Tests

Reforms of Nicholas 1 briefly. Reforms of Nicholas I (briefly). Military and army

After the accession to the throne of Nicholas I, the most significant role in the country was acquired by His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, which consisted of six departments.

To tasks first division included control over the activities of ministers and ministries, preparation of bills for consideration.

Second branch engaged in coding activities.

Third branch was created to combat state crimes.

In competence fourth division included control over charitable and women's educational institutions.

Fifth branch was engaged in the preparation of a reform of the management of state peasants.

Sixth branch was specially formed for the preparation of materials on the management of the Caucasus.

Taking into account the events that preceded the ascension of the new emperor to the throne, one can understand why a special role was assigned to the third department, which was in charge of political investigation. This structural subdivision of the office was given the Separate Corps of Gendarmes, the chief of which was the head of the third department itself. For many years, these positions were combined by A.Kh. Benckendorff, reporting directly to the emperor. In accordance with the royal decree, the whole country was divided into 7 gendarmerie districts with their own departments. In addition, there were the Main Directorate, which coordinated the activities of all gendarmerie units, and provincial departments.

Nicholas I. In 1796, in the last year of the reign of Catherine II, her third grandson was born, who was named Nicholas. He grew up as a healthy and strong child, standing out among his peers with high stature. He lost his father, who loved him very much, at the age of four. He did not have a close relationship with his older brothers. He spent his childhood in endless war games with his younger brother. Looking at Nicholas, Alexander I thought longingly that this frowning, angular teenager would eventually take his throne.

He studied unevenly. The social sciences seemed boring to him. On the contrary, he was attracted to the exact and natural sciences, and he was really fond of military engineering. Once he was given an essay on the topic that military service is not the only occupation of a nobleman, which is

and other occupations, honorable and useful. Nikolai did not write anything, and the teachers had to write this essay themselves, and then dictate it to their student.

Having visited England, Nikolai expressed the wish that all these talkers who make noise at rallies and in clubs would be left speechless. But in Berlin, at the court of his father-in-law, the Prussian king, he felt at home. The German officers were surprised how well he knew the Prussian military regulations.

Unlike Alexander, Nicholas was always a stranger to the ideas of constitutionalism and liberalism. He was a militarist and materialist, with contempt for the spiritual side of life. In everyday life, he was very unpretentious. Severity kept even in the family circle. Once, when he was already an emperor, he was talking with the viceroy in the Caucasus. At the end of the conversation, as usual, he asked about the health of his wife. The viceroy complained about her frustrated nerves. "Nerves? - Nikolai asked again. - The Empress also had nerves. But I said that there were no nerves, and they were gone.”

Nicholas personally interrogated many Decembrists. Some he tried to persuade to frank testimony by gentle treatment, he shouted at others. The trial of the Decembrists took place behind closed doors. The five most guilty conspirators (K. F. Ryleev, P. I. Pestel, S. I. Muravyov-Apostol, M. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P. G. Kakhovsky) were executed in the Peter and Paul Fortress on July 13, 1826. 121 the Decembrist was exiled to hard labor or to a settlement in Siberia, imprisoned in a fortress or sent to the Caucasus, where there was a war with the highlanders, ordinary soldiers. Few had a chance to survive the long reign of Nicholas.

Nicholas I believed that the Decembrists were an offshoot of a secret all-European organization of revolutionary conspirators, striving for the widespread overthrow of monarchies. He was pleased with his victory over them. However, in moral terms, Nicholas lost, because the Russian nobility since the time of Empress Anna Ivanovna did not know such punishments and took the execution of five conspirators and the imprisonment of the rest extremely painfully. Many relatives, friends, associates of the Decembrists remained at large.

Activities of the Third Branch, increased censorship. After the speech of the Decembrists, the government took a number of hasty measures to strengthen the police. In 1826, the Third Branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery was established, which became the main body of political investigation. At his disposal was a separate corps of gendarmes. The head of the Third Division was also the chief of the gendarme corps. For many years this position was occupied by Baron A. Kh. Benkendorf, a hero of the Patriotic War of 1812 and other wars of the early 19th century, who participated in the defeat of the Decembrists and in the investigation of them. A personal friend of Nicholas I, he concentrated enormous power in his hands.

They looked for the slightest manifestations of “sedition”. The revealed plans were inflated, presented to the king as a “terrible conspiracy”, the participants of which received exorbitantly heavy punishments. In 1827, among the students of Moscow University, a circle of six people was discovered who intended to place a proclamation demanding a constitution near the monument to Minin and Pozharsky. The “case of the Cretan brothers” arose. The elder brother died four years later in the Shlisselburg fortress, another brother, sent as a private to the Caucasus, died in battle, the third ended up in prison companies along with three other comrades in misfortune.

The government believed that Russian reality did not give grounds for the emergence of a "seditious" way of thinking, that all this appeared only under the influence of Western European ideas. Therefore, exaggerated hopes were placed on censorship. The Minister of Public Education, Count S. S. Uvarov, who was in charge of censorship, saw his task in multiplying, “wherever possible, the number of mental dams” against the influx of European ideas. In 1826, a new charter on censorship was adopted, nicknamed "cast iron." The censors were not supposed to miss "any works that condemned the monarchical form of government. It was forbidden to make "unauthorized" proposals for state reforms. Religious freethinking was severely suppressed. The Ministry of Public Education vigilantly monitored the activities of the censor, punished and fired those who allowed concessions.

Other departments, believing that the Ministry of Public Education enjoys an undeserved advantage, also began to seek the right to censor for themselves - each in the area of their own interests. Soon such a right was acquired by the Third Department, the Synod, and almost all ministries. Even the Horse Breeding Authority has acquired its own censorship. Rampant censorship has surpassed all reasonable limits - even from the point of view of the government. But attempts to somehow correct the situation gave only short-term success, and then chaos and arbitrariness were restored in censorship. People who were friendly to the government often became its victims, and oppositional ideas continued to penetrate into some sections of the educated society.

The theory of "official nationality". The Nikolaev government tried to develop its own ideology, introduce it into schools; universities, press. The main ideologist of the autocracy was the historian and writer S. S. Uvarov, who since 1834 was the Minister of Public Education. In the past, a freethinker who was friends with many Decembrists, he put forward the so-called theory of "official nationality"(“autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality”). The meaning of Uvarov's ideas was to oppose noble "0-intelligentsia revolutionary spirit and loyalty of the masses to the existing order in Russia. Opposition ideas were presented as a phenomenon brought in from the West, common only among the "spoiled" part of an educated society. The passivity of the peasantry, its piety, faith in the tsar minister considered the original and original features of the national character.Other peoples, he wrote, "do not know peace and are weakened by dissent," and Russia "is strong with unparalleled unanimity - here the tsar loves the fatherland in the person of the people and rules them like a father, guided by laws, and the people does not know how to separate the fatherland from the king and sees in him his happiness, strength and glory.

Uvarov's ideas were supported by Benckendorff. “Russia's past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is higher than anything that the most daring imagination can imagine” - in this spirit, in his opinion, one should write about Russia.

The most prominent Russian historians of the Nikolaev time (M. P. Pogodin, N. G. Ustryalov and others) strove to follow the concept proposed by the government in their scientific and journalistic works.

Among a part of educated society, the theory of official nationality met with the most resolute rejection and condemnation, which, however, few dared to express openly. Therefore, such a deep impression was made by the “philosophical letter”, published in 1836 in the journal “Telescope” and written by P. Ya. Chaadaev, a friend of A. S. Pushkin and many Decembrists. Chaadaev spoke indignantly about the isolation of Russia from the latest European ideological currents, about the situation of political and spiritual stagnation that had established itself in the country. By order of the tsar, Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under house arrest. The theory of "official nationality" for many decades became the cornerstone of the ideology of the autocracy.

The growth of the bureaucracy. Essence of bureaucratic management. Not trusting the public, Nicholas I saw his main support in the army and officials. In the reign of Nicholas there was a further growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. New ministries and departments appeared, striving to create their own bodies on the ground. The objects of bureaucratic regulation were the most diverse branches of human activity, including religion, art, literature, and science. The number of officials grew rapidly. At the beginning of the XIX century. there were 15-16 thousand of them, in 1847 - 61.5 thousand and in 1857 - 86 thousand.

However, the essence of bureaucratic management does not consist in scribbling a large number of papers and bureaucratic red tape. These are his outward signs. The essence is that decisions are made and implemented not by any meeting of representatives, not by a single responsible official (minister, governor), but by the entire administrative machine as a whole. The minister or the governor is only a part of this machine, although a very important one.

Since all information flows to the minister through his apparatus, the minister finds himself, as it were, at the mercy of his apparatus. Subordinate officials also prepare draft decisions on various cases. The decision of the case, as you know, largely depends on how it will be reported. Numerous cases, especially those in which the authorities are not very interested, are actually decided by the officials who prepare them for the report. If subordinate officials day after day methodically influence the authorities in the same direction, this eventually becomes the general direction of the policy of this department. In Nikolaev times, army generals were often appointed to the posts of heads of ministries and departments, little familiar with the new business for them. It was they who first of all found themselves in the position of superiors, led by subordinates.

Once Nicholas I said: "Russia is ruled by head clerks." Indeed, the middle bureaucracy (heads of the office) plays a special role in decision-making. But the clerk is not responsible for the decision taken on his report. In principle, the one who signed it should answer. But everyone knows that a minister or a governor could not have made a different decision, since he was informed in this way and not otherwise. This is how the circular irresponsibility inherent in bureaucratic management occurs.

Law codification

On the reign of Nicholas I, contemporaries had mostly gloomy memories, among the indisputable achievements of this time can be attributed the codification of laws.

It was about the Commission for the drafting of laws, which was transformed into the II Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, less known, but no less important than the III Department, which was engaged in political investigation. Division II was given the task of codifying the disparate and confusing Russian legislation. M.A. Balugyansky became the head of the II Department.

At the same time, it was Speransky, although he did not take up an official post, who was entrusted with the overall "head" of the whole affair. Until his death, Speransky led the II Division without any legal formalization of his difficult mission.

The staff of the II Branch consisted of 20 people. In addition to officials, well-known scientists were enrolled in the II Department: Professor A.P. Kunitsyn, who taught A.S. Pushkin at the Lyceum, and Professor M.G. Plisov - they were both fired from St. Petersburg University for freethinking and defiantly accepted by Speransky and Balugyansky for the service, as well as Professor V. E. Klokov, actual state councilor Tseier, collegiate secretary N. M. Startsov ", who became Speransky's closest assistant in the last years of his life to the future count, and Baron Korf. 37,800 rubles A separate line financed the purchase of books for the II Department - 10,000 rubles a year.

A plan was prepared that outlined three main directions:

1) creation of a code of all laws published in Russia;

2) systematization of existing laws and development of a new code.

By 1830, the Complete Collection of Laws was compiled, which included more than 30,920 normative acts, arranged in chronological order, starting with the Council Code of 1649 and ending with the Manifesto of December 14, 1825, written by Speransky himself. The first edition of the Complete Collection of Laws consisted of 40 volumes of laws and 6 volumes of appendices (alphabetical-subject and chronological indexes, graphics, drawings, etc.). Looking ahead, let's say that immediately began the second, and half a century later - the third edition of the Complete Collection of Laws. New normative acts were volumes that were published annually. The last volume, which included legislation for 1913, came out in pre-revolutionary 1916. In total, the Complete Collection of Laws, which was replenished before the start of the revolution, included 56 volumes.

The publication of the Complete Collection of Laws became a preparatory stage before the compilation and publication of the Code of Laws, which was supposed to include only the current regulations. Verification of whether this or that act is valid and does not contradict other acts was assigned to special audit committees formed at ministries and main departments. The laws were systematized not chronologically, as in the complete collection of laws, but according to the sectoral principle. For each article of the Code of Laws, a commentary was prepared, which had the meaning of interpretation, but did not have the force of law. The code of laws was published in 1832 and consisted of 15 volumes. The first edition of the Code of Laws was followed by two complete (1842, 1857) and six incomplete (1833, 1876, 18885, 1886, 1887, 1889) editions.

In accordance with the ideas of Speransky, the Code was divided into eight main sections, placed in 15 volumes. The structure of the Code was as follows:

I. Basic state laws;

II. Institutions:

a) central;

b) local;

c) statutes on public service.

III. Laws of government forces:

a) statutes on duties;

b) statutes on taxes and duties;

c) Customs Charter;

d) the statutes of monetary, mining and salt.

IV. State Laws:

V. Civil and boundary laws;

VI. Charters of state improvement:

a) charters for credit, trade, industry;

b) statutes of means of communication, construction, fire, on urban and agriculture, on improvement in state-owned villages, on colonies of foreigners in the empire.

VII. Statutes of the deanery (police laws):

a) statutes on national food, on public charity and medical;

b) statutes on passports and fugitives, on the prevention and suppression of crimes, on those in custody.

VIII. Laws are criminal.

On January 10, 1832, at a meeting of the State Council, the Code of Laws and the Complete Collection of Laws were considered. It was decided to put the Code of Laws into effect on January 1, 1835, and before that, to send this edition to all government agencies for review and preparation. According to Speransky's plan, the creation of the Complete Collection of Laws was to precede the creation of the Code of Laws, and the Code, in turn, was to become a preliminary stage before the preparation of a new Code. The new Code was never drawn up, and the Code of Laws itself began to play its role.

However, the codification of law was a huge step forward. The merits of Speransky in the implementation of this titanic work were indisputable and recognized by Nicholas I in the face of all dignitaries at a meeting of the State Council on January 19, 1833, which decided to put the Code of Laws into effect.

Monetary reform

The monetary reform in Russia was carried out in 1839-1843 under the leadership of the Minister of Finance Kankrin. Led to the creation of a system of silver monometallism. The exchange of all banknotes for state credit notes, exchanged for gold and silver, was begun.

The reform made it possible to establish a stable financial system in Russia, which remained until the beginning of the Crimean War.

The first stage of the monetary reform of 1839-1843. began with the publication on July 1, 1839 of the manifesto "On the structure of the monetary system." According to the manifesto, from January 1, 1840, all transactions in Russia were to be calculated exclusively in silver. The main means of payment was the silver ruble with a pure silver content of 4 spools 21 shares. State banknotes were assigned the role of an auxiliary banknote. Receipts to the treasury and the issuance of money from it were calculated in silver rubles. The payments themselves could be made both in specie and in banknotes. The gold coin was supposed to be accepted and issued from state institutions with a 3% premium on its face value. At the first stage of the monetary reform, the actual level of depreciation of the banknote ruble was fixed.

Simultaneously with the manifesto, a decree was published on July 1, 1839 “On the establishment of a Silver Coin Depository at the State Commercial Bank”, which declared the Deposit Cashier's tickets legal tender, circulating on a par with a silver coin without any crap. The cash desk began operations in January 1840, it accepted deposits in silver coins for safekeeping and issued in return deposit notes for the corresponding amounts. In the period from December 20, 1839 to June 18, 1841, in accordance with a number of Senate decrees, deposit notes were issued in denominations of 3, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 rubles. They were made by the expedition of the Depository and put into circulation until September 1, 1843.

The second stage of the monetary reform was the issuance of banknotes of safe treasuries, orphanages and the State Loan Bank. It was carried out in accordance with the manifesto of July 1, 1841 "On the issuance of credit notes worth 30 million silver into public circulation."

The adoption of this act was not considered as a measure to streamline monetary circulation, but was caused by economic necessity. In 1840, there was a severe crop failure in central Russia. Began increased withdrawal of deposits from credit institutions. Banks were on the verge of bankruptcy. This was largely facilitated by the system of permanent "borrowings" from state credit institutions, due to which they were unable not only to open loans, but also to issue deposits. On February 26, 1841, as an emergency measure, a decision was made to issue credit notes in order to assist state credit institutions and the treasury. Tickets were freely exchanged for specie and circulated on a par with silver coins.

Starting from 1841, three types of paper banknotes circulated in parallel in Russia: banknotes, deposit and credit notes. Their economic essence was different. Banknotes were a means of circulation and payment, their real value was four times lower than their face value. The deposit notes were actually receipts for silver. They were in circulation in the amount equal to the amount of deposits, and the treasury had no additional income from their issue.

At the last stage, in accordance with the draft reform, banknotes were to be replaced by deposit tickets. But the issue of deposit notes did not bring additional income to the state. At the same time, stable paper banknotes, only partially covered with metal, were in circulation - credit notes. Their issue was beneficial to the treasury. Therefore, the government decided to expand the issuance of credit rather than deposit notes.

As a result, at the third stage of the reform, banknotes and deposit notes were exchanged for credit notes. The exchange was carried out on the basis of the manifesto "On the replacement of banknotes and other monetary representatives with credit notes" dated June 1, 1843. For the production of credit notes, an expedition of state credit notes was created under the Ministry of Finance with a permanent fund of specie for the exchange of large tickets. In accordance with the manifesto, the issuance of deposit and credit notes of safe treasuries and the State Loan Bank has ceased. They were exchangeable for government credit notes. Banknotes were devalued.

As a result of the reform in Russia, a system of monetary circulation was created, in which paper money was exchanged for silver and gold. Credit notes had 35-40% gold and silver backing. The legislation in the field of monetary circulation, which was formed as a result of the Kankrin reform, prohibited the issuance of credit notes for lending to trade.

The monetary system created as a result of the reform of 1839-1843 had a number of important features:

There was freedom to mint not only silver, but also gold.

Gold imperials and semi-imperials were minted with the inscription "ten rubles" and "five rubles", and the government sought to fix the value relationship between the gold and silver rubles through legislation.

Credit notes were redeemable not only for silver, but also for gold.

In Russia in the 30-40s. In the 19th century, despite the development of commodity-money relations, natural economy dominated. Accordingly, the volume of consumer goods purchased was small, and money as a medium of circulation was required in insignificant quantities. Workers, officials and other persons who lived on a salary did not play such an important role as in the conditions of developed commodity-money relations. With a relatively undeveloped market and poor communications, food prices were very low and the level of industrial development relatively low. Industrial goods, often imported from abroad, were purchased by a small circle of people. Money turnover was carried out mainly with the treasury. Therefore, the monetary reform carried out in 1839-1843. provided a relatively stable monetary circulation.

Peasant question under Nicholas I

In the first years of his reign, Nicholas I did not attach much importance to the peasant question. Gradually, however, the tsar and his inner circle came to the conclusion that serfdom was fraught with the danger of a new Pugachevism, that it retarded the development of the country's productive forces and put it at a disadvantage against other countries - including militarily.

The resolution of the peasant question was supposed to be carried out gradually and cautiously, through a series of partial reforms. The first step in this direction was to be the reform of the management of the state village. In 1837, the Ministry of State Property was created, headed by P. D. Kiselev. He was a military general and an active administrator with a broad outlook. At one time, he submitted a note to Alexander I on the gradual abolition of serfdom, was friends with the Decembrists, not knowing about their conspiracy. In 1837-1841. Kiselev achieved a number of measures, as a result of which he managed to streamline the management of state peasants. Schools, hospitals, and veterinary stations began to open in their villages. Land-poor rural communities moved to other provinces on free lands.

Kiselyov's ministry paid special attention to raising the agrotechnical level of peasant agriculture. Potato plantings were widely introduced. Local officials forcibly allocated the best lands from the peasant allotment, forced the peasants together to sow them with potatoes, and the harvest was confiscated and distributed at their discretion, sometimes even taken to other places. This was called "public plowing" designed to insure the population in case of crop failure. The peasants, on the other hand, saw this as an attempt to introduce state corvée.

According to the state villages in 1840-1844. a wave of "potato riots" swept through. Together with the Russians, the Mari, Chuvashs, Udmurts, Komi participated in them.

The landlords were also dissatisfied with Kiselyov's reform. They feared that attempts to improve the life of the state peasants would increase the inclination of their serfs to move into the state department. Even more dissatisfaction with the landlords was caused by Kiselyov's further plans. He intended to conduct a personal liberation of the peasants from serfdom, allocate them small plots of land and accurately determine the amount of corvée and dues.

The dissatisfaction of the landowners and the "potato riots" aroused fear in the government that with the beginning of the abolition of serfdom, all social groups and estates of the vast country would come into play. It was the growth of the social movement that Nicholas I feared most of all.

The reform of the management of the state village turned out to be the only significant event in the peasant question for the entire 30-year reign of Nicholas I.

The constant attention and interest of the emperor was attracted by the question of improving the life of the peasants. This interest was supported by frequent unrest of the peasants. In the reign of Nicholas I, there were over 500 cases of peasant unrest. Several times Nicholas I established secret ("tacit") committees on peasant affairs. They collected information and materials, wrote memorandums, drew up projects, but all this paper production remained to lie "under the cloth", because Nicholas I himself could not decide on a serious breakdown of the existing order.

The decree on "obligatory peasants" of April 2, 1842 did not cancel the decree of 1803 "on free cultivators", but the owners (who "wish it themselves") were allowed to "conclude agreements with their peasants by mutual agreement on such a basis that the landowners retained their full right of patrimonial ownership of the land, and the peasants received from them plots of land for use for established duties. The decree of 1842 was only advisory in nature, the norms of allotment and duties of the peasants were completely overestimated by the landowner, who also retained full power over the "liberated", "mandatory" peasant. The practical significance of this decree was not great - before the reform of 1861, more than 27 thousand peasants were released.

Volost and rural administration were built on the basis of peasant self-government. The Ministry of Count P. D. Kiselev took care of meeting the economic and domestic needs of the peasants: it demarcated the lands, allotted additional allotments for those with little land, set up savings and loan banks, schools and hospitals. The reform of the state village, carried out by P. D. Kiselev, a new form of organization of state peasants (including the introduction of self-government) served as a model for the arrangement of landlord peasants after their liberation from serfdom.

Provincial administration under Nicholas I

The regional administration under Nicholas I remained on the same basis, even in its former form; it was not complicated, like the central one; only the management of the estates, the nobility, underwent some changes. As we know, the institutions of 1775 gave the nobility a decisive dominance in local government. Under Emperor Paul, some of the judicial and provincial institutions were abolished; under Alexander, the participation of the nobility in local government was even somewhat expanded; without passing on all the details, I will point out that, according to the institutions of 1775, the judicial chambers (criminal and civil, which served as the highest instance for higher estate institutions, for example, the provincial magistrate, the upper zemstvo court) did not have an estate character, consisted of members from the crown. Under the law of 1780, it was granted to the nobility and merchants to choose two assessors in both chambers, who acted together with the chairman and adviser from the crown. Under the law of 1831, the nobility was given the right to choose the chairmen of both chambers. Thus, the general court, non-estate, in the province was placed at the disposal of the nobility, but the right of participation of the nobility in the provincial administration was limited by the establishment of a qualification.

In the provincial institutions of 1775, at the noble congresses, every hereditary nobleman or the highest staff officer rank had the right to choose. The regulation of 1831 more precisely determined the participation of nobles in congresses and elections: namely, some nobles could participate in congresses with a vote, others without a vote. The right to participate with a voice was a hereditary nobleman who had reached the age of 21, who had real estate in the province, received at least the rank of the 14th class in active service or served for three years in noble elections, these are the main conditions. The hereditary nobles who did not satisfy them participated in the congresses without a vote. Moreover, the right to vote was twofold: some nobles voted in all matters discussed in the meeting, others in everything except elections; the right to participate in all affairs and in elections was granted to hereditary nobles who had at least 100 souls of peasants in the province or at least 3 thousand acres of convenient, albeit uninhabited, land. The voice in all matters, except for the choice, belonged to the hereditary nobles, who had less than 100 souls or 3 thousand acres of land in the province.

One class of nobles had an immediate right to vote, another a mediocre voice through commissioners; it was the small plots that were formed into one, so that their totality was a normal plot of 100 souls, and they chose one representative for the noble congress. The law of 1837 complicated the organization of the zemstvo police, as you know, led by the nobility. The police officer, the head of the district police, acted as before, but each district was divided into camps, and a camp was placed at the head of the camp; stanovoy - a crown official who is appointed by the provincial administration only on the recommendation of the noble assembly. Taking into account all the changes made to the provincial government, it should be said that the influence of the nobility on the local government was not strengthened; participation was expanded, but at the same time weakened by the introduction of qualifications and the combination of elected offices with crown ones. Hitherto the nobility had been the leading class in local government; since the issuance of the laws of 1831 and 1837. the nobility became an auxiliary tool of the crown administration, a police tool of the government.

That's all the important changes that have been made to the central and provincial administration. These changes upset the balance between the one and the other; the central administration was terribly expanded, and the chancellery received extraordinary development in it; local government remained the same. If we imagine the intensified activity that the emperor introduced into the institutions, then we will understand the main shortcoming of management. All cases were conducted in a clerical order, through paper; The multiplied central institutions annually threw away tens, hundreds of thousands of papers in the offices, chambers, according to which these chambers and offices were to repair the execution. This continuous flow of paperwork, flowing from the center to the provinces, flooded the local institutions, took away from them any opportunity to discuss matters; everyone was in a hurry to clean them up: not to fulfill the deed, but to "clean up" the paper - that was the task of the local administration; all the goals of public order, which was guarded by the administration, all boiled down to the neat content of a written sheet of paper; society and its interests receded far into the background before the official. The whole steering was a huge and not entirely correct mechanism, which worked tirelessly, but which was much wider, heavier at the top than at the bottom, so that the lower parts and wheels were in danger of cracking from too much activity in the upper ones.

The more such a mechanism developed, the less opportunity remained for its leaders to monitor the operation of its parts. No mechanism could see behind the work of all the wheels, behind their breaking and timely repair. Thus the direction of affairs went from the center down; each minister could only, looking at this whole huge machine of state order, wave his hand and leave everything to chance; the real engines of this order were the lower officials who cleared the papers. This shortcoming was expressed by the observant emperor himself, who once said that Russia was ruled not by the emperor, but by the head clerks. Such was the appearance of the edifice of bureaucracy as it was placed in this reign, that is, as it was then completed. Not trusting the public, Nicholas I saw his main support in the army and officials. In the reign of Nicholas there was a further growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. New ministries and departments appeared, striving to create their own bodies on the ground. The objects of bureaucratic regulation were the most diverse branches of human activity, including religion, art, literature, and science. The number of officials grew rapidly. At the beginning of the XIX century. there were 15-16 thousand of them, in 1847 - 61.5 thousand and in 1857 - 86 thousand.

Intensified, passing all reasonable limits, managerial centralism. Almost all cases were decided in the central departments. Even the highest institutions (the Council of State and the Senate) were overwhelmed with a mass of petty affairs. This gave rise to a huge correspondence, often of a formal nature. Provincial officials sometimes scribbled an answer to a paper from St. Petersburg without even reading it. However, the essence of bureaucratic management does not consist in scribbling a large number of papers and bureaucratic red tape. These are his outward signs. The essence is that decisions are made and implemented not by any meeting of representatives, not by a single responsible official (minister, governor), but by the entire administrative machine as a whole. The minister or the governor is only a part of this machine, although a very important one.

First of all, they are associated with the events of December 25, 1825 - the uprising on the Senate Square in the first days of his reign and the subsequent brutal suppression of the "Decembrists" movement. But this is far from true.

Of course, the rebellion left its mark on the subsequent years of the emperor's reign, but do not forget that it was under him that a number of important reforms were carried out that affected most areas of public life in the Russian Empire.

From childhood, Nicholas in many ways imitated his idol - Peter I. It was the great ancestor who was an example and a symbol of change for the young emperor. Just like Peter, Nicholas I was unpretentious in his way of life.

He could get by with one overcoat in military campaigns, preferred simple meals in food, and even practically did not drink alcohol. Nevertheless, leading a rather ascetic lifestyle, Nikolai spared neither money nor effort to erect the most beautiful architectural buildings.

The events that took place on Senate Square further strengthened the emperor in the opinion of revising the way of life in Russia. Already at the end of 1826, a Secret Committee was created from the closest dignitaries of the sovereign, headed by Speransky.

His main task was to study the projects of his reforms left after the death of Alexander I, as well as their modification.In 1833, 15 volumes of the Code of Laws were prepared, at the State Council of the same year they were recognized as the only source for resolving all litigations and disputes. Thus began a significant reform of the judiciary.

Throughout the 30 years of his reign, Nicholas was worried about the peasant question. Thus, in 1837, the Ministry of State Property was formed, which managed to resolve the land issue and the role of peasants in it. P.D. became the head of the ministry. Kiselev, a far-sighted and decisive figure who considered it necessary to free the serfs from personal dependence. This period in history is better known as Kiselyov's reforms.

Without looking at all the inconsistency of the personality of Nicholas I, he realized that Russia needed these measures, but suggested not to force events. So at a meeting of the state. Council of 1842, he announced that the serf system that existed at that time had outlived itself, but giving freedom to the peasantry would be, in his opinion, even more destructive. Nevertheless, the reform quite decently changed the way of life of the peasantry for the better. The village administration was reformed, rural schools and hospitals were opened.

Also in the 40s of the 19th century, a monetary reform was carried out. It limited government spending, increased taxes on goods imported into Russia, the silver ruble became the main monetary unit of Russia, which also facilitated the commodity-money circulation of the empire.All this was an undoubted achievement in the reign of Nicholas I.

Nicholas I is one of the most famous emperors of Russia. He ruled the country for 30 years (from 1825 to 1855), between the two Alexanders. Nicholas I made Russia truly enormous. Before his death, it reached its geographical zenith, stretching over almost twenty million square kilometers. Tsar Nicholas I also held the title of King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland. He is known for his conservatism, his unwillingness to reform, and his defeat in the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

Early years and rise to power

Nicholas I was born in Gatchina in the family of Emperor Paul I and his wife Maria Feodorovna. He was the younger brother of Alexander I and Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. Initially, he was not raised as a future Russian emperor. Nikolai was the youngest child in a family that, in addition to him, had two eldest sons, so it was not expected that he would ever ascend the throne. But in 1825, Alexander I died of typhus, and Konstantin Pavlovich renounced the throne. Nicholas was next in the line of succession. On December 25, he signed a manifesto on his ascension to the throne. The date of the death of Alexander I was called the beginning of the reign of Nicholas. The period between it (December 1) and his ascent is called the intermediate period. At this time, the military tried to seize power several times. This led to the so-called December Uprising, but Nicholas the First managed to quickly and successfully suppress it.

Nicholas the First: years of reign

The new emperor, according to numerous testimonies of his contemporaries, lacked the spiritual and intellectual breadth of his brother. He was not brought up as a future ruler, and this affected when Nicholas the First ascended the throne. He saw himself as an autocrat who governs people as he sees fit. He was not the spiritual leader of his people, inspiring people to work and develop. They also tried to explain dislike for the new tsar by the fact that he ascended the throne on Monday, which has long been considered a difficult and unhappy day in Russia. In addition, on December 14, 1825, it was very cold, the temperature dropped below -8 degrees Celsius.

The common people immediately considered this a bad omen. The bloody suppression of the December uprising for the introduction of representative democracy only strengthened this opinion. This event at the very beginning of the reign had a very bad effect on Nicholas. All subsequent years of his reign, he will impose censorship and other forms of education and other areas of public life, and the Office of His Majesty will contain a whole network of all kinds of spies and gendarmes.

Rigid centralization

Nicholas I was afraid of all kinds of forms of national independence. He abolished the autonomy of the Bessarabian region in 1828, Poland - in 1830, and the Jewish Kahal - in 1843. The only exception to this trend was Finland. She managed to maintain her autonomy (largely due to the participation of her army in the suppression of the November Uprising in Poland).

Character and spiritual qualities

Biographer Nikolai Rizanovsky describes the rigidity, determination and iron will of the new emperor. He talks about his sense of duty and hard work on himself. According to Rizanovsky, Nicholas I saw himself as a soldier who devoted his life to serving the good of his people. But he was only an organizer, and not a spiritual leader at all. He was an attractive man, but extremely nervous and aggressive. Often the emperor got too hung up on the details, not seeing the whole picture. The ideology of his rule is "official nationalism". It was proclaimed in 1833. The policy of Nicholas I was based on Orthodoxy, autocracy and Russian nationalism. Let's dwell on this issue in more detail.

Nicholas the First: foreign policy

The emperor was successful in his campaigns against southern enemies. He took the last territories of the Caucasus from Persia, which included modern Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Russian Empire received Dagestan and Georgia. His success in ending the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 allowed him to gain an advantage in the Caucasus. He ended the confrontation with the Turks. He was often called behind his back "the gendarme of Europe." He indeed constantly offered to help put down the uprising. But in 1853, Nicholas the First got involved in the Crimean War, which led to disastrous results. Historians emphasize that not only an unsuccessful strategy is to blame for the terrible consequences, but also the flaws in local administration and the corruption of his army. Therefore, it is most often said that the reign of Nicholas the First is a mixture of unsuccessful domestic and foreign policies that put the common people on the brink of survival.

Military and army

Nicholas I is known for his large army. It numbered about a million people. This meant that approximately one in fifty men was in the military. They had outdated equipment and tactics, but the tsar, dressed as a soldier and surrounded by officers, celebrated the victory over Napoleon with a parade every year. Horses, for example, were not trained for battle, but looked great during processions. Behind all this brilliance, real degradation was hidden. Nicholas put his generals at the head of many ministries, despite their lack of experience and qualifications. He tried to extend his power even to the church. It was led by an agnostic known for his military exploits. The army became a social lift for noble youth from Poland, the Baltic, Finland and Georgia. The military also sought to become criminals who could not adapt to society.

Nevertheless, throughout the reign of Nicholas, the Russian Empire remained a force to be reckoned with. And only the Crimean War showed the world its backwardness in the technical aspect and corruption within the army.

Achievements and censorship

During the reign of the heir to Alexander the First, the first railway in the Russian Empire was opened. It stretches for 16 miles, connecting St. Petersburg with the southern residence in Tsarskoe Selo. The second line was built in 9 years (from 1842 to 1851). She connected Moscow with St. Petersburg. But progress in this area was still too slow.

In 1833, Minister of Education Sergei Uvarov developed the program "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationalism" as the main ideology of the new regime. People had to demonstrate loyalty to the tsar, love for Orthodoxy, traditions and the Russian language. The result of these Slavophile principles was the suppression of class distinctions, extensive censorship and surveillance of such independent thinker poets as Pushkin and Lermontov. Figures who did not write in Russian or belonged to other confessions were severely persecuted. The great Ukrainian poet and writer Taras Shevchenko was sent into exile, where he was forbidden to draw or compose poems.

Domestic politics

Nicholas the First did not like serfdom. He often toyed with the idea of abolishing it, but did not do so for state reasons. Nicholas was too afraid of the strengthening of free-thinking among the people, believing that this could lead to uprisings like the December one. In addition, he was wary of aristocrats and was afraid that such reforms would force them to turn away from him. However, the sovereign still tried to somewhat improve the position of the serfs. Minister Pavel Kiselev helped him in this.

All the reforms of Nicholas I centered around the serfs. Throughout his reign, he tried to increase control over the landowners and other powerful groups in Russia. Created a category of state serfs with special rights. He limited the votes of the representatives of the Honorary Assembly. Now only the landlords had this right, in whose subordination there were more than a hundred serfs. In 1841, the emperor forbade the sale of serfs separately from the land.

culture

The reign of Nicholas I is the time of the ideology of Russian nationalism. It was fashionable among the intelligentsia to argue about the place of the empire in the world and its future. Debates were constantly fought between pro-Western figures and Slavophiles. The first believed that the Russian Empire had stopped in its development, and further progress was possible only through Europeanization. Another group, the Slavophiles, assured that it was necessary to focus on the original folk customs and traditions. They saw the possibility of development in Russian culture, and not in Western rationalism and materialism. Some believed in the country's mission to liberate other nations from brutal capitalism. But Nicholas did not like any freethinking, so the Ministry of Education often closed philosophy departments because of their possible negative impact on the younger generation. The benefits of Slavophilism were not considered.

Education system

After the December uprising, the sovereign decided to devote his entire reign to maintaining the status quo. He began with the centralization of the education system. Nicholas I sought to neutralize attractive Western ideas and what he calls "pseudo-knowledge." However, Minister of Education Sergei Uvarov secretly welcomed the freedom and autonomy of educational institutions. He even succeeded in raising academic standards and improving learning conditions, as well as opening universities to the middle class. But in 1848, the tsar canceled these innovations out of fear that pro-Western sentiment would lead to possible uprisings.

Universities were small and the Ministry of Education constantly monitored their programs. The main mission was not to miss the moment when pro-Western sentiments appeared. The main task was to educate the youth as true patriots of Russian culture. But, despite the repressions, at that time there was a flourishing of culture and arts. Russian literature gained worldwide fame. The works of Alexander Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev secured their status as true masters of their craft.

Death and heirs

Nikolai Romanov died in March 1855 during the Crimean War. He caught a cold and died of pneumonia. An interesting fact is that the emperor refused treatment. There were even rumors that he committed suicide, unable to withstand the yoke of the catastrophic consequences of his military failures. The son of Nicholas I - Alexander II - took the throne. He was destined to become the most famous reformer after Peter the Great.

The children of Nicholas I were born both in marriage and not. The sovereign's wife was Alexandra Fedorovna, and her mistress was Varvara Nelidova. But, as his biographers note, the emperor did not know what real passion was. He was too organized and disciplined for that person. He was supportive of women, but none of them could turn his head.

Heritage

Many biographers call Nicholas' foreign and domestic policy catastrophic. One of the most devoted supporters - A. V. Nikitenko - noted that the entire reign of the emperor was a mistake. However, some scholars are still trying to improve the reputation of the king. Historian Barbara Jelavic notes many of the mistakes, including a bureaucracy that led to irregularities, corruption, and inefficiency, but did not view his entire reign as a complete failure.

Under Nicholas, the Kyiv National University was founded, as well as about 5,000 other similar institutions. Censorship was ubiquitous, but this did not interfere with the development of free thought. Historians note the good heart of Nicholas, who simply had to behave the way he behaved. Every ruler has his failures and achievements. But it seems that the people could not forgive anything to Nicholas. His reign largely determined the time in which he had to live and rule the country.

Reforms of Nicholas I (briefly)

Here are the main reforms that Nicholas introduced during his reign:

reform of censorship;

· Peasant reform;

· educational;

industrial;

landownership;

financial reform.

As the first reform carried out by Nicholas was the reform of finance or the Kankrin reform, which received this name in honor of the Minister of Finance of that period.

The whole essence of this reform was to replace depreciated banknotes with credit marks. This reform was able to improve the situation in the state and help Russia avoid the biggest financial crisis.

The industrial reform of Nicholas II was able to bring the country to a new level. Since the industry in this period was quite strong, personnel were needed. For this reason, the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology was opened in the state in 1831, and four years later the first joint stock company of cotton production. In addition, the railroad was opened in 1837.

A number of reforms in landownership included an expanded list of duties and rights of landlords. One of the main results of the reforms is the abolition of physical punishment of landowners and the reduction of taxes.

During Nicholas, one of the main issues was the peasant. For the complete abolition of serfdom, ten secret committees were formed, but the plan did not materialize.

At the same time, several important measures were taken that could improve the situation of the peasants:

mitigation of serfdom;

formation of peasant self-government;

the possibility of liberating part of the peasants;

· non-spread of serfdom to the most extreme areas of the state.

No less successful was the educational reform of Nicholas I. He introduced class education, dividing all schools into three separate types:

gymnasiums;

county schools;

parochial schools.

Greek and Latin come to the fore, and the remaining subjects are taught as auxiliary.

Universities have also undergone transformation. Now professors, vice-rectors and rectors were to be chosen by the Ministry of Public Education. At the same time, education in higher educational institutions was paid, and as compulsory subjects in all faculties were:

1. church history;

2. theology;

3. church law.