The autocracy created the historical identity of Russia.
Alexander III
Counter-reforms are the changes that Alexander III carried out during his reign from 1881 to 1894. They are named so because the previous emperor Alexander 2 carried out liberal reforms, which Alexander 3 considered ineffective and harmful to the country. The emperor completely limited the influence of liberalism, relying on conservative rule, maintaining peace and order in Russian Empire. In addition, thanks to foreign policy Alexander 3 was nicknamed the "peacemaker king" because he did not wage a single war in all 13 years of his reign. Today we will talk about the counter-reforms of Alexander 3, as well as the main directions domestic policy"king of the peace".
Ideology of counter-reforms and major transformations
On March 1, 1881, Alexander 2 was killed. His son Alexander 3 became emperor. The young ruler was greatly influenced by the murder of his father by a terrorist organization. This made us think about limiting the freedoms that Alexander 2 wanted to give his people, emphasizing conservative rule.
Historians distinguish two personalities who can be considered the ideologists of the policy of counter-reforms of Alexander 3:
- K. Pobedonostseva
- M. Katkova
- D. Tolstoy
- V. Meshchersky
Below is a description of all the changes that took place in Russia during the reign of Alexander 3.
Changes in the peasant sphere
Alexander 3 considered the agrarian question to be one of the main problems of Russia. Despite the abolition of serfdom, there were several problems in this area:
- The large size of the payoff payments, which undermined economic development peasantry.
- The presence of a poll tax, which, although it brought profit to the treasury, did not stimulate the development of peasant farms.
- Weakness of the peasant community. It was in it that Alexander 3 saw the basis for the development of the countryside in Russia.
N. Bunge became the new Minister of Finance. It was he who was entrusted with solving the "peasant question". On December 28, 1881, a law was passed that approved the abolition of the position of "temporarily liable" for former serfs. Also in this law, redemption payments were reduced by one ruble, which at that time was the average amount. Already in 1882, the government allocated another 5 million rubles to reduce payments in certain regions of Russia.
In the same 1882, Alexander 3 approved another important change: the poll tax was significantly reduced and limited. Part of the nobility opposed this, since this tax gave annually to the treasury about 40 million rubles, but at the same time it limited the freedom of movement of the peasantry, as well as their free choice of occupation.
In 1882, the Peasants' Bank was established to support the small landed peasantry. Here, peasants could get a loan to buy land at a minimum percentage. Thus began the counter-reforms of Alexander III.
In 1893, a law was passed restricting the peasants' right to leave the community. To redistribute communal land, 2/3 of the community had to vote for the redistribution. In addition, after the redistribution, the next exit could be made only after 12 years.
labor legislation
The Emperor also initiated the first legislation in Russia for the working class, which by this time was rapidly growing. Historians identify the following changes that affected the proletariat:
- On June 1, 1882, a law was passed that prohibited the labor of children under 12 years of age. Also, this law introduced an 8-hour restriction on the work of 12-15 year old children.
- Later, an additional law was passed, which prohibited the night work of women and minors.
- Limiting the size of the fine that the entrepreneur could "pull" from the worker. In addition, all fines went to a special state fund.
- The introduction of a pay book, in which it was necessary to enter all the conditions for hiring a worker.
- The adoption of a law that increases the responsibility of the worker for participating in strikes.
- Creation of a factory inspectorate to check the implementation of labor laws.
Russia became one of the first camps where the control over the working conditions of the proletariat took place.
The fight against "sedition"
To prevent the spread of terrorist organizations and revolutionary ideas, on August 14, 1881, the law "On measures to limit state order and public peace" was adopted. These were important counter-reforms of Alexander 3, who was the biggest threat to Russia precisely in terrorism. According to the new order, the Minister of the Interior, as well as the Governors General, had the right to declare a "state of exception" in certain areas for increased use of the police or the army. Also, governors-general received the right to close any private institutions that were suspected of collaborating with illegal organizations.
The state significantly increased the amount of funds that were allocated to secret agents, the number of which increased significantly. In addition, a special police department, the Okhrana, was opened to deal with political cases.
Publishing policy
In 1882, a special board was set up to control publishing houses, consisting of four ministers. However, Pobedonostsev played the main role in it. In the period between 1883 and 1885, 9 publications were closed, among them the very popular "Notes of the Fatherland" by Saltykov-Shchedrin.
In 1884, a “cleansing” of the libraries was also carried out. A list was compiled of 133 books that were forbidden to be stored in the libraries of the Russian Empire. In addition, censorship of newly published books increased.
Changes in education
Universities have always been a place for the dissemination of new ideas, including revolutionary ones. In 1884, Minister of Education Delyanov approved a new university charter. According to this document, the universities lost their right to autonomy: the leadership was appointed entirely from the ministry, and not chosen by the university staff. Thus, the Ministry of Education not only increased control over curricula and programs, but also received full supervision of the extracurricular activities of universities.
In addition, the rectors of the university lost the right to protect and patronize their students. So, even in the years of Alexander 2, each rector, in the event of a student being detained by the police, could intercede for him, taking him under his guardianship. Now it was forbidden.
Secondary education and its reform
The most controversial counter-reforms of Alexander III concerned secondary education. On June 5, 1887, a law was passed, which the people called "on the cook's children." Its main goal is to make it difficult for children from peasant families to enter the gymnasium. In order for a peasant child to continue studying at a gymnasium, someone from the "noble" class had to vouch for him. Tuition fees also increased significantly.
Pobedonostsev argued that the children of peasants generally do not need to have a higher education, ordinary parochial schools will be enough for them. Thus, the actions of Alexander 3 in the field of primary and secondary education crossed out the plans of a part of the enlightened population of the empire to increase the number of literate people, whose number in Russia was catastrophically small.
Zemstvo counter-reform
In 1864, Alexander 2 signed a decree on the creation of local governments - zemstvos. They were created at three levels: provincial, district and hair. Alexander 3 considered these institutions a potential place for the dissemination of revolutionary ideas, but did not consider them a useless place. That is why he did not eliminate them. Instead, on July 12, 1889, a decree was signed approving the position of zemstvo chief. This position could only be held by representatives of the nobility. In addition, they had very broad powers: from holding a trial to decrees on organizing arrests in the area.
In 1890, another law of counter-reforms in Russia at the end of the 19th century was issued, which concerned zemstvos. Changes were made to the electoral system in the zemstvos: now only nobles could be elected from landowners, their number increased, the city curia was significantly reduced, and peasant seats were checked and approved by the governor.
National and religious politics
The religious and national policy of Alexander 3 was based on the principles that were proclaimed back in the years of Nicholas 1 by the Minister of Education Uvarov: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. The emperor paid great attention to the creation of the Russian nation. For this, a rapid and large-scale Russification of the outskirts of the empire was organized. In this direction, he did not differ much from his father, who also Russified the education and culture of the non-Russian ethnic groups of the empire.
The Orthodox Church became the backbone of the autocracy. The emperor declared a fight against sectarianism. In gymnasiums, the number of hours for subjects of the "religious" cycle increased. Also, Buddhists (and these are Buryats and Kalmyks) were forbidden to build temples. Jews were forbidden to settle in large cities, even beyond the "Pale of Settlement". In addition, Catholic Poles were denied access to managerial positions in the Kingdom of Poland and the Western Territory.
What preceded the reforms
A few days after the death of Alexander 2, Loris-Melikov, one of the main ideologists of liberalism, the Minister of Internal Affairs under Alexander 2, was dismissed, and the Minister of Finance A. Abaza, as well as the famous Minister of War D. Milyutin, left with him . N. Ignatiev, a well-known supporter of the Slavophiles, was appointed the new Minister of the Interior. On April 29, 1881, Pobedonostsev drew up a manifesto called "On the Inviolability of Autocracy", which justified the alienation of liberalism for Russia. This document is one of the main ones in determining the ideology of the counter-reforms of Alexander 3. In addition, the emperor refused to accept the Constitution, which was developed by Loris-Melikov.
As for M. Katkov, he was the editor-in-chief of Moskovskie Vedomosti and, in general, one of the most influential journalists in the country. He provided support for the counter-reforms in the pages of his publication, as well as other newspapers throughout the empire.
The appointment of new ministers showed that Alexander 3 was not going to completely stop his father's reforms, he simply expected to turn them in the right direction for Russia, removing "elements alien to her."
Section VI. History of elections in Russia
Zemstvo "counter-reform" or "correction of reforms" (based on the materials of election campaigns in the Moscow province)
annotation
The article is devoted to Zemstvo election campaigns that took place in the Moscow province in the 80s - the first half of the 90s. 19th century On the basis of archival materials, attempts by voters to protest the results of the elections, the activities of the governor and the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs in supervising the application of electoral law are considered. It is concluded that the changes associated with the reform of 1890 combined elements of both "counter-reform" and "correction of reforms".
Keywords: zemstvo elections, administrative supervision, provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, "counter-reforms", "correction of reforms".
Galkin Pavel Vladimirovich
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of Department
State Social and Humanitarian University (Kolomna, Russia)
Problems of administrative reforms carried out in the second half of the 19th century. and directly affecting the position of zemstvo institutions, are ambiguously interpreted in the works of historians, political scientists and lawyers. One of the central questions is the extent to which the reform of 1890 contributed to a radical change in the status and competence of zemstvos.
In pre-revolutionary historiography, most authors noted the strengthening of state principles in the Zemstvo and criticized legislative innovations in terms of reducing the independence of public institutions.
and strengthening administrative oversight. The well-known historian of the Zemstvo B. B. Veselovsky noted that the main innovation of the 1890 reform was “the establishment of the estate of electoral groups and the provision of a significant preponderance to the noblemen”, but at the same time he concluded that the reform “did not produce any significant changes", and "zemstvo power remained in the same hands".
In Soviet historical science, in relation to the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” of 1890, the term “counter-reform” is firmly fixed, and when assessing the reasons that prompted
government to carry out a “counter-reform”, L. G. Zakharova, in addition to general political motives, pointed to the constitutional demands of the “zemstvo-liberal opposition” and the evolution of the social composition of the assemblies, including the struggle of the “commercial and industrial and new landowning bourgeoisie” . At the same time, the “zemstvo counter-reform”, according to P. A. Zaionchkovsky, did not bring the government the expected results, because “despite the strengthening of government guardianship and a certain increase in the number of nobility, it did not change the opposition nature of the zemstvo bodies” .
Modern authors consider it unjustified to assess the transformations of Alexander III as "counter-reforms" and offer the term "correction of reforms". For the first time, such a statement of the question was made in the collective monograph "Administrative reforms in Russia: history and modernity", where the zemstvo reform of 1890 is seen as a desire to "overcome the confrontation between elected and crown institutions" .
Consistent consideration of the problem of terminology was undertaken in the studies of N. I. Biyushkina. In them, in particular, the author notes that in dictionaries “counter” (from Latin “contra”) is characterized as the first part of compound words, meaning the opposite or counter process, opposition to what is expressed in the second part of the word. In this regard, N. I. Biyushkina considers it more correct to use the term “correction of reforms”, arguing that “the policy of counter-reforms objectively looks like a course of correction (author’s italics - P. G.) of the complex and contradictory process of transformations of Alexander II ...”. At the same time, she does not refuse to use the term “counter-reforms”, suggesting that they be understood as “a system of internal political measures taken by the emperor, aimed at restoring and subsequent compliance with
regime of law and order, to bring the course of reforms of Alexander II in line with those that had changed by the beginning of the 80s. 19th century socio-economic and political-legal relations” .
Thus, in modern studies on the transformations of Alexander III, there has been a refusal to use the concept of "counter-reforms" in favor of the term "correction of reforms". This article attempts to consider the zemstvo election campaigns held in the Moscow province in the 80s - the first half of the 90s. XIX century, in order to identify the causes and consequences of the reform of 1890 and to determine whether it is legitimate to use one or another approach in assessing these events.
According to the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, the highest approved on January 1, 1864" the composition of zemstvo vowels was first formed at the county level. Voters were divided into three curia: county landowners, city voters and elected from rural societies.
In the Moscow province, for participation in the elections from the first curia, a property qualification was established in the amount of 200 acres of land, or 15 thousand rubles. at the cost of real estate, or 6 thousand rubles. annual turnover of industrial production. Attorneys from churches, companies and societies that meet the specified requirements could equally participate in the elections. Citizens or representatives of institutions who had property in excess of 1/20 of the property qualification participated in special preliminary congresses at the choice of representatives, the number of which was established in accordance with the number of full qualifications. In the electoral congress of landowners, peasants who owned the necessary amount of land outside the peasant allotment could participate personally or through authorized representatives.
Merchants, owners of commercial and industrial establishments with an annual income of more than 6,000 rubles, as well as owners of urban real estate, the value of which depended on the number of inhabitants, took part in the election congresses of county towns. So, in cities with more than 10 thousand inhabitants (in the Moscow province these are the cities of Kolomna and the city of Serpukhov), it was required to own real estate worth more than 3 thousand rubles; in cities with from 2 to 10 thousand inhabitants - not less than 1000 rubles, and in all other urban settlements - not less than 500 rubles. Nobles and clergy, attorneys from churches, societies, companies that own property of the appropriate size could run for this curia.
According to the third curia, which did not provide for a property qualification, the elections were multistage: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which electors were elected, and then, at county congresses, electors elected deputies to the county zemstvo assembly. By law, each rural society had to have at least one representative among the electors. The third curia also granted the right to stand for members of the electoral congress of landowners and Orthodox clergy, and the latter were endowed with this right even if they did not possess a property qualification that allowed them to run for the first curia. This was done by the legislator in order to raise the cultural and educational level of the elected from the third curia.
The governor and vice-governors, members of the provincial boards, prosecutors and police officers could not be elected to the vowels. Persons who were convicted and were under investigation or police supervision were deprived of their voting rights.
Voting rights were not granted to foreigners and Russian citizens under the age of 25. Women who owned real estate could empower
to participate in the elections of their fathers, husbands, sons, sons-in-law and brothers who did not have the necessary property qualification. Unseparated sons could participate in the elections instead of fathers as representatives. At the same time, no one could have more than two votes at the election congress: one vote by personal right and one by proxy or authorization.
Vowels were elected for three years at terms appointed by the Minister of the Interior. At the electoral congress of landowners, the district marshal of the nobility presided, at the congress of the second curia - the mayor, and at rural congresses the chairman was appointed from among the electors and approved by the mediator.
The preparatory work for organizing the elections was entrusted to the zemstvo councils, which were supposed to draw up preliminary lists voters for the first two curiae four months in advance and clarify them one month before the elections. After that, the lists were published in the official part of the Moscow Gubernskie Vedomosti.
One of the main sources for the analysis of electoral technologies of the mid-1880s. are the published "Journals of district zemstvo assemblies of the Moscow province", which cited all the complaints and applications filed by voters, as well as the governor's relations, sent for consideration by zemstvo assemblies. For the election campaigns held at the turn of 1880-1890, the Central Historical Archive of Moscow preserved office documentation, which is the correspondence of zemstvo councils with the governor and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The files contain acts and protocols of election congresses, ballot lists, powers of attorney of authorized persons, reports of police officers on the reliability of persons elected to the public, as well as decisions of the Senate on complaints from private individuals.
During the election campaign of 1883, the main contradictions arose due to the use of the so-called blank powers of attorney, in which the name of the authorized person was entered immediately before the elections, which made it possible to influence the results of the zemstvo elections. As a result, this led to proceedings in 5 out of 13 districts of the Moscow province. And in each case, there were some nuances. Thus, in the Podolsk district, the power of attorney presented by the voter did not meet the requirements, as it was signed by witnesses after it was certified by the police. In Kolomna Uyezd, the disputes caused the rights of three voters at once. The power of attorney of one of them was certified by a magistrate, another by a notary, and the third by an assistant city bailiff, but there were no witnesses' signatures in all documents. However, at the election congress, when checking the rights of proxies, it was decided that all powers of attorney were certified in accordance with the requirements of the law, therefore, the persons who received them were allowed to vote.
In Bronnitsky Uyezd, there was even a case of participation in the elections of a person who had neither his own qualification nor a power of attorney. On this fact, one of the participants in the congress, Colonel N.I. Ilyin, filed a complaint with the Moscow Governor V.S. , “although obviously he tried to derive the letter “I” in such a way that it also resembles the letters “I” and “P”. The complainant also indicated that there was a “party in the county striving to achieve its goals without analyzing the means ", and with such "tricks" she can "always mislead both the chairman and other members of the congress ... ". When considering a complaint in the zemstvo assembly, it was taken into account that P. S. Mochalov refused the title of a vowel, therefore, by a majority of votes, it was decided to recognize the elections as correct.
The elections of 1883 in the Klin district had a scandalous tone, where the complaint to the governor was filed not by voters, but by the chairman of the zemstvo council, A. A. Olenin. It described gross violations of the law in the execution of four powers of attorney. Thus, V. V. Sokolov, who participated in the congress, presented a power of attorney in which his name was entered by him with his own hand. Another power of attorney was issued to I. N. Ka-shaev, who did not have his own qualification. Another voter, I. O. Nazimov, did submit a letter from his father, signed by witnesses shortly before the election and not certified by anyone. And finally, voter V.S. Sakharov submitted a power of attorney without specifying to whom it was issued. Governor V. S. Perfilyev forwarded the complaint of the chairman of the zemstvo council to the consideration of the zemstvo assembly, indicating that he, in turn, agreed with the arguments given in it.
However, the vowels acknowledged that all four documents had legal force. By proxy of V. V. Sokolov, in particular, it was found out that the name was entered by the hand of the principal at the beginning of the document, and the certification was carried out at the police department. The power of attorney was issued to I. N. Kashaev by the board of the Vysokovskaya manufactory, the signature was certified by a notary, and at the same time the authorized person was a shareholder of this manufactory in the amount of at least 15 thousand rubles, which met the requirements for property qualification. Nazimov's power of attorney, certified by two witnesses and the leader of the nobility, was also recognized as correct. With the power of attorney of V. S. Sakharov, it turned out to be even easier: since the principal and
the trusted person was “included in the list of large landowners and known to all members of the assembly as local residents, and that there is no doubt of confidence,” the power of attorney was recognized as valid.
The Moscow governor agreed only with the arguments of the zemstvo members regarding the power of attorney of V. V. Sokolov, and on other points he protested the decision of the meeting. After that, the vowels again considered the circumstances that gave rise to the objections of the governor. In confirmation of the property qualification, the voter I. N. Kashaev presented a certificate issued by the board of the Vysokovskaya manufactory stating that his share was 25 thousand rubles, on the basis of which the vowels recognized the power of attorney he received as correct. In confirmation of V. S. Sakharov’s power of attorney, a letter from a trustee allegedly presented at the election congress was considered. And with regard to Nazimov's power of attorney, the zemstvo, without going into any legal subtleties, made a decision by a simple vote: by 18 votes against 11, they recognized the participation of the unseparated son, upon a written statement from the father, as legal.
Governor V. S. Perfilyev suspended this decision of the Zemstvo Assembly and submitted materials for a decision to the Senate. His report also reported disagreement with the decisions of the Zemstvo Assembly, which were held on other issues with the "illegal composition of vowels." The case was heard in the Senate on December 14, 1883. In relation to I. N. Kashaev, it was ordered to exclude him from the number of vowels, since, without having his own full qualification, he “could not be authorized by the Association of Vysokovskaya Manufactory to participate in elections as a representative of the qualification, belonging to her, even though he was a shareholder of the manufactory. At the same time, the election of Nazimov and Sakharov was recognized as legal due to the fact that the first of them
participated in the congress as an unseparated son, for which special powers were not required, and the second, in addition to the vote presented to him by proxy, had his own ball on a personal property qualification.
In the Moscow district, the situation with the verification of powers of attorney was further complicated by the problem of the struggle between the nobility and the "brick-makers" - the owners of brick factories, headed by M. D. Pfeifer. This struggle of factions was a direct consequence of the reduction in the share of the nobility in the electorate1. Therefore, the “bricklayers”, using manipulations with electoral balls, tried to ensure that the nobles completely lost interest in the elections, considering it below their dignity to undergo repeated re-ballots.
In 1883, after the completion of the elections for the first curia, voters V. L. Kirchhoff, N. F. Richter and A. F. Rzhevsky filed complaints about the “incorrectness” made during the execution of powers of attorney by 6 voters from among the “brick workers” at once. The issue was discussed at a meeting of the zemstvo assembly, where by a majority of votes (15 against 12) the elections were recognized as correct. However, Governor V.S. Perfilyev did not agree with the decision of the Zemstvo Assembly and returned all the materials for re-discussion. At the next meeting of the zemstvo assembly, part of the zemstvo members spoke in favor of not agreeing with the protest of the head of the province, while others, on the contrary, spoke out
1 If in 1865 the nobles made up 91% of the total number of large landowners of the first curia, then in subsequent years this figure rapidly decreased, amounting to 51% in 1868, 49% in 1871, and 44% in 1874. %, in 1877 - 39%, and, finally, in 1880 - only 34% (calculated according to: Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly of 1880 No. 1. - P. 7).
in favor of a repeat election. As a result, by 16 votes to 8, the Zemstvo decided to agree with the governor's opinion and petition for the appointment of a new congress for the first curia.
Elections were held in November and no complaints were filed about any "wrong things". As a result of the new elections, the “bricklayers” managed to strengthen their positions: if after the first round there were 4 merchants and 3 honorary citizens (out of 12 seats), then after the second round - 8 and 4, respectively (out of 15 seats). Thus, the nobles remained in the minority in the zemstvo assembly, and the leader of the “brick-makers”, the collegiate secretary M. D. Pfeifer, was elected not only as a vowel, but also as the chairman of the zemstvo council.
On the whole, the election campaign of 1883 showed that in most cases applications and complaints filed against persons participating in elections by proxy were not so much an element of the struggle for the legality of electoral procedures as a means of achieving certain goals by representatives of one or another group of voters.
The election campaign of 1886 on the scale of the province took place without major violations, with the exception of the Moscow district, where the "brick-makers" headed by M.D. The nature of the "incorrectness" committed in the elections for the first curia is illustrated by the complaint of N. F. Richter and N. A. Kablukov. The first complaint they voiced concerned the fact that the marshal of the nobility, presiding over the congress, received lists from the zemstvo council the day before the elections and therefore could not ensure that the agendas were sent to voters. “Failure to comply with this law,” the applicants argued, “deprived many landowners, dacha owners and representatives of church property who did not live
in the city, to take part in the congress, which clearly violates their rights.” At the same time, the complainants suggested that "representatives of factories and trading establishments were notified in some special way." The second part of the complaint was devoted to the participation in the congress of large landowners of persons on the basis of powers of attorney that do not meet the requirements of the law. It was further reported that after the elections, N. F. Richter could not get acquainted with the powers of attorney in the zemstvo council, because one day they ended up in the safe of the absent secretary of the council, and the next day with the absent member of the council. Since only three days were given to file a complaint under the law, Richter had to formulate violations only “in in general terms". He argued that some voters did not know from whom they had powers of attorney, and not all powers of attorney were submitted for certification by the witnesses themselves, and sometimes they were marked “signature of the hand I testify”, but the name of the person whose signature was being certified was not mentioned.
The accusations were largely directed against the chairman and members of the zemstvo council as the main organizers of the electoral process. The facts presented by the applicants testified to the desire of the council headed by M. D. Pfeifer to increase the number of votes belonging to his supporters. On the one hand, this was achieved by a special procedure for notifying voters about the date of the meeting and the complete usurpation of this process to the detriment of the actions of the marshal of the nobility presiding at the congress of the first curia, and on the other hand, a wide variety of techniques were used to manipulate powers of attorney. However, in the explanatory note that the governor demanded from the zemstvo council, most of the accusations were skillfully refuted. Ensuring voter turnout by version
The administration was carried out in the best possible way: up to 600 announcements were made (i.e., almost according to the number of voters) and they were sent by couriers to the bailiffs, to all volost boards, monasteries and to all deans of the county. On all points of the complaint, devoted to powers of attorney, the explanations of the council say that they were of a single nature, and their witnessing by a member of the council and a justice of the peace was explained by the fact that they are officials, and this does not contradict the law.
In general, the explanations of the council were far from convincing on all points, but at a meeting of the zemstvo assembly, where the “bricklayers” were actively opposed only by the vowel from the appanage department K.V. Babanovskiy and I.I. was decided positively by a majority (26 to 3) votes. Thus, the active position of individual voters and vowels actually ran into a powerful counteracting force of representatives of non-noble estates. And if in previous years the main struggle unfolded at election congresses, then after the election of M. D. Pfeifer as chairman of the Zemstvo Council, any attempts to revise the election results were doomed to a failure, since the "brick-makers", using organizational resources, became invulnerable in the face of governor's supervision.
Given the circumstances, in the same 1886, the marshal of the nobility of the Moscow district, Prince P. N. Trubetskoy, turned to the Minister of the Interior D. A. Tolstoy with a “Note on Zemstvo Electoral Congresses”, in which he proposed creating a special “fourth” curia of voters , highlighting in it the owners of factories, plants and other non-land property. These proposals received support in the provincial zemstvo assembly and found
response on the pages of Vestnik Evropy and Nedelya, but real changes in the position of the nobility of the industrialized counties will occur only after the publication of the new “Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions”1.
However, N. F. Richter did not accept the defeat of the nobility and took unprecedented steps to defend his position. At a meeting of the provincial zemstvo assembly in December 1886, when checking the rights of provincial vowels, he again declared the illegality of the elections in the Moscow district, pointing out that the reason for the violations was the wrong actions of the district council in compiling voter lists. The provincial councilors, after hearing the submitted statement, admitted that the assembly did not have the appropriate competence to review the results of elections in the counties, and at the same time decided to petition the government to extend the rights to consider the work of electoral congresses to the provincial zemstvo assemblies.
In January 1889, on the eve of the next election campaign, N. F. Richter
1 It is noteworthy that during the next election campaign, the district marshal of the nobility, Prince P.N. Trubetskoy, again tried to resolve the issue of creating a separate curia for the owners of commercial and industrial establishments. To this end, he tried to enlist, first of all, the support of the Moscow governor-general, Prince V.A. - to the governor. - The amount of land cannot be added, and therefore it is completely absurd that at the congress of landowners not a single owner of the land is elected, but they fall into the vowel brickmakers, taverns and industrialists of all kinds ... ”(CIAM. - F. 17. - Op. 71. - D. 92. - L. 16).
again decided to propose this issue to the provincial zemstvo assembly, which this time decided to transfer it for "investigation" to the provincial council. To clarify all the circumstances of the case, the members of the provincial council decided to send two representatives to the Moscow district council.
Further, the conflict began to develop along an increasing line: the members of the county council, guided by the norms of the law, decided that the persons seconded by the provincial council “should not be allowed to participate in the investigation.” Members of the Moscow district council reported the incident to the vowels of the district assembly. The report emphasized that “the direction of the actions of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly seriously threatens the independence of the county Zemstvo institutions of the Moscow Governorate,” and therefore the county government proposed turning to the highest administrative authority “in order to determine the boundaries for the competence of the provincial Zemstvo Assembly and protect the interests of the district Zemstvo assemblies.” The county assembly by a majority of votes (20 against 1) decided to support the position of the county government and authorize it to file a complaint with the Senate.
The election campaign of 1889, which began against the backdrop of such a scandalous showdown between district and provincial structures, continued in the same vein. Already in April, N. F. Richter filed a complaint with the county government about the incorrect compilation of lists. The main complaint was that the owners of houses, brick factories, and other industrial establishments were entered on the electoral lists on a capitalization of a yield of 7%, although the law clearly indicated that voting rights should be granted either by the value of property or by annual turnover of production. In total, according to Richter’s complaint, up to 150 people should have been excluded from the lists, the value of whose property was calculated by the council.
incorrectly and in fact did not correspond to the property qualification. In response to these claims, the members of the county government stated that such methods of calculation had been used since the 1870s, and they had not met any protests from the voters and the governor. On the basis of which the complaint to N. F. Richter was denied. However, the latter decided to be persistent and filed a complaint with the provincial council, where a resolution was adopted: to recognize the lists of the county council as compiled in violation of the law. Members of the county government tried to apply the same approaches that were used in the incident with Richter's previous complaint, pointing out that the decision of the provincial government was beyond its competence, and in order to resolve the issue in the right direction, they filed a petition to convene an emergency zemstvo assembly. In archival materials on this occasion, a note was preserved by the district marshal of the nobility P. N. Trubetskoy, addressed to the Moscow Governor-General, Prince V. A. Dolgoruky. It expressed doubts about the advisability of allowing an emergency meeting of county councilors, since “re-compilation of voter lists is not allowed by law and their very re-compilation will entail confusion, not to mention the possibility of removing the council from office.” Apparently, these arguments were taken into account in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, since permission to convene an emergency meeting was not granted, but the reasons for the refusal were given differently: it indicated that the decision of the provincial zemstvo assembly could not be subject to discussion at the county level. Having received a refusal, the county government petitioned the Minister of the Interior, I. N. Durnovo, for "proper instructions."
A few days later, the Moscow governor, Prince V. M. Golitsyn, turned to
to the Minister of the Interior in order to state his vision of the problem. First of all, he acknowledged that the requirement stated by the provincial zemstvo council seems to be inconsistent with the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”. In order to find a compromise and draw up new electoral lists, the governor proposed creating a special commission chaired by the marshal of the nobility and including members of both the county and provincial zemstvo councils. And for the final resolution of the problem, the governor proposed to support the initiative of the county marshal of the nobility P.N. or in another way to the congress from the landowners, which mainly explains the incorrectness in compiling the lists of voters for the Moscow district.
In a confidential response, Interior Minister I. N. Durnovo agreed with the Moscow governor's statement that the demands of the provincial zemstvo council to be included in the lists of real estate owners based on their own testimony, confirmed by witnesses, are inconsistent with current legislation. The minister recognized the prospects for creating a separate curia for the owners of commercial and industrial establishments as possible only after the adoption of the relevant norms, “... for which there is hardly enough reason, especially in view of the general revision of the rules relating to zemstvo institutions” .
In the official response received by the zemstvo councils from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it was reported that the
It is necessary to change the electoral lists “only in order to eliminate the reason for the assumption of the admission of a composite, for the same persons, electoral qualification ...” . The Moscow district administration, considering that there were “no compound qualifications” in the lists of voters, decided, without correcting them, to send them to the governor for final approval. There were no new complaints about this either from the voters or from the governor, so at the end of November, elections were still held for the first curia.
However, on the election day, N. F. Richter presented a dissenting opinion, in which he indicated that he considered the conduct of elections according to an uncorrected electoral list to be inconsistent with the law. But when P.N. Trubetskoy, who chaired the congress, proposed putting the application to a vote, Richter refused, apparently wanting to keep the opportunity to file new protests. As a result, the complainant himself did not put forward his candidacy for voting, and his main opponent, the chairman of the Zemstvo council, M.D. Pfeifer, scored the most ballots (81 out of 97). As a result of the elections, a smaller number of “brick-makers” passed from the first curia, and N. F. Richter was elected to the Zemstvo assembly from the peasant curia. In this slight decrease in the number of “brick-makers” in the Zemstvo Assembly, obviously, Richter’s complaints played an important role, since even despite the absence of their direct satisfaction, they influenced the supporters of M. D. Pfeifer, forcing them to reduce their ambitions and stop the unrestrained “squeezing out » nobility from the Zemstvo.
In other districts of the Moscow province, not a single complaint was recorded in the elections of 1889, with the exception of the congress of the second curia in the city of Dmitrov. Here, violations were made during the execution of powers of attorney, and, in addition, there was a separation of the elected vowels
into two parts (4 vowels were elected from the city of Dmitrov and 6 vowels - from Sergiyev Po-sad). As a result of such a ballot from Sergiev Posad, a candidate who received 21 "white balls" was enrolled in the vowels, and from the city of Dmitrov, the voter who received 22 votes was among the candidates for the vowels, which, of course, was contrary to the law. The Moscow governor, Prince V. M. Golitsyn, sent all the materials for consideration by the county zemstvo assembly, which agreed with the assessment of these violations and the need to hold repeated elections for the second curia. The new elections were held in a calm atmosphere and there were no protests.
Summing up the general results of the election campaigns in the Moscow province in 1883-1889, we note that, in general, the elections were held in compliance with the current legislation, and the revealed facts of violations were observed at about one out of ten election congresses.
A key role in the electoral process was played by the uyezd zemstvo councils, which compiled voter lists and corresponded with the governor on the timing and venue of the elections. Another important link was the county zemstvo assemblies, because it was they who were supposed to check the legality of the rights of vowels. Provincial government stood apart in this system, which participated in the consideration of repeated complaints about the compilation of electoral lists. On the part of the state authorities, the functions of oversight of the conduct of elections were assigned to the governors, the permissive powers were exercised by the Minister of the Interior, and the Senate was in charge of interpreting the law and finally resolving complaints. As can be seen from the episodes examined, all of the above subjects of the electoral process had no direct interest in revising the election results, and therefore
sought to minimize proceedings related to violations of the law. Election campaigns were an exception, during which the struggle of certain groups of voters was accompanied either by egregious violations of the law, or they put active pressure on the zemstvo assembly or the governor through the filing of numerous complaints, protests and dissenting opinions. Another criterion for the cancellation of elections was proven situations of illegal influence on the outcome of the vote (as a rule, when elected to the vowels with a margin of one or two votes).
The strength of the entire electoral system in the Moscow province was tested by the regular complaints of N. F. Richter, who, having shown enviable perseverance, managed to use all structures to investigate them. At the same time, the provincial government and the provincial zemstvo assembly demonstrated their unpreparedness for the role of an arbitrator due to their interest in the results of the proceedings and even their inclination to lobby for a certain decision. The Governor and the Minister of the Interior took a more balanced position, demonstrating their desire to resolve the problem as soon as possible within the framework of the current legislation. However, the paradox lay in the fact that the situation that had developed in the Moscow district could be radically resolved only by reforming electoral norms. The rapid development of trade and industry in the absence of a second (city) curia led to the active influence of the “bricklayers” on the election results. In this regard, N. F. Richter's complaints were rather a gesture of desperation, and, of course, they could not have a noticeable impact on the outcome of election campaigns. But at the same time, attracting the attention of government officials, from the governor and the governor general to the minister of the interior,
became, in fact, a legal opportunity to state the problem. And, apparently, this was not the last thing taken into account when developing the concept of the reform of 1890.
For other uyezds of the Moscow province, the most relevant in the upcoming reform of zemstvo legislation was, after all, not a change in the approach to vesting voting rights and not the distribution of voters by curia, but the creation of a new supervisory body by analogy with the provincial presence for urban affairs. Because only a structure that was not bound by zemstvo corporate interests (when the legality of their rights was checked by the public through a collective decision) could provide more or less high-quality provision of administrative oversight functions. Such a body appeared as a result of the adoption of a new zemstvo position, first in the form of a presence for zemstvo affairs, and then a provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, which combined supervision of both branches of local self-government.
Other notable innovations in the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” of 1890 were changes in the electoral system, which turned out to be aimed at satisfying the narrow interests of the nobility. The former division according to the first two curiae - into owners of property in rural areas and in cities - was replaced, in accordance with the class approach, with curia of nobles and non-nobles who own real estate. The right to participate in the choice of vowels for the first two curia was enjoyed by persons who were Russian subjects, as well as charitable and educational institutions, commercial and industrial societies, partnerships and companies, provided that they own property within the county for one year. The requirement of the law on the one-year term of property ownership was introduced in order to protect the zemstvo from persons who do not have "sufficiently strong
connection with the locality and acquaintance with its interests. With regard to the indigenous inhabitants of the county, this condition was not observed. The property qualification in the Moscow province remained the same. The changes affected only under-qualified voters, which now included owners of property in excess of 1/10 of the qualification (under the previous law it was 1/20).
To control the legality of zemstvo elections and decisions of zemstvo assemblies, a new body was established - the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs. The presence included: the governor (chairman of the presence), the vice-governor, the provincial marshal of the nobility, the manager of the Treasury, the prosecutor of the District Court, the chairman of the provincial zemstvo council and one of the provincial zemstvo vowels, as well as the mayor of the provincial city and an indispensable member of the presence from the Ministry Internal Affairs, responsible for keeping documentation of the presence. During the election campaign, the main task of the presence was to consider complaints about the conduct of elections, and in the event of serious violations of the law, a decision could be made to cancel them and call new elections. If the election of individual vowels was recognized as incorrect, then a decision was made to replace them with candidates for vowels.
All members of the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs were deprived of the right to participate in zemstvo elections. Along with them, clergymen, police officers and prosecutors could not participate in the elections. Just as in the previous law, persons who were tried and were under investigation or police supervision were deprived of their voting rights.
Voting rights in the peasant curia remained unchanged, they extended to householders, and the election of persons from other communities
words were no longer allowed. Elections were held first at rural, and then at volost gatherings. At the same time, one candidate from the volost was elected.
The first election campaign, which took place under the new Regulations, took place in 1891, and its main difference was the various requests from the county zemstvo councils regarding the application of certain norms of the law for the second curia. Thus, the Serpukhov Council appealed to the provincial office for zemstvo and city affairs with the question of inclusion in the electoral lists of the local city society, which owned 645 acres of land. In the response of the presence, it was ordered to exclude the city society from the list of voters, because, in accordance with Art. 57 of the new zemstvo Regulation, the mayor was the representative of the uyezd center in the zemstvo assembly. The Ruza Council submitted for consideration by the presence a proposal to divide the second curia into two congresses - landowners and owners of other types of property. As arguments, it was pointed out that “unification ... in one electoral congress would not sufficiently equalize the rights of the owners of both types of property and could have as a result an advantage regarding the election for the owners of one type of property to the detriment of the owners of property of another type and such In this way, proper equality in the election of commissioners would not have been achieved. By a resolution of the presence, this proposal was rejected, with which the Minister of the Interior I. N. Durnovo agreed.
When compiling electoral lists in the Moscow district, the governor protested against the inclusion in them of the Moscow City Administration for Ownership of the Territory Occupied by City Slaughterhouses, the Imperial Racing Society and the Society of Racing Hunters Owning Lands
in the county, as well as several persons of the Jewish faith. The presence agreed with all the arguments of the governor, considering that the above societies do not fit the list established by law and recalling that the Jews, according to the “Regulations” of 1890, were deprived of voting rights. As a result, all of them were excluded from the list of voters. This episode shows that under the new law, administrative oversight of electoral procedures became more consistent and made it possible to stop violations of the law without complaints and statements from voters.
The campaign of 1894 was accompanied by numerous violations of the electoral legislation, which were revealed already at the stage of compiling the voter lists. In the process of administrative supervision, the governor identified the relevant facts and sent materials on them for consideration by the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, whose members consistently excluded from the lists those voters who in one way or another did not meet the requirements of the law. For example, in two cities - Zvenigorod and Sergiev Posad - residents who did not have a one-year period of ownership of property were deleted from the lists; and in the Bogorodsk district, the same fate befell the representatives of the Kostroma nobility, who owned the necessary amount of land, but their participation in the elections as a class society, according to members of the presence, was not provided for by law.
As a result of the elections themselves, the presence received three complaints from voters and six protests from the governor. At the same time, all complaints were left without consequences, and on the protests of the governor, the election results were canceled in three counties at once.
Two of the complaints mentioned were filed by voters in the elections of the first
curia in the Kolomna district. One of them spoke about the illegal participation in the voting of the collegiate adviser N.A. Tsvetkov, however, according to the clarifications of the council, it turned out that his property was listed in the salary books, which means that participation in the elections was legal. In another complaint, it was reported about violations in the execution of powers of attorney, which were written “... with the same hand, and in both, contrary to Art. 21. Regulations on zemstvo institutions, an indication of who exactly the power of attorney was issued to, was made after the signature of the persons who issued these powers of attorney. A decade earlier, the indicated circumstance could have served as a basis for canceling the elections, but this time the members of the presence, considering that the powers of attorney “fully meet” the requirements of the law, came to the conclusion that there were no such violations that, “having significant significance, would require ... cancellation elections in their entirety.
Another complaint was filed by the provincial secretary P. I. Burkovsky following the results of the elections of the second curia in the Moscow district. It, in particular, stated that the candidates themselves were allowed to count the votes, while some of them noted the number of electoral, others non-selective balls, "moreover, it is remarkable that those who counted the balls turned out to be elected" . In the explanations of the Moscow Mayor K. V. Rukavishnikov, presented on this complaint, it was indicated that members of the city council participated as counters, and all of them counted only ballots, which was recorded on the labels that sealed the ballot boxes. On the basis of this information, the members of the provincial presence decided to consider the facts stated in the application as not confirmed, and leave the complaint without consequences. As a result of the same elections, a protest was received from the government.
bernator A. G. Bulygin, which pointed out the illegal election of collegiate assessor M. D. Pfeifer, who had previously been voted out in the elections for the first curia, but received a power of attorney from the Russian Society of Gardening Lovers to participate in voting in the second category. The presence had to resolve the incident: does a nobleman have the right to participate in the elections of a non-noble curia? However, without going into such subtleties, the members of the presence revealed that the power of attorney received by Pfeifer was drawn up in violation of the law, and on this basis they decided to exclude him from the number of vowels.
Another protest of the governor followed in relation to the elections for the first curia in the Moscow district, where two under-qualified voters, who received a margin of only one vote at the preliminary congress, were delegated to the main assembly and were elected to the vowels. The Presence, seeing that the election at the Preliminary Congress was due to the preponderance of their own balls, considered this a violation of the law and decided to exclude both from the number of vowels. At the same time, the general results of the elections were left in force, and since the number of those elected to the councilors exceeded 2/3 of the norm established by law, the holding of by-elections was deemed unnecessary.
Similar situations with the illegal election of persons at the congress of commissioners were repeated in the elections for the second curia in two more counties - Vereisky and Podolsky. And in both cases, the election results were annulled by the decision of the presence on the grounds that some of those who ran at the main election meeting received an advantage of only one or two balls, that is, the participation of illegally elected representatives could really affect the voting results.
Another case of the cancellation of the voting results occurred in the Volokolamsk district, where 10 voters turned up for the elections in the first curia, and instead of declaring all those present enrolled in vowels, guided by the current legislation, they held a full-fledged vote, which, naturally, was protested by the governor, and by decision of the presence new elections were called.
In general, the campaign of 1894 demonstrated, on the one hand, an increase in the number of violations of the electoral legislation, and on the other hand, the strengthening of the positions of administrative supervision in the person of the governor and the provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, which was clearly manifested in three episodes with the cancellation of voting results.
Summing up the election campaigns that took place in the Moscow province during the reign of Alexander III, we note that the most acute disagreements arose between voters from among the nobility and owners of commercial and industrial establishments. The new zemstvo law solved this problem by creating estate curia, which led to the removal of these contradictions, but at the same time led to an increase in the number of complaints about the elections for the second curia,
which testified to the toughening of the struggle among non-noble voters. The rejection of the all-estate approach in the formation of electoral curia, of course, was a regression and contained a counter-reformist principle. Moreover, in subsequent years, the process of reducing the number of voters in the first curia continued, and, on the contrary, the number of non-nobles and the profitability of their property rapidly increased, and this, in turn, led to the absenteeism of nobles and aggravated contradictions between voters of non-noble origin.
At the same time, the creation of a provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs, interpreted in the writings of contemporaries as a way to strengthen state supervision over public self-government bodies, in practice made it possible to consistently suppress violations of the law, which means that it can be considered as a certain progress and can be considered as " reform correction.
In this regard, in our opinion, it is not possible to unambiguously assess the zemstvo reform of 1890, since in the implementation of different directions it had different consequences, combining elements of both “counter-reform” and “correction of reforms”.
Literature
1. Biyushkina N. I. To the question of the concept of counter-reforms in the 80-90s. 19th century in Russia // Russian legal journal. - 2011. - No. 5. - S. 212-213.
2. Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly of 1886 No. 15. - M., 1886.
3. Report of the Moscow district zemstvo council to the Moscow district zemstvo assembly of 1889: No. 10 // Journals of the Moscow district zemstvo assembly of 1889. - M., 1889.
4. Veselovsky B. B. History of the Zemstvo for forty years: In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg: O. N. Popova Publishing House, 1909-1911.
5. Journals of the Moscow District Zemstvo Assembly in 1883. - M., 1884. - S. 20.
6. Journals of county zemstvo assemblies of the Moscow province in 1883: In 3 volumes - M., 1884.
7. Zayonchkovsky P. A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 1970. - S. 434.
8. Zakharova L. G. Zemskaya counter-reform of 1890. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 1968.
9. Kizevetter A. A. Local self-government in Russia 1X-X1X centuries: Historical essay. - M.: Rus. thought, 1910. - S. 151-152.
10. Korkunov N. M. Russian state law. - Vol. 2. Special part. - St. Petersburg: Prince. mag. A. F. Zinzerling b. Mellier and Co., 1893. - S. 266, 281.
11. M. I. Mouse. Regulations on zemstvo institutions on June 12, 1890 with related legalizations, judicial and government explanations: T. 1. 5th ed. - St. Petersburg: type. A. Behnke, 1910.
12. Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, approved by the Highest on January 1, 1864 // complete collection Laws of the Russian Empire: Collection. 2nd. T. 39. Det. 1. - St. Petersburg: in Type. 2 Dep. Own e.i. in. Offices. - 1867. - No. 40457.
13. Russian State Historical Archive. - F. 1341. The first department of the Governing Senate. - Op. 150. - D. 835. - L. 11.
14. Sveshnikov M. I. Fundamentals and limits of self-government: An experience of critical analysis of the main issues of local self-government in the legislation of the most important European states. - St. Petersburg: type. V. Bezobrazov and Co. and Efron, 1892.
15. Khristoforov I. A. “The stumbling block”: the problem of administrative reforms in the last quarter of the 19th - early 20th centuries. // Administrative reforms in Russia: history and modernity / Ed. ed. R. N. Baiguzin. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2006. - S. 237.
16. Central Historical Archive of Moscow. - F. 17. Office of the Moscow Governor.
17. Central Historical Archive of Moscow. - F. 65. Moscow provincial presence for zemstvo and city affairs.
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 to implement 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 made by supporters of the reactionary ideology K. Pobedonostsev and D. Tolstoy. The priorities were the preservation of autocracy, the strengthening of the class system, 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 change. And these changes have already begun: the inequality of property 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. The author of the manifesto was K. Pobedonostsev.
K.P. Pobedonostsev
Counter-reforms
Peasant question
Measures were taken to support the nobility. In 1885, the Noble Bank was created, whose task was to subsidize the landowners.
Measures were taken to preserve the patriarchal system in the countryside. Land redistributions and partitions became more complex. The poll tax and communal farming were abolished, but redemption payments were reduced. In 1882, the Peasants' 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 underwent changes. The judiciary became more complicated and bureaucratized, the competence of the jury was reduced. In the countryside, the magistrate's court has practically been replaced by the arbitrariness of officials. Servants from the local nobility became the head of all administrative and judicial power. They had the right to cancel the decisions of rural and volost gatherings. There were no local councils for them, and they obeyed only the marshal of the nobility.
Revisiting Education Reform
Changes in the educational system were aimed at strengthening control over the secondary school. The adopted circular about "cook's children" did not allow children of commoners to study in gymnasiums. The elementary school was completely controlled by the Holy Synod. In 1884, the University Charter was adopted, which finally abolished university autonomy. The rising cost of education has also kept many young people out of school.
Changes in zemstvos
In 1890, changes were made to the zemstvo reform, in accordance with them, government control over the zemstvos was legalized. The change in the property qualification disenfranchised artisans and local merchants.
I.E. Repin. Reception of volost foremen by Alexander III in the courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace
Police measures
In 1881, the "Regulations on Enhanced and Emergency Protection" was adopted, which increased police and administrative pressure. The regional and provincial authorities were given the right to introduce an emergency administration for any period of time and, accordingly, could expel undesirable persons, close educational institutions and the media. A special meeting at the Ministry of the Interior could exile suspicious individuals without trial or investigation and keep them under arrest for up to five years.
Results of the 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 acts until the beginning of the 20th century. The counter-reforms were supposed to strengthen the class of landlords, whose position has recently been noticeably shaken.
The authorities failed to carry out the program of counter-reforms in full. Already in the mid-1890s, the rise of the revolutionary movement began. The leading place in the revolutionary struggle was occupied by the proletariat.
were held in 1890 and 1892. The initiator of the Zemstvo counter-reform was D.A. Tolstoy. This counter-reform ensured the predominance of the nobility in zemstvo institutions, halved the number of voters in the city curia, and limited the elective representation of the peasants. In the provincial zemstvo assemblies, the number of nobles increased to 90%, and in the provincial zemstvo councils - up to 94%. The activities of zemstvo institutions were placed under the full control of the governor. The chairman and members of zemstvo councils began to be considered as members of the public service. For elections to zemstvos, estate curia were established, the composition of zemstvo assemblies was changed due to representatives appointed from above. The governor received the right to suspend the execution of decisions of Zemstvo assemblies.
The urban counter-reform also served to strengthen the "state element". It eliminated the city lower classes from participation in city self-government, significantly raising the property qualification. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, less than one percent of the population could participate in the elections. There were cities where the number of city duma members was equal to the number of those participating in the elections. City dumas were controlled by provincial authorities. The urban counter-reform was in flagrant contradiction to the ongoing process of rapid urbanization. The number of councillors of city Dumas decreased, administrative control over them increased (now elected representatives of city self-government began to be considered civil servants), and the range of issues subject to the competence of dumas decreased.
The regulation on zemstvo district chiefs was published in June 1889. The position of the peasants after the abolition of serfdom was unstable. Many could not adapt to the new conditions. endowment of the peasants civil rights did not yet mean that an illiterate peasant could use them. For the purpose of ordering peasant life and assistance to the peasants, the institution of zemstvo chiefs was introduced.
According to the Regulations on zemstvo district chiefs, each county was divided into sections (mostly coinciding with sections of the magistrate's court), and in each section a zemstvo chief was appointed from local hereditary nobles, who was subject to approximately the same requirements as candidates for the position of justice of the peace.
Zemsky district chiefs were endowed with police-administrative and judicial functions. They supervised all peasant bodies, suspended any of their decisions if they violated someone's rights or contradicted the law, could interfere in the affairs of the gathering, eliminate objectionable elders, elders and other officials. In the absence of police chiefs, they replaced them and supervised police affairs directly. In case of non-fulfillment of their orders, officials of peasant bodies were subject to a fine of up to 6 rubles, arrest for up to 7 days, and removal from office. Not a single decision was made in the volost without the knowledge of the zemstvo chief. Peasants often could not even hire a shepherd, make a family division, etc., without his consent.
Zemstvo chiefs were endowed with direct judicial powers. They could consider, individually and without formal procedures, civil cases with a claim value of up to 500 rubles. If we take into account that all the property of the peasant household was often estimated at such an amount, then the fate of many peasant families was actually given to the discretion of the zemstvo chiefs. From criminal cases, they considered all cases provided for by the charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, and, moreover, cases of violation of the rules of drinking and tobacco excise.
Education
The new Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov did everything possible to limit the "public education" itself. Having received the support of Delyanov, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod of Pobedonostsev, according to the rules of June 13, 1884, subordinated the "schools of literacy" - the lower primary educational institutions - to the church. Pobedonostsev repeatedly threatened the zemstvo schools, but the government still had the wisdom to leave them alone. Here it is necessary to remember that the zemstvo school - the school that existed under the zemstvo self-government bodies - was the best in Russia in terms of the quality of education and material support. elementary school, while parochial schools often eked out the most miserable existence. The transfer of the zemstvo school to the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod could bury the system of primary education for the common people.
Another measure concerned gymnasiums. The Minister of the Interior Tolstoy, even when he was the head of public education, did a lot to introduce classical education and establish police relations between the gymnasium authorities and students. However, access to the gymnasium (at least theoretically) was still open even to people from the very bottom. Delyanov quickly filled in the "gaps" left by his predecessors. On June 5, 1887, a circular was issued, infamously known as the Circular on the Cook's Children. They were instructed to restrict access to the gymnasium "for the children of coachmen, lackeys, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like, whose children, with the exception of perhaps gifted with extraordinary abilities, should not at all be taken out of the environment to which they belong." "Every cricket, know your hearth" - this is how the public assessed the government's "concern" for the education of the people. The government itself proceeded from the conviction that for the people education "in excess of measure" is not only not useful, but also harmful and capable of "corrupting" the younger generation.
Tolstoy and Delyanov convinced the emperor that the universities, where the "revolutionary contagion" nestled, should also be taken seriously. On August 23, 1884, a new university charter was introduced, which destroyed the traditional university self-government for the entire educated world. Both teachers and students became dependent on officials - trustees of educational districts. The students were the worst. They not only lost the opportunity to listen to the lectures of excellent professors who left the universities, but also had to pay much more for their education, and admission to the university and receiving scholarships was determined mainly by political reliability. In case of disobedience to the authorities, the student quickly found himself outside the walls of the university and, due to compulsory military service, he was expected to serve in the army as a private. At the same time, a mandatory form for students was introduced in Russia. The uniform was beautiful, liked by the girls-gymnasium students, showed belonging young man to the prestigious social group. But its introduction was dictated by purely utilitarian considerations: at any "gatherings", rallies, street riots, it was very easy to distinguish a student in a crowd of people in form.
The conservative publicist M.N. Katkov, in Moskovskie Vedomosti, hailed the new university charter as a symbol of a change in government policy. If, as Katkov believed, the liberal charter of 1863 was “the beginning of a system of abolition of state power,” then the charter of 1884 heralded its revival. “So, gentlemen,” Katkov proclaimed, “get up, the government is coming, the government is returning!”
The university charter of 1884 buried the autonomy of the universities, introduced by Alexander II, and placed all intra-university life under the control of government officials. According to this statute, politically unreliable, even if world-famous, scientists were expelled from universities (as happened, for example, with M.M. Kovalevsky, S.A. Muromtsev, V.I. Semevsky, V.S. Solovyov, F. G. Mishchenko, I. I. Dityatin, O. F. Miller, F. F. Eisman), or they survived (as D. I. Mendeleev, I. I. Mechnikova, A. S. Peskov).
Seal
According to the provisional rules of August 27, 1882, the government created a special control body in charge of the press - a special meeting of four ministers (internal affairs, justice, public education and the chief prosecutor of the Synod). According to these new Rules, firstly, such a provision was introduced that those press organs that were temporarily suspended after three warnings could again begin to appear only under a special kind of preliminary censorship, namely: for newspapers it was established that each newspaper subjected to this punishment can be published again only on the condition that each of its issues on the eve of publication, no later than 11 pm, be submitted to the censors. This, of course, was almost entirely impracticable for daily newspapers, because newspapers, whose duty it is to report the latest news, are printed at night, right up to the moment of mailing, and thus cannot be ready by 11 pm the day before or the novelty of the information must be sacrificed. Therefore, as soon as this rule was applied to Kraevsky's "Voice" and Polonsky's "Country", which were published in St. Petersburg and were then the most harsh liberal newspapers, these newspapers had to cease to exist. The second rule, which was reintroduced, was the establishment of a special Areopagus of four ministers: the Minister of Public Education, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice and the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, who were given the right, in the event of a harmful direction of any magazine or newspaper, to permanently stop this publication, and at the same time they could also completely deprive the editor of this newspaper or magazine of the right to publish any press organs.
Conclusions on the issue. With the assassination of Alexander II, the policy of liberalism ends. The new government of Alexander III, from which liberal-minded ministers were expelled, took a course towards strengthening the autocracy, strengthening the role of the nobility and the repressive apparatus. As a result, an attack on the rights and freedoms granted to the peasants and the bourgeoisie in the era of reforms. Counter-reforms in the field of local government and the courts led to increased control over the elective power by the state, an increase in the representation of the nobility in them, a violation of the principles of election and all-estates in their activities.
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution
higher vocational education
"KEMEROVSK STATE UNIVERSITY"
« Department of Taxation, Entrepreneurship and Law»
Topic: "Zemsky counter-reforms of Alexander III"
Completed by: Valeeva V.A.
Checked by: Knyazeva Yu.A.
Kemerovo 2011
Counter-reforms in Russia are a series of events of Emperor Alexander III, carried out in 1889-1894. in order to strengthen the autocracy by revising the moderate-bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s.
The main place in the system of counter-reforms was occupied by the "Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs" of 1889, which was supposed to return to the landlords the patrimonial power, weakened as a result of the peasant reform. The fullness of judicial and administrative power in the county was concentrated in the hands of the zemstvo chiefs.
Peasant self-government was completely subordinated to them. Justices of the peace in the districts were abolished and the jurisdiction of their cases passed to the zemstvo chiefs (partly to the volost courts).
The zemstvo chief had broad rights in relation to the volost courts; he appointed volost judges from among the candidates presented to him by village meetings, he could suspend the verdict of the volost court.
Taking advantage of such rights, the zemstvo chiefs perpetrated arbitrariness in relation to the peasants.
One of the important acts in the cycle of counter-reforms was the new regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions of June 12, 1890. It was intended to undermine the democratic foundations of the zemstvo reform of 1864, i.e. all-estate and electivity, and, as S.Yu. Witte, "to nobility" Zemstvo. Only in this way did tsarism hope to tame the Zemstvo, or at least stop its "liberalism." Meanwhile, the governors everywhere complained to the tsar about the "harmful direction of the zemstvos," which they saw in the fact that the zemstvo institutions "excited and discussed matters that were not within their terms of reference," i.e. mainly protect Russians from abuse of power by the tsarist administration. On a similar complaint of the Vyatka governor in 1886, Alexander III noted: "Almost everywhere the same." The tsar was especially annoyed by the facts he learned from the governor's reports of "systematic bickering" of zemstvo institutions "with almost all government institutions: with the governor, with the police, with judicial investigators and the Ministry of Justice, with the clergy, with the inspection of public schools and with the educational district." So, in his report for 1884, the Novgorod governor A.N. Mosolov. Alexander III, in the margins of his report, threateningly asked: “What measures have been taken by the government against this disgrace?”
According to the new provision, the election of peasant representatives to the Zemstvo was abolished. From now on, the peasants could only elect candidates, and from them the administration of the province (as a rule, the same zemstvo chiefs) appointed vowels, i.e. zemstvo deputies. Further, the classless electoral curia of the landowners was abolished, and the curia of the nobles was established in its place. As a result, by 1903 the proportion of nobles in /321/ provincial councils of zemstvos reached 94.1%, in county - 71.9%. Finally, the functions of the zemstvo were even more limited. If earlier the governor could cancel zemstvo decrees only because of their "illegality", now also because of their "inexpediency", from his, the governor's, point of view.
All these measures tied the hands of local self-government so much that it now seemed more decorative than businesslike. However, over time it became clear that the irreversible process of bourgeoisification of the nobility frustrated the plans of tsarism to reactionary zemstvos by making them nobility. Among the zemstvo nobles, contrary to the hopes of the reaction, it was not the guardians who predominated, but the liberals. One can agree with P.A. Zaionchkovsky that “the Zemstvo counter-reform, despite the strengthening of government guardianship and the increase in the number of nobility, did not change the opposition essence of the Zemstvo bodies,” although it made their activities very difficult. The following fact is indicative: in just one year, from November 1891 to November 1892, the provincial presences for zemstvo affairs canceled 116 decisions of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies in 11 provinces.
Following the zemstvo, the city counter-reform was carried out in the same spirit. On June 11, 1892, Alexander III approved a new city regulation instead of the city reform of 1870, which he regarded as "absurd". Now not only workers were deprived of their voting rights, as in 1870, but in general all townspeople without immovable property: tenants, clerks, small merchants. The political legitimacy of the middle bourgeoisie has sharply decreased. For example, in Kyiv, out of 7,000 homeowners, 5,000 were disenfranchised. In total, in 132 cities with a population of 9.5 million people, only 100 thousand citizens (1.05%) retained their voting rights under the law of 1892. From now on, the city government was dominated not by commercial and industrial circles, as before, but by the owners of real estate, i.e. first of all, large householders, which were mostly all the same nobles and officials.
Nevertheless, the city administration, as well as the zemstvo, was placed under even tighter control of the administration than before. If the city regulation of 1870 entrusted the governor with supervision "over the correctness and legality of actions" of city bodies, then under the law of 1892 the governor could direct "these actions in accordance with the state benefit." Minister of Internal Affairs I.N. Durnovo stated with satisfaction that the new city regulation was agreed "with the Zemstvo in its new system."
However, the urban counter-reform was not entirely successful for tsarism. “Having deprived the voting rights of representatives of the petty bourgeoisie (local merchants, clerks), the law of 1892 strengthened the role of owners of real estate in / 322 / city dumas, as well as representatives of institutions that owned real estate in cities, - concluded P.A. Zaionchkovsky. - Thus, the percentage of people with average and higher education. This, of course, also increased the percentage of opposition elements; representatives of the liberal intelligentsia.