Bodies of State Administration in the 16th-17th Centuries. Public administration in the period from the 17th century to the reforms of Alexander II

The Time of Troubles (1598-1613) in the history of the Fatherland is characterized by the weakness of state power and the disobedience of the outskirts to the center, imposture, civil war and intervention.

Conditions that contributed to the development of the Troubles:

struggle of the boyars to limit the power of the tsar

the fall of morality (according to contemporaries)

boyar opals, crop failures, famine and pestilence during the reign of Tsar Boris Godunov (1598-1605)

activity of the Cossacks

intervention of Poland and the Catholic Church in the internal affairs of Russia

Consequences of confusion:

1. Temporary strengthening of the role of class-representative authorities: the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor (during the reign of Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645) 10 convocations of the Zemsky Sobor are known)

2. Economic ruin and impoverishment of the people

3. Deterioration of the international position of the state and the loss of a number of territories during the Time of Troubles (Smolensk and Northern lands were ceded to Poland, the coast of the Baltic Sea - to Sweden)

4. Accession of the new dynasty of the Romanovs (1613-1917) The disorder of localism weakened the old aristocracy (boyars) and strengthened the positions of the service nobility. Sakharov A.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M., 2006.S. 229.

In the middle of the XVI century. Zemsky Sobors began their activity - the highest class-representative institutions. Zemsky Sobors were occasionally convened by the tsar to discuss the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy and were an advisory body. For the XVI-XVII centuries. there is information about 57 zemstvo cathedrals.

The composition of the zemstvo sobors was basically stable: it included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral, as well as representatives of the estates - the local service nobility and the posad (city) leaders. With the development of new executive authorities - orders - their representatives were also part of the Zemsky Sobors. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 341.

Starting with the death of Ivan the Terrible and up to the fall of Shuisky (1584-1610). This is the time when the prerequisites for civil war and foreign intervention were taking shape, and the crisis of the autocracy began. The cathedrals performed the function of electing the kingdom, often becoming an instrument of forces hostile to Russia.

1610-1613 The Zemsky Sobor, with the militias, is transformed into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), resolving issues of domestic and foreign policy, the conciliar code. It was during this period of time that the Zemsky Sobor played the most important and significant role in the public life of Russia.

1613-1622 The cathedral operates almost continuously, but already as an advisory body under the royal power. Solves current administrative and financial issues. The tsarist government seeks to rely on the zemstvo sobors when carrying out financial measures: collecting fifth money, restoring the undermined economy, eliminating the consequences of intervention and preventing new aggression from Poland. From 1622, the activity of the cathedrals ceased until 1632.

1632-1653 Sobors gather relatively rarely, but to resolve important issues, both internal policy: the drafting of the Code, the uprising in Pskov, and external: Russian-Polish and Russian-Crimean relations, the annexation of Ukraine, the question of Azov. During this period, the performances of class groups making demands on the government are activated, not so much through zemstvo sobors, but through petitions submitted. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 348.

1653-1684 the importance of zemstvo cathedrals is reduced. The last council in full force met in 1653 on the issue of accepting the Zaporizhzhya Army into the Muscovite state.

Features of public administration in Russia in the 17th century:

Election of the head of state by representatives of the estates. In 1598, the first election of the tsar took place at the Zemsky Sobor (Boris Godunov was elected). The elections were held without an alternative.

In 1613 a second election was held. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, the Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The purpose of the election of the head of state in the Time of Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and a new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov as tsar, the most compromising figure.

In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, there were no more elections of the tsar as such, due to the fact that there was a legitimate heir. However, the new Tsar Alexei was presented to the Zemsky Sobor, which formally approved the new sovereign. In 1682, the Zemsky Sobor elected Ivan V and Peter I as co-rulers. Sakharov A.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M., 2006. P. 115.

Attempts to limit the power of the sovereign were still in the Time of Troubles, during the elections of Vasily IV and Prince Vladislav. There is an opinion that when elected to the kingdom, Mikhail Romanov signed a letter according to which he pledged: not to execute anyone, and if there is guilt, send him into exile; make a decision in consultation with the Boyar Duma. A written document confirming the restrictions was not found, however, in fact, the dictatorial powers of the sovereign, established by Ivan the Terrible, were eliminated.

Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma, or the previous Sobor, resolved the following issues:

tax collection

land distribution

on penalties, including the imposition of monetary fines

investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

public spending

adoption of civil laws. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 351.

In 1648-49. at the Zemsky Sobor, the Council Code was adopted, i.e. kind of civil and criminal codes. If earlier the main laws in Russia were called by the name of the rulers who prepared them, then the new law was prepared and published by representatives of all classes.

The state administration - the system of orders - was not built clearly on a regional or sectoral basis, but on the basis of problems. If it was necessary to solve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Orders (central government bodies) regulate any relations throughout the state. The process of formation of a unified state ideology continues, a unified state symbolism is being approved. In Russia, a national flag appears - a white-blue-red tricolor.

In 1619, at the Zemsky Sobor, the first budget of the Russian state was adopted, called "the list of income and expenses." The budget system in the 17th century was still poorly developed, since there were a large number of in-kind duties that replaced taxes. The Council Code of 1649 regulated the methods and norms of tax collection. Each inhabitant of the Muscovite state had to bear a certain duty: either to be called up for service, or to pay taxes, or to cultivate the land. In addition, there were trade duties and paperwork fees. A special item of state revenue was the payment for the maintenance of taverns and the sale of wine in state shops. Independent production of alcoholic beverages was prohibited. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 356.

In the 17th century in the Russian Orthodox Church, the traditional division of the territory of the state into church regions - dioceses - was preserved. Their number could increase or decrease depending on the change in external borders, but the principles of management remained unchanged. In accordance with the practice of conciliar administration, the patriarch was the first among equals and had the right to exercise full authority only in his own patriarchal area.

Under Patriarch Iosaph, the order in which the members of the Consecrated Council (the highest body of church administration) were listed was established according to the importance of their place in the church hierarchy: metropolitans of Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov, Sarsky; archbishops of Vologda, Suzdal, Ryazan, Tver, Astrakhan, Siberia, Pskov; bishop of Kolomna, and then came the archimandrites and abbots of 46 monasteries, and a number of abbots, including Kirillo-Belozersky, Joseph-Volokolamsky, Solovetsky, Ferapontov monasteries, were higher than some archimandrites.

The heads of the dioceses were in charge of all spiritual affairs within the territory assigned to them, and all the churches and monasteries located there were subordinate to them, with the exception of those who had uncontested letters from the Sovereign. None of the hierarchs, including the patriarch, had the right to “step in” within the boundaries of a foreign diocese. All income from the clergy and related court cases came to the full disposal of the head of the diocese. This even applied to the churches of the bishop's patrimonies, scattered in different counties. Salary and non-salary duties from them went to the treasury of the diocese in whose territory they were located. THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE CHURCH. In the Russian Church, there was traditionally no centralized government, so it is natural that church structures are strongly dependent not on the highest clergyman, but on state power. The hierarchs were elected conciliarly, but by decree of the sovereign. Through secular officials who participated in the administration of the dioceses, the state controlled the safety of church property and church income. ECONOMIC MEASURES OF THE GOVERNMENT. Tarkhan letters to the clergy, copied in the 20s of the 17th century. under the new Code, canceled part of the previous benefits. Now they established a clear amount of duty-free sales and purchases for household use and a list of mandatory taxes: yamsky money, archery bread, prison and city affairs. The government actively violated the rights of the lords, removing individual monasteries and churches from their competence and subordinating sovereign orders in Moscow. In addition, significant funds were withdrawn for state needs from the treasury of the monasteries and the patriarch himself. STATE PARTICIPATION IN CHURCH GOVERNANCE. The spread of the Orthodox faith continued to be the most important direction of state policy. Therefore, it is not surprising that the petition of service people - foreigners of the Kuznetsk prison about their baptism into the Orthodox faith was submitted not to the patriarch, but to the name of the sovereign. The patriarchal region continued to remain under the personal control of the sovereign even after the establishment of the Monastic order.

CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS IN THE PERIOD OF CHURCH REFORM. CHURCH REFORM IN THE CONDITIONS OF FORMATION OF ABSOLUTISM. The second half of the 17th century in the history of church-state relations was inextricably linked with two processes: a change in the position of the church in the conditions of the beginning of the formation of absolutism and the implementation of one of the most serious reforms in terms of its consequences. This reform led to the division of believers into those who accepted it, and those who did not agree with it, remained adherents of the old ritual (Old Believers). The reform of church worship was conditioned both by the internal needs of the church itself, and by the tasks of the state and royal power.

The question of the influence of absolutism on the nature of church-state relations is one of the debatable topics in Russian historiography. A number of historians consider the process of subordinating the church to the policy of the state as a characteristic sign (attribute) of absolutism. In Russia, this trend was embodied in the 18th century, when the patriarchate was abolished and the synodal period of church government began.

In the 17th century, the state did not encroach on the institution of patriarchal power. The reason for such a difference in the state course lay not in the weakness of early absolutism, but in a different understanding of church-state relations. The Orthodox Church and the patriarchate were perceived as integral pillars of Russian identity. The church acted as the state ideologist. Because of this, the state was interested in a church that was subordinate, but strong. The task of subordinating the church could be carried out in several ways. One of them was connected with the expansion of the scope of secular legislation, the introduction of articles on crimes against the church into it. The other suggested the attack of the state on the economic power of the church. In the 18th century, this path ended with the secularization of church lands. In the 17th century such measures were not considered optimal, as they threatened to undermine the stability of the entire social and state structure. From the point of view of the state, the church could retain a number of privileges, but they should not be contrary to the economic interests of the state itself.

A special condition for the evolution of church-state relations in the 17th century was the establishment of a new Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne. Its legitimacy and strength of power were in the process of becoming. Under these conditions, the importance of the personal qualities of the king as a statesman increased. Often the conflict between the state and the church was transformed to the level of the conflict between the king and the patriarch. The interaction between the highest secular and the highest spiritual person depended on the correlation of their life and political experience.

A new concept of church-state relations was manifested in the Cathedral Code. It became the first secular monument that dealt with crimes against the church and determined punishments for them. It is noteworthy that the first chapter of this monument was called "On blasphemers and church rebels." The royal power took the Christian doctrine under its protection, defining any crime against it as laying blasphemy on God. Such a formulation made it possible to bring under it any religious and social movement or doctrine hostile to Orthodoxy. Any blasphemy entailed the death penalty by burning. The Code took under the protection of the state the foundations of Orthodox dogma only in the most general form, without defining trends hostile to it. Thus, the secular authorities left the spiritual authorities to independently understand the matters of faith.

Raising the authority of the church service, the state took under protection the church itself as an institution and the order of service that had developed in it. Anyone guilty of disrupting church worship in any way was subject to the death penalty; whipping in the marketplace awaited those who in the church would “say obscene speeches” to the priest. A criminal offense committed within the walls of a church carried a more severe punishment than a similar crime committed outside it. For example, a murder committed without intent within the walls of the church was punishable by death, outside the church - by a "trade" penalty. As a reason for the disruption of the service, the Code considered such actions as filing petitions about personal affairs to the tsar, patriarch, and church officials during the service.

Despite the fact that the new legislative code created a number of necessary conditions for raising the prestige of the church as a state ideologist in society, it could not finally solve this problem. The next step on this path was the implementation of church reform. Alexei Mikhailovich considered himself the successor of the Byzantine emperors and did not rule out the possibility that in the future he was destined to own Constantinople and all Orthodox peoples under the Muslim yoke. Another good reason for carrying out a reform on the Greek model for Alexei Mikhailovich was the task of reuniting Russia with Ukraine. Church practice in these lands was similar to Greek and differed from Russian. This fact made it difficult to recognize the Little Russians as strictly Orthodox, which could give rise to enmity between Russia and the territories annexed to it. In 1655 a new Church Council was held. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch took part in its work. The latter expected to receive rich gifts in Russia, and Patriarch Nikon did not stint on them. As a result, Macarius approved the reform measures and proposed a number of new ones. The main thing was that at the Council Macarius and several Greek bishops cursed the adherents of the two-fingered. The following year, all adherents of the old rites were excommunicated from the church. THE CASE OF PATRIARCH NIKON. The further implementation of the reform by Nikon ran into disagreements with the tsar, which did not directly relate to reform issues. The deepest cause of disagreement was the contradiction between the excessive strengthening of the role of Nikon in the state and the tendencies towards the absolutization of royal power. In the mid-1950s, at a time when the tsar and his troops took part in the war with Poland, Nikon concentrated in his hands not only spiritual, but secular administration. Gradually, Nikon came to the idea of ​​the primacy of spiritual power over secular. Spiritual power is higher than the kingdom, since “the king will receive consecration, anointing and crowning from the bishop”, i.e. the king is crowned the kingdom, accepts his power, sanctified by God, from the patriarch.

The claims of the patriarch to the primacy in the state were doomed to failure for a number of objective and subjective reasons, the main ones being: the previously noted tendency to absolutize power, as well as changes that occurred in the personality of the sovereign and the nature of his relationship with the patriarch. The church council of 1660 deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank, but one of the learned theologians quite convincingly argued the groundlessness of this decision. Alexei Mikhailovich did not want to be known in the eyes of world Orthodoxy as a persecutor of the highest hierarch of the Russian Church. To decide the fate of Nikon, the ecumenical patriarchs were invited. Nikon's case dragged on until 1666. All this time the situation remained tense. At the Church Council of 1666, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself acted as the chief prosecutor in the Nikon case. Nikon paid for his fidelity to the idea of ​​the primacy of patriarchal power over royal power, but this idea itself was rooted in the minds of the Russian clergy. In January 1667, at the next council, the majority of the hierarchs spoke in favor of the primacy of the spiritual authority over the secular one and for the latter's non-interference in the affairs of the church. The strengthened royal power did not want to recognize such a decision, but nevertheless was forced to make a number of concessions. One of them was the lack of jurisdiction of the clergy to the secular authorities. So the idea of ​​the subordination of the church to the state, characteristic of the absolutization of royal power, manifested itself in the middle of the 17th century, but was not finally realized. After the Church Council of 1666–1667 disputes between opponents and supporters of church reform were transferred to the midst of broad social strata. Not all of them could understand the intricacies of worship and rituals, which Nikon's opponents defended. In the movement of the Old Believers, many of them were attracted by open opposition to state power. The very same aggravation of relations between a part of society and the state was predetermined by the tendencies of strengthening the absolutized power, the intensification of state intervention in the life and activities of various estates. The schismatic movement became a special form of social protest.

The 17th century in Russian history received a name firmly entrenched in historiography "rebellious age". The very beginning of the century was marked by such a phenomenon as the Time of Troubles. The consequences of the Time of Troubles were felt by Russian society and the state at least during the first half of the 17th century. Most of the other significant public performances of this time took place in the second half of the century. The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich became the time of concentration of riots of a different nature and territorial scope. A kind of historical paradox is the fact that it was this sovereign who was assigned the unofficial title of “the quietest”, and the “silence” (peace, tranquility) of government was considered the official ideal of his reign.

The Romanov dynasty, which was just establishing itself on the throne, had to resume foreign policy activity in the conditions when a conflict unfolded in Western Europe, drawing almost all states and peoples into the orbit of its influence. Many of the states involved in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) were interested in expanding contacts with Russia. Some sought to secure their eastern rear, others were looking for an ally, others considered Russia both as a promising market and as a possible supplier of cheap bread. Therefore, it is not surprising that during this period the practice of diplomatic exchange of embassies between Russia and the Western European powers significantly expanded and became permanent.

The diversity of geographical areas, the specificity of the tasks set required not only colossal economic costs, but also effective state regulation, coordination of all foreign policy activities, especially since many peoples of the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, the Volga region and Siberia voluntarily transferred to Russia, which turned it into a multinational state. Despite the excessive tension of people's labor, important results were achieved in the western and southern directions, the main of which were the return of Smolensk and the annexation of the Left-Bank Ukraine. It was these achievements that allowed the country to subsequently join the struggle for the return of access to the southern and northern seas and to designate the main line for the development of relations between the fraternal Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe.

RUSSIA ON THE EVE OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE 70S - BEGINNING OF THE 90S OF THE XVII CENTURY

With the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on January 29, 1676, the throne passed to his eldest son, 14-year-old Fyodor, who belonged to the Miloslavsky family by his mother. Peter, the sixth son of Tsar Alexei, who was born on May 30, 1672 from his second wife Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, was not yet four years old.

The reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich (1676–1682) was marked by a number of changes in the political and cultural life of Russia, which foreshadowed the future transformations of Tsar Peter I. rhetoric and rhetoric, the foundations of political doctrines), Tsar Fedor instructed the commission of Prince V.V. Golitsyn, the most enlightened man of his era, to carry out long overdue changes in the military system of the state.

An important measure of the government of Fyodor Alekseevich was the implementation in 1679 of the military district reform. On January 15, 1679, the tsar announced a personal decree on the registration of nobles in regimental service, threatening those who evaded that they would not receive ranks at all. Soon the Boyar Duma decided to withdraw estates from the nobles if they or their children evade "regimental" (real) service in the categories of Belgorod, Sevsky, Smolensk, Novgorod, Kazan, Tobolsk, Tomsk, Yenisei and Tambov. In 1679, by decree of the tsar, in all cities included in the categories (districts), voivodship and local administrations were introduced. They were divided into corps (divisional, general) and regimental, as well as fortresses. The military district reform organizationally adapted the entire territory of the state for regular military service.

On the initiative of the king, it was decided to unify the system of ranks and destroy the noble militia, which interfered with the implementation of the principle of unity in the formation of troops in the armed forces. In 1681, a peculiar document was developed (a kind of "table of ranks"), consisting of 35 degrees and bringing together the hierarchy of the ranks of the Sovereign's court, ranks, and clerk's apparatus with the help of viceroyal titles of various levels. Although the project met with resistance, primarily from Patriarch Joachim, it nevertheless partially reformed the civil service system. Thus, after 1681-1682, the highest 14 governorships intended for localism exclusively for the boyars. became available for roundabouts, kravchs, generals, stolniks (K.A. Naryshkin, V.P. Sheremetev, I.I. Golovin, Ya.F. Dolgoruky, F.Ya. Lefort received the governorship within the framework of these degrees). The viceroyal title also became available to clerks (for example, E.I. Ukraintsev, clerk of the Posolsky Prikaz, a prominent diplomat, received the title of viceroy of Volkhovsky, and then Kargopolsky). The number of viceroyal titles assigned to governors also increased. All this testified to serious attempts to adapt the military and civilian systems of government to the conditions of the developing absolutist tendencies in the state structures of the country.

In January 1682, the abolition of localism followed, which had a detrimental effect on the state of military affairs, when noble young people refused to obey less noble governors. An important reform affected the fiscal system - in agreement with the representatives of the settlements, instead of many taxes, a single tax (streltsy money) was introduced, which went to various state needs, primarily for the maintenance of the army.

During the reign of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, almost all the most important government posts were in the hands of the Miloslavsky clan. The boyar A.S. got into exile. Matveev, in whose house Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina lived before her marriage, who considered the boyar her second father. The Naryshkins, although they remained in Moscow, had no influence on state affairs.

A capable ruler, Tsar Fedor was often ill. In the event of his death, expected by many people from the court environment, power could pass to his brother John, next in seniority, but this prince was even more ill than his older brother, and more importantly, did not have the ability to manage at all. country.

A number of courtiers - the boyars of Khitrovo, Yazykov - believed that Tsarevich Peter should inherit the throne after Fedor. These nobles recommended that the boyar Matveev be returned from exile so that he could support his mother, Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna, when he passed the throne to the young Peter. Tsar Fyodor followed this advice, allowing Matveev to settle not far from the capital, on his estate in the Suzdal district. Tsarevich Peter grew up a strong, lively and extremely inquisitive boy, and many expected that in time he would become a very capable ruler of Russia.

The opinion of the nobles, who staked on Tsarevich Peter, was not shared by Princess Sophia, the sister of Tsar Fedor. She had a power-hungry and firm character, received, like her brother, a good education, loved literature and composed poetry herself. Like her father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Sophia was not averse to Western European cultural influence, she knew and loved the Latin language, which she, like all the older children of Tsar Alexei, was taught by Simeon of Polotsk. She was often present at the debates of Greek scholars who came to Moscow and Western Russian monks - students of the Kyiv Mohyla Orthodox Academy. Sophia stopped following the tradition of not leaving the female part of the royal chamber, went out to the Boyar Duma and talked with the boyars about current state problems. In the depths of her soul, she cherished the dream of becoming the ruler of the state, exercising control on behalf of the weak and sick brother John. This was possible provided that she managed to remove Peter from the throne.

Conclusion.

16th – 17th centuries - this is the period of formation and strengthening of the unified Russian state, the formation of a single national economic mechanism and a special look at the law. With the advent of centralizing aspirations, Russian sovereigns begin to consider their activities, their tasks and their very position in the state in a special way. During this period, figures of a wide scope appear, reformers and innovators whose name is associated with the stabilization of economic and political life in the country and the decrease in the importance of cathedrals, which, in fact, become meetings of the government with their own agents (not representatives of the land, but service bearers sit in them) . With the help of talented chamberlists from the royal office, to which all orders began to be secretly obeyed, the Russian authorities got rid of all guardianship. According to the apt expression of Academician M.M. Bogoslovsky, the Russian autocracy has evolved from zemstvo to bureaucratic and has already clearly moved towards absolutism. Since the second half of the 17th century, a state vertical of control has been formed, forcing out the elected. The personal-bureaucratic principle was much more maneuverable and universal; moreover, it was more effective. The task of the supreme power was the guardianship of the people's life and creative influence on it. The purpose of this strategic plan was to create an all-Russian (imperial) monarchy. The Code of 1649 introduced the concept of state interest, to which all private and public interests were to be subordinated. For pure absolutism, to which Russia aspired, a new conceptual position of power is being established, which provided for the rejection of the old, church concept. The Church ceased to be an arbiter in Russian society, and the Autocrat, the Tsar, took his place not at the head of the government administration, but outside it and above it, as the anointed of God - the source of all life in Russia. Therefore, under autocracy, there is no clear correlation between law, legality and power. The very concept of autocracy did not establish a clear separation of powers. The backbone of the autocratic monarchy is the bureaucracy of the nobility and the institution of serfdom. In general, the Russian state was a system of political equilibrium (an example for all of Europe). The Russian government, in the course of a massive offensive, solved the problem of political centralization of state life. At the same time, our ancestors achieved goals in creative and economic activities to improve the people's well-being. The main sources of the new concept were the successful implementation of the government course towards the development of administrative service technology and theories of the state and national economy, the creation of large-scale production (in particular, heavy industry) based on state orders, state subsidies, and profitable concessions provided with labor. The political and economic development of Russia in the 17th century was ensured by the rapid expansion of the borders of the state and the population of the country: Russia included the continental part of Asia, bounded in the North by the Arctic Ocean, and in the East by the Pacific.

Summing up a logical line under reflections on the state in the 17th century, we can say that the worldview of the tsars of the Romanov dynasty (17th century) completes the ideology of the Russian Middle Ages, Russian antiquity. In the ideas of state power, it is freed from admixtures of specific patrimonial principles, therefore the 17th century is the era of the rebirth of the Russian state into an all-Russian monarchy. At the same time, the entire historical territory, the entire Russian, Orthodox and traditionally non-Russian population of the East European plain was under the royal authority. We can safely say that in the 17th century Russia was consciously preparing to enter the rank of a first-class world power, but not by any means and methods (for example, not with the help of a broad military reform). In the N / X respect, the 17th century was remembered for the successful implementation of the government course to raise people's labor and welfare, which led the country to significant success in the development of the financial and military spheres, the technique of administrative service, the theory of state and economic affairs. The 17th century is the beginning of the formation and development of urban and commercial and industrial capital (in Russia there was still feudal capital). The successes of state power were manifested in the completion of political centralization and in the fact that the Russian state functioned as a people's union.

Bibliography:

Main literature:

1. History of the domestic state and law: Textbook / B.N. Zemtsov. - M.: Norma: INFRA-M, 2012. - 592 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-91768-225-9, Kurskova, G. Yu. History of the domestic state and law [Electronic resource]: textbook. manual for university students studying in the specialty "Jurisprudence" / G. Yu. Kurskova and others; ed. N. V. Mikhailova, G. Yu. Kurskova. - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 647 p. - ISBN 978-5-238-02235-2.

2. Kuritsyn, V. M. History of the domestic state and law. 1929 - June 22, 1941 Forced modernization of the country and the formation of a military-technical and socio-political base for a future victory in the Great Patriotic War [Electronic resource]: textbook. manual for students studying in the specialty "Jurisprudence" / V. M. Kuritsyn. - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 239 p. - ISBN 978-5-238-01622-1.

3. General history of law and state: Textbook for universities / V.G. Grafsky; Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - 3rd ed., add. - M.: Norma: INFRA-M, 2010. - 816 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-91768-078-1, History of Russia: Educational and practical guide / E.I. Nesterenko, N.E. Petukhova, Ya.A. Pleis. - M.: Vuzovsky textbook: INFRA-M, 2012. - 296 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-9558-0138-4,.

4. Mukhaev, R. T. History of public administration in Russia [Electronic resource]: a textbook for university students studying in the specialty "State and municipal management" (080504) / R. T. Mukhaev. - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 607 p. - (Series "State and municipal management"). - ISBN 978-5-238-01254-4.

Additional literature:

1. Markova, A. N. History of public administration in Russia [Electronic resource]: a textbook for university students studying in economic specialties, majoring in "State and municipal management" (080504) / A. N. Markova; ed. A. N. Markova, Yu. K. Fedulova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 319 p. - (Series "State and municipal management"). - ISBN 978-5-238-01218-6.

2. Polyak, G. B. History of Russia [Electronic resource]: textbook for university students / G. B. Polyak; ed. G. B. Poliak. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 687 p. : ill. - (Series "Cogito ergo sum"). - ISBN 978-5-238-01639-9.

3. History of Russia: Educational and practical guide / E.I. Nesterenko, N.E. Petukhova, Ya.A. Pleis. - M.: Vuzovsky textbook: INFRA-M, 2010. - 296 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-9558-0138-4

4. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Sh.M. Munchaev, V.M. Ustinov. - 5th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma: INFRA-M, 2009. - 752 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-16-003642-7.

5. History of the Soviet state / Sh.M. Munchaev, V.M. Ustinov. - 2nd ed., add. and reworked. - M.: NORMA, 2008. - 720 p.: 60x90 1/16. (hardback) ISBN 978-5-468-00149-3.

6. History: Textbook / P.S. Samygin, S.I. Samygin, V.N. Shevelev, E.V. Shevelev. - M.: INFRA-M, 2012. - 528 p.: 60x90 1/16. - (Secondary vocational education). (hardback) ISBN 978-5-16-004507-8.

7. Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia. M., 2005

8. Isaev I.A. History of State and Law in Russia in Questions and Answers M., 2003.

9. Titov Yu.P. History of the state and law of Russia. M., 2003

10. Reader on the history of the state and law of Russia. Compiled by Yu.P. Titov. M., 2005.

11. Bykov, A. V. Police system of a modern democratic state [Electronic resource]: monograph / A. V. Bykov, T. V. Kikot-Glukhodedova. - M.: UNITI-DANA: Law and Law, 2012. - 303 p. - (Series "Scientific publications for lawyers"). - ISBN 978-5-238-01856-0.

12. Polyak, G. B. World history [Electronic resource]: a textbook for university students / G. B. Polyak; ed. G. B. Polyak, A. N. Markova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M. : UNITI-DANA, 2012. - 887 p. - (Series "Cogito ergo sum"). - ISBN 978-5-238-01493-7.

Features of public administration:

Election of the head of state by representatives of the estates. In 1598, the first election of the tsar took place at the Zemsky Sobor (Boris Godunov was elected). The elections were held without an alternative.

In 1613 a second election was held. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, the Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The principle of the formation of the Zemsky Sobor: 10 people from 50 cities plus 200 people from Moscow. Only 700 people. Composition: clergy, townspeople, servicemen, archers, free peasants, Cossacks. Among the contenders for supreme power were prominent statesmen. The purpose of the election of the head of state in the Time of Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and a new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov as tsar, the most compromising figure. The main qualities of the new king: he had no enemies, he was not conceited, he did not strive for power himself, he had a good character.

In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, there were no more elections of the tsar as such, due to the fact that there was a legitimate heir. However, the new Tsar Alexei was presented to the Zemsky Sobor, which formally approved the new sovereign. In 1682, the Zemsky Sobor elected Ivan V and Peter I as co-rulers.

Limiting the power of the king. Attempts to limit the power of the sovereign were still in the Time of Troubles, during the elections of Vasily IV and Prince Vladislav. There is an opinion that when elected to the kingdom, Mikhail Romanov signed a letter according to which he pledged: not to execute anyone, and if there is guilt, send him into exile; make a decision in consultation with the Boyar Duma. A written document confirming the restrictions was not found, however, in fact, the dictatorial powers of the sovereign, established by Ivan the Terrible, were eliminated.

The growing role of representative power. Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma, or the previous Sobor, resolved the following issues:

・Tax collection

land distribution

On penalties, including the introduction of monetary fines

Investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

Spending public funds

· Adoption of civil laws.

In 1648-49. at the Zemsky Sobor, the Council Code was adopted, i.e. kind of civil and criminal codes. If earlier the main laws in Russia were called by the name of the rulers who prepared them, then the new law was prepared and published by representatives of all classes.

Problem Management. The state administration - the system of orders - was not built clearly on a regional or sectoral basis, but on the basis of problems. If it was necessary to solve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Centralization of power. Orders (central government bodies) regulate any relations throughout the state. For example, the Discharge order, the order of the Great Treasury. The process of formation of a unified state ideology continues, a unified state symbolism is being approved. In Russia, a national flag appears - a white-blue-red tricolor.

Expanding the boundaries: annexation of Siberia, right-bank Ukraine. A new administration was being created in Siberia: governors were appointed from Moscow to large cities. The development of Siberia began at the end of the 16th century after Yermak defeated the troops of the Siberian Khanate in the Tyumen region. Detachments of private entrepreneurs engaged in trade with the peoples of Siberia and China advanced into the depths of Siberia along the waterways. Fortresses were built in large trading points, where government garrisons were sent. The territory was developed by the Cossacks, who served on the border in exchange for the right to cultivate the land. In addition to the Tatar Siberian Khanate, a fragment of the Golden Horde, the Siberian peoples did not have in the 16-17 centuries. their statehood, so they relatively easily became part of the Russian state, converted to Orthodoxy, and assimilated with the Russians. The descendants of the Tatar khans received the title of Siberian princes in Russia and entered the civil service.

Streamlining the budget system. In 1619, at the Zemsky Sobor, the first budget of the Russian state was adopted, which was called the "list of income and expenses." The budget system in the 17th century was still poorly developed, since there were a large number of in-kind duties that replaced taxes. The Council Code of 1649 regulated the methods and norms of tax collection. Each inhabitant of the Muscovite state had to bear a certain duty: either to be called up for service, or to pay taxes, or to cultivate the land. In addition, there were trade duties and paperwork fees. A special item of state revenue was the payment for the maintenance of taverns and the sale of wine in state shops. Independent production of alcoholic beverages was prohibited.

State and regional
estate monarchy administration
in the 17th century

17th century - one of the most turbulent centuries not only in the history of Russia, but also of many Western and Eastern states. In Russia, it was of a transitional nature, when the former system of government of the estate monarchy and its institutions flourish, but die off in the second half of the century and the process of formation of an absolute monarchy begins.
The problems of the development of autocracy into absolutism, the evolution of the Zemsky Sobors, the boyar Duma, the order system, local government and self-government, the formation of a service bureaucracy have always attracted attention as the largest pre-revolutionary ones (B.N. Chicherin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.E. Presnyakov, N P. Likhachev and others), and Soviet historians (M.N. Tikhomirov, S.B. Veselovsky, N.P. Eroshkin, N.F. Demidova, A.M. Sakharov and others). The spiritual and religious foundations of the statehood of Russia of this period are most fully considered in the works of L.A. Tikhomirova, M.V. Zyzykin and Metropolitan John (Snychev).
The main sources on the topic are the Council Code of 1649, legislative acts, discharge books and service lists, oaths, etc. Valuable material is contained in the works of foreign authors - Adam Olearius, I. Streis, S. Collins, etc.

Time of Troubles and the collapse of the Russian
statehood
At the turn of the XVI - XVII centuries. The Moscow kingdom was struck by a systemic crisis that was caused and developed as a result of a complex interaction of contradictions of different vectors in all spheres of life in Russian society.
On January 7, 1598, with the death of the childless tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the centuries-old dynasty of Rurikovich came to an end. After the short-term reign of Patriarch Job and the Boyar Duma and the tonsure as a nun of Tsaritsa Irina, the rivalry of various applicants at the Zemsky Sobor on February 18-21, on the initiative of Patriarch Job, the tsarina's brother and de facto ruler of Russia Boris Godunov was elected tsar. The election was absolutely legitimate, but the very process of establishing the authority of the new tsar among the nobility, clerks and broad sections of Russian society, the legitimation of the dynasty required considerable time.
Initially, the situation developed favorably for Boris Godunov. Severe economic crisis 60-80 years. 16th century was replaced by a partial but obvious stabilization of the economy in the 90s. and the first two years of the 17th century. The foreign policy actions of the tsar turned out to be successful (the recapture of cities on the Baltic coast from Sweden in 1590-1593), and the ruling elite and the nobility as a whole consolidated around the monarch, the opposition boyar cliques were defeated and neutralized. This made it possible to carry out measures to mitigate the punitive policy and liberalize the regime (amnesties, restriction of executions, concessions to almost all social strata, etc.).
But in 1601-1603. most of Russia was struck by crop failures caused by prolonged rains, and an unprecedented famine that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. The result was the collapse of the economy and the explosion of latently developing social and political contradictions. Responsibility for the disasters that befell the country, in the mass consciousness, was assigned to the king and was explained by God's punishment for his unrighteousness. Rumors have been renewed about Boris Godunov's guilt in the death of Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Tsarevich Dmitry, as well as in the arson of Moscow, the poisoning of Tsar Fedor and his daughter, and doubts about the truth of the conciliar decision to elect the king; etc. The emerging doubts about the legitimacy of the new dynasty undermined the authority of the tsarist government and the entire state mechanism of Russia. A struggle for power begins in the ruling elite between various aristocratic and noble groups, which exacerbates the crisis of the entire management system.
It develops in conditions of exacerbation of the estate and class struggle. Serfdom legislation of the late 16th century. (the introduction in 1581 of “reserved years”, and in 1597 of “lesson years” - a 5-year investigation of the fugitives) not only worsens the position of the peasantry, but also orients social protest from the owners directly to state power. Heavy tax oppression and administrative arbitrariness aroused the discontent of the townspeople. The strengthening of Moscow's power on the outskirts of Russia, the desire to control the unpredictable actions of the Cossacks also led to a sharp aggravation of relations with the Don Cossacks.
The extreme social and political instability of Russian society, the growing confrontation between the estates and numerous social groups, the intrigues of the papacy, the interference in the affairs of the Moscow kingdom by the Catholic Commonwealth, Protestant Sweden and the Muslim Crimean Khanate became the catalyst for the inevitable social explosion that resulted in the Great Troubles. Separate robbery performances in 1602 grew into a major uprising in the summer of 1603 with the participation of fighting serfs under the leadership of Khlopok. It was hardly suppressed by the Moscow archers led by I.F. Basmanov. Concerned about the fate of the dynasty, Boris Godunov tried to suppress dissatisfaction with open terror and increased political investigation, relying on broad sections of the nobility. This policy was reminiscent of the times of Ivan the Terrible, the country was overwhelmed by denunciation and settling of personal scores. Not a single social stratum had legal guarantees of its security. In addition, attacks by robber gangs did not stop throughout the country.
Under these conditions, the appearance of an impostor - Tsarevich Dmitry, who miraculously escaped (most likely, a fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev, a native of a provincial noble family) - undermined the process of legitimizing the new dynasty, and the Time of Troubles began - a struggle for power in the Moscow kingdom between various estate groups.
False Dmitry, who appeared in the Commonwealth in the summer of 1603, came up with a broad demagogic program, promising to satisfy all, often mutually exclusive, demands of those dissatisfied with the policies of Tsar Boris, as well as the transfer of Western Russian territories to Poland and the spread of Catholicism. The secret conversion of False Dmitry to Catholicism contributed to his recognition as a prince and strengthened the support of the papacy for the adventure, the hidden encouragement by the Polish king Sigismund III of the participation of Polish magnates in it.
The appearance of a motley army of the impostor, which was based on Don and Zaporizhzhya Cossacks and Polish mercenaries, in the Russian border regions led to the transition of the local population to his side and the surrender of southern fortresses and cities (Chernigov, Putivl, Rylsk, etc.). Here he creates a parallel system of power (boyar Duma, orders, governors, etc.).
The Moscow troops were in a state of confusion, but after failures in January 1605, Prince F.I. Miloslavsky defeated the detachments of False Dmitry near Dobrynich. Moscow governors tried to suppress the betrayal of entire regions of the country by extrajudicial terror. The repressions did not take into account either gender or age, were emphatically painful and combined with church curses. But this only strengthened the popularity of False Dmitry among the peasants and townspeople, the desire to see in him a kind and fair king-deliverer. The fall in government prestige gave rise to nihilistic tendencies in relation to the monarchy, the entire system of government and the rule of law.
The death of Boris Godunov leads to the recognition of the impostor by the leading boyar families and the transfer of government troops to his side. The emissaries of False Dmitry in Moscow were able to achieve first the deposition of Tsar Fyodor Borisovich, and then the murder of him and his mother, the exile of Patriarch Job and all the relatives of the former Tsar.
On June 20, 1605, False Dmitry, enthusiastically greeted, enters Moscow. The positions of the impostor are strengthened by his “recognition” by Dmitry’s mother Martha Naga, and on July 30, the coronation of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich in the Assumption Cathedral takes place, restoring the “legitimate” dynasty. Without openly renouncing his promises, False Dmitry actually fulfilled none of them during his one-year reign. Attempts by False Dmitry I to consolidate Russian society and the ruling elite through compromise were not successful. The impudent and arrogant behavior of the Polish gentry, especially during the wedding of False Dmitry with Marina Mnishek, caused general indignation among Muscovites and the Russian nobility. Against the background of the growth of anti-Polish sentiments, V.I. Shuisky, supported by the nobles, managed to carry out a conspiracy, during which the impostor tsar was killed on May 17, 1606, the puppet patriarch Greek Ignatius was overthrown, many courts, especially those of foreigners, were plundered.
On May 19, 1606, V.I. was “shouted out” by the tsar on Red Square. Shuisky, although, perhaps, his election was sanctioned by the Zemsky Sobor, but representing Moscow, and not "all the great states of the Russian kingdom." In the oath, Vasily Shuisky limited his power in favor of the boyar Duma. Stormy events shook the sacred, religious foundations of the legitimation of royal power in the mass consciousness. The murders of Fyodor Godunov and False Dmitry undermined the belief in the lack of jurisdiction of the monarch to human court, intensified the legal and spiritual and moral crisis of the elite and the people, which manifested itself in the growth of anarchy, general violence and moral decay, and the strengthening of eschatological motives in the public consciousness.
The southwest of Russia refused to recognize the establishment of the oligarchic boyar rule headed by Vasily Shuisky. Fermentation for various motives and with a heterogeneous composition of participants covered many areas. Rumors about a new miraculous rescue of "Tsar Dmitry" undermined the legitimacy of Shuisky's power. Anti-government demonstrations have acquired a massive popular character. At the head of the movement on behalf of the "true Tsar Dmitry" were Prince G. Shakhovskoy, exiled by Shuisky to the province in Putivl, and I.I. Bolotnikov is a former runaway serf of Prince Telyatevsky. The uprising, sometimes called the peasant war under the leadership of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606-1607), was the apogee of the civil war in Russia. The rebels, which included peasants, Ryazan and Nizhny Novgorod nobles, service people according to the instrument, runaway serfs, having won victories over the troops of Shuisky near Kromy, Yelets and with. Troitsky, in October 1606 began the siege of Moscow. Both sides were merciless to their opponents, who had betrayed the "legitimate" sovereign, they resorted not only to cruel, but also to sophisticated, disgraceful methods of executions, which are symbolic; must lead to the death of the soul. The transition to the side of Vasily Shuisky by the noble detachments of P. Lyapunov and I. Pashkov, who were concerned about the pogroms of noble estates, led in November 1606 to the defeat of Bolotnikov. Help from the Cossack detachments of the impostor "Tsarevich Peter" (Ileyka from Murom) allowed the rebels to repel the onslaught of the tsarist troops and retreat to Tula. In June 1607, the city was besieged, and after 4 months the rebels surrendered on honorable terms. Having dealt with the leaders of the rebels, Shuisky abandoned large-scale repressions, tried in his decrees to call on all classes to restore the rule of law, but the country was in a state of chaos, rampant mass terror, famine and epidemics.
At the end of the summer of 1607, False Dmitry II (whose identity cannot be established) is announced in Starodub. He united the broken detachments of Bolotnikov, reinforced them with Polish mercenaries, Cossacks I.M. Zarutsky and, having defeated the tsar's brother, the governor, Prince D.I. Shuisky, approached Moscow and settled in Tushino (hence his nickname - "Tushinsky Thief"). Two parallel systems of power re-emerged - in Moscow and Tushino, which controlled different regions of the country.
Finding himself in a difficult military and financial situation, Vasily Shuisky made peace with Sweden, which provided for the provision of Swedish mercenaries to Russia in exchange for the Korela fortress with the district. M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, relying on the help of the Swedes, by April 1610 defeated and drove the detachments of False Dmitry II from Moscow.
But back in September 1609, under the pretext of Russia concluding an alliance with the enemy of Poland - Protestant Sweden, Sigismund III proceeded to direct aggression - the siege of Smolensk. Some of the Poles left False Dmitry and went to their king. Prominent representatives of the Russian Tushins (Saltykovs, princes Masalsky, Khvorostinin, etc.) also come here, who conclude in February 1610 an agreement on the preliminary election of the king's son Vladislav, the son of the Polish king, as tsar, provided that the independence of the Muscovite kingdom and Orthodoxy is preserved. The emergence of a third power center finally shakes the Russian statehood. After the defeat in June 1610, inflicted on the tsarist troops by the Poles of Hetman Zolkiewski, the boyar Duma forced Vasily Shuisky to abdicate, and then take the veil as a monk. The "Seven Boyars" had no real power, and, despite the objections of Patriarch Hermogenes, in August 1610 she called Vladislav to the Russian throne. Sigismund, dissatisfied with some articles of the treaty, does not let his son go to Moscow, but introduces his troops into it, led by Gonsevsky. Patriarch Hermogenes, who called for the expulsion of the Poles, was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery, where he died. The atrocities of the Poles temporarily strengthen the position of False Dmitry. The Swedes establish control over Novgorod.
In December 1610, False Dmitry II dies, but in Kaluga, under the tutelage of Zarutsky's troops, was the born "Tsarevich Ivan" - the son of the impostor and Marina Mnishek. Many regions do not recognize the power of either the Poles or anyone else, but they do not show separatist sentiments either. Russian statehood is actually disintegrating.
In the spring of 1611, the first militia was formed from different parts of the Russian land. At the head was the militia council, which served as the Zemsky Sobor, in whose hands was legislative, judicial and partially executive power. The executive power was headed by P. Lyapunov, D. Trubetskoy and I. Zarutsky and began to recreate the orders. The internal conflict of the general Zemstvo militia with the Cossacks, the murder of Lyapunov by the latter and the unsuccessful uprising in Moscow led to the disintegration of the militia.
In this seemingly hopeless situation, under the influence of the letters of Patriarch Hermogenes and the appeals of the monks of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, the zemstvo headman K. Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky in the fall of 1611 create a second militia in order to liberate Moscow and convene the Zemsky Sobor to elect a new king, restoration of the national monarchy.
In conditions of anarchy, the second militia takes over the functions of state administration, creates in Yaroslavl the Council of the Whole Land, which included elected from the clergy, nobility, service people, townspeople, palace and black-haired peasants, and forms orders. In August 1612, the militia, supported at a critical moment by Trubetskoy's Cossacks, prevailed over the army of Hetman K. Khodkevich, and in October forced the Polish garrison of Moscow to surrender. Already in November, Pozharsky convened representatives of cities and class groups, including Cossacks and black-haired peasants, by letters of commendation to the Zemsky Sobor to elect a tsar.
In January-February 1613, one of the most representative Zemsky Sobors in the history of Russia took place, at which, after lengthy disputes, Mikhail Romanov was unanimously elected tsar by class delegations.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Tax and financial reform at the beginning of the 16th century

government monarchy government state

taxes

After the overthrow of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke, the tax system was radically reformed by Ivan III (end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries): direct and indirect taxes were introduced at the same time the first tax declaration, the Soshnoye Letter, was introduced.

Creation of direct and indirect taxes

Direct taxes.

Direct tax - a tax that is levied by the state directly on the income or property of the taxpayer. When the Russian troops successfully withstood the "standing on the Ugra" and the country, having gained freedom, stopped paying the Tatars - Mongols "exit". And this meant that now it became possible to generate treasury revenues at the expense of not only indirect, but also direct taxes. It was this tax reform that Ivan III took up after the onset of peace. The “exit” was replaced by a direct tax to the Russian treasury - “given money”. This tax had to be paid by the black-haired peasants and townspeople.

Chernososhnye peasants - a category of hard people in Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. Unlike the serfs, the black-sown peasants were not personally dependent, and therefore bore the tax not in favor of the landowners, but in favor of the Russian state.

Posadsky people - the estate of medieval (feudal) Russia, whose duties were to bear the tax, that is, to pay monetary and in-kind taxes, as well as to perform numerous duties.

Ivan III established yamsky, pishalny taxes (for the production of cannons), fees for city and security affairs (for the construction of fortifications on the borders). And in order to collect taxes in full, Ivan III ordered a census of the Russian land in order (as we would put it today) to identify all taxpayers. I must say that such steps of Ivan III are fully consistent with modern taxation rules: in relation to organizations and citizens, it begins with their registration, since without this it is impossible to determine who should pay taxes. Under Ivan III, targeted tax collections began to acquire special significance, which financed the formation of the young Muscovite state. Their introduction was conditioned by the need to make certain public expenditures: food - for casting cannons, polonyanichesky - for the ransom of military people, serifs - for the construction of notches (fortifications on the southern borders), streltsy tax - for the creation of a regular army, etc. It was to the time of Ivan III that the oldest census salary book of the Votskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod Region dates back to, with a detailed description of all the churchyards. In each churchyard, first of all, the church is described with its land and the yards of clergy, then quitrent volosts, villages and villages of the Grand Duke. Further, the lands of each landowner, the lands of merchants, the lands of the lord of Novgorod, etc. When describing each village, its name follows (pogost, village, village, village), its own name, the courtyards located in it, with the names of the owners. The amount of grain sown, the number of haystacks mowed, income in favor of the landowner, fodder following the governor, land existing in the village. If the inhabitants are engaged not in arable farming, but in other trades, then the description changes in accordance with this. In addition to tribute, dues served as a source of income for the treasury of the Grand Duke. Arable lands, hayfields, forests, rivers, mills, vegetable gardens were given for quitrent. They were given to those who paid more.

Indirect taxes

Indirect tax - a tax on goods and services, established as a surcharge on the price or tariff, in contrast to direct taxes, determined by the income of the taxpayer.

Indirect taxes were levied through a system of duties and taxes, the main of which were customs and wine.

Wine farms were introduced in the 16th century and acquired their greatest importance in the 18th and 19th centuries. Treasury income from the drinking tax was over 40% of all state budget taxes. Wine farming, a system of levying an indirect tax, in which the right to trade in wine is farmed out to private entrepreneurs. Farmers paid the state a predetermined amount of money, receiving the right to farm at public auction. They were especially developed in the 18th century. The massive introduction of the Wine Farm followed the decree of 1765. In 1765-67 they were distributed throughout the country (except Siberia). The return to the farm (for a period of 4 years) was initially drawn up on a separate basis. drinking establishments, later by counties and provinces (until the beginning of the 19th century, the system of wine farming did not extend to a number of western, northwestern, southwestern provinces and the Kingdom of Poland, where landowners and cities retained the right to trade in wine). Since the 18th century Wine farming was one of the sources of the so-called primitive accumulation of capital.

Customs duties are levied when performing export-import operations. The main circumstance that determined the development of the customs system of the XV-XVI centuries. was the formation of the Russian (Moscow state). Customs legislation is gradually taking shape in the state, legal norms regulating the sale and movement of goods are being improved, and financial fees are being tightened. Approximately from the middle of the 16th century, the apparatus for collecting duties was centralized, and customs taxation was regulated. Customs officers are placed under the patronage of the central government. The German diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (1486-1566), who visited Russia twice (in 1517 and 1526), ​​wrote in the Note on Moscow Affairs: “A tax or duty on all goods that are either imported or exported is paid to the treasury. With every thing worth one ruble, seven money is paid, with the exception of wax, from which duty is levied not only by value, but also by weight. And from each measure of weight, which in their language is called a pud, they pay four dollars, "books of sosh writing" and "scribal orders." Soshny writing was usually carried out by a scribe and clerks who were with him. Descriptions of cities and counties with population, households, categories of landowners were summarized in scribe books. For the basis of each given description, the book of the previous description, in this case called "seasoning", was taken. The scribe had to go around the county entrusted to him, describe the city and all the villages, establish the number of payers and the amount of land they cultivated, determine the profit or loss of cultivated land subject to taxation. The entire description of the city and county with their population, households and categories of land ownership was a scribe book. When describing in a certain possession, it often turned out not to be an integer, but a fractional number cox. Sokha could be divided into 32 smallest divisions.

Drawing a conclusion on the tax reforms of Ivan III, we can say that during the years of his reign, the first foundations of tax reporting were laid. He divides taxes into direct and indirect, determines their size and directs them to the needs of the state. The taxation principle of Ivan III is still used today.

Finance

financial reform.

After the death of Vasily III, the boyar government of Princess Elena began reforms in the financial sector. With the expansion of trade, more and more money was needed, and the unmet need for money caused a massive counterfeiting of the silver coin. Then the authorities withdrew the old weighted coin from circulation. In 1533-1538. A unified Russian monetary system was introduced.

In the 50s. after the census of lands, a single unit of taxation was introduced - the "big plow", which included a certain number of peasant households. The old forms of taxation have largely survived, but the introduction of a unified tax system was a major step forward.

2. Formation of the order (industry) management system

The main line of the evolution of the administrative apparatus since the time of Ivan Kalita was the emergence and development of a layer of professional officials - clerks. The first princely clerks-scribes differed little from ordinary serfs. Their role increased somewhat when government documentation began to emerge under Dmitry Donskoy, although the clerks then played only a technical role under the boyars-managers. Over time, the Grand Duke began to rule with the help of written orders, which passed through the deacons. The grand duke's office appeared, which turned into the actual center of administrative power, where clerks already played an independent role. Their importance increased even more when functional documentation appeared in the form of embassy, ​​category and scribe books and the division of functions of the formerly single office began. Thus, the foundations of the command system were laid. In the XVI century. clerks are already prominent political and public figures, most of them boyar children who have received the rank of clerk. The process of merging the deaconry with the patrimonial-serving class began.

From the end of the XV century. Gradually, a unified system of central and local government institutions took shape, performing administrative, military, diplomatic, judicial, financial and other functions. These institutions were called "orders".

The emergence of orders was associated with the process of restructuring the grand duke's administration into a single centralized state system. This happened by giving the bodies of the palace-patrimonial type a number of important national functions.

The decisive role in this process was played by the turbulent events of the middle of the 16th century associated with the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The struggle for power between the boyar groups in the early childhood of Ivan IV disorganized the government apparatus. Late 40s. was marked by a powerful explosion of popular movements directed against the boyar oppression and the arbitrariness of the governors. These popular movements placed the ruling circles under the necessity of action. One of the first activities was the creation of central government - orders. It was on the orders that the Adashev government entrusted the implementation of major reforms.

The final formalization of the order system took place in the second half of the 16th century. The main core of the system of state administration in Russia for more than two hundred years were the three most important orders: Posolsky, Discharge and Local.

3. Ambassadorial order and its powers

Ambassadorial Order

The main task of the Ambassadorial Order was to implement the decisions of the supreme power (the tsar and the Boyar Duma) in everything related to foreign policy. Until the beginning of the XVI century. Russia did not have permanent diplomatic missions abroad, just as it did not have permanent diplomatic missions of other states. Therefore, the main content of the work of the Ambassadorial Order was the dispatch of Russian embassies abroad, as well as the reception and dispatch of foreign embassies. In addition, the Posolsky Prikaz was in charge of cases related to the residence of foreign merchants and artisans in Russia, the ransom of prisoners, etc.

Discharge Order, Discharge, the central state institution of Russia in the 16th-17th centuries, which was in charge of service people, military administration, as well as southern ("Ukrainian") cities. R. p. took shape in the middle of the 16th century. From the second half of the 16th century, with the appearance of the orders of the Streltsy, Pushkar, Inozemsky, Siberian, Kazan Palaces, and others, the circle of affairs of the R. p. was limited in territorial and functional respects. During the wars, the functions of the R. p. significantly expanded, and through the R. p. the government exercised leadership over military operations. The R. p. was also in charge of the distribution of service people among the regiments, the appointment of governors and their assistants from among the boyars and nobles to the cities of Russia, the management of the serif, guard and stanitsa services (border military service on the serif lines, in the villages and guard detachments), providing service people with land and monetary salaries. In the 17th century the government made an attempt to concentrate in the R. p. the account of all military people.

Paintings of court ceremonies (receptions of foreign ambassadors, weddings of members of grand ducal and royal families and their relatives, awards to ranks) were drawn up in the R. p., he was directly related to the analysis of local disputes (see Localism). The staff of the R. p. included a large number of clerks, clerks, and other ministers. It was divided into tables (departments): Moscow, Novgorod, Vladimir, Belgorod, Sevsky, Local, Monetary and Order. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the R. p., as a rule, was headed by representatives of the bureaucracy obedient to the tsar (A. Ya. and V. Ya. Shchelkalov, F. Likhachev, S. Zaborovsky, D. Bashmakov, F. Griboyedov, and others). .). The boyar T. N. Streshnev (since 1689) was its last leader. The R. p. ceased to exist in 1711.

Local order, one of the central state bodies of Russia in the mid-16th - early 18th centuries. Formed in the mid 50s. 16th century in connection with military and land reforms as a result of the allocation of a range of cases that were previously performed in the departments of treasurers, the Grand and regional palaces. It was originally called Local Hut. The functions of the clergymen extended to the central and southern counties with developed private feudal landownership. P. p. endowed service people with estates (at the salaries established in the Discharge Order), was in charge of the fund of "empty" manor lands, registered and controlled all changes in the sphere of feudal land tenure (local, secular and church patrimonial); conducted general and particular descriptions of lands and population censuses, in connection with which he was in charge in the 17th century. detecting runaway peasants; played the role of the central court in land affairs. At the beginning of the 18th century P. p. was also engaged in the collection of subordinate people for the army and for construction work throughout the country. It was finally abolished in 1720. The collegium of the P. p. was usually headed by a duma rank (more often a boyar or okolnichy) and consisted of 4–5 people. Structurally divided into tables and povity (on a territorial basis). The archive of census records (scribe and census books, columns, and other documentation, mainly from 1626) is kept at the Central State Antimonopoly Service.

4. Estate-representative monarchy (XVI-XVII centuries)

In the 15th century, under the conditions of autocracy, a class-representative monarchy arose. The beginning, conditionally, of this period is considered to be the convocation of the first Russian cathedral in 1549 (during this period, the progressive reforms of Ivan-4 and many other things take place, which prepared a new era in the development of the state apparatus and law). During the same period, 2 important legislative acts were adopted:

judiciary of 1550

collection of ecclesiastical legislation of 1551

The end of the estate-representative monarchy is considered to be the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, when he ceases to collect the Zemsky Sobor (second half of the 17th century). The last council was convened in 1653 to change the borders (?) of Russia. Other authors attribute the end of this period to the 70s of the 17th century.

The peculiarity of the period of the estate-representative monarchy is the combination of the estate representation itself with the bright despotism of the Asian type characteristic of Ivan-4. Oprichnina - a special period of his reign - terror against the boyars and the majority of the ordinary population, that is, the period when all institutions that interfered with the monarch were either dissolved or destroyed (for example: the elected council). Despotism is no less characteristic than the organs of class representation.

Tsar - retained the functions of the highest authority.

The Boyar Duma - was very thoroughly strangled and could not limit the tsar. Even during the period of the "seven boyars", when the boyars, relying on the Polish state, concentrated power in their hands, the balance of power did not change. And under the Romanov dynasty, this body remained under the tsar, and not above the tsar. This body had a constant tendency to increase the quantitative composition.

Zemsky Cathedral - in different years they performed different functions. In the period from 1549 to the 80s, one, until 1613 a little different (it became possible to elect a king) and the last period (until 1622) is characterized as the most active in the activities of the cathedral. Further, until the 50s, their activity fades.

Zemsky Sobors throughout the period were characterized by:

consisted of various estates: the boyars, the clergy, the nobility, the urban population (in the person of the township elite - merchants and wealthy artisans)

there were no regulations, the number of those summoned to the council depended on the decree of the king, which was written before each convocation

participation in it was not considered an honorable duty, but rather a necessity that bothered many, since there were no material incentives

Functions of the Zemsky Sobor:

foreign policy (war, its continuation or the signing of peace, ...)

taxes (but they did not have a final say in this matter)

after the 80s of the XV century, the tsar was elected (so elected were Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Mikhail Romanov, elected in 1613)

adoption of laws, as well as their discussion. For example, the Cathedral Code of 1649 was actually adopted at the council. But the Zemsky Sobor was not a legislative body.

The relationship between the kings and the cathedral was distinguished. In 1566, Ivan-4 executed many of them from the Zemsky Sobor who opposed the oprichnina. In the 17th century, during the period of unrest, the role of cathedrals grew greatly, since it was necessary to strengthen the state, but later, with the revival of the monarchy, they did not go away.

Orders are integral systems of centralized government. Most actively created in the 40s - 60s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Several dozen orders appeared, divided not only by industry (pharmacy, Pushkar), but also by territory (Kazan Palace). Their creation was not enshrined in legislation, so they appeared as needed. By the middle of the 17th century there were already about 50 of them, and the tendency to increase in number continued. Orders have always been both judicial and administrative bodies (zemstvo order). It was believed that the activities of orders should not be limited by any legislative framework. Orders were headed by a boyar, who was a member of the Duma, and the main employees were clerks. The orders had many shortcomings: bureaucracy, lack of laws governing their activities, etc., but still it was a step forward.

Estate self-government bodies:

lip or “lip huts” (lip is an administrative-territorial unit). They began to be created in the 30s of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. They arose in opposition to the merging of the state apparatus with robbers, that is, the functions of combating robbers were transferred to the population itself

zemstvo huts - initially they collected taxes, and later they began to solve judicial problems

Code of Law of 1550 - the royal code of law, which was published by Ivan-4. It largely repeats the Code of Laws of 1497, but is more extended and accurate. This is the first collection of laws divided into articles (numbering about 100).

After the adoption of the law code, the law continued to develop. A certain coding work began to be carried out, which consisted in the fact that they began to keep order books. In these books, each order recorded all the orders and orders of the king related to their field of activity.

Code of 1649. In 1648, there was a city uprising in Moscow, which threatened the life of the tsar. Then much depended on the nobility, which supported the uprising. They put forward their claims to the king, which stated that the reason for the uprising was the lack of normal legislation. As a result, a commission was created, which created the code. Then it was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, where it was unanimously adopted in January 1649. It was the first code published in a typographical way and it was the first to go on sale. The code was divided into 25 chapters and already contained about 1000 articles. This code will remain in force until the second quarter of the 19th century (as amended).

A class-representative monarchy is a form of government that provides for the participation of class representatives in government and the drafting of laws. It develops in conditions of political centralization. Different estates were represented unevenly in the authorities. Some of these legislative bodies have evolved into modern parliaments.

The limitation of the power of the monarch is associated with the development of commodity-money relations, which undermined the foundations of a closed, subsistence economy. Political centralization arose, a class-representative monarchy was organized - a form in which the power of the head of state is limited by class-representative bodies (Sobor, Parliament, States General, Sejm, etc.)

Estate-representative monarchy in Russia and its features

The creation of a centralized Russian state helped to strengthen the position of the ruling class of feudal lords. In the XVI-XVII centuries. the feudal lords gradually united into a single estate, the general enslavement of the peasants was completed.

The creation of a single state provided the necessary resources for an active foreign policy. In the middle of the XVI century. Russia conquered the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, and the Nogai Horde (the Urals) recognized vassal dependence on Russia. Further, Bashkiria, the Middle and Lower Volga regions and part of the Urals became part of Russia. In 1582, the conquest of Siberia began, and by the end of the 17th century. all Siberia was annexed to Russia. In 1654 Ukraine was reunited with Russia. Thus, the multinational composition of the Russian state was formed. By the 17th century Russia in terms of its territory and population has become the largest state in the world.

In the middle of the XVI century. the ongoing socio-economic and political processes led to a change in the form of government of the Russian state to a class-representative monarchy, which was expressed, first of all, in the convocation of class-representative bodies - zemstvo councils. A class-representative monarchy existed in Russia until the second half of the 17th century, when it was replaced by a new form of government - an absolute monarchy.

Beginning in 1547, the head of state began to be called the king. The title change pursued the following political goals: strengthening the power of the monarch and eliminating the basis for claims to the throne by the former appanage princes, since the title of king was inherited. At the end of the XVI century. there was a procedure for the election (approval) of the king at the Zemsky Sobor.

The king, as the head of state, had great powers in the administrative, legislative and judicial spheres. In his activities, he relied on the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobors.

In the middle of the XVI century. Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible carried out judicial, zemstvo and military reforms aimed at weakening the power of the Boyar Duma and strengthening the state. In 1549, the Chosen Rada was established, whose members were trustees appointed by the tsar.

Oprichnina also contributed to the centralization of the state. Its social support was the petty service nobility, who tried to seize the lands of the princely-boyar aristocracy and strengthen their political influence.

The Boyar Duma formally retained its former position. It was a permanent body endowed with legislative powers and deciding, together with the king, all the most important issues. The Boyar Duma included boyars, former appanage princes, okolnichy, duma nobles, duma clerks and representatives of the urban population. Although the social composition of the Duma changed in the direction of increasing the representation of the nobility, it continued to be an organ of the boyar aristocracy.

Zemsky Sobors occupied a special place in the system of government bodies. They convened from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. Their convocation was announced by a special royal charter. Zemsky Sobors included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral (the highest collegiate body of the Orthodox Church) and elected representatives from the nobility and the urban population. The contradictions that existed between them contributed to the strengthening of the power of the king.

Zemsky Sobors resolved the main issues of state life: the election or approval of the tsar, the adoption of legislative acts, the introduction of new taxes, the declaration of war, issues of foreign and domestic policy, etc. Issues were discussed by class, but decisions were to be made by the entire composition of the Council.

The system of orders as governing bodies continued to develop, and by the middle of the 17th century. the total number of orders reached 90.

The work of orders is characterized by a rigid bureaucratic style: strict obedience (vertically) and following instructions and instructions (horizontally).

The order was headed by a chief appointed from among the boyars, roundabouts, duma nobles and clerks. Depending on the activities of the order, the chiefs could be: a judge, treasurer, printer, butler, etc. Record keeping was entrusted to clerks. Technical and clerical work was carried out by clerks.

The organization of the civil service and the financing of the state apparatus were dealt with by the order of the Great Parish, the Discharge, Local and Yamskaya orders.

The structural subdivision of the order was the table, which specialized in its activities according to the sectoral or territorial principle. The tables, in turn, were divided into hooves.

The discharge order was in charge of the civil service, managed the security, guard and stanitsa services, provided the service people with land and monetary salaries, appointed the governor and their assistants, etc. The local order resolved issues related to local and patrimonial land tenure, and also carried out a court on land cases. The Yamskaya Prikaz performed the functions of organizing the Yamskaya chase and police and supervisory functions for the movement of persons and goods. The competence of the order of the Grand Parish included the collection of national taxes and duties. Territorial orders for the collection of taxes and the Zemsky order were in charge of collections in the capital and its suburbs. The minting of coins was carried out by the Money Yard, subordinate to the order of the Great Treasury.

There were other orders: Robbery order, Order for collecting five and request money, Apothecary order, Printed order, etc.

In the second half of the XVI century. zemstvo and labial huts become the main organs of local government. Zemstvo huts were elected by the taxable population of townships and volosts for 1-2 years as part of the zemstvo headman, sexton and kissers. Zemstvo organs were supported by the local population. These bodies carried out financial, judicial and police functions.

Lip huts become the main governing bodies in the counties. They performed police and judicial functions. The hut was headed by a headman elected by the population, legal proceedings were also assigned to kissers, clerks and clerks. The labial huts were directly subordinate to the Rogue Order.

At the beginning of the XVII century. reorganization of local government. Administrative, police and military functions were assigned to governors appointed by the central government. They also began to obey the zemstvo and labial huts, city clerks. Voevodas in their activities relied on a specially created apparatus - clerk's huts, which included clerks, bailiffs, clerks, messengers and other officials. The voivode was appointed by the Discharge Order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The service life of the governor was 1-3 years.

During the period under review, the armed forces were reformed:

- the ordering of the organization of the noble militia continued;

- A permanent archery army was created.

From the beginning of the 17th century permanent regiments appear: Reiter, Pushkar, Dragoon, etc. These regiments were the prototype of a permanent and regular army, which was formed in Russia only in the 18th century.

5. Ideologists of the pro-Western model of government and government

As a result of a palace coup in June 1762, Peter III was deposed from the throne by his wife Catherine II. The policy of Catherine II was based on the ideas of European philosophers-enlighteners M.F. Voltaire, Sh.L. Montesquieu, J.J. Rousseau, D. Diderot. They argued that it is possible to achieve a harmonious society through the activities of enlightened monarchs who will help the cause of enlightenment of the people and establish just laws. The policy of Catherine II was called "enlightened absolutism". The largest event of Catherine II was the convening of the Legislative Commission in 1767. As the guiding document of the commission, the empress prepared the “Instruction”, in which she theoretically substantiated the policy of “enlightened absolutism”. The commission was convened to draw up a new set of laws. During the discussion of orders from the localities, contradictions emerged: each estate demanded privileges in its favor, it was impossible to abolish serfdom. In 1768, under the pretext of starting a war with Turkey, the commission was dissolved. It was not possible to develop a new code. Catherine II carried out a course of reforms in the socio-political and economic life of Russia. In an effort to strengthen state power, Catherine II established the work of the Senate (1763), dividing it into 6 departments with specific duties and powers; liquidated the autonomy of the rights of Ukraine; subordinated the church to the state, having carried out the secularization of church lands (1763 - 1764). In 1775, a local government reform was carried out, as a result of which Russia was divided into 50 provinces, class courts and a clear division of power by function (administrative, judicial, financial) were introduced locally. This reform strengthened local government. The economic transformations of Catherine II were aimed at promoting the development of domestic industry and trade. In 1765, the Free Economic Society of Nobles and Merchants was established. In 1776, 1782 and 1796 customs tariffs were introduced, which kept high duties on foreign goods. In 1775, the Manifesto on the freedom to open enterprises and the Letter of Complaint to the cities were issued, confirming the privileges of the merchants and introducing city self-government. Catherine II introduced a new form of trade - shops and paper money. During the years of her reign, the number of manufactories increased (under Peter I there were 200 manufactories, under Catherine II - 2000).

The class policy of Catherine II was aimed at strengthening the nobility. The decree of 1765 allowed the landowners to exile their peasants without trial to Siberia for hard labor, and the decree of 1767 forbade the peasants to complain to the empress about their owners. Strengthening serfdom. In 1775, the nobility received a Letter of Complaint confirming the class privileges of the nobility. The nobility is given the title of "noble". Thus, the reforms of Catherine II preserved and strengthened the absolute monarchy and serfdom in Russia.

Throughout the century, numerous popular movements created almost constant social tension. At the beginning of the century, it was caused by the Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish intervention - a time that was aptly defined by the Time of Troubles. The highest sharpness in the first half of the XVII century. social tension reached in the 30-40s. The population of dozens of cities and counties, crushed by the extortion of officials and all sorts of illegal labor, everywhere began to "refuse" the governors and demanded their replacement. The Time of Troubles was a severe shock for the Russian statehood. It was a period of acute political and social crisis, complicated by foreign intervention, a crisis in which class, national, intra-class and inter-class contradictions intertwined. Tsars changed, different parts of the country and even neighboring cities simultaneously recognized the power of different sovereigns, peasant unrest and uprisings took place. The struggle of pretenders for the royal throne, broad popular movements, the refusal of a number of regions to obey the central government - all this in itself required the state to exert maximum resources to stabilize the situation.

The situation was aggravated by the fact that almost from the very beginning of the Time of Troubles, foreign powers openly interfered in the internal affairs of Russia. The political and national independence of the Russian people was called into question. Between 1600 and 1620 Russia lost about half of its population. The population of Moscow has decreased by 33%. Nevertheless, this disease of the state body ended in recovery.

Restoration of the monarchy. In 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Romanov to the throne, thereby establishing a new dynasty of Russian sovereigns. After the signing of the Deulensky truce with the Commonwealth in 1618 and the exchange of prisoners, the Muscovite state emerged from a long-term foreign policy crisis and began the struggle to regain the territories lost during the Time of Troubles.

The next step was the restoration of the economy and the state apparatus. In 1615-1616. increased tax pressure. The Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor passed a law on the introduction of an emergency tax (20% of income and a tax on land property). The famous merchants and salt industrialists Stroganovs, for example, had to pay a huge amount for those times - 56 thousand rubles. In 1619, the next Zemsky Sobor made a number of important decisions: to make an inventory of the lands subject to taxation; promote the voluntary return of peasants; create a special chamber to appeal against the actions of officials who abuse their power; develop a draft reform of local administration, giving preference to meetings of elected representatives, and approve the new budget of the country.

After the Troubles, the structure of the restored state power remained the same. It is important to emphasize that the samples of state administration of the previous period served as the basis for the resurgent Russia, which testifies to the deep and original roots of Russian statehood.

In 1626-1633. military reforms were carried out: 5,000 foreign infantrymen, officers, instructors, and cannon foundries were hired; Purchased weapons in Holland and Germany. All these measures, of course, were accompanied by large expenditures, which led to an increase in taxes. As a consequence of the latter, there was an expansion of the powers and competence of elected zemstvo authorities and courts by limiting the power of governors. In 1641, the right of owners to pursue their fugitive peasants) was extended to all regions of the country, but limited to 10 years. Sale and transfer of peasants were allowed. In June 1648 the population of Moscow rebelled. The reason for the unrest was an increase in taxes and bribery of the boyars surrounding the king. The crowd plundered the palace of the closest adviser and relative of Tsar Morozov, who, taking advantage of his position, especially oppressed the people with his extortion.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 In this situation, the adoption of the Cathedral Code of 1649, the main legislative act of Russia for the next two centuries, took place. In almost a thousand of his articles, the code of Ivan IV was reproduced, supplemented by inclusions from Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation. According to the new legislation, the peasants were finally attached to the land, the privileges of foreigners were abolished, the church was more closely subordinate to the state. In addition, the Cathedral Code regulated all the main aspects of the life and activities of state institutions.

Second half of the 17th century was less stressful. In 1650, a decree was issued prohibiting the peasants from trading and craft activities. There were uprisings in Pskov and Novgorod. In 1656 the financial crisis came. The government of Alexei Mikhailovich decided to mint copper money, setting an equal rate for them with silver, in order to replenish the treasury in this way. For five years, 5 million copper rubles were issued. The increased issue of copper money led to a sharp drop in their value and to the "Copper Riot" in Moscow, which was brutally suppressed. 7 thousand people died. A wave of peasant uprisings swept through the countryside, which was joined even by part of the troops under the command of Prince Kropotkin. An attempt to solve the main foreign policy tasks, primarily the contradictions with Poland and Sweden, further aggravated the financial disorder and the situation of the peasants. In 1666, bands of Cossacks led by ataman Vasily Us devastated the environs of Voronezh and Tula. They were joined by crowds of peasants and serfs who rebelled against the landowners.

In May 1667, in order to raise the status and role of Russian merchant capital, the government published the Novotrade Charter. According to the new charter, only Russian merchants had the right to retail trade, and in wholesale trade, foreigners were forbidden to conclude transactions among themselves, bypassing Russian intermediaries. At the same time, a special Trade Order was created. However, it was already difficult to stop the wave of popular uprisings for finally lost freedom. The performances of the Cossacks led by S. Razin, which began in 1669, swept Astrakhan, Tsaritsyn, Saratov, Samara, Simbirsk, Tambov and Nizhny Novgorod and ended with the execution of the ataman in 1671 in Moscow. In 1672 all trade privileges of the clergy were abolished; in 1679, a 20 percent tax on trade transactions was extended to all income. The house-to-house principle of taxation became the main one in levying direct taxes. At the same time, the number of foreign entrepreneurs in the Russian economy was steadily growing, and specialists for their enterprises were hired abroad.

During the 17th century, Russia's international relations expanded. The embassy order had permanent diplomatic relations with 16 foreign states. throughout the second half of the 17th century. Russia's attention is absorbed by the struggle for Ukraine and Belarus - at first against the Commonwealth, and from 1677 to 1700. against Turkey and Crimea. In the international arena, Russia took an anti-Ottoman position, which brought it closer to the Austrian Empire, Venice and other states. Significantly advanced relations with the countries of the East (Iran and Central Asia). The political problems facing Russia connected it with the European situation and determined an independent place in the political life of Europe. Gradually, the preconditions for Russia's transition to a new quality of a great power of a pan-European rank were taking shape. The first steps towards joining the European system were made in the second half of the 17th century, when, after participating in the war with Sweden (1656-1661), the Andrusovo truce (1667) and the "Eternal Peace" with Poland (1686), securing the Left-bank Ukraine and Kyiv, Russia joined the Holy League against Turkey.

In general, state building and the activities of state administration bodies of the 17th century can be conditionally divided into three chronological stages:

1. Time of Troubles from the end of the 16th century. to the 20s of the XVII century.

2. Restoration of the monarchy under Tsar Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645).

3. The heyday of the mandative management system and its transition to a collegial one from the time of the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1682) and until the reign of Peter I (1682-1725) inclusive.

6. The formation of an absolute monarchy and the restructuring of the public administration system. Cathedral Code of 1649

In the 17th century, especially in its second half, tendencies towards absolutism were increasingly found in the state system of Russia, which finally took shape during the reign of Peter I. Absolutism is a form of a feudal state in which unlimited supreme power belonged to the monarch, and feudal statehood reached its highest degree. centralization. Under absolutism, the head of state (usually hereditary) was viewed from a legal point of view as the only source of legislative and executive power. The latter was carried out by officials dependent on him. Absolutism is characterized by the presence of a standing army (also dependent on the sovereign), a developed bureaucratic apparatus and forms of office work, a comprehensive system of state taxation, a single legislation for the entire territory, and a nationwide economic policy expressed in various forms of protectionism and regulation of the activities of industrialists.

The transition to absolutism in Russia was manifested in various spheres of political life: in the growth of the autocratic power of the tsar, in the withering away of zemstvo sobors as class-representative institutions, in the evolution of the composition of the Boyar Duma and the command system, in the increase in the importance of various segments of the population in the state apparatus, in the appearance of the first the beginnings of a regular army, in a victorious outcome for the royal power of its rivalry with the power of the church.

The competence of the royal power. At the head of the state system of Russia in the 17th century, as before, was the tsar. He possessed the right of legislation and all the fullness of the executive power. The king was the supreme judge. He commanded all the armed forces. The entire command system was based on the assumption of the king's personal participation in governance. In reality, however, the implementation of these theoretical principles of autocracy and autocracy was far from being ensured by an appropriate system of bureaucratic institutions.

And yet the development of autocracy in the XVII century. went in the direction of absolutism. The new dynasty, although it had the “election” of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich by the Zemsky Sobor as the source of its power, was transferred to the old, long-established ideological justification for royal power: about its divine origin and successive transmission in the family. Immediately after the new tsar took the throne, the ideologists of the new dynasty hastened to restore the idea of ​​a “God-chosen” sovereign, who receives power from “his forefathers” due to family ties with the legitimate Rurik dynasty. Divine will was declared the source of the tsar's power, and the popular recognition of the chosen dynasty through the Zemsky Sobor only confirmed the decision of divine providence.

The way of life of the king, who appeared before the people only in rare cases, put him in the eyes of his subjects to an unattainable height. The magnificent title adopted under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich testified to the tsar's great claims to foreign policy influence. The official receptions of foreign diplomats were held with extraordinary splendor.

The "Council Code" of 1649 also reflected the increased power of the autocratic monarch. Special chapters of the Code were devoted to the protection of life and honor, as well as the health of the king. The concept of "state crime" was introduced, and no distinction was made between a crime against the state and actions directed against the person of the sovereign. The protection of order was established inside the royal court or near the seat of the king.

Part 1. The withering away of class-representative institutions and the maturation of the prerequisites for absolutism.

The existence of a class-representative monarchy in Russia covers a period that lasted over 100 years and was full of important events. First of all, it should be noted that Russia's active foreign policy brought her new territories. The Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates were defeated. As a result, the Lower and Middle Volga regions, as well as Siberia, became part of Russia. In 1654, the left-bank Ukraine was reunited with Russia by the will of the people. At the same time, internal conflicts are brewing in the country, the increased exploitation of the peasantry and serfs leads to mass uprisings (for example, the peasant war led by I.I. Bolotnikov). Then follow the Livonian War and the oprichnina. Foreign intervention further exacerbates the situation. “After the foreign invaders were expelled from the country, a new economic upsurge began. However, it took a long time to overcome economic difficulties. Even by the 40s of the XVII century. only 40% of the former arable land was cultivated in the country, which gave rise to hunger and impoverishment of the poorest population.

In the middle of the XVI century. the form of the state changes significantly. The early feudal monarchy was replaced by a class-representative one. The reason for the emergence of a class-representative monarchy was the relative weakness of the monarch, who sought to strengthen the position of autocracy, but was forced to share power with the Boyar Duma. Thus, the monarch is forced to seek a counterbalance to this institution, attracting the nobles and the top of the townspeople to his side. During the reign of Ivan IV, the so-called "Near Duma" appears, with which the tsar consulted. However, Ivan IV did not stop at establishing his own environment, he changed the composition of the Boyar Duma, in place of the well-born boyars who were executed or expelled, the tsar's relatives, as well as nobles and clerks, came. A distinctive feature of the newcomers was that they were personally devoted to the king. The slightest disobedience was punishable by death or exile. As a result of the oprichnina, the positions of the boyars were significantly shaken. The land confiscations carried out weakened the boyar aristocracy and only strengthened the royal power. But it was said above that the oprichnina led to a slowdown in the growth of productive forces.

It seems interesting to consider the role of the Zemsky Sobor as the main class-representative institution. The Zemsky Sobor represented a system consisting of the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, and the clergy (the Consecrated Cathedral) in full force. The Zemsky Sobor represented a temporary meeting for discussion, and most often for resolving the most important issues of the domestic and foreign policy of the state. In addition to the Boyar Duma and the top of the clergy, representatives of the nobility and townsmen were included in the Zemsky Sobors.

It should be remembered that “the appearance of zemstvo sobors meant the establishment in Russia of a class-representative monarchy, characteristic of most Western European states. The specificity of estate-representative bodies in Russia was that the role of the “third estate” (urban bourgeois elements) in them was much weaker and, unlike some similar Western European bodies (parliament in England, “general states” in France, Cortes in Spain) Zemsky Sobors did not limit, but strengthened the power of the monarch. Representing broader strata of the ruling elite than the Boyar Duma, the Zemstvo Sobors supported the Moscow tsars in their decisions. In contrast to the Boyar Duma, which limited the autocracy of the tsar, the Zemsky Sobors served as an instrument for strengthening the autocracy.

But at the same time, according to D.N. Alshitz "... the very existence of Zemstvo sobors, as well as the Boyar Duma, meant a certain weakness not only of the bearer of supreme power - the tsar, but also of the state apparatus of the centralized state, due to which the supreme power was forced to resort to direct and immediate assistance from the feudal class and the upper tenants" .

The first half of the 17th century was the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy, when the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy of the state were resolved with the help of zemstvo councils. In the first years of the reign of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, in conditions of ruin and a difficult financial situation after the intervention and social upheavals, the government especially needed to rely on the main groups of the ruling class, so the Zemsky Sobors sat almost continuously: from 1613 to the end of 1615, at the beginning of 1616-1619 years, in 1620-1622. At these councils, the main issues were: finding financial resources to replenish the state treasury and foreign affairs.

From about the 20s. 17th century state power was somewhat strengthened and zemstvo councils began to meet less frequently. Councils of the 30s are also connected with foreign policy issues: in 1632-1634 in connection with the war in Poland, in 1636-1637 in connection with the war with Turkey. At these councils, decisions were made on additional taxes on the conduct of the war.

One of the most important zemstvo councils was the cathedral, which met in the conditions of urban uprisings in the summer of 1648. At the cathedral, petitions were filed from the nobles demanding that the feudal dependence of the peasants be strengthened (their investigation without fixed years); the townspeople in their petitions expressed their desire to destroy the white (i.e., not taxed and taxed) settlements, complained about disorder in administration and in court.

As for the form of law in which the decisions of the Zemsky Sobor were clothed, it should be noted that "... they were a so-called conciliar act - a protocol sealed by the tsar, patriarch, higher ranks and lower ranks with the cross".

The decline in the role of zemstvo sobors is closely related to the profound socio-economic shifts that took place in the Russian state by the middle of the 17th century. The restoration of the country's economy and the further development of the feudal economy made it possible to strengthen the state system of Russia with an autocratic monarchy, a bureaucratic apparatus of orders and governors. The government no longer needed the moral support of "the whole earth" for its domestic and foreign policy initiatives. “Satisfied in their demands for the final enslavement of the peasants, the local nobility cooled towards the Zemsky Sobors. From the 60s of the 17th century, Zemstvo Sobors were reborn into narrower class meetings in composition.

Summing up this part of the test, I would like to formulate two main reasons for the withering away of class-representative institutions. Firstly, these are already the above socio-economic reasons. And, secondly, as O.I. Chistyakov, “in the second half of the 17th century. not only the need arose, but also the possibility of establishing an absolute monarchy. ... Instead of a masterful noble militia, a permanent army was created. The development of the command system prepared an army of bureaucracy. The tsar received independent sources of income in the form of yasak (a tax mainly in furs from the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia) and a wine monopoly. Now he does not need to ask permission from the Zemsky Sobors to start a war or other serious event. The need for class-representative bodies disappeared and they were discarded. This meant that the monarch was freed from all fetters, that his power became unlimited, absolute.

Part 2. Formation of a powerful bureaucracy and regulation of all manifestations of public life.

Since 1708, Peter began to rebuild the old authorities and administration and replace them with new ones. As a result, by the end of the first quarter of the XVIII century. the following system of authorities and administration was formed.

In 1711, a new supreme body of executive and judicial power was created - the Senate, which also had significant legislative functions. It was fundamentally different from its predecessor, the Boyar Duma.

“The members of the council were appointed by the emperor. In the exercise of executive power, the Senate issued decrees that had the force of law. In 1722, the Prosecutor General was placed at the head of the Senate, who was entrusted with control over the activities of all government agencies. The Prosecutor General was supposed to perform the functions of "the eye of the state." He exercised this control through prosecutors appointed to all government offices. In the first quarter of the XVIII century. the system of prosecutors was supplemented by a system of fiscals, headed by an oberfiskal. The duties of the fiscals included reporting on all abuses of institutions and officials that violated the "public interest" .

Similar Documents

The development of a class-representative monarchy into an absolute one in Russia. The main characteristics of an absolute monarchy. Functions of the Senate, collegiums and their activities. Reasons for strengthening the bodies and means of state control during the reign of Peter I.

abstract, added 12/26/2010


General characteristics of the period of troubled times and its role in the history of Russia. Features of public administration during this period. A study of the politics of the Romanov family. Identification of the effectiveness of state and regional government in the 17th century.

term paper, added 01/17/2013


The supreme and central governing bodies of the Moscow state in the XV-XVI centuries. The development of the command system. The course of transformations, their legislative support. Creation of central government bodies. Order-voivodship management.

control work, added 11/13/2010


Features of the socio-economic and political development of Russia in the middle of the XVI century. Prerequisites for the formation of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. Bodies of power and administration of a class-representative monarchy. Origin of Zemsky Sobors.

term paper, added 08/10/2011


Different approaches to the history of public administration in Russia. Formation of the Old Russian State: Causes and Features. State Administration in Ancient Russia under Saint Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise. The structure of state power in the 16th century.

cheat sheet, added 02/10/2011


State Administration in Ancient Russia. The liberation struggle of Russia with the Golden Horde. Management during the formation of an absolute monarchy and the development of capitalism. The first years of Soviet power. The state of Russian statehood at the beginning of the XXI century.

course of lectures, added 06/04/2012


The formation of the capitalist structure, the decomposition of feudalism and the formation of absolutism in France. The peculiarity of the English absolute monarchy. The main trends in the development of the state system and political regime in Prussia and Austria in the 18th century.

test, added 11/10/2015


Projects of state reforms M.M. Speransky and N.N. Novosiltsev. "Introduction to the code of state laws" as the basis of the system of state laws. The development of the system of state administration of the Decembrists. "Russian Truth" Pestel.

term paper, added 06/10/2013


Characteristics of the character traits of Catherine II. Description of the system of state administration under Catherine II. "Instruction" of Catherine and the activities of the Legislative Commission. Class and administrative reforms of the empress. State and Church in the 18th century.

abstract, added 07/27/2010


Three forms of monarchy: senior, class-representative and absolute. The rise of the feudal state in France. Forms and methods of exercising political power (political regimes). France in the period of the seigneurial monarchy from the 5th to the 6th centuries.