The laid commission worked in. Domestic policy of Catherine II

The laid down commission is one of the ideas of enlightened absolutism, which was based on a modern view of the legal system. Improving legislation has been one of the most important tasks of domestic policy for many years. Even Peter 1 tried to solve this problem to no avail. Similar attempts to change legislation were made by Catherine 1, Anna Ioannovna and Peter 2. In an attempt to resolve this issue, Catherine 2 relied on the works of European philosophers, changing their ideas to suit Russian realities.

The established commission began its work on July 30, 1767. The manifesto on its creation was signed on December 16, 1766. The dissolution of the commission was announced on December 18, 1768, under the pretext of war with the Ottoman Empire.

The main reasons for convening the commission were the creation of a unified set of laws, as well as the study of public opinion about the current state of affairs in the country at various social levels.

Stacked commission concept

The commission laid down under Catherine was distinguished by at least three important details:

1. Wider representation.
2. Catherine compiled an “Instruction”, in which she outlined her views and wishes, which formed the basis of the Statutory Commission of 1767-1768.
3. Receiving orders to deputies “from below”.

Representative offices of the commission

The established commission consisted of 564 deputies. The right to nominate deputies was granted to the following categories of citizens:

• Townspeople. 1 deputy per city. 39% of the composition.
• Nobles. 1 deputy per county. 30% of the composition.
• Peasants (except serfs). 1 deputy from each province. 14% of the composition.
• Cossacks and other segments of the population. 12% of the composition.
• Government officials. 5% of the composition.

This was the composition of the Statutory Commission. Considering that government officials were also nobles, this category had a numerical superiority.

Representatives of only 2 segments of the population did not take part in the work of the Statutory Commission: serfs and the clergy.

Historical reference

Deputies of the Legislative Commission received large benefits. They received additional salaries for participating in the work of the commission. All deputies until the end of their days received protection from the death penalty, from physical punishment, and from confiscation of property. Any court decisions regarding deputies could only come into force with the personal approval of the empress. Each deputy received a special badge with the motto - “The Bliss of Each and All.”

Catherine's instructions for the work of the commission

The established commission under Catherine 2 began its work with the “Order”, in which the empress conveyed her point of view and gave direction for the work of the commission. The “order”, it must be said, turned out to be quite extensive. It had 20 chapters and 526 articles. This work was based on the works of other educators of that time:

• 245 articles of the "Mandate" relate to Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Times".
• 106 articles of the “Order” refer to Beccaria’s “Regulations on Crimes and Punishments”.
• The Germans Bielfeld and Just had a great influence on Catherine and her “order”.

The main message to the Commission was that the emphasis in its work should be on strengthening the power of the autocrat. Catherine 2 repeatedly repeated that for Russia this is the only acceptable form of power.

The Russian sovereign must be an autocrat. All the fullness of power must be united in his person, like our vast territory, which is united in Russia. Any other rule other than an autocratic one will only cause harm to Russia.

Ekaterina 2

The “Mandate” was an extremely controversial document. For example, the main task that faced the Statutory Commission was the creation of a law before which everyone would be equal. This was stated in the first lines of the document. But this was the main contradiction. Firstly, equality of law for everyone contradicted the class system of Russia. Secondly, some provisions of the “Order” came into clear conflict with the main task. Here are, for example, some of these provisions:

• Peasants live in the village and this is their destiny. The nobles live in the city and administer justice.
• It is unacceptable when everyone wants to be equal to someone who is approved by law to be a boss.

The main problem of that time (the issue of serfs) was practically not resolved. The established commission was supposed to create laws under which “landowners would have to apply taxes with greater caution.” This was the huge problem with “Nakaz”. In it, Catherine 2 tried to combine the enlightened ideas of bourgeois society and feudal methods of governing Russia. It was impossible to do this. We had to look for compromises in everything. Largely because of this, the work of the Statutory Commission was ineffective and did not lead to any positive results.

Instructions to deputies from various classes

One of the tasks of the commission was to understand the demands of society. To do this, it was decided to receive orders from all the main classes of Russia in order to clearly understand what issues are relevant for society.

• The nobles demanded tougher punishment for peasants for running away. They also demanded that recruitment into the army be reduced in order to protect their serfs.
• Officials and deputies literally demanded the abolition of the “Table of Ranks,” which was introduced under Peter 1. The reason was that the Table of Ranks opened the way to any leadership positions for ordinary people.
• Citizens complained about bureaucracy in all government agencies. The townspeople wanted to receive the privileges of the nobles (prohibition of physical punishment, permission to have serfs, buy them and be the owners of manufactories). They were supported by the merchants.
• State peasants complained that landowners were taking away the best land for themselves, as well as a large poll tax.

Once again, I want to note that no one accepted orders from the serfs. Catherine 2 understood the complexity of the situation and its explosiveness, but talking about freedoms for the peasants meant making enemies among all other classes. Therefore, the Legislative Commission did not even consider the issues of liberating the serfs and improving their living conditions. The performance of nobleman Grigory Korobin is worthy of mention. This person was the only one from the entire commission to raise the question of the terrible situation of serfs in the country. However, his speech was met with hostility by all members of the laid down commission.

Results of the work of the Statutory Commission

The established commission of Catherine 2 worked for almost 1.5 years. During this time, 203 general meetings were held. These meetings did not produce any concrete results. As a result, the Code was not developed, and the only result of the commission’s work can be reduced to the fact that the social issue has once again become acute in Russia. At the meetings, deputies from different classes could not agree among themselves.

Why did Catherine entrust the Statutory Commission to deputies, and not to relevant officials? History has no answer to this question. It is only clear that a group of people with different interests, without any legal knowledge and skills, cannot make up the law for the country. This should be done by specialists. And as soon as Nicholas 1 entrusted this issue to the relevant officials, Russia received the Code.

The commission laid down was sharply criticized by many prominent people. Here are some sayings.

The laid commission is a farce. It’s in vain that Voltaire is interested in Catherine and her affairs. This is a hypocritical work, and Voltaire himself cannot know the whole truth.

Pushkin, Alexander Sergeyevich

In Russia, the Legislative Commission has begun its work, which is supposed to create fair laws. But all her work is a real comedy.

Ambassador of France to Russia

Many prominent figures of the 18th and 19th centuries claim that the Statutory Commission was an attempt by Catherine 2 to glorify her name. This is nothing more than an element of propaganda, which was of a popular nature, but could not lead to any positive changes in Russia.

the name of the temporary body that operated in Russia in 1767 - 1768. with the aim of creating a new set of laws based on the Council Code of 1649 and the legal norms that came into force after its publication. 572 deputies represented the nobility, merchants, Cossacks, and urban residents. The majority of the Commission was represented by noble deputies - 45%. The commission worked for about two years, but was unable to develop new legislation, since representatives of each class defended only their own interests.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Stacked commission

convened in 1767. 572 deputies represented the nobility, merchants, and Cossacks. The leading role in the Commission was played by noble deputies - 45%. Catherine II tried to implement the ideas of Western European thinkers about a fair society into the new legislation. Catherine revised the works of outstanding thinkers Sh.L. Montesquieu, D. Diderot and others and compiled the famous “Order of Empress Catherine” for the Commission. The “Mandate” consisted of 20 chapters, divided into 526 articles. In general, it was a solid work that spoke about the need for a strong autocratic power in Russia and the class structure of Russian society, about the rule of law, about the relationship between law and morality, about the harm of torture and corporal punishment. At the fifth meeting, the Commission presented Empress Catherine II with the title of “Great, Wise Mother of the Fatherland.” The commission worked for more than two years, but its work was not crowned with success, since the nobility and deputies from other classes stood guard only for their rights and privileges. The work of the Statutory Commission showed that the nobility could not become a spokesman for the interests of all classes. In Russia there was no force other than the monarchy capable of rising above its narrow selfish interests and acting in the interests of all classes. The attempt of the enlightened absolutism of Catherine II to transfer Western European liberal ideas to Russian soil ended in failure. The commission was dissolved.

The reign of Empress Catherine II (1762–1796) was marked by a number of reform initiatives coming from the heights of the royal throne. By the time she ascended the throne, Catherine II realized the need for a comprehensive modernization of economic and social relations, changes in the cultural and ideological spheres of society. The reign of Catherine II was characterized by a number of reform initiatives in the spheres of power, some of which were implemented. An attempt to implement the Empress’s initiative for a comprehensive update of Russian legislation was made soon after the start of the new reign - through the convening in 1767 of the Commission on the drafting of a new Code (Legated Commission, abbreviated as the Criminal Code), instructions ("Order") for which were drawn up by herself empress. The commission consisted of 564 deputies elected from virtually all segments of the population (except those who did not have personal freedom), as well as those appointed from the government. Commission classes opened on July 31, 1767; A.I. became the marshal (chairman) of the commission. Bibikov. To develop certain issues, the Criminal Code could establish private commissions. Despite the fact that the commission held dozens of meetings and discussed a number of issues at them (mainly related to the legal status of certain segments of the population - the peasantry, nobility, merchants), the procedure for its work was not worked out, voting was not carried out on the issues discussed, and in general with From a practical point of view, the work of the management committee was fruitless. In 1768, under the pretext of the outbreak of war with Turkey, the work of the Criminal Code was interrupted. Despite this, being a new experience in the work of a quasi-representative institution in the 18th century, the Criminal Code became an important episode on the path to the creation of both popular representation and civil society in general in Russia.

The ideas underlying the work of the Management Committee, its composition, the progress and results of the work have traditionally aroused significant interest of both Russian and foreign researchers. In foreign historiography, the leading position in the study of these issues belongs to Anglo-American historical science. In this work, we will try to analyze the scientific experience accumulated by historians of the USA and Great Britain on the problems of studying the history of the Legislative Commission of Catherine II, studying the factors of formation and evolution of the ideological attitudes of Catherine II in the light of the key socio-political problems of Russia in the second half of the 18th century.

Reasons for convening the Management Committee

Regarding the reasons for convening the Management Committee, researchers express different opinions.

Thus, the Australian biographer of Catherine II, Ya. Gray, believes that one of the main motives for convening the Criminal Code was the power ambitions of the empress, who sought to show herself as the most enlightened monarch of Europe, caring more “about her influence on European [public] opinion than on her citizens.” In Europe, her proposals could be discussed and evaluated by the most prominent intellectuals. The chorus of European intellectuals who “glorified” Catherine was led by Voltaire. Both Catherine and Voltaire were magnificent actors, adventurers who loved fame and power, capable of captivating their contemporaries with the “splendor” of their personalities. Their correspondence was filled with mutual flattery.

Polish-American historian, academician of the Polish Academy of Sciences, honorary professor at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana) Andrzej Walicki also shares the opinion that the Criminal Code was convened by Catherine II in order to gain a reputation as an “enlightened monarch.”

Professor at the University of Aberdeen Paul Dukes, who devoted a special study to the relationship between Catherine II and the nobility based on the materials of the Code Commission, notes that for the Empress the Code was a tool not only for creating a new code, but also for legitimizing her own power. Partly for this reason, she decided to convene the Criminal Code not in “bureaucratic” St. Petersburg, but in Moscow, the ancient capital, the stronghold of the old nobility. At the same time, the Criminal Code should not have resembled parliament in its activities, including the presence of some kind of “opposition party.” The fairly large representation of cities suggests that Catherine wanted to increase the cohesion and strength of the urban population. Also, apparently, she wanted to reduce centrifugal tendencies in remote provinces, including them completely in the orbit of influence of the Empire. Finally, the Criminal Code was supposed to change for the better the image of Russia in the eyes of Europe - including by rooting the image of a monarch-legislator, standing on a par with Frederick II and Maria Theresa, clearly aware of her tasks in various spheres of politics; as well as the adaptation of Western ideas to the Russian situation.

As Princeton University professor (later director of the US Library of Congress) James Billington writes in his voluminous work “The Icon and the Ax: An Experience in the Interpretation of Russian Culture” (published in the original in 1966 and republished in Russian in 2001), the convening of the Criminal Code was for the empress an attempt to “justify autocracy” on the basis of modern Western philosophy.

Columbia University professor Mark Raev (1923–2008) supports the view that one of the main motives for convening the Criminal Code was the legitimation of Catherine II as a monarch who had actually usurped the throne. Another important motive was the desire to win the favor of foreign monarchs and forces that influenced public opinion in the West. Moreover, Russia really needed a new code of laws, although the success of this matter could hardly be achieved with the help of a cumbersome, crowded commission.

British researcher, member of the British Academy and the Royal Historical Society, author of the fundamental monograph “Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great” Isabel de Madariaga (1919–2014) shares the view that one of the main reasons for convening the Criminal Code for Catherine II was the legitimation of her power. In addition, “by allowing some of the grievances accumulated among various sections of society to be aired openly, it thereby created an emergency valve for the release of discontent and made it possible for social forces to feel that they, too, were participating in the political life of the country.”

John Alexander, a professor at the University of Kansas and biographer of Catherine II, notes that the Criminal Code was an ambitious attempt by Catherine II to codify Russian legislation according to the recipes of Western enlighteners.

"Order" of the Legislative Commission

When assessing the theoretical foundations of the work of the Criminal Code, considerable attention is paid by Anglo-American historians to the analysis of Catherine’s “Order” of the Criminal Code.

According to Y. Gray, “Nakaz” was a document of striking novelty for Russia. In developing it, Catherine relied not on Russian laws and customs, but entirely on the latest Western philosophical ideas (C. Montesquieu, C. Beccaria, etc. - many articles were almost literally copied from their works). As a result, 4/5 of the volume of “Nakaz” was borrowed. At the same time, Catherine II did not claim originality and authorship of new legislative principles. Through “Nakaz” she tried to apply Western experience to Russian reality, and therefore “Nakaz” remained largely alien to her. Catherine herself understood this. Having passed the “censorship” of Catherine’s closest advisers and church leaders, the “Nakaz” changed by more than half. But “even in such a stripped-down form ... “The Mandate” was a wonderful work.” Many of its paragraphs testified to Catherine’s understanding of the main “evils” of Russian life, which especially concerned the situation of the peasants, the need to introduce an effective administration and judicial system, abolish torture, and soften the political regime in the country.

In “The Mandate,” according to J. Billington, there was a noticeable influence of the ideas of not only French enlighteners (especially Montesquieu and Voltaire), not only C. Beccaria, but also such English thinkers as I. Bentham and W. Blackstone.

As the American scientist K. Papmel writes, “Nakaz” was very important from the point of view of the development of freedom of speech in Russia. It was actually the beginning of the history of this type of freedom in our country: in this document, for the first time from the height of the throne, statements were made about the importance of freedom of speech and the principles on which it should be based. The works of the Criminal Code also make it possible to assess the degree of interest of the authorities in the free expression of thoughts. However, society itself (as evidenced by the orders to local deputies) was almost not worried about the problem of freedom of speech. The indifference of society to this problem was completely out of keeping with European traditions.

“The Mandate,” according to I. de Madariaga, was one of the most outstanding political treatises compiled by any of the rulers of the New Age. At the same time, the speed with which Catherine grasped ideas related to her plans is amazing. She did not reproduce the ideas of the Enlightenment without any criticism: for example, she managed to quite skillfully circumvent Montesquieu’s assertion that “by the nature of things” a large empire should be a despotism, replacing the concept of “despotism” with the concept of “autocracy”, using further in the text “Instructions” ” to his empire the same definitions that Montesquieu applied to the monarchy. The “Nakaz” also quite clearly reflected the empress’s views on the principle of equality (“the equality of all citizens is that everyone should be subject to the same laws”), the class division of society, laws, the structure of state institutions, etc. I. de Madariaga believes, that the reproaches of Catherine II for the discrepancies between the principles of the “Nakaz” and Russian reality are erroneous, since the “Nakaz” was not a legislative program, but only an expression of the ideals to which society should strive. First of all, the “Order” was aimed at shaping public opinion and certain changes in the consciousness of the ruling circles. This goal was partially achieved: subsequent legislation was largely imbued with the spirit of the principles underlying the “Nakaz”.

Leeds University professor Simon Dixon believes that Catherine II was devoted throughout her life to the "trinity of reason, humanity and utility." It was these principles that formed the basis of the “Instruction”. The Empress wanted to build in Russia, based on the ideas of Western enlighteners, “a tolerant and educated society in which the freedom and property of her subjects would be protected by unequivocal laws established by a virtuous sovereign and embodied ... by judges who were supposed to consider the accused as innocent until his guilt was established.” " Such radical ideas have not yet been preached in Russia. In the biography of Catherine II, written by S. Dixon, “The Mandate” is assessed as an attempt to create a theoretical foundation for the reign of the empress and at the same time as a call to society to accept educational principles as guiding principles. The “Nakaz” set out Catherine’s understanding of the model of a tolerant, educated society in which her subjects, their freedom and property would be protected by the same laws established by a virtuous ruler. Catherine’s idea that “Russia is a European power” was intended to challenge the prevailing opinion of Russia as a backward country.

According to University of North Carolina professor David Griffiths, Catherine's Mandate was "a logical rationale for autocracy without despotism." At the same time, despite the lengthy discussions about freedom, there are no provisions in the “Order” that propose limiting the power of the monarch. But still, “Catherine’s plan to introduce governance in Russia based on the rule of law... served to significantly improve the legal position of Russians in relation to the state.” One of the main tasks of the “Nakaz” and the Criminal Code was to create an environment “in which Russians would act as citizens, equal before the law, and not as subjects, defenseless against the arbitrariness of the ruler.” However, this did not happen, since Catherine II distributed privileges in accordance with the social function of a person. Following Montesquieu, Catherine II argued in “Instructions” that such a vast country as Russia requires autocratic rule. However, Catherine did not accept Montesquieu's position that the Russian version of autocracy should be despotic. Catherine believed that “with a wise policy, Russia can be transformed into a Western-style monarchy, despotism can remain a thing of the past.” Catherine II often (at least before the French Revolution) declared her republican sympathies. In the context of the 18th century, according to Griffiths, society as a whole did not doubt the compatibility of autocratic power and republicanism; it was customary to contrast despotic power and republicanism . This view was also shared by Catherine II, whose policies were in harmony with the ideas of the era.

American researcher Cynthia Whittaker considers “Nakaz” the first systematic interpretation of Russian legislation in the 18th century and an encyclopedia of political thought of its time. At the same time, the thought of the monarch and the public was nourished by the same mental sources; Never before or since have the Russian monarch and society been such close like-minded people. The “mandate” also contributed to improving the image of Russia in the world, since the monarchy in Russia was presented as “real”, compatible with legality, equality, and freedom. The “Nakaz” presented a “systematic philosophy of monarchy” - and a completely secular one, without reference to the Divine origin of power. The “Mandate” defended the idea of ​​compatibility of the monarchy with the Enlightenment, legality, and protection of civil rights. In general, in the "Nakaz" an image emerged of a monarch who voluntarily limited himself - the father (mother) of his people and at the same time a reformer, acting with the help of enlightened statesmen and in the interests of all social groups.

According to J. Alexander, the “Great Mandate” was an attempt by Catherine II to apply the “universal principles” of management, borrowed from Western thinkers (C. Montesquieu, D. Diderot, C. Beccaria, J. Bielfeld and Y. Lipsia), to Russian reality . Also, with this “collection of educational maxims and sentiments,” the empress tried to influence the public in Russia and abroad, creating for herself the image of a “ruler-philosopher” who deserved international recognition and “immortality” in the eyes of readers. The “Nakaz” reflected Catherine’s political credo (the desire to rule by law and reason, to ensure peace and well-being of all subjects). However, for example, almost nothing was said about the prospects of serfdom in the “Nakaz”. Overall, the Mandate was an ambivalent, citizen-friendly project, a pledge that the Empress would rule in an "enlightened, sensitive and moderate" manner, with the goal of improving Russia as a European power.

As can be seen from the “Order” and the organization of debates in the Criminal Code, writes M. Raev, Catherine II simply wanted to gain approval from public opinion for the basic principles that underlay her program (inviolability of person and property, freedom of economic activity, etc.). It may be an exaggeration to recognize the “Nakaz” as a document that created the outlines for the formation of civil society in Russia, but without a doubt it was an important step in this direction, since it affirmed the main prerequisite for this - the protection of personality and property by law.

According to the American researcher George Yani, “Nakaz” was the first expression in Russia of the monarch’s desire to create a system of “legal” governance. But it was not a statement of generally accepted values; on the contrary, being copied from the works of Montesquieu, Beccaria and others, it was addressed rather to the nobility, who could not yet understand the ideas expressed in it. Catherine’s borrowed ideals became rather a kind of “Russian myth”.

Professor at the University of Waterloo (Ontario) A. Lentin believes that Catherine’s “Order” was compiled for the Criminal Code primarily for pragmatic reasons: the empress sought to create a positive reputation for herself in society and expand her social support (primarily among the nobility). The “Mandate” was not original, but it was an action plan of “enlightened absolutism” to create a framework for the rule of law (although it was not planned to destroy the institution of autocracy). In general, for Russia of its time, “Nakaz” was certainly a progressive work. On the other hand, under the influence of her circle, Catherine revised the original version of the “Nakaz” (which also contained hints about the abolition of serfdom), and its circulation was limited only to the highest echelons of the civil service. In any case, this was the first broad experience of self-assessment by the Russian authorities of the current state of the country, an appeal to natural law and “utilitarian ethics”, a call for reforms, the humanization of criminal law, a reflection of the authorities’ desire for public well-being and the rule of law. Thus, the “Nakaz” was abundant food for the minds of educated Russians.

According to the famous American historian Richard Pipes, “the book [“Order”] is full of the most noble feelings, but the trouble was that they had nothing to do with modern Russia” (for example, it is not clear how the idea of ​​equality could be applied to Russia everyone before the law, when more than 80% of the country's inhabitants were serfs).

“The Mandate,” according to California State Polytechnic University history professor Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, showed both Catherine II’s familiarity with liberal ideas and her desire to protect and strengthen the personal absolute power of the monarch in the direction set by Peter I.

Tasks, progress of work of the management company

Analyzing the tasks, progress and results of the work of the Criminal Code, Anglo-American historians note various aspects of this problem.

According to Ya. Gray, the tasks of the Criminal Code, which was supposed to convey the needs of the people to the ruling spheres and take part in the drafting of a new set of laws, were beyond the capabilities of many deputies, who were confused by the complexity of their functions. The work of the Management Committee was mainly of a preparatory nature, and therefore many of the commission’s undertakings were not completed. The bulk of the work was spent listening to orders from localities that had not been seriously considered. The estates each demanded respect for their own rights, which increased the diversity of opinions expressed; In addition, the Criminal Code “stumbled” over the work procedure, class and religious conflicts in its environment. As a result, the work before the commission turned out to be virtually impossible.

According to P. Dux, the Criminal Code did not strive for anything more than a moderate reform of the existing mechanisms of power.

A. Lentin believes that after the opening of the Criminal Code, interest in it quickly dried up, and the work of the commissions actually degenerated into disputes between nobles and merchants on the issue of owning serfs. The war with Turkey was only a pretext for dissolution; The main task of the Criminal Code - codification of laws - was postponed for another 60 years.

American historian Robert Jones in the book “The Liberation of the Russian Nobility, 1762–1785.” based on materials from Soviet archives (TsGADA, TsGIAL, LOII AS USSR) analyzes the problems discussed at the meetings of the Criminal Code concerning the Russian nobility. Jones notes a certain dispersion of opinions and needs of the nobility across regions (i.e., the nobility did not act as a united front, unanimously demanding certain class preferences). Common complaints from the nobility about economic problems (flight of serfs, bans on the production of alcohol, bad roads, competition from merchants and entrepreneurs of non-noble origin, etc.). The noble orders concerning the ownership of serfs by representatives of other classes were generally of a “defensive” nature; their purpose was to protect the privileges of the nobility in this regard by the state. The nobility also asked the state to protect its ranks from the invasion of non-noble elements. Orders from provincial nobles, according to R. Jones, more clearly reflected the needs of the nobility than the speeches of noble deputies - despite the fact that the orders, of course, lacked uniformity and completeness. However, they give a fairly clear picture of what rural Russia and the provincial nobility needed in 1767. Provincial nobles, through the Criminal Code, directly appealed to the state with a request to improve the economic conditions of the estates, help solve the problem of low yields, and provide more opportunities for education their children, etc. Everywhere in the orders one could see the desire of the nobles to freely dispose of lands, natural resources and serfs. The orders of the nobility in the Criminal Code, summarizes R. Jones, do not demonstrate the self-awareness of the nobility as a single social stratum that puts forward certain claims to the ruling spheres; on the contrary, the nobles appear in the orders as some kind of marginalized people, concerned about the loss of their socio-economic status, who do not consider the state to be their patron and criticize its institutions (administration, courts, etc. - in fact, all its institutions except autocracy). Also, the orders of the nobles in the Criminal Code contrast with the opinion that the Decree on the freedom of the nobility created a certain new privileged landowning class. “Liberty” in the form in which it was granted to the nobility became “a restrictive and inconvenient condition” for the ordinary nobleman. In general, the provincial nobles felt “cut off from the state,” and practically the only outlet for them was complaints directly to the empress. In any case, their future depended not on themselves, but on Catherine II and the way in which she planned to complete the “liberation” of the nobility.

The nobility, according to M. Raev, most “persistently and energetically” (compared to other groups of the population) defended their interests. At the same time, representatives of all classes and social groups wanted to receive guarantees of property rights from the heights of the throne, to secure protection from arbitrary arrests, forced confiscation of property and from “extremely primitive judicial procedures.” But, in fact, no group of the population seems to have sought to establish either a general set of laws or a kind of “charter” that defined the rights and privileges of representatives of specific social groups. The ruling elites obviously “preferred relationships based on individual supreme power to the framework of laws and a clutter of impersonal statutes.” In addition, the debates in the Criminal Code clearly showed that “representatives of different social groups advocated division into classes and estates according to their socio-economic functions.” In general, the deputies of the Criminal Code had “a completely “medieval” concept of a society based on the hereditary division of functions, a society with an “organic” structure, in other words, a stable and harmonious society in which all sources of conflict and confusion have been eliminated in advance.” Based on such ideas, it was possible to understand that Russian society expressed aspirations “directly opposite to the course towards a regular state ... according to the plans of Peter I.” The understanding of politics - even among deputies from the highest strata - was rather passive. In this situation, what was radical and even “revolutionary” was not society, but the government. According to M. Raev, Catherine II “was surprised by what was revealed to her in the orders of the deputies and the debates of the Commission on the Code.” She believed that “the norms and methods of a regular state, complemented by a program of an active, dynamic and productive society, are approved by all enlightened circles of Russian society,” and that after coming to power, it would be enough for her to only “improve the established system.” Many of the ideas that the empress heard from the lips of the representatives of society themselves in 1767 became a “revelation” for her.

As A. Valitsky writes, the meetings of the Criminal Code “turned into solemn praises to the Empress.” However, over time, at meetings, some deputies began to raise issues that went beyond the scope of the “Nakaz”: the privileges of the nobility and merchant class, the problems of serfdom.

As J. Alexander notes, orders to deputies ranged from confusing and contradictory to actually ready-made legislative proposals, divided into articles. The work of the general meeting of the management company and private commissions was characterized by a lack of coordination. Because of this, work was idle, there was a lot of confusion, and this irritated Catherine II. The Empress sought to remove the taint of partiality and contradictory opinions from the meetings. Basically, her “intrusions” into the work of the Criminal Code remained behind the scenes and were carried out through Prosecutor General A.I. Vyazemsky. A lot of opinions were expressed in the Criminal Code on the issue of serfdom. The Empress realized the explosiveness of this problem: conflicts of opposing interests in the Criminal Code threatened to aggravate relations between peasants and landowners and cut off the path to “peaceful, gradual and legal transformations.”

The work of the Criminal Code, according to I. de Madariaga, was perceived by many deputies not as participation in a fateful event for Russia, but only as a new type of burdensome public service. At the same time, by its very nature, the Criminal Code “had nothing in common with modern representative bodies, with parliaments,” being, in essence, an institution of the “old regime,” a purely advisory body and, strictly speaking, was not a legislative body at all. It is also not surprising that deputies from government agencies took part in it. The main part of the work of the Criminal Code, according to the observations of I. de Madariaga, was occupied by deputies defending the rights of their classes. The most active in this regard were the nobles, many of whom protested against the practice of being elevated to the dignity of nobility upon reaching the appropriate class on the Table of Ranks. Some noble deputies demanded “either the introduction of strict distinctions between nobility by birth and nobility by service, or a complete ban on the practice of elevation to the nobility, except in cases of personal grant by the monarch.” The rights and freedoms of the nobility were discussed quite actively. On the other hand, the problems of serfdom were touched upon “only occasionally.” The empress’s ideas, which were truly innovative for Russia for Russia, were also discussed: for example, plans to create new “free classes” based on certain groups of the agricultural population. “Constitutional” issues (i.e. questions about the form of government in Russia) were not discussed in the Criminal Code. "The power of the monarch was non-negotiable".

Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ilya Serman (1913–2010) notes that the Criminal Code was the first forum in Russia in the 18th century at which representatives of all free classes gathered to express and defend their opinions and wishes. At the same time, the speeches of deputies were often marked by irreconcilable interests (as was the case, for example, when discussing the issue of the right to own serfs). The meetings of the Criminal Code, according to Serman, revealed a contradiction between the theory and practice of interpreting the idea of ​​equality, typical of the nobility of this time: while defending “natural equality,” the nobles could well remain in practice supporters of serfdom. The struggle that unfolded in the Criminal Code between representatives of different strata and the antagonism of some of them towards the state did not contribute to the formation of a unified national consciousness in the sphere of political and economic relations.

C. Whittaker evaluates the Criminal Code as the highest point of dialogue between the “legitimate” ruler and his subjects, after which this interaction and Catherine’s image began to decline. Nevertheless, the Criminal Code testified to Catherine II's desire to expand the middle class and openly discuss the most pressing contemporary problems. Moreover, not a single monarch of Europe reigning in those days dared to such a level of openness to public opinion and the desire to come to agreement with public opinion. Catherine created for herself “immortality” and “eternal praise” by the very fact of convening the Criminal Code.

The commission, according to R. Pipes, was an “unprecedented event” - a forum where Russian people could fearlessly express their “grievances” and “wishes.” At the same time, the debate did not revolve around the high ideals of Catherine, but specific topics that were of interest to the classes.

The Criminal Code, according to S. Dixon, has become a “stunning phenomenon” for Russia. Almost certainly, the main motive for convening it was Catherine’s desire to confirm the legitimacy of her reign. Deputies were clearly limited in their freedom of expression; the empress believed that they lacked civic responsibility and the ability to correctly express their thoughts. Catherine behaved more “in the manner of a 16th-century humanist than an 18th-century parliamentarian.” Therefore, she paid increased attention to the procedure of the meetings.

The unspoken motive for the dissolution of the Criminal Code, writes P. Dux, “almost certainly” was that it showed itself incapable of solving the problem of drawing up a new Code. In addition, the Criminal Code did not fulfill Catherine’s wishes to strengthen her image in Europe and develop education in Russia. Major problems (like the problem of peasant serfdom) turned out to be unsolvable at the moment due to the wide range of opinions.

As M. Raev notes, the Criminal Code was dissolved, not meeting the expectations of the empress. Catherine II abruptly interrupted the sessions of the Criminal Code when their sharply critical orientation became clear, clearly showing the direction of the social thought of the deputies, and therefore, apparently, their voters.

According to A. Valitsky, the real reason for the dissolution of the Criminal Code was the deviation of the debates in it from the originally intended topic and the beginning of the work of the Criminal Code to escape from the control of the ruling spheres.

Results and significance of the work of the management company

According to Ya. Gray, there was almost no practical result from the work of the management company. “It was a dramatic, romantic, incongruous incident in Russian history, and the reforms later carried out by Catherine had no roots in the Order or the reasoning of the deputies [of the Statutory Commission], but were dictated by the facts of Russian history and development.” As a legislative body, the CC, in Gray's opinion, "completely failed", but it served Catherine's goal of strengthening her position on the throne through "reformist gestures" and attempts to win the applause of the civilized world. It is difficult to even say whether the “Order” reflected her worldview at that time, and how seriously the Russian Empress strove to realize her declared goals.

Although, according to J. Billington, the Criminal Code did not actually adopt any new laws, the discussion of Catherine’s “Order” “introduced a lot of new and almost subversive political ideas into use.”

According to P. Dux, the Criminal Code nevertheless made a certain contribution to the development of Russian legislation and the country as a whole. First, it accelerated the process of codification of laws. Secondly, some of the materials collected by the Criminal Code were used by the government in drawing up new important legislative acts in the second half of the reign of Catherine II (for example, the Establishment of Provinces in 1775, Charters of Grant in 1785). Thirdly, thanks to the work of the Management Committee, the Empress had a clearer idea of ​​the future directions of development of the Empire.

The Criminal Code, according to M. Raev, gave Catherine II important information about her country and subjects, which helped in further legislation. The impact of the Criminal Code on Russian public opinion is also obvious. For many Russians, according to Raev, the Criminal Code aroused erroneous hope (or fear) regarding imminent fundamental changes in politics (and this, by the way, was one of the reasons for the Pugachev rebellion). In addition, the “Nakaz”, elections to the Criminal Code and its work familiarized the educated part of Russian society with the approaches to the development of the economy, legislation and other components of social development prevailing in Western countries. The inclusion of the “Nakaz” in the Complete Collection of Laws of 1830 showed that later enlightened bureaucrats shared its principles. In addition, many critics of the political and social system in Russia turned to the “Nakaz” in order to find arguments for their reform proposals. In social terms, the Criminal Code, revealing disagreements in Russian society, discovered “deep conflicts”, “lack of unity and structure” in Russian society; on the other hand, the election procedure revealed the presence of socio-psychological solidarity in certain parts of society, connections based on a unified way of life, a common geographical origin and an analogy of social functions.

As the biographer of Catherine II John Alexander writes, the work of the Criminal Code did not produce any fruitful results. On the other hand, the hundreds of orders received by the Commission from all over Russia were a hitherto unprecedented manifestation of public opinion. Although the Criminal Code disappointed Catherine (who herself was partly responsible for the imperfect preparation and conduct of the meetings), it enriched the Empress with invaluable experience and knowledge. In this regard, the Criminal Code became a kind of cross between the personal triumph of the empress and the fiasco of the Criminal Code as an institution.

According to R. Pipes, the work of the Criminal Code did not have any real impact on Russian reality; Catherine herself later called the “Nakaz” “idle chatter.” However, for the first time in Russia, the supreme power itself defined the principles of “good government” and gave representatives the opportunity to publicly discuss how the country meets these criteria. In fact, in the 1760s. thanks to the Statutory Commission, public opinion appeared in Russia.

Catherine II, according to S. Dixon, clearly overestimated the speed and fruitfulness of the work of the Criminal Code. The work of the Criminal Code yielded almost no practical results. On the other hand, her writings became a "colossal reservoir of information", much of which helped in further work on Catherine's legislation.

The Criminal Code, according to C. Whittaker, despite the incompleteness of its work, created the legislative basis for the further reform activities of Catherine II. Also, the image of the “legitimate sovereign” is ingrained quite deeply in the minds of the public. Hundreds of deputies and other members of the “elite” gained important political experience. The ideas of the “Nakaz” spread quite widely in society - in the works of both lawyers (S. Desnitsky, Y. Kozelsky, etc.) and writers who began to replicate the images of the enlightened empress - “Astraea”, “Minerva”, etc. .

As J. Hosking writes, the work of the Criminal Code showed Catherine II that, instead of drawing up a new code, the more pressing task for the country was to strengthen a divided society. To do this, it was necessary to establish “institutions that give citizens the opportunity to work together, at least within the boundaries of classes and social groups.” In fact, it was about creating a civil society.

According to R. Bartlett, criticism of the Criminal Code for not adopting the new code is not serious. What was more important was that the Criminal Code was able to develop a new approach to changing legislation. Some of the results of her work were truly significant: for Catherine, it was a tool for strengthening her political position and understanding the needs of different groups of the population. The work of the commission showed that any group of the Russian population is “obscure, conservative and cares only about itself.” The Empress realized that no radical changes in politics would be needed in the near future. But the draft Criminal Code, of which a great many were developed, became the real basis for future legislation at both the local and national levels and were very useful for subsequent legislation.

E.K. Wirtschafter believes that the Criminal Code, for all its shortcomings, was an indicator of Catherine II’s sincere desire to consult with her subjects on the most important issues. It was also a kind of educational experiment, in which citizens began to debate on issues of law, justice, civil relations and the organization of government. In general, in terms of its representativeness, this was the first such meeting in Russia - right up to the State Duma of the beginning of the twentieth century. Many materials of the Criminal Code (including orders to deputies) were used during the reforms of the 1770–80s. .

Soon after ascending the throne, Catherine discovered that one of the significant shortcomings of Russian life was the outdatedness of legislation: a collection of laws was published under Alexei Mikhailovich, and life since then has changed beyond recognition. The Empress saw the need for a lot of work to collect and revise laws. Catherine II decided to draw up a new Code. She read many works by foreign scientists about government and court. Of course, she understood that not everything was applicable to Russian life.

The Empress believed that laws should be consistent with the needs of the country, with the concepts and customs of the people. For this purpose, it was decided to convene elected representatives (deputies) from various classes of the state to develop a new Code. This meeting of elected officials was called the Commission to draft a new Code. The commission was supposed to inform the government about the needs and wishes of the population, and then draft new, better laws.

The commission was solemnly opened in 1767 by Catherine II herself in Moscow, in the Faceted Chamber. 567 deputies were gathered: from the nobility (from each district), merchants, state peasants, as well as settled foreigners. Widely borrowing the ideas of advanced Western thinkers, Catherine drew up for this Commission the “Order of the Commission on the Drafting of a New Code.” These were the rules on the basis of which the new Code should be drawn up and which the deputies should be guided by. The “mandate” was distributed to all deputies. But since the introduction of laws is under the jurisdiction of the Tsar, the commission had to draw up proposals. Catherine II worked on “Instruction” for more than two years. In "Nakaz" Catherine talks about the state, laws, punishments, court proceedings, education and other issues. The “mandate” showed both knowledge of the matter and love for people. The Empress wanted to introduce more gentleness and respect for people into legislation. The “mandate” was greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. In particular, Catherine demanded a mitigation of punishments: “love of the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can abstain from many crimes.” She also demanded the abolition of punishments that could disfigure the human body. Catherine opposed the use of torture. She considered torture harmful, since a weak person may not be able to withstand torture and confess to something he did not commit, while a strong person, even having committed a crime, will be able to endure torture and avoid punishment. She demanded especially great caution from judges. “It is better to acquit 10 guilty people than to accuse one innocent person.” Another wise saying: “it is much better to prevent crimes than to punish them.” But how to do that? It is necessary that people respect the laws and strive for virtue. “The most reliable, but also the most difficult means of making people better is bringing education to perfection.” If you want to prevent crimes, make sure that education spreads among people.

Catherine also seemed necessary to provide the nobility and urban class with self-government. Catherine II also thought about the liberation of peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The “Nakaz” talks about how landowners should treat the peasants: not burden them with taxes, levy such taxes that do not force the peasants to leave their homes, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, peasants should be given freedom.

The commission was divided into 19 committees, which were supposed to deal with various branches of legislation. It soon became clear that many deputies did not understand what they were called upon to do, and although the deputies took the matter seriously, the work proceeded very slowly. There were cases when the general meeting, without finishing consideration of one issue, moved on to another. The case entrusted to the Commission was large and complex, and acquiring the appropriate skills was not so easy. Catherine transferred the Commission to St. Petersburg, but in St. Petersburg for a year the Commission not only did not begin to draw up a new Code, but did not even develop a single department of it. Catherine was unhappy with this. Many deputies from the nobility in 1768 had to go to war with the Turks. Catherine announced the closure of general meetings of the Commission. But separate committees continued to work for several more years.

We can say that the work of the Commission on the Code ended in failure. The commission presented Catherine II with a substantive lesson about the impossibility of implementing the theoretical constructs of European philosophers on Russian soil. The chance that history gave Russia was not and could not be realized. The dissolution of the Statutory Commission became for Catherine a farewell to illusions in the field of domestic politics.

However, although the Commission did not draw up the Code, it did familiarize the Empress with the needs of the country. Using the works of the commission, Catherine II issued many important laws. Catherine herself wrote that she “received light and information about the entire Empire, who she should deal with, and who she should care about.” Now she could act quite consciously and definitely.

The legal system of the “legal monarchy” consisted of creating a system of class courts and a court of conscience, improving investigative procedures, and changes in police administration. Catherine II tried to achieve public peace through police regulation based on “compulsion to virtue” through the implementation of fair laws.

Catherine II understood well the place of Russia in the world of that time. She did not blindly copy European models, but was at the level of the then world political knowledge. She sought to use European experience to reform a country where there was neither private property nor bourgeois civil society, but, on the contrary, there was a traditionally developed state economy and serfdom prevailed.

In 1765, the Free Economic Society (VES) was established in the interests of the nobility. One of the oldest in the world and the first economic society in Russia (free - formally independent from government departments) was established in St. Petersburg by large landowners who, in the conditions of the growth of the market and commercial agriculture, sought to rationalize agriculture and increase the productivity of serf labor. The founding of the VEO was one of the manifestations of the policy of enlightened absolutism. VEO began its activities by announcing competitive tasks, publishing “Proceedings of VEO” (1766-1915, more than 280 volumes) and appendices to them. The first competition was announced on the initiative of the Empress herself in 1766: “What is the property of a farmer (peasant), whether it is his land that he cultivates or movable property, and what right should he have to both for the benefit of the people?” Of the 160 responses from Russian and foreign authors, the most progressive was the essay by legal scholar A.Ya. Polenov, who criticized serfdom. The answer displeased the VEO competition committee and was not published. Until 1861, 243 competitive problems of a socio-economic and scientific-economic nature were announced. Socio-economic issues concerned three problems: 1) land ownership and serfdom, 2) the comparative profitability of corvee and quitrent, 3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.

The activities of VEO contributed to the introduction of new crops, new types of agriculture, and the development of economic relations.

In the field of industry and trade, Catherine II (by decree of 1767 and manifesto of 1775) proclaimed the principle of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, which was primarily beneficial to the nobility: it had serf labor resources, had cheap raw materials, and received subsidies from state and class credit institutions. The nobility, including the middle nobility, took the path of feudal entrepreneurship and the number of patrimonial manufactories began to grow. The growth of peasant manufactures also benefited the nobility, since many peasant entrepreneurs were serfs.

Finally, the leaving of quitrent peasants to the city to earn money was also convenient for the landowner, who wanted to get more cash. There were few capitalist enterprises, that is, based on hired labor, and the hired workers were often not personally free, but serfs working to earn money. Forms of industry based on various types of forced labor were absolutely predominant. At the beginning of Catherine’s reign there were 655 industrial enterprises in Russia, by the end there were 2294.

Introduction... 3

Commission on the Code… 6

The purpose of creating the Statutory Commission. 7

"Catherine's Order." 8

Composition of the Statutory Commission. 10

Features of the Catherine Commission. 12

Functioning of the Commission. 12

Results of the commission's activities. 27

References… 28

“To love the subjects given to me by God

I honor my title as a duty..."

Catherine II

Introduction

The long reign of Catherine II (1762-1796) was filled with significant and highly controversial events and processes. The “Golden Age of the Russian Nobility” was at the same time the age of Pugachevism, "Order" and the Statutory Commission coexisted with the persecution of N.I. Novikov and A.N. Radishchev. And yet it was an integral era, which had its own core, its own logic, its own ultimate task. This was the time when the imperial government tried to implement one of the most thoughtful, consistent and successful reform programs in the history of Russia (A. B. Kamensky). The ideological basis of the reforms was the philosophy of the European Enlightenment, with which the empress was well acquainted. In this sense, her reign is often called the era of enlightened absolutism. Historians argue about what enlightened absolutism was - the utopian teaching of the enlighteners (Voltaire, Diderot, etc.) about the ideal union of kings and philosophers or a political phenomenon that found its real embodiment in Prussia (Frederick II the Great), Austria (Joseph II), Russia (Catherine II), etc. These disputes are not unfounded. They reflect the key contradiction in the theory and practice of enlightened absolutism: between the need to radically change the existing order of things (class system, despotism, lawlessness, etc.) and the inadmissibility of shocks, the need for stability, the inability to infringe on the social force on which this order rests - the nobility . Catherine II, like perhaps no one else, understood the tragic insurmountability of this contradiction: “You,” she blamed the French philosopher D. Diderot, “write on paper that will endure everything, but I, poor empress, write on human skin, so sensitive and painful." Her position on the issue of the serf peasantry is very indicative. There is no doubt about the empress's negative attitude towards serfdom. She thought more than once about ways to cancel it. But things did not go further than cautious reflection. Catherine II clearly realized that the abolition of serfdom would be received with indignation by the nobles, and the peasant masses, ignorant and in need of leadership, would not be able to use the granted freedom for their own benefit. Feudal legislation was expanded: landowners were allowed to exile peasants to hard labor for any period of time, and peasants were forbidden to file complaints against landowners.

The most significant transformations in the spirit of enlightened absolutism were: - the convening and activities of the Legislative Commission (1767-1768). The goal was to develop a new set of laws, which was intended to replace the Council Code of 1649. Representatives of the nobility, officials, townspeople, and state peasants worked in the Code Commission. For the opening of the commission, Catherine II wrote the famous “Instruction”, in which she used the works of Voltaire, Montesquieu, Beccaria and other educators. It talked about the presumption of innocence, the eradication of despotism, the spread of education, and the people's welfare. The commission's activities did not bring the desired result. A new set of laws was not developed, the deputies were unable to rise above the narrow interests of the classes and did not show much zeal in developing reforms. In December 1768, the Empress dissolved the Statutory Commission and did not create any more similar institutions;

Reform of the administrative-territorial division of the Russian Empire. The country was divided into 50 provinces (300-400 thousand male souls), each of which consisted of 10-12 districts (20-30 thousand male souls). A uniform system of provincial government was established: a governor appointed by the emperor, a provincial government that exercised executive power, the Treasury Chamber (collection of taxes, their expenditure), the Order of Public Charity (schools, hospitals, shelters, etc.). Courts were created, built on a strictly class principle - for nobles, townspeople, and state peasants. Administrative, financial and judicial functions were thus clearly separated. The provincial division introduced by Catherine II remained until 1917;

Adoption in 1785 A charter granted to the nobility, which secured all the class rights and privileges of the nobles (exemption from corporal punishment, the exclusive right to own peasants, pass them on by inheritance, sell, buy villages, etc.);

Adoption of the Charter of the cities, formalizing the rights and privileges of the “third estate” - the townspeople. The city estate was divided into six categories, received limited rights of self-government, elected the mayor and members of the city Duma;

Adoption in 1775 the manifesto on freedom of enterprise, according to which permission from government authorities was not required to open a business;

Reforms 1782-1786 in the field of school education (see ticket No. 6).

Of course, these transformations were limited. The autocratic principle of governance, serfdom, and the class system remained unshakable. Pugachev's Peasant War (1773-1775), the capture of the Bastille (1789) and the execution of King Louis XVI (1793) did not contribute to the deepening of reforms. They went intermittently in the 90s. and stopped altogether. The persecution of A. N. Radishchev (1790) and the arrest of N. I. Novikov (1792) were not random episodes. They testify to the deep contradictions of enlightened absolutism, the impossibility of unambiguous assessments of the “golden age of Catherine II.”

And yet, it was during this era that the Free Economic Society appeared (1765), free printing houses operated, heated journal debates took place, in which the Empress personally participated, the Hermitage (1764) and the Public Library in St. Petersburg (1795), and the Smolny Institute were founded noble maidens (1764) and pedagogical schools in both capitals. Historians also say that the efforts of Catherine II, aimed at encouraging the social activity of the classes, especially the nobility, laid the foundations of civil society in Russia.

Commission on the Code

Enlightened absolutism is a policy generated by the time of decomposition of the feudal system and the maturation of capitalist relations in its depths, aimed at eliminating outdated feudal orders by peaceful means. Enlightened absolutism differed from ordinary despotism by declaring observance of laws that were the same for all subjects. The theoretical foundations of enlightened absolutism were developed by outstanding figures of the French enlightenment Montesquieu, Voltaire, D'Alembert, Diderot and others. These moderate wing enlighteners called for an evolutionary, without shocks, change in socio-economic relations, which suited the monarchs of Europe and contributed to the emergence of an alliance of kings and philosophers capable, as the kings believed, of preventing a threat to their thrones.The ideas of enlightenment were shared by the Prussian king Frederick II, the Swedish king Gustav III) the Austrian emperor Joseph II, etc.

The enlighteners were especially delighted by the material assistance provided to the needy Diderot: the empress bought his library for 15 thousand francs, giving him the right to keep it until his death; Moreover, Catherine appointed Diderot as the custodian of his library, setting a salary of 1000 francs per year, payable for 50 years in advance.

The time has come to implement large-scale reforms in the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment. This was facilitated by two favorable conditions: Catherine, after the death of Ivan Antonovich, felt more confident on the throne than before; Confidence that he could cope with the grandiose undertaking was also increased by sufficient awareness of the works of enlighteners. At the end of 1766, she began to implement the most important action of her reign - convening a commission to draw up a new Code. The established commission, convened by Catherine, differed from the previous ones in at least three features: wider representation - the right to elect deputies was granted to nobles (one deputy each from the district), townspeople (one deputy each from the city), state and economic peasants (one each a deputy from the province in three-stage elections: churchyard - district - province), settled “foreigners” (also one deputy each). In addition, each central agency sent one representative to the Commission. Thus, the serfs, who made up the majority of the country's population, as well as the clergy, were deprived of the right to elect deputies.

The purpose of creating the Statutory Commission

Soon after ascending the throne, Catherine II discovered that one of the significant shortcomings of Russian life was the outdatedness of legislation: a collection of laws was published under Alexei Mikhailovich, and life since then has changed beyond recognition. The Empress saw the need for a lot of work to collect and revise laws. Catherine II decided to draw up a new Code. She read many works by foreign scientists about government and court. Of course, she understood that not everything was applicable to Russian life.

In preparation for the creation of the new Statutory Commission, a number of special commissions were created whose task was to establish the limits of the "legitimate power of government." In 1763, a commission on noble liberties was created (later becoming a council under the empress), in 1762 - a commission on commerce, in 1762 - a commission on church estates. The commissions prepared draft laws that determined the political system: they differed from the fundamental laws

current laws.

The Empress believed that laws should be consistent with the needs of the country, with the concepts and customs of the people. For this purpose, it was decided to convene elected representatives (deputies) from various classes of the state to develop a new “Code”. This meeting of elected officials was called the “Commission for drafting a new Code.” The commission was supposed to inform the government about the needs and wishes of the population, and then draft new, better laws.

"Catherine's Order"

Widely borrowing the ideas of advanced Western thinkers, Catherine II compiled for this Commission the “Order of the Commission on the drafting of a new code.” These were the rules on the basis of which the new “Code” should be drawn up and which the deputies should be guided by. The “mandate” was distributed to all deputies. But since the introduction of laws is under the jurisdiction of the king, the commission had to draw up proposals. Catherine II worked on “Instruction” for more than two years. In “Nakaz,” Catherine II talks about the state, laws, punishments, court proceedings, education and other issues. “Instruction” showed both knowledge of the matter and love for people. The Empress wanted to introduce more gentleness and respect for people into legislation. The “order” was met with enthusiasm. In particular, Catherine II demanded mitigation of punishments: “love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes”. She also demanded the abolition of punishments that could disfigure the human body. Catherine II opposed the use of torture. She considered torture harmful, since a weak person may not be able to withstand torture and confess to something he did not commit, while a strong person, even having committed a crime, will be able to endure torture and avoid punishment. She demanded especially great caution from judges - “It is better to acquit 10 guilty people than to accuse one innocent person”. Another wise saying of Catherine: “It is much better to prevent crimes than to punish them”. But how to do that? It is necessary that people respect the laws and strive for virtue. “The most reliable, but also the most difficult means of making people better is bringing education to perfection”. If you want to prevent crimes, make sure that education is spread among people.

The text of the “Nakaz” consisted of 20 chapters (526 articles), divided into five sections:

a) general principles of the structure of the state;

b) the basics of state legislation and general forms of legal policy;

c) criminal law and legal proceedings;

d) the basics of class-legal organization;

e) issues of legal technology, theory of legislation and legal reform.

In 1768, the text of the “Nakaz” was supplemented with the twenty-first chapter, containing the basics of administrative and police management, and the twenty-second chapter on the regulation of public finances. The “mandate” substantiates the political principles of an absolutist state: the power of the monarch, the bureaucratic system of organization, the class division of society. These signs were derived from the “natural” situation of Russia and were justified by references to Russian political history. The motto of the Statutory Commission was the desire to ensure “the bliss of each and everyone” in society, but no restrictions

for the supreme power was not provided. The class structure of society corresponded to the “natural” division into professional classes: farmers, burghers, nobles. The supreme power assigns a special place to the nobility, thereby recognizing the special importance of its functions - military service and the administration of justice. Attempts to violate class inequality are assessed by the “Nakaz” as disastrous for society. Equality is seen only in equal submission to criminal laws, although this does not mean the same application of these laws to different classes. The legislative activity of the commission was aimed not just at revising old laws, but also at developing a unified code on a new basis. The law must ensure complete and conscious obedience.

In “Nakaz”, a legal technique was developed that was previously unknown to Russian law, and new ideas about the legislative system were developed:

a) there should be few laws and they should remain unchanged;

b) temporary institutions determine the procedure for the activities of bodies and persons, regulating it through orders and charters;

c) decrees are subordinate acts and can be short-term and cancelable.

It also seemed necessary to Catherine II to provide self-government to the nobility and the urban class. Catherine II also thought about the liberation of peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The “Nakaz” talks about how landowners should treat peasants: not burden them with taxes, levy taxes that do not force peasants to leave their homes, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, peasants should be given freedom.

Composition of the Statutory Commission

The manifesto on the creation of a draft of a new Code and on the convening of a special Commission for this purpose appeared on December 14, 1766. The main motive: the country cannot continue to live according to the medieval code of laws - the Council Code of 1649. 571 deputies were elected to the Commission from nobles, townspeople, odnodvortsev, Cossacks, state peasants, non-Russian peoples of the Volga region, the Urals and Siberia. One deputy was allocated to the central institutions - the Senate, the Synod, and the chancellery. Only serfs, who made up the majority of the country's inhabitants, were deprived of the right to choose their deputies. There are no deputies from the clergy either, because the undertaking was of a purely secular nature. The social composition of the Commission looked like this: the nobility was represented by 205 deputies, the merchants - 167. Together they made up 65% of all elected representatives, although less than 4% of the country's population stood behind them! Representatives of other classes obviously did not make any “weather” in the Commission: there were 44 of them from the Cossacks, 42 from odnodvortsy, 29 from state peasants, 7 from industrialists, 19 from clerical officials and others, 54 from “foreigners” (almost none of the latter did not speak Russian, and their participation in the work of the Commission was limited only to a spectacular presence at meetings thanks to exotic clothes).

All deputies were guaranteed benefits and privileges. They were forever freed from the death penalty, torture, corporal punishment, and confiscation of property. They were also entitled to a salary in excess of what they received in their service: nobles - 400 rubles, townspeople - 122, all others - 37. The estates of deputies were not subject to confiscation, except in cases when it was necessary to pay off debts; the court's decision regarding the deputies was not carried out without the blessing of the empress; for insulting a deputy, a double fine was imposed; deputies were given a special badge with the motto: “The Bliss of Each and All.”

As a result, about 450 deputies were elected to the Legislative Commission, of which 33% were elected from the nobility, 36% were elected from the townspeople, about 20% were elected from the rural population, 5% were government officials. If we take into account that officials were nobles, and some cities and state peasants elected nobles as deputies, then the share of the nobility in the Statutory Commission, which amounted to 0.6% of the country's population, will increase significantly.

Features of the Catherine Commission

The first feature of Catherine’s commission was an innovation unknown to previous commissions: the empress compiled an “Order” outlining her views on the tasks of the Statutory Commission, which should guide the deputies.

The second feature of the Statutory Commission of 1767-1769. consisted of the presence of orders to deputies drawn up by the participants in their elections - the orders reflected the class demands of voters. The orders of the nobility demanded that strict measures be taken against the escape of peasants; they contained complaints about the burdensomeness of recruitment and permanent duties, which ruined the peasants and thereby harmed the well-being of the landowners.

Many orders contained complaints about bribery by clerical servants, red tape in government agencies, and suggested that instead of government-appointed officials, administrative positions be filled by nobles elected at district and provincial assemblies.

The most important feature of the city orders was the absence of demands to abolish the serfdom or replace the autocratic system with a more democratic one: on the contrary, the townspeople claimed noble privileges - exemption from corporal punishment, the right to own serfs, the restoration of the decree that allowed industrialists to buy peasants for manufactories. City orders demanded a monopoly of townspeople to engage in trade and the deprivation or limitation of these rights for nobles and peasants. The orders of the townspeople, as we see, did not go beyond the existing social and political orders.

Functioning of the Commission

The commission opened on July 30, 1767 with a solemn service in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. Its initial place of work was the Chamber of Facets (subsequent general meetings of the Commission took place in St. Petersburg). At the very first meeting, Catherine’s “Instructions”, which they had been expecting, were read out to the deputies with curiosity. And then it became clear that the orders from the localities, which were to be guided by the deputies, did not go beyond the interests of a particular class, city, county, with their down-to-earthness they sharply contrast with Catherine’s “Order”, filled with judgments that were strange for those gathered about “what is freedom”, “equality of all citizens”, and God knows what else!

However, extremely touched by the magnificent opening of the work of the Commission, the deputies, who were unable to understand by ear the truly complex “Instruction” for them, began to think “what to do for the empress, who benefits her subjects.” Nothing worthwhile came to their minds, and therefore they decided to give her the title of “Great, Wise Mother of the Fatherland.” But the far-sighted Catherine, so as not to tease the geese, “modestly” accepted only the title “Mother of the Fatherland,” saying that “I honor the subjects given to me by God as a duty of my title, to be loved by them is my desire.” Thus, unexpectedly (and most likely, according to a pre-prepared scenario), the most unpleasant and sensitive issue for Catherine, about the illegality of her accession to the throne, was removed. From now on, after public confirmation by such a representative assembly of the legitimacy of her power, Ekaterina Alekseevna’s position on the throne became much stronger.

The election of 18 private commissions to draft laws passed relatively calmly, and the working days of the deputies began, which finally sobered up Catherine. From behind the curtain, she secretly watched everything that was happening in the hall and from time to time sent notes with instructions to the sometimes lost chairman, General-Chief A.I. Bibikov. Instead of the businesslike exchange of opinions she expected, heated debates began between representatives of different classes, when neither side wanted to concede anything to the other. The nobles with stupid stubbornness defended their monopoly right to own the peasants, and the merchants - to engage in trade and industry. Moreover, almost in the first place the merchants raised the question of returning the recently taken away from them right to buy peasants to factories. But here the empress was firm and unyielding: “Unwilling hands work worse than free hands, and purchases of villages by factory owners are a direct destruction of agriculture,” which, in her opinion, is the main source of human existence. The merchants equally zealously opposed the trading activities of the peasants, guided solely by their narrow-class, selfish interests.

There was no unity among representatives of the ruling class: nobles from the national outskirts wanted to equal rights with the nobility of the central provinces, and deputies from the noble nobility, led by their leader - a born speaker and polemicist Prince M. M. Shcherbatov - arrogantly opposed themselves to the petty nobility and advocated the decisive abolition of those provisions of Peter’s Table of Ranks, according to which representatives of other classes could receive the title of nobility for merit...

But these were all flowers. The greatest anger of the serf-owning nobles, of whom the nobles' elected representatives mainly consisted, was caused by the timid calls of some of their brethren to limit the arbitrariness of the landowners. The words of the deputy from the city of Kozlov, G.S. Korobin, that peasants are the basis of the well-being of the state and with their ruin, “everything else in the state is ruined,” and therefore they must be protected, were drowned in the chorus of voices of serf owners, outraged by the “impudent” call for change.” orders sanctified by God. The nobility, taking advantage of its majority, more and more boldly demanded the expansion of the landowner's right to the personality of the peasant and the fruits of his labor. Voices were also heard about the application of the death penalty to the most rebellious of the peasants.

But the number of speeches of an opposite nature also increased, especially after in July 1768 a bill on the rights of nobles, prepared in a private commission, was submitted for general discussion. Almost 60 deputies, including “our own” members of the nobility, sharply criticized the proposed document. This could not help but worry the empress, who did not at all want to continue the debate in such an unconstructive spirit: the deputies could not come one iota closer to a unified solution to the issue of noble rights.

The incompetence of the deputies, their inability to rise to the level of understanding the ideas proclaimed in the “Nakaz” made such a depressing impression on the empress that in order to “enlighten” the deputies they resorted to an unusual measure: day after day they began to read loudly and clearly all the laws adopted from 1740 to 1766 property rights, as well as the Council Code of 1649 and about 600 other various decrees. Three times in a row, Catherine’s “Order” was read out again and again. The work of the Commission was virtually paralyzed, and at the end of 1768, with the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish War, it was “temporarily” (and as it turned out, forever) dissolved. Although some private commissions continued to work until 1774.

Having thoroughly studied the work of the Commission, S. M. Solovyov clearly defined its main purpose: it was convened with the goal of “getting acquainted with the mentality of the people, in order to test the soil before sowing, to try what is possible, what will be responded to and what cannot yet be started.” This is a historian’s conclusion based on an objective analysis of a large amount of documentary materials. And here is the opinion of the Empress herself regarding the tasks of the Commission: “The idea of ​​convening the notables was wonderful. If my meeting of deputies succeeded, it was because I said: “Listen, here are my principles; tell me what you are unhappy with, where and what hurts you? Let's help with grief; I have no preconceived system; I desire one common good: in it I place my own. If you please, work, draw up projects; try to understand your needs.” And so they began to explore, collect materials, talk, fantasize, argue; and your humble servant listened, remaining very indifferent to everything that was not related to public benefit and public good.”

The convening of the Commission, therefore, was of primarily practical interest to the Empress. What was the answer? “From the nobility, merchants and clergy this friendly and terribly sad cry was heard: “Slaves!” writes S. M. Solovyov. This solution to the question of serfdom, the historian believes, “stemmed from moral, political and economic underdevelopment. To own people, to have slaves, was considered the highest right, considered a royal position that atone for all other political and social inconveniences.”

As is known, it took almost another century to thoroughly undermine the “idea of ​​the superiority of the right to own slaves.” The work of the Commission clearly showed that the ground was completely unprepared for the abolition of slavery. Disappointed and discouraged, but retaining her sobriety, Catherine was forced to “leave time to fertilize the soil through the moral and political development of the people.”

Some doubts about the ability of the nobility to rise above the realities of everyday life and show a state approach, apparently, overcame Catherine earlier. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why she gave the “Order”, which was just being prepared, to especially trusted people for review. At the final stage, the document was read to the senators with a proposal to make possible amendments. However, the empress clearly overestimated the degree of “enlightenment” of both (and society as a whole). Much later, in her “Notes,” she would write with annoyance: “I think there weren’t even twenty people who would think humanely and like people on this subject.”<...>I think few people in Russia even suspected that there was any other condition for servants other than slavery.”

Another excerpt from the same “Notes” is full of an even greater feeling of bitterness, which was left in Catherine not only by the deputies of the Legislative Commission, but also by her closest circle, who had become acquainted with the “Order”: “You hardly dare to say that they (serfs. - M. R.) are people like us, and even when I say this myself, I risk that they will throw stones at me; what have I not suffered from such a reckless and cruel society, when in the Commission for drawing up a new Code they began to discuss certain questions relating to this subject, and when the ignorant nobles, whose number is immeasurably greater than I could ever imagine, for they are too high I assessed those who surrounded me every day and began to guess that these questions could lead to some improvement in the current situation of farmers. Even Count A.S. Stroganov, the gentlest and essentially most humane man, whose kindness of heart borders on weakness, even this man defended the cause of slavery with indignation and passion.” G. Orlov, who was closest to Catherine at that time, generally avoided direct assessments of the “Order.” The most decisive critic of the “Order” turned out to be the “first person” Count N.I. Panin, who said: “These are axioms that can destroy walls.”

After a secret discussion, as Catherine wrote, even before the start of the Commission’s work, she gave her advisers “the freedom to blacken and blot out everything they wanted. They blotted out more than half of what I wrote.” But even after such an “editing” there were still enough reasons for criticism of the “Order” on the part of the deputies. Take, for example, this position: “Every person has more concern for his own and does not make any effort about what he may fear that another will take away from him.” Later, Catherine developed this idea into clearer provisions that went far beyond the generally accepted ideas of that time: “The more oppressors there are over the peasant, the worse it is for him and for agriculture. The great engine of agriculture is freedom and property.”

We find similar reflections in Catherine’s note on the topic of “farming and finance” that occupied her greatly. Apparently, in response to her numerous opponents, the empress directly stated that “when every peasant is sure that what belongs to him does not belong to another, he will improve it.”<...>if only they had freedom and property." This understanding did not come to Catherine suddenly. Already in one of her early notes, she highlighted in a special line the statement that was clearly seditious for Russia in the mid-18th century: “Slavery is a political mistake that kills competition, industry, arts and sciences, honor and prosperity.”

Well, so what, others will say, the empress, well understanding where the root of evil lies that is holding back the development of the country, simply gave in to the unexpected obstacle and gave up. And they will be partly right. Indeed, from the example of the fate of her own husband, she knew well how easily and quickly palace coups are carried out in Russia. But the main thing is still different. Catherine clearly understood that the course towards reforms in politics and economics always presupposes the necessary level of public consciousness, which makes their implementation possible. In the real situation of that era, with the obvious opposition of the nobility, it would have been madness to cut the branch on which autocratic power rested. And this speaks of the realism of Catherine’s state policy - she deliberately separated it from her own radical views.

At the same time, the evolution of the empress’s ideas about the social system of Russia is undeniable. None of the researchers have yet managed to refute Catherine’s assertion that she wrote her “Order”, “following only her mind and heart, with the most zealous desire for benefit, honor and happiness, [and with the desire] to bring the empire to the highest degree of well-being of all kinds people and things, everyone in general and everyone especially.” All this, however, was impossible if “slavery” remained in the country. And very soon the empress realized that Russian reality was stronger than her.

How the empress’s previous ideas about the boundaries of possible transformations had changed is also evidenced by her numerous informal conversations in 1773 with the philosopher D. Diderot, who took on the role of adviser on carrying out what he considered to be necessary reforms in Russia in the spirit of the Enlightenment. “I talked with him for a long time,” writes Catherine, “but more out of curiosity than with benefit. If I believed him, I would have to transform my entire empire, destroy legislation, government, politics, finance and replace them with pipe dreams. I told him frankly: “G. Diderot, I listened with great pleasure to everything that your brilliant mind inspired you with. But it’s good to fill books with your lofty ideas, but it’s bad to act on them. When drawing up plans for various transformations, you forget the difference between our provisions. You work on paper that endures everything: it is smooth, soft and presents no difficulties to either your imagination or your pen, while I, the unfortunate empress, work for mere mortals who are extremely sensitive and ticklish.” (Isn’t this a hint at her experience of writing the “Nakaz” and the farce of its discussion in the Statutory Commission?) On another occasion, Catherine II once wisely remarked: “It is often not enough to be enlightened, to have the best intentions and the power to carry them out.”

In order to get an adequate idea of ​​the views on the problem of “slavery of our peasants” of the most educated part of society, which, it would seem, should have understood all the disadvantages of maintaining the existing situation, we will cite a judgment typical for this environment of one of the most enlightened representatives of that era. We are talking about the future president of the Russian Academy, the versatile and widely educated Princess Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova. In a conversation with the same Diderot, she presented her arguments against the abolition of “slavery,” which boiled down to the fact that only “enlightenment leads to freedom; freedom without enlightenment would only give rise to anarchy and disorder. When the lower classes of my compatriots are enlightened, then they will be worthy of freedom, since only then will they be able to take advantage of it without harming their fellow citizens and without destroying the order and relations inevitable under any form of government.” And this belief was shared by many at that time.

After all the vicissitudes with the “Nakaz”, Catherine no longer tried to arouse public interest in the issue of slavery of the peasants and tempt fate. Alas! Another (after Peter I) experience of crossing European models of social development with Russian reality - this time with the ideas of the Enlightenment - failed. Catherine II retreated in the face of a virtual threat, barely hearing the murmur of not the majority of her subjects - deputies from the nobles in the Legislative Commission.

Subsequently, the goals outlined by the empress in the sphere of state and social structure were reduced, as one can judge from the sketch preserved in her papers, to five main, eclectic in essence points that did not go beyond the boundaries of the guidelines traditionally proclaimed in the “age of Enlightenment”:

"1. The nation that is to be governed must be enlightened.

2. It is necessary to introduce good order in the state, support society and force people to comply with the laws.

3. It is necessary to establish a good and accurate police force in the state.

4. It is necessary to promote the flourishing of the state and make it abundant.

5. It is necessary to make the state formidable in itself and inspiring respect among its neighbors.”

We agree that all these tasks are quite general in nature and have timeless value.

But on the other hand, the ways and means of their implementation were clearly and clearly defined: “There is no need to rush, but you need to work without rest and every day try to gradually eliminate obstacles as they appear; listen to everyone patiently and friendly, show sincerity and diligence in everything, earn everyone's confidence by fairness and unshakable firmness in the application of the rules that are recognized as necessary for the restoration of order, tranquility, personal safety and the lawful enjoyment of property; to submit all disputes and processes to the judicial chambers, to provide protection to all the oppressed, to have neither malice towards enemies nor partiality towards friends. If your pockets are empty, then just say so: “I would be glad to give it to you, but I don’t have a penny.” If you have money, then it doesn’t hurt to be generous on occasion.”

Catherine II was confident that if these conditions were strictly observed, success would be ensured. Here it is not without interest to cite the empress’s answer to the question of the French envoy L. F. Segur, how does she manage to reign so calmly? “The means for this are very ordinary,” said Ekaterina. - I set rules for myself and drew up a plan: according to them I act, manage and never retreat. My will, once expressed, remains unchanged. Thus everything is determined, each day is like the previous one. Everyone knows what they can count on and does not worry unnecessarily.”

Indeed, the means of achieving the intended goals of the “gatherer of Russian lands,” as the historian S. M. Solovyov called Catherine II, are quite simple. According to the Empress's Secretary of State, Count N.P. Rumyantsev, Catherine believed that in order to successfully govern the state it was necessary to “make people think that this is what they themselves want.” And she mastered this technique perfectly, and all of Russia was confident that the empress in all her affairs was only fulfilling the wishes of the people.

The ruler of the office of His Serene Highness Prince G. A. Potemkin, V. S. Popov, in a conversation with the Empress, once expressed surprise at how blindly the people executing her orders obeyed and sought to please her. “It's not as easy as you think,” she explained. - Firstly, my commands, of course, would not be carried out with accuracy if they were not convenient for execution; You yourself know with what prudence, with what caution I act in publishing my laws. I analyze the circumstances, consult, seek the thoughts of the enlightened part of the people, and from this I conclude what effect my decree should produce. And when I am already confident in general approval, then I issue my command and have the pleasure of what you call blind obedience<...>Secondly, you are deceived when you think that everything around me is being done only to please me. On the contrary, it is I who, forcing myself, try to please everyone, in accordance with their merits, virtues, inclinations and habits, and believe me that it is much easier to do something pleasant for everyone than for everyone to please you<...>Maybe at first it was difficult to accustom myself to this, but now I feel with pleasure that, having no whims, caprices and temper, I cannot be a burden.”

The Empress was not exaggerating at all. Even the Swiss memoirist K. Masson, the author of bile, but generally truthful notes (for this reason banned in Russia), who was in Russian service for a long time during the reign of Catherine II, noted that she “reigned over the Russians less despotically than over herself.” by yourself; she was never seen exploding with anger, or plunging into bottomless sadness, or indulging in exorbitant joy. Whims, irritation, pettiness had no place at all in her character and even less in her actions.” Let us also recall the words of A.S. Pushkin: “If to reign means to know the weakness of the human soul and to use it, then in this regard Catherine deserves the surprise of posterity.” These qualities inherent in nature were developed by Catherine in her mature years and bore fruit.

Almost punctual adherence to the proclaimed principles of management gave impressive results by the end of the second decade of her reign. From the note of the head of the College of Foreign Affairs A. A. Bezborodko dated 1781, it follows that during the 19 years of his reign, “29 provinces were created in a new way,” 144 cities were built, 30 conventions and treatises were concluded, 78 victories were won in wars, 88 “were published.” remarkable legislative and constituent decrees” and 123 decrees “for nationwide relief.”

To this it must be added that, according to the calculations of V. O. Klyuchevsky, Catherine “conquered from Poland and Turkey lands with a population of up to 7 million souls of both sexes, so that the number of inhabitants of the empire from 19 million in 1762 increased by 1796 to 36 million, the army from 162 thousand people was strengthened to 312 thousand, the fleet, which in 1757 consisted of 21 battleships and 6 frigates, in 1790 included 67 battleships and 40 frigates, the sum of state income from 16 million rubles. rose to 69 million, that is, it increased more than fourfold, the successes of industry were expressed in the increase in the number of factories from 500 to 2 thousand, the successes of Baltic foreign trade - in an increase in imports and exports from 9 million to 44 million rubles, the Black Sea, Catherine and created - from 390 thousand in 1776 to 1900 thousand rubles. in 1796, the growth of internal circulation was indicated by the issue of coins worth 148 million rubles in the 34 years of his reign, while in the previous 62 years only 97 million were issued.”

It is worth citing Catherine’s own impressions of the state of the country after an unexpected overland journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow and back by water (along the Msta River, Lake Ilmen, the Volkhov and Neva rivers) in 1785: “I found an amazing change in the entire region, which I have seen in part before. Where there were miserable villages, I imagined beautiful cities with brick and stone buildings; where there were no villages, there I met large villages and, in general, prosperity and trade traffic that far exceeded my expectations. They tell me that these are the consequences of the orders I made, which have been carried out literally for 10 years now: and I, looking at this, say: “I’m very glad.” The Empress’s evidence of “amazing changes” is also confirmed by L. F. Segur, who accompanied the Empress on this journey.

And about one more result of the reign of Catherine II. Her rigidly and consistently pursued expansionist policy in defending the national interests of the Russian Empire became the basis for the final formation of the imperial consciousness of society. Over the years, it became so firmly established in the minds of Russians that even A.S. Pushkin, who was only one generation removed from Catherine’s “golden age,” reproached her for not establishing the border between Turkey and Russia along the Danube, and, not Thinking about the ethical side of the issue, he rhetorically exclaimed: “Why didn’t Catherine carry out this important plan at the beginning of the French revolution, when Europe could not pay active attention to our military enterprises, and exhausted Turkey could not resist us? It would save us some future trouble."

The reign of Catherine II is also the beginning of the rapid flowering of literature, arts and sciences. Here is just one concrete example of the direct influence of the enlightened empress on the development of the country's intellectual life. On January 15, 1783, a decree was promulgated allowing everyone to open printing houses, for which it was only necessary to notify the police. And from January 1783 to September 1796, 13 printing houses opened in both capitals and another 11 were established in the provinces and even in distant Tobolsk. It was with the advent of this decree that the “era of intellectual life” began in Russia, when the intelligentsia began to turn “into an independent, creative, influential force.” The empress herself also started this process: in 1767, she and her assistants translated Marmontel’s book Belisarius, which was condemned in France for censorship reasons. And after that she began to actively encourage translations of foreign fiction, scientific and philosophical works. For example, in the 60-70s, everything created by J.-J. was translated into Russian. Rousseau (except for the work “On the Social Contract”).

Catherine II, who began publishing the magazine “Everything and Everything” in 1769, called on writers to take up her initiative. In response, many satirical magazines very soon appeared, which, contrary to the good intentions of the empress, gradually began to form in society a critical view of both the autocratic form of government and even “Northern Semiramis” itself. So unexpectedly for herself, Catherine II saw that the teachings of the philosophers whom she so admired and whose spirit she tried so hard to follow in her politics were not so harmless and posed a real danger to the absolute monarchy. Catherine’s sudden “epiphany,” as it seemed to many!

Meanwhile, from the very beginning, there was a huge distance between the theory of enlightened absolutism, created by Voltaire, Rousseau and the French encyclopedists, and Catherine II’s attempt to put it into practice, conditioned by Russian reality. Over the years it has increased for political reasons. So in the end, the empress refused to implement the ideas of the Enlightenment in the form in which they were implemented in European countries - through the creation of civil society and the breaking down of class barriers. The realities of Russian reality convinced Catherine that granting freedom to the entire society is fraught with uncontrollable chaos...

Two decisive events influenced her consciousness: the Pugachev uprising and the French Revolution. As historians rightly note, the “enlightened” liberalism of Catherine II did not withstand this double test. In the rosy 60s of the 18th century and at the very beginning of the next decade, the Empress, propagating the ideas of European enlighteners, never tired of repeating: “the good of the people and justice are inseparable from each other” and that “freedom is the soul of everything” and without it “everything is dead” . But with the beginning of the revolutionary events in France, which posed a real threat to the whole of Europe, she decisively rejected the right of this people (now contemptuously called by her “the crowd”) to freedom of expression: “As for the crowd and its opinion, they have nothing to attach much importance to.” meanings."

The departure from the previously promoted principles of enlightened absolutism was also accelerated by the appearance of A. N. Radishchev’s book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” which was helpfully delivered to her for review on June 25, 1790. The empress's anger was indescribable, she was furious (a state extremely uncharacteristic for her) and completely forgot about her recent statement that people should not be punished for their beliefs, for judgments that do not coincide with her views. This time she is ready to apply the most severe measures to the author - “a rebel worse than Pugachev.” Catherine, apparently, sincerely did not understand that Radishchev’s creation was a consequence of the spread of Enlightenment ideas in Russia, which began on her own initiative. As S. M. Soloviev noted, “the wise mother Catherine II, who wrote such wonderful rules for educating citizens, in her old age noticed the harmful consequences of her lessons and was very angry at the disobedient children who had become infected with the rules of the teachers she had previously loved.”

Well-meaning and objective-minded contemporaries of Catherine’s century emphasize that the empress’s desires and actions were based on concern for the “common good,” the path to which, in her view, lay through the triumph of reasonable laws, enlightenment of society, education of good morals and law-abiding. The desire to create such a society did not remain just a declaration, but was reflected in the legislation and practical affairs of Catherine II (the daily records of her secretaries of state and the extensive correspondence of the Empress also speak about this). The main means and reliable guarantee of the success of reform initiatives were seen by Catherine II in the unlimited autocratic power of the monarch, who always, everywhere and in everything directs society on a reasonable path, but does not direct by force, not by threats, not by a series of cruel punishments (as Peter I did) , and by convincing, introducing into the consciousness of everyone the need to unite the efforts of all classes to achieve the “common good”, public peace, and lasting stability.

It was she who, for the first time in Russia, clearly defined such an “enlightened” understanding of this basic function of the autocrat. At the same time, she was consistently guided by the most important principle that she formulated: “Never do anything without rules and without a reason, do not be guided by prejudices, respect faith, but in no way give it influence on public affairs, expel from the council everything that smacks of fanaticism, extract the greatest opportunity to benefit from any position for the good of the public.” It is impossible to achieve the latter without proper order, thanks to which “the state stands on solid foundations and cannot fall.” Catherine II in her practical actions attached special importance to order, constantly emphasizing: “We love order, achieve order, find and establish order.”

However, the incredibly inert Russian society, through its representatives of local authorities (according to the empress, her first and main assistants), who in fact did not shine with intelligence and foresight, and most importantly, who did not want any changes, made adjustments to the extensive plans and intentions of Catherine II. In order to overcome this mental hardness, and often direct opposition, the empress had to have special firmness. And she realized this: “Perhaps I am kind, usually meek, but according to my rank, I must want strongly when I want what.” As historical realities show, Catherine’s “meekness” still had clearly defined limits - the inviolability of autocratic power and respect for the interests of its support - the nobility. With any encroachment on them, the empress’s meekness was replaced by merciless determination. Evidence of this is the tragic fates of Emelyan Pugachev, A.I. Radishchev, N.I. Novikov (however, the publication of prohibited Masonic literature by him and the secret connections with Tsarevich Paul that were discovered during the investigation played a role in the fate of the latter).

Results of the commission's activities

It is necessary to note three positive results of the activities of the Statutory Commission. One of the tasks of the Statutory Commission, outlined in the Manifesto of December 16, was “so that we can better understand the needs and sensitive shortcomings of our people.” The orders to the deputies, as well as the debates in the Legislative Commission, provided sufficient material on this subject - they played the same role in the internal policy of Catherine II that fell to the share of the gentry projects in 1730, which became the program of action for the government of Anna Ioannovna.

The activities of the Legislative Commission contributed to the spread of the ideas of the French Enlightenment in Russia. The role of disseminator of these ideas, whether the empress wanted it or not, fell to the lot of her “Nakaz”: from 1767 to 1796 it was published at least seven times with a total circulation of up to five thousand copies. The decree required that the “Nakaz” be read in government institutions on a par with the “Mirror of Justice” of Peter’s time.

The third result of the activities of the Legislative Commission was to strengthen Catherine’s position on the throne - she was in dire need of refuting the reputation of a usurper of the throne.

Bibliography

1. A.B. Kamensky. Life and Fate of Empress Catherine II.

2. N.I. Pavlenko. Catherine the Great.

3. O. A. Omelchenko. Catherine II.

4. Notes of Empress Catherine II.

5. Cheltsov-Bebutov M.A. Course of criminal procedure law, essays on the history of court and criminal proceedings in slave-holding, feudal bourgeois states. Saint Petersburg; 1995.