before. All who previously felt powerless and silently endured resentment and oppression, went to the "world" to ask for justice and intercession, not coping with the laws on its competence; wives' requests for divorce or residence permits became commonplace. The unprecedented popularity of the court in Russia was facilitated, in addition to the speed of the decision, by politeness and equal treatment by the judges.

Thus, it achieved what the magistrates' courts were created for:

• - fast consideration of cases without judicial delays;
• - separation of administrative power from participation in the administration of justice;
• - the approach of the court to the common people;

For a quarter of a century, justices of the peace have functioned to instill in society and people the idea of \u200b\u200blegality and respect for the individual.

A.F. Koni wrote about the activities of world justice at the end of the 19th century:

"The general direction of justices of the peace made their chambers not only a place for the administration of justice accessible to the people, but also a school of decency and respect for human dignity" Koni AF. On the path of life. - M .: SPb. 1999. - T.I, S. 431 ..

Ultimately, with the introduction of the institution of zemstvo district chiefs by the Law of July 12, 1889, the magistrate's court was liquidated in most places of the Russian Empire. By the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century, the magistrate's court, provided for by the Judicial Charters of 1864, survived only in Moscow, St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg district, Kazan, Chisinau, Nizhny Novgorod, Odessa, Saratov, Kharkov and the Don Cossack region. Other localities had their own local courts, which significantly differed in the structure and procedure for considering cases depending on the region.

We come to the conclusion that by the end of the 19th century, the harmonious system of magistrates' courts created by the Judicial Charters was practically destroyed. By the end of the 19th century, there was no longer a single magistrate court in Russia, which reduced the authority of both the judiciary and state power in general.

The Magistrates 'Court in Russia under the Law of June 15, 1912, examines the reasons for the restoration of the Magistrates' Court, the procedure for preparing the draft Law of 1912, as well as the structure and procedure for considering cases of the renewed Magistrate's Court.

The replacement of the efficiently functioning institute of justices of the peace with the institute of zemstvo district chiefs who united judicial and administrative power in their hands did not justify itself in practice. Ultimately, this led to an attempt at a widespread restoration of the magistrate's court in Russia.

Already in the Imperial decree of December 12, 1904, it was said about the need to bring unity to the structure of the judicial part of the Russian Empire in order to protect the equality of persons of all states before the law and the court. Since that time, the long-term preparation of a bill on a single local court in the Russian Empire began.

The draft law on the transformation of the local court was developed by the Ministry of Justice under N.V. Muravyov and I.G. Scheglovitov, was introduced for discussion of the I, II and 111 State Duma, was discussed in the State Council, where a special commission was created, which worked for about one and a half years. Contradictions arose between the draft of the State Duma and the opinion of the State Council, and a conciliation commission was created to eliminate them.

Ultimately, on June 15, 1912, the Law "On the transformation of the local court" was adopted, synthesizing the experience of the Judicial Charters of 1864 with a number of innovations, one of which was that in the new version of Art. 17 Institutions of judicial rulings contained a rule according to which the chairman of the congress of justices of the peace was not elected from among the judges, as under the Judicial Charters of 1864, but was appointed by the “Supreme Authority on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice from among persons who can be determined in office by the judicial department not lower than a member of the district court, or of the district justices of the peace who have served in this position for at least three years. " This testified to the desire of the administration to place tight control over the activities of the local court.

As in the previous period, justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies or city councils for three years, but the novelty was that a judge who served the first term could be elected in the future for six years. The motives for this innovation were that the six-year term provided more stability to the judge, his confidence in the future. This, according to the legislator, was supposed to attract young people to the service and provide a wider range of candidates for the post of magistrate. A novelty was the fact that now persons who had no education at all, but who had served for at least six years in the posts of leader of the nobility, secretary of the world congress, secretary of the county congress, or in the post of district zemstvo chief, were now allowed to serve as a magistrate. Thus, according to the author, the zemstvo district chiefs, whose positions were abolished by the 1912 Law, were "employed".

A number of innovations in the legislation on the magistrates' court were caused by practical life needs. For example, the 1912 Law expanded the list of categories of citizens who do not have the right to hold the office of justices of the peace. Now, except for the citizens named in the list established by the Judicial Charters of 1864, persons excluded from the number of attorneys at law, their assistants, and also private attorneys could not be justices of the peace.

By the law of June 15, 1912, the jurisdiction of the magistrate court was significantly expanded. The jurisdiction of peace justice, in addition to cases of criminal acts provided for by the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, as a general rule, included cases of criminal acts that do not deprive all or all special or some of the rights and advantages, even if these criminal acts were are provided for by the Code of Punishments or charters of state administrations, if they entail a reprimand, remarks and suggestions, monetary penalties not exceeding 1,000 rubles, arrest not exceeding 3 months and imprisonment for not exceeding 1.5 years. All this made it possible to significantly relieve the district courts, since a large number of cases previously under their jurisdiction have now been transferred to justices of the peace.

In civil cases, the competence of the magistrate court fell to the examination of cases in claims up to 1,000 rubles instead of 500 rubles provided for by the Judicial Charters of 1864. In the field of civil procedure, measures were taken to simplify it.

Despite the fact that the Law "On the transformation of the local court" was adopted in the summer of 1912, by 1917 the magistrate's court was restored in only 20 provinces out of 97 provinces and regions of the Russian Empire.

Under the Provisional Government, an attempt was made to extend the magistrate's court to another 33 provinces and introduce serious legislative innovations in the activities of this institution. However, due to the very short period of existence of this government, most of its legislative innovations, including those concerning the magistrate court, were not implemented in practice.

The counter-reforms of Alexander III are a set of government measures aimed at changing (conserving) the socio-political life of the country after the liberal reforms of the previous emperor. The main mission of implementing these counter-reforms was entrusted to the Minister of the Interior, Count Dmitry Andreyevich Tolstoy.

Reasons for counter-reforms

The reason for the introduction of counter-reforms was the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Alexander III, who ascended the throne, was concerned about the strengthening of the revolutionary forces and very carefully chose the paths of his new course. The choice was helped by supporters of reactionary ideology K. Pobedonostsev and D. Tolstoy. The priorities were the preservation of the autocracy, the strengthening of the estate system, the traditions and foundations of Russian society, and the rejection of liberal reforms.

Another reason for the counter-reforms was that the government was not ready for rapid development and changes. And these changes have already begun: property inequality in the countryside has increased, the number of the proletariat has increased. The authorities did not always understand the ongoing processes and thought in old terms.

As a result, a program for a new reign was created, which was set out on April 29, 1881 in the Manifesto on the inviolability of autocracy. K. Pobedonostsev became the author of the manifesto.

K.P. Pobedonostsev

Counter-reforms

The peasant question

Measures were taken to support the nobility. In 1885, the Noble Bank was created, whose task was to subsidize landowners.

Measures were taken to preserve the patriarchal system in the countryside. Land redistributions and divisions have become more complex. The poll tax and communal farming were abolished, but redemption payments were reduced. In 1882, the Peasant Bank was established, which was supposed to issue loans to peasants for the purchase of land and private property.

Changes in the judicial system

The judicial reform of 1864 has undergone changes. The judicial system became more complicated and bureaucratic, the jurisdiction of the jury was reduced. In the countryside, the magistrate's court was practically replaced by the arbitrariness of officials. Officials from the local nobility became the head of all administrative and judicial power. They had the right to overrule the decisions of rural and volost gatherings. Local governors could not be found on them, and they obeyed only the leader of the nobility.

Revision of educational reform

Changes in the educational system aimed at strengthening control over secondary schools. The adopted circular about "cook's children" did not allow the children of commoners to study in high schools. The primary school was completely controlled by the Holy Synod. In 1884, the University Charter was adopted, which finally abolished university autonomy. The increased cost of education has also cut off many young people from their studies.

Changes in zemstvos

In 1890, changes were made to the zemstvo reform, in accordance with them, government control over zemstvos was legalized. Changes in property qualifications deprived artisans and local merchants of voting rights.

I.E. Repin. Reception of volost elders by Alexander III in the courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace

Police measures

In 1881, the "Regulations on enhanced and emergency protection" were adopted, which increased the police and administrative pressure. Regional and provincial authorities received the right to introduce emergency management for any period and, accordingly, could expel undesirable persons, close educational institutions and the media. A special meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs could exile suspicious individuals without trial and investigation and keep them under arrest for up to five years.

Results of counter-reforms

Indeed, the counter-reforms of Alexander III slowed down the development of the revolutionary movement a little and “froze” social contradictions, but did not make them less explosive. There were fewer protest movements, and there were practically no terrorist attacks until the beginning of the 20th century. The counter-reforms were supposed to strengthen the class of landlords, whose position had recently been noticeably shaken.

The authorities failed to implement the full counter-reform program. Already in the mid-1890s, the upsurge of the revolutionary movement began. The leading place in the revolutionary struggle was taken by the proletariat.

Prerequisites and Preparation of Zemstvo and City Counter-Reforms

Period 80s - early 90s XIX century. characterized by the offensive of the tsarist authorities on the progressive undertakings that emerged as a result of the reforms of the previous decades. This period was marked by a series of reactionary transformations aimed at revising the existing system of bourgeois legislation, which in Soviet historiography are usually called counter-reforms. The concept of counter-reform has a broad meaning and includes not only reactionary laws aimed at returning to the pre-reform political order. Counter-reforms mean the entire political course of the government of Alexander III, which by its daily administrative actions demonstrated disregard for self-government issues, compliance with existing legislation, and public opinion. During these years, the tsarist power even acted contrary to the interests of the nobility, which changed in the conditions of post-reform development.

In the 80s. XIX century. the self-sufficient features of the autocracy are especially noticeable, the influence of bureaucratic circles is manifested. If in the previous period there was an external readiness for reforms, even when they were not going to be carried out, then during the period of counter-reforms the government stubbornly repeated about its firmness, refusing to make concessions even when it actually made them.

Back in the 70s. in government circles and the reactionary press, the view is spreading that all troubles, and above all the revolutionary movement, stem from reforms. In the conditions of post-reform development, the impressions of the revolutionary onslaught of the middle of the century, brought down by the abolition of serfdom and subsequent reforms, began to be forgotten. A social movement came to the fore, the breeding ground for which was dissatisfaction with the reforms, or rather, dissatisfaction with their limitations. The reactionary government leaders concluded from this that the best way to extinguish the political channel is to eliminate the social element in the government of the country and launch widespread punitive activities against the revolutionaries. In the midst of a recession in the revolutionary situation at the turn of the 70-80s. this course was not doomed to failure immediately.

On March 2, 1881, accepting members of the Council of State and high officials of the court who took the oath, Emperor Alexander III declared, however, that, entering his father's throne at a difficult moment, he hopes to follow in all his precepts and policies. Thus, this first step promised a seemingly liberal and humane reign. Then, in a circular dispatch of March 4, sent out to representatives of Russia with foreign powers, it was announced that the Emperor, entering the ancestral throne at such a difficult time, wished to preserve peace with all powers and especially to focus his attention on internal affairs and on those social economic tasks that are put forward by the new time. And this dispatch also made a favorable impression on the society.

Speaking with Alexander III, K.P. Pobedonostsev said: “The legislation of the past 25 years has confused all the previous institutions and all relations of the authorities, so many false principles have been introduced into them, which are not consistent with the internal economy of Russian life and our land, art to sort out this confusion. It is impossible to cut this knot, it is necessary to untie it, and moreover, not suddenly, but gradually. As a true conservative, Alexander III was well aware of this, he was not a supporter of “cutting knots”.

However, in the meantime, the question arises of what to do with the report on the proposed reforms, which should have been initiated by the opening of the commissions projected by MT Loris-Melikov. M. T. Loris-Melikov proposed to establish in St. Petersburg temporary preparatory commissions, similar to the editorial commissions formed in 1858, out of elected zemstvos and large cities, as well as to introduce into the State Council 10-15 "representatives from public institutions who have discovered special knowledge, experience and outstanding abilities ”. Such an institution, endowed exclusively with consultative rights, the author believed, could give "the correct outcome to the noticeable striving of social forces to serve the throne and the fatherland", introduce "a revitalizing principle into the life of the people", provide "the government with the opportunity to use the experience of local leaders who are closer to the people life than the officials of the central administrations ”.

This report was approved by the late Emperor Alexander II on the morning of March 1, the very day he was killed. Emperor Alexander III knew that the late Emperor had ordered a special meeting to be convened in the Winter Palace on March 4 in order to discuss whether or not to publish a government message on the opening of the commissions.

M.T.Loris-Melikov in his report, naturally, presented this issue to the new sovereign as a kind of testament left over from the late emperor, and Emperor Alexander III at the first minute looked at it this way, making the earlier decision to convene the commissions as a testament father, which undoubtedly puts the last line on the general nature of his reign, the reign in which the most important transformations of modern times were carried out, affecting the life of all classes of Russia and all of its social and civil system.

However, on the question of whether or not to publish this decision in a special government message, Emperor Alexander III decided to convene a special meeting. On March 8, this meeting took place in the Winter Palace, and immediately it revealed a struggle between two opposing, hostile, mutually exclusive directions - one progressive, headed by Loris-Melikov and to which Finance Minister A.A. Abaza belonged from among the ministers and in particular the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin, as well as the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, at that time the head of the naval department and chairman of the State Council. The opposite direction - a brightly reactionary direction - was presented, first of all, by K.P. -Prosecutor of the Holy Synod instead of gr. DA Tolstoy in April of the same 1880 Pobedonostsev, who had previously lectured to Alexander Alexandrovich and his older brother, enjoyed his special confidence.

At a meeting of the Council of Ministers chaired by Alexander III, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, KP Pobedonostsev, spoke against the introduction of a “constitution” in Russia. Stating that the project “breathes falsehood” and that the constitution is “an instrument of all untruth, an instrument of all intrigues”, K.P. Pobedonostsev warned the new emperor against establishing “a new supreme talking house on a foreign model ...” and called on the latter to “act” ...

After this meeting, Alexander III finally rejected the proposal of MT Loris-Melikov, leaving a very eloquent inscription on the text of the minister's all-subject report: "Thank God, this criminal and hasty step towards the constitution was not taken."

NP Ignatiev, who replaced Loris-Melikov as Minister of Internal Affairs, was soon found unfit for the implementation of restoration plans. The ambitious, looking for popularity, Count Ignatiev undertook to prepare the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor. Determined to obtain the consent of the emperor, the new minister timed the convocation of elected representatives from all estates for the upcoming coronation and at the same time for the 200th anniversary of this institution. Ignatiev enthusiastically argued that the Council would make the coronation especially festive and significant, being the expression of the people's will in favor of autocratic rule, a kind of its sanction. Elected on the basis of a high property qualification, the Zemsky Sobor would have ensured the primacy of large landowners. The convocation of a ritual Council in its tasks, which did not even receive, as Ignatiev explained to Tsar Ignatiev, legislative functions, was supposed to silence "all constitutional desires." But Katkov and Pobedonostsev, learning about Ignatiev's plans, opposed any involvement of society in state affairs. The cathedral project was rejected. After the resignation of NP Ignatiev, with the appointment of Count DA Tolstoy, an ardent representative of the reaction, to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs, the hopes for a "black redistribution" of the reforms of the 60s received real support. This indicated that the autocracy had basically overcome the crisis.

Thus, having brought the most ardent conservatives closer to him, Alexander III took the first steps to carry out counter-reforms. From June 1882 to the end of 1885, a new government course was established, and the general outlines of reforms were outlined, the main task of which was to strengthen the role of the local nobility.

The years 1886-1894 became a period of detailed development, both a general plan and specific projects of counterreforms and their implementation. The main work on the creation of counter-reform projects was concentrated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the chief developer was the ruler of the office of the ministry, the former district leader of the nobility A.D. Pazukhin. Pazukhin proves that the strengthening of the autocracy can occur only with the revival of the nobility. Pazukhin finds the main flaw of the reforms in the principle of non-estate, which contradicts the natural-historical development of Russia: "The main reason for the social disorder in Russia lies in the fact that most of the reforms of the past reign were imbued with the denial of the class principle," this idea is fully consonant with the assessments of Pobedonostsev, Katkov and Leontyev. The author set before the authorities the task of creating "dominance and predominance of the nobility in local government and judicial bodies, making it an employee again, an estate and at the same time a zemstvo."

By the fall of 1886, the draft of the Zemstvo counter-reform was ready. An important step in its implementation was the adoption on 12 July 1889 of the law on zemstvo district chiefs. Zemsky chiefs were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among the hereditary nobles and were supposed to replace the institution of conciliators, county presences for peasant affairs and the magistrate's court. They confirmed and removed the officials of the peasant administration, imposed fines and arrested the peasants without trial. The law on zemstvo chiefs increased government custody of the peasants, subordinated them to the administrative and judicial power of the nobles.

The next step was the adoption on June 12, 1890 of the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which established the estate principle of elections to zemstvos and strengthened government control over their activities.

Following the Zemstvo counter-reform, the issue of urban self-government was put on the agenda. The "city status" of June 11, 1892 significantly infringed upon the independence of the bodies of city self-government, strengthened the rights of the administration. The mayor and members of the city council were declared civil servants and, therefore, fell under the control of the administration.

The epoch of reaction in the 1880s and 1890s, of course, could not stop the development of the economy and the strengthening of the bourgeoisie. The process of reducing the share of landowners' landownership is under way. After 1861, despite the fact that some of the nobles became part of the bourgeoisie, and some actively participated in the revolutionary movement in Russia, the class of feudal lords essentially survived, albeit significantly modernized. Therefore, the reforms, which were interspersed with counter-reforms, could not solve the main issues of a socio-economic and political nature.

Under Alexander III, many of the reforms carried out by the government of his father, not only did not receive further development, but were seriously curtailed, and some were directly canceled. In the 1980s and early 1990s, many of the principles that dominated Russian life under Nicholas I were recreated. Here the cyclical nature of Russian history was clearly manifested, especially characteristic of the 19th century, a breakthrough forward was usually followed by a rollback.

Stages and results

In December 1880, all governors were instructed, together with the county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, to begin a discussion of the peasant question in order to accelerate the process of the peasants' redemption of land and the termination of the status of "temporarily liable" peasants. For the first time zemstvos worked together with the government.

At the same time, the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov, in his report to the emperor, noted the impossibility of creating constitutional institutions in Russia, but pointed out the need to involve representatives of the public in solving state problems. The minister proposed creating two reactionary commissions: an administrative and economic commission, which was entrusted with the tasks of transforming the provincial administration, ending the obligatory relations of peasants and facilitating redemption payments, and revising the zemstvo and city regulations.

The bills drawn up by these commissions were to be submitted for discussion by a general commission, consisting of members of preparatory commissions and experts elected by zemstvo institutions. Then the bills should go to the State Council, in which they were represented by elected representatives of the zemstvos.

The reforms prepared by M. T. Loris-Melikov were interrupted by the assassination of Emperor Alexander II on March 1, 1881. However, a wave of counterreforms in the 80s and 90s also captured the sphere of local self-government bodies.

Having ascended the throne, Alexander III, in his manifesto on April 29, along with the phrase about unlimited autocracy, expressed full respect for the great reforms of the past reign and said that these reforms would not only be strengthened and supported, but also developed further. Consequently, in general, this manifesto did not mean, of course, a reactionary trend. And this was even more vividly emphasized by the circular of the new Minister of Internal Affairs on the very day of his appointment - May 6, 1881. Here Ignatiev indicated that the government would take measures to establish a lively communication between the government and the country, the lively participation of local leaders in state affairs in fulfillment of the highest plans. This again signified the intention to find a well-known, albeit very modest, form of participation of representatives of society in central state activities, that is, approximately the same thing that Loris-Melikov wanted to do in this respect.

The circular indicated that the rights of zemstvo and city institutions would remain inviolable and would even be restored to the same extent, on the basis of the Regulations of 1864. Finally, it was pointed out that the peasantry, which was warned against listening to all kinds of false talk, would be the subject of special attention from the government. Moreover, the peasants will not only be guaranteed all the previously granted rights and freedoms, but measures will also be taken to alleviate the burdens that the peasants were carrying, mainly taxes, to meet their needs, land in particular, and to improve the rural social structure and management.

In Ignatiev's circular it was as if all the intentions of M. T. Loris-Melikov, all those measures to improve the economic situation of the people that he had promised to carry out, were perceived and planned for implementation.

Thus, it would be wrong to assume that after April 29, the government felt very confident. Describing the situation in the countryside in his report to the tsar on March 15, 1882, Ignatiev wrote: “There is no doubt that rumors about the redistribution of land and generally an indefinite expectation of benefits independent of their efforts and labor are very wandering among the peasants, one cannot deny the danger of such expectations, but, in order not to exaggerate their significance, one must bear in mind that they have long been among the people and by themselves do not yet pose a serious danger. " He further reported that over the past 10 months there had been no "disturbances of order" anywhere, except for the Voronezh and Tambov provinces, where, due to "ridiculous rumors", difficulties arose during the harvest period. “There were reassuring responses from other governors in response to the circular on May 23,” he continued. This is what Ignatiev wrote in the spring of 1882. In the middle of 1881, however, the situation seemed different.

One of the issues that occupied the greatest place in Ignatiev's activities were measures related to strengthening the administrative and police apparatus, as well as aimed at "protecting" the existing political regime, that is, autocracy. It was this aspect of Ignatiev's activity that most fully reflected the gradual transition of the government to reaction.

One of the measures projected by the Minister of Internal Affairs was the policy regarding the zemstvo. Ignatiev saw the main task of his activity in this matter in the struggle against the political tendencies of the zemstvo, which found its expression in various kinds of petitions, which became widespread after March 1.

However, the fight against this was carried out in a relatively mild form and did not entail any serious penalties. So, after the speech of the Tver provincial zemstvo assembly with a petition to convene electives from all over Russia, the Minister of Internal Affairs addressed the governors with a circular, pointing out that “such petitions should not be contested at all, since by their very essence they have already been protested by law and on the exact basis of Art. 13 and Art. 14 rules on the procedure for the conduct of affairs in public and estate institutions are not subject to either execution or further proceedings. "

Throughout 1881, the Ministry of the Interior was steadfastly guided by this circular and only in one case took semi-administrative measures. Such a liberal attitude towards "seditious petitions", naturally, testified to the weakness and indecision of the government, which was still in a state of crisis.

Ignatiev believed that the policy towards the zemstvo in the future is beyond doubt and should be determined by the content of the manifesto of April 29, however, he emphasized that this must be achieved not by drastic measures, but by such an attitude “which, without drastic measures, would make it possible to keep the zemstvos in the limits of their legal rights ”.

At the beginning of March 1882, Ignatiev renewed the conversation about the "Zemsky Sobor" with the young Tsar, having learned that the coronation was postponed until the spring of 1883 due to the Empress's pregnancy. “... I reminded His Majesty of my conversations with him about the Zemstvo Councils and said that the most favorable time for the renewal of the historical tradition is the day of the coronation ... the draft of the manifesto, pondering all the details of the implementation of this great historic feat. During my subsequent weekly reports, - he continues, - we often returned to the conversation about councils, and the emperor treated this favorably and even sympathetically. "

At the beginning of the note, Ignatiev indicates that Russia is currently "at a crossroads" and the further development of its state life is possible in three ways. The first way is the way of intensifying repression. According to the author of the note, this path will not lead to any positive results. "A stronger manifestation of administrative measures, more restriction of the press, and the development of police techniques will only make the discontent go deeper." According to Ignatiev, this will ultimately lead to the need to make concessions to "social demands."

The second path, the path of concessions, is also unacceptable. “The path of concessions, no matter how they are conditioned, ... will always be fatal. In whatever form the concessions are made, there is no doubt that every new step, weakening the government, will be the very force of things - to force subsequent concessions. " Ignatiev points out the enormous danger of this path, which lies in the fact that in this case the intelligentsia will take over the dominant influence in the country's public life.

"The Russian intelligentsia," he wrote, "contains all the most dangerous, unstable elements, and therefore it seems beyond doubt that its participation in affairs will most likely lead to the limitation of the autocracy, which for Russia will undoubtedly become a source of eternal confusion and disorder." Thus, sums up Ignatiev, both of these paths lead to the same result and both of them are disastrous for Russia.

The only correct, "saving" way is a return to antiquity, to "the historical form of communication between the autocracy and the land - the Zemsky Councils." Noting that autocracy is the only form of government inherent in Russia, Ignatiev pointed out that "one must not, however, close our eyes to imperfection, of the kind that brought us to the present situation." It consisted, in his opinion, in the isolation of the tsar from the people due to the obstacle established between them by the bureaucracy. As a result, the king cannot know the truth. "Without yielding any of his power, the autocratic, calling a council, will find a sure way to find out the true needs of the country and the actions of his own servants." Thus, the council must reconcile all contradictions and put an end to the great turmoil. "When the tsar and the land enter into direct communication," Ignatiev pointed out, "all misunderstandings and fears will disappear."

The representatives of the urban population were supposed to be only merchants, elected from all guilds together. “But why not call from the townspeople at all, but exclusively from merchants, the author asks. There are two reasons for this: one about myself, the other about everyone. For myself, one of the townspeople is trustworthy. About all that, no matter how broadly the word zemshchina is understood, but the urban zemshchina is primordially urban - only traders. Trade interests are all-Russian and, in this sense, zemstvo interests. The rest of the townspeople are raznochintsy. Their interests, as people of any kind, but as townspeople are local and urban. "

Thus, the Zemsky Sobor should consist of representatives of three estates: peasants, nobles and merchants, elected on the basis of direct elections. Ignatiev says about the principles of convening a council: "... the Zemsky Sobor is convened indefinitely at the call of the sovereign, when and for what matters the sovereign wants ... Zemstvo self-governments no less than district and city governments have the right to request the convening of a council."

On the Zemstvo question, Ignatiev took a very moderate position, which testified to the government's fear of going on a decisive break with the liberals at this time. But, despite this, Alexander III did not share the views of his minister on the issue of the zemstvo. Because of this, he did not approve the report, but limited himself to a resolution: "I read it."

After the resignation of Ignatiev, the new Minister of Internal Affairs, who replaced him, D. A. Tolstoy began to prepare changes to the regulations on the zemstvo bodies. He saw their disadvantage, first of all, in the fact that they were bodies elected on an "unspecified basis." The desire to preserve the noble land ownership and the estate character of the monarchy was reflected in the creation and activities of the Peasant and Noble land banks.

To strengthen the dominant role of the nobility, as well as to "rein in the zemstvo", were aimed changes in the provisions on zemstvo bodies. In 1881, a note by AD Pazukhin “On the transformation of local self-government and the organization of zemstvo institutions” appeared.

The transformation was supposed to be carried out on the principles of estate, the abolition of the "elective principle", subordination of self-government bodies to state power. Because, according to the author, “the people have lost the tradition of obedience and order and are often a violent crowd,” which was not the case when the power over the peasants belonged to members of the “upper service class”, i.e. the nobility had to restore this power in some form. For this, according to the law that followed in 1889, the institute of zemstvo chiefs was created. Each district was divided into plots, in which district zemstvo chiefs were appointed from local hereditary nobles, who had land holdings in this district and a higher or secondary education. The zemstvo chief concentrated in his hands tight control over peasant communities, administrative and judicial power. Justices of the peace were abolished in the counties where zemstvo chiefs were appointed. This was an attempt to revive the estate authorities of the hereditary nobility.

In parallel with the zemstvo chiefs, uyezd district courts operated in the county, whose members considered cases seized from justices of the peace, but not transferred to the zemstvo chiefs. In the cities, instead of justices of the peace, there were city judges, appointed by the Minister of Justice. They were appointed from among the local "local zemstvo people" - nobles and could completely dispose of the life of the village and the personality of the peasant. The activity of the village gathering also depended on him. “Why go to the gathering when the boss decides,” the peasants reasoned.

The Zemstvo counter-reform project, introduced in 1888 by Tolstoy, was severely criticized. Recognizing the need for state control over self-government bodies, state intervention in their activities, Pobedonostsev considered it inappropriate to completely subordinate them to the authorities. "I do not see any direct need or benefit to change the fundamental principles of setting up zemstvo institutions, introducing them into the general organization of direct government institutions with a bureaucratic and official-bureaucratic character." Pobedonostsev, according to him, did not expect any benefit from "the transformation of the administrations into zemstvo presences, to which the project undoubtedly imparts a bureaucratic character." Insisting on a certain "share of freedom" for the zemstvo, he argued that there was nothing to fear from it under state control.

MN Ostrovsky also criticized the project for infringing on the principle of election. Unlike the representatives of the liberal administration, the conservatives, although they made serious comments on the draft, were generally ready to support it - subject to individual amendments. The revised draft was submitted to the State Council in 1890 by I.N.Durnovo (D.A.Tolstoy died in 1889), and he again met resistance from the majority. The idea "to destroy the present significance of the zemstvo institutions, their independence, the elective principle" remained unacceptable for such conservatives as K. P. Pobedonostsev, A. A. Polovtsev, M. N. Ostrovsky, P. A. Valuev. But II Vorontsov-Dashkov, who actively opposed the law on zemstvo chiefs, supported the draft zemstvo counter-reform.

The Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions, which entered into force in 1890, strengthened the administration's control over them and gave significant advantages to the nobility. When elections were held, the first agricultural curia became completely noble. The number of vowels from her increased, and the property qualification for the nobles decreased. The electoral qualification for the city curia was sharply increased, and the peasant curia was practically deprived of independent representation, because the elected zemstvo vowels were subject to the procedure of approval by the governor. All these measures were in the nature of a counter-reform, which further increased the representation of the nobility. In the 90s. the nobles, together with officials, constituted 55.2% of the public county assemblies and 89.5% of the provincial assemblies. However, under the conditions of the bourgeois degeneration of the nobility, the strengthening of its position had no noticeable political significance for tsarism. As before, the zemstvos were in opposition, and the zemstvo-liberal movement even intensified, since the counter-reforms expanded its basis. The reactionaries were not satisfied with the city government either. From the point of view of the government, its shortcomings were the predominance of the commercial and industrial circles and the lack of government authority.

Strengthened the role of the nobility and the reform of city government. Starting to revise the current city regulation, the government decided to limit the influence of city owners in self-government bodies. Initially, it was proposed that the electoral qualification was determined not only by the ownership of immovable property, but also by the degree of property security. In practice, this meant that homeowners and owners of real estate received voting rights (from 300 to 3000 rubles). Involving them in city management did not mean any kind of democratization. Provincial zemstvo presences were transformed into presences for zemstvo and city affairs, and his representative from the city was approved by the administration. Not a single decision of the City Duma could come into effect without the permission of the provincial authorities. However, the transition to a new electoral basis somewhat expanded the circle of voters, which in itself did not suit tsarism. It should be added that, while continuing his policy of strengthening the position of the nobility, Nicholas II established in 1897 a "Special Conference on the Affairs of the Nobility" and significantly limited the possibility of obtaining nobility for people from other social strata.

So, as a result of the reform of the zemstvo, the nobility was able to elect most of the elected zemstvo officials - vowels (about 57%). The property qualification (the minimum level of income, giving the right to a representative of one class or another to participate in the activities of zemstvo institutions) was lowered to the nobility and increased for the urban population.

The peasants generally lost the right to elect vowels, since now they were appointed by the governor from among the peasant electors - persons authorized by peasant societies to participate in elections. The newly elected zemstvo vowels were confirmed by the governor, which placed the zemstvo institutions under the strict control of the state. In fact, this crossed out the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe zemstvo - independence from state authorities and the tsar in resolving issues of local government.

The "Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions" (1890) significantly differed from the original plan of the counter-reform. The project of Tolstoy - Pazukhin, of which Katkov was an adherent, never passed. The government was forced to take into account public sentiments, public support for zemstvo activities, and defense of self-government in the press. A significant role was also played here by the lack of unity in the ranks of the conservatives, some of whom again joined with the liberal bureaucracy.

In the 90s, the onslaught on the Zemstvo self-government of the conservative press weakens somewhat. The Conservatives seemed satisfied with the Zemsky Regulations of 1890 — the security press hailed the new law as putting an end to the "disunity between the Zemsky and State authorities" in the management of local affairs. Russkiy Vestnik and Moskovskie vedomosti noted that strengthening government control could put an end to the "irresponsibility of the zemstvo." However, bearing in mind the ideas of the late editor of these publications about what kind of counter-reform should be, we can say that Katkov would classify the "Zemsky position" as a palliative measure, which he did not approve.

The new law did not introduce fundamental changes in the activities of the zemstvo, did not change its character, although it strengthened government control over self-government. Despite the "amendments" to the reform of 1864, the zemstvo did not become noble, as the conservatives intended.

Thus, the result of the counter-reforms was the creation of administrative bodies for the administration of the village; minimizing the role of public self-government in zemstvo and city institutions, strengthening the control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs over them; limitation of the elective beginning when filling positions.

Judicial counter-reform:

a) significantly changed the procedure for the investigation and judicial examination of political crimes and limited the rights of the defendants;

b) limited and partially abolished such democratic institutions as independence and irremovability of judges, openness and adversarial proceedings, consideration of criminal cases with the participation of jurors and the right of the defendant to defense;

c) almost abolished world justice, merged at the lowest level of administrative power with judicial power.

The adopted laws were supposed to return the nobility to its position in government and society, to preserve the estate structure and the autocracy of power. However, this did not happen.

The Zemstvo counter-reform did not stop the Zemstvo movement, but turned a significant part of the Zemstvo people against the autocracy. The increased electoral qualification for the city reform was another incentive for business people to think about raising their income levels. This, in turn, contributed to the development of the urban economy, the strengthening of the urban bourgeoisie, which requires the autocracy to grant it more and more new rights.

Local government until the middle of the 19th century. was built on the basis of the acts of 1775-1785. and included two links: the crown administration (provincial and uyezd institutions) bodies of estate (noble and city) self-government. In 1837, a new administrative-territorial unit appeared - the st. It was an administrative-police district, consisted of several volosts and was headed by a police officer. On the territory of the district, two or three camps were created. Reforms of the 60s - 70s XIX century. led to the creation of peasant estate self-government, as well as to the manifestation of provincial, uyezd and city self-government bodies, which were all-estate in nature.

According to the reform of 1861, which freed the landlord peasants from serfdom, bodies of local peasant public administration were formed. The peasants of one or several villages formed a rural society, which had to have its own village gathering. At the meeting, a village headman was elected, duties were laid out, land redistributions were carried out. Rural communities were united in volosts. On the territory of the volost, a volost gathering, a volost board and a volost court functioned.

All elected bodies and officials of the peasant self-government were elected for a three-year term.

In 1864, the creation of zemstvo institutions began. This meant the revival of the ancient zemstvo with its idea of \u200b\u200bpopular representation and self-government bodies independent of the central government. The role of the latter was reduced to nothing at the end of the 17th century.

According to the new "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" in 1880, the zemstvo was transformed by V.G. Ignatov. The history of the state administration of Russia - Rostov-on-Don, Phoenix, 2006 .. The nobility got the opportunity to elect most of the elected zemstvo officials - vowels (about 57%).

The property qualification (the minimum level of income, giving the right to a representative of one class or another to participate in the activities of zemstvo institutions) was lowered to the nobility and increased for the urban population. The peasants generally lost the right to elect vowels, since now they were appointed by the governor from among the peasant electors - persons authorized by peasant societies to participate in the elections of Pikhoy R.G. History of Public Administration in Russia - M., RAGS, 2001 ..

The newly elected zemstvo vowels were approved by the governor, which placed the zemstvo institutions under strict state control. In fact, this crossed out the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe zemstvo - independence from state authorities and the king in resolving issues of local self-government.

The meaning of the Zemstvo counter-reform was to nullify the possibility of participation in the work of the Zemstvo bodies of "random" (undesirable for the regime) people, to increase the representation of the nobles - the support of the throne, and ultimately to make the Zemstvos loyal to the autocratic government. All these measures reflected the opposition of the tsar and the nobility to the democratic Russian zemstvo ("land", "people") - a confrontation going deep into Russian history.

The urban counter-reform pursued exactly the same goals as the zemstvo one: to weaken the electoral principle, to narrow the range of issues resolved by state self-government bodies, and to expand the sphere of government powers. Alekhin E.V. History of State and Municipal Administration in Russia: Textbook. - Penza: Penz. state un-t, 2006.

The new City Regulation (June 11, 1892) proceeded from the real fact of the existence of public administration in cities, which significantly helped the state administration to solve the increasingly complex tasks of rapidly growing cities.

Contrary to the 1870 law:

• 1) the subjects of jurisdiction, functions of the City Public Administration, the focus of trusteeship on the development of trade, industry, credit, stock exchange, health care, education, amenities, sanitary conditions, etc. have been clarified. , about other institutions aimed at strengthening the religious feeling and morality of the urban population. These changes were caused by the development of the urban economy, which was rapidly acquiring the features of a capitalist economy, the evolution of the urban population, the complication of its social structure;
• 2) the system of urban public administration institutions, their numerical and social composition, the procedure for their formation, and relations with government bodies have been significantly changed;
• 3) abolished city electoral meetings, which were named the first among the institutions of the public educational institution in the City Regulation of 1870;
• 4) abolished three categories and, accordingly, three meetings - congresses of voters;
• 5) the electoral tax qualification was replaced by property tax, the right to vote was received by persons, institutions, societies, partnerships, companies that own real estate for at least a year in the city, assessed by a special commission and worth at least 3,000 rubles in both capitals, at least 1,500 rubles in Odessa, and provincial cities with a population of over 100 thousand people, at least 1000 rubles. in other provincial, regional, city governments and large county cities, at least 300 rubles in other urban settlements;
• 6) the number of vowels was reduced to 20 people in urban settlements with more than 100 voters, to 160 - in capitals, to 80 - in Odessa and provincial cities with a population of over 100 thousand people, to 60 - in other provincial, regional included in city governments and county cities, up to 40 - in all the rest;
• 7) the role of the nobility has been strengthened, the role of representatives of commercial and industrial, financial capital has been weakened;
• 8) for small towns, the so-called "simplified management" was introduced: a gathering of householders elected a meeting of 12-16 delegates, which elected the headman and 1-2 assistants;
• 9) there are candidates for vowels in case of replacement of the retired, comrades, assistants to the mayor and those who took up his post, who after him received the largest number of votes in the election;
• 10) the ban on the selection of officials of one city institution according to the degree of kinship has been expanded: in a straight line - without limiting the degree of kinship, in lateral lines - up to the third degree;
• 11) it is allowed to combine elective and official positions, elected persons are equated with state officials, were considered in the tsarist service;
• 12) the rights of city councils are limited. There was no clause in the new law on the independence of the state educational institution, the range of issues under the control of the governor on the presence of zemstvo and city affairs became broader, the number of posts approved by the governor and the minister of internal affairs was increased. The governor confirmed not only the mayor, as before, but also the members of the council. The system of guardianship and the intervention of the authorities in the affairs of city public administration have been expanded. The responsibility of vowels who could be fined, excluded from the Duma for failure to appear at its meetings has been strengthened.

ZEMSK COUNTER-REFORM 1890

ZEMSK COUNTER-REFORM 1890 , adopted in the literature the title of the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions of 12.6.1890, in which the provisions of the Zemsky reform of 1864 were revised in the direction of restricting the rights of zemstvos, strengthening the administration's control over their activities (creating provincial presences for zemstvo affairs, granting governors the right to decide expediency of resolutions of zemstvos, etc.).

Source: Encyclopedia "Fatherland"

See what "ZEMSKAYA COUNTERREFORM 1890" is in other dictionaries:

- ("Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions"), revised the provisions of the zemstvo reform of 1864 towards restricting the rights of zemstvos, expanding the role of the nobility, strengthening the administration's control over their activities (creating provincial ... encyclopedic Dictionary

- ("Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions"), one of the reforms of the 1860s. in Russia. Provided for the creation of local government bodies of zemstvos. * * * ZEMSKAYA REFORM 1864 ZEMSKAYA REFORM 1864 (Regulations on provincial and district ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Zemsky institutions (according to the Regulations of 1890) provincial and district institutions of local self-government in Russia in the era of Alexander III and Nicholas II, after their reform in 1890. Contents 1 List of provinces with elective zemstvos ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Alexander II (disambiguation). Alexander II Nikolaevich Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov ... Wikipedia

- (USSR, USSR, Soviet Union) the first in the history of socialist. state in. Occupies almost one-sixth of the inhabited land area of \u200b\u200bthe globe, 22 million 402.2 thousand km2. Population 243.9 million. (as of January 1, 1971) Sov. The Union holds the 3rd place in ... ... Soviet Historical Encyclopedia

Bodies of local self-government, created in a number of provinces of European Russia under the zemstvo reform of 1864 (See Zemskaya reform of 1864). Z.'s education was an attempt by tsarism to adapt the autocratic system to the needs of the capitalist ... ...

1851, autumn. Taiping classes in Yunan. Founding of Taiping Tianguo (Heavenly State of Great Welfare). 1851, 2. 12. The coup d'état of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte in France. 1852, 21. 3. Declaration of Montenegro as a principality. 1852 ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Larisa Georgievna Zakharova (b. 17.02.1933, Tbilisi) Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor. Honored Professor of Moscow State University. Member of the Russian History Section of the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation, member of the Scientific Councils of the State Archive of the Russian ... Wikipedia

Population State system. Constitutions and constitutional acts of the USSR (1922 1936). Sat. documents, M., 1940; Constitutions and constitutional acts of the RSFSR (1918 1937). Sat. documents, M., 1940; History of the Soviet Constitution. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia