4 General concepts. Lawsuits. Characteristic and special features of Roman law General concepts Considering some general concepts of Roman law, it is necessary, in our opinion, to raise the question of the possibility of using their modern interpretation. In particular, can we talk about

1.1. Significance, characteristic features, legal regulation of the activities of the judiciary According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state power in the Russian Federation performs three independent functions: legislative, executive, judicial (Article 10). The Constitution of the Russian Federation includes

2.4. The main institutions and characteristic features of the judicial system of Russia Legislative regulation of the judicial system as a constitutional establishment, namely, as a set of courts of different levels, organized in accordance with their competence, tasks and goals of their

Chapter 1. Legal nature and characteristic features of interstate integration in the European Union and the Customs

§ 4. Types of international legal acts and characteristic features of the international legal instruments of the Customs Union and the EurAsEC

§ 5. Features and characteristic features of the implementation of the international obligations of the Russian Federation arising from membership in the Customs Union

Topic No. 4: “Class-Representative Monarchy in Russia

(middle of the 16th - middle of the 17th centuries)"

/4 hours/

Plan :

Introduction.

1. The emergence of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. Her essence.

2. Introduction by Ivan the Terrible of the oprichnina, its essence. Various assessments of Grozny's personality.

3. Expansion of the territory of the Great Russian state. Reunification of Ukraine with Russia.

4. The social structure of the state.

5. State system. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible.

Conclusion.

Tutorials and tutorials:

1. History of the state and law of Russia / Edited by Yu.P. Titov. - M., 1998.

2. Klyuchevsky V.O. Brief guide to Russian history. - M., 1992.

Special literature:

1. Belyaev I.D. Zemsky Sobors in Russia. - M., 1962.

2. Zimin A.A. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1960.

3. Zimin A.A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1964.

4. Zimin A.A., Khoroshkevich A.L. Russia in the time of Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1992.

5. Kobrin V.B. Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1989.

6. Platonov Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1991.

7. Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1983.

8. Skrynnikov R.G. reign of terror. / St. Petersburg, 1992.

9. Skrynnikov R.G. distant age. - M., 1989.

Introduction.

The estate-representative monarchy as a form of the feudal state corresponded to the era of mature feudalism. It develops as a result of the struggle of the great princes and kings for the further strengthening of the centralized state. The power of the monarch during this period is still not strong enough to become absolute. The monarchs and their supporters fought against the top of the feudal aristocracy (former appanage princes and big boyars), which opposed the centralization policy of the Moscow sovereigns. The monarchs in this struggle relied on the nobles and the top of the townspeople.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy, there was a significant expansion of the territory of Russia. The Lower and Middle Volga regions, Siberia became part of it, in the west Ukraine was attached to it.

Today we will analyze how the estate-representative monarchy arose, what is its essence, what was the oprichnina introduced by Ivan the Terrible, what is the attitude of historians to it and to the personality of the tsar.

So, a class-representative monarchy is a form of state when the monarch rules, relying on a more or less broad representation of the estates: the boyars, the clergy, the nobility, the townspeople (i.e., the townspeople). The process of formation of the estate system began in the days of Kievan Rus, it ended in the second half of the 17th century. What is an estate system and what is an estate? What is the difference between the concept of estate and the concept of class?

Estates- these are such large social groups, i.e. segments of the population that differ from each other in legal status (a set of rights and obligations).

Classes- these are also large social groups, but they differ in others, not

Clergy + nobility = feudal lords(this is one class), but these are different estates.

The estate-representative institution, in which the boyars, the clergy, the nobility, and the townspeople were represented, became Zemsky Sobors in Russia. It was based on them that the tsars ruled in Russia from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. And this period went down in history as a period of class-representative monarchy.

The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549, the last in 1653. Ivan the Terrible also made an attempt to transfer the regional administration into the hands of the society itself (elected labial, zemstvo elders, "favorite heads" in cities). However, the zemstvo was not established then because of the complete unpreparedness of the serf society for it.

Zemsky Sobors, the main institution of the estate-representative monarchy, gradually withered away, not having time to get stronger. Structural transformations begun under Ivan the Terrible could make Russia a class-representative monarchy "with a human face", but Ivan IV led the fight against specific antiquity using purely feudal methods. The introduction of the oprichnina is proof of this. In an effort to destroy the separatism of the feudal nobility, Ivan the Terrible did not stop at nothing. He was not just a cruel ruler, his despotism knew no bounds. By the way, some historians deny the existence of a class-representative monarchy in Russia, arguing that at that time there was despotism or even eastern despotism in the country. There is also a point of view that Zemsky Sobors did not limit the power of the tsar.

However, most historians believe that for a century (from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th centuries) the most important state issues were resolved only after the approval of the Councils, and therefore Russia of this period can be spoken of as a class-representative monarchy. How did the estate-representative monarchy develop, and what reasons contributed to this? In the middle of the XVI century. In the Russian state, class and intra-class contradictions sharply escalated. This led to a series of uprisings: an uprising in Moscow in 1547, in Pskov and Ustyug.

1. One of the reasons for the unrest in the country was the ever-increasing serfdom of the bulk of the population - the peasantry. By the middle of the 16th century, subsistence agriculture began to be drawn into commodity circulation. The feudal lords were no longer limited to corvée and quitrent in kind. They tax the peasants with a cash quitrent. Peasants seek relief for their lot and often flee to the outskirts, to new owners (on St. George's Day, they still had such a right to transfer). The former owners are returning the peasants by force, demanding the abolition of St. George's Day. Tension grows and results in widespread peasant disobedience to their masters - the feudal lords.

2. Secular and spiritual feudal lords created in cities white settlements free of taxes and city fees. Since the feudal lords themselves were exempted from the state tax, they invited the townspeople to themselves, created the so-called "white settlements", thereby causing competition to the rest of the townspeople, who continued to bear the tax tax. This led to an ongoing the struggle of the settlement with the feudal lords.

3. There were also serious contradictions among the ruling class itself. needing

in the lands to provide for the soldiers-nobles, the Moscow sovereigns launched an attack on church lands and boyar possessions, which caused discontent and, moreover, serious resistance from the church and major boyars.

So, we see that there are three lines of conflict in the country:

1. peasantry against feudal lords,

2. township population against feudal lords,

3. among the feudal lords themselves, the conflict between the tsar and the nobles, on the one hand, and the boyars, on the other hand.

In an effort to consolidate all layers of the feudal lords, to expand the social base of the monarchy, the government decided to convene in 1549 (under the direct influence of the mid-century uprisings) the Zemsky Sobor. He went down in history as "Cathedral of Reconciliation". Representatives of the nobility and townspeople took part in the Zemsky Sobors along with the boyar aristocracy and church leaders. The nobility and the elite of the townspeople played a big role at that time! They were a stronghold of tsarist power in the struggle against the rebellious peasantry and the well-born boyars. Without them, the king could not cope with the situation in the country.

Exactly the growing role of the nobility and tenements in the conditions of the intensified struggle, it determined the formation of a class-representative monarchy! Local power is also transferred from the hands of the landowners and volostels to the hands of elected zemstvo and provincial institutions.

Having expanded its social base in the conditions of the intensification of the class struggle, the tsarist government thereby strengthened itself. But at the same time, it also turned out to be limited in its policy by the decisions of the Council.

As mentioned above, some historians deny the existence of a class-representative monarchy on the grounds that the oprichnina introduced in 1565 by Ivan the Terrible was nothing more than despotism.

Century from the middle of the XVI to the middle of the XVII centuries. marked by a significant expansion of the territory of the Russian state, mainly in the east. Russia is becoming more and more multinational. Government measures to centralize management lead to the strengthening of the state.

This period is characterized by noticeable shifts in the social structure. The unfolding struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the bulk of the feudal class leads to an ever greater strengthening of the positions of the nobility. The development of the class of the exploited is characterized by the final enslavement of the peasants, as well as the ever-increasing convergence of the status of peasants and serfs.

The entry of feudalism into the stage of maturity also corresponds to a change in the form of the state, which becomes a caste-representative monarchy. True, this fact is not recognized by all domestic and foreign historians. The power of the monarch is being strengthened, which is externally reflected in the new title. At the same time, the king still cannot do without special organs that express the will of the estates. The most important of them is the Zemsky Sobor. The role of the Boyar Duma is gradually declining. New local bodies correspond to the new form of the state. The feeding system is being replaced by the system of provincial and zemstvo self-government, which noticeably infringes on the political and economic interests of the boyars and attracts the broad masses of the nobility and the top tenants to the management.

Big shifts are taking place in the development of law. Major legislative acts are being created, current legislation is actively developing. The institution of land tenure is characterized by the convergence of the legal regime of estates and estates. The estate as a form of land ownership acquires the features of land ownership, as the right to dispose of it expands. The system of crimes and the system of punishments are expanding significantly. Terrorist forms of the process are increasingly coming to the fore.

The Russian state is preparing to enter the highest and last stage of feudalism - absolutism.

social order

The period of estate-representative monarchy - the period of developed feudalism - is characterized by shifts in intra-class and especially in inter-class relations. The most important event in this area is the complete enslavement of the peasants.

Along with agriculture, handicraft and trade develop.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. Manufactories appear, based mainly on serf labor, but partially using the labor of hired workers. Thus, the first sprouts of bourgeois relations appear in the depths of feudalism. At the same time, a single all-Russian market begins to take shape.

Feudal lords. The largest feudal lord in the country, as in the previous period, was the monarch. The oprichnina played an important role in strengthening its economic power. One of its results was that the tsar received the most convenient lands, which he used as a local fund, which gave him the opportunity to attract to his side the nobility interested in centralizing the state and strengthening the power of the tsar. Other riches were also concentrated in the hands of the monarch at that time.

The class of feudal lords, as before, was heterogeneous. The largest feudal lords included the boyar-princely aristocracy. It consisted of two main groups. The first group consisted of former appanage princes, who lost their former political privileges, but retained their former economic significance until the introduction of the oprichnina. Later they merged with the bulk of the boyars. The second group of the feudal elite included large and medium-sized boyars. The interests and positions of these two groups of feudal lords were different on some issues. Former appanage princes consistently opposed centralization, they took measures to weaken the royal power. Oprichnina and was directed mainly against this group of the feudal elite. Some part of the boyars at the first stage of the reign of Ivan IV supported the royal power and measures to strengthen the centralized state. The boyars were tired of submitting to the former specific princes. They preferred to serve only one grand duke, the tsar, at the same time opposed the restriction of their rights, in favor of providing a certain independence in solving various issues, including major state ones. The boyars believed that the main role in the life of the country should be played by the Boyar Duma, whose opinion the tsar had to reckon with. Later, especially after the introduction of the oprichnina terror, a conflict arose between the tsar and the boyars.

The lower, but most numerous part of the feudal lords was the nobility. Of course, common exploitative interests united him with the boyars. However, the nobles also had their own needs, which differed from those of the boyars and sometimes contradicted them. Petty feudal lords longed for new lands, sought to enslave the peasants, and therefore supported the monarch and his active foreign policy.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia, the previously established procedure for filling government positions in accordance with generosity, and not personal business qualities (the principle of parochialism) remained in force. Under Ivan IV, attempts were made to limit localism, but only in 1682 it was abolished.

The concept of allegiance is being formulated. The feudal lords lost their former privilege to choose: to serve or not to serve the Grand Duke.

A large feudal lord in this period was the church, which had huge land holdings, as well as many other riches. A large number of serfs worked on lands belonging to monasteries and other church organizations. Huge land holdings continued to be concentrated in the hands of the church. The monarchs tried to limit church land ownership, but all these attempts were unsuccessful. The church continued to accumulate wealth. Only in 1581, Ivan IV managed to achieve some restrictions that concerned the growth of church land ownership.

Dependent population. During the years of devastation caused by the oprichnina and wars, a mass flight of peasants from their masters began. Previously, peasants were attached to the land by farming. In this regard, they rarely used the opportunity provided by law to move from one feudal lord to another on St. George's Day. Now, in the conditions of ruin, in search of better places, they began to leave their lands. The measure to combat the migration of peasants was their enslavement. In 1580, the Decree on reserved years was issued, which canceled St. George's Day. The following year, a general census of peasants began, completed in 1592. It created the legal basis for the search for fugitive peasants. To facilitate disputes between owners over fugitives, in 1597 the Decree on Lesson Years was issued, i.e. on the limitation period for such disputes. Initially, the statute of limitations was five years, then it changed several times, until the Cathedral Code of 1649 canceled the fixed summer, allowing the search for fugitives indefinitely.

Kholops still survived, although there were fewer of them than before. Their legal status remained the same. They were joined by a new category of dependent population - bonded people. They were formed from free (mainly from those who lost their land) peasants. In order to become bonded, it was necessary to issue a service bonded letter, which fixed the legal status of bonded. To draw up a bonded letter, certain conditions were necessary (a person must reach a certain age, be free from serfdom, from public service, etc.).

Serfs planted on the ground were called sufferers. They ensured the cultivation of the master's land on the basis of corvee. The sufferers, who did not have their own household, were little interested in their work. Therefore, more and more peasants are also beginning to be attracted to corvée. During this period, the corvée system finally took shape along with the former quitrent system.

Posad people. In the second half of the XVI and XVII centuries. the growth of cities, crafts, trade continues. Significantly increased the number of townspeople, which in the XVII century. attached to the landing.

The merchant class is growing, which had privileges (exemption from a number of duties). There is a clear division in the cities into merchants and "black" people. The latter included artisans and small traders.

In addition to the "black" settlements in the settlements, there were "white" settlements, courtyards, the owners of which did not bear the sovereign's tax, which caused protests from the "black" people. The Cathedral Code of 1649 abolished the "white" settlements.

Political system

The transition to a class-representative monarchy was marked by significant changes in the state apparatus. The most important of these was the emergence of representative bodies. However, the former state bodies have undergone major changes.

Unlike the early feudal state, only one form of government was now possible, the monarchy. But the status of the monarch changes somewhat. Ivan IV proclaims himself king, and this title takes root, which was not a mere formality, but reflected the actual increase in the power of the monarch.

At the same time, the tsar cannot do without the old, traditional body - the Boyar Duma. True, its value changes during the period, with a general downward trend. Nevertheless, the Boyar Duma limits the monarch, so the time has not yet come to talk about autocracy. Even the introduction of the oprichnina fundamentally could not change anything. The tsar was forced to abandon it after a few years, because he realized that he could lose all social support, because all sections of the ruling class were already dissatisfied with terror. The oprichnina did not destroy the significance of the Boyar Duma as the highest body of state power, did not shake the principle of parochialism, which protected the privileges of the nobility.

After the death of Boris Godunov, the role of the Boyar Duma increased for a while. In 1610, as a result of the struggle between the factions of the ruling class, Tsar Vasily Shuisky was overthrown from the throne. All fullness of power temporarily passed to the Boyar Duma. For some time, the state was actually ruled by seven influential boyars, which in history was called the seven boyars.

Zemsky Sobors became a fundamentally new supreme body of the state. Through them, the tsar attracted certain circles of the nobility and townspeople to govern the state. Zemsky Sobors were necessary for the monarch to support major events - waging war, finding new incomes, etc. Tsars, relying on Zemsky Sobors, could through them pursue the appropriate policy even against the will of the Boyar Duma.

The tsar and the feudal lords, frightened by the uprising of the townspeople in Moscow, convened the first council (called the cathedral of reconciliation) in 1549 in 1549. In this way, the ruling elite managed to somewhat calm the dissatisfied. The appearance of involving not only boyars and nobles, but also other segments of the population in state administration was created.

The zemstvo councils included the tsar, the Boyar Duma, the top clergy - the Consecrated Cathedral in full force. They were, as it were, the upper house, whose members were not elected, but participated in it in accordance with their position. The lower house was represented by elected representatives from the nobility, the upper classes of the townspeople (merchants, large merchants). Elections to the lower house were not always held. Sometimes, during the urgent convocation of a council, representatives were invited by the king or local officials. A significant role in the Zemsky Sobors was played by nobles, and above all merchants, whose participation was especially important for solving various monetary problems (for providing funds for the organization of the militia, etc.).

The duration of the sessions of the zemstvo sobors depended on the circumstances and the substance of the issues discussed. In a number of cases, Zemsky Sobors functioned continuously for several years. After the expulsion of foreign invaders, in the first years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov, the country experienced economic ruin and serious financial difficulties. Tsarism needed the support of various sections of the population, especially the richest circles of merchants. Zemsky Sobors at that time sat almost continuously. From the 20s. 17th century Zemsky Sobors began to meet less frequently. The convocation of the last councils dates back to the second half of the 17th century.

The quantitative composition of zemstvo sobors varied depending on the circumstances. The most populous (approximately 700 - 800 people) was the Zemsky Sobor, convened in 1613 after the expulsion of the interventionists. It was the only Council attended by representatives of archers, Cossacks, peasants of the "black" volosts (only two).

At this Council, the question of choosing a king was decided. Various candidates were put forward, including the hero of the struggle against the interventionists, Prince Pozharsky. The group of feudal lords that nominated 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov won. The boyars wanted to govern themselves, and therefore they chose a puppet tsar. This was the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.

All zemstvo councils can be conditionally divided into four main groups: 1) councils, which were convened by the tsar on his own initiative; 2) councils that the king convened, but on the initiative of the estates; 3) councils convened by estates or on their initiative in the absence of the king or directed against him; 4) councils that elect the king.

The first group of cathedrals was predominant. The second group includes, for example, the Council of 1648, which the tsar was forced to convene at the request of the estates. The third group should include cathedrals that acted against the king (at that time, in 1611 - 1613, the Polish prince was in power). Sobors resolved questions about the election of tsars, starting in 1584 after the death of Ivan the Terrible and ending with the election of Peter and Ivan Alekseevich to the kingdom.

In the historical literature, the opinion was expressed that the Zemsky Sobors were advisory bodies under the tsar. In fact, they were the highest organs of state power.

In the middle of the XVI century. completed the transition from the palace-patrimony to the command system of government. Gradually, an extensive system of orders developed.

During the formation of the order system, the leading role belonged to military administrative orders. At this time there was a reorganization of the army. It was based on the noble cavalry and archers, which appeared as a result of the reform carried out by Ivan IV. The need for a streltsy army arose in connection with the development and improvement of firearms. A special order was created to control the archers.

The formation of a new organization of the Russian state was resisted by large landowning boyars, who were accustomed to appearing on campaigns with their regiments and taking places in battles of their choice. Tsarist legislation extended the principle of compulsory military service to all ranks of feudal lords. All landlords and votchinniks were ordered to come on a campaign with weapons and with their people. Unlike Western Europe, where the military forces were formed from recruited or hired troops, the Russian army consisted of its own subjects. The persons obligated to serve included "serving people in the fatherland" (princes, boyars, nobles, boyar children) and "serving people according to the instrument" (archers, city Cossacks, gunners, etc.).

The personnel of the boyar and noble cavalry was in charge of the Discharge Order, which recorded all cases of appointment to the service, transfers in positions. Appointments to positions were carried out in accordance with the principle of localism - by birth, nobility.

Local land holdings of serving nobles were in charge of the Local Order, which ensured that the nobles were provided with local lands for military service in accordance with established standards. There was also a Cossack order, which was in charge of the Cossack troops.

At that time, special territorial orders appeared that were in charge of the affairs of those territories that were annexed to Russia or were being developed. These included the Kazan and Siberian orders. In the future, the Little Russian order began to function, which was in charge of the affairs of Ukraine.

During the period of the estate-representative monarchy, a central police body was born. At first, the commission of the Boyar Duma on robbery cases acted, then the Robbery Order was created. He developed orders for local authorities on combating ordinary crimes, and appointed relevant officials at the local level.

Serving the personal needs of the king and his family were in charge of special palace orders. These included: the order of the Grand Palace (ruled the palace lands), Konyushenny (in charge of the royal stable), Huntsman and Falconer orders (hunting), Bedding (in charge of the royal bedroom), etc. The positions of the leaders of these orders were considered especially honorable and important, in accordance with the principle of parochialism could be occupied by the most well-born feudal lords.

Nobles and boyar children under Ivan IV received certain privileges - they could apply to the court of the tsar himself. In this regard, a special petition order was formed.

At the end of the XVII century. a system of court orders was created (Moscow, Vladimir, Dmitrovsky, Kazan, etc.), which performed the functions of the highest judicial bodies. Subsequently, these orders, as well as the Petition, merged into a single Judgment Order.

The Ambassadorial Order, which was in charge of various foreign policy issues, was of great importance in the activities of the Russian state. Prior to its emergence, many bodies dealt with foreign policy issues of the Russian state. The absence of a single center for embassy affairs created inconvenience. The direct participation of the Boyar Duma in all foreign policy issues was inappropriate. A limited number of people had to take part in these cases in order to avoid divulging state secrets. The tsar believed that all the main issues of foreign policy (especially operational ones) should be decided personally by him. The head of the Ambassadorial Department and a small number of clerks were called to help in this.

The main duties of the Ambassadorial Order were to negotiate with representatives of foreign states. This function was directly performed by the head of the order himself. It developed the most important documents that substantiated the position of the Russian state on various foreign policy issues. In addition, he resolved border conflicts, was engaged in the exchange of prisoners, etc. The appearance of the Ambassadorial Order had an impact on the reduction of the role of the Boyar Duma in solving foreign policy issues. The king rarely consulted with her on these issues, relying mainly on the opinion of the Ambassadorial order.

In the second half of the XVI century. a special central institution was created that was in charge of the affairs of serfs. Until now, this has been done by local governments and the State Order, which simultaneously performed many other functions. Now, in connection with the development of bonded servility, there is a need for a special body. The main duty of the Kholopye order was to register bonded records in special books. In addition, he considered claims in cases of runaway serfs, for which the registration of serf letters in the order was essential.

The transition to a class-representative monarchy also led to a significant change in local government. The feeding system was replaced by a new one based on the principle of self-management. In the middle of the XVI century. instead of governors-feeders, labial organs were introduced. They were selected from among certain segments of the population. Nobles and boyar children elected the head of the labial body - the labial headman, who was approved in the position by the Rogue Order.

The apparatus of the labial headman consisted of kissers, who were elected by the townspeople and the top of the black peasantry. Kissers are elected officials who were so called because they kissed the cross with an oath to faithfully serve in this position.

The gubernatorial organs, as class-representative institutions, could function successfully under the condition of a radical reorganization of the system of feudal immunities. The Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551 decided to stop issuing tarkhans - letters that provided the feudal lords with special rights and privileges (the right to court, exemption from a number of duties, etc.). Feudal immunities led to the fact that a secular or church feudal lord could establish orders in a certain territory at his own discretion, received the right not to comply with certain national legal norms. Now it was out of the question.

Along with the labials, zemstvo self-government bodies were created, the issue of which was considered by the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551, which approved the tsar's proposal for the widespread introduction of elected elders, kissers, sots and fifties in the country. The implementation of this decision began in the black-soiled North.

The first step in this direction was the adoption under Ivan IV of the Malo-Pinezhskaya zemstvo statutory charter, which provided for the replacement of the feeders' court by the court of elected elders. At the request of the chernososhnye peasants and townspeople, a number of places in the chernososhnye North were transferred to the farm, which was expressed in certain sums of money paid by the zemstvo authorities to the feudal state. The local population, as it were, redeemed from the state the right to get rid of feeders and resolve their local issues on their own. Similar certificates began to be issued to many places in northern Pomerania. Later, the tsar ordered the abolition of feeding throughout the land and the introduction of zemstvo self-government. Specific deadlines for the transfer of feedings to the farm were determined.

The jurisdiction of the zemstvo authorities primarily included the collection of taxes and the court in civil and petty criminal cases. Larger cases were considered by the labial authorities. Zemstvo elders and other officials performed their duties in considering civil and criminal cases without collecting duties from the population. Thus, the previous order was canceled, in which the governors-feeders collected numerous duties in their pockets.

The peasant war led by Bolotnikov and the years of foreign intervention convinced the tsar that one could not fully rely on the labial and zemstvo organs. Therefore, in addition to them, governors were established, who were appointed by the Discharge Order from among the boyars and nobles, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. In large cities, several governors were appointed, but one of them was considered the main one. Unlike feeders, governors received the sovereign's salary and could not rob the local population.

One of the main tasks of the governor was to ensure financial control. They kept records of the amount of land and profitability of land plots of all farms. The collection of state taxes was directly carried out by elected elders and kissers, but they were supervised by governors.

An important state function of the governor was the recruitment of service people from the nobility and boyar children for military service. The governor compiled lists for them, kept records, conducted military reviews, and checked readiness for service. According to the requirements of the Discharge Order, the voivode sent military personnel to duty stations. He was also in charge of archers and gunners, watched the condition of the fortresses.

When the governor had a special order hut, which was headed by a clerk. All the affairs of the city and county were conducted in it. In the course of the activity of the voivods, the gubernatorial and zemstvo bodies were increasingly subordinate to them, especially on military and police issues.

The regulation of the rights and obligations of the governors was so vague that they themselves specified them in the course of their activities. This created room for arbitrariness. Voevodas, by extorting bribes, sought additional sources of income, not content with salaries. The arbitrariness of governors in Siberia was especially great.

Development of law

Legislation paid attention to the obligations of causing harm. Responsibility was established for causing damage caused by damage to fields and meadows. The owner of livestock that poisoned the land was obliged to compensate the losses to their owner. The cattle detained during the injury was subject to return to the owner safe and sound.

Inheritance was carried out, as before, by will and by law.

Criminal law. The legislation of this period considers acts that are dangerous for feudal society to be crimes, calling them "dashing deeds", although there is no general term for the crime yet.

In the Council Code of 1649, the class essence of the crime was more clearly reflected. This was manifested primarily in the fact that various punishments were imposed for certain acts, depending on the class affiliation of those who committed them.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 contained numerous norms of the special part of criminal law. In the first place, the legislator put crimes against religion. For the first time in the history of Russian legislation, a special chapter was dedicated to them. In second place were state crimes (high treason, encroachments on the life and health of the king, imposture, etc.). Serious acts included especially dangerous crimes against the order of government (violation of order in the royal court, counterfeiting, forging royal seals, etc.). The law contained detailed descriptions of various elements of crimes - military, property, against the person.

Although criminal law as a whole in the Council Code of 1649 was developed at a higher level than in previous documents of Russian legislation, it did not specifically single out the general part of criminal law, but focused on describing specific elements of crimes. The norms of the general part of criminal law were in the Council Code of 1649, but in the form of scattered articles.

Criminal legislation of the middle of the XVII century. paid great attention to the system of punishments. As the state developed, the penalties became more and more diverse, at the same time they became more and more tough. The clearly expressed purpose of punishment in the Cathedral Code of 1649 was intimidation. Widespread use of the death penalty was envisaged. Chopping off the head, hanging, drowning were considered simple types of death penalty. A significant place in the system of punishments was occupied by a qualified death penalty. One of the most severe punishments was burying alive in the ground. It was applied to the wife who committed the deliberate murder of her husband. The qualified types of death penalty also included burning, pouring molten tin or lead into the throat, quartering, and wheeling. Self-mutilating and painful punishments were widely used - they cut off the nose, ear, hand; beaten with whips and sticks. Criminal legislation already knew such punishments as prison and exile. The fine, which was previously used frequently, began to occupy an insignificant place among the penalties.

procedural law. The legislation of that time still lacked a clear distinction between civil procedure law and criminal procedure law. However, two forms of the process were distinguished - adversarial (trial) and investigative (search), and the latter was becoming increasingly important.

In cases of religious crimes, as well as in many property and crimes against a person, the process was searchable. In these cases, a preliminary investigation was conducted, which, however, did not receive a clear expression in the legal norms at that time. The investigation of most criminal cases began at the discretion of state bodies, denunciations (especially in political cases), complaints from victims (robbery, theft, etc.). For the most important state crimes, the investigation began directly at the direction of the king.

The preliminary investigation was reduced mainly to the production of urgent actions (detention of the suspect, arrest, etc.). During the search, a general search was widely used, as well as torture.

In January 1555, the Boyar Duma adopted a legislative act on robbery cases (such legislative acts were then called judgments of the Boyar Duma). It emphasized that the main evidence in robbery cases should be obtained through torture and general search.

A general search at that time was understood as a questioning of devious people (not witnesses) about the identity of the suspect or accused; they gave an assessment of the personality (good or bad person, criminal or not). This was of particular importance when recognizing the suspect as a well-known "dashing" person, i.e. the most dangerous criminal who systematically committed crimes. A rule was established according to which the data of the general search had specific legal consequences. If the majority of respondents recognized the person as a famous "dashing" person, then no additional evidence was required. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. If, under the same conditions, a qualified majority (two-thirds) said so, then the death penalty was applied.

In August 1556, the Boyar Duma passed a verdict on lip cases. It defined an exhaustive list of persons to be interviewed. They included only "good" people: secular and spiritual feudal lords, the prosperous part of the townspeople and the black peasantry. The number of participants in the general search increased to 100 people (earlier, legislative acts provided for 5-6 people at first, and later 10-20 people).

The legislation regulated the grounds and procedure for the use of torture for religious, state and other crimes. Most civil cases and some criminal cases, mainly private charges, were adversarial. It began and ended at the will of the parties, who presented evidence in support of their claims.

The development of the system of formal evidence, characteristic of feudal law, continued. The legislation determined the value and strength of specific evidence, which were divided into perfect and imperfect, complete and incomplete. The court, in assessing the evidence, was bound by the requirements of the law. The queen of evidence was the confession of the accused or the defendant.

In the adversarial process, such evidence as the exile from the guilty and the general exile were of great importance. When exiling the guilty parties, by agreement, they referred to a group of witnesses. If at least one of the witnesses gave evidence that contradicted the statements of the party, then the latter automatically lost the case. With a common reference, both parties referred to one witness, agreeing that his testimony would be decisive for the case.

The oath was also preserved as evidence. In the Cathedral Code of 1649, it was called the kissing of the cross, the procedure for which was regulated in detail by legal norms.

Estate-representative monarchy (XVI-XVII centuries)

In the 15th century, under the conditions of autocracy, a class-representative monarchy arose. The beginning, conditionally, of this period is considered to be the convocation of the first Russian cathedral in 1549 (during this period, the progressive reforms of Ivan-4 and many other things take place, which prepared a new era in the development of the state apparatus and law). During the same period, 2 important legislative acts were adopted:

judiciary of 1550

collection of ecclesiastical legislation of 1551

The end of the estate-representative monarchy is considered the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, when he ceases to collect the Zemsky Sobor (second half of the 17th century). The last council was convened in 1653 to change the borders (?) of Russia. Other authors attribute the end of this period to the 70s of the 17th century.

A feature of the period of the estate-representative monarchy is the combination of the estate representation itself with the striking despotism of the Asian type characteristic of Ivan-4. Oprichnina - a special period of his reign - terror against the boyars and the majority of the ordinary population, that is, the period when all institutions that interfered with the monarch were either dissolved or destroyed (for example: the elected council). Despotism is no less characteristic than the organs of class representation.

Tsar - retained the functions of the highest authority.

The Boyar Duma - was very thoroughly strangled and could not limit the tsar. Even during the period of the "seven boyars", when the boyars, relying on the Polish state, concentrated power in their hands, the balance of power did not change. And under the Romanov dynasty, this body remained under the tsar, and not above the tsar. This body had a constant tendency to increase the quantitative composition.

Zemsky Cathedral - in different years they performed different functions. In the period from 1549 to the 80s, one, until 1613 a little different (it became possible to elect a king) and the last period (until 1622) is characterized as the most active in the activities of the cathedral. Further, until the 50s, their activity fades.

Zemsky Sobors throughout the period were characterized by:

consisted of various estates: the boyars, the clergy, the nobility, the urban population (in the person of the township elite - merchants and wealthy artisans)

there were no regulations, the number of those summoned to the council depended on the decree of the king, which was written before each convocation

participation in it was not considered an honorable duty, but rather a necessity that bothered many, since there were no material incentives

Functions of the Zemsky Sobor:

foreign policy (war, its continuation or the signing of peace, ...)

taxes (but they did not have a final say in this matter)

after the 80s of the XV century, the tsar was elected (so elected were Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov, elected in 1613)

adoption of laws, as well as their discussion. For example, the Cathedral Code of 1649 was actually adopted at the council. But the Zemsky Sobor was not a legislative body.

The relationship between the kings and the cathedral was distinguished. In 1566, Ivan-4 executed many of them from the Zemsky Sobor who opposed the oprichnina. In the 17th century, during the period of unrest, the role of cathedrals grew greatly, as it was necessary to strengthen the state, but later, with the revival of the monarchy, they did not go away.

Orders are integral systems of centralized government. Most actively created in the 40s - 60s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Several dozen orders appeared, divided not only by industry (pharmacy, Pushkar), but also by territory (Kazan Palace). Their creation was not enshrined in legislation, so they appeared as needed. By the middle of the 17th century there were already about 50 of them, and the tendency to increase in number continued. Orders have always been both judicial and administrative bodies (zemstvo order). It was believed that the activities of orders should not be limited by any legislative framework. Orders were headed by a boyar, who was a member of the Duma, and the main employees were clerks. The orders had many shortcomings: bureaucracy, lack of laws governing their activities, etc., but still it was a step forward.

Estate self-government bodies:

lip or “lip huts” (lip is an administrative-territorial unit). They began to be created in the 30s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. They arose in opposition to the merging of the state apparatus with robbers, that is, the functions of combating robbers were transferred to the population itself

zemstvo huts - initially they collected taxes, and later they began to solve judicial problems

Code of Law of 1550 - the royal code of law, which was published by Ivan-4. It largely repeats the Code of Laws of 1497, but is more extended and accurate. This is the first collection of laws divided into articles (numbering about 100).

After the adoption of the law code, the law continued to develop. A certain coding work began to be carried out, which consisted in the fact that they began to keep order books. In these books, each order recorded all the orders and orders of the king related to their field of activity.

Code of 1649. In 1648, there was a city uprising in Moscow, which threatened the life of the tsar. Then much depended on the nobility, which supported the uprising. They put forward their claims to the king, which stated that the reason for the uprising was the lack of normal legislation. As a result, a commission was created, which created the code. Then it was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, where it was unanimously adopted in January 1649. It was the first code published in a typographical way and it was the first to go on sale. The code was divided into 25 chapters and already contained about 1000 articles. This code will remain in force until the second quarter of the 19th century (as amended).

A class-representative monarchy is a form of government that provides for the participation of class representatives in government and the drafting of laws. It develops in conditions of political centralization. Different estates were represented unevenly in the authorities. Some of these legislative bodies have evolved into modern parliaments.

The limitation of the power of the monarch is associated with the development of commodity-money relations, which undermined the foundations of a closed, subsistence economy. Political centralization arose, a class-representative monarchy was organized - a form in which the power of the head of state is limited by class-representative bodies (Sobor, parliament, States General, Sejm, etc.)

Estate-representative monarchy in Russia and its features

The creation of a centralized Russian state helped to strengthen the position of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. the feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, the general enslavement of the peasants was completed.

The creation of a single state provided the necessary resources for an active foreign policy. In the middle of the XVI century. Russia conquered the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, and the Nogai Horde (the Urals) recognized vassal dependence on Russia. Further, Bashkiria, the Middle and Lower Volga regions and part of the Urals became part of Russia. In 1582, the conquest of Siberia began, and by the end of the 17th century. all Siberia was annexed to Russia. In 1654 Ukraine was reunited with Russia. Thus, the multinational composition of the Russian state was formed. By the 17th century Russia in terms of its territory and population has become the largest state in the world.

In the middle of the XVI century. the ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state to a class-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convening of class-representative bodies - zemstvo councils. A class-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - an absolute monarchy.

Beginning in 1547, the head of state began to be called the king. The title change pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the basis for claims to the throne by the former appanage princes, since the title of king was inherited. At the end of the XVI century. there was a procedure for the election (approval) of the king at the Zemsky Sobor.

The king, as the head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities, he relied on the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobors.

In the middle of the XVI century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible carried out judicial, zemstvo and military reforms aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549, the Chosen Rada was established, whose members were trustees appointed by the tsar.

Oprichnina also contributed to the centralization of the state. Its social support was the petty service nobility, who tried to seize the lands of the princely-boyar aristocracy and strengthen their political influence.

The Boyar Duma formally retained its former position. It was a permanent body endowed with legislative powers and deciding, together with the king, all the most important issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichy, duma nobles, duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed in the direction of increasing the representation of the nobility, it continued to be an organ of the boyar aristocracy.

Zemsky Sobors occupied a special place in the system of government bodies. They convened from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by a special royal charter. Zemsky Sobors included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (the highest collegiate body of the Orthodox Church) and elected representatives from the nobility and the urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the power of the king.

Zemsky Sobors resolved the main issues of state life: the election or approval of the tsar, the adoption of legislative acts, the introduction of new taxes, the declaration of war, issues of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by class, but decisions were to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

The system of orders as governing bodies continued to develop, and by the middle of the 17th century. the total number of orders reached 90.

The work of orders is characterized by a rigid bureaucratic style: strict obedience (vertically) and following instructions and instructions (horizontally).

The order was headed by a chief appointed from among the boyars, roundabouts, duma nobles and clerks. Depending on the activities of the order, the chiefs could be: a judge, treasurer, printer, butler, etc. Record keeping was entrusted to clerks. Technical and clerical work was carried out by clerks.

The organization of the civil service and the financing of the state apparatus were dealt with by the order of the Great Parish, the Discharge, Local and Yamskaya orders.

The structural subdivision of the order was the table, which specialized in its activities according to the sectoral or territorial principle. The tables, in turn, were divided into hooves.

The discharge order was in charge of the civil service, managed the security, guard and stanitsa services, provided service people with land and monetary salaries, appointed the governor and their assistants, etc. The local order resolved issues related to local and patrimonial land tenure, and also carried out a court on land cases. The Yamskaya Prikaz performed the functions of organizing the Yamskaya chase and police and supervisory functions for the movement of persons and goods. The competence of the order of the Grand Parish included the collection of national taxes and duties. Territorial orders for the collection of taxes and the Zemsky order were in charge of collections in the capital and its suburbs. The minting of coins was carried out by the Money Yard, subordinate to the order of the Great Treasury.

There were other orders: Robbery order, Order for collecting five and request money, Apothecary order, Printed order, etc.

In the second half of the XVI century. Zemstvo and labial huts become the main organs of local government. Zemstvo huts were elected by the taxable population of townships and volosts for 1-2 years as part of the zemstvo headman, sexton and kissers. Zemstvo organs were supported by the local population. These bodies carried out financial, judicial and police functions.

Lip huts become the main governing bodies in the counties. They performed police and judicial functions. The hut was headed by a headman elected by the population, legal proceedings were also assigned to kissers, clerks and clerks. The labial huts were directly subordinate to the Rogue Order.

At the beginning of the XVII century. reorganization of local government. Administrative, police and military functions were assigned to governors appointed by the central government. They also began to obey the zemstvo and labial huts, city clerks. Voevodas in their activities relied on a specially created apparatus - clerk's huts, which included clerks, bailiffs, clerks, messengers and other officials. The voivode was appointed by the Discharge Order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The service life of the governor was 1-3 years.

During the period under review, the armed forces were reformed:

• - the ordering of the organization of the noble militia continued;
• - A permanent archery army was created.

From the beginning of the 17th century permanent regiments appear: Reiter, Pushkar, Dragoon, etc. These regiments were the prototype of a permanent and regular army, which was formed in Russia only in the 18th century.

27. Property and liability law according to the Council Code of 1649

Property law. Things according to Russian law of the XII century. were subject to a number of powers of relationship and obligations. The main ways of acquiring property rights were considered: capture (occupation), prescription, discovery and award. The most complex real property rights associated with the acquisition and transfer of immovable property. In the order of legal consolidation of subjective property rights, there was a transition from actual forms of land acquisition (based on seizure) to a formally outlined order, fixed by letters of commendation, fixed by boundary signs, etc. A highly formalized procedure for establishing property rights was already familiar to Pskov judicial letter, from where he gradually penetrated into the Moscow legislation of the XVI-XVII centuries. The grant of land was a complex set of jur. actions, including the issuance of a letter of commendation, the preparation of a certificate, i.e. entry in the order book of certain information about the endowed person. His right to land was based on this information: a search conducted at the request of the person allotted with land and consisting in establishing the fact of the actual unoccupancy of the transferred land (as a factual basis for a request for its receipt), putting into possession, which consisted in a public measurement of land, carried out in the presence of local residents and outsiders. The distribution of land, along with the Local Order, was carried out by other bodies - the Discharge Order, the order of the Grand Palace, etc. a new right, ritualized actions for the factual allotment of land) and with the help of which the new right "fit" into the system of already existing relations. Prescription (acquisitive) became a legal the basis for the possession of the right of ownership, in particular to land, provided that this property was in legal possession during the period established by law: 15 years - according to the law adopted under

the son of Dmitry Donskoy, Grand Duke Vasily, the beginning of the 15th century; 20, 30 or 40 years - according to church laws. The SU does not define a general statute of limitations and specifically stipulates the terms for the redemption of ancestral property. If in the decrees of the beginning of the XVII century. the term of acquisitive prescription was formulated rather vaguely (“many years”), then according to SU it is already fixed exactly. The legislative trend of the 17th century, associated with the establishment of fixed prescription periods, coincided with other important trends in the regulation of land relations; with the relegation to the background in disputes in these cases of testimony (as a document in the rights of property) and the highlighting of the documentary validity of the right to land ownership. Since the fact of the existence of this or that property relationship began to lose its legal force (if it was not confirmed by the relevant formal acts), prescription changed its traditional character (prescription as duration,

commonplace, fact, “vulgarity”) to the features of formalism, establishment, artificial introduction.

Required Right. Treaty in the 17th century remained the main way of acquiring property rights to property, especially land. The development of this form took place against the background of a gradual replacement of the complex of accompanying formalized actions (participation of witnesses when concluding a contract) by written acts (“assaults”) of witnesses without their personal participation in the transaction procedure). The replacement went through several stages: at first, contractual letters were signed by buyers and rumors, then more and more sellers' signatures began to appear in them, and finally, both the seller and the buyer began to sign the letter at the same time. The “management” itself was most often expressed in the fact that instead of signatures, the parties put decomp. signs and symbols. At the same time, the ritual attributes of the contract associated with the pronunciation of certain formulas, the presence of rumors-guarantors, etc., lost their significance. The “Guide” lost its symbolic character and turned into a simple certificate of agreement between the parties in the contract. Contract form. A contractual instrument drawn up by interested parties acquired legal force only after being certified by official instance, which was expressed in the resolution on the charter print. State control over this procedure has increased significantly after the introduction of scribe books. In the 17th century it was practiced to draw up contractual letters by area clerks, more often in total, those who received their position “at the mercy” or “on bail”. Letters written by them were certified by seals in the order chamber. Even the approved d / g created a new legal relationship only if it was a fact. legality. Sometimes, to ensure legality, additional legal actions not directly related to the content of the main obligation. These included, for example, a transfer record on the contract, “bondage”, transferring the obligation to a third party, drawing up a certificate, etc. lands transferred under an approved agreement. The procedure associated with the issuance of a "certificate" was an additional guarantee in establishing the fact of the legal transfer of land from the alienator to the acquirer. The legislator looked at the “certificate” as an administrative measure (providing service of the owner of the land) and the guarantee of the financial interests of the state,

and also as a technique necessary for the redistribution of state property (incorrectly registered land ownership could be transferred by the state to another service person).

28. Forms of feudal tenure inXVI- XVIIcenturies

There are 3 types of feudal land tenure: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land tenure and estate.

Votchina - conditional land ownership, but they could be inherited. Since feudal legislation was on the side of the landowners (feudal lords), and the state was also interested in ensuring that the number of patrimonial patrimonies did not decrease, the right to buy out the sold ancestral patrimonial lands was provided. The patrimony, as an earlier form of feudal land tenure, gradually lost its privileged position, it was no longer a lifetime land tenure, but depended on the will of the king. The most important aspect of the legal status of patrimonial landownership was the right to inherit votchins. Votchinniki did not have the right to alienate their lands to the church. The purchased estate, received by the widow by inheritance separately from the children, was considered her property (Articles 6-7, Chapter 17). Articles 16-17 ch. 17 Cathedral Code legitimized the legal status of landowners of granted estates. The owners of estates, as well as the owners of estates, were deprived of the right to own them for the crime committed, treason (Art. 25-26, Chapter 17). but the votchinnik could sell the ancestral patrimony and had the right to all types of alienation.

The basis for obtaining landed property was the service to the sovereign (military, administrative, etc.). The size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could use the estate only during the service, it could not be inherited. The difference in legal status between estates and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by the son if he served. In the development of the legal status of the estate, subsistence was of particular importance, i.e. part of the estate allocated after the death of its owner for the maintenance of a widow, daughters, elderly parents, minor children. Mothers or wives of nobles who died in the war received an estate for maintenance, which was to be transferred to children. The right to an additional estate for military service was secured.

29. Formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia. Transformations of the state apparatus under PeterI.

Formation absolute monarchy in Russia refers to the end of the XVII century. It is characterized by the following features;

* all the fullness of state power is in the hands of one person;

* the presence of a professional bureaucratic apparatus;

* the creation of a strong standing army;

*lack of class-representative bodies and institutions.

2. Russian absolutism is characterized by the following peculiarities".

* absolutism in Russia took shape in the conditions of the development of serfdom, and not in the conditions of the development of capitalist relations and the abolition of old feudal institutions, as in Europe;

* The social support of Russian absolutism was the feudal nobility and the service class, while European absolutism relied on the alliance of the nobility with the cities.

The establishment of an absolute monarchy in Russia was accompanied by state intervention in all spheres of public and private life. The strengthening of the role of the state was also reflected in the detailed regulation of the rights and obligations of estates and social groups. Another direction of expansion was the policy of further enslavement of the peasants.

3. Ideology of absolutism can be defined as patriarchal. On the special instructions of Peter 1, Feofan Prokopovich wrote the work “The Truth of the Will of the Monarchs”, which justified the need for the power of an absolute monarch. The head of state was portrayed as the “father of the people”, who knows what his children want, so he has the right to educate, teach and punish them. Hence the desire to control all spheres of public and private life.

Transformations of the state apparatus under PeterI.

1701 - Creation of the "Concil of Ministers" 1707-1710 - the division of the country into provinces in 1711 - the creation of the Senate in 1714 - the decree on uniform inheritance in 1718 - the creation of a colleague in 1721 - the publication of the "Spiritual Regulations" in 1722 - the establishment of the post of Prosecutor General of the Senate in 1722 - the establishment of the Holy Synod 1722 - the introduction of the "Table of Ranks" The management system remained largely archaic. The functions of many orders were intertwined. The supreme body of government - the Boyar Duma - was formed on the basis of generosity, as a result of which its efficiency was often low. The old control system was not able to cope with the extensive tasks set by the Northern War, which required decisiveness and efficiency. Peter believed that he alone knew what was good for the state, and resistance to his will stemmed only from foolishness and laziness. To compel subjects to fulfill the beneficent monarch's will, a powerful administrative apparatus was required. in 1701, Peter I created the "Council of Ministers", which took over the most important matters that had previously been decided by the Boyar Duma. In 1711, the “commander” was replaced by the “Governing Senate”, which during the frequent absence of the tsar became the collective head of state. In 1718, 12 colleges were created that replaced most of the orders. The boards were built according to the sectoral principle. With the creation of the boards, the Senate retained the functions of control, the highest judicial instance and the legislative body under the monarch. In 1722, the post of Prosecutor General of the Senate was created to oversee the activities of the state apparatus. Along with the prosecutor's office, officials were supervised by secret agents - fiscals. A feature of the management system under Peter I was the possibility of the monarch's personal intervention in any issue, bypassing state bodies. In 1707-1710. The territory of the country was divided into 8 provinces. The provinces were later divided into 50 provinces. The provinces were divided into districts. At the head of the province was the governor, who was in charge of tax collection, justice, recruitment, etc. In connection with the creation of the provinces, the previous territorial orders were liquidated. church to the king. In accordance with the regulations, the Spiritual College was created (since 1722 - the Holy Synod). At the head of the Synod was a secular official - the chief prosecutor. So the church became a state institution. Peter I sought to attract capable people to the civil service, regardless of their origin. In this regard, he changed the order of service. In 1722, the "Table of Ranks" was developed. All state service was divided into three types: military, civil and court. Military ranks, in turn, were divided into guards, army and navy. The highest rank was the first (field marshal or chancellor), the lowest - the 14th. With the receipt of the 14th rank in military service or the 8th rank in the civil service, hereditary nobility was assigned. This opened the way to a career for people from taxable estates and, at the same time, contributed to the replenishment of the nobility with the most capable of them. The service was obligatory and lifelong for the nobles. In an effort to encourage the nobles to serve, in 1714 Peter issued a decree on single inheritance, forbidding the division of noble estates during inheritance.

30. Legal status of estates in the first quarterXVIIIin.

During this period, the state strives for the legal regulation of all estates: the nobility, the clergy, the peasants, the urban population. The basis of the legal status of the nobles is the monopoly right to land property. The Decree (On Uniform Inheritance "of 1714 not only equalized the rights of the estate and patrimony, but also turned the estates into the hereditary property of the nobles. The Decree on the per capita census of 1718 secured the right of the nobles to pay taxes. The Table of Ranks of 1722 contributed to the strengthening of the noble dictatorship. All state positions were occupied by nobles, whose service under Peter I was lifelong. the Russian nobility" freed the nobles from compulsory military and noble service. The consolidation of this class was facilitated by the "Charter to the nobility" of 1785, according to which the nobles had the right to use minerals found on the territory of their possessions; they were exempted from personal taxes, corporal punishment and received the right to create class organizations.During the period of absolutism the process of nationalization of the church. The clergy was an important political force in the country. It was divided into black (monastic) and white (serving in churches). The church reform initiated by Peter I did not live up to his expectations. In the first quarter of the XVIII century. transformations were carried out, indicating the initial phase of secularization. Since 1722, strict rules have been established for entering the clergy. Since 1737, the mobilization of the unemployed clergy into the army has been carried out. In 1764, the church was deprived of all estates, diocesan bishops and monasteries were transferred to regular salaries. Thus, the feudal landownership of the church was abolished. Formally, the exit from the clergy was open, but there were practically no people who wanted to change their status. The bulk of the population were feudal-dependent peasants. They were subdivided into landowners, state, estates and palaces. The development of the economy contributed to the separation of merchants and usurers from the peasantry. But the bulk of the peasants carried duties in favor of the owner in the form of corvée or dues. Every year, the peasants sent one recruit from 20 households. In addition, they worked on the construction of cities, shipyards. In 1718, the poll tax was introduced, which eliminated such a category of the population as free and walking people. The distinction between serfs and peasants is blurred. The landlords in relation to the peasants had broad powers, moreover, they disposed of them as their own property. By a decree of 1767, peasants were forbidden to complain about their landowners under the threat of corporal punishment and hard labor. The state was also feudally dependent. peasants. In 1721, merchants were allowed to buy villages (with peasants) and attribute them to manufactories; This is how the possessive peasants appeared. As a result of the secularization of church lands, state churches arose. peasants who carried in favor of the state-va cash quitrent. Palace (since 1797 - appanage) peasants belonged to the imperial family. Cities developed as centers of trade and industrial production. The state, interested in overcoming the economic backwardness of the country, provided various benefits. The owners of manufactories received a particularly privileged position. The townspeople elected their own self-government bodies - magistrates. In addition, there was a city gathering (meeting of the population). According to the regulations of the Chief Magistrate of 1721, the urban population was divided into noble, regular citizens (who were divided into 2 guilds) and “mean people.” Leading positions were occupied by large merchants. divided the urban population into 6 categories: “real” urban residents, merchants of all 3 guilds, artisans enrolled in workshops, foreigners and non-residents enrolled in the bourgeoisie, eminent citizens, the rest of the townspeople. Petty bourgeois made up most of the urban population and were taxable class. Citizens had their own court of estates and local self-government bodies - a common city duma. Table of ranks. January 24, 1722, the table of ranks, introduced a new classification of employees. All the newly established positions - all with foreign names, Latin and German, except for a very few - are lined up according to the table in three parallel rows: military, civilian and court, with each divided into 14 ranks, or classes. A similar ladder with 14 steps of rank was introduced in the fleet and court service. This founding act of the reformed Russian bureaucracy put the bureaucratic hierarchy, merit and service, in place of the aristocratic hierarchy of the breed, the genealogical book. In one of the articles attached to the table, it is explained with emphasis that the nobility of the family in itself, without service, does not mean anything, does not create any position for a person, no position is given to people of a noble breed until they show merit to the sovereign and the fatherland. The introduction of the table of ranks was one of the most important state reforms. This innovation fundamentally undermined the importance of nobility in the public service. Since the introduction of the table of ranks, civil servants have achieved high ranks only due to personal merit, and not due to birth in a noble family. Types of ranks according to the table of ranks- military, - naval, - courtier, - civil (civilian). “From the nobles, it’s by no means to write to officers” from the 8th rank of civil service and from the 14th military, hereditary nobility was given.

31. Civil, family and inheritance law in the first quarterXVIIIin.

Civil law. The right of tribal redemption was retained, the term of which was reduced in 1737 from forty to three years. The provision of the Decree on single inheritance, concerning the inseparability of property with the ensuing consequences for the nobles left without land, hampered the freedom to dispose of real estate. In 1782, the right of industrialists, natives of the middle class and peasants, to acquire populated villages was abolished, and the nobility again became the monopoly owner of populated lands. The most common types of comradely associations have become simple partnerships, partnerships by faith. Russian entrepreneurs entered joint-stock companies together with foreign shareholders. The concepts of a legal entity and corporate property are beginning to take shape in the law. Work agreement, previously known to Russian legislation, under the conditions of state industrial protectionism, is supplemented by a supply contract by the customer, in which, as a rule, the state, its bodies or large private and mixed companies were. Contract of personal employment was to perform work at home, on the ground, in crafts, workshops, manufactories, factories and commercial enterprises. Free will at the conclusion of the contract was in a number of cases conditional: minor children and women concluded it only with the consent of their husband or father, serfs - with the consent of the landowner. Contract of sale regulated the movement of any objects of property. The restrictions imposed by the monopolistic policy of the state concerned both the subject of the contract (prohibitions to sell ancestral real estate, certain types of minerals) and its terms. Fraud, delusion and coercion committed during the conclusion of the contract were the grounds for its annulment. Purchase and sale with installment payment ("on credit"), advance payment or prepayment ("money in advance") was envisaged. The general provisions of the sales contract applied to the supply contract. Luggage agreement on movable property was concluded by any subjects, except for monks, who were forbidden by the Spiritual Regulations to take money and things for storage. loan agreement with the development of the monetary system and the corpus of securities acquires new features. The law formally forbade the collection of interest on loans, only in 1754 six percent per annum was officially established. A loan was often associated with a pledge, when a pledge of land or movable property became a guarantee for the payment of a debt. A credit (loan) system of institutions headed by a loan bank is being created. Since 1729, a system of private credit has been developing, merchants have acquired the right to be bound by bills. The legislator, focusing on Western legal experience, tried to introduce the principle of primacy, in which the eldest son inherited. Russian tradition stood on the side of the youngest son, who, according to custom, inherited his father. Practice has chosen a compromise path - the inheritance of one son at the choice of the testator. The remaining "children received shares of movable property as part of a testamentary disposition. Daughters inherited real estate by will and only in the absence of sons. In the absence of children at all, real estate by testament could be transferred to relatives (relatives bearing the same surname as the testator). Movable property in any shares could be divided among any applicants, the testator gives it "to whomever he wants. Individual freedom of will increased markedly compared with the order of inheritance in the previous period. The law still allowed for a legal fiction from the era of manorial inheritance. In order for real estate to pass to daughter, her husband must take the name of the testator, otherwise the property was transferred to the state (the property was considered escheat). legal order inheritance and the principle of majority was indisputable here: the eldest son inherited the property, and movable property was divided equally among the other sons. In 1731, the main provisions of the Decree on Uniform Succession are cancelled. From that time on, inheritance was regulated by law as follows: real estate goes to all sons in equal shares, daughters receive one fourteenth, and the widow one eighth, from movable property one eighth is allocated to daughters, and one fourth to the widow. At the same time, ancestral real estate (majority) passes only to heirs by law. In the will, the testator was given greater freedom of disposal. The Decree on Uniform Succession also introduced changes in the sphere of family law. The marriageable age for men was raised to twenty years, for women - up to seventeen years. Close relatives and the insane were forbidden to marry. Marriage required the consent of the parents of the spouses and the authorities for the military, as well as knowledge of arithmetic and geometry for the nobles. Serfs married with the permission of the masters. The law required the free consent of the spouses. Only church marriage was recognized. Since 1721, it was allowed to enter into mixed marriages with Christians of other denominations (Catholics, Protestants), marriage with non-Christians was prohibited. The reasons for the dissolution of a marriage were as follows: political death and exile to eternal penal servitude, the unknown absence of one of the spouses for three years, becoming a monk, adultery of one of the spouses, an incurable disease or impotence, an attempt by one of the spouses on the life of another, non-information about what is being prepared crime against the monarch. In 1753, a special act established the separation of the obligations of the spouses, emphasizing the freedom of one of them from debts and obligations assumed by the other. With regard to children, parents enjoyed almost the same power as before: they could be punished, sent to a monastery and given to work for a period of hire. By law, the father had to support his illegitimate children and their mother, but illegitimate children had no property rights and could not claim to participate in the inheritance by law. By decree of 1714. guardianship of minor family members was assigned to the heir to immovable property.

32. Table of ranks 1722

Table of ranks the law on the order of public service in the Russian Empire, the ratio of ranks by seniority, the sequence of rank production. Approved in 1722 by Emperor Peter I, existed with numerous changes until the 1917 revolution

1) the bureaucratic principle in the formation of the state apparatus undoubtedly defeated the aristocratic principle. Professional qualities, personal devotion, and length of service become the defining criteria for career advancement. Professionalism, specialization, and normativity became positive features of the new bureaucratic apparatus. Negative - its complexity, high cost, self-employment, inflexibility; 2) the new system of ranks and positions formulated by the Table of Ranks legally formalized the status of the ruling class. His official qualities were emphasized: any highest rank could be assigned only after passing through the entire chain of lower ranks. Terms of service in certain ranks were established. With the achievement of the rank of the eighth class, the official was given the title of hereditary nobleman, and he could pass on the title by inheritance; from the fourteenth to the seventh class, the official received personal nobility; 3) The Table of Ranks equated military service with civil service: ranks and titles were assigned in both areas, the principles of promotion were similar. Practice has developed a way to pass the ladder of official ranks in an accelerated way (this mainly concerned only the nobles): already after birth, the children of aristocratic nobles were enrolled in a position and, upon reaching the age of fifteen, they had a rather important rank.

4) the training of personnel for the new state apparatus began to be carried out in special schools and academies in Russia and abroad. The degree of qualification was determined not only by rank, but also by education and special training. The training of noble undergrowth was often carried out by force. The children of the nobility were sent to study according to the order, many personal rights (for example, the right to marry) depended on the level of their training.

33. The highest authorities of Russia in the first halfXVIIIin.

Heads the state absolute monarch. The highest legislative, executive and judicial power belongs to him wholly and unlimitedly. He is also the commander-in-chief of the army. With the subordination of the church, the monarch also leads the state religious system.

The order of succession is changing. Due to political motives, Peter I deprived the rightful heir to the throne, Tsarevich Alexei, of the right to inherit. In 1722, the Decree on the succession to the throne was issued, securing the right of the monarch to appoint his heir at his own will. The legal source of the law began to be recognized the will of the monarch. Legislative acts were issued by the monarch himself or by the senate on his behalf. The monarch was the head of all state institutions: the presence of the monarch automatically terminated the local administration and transferred power to him. All state institutions were obliged to carry out the decisions of the monarch. The monarch was the supreme judge and the source of all judicial power. It was within its competence to consider any cases, regardless of the decision of the judiciary. His decisions overruled all others. The monarch had the right to pardon and approve death sentences. 2. In 1701, the functions of the Boyar Duma were transferred to the Near Office, which coordinated all the work of the central government. The officials who were part of the chancellery united in a council and received the name of the Council of Ministers. After education Senate in 1711 the Boyar Duma was liquidated. 3. Senate was established in 1711 as the supreme governing body of general competence, which included judicial, financial, auditing and other activities. The composition of the Senate included 9 senators and a chief secretary appointed by the emperor; The structure of the Senate included presence and office. The Presence was a general meeting of senators where decisions were discussed and voted upon. At first, a unanimous decision-making procedure was required, from 1714 decisions began to be made by majority vote. Decrees of the Senate had to be signed by all its members. The cases received by the Senate were registered and entered in the register, the meetings were subject to minutes. The office, headed by the chief secretary, consisted of several tables: discharge, secret, provincial, clerical, etc. In 1718, the staff of Senate clerks was renamed secretaries, clerks and recorders. Under the Senate, there were several positions that were important in the field of public administration. Control over the activities of the Senate was entrusted to auditor general, who was later replaced Chief Secretary of the Senate. To oversee the activities of all institutions, including the Senate, positions were established Prosecutor General and chief prosecutor. They were subordinate to the prosecutors at the collegiums and courts. In 1722 the senate was reformed by three decrees of the emperor. The composition of the Senate was changed: it began to include senior dignitaries who were not heads of specific departments. The presidents of the colleges, except for the Military, Naval and Foreign, were "excluded from its composition. The Senate became a supra-departmental control body. Thus, the reform of 1722 turned the Senate into supreme body of central government. The restructuring of the command system of government took place in 1718-1720. Most of the orders were liquidated, and in their place new central bodies of sectoral management, collegiums, were established. The Senate determined the states and the procedure for the work of the collegiums. The boards included: presidents, vice-presidents, four advisers, four assessors (assessors), a secretary, an actuary, a registrar, a translator and clerks. December 1718. a register of colleges was adopted. The most important, "state", were three collegiums: the Military Collegium, the Admiralty Collegium, the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. Another group of colleges dealt with the finances of the state: the Chamber College, responsible for state revenues, the State-con-tor-collegium for expenses, and the Audit College, which controls the collection and expenditure of state funds. Trade and industry were at first under the jurisdiction of two, and then three collegiums: the Commerce Collegium (in charge of trade), the Berg Collegium (involved in mining). Manufactory College (engaged in light industry). Finally, the judicial system of the country was supervised by the College of Justice, and two estate colleges - the Votchinnaya and the Chief Magistrate - managed the noble land ownership and urban estates. In the course of the creation of new governing bodies, new s titles: chancellor, real privy and secret advisers, advisers, assessors, etc. Staff and court positions were equated with officer ranks. The service became professional, and the bureaucracy became a privileged class.

5. In the second half of the XVII century. continued to operate the following system local authorities: voivodeship administration and the system of regional orders. The reorganization of local governments took place at the beginning of the 18th century. Main reasons these transformations were: the growth of the anti-feudal movement and the need for a developed and well-coordinated apparatus in the field. The transformation of local governments began with the cities. By decree of 1702, the institute of labial elders was abolished, and their functions were transferred to the governors. The governors were supposed to manage affairs together with the elected councils of the nobility. Thus, the sphere of local government received a collegial beginning. From 1708 introduced new territorial division of the state: The territory of Russia was divided into eight provinces, according to which all counties and cities were painted. In the period 1713-1714. the number of provinces increased to eleven. Headed the province governor or governor general united in his hands administrative, judicial and military power. In his activities, he relied on the vice-governor and four assistants in the branches of government. The provinces were divided into counties, headed by commandants. The provinces were headed chief commandants. By 1715, a three-tier system of local government had developed: county - province - province. Second regional reform was held in 1719: the territory of the state was divided into 11 provinces and 45 provinces. The provinces were divided into districts. In 1726 districts were abolished, and in 1727 counties were restored. Provinces became the main units of government. The most important provinces were headed by governors-general and governors, the rest of the provinces were headed by governors. In 1718-1720. was carried out reform of city governments.

34.Criminal law in the first quarterXVIIIin. "Article military" 1715

A new systematization of criminal law norms was carried out by Peter I in 1715 when creating Military article. The code consisted of 24 chapters, divided into 209 articles (articles), and was included as part 2 in Military regulations.

To extenuating circumstances

Institute complicity in crime

In the XVII-XVIII centuries. the courts, when considering criminal cases, were guided by the Council Code of 1649, the New Decree Articles on Robbery, Tateb Cases and Murders of 1669 and subsequent legislation. A new systematization of criminal law norms was made by Peter I in 1715 when creating Military article.

The code consisted of 24 chapters, divided into 209 articles (articles), and was included as part 2 in Military regulations. The articles contained the basic principles of criminal liability, the concept of a crime, the purpose of punishment, provisions on necessary defense and extreme necessity, a list of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

2. Crime was a socially dangerous act that caused harm to the state. The state protected the interests of the nobles. The crimes were divided into deliberate, careless and random. Criminal liability came only when committing intentional or reckless crimes.

3. The crime was divided into stages: intent, attempted crime and completed crime. In some cases, the law established punishment already for intent (for example, state crimes). The attempted crime could be completed and unfinished.

4. K extenuating circumstances were: the state of affect; mental illness; the youth of the offender; official zeal, in the heat of which a crime was committed; ignorance and antiquity. The state of intoxication, previously a mitigating circumstance, began to refer to aggravating circumstances.

The legislator introduced the concepts of extreme necessity and necessary defense. Crimes committed under these conditions were not punished.

5. Institute complicity in crime was underdeveloped. Accomplices were usually punished equally regardless of the degree of guilt of each.

6. Articles included the following types of crimes:

religious crimes: sorcery, idolatry, blasphemy, non-compliance with church rites, church rebellion;

state crimes: the intent to kill or capture the king, insulting the monarch with a word, rebellion, indignation, treason, etc .;

malfeasance;corrupt practices, embezzlement, non-payment of taxes, etc.;

military crimes: treason, evasion of service or recruitment, desertion, disobedience to military discipline, etc.;

crimes against the order of administration and court: disruption and destruction of decrees, forgery of seals, counterfeiting, forgery, false oath, perjury;

crimes against decency: harboring criminals, keeping brothels, giving false names and nicknames for the purpose of causing harm, singing obscene songs and making obscene speeches;

crimes against the person: murder, duel, mutilation, beatings, slander, verbal abuse, etc.;

property crimes: theft, robbery, arson, destruction or damage to other people's property, fraud;

crimes against morality: rape, sodomy, bestiality, fornication, incest, bigamy, adultery, prostitution.

7. The main goals of punishment by articles were intimidation, retribution, isolation of criminals and exploitation of the labor of criminals.

The main types of punishments: the death penalty; corporal punishment, subdivided into self-harmful, branding and painful; hard labor; imprisonment; deprivation of honor and dignity; property punishments (confiscation of property, fine, deduction from salary). The articles also provided for ecclesiastical repentance, a punishment borrowed from ecclesiastical law.

Punishments were imposed in accordance with the class affiliation of the offender. Executions were carried out in public, they were previously announced.

35. The judicial system and the trial in the first quarter of the XVIII century.

Judicial system. In 1721 there was a transformation of the head of state from an autocratic tsar into an emperor, which contributed to the concentration of all types of state power in one hand. The monarch was the source of all executive power and the head of all state institutions. The presence of the monarch in a certain place terminated the entire administration, and power automatically passed to the monarch. The monarch was the supreme judge and the source of all judicial power. He also had the right to pardon and the right to approve death sentences, he could decide cases that were not regulated by law and judicial practice - his will was enough.

The foundations of the trial were enshrined in the second part of the Military Regulations of 1716. In the first quarter of the 18th century, three state bodies performed judicial functions: the Burmister Chamber, the College of Justice and the Preobrazhensky

The Chamber of Burmese was established by Decree of January 30, 1699. It was not subordinate to any of the orders and occupied the main place in the order system of the Russian state (since 1700 it has been called the Town Hall). The town hall entered with a report directly to the king and became a kind of ministry of cities and city fees, endowed with the same judicial functions. The government motivated the creation of this body of police and judicial administration primarily by the desire to improve the activities of the commercial and industrial population and ensure a more regular flow of direct taxes and indirect fees (customs, taverns, etc.) from the urban population. The Burmister Chamber and the zemstvo huts were considered as organs of city self-government. They were supposed to "be in charge of the commercial and industrial population in all worldly reprisal and petition cases and in disputes." Therefore, the judicial function of this governing body was not the main one.

In connection with the provincial reform under Peter I, an attempt was made to reorganize the judiciary and separate the court from the administration. The Senate was the highest supervisory and appellate instance; it could also consider the most important state cases in the first instance. The Justice College, a kind of Ministry of Justice, was subordinate to him. In the provinces, an appellate court of appeal and a collegiate court of first instance, the zemstvo court, were created, in districts (the smallest administrative-territorial units) justice was also administered by zemstvo courts.

The mentioned judicial system considered only general criminal cases. Consideration of political cases took place in the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and the Secret Chancellery, land litigations were subject to the court of the Estates Collegium. A separate procedure also existed for the consideration of spiritual cases and crimes committed by clergy.

Established in 1719, court and lower courts were directly subordinated to the College of Justice. Court courts consisted of the president, vice president, several assessors and had to be approved in each province. Court courts dealt with criminal and civil cases. The lower courts were collegiate bodies, consisting of a chairman, an ober-landrichter, and assessors, and operated in nine main cities of the country. In addition, lower courts were also created in other cities of Russia, but the judge administered justice in them alone. Under Peter I, a military court was also organized, which consisted of two instances. The lowest authority was the regimental kriegsrecht, which included the chairman (presus), assessors, auditor (he was supposed to oversee the correct application of the laws) and secretary. The court of appeal for regimental kriegsrechts was the General Kriegsrecht, which was also the court of first instance for state crimes, for crimes of entire military units, for crimes of higher military ranks and for crimes directed against these ranks.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. the Spiritual Court was established, the first instance of which was the "spiritual administrators". The competence of this first instance of the Spiritual Court included those cases of laymen who were to be subject to ecclesiastical court, as well as cases of the clergy on charges of insulting by word and action, theft and other cases.

The second instance of the Spiritual Court was the diocesan bishop, who exercised judicial functions with the help of a special institution (dicastery, consistory), which in 1744 finally received the name "consistory". The highest authority for spiritual courts was the Synod.

The main part of the judicial system of Russia was made up of state courts, headed by the College of Justice. It was a judicial and administrative body. She took over the cases of a number of old orders (Local, Detective, Zemsky) and the management of local courts. The collegium was for them the court of appeal in criminal and civil cases. The collegium was in charge of investigative, search cases, information about prisoners in prisons.

The highest court was the Senate, whose decisions were

final.

From 1722, the network of judicial institutions began to collapse. First, the lower courts were abolished. Their functions were now to be performed by governors and specially established judicial commissioners, who were vested with judicial functions. Later, in 1727, court courts were also abolished, and their functions were transferred to governors and governors.

During the period under review, special attention was paid to political cases aimed at undermining the existing state system. To investigate political crimes in 1695, the Preobrazhensky Prikaz was created, which lasted until 1729. Then, in 1731, the Office of Secret Investigation Affairs was formed for the same purposes. After the Azov campaigns of Peter I, the Preobrazhensky Prikaz became the main judicial and investigative body for political crimes. These issues were dealt with by the Main Office of the Order. In addition, the order also performed some other functions, in particular, he was in charge of maintaining public order in Moscow and organizing guards in the Kremlin, and through the General Court he was in charge of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments. In connection with the departure of Peter 1 abroad at the end of 1697, all of Moscow was subordinated to the Preobrazhensky order. From 1698 to 1706, as part of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz, there was a judicial boyar board, which included a number of members of the Boyar Duma. The order considered only political, state affairs, the rest were transferred to other orders.

Trial. At the beginning of the XVIII century. in connection with the growth of anti-feudal actions, the so-called search process is increasingly being used. The investigation and judicial consideration of the case was in the hands of one body - the court. The process in this regard was divided into two main stages: investigation and trial. The same persons conducted the search, considered the case and passed the verdict. The process was written and carried out with strict clerical secrecy. One of the main guiding documents used in the litigation was the "Summary of Trials or Litigation" - one of the parts of the Military Regulations of 1716. It determined the following types of evidence: the accused's own confession, testimonies, written documents and the oath.

The court applied interrogation with prejudice and torture. They tortured not only suspects, but also witnesses. Torture was used both in criminal cases and in special cases in civil cases. The Military Charter of 1716 exempted nobles, "servants of high ranks", persons over 70 years old, undersized (without specifying the exact age) and pregnant women from torture. But if it was recognized that the crime is political, state, then this category of persons was subject to torture. Witness testimony was assessed formally. It was based not on knowledge of the circumstances of the case, but on the social background of the witness. A man was given preference over a woman, a clergyman over a secular one, an educated person over an uneducated one, a noble over an ignoble one.

36. Legal status of the nobility in the second halfXVIIIin.

Officially, the title of nobility was approved only by the "Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobility" of 1762, acts of the Commission of 1767. and "Charter granted to the nobility" (1785). The composition of the nobility included: court people, clerks and clerks, bishops' nobles and boyar children, family members of the Little Russian foreman, Tatar princes and murzas.

The centralization of power, the formation of a professional bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the strengthening of the serf system, on the other, destroyed the system of zemstvo representation. The nobility became the sole ruling class, capturing almost all the places in the state apparatus and the army in the center, and in the localities becoming the rightful master over the peasants. The nobility had almost equally strong positions in the cities.

In 1755 nobles get the right to exile peasants to Siberia, and since 1765. they were given the right to send the peasants to hard labor. The final act of the legal and privileged registration of the nobility was the "Charter to the nobility" (1785).

The nobility was still the economically and politically dominant class. The nobles had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. In the state apparatus, they occupied leading positions. Alexander I restored the "Charter of Letters" canceled by Paul I. The state provided economic support to the nobility through a loan bank and other lending institutions. The positions of the big nobility were supported by legislation (Manifesto "On the order of noble meetings, elections and services according to them", the law of 1845 on the inheritance of reserved noble lands). With the increase in the land qualification during elections, the role of large landowners in the noble class bodies and their influence in the field increased.

By the beginning of the 19th century, the nobles had the following rights: 1) a title of nobility (it was inherited, a criminal offense led to the deprivation of a noble title); 2) personal (rights to protect honor, personality, life, exemption from corporal punishment); 3) property (full ownership of the acquisition, use, inheritance of any property); 4) judicial (the personal rights of the nobles are limited only by the court, the estate self-government of the nobility).

37. Legal status of the urban population in the second halfXVIIIin.

The most important legislative act that determined the legal status of the urban population in the first half of the 18th century is the Regulation or the Charter of the Chief Magistrate of January 16, 1721. The Regulation for the first time introduces the principle of social belonging and, accordingly, material well-being as the basis for the division of the urban population, linking with it the political rights of citizens . The regulations of the Chief Magistrate legally formalized the advantages of the township elite, introduced a new division of the township - according to social affiliation. The privileged population of the city forms two guilds. Citizens assigned to them received the name of noble and regular citizens, that is, permanently residing in cities. Temporary residents of the city were classified as irregular. The first guild included bankers, large merchants, doctors, pharmacists, masters of higher crafts - artists, etc. The second guild included small merchants and artisans. The rest of the population was the lower, third class and were called vile people. Members of the magistrate could only be chosen by wealthy lay people of the first two guilds.

The townspeople, referred to the artisans, that is, to the second guild, were divided into workshops, headed by elected officials - Aldermans. They monitored the quality of handicrafts, distributed duties and state taxes, and collected the latter.

Temporary residents in cities, that is, irregular citizens, included laborers and indentured servants. They were deprived of the right to participate in city self-government. Granting regular citizens the rights of self-government and other benefits indicated an increase in the role of the urban population in the economic life of the country.

The trend to promote the development of trade, trades and crafts was continued by the Charter of Letters to the cities of April 21, 1785, which listed all the rights and privileges of the townspeople, formulated by the previous legislation.

The letter of grant to the cities divided the urban population into six categories and determined the rights and obligations of each of them in accordance with their property status. The first category was the so-called. real city dwellers, i.e. those who had housing in the city, equipped infrastructure or land. The second category consisted of merchants, who were divided into three guilds depending on their capital. The first guild included those owning a capital of 10-50 thousand rubles, the second - 5-10 thousand rubles, the third - 1-5 thousand rubles. Artisans belonged to the third category. The fourth category included out-of-town and foreign guests. The fifth category was represented by the so-called eminent citizens. These were persons who held elective city offices; scientists; painters; big capitalists with capital over 50,000 rubles; bankers with starting capital > 100 thousand rubles; wholesalers; ship owners. The sixth category included townspeople, that is, those who “feed themselves in that city by craft, needlework or work” (Section B, Article 68).

The largest part of the duties fell on the lower strata of urban society - artisans and townspeople. The philistines, in addition to taxes for philistine trade, paid taxes and carried duties, including recruitment, only because they lived in the city. The category of philistines included clerks, middle-class officials, as well as some guild merchants, who, being philistines, announced the corresponding capital and at the same time enjoyed the privileges of the merchant class. However, the townspeople did not have the right to own lands inhabited by peasants.

The volume of rights and privileges of eminent citizens was more significant than even that of the rich strata of the merchant class. The classification of certain townspeople as eminent citizens is based not only on their property status (bankers, shipowners, etc.), but also on services to society and the state. In addition, the eminent included citizens (scientists, artists) with the appropriate titles, regardless of their property status. Eminent citizens were exempted from corporal punishment, poll tax and recruitment. Guild merchants during recruiting had the opportunity to pay off recruitment by paying certain amounts established by law (500 rubles per recruit). The richest strata of the merchant class (the first and second guilds) were exempted from corporal punishment. Eminent citizens and merchants of the first and second guilds were granted the right to own factories, factories, river and sea vessels.

The working inhabitants of the cities had extensive duties: they paid the poll tax, carried out recruitment, lodging, road, bridge and other duties. They were subject to corporal punishment, and city government officials could not be elected from among them.

38. Provincial and judicial reforms of 1775

Provincial reform. The direction of the provincial reform of 1775 was determined by the Institutions for the management of the All-Russian Empire, approved on November 7, 1775. On the eve of the reform, the administrative-territorial division of Russia was as follows: 23 provinces, 66 provinces and about 180 counties. The ongoing reform was supposed to carry out the disaggregation of the provinces. By the end of the reform, i.e. 20 years later, the number of provinces reached 50.

The division into provinces and counties was carried out according to the administrative principle, without taking into account geographical, national, economic and other characteristics. The main goal of the reform was to adapt the administrative apparatus to the fiscal and punitive goals of the state. The province was a territory with a population of 400 thousand souls, about 30 thousand souls lived on the territory of the county.

The old territorial bodies were liquidated. Provinces were abolished as administrative-territorial units.

The governor was at the head of the province. Appointment and removal of the governor belonged to the competence of the monarch.

The governor had a collegiate body - the provincial government. The board consisted of the governor, two councillors, appointed by the senate, and other officials. The provincial government performed the following functions: general administration of the province, publication of laws, decrees and orders of the emperor; enforcement oversight; seizure of property; consideration of complaints, etc.

The treasury chamber dealt with issues of income and expenses in the province. Health care and education were assigned to the Order of Public Charity.

At the head of the county administration were the zemstvo police officer and the lower zemstvo court, elected by the county nobility. The lower zemstvo court, which included a police officer and two assessors, led the zemstvo police, oversaw the implementation of laws and decisions of provincial governments.

Supervision of legality in the province was entrusted to the provincial prosecutor and two provincial solicitors. Within the framework of the county, the county lawyer was in charge of supervision.

In the cities, the position of mayor was introduced.

Several provinces were headed by a governor-general. The governors were subordinate to him, in the absence of the monarch he was the commander-in-chief on his territory, could introduce emergency measures, had the right to report directly to the emperor, etc.

The provincial reform of 1775 strengthened the positions of the nobility, strengthened the power of the governors, and, by disaggregating the territories, strengthened the position of the administrative apparatus in the field.

Judicial reform. In the course of the judicial reform of 1775, the following estate judicial system was formed.

For the nobles in each county, a county court was created, consisting of a county judge and two assessors elected by the nobility for three years. The appellate and revision instance for the county courts was the Upper Zemstvo Court, which consisted of two departments: for criminal and civil cases. The composition of the Upper Zemstvo Court included the chairman and vice-chairman appointed by the tsar, as well as ten assessors elected by the nobility for three years. The Upper Zemstvo Court was created one for the province.

For urban residents, the lowest court was the city magistrates, whose members were elected for three years. The court of appeal for city magistrates was the provincial magistrates. The provincial magistrate included two chairmen and assessors elected from the townspeople of the provincial city.

For the state peasants, the first court instance was the county lower reprisal, in which criminal and civil cases were considered by officials appointed by the authorities. The court of appeal for the lower massacre was the upper massacre, cases in which were brought against a cash deposit of 25 rubles. within a week period.

A conscientious court was established in each province. It consisted of class representatives (the chairman and two assessors): nobles - for noble affairs, townspeople - for townspeople, peasants - for peasant affairs. The court conciliatoryly considered civil claims, as well as criminal cases on crimes of minors, insane people, cases of witchcraft, etc.

In the provinces, the appellate and revision instance for cases heard in the upper zemstvo court, the provincial magistrate and the upper massacre were the judicial chambers for civil and criminal cases. The appeal was accompanied by a cash deposit in the amount of 100 rubles.

The highest judicial body for the courts of the entire system was the senate.

The judicial reform of 1775 attempted to separate the court from the administration. The attempt failed: 1) the governors still had the right to suspend the execution of sentences in the most serious cases, sentences to death and deprivation of honor were approved by the governor; 2) chairmen of all courts were appointed by the government, and representatives of estates could elect only assessors; 3) minor cases were handled by the city police authorities; 4) patrimonial justice continued to operate; 5) high court fees made the court inaccessible to the lower strata of the population.

39. The legal status of the peasantry in the second halfXVIII– beginningXIXcenturies

The peasant population was subdivided into state peasants; free peasants; serfs.

Serfdom was eternal. The bulk of the serfs were the following categories: 1) owner and possession peasants; 2) complete and indentured serfs; 3) dependent people who lived on the land of the owner and paid the poll tax.

State and free peasants had the right to defense in court, the right to own the granted lands, and the right to own movable property.

Serfs were deprived of most property rights: they were forbidden to acquire real estate in cities, enter into contracts, be bound by bills, etc.

From 1725 to 1801, 2,253 different kinds of legal acts were published on the peasantry. However, this legislation has not been codified. Only special decrees were issued regulating the status of certain groups of the peasant population.

The largest and most disenfranchised group were the privately owned peasants. Their situation deteriorated sharply in the second half of the 17th - 18th centuries. Serfdom in Russia reached its apogee, turning into something similar to slavery.

State-owned peasants, who had a certain personal freedom, differed markedly from privately owned peasants: no one sold them or mortgaged them, as was done with the owner-owned peasants, they could rent and buy land, maintain trades.

It was allowed to change the place of residence and even the transition of state peasants to other classes. It is no coincidence that one of the slogans of the peasant war of 1773-1775. was the transformation of landlord peasants into state.

At the same time, state peasants could be forcibly resettled, assigned to factories, and in other ways to control their fate. State peasants constituted a large group, and in the XVIII century. their number grew, amounting to more than 40% of the entire peasantry of Russia.

Secularization of church lands, i.e. taking them away from the church led to the emergence of the category of "economic peasantry". The peasants of the spiritual feudal lords were previously subjected to somewhat less exploitation than the owners. Now, the economic peasants, who numbered about a million, have approached in their status to the state.

Former servicemen "according to the instrument" and even some of the servicemen "in the fatherland", who guarded the security lines, after the disappearance of the need to defend the southern borders, turned into "odnodvortsy" - the top of the state peasants. The privileges of the odnodvortsev reached the point that they were allowed to have serfs.

The yasak peoples of the Volga, Urals and Siberia were also equated with state peasants. They can also include ladles, Kazakhs, coachmen, etc. Several categories included palace peasants.

The position of the Russian peasant was no better than that of the non-Russian. Rather the opposite. Since the bulk of the landowning peasants were Russians, it was precisely their share that had a great burden. The exploited population of the annexed peoples was included in the category of state, i.e., the most free peasants.

41. Church reforms inXVIIIin.

On January 24, 1701, the Monastic order was restored - a secular institution for managing the affairs of the church, in whose jurisdiction the Patriarchal court, bishops' houses and monastic lands and farms were transferred. Boyar Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin was placed at the head of the order. The church begins to lose its independence from the state, the right to dispose of its property.

In 1701, a number of decrees followed, decisively reducing the independence of the clergy in the state and the independence of the clergy from secular power. Monasteries were subjected to special cleaning. The monks were ordered to stay permanently in those monasteries where they would be found by special scribes sent by the Monastic order. All the unshorn were evicted from the monasteries. Convents were allowed to take nuns only for women over the age of forty. The economy of the monasteries was placed under the supervision and control of the Monastic order. In almshouses, it was ordered to leave only the really sick and infirm. Finally, by decree of December 30, 1701, it was determined to give monastics a monetary and grain salary from the income of the monastery, and the monks would no longer own estates and lands.

In 1721, Feofan Prokopovich, a prominent figure in the Petrine era, drew up the Spiritual Regulations, which provided for the destruction of the institution of the patriarchate and the formation of a new body - the Spiritual College. On January 25, 1721, Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological Board, which soon received the new name of the Holy Governing Synod. The members of the Synod convened in advance took the oath on January 27, and on February 14 the grand opening of the new church administration took place. The creation of the Synod was the beginning of the absolutist period of Russian history, since now all power, including church power, was concentrated in the hands of Peter.

Regulations or charter of the spiritual college - a law issued in the form of a manifesto by Peter I, which determined the legal status of the Orthodox Church in Russia. The adoption of the Spiritual Regulations actually turned the Russian clergy into state officials, especially since a secular person, the chief prosecutor, was appointed to supervise the Synod.

The composition of the Holy Synod was determined according to the regulations in 12 "governing persons", of which three certainly had to bear the rank of bishop.

The representative of the emperor in the Synod was the Chief Procurator. The main duty of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The chief procurator was subject to the court only of the sovereign. At first, his power was exclusively observant, but soon he became the arbiter of the fate of the Synod and its leader in practice. As in the Senate, fiscal fiscals were appointed to the position of prosecutor, so in the Synod, spiritual fiscal officers, called inquisitors, were appointed, with an arch-inquisitor at the head. The inquisitors were supposed to secretly supervise the correct and lawful course of the affairs of church life. The office of the Synod was organized on the model of the Senate and was also subordinate to the Chief Procurator.

The Spiritual Regulations ordered diocesan bishops to create schools for children (male) of the clergy at the bishop's houses; for the first time in Muscovite Russia a system of schools was created.

Places of miraculous phenomena not recognized as such by the Synod were abolished.

All matters subject to the conduct of the Holy Synod, the Regulations divided into “general”, concerning all members of the Church, that is, both secular and spiritual, and into “own” matters, relating only to the clergy, white and black, to theological school and enlightenment. All cases that had previously been subject to the patriarchal court were subject to the Synod's court. As far as church property is concerned, the Synod must look after the correct use and distribution of church property.

The states of the clergy were established by the Synodal Decree of 1722. This state was supposed to be implemented not immediately, but as the superfluous clergy would die out; the bishops were ordered not to appoint new priests while the old ones were still alive. Having reduced the number of the white clergy, forbidding and making it difficult for new forces to enter it from the outside, Peter, as it were, closed the clergy within himself. It was then that caste traits, characterized by the obligatory inheritance of the father's place by the son, acquired special significance in the life of the clergy. This new estate was assigned by Peter to pastoral spiritual enlightenment activities according to the Christian law, however, not on the whole will of the understanding of the law by the pastors as they want, but only as the state authority prescribes to understand it.

Using the most severe restrictive measures, Peter tried to restrict the monasteries, reduce their number, and prevent the emergence of new ones. All further legislation was aimed at three goals: to reduce the number of monasteries, to establish difficult conditions for admission to monasticism, and to give monasteries a practical purpose, to derive some practical benefit from their existence.

The Spiritual Regulations in its two sections "Acts of Bishops" and "School Houses and Teachers, Students, and Preachers in Them" instructed the establishment of special theological schools (episcopal schools) for the training of priests, whose level of education by that time was extremely unsatisfactory.

Under Catherine II (1762-1796), a policy of religious tolerance was pursued. Representatives of all traditional religions did not experience pressure and harassment. So, in 1773, a law was issued on the tolerance of all faiths, forbidding the Orthodox clergy to interfere in the affairs of other faiths. Catherine achieved from the government of the Commonwealth the equalization of the rights of religious minorities - Orthodox and Protestants. The persecution of the Old Believers also stopped.

In St. Petersburg from 1789 to 1798, 5 editions of the Koran were published. In 1788, a manifesto was issued, in which the empress ordered "to establish in Ufa a spiritual assembly of the Mohammedan law", i.e. Catherine began to integrate the Muslim community into the state system of the empire.

In 1764, Catherine established the post of Khambo Lama - the head of the Buddhists of Eastern Siberia and Transbaikalia.

The free resettlement of Germans in Russia led to a significant increase in the number of Protestants, they were also allowed to build churches, schools, and freely perform worship.

The Jewish religion retained the right to public practice of faith.

42. The legal status of the outskirts of the Russian Empire at the beginningXIXin.

In 1809, Finland was annexed to Russia, in 1875 - part of the Duchy of Warsaw, in 1812 - Bessarabia. Finland was called the Grand Duchy. Finnish, and the Russian emperor was the Grand Duke of Finland and was the head of the executive branch. Legislative power belonged to the estate Seimas, and the executive (since 1809) - to the Governing Senate of twelve people elected by the Seimas.

The Grand Duke of Finland (Russian Emperor) was the head of the executive branch, approved the laws adopted by the Seimas, appointed members of the highest judicial bodies, observed the phenomenon of justice, announced amnesties, and represented the Principality of Finland in foreign relations.

The Sejm was convened every five years, it consisted of two chambers representing four estates: chivalry and nobility, clergy, townspeople and peasants. The decision of the Seimas was considered adopted if it was taken by three chambers. The adoption or (imputation of fundamental laws required the decision of all four chambers.

The Sejm had the right of legislative initiative and the right to petition the emperor, he established new taxes or decided on new sources of state revenue. Not a single law could be adopted, amended or repealed without the consent of the Seimas.

The Senate consisted of two main departments: economic and judicial. The first was in charge of the civil administration of the country, the second was the highest court of Finland.

The governor-general was the chairman of the Senate and the representative of the emperor and the grand duke in Finland, and the governors were subordinate to him. The Minister of State Secretary of Finland was the official intermediary between the supreme local government of Finland (the Senate) and the Emperor and the Grand Duke.

In 1816 the Senate was renamed the Imperial Finnish. It was headed by the governor-general appointed by the emperor, who concentrated all the actual executive power in his hands. Local self-government largely retained the features of the previous period, the entire system of government was distinguished by a certain autonomy (Finland was divided into eight provinces). In 1815, Poland received the Constitutional Charter and the status of a kingdom: the Russian emperor became at the same time the king of Poland.

Since 1818 began to be elected (by the gentry and the townspeople) the legislative Sejm. It convened in 1820 and 1825. The executive power was concentrated in the hands of the viceroy of the king, with him the State Council acted as an advisory body.

The administrative council consisted of the ministries: military, justice, internal affairs and police, education and religion, and was the highest executive body controlled by the governor. The Sejm consisted of two chambers: senatorial and ambassadorial. The Senate was made up of representatives of the nobility, appointed for life by the tsar, the embassy chamber ("hut") was made up of the gentry and representatives of the communities (clay). The deputies were elected provincial sejmiks, in which only the nobility participated.

The Sejm discussed bills submitted to it on behalf of the Emperor and the King, or the Council of State. The Seimas had no legislative initiative.

After the suppression of the Polish uprising in 1830, the "Organic Statute" was issued, which abolished the Polish constitution, and Poland was declared an integral part of the empire. The Polish crown became hereditary in the Russian imperial house.

The Sejm was abolished, and meetings of provincial officials began to be convened to discuss the most important issues.

The administration of Poland began to be carried out by an administrative council headed by the viceroy of the emperor. The irremovability of judges was proclaimed and city self-government was established.

In 1822, a special charter was issued for the peoples of Siberia, prepared by M. Speransky, its former governor general. According to the provisions of the charter, all "foreign" (non-Russian) peoples of Siberia were divided into sedentary, nomadic and vagrant. The settled were equated in rights and obligations with the Russians, according to their class affiliation (landowners were included in the number of state peasants).

Nomadic and wandering foreigners were subject to the system of tribal administration: a camp or ulus (at least fifteen families), headed by elders. For some nationalities, steppe dumas were created, headed by the tribal nobility.

Systematization of law in the first halfXIXin.

During this period, a grandiose work was carried out to systematize Russian legislation, which constituted a whole era in its history.

The last universal systematized collection, covering almost all branches of Russian law, was the Cathedral Code of 1649. By the beginning of the 19th century. confusion in the legislation reached its limit. She was one of the causes of disorder and abuse in the courts.

Already in 1801, Alexander I established a new, tenth, commission headed by P.V. Zavadovsky. It became known as the Law Drafting Commission and carried out considerable preparatory work. But only under Nicholas I was it possible to truly develop and complete the systematization of Russian legislation.

The subjective factor also contributed to the success of the commission's work: it was actually headed by M.M. Speransky - a prominent lawyer and a man of amazing ability to work, was first involved in codification work as early as 1808-1809. Speransky decided to organize the work in stages. At first, he wanted to collect together all the laws issued since the adoption of the Council Code, then bring them into a certain system, and finally, on the basis of all this, issue a new Code. In this order, the work unfolded.

First, they began to create the Complete Collection of Laws (PSZ). It included all the normative acts from the Cathedral Code to the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, collected in chronological order. There were more than 50 thousand such acts, which amounted to 46 thick volumes. Subsequently, the PSZ was supplemented by current legislation. This is how the second Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire appeared, covering legislation up to 1881, and the third, which included laws from March of this year.

PSZ still was not quite a complete collection of laws. Some acts were not found by the codifiers. The fact is that the state archives of Russia were in a bad state. None of them even contained a complete register of existing laws. In some cases, individual acts were deliberately not included in the PSZ. We are talking about documents of a foreign policy nature, which still kept operational secrecy. At the same time, the Complete Collection included acts that, in essence, did not have the character of laws, since the very concept of "law" in theory was not developed. In the Complete Collection of Laws, one can find acts of a non-legal nature, judicial precedents.

After the publication of the Complete Collection of Laws, Speransky began the second stage of work - the creation of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. When compiling it, invalid norms were excluded, contradictions were eliminated, and editorial processing of the text was carried out. When creating the Code of Laws M.M. Speransky proceeded from the fact that "The code is a true image of what is in the laws, but it is neither an addition to them, nor an interpretation." In the Code of Laws, all material was arranged according to a special system developed by Speransky. If the PSZ is built according to the chronological principle, then the Code is already according to the branch, although not quite consistently carried out.

The structure of the Code was based on the division of law into public and private, coming from Western European bourgeois concepts, dating back to Roman law. Speransky only called these two groups of laws state and civil. While working on the Code, Speransky studied the best examples of Western codification - Roman, French, Prussian, Austrian codes, but did not copy them, but created his own original system.

The code was published in 15 volumes, united in 8 books. Book 1 included laws on government and administration and civil service, 2nd - statutes on duties, 3rd - statutes of public administration (statutes on taxes, duties, drinking tax, etc.), 4th - laws on estates, 5th - civil legislation, 6th - charters of state improvement (charters of credit institutions, charters of trade and industry, etc.), 7th - charters of deanery (charters on national food, public charity and medical, etc. ), 8th - criminal laws.

After the publication of the Code, Speransky thought to proceed to the third stage of systematization - to the creation of the Code, which was supposed not only to contain the old norms, but also to develop the law. If the PSZ and the Code were only incorporations, then the creation of the Code assumed a codification method of work, i.e. not only combining old norms, but also supplementing them with new ones

Code of Penal and Correctional Punishment of 1845

On August 15, 1845, by decree of Emperor Nicholas I, the Code on Penal and Correctional Punishments was approved, which entered into force on May 1 of the following year. In essence, this was the first criminal code of Russia, since previous legislative sources, as a rule, united the norms of many branches of law. The Penal Code of 1845 can be considered the first codified source of Russian criminal law. The need for codification of criminal legislation was noted while working on the compilation of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, published in 1832. At the same time, the question of creating a new criminal code was repeatedly raised. Alexander I organized a special commission under the leadership of M.M. Speransky to develop a new code. Speransky considered the highest form of codification to be the compilation of codes, the basis for which should be the Code of Laws. However, the feudal military-police state of the second quarter of the 19th century needed a special code containing a classification of crimes and a system of appropriate punishments. Therefore, the second branch of His Majesty's Own Chancellery under the leadership of D.M. Bludov, from the beginning of the 40s, began to develop the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments.

The code of laws created by Speransky had significant shortcomings: many articles relating to criminal liability were scattered throughout all fifteen volumes. In addition, the Code established only the type of punishment, without specifying in any way, for example, neither the term of hard labor, nor the number of lashes, etc. The courts were given wide latitude in determining the measure of punishment, which led to various abuses. The need to develop new criminal legislation was vitally dictated by life. The middle of the 19th century in Russia was marked, first of all, by the beginning of the development of capitalist relations. Therefore, immediately after the publication of the Code of Laws, the preparation of a new criminal code began. According to its compilers, it should include all the criminal legislation of Russia at that time. In addition, foreign experience was taken into account: 15 codes in force at that time were studied (Swedish, Prussian, Austrian, French, Bavarian, Neapolitan, Greek, Roman, Saxon, etc.), the criminal laws of England, as well as drafts of new criminal codes - Prussian (1830), Bavarian (1832), Swedish (1832) and others.

This extensive code took into account and classified crimes, misdemeanors and their corresponding punishments against the state, against the Orthodox faith, the order of government, in the service, against decisions on duties, property and income of the treasury, public improvement and deanery, estate system, private property, life, health. . Freedom and honor of individuals.

The Code of 1845 underwent three revisions - 1857, 1866, 1885, two (the last) of which significantly modified some of the fundamental institutions. On the whole, the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments paved the way for the development of the Russian Criminal Code of 1903, which later became the pinnacle of Russian pre-revolutionary criminal law thought, but never entered into force in full.

Peasant reform of 1861

February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 Petersburg, Alexander II signed Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and Regulations on peasants leaving serfdom, consisting of 17 legislative acts. The Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (17 documents in total) relating to the emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their redemption of landowners' land and the size of redeemed allotments in certain regions of Russia.

Main act - " General provision on peasants who emerged from serfdom"- contained the main conditions of the peasant reform

Peasants ceased to be considered serfs and began to be considered "temporarily liable"; peasants received the rights of "free rural inhabitants", that is, full civil legal capacity in everything that did not relate to their special class rights and obligations - membership in rural society and ownership of allotment land.

Peasant houses, buildings, all movable property of the peasants were recognized as their personal property

The peasants received elective self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government was rural society, the highest (administrative) unit - parish

The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but they were obliged to provide the peasants with “estate residence” (household plot) and a field allotment for use; the lands of the field allotment were not provided personally to the peasants, but for the collective use of rural communities, which could distribute them among the peasant farms at their discretion. The minimum size of a peasant allotment for each locality was established by law.

For the use of allotment land, the peasants had to serve corvée or pay quitrent and did not have the right to refuse it for 49 years.

The size of the field allotment and duties had to be fixed in charter letters, which were drawn up by the landowners for each estate and checked by peace mediators;

Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field plot, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who redeemed the allotment were called "peasant-owners". Peasants could also refuse the right to redeem and receive from the landlord free of charge an allotment in the amount of a quarter of the allotment that they had the right to redeem; when endowing a free allotment, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.

The state, on preferential terms, provided the landlords with financial guarantees for the receipt of redemption payments (redemption operation), accepting their payment; peasants, respectively, had to pay redemption payments to the state.

According to the reform, the maximum and minimum sizes of peasant allotments were established. Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landlords, as well as upon receipt of a donation. If the peasants had smaller allotments in use, the landowner was obliged either to cut the missing land from the minimum size (the so-called "cuts"), or to reduce duties. Pruning took place only if the landowner was left with at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 male and 30 female working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest, then the landowner cut off the “extra” land in his favor. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties decreased, but not proportionally.

As a result, the average size of the peasant allotment of the post-reform period was 3.3 acres per capita, which was less than before the reform.

The peasants were in a temporarily obligated state until the conclusion of a redemption deal. At first, the period of this state was not indicated. On December 28, 1881, it was finally installed. According to the decree, all temporarily liable peasants were transferred for redemption from January 1 1883. A similar situation took place only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obligated state of the peasants remained until 1912-1913.

The transition of peasants to ransom lasted for several decades. The transition from "temporarily liable" to "redemption" did not give the peasants the right to leave their plot (that is, the promised freedom), but significantly increased the burden of payments. The redemption of land under the terms of the reform of 1861 for the vast majority of peasants dragged on for 45 years and represented real bondage for them, since they were not able to pay such amounts.

Zemstvo reform of 1861

Zemstvo reform changed local government. Previously, it was class and without election. The landlord unlimitedly reigned over the peasants, ruled over them and judged them according to his own arbitrariness. After the abolition of serfdom, such management became impossible. Therefore, in parallel with the peasant reform, it was being prepared in 1859-1861. and land reform. During the years of democratic upsurge (1859-1861), the liberal N.A. led the preparation of the Zemstvo reform. Milyutin, but in April 1861, when the “tops” considered that the abolition of serfdom would defuse tensions in the country that were dangerous for tsarism, Alexander II replaced Milyutin with the conservative P.A. Valuev. The Milyutinsky project was adjusted by Valuev in favor of the nobles, in order to make them, as they said about themselves, "the advanced army of the Zemstvo." The final version of the reform, set out in the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", Alexander II signed on January 1, 1864.

The Zemstvo reform was based on two new principles - non-estate and electivity. Regulatory bodies zemstvos, those. new local government, zemstvo assemblies became: in the county - county, in the province - provincial (zemstvo was not created in the volost). Elections to county zemstvo assemblies were held on the basis of a property qualification. All voters were divided into three curia: 1) county landowners, 2) city voters, 3) elected from rural societies.

The first curia included owners of at least 200 acres of land, real estate worth more than 15 thousand rubles. or annual income over 6 thousand rubles. Owners of less than 200 (but not less than 10) acres of land were united, and from the number that owned a land mass of at least 200 (at least) acres, one representative was elected to the congress of the first curia.

The second curia consisted of merchants of all three guilds, owners of real estate for at least 500 rubles. in small and 2 thousand rubles. in large cities or commercial and industrial establishments with an annual turnover of more than 6 thousand rubles.

The third curia consisted mainly of officials of the peasant administration, although local nobles and rural clergy could also run here. So, in the Saratov and Samara provinces, even five marshals of the nobility passed to the vowels from the peasants. According to this curia, unlike the first two, the elections were not direct, but multistage: the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, electors were elected there, and then the county congress of electors elected deputies ( vowels as they were called) to the county zemstvo assembly. This was done in order to "weed out" unreliable elements from the peasantry and generally limit peasant representation. As a result, according to the data for 1865-1867, the nobles made up 42% of the district councilors, the peasants - 38%, and the rest - 20%.

Elections to the provincial zemstvo assemblies took place at the county zemstvo assemblies at the rate of one provincial vowel for six district assemblies. Therefore, in the provincial assemblies, the predominance of nobles was even greater: 74.2% against 10.6% of peasants and 15.2% of others. The chairman of the zemstvo assembly was not elected, he was ex officio the marshal of the nobility: in the county - county, in the province - provincial.

Urban reform of 1870

Preparations for the reform began in 1862; in a revolutionary situation. In 1864, the reform project was prepared, but by that time the democratic onslaught was repulsed, and the government began to revise the project: it was redone twice, and only on June 16, 1870 did the tsar approve the final version of the “City Regulations”.

The urban reform was based on the same, only more narrowed, principles as the Zemstvo reform. According to the “City Regulations” of 1870, the city duma remained the administrative body of the city government. However, if until 1870 the city dumas that had existed in Russia since the time of the "City Regulations" of Catherine II (1785) consisted of deputies from estate groups, now they became without estates.

Deputies (vowels) of the city duma were elected on the basis of property qualification. Only the payers of city taxes participated in the elections of vowels, i.е. owners of immovable property (companies, banks, houses, etc.). All of them were divided into three electoral meetings: 1) the largest taxpayers, who collectively paid a third of the total amount of taxes in the city; 2) medium payers, who also paid a total of one third of all taxes, 3) small payers, who contributed the remaining third of the total tax amount. Each assembly elected the same number of vowels, although the number of assemblies was glaringly different (in St. Petersburg, for example, the 1st curia consisted of 275 voters, the 2nd - 849, and the 3rd - 16355). This ensured the predominance in the thoughts of the big and middle bourgeoisie, which made up two electoral assemblies out of three. In Moscow, the first two assemblies did not have even 13% of the total number of voters, but they elected 2/3 of the vowels. As for the workers, employees, intellectuals who did not own immovable property (that is, the vast majority of the urban population), they did not have the right to participate in city elections at all. The number of vowels in city dumas ranged from 30 to 72. Two dumas stood apart - Moscow (180 vowels) and St. Petersburg (250). The city government, which was elected by the city duma (for 4 years, like the thought itself), became the executive body of the city government. The mayor was at the head of the council. He was ex officio the chairman of the city duma. In addition to him, the council included 2-3 vowels.

The "city regulation" of 1870 was introduced in 509 cities of Russia. At first it operated only in the indigenous Russian provinces, and in 1875-1877. tsarism extended it to the national outskirts of the empire, except for Poland, Finland and Central Asia, where the pre-reform urban structure was preserved.

The functions of city government, like those of the zemstvo, were purely economic: the improvement of the city (paving streets, water supply, sewerage), fire fighting, taking care of local industry, trade, health care, and education. Nevertheless, the city government was even more strictly controlled than the zemstvo government by the central government. The mayor was approved by the governor (for a county town) or the minister of the interior (for a provincial center). The minister and the governor could cancel any resolution of the city duma. Especially for the control of city government in each province, a provincial presence for city affairs was created under the chairmanship of the governor.

City dumas, like zemstvos, had no coercive power. To carry out their decisions, they were forced to request the assistance of the police, which was not subordinate to city councils, but to government officials - mayors and governors. These latter (but by no means urban self-government) exercised real power in the cities - both before and after the "great reforms".

And yet, in comparison with the purely feudal "City status" of Catherine II, the city reform of 1870, based on the bourgeois beginning of the property qualification, was a significant step forward. It created much better conditions than before for the development of cities, since now the city dumas and councils were no longer guided by the class, but by the general civil interests of the townspeople.

Judicial reform of 1864

The preparation of the judicial reform began in the autumn of 1861, at the highest point of the democratic upsurge in the country, and was completed by the autumn of 1862. But only on November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved the new Judicial Charters. Instead of the feudal class courts, they introduced civilized judicial institutions, common to persons of all classes with one and the same judicial procedure.

From now on, for the first time in Russia, four cornerstone principles of modern law were affirmed: judicial independence from the administration irremovability of judges, publicity and competitiveness legal proceedings. The judiciary has been significantly democratized. In criminal courts, the institution of jurors from the population, elected on the basis of a moderate property qualification (at least 100 acres of land or any other property worth 2,000 rubles in the capitals and 1,000 rubles in provincial cities), was introduced. For each case, 12 jurors were appointed by lot, who decided whether the defendant was guilty or not, after which the court released the innocent and determined the punishment for the guilty. For legal assistance to the needy and to protect the accused, the institution of lawyers (sworn attorneys) was created, and the preliminary investigation in criminal cases, previously in the hands of the police, now passed to the judicial investigators. Attorneys at law and judicial investigators had to have a higher legal education, and the first, in addition, had to have five years of experience in judicial practice.

According to the Charters of 1864, the number of judicial instances was reduced, and their competence was strictly delineated. Three types of courts were created: the magistrate's court, the district court and the judicial chamber.

Justices of the peace were elected by county zemstvo assemblies or city dumas on the basis of a high property qualification (at least 400 acres of land or other real estate in the amount of at least 15,000 rubles), and members of district courts and judicial chambers were appointed by the tsar.

The Magistrate's Court (consisting of one person - the justice of the peace) considered petty misdemeanors and civil claims in a simplified procedure. The decision of the magistrate could be appealed at the county congress of magistrates.

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

The Judicial Chamber (consisting of four members and three class representatives: the leader of the nobility, the mayor and the volost foreman) was established one for several provinces. Its apparatus was similar to that of the district court (the prosecutor, his comrades, judicial investigators, lawyers), only of a larger size. The Judicial Chamber considered especially important criminal and almost all (except the most important) political cases. Its decisions were considered final and could only be appealed on cassation.

The most important political cases were to be considered by the Supreme Criminal Court, which did not function permanently, but was appointed in exceptional cases at the highest command.

The single cassation instance for all the courts of the empire was the Senate - with two departments: criminal and civil. He could cancel the decision of any court (except the Supreme Criminal Court), after which the case was returned for a second consideration by the same or another court.

Police and military reforms of the 60s - 70s.XIXin.

New trends necessitated the reorganization of the armed forces. These reforms are largely associated with the name of D.A. Milyutin, who became Minister of War in 1861.

First of all, Milyutin introduced a system of military districts. In 1864, 15 districts were created, covering the entire territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the conscription and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief chief of the district, who was also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. The military district had a district headquarters, quartermaster, artillery, engineering, military medical departments, and an inspector of military hospitals. Under the commander was the Military Council.

In 1867, a military judicial reform was carried out, which reflected some of the provisions of the judicial charters of 1864. A three-tier system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and the main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction about the same as the magistrate's court. The largest and medium complexity cases were considered by the military district courts. The highest court of appeal and review was the chief military court.

In the 60s. the inexpediency of training officer cadres through the cadet corps, which cost the state dearly, since children studied in them for seven years, was found to be inexpedient. Students were enrolled there on the basis of class from noble families. The cadet corps were abolished, and military schools began to provide officer training. Nobles were still trained in them, although class restrictions formally disappeared. Only persons who, as a rule, had a secondary education could study there.

Military schools could not provide the army with a sufficient number of officers. In this regard, cadet schools were created, to which there was wide access to all segments of the population, since they could enter there with much less general education.

When studying in military and cadet schools, the main attention was paid to discipline, drill, parade parade traditions. They did not receive the necessary general education and special military training there.

But the main reform of this time was the transition from recruitment to universal military duty. The recruiting system made it necessary to keep a huge mass of people under arms even in peacetime. At the same time, not all the male population of the country underwent military training, which deprived the army of a reserve in case of war.

The military reform of 1874 provided for the abolition of recruiting sets, established compulsory military service for all males, regardless of class, who had reached the age of 20, in the ground forces - 6 years, in the navy - 7 years. Many non-Russian peoples, especially the eastern ones, were exempted from active service. Reduced terms of service were established for persons who had an education (higher - six months, secondary - one and a half years, primary - four years). Preferential terms of service were used mainly by representatives of the propertied classes.

Changes in the management of the national outskirts. In the second half of the XIX century. the organization of the administration of the national outskirts has changed somewhat. In Poland and the Caucasus, it was close to the all-Russian order. The governorships were abolished, but the general governments were retained.

In 1862, a police reform was carried out, which introduced some changes in the organization of the local police. Due to the fact that after the liberation of the peasants the patrimonial police were abolished, it was necessary to strengthen the county police authorities. Instead of city and zemstvo police officers, county police departments headed by police officers were created. At the same time, the police were strengthened in smaller territorial units - camps. To help the bailiff, the position of a police officer was introduced.

In the cities, police agencies were headed by mayors (larger cities) and police chiefs. They had special offices, which were in charge of police matters. Cities were divided into parts, or districts, and districts, and at the head of these territorial units were district and district guards.

The gendarmerie districts were abolished, but a gendarmerie provincial administration appeared in each province.

Counter-reforms of the 80s - 90s.XIXin.

The assassination of Emperor Alexander II on March 1, 1881 only accelerated the government's transition to a reactionary course. Previously, the revision of judicial statutes was carried out in terms of legal proceedings on state crimes. Now the very principles of judicial reform seemed dangerous. The principle of publicity of court sessions was violated by allowing the presiding judge to close the doors of the court. The principle of the irremovability of judges was actually abolished with the establishment of the Supreme Disciplinary Presence of the Senate, which could remove and move judges. World justice was almost completely destroyed. And with the introduction of the institute of zemstvo chiefs, the principles of all-estate and independence of the court from the administration were abolished.

The institute of zemstvo district chiefs was introduced by law on July 12, 1889. The zemstvo chief exercised control over the activities of peasant self-government and was the first court instance for the taxable estates. Both the judicial and administrative powers of the zemstvo chiefs were broad, and their decision was final. In contrast to the elected justice of the peace, the zemstvo chief was appointed by the Minister of the Interior from hereditary nobles. With the introduction of the institute of zemstvo chiefs, the judicial counter-reform is completed and the zemstvo begins.

The law of June 12, 1890 significantly reduced the number of zemstvo vowels. Along with the reduction in the number of members in zemstvo institutions, representation from the nobility is increasing. Provincial and district marshals of the nobility, even without being zemstvo vowels, take part in the work of zemstvo assemblies. Such changes are explained by the fact that the nobility at this stage was indeed the social base of the autocracy. However, even such zemstvos were not trusted in the capital. Therefore, zemstvo institutions were placed under the control of the local administration. The governors and the Provincial Presences for Zemstvo and City Affairs were given the right to approve the decisions of Zemstvo assemblies. Moreover, control was exercised not only over the legality of the decisions made, but also over the extent to which the interests of the inhabitants were observed in them.

In 1892, the transformation of city self-government was carried out on the same principles. The number of vowel city dumas is reduced. The tax qualification is replaced by a property qualification, which leads to a sharp reduction in the number of voters. The administrative power exercised control not only over the legality of the decisions made by the Dumas, but also over their "expediency".

Obviously, the zemstvo and city counter-reforms were aimed at creating self-government bodies obedient to the government. And yet, despite the serious changes introduced by the counter-reforms in all spheres of life in Russian society, it was no longer possible to return the country to the pre-reform order. Great reforms of the 60-70s. 19th century led to profound changes in economic, social and political relations in the country.

Criminal law and process at the endXIX- earlyXXcenturies

Criminal law. The judicial reform, which transferred to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace small criminal cases provided for by the Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace, necessitated a change in the Code of Punishments of 1845. The result was the creation in 1866 of a new edition of the Code, which has now become noticeably shorter (by 652 articles). ).

In 1885, a new edition of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments was implemented. New offenses appeared, which was due to the need to fight the intensification of the revolutionary movement in the country

In the Code of 1885, a clear division into the General and Special parts was maintained.

In the first section, which still performed the functions of the General Part, much attention was paid to the stages of the commission of a crime, pure intent, preparation, attempt, completed crime, a distinction was made between the concepts of crime and misdemeanor.

In the Special Part of the Code of 1885, crimes against faith were traditionally in the first place. Among the most serious crimes were state crimes, as well as crimes and misdemeanors against the order of government.

Procedural law was primarily affected by the judicial reform, which introduced fundamental changes to it. In the magistrate's court, the consideration of civil cases was simplified. After filing a statement of claim with the court, the defendant was called to the office of the court and got acquainted with the content of the claim. If the defendant did not appear, the judge could hear the case without him. The plaintiff's failure to appear resulted in the dismissal of the case. Court decisions could be challenged on appeal.

The trial of civil cases in general courts took place in accordance with the principles of oral, publicity, competitiveness. The case began with the filing of a lawsuit. In the course of preliminary preparation of the case for the hearing, the defendant, who could write an objection, got acquainted with the content of the statement of claim. The plaintiff, in turn, wrote a refutation of the objection. Lawyers could participate in the court, reconciliation of the parties was allowed. Litigation was, as a rule, a competition of the parties. The burden of proof was on the side that asserted or demanded something. The decisions of the general courts were also reviewed on appeal.

Criminal process. The procedural procedure for the consideration of criminal cases was determined by the Charter of Criminal Proceedings of 1864. The proclamation of the presumption of innocence in criminal procedure law, according to which any person was considered innocent until his guilt was established by a court verdict, was important. Significant changes have taken place in the law of evidence. The system of formal evidence characteristic of feudal law was abolished. Formal evidence was replaced by a bourgeois system of free evaluation of evidence based on the inner conviction of judges.

The regulation of August 14, 1881 came into effect temporarily (for a period of three years). Then it was renewed all the time and became one of the permanent laws of the Russian Empire until the overthrow of the autocracy.

52. Changes in the system of higher authorities after the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.

As a result of the revolution of 1905-1907. Russia has taken another step towards becoming a constitutional monarchy. The main event was the creation of the State Duma. 6.08.1905 a manifesto was signed on the establishment of the State Duma, the law indicated that it was being formed for the preliminary development and discussion of bills, which in the future should be enter the State Council. The electoral law, signed on the same day, provided for elections for three curiae - from landowners, urban residents and peasants, while the workers were generally deprived of voting rights. Elections to this Duma did not take place, since it was boycotted by the majority of the population.

October 17, 1905 a manifesto appeared establishing the convocation of a legislative duma, significant changes were made: 4 electoral curia were provided (from landowners, urban population, peasants and workers). For all the curiae, the elections were multi-stage: for the first two curias - two-stage elections, for the workers - three-stage elections, for the peasants - four-stage elections. Women did not have voting rights. In the elections to the 1st State Duma, the majority of seats were won by the opposition to the autocracy. As a result, this opposition State Duma was released ahead of schedule after 72 days. But after the elections to the 2nd State Duma, it turned out that it was even more opposed to the autocracy than the previous one. 06/3/1907 followed by a manifesto about its dissolution. Only the elections to the 3rd State Duma after the change in the electoral legislation gave the desired result for tsarism, because. reactionary parties won a large number of seats. The State Council was reorganized, which began to act as a kind of 2 chambers in relation to the State Duma. Half of the council was appointed by the king, the other half was elected. Representatives of the propertied classes, as well as representatives of the clergy, members of noble societies were elected to the State Council from the provincial zemstvo assemblies. The draft law from the State Duma was submitted to the State Council, which could, if it wished, reject it. If both chambers were in agreement with the bill, then the final decision belonged to the king. In general, the creation of the State Duma was a concession to the autocracy under the influence of the revolution. The Duma did not have any real powers: the government did not have any responsibility to the State Duma, the ministers were not even required to respond to the Duma's requests. The emperor had the right to issue "emergency" laws bypassing the Duma, which he often used - the first parliamentary experiments were strangled by authoritarianism, and the following thoughts were in the wake of the policy of the tsar and his government; All this allows us to consider the revolution of 1905-1907. the first, but far from completed, stage in the formation in Russia of a new system with a capitalist economy and a parliamentary political regime. In essence, a bourgeois-democratic revolution began in Russia in a broad sense - the restructuring of the entire social system.

53. Formation of political parties at the beginning of the 20th century.

At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia has a multi-party system. Socialist parties were the first to form. In 1898, the First Congress was held Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDLP). But the final formation of the RSDLP took place at the II Congress in 1903, where the party program and charter were adopted. An important role in the formation of the party was played by G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Lenin and others. The program of the RSDLP set tasks for the democratic transformation of society: the creation of power on the basis of universal suffrage, formulated measures to improve the material situation of the working class, and determined tasks in the field of agrarian and national policy. The program also set the task for the future - the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the II Congress of the RSDLP, they split into 2 tech. One of them is revolutionary, the leader of which was V.I. Lenin; it was called the Bolsheviks. Another trend is the reformist one, its representatives began to be called the Mensheviks. The leaders of this trend are G.V. Plekhanov, Yu.O. Martov. Almost simultaneously with the RSDLP, a party was formed on the basis of populism. social revolutionaries (SRs). The leader of this party was V.M. Chernov. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party defended the interests of all working people, regardless of their class affiliation. Their program, adopted in 1905, provided for the replacement of autocracy with a republican form of government and other democratic reforms. In 1905 took shape liberal democratic parties. The most influential party was constitutional democrats, whose leader for many years remained P.N. Milyukov. The liberals wanted a peaceful transformation of Russian society through reforms. The Cadets were formed on the basis of the intelligentsia. The party included teachers, writers, liberal-minded officials, the bourgeoisie. The party became the right wing of the liberal movement "Union 17 October", which included the head of the Russian. rights, statesman P.A. Stolypin. During the revolution of 1905-1907. the largest organization that defended the autocracy in Russia was formed - "Union of the Russian people". It included combat detachments - the "Black Hundreds", which smashed both liberals and revolutionaries. At the beginning of the 20th century, a huge number of parties were formed in Russia, but the ones mentioned above were the largest, most influential, and until October 1917 they played an important role in polit. life of Russia.

54. State Duma (legal status, formation procedure, competence).

As a result of the revolution of 1905-1907. Russia has taken one step towards becoming a constitutional monarchy. The main event was the creation of the State Duma. 6.08.1905 a manifesto was signed on the establishment of the State Duma, the law indicated that it was being formed for the preliminary development and discussion of bills, which in the future should be enter the State Council. Elections to this Duma did not take place, since it was boycotted by the majority of the population. October 17, 1905 a manifesto appeared establishing the convocation of a legislative duma, significant changes were made: 4 electoral curia were provided (from landowners, urban population, peasants and workers). For all the curiae, the elections were multi-stage: for the first two curias - two-stage elections, for the workers - three-stage elections, for the peasants - four-stage elections. Women did not have voting rights. During the elections to the 1st State Duma, the majority of seats were won by the opposition of the autocracy (an acute conflict over the agrarian issue). As a result, this opposition State Duma was released ahead of schedule after 72 days. But after the elections to the 2nd State Duma, it turned out that it was even more opposed to the autocracy than the previous one. 06/3/1907 followed by a manifesto about its dissolution, having existed for 102 days. Only the elections to the 3rd State Duma after the change in the electoral legislation gave the desired result for tsarism, because. reactionary parties won a large number of seats.

In general, the creation of the State Duma was a concession to the autocracy under the influence of the revolution. The Duma did not have any real powers: the government did not have any responsibility to the State Duma, the ministers were not even required to respond to the Duma's requests. The emperor had the right to issue "emergency" laws bypassing the Duma, which he often used - the first parliamentary experiments were strangled by authoritarianism, and the following thoughts were in the wake of the policy of the tsar and his government; All this allows us to consider the revolution of 1905-1907. the first, but far from completed, stage in the formation in Russia of a new system with a capitalist economy and a parliamentary political regime. In essence, a bourgeois-democratic revolution began in Russia in a broad sense - the restructuring of the entire social system.

Stolypin agrarian reform and changes in the legal status of peasants.

After the revolutionary events of 1905-1907. the most far-sighted politicians understood that in order to prevent a social explosion, it was necessary to reform many aspects of the life of society, first of all, to solve the peasant question. The initiator was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1906-1911) Stolypin P.A. (the former governor of Saratov, later Minister of the Interior, appointed Prime Minister in 1944, was an authoritarian reformer, he was convinced that without stabilizing the situation in the country, without appeasing the people, even through cruel measures, the planned transformations were doomed to failure, for a cruel policy in liberal circles he won the fame of the "hangman").

November 9, 1906 a decree was issued which 1. granted the peasants the right to freely leave the communities, fixing the ownership of the due part of the communal land2. a peasant could receive land in the form of a separate plot (cut) to which he could transfer his estate (farm). the decree did not destroy the peasant communities, but unleashed the hands of the peasants who wanted to manage on their own. It was planned to create in the countryside a stratum of strong homely owners, alien to the revolutionary spirit, and in general to increase the productivity of agriculture. The decree, adopted during the period between the years, entered into force as an emergency.

A large role was assigned to the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, which organized the correct delimitation of land on the ground. It was planned to develop medicine and veterinary medicine, to provide social assistance to peasants. To resolve the issue of lack of land, the resettlement of peasants from areas with an acute shortage of land to Siberia, Kazakhstan, etc. was organized. Settlers were exempted from taxes for a long time, they were given cash benefits.

The results of the reform: 1. by 1916. about 26% of household peasants emerged from the communities, which is a lot, but only 6.6% of them switched to cuts, and 3% organized farms, mostly middle peasants. providing the peasantry with gray and social. assistance was hampered by a lack of funds.3. the organization of the resettlement was not up to par, about 500 thousand returned back, although the population of Siberia increased, about 30 million acres of land were developed. 4. The most significant results are its indirect results: the peasants have awakened an interest in the achievements of agronomic science, increased. demand for agricultural Machines and tools, free peasant cooperatives began to develop. Also, in order to achieve economic growth, the enlargement of the middle peasants, time was needed, which was not due to the fact that World War 1 began.

Changes in the state apparatus of the country and in the legal system of Russia during the First World War (1914-1917).

The war with Germany led to the militarization of the Russian economy. Gos.regulirovanie economy acquired extraordinary forms, the government-in took a course to win the war and the mobilization of capital. There was a reduction in sown areas and trade turnover, financial difficulties associated with a sharp increase in taxes. Transp.dravneniya rights-in tried to regulate through the creation of interdepartmental commissions. The mobilization of capital caused controversy between the various ruling classes, so the state took the initiative to create new organizational forms of industrial and financial management. At the congress of representatives of industry and trade in May 1915, the idea was formulated to create military-industrial committees (hereinafter referred to as the military-industrial complex), their goals are: organization of the economy, participation in management state politics. The functions of the military-industrial complex include mediation between the treasury and industry, the distribution of military orders, the regulation of the raw material market and the supply of raw materials to enterprises, the regulation of foreign trade (purchases) .. Under the military-industrial complex, labor groups, conciliatory chambers and labor exchanges were created. These bodies took on the task of settling conflicts between workers and entrepreneurs. To coordinate the work of individual departments, from the summer of 1916, special defense conferences began to be created, their composition was determined by the State Duma and approved by the emperor. The tasks of the new bodies included: to demand from private enterprises the acceptance of military orders (mainly before others) and reports on their implementation; remove directors and managers state and private enterprises; audit trade and industrial enterprises. all kinds. In the autumn of 1916, in parallel with the state-industrial bodies, general organizations began to be created, united in the Union of Zemstvos and Cities (Zemgor) in order to provide assistance to the wounded (organization of hospitals, supply of medicines), distribution of orders to small enterprises. The trusts and syndicates operating in the industry exerted a strong influence on the economy. policy: they rejected the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to introduce a profit tax, they subjugated the activities of the central military-industrial complex, individual military-industrial complex and Zemgor. In November 1916, a resolution was adopted on the introduction of a surplus appraisal, established by authorized special meetings or a zemstvo council. . The opposition bourgeoisie begins to actively penetrate the military-industrial complex, the general organization, and the "progressive bloc" in the Duma is becoming more active.