Federal agency railway transport

Ural State University Communication Paths

Department: History and Political Science

Discipline: “History of Russia”

"Counter-reforms Alexandra III»

Ekaterinburg

1. Introduction

2. Personality of Alexander III

3. New policy Emperor Alexander III

4. Counter-reforms of Alexander III

4.1 Education

4.2 Printing

4.4 Peasantry

4.5 Zemstvo and city counter-reforms

Conclusion

List of used literature

1. Introduction

When considering the government course of Alexander III (1881 - 1894), it should be borne in mind that it went down in history as a period of “counter-reforms”. Traditionally, his internal political course is usually assessed as conservative.

The concept of counter-reform has broad meaning and includes not only reactionary laws, but also the entire political course of the Russian autocracy.

In the essay, I intend to reveal the personality of the emperor, outline his political course, tasks, as well as the practical implementation of his goals.

After reading the essay, you will understand how controversial his reign was, and you will imagine big picture life of that time.

2. Personality of Alexander III

In 1845, on February 26, in the Anichkov Palace in St. Petersburg, Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich, the future Emperor Alexander II, gave birth to his third child and second son. The boy was named Alexander in honor of his father and, like his grandfather, Emperor Nicholas I, by the will of fate he was destined to become an all-Russian autocrat.

The personality of Alexander III personified both the power and misery of his reign. Huge and clumsy, with rude manners, Gulliver in physical terms, Alexander III was a Lilliputian in mental terms. He unexpectedly became the heir to the throne, at a mature age (20 years old), after the death of his older brother Nicholas. Therefore, he was not prepared for the royal destiny, and he himself did not like to study and remained a dropout for the rest of his life.

Alexander III's lack of intelligence and education was in harmony with rudeness. Here are his characteristic resolutions and remarks, documented: “I hope that this brute will be forced to speak,” about the arrested Narodnaya Volya member G.P. Isaev; “a brute or a madman,” - about the artist V.V. Vereshchagin, etc.

Even when he was Tsarevich, Alexander “cursed with nasty words” an officer from the Swedish nobles. He demanded an apology, announcing that if he did not receive it, he would shoot himself. The officer committed suicide. “Alexander II was very angry with his son and ordered him to follow the officer’s coffin all the way to the grave,” but even this did not benefit the prince. Having become king, he constantly demonstrated his temper. What is it worth, for example, his decree to appoint V.D. Martynov, manager of the royal stables, to the Senate! The senators were alarmed and began to grumble, but the Tsar lordly stopped their grumbling. “Well,” E.M. Feoktistov consoled himself melancholy, “it could have been worse. Caligula sent his horse to the Senate, and now only the groom is sent to the Senate. Still progress!”

Facts were found recorded in the diaries of the tsar himself: “They partied until 5 o’clock in the morning” - repeatedly. The same was evidenced by the officer of the imperial guard V.P. Obninsky, close to the court, and, most importantly, the chief drinking companion of Alexander III, General P.A. Cherevin, according to whose stories the tsar and the general drank cognac together, as they say, “from the throat” in the palace chambers, after which the autocrat of all Rus', lying on the floor, “squealed with pleasure” and “strove to catch the legs” of his household. Probably, V. O. Klyuchevsky, who taught history to the Tsar’s son George in 1893-1894, also knew about this weakness. IN notebook The historian says: “a monarch who cannot stand on his own two feet cannot be an autocrat.” Attempts by today's admirers of Alexander III to portray him as a teetotaler are based solely on the loyal conviction that His Imperial Majesty could not have been a drunkard. “He,” A. N. Bokhanov writes with the categoricalness of an eyewitness (which can only amuse the reader), “sometimes drank a glass or two of vodka, liqueur or liqueur, but he was never drunk in his life.”

Of course, Alexander III - despite the odiousness of so many of his important qualities - cannot be denied certain merits. In contrast to his autocratic predecessors, he was an exemplary family man; had no (unlike his father, grandfather, uncles and brothers) inclination towards amorous adventures; and did not like intriguers and sycophants; He worked so hard with documents that his daughter Olga, in a fit of love, called her father “the most hardworking man on the whole Earth.” “The first billionaire of the universe,” as M. N. Pokrovsky put it, Alexander III was modest in everyday life, surprising his ministers, for example, by sparingly wearing patched pants. Purely from everyday life, judging by the memoirs of S. Yu. Witte, as well as the royal relatives, doctors and priests, Alexander III and mentally He meant something, maintaining an average level of common sense, although he was devoid of statesmanship. This omission of nature was made up for by the tsar’s political mentor, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (“Russian Pope,” as he was called in Europe) Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev.

Alexander III was an exemplary family man. It so happened that from Nicholas he “inherited” not only the title of Tsarevich, but also a bride. Back in September 1864, Nicholas proposed to the daughter of the Danish King Christian IX, Princess Louise Sophia Frederica Dagmara. When, at the beginning of April 1865, in Nice, Nikolai became seriously ill and it became clear that he was dying, not only his relatives from Russia came to his elder brother, but also his fiancée Dagmar. Both reigning dynasties were interested in strengthening family ties. However, a feeling unexpectedly intervened in the plans of the heir to the Russian throne: he fell in love with his mother’s maid of honor, Princess Maria Meshcherskaya. It was romantic love at a distance, with fleeting meetings and notes that lovers exchanged through another maid of honor - Princess Alexandra Zhukovskaya (daughter of the poet V.A. Zhukovsky).

Understanding his duty to Dagmara's relatives and family, shortly before the new year, 1866, Alexander made a promise to his mother to marry the Danish princess. But there were also serious hesitations: in May 1866, the Tsarevich even wanted to renounce the throne, just to save Masha Meshcherskaya, about which he had an extremely difficult conversation with his father. The emperor harshly ordered his son to marry and forget about his love. In June 1866, Alexander and Dagmara were engaged in Copenhagen, and on October 28 they became husband and wife. Having converted to Orthodoxy, Dagmara took the name Maria Fedorovna. Alexander would hear about his “dear Darling” (as he called Masha Meshcherskaya in his diary) twice more: in 1867, when she got married, and a year later, when Masha died during childbirth. Then she was only 24 years old...

Alexander Alexandrovich never forgot his first love, but he also experienced the warmest feelings for his wife, “dear Mini,” and she responded to him with sincere devotion. The young people lived away from the noisy courtyard, in the Anichkov Palace, and appeared together everywhere, even at military parades. At the same time, Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna never sought to stand out, influence the course of state affairs, or impose her will on her husband. She was the ideal wife, and he was ideal husband and father. They had six children: sons - future emperor Nicholas II (1868), Alexander (1869 – 1870), George (1871 – 1902), Mikhail (1878, killed, like Nicholas, in 1918), daughters Ksenia (1875 – 1960) and Olga (1882 – 1960). Alexander Alexandrovich very quickly took on the role of father of the family, and he liked this role. He wrote to Pobedonostsev: “The birth of children is the most joyful moment of life, and it is impossible to describe it, because it is a completely special feeling.”

In everyday life he was unpretentious, distinguished by common sense, was firm in character and valued firmness in others.

3. New policy of the emperor - Alexander III

A new course for liberal historians of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. received the name “counter-reforms”, i.e. transformations directed against the Great Reforms of the 1860s - 1870s, designed to return to the pre-reform order. Alexander III vs Alexander II? No, everything was more complicated. There was an adjustment to the government course; it acquired features that were not characteristic of Nikolaev Russia of the 2nd quarter of the XIX century, nor the era of Alexander II. Liberal public figure V. A. Maklanov noted: “I cannot imagine that anyone in these 80-90s. could seriously desire not only the restoration of serfdom, but also a return to the old courts, to the public places of the times of the “Inspector General” and “ Dead souls"etc. It has sunk into eternity."

If we try to briefly describe the internal political activities of Emperor Alexander III, we should, of course, start with the government’s primary task - the fight against the revolution. Already on August 14, 1881, the “Regulation on measures to protect state peace and public safety” was adopted, which allowed in any province and region of Russia to temporarily (for a period of 3 years) introduce a strengthened or state of emergency, which gave the local administration the broadest powers, including the rights the ban on periodicals and the administrative exile of “suspicious” and “harmful” persons, the possibility of removing representatives of elected self-government bodies from exercising their powers. According to this Regulation, as well as the “Rules on localities declared to be under martial law” (dated June 8, 1892), even civilians could fall under the jurisdiction of military courts. The government transferred those areas that were or, more often, could become hotbeds of “turmoil” or revolution, to enhanced security, a state of emergency and martial law.

The repressive apparatus was strengthened. Within the Department of Internal Affairs, back in last year During the reign of Alexander II, a police department was formed, which, in addition to issues of law enforcement itself, was in charge of issues of political investigation, domestic and foreign agents, open and secret supervision of citizens and controlled the course of political inquiries. The importance of this body is emphasized by the fact that its directors V.K. Pleve and P.N. Durnovo later themselves headed the Ministry of Internal Affairs (early 1900s). The police began to work proactively, without waiting for “unreliable” citizens to start throwing bombs. The secret investigative (later “security”) departments created locally worked even more quickly. They monitored the activities of suspicious individuals and organizations, censored mail, and infiltrated their agents into social movement. There was practically none public organization in Russia, including right-wing and monarchist ones, in which the secret police would not have its agents.

This tragic event led to the fact that the line of reform was broken. ascended the throne Alexander III (1881 - 1894). He went down in history as “ Peacemaker”, because was opposed to resolving international conflicts by military means. In internal affairs he was deeply conservative.

On March 8, 1881, the Council of Ministers rejected the Loris-Melikov constitution. On April 29, 1881, the manifesto “ On the inviolability of autocracy”.

August 14, 1881. was approved “Regulations on measures to protect state security and public peace”, according to which any locality could be declared in a state of emergency, and each of its residents could be arrested, exiled without trial for five years, and brought before a military court. The local administration received the right to close educational institutions, trade and industrial enterprises, suspend the activities of zemstvos and city dumas, close the press. Published as temporary, for a period of three years, this Regulation was renewed at the end of each three-year period and was in effect until 1917. Counter-reforms of 1882 - 1893. negated much of the positive that the reforms of 1863 - 1874 gave. They limited the freedom of the press, the independence of local government and its democracy.

Counter-reforms of the late 19th century. actually eliminated the path of democratic transformations opened by the reform.

Russia in the post-reform period

Reforms of the 60s - 70s. gave impetus development of capitalism in Russia. The development of the free labor market led to rapid growth in the number of the working class in the second half of the 19th century. It doubled to 51% of the country's population.

Gained room for development entrepreneurship, which was expressed in the development of private industry, trade, railway construction, growth and improvement of cities. Railways played a big role in the development of the domestic market, the development of new regions of the country, and connected the vast expanses of Russia into a single economic complex.

One of the characteristic signs of post-reform Russia: development of commercial structures. Thus, in 1846, the first joint-stock St. Petersburg private commercial bank arose. By the beginning of 1881, there were 33 joint-stock commercial banks in Russia with a capital of 97 million rubles. Joint-stock insurance companies and stock exchanges began to be created.

Industry in Russia was developed unevenly both in areas of concentration and in industries, and was characterized by high degree concentration of industrial production. At the end of the 70s. in Russia there were about 4.5% of large enterprises, producing 55% of all industrial output. The number of large enterprises with 1,000 or more workers doubled from 1866 to 1890, the number of workers in them tripled, and the amount of production quadrupled.

Attractive for foreign capital there were cheap labor, rich raw materials, high profits. The total amount of foreign investment in the Russian economy in 1887 - 1913. amounted to 1,783 million rubles, and their impact on the country’s economy cannot be characterized unambiguously. On the one hand, they really accelerated the capitalist development of Russia. But the price for this was various economic concessions: favorable tariffs, production and sales conditions. However, foreign capital failed to adapt the Russian economy to its interests: the country became neither a colony nor a semi-colony. This spoke about the level of development of capitalism and the viability of domestic entrepreneurship.

In the post-reform period, the development of capitalism intensifies agriculture, but the pace of development of capitalism was hampered by numerous feudal remnants.

In Russia formed two main types Russian capitalists. The first was represented by monopolists based on family business. Subsequently it turned into joint stock company with a narrow circle of owners of large shares.

These were hereditary entrepreneurs. Greatest development This type of bourgeois entrepreneur received among the Moscow commercial and industrial bourgeoisie.

These were the Prokhorovs, Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, the “cotton barons” of the Knops, the Vogau clan, etc. Already in the name of the company, its family character. Partnership “I. Konovalov and his son” specialized, for example, in the production of linen and clothing products, and the Moscow partnership “Krestovnikov Brothers” owned spinning and chemical production, “Partnership A.I. Abrikosov and Sons” was associated with candy production.

Another type of Russian big capital represented a rather narrow layer financial oligarchy, mainly from St. Petersburg. This layer was formed from among the senior employees of banking and industrial monopolies. One can name such financiers as I.E. Adadurov - Chairman of the Board of the Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank, K.L. Wakhter - Chairman of the Board of the St. Petersburg Private Bank, E.E. Mendez is the chairman of the board of Russian for foreign trade bank, etc.

There was another large group of capitalists, mainly provincial, which acted mainly in the field of trade.

During the industrial revolution in the late 80s. XIX century, the main classes of capitalist society were formed in Russia - working class and big industrial bourgeoisie, which pushed into the background the previously dominant representatives of merchant capital in the economy.

By the beginning of the 20th century. out of 125.6 million people. The population of the country, the number of large commercial and industrial bourgeoisie amounted to 1.5 million people. It accounted for 70% of the profits of large enterprises, which was evidence of the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie. However, her political role in society was not great enough.

Under Russian absolutism, commercial and industrial entrepreneurship depended on government agencies. Over the long evolution of capitalism in Russia, they managed to adapt to each other. The Russian bourgeoisie was satisfied with the fact that their enterprises were provided with government orders; due to the colonial policy of tsarism, they had the opportunity to obtain sales markets, cheap raw materials, cheap labor and large profits. Tsarism, with its powerful repressive apparatus, also protected the bourgeoisie from the rapidly growing revolutionary spirit of the Russian proletariat and peasantry. This led to the belated consolidation of the bourgeoisie into a class, its awareness of its historical role, a certain political conservatism and political inertia.

Despite the fact that at the end of the 19th century. Russia remained predominantly a country agricultural(out of 125.6 million population, 93.7 million, i.e. 75% were employed in agriculture), the capitalist development of the country was gaining momentum. By the beginning of the 80s. ended in Russia industrial revolution, expressed in the formation of the industrial and technical base of Russian capitalism.

The state has embarked on the path of clearly defined foreign economic protectionism. This focus economic policy Tsarism strengthened even more in the 90s. XIX century This was largely facilitated by the activities of Sergei Yulievich Witte.

Russia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries.

At the beginning of the twentieth century. There were significant changes in the country's economy. Russia was entering a stage monopoly capitalism, although the lag in terms of pace, production volumes and technical indicators compared to Western countries remained. But it says a lot about the quality of new phenomena in the Russian economy. And above all, this is the formation of industrial and banking monopolies. The first monopolies in Russia arose in late XIX V. In the 90s, during the industrial boom, and in 1900 - 1903, during the crisis, their rapid growth began. At this time, oil trusts were formed, the largest syndicates in the metallurgical (“Prodamet”) and coal (“Produgol”) industries, “Prodparovoz” and “Prodvagon” in transport engineering, in the metalworking industry — the military-industrial group of the Russian-Asian Bank.

Powerful banking monopolies have emerged. For 1908 - 1913 total number banks, together with their branches, doubled in Russia and reached 2393. The resources of all commercial banks increased 2.5 times (up to 7 billion rubles) and their active operations - up to 6 billion rubles. The basis credit system consisted of the State Bank, the Central Bank of Issue and joint-stock commercial banks, in which 70% of deposits and current accounts were concentrated in 1917. The leading role among the banking monopolies was played by the Russian-Asian and St. Petersburg international commercial banks. At the beginning of the century, the process of merging industrial and banking monopolies was actively underway.

Monopoly organizations became one of the foundations of the country's economic life.

However, in general, the conditions for the development of national industry in Russia were unfavorable, since the achieved level of development was insufficient. He did not allow Russian industry to successfully compete with industry for more than developed countries West, and this meant the absence of guarantees of stability of development. Successes were achieved more due to the regulatory role of the state, which was one of the essential elements of the commercial and industrial policy of tsarism. To ensure increased profitability, the government used lucrative government orders, monopolization of industry, high levels of exploitation, and colonial policy.

Thus, despite the attempts of the autocracy to adapt to the development of capitalism in the country, it was obvious that the contradictions that existed between tsarism and the bourgeoisie, or rather, between feudalism and capitalism, will increase.

Bourgeoisie gradually becomes the leading force in the country's economy, but the political role of the country was determined not by her, but by nobility, whose representatives occupied key positions in government bodies, owned a large land fund. Relying on the nobility, the tsar ruled Russia autocratically, concentrating all legislative and executive power in his hands.

While throughout Europe state power was developing in the direction of parliamentarism, the Russian Empire remained at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. last stronghold absolutism, and the power of the emperor was not limited by any elective structures. The inviolability of the principle of royal power was confirmed by the new Russian Emperor Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894. “Dear Nicky,” as his family called him, turned into an autocrat at the age of 26. On January 17, 1895, receiving representatives from zemstvos and cities in the Winter Palace, Nicholas II said: “I know that in lately in some zemstvo meetings the voices of people were heard, carried away by meaningless dreams about the participation of zemstvo representatives in affairs internal management“Let everyone know that, devoting all my strength to the good of the people, I will protect the principles of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my late, unforgettable Parent protected it.”

All domestic politics Nicholas II’s goal was not to compromise the basic autocratic principles and to preserve the existing order. But in the conditions of the growing socio-political crisis in Russia, it was no longer possible to relieve social tension by such methods.

1. Law on Zemstvo Chiefs
2. Judicial reforms
3. Education reform
4. Censorship reforms
5. Agrarian question
6. Labor legislation
7. Results of counter-reforms

The article briefly outlines the policy of reforms of Alexander III, which were essentially counter-reforms aimed at destroying the transformations carried out by Alexander II. This policy was largely caused by the activation of various revolutionary socio-political movements and the assassination of Alexander II.

The first steps of Alexander III on the path of counter-reforms
Most of the ministers were committed to continuing the reforms begun by Alexander II. Their main opponent was Pobedonostsev, who managed to convince the new emperor that his father’s reforms brought only evil to Russia; a slow but sure movement towards eradicating the consequences of innovation is necessary. The Emperor listened to Pobedonostsev's advice. The result was royal manifesto, published at the end of April 1881. From it it became clear that Russia would follow the path of counter-reforms. Ministers who supported reforms resigned.
From September 1881, the introduction of emergency measures could be declared at any time, granting local authorities special powers, which in fact meant the possibility of declaring martial law in any territory Russian Empire.

Law on Zemstvo Chiefs
The Law on Zemstvo Chiefs (July 12, 1889) abolished the main provisions of the Judicial Charter of 1864. In all districts of the Russian Empire, new position zemstvo chiefs, combining administrative and judicial power in their hands and subordinate only to the governor and the chairman of the district assembly of the nobility. They were appointed directly by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Zemstvo chiefs had to be appointed from among the nobles, for whom there was also a qualification (higher education, long-term residence on the territory of land holdings). In essence, zemstvo chiefs exercised administrative and police control over the peasants, monitored the collection of taxes, and applied corporal punishment. According to the idea of ​​the author of the project, Count Tolstoy, an idyllic patriarchal system was to be created with a boss - the patron of his peasants. Even supporters of this opinion argued that the success of the reform would depend entirely on the personal qualities of the zemstvo leaders, on their real concern for the needs of the subject peasant population. In practice, everything turned out differently. In fact, the reform meant the return of peasant subordination to the landowners.

Zemstvo and city counter-reforms (1890-1892)
Zemstvo reform was aimed at integrating zemstvos into the centralized system state power. She was supposed to draw a sharp line between the classes and increase the influence of the nobles in the zemstvos. According to it, the number of vowels from the landowners doubled due to the reduction of the property qualification. Property qualifications increased for city residents. The peasants could not directly choose vowels, but had to first provide a list of candidates for vowels for consideration by the governor. At the same time, peasants could nominate candidates only from their own class.
According to the City Regulations it was established new order elections to city councils. Owners of large real estate received a significant advantage. All decisions of the Duma had to be approved by the governor. Accordingly, city administration also again fell under the full control of the government.

Judicial reforms
The main reform in legal proceedings was the already mentioned unification of administrative and judicial powers in the person of zemstvo chiefs. The property and educational qualifications for jurors increased. Cases of “resistance to authorities” were removed from their jurisdiction. In general, the courts fell under state and noble control.

Education reform
One of the measures to reform education was the opening of parochial schools, which was supposed to strengthen the moral state of society. The lowest level of education is the so-called. literacy schools, where teachers were not even required special education, were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod.
Reform higher education expressed in the University Charter of 1884, which actually abolished the existing freedoms and privileges of universities. University curricula, mainly for the faculties of law and philology, were drawn up by the reactionary Ministry of Education. The government itself appointed rectors and professors, tuition fees increased, and students were under special supervision.
Measures were taken to limit the education of people from non-noble classes. The government of Alexander III believed that the darker and more ignorant the people were, the easier it would be to govern them.

Censorship reforms
In 1882, new rules for the press were introduced, which increased censorship, and a number of publications were closed. Periodicals that received three warnings could be published only if they submitted materials for publication to the censor no later than 11 o'clock in the evening before the day of publication. Naturally, this was an almost impossible condition for daily newspapers. A council of four ministers had the power to completely deprive publishing rights.

Agrarian question
To the credit of Alexander III, it should be said that he took some measures to try to improve the situation of the peasants. When transferring state-owned lands for rent, priority was given to landless peasants (before that, most of these lands were leased to entrepreneurs and wealthy peasants who did not use the land directly, but only received income from them). The lease term was 12 years. Redemption payments were reduced, and the ransom itself became mandatory. The peasants' temporary obligation, which still kept them dependent, was abolished. A Peasant Bank was established to help poor peasants purchase land. However, the bank's activities did not bring significant results. Over the 10 years of the bank's existence, peasant land ownership increased with its assistance by 1%. The poll tax from peasants was first reduced and then completely abolished.

Landless peasants throughout the 19th century. made unauthorized migrations beyond the Urals. The government could not fight this and only made weak attempts to legitimize this process. However, the associated legal red tape alienated the peasantry and the process of unauthorized resettlement continued, amounting to about 40 thousand people by the end of the century. per year. Finally, in July 1889, the resettlement law was published. According to it, permission from the Minister of Internal Affairs (previously also from the Minister of State Property) was required for resettlement. To make it easier for settlers to settle in a new place, the settlers were completely exempt from taxes for the first three years, and could pay 50% of them for another three years. Cash and in-kind assistance was provided to a small extent.

Labor legislation
During the reign of Alexander III, the first attempts were made to improve the situation of workers and reduce excessive exploitation of labor. Labor of children under 12 years of age was prohibited. The maximum working time was limited to 11 and a half hours. The provisions of conclusion and termination were determined employment contracts workers with entrepreneurs. Finally, night work by women and minors was prohibited.

Results of counter-reforms
The murder of his father greatly influenced Alexander III. He was against the ongoing reforms, considering them unacceptable for the Russian autocracy. The tragedy only strengthened him in his thoughts. The reaction that began during his reign was aimed at returning power central government based on the nobility. The sprouts of freedom sown by Alexander II were trampled, and measures were taken to preserve the existing system. This, of course, significantly hampered the development of the Russian Empire. The most reactionary measures were those related to justice, education, and increased censorship.

Only measures aimed at improving the situation of workers and peasants can be considered positive. These measures did not bring significant results, but the very fact of recognition of their necessity allows us to treat the reactionary government of Alexander III with greater sympathy.

(1881-1894). His reign is called “counter-reforms”, since many of the transformations of the 1860-1870s. have been revised. This was a response to the anti-government activities of the various intelligentsia. The ruler's inner circle consisted of reactionaries: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev, Minister of Internal Affairs D.A. Tolstoy and publicist M.K. Katkov. At the same time, Alexander III led a cautious foreign policy, under him Russia did not fight with anyone, for which the emperor received the nickname “Peacemaker”. The main activities of the reaction course:

1) Zemstvo counter-reform. In 1889, zemstvo chiefs were introduced. They were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs only from local nobles and exercised administrative and police control over the peasants. They monitored order, collected taxes, and in case of offenses could put peasants under arrest and subject corporal punishment. The power of zemstvo chiefs practically restored the rights of landowners over peasants, which they had lost during the reform of 1861.

In 1890, the property qualification for elections to zemstvos was significantly increased, which significantly increased the number of landowners in them. The list of vowels from the peasants was now approved by the governor.

2) Urban counter-reform. In 1892, due to an increase in the property qualification, the number of voters decreased. Resolutions of the City Duma were sanctioned by the provincial authorities, and the number of Duma meetings was limited. Thus, city government was practically under the control of the government.

3) Judicial counter-reform. In 1887, the property and educational qualifications for jurors were increased, which increased the representation of the nobility in court. Publicity and openness were limited. Political cases were removed from jury trials.

4) Counter-reforms in education and the press. Control over universities was tightened. The University Charter of 1884 effectively abolished the autonomy of universities. The rector and professors were appointed by the government. Tuition fees have been doubled. A special inspectorate was created to supervise students.

In 1887, the so-called “circular on cooks’ children” was adopted, which did not recommend admitting children from non-noble families to the gymnasium; it was explicitly stated that it was prohibited to admit “children of coachmen, footmen, laundresses, small shopkeepers and the like” to the gymnasium.

Censorship was tightened. All radical and a number of liberal publications were closed.

Since 1881, a state of emergency was allowed to be declared in any part of the empire. Local authorities received the right to arrest “suspicious persons”, exile them without trial for up to 5 years to any locality and transfer them to a military court, close educational institutions and press organs, and suspend the activities of zemstvos.

However, the reign of Alexander III was not limited to just carrying out counter-reforms. Relief was made for the peasants and workers. All former landowner peasants were transferred to compulsory redemption; in 1881, their temporarily obligated status was abolished, and redemption payments were reduced. In 1882, the Peasant Bank was created. In 1883-1885. The poll tax from peasants was abolished.

In 1882, a law was passed prohibiting the labor of child workers (under 12 years of age). Night work for women and minors was prohibited. The maximum length of the working day was limited to 11.5 hours. Under the influence of the Morozov strike (1885), a law was passed on the introduction of factory inspection and the arbitrariness of manufacturers in collecting fines was limited. However, social tensions were not relieved.

Thus, during the period under review, there was a departure from the main goals and principles of the reforms of the 60-70s. The counter-reforms that were carried out temporarily stabilized the socio-political situation in the country. However, dissatisfaction with the course being pursued was growing in society.

Counter-reforms of Alexander III (briefly)

Counter-reforms of Alexander III (briefly)

After the assassination of Emperor Alexander II, power passes to his son Alexander III. Historians call the period of his reign “counter-reforms.” This is due to the fact that at this time many of the transformations of the former rulers were revised. The counter-reforms themselves were a response to the anti-government activities of the intelligentsia. The tsar's inner circle included such reactionaries as: publicist M.K. Katkov, D. A. Tolstoy (Minister of Internal Affairs), as well as the not unknown K.P. Pobedonostsev is the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. Along with this, Alexander the Third managed to pursue a rather cautious foreign policy. During his reign, the state did not enter into major military conflicts. For this, the people called the emperor “The Peacemaker.” Here are the main reactionary activities:

· Zemstvo counter-reform. Since 1889, so-called zemstvo chiefs have been introduced in Russia, appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among noble candidates who exercised police and administrative control over the peasants. Such power practically returned the rights of landowners that they had lost due to the reform of 1861.

· Urban counter-reform. Since 1892, the number of voters has been declining due to an increase in property qualifications, and all resolutions of the Duma were approved by the provincial authorities. The number of Duma meetings was also limited. City government, thus, was carried out by the government.

· Judicial counter-reform. Since 1887, the educational and property qualifications for jurors have increased. This was able to increase the number of nobles in the court. Openness and publicity were limited, and political cases were removed from judicial jurisdiction.

· Counter-reforms of the press and education. Control over educational institutions. The university charter of 1884 abolished all autonomy of universities. Professors and the rector himself were appointed by the government, and tuition fees were doubled. In addition, a special inspectorate was formed to supervise students.

In 1887, the “circular on cooks’ children” was adopted, prohibiting the admission of children who do not belong to the nobility. At the same time, it was openly stated that it was prohibited to admit children of shopkeepers, laundresses, footmen, coachmen, etc. to the gymnasium.

Censorship is being tightened. A number of liberal and all radical publications are closing.