At a lesson on the topic "Nicholas I. Domestic policy in 1825-1855." the factors that influenced the formation of the personality of Nicholas I are listed. The main goal of his policy is determined - to prevent an uprising in Russia. Freethinking in Russia is completely banned, Nicholas I dreams of abolishing serfdom, weakening it, but does not dare to cancel it. The reasons for this indecision of the emperor are revealed. The financial reform carried out by Nicholas I is considered. The construction of railways and highways contributes to the economic recovery. The inconsistency of the development of culture and education in the country is emphasized.

Preliminary remarks

It must be said that in historical science for many years, an extremely negative image of Nicholas I himself (Fig. 2) and his thirty-year reign, which, with the light hand of Academician A.E. Presnyakov, called "the apogee of autocracy."

Of course, Nicholas I was not a born reactionary and, being an intelligent person, he perfectly understood the need for changes in the economic and political system of the country. But, being a military man to the marrow of his bones, he tried to solve all problems through militarization political system, rigid political centralization and regulation of all aspects of the country's public life. It is no coincidence that almost all of its ministers and governors had general and admiral ranks - A.Kh. Benkendorf (Fig. 1), A.N. Chernyshev, P.D. Kiselev, I.I. Dibich, P.I. Paskevich, I.V. Vasilchikov, A.S. Shishkov, N.A. Protasov and many others. In addition, among the large cohort of Nikolaev dignitaries, a special place was occupied by the Baltic Germans A.Kh. Benkendorf, V.F. Adlerberg, K.V. Nesselrode, L.V. Dubelt, P.A. Kleinmichel, E.F. Kankrin and others, who, according to Nicholas I himself, unlike the Russian nobles, did not serve the state, but the sovereign.

Rice. 1. Benckendorff()

According to a number of historians (A. Kornilov), in domestic policy, Nicholas I was guided by two fundamental Karamzin ideas, set out in his note “On the Ancient and new Russia»: a) autocracy is the most important element of the stable functioning of the state; b) the main concern of the monarch is selfless service to the interests of the state and society.

A distinctive feature of the Nikolaev rule was the colossal growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in the center and in the field. So, according to a number of historians (P. Zaionchkovsky, L. Shepelev), only in the first half of the 19th century. The number of officials at all levels has increased by more than six times. However, this fact cannot be assessed as negatively as it was done in Soviet historiography, because there were good reasons for this. In particular, according to academician S. Platonov, after the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I completely lost confidence in the upper strata of the nobility. The emperor now saw the main support of the autocracy only in the bureaucracy, so he sought to rely on just that part of the nobility for which the only source of income was public service. It is no coincidence that it was under Nicholas I that a class of hereditary officials began to form, for whom public service became a profession (Fig. 3).

Rice. 2. Nicholas I ()

In parallel with the strengthening of the state and police apparatuses of power, Nicholas I began to gradually concentrate in his hands the solution of almost all more or less important issues. Quite often, when solving this or that important issue, numerous Secret Committees and Commissions were established, which were directly subordinate to the emperor and constantly replaced many ministries and departments, including the State Council and the Senate. It was these authorities, which included very few top dignitaries of the empire - A. Golitsyn, M. Speransky, P. Kiselev, A. Chernyshev, I. Vasilchikov, M. Korf and others - that were endowed with huge, including legislative, powers and exercised the operational leadership of the country.

Rice. 3. Officials of "Nikolaev Russia")

But the regime of personal power was most clearly embodied in His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, which arose back in the time of Paul I in 1797 G. Then under Alexander I in 1812 it turned into an office for considering petitions addressed to the highest name. In those years, the position of head of the office was occupied by Count A. Arakcheev, and she (the office) even then had considerable powers of authority. Almost immediately after accession to the throne, in January 1826, Nicholas I significantly expanded the functions of the personal office, giving it the importance of the highest state body of the Russian Empire. Within the framework of the Imperial Chancellery in first half of 1826 Three special departments were created:

I Department, which was headed by the Secretary of State of the Emperor A.S. Taneyev, was in charge of the selection and placement of personnel in the central executive authorities, controlled the activities of all ministries, and was also engaged in the production of ranks, the preparation of all imperial Manifestos and Decrees, and control over their execution.

II Department, headed by another state secretary of the emperor, M.A. Balugyansky, focused entirely on the codification of the dilapidated legislative system and the creation of a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.

III Branch, which was headed by a personal friend of the emperor, General A. Benckendorff, and after his death - General A.F. Orlov, completely focused on political investigation within the country and abroad. Initially, the basis of this Department was the Special Chancellery of the Ministry of the Interior, and then, in 1827, the Gendarme Corps was created, headed by General L.V. Dubelt, who formed the armed and operational support of the III Section.

Ascertaining the fact that Nicholas I sought to preserve and strengthen the autocratic-feudal system through the strengthening of the bureaucratic and police apparatus of power, we must admit that in a number of cases he tried to solve the most acute domestic political problems of the country through the mechanism of reforms. It was this view of the domestic policy of Nicholas I that was characteristic of all major pre-revolutionary historians, in particular V. Klyuchevsky, A. Kiziwetter and S. Platonov. In Soviet historical science, starting with the work of A. Presnyakov "Apogee of autocracy" (1927), special emphasis began to be placed on the reactionary nature of the Nikolaev regime. At the same time, a number of modern historians (N. Troitsky) rightly say that in their meaning and origin, the reforms of Nicholas I differed significantly from previous and upcoming reforms. If Alexander I maneuvered between the new and the old, and Alexander II yielded to the pressure of the new, then Nicholas I strengthened the old in order to more successfully resist the new.

Rice. 4. The first railway in Russia ()

Reforms of Nicholas I

a) The Secret Committee of V.P. Kochubey and his reform projects (1826-1832)

December 6, 1826 Nicholas I formed the First Secret Committee, which was supposed to sort through all the papers of Alexander I and determine which projects of state reforms could be taken by the sovereign as a basis for pursuing a reform policy. The formal head of this Committee was the Chairman of the State Council, Count V.P. Kochubey, and M.M. became the actual leader. Speransky, who long ago shook off the ashes of liberalism from his feet and became a staunch monarchist. During the existence of this Committee (December 1826 - March 1832) 173 official meetings were held, at which only two serious reform projects were born.

The first was the estate reform project, according to which it was supposed to cancel Peter's "Table of Ranks", which gave the right to military and civil ranks to receive nobility in order of length of service. The Committee proposed to establish such an order in which the nobility would be acquired only by birthright, or by "the highest award."

At the same time, in order to somehow encourage government officials and the emerging bourgeois class, the Committee proposed creating new classes for domestic bureaucrats and merchants - "bureaucratic" and "eminent" citizens who, like the nobles, would be exempted from the poll tax, recruitment duty. and corporal punishment.

The second project called for a new administrative reform. According to the project, the State Council was freed from a pile of administrative and judicial cases and retained only legislative functions. The Senate was divided into two independent institutions: the Governing Senate, consisting of all ministers, became the highest body of executive power, and the Judicial Senate - the highest body of state justice.

Both projects did not in the least undermine the autocratic system, and, nevertheless, under the influence of the European revolution and the Polish events of 1830-1831. Nicholas I shelved the first project and buried the second forever.

b) Codification of the laws of M.M. Speransky (1826-1832)

January 31, 1826 within the framework of the Imperial Chancellery, the II Department was created, which was entrusted with the task of reforming all legislation. The official head of the Department was Professor of St. Petersburg University M.A. Balugyansky, who taught legal sciences to the future emperor, but all the real work on the codification of legislation was carried out by his deputy, M. Speransky.

Summer 1826 M. Speransky sent four memos to the emperor with his proposals for compiling a new Code of Laws. According to this plan, codification was supposed to take place in three stages: 1. At first, it was supposed to collect and publish in chronological order all legislative acts, starting with the "Cathedral Code" of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich until the end of the reign of Alexander I. 2. At the second stage, it was planned to publish a Code of Acting Laws arranged in a subject-systematic order. 3. At the third stage, it was planned to draw up and publish a new Code of Laws systematized by legal branches.

At the first stage of the codification reform (1828-1830) almost 31 thousand legislative acts published in 1649-1825 were published, which were included in the 45-volume first "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire". At the same time, 6 volumes of the second "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire" were published, which included legislative acts issued under Nicholas I.

At the second stage of the codification reform (1830-1832) A 15-volume Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was prepared and published, which was a systematized (by branches of law) code of current legislation of 40,000 articles. Volumes 1-3 outlined the basic laws that determined the limits of competence and the order of office work of all government agencies and provincial offices. Volumes 4-8 contained laws on state duties, income and property. In the 9th volume, all laws on estates were published, in the 10th volume - civil and boundary laws. Volumes 11-14 contained police (administrative) laws, and volume 15 published criminal legislation.

January 19, 1833 The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was officially approved at a meeting of the State Council and entered into force.

c) Nikolai's estate reformI (1832-1845)

After completing work on the codification of laws, Nicholas I returned to the class projects of the Secret Committee of Count V. Kochubey. Initially, in 1832, an imperial Decree was issued, in accordance with which the middle class of "honorary citizens" of two degrees was established - "hereditary honorary citizens", where the descendants of personal nobles and guild merchants were enrolled, and "personal honorary citizens" for officials IV -X grades and graduates of higher educational institutions.

Then, in 1845 Another Decree was issued, directly related to the project of estate reform of the Secret Committee. Nicholas I did not dare to cancel Peter's "Table of Ranks", but, in accordance with his Decree, the ranks that were required to receive the nobility by seniority were significantly increased. Now the hereditary nobility was granted to civil ranks with the V (state councilor), and not with the VIII (college assessor) class, and the military, respectively, with the VI (colonel), and not with the XIV (ensign) class. Personal nobility for both civil and military ranks was established from the IX (titular adviser, captain), and not from the XIV class, as before.

d) The peasant question and the reform of P.D. Kiseleva (1837-1841)

In the second quarter of the XIX century. the peasant question still remained a headache for the tsarist government. Recognizing that serfdom was the powder magazine of the entire state, Nicholas I believed that its abolition could lead to even more dangerous social cataclysms than those that shook Russia during his reign. Therefore, in the peasant question, the Nikolaev administration limited itself only to palliative measures aimed at somewhat softening the sharpness of social relations in the countryside.

To discuss the peasant question in 1828-1849 nine Secret Committees were created, in the depths of which more than 100 legislative acts were discussed and adopted to limit the power of landlords over serfs. For example, in accordance with these Decrees, landlords were forbidden to send their peasants to factories (1827), exile them to Siberia (1828), transfer serfs to the category of domestic servants and pay off their debts (1833), sell peasants to retail (1841) etc. However, the real significance of these Decrees and the specific results of their application turned out to be negligible: the landowners simply ignored these legislative acts, many of which were advisory in nature.

The only attempt at a serious solution to the peasant question was the reform of the state village, carried out by General P.D. Kiselev in 1837-1841

To prepare a draft reform of the state village in April 1836 in the bowels of Own E.I. In the Office, a special V Division was created, which was headed by Adjutant General P. Kiselev. In accordance with the personal instructions of Nicholas I and his own vision of this issue, he considered that in order to heal the ailments of the state-owned village, it was enough to create a good administration that could manage it accurately and prudently. That is why at the first stage of the reform, in 1837, the state village was removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance and transferred to the Ministry of State Property, the first head of which was General P. Kiselev himself, who remained in this post until 1856.

Then, in 1838-1839, for the management of the state village on the ground, state chambers were created in the provinces and state district administrations in the counties. And only after that, in 1840-1841, the reform reached the volosts and villages, where several governing bodies were created at once: volost and rural gatherings, boards and reprisals.

After the completion of this reform, the government once again took up the problem of the owner (landlord) peasants, and soon the Decree “On obligated peasants” was born. (April1842), also developed on the initiative of P. Kiselev.

The essence of this Decree was as follows: each landowner, at his own discretion, could grant freedom to his serfs, but without the right to sell them their own allotments of land. All land remained the property of the landlords, and the peasants received only the right to use this land on a lease basis. For the possession of their own allotments of land, they were obliged, as before, to bear corvée and dues. However, according to the agreement that the peasant entered into with the landowner, the latter did not have the right: a) to increase the size of corvée and dues, and b) select or reduce the land allotment agreed upon by mutual agreement.

According to a number of historians (N. Troitsky, V. Fedorov), the Decree "On obligated peasants" was a step backwards compared to the Decree "On free cultivators", since that legislative act broke off feudal relations between landowners and serfs, and new law kept them.

e) Financial reform E.F. Kancrina (1839-1843)

An active foreign policy and a constant increase in government spending on the maintenance of the state apparatus and the army caused an acute financial crisis in the country: the expenditure side of the state budget was almost one and a half times higher than its revenue side. The result of such a policy was the constant devaluation of the banknote ruble in relation to the silver ruble, and to late 1830s its real value was only 25% of the value of the silver ruble.

Rice. 5. Credit note after the Kankrin reform ()

In order to prevent the financial collapse of the state, at the suggestion of the long-term Minister of Finance Yegor Frantsevich Kankrin, it was decided to carry out a monetary reform. During the first phase of the reform, 1839, state credit notes were introduced (Fig. 5), which were equated to the silver ruble and could be freely exchanged for it. Then, after the accumulation of the necessary reserves of precious metals, the second stage of the reform was carried out. . From June 1843 the exchange of all banknotes in circulation for state credit notes began at the rate of one credit ruble for three and a half banknote rubles. Thus, the monetary reform of E. Kankrin significantly strengthened the country's financial system, but it was not possible to completely overcome the financial crisis, since the government continued to pursue the previous budget policy.

Bibliography

1. Vyskochkov V.L. Emperor Nicholas I: man and sovereign. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
2. Druzhinin N.M. State peasants and the reform of P.D. Kiselev. - M., 1958.
3. Zayonchkovsky P.K. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1978.
4. Eroshkin N.P. Feudal autocracy and its political institutions. - M., 1981.
5. Kornilov A.A. The course of the history of Russia in the XIX century. - M., 1993.
6. Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. - M., 1990.
7. Presnyakov A.E. Russian autocrats. - M., 1990.
8. Pushkarev S.G. History of Russia in the 19th century. - M., 2003.
9. Troitsky N.A. Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1999.
10. Shepelev L.E. The apparatus of power in Russia. The era of Alexander I and Nicholas I. - St. Petersburg, 2007.

1. Omop.su().
2. Rusizn.ru ().
3. EncVclopaedia-russia.ru ().
4. Bibliotekar.ru ().
5. Hrono.ru ().

1. THE ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS I TO THE THRON

When Alexander died without heirs in 1985, his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin, stood closest to the throne. But Constantine did not want to be king. He renounced the throne in favor of his younger brother Nicholas, who was then twenty-nine years old. Nikolai did not receive an upbringing befitting an heir. Perhaps that is why he became a relatively good king, from the point of view of tsarism.

2. MAIN FEATURES OF THE INTERNAL POLITICAL COURSE OF NICHOLAS I. "PROTECTIVE" POLICY AND REFORMATION

In the domestic policy of Russia in the first half of the 19th century, there were two important milestones: the end patriotic war 1812 and 1825 - the change of reign and the uprising of the Decembrists.

These events caused an increase in conservatism and even reaction in the domestic political course. In the reign of Nicholas I, among the priorities was the codification of laws. The lack of proper order in Russian legislation as the main reason for numerous abuses in court and administration was constantly pointed out in their testimony by the Decembrists, whose criticism and proposals Nicholas I treated with great attention. Nikolai saw the main goal of codification as being, without introducing any "innovations", to streamline Russian legislation and thereby provide a clearer legislative basis for Russian absolutism. Almost all the work on codification was carried out by M. M. Speransky.

According to Speransky's plan, the codification of laws had to go through three stages: at the first stage, it was supposed to collect and publish in chronological order all the laws, starting with the "Code" of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649 and until the end of the reign of Alexander I; on the second - to issue a Code of effective laws, arranged in a subject-systematic order, without making any corrections and additions; the third stage provided for the compilation and publication of the "Code" - a new systematic set of current legislation, "with additions and corrections, in accordance with the rights and customs and the actual needs of the state." The II branch had its own printing house, which printed prepared volumes of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. During 1828-1830. 45 voluminous volumes and 3 volumes of indexes and appendices to them were published. They compiled the "First Assembly", which included 31 thousand legislative acts for 1649-1825. In addition, 6 more volumes of laws were published, published from the end of 1825 to 1830 - these volumes began the "Second Assembly", which included laws issued during the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II.

At the same time, on the basis of the Complete Collection of Laws, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was being prepared. When it was drawn up, laws that had lost their force or were replaced by subsequent acts were withdrawn. The text processing of the articles of the "Code" was also carried out. At the same time, all corrections, and even more additions, were made only with the sanction of the emperor, who controlled the entire course of codifications. The prepared "Code of Laws" was previously considered by a special Senate commission, then its individual parts were sent to the ministries. In 1832 it was published in 15 volumes containing 40,000 articles. In addition, the “Code of Military Decrees” (12 volumes), the “Code of Laws of the Ostsee and Western Provinces” and the “Code of Laws of the Grand Duchy of Finland” prepared by Speransky were published.

Under Nicholas I, the “Complete collection of spiritual legalizations in Russia since the establishment of the Holy Synod”, “Collection of marine legalizations from 1845 to 1851” were also published. ”and“ Code of Laws of Nomadic Aliens of Eastern Siberia.

Speransky's codification plan was not implemented at its final and most significant stage - the preparation and publication of the Code of the Russian Empire. Nicholas I rejected the third stage of codification, which provided for the introduction of "innovations".

The codification of laws carried out under Nicholas I undoubtedly streamlined Russian legislation. At the same time, it did not in the least change the political and social structure of autocratic-feudal Russia, nor the system of government itself, did not eliminate arbitrariness, red tape and corruption, which reached a special flowering precisely in the reign of Nicholas. The development of bureaucracy led to paperwork, which proceeded uncontrollably in clerical secrecy. The bureaucratic apparatus of government increased sharply: in the first half of the 19th century. the number of officials increased from 16 thousand to 74.3 thousand. Nicholas I saw the vices of the bureaucracy, complained that "the clerk rules the empire", but it was impossible to eliminate these vices under the conditions of the absolutist regime.

Nicholas I considered the issue of serfdom to be the most important. The position of the landlord peasants was alleviated. The government issued a number of laws that emphasized that "a serf is not a simple property of a private person, but, first of all, a subject of the state" (V.O. Klyuchevsky).

It should be noted that during the reign of Alexander I and Nicholas I, criticism of the autocrats as the guardians of serfdom intensified among the nobility. Alexander I in 1803 issued a decree “On free cultivators”, Nicholas I in 1842 issued a decree “On obligated peasants”, which allowed the landowner to voluntarily release his peasants to freedom. But the consequences of these decrees were insignificant. From 1804 to 1855 only 116,000 serfs were set free by the landlords. This testified that the landlords were primarily interested in maintaining serfdom.

Much more was done for the state peasants. There were about 9 million of them. From 1837 to 1841, a system of measures was taken to manage the state peasants.

Under the leadership of P.N. Kiselyov carried out a reform of the state village. 6 thousand rural communities were created. They were granted the right to self-government and the right to elect justices of the peace. According to the decree of 1843, not a single district chief had the right to interfere in the affairs of the community.

The peasants were given about 2.8 million acres of free land; 3 million acres of forest were transferred to educated rural communities.

Much attention was paid to raising the agrotechnical level of peasant agriculture. Over a thousand rural credit societies and savings banks were created for the state peasants; 98 thousand brick houses were built for the peasants. Much has been done to protect the health of the peasants and education. In 1838, the peasant communities had 60 schools with 1,800 students, and in 1866 they already had 110 schools with 2,550,000 children. The state peasants were exempted from road repairs. Then the peasants began to be transferred to quitrent.

Reformation of the state village under the leadership of Count P.D. Kiselev became an undoubted achievement of the Nikolaev time. As a result of the measures taken, the legal and financial situation state peasants. The landlord peasants began to look with envy at the state peasants.

Educational policy became more and more conservative. In 1828, the lower and secondary specialized educational institutions were reformed.

Different levels of the school were cut off from each other and intended for different classes:

Rural parish schools - for peasants;

County schools - for city dwellers;

Gymnasiums - for the nobility.

Since 1832, S.S. became the Minister of Public Education. Uvarov. He became the author of the famous formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality", which argued that these three forces are the basis of the Russian state system and ensure order and harmony in society. The Uvarov triad was created as a counterbalance to revolutionary France, in which they tried to put the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity as the basis of the state, social and even family structure. Under the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov, the education and upbringing of Russian youth was based on respect for Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. In 1835, a new university charter was issued, according to which the autonomy of universities was sharply reduced. The activities of Kazan, St. Petersburg, Moscow universities were checked. A number of professors who promoted revolutionary ideas were put on trial. Education fees were raised, student enrollment was reduced, curricula were revised. The charter of 1835 abolished the departments of philosophy, political economy, natural law and statistics at the universities. At the same time, in 1835, the Imperial School of Law was founded - an elite educational institution for the training of employees of the Ministry of Justice and the Senate. A number of teachers were sent on a business trip abroad in order to improve their qualifications.

The reign of Nicholas I was marked by the appearance in 1833 of the first official national anthem "God Save the Tsar". The words of the English anthem "God Save the King" poet V.A. Zhukovsky translated into Russian, and the composer A.F. Lvov wrote a melody for them.

In the spirit of autocratic beginnings and centralization of administration, Nicholas I sought to strengthen the regime of personal power - concentrating in his hands the solution of both general and private affairs, often bypassing the relevant ministries and departments.

The activities of the third branch of the imperial chancellery received notorious fame. The favorite of Nicholas I, General A. Kh. Benckendorff, was placed at the head of the III branch. He was also the chief of the Gendarme Corps. Back in January 1826, he presented Nicholas I with a draft “On the Structure of the Higher Police”, on the basis of which the III Department of the Imperial Chancellery was created. Benkendorf held the posts of head of the III department and chief of the gendarmes until his death (1844). He was replaced by another favorite of the king, a prominent military and statesman, Count A. F. Orlov. The prerogatives of Section III were truly all-encompassing. It collected information about the moods of various segments of the population, secretly supervised "unreliable" persons and periodicals, was in charge of places of detention and cases of "split", observed foreign nationals in Russia, identified carriers of "false rumors" and counterfeiters, collected statistics and perusal of private letters, supervised the actions of the administration. It was the organ of informing the tsar about all the "incidents" in the Russian Empire. Nicholas I carefully read the reports and reports of the head of the III department. The activity of the III branch gave rise to a wide practice of denunciations. Section III had its own network of secret agents, and in the 1940s created secret agents abroad to spy on Russian emigrants. Under her vigilant supervision were the publishers of the Russian foreign press, Prince V. V. Dolgorukov, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.

In the sphere of economic policy, the autocracy was more consistent and went much further than in matters of social policy. The very process of the country's economic development made it necessary to patronize industry, trade, and ultimately to promote the development of bourgeois relations. Tsarism sought to take advantage of the capitalist relations that were developing in the country. Hence the planting of industry, the establishment of banks, the construction of railways, the foundation of special technical educational institutions, the encouragement of the activity of agricultural and industrial societies, the organization of exhibitions, etc.

Headed from 1824 to 1844. The Ministry of Finance E.F. Kankrin carried out a number of measures to strengthen the financial system of the country, which had been upset during the previous reign. He sought to maintain a favorable trade balance and increase budget revenues by raising direct and indirect taxes, restoring drinking farms, and devaluing banknotes that had fallen in price.

Important economic measure was carried out by Kankrin in 1839-1843. monetary reform. Prior to that, there was a double cash account in Russia - for banknote rubles and silver rubles, while the rate of banknotes was subject to constant fluctuations. Since 1839, a hard credit ruble was introduced, equated to 1 ruble. silver and backed by gold and silver coins. The manifesto of June 1, 1843 announced the beginning of the exchange of all banknotes in circulation for state credit notes at the rate of 1 credit ruble for 3 rubles. 50 kop. banknotes. By 1851 the exchange was completed. In total, about 600 million assign rubles were exchanged for 170 million credit ones.

Reform 1839-1843 Kankrina temporarily strengthened the monetary system. However, the government could not get out of the financial crisis: by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, especially in connection with the sharply increased costs during the Crimean War, banknotes began to fall in price, domestic and external public debt increased significantly; in 1855 it almost doubled the revenue of the state budget.

3. THE MAIN DIRECTIONS OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE XIX CENTURY. PARTICIPATION IN THE SOLUTION OF THE "EASTERN QUESTION"

The social and political situation in Europe, which was seething with bourgeois revolutions, had a great influence on the worldview and activities of Nicholas. In the second quarter of the 19th century, Russia was a large and militarily strong state capable of effectively resolving its foreign policy issues. At the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, Russia's military-technical lag behind Europe was not yet as noticeable as later. The Russian army was numerous and was considered one of the best in the world.

The main directions of foreign policy have been preserved since the end of the 18th century, when Russia began to take shape as a huge Eurasian empire. The new Russian emperor hastened to announce the continuation of the foreign policy of his predecessor. But later he made it clear that in pursuing a policy in Europe, Russia would rely more on its own strength than on "federal solidarity." Nicholas I maintained relations with the German states, primarily with Prussia, which has long occupied a leading position in Russian-German trade relations. At the same time, there was a tendency towards rapprochement between Russia and England and France. During the reign of Nicholas I, the central place in foreign policy was occupied by the Eastern question - relations with the Ottoman Empire. For Russia, an important task was to strengthen its positions on the Black Sea coast and protect the borders in the south of the country. The Black Sea has become of great importance.

The most important problem for Russia's foreign policy was to ensure the most favorable regime for the Black Sea straits - the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. The free passage of Russian merchant ships through them contributed to the economic development and prosperity of the southern regions of the state. The Caucasus remained an important direction of Russian policy. She tried to expand her Caucasian possessions, make finally stable borders in the Transcaucasus, ensure free and safe communication with the newly acquired territories, and firmly include the entire Caucasian region in the Russian Empire.

Russia's rival in this region was Iran. Under a peace treaty with Iran, Russia secured significant territories of Eastern Transcaucasia and the western coast of the Caspian Sea. In the 20s of the 19th century, Persia (Iran) sought the return of the Talysh and Karabakh khanates. A strong anti-Russian grouping formed at the Shah's court. In June 1826, the Iranian army invaded Karabakh. The Russian-Persian war began. The Iranian commander-in-chief intended to put an end to Russian possessions in Transcaucasia with one blow.

The Russian army in this region was not numerous. Only the extraordinary heroism of the Russian soldiers made it possible to hold back the offensive. Russian troops actively supported the Armenian and Georgian volunteer detachments. Russian soldiers, having conquered the important fortress of Erivan, captured the city of Tabriz and went to the capital of Persia, Tehran. Persia sued for peace. In February 1828, the Turkmanchay peace treaty was signed. Under this treaty, the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan became completely part of Russia. The Armenian region was formed on the territories of both khanates.

In relations with the Ottoman Empire, the fact that Turkey included many Christian and Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, who saw Russia as their only protector and savior, became increasingly important. Even during the reign of Alexander I, the reason for the aggravation of the Eastern Question, which developed into an international crisis, was the beginning of the Greek revolution. Russia, like other European countries, did not miss the moment to use the aggravation of the situation in the Ottoman Empire in connection with the liberation struggle of the Greek people to implement their own plans in the Middle East and the Balkans.

In the 1920s, the Eastern Question acquired the significance of one of the biggest problems in international politics. Emperor Nicholas I, assuming the throne, found relations between Russia and Turkey very tense, but still he did not see the need to fight the Turks because of the Greeks. Initially, Nicholas I, together with Great Britain, exerted diplomatic pressure on Turkey.

However, she was adamant and continued to suppress the uprising of the Greeks with particular cruelty. The European governments, including the Russian, under the influence of the tendencies of the "Holy Alliance" for a long time did not dare to intercede for the rebellious Greeks before the Turkish Sultan. Only in 1827 did it become clear that diplomacy was powerless. In this regard, the Russian, English and French squadrons entered the bay where the Turkish fleet was located, and as a result of a short battle completely destroyed it. Russian-Turkish relations deteriorated sharply. In April 1828, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Military operations unfolded in Transcaucasia and the Balkans. The stubborn resistance of the Ottoman troops in the Balkans came as a surprise to the Russian high command and the tsar himself.

The Balkan peoples sought to help the Russian troops, seeking official permission from the high command for joint military operations against the Turks. The military committee led by the tsar rejected the possibility of using the help of the Serbs, but in 1829, when it was to go to the Balkans, Russia nevertheless took advantage of the help of the Bulgarian volunteers.

As a result of inflicting a number of military defeats on the Turkish troops, the Russian army took Andrianopol, which meant the end of the war was approaching. This was also facilitated by the successes of the Russian army on the Caucasian front, thanks to the high fighting qualities of the army. The result of the offensive in the Kars direction was the capture of a powerful fortress of the Turks in Western Armenia. This was the great event of the military campaign of 1828. After these events, a peace treaty was signed in 1829.

Significant territories of the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus and part of the Armenian regions belonging to Turkey passed to Russia. Broad autonomy was guaranteed for Greece, on the basis of which the creation of an independent Greek state was proclaimed in 1830.

Thus, as a result of the Russian-Turkish war, Russia fulfilled its historical mission in relation to the Greek people. As a result of the signing of the Adrianople Peace Treaty, Russia could consider major conflicts unleashed that arose in Russian-Turkish relations during the Eastern Crisis of the 20s: freedom of merchant navigation in the straits, the rights of the Danube principalities and Serbia, the autonomy of Greece. Thus, by virtue of the terms of the Peace of Adrianople, Russia received the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey as an intercessor and patroness of the sultan's subjects of the same tribe and of the same faith.

As a result of the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Iranian wars of the late 20s of the XIX century, Transcaucasia was finally included in the Russian Empire: Georgia, Eastern Armenia, Northern Azerbaijan. Since that time, Transcaucasia has become an integral part of the Russian Empire.

The beginning of the 30s of the 19th century was full of events in both main directions of Russia's foreign policy - European and Middle Eastern. In 1830-31, a wave of revolutions swept through Europe, which also affected Russia itself. As soon as the Persian and Turkish wars ended, the government of Nicholas I had to enter into an armed conflict with Poland. The French and Belgian revolutions gave impetus to the Polish uprising, and at the end of 1830 an open uprising broke out in Warsaw. The Romanov dynasty was declared deprived of the Polish throne, a Provisional Government was formed, and an insurgent army was formed. Initially, the rebels were successful. But the forces were unequal, and the uprising was

At the end of the 1940s, a new, even more formidable wave arose in Western Europe. In February 1848, a revolution broke out in France, in the spring - in Germany, Austria, Italy, Wallachia and Moldavia. Nicholas I considered all these events as a direct threat to the Russian autocracy. That is why he took an active part in the suppression of the revolutionary movement.

In 1849, Nicholas helped Austria put down a revolution that broke out in Hungary, which was then part of the Austrian Empire. Also, Russian troops strangled revolutionary uprisings in Moldova and Wallachia. Nicholas, of course, experienced anxiety during the revolutions of 1848-1849. in Europe. He personally wrote the Manifesto, in which he spoke of the “new troubles” that agitated Western Europe after the “long-term peace”, about the “mutiny and cashlessness” that arose in France, but also covered Germany, and threatened Russia.

Russia's interference in European affairs, its defense of the old order, caused outrage in liberal circles. European countries. Nikolai earned himself the title of "gendarme of Europe." Thus, both the governments and peoples of Europe feared and disliked Russia and its reactionary and arrogant tsar and were glad to take the first opportunity to destroy the power and influence of Russia in European affairs.

When the European revolutions of 1848-1849 died down, Nicholas I decided to strengthen the strategic position of his empire. First of all, the emperor wanted to solve the problem of the Black Sea straits. According to the agreement then in force, the Russian navy could pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. In addition, Nicholas I sought to strengthen the political influence of Russia in the Balkan Peninsula. With the hands of Turkey, England hoped to strengthen its influence in Asia Minor and the Caucasus, to push Russia out of the sea routes. The French emperor Napoleon III was looking for an opportunity to show himself in practice, to assert the authority of his throne.

The Austrian Empire, which owed its calmness to Russia after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, could not but intervene in the fate of the Balkans, on the territory of which it itself counted. Turkey, relying on the support of the Western European states, nurtured broad plans of conquest against Russia. The prestige of the Russian name fell in Turkey. The dispute between Russia and France over the rights of Catholics and Orthodox in Jerusalem could not hide the political background, which consisted in the struggle for influence in the Middle East between European states. In addition, Turkey, where quite a lot of Christians lived, refused to ensure their equality with Muslims. Thus, since Russia had no allies, the Crimean War began in an atmosphere of diplomatic isolation of Russia, which had to fight against a coalition of the most technologically advanced states. To settle the issue, Emperor Nicholas I in 1853 sent an extraordinary envoy, Prince Menshikov, to Constantinople, who demanded from the Porte the confirmation of the Russian protectorate over all Orthodox in the Turkish Empire, established by previous treaties. After almost 3 months of negotiations, Prince Menshikov, having received from the Porte, supported by England and France, a decisive refusal to accept the note submitted by him, returned to Russia on May 9. Then Emperor Nicholas I, without declaring war, brought Russian troops, under the command of Prince Gorchakov, into the Danubian principalities.

The conference of representatives of Russia, England, France, Austria and Prussia, which met in Vienna to settle the disagreements by peaceful means, did not achieve its goal. At the end of September. Turkey, under the threat of war, demanded the cleansing of the principalities within a two-week period, and on October 8, the British and French fleets entered the Bosphorus, violating the convention of 1841, which declared the Bosphorus closed to military courts of all powers. On October 23, the Sultan declared war on Russia. The Crimean War began as an aggressive one on both sides. If tsarism sought to seize the Black Sea straits and expand its influence in the Balkans, then England and France sought to oust Russia from the shores of the Black Sea and from the borders of Transcaucasia. The Ottoman Empire also pursued its own revanchist goals in this war. In November 1953, the Russian Black Sea squadron (under the command of Admiral Nakhimov) destroyed the Turkish fleet in the bay of Sinop, and soon the Western powers - England, France and Sardinia openly opposed Russia. Austria, for its part, ultimatum demanded from Russia the cleansing of Moldavia and Wallachia; Nicholas was forced to comply with this demand, but in view of the menacing situation occupied by Austria, he had to leave a large army on the Austrian borders, which thus could not take part in hostilities against the Western allies. In September 1954, the Allies landed a significant number of French, British and Turkish troops in the Crimea and soon began the siege of Sevastopol. Only at the end of the summer of 1955 did the Allies succeed in capturing the southern side of Sevastopol and forcing the Russian troops to retreat to the north. Both sides were exhausted. In March 1856 in Paris, England, France and Russia signed a peace treaty.

Crimean War 1853-56 demonstrated the organizational and technical backwardness of Russia from the Western powers, led to its political isolation. The severe psychological shock from military failures undermined Nikolai's health, and an accidental cold became fatal for him. Nicholas died in February 1855 at the height of the Sevastopol campaign. The defeat in the Crimean War significantly weakened Russia, and the Vienna system, which was based on the Austro-Prussian alliance, finally disintegrated. Russia lost its leading role in international affairs, giving way to France.

Lesson topic: Nikolai's domestic policyI

Tasks:

Educational: introduce Nicholas's domestic politicsI, to test students' knowledge on the topic "Decembrist Movement".

Developing: develop memory, attention, imagination, thinking, monologue speech.

Educators: educate patriotism, cognitive interest.

Lesson type - combined

Methods: informational, reproductive, partially exploratory

Equipment: laptop, projector, interactive whiteboard, textbook, handouts (texts of documents).

During the classes.

Organization of the beginning of the lesson.

slide 2

The accession to the throne of this emperor was not supposed. But by the will of fate, he ruled Russia for 30 years. His domestic policy was not as active as the foreign one, but nevertheless, it was under him that the industrial revolution in Russia ended. The topic of our lesson is Nikolai's domestic policyI.

Knowledge update

1. Individual survey on questions:

The emergence of secret societies

Decembrist revolt

2.2. Frontal survey on questions:

What are the reasons for the emergence of the Decembrist movement?

What are their main goals?

Why did the Decembrist uprising take place on December 14, 1825?

Why did the Decembrists fail?

3. Learning new material.

slide 3

future emperor Nicholas I , third son of the emperor and Empress Maria Feodorovna, was born on July 6 (June 25 old style) 1796 in Tsarskoe Selo (Pushkin).

As a child, Nikolai was very fond of military toys, and in 1799 for the first time he put on the military uniform of the Life Guards Horse Regiment, of which he was the chief from infancy. To serve, according to the traditions of that time, Nikolai began at the age of six months, when he received the rank of colonel. He was prepared, first of all, for a military career.

Nicholas's education was limited mainly to the military sciences.

Nevertheless, from a young age, the emperor drew well, had good artistic taste, was very fond of music, played the flute well, and was a connoisseur of opera and ballet art.

SLIDE4

Having married on July 1, 1817, the daughter of the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III, the German princess Friederike-Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmine, who converted to Orthodoxy and became Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, Nikolai lived a happy family life. The emperor had seven children: the emperor ; grand duchess Maria Nikolaevna, married Duchess of Leuchtenberg; Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, married Queen of Württemberg; Grand Duchess Alexandra Nikolaevna, wife of Prince Friedrich of Hesse of Kassel; Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich; Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich; Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich

The idol of Nicholas I was . Extremely unpretentious in everyday life, Nicholas, already being an emperor, slept on a hard camp bed, hiding himself in an ordinary overcoat, observed moderation in food, preferring the simplest food, and hardly drank alcohol. He was very disciplined, worked 18 hours a day.

An excellent memory, which helped him to recognize by sight and remember by name even ordinary soldiers, won him great popularity in the army. The emperor was distinguished by considerable personal courage. When a cholera riot broke out in the capital, on June 23, 1831, he rode in a carriage to the crowd of five thousand that had gathered on Sennaya Square and stopped the riots. He also stopped the unrest in the Novgorod military settlements, caused by the same cholera. The emperor showed extraordinary courage and determination during the fire of the Winter Palace on December 17, 1837.

Nicholas I died on March 2 (February 18, O.S.), 1855, according to the official version - from a cold. He was buried in the Cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress.

slide 5

Domestic policy of NicholasI

The principle of the regime of personal power of the monarch was embodied in the overgrown "own office" of the king. It arose under Paul I in 1797. Under Alexander I in 1812, it turned into an office for considering petitions to the highest name. Already in the first year of his reign, Nicholas I significantly expanded the functions of the personal office, giving it the significance of the highest governing body of the state. The former office of the king became its first department, whose duties included preparing papers for the emperor and monitoring the execution of his orders. On January 31, 1826, the II branch was created "for the completion of the code of domestic laws", which received the name "codification". On July 3, 1826, the III department (high police) was created. In 1828, they were supplemented by the IV Department, which managed educational, educational and other "charitable" institutions that were part of the department named after Empress Maria Feodorovna (the Tsar's mother), and in 1835, the V Department was established to prepare the reform of the state village. Finally, in 1843, a VI, temporary, department appeared to manage the territories of the Caucasus annexed to Russia. The II and III departments of the imperial personal office were of the greatest importance.

slide 6

Even at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, there was a Commission for drafting laws under the leadership of Count P.V. Zavadovsky. However, her 25-year activity was fruitless. Instead, the II Department was established, headed by Professor of Law of St. Petersburg University M. A. Balugyansky. Almost all the work on codification was carried out by M. M. Speransky, appointed to him as "assistants". Although Nikolai treats Speransky with restraint, even with suspicion, he saw in him the only person who could carry out this important task, giving Balugyansky an order to "watch" him, "so that he does not do the same pranks as in 1810" ( meaning the Plan for the Transformation of Russia, drawn up by Speransky).

Speransky submitted four notes to the emperor with his proposals on the compilation of the Code of Laws. According to Speransky's plan, codification was to go through three stages: the first was to collect and publish in chronological order all the laws, starting with the "Code" of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649 and until the end of the reign of Alexander I; at the second stage, publish the Code of Acting Laws, arranged in a subject-systematic order, without making any corrections and additions; the third provided for the compilation and publication of the "Code" - a new systematic code of legislation, "with additions and corrections, in accordance with the mores, customs and real needs of the state." Nicholas I, agreeing to carry out two stages of codification, rejected the third - as the introduction of undesirable "innovations".

During 1828 - 1830. 45 volumes were published (and 48 with appendices and indexes) of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, which included 31 thousand legislative acts from 1649 to 1825. Legislative acts issued from 1825 to 1881 subsequently constituted the second, and from 1881 to 1913 - third collection. All three collections amounted to a total of 133 volumes, they included 132.5 thousand legislative acts - an important source on the history of Russia for more than two and a half centuries.

In 1832, a 15-volume Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was published, which contained 40,000 articles of the current legislation arranged in a systematic manner. In addition, in 1839 - 1840. 12 volumes of the Code of Military Decrees, the Code of Laws of the Grand Duchy of Finland, and codes of laws for the Baltic and Western provinces prepared by Speransky (already after his death) were published.

The codification of laws under Nicholas I played a huge role in streamlining Russian legislation and in providing a firmer and clearer legal basis for Russian absolutism. However, it did not change either the political or social structure of autocratic-feudal Russia (and did not set this goal), nor the system of government itself. It did not eliminate the arbitrariness, corruption of officials, who reached a special flourishing precisely in the reign of Nicholas. The government saw the vices of the bureaucracy, but was not able to eradicate them under the conditions of the absolutist regime.

Slide 7

Notorious fame was given to the activity of the III branch of the imperial office. Under him, a corps of gendarmes was established, consisting first of 4, and later of 6 thousand people. The favorite of Nicholas I, General A. Kh. Benkendorf, was placed at the head of the III department, he was also the chief of the gendarmes. All of Russia, with the exception of Poland, Finland, the region of the Don Army and Transcaucasia, was divided first into 5, and later into 8 gendarmerie districts, headed by gendarmerie generals. In the provinces, the gendarmes were commanded by staff officers. Herzen called Section III "armed inquisition, police Freemasonry" placed "outside the law and above the law." His prerogatives were truly all-encompassing. It collected information about the moods of various segments of the population, secretly supervised politically "unreliable" persons and the periodicals, was in charge of places of detention and cases of a "split", observed foreign nationals in Russia, identified carriers of "false rumors" and counterfeiters, dealt with collection of statistical information on his department, perusal of private letters. Section III had its own network of secret agents. In the 1940s, it created secret agents abroad to spy on Russian political emigration.

Section III was not only an organ for informing and combating "sedition". His responsibilities also included checking the activities of the state apparatus, the central and local administration, identifying facts of arbitrariness and corruption and bringing the perpetrators to justice, suppressing abuses in recruitment, protecting innocent victims as a result of illegal court decisions. It was supposed to monitor the state of places of detention, consider the requests and complaints of the population.

Slide 8

The peasant question was one of the most acute in government policy in the second quarter of the 19th century. The peasantry itself reminded of this by growing riots with every decade. “Serfdom is a powder magazine under the state,” wrote the chief of gendarmes, A. Kh. gradually, carefully, rather than waiting until it starts from below, from the people. Nicholas I himself recognized that "serfdom is evil" and declared that he "intends to conduct a process against slavery." However, to abolish serfdom in this moment he considered it to be a "greater evil". He saw the danger of this measure in the fact that the destruction of the power of the landowners over the peasants would inevitably affect the autocracy, which relied on it. Characteristic is the statement of Nicholas I about the landowners as about their "hundred thousand police chiefs" guarding "order" in the countryside. The autocracy was afraid that the liberation of the peasants would not take place peacefully and would be accompanied by popular unrest. It also felt resistance to this measure "from the right" on the part of the landlords themselves, who did not want to give up their rights and privileges. Therefore, in the peasant question, it was limited to palliative measures aimed at somewhat softening the sharpness of social relations in the countryside.

To discuss the peasant question, Nicholas I created a total of 9 secret committees. The government was afraid to openly declare its intentions on this extremely sensitive issue. Members of the secret committees even signed a non-disclosure agreement. Those who violated it faced severe punishment. The specific results of the activities of the secret committees were very modest: various projects and assumptions were developed, which were usually limited to their discussion, separate decrees were issued, which, however, did not in the least shake the foundations of serfdom. During the reign of Nicholas I, more than a hundred different legalizations were issued concerning the landlord peasants. The decrees were aimed only at some softening of serfdom. In view of their optionality for the landlords, they either remained a dead letter, or found very limited use, because a lot of bureaucratic obstacles were put up for their implementation. Thus, decrees were issued prohibiting the sale of peasants without land or one land on a populated estate without peasants, the sale of peasants at a public auction "with the fragmentation of families", as well as the "satisfaction of state and private debts", paying for them with serfs, transferring peasants to yard category; but even these decrees, which seemed obligatory for the landowners, were ignored by them.

On April 2, 1842, a decree was issued on "obliged peasants", designed to "correct the harmful principle" of the decree of 1803 on "free cultivators" - the alienation of part of the landed property of the landowners (allotment peasant land) in favor of the peasants. Nicholas I proceeded from the principle of the inviolability of landownership. He declared the landed property of the landowners "forever inviolable in the hands of the nobility" as a guarantee of "future peace." The decree read: "All land without exception belongs to the landowner; this is a sacred thing, and no one can touch it." Based on this, the decree provided for the provision of personal freedom to the peasant at the will of the landowner, and the allotment of land not for ownership, but for use, for which the peasant was obliged (hence the name "obliged peasant") to perform, in agreement with the landowner, essentially the same corvée and quitrent, which he carried earlier, but with the condition that the landowner could not continue to increase them, just as the allotments themselves could not be taken away from the peasants and even reduced. The decree did not establish any specific norm for allotments and duties: everything depended on the will of the landowner, who, according to this decree, released his peasants to freedom. In the villages of "obliged peasants" "rural self-government" was introduced, but it was under the control of the landowner. This decree had no practical significance in resolving the peasant question. For 1842 - 1858 only 27,173 husbands were transferred to the position of "obliged". sex of peasants in seven landowners' estates. Such modest results were due not only to the opposition of the landowners, who met the decree with hostility, but also to the fact that the peasants themselves did not agree to such unfavorable conditions for themselves, which did not give them either land or true freedom.

The government acted more boldly where its measures on the peasant question did not affect the interests of the Russian nobility proper, namely in the western provinces (in Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine), where the landowners were predominantly Poles. Here, the government's intention was manifested to oppose the nationalist aspirations of the Polish gentry opposition to the Orthodox Belarusian and Ukrainian peasantry. In 1844, committees were set up in the western provinces to draw up "inventory", that is, descriptions of landlord estates with accurate fixation of peasant allotments and duties in favor of the landowner, which could no longer be changed. Inventory reform since 1847 first began to be carried out in the Right-bank Ukraine, and then in Belarus. It caused dissatisfaction with the local landowners, who opposed the regulation of their rights, as well as numerous unrest among the peasants, whose situation did not improve at all.

In 1837 - 1841. a reform was carried out in the state village by P. D. Kiselev. This prominent statesman, once close friend Decembrists, was a supporter of moderate reforms. Nicholas I called him his "chief of staff for the peasantry."

The state village was removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance and transferred to the management of the Ministry of State Property, established in 1837, headed by Kiselev. To manage the state village in the provinces, chambers of state property were created, they were subordinate to the districts of state property, which included from one to several counties (depending on the number of state peasants in them). Peasant volost and rural self-government, a volost court were introduced, which considered petty offenses and property litigation of peasants. The collection of dues from the revision soul was retained, but at the same time, the level of profitability of the peasant economy from the land and non-agricultural crafts was taken into account.

The reform in the state village was controversial. On the one hand, it somewhat softened the land crampedness, contributed to the development of entrepreneurship in the prosperous part of the state-owned village, but, on the other hand, it significantly increased tax oppression and introduced petty bureaucratic guardianship over the peasants. State village of the Urals, Volga and Central Russia responded to the reform with mass demonstrations, in which more than half a million peasants took part. To pacify them, large military forces were thrown, even using artillery.

On the whole, the measures taken by the government in resolving the peasant question during the reign of Nicholas I yielded negligible results. The situation of both the landowners and other categories of peasants did not improve, but much was done to preserve the power and privileges of the landowners. Only the upheavals of the Crimean War forced the autocracy to seriously prepare for the abolition of serfdom.

Slide 9

In the sphere of economic policy, the government turned out to be more consistent and went much further than in matters of social policy. The very processes of the country's economic development made it necessary to patronize industry, agricultural entrepreneurship, and trade, that is, ultimately to promote the development of bourgeois relations. Moreover, the autocracy, not without success, used the new phenomena in the economy in its own interests. Military spending and the cost of a growing bureaucracy required new sources of cash receipts. Hence the implementation of incentive measures for entrepreneurs: the adoption of protective tariffs, the encouragement of the activities of agricultural and industrial societies, the organization of exhibitions.

In 1839 - 1843. Minister of Finance E.F. Kankrin carried out a monetary reform. Prior to that, there was a double cash account in Russia - for banknote rubles and silver rubles, while the rate of banknotes was subject to constant fluctuations. Since 1839, a hard credit ruble was introduced, equated to 1 ruble. silver. Over the next four years, it was possible to save up for the reform necessary stock in gold and silver. On June 1, 1843, the manifesto began the exchange of all banknotes in circulation for state credit notes at the rate of 1 credit ruble for 3 rubles. 50 kop. banknotes. Kankrin's monetary reform significantly strengthened the country's financial system.

Under Nicoal IRussia was undergoing an industrial revolution. You will learn about the construction of railways by watching an excerpt from the documentary film "The Romanovs"

Watching a video - slide 10

slide 11

Under Nicholas I great attention paid professional education. Technological, Mining, Forestry, Land Surveying Institutes, etc. were opened in St. Petersburg. A vocational school and an agricultural school operated in Moscow. By the beginning of the reign of Nicholas 1, there were 49 gymnasiums in Russia, and by the end - 77.

The main place in the government ideology was occupied by the "Theory of official nationality". Count S.S. played a significant role in its development. Uvarov. He managed to prove to NicholasIthat the sciences, relying on the original Russian principles - enlightenment, autocracy and nationality - will become a reliable support for power.

1848 - 1855 marked by a sharp increase in political reaction in Russia. Contemporaries called the last years of the reign of Nicholas I "gloomy seven years." The intensification of the reaction manifested itself primarily in punitive measures in the sphere of education and the press. In order to more effectively supervise the periodical press, on February 27, 1848, a "temporary" secret committee was established under the chairmanship of A. S. Menshikov. A month later, it was replaced by a "permanent" one chaired by D. P. Buturlin. The Committee was called upon to exercise covert supervision over all materials that had already passed preliminary censorship and appeared in the press. Nicholas I set him the task: "As I myself have no time to read all the works of our literature, then you will do it for me and report on your comments, and then my case will deal with the guilty."

Numerous staff of officials of the Buturlin Committee annually looked through thousands of book titles and tens of thousands of issues of newspapers and magazines. They even monitored the content of provincial statements - official publications. The Committee also supervised the activities of censorship. Censorship was also introduced on foreign literature entering Russia, study guides and programs were carefully reviewed, even the annual reports of university rectors published in the press. The emperor repeatedly expressed his satisfaction with the work of the Committee and admonished him "to continue the work as successfully."

The era of "censorship terror" began, when even the well-intentioned newspaper of Grech and Bulgarin "Northern Bee" was subjected to penalties. Saltykov-Shchedrin was exiled to Vyatka for the story "A Tangled Case". I. S. Turgenev for a laudable obituary about N. V. Gogol in 1852 was first imprisoned in a police unit, then exiled under supervision to his Oryol estate. Even M. P. Pogodin then had the idea of ​​submitting an address to the tsar on behalf of the writers with a complaint about the excessive restrictions of censorship. But his colleagues in the pen did not support him, fearing the consequences.

The government took measures to terminate the ties of the Russian people with Western Europe. Foreigners were actually banned from entering Russia, and Russians - abroad (with the exception of special occasions with the permission of the central authorities). The authorities were given the right to dismiss subordinates recognized as "unreliable" without explaining the reasons for dismissal; at the same time, the complaints of higher officials dismissed at the arbitrariness were not taken into account.

Higher education was severely restricted. The contingent of students was reduced (no more than 300 people for each university), supervision over students and professors was strengthened; some of them were fired and replaced with more "trustworthy" ones; the teaching of state law and philosophy, hated by Nicholas I, was canceled. Rumors spread about the closure of universities, which prompted S. S. Uvarov to come up with a well-intentioned article in their defense. The article aroused the wrath of Nicholas I. Uvarov was replaced as Minister of Public Education by the extreme obscurantist Prince. P. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, who demanded from professors that they base all the conclusions of the sciences "not on speculation, but on religious truths." The famous historian S. M. Solovyov wrote at the beginning of the Crimean War about this time, or rather, timelessness: “We were in grave confusion: on the one hand, our patriotic feeling was terribly offended by the humiliation of Russia, on the other, we were convinced that only calamity, and precisely an unfortunate war, could bring about a salutary coup, stop further decay."

The results of Nicholas' domestic policy I . The completely formal attitude of the government and all bureaucracy to state affairs is striking. There is nothing surprising in this. The ministers and the bureaucracy were regarded only as executors of the supreme will. Often NicholasIreproached for being unwilling to change. The trouble was the opposite, the emperor undertook many innovations, without delving into their essence, and tried personally, but only formally, to manage each of them. In this aspiration of the autocrat, even with his excellent memory and great capacity for work, there was a weakness in public administration in the second quarter.XIXin. Nikolai's lack of competenceIhad in this case by no means decisive.

It was dangerous that the officials, receiving assignments and assessment of their activities from the monarch, found themselves in the position of blind and unreasoning executors. Such work does not require any special professionalism or interest in it. Moreover, the assessment made by an official depended little on the final result of his activity. NicholasI, of course, could not follow the daily work of the state apparatus, so he was forced to be satisfied with the reports of ministers, reports of departments, etc. All this led to postscripts, gross deceit, fanfare of reports. Russia began to be ruled not only by the Winter Palace, but also by the bureaucracy, or rather, its middle link, since not the ministers, but the head clerks knew about the true state of affairs in the country. Impunity and mutual responsibility further corrupted the state apparatus.

The real situation was far from brilliant. In 1842, for example, in all official places of the empire, 300 thousand cases were not completed, set out on 3 million sheets of paper.

Nikolay's attemptIto be like Peter in governing the countryIfailed. Nikolai Pavlovich failed to place all estates in the service of Russia. His intention was to subordinate all estates to the power of the monarch and the state apparatus headed by him.

Instead of a state of “common good,” Russia was turning into a state of general lack of rights. The life of the country, permeated not so much with a guiding idea as with all-pervasive espionage and denunciation, was bureaucratized and formalized.

Guided by the slogan: “I don’t need wise men, but loyal subjects,” Nikolai! he did not demand from his ministers initiative and professionalism in business, familiarity with advanced ideas, etc. In such hands, the administration of the empire could not fail to decline. True, in order for this to become absolutely clear, a foreign policy catastrophe was needed, emphasizing the illusiveness of the greatness of the Nikolaev system.

Serfdom has long been felt by the ruling circles as the main threat to the existing system. On the other hand, serfdom was the main connecting link of the entire Russian state mechanism. It is not surprising that under such conditions, the attempts of the autocracy to abolish or change serfdom looked indecisive and half-hearted, speaking rather of a desire to “ennoble” this barbarian institution, rather than part with it.

Anchoring

1. Front poll:

What were the reasons for the transformations carried out under NicholasI?

What was the attitude of NicholasIto the peasant question? What measures were taken to solve it?

Why, despite the unlimited power of the emperor, NicholasIcould not solve the peasant question, although he understood the perniciousness of maintaining serfdom?

What reforms were carried out under NicholasIin finance?

How education developed under NicholasI?

What is the essence of the theory of "official nationality"?

3.2. Working with the document “From the Apology of L.V. Dubelt, manager III Branch in 1839-1856, in defense of domestic foundations "( see Attachment)

Questions for the document:

On the basis of the document, describe the arguments in favor of the theory of "official nationality", which were expressed by its supporters.

Why do you think the author of the document wrote it?

4. Homework: paragraph 55, using additional literature, write a biographical essay about one of the statesmen of the time of NicholasI.

References:

Artemov V.V., Lubchenkov Yu.N. History - textbook. M., 2012

Biography of NicholasI

Domestic policy of NicholasI

Domestic and foreign policy under Nicholas I

Synopsis on the history of Russia

Nicholas I (1825-1855), who took the throne under the roar of cannons on Senate Square, did not differ in liberalism. He was characterized by straightforward despotism. Frightened by the uprising of the Decembrists, he led the fight against the revolutionary movement and those phenomena of social and political life that could contribute to the growth of the revolutionary masses. Historians call the reign of Nicholas I "the apogee of autocracy." Extremely militarized in spirit, Nikolai adored military parades and sought to subordinate everything to army discipline. Most of his ministers were generals. Even the church department was headed by a hussar colonel. Russia has become like a military barracks. The secret police and censorship received the widest powers. Even private correspondence was perused.

Nicholas I strictly defended autocracy and serfdom in its original form. To strengthen the existing order, under the leadership of M.M. Speransky, the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire for 1649-1826 (1830) and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (1833) were prepared. A monetary reform is being carried out. To strengthen the positions of the nobility, he limited access to it to persons of other classes.

New autocrat strengthened the punitive apparatus. In 1826, the 3rd branch of the Own Chancellery was established to lead the secret police, headed by Count A.Kh. Benkendorf. He also became the chief of the gendarme corps, created in 1827. Own chancellery with new branches acquired the features of a body of supreme power. The departments of the chancellery were in charge of the most important branches of state administration.

Nikolai hoped to streamline, bring under regulation all spheres of Russian life: from religious (forced implantation of Orthodoxy, persecution of schismatics, liquidation of the Uniate Church in Ukraine in 1839) to household (decree on painting city roofs in strictly defined colors). Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov promoted the ideology of "official nationality". According to this theory, the life of Russia is based on a "triune" formula: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.

remained reactionary education policy. Life demanded the opening of new educational institutions. But they were taken under the strict control of the government. Higher education only nobles could receive. The tuition fee has been raised several times. The ideology of "official nationality" was implanted in educational institutions and public opinion.

During the reign of Nicholas I, who was aware of the need to resolve the peasant issue in order to prevent a revolution, more than 10 committees were created that tried to solve the problem without affecting the foundations of the serfdom. Nicholas issued a series of laws that had a private and non-binding character. So, according to the decree of 1842 on "obliged peasants", the latter, with the consent of the landowner, could receive personal rights and for the agreed duties - the landlord's land for use. Under this decree, only 24 thousand people out of 10 million serfs were released.

The most significant was reform of the management of state lands and state peasants. The Ministry of State Property was created. In the state village, the collection of taxes, duties, recruitment kits is streamlined. From the inhabited areas, the peasants moved to the sparsely populated areas, where they were allocated land. The creation of the ministry increased the number of officials controlling the peasants and increased bureaucratic oppression and extortion. However, the position of the state peasants was easier than the landlords.

Meanwhile, in the conditions of the crisis of the feudal-serf system, the folk and national freedom movement . If in the first quarter of the 19th century 650 peasant unrest were recorded, then in the second it was already 1090. Such major uprisings as the "cholera riots" in Sevastopol and St. Petersburg (1830-1831), the uprising in the Novgorod military settlements of 1831 are known. The liberation movement on the national outskirts was brutally suppressed - Ustim Karmalyuk in Ukraine (1832-1835), the Polish uprising (1830-1831), the uprising in Georgia (1841). The Russian autocracy encountered stubborn resistance during the pacification of the Caucasus.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I was focused on maintaining the status quo in all areas of life, especially the foundations of serfdom, the old political institutions. She ignored the pressing problems of the economy (industry, transport, technical re-equipment army and navy). The unwillingness to carry out bourgeois transformations had the most tragic effect already at the end of the reign of Nicholas I, turning into Russia's defeat in the Crimean War.

Therefore, he could not count on the throne, which determined the direction of his upbringing and education. From an early age, he was fond of military affairs, especially his outside and prepared for a military career.

In 1817, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich married the daughter of the Prussian king, who received the name Alexandra Feodorovna in Orthodoxy. They had 7 children, the eldest of whom was the future Emperor Alexander II.

In 1819, Emperor Alexander I informed Nicholas of the intention of their brother Konstantin Pavlovich to renounce his right to the throne, and, accordingly, power would have to pass to Nicholas. In 1823, Alexander I issued a Manifesto proclaiming Nikolai Pavlovich the heir to the throne. The manifesto was a family secret and was not published. So after sudden death Alexander I in 1825, confusion arose with the accession to the throne of a new monarch.

On December 14, 1825, the oath to the new Emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich was appointed. On the same day, the "Decembrists" planned an uprising with the aim of overthrowing autocracy and demanding the signing of the "Manifesto to the Russian people", which proclaimed civil liberties. Informed, Nicholas postponed the oath to December 13, and the uprising was crushed.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I

From the very beginning of his reign, Nicholas I declared the need for reforms and created a "committee on December 6, 1826" to prepare the reforms. An important role in the state began to play "His Majesty's Own Chancellery", which was constantly expanding by creating many branches.

Nicholas I instructed a special commission led by M.M. Speransky to develop a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. By 1833, two editions had been printed: The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, starting with the Council Code of 1649 and up to the last decree of Alexander I, and The Code of Current Laws of the Russian Empire. The codification of laws, carried out under Nicholas I, streamlined Russian legislation, facilitated the conduct of legal practice, but did not bring changes to the political and social structure of Russia.

Emperor Nicholas I was an autocrat in spirit and an ardent opponent of the introduction of a constitution and liberal reforms in the country. In his opinion, society should live and act like a good army, regulated and in accordance with the laws. The militarization of the state apparatus under the auspices of the monarch is a characteristic feature of the political regime of Nicholas I.

He was extremely suspicious of public opinion, literature, art, education fell under the yoke of censorship, and measures were taken to limit the periodical press. As a national dignity, official propaganda began to extol unanimity in Russia. The idea "The people and the tsar are one" was the dominant one in the education system in Russia under Nicholas I.

According to the "theory of official nationality" developed by S.S. Uvarov, Russia has its own way of development, does not need the influence of the West and must be isolated from the world community. Russian empire under Nicholas I, she was called the "gendarme of Europe" for keeping peace in European countries from revolutionary uprisings.

In social policy, Nicholas I emphasized the strengthening of the estate system. In order to protect the nobility from "contamination", the "December 6 Committee" proposed to establish a procedure according to which the nobility was acquired only by inheritance. And for service people to create new estates - "bureaucratic", "eminent", "honorary" citizens. In 1845, the emperor issued a "Decree on Majorates" (the indivisibility of noble estates during inheritance).

Serfdom under Nicholas I enjoyed the support of the state, and the tsar signed a manifesto in which he stated that there would be no changes in the position of serfs. But Nicholas I was not a supporter of serfdom and secretly prepared materials on the peasant question in order to make things easier for his followers.

Foreign policy of Nicholas I

The most important aspects of foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I were the return to the principles of the Holy Alliance (Russia's struggle against revolutionary movements in Europe) and the Eastern Question. Russia under Nicholas I participated in the Caucasian War (1817-1864), the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828), the Russo-Turkish War (1828-1829), as a result of which Russia annexed the eastern part of Armenia , the entire Caucasus, received the eastern coast of the Black Sea.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the most memorable was the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Russia was forced to fight against Turkey, England, France. During the siege of Sevastopol, Nicholas I was defeated in the war and lost the right to have a naval base on the Black Sea.

The unsuccessful war showed Russia's backwardness from the advanced European countries and how unviable the conservative modernization of the empire turned out to be.

Nicholas I died on February 18, 1855. Summing up the reign of Nicholas I, historians call his era the most unfavorable in the history of Russia, starting from the Time of Troubles.

---