Zemstvo and city self-government in Russia in the post-reform period (1861–1890) and the counter-reform period (1890–1917). City self-government in the post-reform period Local self-government bodies in the post-reform period were called

THEORY AND HISTORY OF LAW AND THE STATE

Zakharov Alexander Kamoevich

Postgraduate Student, Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law, Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

(tel.: 89034515010)

Legal status of city self-government bodies in the Russian Empire in the post-reform period

annotation

The article provides a legal analysis of the first legislative act regulating local government during the reforms of Alexander II.

In article is conducted legal analysis of the first legislative act adjusted local management at the period of the reforms Alexander II.

Key words: local self-government, city reform, City Duma. Keywords: local home rule, town reform, civil duma.

An important milestone in the history of the development of local

Russia's self-government was the urban reform. On June 16, 1870, the City Statute was approved. This was the first legislative act that clearly stated the independence of the actions of public self-government bodies. And although the term "self-government" has not yet been used, but in Article 5 of the said provision it was established that the city public administration, within the limits of the power granted to it, acts independently. The city position provided the city public administration with care for the city economy and landscaping.

For this purpose, institutions of city public administration were created: city election meetings, city duma, city government. All voters were divided into three categories (curia) and entered into the general list in descending order of taxes and fees paid. Then the list was divided into three categories of voters, each of which paid 1/3 of the total amount of city fees. All ranks elected an equal number of vowels, which was a socially unequal principle and ensured the advantage of large taxpayers. So, in Moscow, one vowel was chosen by 8 voters of the first category, 38 voters

second category and 298 voters of the third category. Administrative functions were provided to the City Duma, while the Council was the executive body acting within the framework assigned to it by the Duma. Members of the Council were elected by the Duma and did not need to be approved by the administration, and could be removed from office and transferred to the court by a decision of the Duma. The mayor was also elected by the Duma, but was confirmed in office, depending on the rank of the city, either by the governor or by the minister of the interior. The mayor not only headed the city council, but also was the chairman of the city duma.

It should be noted that city local governments (as well as zemstvo bodies) were not included in the system of state institutions and were not formally subordinate to local government officials. However, the state apparatus, represented by the Minister of the Interior and the governors, had sufficient powers to control and influence their activities to a certain extent. In particular, a serious deviation from the principle of independence of self-government bodies was the procedure for the approval by governors of elected officials - chairmen of city councils.

As noted above, city self-government institutions were in charge exclusively

THEORY AND HISTORY OF LAW AND THE STATE by the affairs of the local economy: improvement, maintenance of roads, public education, medicine, "care" for the development of trade and industry, public charity and others. City self-government bodies carried out their activities on the principle of self-financing, for which they were endowed with the right to establish local taxes. They independently resolved the issues of selection and training of their employees, determined the management structure. At the same time, local self-government bodies experienced strong pressure from the state apparatus. Local and central bodies of state power sent various orders and circulars to the zemstvos in order to limit and constrain the independence of their activities. All-class representative institutions created in the course of bourgeois reforms did little to change the established tradition, because their organizers divided the entire population into curias and categories, which made it possible to plan in advance the number of electors and regulate their ratio.

But even in such a truncated form, the new local governments contributed to the formation of the socio-political and cultural life of Russia, helped the commercial and industrial development of Russian cities, gave rise to hopes in society for wider limits of independence and independence of public bodies from administrative power.

However, these hopes were not destined to come true. After the assassination attempt on Emperor Alexander II, as a result of which, as is known, he was killed, the era of counter-reforms began, into which local governments could not help but be drawn in, especially since the activities of local governments gradually began to acquire political overtones. And if the concept of the so-called "social theory" (self-government is formed by the population itself and independently) was put at the heart of the first City Regulation, then the idea of ​​​​the "state theory" of self-government, which considers local self-government as the lower level of government, is at the heart of the City Regulation of 1892, carried out by representatives of local communities. At the same time, a significant strengthening of the role of class principles in the activities of self-government bodies was envisaged.

townspeople. The tax qualification was replaced by the property one. The following began to enjoy the right to participate in city elections: 1) owners or lifelong owners of real estate located within the city and assessed for the collection of a fee in favor of the city; 2) owners of commercial and industrial establishments. In other words, the new law proceeded from the fundamental principles of the new government course: to weaken the elective principle in the organization of public institutions, to limit their autonomy and independence from the administrative authorities, to strengthen the position of the nobility in public administration.

It was embodied and set to weaken, if possible, the prevailing significance of the representative principle, to limit the principle of electiveness of public administration bodies. If, in accordance with Art. 39 of the Regulations, as a result of the elections, the vowels were staffed by less than 2/3, then the powers of the vowels of the former Duma were automatically extended for a new four-year term, and the positions of the head and members of the uprava were replaced "as directed by the government."

The possibility of appointment to leadership positions was also provided for in the event of non-approval of the elected persons by the administration. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the mayor, temporarily replacing him and the city secretary, were listed as being in the public service. Thus, the position of the leadership of public administration bodies, dependent on the administration, was strengthened. The independence of city dumas was actually reduced to nothing. If previously the governor had the right to supervise only the illegality of the actions of city dumas, i.e., the observance of formal requirements established by law, now they also have the right to oversee their "correctness", which in essence meant the right of unlimited interference in the affairs of city public administration.

It is significant that the wording included in the City Regulations of 1870 that "the city public administration acts independently within the limits of the power granted to it" (Article 5) has no longer found a place in the new version of the Regulations. Since the law proceeded from the principles underlying the just approved reform of zemstvo institutions, the Ministry of the Interior, which introduced the corresponding draft, considered itself guaranteed from serious criticism. However, on a number of fundamentally important issues

SOCIETY AND LAW 2011 No. 4 (36)

the ministry took the line of a more significant infringement on the independence of city self-government bodies in comparison with zemstvo institutions. So, if, according to the law on zemstvo institutions (Articles 87, 94), the governor was given the right only to stop the enforcement of the decisions of the zemstvo assembly, and they could only be changed or canceled with the sanction of the State Council or the Committee of Ministers, then according to Art. 69 of the City Regulations, such powers were granted entirely to the Minister of the Interior. Moreover, the bodies of city public administration were deprived of the opportunity that belonged to them under the law of 1870 to appeal against the actions of the administration. The same kind of deviation from the procedure adopted for zemstvo institutions was also observed in the question of the appointment by the administration of persons to leading positions in local public institutions. In accordance with the new zemstvo regulation (Article 419), in the event that the governor or the Minister of Internal Affairs did not approve the persons elected by the chairmen, as well as members of the uprava, the zemstvo assembly was to hold new elections, and only in case of repeated non-approval, these positions were filled by persons

THEORY AND HISTORY OF LAW AND THE STATE appointed by the administrative authorities. According to Art. 96 of the City Regulations, in the event of failure to approve the head and members of the council elected to the post, the governor could, at his own discretion, either call new elections, or immediately replace the indicated posts by appointment.

Thus, the government has taken steps to restrict access to power (in any form) of the poor and poor. The counter-reforms not only significantly curtailed the independence of local self-government, but also reduced the number of potential voters by three or four times. As a result, the measures of the government, rightly identified in the literature as the period of counter-reforms (1890-1892), threw back the structure of local self-government in Russia far back.

in the period from 1990 to 1995.

With the adoption in 1993 of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, which secured the right of the population to exercise local self-government, a real process of reforming it began in the country. Now we can say with certainty that we have created this institution of people's power in its main features. At the federal level and practically in all subjects of the Federation, there is a legislative framework that establishes the status and legal regime of self-government. The territories of local communities have been determined, the system of municipalities has been specified. In fact, the structuring of local self-government bodies has been completed

Old Russian msu. LSG as an independent phenomenon of social life and an institution of civil society originated in ancient times. In ancient Russia, the general contours of LSG, its foundations, forms, signs, and some parameters of relations with the central government were determined.

Veche was the top of the people's power and in its functions was the highest state body. The history of the development of LSG in Russia in the 15th - the first half of the 17th century. They are divided into 3 (conditional) periods: 1) “feedings” (that is, management through governors and volosts); 2) zemstvo and provincial administration (self-government); 3) provincial administration in combination with traditional local self-government. Absolutism. Late 17th - early 18th century. Peter 1 carried out reforms in the field of LSG, aimed at strengthening the centralization of the local state apparatus, class corporatism, and the elimination of the old administrative-territorial division of the country.

There was a type of administrative-police state. Under Catherine II, the governor-general was at the head of the province as the sovereign's governor, endowed with powers to oversee all local government and the court. A significant part of management affairs was transferred to orders of public charity, the composition of which was elected. MSU in the second half of the 19th century. By this period, Russia had a very strong tradition of developing self-government. In essence, these were predominantly patriarchal and estate forms of self-government. The Peasant Reform of 1861 marked a new stage in the development of LSG. It provided for, among other things, the organization of peasant self-government at the level of the volost and village. Zemstvo reform is one of the most important events in the history of Russia in the 19th century. In fact, in all spheres of their activity, from the issuance of regulations and ending with their implementation, zemstvo self-government bodies did not enjoy independence and were subject to strict guardianship by the administration. Therefore, the proclaimed independence of zemstvo institutions was exclusively declarative. MSU at the beginning of the 20th century. By 1917, a developed system of LSG was formed, consisting of the administration of peasant communities and volosts, the administration of zemstvos, cities and counties, the administration of the nobility and petty-bourgeois estates. After the February Revolution of 1917, one of the first decisions of the interim government was the creation of a special meeting on the reform of LSG and self-government . Which LSG functions included such areas of activity as providing legal assistance to the population, managing school affairs, and the police. A reform aimed at decentralization and democratization of local government was carried out, but was not completed. MSU in the Soviet period. After the October Revolution of 1917, all local power belonged to the soviets and their executive committees, which were part of a single system of state authorities. After the October Revolution of 1917, the principle of the unity of the system of Soviets as bodies of state power from top to bottom was put at the basis of the organization of power, the ISU was rejected. The idea of ​​a local MSU was returned in the late 1980s in connection with the reform of state power in the country. Powers were delimited between local councils and administrations, judicial and some other guarantees of LSG were introduced.

22FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"SIBERIAN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE"

Branch of FGOU VPO SibAGS in Tomsk

TEST

in the discipline "History of public administration in Russia"

on this topic "Formation of zemstvo public administration in post-reform Russia"

Performed: Karataeva E.A. specialty "State and municipal management",

extramural studies,

_____________________

Supervisor: Khalfina Yu.L.

Candidate of History, Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities and Natural Sciences of the branch of the Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education SibAGS in Tomsk

_____________________

Introduction… 3

The formation of zemstvo public administration

in post-reform Russia……………………….…………….……….4

Conclusion… 14

References… 15

Introduction

In the second half of the XIX century. A series of transformations was carried out in Russia, which went down in history under the name of "great reforms". The abolition of serfdom, the emergence of zemstvo self-government, urban reform, the liberalization of education and legal proceedings, and other serious innovations meant the improvement of mechanisms for adapting to qualitative changes in internal and external conditions. The world was entering an era of domination by industrialized states, and lagging behind in this regard could have the most undesirable consequences for Russia.

The establishment of zemstvos is, in fact, one of the brightest pages in the post-reform history of Russia, when the abolition of serfdom revealed the weakness of the existing management system, which was formed on the basis of serfdom, was formed only from the nobility and was single-class. The emergence of zemstvo administration was due to the general causes of the reforms of the 60-70s: the pressure of the social movement, the need to liberalize and rationalize the tsarist administration, which launched the local economy to a critical state, improvement, the state of medical care, public education, food supply, roads, etc.

Formation of zemstvo public administration in post-reform Russia

1. Prerequisites for the development of zemstvos

The reform of state power took place in Russia more than once. In the seventies of the XVIII century, Catherine II, having suppressed the Pugachev rebellion, hastened to crown the building of Peter the Great's reforms by introducing a uniform and rather effective system of local government. In the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment, she abandoned the attempt to rule everything from the capital. The provincial reform carried out in 1775 led to a significant decentralization of power. A significant part of the cases passed into the competence of local authorities. This measure justified itself: Catherine's provinces and districts, in general, survived until the 30s of the 20th century, largely thanks to the zemstvos.

The prerequisites for the development of the system of local self-government arose during a period of great social rupture, in the conditions of a deep socio-economic and political crisis in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. The steady development of capitalism forced the government to abolish serfdom. After February 19, 1861, about 23 million serfs found themselves at liberty. Previously, landowners were in charge of their affairs. On this basis, the former administration was built. Under the new conditions, it was not possible to manage the free peasants, endowed with land, through the former feudal lords. New principles were needed for organizing the peasants who had gone free, a different mechanism for managing local affairs. In all European countries, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was accompanied by the introduction of the population into the system of local government. Russia was no exception.

2. Preparations for Zemstvo reform

In connection with the intensive development of commodity-money relations by the middle of the XIX century. the infrastructure of society became so complicated that the former administrative apparatus was no longer able to manage it. As a result, entire branches of the national economy fell out of the sphere of management.

The most astute statesmen already then understood the essence of the events that were taking place. They knew that in all European countries the transition from feudalism to capitalism was accompanied by the involvement of the population in local government. However, this idea met with a lot of opposition from officials of the administrative apparatus: they did not want to share power with anyone.

In March 1859, a special commission created under the Ministry of the Interior came to the conclusion that it was necessary to transfer the conduct of local affairs to elected institutions. The tsar's order was issued to begin the development of just such a law.

However, even after the tsar's decree, the work on the bill was slow and slow. Commissions were convened on this issue, their chairmen came and went, time passed, and there was no end to disagreements at the top. The main point of controversy turned out to be the very line of demarcation that separated the economic affairs of provinces and districts from political, national issues. Until the very last moment, no one could say with certainty what final form the Zemstvo law would take. In the end, Alexander II demanded that the drafting of the law be completed by early 1864. This instruction was carried out, and on January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions."

3. Beginning of work of zemstvos

Under the new law, local government was built on an elective basis from all sectors of society. The basis for the election of these bodies was the principle of property qualification. The degree of participation in affairs should be proportional to the degree of participation in interests. And to determine the greater or lesser degree of participation of each in the economic interests of the county, there was no other visible sign, like the amount of property owned in the county by one or another person.

A broader circle of residents was involved in resolving issues of the local economy: representatives of the nobility and bourgeois landowners, the commercial, industrial and rural bourgeoisie. This circumstance made local government more flexible, contributed to the development of capitalist entrepreneurship, and opened up new ways for the growth of the capitalist way of life. To elect the county zemstvo assembly, the population of the county was divided into three curia: the first included the landowners of the county, the second - the owners of real estate in the city and the third - the peasants.

A fundamentally distinguishing feature of the Zemstvos was the elective composition in the person of vowels, who embodied a new category of managers.

Elections of vowels from each curia were held separately. The congress of representatives from the first curia was attended by large and medium-sized landowners who had at least 200 acres of land or other real estate worth at least 15,000 rubles and citizens who had an annual income of 6,000 rubles. The small landowners, who had less than 1/20 of the full qualification, chose representatives from among themselves. Their number was determined by dividing the total value of the property by the value of the full qualification.

House owners, manufacturers and factory owners, merchants and other townspeople who owned merchant certificates or industrial and commercial establishments with an annual income of 6,000 rubles took part in the work of the congress from the second curia. This also included owners of immovable property worth over 4000 rubles, and in small towns - from 500 rubles.

The elections of vowels from the peasants were multi-stage: rural societies sent their representatives to the volost meeting, where they elected electors, and from among them they chose the established number of vowels of the county zemstvo assembly. Most of all, the peasants were poorly versed in the essence of the Zemstvo reform, and they were not very interested in it. In such an environment, landlords, clergy, and philistines often took the vowels from the peasants. "Regulations" allowed the peasants to elect vowels from other estates.

As a result of the first elections of uyezd zemstvos, held in 1865-1867, the faction of landlords in the uyezd zemstvos turned out to be the most significant. Even stronger positions were occupied by the nobles in the provincial zemstvos. Of course, the most prosperous, economically wealthy part of them, the envoys of the rural bourgeoisie, also passed from the peasants to the zemstvos.

Local chiefs of provinces, vice-governors, members of provincial boards, provincial and district prosecutors, solicitors, and local police officers could not be vowels. They, also members of courts, officials of local state chambers, county treasuries, persons of clergy could not be members of councils, which embodied the democratic principle of incompatibility in zemstvos of elected and administrative positions. Only the managers of the local chamber of state property and the specific office could be present in the provincial zemstvo assembly.

The intelligentsia played a prominent role in the daily work of zemstvo institutions. She performed the functions of employees. This stratum increased from year to year and in time reached an impressive size, far exceeding the number of elected zemstvo officials. During the period of maximum development of zemstvo activities, on average, there were up to 50 employees for each vowel: statisticians, engineers and technicians, secretaries, accountants, heads of departments, teachers, doctors, veterinarians, agronomists, insurance agents, etc. They occupied a prominent place in practical economic and cultural sphere of zemstvo institutions.

After the election of vowels, most often in the fall, county zemstvo assemblies met. Usually they were chaired by the district marshals of the nobility. The meetings were held openly, and anyone who wished to listen to the speeches of the speakers could be present in the hall. At the very first meeting, the county councilors elected provincial councilors from among themselves: from 6 county councilors - one provincial one. The provincial zemstvo assemblies included the leaders of the nobility and chairmen of the councils of all counties, as well as 2-3 officials from state and specific estates. Provincial assemblies were convened once a year, most often in December, but extraordinary assemblies could also be convened. The meetings were chaired by the marshal of the nobility. The term of office of county and provincial assemblies according to the "Regulations" was three years.

In 1864, according to the results of the first elections, the nobles accounted for 42.4%, the peasants - 38% among the public district assemblies. In the provincial assemblies, the nobles made up 74.2% in 1865-1867, and then more than four-fifths, and merchants and peasants - only 10% each. And the district and provincial marshals of the nobility presided over the zemstvo assemblies.

According to the “Regulations” of 1864, the zemstvos were supposed to deal with the “benefits and needs” of the provinces and counties. Along with industry, trade, and supply, the Zemstvos were actively and fruitfully engaged in public education, health care, agronomy, veterinary medicine, statistics, and so on. The zemstvo was given the right to take all legal measures to fulfill its assigned functions, to submit information to the higher government through the provincial authorities about local economic needs, the needs of the province, county, and to petition on these issues. Zemstvo institutions received the status of a legal entity, the right to own real estate and other property, capital, conclude contracts, assume obligations, file civil claims, answer in civil courts in their property cases, etc. In the sphere of entrusted cases, zemstvos acted independently within the province and county. They were forbidden to leave the circle of affairs determined by the king, to interfere in the affairs, actions of state, class, public bodies. The law established a clear line for the zemstvos, called the "demarcation" line, which separated the political sphere from the "benefits and needs" of the provinces and districts. Zemstvos were strictly forbidden to cross it. The first was in charge of the governors and their assistants, the second - zemstvo assemblies and councils. This division of powers was strictly enforced.

But even under conditions of strict regulation of activities, zemstvo activities covered many aspects of local life and brought noticeable benefits to the population. All researchers are unanimous that the most significant achievements of the zemstvos were in the field of public education. The organization of the economic, trade, and industrial spheres was also activated and expanded, which had a positive effect on the formation of the zemstvo budget. Zemstvos contributed to the adaptation of landlord and peasant farms to the demands of the post-reform market, organized agricultural exhibitions, experimental stations, created artels of handicraftsmen, agricultural schools, promoted the development of agronomic and veterinary assistance, agricultural credit, mutual insurance against fire and pests of agricultural premises, crops, livestock, property ; thanks to zemstvo guardianship, all local communication routes, the maintenance of roads, bridges, and the performance of such natural and ancient zemstvo duties as road, underwater, postal, apartment and lodging, etc. were improved. Specialized bureaus adjusted zemstvo statistics, which streamlined the difficult sphere of local government.

A prominent place in the activities of zemstvos was occupied by health care. Thanks to the energetic efforts of the zemstvos, the number of doctors increased markedly, the network of pharmacies expanded, and paramedical and medical advanced training courses were organized. It was then that medicine penetrated the peasant milieu and became more or less commonplace in rural life.

In a peculiar way, it was difficult to resolve the issue of sources of funds for zemstvo activities. The authorities did not give them a penny. It provided for zemstvo self-financing, established separate zemstvo dues and in-kind duties in addition to state taxes and duties, and limited their amount relative to state taxes - more than 60%.

In accordance with the rules for compiling zemstvo budgets, the revenue part was formed on the basis of zemstvo taxation of the population that owned land, industrial, commercial establishments, and other real estate. Fees were provided for those passing and passing along zemstvo roads, bridges, crossings; income from various exhibitions, zemstvo banks and loans, insurance companies. Fees, their amount established zemstvo assemblies. An attempt to establish them by councils was suppressed. Natural duties were gradually reduced (improvement, maintenance of country and other roads, bridges, postal chase, etc.), which were replaced by monetary ones. The peasants' lands were taxed twice as high as the landowners' lands.

Approximately half of the expenses were obligatory: salaries to the chairman, members of councils, office expenses, the maintenance of world courts, justice, presences on peasant affairs, tax payments to the imperial and local budgets, etc. The so-called optional expenses went to zemstvo medicine (8%), people's education (5%) and other activities, including charity. Small, hard-earned funds limited the Zemstvo administration, which experienced a constant financial deficit. The authorities ignored the Zemstvos' repeated appeals for financial support.

Nevertheless, despite the above difficulties, the principles of self-government were a favorable factor in the activity of the zemstvos. The zemstvos themselves formed the governing bodies, developed the management structure, determined the main directions of their activities, selected and trained specialists, and so on. Paradoxically, the self-government of the zemstvos was provided not only by law, but also by the very “demarcation” line that was established by the government. It was obligatory not only for the Zemstvo, but also for the bureaucracy. In those areas that were defined for the zemstvos, they acted quite independently.

And, finally, the high functional vital activity of the zemstvos was explained by the high professionalism of the personnel. The zemstvo had a staff of permanent workers. In total, by 1912, there were about 150 thousand zemstvo employees and persons paid by zemstvos. These were employees, teachers, doctors, agronomists, insurance agents, statisticians, engineers, technicians, etc. Most of them had a decent education, professional skills , a fairly high social position, which she cherished and confirmed with her daily work.

One of the results of the Zemstvo reform was the emergence of a new type of service and category of manager. The pre-reform local service was royal, state, one-class with the corresponding social nature, did not already meet the objective needs of social progress, the interests of many estates, alienated them from management, preserved estate disunity, adversely affected local activities, the state of the economy, society as a whole, inhibited the increase the role of regions in the state system, reflected the extinction of the nobility.

The main features of the zemstvo service and the manager were not only polysomstvo, civil character, but also connection with the lower classes of society, serving the people, first of all, the many millions of peasants freed from serfdom, appropriate social orientation, disinterestedness, selflessness, ascetic enthusiasm, etc. there were mostly humane, enlightened, patriotic people who believed in the creative, creative forces of the people. A new, zemstvo stratum of the Russian intelligentsia was formed, the role and influence of which increased in public administration.

Zemstvo self-government bodies existed in Russia from 1864 to 1918. The history of zemstvos is interesting for a number of reasons - and as an example of viable social activity in an authoritarian system: and as a selfless, and largely successful attempt to equip the Russian province, the "outback". Zemstvos became one of the symbols of the post-reform era (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries) - a bright, dynamic time that brought Russia closer to Europe.

Naturally, having seized power in the country, the Bolsheviks found it impossible to exist next to the soviets of any self-government bodies. Already in 1918, the zemstvos - both conservative and liberal - were destroyed, their funds were seized in favor of the soviets, and schools and hospitals were declared state-owned.

Conclusion

Among the great reforms carried out in Russia during the reign of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolayevich in the 60-70s. 19th century Zemstvo reform occupies an important place. In essence, it laid the foundation for local self-government in Russia. In this control work, the main stages in the formation of zemstvo public administration in post-reform Russia were presented. The prerequisites for the emergence of zemstvos and the period of preparation for the zemstvo reform are highlighted. It also describes the main obstacles that the emerging system of local self-government in Russia had to face. But even under the conditions of strict regulation of their activities, strict bureaucratic guardianship on the part of the government, zemstvo institutions left a deep mark on Russian history.

Over the course of more than 50 years of their existence, the Russian zemstvos have done tremendous work to improve the lives of the many millions of Russian peasants and the economic life in the countryside. They attracted tens of thousands of people from the people to social activities and local self-government.

The historical significance of the zemstvos lies in the fact that they clearly showed that broad local self-government does not at all contradict the presence of supreme Tsarist power in the country, and can only be protected by a strong and just monarchy.

Bibliography

1. History of public administration in Russia. Textbook. Rep. ed. V.G. Ignatov. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2002. - 544 p.

2. History of public administration in Russia. Textbook. Under total Ed. R.G. Pikhoya. M.: RAGS, 2001.-384 p.; 2002. - 608 p.

3. Kulikov V.I. History of public administration in Russia. Textbook for Wednesdays. prof. education. M., 2001. - 272 p.

The course and features of Russian modernization

The main directions of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the XIX century.

Ideological and political currents and organizations in the second half of the 19th century.

The course and features of Russian modernization in the post-reform period.

Modernization in the 60s - 90s of the XIX century.

Theme VI. Russia on the path of the bourgeois

Tests

1. What did M.M. Speransky propose in his reform project?

a) introduce the system of a constitutional monarchy, give the peasants the right to acquire movable and immovable property;

c) introduce the system of a constitutional republic, free the peasants without land;

d) introduce universal suffrage, create a bicameral parliament.

2. What political transformations were carried out in Russia during the reign of Alexander I?

a) the first constitution in Russia was adopted;

b) the State Duma was created as the main legislative body, consisting of deputies of all estates;

c) the State Council was created and the ministries were reorganized;

d) a system of separation of powers into independent executive, legislative and judicial branches has been created.

3. How did the position of the state peasants change as a result of the administrative reform of P.D. Kisel-ev (1837 - 1841)?

a) they became legally free farmers;

b) they fell under the power of the landowners;

c) they moved into the category of monastic peasants;

d) they have become serfs.

4. What enterprises in Russia in the first half of the XIX century. gave the largest number of products in terms of value?

a) state-owned enterprises;

b) patrimonial manufactories of landlords;

c) small industry, peasant handicrafts;

d) large plants and factories.

5. Determine the main directions of the internal political course of Nicholas I.

a) progressive liberal reforms concerning the rights of estates, including the peasantry; democratization of the socio-political, economic and cultural life of society;

b) cautious reforms of higher and local government, which in content are concessions to the "spirit of the times";

c) strengthening the police-bureaucratic apparatus; creation of a system of comprehensive state guardianship over the socio-political, economic and cultural life of the country;

d) the abolition of serfdom, the bourgeois reforms of the court, education, and local self-government.

______________________________________________________________

Historians-materialists consider the reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century. the time of the replacement of feudalism by capitalism. In their opinion, the transformations were carried out late, half-heartedly, without taking into account the interests of the majority of the country's population. Subsequently, this led to revolutionary events in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

Liberal historians are generally positive about the reforms of the second half of the 19th century. At the same time, they point to the high efficiency of the serf economic system in Russia in the middle of the 19th century. and they speak first of all about the political reasons for the abolition of serfdom. They also note the ill-conceived and violent nature of the reforms, the unpreparedness for them of the bulk of the population of Russia.

According to the modernization concept in the middle of the nineteenth century. Russia was going through another stage of modernization. The specificity of Russian modernization processes was the coexistence of elements of industrial and traditional societies. Socio-economic transformations were not supported by political reforms, which led to the subsequent revolutionary explosion in Russia.

Proceeding from the civilizational approach, Russia developed in a special way and had the opportunity to move to socialism, bypassing the period of capitalist development.

Thus, we can identify a number of reasons that led to the reforms: 1) the overdue extreme importance of Russia's transition from the traditional, agrarian type of society to the industrial one, the elimination of the emerging lag behind the advanced countries of Western Europe; 2) the presence of crisis phenomena in the feudal sector of the economy, which suffered from a shortage of land, low agriculture, which led to frequent crop failures and the insecurity of the peasants with bread; 3) the potential danger of a social explosion that existed in the country; 4) the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ drew a line under the attempts of the ruling elite to avoid or postpone the overdue modernization of the agrarian society.

Reform 1861 ᴦ. carried out from above. Within the bureaucratic stratum, three main groups can be distinguished in relation to the reform and participation in it: 1) opponents of the reforms, who tried to drown it in bureaucratic red tape, and when it became inevitable, tried to carry it out in the interests of the landowners; 2) executive bureaucrats who are accustomed to conscientiously do what the emperor wants; 3) liberal bureaucracy - active and staunch supporters of the reform.

To prepare the reform at the beginning of 1857 ᴦ. A secret committee was formed. The nobles were asked to form provincial committees for the provinces to discuss the conditions for the liberation of the peasants. In his reforms, Alexander II could rely only on representatives of the highest bureaucracy, who were reputed to be supporters of reforms. A prominent role in the preparation of the reforms was played by the younger brother of the tsar, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich (Minister of the Navy), N.A. Milyutin (comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs), D.A. Milyutin (Minister of War). Οʜᴎ opposed the conservative-minded counts P.A. Shuvalov, V.N. Panin and most of the provincial representatives who came to St. Petersburg. During the discussion of proposals to abolish serfdom, they were supported by only 3-4 out of 46 governors.

Among the supporters of the reforms, there were several points of view on the abolition of serfdom: 1) most of the nobility wanted to declare the peasants free, with civil and property rights, but deprived of any allotment, while leaving all the land in the ownership and full disposal of private owners (Ostsee version); 2) release the peasants with land, but with a significantly reduced allotment; 3) to keep the existing allotment for the peasants; 4) not to make the peasants the owners of the land, but to precisely ration the allotments that were in the use of the peasants, and the duties that they bore in favor of the landlords; 5) the project of the Tver marshal of the nobility A.M. Unkovsky - to provide the peasants with manor, arable, pasture and meadow land in an amount sufficient for a peasant family.

"Manifesto February 19, 1861 ᴦ." and the "General Regulations on Peasants Who Have Emerged from Serfdom" proclaimed the abolition of serfdom and the general conditions for this abolition. In February 1861 ᴦ. All serfs were given personal freedom. The landowners were obliged to allocate a piece of land to the peasant for perpetual permanent use. The size of the allotments was determined by a voluntary agreement between the landowner and the former serfs. If such an agreement could not be reached, then the mediators determined the size of the allotments on the basis of the norms developed for each locality, taking into account soil fertility and population density (the lowest and highest sizes of peasant plots were established, from 1 to 7 acres; 1 state tithe equal to 1.09 ha). Excess land was called segments and seized. The land could become the property of the peasants only if they entered into a redemption deal with the landowner. Οʜᴎ paid 20% of the cost of the allotment, and the state paid the rest for the peasants. It was a redemption loan, which the peasants had to repay within 49 years with annual redemption payments of 6% per annum from the amount of the loan. Such a complex solution to the land question could not satisfy the peasants. Οʜᴎ hoped to get land free of charge and in large quantities, but their hopes were not justified.

The peasants constituted a rural society (communities), the self-governing body of which was the rural assembly. They resolved various economic issues, elected elders. The statutory charter, which determined the size of allotments and duties, was signed by the landowner with the rural society, and not with individual peasants. The way out of the community even with the redeemed land was very difficult, the community held back the stratification of the peasants. Thus the government artificially preserved the social and property homogeneity of the peasantry.

Reform 1861 ᴦ. was the result of a compromise, a complex reconciliation of the interests of the state, landlords and peasants. After it, the peasant lack of land was preserved, the peasants were burdened with redemption payments. This gave rise to new conflicts and contradictions both between peasants and landowners, and within society. Nevertheless, the abolition of serfdom created objective prerequisites for the industrial modernization of Russia. As a result, landlords began to take the path of modernization. A prosperous stratum began to emerge among the peasants and engaged in commodity production. Numerous peasantry (35% of the country's population were serfs) joined the ranks of the workers and thus contributed to industrial progress in Russia.

Of great importance for the development of the country were other reforms carried out in the 60s and 70s of the nineteenth century.

The most important of these from a political point of view was the reform that introduced new self-government bodies in rural areas and in cities ( zemstvo reform). In 1864 ᴦ. "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" were approved. Zemstvos were elected bodies, elections were held on the basis of a property qualification, by curia. Zemstvos, elected for 3 years, included administrative bodies (assemblies) and executive bodies (uprava). The competence of the zemstvos included issues of education, medical care, social charity, landscaping, and food supply to the districts. Political issues were not within the scope of the zemstvo bodies. The central and local authorities - the Minister of the Interior, the governors - had the right to reject any decision of the Zemstvo Assembly. Zemstvos did not have the right to an all-Russian association, the publicity of zemstvo activities was limited. Zemstvo institutions were created in 34 provinces and in the Region of the Don Army. Their creation did not extend to non-Russian outskirts.

The next step in changing local government was urban reform. In 1870 ᴦ. city ​​regulations were approved, according to which all-class self-government bodies - city dumas - were created in 509 cities of Russia. Οʜᴎ were elected for 4 years, elections took place on the basis of property qualification. The right to elect and be elected to the city duma was granted only to taxpayers. The mayor, elected by the Duma, was approved by the governor or the Minister of the Interior. In 1892 ᴦ. self-government was introduced in 621 cities out of 707. City dumas were engaged in the improvement of cities, the development of health care and public education. Like the zemstvos, the dumas acted under the control of government officials, who could suspend any decision of the city self-government body.

No less important was judicial reform 1864 ᴦ. It was the most consistent, innovative and technically successful of all the reforms of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century. The structure of the pre-reform judicial system included a huge number of instances that could conduct legal proceedings for decades. In the trial, the individual principle dominated, which is characterized by the secrecy and writing of the process. The prosecutors were "recoverers of punishment" and at the same time "defenders of innocence." The trial was closed, the public was absent. The court had no right to examine the evidence directly. On the basis of the submitted written documents, which contained an "extract" of the testimony obtained during the investigation, the court pronounced a verdict. The court did not see the witnesses and did not interrogate them; there was no defense of the defendants.

At the same time, the pre-reform courts were class-based: there were special courts for peasants, townspeople, nobles. Judicial functions were also performed by administrative bodies - provincial boards, police bodies. The educational qualification for judges was not established. Even at the highest level (for example, in the Senate) in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. only a few had special legal training. This led to the fact that the real power in the courts belonged to the secretaries. Their skill in conducting paperwork and knowledge of the procedure made everyone who applied to the court completely dependent on them. The failure of the court and justice led to an unusually low prestige of justice, legal nihilism, disrespect for the law in all social circles. The need to change the state-legal system is long overdue, its reform should have contributed to the modernization of the country. Well-known lawyers were involved in the development of judicial reform - D.A. Rovinsky, S.I. Zarudny, N.A. Butskovsky and others.

Judicial reform 1864 ᴦ. replaced the old class court with a new one based on the principles of bourgeois law: the equality of all citizens before the law and the independence of the court from the authorities, the irremovability of judges, the publicity of the court and the competitiveness of the trial with the participation of the prosecutor and the lawyer. Three types of courts were established: the magistrate's court, the district court, and the judicial chamber. The Magistrate's Court considered petty misdemeanors and civil suits, the damage for which did not exceed 500 rubles. The district court tried criminal and civil offenses with the participation of jurors. The Judicial Chamber considered cases of state and political crimes. The highest court was the Senate, which could overturn the decision of the courts. The judicial reform was a decisive step towards the creation of elementary norms of law and order in the country.

The classless court with elected magistrates (the lowest instance) formed a new citizenship for Russia. This was especially clearly demonstrated by the jury, in which society was not a listener, but a participant in the process. It is characteristic that the composition of the jury as a whole reflected the social composition of the population. In 1883 ᴦ. among the jurors were: nobles and officials - 15%, petty bourgeois - 18%, peasants - 57%. The introduction of a public, non-estate court limited the autocracy.

The defeat in the Crimean War urgently required the reorganization of the army and equipping it with new weapons. In 1861 ᴦ. D.A. Milyutin was appointed Minister of War, who led the transformation in the army. Military reform extended over 15 years. In the course of it, the army was re-equipped: a steam navy was created, artillery was updated, smooth-bore weapons were replaced with rifled ones, railways were built to the borders. The system of military educational institutions was reformed: military gymnasiums, cadet schools, military academies were created. The country was divided into 15 military districts, and military control was centralized. New regulations appeared in the army, focusing on the combat and physical training of soldiers. At the same time, the core of the reform was the decree of January 1, 1874 ᴦ. about military duty. Instead of recruitment kits, universal military service was introduced for males who had reached the age of 20 at the time of conscription. The term of service in the army was reduced: the 25-year recruitment period was replaced in the ground forces by 6 years, and in the naval forces by 7 years of service. Drilling and corporal punishment left the military service, but literacy was introduced. Access to officer schools was opened not only to nobles, but also to representatives of other classes. As a result of these measures, the state was able to have a mobile cadre army.

Education reform provided the opportunity to study at school for children of all classes. In classical gymnasiums, more attention was paid to the humanities, and in real ones, to natural subjects. University charter 1863 ᴦ. restored the autonomy and democracy of higher education. Universities had 4 basic faculties: history and philology, law, medicine, and physics and mathematics. Education in them (as well as in gymnasiums) was paid. Educational reforms allowed the country to have an intellectual elite, but there was still no universal education.

Reformed financial sphere. In 1860 ᴦ. The State Bank was established. The only manager of the budget was the Minister of Finance. For general information, a breakdown of income and expenses began to be published. The farming system in the wine trade, which generated huge corruption, was replaced by an excise system (excise tax is a tax on producers of alcoholic beverages and tobacco). Since the mid-60s, commercial banks began to open.

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, reforms of the 60s - 70s of the XIX century. contributed to the creation of conditions for the industrial modernization of Russia. But they did not affect the autocratic power, retained the remnants of the feudal system.

One of the disputable questions remains the question of the reasons that determined the transition from the policy of reforms to the policy of counter-reforms. In 1881, after the assassination of Alexander II by Narodnaya Volya, Alexander III came to power, proclaiming a course of counter-reforms. Already March 8, 1881 ᴦ. At a meeting of the Council of Ministers, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev sharply criticized the draft of the so-called “Constitution of M.T. Russia's constitution will perish. April 29, 1881 ᴦ. The coronation manifesto was published, which proclaimed the inviolability of autocratic power and marked the beginning of the transition to counter-reforms. August 14, 1881 ᴦ. By decree of the emperor, it was allowed to declare a partial or complete state of emergency and bring those guilty of political crimes to the tribunal.

In the same 1881 ᴦ. The Ministry of the Interior introduced temporary regulations on the press. According to them, after the third warning, the publication was suspended, and then the next issue had to be submitted to censorship. At the first request, the publisher was obliged to disclose the pseudonyms of the authors of the articles. The results of the rules on the press were not long in coming - two years after their introduction, not a single radical journal remained in Russia.

The pinnacle of the counter-reform policy was the introduction in 1889 of ᴦ. the institute of zemstvo chiefs, who were the absolute owners of the village and could cancel any decision of the village meeting. Zemstvo chiefs were appointed by governors from the nobility and were accountable only to them. The following year, new rules appeared on elections to zemstvo councils, which nullified peasant representation in zemstvos.

The counter-reforms also affected the education system. In 1884 ᴦ. the autonomy of universities was destroyed, a special inspection was created to control students' classes. In addition, the government took a number of measures to Russify the national outskirts. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, the Russian Empire, unlike European countries, where state power developed in the direction of parliamentarism, was an autocratic state.

In modern historiography, tsarism is characterized as a regime that was forced to begin the modernization of the country, but was unable to cope with its consequences. The counter-reformers "forgot" that the country can no longer return to the same point of historical development that it left 20 years ago. The desire of the autocratic power to keep the political system intact triumphed, which, however, did not prevent the country from continuing the economic modernization.

Two trends were observed in the development of agriculture. On the one hand, its productivity and marketability grew, and the gross harvest of grain crops increased. Characteristic was the specialization of individual regions in the cultivation of agricultural products.

On the other hand, the peasant reform did not eliminate the backwardness of the agrarian sector. Only a small proportion of landowner farms was reorganized on the basis of market relations and commodity production. Many landowners went bankrupt and sold their estates. The majority continued to use semi-serf farming methods - they leased part of the land to the peasants for working off or half of the harvest.

After the abolition of serfdom, the processes of differentiation within the peasantry intensified (dividing into the rural proletariat - farm laborers and the rural bourgeoisie - kulaks). At the same time, the existence of the peasant community held back the natural processes of the social development of the village. The peasant was not the owner of the land, but only its user. The kulaks could only use the land additionally rented from the landowner, and often found themselves in the commercial or industrial sector.

The bulk of the peasants had a semi-subsistence economy, used outdated equipment and methods of work. More than a quarter of the peasant allotments, with an average yield, could not feed their families. This forced them to look for additional earnings or rent land from the landowners on unfavorable terms, since the community did not allow them to sell the allotment and leave for the city. The surplus of working hands that were not used in the countryside, even with low labor productivity, amounted to more than 5 million people.

Redemption payments remained a heavy burden. Most rural societies were unable to pay them. The arrears increased every year. Crop failures 1868, 1873, 1880 and especially 1891 ᴦ. further worsened the situation of the peasants, led to mass mortality and the ruin of small and medium-sized farms.

Things were much better in the industrial sector of the economy. New industrial centers appeared - Donbass (coal production), Krivoy Rog - metal, Baku and Grozny - oil. New branches of industry arose in the country - machine-building, oil production, etc. The first place was occupied by the textile industry, which to a large extent satisfied the needs of the market. In the post-reform period, the industrial revolution was basically completed, machine production won, which contributed to the growth of industry. From 1861 ᴦ. to 1895 ᴦ. iron smelting increased from 20 million to 87 million poods, steel and iron production - from 12 to 62 million poods, oil production - from 0.6 million to 384 million poods. If in the first post-reform decade (1861 - 1870) the growth of enterprises amounted to only 8% of its number, then over the past decade it has increased by 40% of the total number. The growth of the rail network has been staggering. In 1861 ᴦ. the length of the railway network was 1488 versts, and by 1895 ᴦ. - 34088 versts (verst - 1080 m.). The volume of industrial production in the post-reform period increased 7 times.

The concepts of economic development of the country, proposed by M.Kh. Reitern, N.Kh. Bunge, I.A. Vyshnegradsky, S.Yu. Witte, who succeeded each other as Minister of Finance in the post-reform decades, played an important role in the implementation of government policy.

The main goal pursued by M.Kh. Reitern (in 1862 - 1878 - Minister of Finance, in 1881 - 1886 - Chairman of the Committee of Ministers) was to improve the financial situation of the country. This was hindered by the low productivity of the Russian economy and the consequences of the Crimean War. To solve the main task - the development of the country's productive forces and the rise of the ruble - it was extremely important to carry out extensive railway construction, which would contribute to the development of grain exports. The basis for financial stabilization, M.Kh. Reitern believed, should be the consistent implementation of those begun in 1861 ᴦ. reforms to "remove the decayed and ingrained abuses". The result of this policy was the growth of Russian railways from 1865 to 1875. for 12 thousand versts. The export of grain from Russia, which before the reform was about 70 million poods a year, increased in 1861-1865. up to 76 million pounds, in 1876 - 1880 gᴦ. - up to 257 million pounds annually. Due to the significant growth of Russian exports, by the mid-70s of the nineteenth century. the budget deficit was eliminated and the position of the ruble became strong. With the support of the state, private banks and other financial institutions were created, which also contributed to the revitalization of economic life. Only for 1866 - 1870. 104 joint-stock companies were established with a capital of 700 million rubles. (for the period 1851 - 1855 - only 18 companies with a capital of 16 million rubles).

N.H. Bunge (in 1881 - 1886 - Minister of Finance, in 1887 - 1895 - Chairman of the Committee of Ministers), as a liberal reformer, attached great importance to social policy issues. The economic process was understood by him as a proportional growth of all cells and organs of the national economic organism. He pursued a protectionist course, balancing expenses with income through strict and reasonable economy; changed the tax system through a more equitable distribution of taxes. Redemption payments from peasants for 12 million rubles were canceled, peasant taxes for 53 million rubles were removed, however, part of these funds returned back through the drinking tax. Factory legislation appeared (1882), which somewhat limited arbitrariness and difficult working conditions (children under 12 were forbidden to work in factories, the working day of children from 12 to 15 years old should not exceed 8 hours, wages should have been paid at least 1-2 once a month, while it was forbidden to pay workers with bread, goods, coupons and other items instead of money).

I.A. Vyshnegradsky (Minister of Finance in 1888 - 1892) acted selectively, from the standpoint of narrow "financialism", concentrating efforts in those areas where the return was the fastest and most tangible. He strengthened the tax pressure, which undermined the well-being of the broad masses of the peasantry and resulted in an increase in arrears, disasters in lean years, but allowed from 1888 ᴦ. get rid of the government budget deficit. In order to increase the gold reserves, activate the trade balance, imports of raw materials and equipment were limited to the limit, and protectionism intensified. At the same time, the export of grain was forced. “We won’t eat ourselves, but we will take them out,” said I.A. Vyshnegradsky. Such a policy could not guarantee long-term economic prosperity, which was demonstrated by the famine in Russia in 1891 ᴦ., which was the result of a crop failure in the country.

Under S.Yu. Witte (Minister of Communications in 1892 ᴦ., Finance - from 1892 ᴦ., Chairman of the Committee of Ministers from 1903 ᴦ., Council of Ministers - in 1905 - 1906 ᴦ.), state intervention in the economy expanded significantly: in addition to customs tariff activity in the field of foreign trade and legal support for entrepreneurial activity, the state supported certain groups of entrepreneurs (primarily those associated with the highest government circles), softened conflicts between them; supported some areas of industry (mining and metallurgical industry, distillation, railway construction), actively developed the state economy. S.Yu. Witte carried out a monetary reform. Following the leading powers, Russia in 1897 ᴦ. switched to gold currency. The ruble became stable and freely convertible. The way was opened for the influx of foreign capital, which S.Yu. Witte called the only way to bring industry to an extremely important level. Among the internal sources of Witte's industrialization were the redemption payments of peasants, profits from the export of grain, the state wine monopoly, and indirect taxation. An integral element of the industrial policy of S.Yu. Witte was industrial protectionism. In the field of social reform, under him the working day was limited (up to 11.5 hours), compensation was introduced for victims of accidents and the position of an elected headman.

SAHIM STATE PEDAGOGICAL INSTITUTE 4 - or<лт имени В.В. КУЙБЫШЕВА

As a manuscript

BURDINA GALINA YURIEVNA

CITY SELF-GOVERNMENT BODIES IN THE MIDDLE VOLGA REGION IN THE POST-REFORM PERIOD

Specialty 07.00.02 - national history

dissertations for the degree of candidate of historical sciences

Samara I993

The work was carried out at the Department of National History of the Samara State Pedagogical Institute named after V.V. Kuibyshev.

Scientific adviser - doctor of historical sciences, professor

RtGTEasin

Official opponents - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

P.S.Kabitov - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor D.Ts.Artamonova

Leading organization - Samara State Economic Institute

Zadeta will be held O&^&U/uA 1993 in

at a meeting of the specialized council K-113.17.01 of the Samara State Pedagogical Institute. V.V. Kuibyshev / st. I. Tolstoy, 47, room. 39/.

The dissertation can be found in the library of the Samara State Pedagogical Institute.

Address: 443043, Samara, st. M. Gorky, 65/67, building I.

Scientific secretary of the specialized

Council K-II3.I7.0I Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor V.N. Shulgin

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Relevance of the topic. An integral part, largely determining the features of the development of Russian cities of the 19th century, was the formation, development and noticeable influence on them of the system of local self-government.

In the second half of the 19th century, there was an increase in the role of Gorokhov in the economic, socio-political and cultural life of the state. In the post-reform policy of the Russian government, the objective essence of which consisted in adapting to the country's bourgeois development, issues related to the reform of urban administration and the management of the municipal economy occupied an important place.

This found its expression in the implementation of urban reform. Its aim was to transform the system of local government on the basis of self-government. Most of the economic functions at the local level passed into the hands of the city government - dumas and councils. The electoral system has undergone significant changes. The former southern administration was replaced in the cities by a more progressive public, all-estate.

Scientific understanding of the experience of urban self-government bodies is important as an indicator of the manifestation of the active participation of the main masses of the urban population - merchants, clerks, philistines - in the sphere of management and influence on the socio-economic development of cities.

The search for ways to reform modern society urgently requires an appeal not only to Western, but also to our own experience of local government. In the drafts of the new Russian constitution, a prominent place is given to the role and principles of self-government. Under these conditions, the historical experience of independent work of city governments is of particular both theoretical and practical interest.

The object of scientific research in the dissertation is the self-government bodies of the provincial cities of the Middle Volga region in the post-reform period.

Chronological and territorial framework of the study. The dissertation examines the activities of city governments in the 70-80s. 19th century It was a time of intense bourgeois transformation

developments in the country that affected most of the cities of the empire. It was during this period that the formation and development of the mechanism of city self-government took place, the main activity was traced and the first results of the work of public administration bodies were summed up. From 1892 the city counter-reform followed. ■

In the history of city self-government, a new stage is beginning, which has independent historical significance.

The territorial framework of the study covers the region of the Middle Volga, which includes three provinces - Samara, Penza, Simbirsk. The choice of the area was due to several factors: the unity of historical traditions, the similarity of natural conditions and the main occupations of the population. The main of them was agriculture, which was reflected in the specifics of the development of the Middle Volga provincial cities. Unlike most industrial cities in the central regions, the latter in the post-reform period developed mainly as agro-trade centers. This has found its direct reflection in the activities of public self-government bodies.

Historiography of the problem. Despite the great scientific significance, the dissertation topic remains poorly understood. The main reason for this lies in the obviously insufficient attention of researchers to the history of provincial cities, including provincial ones, which occupied a prominent place in the socio-economic development of the country.

in the works of the pre-October period, devoted to the study of the problems of urban reform, the main attention was paid to the history of the development of the City Regulations of 1870, and scientific criticism of its content. The main discussions were held around two issues that largely determined the nature of the activities of the created public self-government bodies.

The first of the two questions included the study of the content of the City Regulations and the principles for the formation of new city government bodies. Most historians have recognized that the high property requirement underlying the electoral system ensured the concentration of power in city councils in the hands of the largest merchants and sub-owners.

Golovachev A.A. Ten years of reforms. I86I-I87I. SPb., 1872. P. 228: Semyonov D.D. City government. Essays and experiences. SPb., 1901. S. 43.

The question of the limits of the competence of public administration bodies is inextricably linked with the question of the nature and role of the apparatus of local self-government in the state system. Its study was devoted to the works of historians, statesmen and lawyers. Their main ideas were reflected in the socio-economic and state theories of self-government.

Supporters of the socio-economic theory believed that self-government bodies, along with state tasks, should have a wide range of independent local affairs.

The second theoretical direction was based on the full recognition of their subordination to state affairs and tasks^. at the beginning of the 20th century, N.I. Lazarevsky introduced a fundamentally new provision into the development of state theory. It concerned the recognition of self-government bodies of the right to independence in actions within the framework of the competence established by government power^.

Historians of urban reform, approaching the problem from the point of view of the practical significance of the current legislation, sharply criticized the issue of the independence and autonomy of public administration. The law limited the competence of the dua and management of economic functions. But even within these limits, city self-government was not immune from the interference of administrative authorities.

Thus, the state theory found its actual confirmation in the studies of historians. At the same time, it was convincingly proved that the principle of independence of self-government bodies was repeatedly violated in practice. This was a significant brake on their activities.

^ Vasilchikov A. About self-government. Comparative review of Russian and foreign zemstvo and public institutions. SPb., 1870. T. I.

Gradovsky A.D. The beginning of Russian state law. SPb., 1904. T. IX. Ch. Sh; Korkunov N.M. Russian state law. SPb., 1909. T. P. and others.

^Lazarevsky N.I. Lectures on Russian state law. SPb., 1910. T. P. Ch. I. S. 50,

for example: Schrader G.I. City and urban situation in 1870 // History of Russia in the 19th century. T. 1U. Dep. P.M.B.g. C * 2 h-1 26 "

Paying great attention to the study of the legal aspects of the problem, domestic historians have taken a number of steps to directly study the experience of self-government in individual cities*. In these works, the first attempts are made to study the mechanism and results of elections to public administration bodies, and the main areas of their work are analyzed - budgetary law, municipal economy, public education, and medical and sanitary business.

In the Middle Volga cities, there were no special studies on the history of local self-government, although the topic was partially considered in works of a general nature or in works on other topics^.

Thus, the beginning of the study of the problem was laid by pre-revolutionary historiography. The greatest success was achieved in the development of the theory of self-government, the practical results of the new mechanism remained insufficiently studied.

In the post-October period, the main attention of researchers was focused on the study of socio-political processes. The internal policy of the Russian state, in particular, the problem of local government, has not actually been studied for a long time. The only work devoted to the history of city government was A. Velikhov's book, published in the late 1920s^. Paying more detailed attention than his predecessors to the issues of urban economy and improvement, the author classifies these concepts for the first time. It also summarizes and systematizes data on the methods of urban management that underlay the activities of self-government bodies._

^Schepkin U.U. Experiments in the study of social economy and urban management. M., 1882-1884. Ch. 1-2; Schreider G.I. Our city public administration. Sketches, essays and notes. SPb., 1902.T.I; Porokhovshchikov A. Materials for the upcoming activities of the new city government in Moscow. Y., 1872; Semyonov D.D. City self-government ... / section "St. Petersburg city public administration". S. 245-387/; Ozerov I*Kh. Large cities, their tasks and means of management. U., 1906.

2Alabin P.V. Twenty-fifth anniversary of Samara as a provincial city. /Historical and statistical essay/. Samara, 1877; He is. Three-century anniversary of the city of Samara. Samara, I887f Martynov P. City of Simbirsk for 250 years of its existence. Simbirsk, 1898; Pulcherov I.A. Chronological index of events in the city of Penza from 1552 to 1887. // Commemorative book of the Penza province for 1889 Penza. pp. 305-33i; ■ Brief historical outline of the Penza region// Penza diocese. Historical and statistical description. Penza, 1907.

^ Velikhov A. The basis of the urban economy. M, 1928.

Only in the 1950s and 1960s was there a turning point in the study of the problem. There are studies on the history of a number of cities. Certain successes have been achieved in the study of the economic, financial, cultural and educational spheres of activity of public administration bodies *. There are works that analyze the social composition of the vowels of urban duy^.

A new, more intensive stage in the study of the history of pre-revolutionary city government - the 80s - early 90s ..

A notable milestone in the historiography of the problem was the monograph by V.A.

dovoy->. To date, it is the first generalizing work on the history of the preparation and implementation of urban reform by the government. The monograph examines a wide range of issues: the social composition of voters in forty cities of the empire; the struggle around the law on elections to dumas in the 80s of the XIX century; relationship between city governments and the provincial administration. The researcher paid special attention to the analysis of the organizational structure and competence of city institutions. The author emphasizes that the government sought to narrow the scope of the activities of dumas and councils, reducing them to the solution of purely economic issues. Meanwhile, the paper cites facts that testify that the members of the city self-government showed a certain independence not only within the framework of their powers, but also beyond them. In the chapter "Dumas and power" questions of participation of public councils of a number of cities in the socio-political life of the country^ are considered.

"■ Zlatoustovsky B.V. Moscow city self-government during the period of bourgeois reforms of the 60s of the XIX century: Dis ... cand. 4. I., 1954. P. 461-516: Pavlyuchenko E.A. Moscow city administration in the 70-80s of the XIX century: Dis... candidate of historical sciences. M., 1956; Luppov SL. Urban management and urban economy // Essays on the history of Leningrad. T. P. M.-L., 1957. S. 810-841; Koryagin B. G. Carrying out bourgeois reforms in the 60-70s of the 19th century in Western Siberia: Dis... candidate of historical sciences, Tomsk, 1965.

^Orlovsky M.A. From the history of the city administration of Yekaterinburg in the early 70s. 19th century // Questions of the history of the Urals. Issue. I. Sverdlovsk. )