Monarchy is one of the ancient forms of government. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that power over all spheres of the state belongs to one person through the right of succession to the throne. In ancient times, it was believed that the monarch was God's anointed one. However, in many cases power was obtained through not entirely peaceful procedures. Sometimes it was elections, sometimes violence, an invitation. Until the beginning of the 19th century, monarchy was the dominant form of government in all developed countries. Even today, despite the fact that the republic as a form of government is considered more progressive, this type successfully exists in many countries.

The essence of monarchy

In a word, this type government can be described as the power of one person. The right to rule the country is transferred according to the principle of succession to the throne. There are 3 systems of dynasty transmission: Salic (a woman cannot inherit the throne), Castilian (a woman can inherit the throne if there are no men in the dynasty), Austrian (preference is given to all male lines).

Research is impossible without understanding the form of state development. We must not forget that each is characterized by certain modes.

In conditions of feudal relations, the best form of government was considered estate-representative monarchy. This form represents a principle of organizing power in which socially closed groups participate in governing the state. Thanks to the division into classes, the ruling monarch could regulate conflicts that arose even among highest nobility. This greatly facilitated the resolution of many internecine issues.

Estates-representative monarchy implied the division of the country into social groups. Deputies were elected from each such class to represent one or another territory of the state. This form of government is considered the first system of government. Thus, it can be argued that the estate-representative monarchy is a composite political organization of power. This means that the power of one person was limited to a certain extent by a government agency.

Estate-representative monarchy in Russia

There were many prerequisites for the establishment of this in Rus'. This was due to the fragmentation of the state. The princes and boyars did not want to obey each other, and disagreements arose. In addition to internal reasons, there were external ones. Frequent wars led to Rus' becoming vulnerable. Given these facts, the state needed strong power.

Even under Dmitry Donskoy, the formation of an estate-representative monarchy began. However, only Ivan IV was able to officially complete this process.

The estate-representative monarchy in Russia was characterized by this governing body, which met irregularly, but resolved very significant issues in public administration.

Estates-representative monarchy in England

The establishment of this regime of government occurred from the 13th to the 15th centuries. It was characterized by the victory of parliament over the king.

For a long time, taking advantage of his position, he demanded large taxes not only from townspeople and knights, but also from the aristocracy. This caused great resentment and uprisings followed. As a result, a class-representative monarchy was established in England.

Essentially, under this regime, power still belonged to the king, however, parliament also made important decisions in the leadership of the country.

Today the monarchy is not a leader, but its great importance in history cannot be denied.

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

Property right. Things according to Russian law of the 12th century. were the subject of a number of powers of relations and obligations. Main methods of acquisition real rights were considered: capture (occupation), prescription, discovery and award. The most complex property rights are those associated with the acquisition and transfer of real estate. In the order of legal consolidation of subjective property rights, there was a transition from actual forms of land acquisition (based on seizure) to a formally outlined order, secured by letters of grant, recorded by boundary signs, etc. The highly formalized procedure for establishing property rights was already familiar to the Pskov court charter, from where it gradually penetrated into Moscow legislation of the 16th-17th centuries. The grant of land was a complex complex of legal entities. actions, including issuing a letter of complaint, drawing up a certificate, i.e. entry in the order book of certain information about the endowed person. His right to land was based on this information: a search, carried out at the request of the person allocated the land and consisting in establishing the fact of actual vacancy of the transferred land (as a factual basis for the request to receive it), taking possession, which consisted in a public measurement of the land, carried out in presence of local residents and outsiders. The distribution of land, along with the Local Order, was carried out by other bodies - the Rank Order, the Order of the Grand Palace, etc. In the act of grant, the subjective expression of will caused objective consequences - the emergence of new subjects and objects of property, for the precise adjustment of which additional, fairly formalized actions were required (registration, justification new powers, ritualized actions for the actual allocation of land) and with the help of which the new right “fit” into the system of already existing relations. Prescription (acquisitive) became a legal entity basis for possessing ownership rights, in particular to land, provided that this property was in legal possession for the period established by law: 15 years - according to the law adopted under

son of Dmitry Donskoy, Grand Duke Vasily, early 15th century; 20, 30 or 40 years - according to church laws. CS does not define total term prescription and specifically stipulates the deadlines for the redemption of ancestral property. Like the certificate of grant, prescription of ownership played an auxiliary role in establishing the legal basis for the right of ownership. If in the decrees of the early 17th century. the period of acquisitive limitation was formulated rather vaguely (“many years”), then according to the CS it is already fixed precisely. The legislative trend of the 17th century associated with the establishment of fixed limitation periods coincided with other important trends in the field of regulation of land relations; with the relegation to the background in disputes in these cases of testimony (as evidence of property rights) and the highlighting of the documentary validity of land ownership rights. Since the fact of the existence of a particular property relationship began to lose its legal validity (if it was not confirmed by relevant formal acts), the prescription changed its traditional character(prescription as duration,

commonness, fact, “vulgarity”) into the features of formalism, establishedness, artificial introduction.

Mandatory Right. Treaty in the 17th century. remained the main way of acquiring property rights to property, in particular land. The development of this form took place against the background of a gradual replacement of the complex of accompanying formalized actions (participation of witnesses when concluding an agreement) written acts (“assault”) of witnesses without their personal participation in the transaction procedure). The replacement went through several stages: at first, contract documents were signed by buyers and rumors, then sellers’ signatures began to be found in them more and more often, and finally, both the seller and the buyer began to sign the letter at the same time. The “guidance” itself was most often expressed in the fact that instead of signatures, the parties put separate notes. signs and symbols. At the same time, the ritual attributes of the contract associated with the pronunciation of definitive formulas, the presence of hearsay guarantors, etc., lost their significance. The “Manual” lost its symbolic character and turned into a simple certificate of agreement between the parties to the contract. Form of agreement. The contract document drawn up by the interested parties acquired legal force only after it was certified in official authority, which was expressed in a resolution on a charter print. State control over this procedure has increased significantly after the introduction of scribe books. In the 17th century it was practiced to draw up contract documents by area clerks, more often In total, those who received their positions “at the mercy” or “on bail.” The letters they wrote were certified by seals in the administrative chamber. Even an approved d/g created a new legal relationship only if it was factual. legality. Sometimes additional measures were required to ensure legality. legal actions not directly related to the content of the main obligation. These included, for example, a transfer note on a contract, “bondage”, transferring the obligation to a third party, drawing up a certificate, etc. The SU, in addition to contract documents securing the right to land, provided for the issuance of letters of renunciation, which were sent to the area where the lands transferred under an approved agreement. The procedure associated with the issuance of a “certificate” was an additional guarantee in establishing the fact of the legal transfer of land from the alienator to the acquirer. The legislator looked at the “certificate” as an administrative measure (providing service of the land owner) and guarantee of the financial interests of the state,

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

28. Forms of feudal land tenure inXVI- XVIIcenturies

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

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

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

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

Becoming absolute monarchy in Russia dates back to the end of the 17th century. It is characterized by the following symptoms;

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

* presence of a professional bureaucratic apparatus;

* creation of a strong standing army;

*lack of class representative bodies and institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

Transformations of the state apparatus under PeterI.

1701 - creation of the “Concilia of Ministers” of 1707-1710. - division of the country into provinces 1711 - creation of the Senate 1714 - decree on unified inheritance 1718 - creation of the Collegium 1721 - publication of the "Spiritual Regulations" 1722 - establishment of the post of Prosecutor General of the Senate 1722 - establishment of the Holy Synod 1722 - introduction of the "Table of Ranks" The management system remained largely archaic. The functions of many orders were intertwined. The highest governing body - the Boyar Duma - was formed on the basis of birth, as a result of which its efficiency was often low. The old management system was unable to cope with the extensive tasks posed Northern War which required decisiveness and efficiency. Peter believed that he alone knew what was good for the state, and resistance to his will stemmed only from unreason and laziness. To force subjects to fulfill the beneficent will of the monarch, a powerful administrative apparatus was required. in 1701, Peter I created the “Concilia of Ministers”, which took over the most important matters previously decided by the Boyar Duma. In 1711, the “k/m” was replaced by the “Governing Senate”, which became the collective head of state during the frequent absence of the tsar. In 1718, 12 collegiums were created, replacing the majority of orders. The collegiums were built on a sectoral principle. With the creation of the collegiums, the Senate retained the functions of control, the highest court and a legislative body under the monarch. In 1722, the position of Attorney General of the Senate was created to oversee the activities of the state apparatus. Along with the prosecutor's office, supervision over officials was carried out by secret agents - fiscal officers. A feature of the management system under Peter I was the possibility of the monarch's personal intervention in any issue, bypassing state bodies. In 1707-1710 The country's territory was divided into 8 provinces. The provinces were later divided into 50 provinces. The provinces were divided into districts. At the head of the province was a governor who was in charge of tax collection, justice, recruiting, etc. In connection with the creation of provinces, the previous territorial orders were eliminated.. In 1721, the “Spiritual Regulations” written by the publicist Feofan Prokopovich were published, directly subordinating the leadership church to the king. In accordance with the regulations, the Theological College was created (since 1722 - the Holy Synod). The Synod was headed by a secular official - the chief prosecutor. So the church became a state institution. Peter I sought to attract capable people to the public service, regardless of their origin. In this regard, he changed the order of service. In 1722, the “Table of Ranks” was developed. All state service was divided into three types: military, civil and court. Military ranks, in turn, were divided into guards, army and navy. The highest rank was the first (field marshal or chancellor), the lowest - the 14th. Upon receipt of the 14th rank in military service or the 8th rank in civil service, hereditary nobility was awarded. This opened the way to a career for people from the tax-paying classes and, at the same time, contributed to the replenishment of the nobility with the most capable of them. Service was compulsory and lifelong for nobles. In an effort to encourage the nobles to serve, Peter in 1714 issued a decree on single inheritance, prohibiting the splitting of noble estates when transferring by inheritance.

30. Legal status of estates in the first quarterXVIIIV.

During this period, the state strives for legal regulation of all classes: the nobility, clergy, peasants, urban population. The basis of the legal position of the nobles is the monopoly right to land ownership. The Decree (On Single Inheritance" of 1714 not only equalized the rights of the estate and patrimony, but also turned the estates into the hereditary property of the nobles. The Decree on the Poll Census of 1718 secured the right of the nobles to pay taxes. The Table of Ranks of 1722 contributed to the strengthening of the noble dictatorship. All government positions were occupied by nobles, whose service under Peter I was for life.Petrine decrees required nobles to undergo military service, starting with the rank of soldier, as well as training abroad. Only in 1762, Peter III, with the manifesto “On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility,” freed nobles from compulsory military and noble service. The consolidation of this class was facilitated by the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” of 1785, according to which the nobles had the right to use minerals found on the territory of their possessions; they were freed from personal taxes, corporal punishment and received the right to create class organizations. During the period of absolutism, the process of nationalization of the church took place. The clergy was important political force in the country. It was divided into black (monastic) and white (serving in churches). The church reform begun by Peter I did not live up to his expectations. In the first quarter of the 18th century. transformations were carried out, indicating the initial phase of secularization. Since 1722, strict rules for entering the clergy have been established. Since 1737, the mobilization of homeless clergy into the army has been carried out. In 1764, the church was deprived of all estates, diocesan bishops and monasteries were transferred to regular salaries. Thus, the feudal land ownership of the church was eliminated. Formally, exit from the clergy was open, but there were practically no people willing to change their status. The bulk of the population were feudal-dependent peasants. They were divided into landlord, state, possession and palace. The development of the economy contributed to the separation of merchants and moneylenders from among the peasantry. But the bulk of the peasants bore duties in favor of the owner in the form of corvee or quitrent. Every year the peasants sent one recruit from 20 households. In addition, they worked on the construction of cities and shipyards. In 1718, the poll tax was introduced, which eliminated such a category of the population as free and walking people. The distinction between serfs and peasants was erased. The landowners had broad powers in relation to the peasants; moreover, they disposed of them as their own property. By decree of 1767, peasants were forbidden to complain about their landowners under threat of corporal punishment and hard labor. The state was also feudally dependent. peasants. In 1721, merchants were allowed to buy villages (with peasants) and assign them to manufactories; This is how possessional peasants appeared. As a result of the secularization of church lands, state lands arose. peasants who paid rent to the state. Palace (from 1797 - appanage) peasants belonged to the imperial family. Cities developed as centers of trade and industrial production. The state, interested in overcoming the economic backwardness of the country, provided various benefits. Owners of manufactories received a particularly privileged position. The townspeople elected their own bodies of self-government - magistrates. In addition, there was a town meeting (population meeting). According to the regulations of the Chief Magistrate of 1721, the townspeople were divided into noble, regular citizens (who were divided into 2 guilds) and “vile people.” Leading positions were occupied by large merchants. Published in 1785, “The Charter on the Rights and Benefits of the Cities of the Russian Empire” divided the urban population into 6 categories: “real” city inhabitants, merchants of all 3 guilds, artisans registered in guilds, foreigners and nonresidents , registered as bourgeois, eminent townspeople, and the rest of the townspeople. Bourgeois made up the majority of the urban population and were a tax-paying class. The townspeople had their own class court and local government bodies - a general city duma. Table of ranks. On January 24, 1722, the table of ranks introduced a new classification of serving people. All the newly created positions - all with foreign names, Latin and German, except for a very few - are arranged according to a table of three parallel row: military, civil and courtier, with each divided into 14 ranks, or classes. A similar ladder with 14 levels of ranks was introduced in the navy and court service. This founding act of the reformed Russian bureaucracy put the bureaucratic hierarchy, merit and length of service, in the place of the aristocratic hierarchy of breed, pedigree book. In one of the articles attached to the table, it is emphasized with emphasis that the nobility of the family in itself, without service, means nothing, does not create any position for a person, people of a noble breed are not given any position until they show merit to the sovereign and the fatherland. The introduction of a table of ranks was one of the most important government reforms. This innovation radically undermined the importance of nobility in the civil service. Since the introduction of the table of ranks, civil servants have sought high ranks only due to personal merit, and not due to birth into a noble family. Types of ranks according to the table of ranks- military, - naval, - courtier, - civilian (civilian). “Noblemen should not be considered officers” from the 8th rank of civil service and from the 14th military rank hereditary nobility was given.

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

Civil law. The right of patrimonial redemption was retained, the period of which was reduced in 1737 from forty to three years. The provision of the Decree on Single Inheritance, concerning the indivisibility of property with the ensuing consequences for the nobles left without land, constrained the freedom to dispose of real estate. In 1782, the right of industrialists, who came from bourgeois and peasant backgrounds, to acquire populated villages was abolished, and the nobility again became the monopoly owner of populated lands. The most common types of comradely associations were simple partnerships and faith partnerships. Russian entrepreneurs entered into joint-stock companies together with foreign shareholders. The concepts of legal entity and corporate property are beginning to take shape in the law. Work agreement, previously known to Russian legislation, in the conditions of state industrial protectionism, is supplemented by a supply agreement with the customer, which, as a rule, was the state, its bodies or large private and mixed companies. Personal hiring agreement consisted of performing work around the house, on the land, in industries, workshops, factories, factories and commercial enterprises. Free will when concluding a contract was in a number of cases conditional: minor children and women entered into it only with the consent of their husband or father, serfs - with the consent of the landowner. Contract of sale regulated the movement of any property. Restrictions imposed by monopoly state policy, concerned both the subject of the agreement (prohibitions on selling ancestral real estate, certain types of minerals) and its conditions. Fraud, delusion and coercion committed during the conclusion of the contract were grounds for its annulment. Provision was made for purchase and sale with installment payment (“on credit”), advance payment or prepayment (“money in advance”). The general provisions of the purchase and sale agreement applied to the supply agreement. Luggage agreement for movable property was concluded by any subjects, except for monks, who were prohibited by the Spiritual Regulations from taking money and things for safekeeping. Loan agreement with development monetary system and the body of securities acquires new features. The law formally prohibited charging interest on loans; only in 1754 was six percent per annum officially established. A loan was often associated with collateral, when the mortgage of land or movable property became a guarantee for payment of the debt. A credit (borrowed) system of institutions headed by a borrowed bank is created. Since 1729, a system of private credit has been developing, merchants received the right to enter into bills of exchange. The legislator, focusing on Western legal experience, tried to introduce the principle of primogeniture, in which the eldest son inherited. Russian tradition stood on the side of the youngest son, who, according to custom, succeeded his father. Practice has chosen a compromise path - inheritance of one son at the choice of the testator. The remaining "children received shares of movable property within the framework of a testamentary disposition. Daughters inherited real estate under the will and only in the absence of sons. In the absence of children at all, real estate under the will could be transferred to relatives (relatives bearing the same surname as the testator). Movable property in any shares could be divided between any claimants, the testator gives it “to whomever he wants." Individual freedom of will has increased noticeably compared to the order of inheritance in the previous period. The law still allowed for a legal fiction from the era of manorial inheritance. In order for real estate to pass to daughter, her husband must take the surname of the testator, otherwise the property was transferred to the state (the property was considered escheat).In the absence of a will, the will came into force legal order inheritance and the primordial principle were indisputable here: the eldest son inherited real estate, and movable property was divided equally among the remaining sons. In 1731, the main provisions of the Decree on Single Inheritance were repealed. From that time on, inheritance by law is regulated as follows: real estate goes to all sons in equal shares, daughters receive one fourteenth, and the widow - one eighth; of movable property, daughters receive one eighth, and the widow - one fourth share. In this case, family real estate (primordial property) passes only to the heirs by law. The will provided the testator with greater freedom of disposal. The Decree on Single Inheritance also introduced changes in the field of family law. The marriage age for men was raised to twenty years, for women to seventeen years. Close relatives and the insane were prohibited from marrying. Marriage required the consent of the spouses' parents and superiors for military personnel, as well as knowledge of arithmetic and geometry for nobles. Serfs married with the permission of their masters. The law required the free consent of those getting married. Only church marriage was recognized. Since 1721, it was allowed to enter into mixed marriages with Christians of other faiths (Catholics, Protestants), marriage with people of other faiths was prohibited. The reasons for divorce were the following: political death and reference to eternal hard labor, the unknown absence of one of the spouses for three years, entry into monasticism, adultery of one of the spouses, incurable illness or impotence, an attempt by one of the spouses on the life of the other, failure to report an impending crime against the monarch. In 1753, a special act secured the separation of the obligations of the spouses, emphasizing the freedom of one of them from debts and obligations assumed by the other. In relation to children, parents enjoyed almost the same power as before: they could be punished, sent to a monastery and put to work for a period of time. By law, the father had to support his illegitimate children and their mother, but illegitimate children had no property rights and could not claim to participate in the inheritance by law. By decree of 1714 Guardianship of minor family members was assigned to the heir of real estate.

32. Table of ranks 1722

Table of ranks law on the procedure for civil service in the Russian Empire, the relationship of ranks by seniority, the sequence of ranks. Approved in 1722 by Emperor Peter I, existed with numerous changes until the revolution of 1917

1) the bureaucratic principle in the formation of the state apparatus undoubtedly won over the aristocratic principle. Professional qualities, personal devotion, and length of service become the determining criteria for promotion. Positive features of the new bureaucratic apparatus were professionalism, specialization, and normativity. Negatives are its complexity, high cost, self-employment, inflexibility; 2) the new system of ranks and positions formulated by the Table of Ranks legally formalized the status of the ruling class. His service qualities were emphasized: any highest rank could be awarded only after passing through the entire chain of lower ranks. Terms of service in certain ranks were established. Upon reaching the rank of eighth class, the official was awarded the title of hereditary nobleman, and he could pass the title on by inheritance; from the fourteenth to the seventh class, the official received personal nobility; 3) The table of ranks equated military service with civilian service: ranks and titles were assigned in both areas, the principles of promotion were similar. Practice has developed a way to move up the ladder of official ranks in an accelerated manner (this mainly applied only to nobles): after birth, the children of aristocratic nobles were registered for office and, upon reaching the age of fifteen, had a fairly important rank.

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

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

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

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

5. In the second half of the 17th century. the following system continued to operate local authorities: voivodeship administration and the system of regional orders. The reorganization of local governments took place at the beginning of the 18th century. Main reasons These transformations were: the growth of the anti-feudal movement and the need for a developed and well-coordinated apparatus on the ground. The transformation of local government began with cities. By decree of 1702, the institution of provincial elders was abolished, and their functions were transferred to the governors. Voivodes were supposed to manage affairs together with elected noble councils. Thus, the sphere of local government received a collegial beginning. Since 1708 it was introduced new territorial division of the state: The territory of Russia was divided into eight provinces, according to which all counties and cities were assigned. During the period 1713-1714. the number of provinces increased to eleven. Headed the province governor or governor general, united administrative, judicial and military powers in his hands. In his activities, he relied on the vice-governor and four assistants in the branches of management. The provinces were divided into districts, headed by commandants. The provinces were headed by chief commandants. By 1715, a three-tier system of local government had developed: county - province - province. Second regional reform was carried out in 1719: the territory of the state was divided into 11 provinces and 45 provinces. The provinces were divided into districts. In 1726 districts were abolished, and in 1727 counties were restored. Provinces became the main units of government. The most important provinces were headed by governors-general and governors, the remaining provinces were headed by governors. In 1718-1720 was implemented reform of city government bodies.

34. Criminal law in the first quarterXVIIIV. “Military article” 1715

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

TO extenuating circumstances

Institute complicity in crime

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

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

2. Crime was a socially dangerous act that caused harm to the state. The state protected the interests of the nobles. Crimes were divided into intentional, careless And random. Criminal liability arose only when intentional or careless crimes were committed.

3. The crime was divided into stages: intent, attempted crime And completed crime. In a number of cases, the law established punishment for intent (for example, state crimes). The attempted crime could be completed or unfinished.

4. K extenuating circumstances included: state of affect; mental illness; the juvenile age of the offender; official zeal in the heat of which a crime was committed; ignorance and prescription. The state of intoxication, which had previously been a mitigating circumstance, began to relate to aggravating circumstances.

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

5. Institute complicity in crime was not sufficiently developed. Accomplices were usually punished equally regardless of the degree of guilt of each.

6. Items included the following types of crimes:

religious crimes: witchcraft, idolatry, blasphemy, non-observance of church rites, church rebellion;

state crimes: intent to kill or capture the king, insult by word to the monarch, rebellion, indignation, treason, etc.;

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

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

crimes against the order of government and court: tearing down and destruction of decrees, forgery of seals, counterfeiting, forgery, false oath, perjury;

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

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

property crimes: theft, robbery, arson, destruction or damage to someone else's property, fraud;

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

7. The main goals of punishment according to the articles were deterrence, retribution, isolation of criminals and exploitation of criminal labor.

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

Punishments were assigned according to the class affiliation of the offender. Executions were carried out publicly and were announced in advance.

35. Judicial system and judicial process in the first quarter of the 18th century.

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

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

The Chamber of Burmisters was established by Decree of January 30, 1699. It was not subordinate to any of the orders and occupied the main place in the order system of the Russian state (since 1700 it received the name Town Hall). The Town Hall reported directly to the Tsar and became a kind of Ministry of Cities and City Taxes, also endowed with judicial functions. The government motivated the creation of this police-judicial authority primarily by the desire to improve the activities of the commercial and industrial population and ensure a more efficient receipt of direct taxes and indirect fees (customs, taverns, etc.) from the urban population. The Burmister Chamber and zemstvo huts were considered as bodies of city self-government. They were supposed to “guide the commercial and industrial population in all worldly massacres and petitions and disputes.” Therefore, the judicial function of this governing body was not the main one.

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

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

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

At the beginning of the 18th century. The Spiritual Court was established, the first instance of which was the “stewards of spiritual affairs.” The competence of this first instance of the Spiritual Court included those cases of the laity that should have been subject to ecclesiastical court, as well as cases of the clergy on charges of insult by word and action, theft and other matters.

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

The main part of the Russian judicial system was made up of state courts, headed by the Justice Collegium. It was a judicial and administrative body. The affairs of a number of old orders (Local, Detective, Zemsky) and the management of local courts passed to her. The Collegium was their court of appeal in criminal and civil cases. The collegium was in charge of investigative, search cases, and information about prisoners in prisons.

The highest court was the Senate, whose decisions were

final.

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

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

Trial. At the beginning of the 18th century. In connection with the growth of anti-feudal protests, the so-called search process is being increasingly used. The investigation and trial of the case were in the hands of one body - the court. The process in this regard was divided into two main stages: investigation and trial. The same persons conducted the search, tried the case and passed the verdict. The process was written and carried out under strict clerical secrecy. One of the main guiding documents used in the judicial process was the "Brief Description of Processes or Litigations" - one of the parts of the Military Regulations of 1716. It defined the following types of evidence: the accused’s own confession, witness testimony, written documents and oath.

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

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

Officially, the title of nobility was approved only by the “Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobility” of 1762, and acts of the Commission of 1767. and “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” (1785). The nobility included: courtiers, clerks and clerks, bishops' nobles and boyar children, family members of Little Russian elders, Tatar princes and Murzas.

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

In 1755 nobles received the right to exile peasants to Siberia, and from 1765. they were given the right to send peasants to hard labor. The final act of legal and privileged registration of the nobility was the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility” (1785).

The nobility was still the economically and politically dominant class. The nobles had a monopoly on the ownership of serfs. They occupied leading positions in the government apparatus. Alexander I restored the effect of the “Charter of Grant”, canceled by Paul I. The state provided economic support to the nobility through a loan bank and other credit institutions. The positions of the great nobility were supported by law (Manifesto “On the procedure for noble meetings, elections and services thereon”, the 1845 law on the inheritance of reserved noble lands). With the increase in land qualifications during elections, the role of large landowners in the noble class bodies and their influence on the ground increased.

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

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

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

The townspeople classified as artisans, that is, the second guild, were divided into guilds, headed by elected officials - aldermans. They monitored the quality of handicrafts, distributed duties and state taxes, and collected the latter.

Those temporarily living in cities, that is, irregular citizens, included laborers and hired servants. They were deprived of the right to participate in city government. The provision of self-government rights and other benefits to regular citizens indicated an increase in the role of the urban population in the economic life of the country.

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

The charter granted to the cities divided the urban population into six categories and determined the rights and obligations of each of them in accordance with their property status. The first category consisted of the so-called. real city dwellers, i.e. those who had housing, developed infrastructure or land in the city. The second category consisted of merchants, who were divided into three guilds depending on their capital. The first guild included those who owned capital of 10-50 thousand rubles, the second – 5-10 thousand rubles, the third – 1-5 thousand rubles. The third category included artisans. The fourth category included out-of-town and foreign guests. The fifth category was represented by the so-called eminent citizens. These were individuals who held elected city positions; scientists; artists; large capitalists with capital over 50 thousand rubles; bankers with starting capital > 100 thousand rubles; wholesalers; ship owners. The sixth category included townspeople, that is, those who “support themselves by trade, handicraft or work in that city” (Section B, Article 68).

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

The scope of rights and privileges of eminent citizens was greater than even that of the wealthy classes of merchants. The basis for classifying certain townspeople as eminent citizens is based not only on their property status (bankers, shipowners, etc.), but also on their services to society and the state. In addition, the famous included townspeople (scientists, artists) with appropriate titles, regardless of their property status. Eminent citizens were exempt from corporal punishment, payment of poll tax and conscription. During recruitment, the guild merchants had the opportunity to buy off the recruitment by paying certain amounts, established by law(500 rubles per recruit). The richest strata of the merchant class (the first and second guilds) were exempt from corporal punishment. Eminent citizens and merchants of the first and second guilds were given the right to own factories, factories, river and sea vessels.

Working city residents had extensive responsibilities: they paid a poll tax, carried out recruiting, billeting, road, pavement and other duties. They were subject to corporal punishment, and city government officials could not be elected from among them.

38. Provincial and judicial reforms of 1775

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

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

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

The governor was at the head of the province. The appointment and removal of the governor was the responsibility of the monarch.

Under the governor there was a collegial body - the provincial government. The board consisted of the governor, two councilors appointed by the senate, and other officials. The provincial government performed the following functions: general administration of the province, publication of laws, decrees and orders of the emperor; supervision of execution; seizure of property; consideration of complaints, etc.

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

The district administration was headed by the zemstvo police officer and the lower zemstvo court, elected by the district nobility. The Lower Zemstvo Court, which included a police officer and two assessors, led the zemstvo police and monitored the implementation of laws and decisions of provincial boards.

Supervision of legality in the province was entrusted to the provincial prosecutor and two provincial solicitors. Within the county, supervision was carried out by the county solicitor.

The position of mayor was introduced in the cities.

The leadership of several provinces was carried out by the governor-general. Governors were subordinate to him; in the absence of the monarch, he was the commander-in-chief on his territory, could introduce emergency measures, had the right to directly report to the emperor, etc.

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

Judicial reform. In the process of judicial reform in 1775, the following class judicial system was formed.

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

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

For state peasants, the first judicial instance was the district lower court, in which criminal and civil cases were considered by officials appointed by the authorities. The appellate authority for the lower punishment was the upper punishment, cases to which were submitted on a cash deposit of 25 rubles. within a week.

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

In the provinces, the court chambers for civil and criminal cases were the appellate and audit authority for cases considered in the upper zemstvo court, the provincial magistrate and the upper justice. A cash deposit in the amount of 100 rubles was attached to the appeal.

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

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

39. Legal status of the peasantry in the second halfXVIII– beginningXIXcenturies

The peasant population was divided into state peasants; free peasants; serf peasants.

Serfdom was eternal. The bulk of the serf peasants were made up of the following categories: 1) proprietary and possessional peasants; 2) full and bonded slaves; 3) dependent people who lived on the owner’s land and paid a poll tax.

State and free peasants had the right to protection in court, the right to own land provided, and the right to own movable property.

Serfs were deprived of most property rights: they were prohibited from purchasing real estate in cities, entering into contracts, being obligated with bills of exchange, etc.

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

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

The state-owned peasants were noticeably different from the privately owned peasants, who had a certain personal freedom: no one sold them or mortgaged them, as was done with the privately owned peasants, they could rent and buy land, and maintain industries.

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

At the same time, state peasants could be forcibly resettled, assigned to factories, and their fate could be controlled in other ways. State peasants constituted a large group, and in the 18th century. their number grew, accounting for more than 40% of the entire Russian peasantry.

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

Former servicemen “on the device” and even some of the servicemen “on the homeland”, who guarded the serf lines, when the need for defense of the southern borders disappeared, turned into “single-yarders” - the top of the state peasants. The privileges of single-lords went so far as to allow them to have serfs.

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

The position of the Russian peasant was no better in comparison with the non-Russian one. Quite the opposite. Since the bulk of the landowner peasants were Russians, it was their share that bore the brunt. The exploited population of the annexed peoples was included in the category of state peasants, that is, the most free peasants.

41. Church reforms inXVIIIV.

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

In 1701, a series of decrees followed that decisively reduced the independence of the clergy in the state and the independence of the clergy from secular authorities. Monasteries were subjected to special cleaning. The monks were ordered to remain permanently in those monasteries where they would be found by special scribes sent by the Monastic Order. All those who were not tonsured were evicted from the monasteries. Women's monasteries were allowed to tonsure only women after the age of forty as nuns. The economy of the monasteries was placed under the supervision and control of the Monastic Order. It was ordered that only the truly sick and infirm be kept in almshouses. Finally, the decree of December 30, 1701 determined that the monks should be given cash and grain salaries from the income of the monastery, and that the monks would no longer own estates and lands.

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

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

The composition of the Holy Synod was determined according to the regulations of 12 “government persons”, of which three must certainly bear the rank of bishop.

The emperor's representative in the Synod was the chief prosecutor. The main responsibility of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The Chief Prosecutor was subject to trial only by the sovereign. At first his power was exclusively observational, but soon he became the arbiter of the Synod’s destinies and its leader in practice. Just as in the Senate, under the office of prosecutor, there were fiscals, and in the Synod, spiritual fiscals were appointed, called inquisitors, with a proto-inquisitor at their head. The inquisitors were supposed to secretly monitor the correct and legal course of affairs of church life. The Office of the Synod was structured on the model of the Senate and was also subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor.

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

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

The Regulations divided all matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod into “general” ones, relating to all members of the Church, that is, both secular and spiritual, and into “own” affairs, relating only to the clergy, white and black, to theological school and education. All cases that had previously been subject to the patriarchal court were subject to the Synod's court. Regarding church property, the Synod must oversee the correct use and distribution of church property.

The Synodal decree of 1722 established the staff of the clergy. This staffing was not supposed to be implemented immediately, but as the excess clergy died out; The bishops were ordered not to appoint new priests while the old ones were alive. By reducing the number of white clergy, prohibiting and making it difficult for new forces from outside to enter it, Peter seemed to have closed the clergy class within himself. It was then that caste traits, characterized by the obligatory inheritance of the father’s place by the son, acquired special significance in the life of the clergy. This new class was assigned by Peter to pastoral spiritual educational activities according to the Christian law, however, not at the full discretion of the shepherds to understand the law the way they want, but only as the state authority prescribes to understand it.

Through the most stringent restrictive measures, Peter tried to constrain the monasteries, reduce their number, and prevent the emergence of new ones. All subsequent legislation was aimed at three goals: to reduce the number of monasteries, to establish difficult conditions for acceptance into monasticism, and to give the monasteries a practical purpose, to derive some practical benefit from their existence.

The Spiritual Regulations, in its two sections “The Affairs of Bishops” and “College Houses and the Teachers, Students, and Preachers in Them,” gave instructions on the establishment of special theological schools (bishops’ schools) for the training of priests, whose level of education by that time was extremely unsatisfactory.

Under Catherine II (1762-1796), a policy of religious tolerance was pursued. Representatives of all traditional religions did not experience pressure or oppression. Thus, in 1773, a law on tolerance of all religions was issued, prohibiting the Orthodox clergy from interfering in the affairs of other faiths. Catherine obtained from the government of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth equalization of the rights of religious minorities - Orthodox and Protestants. The persecution of Old Believers also stopped.

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

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

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

The Jewish religion retained the right to publicly practice its faith.

42. Legal status of the outskirts of the Russian Empire at the beginningXIXV.

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

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

The Diet was convened every five years, it consisted of two chambers representing four classes: knighthood and nobility, clergy, townspeople and peasants. The decision of the Sejm was considered adopted if it was adopted by three chambers. The adoption or implementation of fundamental laws required the decision of all four chambers.

The Sejm had the right of legislative initiative and the right of petitions to the emperor; it established new taxes or decided on new sources of state revenue. Without the consent of the Seimas, no law could be adopted, amended or repealed.

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

The Governor-General was the Chairman of the Senate and the representative of the Emperor and Grand Duke in Finland, and the governors were subordinate to him. The Minister of State of Finland was the official intermediary between the highest local government of Finland (the Senate) and the Emperor and Grand Duke.

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

Since 1818 The deliberative Sejm began to be elected (by the gentry and townspeople). It convened in 1820 and 1825. Executive power was concentrated in the hands of the Tsar's viceroy, under whom the State Council acted as an advisory body.

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

The Diet discussed bills submitted to it on behalf of the emperor and king, or the Council of State. The Seimas did not have any legislative initiative.

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

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

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

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

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

Systematization of law in the first halfXIXV.

During this period, a tremendous amount of work was carried out to systematize Russian legislation, which amounted to an entire era in its history.

The last universal systematized collection, covering almost all branches of Russian law, was the Council Code of 1649. By the beginning of the 19th century. The confusion in the legislation has reached its limit. She was one of the reasons for the unrest and abuses in the courts.

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

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

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

The Law of Law was still not a complete collection of laws. The codifiers could not find some acts. The fact is that the state archives of Russia were in poor condition. None of them even had a complete register of existing laws. In some cases, individual acts were deliberately not included in the PZ. We are talking about documents of a foreign policy nature that still retained operational secrecy. At the same time, the Full Assembly included acts that essentially did not have the nature of laws, since the concept of “law” itself had not been developed in theory. In the Complete Collection of Laws you can find non-legal acts and judicial precedents.

After the publication of the Complete Collection of Laws, Speransky began the second stage of work - the creation of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. When compiling it, ineffective norms were excluded, contradictions were eliminated, and the text was edited. When creating the Code of Laws M.M. Speransky proceeded from the fact that “The Code is a true representation of what is in the laws, but it is neither their addition nor their interpretation.” In the Code of Laws, all material was arranged according to a special system developed by Speransky. If the PSZ is built on a chronological principle, then the Code is based on a sectoral one, although not entirely consistently carried out.

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

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

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

Code on criminal and correctional punishments of 1845

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

The code of laws created by Speransky had significant shortcomings: many articles relating to criminal liability were scattered across all fifteen volumes. In addition, the Code established only type of punishment, without specifying in any way, for example, the term of hard labor, or the number of lashes, etc. The courts were given wide latitude in determining the punishment, which led to various abuses. The need to develop new criminal legislation was urgently dictated by life. The middle of the 19th century in Russia was marked, first of all, by the beginning of the development of capitalist relations. Therefore, immediately after the publication of the Code of Laws, preparation of a new criminal code began. According to its compilers, it should include all criminal legislation of Russia at that time. In addition, foreign experience was taken into account: 15 codes in force at that time were studied (Swedish, Prussian, Austrian, French, Bavarian, Neapolitan, Greek, Roman, Saxon, etc.), criminal laws of England, as well as projects of new ones developed in those years criminal codes - Prussian (1830), Bavarian (1832), Swedish (1832) and others.

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

The Code of 1845 underwent three editions - 1857, 1866, 1885, the last two of which significantly modified some of the fundamental institutions. In general, the Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments paved the way for the development of the Criminal Code of Russia of 1903, which later became the pinnacle of Russian pre-revolutionary criminal law thought, but never came into force in full.

Peasant reform of 1861

February 19 ( March, 3rd) 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom And Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, consisting of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto “On the Most Merciful Granting to Serfs of the Rights of Free Rural Citizens” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (17 documents in total) concerning the issues of emancipation of peasants, the conditions for their purchase of landowners’ land and the size of the purchased plots in certain regions of Russia.

The main act is “ General provision on peasants emerging from serfdom"- contained the main conditions of the peasant reform

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

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

Peasants received elected self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government were rural society, the highest (administrative) unit - parish

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

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

The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in charters, which were drawn up by landowners for each estate and verified by peace intermediaries;

Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field allotment, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who bought the plot were called “peasant owners.” Peasants could also refuse the right of redemption and receive from the landowner a free plot in the amount of a quarter of the plot that they had the right to redeem; when a free allotment was allocated, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.

The state, on preferential terms, provided landowners with financial guarantees for receiving redemption payments (redemption operation), taking over their payment; peasants, accordingly, had to pay redemption payments to the state.

According to the reform, the maximum and minimum sizes of peasant plots were established. Allotments could be reduced by special agreements between peasants and landowners, as well as upon receipt of a gift allotment. If peasants had smaller plots of land for use, the landowner was obliged to either cut off the missing land from the minimum amount (the so-called “cut”), or reduce duties. Reductions took place only if the landowner retained at least a third (in the steppe zones - half) of the land. For the highest shower allotment, a quitrent was set from 8 to 12 rubles. per year or corvee - 40 men's and 30 women's working days per year. If the allotment was larger than the highest one, then the landowner cut off the “extra” land for his own benefit. If the allotment was less than the highest, then the duties were reduced, but not proportionally.

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

The peasants were in a temporary state of obligation until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. At first, the duration of this condition was not indicated. It was finally installed on December 28, 1881. According to the decree, all temporarily obliged peasants were transferred to redemption from January 1 1883. A similar situation occurred only in the central regions of the empire. On the outskirts, the temporarily obliged state of the peasants remained until 1912-1913.

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

Zemstvo reform of 1861

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

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

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

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

The Third Curia consisted mainly of officials from the peasant government, although local nobles and rural clergy could also stand. Thus, in the Saratov and Samara provinces, even five leaders of the nobility were promoted to the ranks of the peasants. For this curia, unlike the first two, elections were not direct, but multi-stage: the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, electors were elected there, and then the district congress of electors elected deputies ( vowels, as they were called) to the district zemstvo assembly. This was done in order to “weed out” unreliable elements from the peasants and generally limit peasant representation. As a result, according to data for 1865-1867, nobles made up 42% of the district councilors, peasants - 38%, others - 20%.

Elections to provincial zemstvo assemblies took place at district zemstvo assemblies at the rate of one provincial councilor for six district councilors. Therefore, in provincial assemblies the predominance of nobles was even greater: 74.2% versus 10.6% peasants and 15.2% others. The chairman of the zemstvo assembly was not elected; his position was the leader of the nobility: in the district - district, in the province - provincial.

Urban reform of 1870

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

The urban reform was built on the same, only even more narrowed, principles as the zemstvo reform. According to the “City Regulations” of 1870, the City Duma remained the administrative body of city government. However, if before 1870 city dumas, which had existed in Russia since the “City Regulations” of Catherine II (1785), consisted of deputies from class groups, now they became classless.

Deputies (vocals) of the city duma were elected on the basis of property qualifications. Only city tax payers participated in the election of councilors, i.e. owners of real estate (enterprises, banks, houses, etc.). All of them were divided into three electoral meetings: 1) the largest taxpayers, who collectively paid a third of the total taxes in the city; 2) average payers, who also paid in total a third of all taxes, 3) small payers who contributed the remaining third of the total tax amount. Each assembly elected the same number of vowels, although the number of assemblies was strikingly different (in St. Petersburg, for example, the 1st curia consisted of 275 voters, the 2nd - 849, and the 3rd - 16,355). This ensured the predominance in the thoughts of the large and middle bourgeoisie, which made up two out of three electoral assemblies. In Moscow, the first two assemblies did not have even 13% of the total number of voters, but they elected 2/3 of the members. As for workers, employees, and intellectuals who did not own real estate (i.e., the overwhelming majority of the urban population), they did not have the right to participate in city elections at all. The number of vowels in city dumas ranged from 30 to 72. Two dumas stood apart - Moscow (180 vowels) and St. Petersburg (250). The executive body of city government was the city government, which was elected by the city duma (for 4 years, like the duma itself). At the head of the council was the mayor. His position was the chairman of the city duma. In addition to him, the council included 2-3 vowels.

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

The functions of the city administration, like the zemstvo administration, were purely economic: improvement of the city (street paving, water supply, sewerage), fighting fires, taking care of local industry, trade, health care, education. Nevertheless, city government was controlled even more strictly than zemstvo by the central government. The mayor was approved by the governor (for a county town) or the Minister of Internal Affairs (for a provincial center). The minister and the governor could cancel any resolution of the city council. A provincial presence for urban affairs, chaired by the governor, was created specifically to control city government in each province.

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

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

Judicial reform of 1864

Preparation for judicial reform began in the fall of 1861, at the highest point of the democratic upsurge in the country, and was completed by the fall of 1862. But only on November 20, 1864, Alexander II approved the new Judicial Charters. They introduced, instead of feudal class courts, civilized judicial institutions, common to persons of all classes with the same procedure for legal proceedings.

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

The number of courts under the Charters of 1864 was reduced, and their competence was strictly delimited. Three types of courts were created: the magistrate's court, the district court and the judicial chamber.

Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies or city dumas on the basis of a high property qualification (at least 400 acres of land or other real estate worth not less than 15,000 rubles), and members of district courts and judicial chambers were appointed by the tsar.

The magistrate's court (consisting of one person - a magistrate judge) considered minor offenses and civil claims in a simplified procedure. The decision of the magistrate could be appealed at the district congress of magistrates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1867, a military judicial reform was carried out, which reflected some provisions of the judicial statutes of 1864. A three-tier system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction approximately the same as the magistrate's court. The largest and most complex cases were considered by military district courts. The highest appellate and supervisory authority was the main military court.

In the 60s It was discovered that it was inappropriate to train officers through cadet corps, which were expensive for the state, since children studied in them for seven years. Students were enrolled there based on class from noble families. Cadet corps were abolished, and military schools began to provide officer training. Nobles still studied there, although class restrictions formally disappeared. Only people who, as a rule, had a secondary education could study there.

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

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

But the main reform of this time was the transition from conscription to universal conscription. The recruiting system forced a huge mass of people to be kept under arms even in peacetime. At the same time military training Not the entire male population of the country passed through, which deprived the army of a reserve in case of war.

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

Changes in the management of national borderlands. In the second half of the 19th century. The organization of management of the national outskirts has changed somewhat. In Poland and the Caucasus it was closer to the all-Russian order. The governorships were abolished, but the general governorships were retained.

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

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

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

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

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

The institution of zemstvo district chiefs was introduced by law on July 12, 1889. The zemstvo chief exercised control over the activities of peasant self-government and was the first judicial authority for the tax-paying estates. Both the judicial and administrative powers of zemstvo chiefs were broad, and their decisions were final. In contrast to the elected justice of the peace, the zemstvo chief was appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among the hereditary nobles. With the introduction of the institution of zemstvo chiefs, the judicial counter-reform ends and the zemstvo begins.

The law of June 12, 1890 significantly reduced the number of zemstvo vowels. Along with the reduction in the number of members in zemstvo institutions, the representation of nobles increases. Provincial and district leaders of the nobility, even if they are not zemstvo councilors, take part in the work of zemstvo assemblies. Such changes are explained by the fact that the nobility at this stage was indeed the social base of the autocracy. However, even such zemstvos were not trusted in the capital. Therefore, zemstvo institutions were placed under the control of the local administration. Governors and provincial presences for zemstvo and city affairs were given the right to approve decisions of zemstvo assemblies. Moreover, control was exercised not only over the legality of the decisions made, but also over the extent to which the interests of the residents were respected in them.

In 1892, city government reforms were carried out on the same principles. The number of city council members is decreasing. The tax qualification is replaced by a property qualification, which leads to a sharp reduction in the number of voters. The administrative authorities exercised control not only over the legality of decisions made by the Duma, but also over their “expediency.”

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

Criminal law and process at the endXIX- beginningXXcenturies

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

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

The Code of 1885 maintained a clear division into General and Special Parts.

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

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

It affected procedural law primarily judicial reform, which introduced fundamental changes to it. In the magistrate's court, the consideration of civil cases was simplified. After filing a statement of claim in court, the defendant was summoned to the court office and became familiar with the contents of the claim. If the defendant failed to appear, the judge could hear the case without him. The failure of the plaintiff to appear resulted in the termination of the case. Court decisions could be appealed.

The trial of civil cases in general courts took place in accordance with the principles of orality, publicity, and adversarialism. The case began with the filing of a statement of claim. In order preliminary preparation Before the hearing, the defendant was familiarized with the contents of the statement of claim and could write an objection. The plaintiff, in turn, wrote a rebuttal to the objection. Lawyers could participate in court, and reconciliation between the parties was allowed. The trial was, as a rule, a competition between the parties. The burden of proof lay on the party who asserted or demanded something. Review of decisions general courts was also carried out on appeal.

Criminal process. The procedural order of consideration of criminal cases was determined by the Charter of Criminal Procedure of 1864. Of great importance was the proclamation in criminal procedural law of the presumption of innocence, according to which any person was considered innocent until his guilt was established by a court verdict. Serious changes have occurred in the law of evidence. The system of formal evidence characteristic of feudal law was abolished. Formal evidence was replaced by a bourgeois system of free assessment of evidence according to the internal conviction of judges.

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

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

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

10/17/1905 A manifesto appeared establishing the convocation of the Legislative Duma, significant changes were made: 4 electoral curiae were provided (from landowners, urban population, peasants and workers). For all curiae the elections were multi-level: for the first two curiae - two-level, for workers - three-level, for peasants - four-level elections. Women did not have voting rights. During the elections to the 1st State Duma, the opposition of the autocracy received the majority of seats. As a result, this opposition State Duma was released early after 72 days. But after the elections to the 2nd State Duma, it turned out that it was even more opposed to the autocracy than the previous one. 06/3/1907 followed by a manifesto about its dissolution. Only the elections to the 3rd State Duma after changing the electoral legislation gave the desired result for tsarism, because Reactionary parties won a large number of seats. The State Council was reorganized, which began to act as a kind of 2nd chamber in relation to the State Duma. Half of the council was appointed by the king, the other half was elected. Representatives of the propertied classes, as well as representatives of the clergy and members of noble societies, were elected to the State Council from provincial zemstvo assemblies. The bill from the State Duma went to the State Council, which could reject it if it wanted. If both chambers agreed with the bill, then the final decision belonged to the king. In general, the creation of the State Duma was a concession to the autocracy under the influence of the revolution. The Duma did not have any real powers: the government had no responsibility to the State Duma, ministers were not even obliged to respond to requests from the Duma. The Emperor had the right to issue “emergency” laws bypassing the Duma, which he often used - the first parliamentary experiments were strangled by authoritarianism, and subsequent Dumas found themselves in the wake of the policies of the Tsar and his government; All this allows us to consider the revolution of 1905-1907. the first, but far from complete, stage in the formation in Russia of a new system with a capitalist economy and a parliamentary political regime. Essentially, a bourgeois-democratic revolution began in Russia in the broad sense - a restructuring of the entire social system.

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

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

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

As a result of the revolution of 1905-1907. Russia has taken one step towards becoming a constitutional monarchy. The main event was the creation of the State Duma. 6.08.1905 a manifesto was signed on the establishment of the State Duma; the law indicated that it was being formed for the preliminary development and discussion of bills, which in the future should be enter the State Council. Elections to this Duma did not take place because the majority of the population boycotted him. 10/17/1905 A manifesto appeared establishing the convocation of the Legislative Duma, significant changes were made: 4 electoral curiae were provided (from landowners, urban population, peasants and workers). For all curiae the elections were multi-level: for the first two curiae - two-level, for workers - three-level, for peasants - four-level elections. Women did not have voting rights. During the elections to the 1st State Duma, the opposition of the autocracy received the majority of seats (an acute conflict over the agrarian issue). As a result, this opposition State Duma was released early after 72 days. But after the elections to the 2nd State Duma, it turned out that it was even more opposed to the autocracy than the previous one. 06/3/1907 followed by a manifesto about its dissolution, which lasted 102 days. Only the elections to the 3rd State Duma after changing the electoral legislation gave the desired result for tsarism, because big number Reactionary parties won seats.

In general, the creation of the State Duma was a concession to the autocracy under the influence of the revolution. The Duma did not have any real powers: the government had no responsibility to the State Duma, ministers were not even obliged to respond to requests from the Duma. The Emperor had the right to issue “emergency” laws bypassing the Duma, which he often used - the first parliamentary experiments were strangled by authoritarianism, and subsequent Dumas found themselves in the wake of the policies of the Tsar and his government; All this allows us to consider the revolution of 1905-1907. the first, but far from complete, stage in the formation in Russia of a new system with a capitalist economy and a parliamentary political regime. Essentially, a bourgeois-democratic revolution began in Russia in the broad sense - a restructuring of the entire social system.

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

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

9.11.1906 a decree was issued which 1.gave peasants the right to freely leave communities, securing the ownership of the due part of the communal land2. a peasant could receive land in the form of a separate plot (cut) to which he could transfer his estate (farm)... Thus. The decree did not destroy peasant communities, but freed the hands of peasants who wanted to farm independently. It was planned to create in the village a layer of strong house-owning owners, alien to the revolutionary spirit, and generally increase agricultural productivity. The decree, adopted during the inter-army period, came into effect as an emergency.

A major role was assigned to the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, which organized the correct demarcation of land on the ground. It was planned to develop medicine and veterinary medicine and provide social assistance to peasants. To resolve the issue of land shortage, resettlement of peasants from zones with acute land shortages to Siberia, Kazakhstan, etc. was organized. Migrants were exempted from taxes for a long period of time and were given cash benefits.

Results of the reform: 1. by 1916 About 26% of peasant householders separated from the communities, which is a lot, but only 6.6% of them switched to cuttings, and 3% organized farmsteads, mostly these were middle peasants. The kulaks were in no hurry to leave the communities2. providing the peasantry with sed and social services. assistance was hampered by lack of funds.3. the organization of resettlement was not up to par, about 500 thousand returned, although the population of Siberia increased, about 30 million dessiatines of land were developed. 4. the most significant results are its indirect results: the peasants have awakened an interest in the achievements of agronomic science, increasing. demand for agricultural products Machines and tools, free peasant cooperation began to develop. Also, to achieve economic growth and consolidate the middle peasants' households, time was needed, which was not available due to the outbreak of World War I.

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

The war with Germany led to the militarization of the Russian economy. State regulation of the economy took on extraordinary forms, and the government set a course for victory in the war and the mobilization of capital. There was a reduction in acreage and trade turnover, and financial difficulties were associated with a sharp increase in taxes. The law tried to regulate transport difficulties by creating interdepartmental commissions. The mobilization of capital caused contradictions between various groups of the ruling class, so the state took the initiative to create new organizational forms of industrial and financial management. At the congress of representatives of industry and trade in May 1915, the idea of ​​​​creating military-industrial committees (hereinafter referred to as MIC) was formulated, their goals: organizing the economy, participation in management state politics. The functions of the military-industrial complex include mediation between the treasury and industry, the distribution of military orders, regulation of the commodity market and supply of raw materials to enterprises, regulation of foreign trade (purchases).. Under the military-industrial complex, labor groups, conciliation chambers and labor exchanges were created. These bodies took on the task of resolving conflicts between workers and entrepreneurs. To coordinate the work of individual departments, in the summer of 1916, special defense meetings began to be created; their composition was determined by the State Duma and approved by the emperor. The tasks of the new bodies included: requiring private enterprises to accept military orders (primarily before others) and reports on their implementation; remove directors and managers state and private enterprises; audit trade and industrial enterprises all kinds. In the fall of 1916, in parallel with state industrial bodies, general organizations began to be created, united in the Union of Zemstvos and Cities (Zemgor) with the aim of providing assistance to the wounded (organizing hospitals, supplying medicines), distributing orders to small enterprises. The trusts and syndicates operating in the industry had a strong influence on the economy. politics: they rejected the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to introduce an income tax, they subordinated the activities of the central military-industrial complex, individual military-industrial complexes and Zemgor.. Fixed prices were established by special meetings and introduced through legislation on an all-Russian scale. In November 1916, a resolution was adopted on the introduction of surplus appropriation, established by the authorized representatives of special meetings or the zemstvo government. In December 1916, the government began an offensive against the political opposition: the State Duma meeting was interrupted, the activities of Zemgor were prohibited, and working groups of the military-industrial complex were arrested . The opposition bourgeoisie begins to actively penetrate the military-industrial complex and general organizations, and the “progressive bloc” in the Duma becomes more active.

Lecture outline

Social structure.

State structure.

Sources and main features of law.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. In Rus', the process of further development of feudal land ownership took place, the local system was strengthened, and the process of enslavement of the peasants was completed. The process of strengthening the state took place, its territory expanded; in the second half of the 16th century. The Kazan and Astrakhan principalities were annexed to Rus'. In 1654, Russia reunited with Ukraine. In the 17th century all of Siberia is part of the Russian state. Already in late XVII V. Russia was the world's largest multinational state.

The economic development of the country was characterized by the further development of crafts associated with the market, the consolidation of handicraft production, the development of manufactories and factories. Economic development contributed to the emergence of trade relations and the creation of a single all-Russian market.

The formation of a class-representative monarchy. Changes in the socio-economic sphere determined the change in the form of government of the Russian state: in the middle of the 16th century, an estate-representative monarchy began to take shape. A feature of the development of the monarchy in Russia was the involvement of the tsarist authorities in resolving important issues of representatives not only of the ruling classes, but also of the top of the urban population. Estate-representative monarchy - natural stage in the development of the feudal state. It took place in France, Spain, and Germany. In Russia, the power of the monarch was limited by the Zemsky Sobor. The beginning of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia is conventionally dated to the convening of the first Zemsky Sobor in 1550. There is some controversy surrounding this date. The last Zemsky Sobor took place in 1653. The Zemsky Sobor included representatives of the new feudal nobility (medium and small feudal lords, nobles). The Zemsky Sobors included the Boyar Duma.

The tsarist government could not carry out its power functions without the support of the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor as a whole, since the boyar nobility had strong economic and political positions. But due to the gradual consolidation of all groups of the ruling class of feudal lords into a single class with the same interests and class goals, the role of all groups of feudal lords increased. After the Council of 1653, Conferences continued to be convened. From the second half of the 17th century, the estate - a representative monarchy - began to degenerate into an absolute monarchy. The main factor contributing to this was the formation of an all-Russian market and the further growth of commodity-money relations. It should also be noted that the formation of an absolute monarchy was also due to the difficulties of the country’s foreign policy situation.

Legal status of representatives of the elite of society. The king still owned the palace and black-plowed lands. The cathedral code quite clearly defined the difference between these forms of ownership: palace lands - the own lands of the king and his family, state lands - also belong to the king, but as the head of state. The top of the ruling class was the boyar aristocracy. During this period of time, court ranks did not mean official position, but belonging to a certain layer of feudal lords. Among the court ranks there were Duma (higher), Moscow, and city officials. All of them were service people in their homeland, whose privileged position was inherited.

The first Duma and generally court rank was the rank of boyar. During this period, the boyars had their effect, i.e. It was announced only to some noble boyar families, while representatives of other families could, as a general rule, receive the rank of boyar only for major merits and long-term service.

The second rank was the rank of okolnichy. Through deviousness, people of lesser birth achieved boyarhood.

The third rank of the Duma was the Duma nobles. They originated from the children of the boyars.

The fourth rank of the Duma is the Duma clerk. Not only boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles and clerks sat in the Duma, but also some other court officials.

The less important court ranks were classified as non-thought ranks. The Moscow court ranks included nobles, whose estates under Ivan IV were located in the Moscow district (the chosen thousand). They were mainly entrusted with the protection of state choirs and chambers. Police ranks consisted of nobles who were entrusted with service in the city. Another group of service people (according to the device - by conscription, and not by inheritance) consisted of clerks, archers, gunners, dragoons, collars, raitors, and soldiers. These officials occupied a middle position between those serving “at home” and taxing people. The bulk of service people were determined by "layout", i.e. entry into the regimental lists and appointment for salary, monetary and local. Usually, the sons of nobles and the children of boyars were recruited into the service; as the state grew and the need to increase the number of service people, the Cossacks were sometimes recruited. The practice of becoming servicemen shows that only the children of servicemen in the 17th century. began to receive regulation. Decrees of 1639 and 1652 Children of non-service people were prohibited from entering the service. In 1657 and 1678 It had already been prescribed that only the sons of boyar children should be included in the service people.

Rights of service people. Service people had a number of rights and advantages. They were "white", i.e. exempt from paying taxes. They owned:

The right to own estates and estates;

The right (made exclusive) to enter public service.

The right to enhanced protection of honor.

A number of privileges in criminal law.

Privileges in the collection of obligations.

Localism. In connection with the development of these privileges, the institution of localism acquired particular importance. The establishment of the right to seniority was carried out through complex proceedings. Local disputes introduced many complications during appointments; they were especially harmful during appointments to military positions. The complete abolition of localism occurred in 1682.

Oprichnina. Among the measures of the mid-16th century aimed at limiting the old feudal nobility, it is necessary to mention the oprichnina. On the problems of the meaning of the oprichnina as; In both domestic and foreign literature there are very contradictory approaches. The authors proceed from the concept that oprichnina is not. was random occurrence, a short-term episode, but rather a necessary stage in the formation of autocracy, the initial form of its power. The authors share the thought of D.N. Alshits that the appearance of the oprichnina did not depend on the will of one individual, since the oprichnina was a “specific historical form of an objective process.” In 1565, Ivan the Terrible divided state lands into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichnina (special), including in the oprichnina the lands of the opposition princely boyar aristocracy. As a result of distribution, confiscated lands were transferred to service people. The oprichnina turned the estate into the main and dominant form of feudal agriculture. Very significant changes also occurred with the very concepts of “patrimony” and “estate”. Patrimonial land ownership became more and more conditional. In 1556, a special “Code of Service” was adopted, which determined equal responsibilities for both patrimonial owners and landowners to field a certain number of armed people (corresponding to the size and quality of the land). A decree of 1551 prohibited the sale of ancient estates to the monastery (for the funeral of a soul) without the knowledge of the tsar. And later it was forbidden to exchange them or give them as a dowry. The right to transfer these estates by inheritance was also limited (only direct male descendants could be heirs). A new concept of “granted” or “served” patrimony appears, i.e. given directly for service or on condition of service. The rights of local owners are gradually expanding, and the transfer of land by inheritance is becoming a common phenomenon. Serving people were given the opportunity to purchase estates. Boyars, as well as nobles, were endowed with local land. There was a process of rapprochement of estates and estates, the consolidation of feudal lords into a single class. This process is quite fully reflected in the Council Code of 1649. The most important forms of land ownership remained church and monastic.

As for the legal status of the clergy, the Council Code limits the growth of church property, categorically prohibiting secular feudal lords from bequeathing, selling and mortgaging ancestral, served and redeemed estates to monasteries and clergy. Thus, a serious blow was dealt to church land ownership.

The role of the city, urban population. In the 16th - 17th centuries. There is further growth of cities, trade, crafts, blacksmithing, coppersmithing, weapons, and cannonmaking are developing. The number of factories and workshops is expanding, the size of the urban population is growing, and its differentiation is increasing. In the Russian state, the urban population was called townspeople. They included the following categories:

The guests are prominent merchants. This title complained to them for service and on the terms of service, service in financial matters (customs and tavern duties). They were exempt from ordinary taxes and duties, from paying trade duties, had the right to own estates and estates and were subject to the direct judgment of the king himself.

There are hundreds of living room people.

People of the Cloth Hundred.

Hundreds of living and cloth merchants belonged to merchants who had small capital compared to her guests. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, there were never many guests and traders from both top hundreds. So, for example, in 1649 there were only 18 guests, in the living hundred - 153, in the cloth - 116. The townspeople of other cities and black hundreds were divided into the best, middle and young.

At this time, there is acute differentiation and stratification of the urban population. Among the townspeople, the top wholesale merchants-guests and merchants of the first hundred stand out, having acquired enormous wealth. In 1649, the government took a number of real measures to streamline the tax relations of the townspeople. According to the Council Code of 1649, it was decided to return to the townspeople the lands, courtyards, and shops that had been seized by the “Belomestsy”.

The city nobility had a number of privileges. She was given the right to distribute and collect all taxes from the townspeople. She received the right to participate in the meeting of the Zemsky Sobor. The largest merchant guests could buy land with special royal permission. They received the title of Duma clerks and, in exceptional cases, Duma nobles. Thus, we can conclude that the political importance of the city nobility was growing. All this was clearly manifested in legal terms. Thus, according to the Code of Law of 1550, under Article 26, for dishonoring a guest, a fine was 10 times greater than for dishonoring a “good boyar man.” This line was continued and enshrined in the Council Code of 1649.

Changes in the legal status of the peasantry. Strengthening serfdom.. In the second half of the 16th - first half of the 17th century, a process of further enslavement of the peasants took place. Naturally, this process was facilitated by the strengthening of the state apparatus and the creation of special bodies to combat runaway peasants. The Code of Law of 1550 repeated the articles of the Code of Law of 1497 about “St. George’s Day,” but at the same time increased the exit fee charged to the peasants. Since 1581, reserved summers have been introduced, which abolished the provisions on “St. George’s Day.” In 1597, the decree on “prescribed flights” came into force, which established a five-year limitation period for the search for fugitives. In 1607, "lesson years" were increased to 15 years. The Council Code of 1649 recorded the completion of the process of complete and final enslavement of the peasants and abolished the “lesson summers.” Runaway peasants were returned regardless of the time that passed after they left the owner, along with their entire family and all their property. Article I ch. The XI Council Code provides a complete list of all categories of the peasant population. During this period of time, the final consolidation of the landowner and black-tax peasants took place. After the decree on reserved years was issued, a census was carried out. In the Code of 1649, Articles 9 and 10 of Chapter XI prohibited the admission of “runaway peasants, peasants and their children and brothers and nephews” from the moment the Code was published. The Code of 1649 established the enslavement of all peasants (old-timers and non-old-timers) and members of their families, while abolishing the so-called “lesson years”.

Serfdom against peasants was finally sanctioned by law. The landowners acquired the right to unlimited sales, barter, exploitation, and the right to control the marriage fate of the peasants. Already according to the Decree of 1623, in cases of non-payment by landowners and patrimonial owners of claims, it was allowed to collect them from slaves and peasants.

There have been changes in the situation of the black-tax peasants. Their number decreased due to the distribution of volost lands into estates and estates. To be admitted to the tax community, special contract records were required. By 1678, the correspondence of households was completed, which served as the basis for replacing local taxation with household taxation.

Let's analyze the position of slaves. During this period of time, there were two categories of slaves: full and bonded. Full or white slaves were at the unlimited disposal of the master. There were other slaves: reporting, dowry, spiritual, depending on the source of the servitude.

There was a decrease in the sources of servitude. Only the following sources of servitude remain: birth from serf parents and marriage to serfs. Serfs had no personal or property rights. But in fact, slaves began to acquire a certain degree of rights and legal capacity. Civil transactions concluded with slaves by their own masters became possible. There was a tendency to transform slaves into serfs. The Council Code legitimized the cruel forms of dependence of slaves on their masters, establishing full ownership of slaves. The Code includes marriage, birth, and bonded labor for a period of more than three months as sources of servitude.

Centralization of the state. Let's move on to consider the next question. The process of formation of a centralized state is taking place. Under Ivan IV, the last appanages were destroyed. As the Russian state transformed into a multinational state, many states were placed in vassal relations with it. The following became vassals: Siberian khans, Circassian princes, shakhmals (Kumyk rulers), Kalmyk taishas, ​​Nogai murzas. Vassal relations of some states were nominal in nature. At the end of the 16th century, a tendency towards the full inclusion (incorporation) of vassal states into Russian kingdom. The king was at the head of the state. The change in the title of the head of state in 1547 was an important political reform. In the 17th century all state affairs were carried out in the name of the king.

The role of royal power. A chapter was included in the Council Code:

"About state honor, and how to protect its state health." This chapter declared:

confirmation of the role of the tsar in the political life of the country;

the principle of primogeniture and unity of inheritance.

Recognition of the tsar by the Zemsky Sobor was considered one of the conditions for recognition of the legitimacy of tsarist power. One of the most important acts was the crowning of the kingdom. A special rite, the so-called anointing, would have been added to the crowning ceremony in the 17th century.

The royal throne was usually inherited. At the end of the 15th century, a procedure was established for electing the tsar at the Zemsky Sobor, which was supposed to help strengthen the authority of the monarchy.

The king had great rights in the field of legislation, administration, and court. But he did not rule alone, but together with the Boyar Duma and Zemsky Councils.

The Boyar Duma was a permanent body under the tsar, together with him it resolved the main issues of governance and foreign policy. The real meaning of the Duma was ambiguous. For example, during the oprichnina years its role was small. There were changes in the social composition of the Duma towards strengthening the representation of the nobility. It also did not include representatives of the top of the urban population. To prepare cases coming to the Duma, special commissions were formed. Under the Duma, a bureaucratic apparatus was created.

Zemsky Sobors. Zemsky Sobors played a major role in governing the state during the period under study. They were a class-representative institution, which was not permanent, but met as needed. Only in the first decade of the reign of Mikhail Romanov did the Zemsky Sobor acquire the significance of a permanent representative institution. The strengthening of royal power was manifested in the onset of a long break in his activities. Zemsky Councils consisted of three main parts: the Boyar Duma, the Council of the Higher Clergy (Consecrated Cathedral), etc. meetings of representatives from people of all ranks, i.e. the local nobility and merchants. At first, for example, with the convening of the Council of 1566, representation was organized not by election, but by trust in the representatives of the “government”. The right to convene the Zemsky Sobor belonged to the tsar or the authority replacing him, i.e. Boyar Duma, Patriarch, Provisional Government. Sometimes the initiative to convene the Council came from the Council itself. The meeting of the Council usually began with its grand opening, where the king himself or on behalf of the king read his speech, which explained the reason for convening the Council and formulated the issues that were to be resolved. After the opening, the Zemsky Sobor began to discuss issues, for which it was divided into its component parts: the Boyar Duma, the Holy Council, Moscow nobles, and archers. City nobles and townspeople were still divided into “articles”. Each part of the Council decided the issue separately and formulated the decision in writing. These decisions came down to the second general meeting. Usually these decisions were the material from which the tsar or the Boyar Duma drew conclusions. They (the Councils) were convened to resolve the most important issues: to elect kings, to resolve issues of war and peace, to establish new taxes and taxes, to adopt particularly important laws. When discussing these issues, government officials submitted petitions to the government. Zemsky Sobors were the organ of influence of the local nobility and the upper classes of the merchant class.

Features of elections to Zemsky Sobors. The organization of elections to Zemsky Sobors, the norms of representation from various classes, their number and composition were uncertain. Typically, nobles made up the majority of the cathedral. The nobles of the capital had special privileges; they sent two people from all ranks and titles to the Zemsky Sobor, while the nobles of other cities sent the same number from the city as a whole. For example, out of 192 elected members of the Zemsky Sobor in 1642, 44 were delegated by Moscow nobles. The number of city deputies in the Zemsky Sobor sometimes reached 20. It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that in fact the Zemsky Sobors limited the power of the tsar to a certain extent, but also strengthened it in every possible way. This is the dialectic of interaction between the power of the Tsar and the Zemsky Sobor.

Order system. Competence. The system of orders, as central government bodies, continued to develop and strengthen. The final development of the order system occurs in the second half of the 16th century. They arise as needed. Some of the orders are divided into a number of departments, which, developing gradually, turn into independent orders. The lack of planning in the organization of orders led to vagueness in matters of distribution of competence between them. In the 17th century, the number of orders was constantly changing, reaching up to 50. The main feature of the order system was the combination of administrative and judicial functions.

There was the following division of orders: palace-patrimonial, military, judicial-administrative, regional (central-regional), in charge of special branches of management.

Palace and financial orders: hunter, falconer (in charge of the royal hunt), equerry, order of the large palace, order of the large treasury (in charge of direct taxes), order of the large parish (in charge of indirect taxes, new quarter (in charge of drinking revenues).

Military orders: rank (in charge of all military administration and the appointment of service people to positions), Streltsy, Cossack, foreign, weapons, armor, pushkar.

Judicial-administrative group: local order (in charge of the distribution of estates and estates, and was the judicial place for land matters), serfs (in charge of securing and releasing slaves, accusing them of robbery), zemstvo order (court and management of the tax population of Moscow).

Regional orders: central government bodies in charge of the so-called quarters or quarters: Nizhny Novgorod (Nizhny Uyezd, Novgorod, Perm, Pskov), Ustyug, Kosgrom, Galitsk, Vladimir.

The regional ones include 4 court orders: Moscow, Volodymyr, Dmitrov, Ryazan. And then: Smolensky, Order of the Kazan Izba, Siberian, Malorossky.

Orders in charge of special branches of administration: ambassadorial (foreign affairs, non-service foreigners, mail), stone order of printing), apothecary order, printed (certifying government acts by attaching a seal to them), monastery order (organized for the trial of church authorities), order of gold and silver work.

Orders were created as needed, often without a precise definition of their competence, the order of their organization and activities. All this led to red tape and duplication, bureaucracy. The orders included embezzlement and bribery.

It is known that the changes that took place in the development of the state affected local governments. The main administrative unit was the county. It was uneven. The district was divided into camps, and the camps into volosts. Within the district, judicial districts were organized - lips; category - military district.

Lip self-government. In "1556, the feeding system was abolished and replaced by a system of provincial and zemstvo self-government. Over time, provincial self-government began to be created in each district. The body of provincial self-government was the provincial hut, which consisted of a provincial headman, tselovalniks, and a provincial clerk. The influence of the nobles was strongly felt in the bodies of provincial self-government -landowners: labial elders were necessarily chosen from among the nobles or children of boyars. Peasants were also assistants to the elders (kissers). Provincial self-government was introduced in those districts where landownership was highly developed, and in areas where a strongly trade and craft economy was developed, zemstvo landownership was introduced . Zemstvo institutions developed later than provincial ones. They were introduced in counties, in groups of volosts, in individual volosts. The competence of zemstvo institutions extended to all branches of administration and the courts. In some counties, zemstvos acted simultaneously with provincial ones.

At the same time, voivode-mandatory administration was introduced (the competence of the voivode grew). The sending of voivodes to border areas took place at the beginning of the 17th century; the introduction of voivodship-order management meant the further development of the bureaucratic system. Voivodes were appointed by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma for a year or two. Several governors were sent to large districts, of which one was the chief, the others were considered his comrades. Clerks or clerks with “signature” were appointed as his closest assistants. The governor's office was located in the administrative hut; the functions of the governor, determined by special instructions or orders, were varied. Voivodes were in charge of the police, military affairs, had the right of court, and sometimes they were entrusted (in border districts) with even managing relations with foreign states. At first, the governors did not interfere with provincial self-government. But over time, the power of the governors increased, and their interference in provincial and zemstvo self-government became significant. The governors subjugated the provincial institutions and made provincial elders and tselovars their assistants. The governors received a salary. They were forbidden to take food from the residents. It was also forbidden to force residents to do anything for themselves. According to the Council Code, voivodes were prohibited from entering into obligatory relationships with local people. At the end of the 17th century, the largest military administrative districts, the so-called ranks, were created in some outskirts, which concentrated all management of the industry.

Fiscal policy. During the period under study, the reform of the financial system continued. To determine the amount of taxes, the government conducted a widespread land survey. Scribe books were compiled, which determined the number of salary units (the so-called sokh). The “plow” included different amounts of land, depending on its quality. In the 17th century, additional direct and indirect taxes were introduced: customs, salt, tavern (or drinking), the so-called “pyatina” - levying one fifth of the value of movable property.

These are the general features of the state and social structure of the country in a given period of time. The period under study is characterized by a very intensive development of law and an increasing role of royal legislation.

Sources of law. Codification. Among the monuments of law, provincial and zemstvo charters stand out, which establish the principles of provincial and zemstvo self-government, and customs charters. Codification during this period began with the publication of the Code of Laws of 1550 (Tsarsky or Second). In the Code of Laws of 1550, the range of issues regulated by the central government was expanded and the features of the search process were strengthened. Regulation permeates the areas of criminal law and property relations. The class principle is strengthening and the circle of subjects of crime is expanding. The main source of this code of law was the Code of Law of Vasily III, which has not reached us. During the codification, new decree material was involved, as well as provincial and zemstvo charters. The Code of Law was divided into 100 articles, arranged according to some (rather elementary) system. All legislative material of the Code of Laws can be divided into four parts:

The first contains decisions relating to the central court;

the second - to the regional court;

the third - to civil law and procedure;

The fourth contains additional articles.
The Code of Laws is a collection of judicial law, and. in general, reflected the interests of the local nobility and merchants.

Almost simultaneously with the Code of Laws, Stoglav was published (in 1551), which was the result of the legislative activity of the church (stoglavy) council. Stoglav - 100 chapters (articles), contains, along with important decrees on the church, a number of norms of criminal and civil law, providing enhanced protection of the interests of the clergy. When compiling the Code of Laws, the need was foreseen to supplement it with new legislative material, which could appear in the form of separate decrees and boyar sentences. Therefore, Article 98 of the Code of Law establishes the procedure for adding “new cases”—additional decrees—to its provisions. These additions were made with each order. Over time, the so-called Decree Books of Orders were compiled. Among them, the Decree Books of Court Cases, Zemsky Prikaz, and Robbery Prikaz are of great importance in the history of law. They protected the interests of the local nobility to an even greater degree. Both the Tsar's Code of Law and individual decrees issued after it largely regulate those relations that are characteristic of the process of enslavement of peasants.

The most important monument of this time is the Cathedral Code of 1649, a code that to a large extent determined legal system Russian state for many years. To draw up the code, the government created a special commission chaired by Prince Odoevsky. The project developed by this commission was presented for consideration to the Zemsky Sobor and was discussed at joint meetings of the commission with elected members of the Zemsky Sobor for over 5 months. Members of the commission submitted petitions to the king with a request to issue new laws on certain issues. After the discussion of the Project ended, it was approved in 1649 by the Zemsky Sobor. The codified laws were called the Council Code.

The sources of the code were: legal codes, decrees and boyar sentences, city laws Greek kings, i.e. Byzantine law, Lithuanian status, new articles, both included by the drafters themselves, and introduced at the insistence of the elected members of the Council - according to their petition. Among these articles, it is necessary to point out XI - “The Court of Peasants”, in which “lesson summers” were abolished and in which the landowner’s full right to the work and personality of the peasant was asserted. The Conciliar Code was a code in which the principles of Russian law, expressed in the "Russian Pravda" and in legal codes, were developed. The Conciliar Code met the interests of the nobility. It was a code of serfdom. It should be noted that from a technical and legal point of view, the Code, as a code was a step forward compared to Sudebnik.

Further development of legislation was carried out through the issuance of decrees. Decrees canceling, supplementing or amending the decisions of the Council Code were called decree articles. The characteristics of the sources allow us to draw a conclusion about the intensive development of law during the period under study. Let us turn to the analysis of branches of law.

Features of land use. The Council Code defined in detail the existing forms of feudal land tenure. Special chapter 16 summarized all the most important changes in the legal status local land tenure. The Council Code established that the owners of estates could be both boyars and nobles; the estate was passed on to sons by inheritance in a certain order; after the death of the owner, part of the land is received by his wife and daughters; an estate could be given to a daughter as a dowry, and, in addition, the exchange of an estate for an estate and patrimony was allowed. But landowners did not receive the right to freely sell land (only by royal decree), nor did they have the right to mortgage the land. But at the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that Article 3 of Chapter of the Council Code allowed for the exchange of a large estate for a smaller one and, thereby, under the guise of an exchange, to sell estates. The estate, in accordance with the Council Code, still provided privileged land ownership. The estate could be sold (with mandatory registration in the local order), mortgaged and passed on by inheritance. The Council Code contains a provision on the right of ancestral redemption - a period of 40 years for the redemption of sold, exchanged, mortgaged ancestral estates. The circle of relatives who had the right to ransom was also determined. The right of ancestral redemption did not apply to redeemed estates. According to the law, estates could only be sold to feudal lords living in the same district. Purchased estates were land holdings acquired by someone from members of their clan; their ownership also entailed the obligation of service. Refusal to serve had the consequence of the confiscation of estates from their owners and their inclusion in the royal domain. Patrimonial estates were called estates that were granted by the tsar. They were characterized by a great limitation of rights by the owners; they were taken away if they did not please the king, sometimes this was limited to lifelong ownership. At the end of the 17th century, estates became the dominant type of property. Only service people could own estates: boyars, nobles, boyar children, clerks, etc. The size of the estate depended on the quality of the land. Estates were given to the children of residential people when they reached the age of 15. As a rule, estates included lands inhabited by peasants, but in addition, empty lands, hunting and fishing grounds were also allocated. When allocating land to landowners, peasants received a so-called obedient letter, according to which they were ordered to obey the owner. In addition, landowners were allocated courtyards and garden lands in cities. The main responsibility of the landowners was to perform service.

Land inheritance. Gradually, the nobility received the right to inherit estates. In the first quarter of the 17th century, the inheritance of estates was already discussed in special decrees. In 1611, the principle was established that estates could remain with widows and children. From the father's estates, allotments were allocated to sons according to their official position, and to daughters and widows for subsistence. The rest of the estate was transferred to lateral relatives. In 1684, a law was passed according to which children received the entire father's estate. From the end of the 16th century, donations of estates to monasteries were allowed. Church property was recognized as inalienable.

Pledge law also developed. Such forms of pledge were used as: the pledged land was transferred to the pledgee, and also when the creditor received the right to temporary use of the pledged land, and this use replaced the payment of taxes. The Council Code determined the rights to someone else's property, i.e. easements: the right to leave dams on the river within one’s possession, the right to mowing, fishing, hunting in forests, on lands that belonged to another owner. In cities, it was forbidden to build stoves and cookhouses close to neighboring buildings; it was not allowed to pour water or sweep rubbish into neighboring yards. The Code provided for the right of travelers, as well as those driving livestock, to stop in the meadows adjacent to the road.

The law of obligations also received its further development. Obligations arising from contracts are secured not by the person of the defendant, but by his property. Moreover, responsibility was not individual, but collective: spouses, parents, and children were responsible for each other. Debts under obligations were passed on by inheritance. Much attention was paid to the forms of concluding contracts. Became increasingly important written form agreement. And when registering deeds of land or yards, registration of the document with the institution was required. Bill of sale (deed of sale) is the act of acquiring ownership of property. The procedure for recognizing a contract as invalid was determined if it was concluded in a state of intoxication, with the use of violence or by deception. Agreements of purchase and sale, exchange, donation, storage, luggage, and rental of property are also known.

Inheritance law has also evolved. There is a difference between inheritance by law and by will. Particular attention was paid to the procedure for inheriting land. The will was drawn up in writing and signed by the testator, and if he was illiterate, by witnesses and confirmed by church authorities. The possibilities of bequest were limited by class principles: it was impossible to bequeath land to churches and monasteries; ancestral and granted estates, as well as estates, were not subject to testamentary disposition. Ancestral and granted estates were subject to inheritance only to members of the same family to which the testator belonged. Daughters inherited in the absence of sons. Widows received part of the earned estate "for subsistence", i.e. for lifelong ownership, in the event that there were no estates left after the death of the spouse. The estates were inherited by sons. The widow and daughters received part of the estate for living expenses.

Family law. Only marriages performed in a church were recognized by law. It was concluded with the consent of the parents. And for serf marriages, the consent of the landowners was necessary. The age of marriage for men is set at 15 years, and for women - 12 years. There was paternal authority in the family, as well as the authority of the husband over his wife.

Crimes. A crime was understood as a violation of the royal will and law. Representatives of classes were recognized as subjects of crimes. Crimes were divided into intentional and careless. There was no punishment for random acts. But the law does not always distinguish between an accidental, unpunished action and a careless form of guilt. The Code talks about the institution of necessary defense, but the limits of necessary defense (excessive defense and degree of danger) were not established.

Cover-ups, relapse. The Council Code regulates complicity, instigation, aiding, and concealment in more detail. Relapse was punished more severely. In the Council Code, types of crimes are set out according to a certain system. It highlighted crimes against faith, then state crimes (crimes against the foundations of faith, royal power and personally against the king: insulting the monarch, causing harm to his health). Responsibility was established even for sheer intent and failure to report. The law said a lot about such crimes as treason, conspiracy, rebellion. The characteristics of crimes against the order of government, military crimes, crimes against the judiciary are given. The Council Code regulates crimes against the person. These include: murder, bodily harm, insult in word and deed. Among property crimes, the following stood out: theft, robbery, robbery. Crimes against morality were highlighted: pimping, violation of family regulations. It should be noted that in the Code the elements of crimes were formulated more clearly than before.

Punishments. The Code further strengthens the terrifying nature of punishments. The following were used: the death penalty - simple and qualified; corporal punishment - whipping, whipping, branding, imprisonment, exile to the outskirts of the country, hard labor; deprivation of rank, resignation from office, church repentance. Application death penalty and corporal punishment was carried out in public. The Council Code was characterized by a plurality of punishments and differences in punishment depending on social class.

The Council Code provided for two forms of process and a court. The inquisition process became increasingly widespread. It was practically used in all criminal cases. The most brutal process was in cases related to crimes against the tsar and the state. The Council Code also speaks in detail about the accusatory adversarial process. It was carried out when considering property disputes and minor criminal cases. Chapter 10 of the Council Code talks about the system of testimony. The so-called “general search” and “general search” were used as evidence. The difference between these two types was that a “general search” is a survey of the entire population on the facts of a crime, and a “general” search is a survey of a specific person suspected of committing a crime. These are some of the main features of the development of law.

The history of the period under study was interesting, multifaceted, and tragic. In Russia the remains were finally eliminated feudal fragmentation, the economic and political unity of the country took shape. A class-representative monarchy arose. It should be noted that the strengthening of state power led to a decrease in the importance of estate-representative institutions.

Topic No. 4: “Estate-representative monarchy in Russia

(mid-16th - mid-17th centuries)"

/4 hours/

Plan :

Introduction.

1. The emergence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia. Her essence.

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

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

4. Social system of the state.

5. State system. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible.

Conclusion.

Textbooks and teaching aids:

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

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

Special literature:

1. Belyaev I.D. Zemsky Councils in Rus'. - M., 1962.

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

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

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

5. Kobrin V.B. Ivan groznyj. - M., 1989.

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

7. Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan groznyj. - M., 1983.

8. Skrynnikov R.G. Reign of Terror. / St. Petersburg, 1992.

9. Skrynnikov R.G. A distant century. - M., 1989.

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549, the last in 1653. Ivan the Terrible also made an attempt to transfer regional government into the hands of the society itself (elected provincial governors, zemstvo elders, “favorite heads” in cities). However, the zemstvo did not establish itself at that time due to the complete unpreparedness of serf society for it.

Zemsky Sobors - main institute The class-representative monarchy gradually withered away without having time to grow stronger. The structural transformations begun under Ivan the Terrible could have made Russia an estate-representative monarchy “with a human face,” but Ivan IV waged a fight against appanage antiquity using purely feudal methods. The introduction of the oprichnina is proof of this. In an effort to destroy the separatism of the feudal nobility, Ivan the Terrible stopped at nothing. He was not just a cruel ruler, his despotism knew no bounds. By the way, some historians deny the existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia, arguing that at that time there was despotism or even eastern despotism in the country. There is also a point of view that Zemsky Councils did not limit the power of the tsar.

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

1. One of the reasons for the unrest in the country was the ever-increasing serfdom of the majority of the population - the peasantry. By the middle of the 16th century, subsistence agriculture began to be drawn into commercial circulation. The feudal lords are no longer limited to corvee labor and quitrent in kind. They impose a monetary tax on the peasants. Peasants are looking for relief from their lot and often flee to the outskirts, to new owners (on St. George’s Day they still had such a right of transition). The former owners forcefully return the peasants back and demand the abolition of St. George's Day. Tension grows and results in widespread peasant disobedience to their masters - the feudal lords.

2. Secular and spiritual feudal lords were created in cities white settlements, free from taxes and city fees. Since the feudal lords themselves were freed from state tax, they invited the townspeople to join them, creating the so-called “white settlements,” thereby causing competition for the rest of the townspeople, who continued to bear the tax tax. This led to incessant the struggle of the settlement with the feudal lords.

3. There were serious contradictions among the ruling class itself. Needing

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

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

1. peasantry against feudal lords,

2. townspeople against the feudal lords,

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

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

Exactly the increasing role of the nobility and posad in conditions of intensified struggle determined the formation of an estate-representative monarchy! Local power is also transferred from the hands of landowners and volosts to the hands of elected zemstvo and provincial institutions.

By expanding its social base in the context of intensifying class struggle, the tsarist government thereby strengthened itself. But at the same time, she also found herself limited in her policy by the decisions of the Council.

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

History of state and law of foreign countries. Part 1 Krasheninnikova Nina Aleksandrovna

§ 2. Estate-representative monarchy

Changes in the legal status of estates in the XIV–XV centuries. The further growth of cities and commodity production entailed not only an increase in the number and political activity urban population. It caused a restructuring of the traditional feudal economy and forms of exploitation of the peasantry. Under the influence of commodity-money relations, significant changes occurred in the legal status of peasants. By the 14th century In most of France, servage is disappearing. The bulk of the peasantry are personally free censors, obligated to pay the lord a cash rent (qualification), the amount of which increased.

Increased feudal exploitation, as well as economic difficulties associated with the Hundred Years' War with England, caused an intensification of the internal political struggle. This was reflected in a number of urban uprisings (especially in Paris in 1356–1358) and peasant wars (the Jacquerie in 1358). Changes also occurred in the struggle among the feudal lords themselves, which was associated with the strengthening of royal power and its clash in the process of unifying the country with the feudal oligarchy. During the Hundred Years' War, many confiscations of the lands of large feudal lords who betrayed the French king were carried out. These lands were distributed to small and middle nobles who actively supported royal power.

In the XIV–XV centuries. In France, the restructuring of the estate system was completed, expressed in the internal consolidation of estates. The formation of three large estates did not mean the disappearance of the feudal class of hierarchical structure inherited from the previous period. However, in order to strengthen their common positions, the feudal lords were forced to give up their former independence and give up some traditional seigneurial privileges. The consolidation of the class system meant the gradual cessation of destructive internecine feudal wars and the establishment of new mechanisms for resolving intra-class conflicts.

The first estate in France was considered clergy. The unification of all clergy into a single class was the result of the fact that royal power by the 14th century. won a fundamentally important victory in the fight against the papacy. It was recognized that the French clergy should live by the laws of the kingdom and be considered an integral part of the French nation. At the same time, some church prerogatives were limited, which interfered with the political unification of the country and the recognition of the supremacy of royal power, and the circle of persons falling under church jurisdiction was reduced.

With the establishment of a unified legal status of the clergy, its most important class privileges were strengthened. The clergy, as before, had the right to receive tithes and various donations, and retained their tax and judicial immunity. It was exempt from any government services and duties. The latter did not exclude the possibility that individual representatives of the clergy were involved by the king in resolving important political issues, acted as his closest advisers, and occupied high positions in the state administration.

The second estate in the state was nobility, although in fact in the XIV–XV centuries. it played a leading role in the social and political life of France. This class united all secular feudal lords, who were now considered not just as vassals of the king, but as his servants. The nobility was a closed and hereditary (unlike the clergy) class. Initially, access to the class of nobles was open to the elite of the townspeople and wealthy peasants, who, having become rich, bought land from the impoverished nobles. The family nobility, which sought to preserve the spirit of feudal caste, ensured that the purchase of estates by persons of ignoble origin ceased to give them noble titles.

The most important privilege of the nobility remained its exclusive right of ownership of land with the transfer by inheritance of all real estate and rental rights. Nobles had the right to titles, coats of arms and other signs of noble dignity, and to special judicial privileges. They were exempt from paying state taxes. Essentially, the only duty of the nobility becomes military service for the king, and not for a private lord, as was the case before.

The nobility was still heterogeneous. Titled nobility - dukes, marquises, counts, viscounts and others - aspired to high positions in the army and in the state apparatus. The bulk of the nobility, especially the lower ones, were forced to be content with a much more modest position. Her well-being was directly linked to the increased exploitation of peasants. Therefore, the small and middle nobility energetically supported royal power, seeing in it the main force capable of keeping the peasant masses in check.

In the XIV–XV centuries. formation has basically been completed and "third estate"(tiers etat), which was replenished by the rapidly growing urban population and the increasing number of peasant cenzitarii. This class was very diverse in its composition and practically united the working population and the emerging bourgeoisie. Members of this class were considered “ignoble” and did not have any special personal or property rights. They were not protected from arbitrariness on the part of the royal administration and even individual feudal lords. The Third Estate was the only tax-paying estate in France and bore the entire burden of paying government taxes.

The organization of the third estate itself was of a feudal-corporate nature. It acted primarily as a collection of urban associations. At this time, the idea of ​​equality and universality of interests of the members of the third estate had not yet arisen; it did not recognize itself as a single national force.

Formation of a class-representative monarchy. At the beginning of the 14th century. in France, the seigneurial monarchy is being replaced by a new form of feudal state - estate-representative monarchy. The formation of an estate-representative monarchy here is inextricably linked with the process of political centralization, which was progressive for this period (already by the beginning of the 14th century, 3/4 of the country’s territory was united), the further rise of royal power, and the elimination of the autocracy of individual feudal lords.

The seigneurial power of the feudal lords essentially lost its independent political character. The kings deprived them of the right to collect taxes for political purposes. In the XIV century. it was established that the collection of seigneurial tax (taglia) requires the consent of the royal authority. In the 15th century Charles VII generally abolished the collection of taglia by individual major lords. The king forbade the feudal lords to establish new indirect taxes, which gradually led to their complete disappearance. Louis XI took away the right to mint coins from the feudal lords. In the 15th century There was only a single royal coin in circulation in France.

The kings deprived the feudal lords of their traditional privilege of waging private wars. Only a few large feudal lords retained in the 15th century. their independent armies, which gave them some political autonomy (Burgundy, Brittany, Armagnac).

Seigneurial legislation gradually disappeared, and by expanding the range of cases that constituted “royal cases,” seigneurial jurisdiction was significantly limited. In the XIV century. the possibility of appealing against any decision of the courts of individual feudal lords to the Parisian Parliament was provided for. This finally destroyed the principle according to which seigneurial justice was considered sovereign.

On the path of the French kings, who sought to unify the country and strengthen personal power, for a number of centuries there was another serious political obstacle - the Roman Catholic Church. The French crown never agreed with the papacy's claims to world domination, but, not feeling the necessary political support, avoided open confrontation. This situation could not persist indefinitely, and by the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th centuries. the strengthened royal power became increasingly incompatible with the policies of the Roman Curia. King Philip the Fair challenged Pope Boniface VIII by demanding subsidies from the French clergy to wage war with Flanders and by extending royal jurisdiction over all clergy privileges. As a response, the pope issued a bull in 1301, in which he threatened the king with excommunication. This conflict ended with the victory of secular (royal) power over spiritual power and the transfer, under pressure from the French kings, of the residence of the popes to Avignon (1309–1377) - the so-called “Avignon captivity of the popes.”

Victory of the French crown over the Roman Papacy, gradual liquidation independent rights feudal lords were accompanied in the XIV–XV centuries. the steady increase in the authority and political weight of royal power. Legalists played a major role in the legal justification of this process. The legalists defended the priority of secular power over ecclesiastical power and denied the divine origin of royal power in France: “The king received the kingdom from no one else but himself, and with the help of his sword.”

In 1303, the formula was put forward: “the king is the emperor in his kingdom.” She emphasized complete independence French king in international relations, including from the German-Roman emperor. The French king, according to legalists, had all the prerogatives of the Roman emperor.

With reference to a well-known principle of Roman law, the legalists argued that the king himself was the supreme law, and therefore could create legislation at his own will. To pass laws, the king no longer needed the convocation of vassals or the consent of the royal curia. The thesis was also put forward: “all justice stems from the king,” according to which the king received the right to consider any legal case himself or delegate this right to his servants.

The estate-representative monarchy was established at a certain stage of centralization of the country, when the autonomous rights of feudal lords, the Catholic Church, city corporations, etc. were not completely overcome. Solving important national problems and taking on a number of new state functions, the royal power gradually broke down the political structure characteristic of a seigneurial monarchy. But in implementing her policy, she faced powerful opposition from the feudal oligarchy, whose resistance she could not overcome only by her own means. Therefore, the king's political power largely stemmed from the support he received from the feudal classes.

It was at the beginning of the 14th century. The union of the king and representatives of different classes, including the third estate, is finally formalized, built on a political compromise, and therefore not always strong. The political expression of this union, in which each side had its own specific interests, became special estate-representative institutions - the Estates General and the Provincial States.

Estates General. The emergence of the Estates General marked the beginning of a change in the form of the state in France - its transformation into an estate-representative monarchy.

The emergence of the Estates General as a special government body was preceded by expanded meetings of the royal curia (consiliums, etc.), which took place back in the 12th–13th centuries. The convening of the Estates General by King Philip IV the Fair in 1302 (the name “Etats generaux” itself began to be used later, from 1484) had very specific historical reasons: an unsuccessful war in Flanders, serious economic difficulties, a dispute between the king and the Pope. But the creation of a national estate-representative institution was also a manifestation of an objective pattern in the development of the monarchical state in France.

The frequency of convening the Estates General was not established. This issue was decided by the king himself, depending on circumstances and political considerations. Each convocation of the states was individual and determined solely by the discretion of the king. The highest clergy (archbishops, bishops, abbots), as well as large secular feudal lords, were invited personally. The Estates General of the first convocations did not have elected representatives from the nobility. Later, the practice was established according to which the middle and minor nobility elect their deputies. Elections were also held from churches, conventions of monasteries and cities (2-3 deputies each). But townspeople and especially legalists were sometimes elected from the clergy and nobility. Approximately 1/7 of the Estates General were lawyers. Deputies from the cities represented their patrician-burgher elite. Thus, the Estates General has always been a body representing the propertied strata of French society.

The issues submitted for consideration by the Estates General and the duration of their meetings were also determined by the king. The king resorted to convening the Estates General in order to gain the support of the estates on various occasions: the fight against the Knights Templar (1308), the conclusion of a treaty with England (1359), religious wars (1560, 1576, 1588), etc. The king requested the opinion of the States General on a number of bills, although formally their consent to the adoption of royal laws was not required. But most often the reason for convening the Estates General was the king’s need for money, and he turned to the estates with a request for financial assistance or permission for the next tax, which could be collected only within one year. It was not until 1439 that Charles VII agreed to levy a permanent royal tax. But if it was a question of establishing any additional taxes, then, as before, the consent of the Estates General was required.

The Estates General addressed the king with requests, complaints, and protests. They had the right to make proposals and criticize the activities of the royal administration. But since there was a certain connection between the requests of the estates and their vote on the subsidies requested by the king, the latter in a number of cases yielded to the Estates General and issued an appropriate ordinance at their request.

The Estates General as a whole were not simple tool royal nobility, although objectively they helped it strengthen and strengthen its position in the state. In a number of cases they opposed the king, avoiding making decisions that pleased him. When the estates showed intransigence, the kings did not gather them for a long time (for example, from 1468 to 1484). After 1484, the Estates General practically stopped meeting altogether (until 1560).

The most acute conflict between the Estates General and royal power occurred in 1357 at the time of the uprising of the townspeople in Paris and the capture of the French King John by the British. The Estates General, in whose work mainly representatives of the third estate took part, put forward a reform program called Great March Ordinance. In return for granting royal subsidies, they demanded that the collection and expenditure of funds be carried out by the Estates General themselves, who were to meet three times a year, and without being convened by the king. “General reformers” were elected, who were given the power to control the activities of the royal administration, dismiss individual officials and punish them, even applying the death penalty. However, the attempt of the Estates General to secure permanent financial, supervisory and even legislative powers was unsuccessful. After the suppression of the Parisian uprising and the Jacquerie in 1358, the royal authorities rejected the demands contained in the Great March Ordinance.

In the Estates General, each estate met and discussed issues separately. Only in 1468 and 1484. all three classes held their meetings together. Voting was usually organized by balyages and seneschalties, where deputies were elected. If differences were found in the positions of the estates, voting was carried out by estate. In this case, each estate had one vote and, in general, the feudal lords always had an advantage over the third estate.

Deputies elected to the Estates General were given an imperative mandate. Their position on issues put up for discussion, including voting, was bound by the instructions of the voters. After returning from the meeting, the deputy had to report to voters.

In a number of regions of France (Provence, Flanders) from the end of the 13th century. local class-representative institutions emerge. At first they were called “consilium”, “parliament” or simply “people of the three classes”. By the middle of the 15th century. the terms “states of Burgundy”, “states of Dauphine”, etc. began to be used. The name “provincial states” was established only in the 16th century. By the end of the 14th century. there were 20 local states in the 15th century. they were present in almost every province. Peasants were not allowed into the provincial states, as well as into the Estates General. Often kings opposed individual provincial states, since they were strongly influenced by local feudal lords (in Normandy, Languedoc), and pursued a policy of separatism.

Central and local government. The emergence of an estate-representative monarchy and gradual concentration political power in the hands of the king did not immediately entail the creation of a new apparatus of government.

The central government bodies have not undergone significant reorganization. At the same time, the important principle is affirmed that the king is not bound by the opinion of his advisers, but, on the contrary, all administrative and other powers of government officials derive from the king. Of the previous positions, which have now turned into court titles, only the position of chancellor, who became the king’s closest assistant, retained its significance. Chancellor, as before, he was the head of the royal chancellery, he now drew up numerous royal acts, appointed to judicial positions, presided over the royal curia and the council in the absence of the king.

The further development of centralization was manifested in the fact that an important place in the central government system was occupied by the court created on the basis of the royal curia. Big tip(from 1314 to 1497). This council included legalists, as well as 24 representatives of the highest secular and spiritual nobility (princes, peers of France, archbishops, etc.). The Council met once a month, but its powers were purely advisory. As royal power strengthens, its importance decreases; the king more often resorts to convening a narrow, secret council consisting of persons invited at his discretion.

New positions also appeared in the central royal apparatus, selected from legists and low-ranking nobles loyal to the king - clerks, secretaries, notaries, etc. These positions did not always have clearly defined functions and were not organizationally combined into a single administrative apparatus.

The provost and the bailiffs, which had previously been the main bodies of local administration, in the 14th century. lose a number of their functions, in particular military. This is due to the decline in the importance of the feudal militia. Many legal cases that were previously considered by the bailiffs are transferred to the lieutenants they appoint. From the end of the 15th century. kings are directly appointed to the balyages lieutenants, and the bailiffs turn into an intermediate and weak administrative link.

In an effort to centralize local government, kings introduce new positions governors. In some cases, governors who received the rank of royal lieutenant had purely military functions. In other cases, they were appointed to the bailey, replacing the bailiffs and receiving broader powers: to prohibit the construction of new castles, to prevent private wars, etc.

In the XIV century. such officials appear as lieutenant generals, usually appointed from among the princes of the blood and noble nobility. This position was initially established at short term and with narrow powers: exemption from certain taxes, pardon, etc. In the 15th century. the number of lieutenant generals increased and the duration of their activities increased. They usually ruled a group of baljazhs or an administrative district, which at the end of the 15th century. began to be called a province.

Local centralization also affected city life. Kings often deprived cities of the status of communes, changed previously issued charters, and limited the rights of citizens. The royal administration begins to control the elections of the city administration, selecting suitable candidates. A system of administrative guardianship was established over the cities. Although in the 15th century. Communes in some cities were restored, they were fully integrated into the royal administration. The city aristocracy still enjoyed limited self-government, but all important meetings of the city councils were usually presided over by a royal official.

Organization of financial management. Lack of a stable financial base for a long time affected the general position of royal power, especially since the Hundred Years War required enormous expenses. At first, income from the domain and from the minting of coins remained an important source of funds for the state treasury, and kings, trying to strengthen their financial position, often issued inferior money. However, gradually the collection of royal taxes became the main source of replenishment of the treasury. In 1369, the permanent collection of customs duties and salt taxes was legalized. Since 1439, when the Estates General authorized the levy of a permanent royal tag, the king's financial position has been significantly strengthened. The size of the waist has steadily increased. Thus, under Louis XI (1461–1483) it tripled.

During the same period, specialized financial management bodies emerged. At the beginning of the 14th century. the royal treasury was created, and then a special Accounts Chamber, which gave advice to the king on financial matters, checked the income coming from the bailiff, etc. Under Charles VII, France was divided into generalities (generalités) for fiscal purposes. The generals placed at their head had a number of administrative, but primarily tax functions.

Organization of the armed forces. The general restructuring of management also affected the army. The feudal militia continues to exist, but since the 14th century. the king demands direct military service from all the nobility. In 1314, major lords challenged this order, but during the Hundred Years' War it was finally established.

The main goal of royal power was gradually achieved - the creation of an independent armed force, which was a reliable instrument of centralized state policy. Strengthening the king's financial base allowed him to create a mercenary armed force (from Germans, Scots, etc.), organized into shock troops. In 1445, having the opportunity to levy a permanent tax, Charles VII organized a regular royal army with centralized leadership and a clear system. Permanent garrisons were also stationed throughout the kingdom to prevent a revival of feudal unrest.

Judicial system. The royal administration pursued a policy of unification in judicial matters, somewhat limiting ecclesiastical jurisdiction and displacing seigneurial jurisdiction. The judicial system was still extremely confusing, the court was not separated from the administration.

Minor court cases were decided by the provost, but cases of serious crimes (the so-called royal cases) were heard in the court of the bailiff, and in the 15th century. - in court presided over by a lieutenant. The local nobility and the royal prosecutor took part in the court of the baili. Since provosts, bailiffs, and later lieutenants were appointed and dismissed at the discretion of the king, all judicial activities were completely controlled by the king and his administration. The role of the Paris Parliament grew, whose members, from 1467, began to be appointed not for one year, as before, but for life. Parliament turned into the highest court for the affairs of the feudal nobility, became the most important appellate authority in all court cases. Along with the implementation of purely judicial functions, parliament in the first half of the 14th century. acquires the right to register royal warrants and other royal documents. Since 1350, registration of legislative acts in the Paris Parliament has become mandatory. The lower courts and parliaments of other cities could only use registered royal ordinances when making their decisions. If the Paris Parliament found inaccuracies or deviations from the “laws of the kingdom” in the registered act, it could declare remonstration(objection) and refuse to register such an act. Remonstrance was overcome only through the personal presence of the king at a meeting of parliament. At the end of the 15th century. Parliament repeatedly used its right of remonstrance, which increased its authority among other government bodies, but ultimately led to a conflict with royal power.

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

The formation of the estate-representative monarchy in the XIV-XV centuries. Mining is rapidly developing in Hungary, in particular, the mining of precious metals and copper is growing. This was facilitated by the activities of the royal authorities, interested in increasing income from development

From the book People's Monarchy author Solonevich Ivan

MONARCHY AND PLAN Modern humanity is suffering from plan fever. Everyone plans something, and no one succeeds. Stalin's five-year plans completely ruined the country and concentrated in camps either ten or fifteen million unplanned survivors.

From the book History of State and Law of Foreign Countries. Part 1 author Krasheninnikova Nina Aleksandrovna

§ 3. Estate-representative monarchy Features of the estate structure. In the 13th century the balance of social and political forces in the country continued to change in favor of strengthening the principles of centralization and concentration of all power in the hands of the monarch. As direct

From the book World History. Volume 4. Hellenistic period author Badak Alexander Nikolaevich

Monarchy and polis As a result of the struggle of the diadochi, which lasted almost five decades, the gigantic empire of Alexander the Great collapsed. Its collapse led to the emergence of a number of new states, which turned out to be relatively more stable than the “world

From the book Russians in a Foreign Land, X–XX centuries. [ Unknown pages life stories of Russian people outside the Fatherland] author Soloviev Vladimir Mikhailovich

A hospitable monarchy “If I had to choose a home outside my homeland, I would prefer Brussels,” the historian and publicist Pavel Sumarokov wrote in his essay “A Walk Abroad” in 1820. In 1717, Peter I arrived in Belgium on an official visit. Then the country

From the book Spain from Antiquity to the Middle Ages author Tsirkin Yuliy Berkovich

MONARCHY The head of the Visigothic state was the king (rex), and the state itself was a kingdom (regnum). The Visigothic monarchy, as has already been discussed in detail, was formed gradually. And we can consider that the process of this formation was completed during the reign of Eurich.

From the book History of the Russian State and Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

14. SOCIAL ORDER AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORM OF STATE UNITY DURING THE ESTATE-REPRESENTATIVE MONARCHY. ZEMSKY SOBRAH Since 1547, the head of state - the monarch - received a new title - royal, which emphasized his increased influence and prestige. Feudal nobility

author author unknown

22. CLASS-REPRESENTATIVE MONARCHY IN FRANCE. STATES GENERAL In 1302, King Philip IV convened the first French estates-representative body, later (in 1484) called the Estates General. The Estates General included representatives of all three classes:

From the book History of State and Law of Foreign Countries: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

25. GERMAN ESTATES – REPRESENTATIVE MONARCHY. POLITICAL DECENTRALIZATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE In 1356, the Golden Bull was issued by the German Emperor and the Czech King Charles IV of the Luxembourg dynasty. According to it, all real power in the empire was

From the book General History of State and Law. Volume 2 author Omelchenko Oleg Anatolievich

author

Estate-class structure of Roman society in the 6th–3rd centuries. BC e In the process of decomposition of the tribal system in the 6th century. BC e. A state is formed in Rome. The main classes-estates of Roman society at that time were privileged patricians and legally free, but

From the book History of the Ancient World [East, Greece, Rome] author Nemirovsky Alexander Arkadevich

Chapter VII Economy and class-class structure of Roman-Italian society in the 2nd–1st centuries. BC e In the IV–III centuries. BC e. begins in Italy (in the cities of Magna Graecia), and in the 2nd century. BC e. The transition from patriarchal to classical slavery is completed. It was deep

From the book History of the Ancient World [East, Greece, Rome] author Nemirovsky Alexander Arkadevich

Estate-class structure The main classes in Roman-Italian society in the 2nd and 1st centuries. BC e. there was a ruling class (large and medium-sized land and slave owners, owners of large craft workshops, rich merchants), a class of free small producers (peasants,

From the book Essay on the history of the Lithuanian-Russian state up to and including the Union of Lublin author Lyubavsky Matvey Kuzmich

XXXVII. Class and political harassment of the gentry at the diets of 1547, 1551 and 1554. and the results of these harassments Request for confirmation and implementation of zemstvo privileges. Double confirmation of these privileges. Question about storing and publishing privileges. Petitions for

From the book National History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna

18 CLASS-REPRESENTATIVE MONARCHY IN RUSSIA XVI-XVII CENTURIES In February 1613, the Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow to elect the head of state - the tsar. A representative of the old Moscow boyars, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, was elected tsar. His election promised universal

From the book History of State and Law of Russia author Timofeeva Alla Alexandrovna

The state and law of Russia during the period of the estate-representative monarchy (mid-XVI - mid-XVII centuries) Option 11. Tribal aristocracy in medieval Russia) boyars; b) clergy; c) landowners.2. Localism is a) a system of obtaining positions by boyars based on the principle of nobility; b)