Local self-government in the Russian Empire. Local self-government and governors in the Russian Empire

O. Chinguzov

The abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 necessitated other bourgeois reforms in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and military affairs. They pursued the goal of adapting the autocratic political system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, while preserving its class, noble-landlord essence.

The reforms carried out in 1863-1874 pursued precisely this goal. The bourgeois reforms of this period are characterized by incompleteness, immediacy and narrowness. Far from everything that was planned in the context of a social-democratic upsurge was subsequently embodied in the relevant laws.

One of these reforms was the creation of institutions that were supposed to deal with local business. Zemstvo reform was supposed to weaken the movement in the country, win over a part of the "liberal society", strengthen its social support - the nobility.

In March 1859, under the Ministry of the Interior under the chairmanship of N.A. Milyutin, a commission was created to develop a law “On economic and distribution management in the county”. It was already envisaged in advance that the newly created local government bodies should not go beyond purely economic issues of local importance. In April 1860, Milyutin presented Alexander II with a note on the "temporary rules" of local government, which was based on the principle of election and classlessness. In April 1861, under pressure from reactionary court circles, N.A. Milyutin and Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky as "liberals" was dismissed.

The new Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, who was also appointed chairman of the commission to prepare the reform of local self-government, was known for his conservative views, but in the face of the rise of the revolutionary movement in the country, he did not dare to go for the elimination of the basic principles of the zemstvo reform developed by the Milyutin commission - electivity and classlessness. He only changed the system of elections to the planned zemstvo institutions, which limited the representation of the bulk of the country's population - the peasantry, completely excluded the representation of workers and artisans and gave an advantage to landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

The rise of the socio-democratic movement in the country (the unprecedented growth of peasant unrest, the intensification of the revolutionary movement in Poland and Finland, student unrest, the growth of the constitutional claims of the nobility) forced the autocracy to go even further than the tasks that it had previously set before the Milyutin commission. Valuev was given the task of drafting a "new institution of the State Council." According to this project, it was proposed to form a “congress of state councilors” under the State Council from representatives of provincial zemstvos and cities for a preliminary discussion of certain laws before submitting them to the State Council. When the revolutionary wave was repulsed, the autocracy abandoned its intention to allow "representatives of the population to participate in legislation" and limited itself to the reform of local government.

In March 1863, a draft “Regulations for provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was developed, which, after discussing it in the State Council on January 1, 1864, was approved by Alexander II and received the force of law. This law in Russian society received ambiguously. Here is what the famous wrote public figure A.I. Koshelev in his notes: “Many were dissatisfied with the Regulations”, “They found that the scope of the zemstvo institutions and the rights granted to the zemstvo were too limited. Others, including myself, argued that at first it was quite enough that we were given; that we should diligently engage in the development and use of this small, measured to us, and that if we fulfill this duty of ours conscientiously and with meaning, then society will come by itself.

According to the law, the created zemstvo institutions consisted of administrative bodies - county and provincial zemstvo assemblies, and executive bodies - county and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels (who had the right to vote). The number of uyezd vowels in different uyezds ranged from 10 to 96, and provincial vowels - from 15 to 100. Provincial zemstvo vowels were elected at uyezd zemstvo assemblies at the rate of 1 provincial vowel from 6 uyezd. Elections to district zemstvo assemblies were held at three electoral congresses (by curia). All voters were divided into three curia: 1) county landowners 2) city voters and 3) elected from rural societies. The first curia included all landowners who had at least 200 acres of land, persons who owned immovable property worth more than 15 thousand rubles, as well as landowners authorized by the clergy who had less than 200 acres of land. This curia was represented mainly by noble landowners and partly by the big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of commercial and industrial establishments in cities with an annual income of more than 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate worth at least 500 rubles in small and 2 thousand rubles in major cities. This curia was represented mainly by the large urban bourgeoisie, as well as by nobles who owned urban real estate.

The third curia consisted of representatives of rural communities, mainly peasants. However, local nobles and clergy could also run for this curia - also as representatives of "rural societies". If for the first two curiae the elections were direct, then for the third one they were multistage: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which the electors were chosen, and then the county congress of electors elected the deputies to the county zemstvo assembly. The multi-stage elections for the third curia pursued the goal of bringing the most wealthy and “trustworthy” peasants to the zemstvos and limiting the independence of rural assemblies in choosing representatives to the zemstvos from among themselves. It is important to note that in the first, landowning curia, the same number of vowels were elected to the zemstvos as in the other two, which ensured the predominant position in the zemstvos of the nobility. Here are data on the social composition of zemstvo institutions for the first three years of their existence (1865-1867). In the county zemstvo assemblies, nobles made up 42%, peasants - 38%, merchants - 10%, clergy - 6.5%, others - 3%. An even greater predominance of the nobility was in the provincial zemstvo councils: the nobility already accounted for 89.5%, the peasants - only 1.5%, others - 9%.

The representatives of the county and provincial zemstvo assemblies were the county and provincial marshals of the nobility. The chairmen of the councils were elected at zemstvo meetings, while the chairman of the county zemstvo council was approved by the governor, and the chairman of the provincial council - by the minister of internal affairs. The vowels of the zemstvo assemblies were convened annually at the session to consider the annual reports of the executive bodies, to approve the plan of the zemstvo economy, estimates of income and expenses. Vowels of the zemstvo assemblies did not receive any remuneration for their service in the zemstvo. Zemstvo councils acted constantly. Members of the councils received a certain salary. In addition, the zemstvos received the right to support (for hire) zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians and other zemstvo employees (who constituted the so-called third element in the zemstvo). Zemstvo fees were collected from the population for the maintenance of zemstvo institutions. The Zemstvo received the right to collect income from commercial and industrial establishments, movable and immovable property by special collection. In practice, the main burden of zemstvo dues was assigned to the peasantry (the zemstvo tax was 11.5 kopecks for a tithe of peasant lands, and 5.3 kopecks for a tithe of the rest). The main expenses of the zemstvos (80-85%) went to the maintenance of zemstvo institutions and the police; 8% were spent on medicine and 5% of zemstvo funds were spent on public education.

Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions whatsoever. The sphere of activity of zemstvos was limited exclusively to economic issues of local importance. The zemstvos were given the arrangement and maintenance of local means of communication, zemstvo mail, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters, "care" of local trade and industry, veterinary service, mutual insurance, the local food business, even the construction of churches, the maintenance of local prisons and insane asylums. However, the execution of local economic and administrative functions by the zemstvos was considered by the government itself not even as a rule, but as the duty of the zemstvos: previously the administration was engaged in this, now concerns about local affairs were shifted to the zemstvos. Members and employees of zemstvos were brought to justice if they went beyond their competence.

However, even within the limits of their competence, the zemstvos were under the control of local and central authorities - the governor and the minister of the interior, who had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly, recognizing it as "contrary to laws or general state benefits." Many of the resolutions of the zemstvo assemblies could not come into force without the approval of the governor or the minister of the interior. Zemstvos themselves had no executive power. In order to fulfill their orders (for example, the collection of underpayments for zemstvo dues, the requirement to perform natural duties, etc.), the zemstvos were forced to seek assistance from the local police, which did not depend on the zemstvos.

The regulation of January 1, 1864 on zemstvo institutions provided for the introduction of zemstvos in 34 provinces, i.e. in about half of the country's provinces. Zemstvo reform did not extend to Siberia, Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan and Orenburg provinces, where there was no or almost no landownership, as well as to the national outskirts of Russia - Poland, Lithuania, the Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Central Asia. But even in those 34 provinces to which the law of 1864 applied, zemstvo institutions were not introduced immediately. By the beginning of 1866 they were introduced in 19 provinces, by 1867 - in 9 more, and in 1868-1879. - in the remaining 6 provinces.

The competence and activities of the zemstvos were increasingly limited by legislative measures. Already in 1866, a series of circulars and "clarifications" by the Ministry of the Interior and the Senate followed, which gave the governor the right to refuse to approve any official elected by the Zemstvo, recognized by the governor as "unreliable", made the Zemstvo employees completely dependent on government agencies.

In 1867, the zemstvos of different provinces were prohibited from communicating with each other and communicating their decisions to each other, as well as printing reports on their meetings without the permission of the local provincial authorities. The chairmen of the zemstvo assemblies were obliged, under threat of punishment, to close the meetings of the assemblies if they discussed issues "not consistent with the law." Circulars and Decrees 1868-1874 made the zemstvos even more dependent on the power of the governor, restricted the freedom of debate in zemstvo meetings, limited the publicity and publicity of their meetings - pushed the zemstvos away from the management of school education.

Nevertheless, the zemstvos played a big role in solving local economic and cultural issues; in the organization of local small credit through the formation of peasant savings and loan associations, in the organization of post offices, road construction, in the organization of medical care in the countryside, and public education. By 1880, 12,000 zemstvo schools had been established in the countryside. Zemstvo schools were considered the best. Medical institutions in the countryside, although small and imperfect (there were an average of 3 doctors per county), were entirely formed by the zemstvo. It was still a step forward compared to the pre-reform period, when the number of rural schools was completely negligible, and health care was absent from the village. The role of zemstvos in statistical study states National economy especially the peasant one.

Zemstvos, despite the fact that they primarily dealt with economic issues, nevertheless became a kind of political school through which many representatives of liberal and democratic social trends passed. In this regard, the Zemstvo reform can be assessed as bourgeois in nature.

The development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom led to the implementation of urban reform. The bourgeoisie waged a struggle for the creation of non-estate bodies of city government on the basis that it would obtain sufficiently strong positions there.

The city self-government was reformed on the same principles as the zemstvo self-government. In 1862, all-estate commissions were organized in 509 cities to develop the foundations for the upcoming reform. In 1864, the draft of the new urban situation was already ready, but then it was revised several times, and only on June 16, 1870, Alexander P. finally approved it.

According to the city regulation of 1870, city dumas (introduced by Catherine II), which were composed of deputies from estate groups, were replaced by non-estate ones, whose members - vowels - were elected for four years on the basis of a property qualification. The total number of vowels varied in different cities from 30 to 72; in Moscow the number of vowels was 180, in St. Petersburg - 250. The city duma elected the city council, which consisted of the mayor and two or more members.

All city tax payers participated in the election of vowels - they were homeowners, owners of trade and industrial enterprises, banks, etc., and they were divided into three electoral meetings: the largest payers participated in the first meeting, paying a third of the total amount of taxes in a given city, in the second - the average payers, who also paid a total of one third of taxes, in the third - other.

Each assembly elected a third of the total number of vowels established for a given city. Thus, the predominance of the largest payers of city taxes was ensured in the dumas and the city governments elected by them, i.e. the largest (on the scale of a given city) bourgeoisie.

Workers, employees, intellectuals, who did not pay city taxes, did not participate in the elections of vowels. So, in 1871 in Moscow, with a population of 602 thousand people, only 20.6 thousand people (about 3.4%) had the right to elect and be elected to the city duma, of which 446 people made up the first electoral meeting, 2200 - the second and 18 thousand people - the third.

The competence of city self-government, like that of the zemstvo, was limited to purely economic issues: the external improvement of the city, the organization of markets and bazaars, care for local trade and industry, health care and public education, precautions against fires, maintenance of the police, prisons, charity work.

City institutions did not have coercive power to execute their decisions - they were subordinate to the supervision of the governor and the minister of the interior: the mayors of provincial cities were approved in office by the minister, the heads of other cities - by the governor. In a word, city self-government, like the zemstvo one, was not a local government body, but only an auxiliary body of the government on local economy issues.

During the 1970s, the new urban status was introduced throughout Russia, with the exception of Poland, Finland (where the former urban structure was preserved) and the newly conquered regions of Central Asia.

Without introducing zemstvos in the Caucasus, the tsarist government handed over here a huge local economy into the hands of an official. But, fearing that the development of trade and industry would not slow down if the urban economy was left in the hands of the bureaucracy, the government introduced the "City Regulations of 1870", also in the Caucasus. In the North Caucasus "The situation of 1870" was introduced in all major cities, in Transcaucasia - only in Tiflis, Baku, Kutaisi and Erivan; in Gori and Akhaltsikhe it was introduced in a simplified form. In all other cities and towns of Transcaucasia, the urban economy remained under the jurisdiction of the local police authorities. For the same purpose of assisting the bourgeoisie in the cities North Caucasus city ​​banks were established, and a commercial bank was opened in Tiflis.

The implementation of the law on city self-government was extremely constrained and bore a bright imprint of the autocratic system and the interests of the nobility. The bodies of city self-government, as well as the zemstvos, were charged with a number of "obligatory" expenses, most of which, in essence, had to be paid from national funds.

The main sources of city income were the valuation fee on real estate and taxes on trade and crafts. In Moscow in the late 70s, these sources accounted for 76% of the revenue budget. Since the leading role in city self-government belonged to a more or less big bourgeoisie, the latter tried to shift the burden of city taxes onto the less well-off strata of the population. The valuation of property and income was the responsibility of the city self-government, i.e. actually in the hands of the big bourgeoisie.

The largest item of city expenditures, apart from the above-mentioned expenditures for national needs, were the costs of urban improvement: in Moscow in the late 70s, expenditures under this item amounted to about 31% of the expenditure budget.

In the center of a large city, where rich merchants and manufacturers lived, there were both pavements and sidewalks, and street lighting, sometimes horse racing, while the outskirts, inhabited by the poor, were buried in mud and darkness and were deprived of convenient means of communication with the center. In small towns, however, there was practically no improvement; in all the cities of 50 provinces of European Russia, improvement costs averaged about 15% in the early 80s.

The concerns of the city self-government about public education, public health and "public charity" were very small: in all cities of 50 provinces in the early 80s, cities on educational establishments about 3 million rubles were spent, on hospitals, shelters, almshouses, etc. - about 2.5 million; in total, this represented about 13% of the citywide budget.

Despite the limitations of the reform of city self-government, it was nevertheless a major step forward, since it replaced the former, feudal, estate-bureaucratic city governments with new ones based on the bourgeois principle of property qualification. The new city governments played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of the post-reform city . At the same time, in social movement city ​​dumas participated weakly, since the merchants and manufacturers were little interested in politics.

Thus, for all its half-heartedness, the reform of local self-government was a step forward. Meetings of city dumas and zemstvo assemblies were public, and reports about them could be published in newspapers. New self-government bodies, both in the city and in the countryside, based on bourgeois law, contributed to the capitalist development of the country. But the bodies of city self-government, as well as the bodies of zemstvo self-government, were under the constant captious control of the tsarist administration. All power in the localities was still in the hands of governors and other administrators appointed by the authorities.

The governor, as in the 18th century, had full administrative rights, as well as certain judicial rights, including the dismissal of any officials of the province. The military garrisons were also under the jurisdiction of the governor. In the event of any emergency, the governor was obliged to take all necessary measures, without waiting for orders from above and help from the central government. All local bodies of sectoral departments, including customs, border and other services, were subordinate to the governor. Once every three years, he was obliged to go around the subject territory, auditing all state bodies, revealing all sorts of lawlessness, especially extortion. In a word, the governor was like a miniature monarch. The governor was assigned an office to perform his functions. Under him, the provincial board was established as an advisory body. The post of vice-governor was established, who was an assistant to the governor and at the same time headed the Treasury Chamber, a body of local financial management.

The governor also supervised the activities of the new local government bodies: presences for peasant affairs, for urban and zemstvo self-government, factory inspections, and so on. The key position in the county was the post of police officer.

On August 14, 1881, the Decree was adopted on measures to limit the state order and public peace. The repressive bodies were actually granted unlimited powers.

In 1882, a special law on police supervision was adopted, which significantly strengthened the system of these measures.

The liberal period in the development of Russian statehood was ending, and the era of counter-reforms was beginning.

They began during the reign Alexander III and were marked by a real reaction and retreat from the reforms of 60-70 years. The counter-reforms affected both the zemstvo and city reforms. The point here is the following. The introduction of zemstvos strengthened the influence of the bourgeoisie and objectively weakened the positions of the nobility. In a number of provinces, there was a "shortage" of vowels from the nobility due to a reduction in the number of landowning nobles. In the industrial provinces, the representation of nobles in the zemstvos was reduced due to the strengthening of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and new landowners from merchants and wealthy peasants.

The government was concerned about oppositional sentiments and the constitutional claims of zemstvo leaders. These sentiments were especially pronounced in the liberal opposition movement at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s.

Government reaction, therefore, set itself the task of strengthening the role of the nobility in the zemstvos by providing this estate with a more complete and stable dominance in zemstvo institutions, limiting the representation and rights of bourgeois elements in the ownership of the peasantry, and at the same time further strengthening control over the activities of zemstvos by the administrative authorities. . The reactionary nobility demanded that the no-estate and elective zemstvos be abolished altogether. In this regard, a project was developed on the transformation of zemstvo institutions, the author of which was the director of the office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. HELL. Sinus. When discussing the project in the State Council, the government did not dare to satisfy these claims of the most reactionary part of the nobility.

On June 12, 1890, a new “Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was approved. Formally, it retained the principles of non-estate and elective zemstvos, but these principles were greatly curtailed, which was the meaning of the zemstvo counter-reform. Thus, the agricultural curia, in which previously landowners of all classes could run, now became the curia of the nobles of landowners. The qualification for the nobles was halved, and the number of vowels of the landowning curia increased significantly; accordingly, the number of vowels in the remaining curiae - urban and rural - decreased. The peasants were deprived of elective representation: now they elected only candidates for zemstvo vowels, the list of which was considered by the county congress of zemstvo chiefs, and on the proposal of this congress the governor approved the vowels. The clergy were deprived of voting rights. The electoral qualification for the city curia increased sharply, as a result of which more than half of the voters in this curia were deprived of the right to participate in elections to the zemstvos. As a result, the proportion of nobles in county zemstvo assemblies increased from 42 to 55%, in provincial assemblies - from 82 to 90%, in county zemstvo councils the proportion of nobles increased from 55 to 72%, and in provincial ones from 90-94%. Vowels from the peasants now amounted to: in district zemstvo assemblies 31% (instead of the previous 37%), in provincial assemblies - 2% (instead of the previous 7%). The share of vowels from the bourgeoisie was reduced from 17 to 14% in district zemstvo assemblies and from 11 to 8% in provincial ones.

However, the counter-reform of 1890 did not introduce cardinal changes in the social composition of the zemstvos, because even earlier, despite the emerging trend towards the “bourgeoisization” of the zemstvos, the nobility prevailed in them.

Ensuring the decisive predominance of the nobility in the zemstvos, the zemstvo counter-reform went on to further restrict the rights of this noble zemstvo. Now the governor actually completely controlled the activities of zemstvo institutions. He could cancel any decision of the zemstvos, put any issue for discussion by the zemstvo assemblies. Introducing a new administrative link - the provincial zemstvo presence (an intermediate authority between the zemstvo and the governor), which checked the "legality" and "expediency" of the decisions of the zemstvo assemblies.

The zemstvo counter-reform, although it slowed down, still could not prevent the objective process of "bourgeoisization" of the zemstvos. The hopes of the government to suppress the Zemstvo liberal movement, which continued to grow, failed. On the whole, the counter-reform of 1890 did not turn the zemstvos into noble institutions. It should also be noted that bourgeois nobles played an important role in the zemstvos. The same goals were pursued by the autocracy during the city counter-reform. On June 11, 1892, a new "City Regulation" was issued, according to which the electoral rights of the urban population were significantly curtailed. Not only the working masses of the city, but also the petty bourgeoisie - petty merchants, clerks and others were now excluded from participation in city self-government. This was achieved by a significant increase in the property qualification. The advantage was given to the noble householders and the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie. As a result, the number of voters themselves in city dumas has sharply decreased; for example: in St. Petersburg - from 21 thousand to 8 thousand voters, in Moscow - from 20 thousand to 8 thousand voters. Thus, even in these two capital cities, no more than 0.7% of the population used the right to participate in elections to city self-government. In other cities, the number of voters decreased by 5-10 times, so that the number of voters often equaled the number of those participating in the elections. At the same time, more than half of the cities did not have elected city self-government at all.

According to the "City Regulations" of 1892, the system of guardianship and administrative interference in the affairs of city self-government was further strengthened. The governor not only controlled, but also directed all the activities of city dumas and city councils. The city dumas could not now take even a step without proper "permission, permission and approval." Mayors themselves and members of city governments were now viewed as civil servants, and not as "chosen" representatives of the urban population. However, in the future, in practice, the city counter-reform, like the rest of the counter-reforms of the 80-90s, was not fully implemented: the objective socio-economic processes of development of the Russian post-reform city turned out to be stronger than the attempts of the autocracy to strengthen the class-noble element in the city.

The monarchy was never able to overcome the opposition of city dumas. With the increase in the role of the nobility in them, the number of educated noble intelligentsia increased, which supported the bourgeoisie.

Thus, the transition of the autocracy in the early 1980s to direct and undisguised reaction was made possible as a result of the weakness of the peasant and labor movement, the impotence of the liberal opposition. The autocracy succeeded in carrying out a series of counter-reforms in the question of estates, in the field of education and the press, and in the sphere of local government. The main task that the autocracy set itself was to strengthen its social base - the class of landowners - whose positions were undermined by the peasant reform of 1861, and other reforms of the 60-70s.

However, the reaction failed to carry out the program of counter-reforms to the extent that it had been conceived. The reaction's attempt to go further along the path of "correcting the fatal mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s" (bourgeois reforms) was frustrated by the new upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the country that began in the mid-1990s.

At that time, there was no unity in the “tops” themselves: along with the reactionary direction, which demanded a decisive “revision” of the reforms of the 60-70s, there was also an opposition one, which demanded “concessions” to the spirit of the times. Even among the conservatives, their most far-sighted representatives (M. M. Kovalevsky, V. I. Semevsky, I. A. Vyshnegradsky and others) understood the impossibility of restoring the old order in the country.

Moreover, in the context of the revolutionary upsurge of the 1990s, the government failed to fully implement in practice the reactionary measures that were set out in the laws issued in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The reaction proved powerless to reverse historical progress.

The problem of modernization, i.e. radical renewal of all spheres of life from the economy to the state system, faced Russia again at the turn of the century. Modernization had to be carried out in a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions. Domestic politics was built on the principles of great power. Growing social tension, due to the rapid development of new economic forms.

The conflict between the landlord and peasant sectors of the economy deepened. The post-reform community was already able to contain the social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing Russian bourgeoisie claimed a political role in society, meeting opposition from the nobility and state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility was losing its monopoly on power. The autocracy hardly made political concessions, moving from reforms to repressions. The system of higher authorities and administration was designed to strengthen the power of the emperor.

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which led to defeat, further increased the tension. The country was on the verge of a revolution. It began after the execution of a peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905, and in a short time covered the whole country.

Under the pressure of the revolution, the autocracy was forced to make concessions. On August 6, 1905, Nicholas II signed a manifesto, by which the system of state power was approved by the legislative State Duma, called "Bulyginskaya" after the then Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin, who developed his project. The Duma was created for the "preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals, ascending in terms of the strength of the fundamental laws, through the State Council to the supreme autocratic power." The draft of the legislative Duma no longer satisfied anyone, especially since the revolution was expanding. In October, the All-Russian political strike began in the country; railways, the work of industrial enterprises was paralyzed. In this situation, Nicholas II had no choice but to announce the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, which emphasized the constitutional path of the country's development and the granting of civil liberties and proclaimed the legislative nature of the representative body - the State Duma. The Duma, as the lower house of the Parliament, considered and approved the budget, adopted laws. However, for their entry into force, the approval of the State Council (upper house) and the Emperor was required. On April 23, 1906, the tsar approved the Basic State Laws in a new edition Russian Empire. They fixed the creation State Duma, State Council and Council of Ministers. The characterization of the emperor's power as "unlimited" has been eliminated. However, his main prerogatives remained.

As a result of changes in the state system, Russia acquired some features of a constitutional monarchy, which was enshrined in the Basic state laws as amended in 1906: the State Council was reformed and a new regulation on the Council of Ministers was adopted, according to which the executive branch became autonomous from the head of state. Created new look Russian parliamentarism.

The procedure for the formation of the State Duma is set out in the law of July 3, 1907, compared with the law of December 11, 1905, the circle of voters was sharply narrowed. Entire segments of the population - women, military personnel, the so-called "wandering foreigners" (i.e., nomadic pastoralists) were deprived of the right to vote and be elected. Elections were supposed to be two-stage, separate for provinces and regions and for large cities. The number of electors participating in the assemblies by provinces and regions was established by a special list for each administrative unit separately. For meetings, electors in the cities, a single quota was established: 160 people in the capitals and 80 people in other cities. As for the members of the State Duma, elected by electors at meetings, their number was determined by a separate list for each province, region, city. In total, the list included 412 mandates, including 28 from cities.

Although a number of restrictions on participation in elections to the Duma cannot be considered reasonable, in particular, the removal of officials from the administration and the police from the elections, nevertheless, their general social orientation is obvious: to prevent confusion and freethinking in the Duma. These goals were primarily served by a high property and age qualification and the exclusion of students from participation in elections, limiting the number of members of the Duma elected from cities. It seems that a government body formed according to such principles can be called representative only with a certain degree of conventionality.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia remained an agrarian country, so the resolution of the agrarian issue was of great importance to it. The agrarian reform of the beginning of the 20th century is associated with the name of the head of the government P.A. Stolypin. Its implementation is associated with the revolutionary events of 1905-1907.

On April 5, 1905, a decree “On granting relief to the population for the payment of debts” is adopted. On its basis, the exemption from collected arrears on the food collection that existed before 1866 was carried out and the debts on loans for food were cancelled.

In September 1906, by decree “On the transfer of office lands to the disposal of the Main Directorate of Agriculture and Land Management for the formation of resettlement plots, the resettlement policy of the government begins.

In October 1906, a decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former castes” was adopted. Uniform rights were proclaimed for all those filed in relation to the public service (with the exception of "foreigners"). On January 9, 1906, a decree was adopted "On supplementing certain provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership and land use." They proclaimed a free order of exit from the community, and allotments were assigned to the property at any time. The application for allocation through the headman was brought to the village society, which, by a simple majority of votes and within a month, was obliged to determine the peasant's plot. Otherwise, it was carried out by the zemstvo chief. The peasant could demand the reduction of the plots allocated to him together or monetary compensation. Agrarian decrees were enshrined in laws adopted by the Duma.

But even these half-hearted attempts at reform ended in failure. After the coup on June 3, 1907, in essence, any guarantees of rights and freedoms were abolished, limited legislative powers were taken away from the Duma, and it actually turned into a legislative body. Attempts at constitutional reform ended in failure, and those problems that should have been solved in a parliamentary, civilized way, were solved by violent revolutionary methods.

Thus, the changes that took place in the state system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century made it possible to strengthen their positions of the bourgeoisie, but in no way solved the problems put forward by the working people of the country, and the first Russian revolution, despite the defeat, only pushed and accelerated the development of the revolutionary process in Russia.

10.2. EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

Petrenko Nikolay Ivanovich, doctor legal sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law

Place of work: Interregional open social institution, Yoshkar-Ola

[email protected]

Resume: The article analyzes the processes of formation and development of legal regulation and organizational design of the local government system in the Russian Empire. Attention is paid to the structural construction of individual bodies, the order of their formation and the scope of competence.

Key words: local self-government bodies, zemstvos, zemstvo assembly, duma, council, vowels, labial huts, veche.

EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

Petrenko Nikolay I., Professor, Doctor of Legal Science, chairman of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law Place of employment: Interregional Open Social Institute, Yoshkar-Ola

[email protected]

Abstract: in article processes of formation and development of legal regulation and organizational registration of system of local authorities in the Russian Empire are analyzed. Attention is paid to structural creation of separate bodies, an order of their formation and volume of competence.

Keywords: local governments, zemstvoes, territorial meeting, thought, justice, public, lip log huts, veche.

Self-government as a form of organizing power at the local level has been inherent in the peoples of Russia since ancient times. Veliky Novgorod and Pskov were examples of medieval veche democracy. The territory of Novgorod was divided into two sides and five ends, which, in turn, were divided into streets. The military organization of Novgorod was represented by a thousand-armed regiment, which was completed by two hundred from each of the five ends of the city. The inhabitants of the sides, ends and streets decided on the issues of current life at the corresponding veche, where they elected the street and Konchan elders and sotsk. The city veche, the council of lords, the prince, the mayor, the thousand - they all acted as citywide governing bodies. All important questions, including the adoption of laws, the conclusion and termination of an agreement with the prince, the election of senior officials, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace, the mobilization of the people's militia, the size and procedure of taxation, and others were decided at the veche. Preparatory work for the promotion of issues at the veche and their execution after the adoption was assigned as an administrative body, to the council of gentlemen. Its structure included current and previously elected senior officials. The current management was carried out by the posadnik, thousand, prince, elders.

Submission in the XV century of Novgorod, along with Pskov and Vyatka, the authorities of Moscow, led to the abolition of their original system of self-government. In parallel with the strengthening of the central apparatus of the Moscow State, the sphere of local self-government narrowed. Local government officials were governors who carried out their functions in the system of feeding. They collected taxes, certified property transactions, performed judicial functions and were supported by the local population.

The lower administrative unit was the volost. The body of the volost government was the volost office - the treasury, headed by the sotsky or old

stop. The peasants who inhabited the volost jointly disposed of the land, forests and meadows and bore the burden of state taxes and duties. In addition to administrative functions, the volost office, with the participation of representatives from the peasants, considered minor court cases. The forms and organization of local self-government until the 16th century were not fixed normatively and were formed on the basis of local customs and traditions.

Due to the fact that the existing management system no longer corresponded to the tasks of centralization of power, in the middle of the 16th century Ivan IV eliminated the feeding system. Instead of governors and volostels in the districts, provincial and zemstvo self-government was established. Guba administration, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, was an extensive system of law enforcement agencies, called the lab huts. They were headed by labial elders elected from the service people of the districts, who were subordinate to the kissers elected from among the hard-working people. Previously, sotsky, fifty-syatsky and tenth ones were subordinate to the elders. They were selected in hundreds, fifty and tens. They were also selected by police stations, the latter, in turn, were divided by the number of yards of the gubernatorial districts. The gubernatorial administration was in charge of the implementation of criminal and penitentiary policy.

There was no landownership in the uyezds, and there were none in the volosts either. As a result of this, townspeople, palace peasants, black-haired peasants acquired the right to choose "favorite heads", that is, elders and " the best people"- kissers and zemstvo judges. In their activities, they relied on the elected from the peasant community - sotsky, tenth, fifty.

In the seventeenth century, provincial self-government and zemstvo self-government were replaced by voivodship-prikaz administration. This abolished local governments. To some extent, this distortion was compensated

Petrenko N.I.

EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

the introduction of various forms of noble self-government into the activities of public administration. So, in a number of counties, councils of nobility were formed by election by governors. The governors were obliged to coordinate their individual actions with them.

Cardinal transformations of the municipal service were undertaken by Peter the First. The country was divided into provinces, divided into provinces. The provinces were divided into districts. At the top of the provinces were governors, who were appointed by the king. They carried out civil administration, command of the troops stationed on the territory of the province, police and judicial functions. As an advisory, collegial body under the governors, through elections from local nobles, landrats consisting of 8-12 people were formed. Provinces were ruled by governors. District commissars were at the head of districts. The zemstvo commissars were subordinate to the zemstvo chamberlains.

In 1723-1724, magistrates were established, in Moscow - the Burmister Chamber. Burmisters entered the chamber. They were chosen at election meetings. In other cities of the country, zemstvo huts were founded with elected burmisters, who were subordinate to the town hall, and not to the governor.

The new bodies of city self-government were responsible for the collection of taxes, carried out police supervision, were engaged in social sphere. In particular, they were engaged in the development of public education.

A significant step in terms of strengthening the municipal service was the Charter adopted by Catherine II on April 21, 1785 for the rights and benefits of the cities of the Russian Empire. As a special legal entity, the document singles out “city society” as an association of urban inhabitants, regardless of their class affiliation. The city authorities were ordered to keep a record of the townspeople, which was tracked in the city's philistine book, designed for these special purposes. Residents of cities, depending on wealth and class affiliation, were divided into six categories.

The general council was elected for three years. It was headed by the mayor. Vowels from each category had only one vote in the voting.

The general duma formed from its composition a six-vowel duma, which included the mayor and six vowels - one from each category of the “city society”. The six-voice Duma was the executive body of the General Duma; it also resolved a number of issues of the General Duma. The only difference was that the latter met to consider more complex issues, and the former to conduct current affairs.

In the Regulations of 1785, in addition to the general and six-voice dumas, a third body was established, which is called the meeting of the “city society”.

In the province, it was not possible to implement the system of local self-government in full. Meetings of all townspeople were created, small elected councils were also created (representatives of the urban population from different groups) .

The reign of Paul I was marked by further strengthening of the centralization of power. Representative bodies of self-government in the cities were liquidated, special subdivisions of the provincial administration were created on the ground - ratgauzes, although part of their composition

was elective.

Large-scale reforms in the second half of the 19th century, followed by the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, the development of relations of a capitalist nature, the growth of tension in social relations catalyzed the process of creating fundamentally new local governments. Alexander the second, on January 1, 1864, signed the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, and on June 16, 1870, the City Regulations. The reform is aimed at strengthening the independence of local communities and uniting the efforts of all segments of the population to solve the problems of life support of the territories. Zemstvo self-government was conceived as a public government isolated from the state, only guarded and checked to a limited extent by state bodies and officials.

The regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions provided for the division of county voters into three curia (landowners, city dwellers and peasants) to elect a district zemstvo assembly.

The zemstvo assembly and the zemstvo council were part of the zemstvo institutions. The zemstvo assembly consisted of zemstvo vowels, as well as ex officio members (a mandatory position was considered the chairman of the state property department, then a deputy from the spiritual department, then the mayor of the county city, and then followed by representatives of the county departments). The Assembly met annually in session. The session usually lasted ten days.

Zemstvo institutions were created at the provincial and district level, but they did not affect the volost, in which the previous regulation was largely preserved.

City self-government bodies were city electoral meetings, city dumas and city councils. All these bodies were headed by the mayor.

During the reign of Alexander III, new editions of the Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions of June 12, 1890 and the City Regulations of June 11, 1892 were adopted, in which there was an adjustment legal status local authorities. It was expressed in strengthening state control over the zemstvos, giving them the status of an important link in the state apparatus, and increasing the representation of nobles in them. For example, only the nobles received the right to participate in the electoral assembly for the first curia.

After February Revolution The Provisional Government made another attempt to reform the system of zemstvo self-government bodies. It was planned to establish zemstvo bodies in volosts and in certain areas of cities, precinct dumas and councils. The events of October 1917, which led to the collapse of the Russian Empire as a state, also led to the elimination of the system of zemstvo and city self-government bodies.

The article was checked by the Anti-Plagiarism program. Originality 81.76%.

Bibliography:

1. Eroshkin N. P. History public institutions pre-revolutionary Russia. M.: graduate School, 1983. S. 34

2. Isaev I. A. History of the state and law of Russia. M.: Yurist, 2005. S. 96

3. Institutions of self-government: historical and legal research. M., 1995. S. 152

4. Kishchenko O. A. Problems and prospects for the development of local self-government in Russia // Problems of transformation and regulation of socio-economic systems. SPb., 2007. S. 141

5. Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: In 9 volumes. Vol. 2. The course of Russian history. Part 2. M., 1987. S. 51

6. Komkova G. N., Krokhina Yu. A., Novoselov V. I. State power and local government in the Russian Federation. M., 2004. S. 119

7. Kutafin, O. E. Municipal law of the Russian Federation. M.: Yurist, 2008. S. 159

8. Limonov A. M. Local self-government in the Russian Federation. - M.: YuI MVD RF, 2008. S. 183

9. Wet V. S. On the development of local government in Russian Federation and questions of its legislative regulation // State power and local self-government. 2007, p. 148.

10. Presnyakov A. E. Princely law in Ancient Rus'. Lectures on Russian history. M., 1993.

11.PSZ-3. T. X. Otdel. 1. No. 6927; vol. XII. N 8708.

2. Why did Alexander 1 refuse to introduce a constitution in Russia after the war?

A) Peasant riots prevented; B) the war of 1812 prevented; C) the nobility resisted the reforms.

3. Decree on free cultivators of 1803:

A) granted personal freedom to state peasants; B) consolidated the privileges of single-palace peasants; C) allowed the landowners to release their peasants for ransom.

4. What part of the population of the Russian village was affected by the reforms of P. D. Kiselyov? A) state peasants; b) landowners; c) serf yard peasants; d) serfs plowed peasants;; e) residents of military settlements.

5. What obligations did Russia take on under the Treaty of Tilsit? A) had to recognize France for all territorial changes in Europe; B) became an ally of France in the war against England; C) was obliged to enter the war against England.

6. Determine who is it?“I was born into the family of a poor landowner. In 1808-1810. served as minister of war. Since 1815, he actually led the State Council and the activities of the ministries. He was distinguished by impeccable honesty. Executive official. He was merciless and even inhuman in his diligence. And it was these traits that caused a negative attitude towards him from those around him. A) N. Novosiltsev; B) M. Speransky; C) A. Arakcheev.

7. What is the purpose of military settlements? A) suppress the wave of peasant uprisings; b) reduce government spending on the maintenance of the army, c) organize mass training of reserves.

8. Who led the Russian army before Kutuzov was appointed to this post? A) M. Barclay de Tolly; b) P. Bagration, c) I. Murat.

9. Determine who is it?“His family coat of arms was decorated with the motto “Loyalty and Patience”. He enjoyed a reputation as an honest, cold-blooded and selfless officer. He commanded the Russian armies in several wars. the day before Patriotic War In 1812 he was minister of war, commanded the first army. The court careerists did not like him. Many accused him of the retreat of the Russian troops and even talked about his betrayal.

A) M. Kutuzov; B) M. Barclay de Tolly; C) P. Bagration

10. On May 23, 1816, Alexander 1 approved the regulation on the Estonian peasants, according to which in the Baltic provinces:

A) intensified serfdom; B) serfdom was abolished;

C) the duties of the peasants were determined depending on the quantity and quality of land.

11. The first secret organization of the future Decembrists was called:

a) "Union of Salvation", b) "Union of Prosperity", c) "Union of Officers"

12. "Constitution" N. Muravyov assumed: a) maintaining serfdom; b) the liberation of peasants without land; c) the preservation of landownership.

13.What system was established in Russia according to the project of P. Pestel? A) a constitutional monarchy, b) a democratic republic, c) an autocratic monarchy.

14. Recruitment is: a) the duty of the peasants to work in state-owned manufactory; b) setting up a certain number of people from the taxable estate to serve the needs of the army; c) the state tax from the peasants for the upkeep of the army; d) the obligation of the taxable estate to expose a certain number of soldiers.

15. The brake on the development of the Russian economy was: a) patrimonial land ownership; b) craft workshops; c) serfdom; d) lack of support from the state.

16. Which of the following was part of the Zemstvo reform of 1864:

A) the elective nature of zemstvos; b) zemstvos were elected on the basis of a property qualification; c) provincial officials could be appointed only with the consent of the zemstvos; d) in a number of provinces it was decided not to create zemstvos; e) zemstvos maintained hospitals, schools, roads, and prisons.

E) at the head of all provincial zemstvos was the central zemstvo; g) zemstvos were created to later replace the central government.

Don't be afraid of ignorance, be afraid of false knowledge. All evil comes from him.

L.N. Tolstoy

On January 1, 1984, Zemstvo reform was carried out, which became one of the main liberal reforms of Alexander 2. The reform went down in history under the name "Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions" and determined the system of local self-government on the ground.

Prerequisites for the reform

In the early 60s, a very deplorable situation developed in the Russian regions, the cause of which was largely unsatisfactory local self-government. Until that time, all officials were appointed in St. Petersburg, and on the ground they absolutely did not know the needs and requirements of the region and the people living in it. As a result, almost all spheres of life in the regions fell into a deplorable state. Health care, education, roads, markets, farms - there were literally problems in everything.

The reverse side of the coin is the position of the nobility, which was extremely dissatisfied with the abolition of serfdom. The liberation of the peasants made many nobles distrustful of the current government. Therefore, the Zemsky reform of 1864 was accepted by Alexander 2 as an attempt to partially compensate for the loss of the nobility, giving them a share of power in the regions.

• Attraction to local self-government of wide sections of the population.
• To provide the population with autonomy in solving local issues.
• Partial compensation to the nobility of lost privileges.

I pay particular attention to point 2. These Alexander 2 wanted to distract the population from the ideas of the revolution, directing their energy into a constructive direction to solve local problems.

The essence of the reform

On January 1, 1864, the emperor signs the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions." This document launched the Zemstvo reform, creating local governments in the counties and provinces. These bodies were called Zemstvos.

Zemstvos were elected bodies of power. Only men over the age of 21 were granted the right to vote, and all voters were divided into 3 curia (categories): agricultural, urban and peasant.

Elections for all curiae were held once every 3 years.

Zemstvo self-government

The provincial congress, as well as the county congress, was held once every 3 years, that is, the elected deputies for 1 term could participate in only 1 such congress. In general, the district and provincial systems of zemstvos were similar to each other. Each year they held sessions and elected management. The county government was approved by the governor, and the provincial government was approved by the Minister of the Interior.

Volost (local) self-government

Zemstvo reform of 1864 created special system self-government for peasants: rural gathering and volost gathering. The village assembly was also elective, and its representatives were also elected for 3 years. They were responsible for the distribution of land, duties, recruitment, the choice of management of the gathering and the headman. Similar questions, but a little more high level decided Volostny meeting.

Functions of zemstvos

Zemsky reform of 1864 endowed local self-government bodies with the power to solve local local problems:

• Construction of local roads. For example, building a road between villages, or between a city and a village.
• Opening and renovation of schools, hospitals and shelters.
• Collection of statistical data and organization of the population census.
• Assistance to peasant and other farms, especially in lean years.

Zemstvos acted only outwardly as independent and independent bodies. In fact, their role was insignificant and carefully controlled. The main control was that all Zemstvos were subordinate to the governor. The governor approved all decisions of Zemstvos, and also had the authority to cancel any decision of local authorities. The second limitation was that Zemstvos were forbidden to engage in political issues and unite among themselves (for example, it was impossible to create an all-Russian Zemstvo). These were meetings that resolved specific local issues of local importance, and nothing more.

Bodies of Zemstvos were divided into executive (Administration) and administrative (Assembly).

Implementation of the reform

Beginning on January 1, the Zemstvo reform of 1864 began its implementation under the control of the government of Alexander 2. It is very important to note that Zemstvos were not introduced throughout the entire territory of the Russian Empire. In particular, the new provision did not affect 2 categories of regions:

1. Regions where land ownership was non-existent or negligible. These are Siberia, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan provinces, as well as Central Asia.
2. Regions where the bulk of the landowners were not Russian. These are the right-bank Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, and the Caucasus.

This was the main drawback of the reform - being chosen. The second drawback is the elected estates. On paper, the electoral system looks self-sufficient, but in reality it turned out to be a class system, where the nobles had a significant advantage in numbers.