Libmonster ID: RU-10383

In Peter's system of administrative reforms, the formation of the Senate occupies a central place.

At the end of the 17th century, the old Boyar Duma ceased to play a significant role in government. It became an obstacle to the reform activities of Peter I, activities aimed at creating and strengthening a military-bureaucratic empire.

After the arrival of Peter I in 1698 from a trip abroad, the Boyar Duma no longer met. Instead, a new institution was created - “Concilia”, that is, systematic meetings of the heads of orders to resolve various state affairs. But this newly created institution was not a strange enough, flexible and permanently functioning highest government body.

The “consultation” took place in the Near Chancellery, which dealt with issues of state receipts and expenditures and controlled the financial activities of the orders. The “Concilia” was not a simple continuation of the Boyar Duma, which was always under the tsar, who directly supervised its work. The meetings of the chiefs of orders were mostly held without the tsar, since Peter, constantly busy with various matters, rarely visited the capital.

The composition of the "Concilia" differed significantly from the composition of the Boyar Duma. Only heads of orders participated in the meetings of the Consilia. Representatives of the clergy were completely absent, and from the Duma boyars only those who led the orders were present.

The meetings of the chiefs of orders in the Near Chancellery were a new highest government institution, an intermediate link between the old Boyar Duma and the Senate, created by Peter I only in 1711.

In the bourgeois historical and historical-legal literature there are conflicting opinions on the question of whether the idea and organization of the highest government institution in Russia - the Senate - were borrowed from Western Europe.

V. T. Sergeevich wrote: “...Senate is not a Russian name, this may suggest that the institution itself was borrowed, especially if we remember that almost all Peter’s institutions were copied from foreign ones. Nevertheless, we do not owe the Senate to anyone Only one name was borrowed, but as for the essence of the matter, this institution is completely original, its own Russian, created by Peter from the Boyar Duma, on the basis of the needs and needs that Peter himself experienced in governing the state" 1

V.V. Ivanovsky expressed the opposite opinion. He believed that the idea and organization of the Senate, with some changes adapted to Russian reality, were borrowed from Western Europe. “The Senate,” he wrote, “was established in Russia under Peter the Great in 1711, on the model of a similar institution that existed in Sweden. Studying government institutions in Sweden, Peter the Great settled on the Senate; this institution with some changes adapted to everyday life Russian life, should, in his opinion, find suitable soil in our system of government..." 2.

E. Behrendts, who is considered an expert on the state structure and economy of Sweden, gave a negative answer to the question whether the Senate was created like the Swedish Council of State. In 1710, after a ten-year stay in. Sweden, generals Adam Weide and Golovin returned to Russia from captivity. In Sweden they became acquainted with the structure of the Swedish central administration. From them, Peter could learn about the organization of the Swedish State Council, which ruled the state during the absence of Charles XII. But was the Senate a copy of the Swedish Council of State? Behrendts doubts this. He refers to the fact that the Swedish Council of State never bore the name of the Senate and fought against the policies of Charles XII when he was in Turkey, while the Senate created by Peter enjoyed great confidence from him."

1 V. T. Sergeevich “Lectures and research on the history of Russian law”, p. 833. St. Petersburg. 1883.

2 V.V. Ivanovsky “Russian state law”. T. I, "p. 218. Kazan. 1896.

Handwritten decree of Peter I of February 22, 1711 on the establishment of the governing Senate.

S. Petrovsky wrote: “At the present time, we can only guess with some probability that the Swedish Senate did not serve as a model, because our Senate of 1711 and subsequent years until 1718 is not similar in structure to the Swedish one...” 1 Further Petrovsky develops the idea that the similarity between the Senate created by Peter I and the Swedish State Council was only external. It was caused by the similarity of the situations of Russia and Sweden. Both countries experienced a long, grueling war. Charles XII was in constant absence, and instead of him the country was ruled by the State Council, which was given great powers. Peter also rarely visited his capital. The government of the country was in the hands of the “Concilia” and orders, which acted uncoordinatedly.

This similarity in the situation of both countries, which needed a strong government institution, may have led Peter to the idea of ​​​​establishing a higher institution in Russia, with enormous powers, and calling it the Senate: “They determined to be “for our absences a government Senate, for governance...” 2 .

Petrovsky’s assertion that the formation of the Senate was caused only by the conditions of the war and the constant absences of Peter I cannot be considered correct. We can only agree with him that the similarity between the Senate of Peter I and the Swedish State Council could only be external.

There is no direct indication in the historical literature and sources that the principles and structure of the Senate were borrowed from Sweden. Peter I was well aware of the existence in a number of Western European countries of higher government institutions called the Senate. There was correspondence with some of them (Venetian, Swedish, Polish), but there is no reason to assume a mechanical transfer of their structure to Russia, since each of them had its own characteristics.

In general, it is necessary to keep in mind that in the practice of governing the state, Peter I quite often called officials and institutions by foreign names. This is how the names “minister”, “governor”, ​​“office”, etc. arose. There is no doubt that Peter’s administrative reforms were, to one degree or another, influenced by Western Europe. Foreign names of institutions and officials indicate that Peter I, the master reformer, sought to separate old institutions and the order of their administration from new ones, although in other cases the old content was preserved under new names. Thus, Peter wanted to show the break in the continuity between the old administration and the new one he introduced.

The Senate, as the highest authority, was established without adequate preparation and plan. This reform was carried out by Peter as haphazardly as his other administrative reforms, before the formation of the collegiums. If Peter had wanted to base the Senate he founded on the principles and structure of any of the Western European senates, then, undoubtedly, he or his closest collaborators would have made some preparations in this direction.

1 S. Petrovsky “On the Senate during the reign of Peter the Great,” p. 36. M. 1875.

2 Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. IV, N 2321 (abbreviated “PSZ” in the following footnotes).

And this, of course, would be reflected in the form of materials and references in the huge correspondence of Peter I and his employees for the first decade of the 18th century. Such materials were not found in the archives. Consequently, it can be argued that, when creating the highest body of state power subordinate to him - the Senate - Peter I did not take any of the Western European senates as a model. But he grasped the idea of ​​the need for Russia to have a centralized, flexible apparatus of power modeled on the advanced European states.

The Senate consisted of nine people, senators were appointed from representatives of the large nobility. They were supposed to head the central apparatus of power and help the king govern the state. Internal and external situation: popular unrest and uprisings, ending wars, the tense financial and economic situation, and especially the destruction of the old central administrative apparatus by the provincial reform of 1708 - 1710 - all this together persistently required the creation of a new central apparatus of state power to carry out those tasks , who stood before the ruling class of landowners - serf owners and merchants.

Initially, Peter's Senate in its structure and functions was in many ways similar to the old Moscow orders and had no resemblance to Western European institutions. But from the very first day of its existence, it was a bureaucratic institution, the highest central apparatus of state power.

By establishing the Senate and a series of decrees, Peter I sought such an organization of the central state apparatus that could eliminate the historical lack of control of local and central institutions. This lack of control led to the fact that governors and officials could rob not only the population, but also the state treasury, causing damage to national interests.

In bourgeois historical and historical-legal literature, there was a fairly widespread opinion that the Senate in the first period of its organization was a temporary commission, and not a permanent body of power. They usually refer to the decrees of February 22 and March 2, 1711, which state that the Senate was created “for our absences.” Bourgeois historians and lawyers interpreted these decrees formally, which led them to an erroneous conclusion. In fact, from the first day of its organization, the Senate was a permanent institution that was gradually improved. In Peter's letters and decrees to the Senate and his closest employees there is not the slightest hint of the temporary nature of this institution. When Peter I visited the capital, the Senate did not stop its activities.

The idea of ​​the Senate as the highest central state institution, expressed in the decree on the establishment of the Senate dated February 22, 1711, was clearly and categorically confirmed by Peter I in his letter from Gorki dated March 11, 1711 to A. D. Menshikov, who at that time spent time in Riga, commanding an army in the territory captured from the Swedes. In this letter, Peter I reported on the measures he had taken to replenish the army with rank and file and command personnel: “... to supplement the fugitives, I strongly ordered the Governing Senate to have several thousand in Moscow in readiness, and quite a few have already been collected, and I hope , something will be corrected" 1 Further in this letter instructions were given that the formation of troops located in the western garrisons and artillery. At the end of the letter, Peter emphasized: “I also show that you are already aware that we have determined the Governing Senate, to which we have given all the full power, for this reason, please write to you about all the demands, and only give us knowledge about this, so that don't waste time" 2

From this letter from Peter to Menshikov it is obvious that the Senate was the tsar’s assistant, the highest authority in the entire system of the state apparatus, and not a temporary commission during the tsar’s absences from the capital.

The reforms of 1708 - 1710 and the formation of the Senate in 1711 meant a huge step forward in the centralization and streamlining of the state apparatus. Along with the old, scattered and lost orders, new institutions were created, more flexible and centralized.

The following structure of the state apparatus was created: the Senate - the highest administrative, judicial and supervisory institution; fragments of old orders, which either merged with the apparatus, provincial offices or became dependent on the governors (some orders formally retained their independence, but were deprived of many functions characteristic of the central apparatus); provincial centers headed by governors, to which cities and counties were assigned.

1 I. I. Golikov “The Acts of Peter the Great” T. IV, p. 523. M. 1838. 2nd ed.

2 Ibid., p. 524.

In this way, a differentiated bureaucratic apparatus was created, better suited than the old orders to extort various state duties from the population and suppress the growing resistance of the popular masses. This apparatus ensured that Peter I brought an active foreign policy and eliminated the economic and cultural backwardness of Russia.

When studying the activities of the Senate and its role in the creation and strengthening of the centralized bureaucratic apparatus of state power of landowners, serfs and merchants, it is necessary first of all to find out the class composition of the Senate in its original form and to trace the subsequent changes that took place in it, right up to the formation of the collegiums.

We know from the decree on the formation of the Senate of February 22, 1711, that the composition of the Senate was determined to be nine people. Of these, two were part of the Near Chancellery: Streshnev, the head of the rank, and Count Musin-Pushkin, the head of the monastery order. The remaining seven people were mainly from major military and civil officials: Prince Golitsyn, the Arkhangelsk governor, later one of the representatives of the conservative opposition, a supporter of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich; Prince Volkonsky, chief commandant of the Yaroslavl province; Samarin, Kriegs - Tsalmeister, since 1708 the head of the uniform office, was involved in the case of Tsarevich Alexei; Apukhtin, Quartermaster General; Pemyannikov, manager of state-owned sailing factories; Prince M.V. Dolgoruky, illiterate, for whom the Senate sentences were signed by Nephews; Melnitsky, steward. The Chief Secretary of the Senate is Shchukin, who before the formation of the Senate was a profit-maker and president of the Izhersk offices.

Before the formation of the collegiums, the Senate did not include the supreme gentlemen, or “principals,” as the Senate called them in its verdicts: Prince Mentikov, Admiral Apraksin, Field Marshal Sheremetev, Chancellor Golovkin, Sub-Chancellor Shafirov, Head of the Near Chancellery Zotov. But the absence of these most influential, closest employees of Peter in the Senate did not detract from its importance as the highest government institution in the country and did not place it in a secondary position in the system of state institutions. The senators' affiliation with large feudal landowners is undeniable. Most of them, before the formation of the Senate, occupied a high position in the state apparatus: Streshnev and Musin-Pushkin, were members of the Boyar Duma and the “Ministerial Council” in the Near Chancellery, etc. The fallacy of M.N. Pokrovsky’s statement that the composition of the Senate was a meeting of officials appointed by Peter I "without any attention to their origin and social status..." 1.

The composition of the Senate was radically different from the old Boyar Duma and the Near Chancellery. The senators were selected by Peter I from the noble nobility, but according to their personal merits and abilities, and not according to their birth and official position, as was previously the case with the composition of the Boyar Duma and the Near Chancellery. Localism was dealt a final, crushing blow.

The original composition of the Senate of 1711 was not stable. Changes began to occur in it already in 1712. In 1712, Senator Melnitsky left the Senate due to old age. In 1713, senator Prince Golitsyn was appointed to the post of governor of Riga. Since the end of April 1713, he was not present at meetings of the Senate, although there was no decree releasing him from senatorial duties.

In 1714, Plemyannikov’s signature was no longer found on Senate verdicts.

In connection with the discovered abuses and embezzlement in the orders and office of the Intermanland province, several people were arrested and prosecuted, including senators Apukhtin, who managed the merchant chamber and money courts, and Volkonsky, who managed the Tula arms factory. The investigation established that they not only committed abuses in the management of state-owned enterprises entrusted to them, but also abused their power as senators, using their position for personal interests: under false names they signed contracts “for the cake in the Senate to supply food at an expensive price,” etc. etc. In 1714 they were removed from their positions, and at the beginning of 1715 they were convicted, publicly punished and expelled.

Senator Samarin, brought in in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, by personal decree of Peter I of February 6, 1718, was taken as “guard” to Prince Menshikov; his house and all correspondence were sealed.

1 M. N. Pokrovsky “Russian history from ancient times.” T. II, p. 314. M. 1933.

Letter from Peter I to the Senate dated May 19, 1711. The last 9 lines were written by Peter I himself.

Soon after Samarin's arrest, Apraksin, who was appointed senator by personal decree of June 9, 1715, was arrested in connection with the case of Tsarevich Alexei. But since during the investigation the criminal connection of senators Samarin and Apraksin with Tsarevich Alexei was not established, Peter I, in his letter dated March 7, 1718, announced to the Senate that “Peter Matveevich Apraksin and Mikhail Samarin on their own business (for which they were taken were to Moscow) were cleansed and for this purpose they were now released to Piterburgh to continue their business; and for this reason, now order Mikhail Samarin’s house to be sealed and order his people to be freed. And what was the report against them and how they were justified, a copy of this is attached to him" 1

After their release from arrest, Samarin and Apraksina sat for some time in the Senate (the former until 1718, the latter until 1719). Senator Streshnev died in 1718. Prince Dolgoruky was removed from office that same year as a supporter of Tsarevich Alexei.

Thus, before the decree of December 8, 1718 “On the position of the Senate,” great changes occurred in the composition of this institution. Of the nine senators appointed by decree of February 22, 1711, eight left. Of the original composition of the Senate, by the time the collegiums were formed, only Musin-Pushkin remained. Until 1719, Ya. F. Dolgoruky and Apraksin were introduced to the Senate.

Considering the reasons for the huge loss of senators, one cannot help but notice that of the eleven senators appointed between 1711 and 1718, four were removed due to political unreliability and bad faith. Although the Senate, as the highest state institution, was undoubtedly more organized and efficient than the old Boyar Duma or the Consilya that replaced it, in its original composition it did not fully correspond to the tasks that Peter I set for it. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the decree of 8 December 1718 speaks not only of changes in the structure of the Senate, but also of fundamental ones; changes in its composition. “The Senate should consist of the presidents of the colleges, except for them no named person should be included at the present time when the councils are sent,” 2 wrote Peter.

According to the decree “On the position of the Senate”, only Ya. F. Dolgoruky and Musin-Pushkin were included in it from its old composition as presidents of the boards.

From the beginning of the organization of the Senate, all senators were equal in their rights. Peter’s decree stated: “...to have equal votes and to sign all decrees with their own hands, that although one does not sign and testifies that the verdict was wrong, then the others are also invalid; the same must apply to the one who challenges, i.e. give a protest behind your hand on the letter... senators have places according to the list, who is written after whom..." 3.

The decree of March 2, 1711 completely did not allow localism in the Senate, which was common in the old Boyar Duma. To decide cases in the Senate, unanimity was required. Senators who disagreed with the majority's decision filed written “protests.” If at least one senator disagreed, the case was to be transferred to a new consideration by the Senate (of course, in its old composition). If during the second consideration of the case it was not possible to achieve a unanimous decision, the controversial issue was submitted to the king for final resolution.

Peter I demanded from the Senate speed, flexibility, independence and precision in its work.

1 "Collection of the Russian Historical Society". T. II, p. 369. St. Petersburg. 1873.

2 "PSZ". T. V, N 3264.

3 "PSZ". T. IV, N 2331.

page 44

The procedure for deciding cases in the Senate did not meet these requirements. Noticing this significant drawback, Peter, by decree of April 4, 1714, established that matters in the Senate should be decided by a majority vote.

The order of work of the Senate had some similarities with the order of work of the old Boyar Duma and the “Concilia” of ministers in the Near Chancellery: the exact dates of the meetings, which were convened as cases accumulated in the Senate office, were not established; the constant presence of any of the senators in the Senate office was not ensured for the ongoing work, which was led by Chief Secretary Shchukin.

This shortcoming was soon noticed by Peter, and on April 16, 1714, a personal decree followed, establishing a clearer procedure for the work of the Senate office. Each senator was required to actively participate in the day-to-day work of the Senate. Daily duty of senators in the office was established. Senators on duty had to review cases, prepare questions for regular meetings of the Senate, convene senators for these meetings, and send “confirmatory decrees” to the relevant persons and institutions on the timely and accurate implementation of their personal decrees and senatorial sentences. Each senator was required to keep a journal in which he was required to record what he did while on duty. Thus, senators were assigned certain responsibilities for directing the day-to-day work of the Senate, and the implementation of these responsibilities was monitored.

However, the established procedure for the work of senators in the Senate office was poorly observed by them. As a result, on January 20 1716 year, a personal decree followed, which required each senator to not only enter the Senate every day during his month-long duty to comply with the order established by the decree of April 16 1714 year, but carried out the work assigned to the senator on duty, regardless of time: "...to sit all days, not only from morning until lunch, but also after lunch, if it happens..." 1. This meant that senators should not formally serve their monthly duty, but manage the day-to-day work of the Senate office, monitor the implementation of its decisions and quickly resolve those issues that do not require the participation of all senators. The same decree established the calendar schedule for Senate meetings. Meetings were to take place three times a week: on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

For failure to attend meetings without valid reasons, certified by senators, a fine of 50 rubles was imposed for each day missed.

In the affairs of the Senate for 1718, there are indications that the number of Senate meetings per week was sometimes not limited to three days and reached four or even five days a week. Meetings took place in different places: "... on Monday in the city, Tuesday - major affairs, Wednesday - collegiums, Thursday at the Admiralty, Friday - in the Senate" 2 Senate meetings began at 5 o'clock in the morning. “Major and collegiate affairs in the state house and to begin everywhere at five o’clock in the morning” 3. On certain days, only one department's business was heard at Senate meetings.

The privileges of senators compared to other officials were that senators, if they were brought to criminal liability, were subject to the highest court of the Senate, bypassing the lower and middle courts, and the verdict of the Senate in their cases received legal force only after its approval by the king. Senators had no other privileges. The civil affairs of senators proceeded as usual through the relevant judicial and administrative authorities.

Of all the fiscals, only the chief fiscal enjoyed the right to denounce senators and demand trial against them. In the decree on the position of chief fiscal of March 5 1711 year it is said that lower fiscals enjoy the same rights as the chief fiscal, “... except that the highest judge (senator - G.A.) or the general staff cannot be called to court without the chief fiscal” 5 .

1 "PSZ". T. V, N 2892

2 State Archive of the Feudal-Serf Era (GAFKE). "Reports and verdicts of the Senate." Book 42nd, l. 412.

3 Ibid.

4 Fiscals - officials whose duties included secret supervision over the actions of government institutions and officials and the behavior of residents. Ober-fiscal - a senior official who controlled the activities of fiscal officials and enjoyed the right to secretly supervise the actions of high-ranking officials.

5 "PSZ". T. IV, N 2331.

page 45

And since not all senators were distinguished by impeccable honesty, the attitude of the Senate to the denunciations of the chief fiscal about the abuses of senators was not only unkind, but also hostile.

Fiscal Nesterov in 1713 reported to Peter I that senators were abusing their position for selfish purposes: “... some of them not only do not look after others according to the points given to them, but they themselves have entered into a real theft of your treasury under other people’s names, which They obviously cannot renounce; how can there be a fair trial and defense of your interests from them?

Having received this letter and other denunciations about the careless and careless performance of their duties by senators, Peter wrote on June 12, 1713: “Gentlemen of the Senate! forgetting God and your souls, for this reason I am writing to you last about this, if there are five or three main matters, if you no longer have time to inform you about them, do not commit them until the first of November as a criminal [whose interests are in the interests of the state spoil], inflict the death penalty, sparing no one in this, and if you act otherwise in this, then this will be done to you" 1

But these threats from Peter could not eradicate the abuses of the senators. Red tape in resolving cases of denunciations by fiscal officials continued as before. Therefore, by order of Peter, cases of abuse of individual senators were removed from the jurisdiction of the Senate and transferred to special courts composed of senators and guard officers or only guard officers.

These emergency courts were appointed by personal decrees. For example, to investigate fiscal reports against Senator Apraksin, an emergency investigative troika was created, which included a guard officer: Major Saltykov, Captain Panin, Captain-Lieutenant Golenishchev-Kutuzov. Apraksin was accused of the following crimes: “undisclosed purchase of flax in Pskov, on overseas vacation and concealment of duties”; in translation from Karavaev from the Arkhangelsk province to Kazan peasants, “not a small number and non-payment of any state taxes from these peasants”; in the reduction of tax payments without a sentence of senators “out of friendship to Privy Councilor Dolgorukov, from his Yurkovsky volosts there was a considerable amount of foldable income” 2, etc.

Based on fiscal reports about the abuses of Senator Ya. F. Dolgoruky, by order of Peter I, an investigative commission of guard officers was created under the chairmanship of Life Guard Major Dmitriev-Mamonov, consisting of Captain Likharev and Lieutenant Bakhmetyev. Senator Ya. F. Dolgoruky was accused of the following crimes: giving three contracts for the supply of cloth to “foreigners and accepting bad cloth from them”; in the dacha on his own behalf for the Siberian cake “government fifty thousand rubles” 3; in bribes from foreign contractors; in concealing officers from service, etc. This commission of investigation did not finish and, by order of Peter I, transferred it to a new commission, chaired by the Chief Secretary of the Senate Shchukin, to whom, by the Senate verdict of January 21, officers of the Semenovsky Guard Regiment were assigned as assessors : second lieutenant and ensign. By a Senate verdict of January 3, 1718, clerk Philip Klyucharyov was appointed to this commission. Shchukin was appointed at the head of this investigative commission, not as a representative of the Senate, but as a confidant of Peter I.

The senators were interrogated not in the premises of the investigative commission, but in the Senate office, where the full investigative commission arrived. This procedure for interrogating senators was their privilege as especially important officials. If a senator was accused of a serious crime, then Peter I personally appointed a special court composed of senators, generals and guard officers, which was called the “High Court”. The tsar himself was present at the investigation into such cases, and the verdict of the “High Court” received final force and was carried out only after its approval by Peter.

Apart from the privileges that senators enjoyed if they were brought to criminal responsibility, senators formally had no other legal advantages. But senators themselves created illegal privileges for themselves, using their high position for personal purposes. Senators had a poorly developed sense of responsibility and public duty despite the persistent attempts of Peter I to instill in them, as senior government officials, these qualities, the traditions of irresponsibility and lack of control, so characteristic of the old administrative apparatus, were still quite strong among them.

1 "Collection of the Russian Historical Society" Vol. XI. St. Petersburg. 1873.

2 GAFKE "Reports and verdicts of the Senate." Book 51st, l. 42.

3 Ibid.

page 46

Bribery, embezzlement and official crimes were commonplace in the state apparatus of the Petrine era. Senators in this respect were no different from other officials.

Under the Senate, Peter I created the institution of provincial commissars in order to satisfy the urgent need for leadership in the newly formed provincial institutions. Even the predecessor of the Senate, the Near Chancellery, was in dire need of regular receipt of information from the provinces on various issues of public administration.

The personal decree of February 22, 1711 on the organization of the Senate very clearly, briefly and clearly speaks about the provincial commissioners under the Senate and their appointment: “... also from all provinces in the above-described “court-Senate” for questioning and adopting decrees there will be two Commissar from the province." 1 In fact, the rights, responsibilities and competence of provincial commissars were much broader than was determined by the decree of February 22, 1711. This is understandable if we keep in mind that all the administrative reforms of Peter I before the formation of the collegiums were carried out without a specific plan.

In order to understand the rights and responsibilities of provincial commissars and understand their purpose in the system of Peter's administration, it is necessary to study their practical work and attitude towards the Senate and governors.

To manage provincial institutions on the part of the Senate and to verify their compliance with government orders, constant submission of various information and reports from the province was required. But a big obstacle to this was the huge distance separating the capital from the provincial centers, the poor condition of the roads and the old feudal traditions of the local administration. Peter I took these difficulties into account perfectly. In a letter to Menshikov dated February 6, 1711, he wrote about the slow implementation of decrees by the governors: “... until now, God knows in what sadness I am, for the governors will follow the course of their affairs, the deadline for which is Thursday in the first week, and Then I will deal with them not with words, but with my hands" 2.

The establishment of provincial commissioners under the Senate was caused by the Senate's need for the fastest possible communication with the provinces and to verify the implementation of various orders by the governors.

The functions of the provincial commissars were defined in the verdict of the Senate of March 16, 1711, which ordered the provincial commissars to be with the Senate. Governors who had not yet sent commissioners were ordered to send them immediately, and the commissioners who appeared from the province "e.v.g. decree to say that they should always be there to receive decrees and to ask questions about those matters necessary for the province; letters and information about all sorts of provincial affairs, for sending parcels quickly to the governors and receiving answers, give them with receipts, and they should send those orders to the governors with courier and upon receipt of the answer, submit it to the Senate office for your own hands" 3 . To ensure constant communication between the commissars and their governors, the Senate ordered the Yamsky order to provide them with postal Yamsky carts. The Senate sought to ensure systematic communication with the provincial administration, which increased the centralization of the state apparatus.

Despite the fact that personal and Senate decrees on the position of provincial commissars under the Senate during the existence of this institution did not introduce other changes or additions to it, the provincial commissars in practice significantly expanded their competence. The provincial commissioners answered in the Senate whether this or that decree was executed by the governor or not and why. For example, the Senate asked the commissar of the Moscow province whether six clerks had been sent from this province to Riga for the army by decree. “...And the commissars of that province were told that the clerks had been sent to Riga and a report about this would be submitted” 4 . The Kazan provincial commissar Pozdnyakov reported to the Senate that the governor could not send the three clerks assigned from his province to Konigsberg to study German, and also could not contribute money for the maintenance of other clerks sent on behalf of the Kazan province. The Arkhangelsk commissar reported that clerks from the Arkhangelsk province for teaching the German language in the amount of two people, as well as the money allocated for this purpose, had been sent.

Sometimes the Senate, at the request of orders and the office, bypassing the governors, turned to the provincial commissioners with a demand to make payments due from the province and threatened with severe punishments. Not only the Senate, but also the heads of individual offices, with its permission, summoned provincial commissars and demanded from them copies of the papers that they wrote to the governors about sending them money. SO, for example, the head of the contract office, Colonel Koshelev, who was entrusted with collecting arrears, several times called provincial commissars to his office with papers about payments from the province to the city office. After looking through the papers, he became convinced that the commissioners had written to the governors on this issue “many times,” 1 but they did not have the cash for these payments.

Governors often entrusted commissars with the supply of fodder and provisions for the army and navy. Provincial commissars were tasked with concluding contracts with contractors in the capital and monitoring the implementation of these contracts. The Senate not only demanded from the provincial commissars a report on the number of recruits expelled and not sent from the province, but also instructed them, after a medical examination of the recruits brought to Moscow and St. Petersburg, to place the sick in the infirmary, and accompany those who were fit to their destination, providing them with money and provisions. Minors with name lists were sent to the commissioner, who presented them for “review” to the Senate. The fugitive peasants, found and brought to the capital, were obliged to send the commissars to their provinces, to their former owners.

Thus, the functions of provincial commissars were not limited to transmitting personal and senate decrees to the province and reporting on their implementation to the Senate. The practical activities of the commissioners went far beyond the limits outlined by the decrees. To carry out a wide variety of assignments, provincial commissars needed assistants and clerical staff. To carry out these duties, clerks were sent to them from the provinces, and the Senate assigned them 10 soldiers for dispatches. Thus, a small administrative apparatus was created around the provincial commissars.

Provincial commissioners under the Sonata were appointed by governors and approved by the Senate. They were selected from courtiers and army officers. Thus, in terms of their class composition, these were feudal landowners. They had to know well the work of their provincial administration and, according to the decrees sent, “be responsible for all kinds of provincial reports.” The appointment to the post of provincial commissar was for an indefinite period, with an annual salary of 120 rubles in money and 60 quarters of bread.

The responsibility of provincial commissioners under the Senate for failure to fulfill their duties was not regulated by decrees. But this does not mean that they were not responsible to the Senate and were only a transfer authority between it and the governors. In practice, they were responsible to the Senate and for the activities of provincial institutions. Quite often, provincial commissars were punished not only for their misconduct and failure to perform; but also for the misconduct of governors.

In 1712, the Senate ordered that provincial commissioners submit daily written information to the Senate office how many of their provinces sent recruits, horses and ammunition to the regiments by decrees of the Senate and how many were not sent. If the commissioners do not appear “on what day” and do not submit the required statements, “... they will be fined to the treasury of a ruble per day each and they will have their hands on it” 2. On May 14, 1715, the provincial commissioners were summoned to the Senate office, where they were given a decree that they should make copies of all contracting matters in the provinces starting from 1711 and send them during the first days of June to the contracting office. If this information is not will be presented on time, the commissioners will be fined. The fine was one of the weaker punishments. Quite often a more severe punishment was applied to the commissioners - pravezh. On May 15, 1713, the Pharmacy Order reported to the Senate that in the past years, from 1710 to the first quarter of 1713, 126,944 rubles were not brought in from all eight provinces. On this “report” a note was made by the Senate clerk Okunkov: “... for the right to send money, those provinces commissars.” In December 1713, according to the “report” of Posolsky order about the non-payment of the money due to him for the current year, the Senate gave the order “to beat those provincial commissars to the right until the money is sent to him in full.”

In order to ensure success in foreign and domestic policy, it was necessary to strengthen the state apparatus, which would help Peter I win military victories, suppress popular unrest and uprisings, and protect the interests of feudal landowners and merchants.

After the formation of the Senate, with his direct participation, further reforms were carried out, including administrative ones, but more systematically, according to a pre-planned plan. With the help of the Senate, the positions of the military-bureaucratic empire of Peter I were strengthened, and further centralization and bureaucratization of the state apparatus was carried out at all its levels.

Peter's transformations did not change the class essence of the state apparatus. Lenin points out that different forms of government are only different forms of class struggle, and each of these forms “... goes through different stages of development of its class content, and on the other hand, the transition from one form to another does not eliminate (in itself) ) the domination of the former exploiting classes under a different shell. For example, the Russian autocracy of the 17th century - with the boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy - is not similar to the autocracy of the 18th century with its bureaucracy and service classes..." 2.

Search for materials from the publisher in the systems: Libmonster (the whole world). Google. Yandex

In 1711, the Governing Senate was placed at the head of not only the judicial, but also all administrative institutions without exception. Being, as the highest body of government, the successor to the “boyar (or “ministerial”) councils” that replaced the old “boyar duma,” the Senate at the same time received a number of features that brought it closer to the state institutions of Western Europe. But even during the reign of Peter the Senate went through several phases of development, without a brief indication of which it is difficult to correctly understand the true significance of the Senate in all government administration and, in particular, in the judicial system603. The Senate was organized by Peter's decree on February 22, 1711, when 9 senators were appointed to its composition 604. But its functions as the highest state institution were defined by two decrees on March 2 of the same year, of which the first, in nine points, defined the tasks assigned to the Senate (“Decree on what to do after our departure”), and the second contained additional three paragraphs 605. Of all these points, only the first paragraph of the main decree defined in vivid, but legally very vague terms the judicial power of the Senate: “To have an impartial court and to punish unjust judges the taking away of honor and all property, and so will the snitches.” In addition, the ninth paragraph, without direct connection with its specific content, spoke of the establishment of the position of fiscal, also within a poorly defined framework, which was emphasized by the legislator himself. In view of the great importance of the activities of the fiscal authorities both in the Senate and in other institutions, we present this part of paragraph nine: “Instruct the fiscal in all sorts of matters, and news will be sent to them about what to do.” Other points of both decrees instruct the Senate to organize the recruitment of troops and their food, collect money (“money is the artery of war”), organize trade, search for nobles evading service, and take away their estates. Thus, according to this original outline in the law, the Senate was the central judicial-military-financial institution, exercising supreme supervision over the course of government in these areas606. However, during Peter’s frequent absences from the capital and even from the borders of Russia, the functions of the Senate actually expanded, and in urgent matters the Senate itself issued “decrees”. Therefore, a number of historians even attributed a legislative function to the Senate607. In the period from 1711 to 1718, when the collegiums were organized, all the administrative, judicial and supervisory functions of the Senate were combined without any distribution, which gave the historian of the Russian court a reason to call the Senate a “monster institution”! . However, the complexity of the functions of the Senate and the small number of its members forced it to arbitrarily form an auxiliary body for the consideration of judicial cases - the “execution chamber”. It consisted partly of senators, partly of “judges of civil cases” appointed by the Senate 608. This chamber arose in 1712, but its powers were more or less precisely defined later, in September 1713. The “sentence” of the Senate established that the chamber had to accept for consideration only “decided cases” in cases where the petitioner indicated that the judge handled his case “inefficiently and contrary to His Majesty’s decrees and the Code.” At the same time, the petitioner had to “take a fairy tale by hand, so that he would declare exactly what kind of judicial injustice and opposition to the sovereign’s decree and the Code were in that case.” Having recognized the petition as worthy of respect, the execution chamber accepted the “finished matter” for its consideration and made a decision on it. When complaining about red tape, the chamber sent a decree to the relevant institution to immediately resolve the case. In case of non-compliance with the decree, the requirement was confirmed by “second and third decrees under the imposition of fines.” And only then did the House report this to the Senate. The Chamber also had to consider fiscal reports, reporting monthly to the Senate about the number of reports “and what will be done on them.” In its “sentence,” the Senate ordered the chamber to send to the provincial orders both “unfinished cases” received from the lower courts and those, according to motor petitioners, who had not proven the validity of their statements about an unfair trial. From this “verdict” it is clear that in the early years the Senate did not have a very clear idea of ​​its competence, accepting “unfinished cases” for proceedings, and not only cases in which a decision could be expected from “unjust judges.” But the execution chamber decided not only court cases, but also cases related to administrative and financial management *. The uncertainty of the position of the administrative chamber is also evident from the fact that when the courts were established by the decrees of 1714, cases subject to trial by the governor were transferred directly to the Senate without mention of the administrative chamber, although it continued to operate under the Senate. In 1718, when the “collegium of justice” was “performed to entertain wrongful cases and reprisals,” the execution chamber became subordinate to the college of justice. In 1719, the functions of the execution chamber were transferred to the St. Petersburg court court609. Attempts to outline the functions of the Senate as the highest court of appeal were made in decrees of 1714 and 1715. The first commanded that petitions be brought to the commandants in the cities, complaints about them to the governors, and about the latter to the Senate. The second stated that in cities where there are no garrisons or commandants, complaints are submitted to the Landrichters. Filing complaints directly to the sovereign or to the Senate, bypassing lower authorities* is prohibited. After the establishment of the Justice Collegium, only petitions against the latter’s wrong decisions could be submitted to the Senate. In 1722, to streamline the movement of petitions and control the activities of the collegiums, the position of racketeer general was established under the Senate. He had the right to receive petitions to the boards and offices, check the progress of affairs in them and report to the Senate on red tape. In cases where the complaint was discovered to be incorrect, the racketeer general reported to the Senate to impose punishment on the petitioner 610. However, even after all these measures turning the Senate into the highest appellate authority, it remained the court of first instance in cases of government interest and in cases “against the first two points,” that is, in political cases, the Senate was also the court of first instance for crimes of fiscals, as well as in cases that were initiated in the Senate by personal decree of the sovereign. The question of the possibility of complaints about injustice or red tape on the part of the Senate itself in court cases was resolved differently. The decree of 1714 allowed complaints to the sovereign against the Senate regarding the passage of a case through the courts only in cases “if someone in the Senate does not make a decision,” that is, in case of denial of justice or slowness in resolving the case on appeal. But the decree of 1718 declared: “The Supreme Senate from His Royal Majesty is highly entrusted and consists of honest and noble persons, to whom not only petitioners’ affairs are entrusted, but also the government of the state.” Therefore, the decree prohibited striking His Majesty with his brow on pain of execution 611. Further changes in the organization and functions of the Senate are associated with the establishment of collegiums in 1718. These were central administrative institutions that replaced the old orders. With this reform, all administrative functions of the Senate were transferred to the collegiums, to which the relevant cases were sent from the Senate at the beginning of 1719. As stated above, the cases of the execution chamber were transferred to the justice college. In connection with the establishment of the collegiums, only the highest control was left to the Senate. It was carried out by a meeting of the presidents of the boards, who were supposed to discuss matters that did not fall within the competence of the individual boards. This gave grounds for some authors to conclude that from 1718 to 1722. The Senate did not exist at all as a permanent institution! However, in the “Position of the Senate” on December 3, 1718, the function of the Senate was indicated as considering and deciding cases on petitions that were awarded the highest signature, “in order to find out between the petitioner and the collegium of justice.” Thus, the Senate retained the significance of the highest judicial supervisory body, which, under certain circumstances, could receive complaints about the decisions of the College of Justice. In the last paragraph of “Positions,” the legislator emphasized the main function of the Senate. “The main thing is that (the senators) keep their office and our decrees in mind and do not put it off until tomorrow, for how can the state be governed if the decrees are not valid.” Thus, it was proclaimed that the Senate should be the “repository of laws” 612. In the General Regulations of the Colleges on February 28, 1720, the position of the Senate as the highest* body of government, standing above the colleges, was again emphasized. All state collegiums “only under his special royal majesty, as well as the Governing Senate, are established by decrees”613. However, the activities of the Senate, composed of the presidents of those colleges over which it was supposed to exercise supreme supervision, turned out to be less than satisfactory. Peter's decree of January 12, 1722 directly recognized this, emphasizing the impossibility of combining the positions of presidents of colleges and members of the Senate. “The government of this state, as if it is not disposed of before, requires incessant work in the Senate, and the members of the Senate, almost all of them, have their own collegiums, for this reason they cannot demolish this, despite what was done at first, which now must be corrected.” 614. But with the reorganization The Senate by appointing senators not connected with the leadership of the collegiums to it, this principle was not fully respected, and the presidents of the military, admiralty, foreign and berg collegiums remained its members. Since 1722, it has been precisely established that the Senate has no legislative power, but exercises supreme supervision over all government bodies. In particular, the Senate had the right to send senators to the provinces to audit the activities of local authorities. The audit activity of the Senate in relation to court cases was expressed in the reception of complaints and decisions of the collegium. 124.

Senate during the reign of Peter the Great

After the radical change that Peter’s local institutions underwent (1727-1728), the provincial government fell into complete disarray. In this state of affairs, the central institutions, including the Senate at their head, lost all effective power. Almost deprived of the means of supervision and local executive bodies, the Senate, weakened in its personnel, continued, however, to bear on its shoulders the hard work of petty routine government work. Title Governing even under Catherine, it was recognized as “indecent” to the Senate and replaced with the title "High". The Supreme Council demanded reports from the Senate, prohibited it from making expenses without permission, reprimanded the Senate, and threatened with fines.

When the plans of the leaders failed and Empress Anna again "perceived" autocracy, by decree of March 4, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished and the Governing Senate was restored to its former strength and dignity. The number of senators was increased to 21, and the Senate included the most prominent dignitaries and statesmen. A few days later the position of racketeer master was restored; The Senate again concentrated all government in its hands. To facilitate the Senate and free it from the influence of the chancellery, it was divided (June 1, 1730) into 5 departments; Their task was the preliminary preparation of all matters that were still to be decided by the general meeting of the Senate. In fact, the division of the Senate into departments did not materialize. To supervise the Senate, Anna Ioannovna at first thought to limit herself to the weekly presentation of two statements to her, one about resolved matters, the other about matters that the Senate could not decide without reporting to the Empress. On October 20, 1730, it was recognized, however, that it was necessary to restore the position of prosecutor general.

Senate under Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter III

Senate under Catherine II and Paul I

Upon the accession of Empress Catherine II to the throne, the Senate again became the highest institution in the empire, for the council ceased its activities. However, the role of the Senate in the general system of public administration is changing significantly: Catherine greatly reduced it due to the distrust with which she treated the then Senate, imbued with the traditions of Elizabethan times. In 1763, the Senate was divided into 6 departments: 4 in St. Petersburg and 2 in Moscow. Department I was in charge of state internal and political affairs, II - judicial, III - affairs in provinces that were in a special position (Little Russia, Livonia, Estland, Vyborg province, Narva), IV - military and naval affairs. Of the Moscow departments, V was in charge of administrative affairs, VI - judicial. All departments were recognized as equal in strength and dignity. As a general rule, all matters were decided in departments (unanimously) and only in case of disagreement were they transferred to the general meeting. This measure had a very serious impact on the political significance of the Senate: its decrees began to come not from a meeting of all the most dignified people in the state, but only from 3 - 4 persons, with whom it was much easier to take into account. The Prosecutor General and Chief Prosecutors received much greater influence on the resolution of cases in the Senate (each department, except the First, had its own Chief Prosecutor since 1763; in the First Department, this position was established in 1771, and until then her duties were performed by the Prosecutor General). In business terms, the division of the Senate into departments brought enormous benefits, largely eliminating the incredible slowness that characterized Senate office work. An even more sensitive and tangible damage to the significance of the Senate was caused by the fact that, little by little, matters of real national importance were taken away from it, and only the court and ordinary administrative activities were left to its share. The removal of the Senate from legislation was most dramatic. Previously, the Senate was a normal legislative body; in the vast majority of cases, he also took the initiative for the legislative measures taken. Under Catherine, all the largest of them (the establishment of provinces, charters granted to the nobility and cities, etc.) were developed in addition to the Senate; their initiative belongs to the empress herself, and not to the Senate. The Senate was completely excluded from even participating in the work of the 1767 commission; he was only given, like collegiums and chancelleries, to elect one deputy to the commission. Under Catherine, the Senate was left to fill in minor gaps in laws that had no political significance, and for the most part the Senate submitted its proposals for approval by the supreme power. Catherine, apparently, had very little trust in the talents of those who sat in the then Senate; she perfectly understood the complete dependence of the Senate on its office and its inability, given the clumsy forms of its office work, to energetically, actively work. Upon her accession to the throne, Catherine found that the Senate had brought many parts of government into impossible disorder; it was necessary to take the most energetic measures to eliminate it, and the Senate turned out to be completely unsuitable for this. Therefore, those cases to which the Empress attached the greatest importance, she entrusted to individuals who enjoyed her trust - mainly to the Prosecutor General, Prince Vyazemsky, thanks to which the importance of the Prosecutor General increased to unprecedented proportions. In fact, he was like the Minister of Finance, Justice, Internal Affairs and State Comptroller. In the second half of Catherine's reign, she began to transfer affairs to other persons, many of whom competed with the prince. Vyazemsky by degree of business influence. Entire departments appeared, the heads of which reported directly to the Empress, bypassing the Senate, as a result of which these departments became completely independent of the Senate. Sometimes they were in the nature of personal assignments, determined by Catherine’s attitude towards this or that person and the degree of trust placed in him; eg after the death of Baur, who was, as it were, the Minister of Railways, his affairs were distributed between Admiral Greig, Field Marshal Chernyshev and Prince. Vyazemsky. Postal administration was entrusted either to Vyazemsky, then to Shuvalov, or to Bezborodko. A huge blow for the Senate was the new withdrawal of the military and naval collegium from its jurisdiction, and the military collegium is completely isolated in the field of court and financial management. Having undermined the overall importance of the Senate, this measure had a particularly hard impact on its departments III and IV. The importance of the Senate and the extent of its power was further dealt a heavy blow by the establishment of provinces (1775 and 1780). Quite a lot of cases moved from the collegiums to provincial places, and the collegiums, with which the Senate had already developed a well-known modus vivendi, were little by little closed. The Senate had to enter into direct relations with new provincial regulations, which were neither formally nor in spirit coordinated with the establishment of the Senate. Catherine was well aware of this and repeatedly drew up projects for reform of the Senate (the projects of 1775, 1788 and 1794 have been preserved. ), but they were not implemented. The inconsistency between the institutions of the Senate and the provinces led, firstly, to the fact that matters of the greatest importance could always be reported to the Empress by the governor or governor-general directly, in addition to the Senate, and secondly, to the fact that the Senate was suppressed by minor administrative matters received to him from 42 provincial boards and 42 state chambers. The heraldry, from an institution in charge of all nobility and appointment to all positions, turned to the place of maintaining lists of officials appointed by governors. The Senate suffered the least relative damage in the area of ​​the court; Compared to previous reigns, when the governmental activities of the Senate took precedence over the judicial ones, it even seemed that the Senate had become primarily a judicial place. Formally, the Senate was considered the highest judicial authority; and here, however, its significance was diminished, firstly, by the hitherto unprecedented influence that the chief prosecutors and the prosecutor general had on the resolution of cases, and secondly, by the wide acceptance of the most common complaints not only against departments, but also at general meetings Senate (these complaints were submitted to the racketeer master and he was reported to the empress). Although the law threatened punishment for an unjust petition to the Senate, according to Speransky, during all this time there was only one case when a certain Berezin was brought to trial by the Senate itself, which, imitating the mercy of the Empress, asked for his forgiveness. During the reign of Pavel Petrovich, despite all his lack of sympathy for Catherine’s system, the position of the Senate among state institutions remained almost exactly the same as it was under Catherine. New departments were formed, the affairs of which were not within the purview of the Senate. The restoration of some of the boards, abolished under Catherine, did not entail the restoration of the previous relations between them and the Senate: they were entrusted to the main directors, who had a personal report from the emperor. The Prosecutor General (Prince Kurakin, then Obolyaninov), concentrating in his office an unprecedented number of cases until that time, exercised almost autocratic power in these matters. His pressure on the Senate increased even more. The Senate remained primarily a judicial seat, but even here it was subject to new restrictions: in cases of state property it ceased to be the highest authority (1799); these cases could only be resolved by personal decrees. All restrictions on the right to appeal decisions of departments and the general meeting of the Senate were abolished (1797), as a result of which complaints begin to be filed in almost every case. This caused, despite the most decisive measures to speed up Senate proceedings, a terrible burden on the Senate with judicial cases, which at that time were being considered by all its departments.

Senate from the reign of Alexander I to the end of the 19th century

To restore the power of the Governing Senate

The Senate lies in the dust, covered in gray darkness
Rise up! - Alexander Rivers. He got up - but only cancer

Anonymous epigram

The basic character of S., like other central institutions, was finally outlined during the reign of Alexander Pavlovich. Almost immediately after ascending the throne, Emperor Alexander began to reform the Empire, realizing the need to put an end to the humiliating position to which the supreme institution of the empire had been reduced. On June 5, 1801, a personal decree was issued, by which S. was invited to draw up a report on his rights and obligations. This decree, in which the emperor’s intention to raise the importance of S. was clearly expressed, made a strong impression not only on S., but also on the educated public in general. In response to the decree, several drafts of the most submissive report were presented, written with extraordinary animation (by Counts Zavadovsky, Derzhavin, Vorontsov) and expressing S.’s desire to return the importance that he enjoyed under Peter I and Elizabeth. S. accepted the project gr. Zavadovsky. Upon his presentation to the sovereign, a detailed discussion of S.’s reforms began, both in the “Unofficial Committee” (q.v.) and in the recently established (March 30, 1801) State Council. The result of all these meetings was a personal decree on September 8. 1802 on the rights and obligations of the socialist. This decree is the last legislative act that systematically defines both the very organization of the socialist society and its relationship to other higher institutions. Despite the fact that the decree of September 8. 1802 was the result of a serious desire of the emperor and those close to him to raise the importance of S., he did not introduce almost anything new into its organization and into its relations with other institutions: he only restored in memory the rights of Catherine’s S. that had been forgotten and actually destroyed by Paul, that is, S. has already been diminished in its original dignity. The only innovations were the following rules: in the event of a protest by the Prosecutor General against S.’s determination, the case was reported to the sovereign not by the Prosecutor General alone, but by a deputation from S.; The Senate was allowed, if it saw important inconveniences in existing laws, to report this to the sovereign. Simultaneously with the decree on S., a manifesto was issued on the establishment of ministries, and it was decided that annual reports of ministers should be submitted to S. for reporting to the sovereign. Due to a number of conditions, these newly granted rights to S. could not in any way increase its importance. In terms of its composition, S. remained a collection of far from the first dignitaries of the empire. Direct relations between S. and the supreme power were not created, and this predetermined the nature of S.’s relations. to the Council of State, ministers and committee of ministers.

Participation of the Senate in legislation.

Already the decree of 1802 does not look at the Senate as a legislative institution: legislative affairs were concentrated in the State Court. council established in 1801. When the importance of this council fell, legislation passed to the sovereign's associates and ministers, and from 1810 to the newly organized State. advice. Having been removed from legislation as a legislative advisory body, the Senate, however, retained a certain attitude towards legislation. First of all, S. is given the right to initially draft laws: general meetings of S. can develop a draft law and submit it for the highest approval through the Minister of Justice and the State Council, and the minister must ask for the highest permission to submit the draft to the council. In fact, the Senate does not use this right, because in the course of affairs and with the monetary and personal resources placed at its disposal, it is deprived of the opportunity to carry out all the work that is necessary for the preparation and development of any complex bill. The rule, by virtue of which the Senate does not proceed to resolve such cases for which there is no exact law, but in every such incidental case draws up a draft decision and presents it to the sovereign, in the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th it was of enormous importance for legislation: in this way Many gaps in the law were filled. The right of S. to represent to the sovereign about inconveniences in existing laws, granted to S. by decree of September 8. 1802, was subjected to significant restrictions at S.’s first attempt to use it. When the Senate introduced the imp. Alexander I, that the decree of December 5. 1802 on the terms of service of non-commissioned officers from the nobility contradicts the decree on the freedom of the nobility and the grant of letters to the nobility, the sovereign, accepting this remark very unmercifully, clarified by decree on March 21, 1808, that S.’s objections are unfounded and that S.’s right to submit objections refers solely to existing laws, without touching newly issued or confirmed ones. The right of representation, with the above reservation, was included in the current institution of S., but in the state life of Russia at that time it had no practical significance. The Senate must receive resolutions from the general presence of provincial institutions, which have the right, upon receipt of a new law, to report its ambiguity or inconvenience in implementation; but the hostility with which the Senate treated such ideas led to the fact that provincial places have not enjoyed this right since the beginning of the 19th century. and it exists only on paper.

Participation of the Senate in governance matters.

Since 1802, the most complex change has occurred in the field of administrative affairs in S. In 1802, when ministers were established, they were placed above the collegiums. Although the manifesto of 1802 on the establishment of ministries left in most cases the question of the S.’s relationship to the ministries open, but since the S.’s relationship to the collegiums had already been more or less determined, initially the mutual relations of the ministers and S., apparently, did not cause difficulties. When it was discovered that the coexistence of collegiums and ministers leads to serious inconveniences, and when, as a result, from 1803, the gradual closure of collegiums and their transformation into departments of ministries began, S.’s relationship with the ministries became completely unclear, and from this ambiguity they took full advantage ministers. In fact, the submission of annual reports by ministers to the State ceases; those cases that previously went to S. are considered by a committee of ministers. In the field of administrative affairs, the competence of the committee almost merged with the competence of S., so that around 1810 a number of projects arose, either on the abolition of the administrative department of S. with the transfer of its affairs to the committee (Speransky’s project of 1809), or on the abolition of the committee with the transfer of its affairs S. (Speransky in 1810 and 1811, later Troshchinsky). This last thought lies at the basis of the current establishment of ministries on June 25, 1811: it does not contain any mention of the committee of ministers, and those functions that were previously performed by the committee and later remained intact with it were transferred to S. In fact this transfer did not take place. The Committee of Ministers not only was not abolished, but received new emergency powers on the occasion of the sovereign’s departure for war and did not concede anything from the previous ones. When the emergency powers of the Committee of Ministers ceased, its overall importance nevertheless continued to grow; in the era of Arakcheev's absolute power, the committee becomes the focus of all government administration. S.'s role in administrative matters declines. Ministers become the heads of the executive bodies of the state. The law, however, still recognizes S. as supreme in the courts and administration of the seat of the empire, having no other power over himself than the power of the Imperial Majesty, sending decrees to ministers and receiving reports from them. Provincial places are actually completely dependent on the ministries, but are considered subordinate to the S. Therefore, the S. was always formally in his right if he addressed the ministries or provincial places with any demand. It was most convenient for S. to act by pointing out irregularities or deviations from the laws, restoring the force of the law, demanding correction of illegal orders. The Senate was unsuitable for direct participation in active administration, both due to its composition, the slowness of office work, and because it was removed from disposing of the executive bodies, even from direct contact with them. Thus, by the force of things, S. gradually turned from a body of actual management to a body of supervision of legality, as it was in the projects of 1788 and 1793. Ekaterina wanted to do it. Between the S. and the Committee of Ministers, a certain demarcation occurred: the S. in its activities adheres to the principles of legality in management (Legalit ä tsprincip), the committee - to the principles of expediency (Opportunit ä tsprincip). Cases of an administrative nature coming before the government Senate can be divided into the following two categories:

1) Cases of an executive nature. There are very few cases of a purely executive nature left in law, and in most cases they do little to elevate the importance of law. Of these matters, the comparatively more significant ones are: 1) publication of laws. What is practically important is not who is entrusted with the promulgation of laws, but that the laws are promulgated at all and that their publication is concentrated in one place. Our legislation, however, not only allows for the existence of secret laws that are not subject to promulgation, but does not fully ensure that laws intended for public information are promulgated precisely through S. In the second half of the 19th century. laws were often communicated to the subject places and persons other than S., in circulars of the Minister of Internal Affairs to governors, etc. In the 60s, with the advent of the Senate publication “Collection of Legislation and Government Orders,” S. was charged with ensuring that no private or official publications did not publish laws before S. But this achieves little of the goal, especially with regard to the military department: laws are enforced here by departmental orders and are reported to S. for publication only later, sometimes after several decades (Regulations on the Siberian Cossack army, Highly approved on March 5, 1861, published in No. 53 of the Collection of Legislation for 1899). On the question of what is considered the moment when a law is promulgated, see Promulgation of Laws. For information on the significance of S.’s publication of administrative orders, see Mandatory Regulations. 2) Accounts of the treasury and for the treasury: addition of arrears, return of money incorrectly received into the treasury, resolution of disagreements between state control and those institutions or officials on whom the account was made. 3) State administration affairs: approval of tenders, disputes between ministries about state property. 4) Confirmation of magistrates and district qadi in office. The cases listed in these 4 points are carried out in the first department. 5) Certification of state (class) rights: transitions from one state to another; certificates of belonging to one or another state; maintenance of armorials, promotion to ranks for length of service. These affairs are carried out partly by the first department, partly by the department of heraldry. The work carried out in the second department on the land management of peasants is of serious practical importance.

2) Cases to supervise the legality of management. Here S. acts, firstly, as a body that, on its own initiative or at the request of the subject institutions, resolves by force of law difficulties and misunderstandings that may arise during the execution of its work, has supervision over the actions of different places of management and takes measures of punishment, coercion, confirmation and encouragement . S. resolves disputes about power that arise between administrative places and transfers cases from one government place to another. S. considers cases of bringing to trial for crimes of office officials of the IV and V classes appointed by the highest authority. Secondly, S. is the authority that receives complaints from private individuals and self-government bodies about incorrect orders of ministers and provincial places. Although this aspect of his activity is the least developed in the law (complaints against ministers, for example, are not provided for by law at all), but the cases related to this, constantly developing quantitatively, acquire enormous national importance. Despite all the imperfections of the Senate's paperwork on administrative cases, slow and secret, despite the weakness of the political and social significance of S., the Senate, accepting such complaints for its consideration and strictly adhering to the law in resolving the case, created a type of administrative justice not free from shortcomings , but, in any case, contributing to the establishment of legitimacy in management. Of all the guarantees of legality existing in the Russian state system, S.'s supervision is undoubtedly the most effective.

Participation of the Senate in judicial matters.

The participation of the Senate in judicial matters takes different forms, depending on whether the case came from the judicial place of the old or new (according to the judicial charters of Emperor Alexander II) structure. Cases from old judicial places came to S. through appeals, audits, protests from provincial prosecutors, and governors’ disagreement with court decisions. These cases are considered in the judicial district court. ed. S., which resolves them essentially, in the pre-reform, only partially changed order. Cases from judicial rulings formed according to the judicial statutes of the Emperor. Alexander II, enter the cassation dpt. In criminal cases, requests may concern either the cancellation (cassation) of a sentence, or the resumption of a criminal case; in civil cases, requests may be for cassation of a decision, for its review, and requests from third parties not involved in the case. On the substance of cassation proceedings, see Court of Cassation and Resumption of court cases. The criminal cassation department considers the merits of cases involving crimes committed by ranks above class V. From the cassation departments, sometimes with the participation of the first and second, the following general presences are formed: a general meeting of the cassation departments (some cases of judicial administration, disputes about jurisdiction between the courts of the civil, military and religious departments, appeals against court sentences of the criminal cassation department, cassation complaints against decisions of special presence for cases of state crimes); general meeting of the cassation departments with the participation of the first (disputes about jurisdiction between government and judicial institutions, complaints about decisions of the joint presence of the first and civil cassation departments in cases of recovery of damages from officials; discussion of issues resolved differently in different judicial places); general meeting of the cassation departments with the participation of the first and second departments (cases of the same kind, but concerning the subjects of the department of the second department). On issues of disagreement between prosecutors and provincial boards regarding bringing officials to trial, a joint presence of the first and criminal cassation departments or the first, second and criminal cassation departments is formed. For cases of supervision of judicial places and officials of the judicial department, a joint presence of the first and cassation departments was established, for the review of judicial decisions of provincial presences - a joint presence of the first and civil (or criminal, as appropriate) departments. Finally, a special presence for cases of state crimes and a higher disciplinary presence are allocated from the cassation departments.

Composition and division of the Senate

The Senate is composed of persons of the first three classes; Senators are determined by the direct election of the Imperial Majesty, both from civil and military ranks, and senators, without losing their rank, can hold other positions. The exception is the senators of the cassation departments, who can be appointed only from persons who have served for at least three years in the positions of chief prosecutor, his comrade or chairman, member or prosecutor of the judicial chamber, and appointment to these latter positions is also subject to a certain service and educational qualification. Senators of the cassation departments cannot hold any other position in the state or public service. Of the senators, some are appointed to attend departments, some are present only at general meetings, and some are completely exempt from any social activities. The latter usually include the highest dignitaries, members of the state. councils, ministers, etc. The main work is carried out by the senators present in the departments. Since the state and political position of an institution is determined by the social position of its members, the position of S. depends precisely on these senators present in the departments. These are almost always persons who held positions of III, sometimes IV class, and their appointment to the S. is the crown of their career. Such a disadvantageous position of the Senate among other higher institutions of the empire significantly paralyzes the power granted to the Senate as the supreme seat of the empire.

The Senate operates in the form of departments, general assemblies and joint presences. Although in some cases general meetings are, as it were, an authority over departments, but as a general rule each department has the power to act on behalf of the entire S.; his decrees “are executed by all places and persons subordinate to him, as the own of the Imperial Majesty, and one Sovereign or his personal decree can stop the Senate command.” The number of departments reached (according to the Code of Laws, ed. 1857) up to 12; departments I-V, survey (from 1765 to 1794 - survey expedition) and heraldry (department since 1848) were located in St. Petersburg, VI-VIII in Moscow, IX and X in Warsaw. In 1871 and 1876, the Moscow and Warsaw departments of S. were abolished. With the spread of the judicial reform of the imp. Under Alexander II, the judicial departments of the old structure (II-V and boundary) were gradually reduced and were merged into one. Now S. consist of the following departments: the first, in charge of all administrative affairs, when they can be brought to an end only through the Government S. and do not, by law, belong to the departmental subjects of other departments; the second, established in 1882 (June 23) and in charge of peasant administrative affairs: judicial, established in 1898 (June 2) and in charge of the affairs of the old judicial departments and land surveying; heraldry, in charge of matters of membership in the nobility and honorary citizenship, of princely, count and baronial titles, changes of surnames, compilation of armorials; two cassation d-tovs established according to the Judicial Charters of the imp. Alexander II (civil and criminal). All departments, except cassation departments, act on the basis of the Constitution. Etc. S. and are usually called “old S.” There are two general meetings of the old S.: the first, consisting of senators of the first and second departments and the department of heraldry, the second - of senators of the judicial department and one of the cassation, criminal or civil, by affiliation. The subjects of the department of these general meetings are: cases transferred from the old departments of S. by the highest orders as a result of the most common complaints; cases transferred from departments due to disagreement; cases requiring clarification or addition of laws. From the cassation dpt., sometimes with the participation of the first or second, a number of general meetings and joint presences are compiled (see above). In addition to general assemblies and joint presences, consisting of senators of only a few departments, in certain cases the general presence of the entire S is assembled. This happens, for example, upon the accession of the emperor to the throne and upon taking the oath of office to him and on some other solemn occasions. According to Art. 182 Institution Etc. of the Senate, on every business day before the start of departmental meetings, all senators must enter the general meeting to listen to all the highest commands presented by S.; in practice this is not observed. Each department is composed of senators appointed at the highest discretion. By law, their number cannot be less than three; in reality, the number of senators ranges from 6 - 7 (dpt. heraldry) to 18 (civil cass. dpt.). In each department, except the first, a first-person is appointed (since 1832) for one year (in the cassation departments, the appointment of first-present is not subject to annual renewal). The non-appointment of the first person present to the first department in the highest order of 1832 was motivated by the fact that this department was entrusted with administrative affairs. This highest command did not abolish that principle, which is not manifested in anything in practice, that a single person is imperial. Majesty presides over S. To supervise the proceedings and (in the old departments) the correctness of decisions in each dpt., in the general meeting of the cassation. departments, in the combined presence of the first and cassation and the highest disciplinary presence of the government. S. consists of chief prosecutors and comrades. In the department of heraldry, the chief prosecutor is called the herald master. In the general meetings of the old S., prosecutorial duties as the Prosecutor General are borne by the Minister of Justice. In each department, in the general meeting of the cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and civil cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and criminal cassation departments and in the joint. presence of the first and cassation. Departments have an office consisting, under the control of the chief prosecutor, of chief secretaries and their assistants.

The order of paperwork in the court. The procedure for processing cases in the old departments of the court (administrative and judicial) and in their general meetings is, with only minor deviations, the order that existed in the pre-reform courts. Both the cassation departments themselves, and those general meetings and joint presences in which these departments are included, act on the basis of the judicial statutes of the imp. Alexandra II. In the old S., cases are received, as a general rule, through the office; only S.'s relations with the supreme power, State Court. by the council and committee of ministers are carried out through the Minister of Justice. Cases are prepared for report by the office), which collects all the necessary certificates, information and documents (in civil cases - only if the parties request it) and draws up a note that briefly outlines the circumstances of the case and provides all the laws related to it. The report of the case is also carried out by the office and consists of an oral presentation of the case and the reading of those documents and information that, according to their significance, should be reported in their literal content. As an addition to the report, since 1865, in criminal and civil cases (as well as land surveys), parties have been allowed to submit explanations. After reading the report (in civil and criminal cases - when questions are raised to those present), voting takes place; the adopted resolution is drawn up by the office and entered into the journal. The chancellery also prepares the text of the final definition of S. Departmental decisions are made, as a general rule, unanimously (since 1802); but since 1869, cases carried out in private, as well as cases on complaints against administrative institutions and on the representations of these institutions, are decided by a majority of 2/3 votes of the senators present. Cases on crimes of office of administrative officials and on remuneration for harm and losses caused by these crimes, as well as cases on the termination of investigations by the state. crimes are decided by a simple majority. If the department does not have the required majority, then the chief prosecutor should try to bring the senators to an agreement; if he fails, then within eight days he gives a written “conciliation proposal”, the report of which asks for the opinions of only the senators who participated in the hearing of the case itself. Senators can either completely accept the chief prosecutor's opinion or reject it. In the latter case, the matter is transferred to the general meeting. In general meetings a simple majority is required, except for cases coming from the first and second departments, for which a 2/3 majority is required. The right to make conciliatory proposals to general meetings belongs to the Minister of Justice. These conciliatory proposals are subject to preliminary discussion by a “consultation with the Ministry of Justice” (October 21, 1802), consisting of a fellow minister, department directors, all chief prosecutors and specially appointed members. If the general meeting does not accept the minister’s conciliatory proposal, the matter is transferred to the State Court. advice. Incomparably more significant than the influence exerted by the prosecutor's office on the old S. through conciliatory proposals is the influence that the prosecutor's office receives by virtue of the right to skip Senate determinations: each S.'s determination, when compiled by the office, is presented primarily to departments - chief prosecutors, to general meetings - to the Minister of Justice, who, if they agree with the definition, make the inscription “read” on it. If the Chief Prosecutor disagrees with the department's determination, and the Minister of Justice disagrees with the determination of the general meeting, they can propose to S. If S. does not give up his initial view, then the departmental decision can be transferred to the general meeting with the permission of the Minister of Justice; If the Minister of Justice disagrees with it, the decision of the general meeting is transferred to the respect of the Council of State. In many cases, the chief prosecutor is in any case obliged to submit it for the approval of the minister before passing a decision. If the determination is passed by the Chief Prosecutor, then it is submitted for signature to the senators, but after signing by them, it can no earlier be applied for execution, as upon presentation to the Chief Prosecutor (at the general meeting - the Minister of Justice) and by his resolution to “execute”. Among departmental cases, those cases of the first department that are decided by a simple majority of votes are not subject to omission from prosecutorial supervision, and from cases of general meetings - all cases of the second general meeting, except those for which the S. recognizes the need to enact a new law or repeal the existing one. These restrictions on the influence of prosecutorial supervision were established in the early eighties and have not been extended since then. Of even greater practical importance than the supervision of chief prosecutors are the rights that are granted to all ministers in relation to S. In a number of cases, the determination of S. can take place only with the participation of the responsible minister. This participation is expressed either in the fact that the department’s determination is forwarded to the minister before the senators sign the determination, or in the fact that the matter itself is reported only in the presence of the minister or his comrade. In some cases, S., in addition, demands preliminary conclusions from ministers even before hearing the case on the merits. If the department does not agree with the minister’s opinion, then the matter is transferred to the general meeting, where the minister’s vote is counted in the total votes of the senators. The production of cases in the cassation departments is concentrated not in the office, but in the presence of S. The case is prepared for a report and reported by one of the senators, and the role of the office is limited only to collecting certificates, etc. preparatory work. Most cases are reported not in the department itself (which requires 7 senators for its legal composition), but in the branch, where the presence of three senators is sufficient. A decision made by a department has the force of a departmental one; but in cases that are complex or raise any fundamental issue that has not yet been considered by the department, the case is transferred from department to department. Definitions are drafted by the reporting senators, not by the office. The responsibilities and rights of the chief prosecutors in the cassation departments of S. are completely different from those in the old departments: the chief prosecutors of the cassation departments do not have the right to supervise Senate decisions and protest in case of disagreement with them; their role is limited to presenting (personally or through fellow chief prosecutors) an opinion on the degree of validity of the cassation appeal or cassation protest. The right of supervision over the office and cassation departments is granted to the prosecutor's office.

Peter I spent his entire life in constant motion - he literally could not sit still and, unlike his royal predecessors, the responsibility of sitting on the throne was very burdensome. He was drawn either to Holland - to adopt scientific and engineering developments, then to Voronezh - to build a fleet, then to Azov or near Narva - to command troops and participate in battles.

It was wrong to leave the capital unattended, and for some time Fyodor Romodanovsky remained the deputy of the young emperor. “One could rely on one person without hesitation, one was faithful without guile, only one could frighten the people - Fyodor Yuryevich Romodanovsky, Prince Caesar of amusing campaigns and the most humorous council. Moscow was left to him. And so that they would not giggle at him for the past, it was ordered without jokes to call him Prince Caesar and Majesty,” wrote Alexei Tolstoy in the novel “Peter I”.

However, there was a lot of business in Moscow, and the need arose to create a separate body that would be in charge of royal affairs in the absence of Peter, and even cope with minor government issues without him. This is how the idea of ​​creating the Senate came about.

Nine Friends of Peter

The decree establishing the Governing Senate was signed on March 5 (old style - February 22), 1711, when St. Petersburg was already in full swing and major military victories were won.

From that moment on, power during the tsar’s absence was delegated not just to trusted persons “out of friendship,” but to a special body that coordinated a whole system of other institutions

The Senate included proven people, of whom there were only nine: Count Ivan Musin-Pushkin, Boyar Tikhon Streshnev, Prince Pyotr Golitsyn, Prince Mikhail Dolgoruky, Prince Grigory Plemyannikov, Prince Grigory Volkonsky, Kriegszalmeister General Mikhail Samarin, Quartermaster General Vasily Apukhtin and Nazariy Melnitsky. Anisim Shchukin was appointed chief secretary.

The positions of senators at that time were in the governments of Denmark, Sweden and other European states, but the Russian Senate was strikingly different in its structure, since it had to meet the special needs of the Russian state structure. In fact, he had all the royal powers and was subordinate only to the emperor - one can only imagine what kind of power was in the hands of these nine people!

However, Russian senators did not have a clear job description for a long time - the tsar simply left them a “to-do list.” In particular, he ordered that during his absence “the court should be impartial, and unnecessary expenses should be put aside; collect as much money as possible; nobles to gather young; bills to correct; and try to farm out the salt; multiply Chinese and Persian bargaining; caress the Armenians; inflict fiscals."

Senate under Peter I. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org

A couple of weeks after the establishment of the Senate, the positions of fiscal officers were created, who were “on duty” in the field and reported on all violations of laws, bribery, embezzlement and similar actions that harm the state. Also, two commissioners were appointed in each province, who worked as intermediaries between the Senate and the province, executing its decrees and reporting. By 1717, the influence of the commissioners had declined as a system of collegiums (prototypes of modern ministries) began to take shape.

The Senate was also entrusted with managing the appointment to all military and civilian positions, conducting reviews and monitoring non-concealment from service. With the establishment of the collegiums and the end of Peter's frequent absences, the Senate lost its original function, but they still did not abolish it - in a few years it managed to turn into an important administrative element in charge of judicial and legislative procedures.

Variable structure

In 1722, the prosecutor's office, headed by the prosecutor general, took over the supervision of the work of the Senate. The senators were personally chosen by the emperor from among civil and military officials. Everyone, except the senators of the cassation departments, could simultaneously hold other positions. High dignitaries, members of the State Council, and ministers were exempt from serving in the Senate, even if they were members of it. The rest were required to attend general meetings or regularly visit departments.

After the death of Peter I, the position of the Senate, its role and functions gradually changed. Instead of the Ruler, he began to be called the High One. In 1741, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna issued a Decree “On the restoration of the power of the Senate in the management of internal state affairs,” but the real significance of the Senate in internal government affairs was small. After the establishment of ministries in 1802, the Senate retained the functions of the highest judicial body and supervisory body.

With the establishment of the collegiums, the power of the Senate was shaken and did not soon return to its previous course. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org / A.Savin

The number of departments reached (according to the Code of Laws published in 1857) up to 12: departments I administrative; II, III, IV - for civil cases; V - in criminal cases; the survey department (from 1765 to 1794 - survey expedition) and heraldry (department since 1848) were located in St. Petersburg, VI-VIII in Moscow, IX and X in Warsaw. In 1871 and 1876, the Moscow and Warsaw departments of the Senate were abolished.

With the spread of the judicial reform of Emperor Alexander II, the judicial departments of the old system (II-V and boundary) were gradually reduced and were merged into one.

Ups and downs

Established in 1711, the Senate turned out to be a very “tenacious” institution. Anna Ioannovna returned to him the title of “Governor” in 1730, increased the number of senators to 21 and concentrated government administration in his hands. A few years later, his power began to weaken again due to the emergence of “cabinets” and “cabinet ministers” under the empress - for some time, only two people sat in the Senate at all.

After the death of Anna Ioannovna (October 17, 1740), Biron, Minich and Osterman were alternately the absolute masters of the cabinet, and the cabinet’s attention to the Senate increased, and in 1741, by decree of Elizabeth, the cabinet was abolished and the former greatness was returned to the Senate. His power wavered in the 1760s under Peter III, who deprived the Senate of some of its functions.

Under Catherine, the Senate was divided into six departments: 4 in St. Petersburg and 2 in Moscow. The influence of the Senate increased, but was concentrated in the hands of 3-4 of its leaders, mainly the Prosecutor General. This body almost stopped participating in legislative work; gradually new departments appeared for various functions, which acted bypassing the Senate. Soon its main function remained judicial.

The reform of the Senate began under Alexander I, when the institution was in almost complete oblivion. Having examined the state of the Senate in 1801, the following year the emperor, by decree, restored the rights of the Catherine Senate, forgotten and virtually destroyed by Paul. The Senate was allowed, if it saw important inconveniences in existing laws, to report this to the sovereign. In terms of its composition, the Senate remained a collection of far from the first dignitaries of the empire, and it never regained its former influence.

On November 22 (December 5), 1917, the decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On the Court” decided to “abolish the existing general judicial institutions, such as: district courts, judicial chambers and the Governing Senate with all departments...”.

During the era of Peter the Great, the Governing Senate appeared in Russia. Over the next two centuries, this government body was reformatted many times according to the will of the next monarch.

Appearance of the Senate

The Governing Senate was created by Peter I as a “safety cushion” in case the sovereign left the capital. The tsar was known for his active character - he was constantly on the road, which is why the state machine could stand idle for months in his absence. These were the obvious costs of absolutism. Peter was truly the only embodiment of state power in the vastness of the empire.

The original Governing Senate (1711) included the tsar's closest associates and assistants, who had his many years of trust. Among them are Pyotr Golitsyn, Mikhail Dolgorukov, Grigory Volkonsky and other high-ranking nobles.

The creation of the Governing Senate under Peter 1 occurred in an era when a clear separation of powers (judicial, executive and legislative) did not yet exist in Russia. Therefore, the terms of reference of this body were constantly changing depending on the situation and expediency.

In his first instruction, Peter announced to the senators that they should pay special attention to the state of the treasury, trade and court. The important thing is that this institution was never in opposition to the tsar. In this, the Russian Senate was the complete opposite of the body of the same name in neighboring Poland or Sweden. There, such an institution represented the interests of the aristocracy, which could oppose the policies of its monarch.

Interaction with provinces

From the very beginning of its existence, the Governing Senate worked a lot with the regions. Huge Russia has always needed an effective system of interaction between the provinces and the capital. Under Peter's successors, a complex network of orders existed. Due to large-scale reforms in all spheres of the country's life, they have ceased to be effective.

It was Peter who created the provinces. Each such administrative entity received two commissioners. These officials worked directly with the Senate and expressed the interests of the province in St. Petersburg. With the help of the reform described above, the emperor expanded the scope of self-government in the provinces.

Fiscals and prosecutors

Of course, the creation of the Governing Senate could not do without the establishment of new positions related to its work. Along with the new body, fiscal officials appeared. These officials were the king's overseers. They controlled the work of institutions and ensured that all the instructions of the monarch were carried out exactly to the last remark.

The existence of fiscals led to abuses. A person who had such power could use his position for selfish purposes. At first, there was not even a regulated punishment for false reporting. In connection with the ambiguous service of fiscal officers in the Russian language, this word received a second negative lexical meaning of an informer and a sneak.

Nevertheless, the creation of this position was a necessary measure. The Ober-Fiscal (Chief Fiscal) could demand explanations from any official in the Senate. Thanks to this state of affairs, every nobleman, regardless of the height of his position, knew that his own abuses of power could ruin him. Fiscals existed not only in St. Petersburg, but also in the provinces (provincial fiscals).

Very quickly, the creation of the Governing Senate showed that this government body could not work effectively due to internal strife between senators. Often they could not come to a common opinion, became personal in their disputes, etc. This interfered with the work of the entire apparatus. Then Peter in 1722 established the post of Prosecutor General, who became the main person in the Senate. He was a “bridge” between the sovereign and the capital’s institution.

In the era of palace coups

After the death of the autocrat, the functions of the Governing Senate were seriously curtailed for the first time. This happened due to the fact that it was established in which aristocrats-favorites sat and it became an alternative to the Senate and gradually took over its powers.

After her accession to the throne, she restored the old order. The Senate again became the main judicial institution of the empire; the military and naval collegiums were subordinate to it.

Reforms of Catherine II

So, we figured out what functions the Governing Senate performed. It should be noted that Catherine II did not like this situation. The new empress decided to carry out reform. The institution was divided into six departments, each of which was responsible for a specific area of ​​the state. This measure helped to more accurately outline the powers of the Senate.

The first department dealt with internal political affairs, the second - judicial affairs. The third - by provinces that had a special status (Estonia, Livonia, and also Little Russia), the fourth - by military and naval issues. These institutions were located in St. Petersburg. The two remaining Moscow departments were in charge of court and administrative affairs. These are the functions the Governing Senate was endowed with under Catherine II.

The Empress also significantly increased the influence of the Prosecutor General on the work of all departments. During this time, this position lost its former importance. Catherine preferred to keep everything under control and thus restored Peter's orders of autocracy.

During the short reign of her son Paul, the Senate again lost most of its rights. The new emperor was extremely suspicious. He did not trust the nobles who had any influence and tried to make their contribution to government decision-making.

In the 19th century

As it was at the very end of its existence (on the eve of the revolution), the Governing Senate was created during the reign of Alexander I. It was then that the political system of the empire stabilized. They stopped and the inheritance of the royal title ceased to be a lottery.

Alexander was probably the most democratically minded Russian emperor. He took control of a state that was working using outdated mechanisms that urgently needed to be changed. The new tsar understood that the creation of the Governing Senate (1711) was dictated by good goals, but believed that over the years this body had lost its significance and turned into a pathetic imitation of itself.

Immediately after his appearance on the throne, Alexander I issued a decree in 1801 in which he invited officials working in this institution to give him their projects for the upcoming reform for consideration. For several months, active work has been going on to discuss reformatting the Senate. Members of the Secret Committee took part in the discussion - young aristocrats, friends and associates of Alexander in his liberal endeavors.

Progress

Senators were appointed to their positions personally by the emperor. Only officials of the first three classes (according to the Table of Ranks) could become them. Theoretically, a senator could combine his main position with some other one. For example, this amendment has often been used in the case of the military.

Direct decisions on this or that issue were made within the walls of a certain department. At the same time, general meetings were convened periodically, at which all members of the Senate were present. A decree adopted in this state body could only be canceled by the emperor.

Functions

Let's remember in what year the Governing Senate was created. That's right, in 1711, and since then this institution of power has regularly taken part in legislation. During his reforms, Alexander I created a special institution for this purpose - the State Council. However, the Senate could still draft laws and submit them for higher consideration through the Minister of Justice, who, since the 19th century, also combined the old position of Attorney General with the new one.

At the same time, ministries were created in place of the collegiums. At first there was some confusion in the relationship between the new executive bodies and the Senate. The powers of all departments were finally defined towards the end of the reign of Alexander I.

One of the most important functions of the Senate was its work with the treasury. It was the departments that reconciled the budget and also reported to the supreme power about arrears and lack of money. In addition, the Senate was placed above the ministries in resolving interdepartmental disputes over property. This government body regulated internal trade and appointed justices of the peace. Senators were in charge of the armorial of the empire (a special department was even created for this).

The importance of the Senate and its abolition

Peter I needed a government institution that could replace him during his absence from the capital. The creation of the Governing Senate helped the emperor in this. The date of the appearance of the position of Prosecutor General (1722) is also considered the birthday of the Prosecutor's Office in modern Russia.

However, over time, the functions of the Senate have changed. The executive power of officials was small, but they remained an important layer between numerous boards (and later ministries).

The Senate had a noticeable importance in judicial matters. Appeals from all over the country flocked here. Dissatisfied provincial prosecutors, as well as governors, wrote to the Senate. This order was established after Alexander II in the 1860s.

When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, one of their first laws banned the activities of the Senate. This was Court Decree No. 1, adopted on December 5, 1917.