INPUT DIAGNOSTIC
TEST
ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA XIX CENTURIES
for 9th grade students
(class 8 course)
ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA XIX CENTURIES
1 option
1 . Russia in the middle XIX century was:
1) absolute monarchy 2) constitutional monarchy
3) a democratic republic 4) a noble dictatorship
2. Tarutinsky march-maneuver of the Russian army during World War II
Completed the defeat of the Napoleonic army
Allowed the 1st and 2nd Russian armies to connect
Blocked the advance of the French to the Tula military factories
Forced Napoleon to give a general battle on the Borodino field
3. The decree "on free cultivators", according to which the landowners received the right to release the peasants into the wild for a ransom, approved:
1) Pavel I; 2) Alexander I 3) Nicholas I 4) Alexander II
3) Grant autonomy to all the peoples of Russia 4) Weaken serfdom
5. Under Nicholas I, the code of laws of the Russian Empire was drawn up:
1) S.S. Uvarov 2) A.A. Arakcheev
3) M.M. Speransky 4) A.Kh. Benkendorf
6. Reasons for the fall of serfdom (mark the extra):
1) economic development along the path of capitalism 2) the growth of peasant movements
3) defeat in Crimean War 4) the desire of the landowners to free the peasants
7. Judicial reform of 1864 provided:
1) classlessness, publicity, independence of the court 2) closed court sessions
3) lack of competitiveness of the process (occurred without the participation of the prosecutor and defense counsel)
8. What testified to the continuation by Alexander III reformist course
1) Destruction of the peasant community 2) Rejection of the policy of protectionism
9 . Match
The era of great reforms
"The Days of Alexander's are a great start"
"Enlightened Absolutism"
A) 1762-1796
B) 1881-1894
C) 60-70s. 19th century
D) early 19th century
1. Nicholas I A) 1881-1896
2. Alexander II B) 1801-1825
3 Alexander I B) 1855-1881
4 Alexander III D) 1825-1855
11. Read an excerpt from historical source and briefly answer the questions
From the memoirs of an eyewitness
“All day long, besides the troops, a lot of people crowded on the Admiralteyskaya and Senate squares... Of the people, almost no one participated in the rebellion ... "
From a letter from N. M. Karamzin
“The new emperor showed fearlessness and firmness. The first two shots scattered the madmen from the "Polar Star" - Bestuzhev, Ryleev and their worthy minions ... I, a peaceful historiographer, was hungry for cannon thunder, being sure that there was no other way to stop the rebellion.
What event is being referred to in the following passages? Determine the date (day, month, year) of this event and the name of the city in which this event took place
INPUT DIAGNOSTIC CONTROL ROOM
ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA XIX CENTURIES
Option 2
1. What country was Russia in the early 19th century?
1) Industrial 2) Autocratic
3) Democratic 4) Capitalist
2. What testified to the liberal course of Alexander 1
1) Creation of military settlements 2) Resignation of Speransky
3) Amnesty for prisoners 4) Appointment of Arakcheev as Minister of War
3. Having decided to leave Moscow to Napoleon, M.I. Kutuzov had main goal:
2) impose peace negotiations on Napoleon
3) to organize the resistance of Muscovites to the invaders
4) buy time to organize a partisan movement
4. What aspiration united the members of the Northern Society and the Southern Society?
1) Abolish landownership 2) Abolish serfdom
3) Proclaim Russia a republic 4) Establish a constitutional monarchy in Russia
5. What function did the 3rd department perform own office emperor:
1) was in charge of political investigation; 2) was in charge of economic issues;
3) ruled Poland.
6. What were the functions of zemstvos?
1) the exercise of political power in the localities; 2) performance of police functions;
3) solution of economic, administrative and cultural issues of local importance.
7. Military reform 1874:
1) introduced universal military service; 2) maintained a 25-year service life;
3) announced recruitment kits.
8. After the death of Alexander II in Russia begins:
1) the course of "counter-reforms"; 2) strengthening of the populist movement;
3) expansion of the liberal movement.
9. Match
Nikolaev rule
The era of counter-reforms
"Palace Revolutions"
A) 1725-1762
B) 1825-1855
B) 1881-1894
D) 60-70s of the 19th century
10. Match the names of Russian emperors and the dates of their reign:
1. Nicholas I A) 1881-1896
2. Alexander III B) 1801-1825
3. Alexander II B) 1855-1881
4. Alexander I D) 1825-1855
11. Read an excerpt from the memoirs of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and write the name of the emperor whose death is described. Determine the year of this event and the name of the city in which this event took place.
“Sunday, March 1, my father went, as usual, to the parade at half past one. We, the boys, decided to go ... to skate.
Exactly at three o'clock there was a sound of the strongest explosion.
This is a bomb! my brother George said.
At the same moment, an even stronger explosion shook the panes of the windows in our room... A minute later a footman, out of breath, ran into the room.
The sovereign is dead! he shouted.
INPUT DIAGNOSTIC CONTROL ROOM
ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA XIX CENTURIES
3 option
1. The dates 1801, 1825, 1855, 1881 refer to
the process of liberation of peasants from serfdom
the beginning of the reigns of Russian emperors
reforms government controlled
start of military campaigns
2. As a result of the retreat of the Russian troops at the beginning of the Patriotic War of 1812,
Napoleon defeated the Russian armies separately
French army captured Kyiv
the French army approached St. Petersburg
The 1st and 2nd Russian armies managed to connect near Smolensk
3. In 1810, according to the project of M. Speransky, the following was established:
1) Cabinet of Ministers. 2) The secret committee
3) State Council 4) Essential advice.
4. Domestic policy of Nicholas I characterized
1) Continuation of the liberal reforms of AlexanderI
2) The fight against revolutionary sentiments
3) The transformation of Russia into constitutional state
4) Carrying out reforms to improve the situation of serfs
5. Which of the statesmen Emperor Nicholas I was entrusted with reforming the management of the state peasants?
1) P.D. Kiselev 3) Ya.I. Rostovtsev
2) M.M. Speransky 4) A.Kh. Benkendorf
6. The peasants were given land under the reform of 1861.
1) at the expense of a loan from the landowner 2) for redemption with the assistance of zemstvo administrations
3) at the expense of the state treasury 4) for ransom with the assistance of the state
7. The abolition of serfdom in Russia took place during the reign of:
1) Nicholas I 2) Alexandra III
3) Alexandra II 4) Alexandra I
8. Who ruled the cities under the urban reform of 1870?
1) governors; 2) city dumas; 3) city councils
9. Set the correspondence between the elements of the left and right columns. One element of the left column corresponds to one element of the right column.
concept
Definition
military settlers
A. peasants freed from serfdom with the land on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landowners
otkhodniks
B. peasants who combined military service with economic activity
temporarily liable
V. personally free peasants who performed duties in favor of the landowner before the conclusion of the redemption transaction
D. peasants who temporarily left the village for seasonal work
10. Match the names of Russian emperors and the dates of their reign:
1. Alexander I A) 1855-1881
2. Alexander II B) 1825-1855
3. Alexander III B) 1801-1825
4. Nicholas I D) 1881-1896
11. Read an excerpt from the description of one of the battles of the Patriotic War.
Biggest battle The war began at half past six in the morning. The French sought to break through the center of the Russian troops, bypass their left flank and free their way to Moscow. The stubborn resistance of the Russian soldiers made this impossible.
What event is being referred to in this passage? Determine the date (day, month, year) of this event and the name of the Emperor of Russia, during whose reign this event took place.
STANDARDS OF ANSWERS
input diagnostic control work
on the history of Russia in the 9th grade
№ tasks
1 option
Option 2
3 option
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1V, 2G, 3A
1B, 2C, 3A
1B, 2G, 3C
10
1G, 2V, 3B, 4A
1G, 2A, 3B, 4B
1B, 2A, 3G, 4B
11
Alexander II, 1881, Petersburg
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Tasks 1 - 8 for 1 point - 8 points
Tasks 9 - 10 for 2 points - 4 points
Task 11 -- 3 points
Total -- 15 points
15 - 14 points - "5"
13 - 11 points - "4"
10 - 7 points - "3"
6 or less points - "2"
Creation and activity of the State Council of the Russian Empire as the highest legislative institution of Russia (1810-1906)
The State Council of the Russian Empire (hereinafter referred to as the Council) is a product of Russian statehood New time. Its history begins in 1801 or 1810. In March 1801, instead of the existing inactive Council at the royal court, the Permanent Council was created “for discussions about state affairs” (official documents called the Council “State”), which was endowed with legislative functions.
“The indispensable council stood at the height of its vocation, was a true legislative institution in the state, closely following the modern satisfaction of emerging social needs .... The activities of the Council were distinguished in many cases by such nobility, humane character, it revealed such a comprehensive understanding of the real needs of the country ... that the Permanent Council can be safely put at the head of the state administration of the first era of the reforms of Alexander I ... "Shcheglov V.G. State Council in the reign of Emperor Alexander the First. Yaroslavl, 1895. S. 350 - 351
In 1810, the Council was reformed under the influence of M.M. Speransky. The project for the reform of the council was prepared in secret and very hastily. By the end of 1809 the project was ready. On the evening of December 31, all members of the State Council received summons, according to which they met on the morning of January 1, 1810. After the Emperor's speech, M.M. Speransky read the manifesto on the formation of the State Council. Thus began the activity of the State Council.
The powers and structure of the Council were determined by a special normative document- "Establishment of the State Council." The Council was also called upon to carry out codification activities. Council members were appointed by the emperor. The monarch was declared the permanent chairman of the Council of State. The council consisted of a general meeting, four departments, two commissions and the State Chancellery.
According to the "Establishment of the Council of State" of 1810, cases requiring a new law, charter or institution, subjects of internal administration requiring the abolition, restriction or addition of previous provisions, cases on the interpretation of laws, measures and orders general, acceptable to successful execution laws, general internal measures, acceptable in emergency cases. The jurisdiction of the Council also included cases of declaring war, concluding peace and other important external measures, the state budget and additional loans, projects on the privatization of state revenues and property, as well as on the nationalization of private property and the appointment of compensation to their owners, reports of ministries. Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 6. M., 1988. S. 67
Thus, by the letter of the law, the Council of State had to preliminarily consider all legislative and most important administrative issues, controlling the ministers.
In all cases, the State Council presented its opinion to the emperor, who made the final decision. In 1812-1815. The council, during the absence of the monarch, had the right to issue laws in urgent cases and make some other decisions by its own authority with a report to the sovereign (State Council. 1801-1901. P. 27; Shcheglov V.G. The State Council in Russia in the first century of its formation and activity pp. 27)
At the head of the Council was the chairman. He was appointed by the emperor for one year and could be dismissed ahead of schedule. From January 1810 to 1906, the State Council had 12 chairmen and 2 presiding officers, 8 of them held this position for life. State Council. 1801-1901. C.3-4 (second pagination)
The activities of the State Council, which began in 1810 with broadcast statements and extensive plans, by 1825 subsided and became hardly noticeable in the movement of the state machine.
The State Council in the Nicholas era (1825-1855) occupied one of the most important places in the system of government. Nicholas I recognized its necessity, and gave paramount attention to its composition and, most importantly, leadership. The order of work of the State Council was determined by a number of private orders.
The first change in the Council's structure was the separation of the Law Drafting Commission. In February 1832, the Department of Affairs of the Kingdom of Poland was established as part of the Council. In January 1835, the Decision-making Commission under the State Council passed into the direct jurisdiction of the emperor. In 1854, the Department of Military Affairs ceased its activities.
In 1842, in the “Establishment of the State Council”, the following positions were added to the number of subjects to be considered in the State Council: cases of the establishment joint-stock companies, estimates and layouts of zemstvo duties by provinces and public collection for worldly expenses of state peasants, annual reports on state income and expenditure, etc.
During the reign of Nicholas I, such important laws as the establishment of commercial courts (1832), the new university charter (1835) and others passed through the State Council.
The scope of the Council's activities has expanded since 1850 due to the detailed consideration of the estimates of all ministries, and it has also gained the ability to control the implementation of all its decisions.
As a result, the activities of the State Council were introduced into a more rigid framework of the bureaucratic system. But at the same time, the new “Institution” contributed to a more organic inclusion of the Council in the management system characteristic of the pre-reform Russian Empire, which was the highest position of the State Council in the power vertical. State Council of the Russian Empire, Federation Council of the Federal Assembly Russian Federation in the history of Russian parliamentarism: continuity and traditions. M.: CJSC "OLMA Media Group", 2007. S. 17-18
Deep social and political reforms of the 1860s and 1870s contributed to a significant increase in the role of the State Council in the system of government and administration of the Russian Empire.
In the era of reforms, the role of the State Council in the budget process is being strengthened. At the same time, as a result of judicial reform, judicial functions have been significantly reduced. In September 1862, the "Basic provisions for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia" were approved, which separated the judiciary from the administrative and put forward the principles of the irremovability of judges, the oral and publicity of the court, etc.
In January 1875, it was confirmed by the highest command that all issues considered in the Council should be submitted to the emperor in the prescribed manner. This was aimed at increasing the emperor's control over legislative activities and at limiting the independence of individual ministers.
The most important work of the State Council in the reign of Alexander II was its participation in the peasant and military reforms.
In general, the composition of the State Council in the 1860-1870s was distinguished by high competence and a markedly increased level of education.
In the era of counter-reforms under Alexander III, the importance of the State Council is somewhat reduced. The emperor prefers to discuss bills in a narrower circle of trusted senior dignitaries. Most often, the Committee of Ministers acts as a narrow circle. This was due to the fact that dignitaries from the time of Alexander II played a significant role in the State Council, who were more liberal than the current ministers of the new reign.
During this period, the process of unification in the State Council of legislative and codification activities is completed. At the same time, one can speak of a formal strengthening of the role of the Council of State in the legislative process, although in fact there has never been an absolute monopoly of the Council on the consideration of all bills and other legislative measures. The State Council of the Russian Empire, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in the history of Russian parliamentarism: continuity and traditions. M.: CJSC "OLMA Media Group", 2007. P. 31
In just 13 years of the reign of Alexander III, 51 new members of the State Council were appointed. Under him, members of the State Council began to appoint not only ministers, etc., but also "fresh" people from the field - provincial marshals of the nobility, civil governors.
One of the first cases considered by the State Council in the new reign was the transfer to compulsory redemption of temporarily obliged peasants and the reduction of redemption payments. In 1881, the Council considered the question of abolishing the poll tax. The Council of State took an active part in the reform of local self-government, where it repeatedly encountered opposition from the emperor. He played an active role in the reform of the tariff business and the drafting of a new city regulation. There. S.32-34
In general, it can be said that the State Council of the 1880-1890s was at the height of its position.
At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, features of stagnation began to appear in the activities of the State Council. At this time, the Council took a more liberal position than the government, and sometimes acted as a restraining principle in relation to government initiatives.
The composition of the cases considered by the State Council still depended on the initiative of the ministers and the orders of the emperor. This was due to the State Council's lack of the right to initiate legislation. The main subjects of consideration of the State Council at that time were transformations in the economic field.
In January 1899, the emperor approved the opinion of the State Council, which approved the draft law of the Ministry of Justice on the abolition of exile to Siberia. New law also limited the administrative link.
In January 1900, the Department of Industry, Sciences and Trade was formed as part of the State Council. In January 1902, an interdepartmental Special Conference was established on the needs of the agricultural industry.
In June 1905, a law was issued to eliminate violations in the procedure for issuing laws. All projects were to be submitted general laws to the State Council. Demin V.A. Upper house of the Russian Empire. 1906-1917. - M.: "Russian Political Encyclopedia" (ROSSPEN), 2006. S. 29
At the end of April 1906, the pre-reform State Council completed its work, and new legislative chambers were convened.
Exercise 1.
1. What event happened before the others?
1. the reign of Alexander II began 3. a circular about “cook’s children” was issued
2. was completely destroyed " People's Will» 4. N.Kh. was appointed to the post of Minister of Finance. Bunge
2. What aspiration united the domestic policy of Alexander II and Alexander III?
1. to carry out liberal transformations in society 3. to strengthen Western influence on the internal life of the country
2. to modernize the domestic industry 4. Weaken the policy of Russification of the national outskirts
3. What testified about the continuation Alexander III reformist course?
1. the destruction of the peasant community 3. the emergence of workers' unions
2. Establishment of the Peasant Bank 4. Reduction of noble representations in local authorities
4. Resignation of M.T. Loris-Melikova and the appointment of D.A. Tolstoy also testified that Alexander III:
1. continued the reforms of Alexander II 3. agreed to the creation of the State Duma
2. pursued a policy of counter-reforms 4. agreed to negotiate with the revolutionaries
5. What was the purpose of government policy in late XIX century?
1. to encourage private entrepreneurship 3. to prohibit the import of foreign capital into Russia
2. to abandon the policy of protectionism 4. to destroy feudal remnants in the countryside
6. When was the decree on free cultivators adopted?
1. 1801 3. 1805
2. 1803 4. 1807
7. In 1810, according to the project of M. Speransky, the following was established:
1. Cabinet of Ministers. 3. The secret committee
2. Indispensable advice. 4. Council of State
8. What characterizes the social movement of the late 19th century?
1. the development of the labor movement 3. mass peasant uprisings
2. the unification of the liberal and conservative camps 4. the spread of populism
9. What did the seasonal hiring of workers in Russia testify to?
1. on the preservation of workers' ties with the countryside 3. on the long vacation of workers
2. on the development of labor legislation 4. on the revival of serfdom
10. Who was a supporter of the reformist direction in the democratic camp?
1. Marxists 3. Populists
2. conservatives 4. liberals
Task 2
Set the correspondence between the elements of the left and right columns. One element of the left column corresponds to one element of the right column.
Task 3
Cross out the extra element in each row.
1. Freedom from the poll tax, the right to trade and establish manufactories, the right to form political unions, freedom from recruitment duty, the right to own peasants - the right to form political unions
1. Hryvnia, cut, kuna, altyn, half, yasak - yasak
1. A.N. Radishchev, D.I. Fonvizin, F.M. Apraksin G.R. Derzhavin, M.V. Lomonosov - F.M. Apraksin
1. Baroque, classicism, conservatism, sentimentalism, romanticism - conservatism
1. P.P. Lyapunov, D.T. Trubetskoy, I.I. Bolotnikov, I.M. Zarutsky - I.I. Bolotnikov
Task 4
Arrange the events in chronological order.
Task 5
Indicate the concepts or terms hidden behind the definition.
5.1 A 12-volume church-literary urn, compiled in the 16th century under the guidance of Metropolitan Macarius for monthly reading, is called the Great Cheti-Minei
5.2 Embarrassment, oversight - Confusion
53 The style and direction in art and literature, distinguished by the appeal to the ancient heritage as a model, was called -. Classicism
5.4 A person who performs any duties in favor of the prince - Smerd
5.5 Typically, a small or dependent state located between two or more countries and forced to maneuver between them - Buffer State
Task 6
Make definitions of historical concepts from the given words and phrases. Name these concepts. Words and phrases cannot be used twice. You can add prepositions, change words by case (they are given in the nominative case), etc.
1. natural service, when serfs give the landowner part of the products or money - dues
2. collection by the prince of tribute from the subject land - polyudye
3. compensation that serfs paid to the owner of the land upon transfer to another owner on St. George's Day - elderly
4. representatives public thought who believed that Russia should develop in an original way and idealized the Russian past - Slavophiles
Task 7
Task 7 "Olympic Mosaic"
7.1 How is the Olympic torch lit? a beam of sunlight is directed to the torch, collected with the help of a system of lenses and reflectors
7.2 In which city is the headquarters of the International Olympic Committee located? - Lausanne, Switzerland
7.3 During opening Olympic Games one of the outstanding athletes of the country - the hostess delivers a speech on behalf of the participants of the Games. What is this speech? - olympic oath
7.4 For special services to the Olympic Movement, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awards a sports figure or athlete with the highest sign of Olympic honor. What is the name of this sign? - Olympic Order
Task 8
Fill in the gaps in the text.
As a result of the split of the Land and Freedom, two populist organizations arose. Opponents of terror called their organization "Black Repartition" (1). Soon all its members were arrested or forced to emigrate. Abroad, in Switzerland, a few years later, the former Narodniks created a new organization, the Emancipation of Labor (2). She stood on Marxist positions. This organization was headed by Plekhanov (3). During the split of the "Land and Freedom", supporters of the struggle for political rights and freedoms took the name "Narodnaya Volya" (4). The members of this organization believed that with the help of terror they would seize power and hand it over to the people. The leader of this organization was Zhelyabov (5).
Task 9
What refers to the cultural monuments of the second half of the 19th century?
1) Triumphal Arch in Moscow
2) a monument to A.S. Pushkin in Moscow (sculptor A.M. Opekushin)
3) the building of the City Duma in Moscow
4) opera by P.I. Tchaikovsky "The Queen of Spades"
5) a picture of P.A. Fedotov "Major's Matchmaking"
Answer: 2,3,4
Task 10
The Decembrist movement was a response to the policy of reaction, to which Alexander 1 switched after the Patriotic War of 1812. This was reflected in the strengthening of censorship, the restriction of freedoms, the introduction of military settlements, the issuance of decrees allowing landowners to exile peasants to Siberia, etc. The fading of the last hopes in the reformer tsar caused the rallying of the progressive people of the era, who decided to bring to life what they could not do emperor.
LECTURE VIII
Alexander's decision to return to internal transformations in 1809 - M. M. Speransky. – Development of a plan for state transformation. - Starting to implement it: the establishment of the Council of State and the transformation of the ministries. - Decrees on exams for ranks and on court ranks. – The desperate state of Russian finance in 1809-1810. - Speransky's financial plan. - Karamzin's note on the ancient and new Russia. - The fall of Speransky. - The state of public education. – Opening of learned societies.
Personality and state activity of Speransky
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Portrait by A. Varnek, 1824
The general discontent that engulfed all classes of Russian society after the Peace of Tilsit greatly embarrassed and worried Alexander. He understood that police measures could sometimes reveal a conspiracy, in the existence of which, however, he hardly seriously believed, although he allowed the intriguer Savary to expand on this subject in intimate conversations with him. But he understood that by these measures it was impossible to change the mood of minds in society.
Therefore, he tried to regain his general disposition in a different, more reasonable and more noble way - a return to those internal transformations that were planned, but were not carried out in the first years of his reign. This time, Alexander's main collaborator in the development of these transformations was a new statesman- Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky.
In terms of intelligence and talent, Speransky is undoubtedly the most remarkable of the statesmen who worked with Alexander, and, perhaps, the most remarkable state mind in all of recent Russian history. The son of a village priest, a pupil of the theological seminary, Speransky himself, without any patronage, managed not only to get into people, but also to get acquainted without outside help with the best political, economic and legal writings on French which he mastered to perfection. For four years, from the house secretary of Prince Kurakin, he managed, solely by virtue of his talents, to advance to the state secretaries of the emperor, and already at the very beginning of Alexander's reign, because of the desire to have him in his department, there were even quarrels between the then most powerful ministers - between Troshchinsky and Kochubey. And Alexander himself knew and appreciated Speransky already at that time.
I have already spoken about the note that Speransky, on behalf of Alexander, given to him through Kochubey, prepared back in 1803. Actually, the same principles that he put into this note were developed in his famous plan for state transformation, although, as you You will see that Speransky's mood, perhaps, depending on his trip abroad (to Erfurt in 1808) and in connection with Alexander's mood, changed greatly in an optimistic direction regarding the country's readiness for a constitutional order.
Alexander, having stopped direct studies on the question of the constitutional system as early as 1802, did not, however, cease to occupy others with it. Such an order was received, for example, in 1804 by Baron Rosenkampf, who at that time served in the commission of laws and did not know Russian at that time. His project, which he called the “cadre of the constitution,” was then transferred to Novosiltsev and Czartorysky, but since hostilities began in 1805, this plan lay dormant for a long time and only in 1808, among other materials, was received by Speransky, when he, on his return from Erfurt, received from Alexander an order to deal with the general plan for state reforms. Korf tells, and Schilder repeats, an anecdote that allegedly in Erfurt, where Speransky met the then famous Napoleon, Talleyrand, and others, the following conversation took place between him and Alexander: Alexander asked Speransky about the impression made on him by Europe, and Speransky allegedly answered: "We have better people, but here the institutions are better." Alexander said that this was also his idea, and added: “Upon returning to Russia, we will talk about this again.” In direct connection with this conversation, some researchers put a new attack on reforms in 1809.
I think that this conversation could hardly have taken place. In Prussia at that time there was no constitution, and its whole system was in decay, and the Germans were faced with the task of creating it anew; in France at that time there was only the ghost of a constitution, and all its "constitutional" institutions were clearly charlatan in nature. Alexander and Speransky knew this very well, and therefore it is difficult to assume that the phrase “We have better people, but institutions here” could belong to Speransky, especially since he had no reason to give a flattering review of Russian figures. It would be more correct to assume that Alexander, who was embarrassed by the growing opposition in society, in the form of calming society, decided to resume his previous concerns about improving the internal administration of Russia, hoping in this way to restore the former sympathy for himself in society. It is important to note the change in the views of Speransky himself, which took place since 1803: then he recognized the radical reform as unrealizable, and now the implementation of broad reform plans seemed to him completely possible. This change in Speransky's views could have been influenced by the conversations he had in Erfurt with Talleyrand and others, and in particular by the change in Alexander's mood. Subsequently, in his acquittal letter from Perm, Speransky emphasized that the main idea of the transformation plan was prescribed to him by Alexander himself.
The liberalism of the Speransky program
In his “plan”, in the chapter “On the Reason of the State Code”, Speransky analyzes in detail the question of the timeliness of introducing the correct state structure Russia. Noting at the same time that while in the West constitutions were arranged "in fragments" and after cruel coup d'etat, the Russian constitution will owe its existence to the beneficent thought of the supreme power, on which it depends, therefore, to choose the time of its introduction and give it the most correct forms. , he turns to an assessment of the "opportuneness" of the moment and embarks on rather extensive historical and political research, and reduces all the political systems that existed in the world to three main ones: the republic, the feudal monarchy and despotism. History of Western European states since time crusades represents, according to Speransky, the history of the struggle, as a result of which the feudal form is giving way more and more to the republican one. As for Russia, Speransky believes that Russia has already emerged from purely feudal forms, since the fragmented power is already united in the hands of one person, and there were already attempts to introduce a constitution - with the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna and under Catherine II. Recognizing these attempts as "ill-timed", Speransky, contrary to the view expressed in 1803, believes that a radical state reform is feasible at the present time. The presence of serfdom no longer bothers him, since he finds that a constitutional device can exist even in the absence of equality in the country. Therefore, he builds his plans on the same system of class rights, and even hallmark nobility recognizes the right to own populated estates, so that serfdom in his plan for the near future is, as it were, one of the essential elements of the transformed system. He gives political rights only to those citizens who have property; thus, he puts the qualification system at the basis of the planned state structure.
Speransky considers the important measures that prepared Russia for the constitution to be the permission for people of all free estates to buy land, the establishment of the estate of free cultivators, the publication of the Livland Regulations on Peasants and the establishment of ministries with responsibility (although he himself, back in 1803, perfectly understood, as you saw, the cost of this responsibility). More important is Speransky's recognition of the importance of public sentiment. As symptoms of the fact that the moment for reform is ripe, he recognizes the fall in society of respect for ranks, orders and, in general, for external signs of power, the decline in the moral prestige of power, the growth of the spirit of criticism of government actions. He points out the impossibility under such conditions of private corrections. existing system, especially in the field of financial management, and concludes that the time has come to change the old order of things. These considerations of Speransky, undoubtedly approved by Alexander himself, are precious to us: they testify to the extent to which the government was aware that elements had developed that aspired to participate in state administration.
Turning to the consideration of a way out of this situation, Speransky points out two ways out: one is an insincere, fictitious way out, the other is a sincere, radical one.
The first way out is to clothe autocratic rights in the external form of legality, leaving, in essence, them in their former strength; the second way out lies in such a device, “not only to cover autocracy with external forms, but to limit it with the internal and essential force of institutions and establish sovereign power on the law not by words, but by deed itself.” Speransky emphatically points out that at the very beginning of the reforms one must definitely choose one or the other way out. Institutions can serve as fictitious reforms, which, while presenting the appearance of a free legislative power, would in fact be under the influence and in complete dependence on autocratic power. At the same time, the executive power must be established in such a way that it expression the law was responsible, but also mind his would be completely independent. And the authorities of the court should be given (with such a device) all the advantages visible freedom, but to tie her up in reality with such institutions that she being its always been dependent on autocratic power. As an example of such a fictitious constitutional structure, Speransky points to the system of Napoleonic France.
If, on the contrary, it is proposed to accept the second alternative, then the picture of the state system will have to turn out to be completely different: firstly, the legislative institutions must then be so arranged that, although they could not carry out their assumptions without the approval of the sovereign power, but so that at the same time, their judgments were free and would express the real opinion of the people; secondly, the judicial department must be formed in such a way that in its existence it depends on free choice, and the sole supervision of the execution of the judicial form would belong to the government; thirdly, the executive power must be made accountable to the legislative power.
“Comparing these two systems with each other,” explains Speransky, “there is no doubt that the first of them has only the appearance of a law, and the other has its very essence; the first - under the pretext of the unity of sovereign power - introduces perfect autocracy, and the other - seeks to actually limit it and moderate it ... "
The question was thus put so directly and clearly that Alexander was barred from all sorts of dreamy uncertainties and had to seriously choose one of the two, the first system having been discredited in advance.
Speransky reform project
Alexander chose the second exit. Speransky developed a corresponding plan for the state structure, and Alexander, after a two-month almost daily discussion of this plan with Speransky, in the autumn of 1809 ordered that it be put into action.
This plan was as follows: according to the existing administrative division of the country, the main territorial units were recognized provinces, divided into counties, in turn divided into volosts. In each volost, volost dumas were designed, which would include elected from state peasants (from 500 one) and all personal land owners. The composition of these dooms would be updated every three years. The main subjects of the department of the volost duma were to be: 1) in the selection of members of the volost board, which, according to the plan, would be in charge of the local zemstvo economy, 2) in control of volost incomes and expenditures, 3) in the selection of deputies to the district (district) duma, 4) in representations to a district thought about volost needs. The district duma was to consist of deputies elected by the volost councils; its competence was corresponding to the competence of volost dumas, but concerned the affairs of the county; she elected deputies to the provincial duma, the district council and the district court.
The provincial duma was supposed to have similar competence, and then the State Duma, formed from deputies of all provincial dumas, was to meet annually in St. Petersburg. However, the meetings of this State Duma, according to Speransky's project, could be postponed by the supreme power for a year; its dissolution could follow only after the selection of the composition of the deputies of the next Duma. The State Chancellor, that is, an appointed person, was to preside over the State Duma; work was to be carried out on commissions. The right of legislative initiative would belong only to the supreme power, with the exception of ideas about state needs, about the responsibility of officials and about orders that violate fundamental state laws. The Senate was to become the highest court and consist of persons elected for life by the provincial dumas, who would be approved by the supreme power.
In addition to the State Duma, the plan was to establish a State Council, consisting of the highest state dignitaries for the election of the monarch himself; but the State Council, according to Speransky's plan, was not to be a second legislative chamber, as it is now, but an advisory institution under the monarch, which would consider all new proposals of ministers and proposed financial measures before they were submitted to the State Duma.
Such was the general outline of Speransky's plan, approved by Alexander in principle. Undoubtedly, there were many imperfections in this plan, some of which are already visible from the very presentation of it, while others consisted in an insufficiently precise definition of the law and an administrative order, in an insufficiently clear establishment of the order of responsibility of ministries, etc. But we will not dwell here on these imperfections, because this plan was not carried out. Recognizing its satisfaction and usefulness, Alexander decided, however, to introduce it in parts, especially since there was no ready-made bill item by article. For the first time, it was decided to publish a new institution of ministries and the Council of State as an advisory institution under the monarch.
At the same time, the State Council, of course, did not receive - until the implementation of the entire plan - that preparatory character, which was given to it in Speransky's plan; it was divided into four departments - the department of civil and religious affairs, the department of laws, the department of military and the department of state economy. Each department had a position of secretary of state. Speransky was appointed secretary of state, and in his hands, in addition to the affairs that were part of the general meeting of the Council, all the threads of state reforms and all the then legislative activity were connected.
The project for the establishment of the State Council, before its publication, was shown to some influential dignitaries - Zavadovsky, Lopukhin, Kochubey and others, without, however, initiating them into the secret of the whole conceived transformation. All these dignitaries reacted quite favorably to him, having no idea of the significance that the State Council was supposed to have according to Speransky's plan.
Decrees of Speransky on court ranks and promotion to ranks
Meanwhile, despite all the efforts of Speransky to occupy a secluded position outside of any parties, an extremely hostile attitude was already formed against him in bureaucratic, noble and court circles. It was especially aggravated due to two decrees - April 3 and August 6, 1809, which were attributed to the direct influence of Speransky. The first decree prescribed that all persons who bore court titles should choose some service for themselves. After this law, all court ranks, which until then were considered positions, became only honorary distinctions and no longer reported any official rights. The second decree, in the form of improving the staff, required that the ranks of collegiate assessor and state adviser be given only after passing a certain exam or upon presentation of a university diploma.
Both of these decrees aroused indignation in the court and bureaucratic milieu against Speransky; all sorts of undermining and intrigues began, with the help of which, in the end, Speransky's enemies managed to topple this remarkable statesman, after he incurred general displeasure in the then noble society, through no fault of his own, by a failed attempt to streamline state finances, brought almost to complete collapse a constant increase in spending and issuance of paper money due to the results of the continental system.
Speransky's measures in the field of finance
I have already said that after the Peace of Tilsit in 1808, the treasury's revenues amounted to 111 million rubles. banknotes, which amounted to about 50 million rubles for silver, while expenses reached 248 million rubles. banknotes. The deficit was covered by a new issue of banknotes, and their exchange rate this year was below 50 kopecks. per ruble, and in the summer months it fell even below 40 kopecks. The following year, 1809, it did not exceed 40 kopecks on average per year, and by the end of the year it had dropped to 35 kopecks. Revenues this year amounted to 195 million rubles. banknotes (less than 80 million rubles for silver), and expenses - 278 million rubles. banknotes (about 114 million rubles in silver). The deficit was again covered by a new issue of banknotes, but they were no longer in circulation: the market refused to accept such a large number of banknotes. By the end of 1810, their rate dropped below 20 kopecks. for a ruble of silver. The bankruptcy of the country was approaching. In this difficult situation, as early as 1809, Alexander turned to the same Speransky on this difficult and formidable issue.
I have just mentioned the significance of the narrowing of the market and the contraction of trade for the depreciation of paper money. This narrowing was due, as I have already said, to the continental system, which stopped the export of flax and hemp to England, which then accounted for about half of our total export of goods. At the same time, the customs tariff that existed at that time was very unfavorable for the development of our large-scale industry, since, due to the insignificance of the customs duty on foreign manufactured goods, Russian factories could not compete with foreign ones. In addition, due to the excess of imports over exports, the balance turned out to be very unfavorable for Russia: we had to pay for imported items in specie, meanwhile, we received very little specie from abroad, thanks to the relative insignificance of our exports. Thus, the course of these commercial transactions resulted in a large leakage of specie abroad, as a result of which only banknotes remained in the country, which more and more depreciated. In addition, the Russian court paid large subsidies to the Prussian court. Finally, during these same years we fought four whole wars: we had, as I have already said, a long-term war with Persia (from 1804 to 1813); the war with Turkey, which actually died down, then resumed, in general, lasted for 6 whole years (from 1806 to 1812); then there was a war with Sweden, which ended with the conquest of Finland (1808-1809); finally, being in alliance with Napoleon, we had to take part in 1809 in the war with Austria. Although we did this against our will and the war was, in fact, bloodless: our troops evaded, on orders from above, from meeting with the Austrians, but this war also required quite a lot of money.
These reasons - the unprofitability of the trade balance and the need to maintain armies abroad in hard currency - determined the plight of the treasury, since the population paid taxes in banknotes, and foreign expenses were paid in metal money.
Nominally, our budget has been constantly increasing during these years, but in fact it has been steadily falling. For example, the cost of maintaining the court in 1803 amounted to 8600 thousand rubles, or, in terms of silver, 7800 thousand rubles; in 1810, the expenses for the yard were equal to 14,500 thousand rubles. on banknotes, but this amounted to only 4200 thousand rubles. for silver; thus, the actual amount of funds that the court received at its disposal decreased by 45% over the years. Here are the data on the budget of the Ministry of Public Education (expressed in million rubles):
1804 - 2.8 million rubles. banknotes - 2.3 million rubles. silver
1809 - 3.6 million rubles. banknotes - 1.114 million rubles. silver
1810 - 2.5 million rubles. banknotes - 0.727 million rubles. silver
Thus, the budget of the Ministry of Public Education for six years, in fact, has decreased by almost four times. In this state of affairs it was impossible, of course, to even think of opening new schools - and the old ones barely continued to exist, and then only because the salaries of teachers were paid in banknotes, like all officials, but judge what their position was when everything items have risen in price four times, and some (colonial goods) even much more.
Thus, the state economy was rapidly approaching collapse, and general anxiety and discontent grew in the country. Under such conditions, Speransky, who had already completed his plan for a general state transformation, received an order from the sovereign to take up this matter.
Speransky himself had long ago turned his attention to the state of finance, and was very attentive to the plan of financial reforms presented to him by Professor Balugiansky, who served under his command in the commission of laws. He began very diligently to study a new business for him with the help of young scientists Balugiansky and Yakob (Kharkov professor), who had been invited from abroad not long before. Soon they drew up a detailed note on the state of the state economy and the necessary improvements, which he first subjected to discussion of a private meeting of all the then statesmen who were somewhat knowledgeable in finance. These were Count Severin Osipovich Pototsky, Admiral Mordvinov, Kochubey, State Comptroller Kampfenghausen, and Speransky's closest associate, Balugiansky.
By January 1, 1810, the opening of the State Council, Speransky had already submitted to Alexander a complete plan for financial transformation. The essence of the plan was to find measures to bring state revenues in line with spending. The plan began with an indication that the state did not have the funds to meet basic needs, because in fact the revenues of the treasury decreased due to the depreciation of paper money, on which the high cost of goods on the market also depended. Recognizing that the first reason for the fall in the exchange rate lies in the exorbitant issues of banknotes, Speransky proposed, first of all, to stop further issues of banknotes, and recognize those issued earlier as public debt and take measures to gradually pay off this debt by buying banknotes for their destruction. To obtain the funds necessary for this, Speransky suggested taking the following measures: 1) to reduce the deficit, cut current expenditures, even the most useful ones, for example, for the needs of public education, for the construction of new communications, etc.; 2) he proposed to introduce a new tax, which would apply specifically to the repayment of the state debt, and to form for this purpose a special commission for the repayment of state debts with separate funds independent of the state treasury; 3) make an internal loan secured by state property. Speransky even suggested putting some of the state property on sale. It was assumed that this loan, as urgent and secured by certain property, could not play the role of an assigned loan. But since all these measures would still not be enough, especially since the wars with Turkey and Persia continued, Speransky suggested establishing another special tax of 50 kopecks. from the soul to landlord and specific estates for only one year. In general, deficits, according to Speransky's plan, were to be covered, if possible, by percentage increases to existing taxes, so that the population could immediately cover these deficits without forcing future generations to pay for them. To improve credit conditions and to streamline the economy, Speransky proposed introducing orderly reporting and publicity into the conduct of the state economy. This reform, however, was destined to be seriously implemented only in the 60s. Realizing that the depreciation of the paper ruble is supported by a particularly unfavorable balance of trade, Speransky, energetically supported in this matter by Mordvinov, who was chairman of the state economy department, proposed to revise the customs tariff and argued that the conditions adopted in Tilsit regarding the continental system should be interpreted in in a restrictive sense, explaining that, after all, Napoleon offered these conditions for the ruin of England, and not Russia; meanwhile, they are ruining not England, but Russia. In view of this, in 1810, at the suggestion of Speransky and Mordvinov, it was established that all Russian harbors were open to all ships flying a neutral flag, no matter whose goods they brought. On the other hand, the new customs tariff of 1810 import was banned various items luxury, and high customs duties were imposed on other items of foreign factory industry; this tariff was supposed to reduce the import of manufactured goods, while the opening of the harbors immediately led to the resumption of the export of Russian raw materials and some products (linen and hemp fabrics) to England, which was not slow to send its ships for these goods under Tenerife flag. Both of these circumstances had a very favorable effect on the establishment of a favorable trade balance for Russia. And if Speransky's plan had been fully implemented, the exchange rate of the paper ruble would undoubtedly have risen. Unfortunately, in 1810 it was still issued for 43 million rubles. new banknotes. Although this issue took place on the basis of an old command, however, it radically undermined all measures and especially the confidence of the public, and the rate of paper money continued to fall; in 1811 it did not rise above 23 kopecks for a whole year, but in some months it fell below 20 kopecks. But the customs tariff of 1809 played a huge role in the economic life of the country: one can say that it saved Russia from final ruin. Nevertheless, the measures that were taken by the State Council not only did not earn Speransky the gratitude of his contemporaries, but even increased the hatred that broad sections of the nobility and officials had for him.
As for the public, she drew very disappointing conclusions from Speransky's financial plans. It became clear to her: 1) that our finances were in a bad position, 2) that the treasury was involved in significant internal debts (for many this was news, since almost no one understood before that the issuance of banknotes is a kind of internal loan) and 3) that ordinary funds are not enough to cover expenses in 1810, why new taxes and loans are coming. This last conclusion was the most unpleasant, since the position of the taxpayers, especially the landowners, was already very unenviable. This dissatisfaction, in an absurd way, was directed not at those who caused financial upset, but at the one who honestly opened the eyes of society to the existing state of affairs, hiding nothing. The new taxes were especially annoying because they came at a difficult time when the country was already ruined; the nobility was especially indignant at the tax on noble estates. Irritation intensified even more when it turned out that, despite the new hardships, banknotes continued to fall. The tax, intended to pay off the debt, was used for the current needs of the state, which had become extremely intensified in view of the already expected war with Napoleon, so that society seemed to have reason to say that the State Council or the author of the plan of the State Council simply deceived it. Thus, Speransky's plan was not actually carried out.
For the non-fulfillment of Speransky's plan, which fell into the hands of the bad Minister of Finance Guryev, they blamed, as I have already said, Speransky himself; even voices were heard asserting that he had deliberately invented his financial plan in order to irritate the opposition, that he was in criminal relations with Napoleon. And Alexander could not withstand the onslaught of Speransky's enemies. He considered it necessary then to strengthen the heightened patriotic mood, no matter how this mood was expressed, since he hoped to repel Napoleon only if the war had a popular character; he did not see the opportunity to enter into explanations and decided to sacrifice his best collaborator to the fury of the privileged crowd. In March 1812, Speransky was dismissed and even exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, and then, according to a new denunciation, to Perm, although Alexander could not doubt that there was and could not be any serious fault for Speransky. All his actual guilt consisted in the fact that he received through one official copies of all the most important secret papers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which he could, of course, in his position, receive and ask for official permission.
"Note on Ancient and New Russia" by Karamzin
The hatred of society for Speransky found a vivid and strong expression in the well-known note "On Ancient and New Russia" by Karamzin, who, it would seem, should not have mixed with the crowd. The essence of this note, presented to Alexander through Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, was to criticize domestic policy Alexander and in the evidence of the need to preserve the autocracy in Russia for eternity. Short review Russian history was written vividly, figuratively, in places picturesquely, but not always impartially. After a vivid characterization of Catherine and Paul, and the first Karamzin exalted to the skies, and for the gloomy characterization of the extravagant deeds of the second, as you know, he spared no colors - he moves on to his contemporary era, calls on all his civic courage to help and writes this indictment against the innovations of Alexander's reign. “Russia is filled with disaffected,” he writes, “they complain in the wards and huts; have neither confidence nor zeal for government; severely condemn its aims and measures. An amazing state phenomenon! It usually happens that the successor of a cruel monarch easily wins universal approval, softening the rules of power; soothed by the meekness of Alexander, innocently fearing neither the secret office nor Siberia, and freely enjoying all the pleasures allowed in civil societies, how can we explain this woeful disposition of minds? - The unfortunate circumstances of Europe and important, as I think, the mistakes of the government; for, unfortunately, it is possible with a good intention to err in the means of good ... "
Portrait of N. M. Karamzin. Artist A. Venetsianov
The main mistake of the inexperienced legislators of Alexander's reign was, according to Karamzin, that instead of improving Catherine's institutions, they undertook organic reforms. Here Karamzin spares neither the Council of State, nor the new establishment of ministries, nor even the government's extensive undertakings to spread public education, which he himself had once praised in Vestnik Evropy. He argues that instead of all the reforms, it would be enough to find 50 good governors and provide the country with good spiritual shepherds. About the responsibility of ministers, Karamzin says: “Who elects them? - Sovereign. - Let him reward the worthy with his grace, and otherwise remove the unworthy without noise, quietly and modestly. A bad minister is a sovereign’s mistake: he must correct such mistakes, but secretly, so that the people have a power of attorney for the personal elections of the tsar ... "
Karamzin argues in exactly the same way about the inappropriate, in his opinion, admissions of the government regarding the troubles in financial management. Regarding the excessive issuance of banknotes in previous years, he notes: “When an inevitable evil has been done, then it is necessary to reflect and take measures for silence, not to groan, not to sound the alarm, which is why the evil increases. Let the ministers be sincere in the face of one monarch, and not before the people, God forbid, if they follow a different rule: to deceive the sovereign and tell all the truth to the people ... ”(!) Karamzin agrees that it is possible to redeem and cancel banknotes, but the announcement He considers banknotes to be the height of frivolity. Remarkable for its naivete is Karamzin's reasoning; as if he did not understand that with the existence of such a secret in matters of administration, it is easiest for ministers to deceive the sovereign. No less remarkable is his reasoning about what can be a guarantee against the tyranny of autocratic power under an unbridled and insane monarch: according to Karamzin, the sovereign should be restrained by fear - “the fear of arousing universal hatred in the event of an opposing system of kingship,” and Karamzin does not notice that from here only one step before approving the natural consequences of such hatred - a coup d'état.
A curious feature of Karamzin's note is his estate, noble point of view. This, of course, is not the point of view of the constitutionalist nobles, not the point of view that was held at that time by the then liberals from the nobleman Mordvinov to the commoner Speransky; this was the point of view adopted and carried out by Catherine; the nobility should be the first estate in the state, all its privileges in relation to other estates, including in relation to serfdom over peasants, should be recognized as inviolable, but in relation to the autocratic monarchical power, the nobility should be a faithful and obedient servant.
Reasons for Speransky's resignation
That dissatisfaction, to which Karamzin testifies and whose existence Speransky recognized, really existed and developed in almost all strata of Russian society. Speransky, attributing it to the maturity of society, saw in it a sign of the existence of a need for transformation political system; Karamzin, on the contrary, explained this dissatisfaction with unsuccessful innovations, which were the first steps towards changing the political system. These two very different explanations were equally wrong: the discontent had a more real basis - its roots were in the unfortunate foreign policy the government that caused unnecessary - at least in the opinion of contemporaries - wars (1805-1807), the continental system and the resulting ruin of the country; finally, in the humiliation of Tilsit, which hurt national pride and evoked the sharpest patriotic opposition to the friendship of the Russian tsar with Napoleon. However, Karamzin incidentally points out all these circumstances, without giving them, however, the primary importance that they undoubtedly had.
It is remarkable that Speransky's enemies tried - and, I must say, quite successfully - to spread the opinion that Speransky wanted to introduce Napoleonic laws in Russia, that he was an admirer of Napoleon and almost his slanderer. The success of these insinuations is explained by the prevailing patriotic protest mood, which we have already characterized.
Russian education before the Patriotic War of 1812
Before moving on to the next period, I must say a few words about the situation at that moment in the matter of popular education.
The educational activity of the Ministry of Public Education, which had developed quite widely in the previous period, especially in 1803-1804, has now subsided due to a lack of funds. However, private societies and literature continued to grow and develop. A number of new literary and philanthropic societies opened up. In addition to the Shishkov Society (“Russian Conversation”), mention should be made of the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, founded by D. Yazykov at Moscow University; "The Society of Mathematical Lovers", founded by Mikhail Muravyov, then a 15-year-old student, then turned, under the leadership of his father N. N. Muravyov, into a free educational institution for the "column leaders", which served as the cradle of the Russian General Staff and also had great importance in the history of secret societies in the 20s, since many of their members were brought up here. At Moscow University, prof. Chebotarev "Society of Russian History and Antiquities". Then, back in 1804, also at Moscow University, the "Society of Naturalists" was founded, which still enjoys well-deserved fame; it was founded by A.K. Razumovsky and in 1810–1811. showed vigorous activity.
Even in the provinces, the same societies were founded: for example, in Kazan in 1806, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was opened, in which by 1811 there were 32 members.
Bogdanovich(III, p. 69), following incorrect information Shevyreva, cited in his "History of Moscow University", claims that this society did not take place. But this statement contradicts more accurate information given in the biography of M. N. Muravyov, compiled Kropotov according to archival data and according to the stories of brother Mikhail Muravyov, Sergey Nikolaevich. Cm. Kropotov, pp. 52 et seq.
Speransky's reforms
SPERANSKY Mikhail Mikhailovich (01/01/1772 - 02/11/1839) - statesman, count (1839).
M. M. Speransky was born in with. Cherkutin, Vladimir province, in the family of a parish priest. Mikhail received his surname when he entered the Vladimir Seminary from his uncle Matthew Bogoslovsky (the Latin word "speranta" means "hope"). From Vladimir in 1790, Speransky was transferred to the St. Petersburg Alexander Nevsky Seminary, which was considered the best in Russia, for excellent studies and exemplary behavior. In 1795, Mikhail Mikhailovich graduated from it and remained to teach there.
For 12 years, from 1795 to 1807, Speransky went from a teacher at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary to the secretary of state of Emperor Alexander I. In this he was helped by independence and firmness of character, the ability to get along with everyone and understand the characters of people and his unique abilities . He quickly and clearly expressed his thoughts on paper, knew how to draw up the most complex documents. Initially, he served as a house secretary to the Prosecutor General, Prince A. B. Kurakin. By the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, in 1801, he was already a real state councilor (which corresponded military rank general). Then he met the "young friends" of Alexander I, with whom he pondered plans for state reforms. Speransky became the manager of the office of the Indispensable Council, created by the emperor to develop reforms. At the same time, Speransky was in the service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the secretary of state of its head V.P. Kochubey, who began to send his secretary with reports to the emperor.
Alexander I appreciated Speransky's talents and in 1808 appointed him a member of the commission for drafting laws and a comrade (deputy) minister of justice, and his chief adviser on state affairs. Now all documents addressed to the emperor passed through M. M. Speransky. In 1809, he prepared a project for state reforms in the Russian Empire, which included the gradual abolition of serfdom, the introduction of a jury, and the creation of a bicameral parliament. However, this project was not implemented. In 1810, Speransky launched a financial reform. At the same time, on his initiative, the State Council was created. Political opponents of Speransky organized a court intrigue, they began to accuse him of undermining the state foundations of Russia, they called him a traitor and a French spy. As a result, in 1812 he was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod under strict police supervision, and from there to Perm, where he lived until 1816.
From 1816 began new stage official career of Speransky. Alexander I appointed him a civil governor of Penza. Speransky thought that he would return to St. Petersburg, but in 1819 Alexander I appointed Mikhail Mikhailovich governor-general of Siberia. Only in 1821 did he return to St. Petersburg and become a member of the State Council and the Siberian Committee, as well as the manager of the Commission for drafting laws. Speransky was the compiler of the Manifesto on December 13, 1825 on the accession to the throne of Emperor Nicholas I. He participated in the work of the Commission of Inquiry on the case of the Decembrists.
In 1826, Speransky headed the II Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, which was engaged in the codification of laws - the systematization and revision of existing laws. By this time, there were no other laws in the Russian Empire, except for the obsolete Council Code of 1649. At the beginning. 30s 19th century M. M. Speransky led a group of officials involved in compiling the "Complete Code of Laws of the Russian Empire" in 45 volumes, as well as the "Code of Laws" in 15 volumes. He also participated in the activities of a number of secret committees of the 20-30s. 19th century, read a course of legal sciences to the heir to the throne, the future Emperor Alexander II.
In 1838, Nicholas I appointed him chairman of the Department of Laws of the State Council. On January 1, 1839, the emperor granted Speransky the title of count, but soon, on February 11, 1839, Speransky died. He is buried at the cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg. I.V.
REFORM SPERANSKY - the name of the plan of state reforms, prepared and partially implemented by M. M. Speransky in the reign of Alexander I.
The plan for state reforms was prepared by order of Alexander I in 1809 and set out in the Introduction to the Code of State Laws. The purpose of the reforms, according to the plan of Speransky, was to establish the rule of laws in Russia. It was assumed that these laws in the form of a constitution would be bestowed on Russia by the emperor himself. According to the project, the head of state was to be a monarch, invested with full power. New legislative bodies were also created: the State Council - an advisory body of dignitaries appointed by the monarch, and the elected State Duma - the highest representative body of power in the country. A system of local city and provincial dumas was created. The role of the highest judicial authority was called upon to be performed by the Senate, appointed for life from among the representatives elected in the provincial dumas. The ministries became the supreme body of executive power, according to the plan.
The electoral system of M. M. Speransky was based on a property qualification and division into estates. The entire population of Russia was divided into three categories: the nobility, who had all civil and political rights; people of "average status" (merchants, philistines, state peasants), who had only civil rights - property, freedom of occupation and movement, the right to speak on their own behalf in court; as well as the "working people" - landlord peasants, servants, workers, who have practically no rights. A person's belonging to a class was determined by his origin and the presence of property. Speransky formulated the rights and obligations for each of the estates. Electoral, i.e., political rights, had only representatives of the first two estates. For the third estate, the "working people", the reform project represented some civil rights.
Speransky's reforms did not abolish serfdom, since Speransky believed that serfdom would gradually die out with the development of industry, trade and education.
Emperor Alexander I allowed the implementation of only certain, minor sentences Speransky plan. In 1810 the State Council was established, in 1811 the ministries were reorganized. At the same time, the Ministry of Commerce was abolished, the affairs of which were distributed between the ministries of finance and internal affairs. The Ministry of Police was formed to deal with issues of internal security of the country. This is where the reforms ended. The plan for the transformation of the Senate was never carried out, despite being discussed in the Council of State.
The reform efforts of Speransky aroused the discontent of the nobility. This was one of the main reasons for the resignation and exile of Speransky in 1812.
Ultimately, the reform of M. M. Speransky was reduced to a partial transformation of the state apparatus, which did not have a significant impact on the socio-economic and socio-political development of the country. I.V.
STATE COUNCIL - the highest legislative institution of the Russian Empire, since 1906 - the upper legislative chamber.
The State Council was founded by Emperor Alexander I on January 1, 1810 instead of the previously existing Indispensable Council - an advisory body under the emperor, consisting of top government dignitaries. The emperor appointed the chairman and members of the State Council. Ministers were ex officio members of the council. Membership in the State Council was actually for life.
In 1812–1865 The Chairman of the Council of State was also Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. During the 19th century the number of members of the Council of State increased from 35 in 1810 to 60 in 1890.
According to the "Plan of State Transformations" by M. M. Speransky, the State Council was supposed to submit to the emperor draft final decisions on the most important legislative, administrative and judicial cases. Draft laws and regulations, discussed in the departments of the State Council, were submitted to the general meeting and, after approval by the emperor, became law. At the same time, the emperor could approve the opinion of both the majority and the minority of the members of the State Council or make his own decision (“special resolution”), independent of the opinion of the State Council.
The State Council considered drafts of both new laws and amendments, new interpretations of existing laws, as well as estimates of departments, general state revenues and expenditures (since 1862 - the state list of revenues and expenditures, i.e. the state budget) and other issues requiring the highest approval. Under Emperor Nicholas I in 1827, the annual reports of the ministries and issues of control over the activities of the supreme and local administration were removed from the jurisdiction of the State Council. This erased any resemblance to European constitutional institutions. The State Council retained only the affairs of legislation and the budget in its jurisdiction. Later, in the 1960s and 1980s, the emperor often carried out legislative cases that required a speedy solution bypassing the State Council - through the Committee of Ministers and other instances.
At first, the State Council consisted of a general assembly and four departments. The department of laws was in charge of national bills. The Department of Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs dealt with issues of the rights of various categories of the population - estates, nationalities, religious confessions, etc. The Department of State Economy dealt with bills on finance, industry, trade, and science. The Department of Military Affairs (existed until 1854) monitored the implementation of military and naval regulations. In 1817, the Provisional Department also operated to consider a number of projects, regulations and charters, and in 1832-1862. - Department of the Kingdom of Poland (in 1866-1871 - Committee for the Kingdom of Poland). In 1901, the Department of Industry, Sciences and Trade was established. Besides, in different years commissions and special presences were created under the State Council to discuss matters of great national importance - legislative, judicial, military, peasant.
All cases from the State Council went to the State Chancellery. Its head - the secretary of state (with the rank of minister) - submitted the projects considered in the council for approval to the emperor. After the reorganization, 2 departments remained in the State Council: the 1st department considered administrative, civil and judicial issues; 2nd department - financial and economic affairs.
In 1906, after the convocation of the State Duma, the State Council was transformed into the upper legislative chamber, which had equal rights with the Duma. Active until 1917 Sun. AT.
GURIEV Dmitry Alexandrovich (1751 - 09/30/1825) - Count, statesman.
D. A. Guryev was born into a family of poor nobles, received home education. He began his service as a soldier in the Izmailovsky regiment. Thanks to the patronage of Prince G. A. Potemkin, in 1794 he became master of ceremonies at the court of Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, the eldest daughter of Paul I. In 1799 he was appointed a senator, but soon Paul I dismissed him.
Alexander I again accepted Guryev into the service, and until the end of his life he served as manager of the Emperor's Cabinet. A cunning and dexterous man, he became close to the young reformers who surrounded Emperor Alexander I. Member of the Council of State and Minister of Finance.
Together with M. M. Speransky, Guryev developed a plan for the financial and economic recovery of Russia, which provided for the balance of state revenues and expenditures and a change in the tax system (increasing old ones, introducing new ones). To increase the value of banknotes, 236 million rubles were withdrawn from circulation. paper money (banknotes). But Guryev failed to strengthen the country's economy.
Guryev founded the State Commercial Bank. In 1819 he introduced the state sale of wine in 20 provinces. In 1818–1819 headed the work of the Secret Committee, which prepared projects for the peasant reform. Guryev did not enjoy special support and was kept in the post of Minister of Finance thanks to A. A. Arakcheev. According to contemporaries, "he had a clumsy mind", was a fan of culinary arts and a great gourmet. HE.
This text is an introductory piece. From the book History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Developments. Dates author1812 - Exile of MM Speransky Alexander's tutor was the Swiss republican C. Laharpe, about whom the tsar said that he owed him everything except his birth. Alexander's liberal views manifested themselves immediately after his accession. Since 1801, a circle has formed around him,
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichThe Arrangement of Central Administration According to Speransky's Plan The implemented parts of Speransky's reformative plan all relate to central administration, and their implementation gave the latter a more harmonious appearance. This was the second, more decisive attack on
From book Vasily III. Ivan the Terrible author Skrynnikov Ruslan GrigorievichReforms The war with Kazan sealed the course of reforms in Russia. The peaceful pause, which lasted from the spring of 1548 to the end of 1549, revived the activity of the reformers. The church leadership outstripped the secular authorities. In 1549, Metropolitan Macarius held a second council, replenishing
From the book Textbook of Russian History author Platonov Sergey Fyodorovich§ 143. Activities of M. M. Speransky Speransky by origin was the son of a village priest. After completing his education at the St. Petersburg “Main Seminary” (theological academy), he was left there as a teacher and at the same time was a private secretary to Prince A.B.
From book National history: lecture notes author Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna10.3. Projects M.M. Speransky and the constitutional plans of the supreme power Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772–1839) occupied a special place in the process of developing reform plans and attempts to implement them. The son of a village priest, he, thanks to his talent and organizational
From the book History of the National State and Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown30. REFORMS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY: ZEMSKAYA, CITY AND STOLYPIN AGRARIAN REFORM Zemstvo reform. In 1864, zemstvo self-government bodies were created in Russia. The system of zemstvo bodies was two-level: at the level of the county and the province. Administrative zemstvo bodies
From the book Chronology Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeny Viktorovich1808–1812 The activities of M. M. Speransky Despite the doubts and hesitations of Alexander I, reforms in the field of administration still continued until 1812 through the efforts of M. M. Speransky, who tried to transform the system of public administration. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky, popovich
author Shumeiko Igor NikolaevichAnswer Speransky In his youth, Tsar Alexander traveled in company with Mikhail Speransky almost all of Europe. Needless to say, it's a contrast. “Distances of a huge size ...” And on the way back, approaching St. Petersburg, the tsar asked: “Well, Mikhal Mikhalych, how do you like it? ..” Well, nevertheless
From the book Domestic History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna31 RUSSIA IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY MM SPERANSKY'S PROJECT OF LIBERAL TRANSFORMATIONS The measures taken by Alexander I to transform the socio-political structure of the country did not lead to serious changes. Then improve the state of affairs in the country of the emperor
From the book of the Romanovs. Mistakes of a great dynasty author Shumeiko Igor NikolaevichChapter 1 Apocalyptic idyll During the years of strict revision of the tsarist legacy, the Bolsheviks, among other things, meticulously listened to the Golden Fund of Russian music - great symphonies, operas. The plot "Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Mussorgsky in the face of the Revolutionary Tribunal" has a tragicomic
author Kerov Valery Vsevolodovich4. Reforms of the 60-70s 4.1. Reasons for the reforms. The need to bring the judicial system, local self-government bodies, education, finances, and the armed forces into line with the social and economic conditions that changed after the abolition of serfdom. Growth
From book Short Course history of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century author Kerov Valery Vsevolodovich4. Progress of the reform 4.1. Legal basis, stages and terms of the reform. The decree of November 9, 1906 became the legislative basis for the reform, after the adoption of which the implementation of the reform began. The main provisions of the decree were enshrined in the law of 1910, approved by the Duma and
From the book Essays on the History of Political Institutions in Russia author Kovalevsky Maxim MaksimovichChapter IX Reforms of Alexander II. - Reforms - judicial, military, university and press. - The political liberties of a Russian subject The transformation of the entire court case of Russia is usually celebrated as the third of the great reforms carried out in the reign of Alexander
From the book The Last Romanovs the author Lubos Semyon3. Reforms A natural supplement or continuation of the peasant reform was the zemstvo reform, or the reform of local self-government. And the nobility, which ruled in the center, laid its heavy hand on this reform. vast majority
From the book Cheat Sheet on the History of Political and Legal Doctrines author Khalin Konstantin Evgenievich61. POLITICAL AND LEGAL VIEWS OF M.M. Speransky M.M. Speransky (1772–1839) is a prominent political figure in the history of Russia. In 1826, Emperor Nicholas I entrusted him with compiling the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. This Code was incorporated by a commission under the leadership of Speransky
From the book History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook / Ed. Doctor of Law, Professor O. E. Leist. author Team of authors§ 2. Liberalism in Russia. MM Speransky's projects of state reforms Alexander I, who ascended the throne as a result of the assassination of Paul I, at the beginning of his reign promised to rule the people "according to the laws and heart of his wise grandmother." Main concern
