LECTURE X
Return of Alexander to Russia in 1815 – Polish Constitution of 1815 – State of affairs in Russia in 1812–1815 . – Disasters and material sacrifices of the population. The cost of war and the extent of devastation. – The state of Russian finances. – The rise of the people's spirit in Russia. – The state of industry and trade in 1812–1815. - Influence Napoleonic Wars on agriculture and serfdom. – The influence of officers returning from the war on society. – Spread of education in the provinces. – Society’s hopes for Alexander. – His mood in 1816 – Concerns about maintaining the army in connection with types of foreign policy. – The idea of military settlements, its origin and implementation. - Arakcheev. - His characteristics. – The course of affairs in the Committee of Ministers and the discovery of abuses in 1816. – The role of Arakcheev in the Committee of Ministers and in other institutions.
Polish Constitution 1815
Portrait of Alexander I. Artist F. Gerard, 1817
In the fall of 1815, Alexander, having traveled extensively throughout Europe, finally went to Russia. On the way, he stopped in Warsaw, where at that time the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was being hastily drafted, according to the instructions given by Alexander himself, by a special commission consisting of natural Poles. Based on the similarity of some features of this constitution with Speransky’s plan, one can think that Russian materials were also communicated to the commission; on the other hand, the members of the commission undoubtedly took into account the constitution that was given to the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 by Napoleon. This constitution also had many similarities with the French Charter of Louis XVIII of 1814. Be that as it may, contemporaries, even radically minded ones, for example Carnot, expelled from France and then living in Warsaw, recognized it as very liberal and said that it was not only liberal for the autocrat who bestowed it, but also in itself better than that one charter, which, largely at the insistence of Alexander, was granted to France by Louis XVIII. The Constitution of 1815 guaranteed freedom of the press, the boundaries of which were to be established by the Sejm, guaranteed personal integrity, abolished confiscation of property and administrative exile, then established the use of the Polish language in all government institutions of the Kingdom of Poland and the mandatory filling of all government positions in the administration, court and army by citizens Kingdom of Poland. Even an oath to the constitution was established on the part of the Tsar of Poland, that is, the Russian Emperor. The legislative apparatus was the Sejm, which consisted of the king and two chambers, with the lower house consisting of 70 deputies elected by the landed nobility and 51 deputies from the cities. The right to vote was enjoyed by persons at least 30 years old, who paid at least 100 zlotys (15 rubles in silver) in the form of direct taxes. The upper house consisted of the “princes of the blood,” that is, members of the Russian imperial house when they were in Warsaw, several Catholic bishops, one Uniate bishop and several governors and castellans. The total number of members of the upper house was half the number of members of the lower; moreover, these members were appointed by the emperor - each from among two candidates nominated by the Senate itself - from persons who paid a direct tax of at least 2 thousand zlotys, i.e. 300 rubles.
The Sejm met once every two years for only 30 days, during which it was supposed to consider all the bills that the “responsible” ministry presented to it. The Sejm itself did not have legislative initiative, but could submit petitions to the sovereign and raise the issue of the responsibility of ministers. All bills submitted to the Sejm by the Ministry were previously considered in the State Council, whose role completely coincided with the role that the Russian would later have to play. State Council according to Speransky's plan.
All power in the country, according to this constitution, was concentrated in the hands of the gentry, and some positions in judicial and administrative institutions could only be held by landowners. Alexander approved this constitution without delay in St. Petersburg on December 12, 1815. In a speech delivered on this occasion, Prince Adam Czartoryski noted that “Emperor Alexander could rule by force alone, but, guided by the inculcation of virtue, he rejected such rule. He based his power not on external rights alone, but on a feeling of gratitude, on a feeling of devotion and on that moral power that generates gratitude instead of awe, and devotion and voluntary sacrifices instead of coercion.”
However, Czartoryski himself was again offended and deceived in his expectations by Alexander. It was not he who was appointed to the post of governor, but the old Polish general Zajonchek, one of the divisional commanders of Napoleon’s army, a former republican, but in the post of governor he turned out to be the most obedient servant of the Russian emperor. The council, in addition to five ministers, among whom all power in the sphere of government was divided, and in addition to the chairman, the governor of the region, also included the imperial commissar, who appointed Novosiltsev, who, as we have already said, was very skeptical about the restoration of Poland. The head of the Polish troops, which were restored to the number of 40 thousand, was appointed Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, an eccentric and unbalanced man who significantly contributed to the subsequent death of the Polish constitution.
While he was in Warsaw, Alexander also received a deputation of Lithuanian nobles from Prince. Oginsky at the head, but under the condition that they did not ask for the annexation of the Lithuanian provinces to Poland.
Consequences of the War of 1812 for Russia
In Russia, Alexander had a lot of things to do and worries about the internal structure of the country and the restoration of well-being disrupted by the war. The year 1812 was marked by unprecedented disasters, and the brilliant reflection of a powerful enemy cost dearly not only the enemy, but also the country. Eyewitnesses paint incredible pictures of horror and death that amazed those traveling along the great Smolensk road at the beginning of 1813. The mass of unburied corpses contaminated the air along the entire line from Vilno to Smolensk and even far away from this road. Shishkov reports that in February 1813, the Minister of Police Balashov, who was traveling with him, received a report from two provinces - Smolensk and Minsk, that 96 thousand corpses had been collected and burned in them and that, despite this, many still lay uncollected. It is no wonder that various epidemics spread in these provinces. In 1813, the population of the Smolensk province alone decreased by 57 thousand, the population of the Tver province, which only had one southern end approaching the area of military operations, decreased by 12 thousand. The same thing happened in other areas adjacent to the theater of war. Not to mention epidemics, a huge population decline was caused by the direct expenditure of people on the war. Over the years, about 1 million recruits and up to 30 thousand militiamen were taken, which accounted for a third of the healthy working population of the country.
In general, in 1813, the population of Russia, instead of increasing by 600 - 650 thousand souls of both sexes, according to the then usual percentage of growth, decreased by 2,700 people. (according to incomplete metric data that year), and in general during the years of the last Napoleonic wars, the size of the sacrifices in human lives should be considered no less than 1.5 - 2 million male souls.
The provinces that were most devastated were: Kovno, Vitebsk, Grodno, Mogilev, Volyn, Vilna, Smolensk and Moscow, and partly Courland, Pskov, Tver, Kaluga. The material losses of one Moscow province were calculated by the British - who provided subsidies for the continuation of the wars with Napoleon and therefore carefully collected information about the situation in Russia - at 270 million rubles. But the provinces neighboring the theater of war also suffered greatly, thanks to epidemics and submarine conscription. How much this duty cost can be seen from the fact that, for example, in the Tver province, a supply was sometimes required for every 2.5 souls of the population, i.e., an amount that was not available in the province at all.
Once, four provinces - Novgorod, Tver, Vladimir and Yaroslavl - were suddenly ordered to supply 147 thousand carts, and the treasury paid 4 million 668 thousand at a rate, while the peasants had to pay about another 9 million rubles. This order was canceled after its implementation began, therefore, when the residents were already ruined by it. From the Kaluga province, 40 thousand carts were suddenly demanded over a distance of a thousand miles (counting both ends), and the expenses of the population, according to the governor’s calculations, were expressed in the amount of 800 thousand rubles. A whole range of similar information is given in Seredonin’s “Historical Review of the Activities of the Committee of Ministers”.
Back in April 1812, Minister of Finance Guryev made a report on the order of food for the troops. He proposed that the troops take fodder and food through requisitions and, in return for the taken supplies, issue special receipts to the population with a specific payment deadline. These so-called “bonds” did not lower the rate of banknotes, since they were urgent. However, settlements between the treasury and the population on these receipts subsequently extended so much - despite Alexander’s constant, very sharp reprimands to the Committee of Ministers - that they were not finished even by the end of his reign, and the landowners, who were mainly creditors to the treasury on these bonds, lost all hope of receiving this money and then renounced their claims, turning them, willy-nilly, into new donations.
Total cost of the war 1812–1815 It's quite difficult to calculate now. According to the report of Barclay de Tolly, compiled by Kankrin, treasury expenses were expressed in an amazingly small amount - 157.5 million rubles. for all four years. But the huge expenses of the population itself are difficult to calculate. Back in 1812, Minister of Finance Guryev calculated these expenses of the population - at a very moderate rate in a special secret note - over 200 million rubles.
The rise of national feeling caused by the enemy invasion was expressed in voluntary direct donations, which in 1812 exceeded 100 million rubles. and made it possible to complete the 12th year campaign without much difficulty. The total amount of material losses suffered by Russia during these years probably exceeded a billion rubles.
The population bore these expenses in 1812 without complaint, in many cases even with genuine enthusiasm, despite the strong abuses of the higher authorities and supply officials. But the payment power of the population was completely exhausted by this, and already in 1815 in many places it completely stopped paying taxes. The treasury was almost constantly empty at that time. When in 1813 Alexander decided to move the war abroad, the maintenance of an army of 200 thousand required, according to Barclay de Tolly’s calculations, immediately - for the next two months - 14.5 million rubles. in specie, and in total specie, together with gold and silver, received and expected from the Ural factories, the treasury then had no more than 5.25 million rubles; Thus, 9 million rubles were missing. The issue of banknotes could not help, since it was specie that was required; the loan was impossible; Arakcheev then wrote to Count Nesselrode about the government’s fears that the price of the paper ruble would drop to 10 kopecks.
Under such conditions, the continuation of the war with Napoleon turned out to be possible only thanks to England, which was interested in this continuation and subsidized Russia with large sums paid in specie or English full-fledged banknotes.
Russia was then saved from final bankruptcy largely thanks to the favorable trade balance that was established after the introduction of the tariff in 1810. Exports greatly exceeded imports in these years, despite the war. In 1812, imports into Russia did not reach even 90 million rubles. (88,700 thousand rubles), and our exports rose to almost 150 million rubles. (147 million). This happened due to the fact that at that time we were in an alliance with England, and trade with her through St. Petersburg and Arkhangelsk was carried out unhindered. It is remarkable that in 1812 the exchange rate of our ruble on the London stock exchange was at its highest precisely when Napoleon entered Moscow.
At the same time, trade with China and Central Asia developed. Cotton was intensively imported from the Central Asian khanates, the demand for which established after the cessation of the import of English yarn during the continental system. The Ministry of Finance even began to develop a plan for returning to the previous, more liberal tariff, since it seemed to Guryev that Russian manufactories were already sufficiently supported; but this circumstance caused a terrible cry among the Moscow manufacturers, who had just begun to fledge; their statements were supported by the Minister of Internal Affairs Kozodavlev and even the Chancellor, Count. N.P. Rumyantsev, who was reputed to be a supporter of the French and Napoleon, but still recognized the statements of Moscow breeders as correct.
Count Guryev was defeated in 1813: the revision of the tariff was considered untimely.
The rise of national feeling in 1812–1815. It was also reflected, by the way, in the energy with which private individuals then took up the organization of support for families affected by the war - in general, in that initiative that was then discovered by Russian society for the first time. Thanks to the private initiative (Pezorovius), a significant disabled capital was formed from the donated amounts.
Also remarkable is the speed with which Moscow and some other burned cities were rebuilt after the war, and, incidentally, the government also had to issue benefits to the devastated residents (in total, up to 15 million were issued). Cities devastated by the war and its consequences began to recover by the early 20s. Except, however, Smolensk, which in the 30s was still almost ruins. But the landed estates could not quickly recover from this ruin; it laid the foundation for their enormous debt, which grew until the fall of serfdom.
We will dwell here in a little more detail on the situation of the landowner serfdom, as well as on the situation of the peasants after the Napoleonic Wars. At the beginning of Alexander's reign, a new important factor in the development of the population, as well as the economic life and culture of Russia, was, as we have seen, the colonization of the Novorossiysk steppes. Along with this, the colonization of the eastern (Volga and Trans-Volga) and southeastern black soil spaces continued. In connection with this, of course, the economic functions of the northern provinces had to change little by little: arable farming, which was placed in much less favorable conditions there than in the fertile south and southeast of Russia, naturally had to gradually recede into the background, and in connection with this, non-agricultural trades should have developed more and more here, and at the same time the quitrent system, which had previously already prevailed here over corvée, should have increasingly taken root. This process, however, could not develop quickly, since this was hampered by the lack of convenient communication routes, especially with the south of Russia. Therefore, rural life continued to remain the same and even the amounts of quitrents remained the same until the Peace of Tilsit that were paid by the peasants under Catherine. A sharp change in the situation of agriculture and in the entire landowner and peasant way of life was brought about by the continental blockade and the devastation caused by the Patriotic War; their effect was further enhanced by the new needs and tastes that developed among the nobility as a result of close acquaintance with European life during the long stay of Russian troops abroad in 1813, 1814 and 1815. First, the continental blockade, and then the devastation of many provinces, the fire of Moscow and other cities, and huge donations for the war with Napoleon ruined many nobles. The catastrophe of 1812 greatly changed the previously established way of life. That part of the rich and middle nobility that lived in Moscow lost their palaces and houses, their activities, and sometimes their entire fortune. In the first years, many did not have enough money to settle there again. The nobility, “half forced, sat down on the land or, more than ever, went into public service.” That part of the landowners who received their livelihood from the land felt the need to somehow increase their income and, consequently, intensify their farming. For many who settled on the land, this form of intensification in the agricultural provinces was the transfer of peasants from quitrent to corvee; others tried to establish patrimonial factories on their estates, but most of them, lacking experience, capital and credit, succeeded rather poorly even when, from 1822, installed on long years protective customs tariff. IN industrial provinces it was unprofitable to transfer peasants to corvee, and therefore the landowners here tried to increase their incomes only by increasing the rate of quitrents, which the peasants constantly complained about in those years. There is an opinion put forward and supported especially by Prof. P.B. Struve, that in these years there seemed to be such a strong movement among the landowners towards the intensification of the serf economy in the sense of streamlining it, that this movement could and should have strengthened it and made it fully capable of economic progress and prosperity under favorable conditions. I find this opinion greatly exaggerated and believe, for my part, that with very rare exceptions, when individual landowners made rational attempts at agricultural improvements, all “intensification” consisted only in a stronger and merciless exploitation of the corvee labor of the peasants; when, soon after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, rapid population growth began, then in the central black earth, more densely populated provinces, an exorbitant increase in landowners' households began, the size of which clearly indicated the inability to correctly and rationally use this excess free labor, which in the end had nowhere to be found. what to do, and meanwhile it was necessary to feed. As for the growth of peasant dues, one very important reservation must be made in this regard. This growth began quite noticeably even before the War of 1812 and was caused primarily by falling price of money, which came after the Peace of Tilsit, due to the huge number of banknotes issued and the unfavorable effect on our trade balance of the Continental system. In essence, therefore, in most cases, the increase in quitrents was only nominal, but, once it began, this desire among the more greedy landowners was overwhelming, and then, naturally, caused protests and complaints, and sometimes unrest, from the peasants who were disproportionately taxed with these quitrents. Numerous traces of this movement remained in the affairs of the Committee of Ministers, as can be seen from the Historical Review compiled by the late S.M. Seredonin. The average height of quitrent from a “tax” or “crown” (2–2.5 male souls) had increased by this time, according to calculations by V.I. Semevsky, from 10–12.5 rubles. silver under Catherine, up to 50 rubles. banknotes, which amounted to 13–14 rubles when converted into silver at the then exchange rate. Decent landowners, although not at all inclined to give up their serfdom rights, such as N.M. Karamzin, peasants in the 20s still continued to pay rent of 10 rubles. banknotes from the soul or 25 rubles. from tax, which for silver was no more than 7 rubles. with tax or 3 rubles. from the heart.
The economy of landowners and peasants in the war-ravaged Lithuanian, Belarusian and Smolensk provinces recovered with particular slowness.
In general, in society after the war of 1812, despite the devastation, a cheerful mood prevailed, as if indicating that the nation emerged from the terrible ordeal shaken and renewed, ready for further growth and development of culture, with a bright outlook on the future.
The elevated mood was also supported by Russia's military successes, which elevated it to the heights of glory. All this, together with the reforms and initiatives of the beginning of the reign of Alexander, seemed to promise the country, after the happy end of the wars fought and with the onset of peacetime, a rapid improvement in socio-political forms of life, which required fundamental changes, especially in the eyes of Russians who had visited abroad and seen the local everyday life
It is clear how important and great the influence of these people was on the society around them, not only the capital and provincial, but even on the society of remote county towns - as can be seen, for example, from the memoirs of Nikitenko, who lived at that time in a provincial town Voronezh province Ostrogozhsk and described the influence that officers then had on provincial society. These officers, who returned from France, influenced not only the noble class, but also merchants and townspeople, and this influence was now successfully combined with those educational aspirations of the government in the first years of the 19th century, which just by this time began to bear noticeable fruit even in the provinces and encouraged, along with the spread of education, the spread of liberal ideas and books.
True, this educational work quite soon, if not stopped, then died down and decreased after 1805 due to the lack of funds and the outbreak of long wars. But the progressive activities of the government were later resumed in the works of Speransky, and it was clear to society that the government cut short its undertakings only as a result of external unfavorable circumstances. Since the government even now did not show that it was abandoning transformative and educational activities, Alexander’s subjects could expect that after the end of the wars, Alexander would begin, with greater experience and enriched with new knowledge, to continue these previous endeavors.
Alexander I and the question of the Russian constitution
Alexander's activities in Paris and then in Poland seemed to give some basis for these hopes to grow stronger and develop. True, fragmentary rumors about Alexander’s passion for mysticism and the manifesto that he published on January 1, 1816, shortly after returning to Russia, could serve as a warning for those who are too optimistic; but rumors of a mystical mood could not particularly disturb the progressive people of that time, since they themselves were not alien to mysticism and, for the most part, belonged to various Masonic orders or had their closest friends and like-minded people among the members of Masonic lodges. As for the manifesto, given on January 1, 1816, and written by Shishkov back in 1814, on the occasion of the accession allied forces to Paris, and which contained many loud phrases against the “godless” French and “vile” revolutionaries, but did not attack constitutional ideas at all - then this manifesto made a very bad impression in some places abroad, but in Russia it did not pay any attention received special attention, and was soon completely forgotten; thus, one can hardly give it the meaning that Schilder attributes to it.
In any case, Alexander in 1816 was still a sincere and convinced constitutionalist, and it should be noted that these ideas were then realized by him in real life - in the form of the Finnish and Polish constitutions and in the form of promoting the introduction of a constitution in France and some minor states Europe.
Even those closest to Alexander were then confident in Alexander’s intention to give Russia a constitution. In the papers of General Kiselev there is a record of a detailed report that he made to Alexander in 1816 on the state of affairs in the south of Russia. Kiselev was then instructed, among other things, to look for people suitable for the renovation administrative work, but he, having traveled around the south of Russia, found not so much suitable people as a lot of abuses, which he reported to Alexander. After listening to a report on the unrest and abuses in Novorossiya, Alexander said: “Everything cannot be done suddenly: the circumstances of the present time did not allow us to do internal affairs, as would be desirable, but now we are engaged in a new organization ... "
Speaking about the unrest in the administration in the south, the emperor said: “I know that in the administration most of people must be changed, and you are fair that evil comes from both the higher and the bad choices of lower officials. But where can I get them? I can’t even choose 52 governors, but thousands are needed...” “The army, the civilian part - everything is not the way I want, but what to do? Suddenly you can’t do everything, there are no helpers...”
From this report, interrupted by dialogues conveyed by Kiselev, apparently with photographic precision, it is clear, however, that Alexander was now especially keenly interested in issues of army organization, while placing issues of civil administration in the background. Thus, when Kiselev, having outlined the orgy of abuses taking place in Bessarabia, expressed the opinion that the entire administration there needed to be changed, and recommended the appointment of General Inzov there, Alexander quickly replied that he could not sacrifice such a good general for civil affairs.
Military settlements and Arakcheev
Alexander's position, in view of the policy he was pursuing in Europe at that time, was not easy at that time. In 1816–1817 he canceled the expected recruitment, but at the same time did not want to in any way reduce the composition of the standing army; when they reported to him that the population was grumbling because the war was over and military costs were not decreasing, Alexander responded with irritation that he could not support troops smaller than Austria and Prussia combined. In response to instructions that these states had already disbanded part of their troops, Alexander noted that he, too, was “thinking” of doing this. He told his generals, who advised him to reduce the number of troops, that “préponderance politique” was necessary for Russia and that therefore one could not even think about reducing military forces. But at this time he was thinking hard about reducing the cost of maintaining the army and improving the living conditions of soldiers. At one time he was very interested in the military reform that was carried out in Prussia after the Peace of Tilsit, when Prussia pledged to have no more than 42 thousand troops under arms. Then, as you know, General Scharngorst found an ingenious way out of the difficulty: reducing the service life to three years and establishing a reserve of two categories, with a small standing army, gave the country the opportunity, if necessary, to field a large army.
According to the Scharngorst system, in Prussia everyone entered military service for three years, then enlisted in the reserves, from which they were called up from time to time for training camps; Thus, in a short time the population was trained, and it was easy to quickly mobilize in case of need, thus increasing the available army suddenly several times. Alexander was very interested in this idea, but he soon realized that in Russia of his time, due to the vastness of its territory, sparse population and complete lack of convenient means of communication, this idea was inapplicable, since rapid mobilization was impossible with the lack of roads and scattered population. That is why he could not stop at this system then. Concerned, however, with improving the position of the troops and reducing the state's costs of maintaining them, he attacked back in 1810 the French work of a certain Servan, which advocated the idea of border military settlements engaged in both agriculture and service. He liked this idea so much that he immediately ordered P.M. Volkonsky to hastily translate this brochure into Russian - in order to immediately introduce Arakcheev to it, to whom he decided to entrust this part. It was this system of military settlements that subsequently brought so much grief. This system consisted in the fact that some territories were transferred from the civil department to the jurisdiction of the War Ministry, and they were exempt from all taxes and duties and for this they had to recruit and maintain certain military units from their population. The first application of this system was made in 1810–1811. in the Mogilev province, in one of the volosts of which the Yelets infantry regiment was installed, and this volost was removed from the jurisdiction of the civil authorities, and the local population was evicted to the Novorossiysk region. In order for the newly created military settlement to immediately acquire the character of an agricultural one, it was ordered to form one battalion from all the married and family soldiers of the regiment and assign their wives and families to them, without paying attention to their desire or reluctance. These family soldiers were to constitute the indigenous population of the volost; They distributed the rest into apartments - single soldiers, converted into farm laborers and receiving full maintenance from the installed soldier-owners in exchange for wages, on an equal basis with members of their own families.
This was the idea that Alexander settled on in 1810. The first Mogilev settlement failed because the war of 1812 began; The Yelets regiment set out on a campaign - and the thought of these settlements died out for the entire time of the Napoleonic Wars.
But in 1816, Alexander decided to resume attempts to implement this idea. This time the experiment was transferred to the Novgorod province, where Arakcheev’s estate was located, for whom it was therefore more convenient to observe the progress of affairs in these settlements. It was ordered not to evict the indigenous population, but to directly convert them into military villagers. An entire volost was allocated for this settlement; all peasants of the volost were declared military villagers; One of the regiments was stationed at their houses. The establishment of this settlement on a military model was helped by an incident: the central village of the Vysokoe volost burned down. Arakcheev ordered to line up again according to a specific plan. These were mathematically correctly laid out estates; The former residents were installed in them, their beards were shaved, they were put on uniforms and a regiment was left on their koshta. At the same time, all sorts of concerns were shown to improve their financial situation - they were given cattle, horses, loans and benefits, etc. The battalions assigned for this purpose were settled with these soldier-plowmen, and the soldiers stationed in this way became farm laborers for local military settlers. When single soldiers married, they received separate households, but these marriages required permission from the military authorities. Records were kept of all widows and older girls, and marriages were prescribed by the authorities.
A lot of money was spent on these settlements in order to organize their life firmly and systematically: on the other hand, the life of the settlers was shackled by petty, deadening military regulations: every household was under the constant supervision of the authorities; a careless owner could be deprived of the farm and even expelled from the volost. Not only men, but also women were subject to military discipline; children at a certain age were selected for study and enrolled as cantonists. The population, despite significant material benefits, treated this system with hatred, since it was bondage - worse than serfdom.
Portrait of Count Arakcheev. Artist J. Doe
It must be said that Arakcheev himself was a financially honest man, and those huge sums that passed through his hands did not stick to these hands; He also strictly observed his subordinates. There is no impartially compiled biography of Arakcheev; his role and significance have been clarified only with outside, and the gloomy legends created around this ominous name are hardly entirely fair. Too much hatred and bloody memories coalesce around him. Moreover, a person like Arakcheev was too convenient a scapegoat to cover up what was being done unpleasant by the will of Alexander himself. The inaccuracy of ideas was partly contributed to by the censorship conditions under which they were written until recently. historical works. All these considerations must be taken into account when assessing this individual. Many attribute to Arakcheev an unusually harmful influence on Alexander and by the power of this influence they seek to explain all the dark traits of Alexander that manifested themselves in last years his reign. At the same time, Arakcheev is presented not only as a friend of Alexander, but also as the only person whose friendly relations with Emperor Alexander did not change. Meanwhile, Arakcheev was not so much a friend of Alexander in the true sense of the word, but a faithful slave of his master; in essence, it makes almost no difference whether this gentleman was Paul or Alexander. Arakcheev was not a stupid man, but poorly educated, but efficient and hardworking; he was financially honest, never stole government property, which was quite rare at that time, and was always ready to save every penny in his master’s household. For all Arakcheev’s dog-like devotion - in which even his fatherland seemed to him an insignificant trifle in comparison with the interests of his master - he, however, had his own drive and ambition. He was merciless, inhuman in his execution; but he was able to predict his master's intentions. He was vain, but the main object of his ambition was the confidence that he enjoyed the unlimited confidence of his master. Of course, such a servant is a real treasure for an autocrat, and especially for one like Alexander, who was already tired of the worries of his reign and needed faithful person, able to look at all objects through the eyes of his master. But one can hardly call Arakcheev a friend of Alexander, and in particular one can hardly attribute to him moral and political influence to Alexander.
The direction of the policy undoubtedly depended on Alexander, and the forms could be created under the influence of Arakcheev. As for military settlements, Arakcheev more than once asserted that this was not his idea, that at first he was against military settlements, but, once he took on them, he carried out the task not out of fear, but out of conscience, carried away by its outward success.
Military settlements grew and developed unusually quickly, so that by 1825 the corps of military settlements consisted of 90 infantry battalions from Novgorod and 36 infantry battalions and 249 cavalry squadrons from Ukrainian settlements. Schilder draws attention to the fact that this is a case that had enormous public and national significance, was done privately. The State Council did not interfere with it, as if it was none of its business - contrary to the order established by law. Economically, this enterprise had visible external success; The material life of the population was very well furnished: agriculture and crafts flourished in military settlements, and they did not buy almost everything that was needed for food and uniforms for these military units, but produced themselves. Thanks to this, Arakcheev managed to accumulate reserve capital of up to 50 million rubles. (capital of military settlements), and he loved to brag about his economy, and especially about his exemplary reporting. And it is remarkable that many authoritative and, moreover, relatively independent people of that time gave very flattering reviews of military settlements. Thus, Arakcheev managed to receive very flattering reviews about military settlements from gr. V.P. Kochubey after their personal inspection, from the state controller Baron Kampfenhausen and even from Speransky, returned from exile, who visited the Novgorod settlements, and, finally, from Karamzin. In some settlements, however, major abuses were later discovered, despite all the severity. But the main thing that, with careful calculation, undermined the significance of these settlements from the economic side was the calculation of the amounts that were spent by the treasury on this enterprise. Already in the first years, up to 100 million rubles were spent, and one must also take into account the exemption of settlers from all taxes. The very experience of this unique military-economic experiment deserves a thorough and comprehensive study; but such research has not yet been carried out: all information about these settlements is extremely fragmentary. In the literature, most of all there is information about the riots that took place there in different time. The people still have a gloomy memory of this monstrous attempt to turn a significant part of the vast country into military serfdom.
Concern for the gradual but radical reorganization of the army through a system of military settlements was Alexander's main concern in the first years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Despite what he was told in 1816 by P.D. Kiselev - and what, no doubt, was repeated to other people - that he would now again take up internal reforms, these words, if implemented, were only fits and starts or in the form of minor orders.
During the Napoleonic Wars, the entire high administration and even the highest police were concentrated in the Committee of Ministers, and Alexander repeatedly pointed out that during the war the Committee had to act independently in the absence of the sovereign, even in the most important cases without waiting for the highest commands that would have been required in normal times. course of things, with the approval only of its chairman, who appointed, as already mentioned, N.I. Saltykov is the same one to whom Catherine once entrusted the main supervision of Alexander’s upbringing. Now he was already a decrepit old man, and in fact everything was in charge of the affairs manager of the Committee, Molchanov.
Soon, when checking wartime accounts, a mass of all sorts of thefts were discovered, mainly in the food sector - not so much in the army, where Kankrin, a completely honest and energetic man, was at the head of this matter, but in the War Ministry and the Committee of Ministers.
Alexander, previously dissatisfied with the troubles and sluggish actions of the Committee, now, in view of the discovered thefts, became extremely indignant and brought Molchanov and the entire War Ministry with Prince to trial. Golitsyn at the head. At the same time, he appointed Arakcheev as his permanent rapporteur on the affairs of the Committee to help Saltykov, who remained so even when, after Saltykov’s death, a not at all decrepit man, Lopukhin, was appointed chairman of the committee. Thus, Arakcheev became, as it were, prime minister, although he did not have any portfolio. A rather strange order of government was established: Alexander stopped receiving ministers with reports. They had made their reports to the committee before; but he personally stopped taking part in the committee a long time ago. He spent most of his time traveling around Russia or abroad at international congresses. Ministers all matters requiring highest resolution, were submitted to the Committee of Ministers, and the short journal of the committee with Arakcheev’s conclusion was reported to the sovereign in writing. At the same time, there was almost no example of Alexander disagreeing with Arakcheev’s opinion. It was this circumstance that gave Arakcheev the significance of a temporary worker, to whom all the obscurantist measures and repressions of that time were attributed. But if you look closely at the essence of this entire mass of cases - at least according to Seredonin’s “Historical Review of the Activities of the Committee of Ministers”, then you cannot help but notice that the vast majority of these cases were of secondary importance, and moreover, we must give Arakcheev justice that one cannot see in his conclusions special inclination towards repression or cruel measures; One can, rather, see in them vigilant monitoring of the safety of the state chest and the strict implementation of all the thoughts of Emperor Alexander. Arakcheev always kept an eye out for anything selfish in the ideas put forward by individual dignitaries. Among Arakcheev's resolutions there are also those where Arakcheev recommends fairly fair decisions, sometimes more humane than the decisions of the Committee of Ministers. What is most noticeable here is the desire to find a way out that would be more consistent with Alexander’s mood. It is clear that Alexander trusted Arakcheev under such conditions and that the latter greatly facilitated him in matters in which Alexander, in essence, was not interested, being busy with other issues. Arakcheev’s reputation as a person who had extraordinary influence on Alexander was mainly built on this.
In addition to these positions, Arakcheev also chaired the special committee for the construction of roads in Russia, and here he also showed very active and strict supervision, although not always achieving the goal; finally, he also chaired the department of military affairs of the State Council from the time of the establishment of the latter, refusing then (in 1810) from the post of Minister of War.
"Memoires de Michel Oginski sur la Pologne et les Polonais." Paris et Geneve. 1827, vol. IV, pp. 228 et seq. These memoirs describe Alexander’s conversation with the author of the memoirs in Warsaw in 1815 and the reception of a deputation of three Lithuanian provinces: Vilna, Grodno and Minsk. In a conversation with Oginsky, Alexander clearly hinted at his intention to annex these provinces to the Kingdom of Poland, believing that thereby they would be more closely connected with the Russian Empire, since any reason for discontent would disappear among the residents. But at the same time, he forbade the deputies themselves to ask him about this, fearing that this could aggravate the attitude towards the issue of Russian public opinion. What this last was like can be seen most clearly from the note Karamzin entitled “Opinion of a Russian Citizen,” presented to Alexander in 1819, and from his note “For Posterity” ( Unpublished works and correspondence of N. M. Karamzin,” part I. St. Petersburg, 1862), as well as from notes I. D. Yakushkina, which vividly depicts how they treated the Polish question in 1817–1818. the advanced liberal-minded part of the then military youth, who at that time had already joined the “Union of Salvation” (pp. 14–15).
Exactly the same data, extracted from the military-scientific archive, was published regarding the provinces of the Western Territory in “Acts, documents and materials for political. and everyday life history of 1812", collected. and ed. on behalf of the leader. book Mikhail Alexandrovich, ed. G. K. Voensky, Vol. I. Collection. By them. Russian history Society, vol. CXXVIII. St. Petersburg, 1909. Compare S. M. Goryainov and 1812. State documents. and St. Petersburg. chapters archives 1912, II, p. 98.
Compare Bogdanovich, IV, 570, and V. I. Pokrovsky“Historical and statistical description of the Tver province”, vol. I, part 1, p. 153.
The enormity of the population decline in Russia during the three years of the last Napoleonic wars (1812–1815) is visible from a comparison of the censuses of 1811 and 1815. According to the census carried out in 1811, the male population gender in Russia equaled 18,740 thousand souls. Under normal conditions (taking into account the then normal annual growth), it should have increased in four years by 1–1.5 million souls. Instead, according to the census carried out in 1815, it turned out to be equal to 18 million 880 thousand male souls, i.e., in four years it decreased by 860 thousand male souls. From this we can conclude that the actual loss of people from the war and related disasters and epidemics was about 2 million souls only male.(Population figures for the censuses of 1811 and 1815 were taken by me from a table compiled by Academician Hermann, after correcting numerous typos made in it, in “Mémoires de 1"accad. imp. des sciences de St. Petersbourg.” T. VII, 1820 "Recherches statistiques sur la septième revision" par S. T. Hermann).The annual population growth (of both sexes) during this time was derived from N. N. Obrucheva in the "Military Statistical Collection". Issue IV, “Russia”, p. 51.
Here, however, it should be noted that the patriotism of the population, especially the upper noble class, did not immediately speak out regarding material assistance to the state in these difficult years, and then, after the removal of the French at the end of 1812, quickly dried up. This is also evident from the hostility with which the manifesto of February 11, 1812 (Speransky’s last financial measure), which established progressive income tax noble estates (in the amount of 1 to 10% of the annual income shown by the landowners themselves “in conscience and honor”), and according to those deliberately inaccurate and dishonest testimony about the size of their income, which such universally respected landowners as Count. IN. G. Orlov-Davydov or as the father of the famous memoirist D. Ya. Sverbeeva(about this see “Notes of Dm. Nik. Sverbeev”, vol. I, p. 243 et seq. “Collection of the Russian Historical Society” volume 45, as well as article by A. I. Vasilyeva“The Progressive Income Tax of 1812 and the Fall of Speransky” in “The Voice of the Past” for 1915, No. 7–8, p. 332).
It is remarkable that in 1813 the receipt of this progressive income tax was expected to be 5 million rubles, and then it drops to 3.3 million and even 2 million, and finally, in 1810 the tax had to be abolished ( Vasiliev, p. 339).
Some units that belonged to Vorontsov’s occupation corps remained, as is known, in France from 1816 to 1818. (before the Aachen Congress).
Cm. S. M. Seredonin"Historical Review of the Committee of Ministers", Vol. I. Comp. article V. I. Semevsky in the collection “Peasant System”.
However, one of the participants in Alexander’s first transformative reforms, gr. V. P. Kochubey, who was also a representative of rather moderate views in the secret committee, now expressed his desiderata [wishes] even more carefully. In a note compiled at the very end of 1814, Kochubey wrote among other things: “The Russian Empire constitutes an autocratic state, and if you look at the space of the earth, if you pay attention to its geographical location, the degree of its enlightenment and many other circumstances, then it should admit that the form of this government is a single one, which for a long time perhaps peculiar to Russia; but this form cannot prevent the sovereign from choosing everything possible ways for naia better management and, as it has been proven that the sovereign, no matter how far-sighted he is, cannot alone embrace all parts of the government, he is obliged to look for strong state institutions that, by bringing his empire closer to other best-structured states, would present to his subjects the benefits of a just government , meek and enlightened..."
This note was found among Alexander’s papers after his death and published in the “Collection of Imp. Russian historical society"(vol. HS, pp. 5–27).
Comp. interesting articles A. A. Kizevetter“Emperor Alexander I and Arakcheev” in “Russian Thought” for 1910, Nos. 11 and 12 and for 1911, No. 2. Literature about Arakcheev is also listed there.
Biographer Alexander has a very biased and uncritical attitude towards Arakcheev N.K. Schilder.
Comp. "Count Arakcheev and military settlements 1809–1831." Ed. Russian Antiquity. St. Petersburg, 1871. A lot of data about military settlements is given in the works Schilder And Bogdanovich.
11/17/1815 (11/30). - Emperor Alexander I granted the Constitution to the Kingdom of Poland
Accession of Poland
The so-called “partitions of Poland” (1772-1795) between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia were dictated on the Russian side by the return of primordially Russian lands previously seized by the Poles. Only after, in which the Poles actively supported Napoleon’s army, by decision Congress of Vienna 1815 The Polish territories themselves were transferred to Russia.
At the Congress of Vienna, which opened in the fall of 1814, the main contradictions between the powers were revealed precisely during the discussion of the Polish question. Austria, Prussia (at the first stage), France and mainly England disputed the proposed project of annexing the territory of the Principality of Warsaw to Russia. Sharp disagreements arose over the size of the territory that would be annexed to Russia, and about the status of this territory - whether it would be a province or a constitutional Kingdom.
On May 3, 1815, treaties were finally signed between Russia, Prussia and Austria on the Duchy of Warsaw, and on June 9, the general act of the Congress of Vienna was signed. Prussia received the Poznań and Bydgoszcz departments Duchy of Warsaw, from which the Grand Duchy of Poznan was formed, as well as the city of Gdansk; Austria received the Wieliczka region. Krakow and its surroundings became a "free city" under the protectorate of Austria, Prussia and Russia. The remaining territory was annexed to Russia and amounted to Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland with an area of about 127,700 sq. km and a population of 3.2 million people. This success of Russian diplomacy was explained primarily by Russia's status as a victor at that time: Russian troops were the main force that defeated Napoleon, and Europe had to take this into account.
Wanting to gain the favor of Polish society, Emperor Alexander I immediately after the end of hostilities issued an amnesty Polish officers and soldiers who fought with Napoleon against Russia. In 1814, the Polish army returned home from France. Restoration of a sovereign Polish state consisting of Russian Empire(modeled on) aroused sympathy among influential circles Polish gentry who saw this necessary condition maintaining their class advantages.
On November 17, 1815, Emperor Alexander I granted the Poles the status of a sovereign Kingdom of Poland with its own Constitution. The Constitution preserved the traditions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which were expressed in the names of state institutions, in the organization of the Sejm, in the collegial system of state bodies, in the election of the administration and judges. Poland retained its government, army (it was transformed according to the Russian model while maintaining the Polish uniform and the Polish language of command), and the national currency - the zloty. Polish continued to have the status of the state language. The most important government positions were held by Poles. The highest legislative authority was the Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland, which was inaugurated in 1818 by Emperor Alexander I himself as proof of the possibility of the peaceful development of the Polish nation within the Empire as a Western Slavic link connecting Russia with Western Europe.
The Constitution, as well as the related provision on elections to the Seimas, were the most liberal in Europe at that time, extending the right to vote to a significant electoral corps at that time - over 100 thousand people, which was achieved by a relatively low property qualification. IN Central Europe after 1815, the Kingdom of Poland was the only country with a directly elected parliament, by all social classes, albeit with little participation from peasants.
In the Kingdom of Poland, the principle of equality before the law was preserved, but it was officially declared (following the Russian model) that this equality applied only to those professing the Christian religion. The Jews were henceforth deprived of political rights as adherents of an anti-Christian religion.
The Constitution proclaimed that the Kingdom of Poland would forever join the Russian Empire and be associated with it by a personal union, the community of the reigning dynasty. The Russian Emperor became the Polish king and assumed the Polish throne in accordance with the order of succession to the throne that existed in the Russian Empire. However, in the Kingdom of Poland, the Emperor-King was constitutional, his power was limited by the constitutional law issued by himself.
The legislative initiative belonged to the Emperor-King, but he legislative branch it was to be carried out together with the Sejm. True, when approving the constitution, Alexander I made an amendment to its text: he reserved the right to change the budget proposed by the Sejm and to postpone its convocation indefinitely. The Sejm consisted of two chambers: the Senate and the Ambassador's hut. In accordance with the previously existing order, the Senate included members of the royal family, bishops appointed by the king, governors and other senior officials in a number that would not exceed half the number of elected deputies of the Ambassadorial Hut, which consisted of 128 members. The Sejm was mainly concerned with changes in the field of civil and criminal law. Administrative and economic issues were most often regulated by decisions of the governor, and later of the Administrative Council.
The Deputy Emperor-King in Poland was the viceroy, who performed his functions in the absence of the monarch in the Kingdom. The central governing body under the governor was the State Council, which was divided into the General Assembly and the Administrative Council. The Administrative Council consisted of the royal governor, five ministers, and other members appointed by the Emperor-King. It was the highest authority executive power, an advisory body to the king and the viceroy in matters that went beyond the powers granted to the ministers. He also implemented royal decrees and decrees of the governor. After the actual abolition of the position of governor in 1826, the Administrative Council was transformed into the highest government body. Changes to government bills could be made after an agreement between the Sejm commissions and the Administrative Council.
The highest court of the Kingdom of Poland was established in Warsaw, which heard in the final instance all civil and criminal cases, with the exception of cases of state crimes. Cases of state crimes and criminal acts committed by government officials were considered by the Supreme Court of the Kingdom, composed of all members of the Senate.
The majority of the gentry society accepted the constitution of 1815 with satisfaction. It was considered to be fully consistent with the class interests of the Polish nobility. The situation with the “public” was worse: liberal views began to appear and take root, new press organs and secret anti-government organizations were created. This was enough to introduce censorship on newspapers and magazines, and then on all printed publications, contrary to the constitution. The Russian government in the person of the governor, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, was increasingly subject to criticism, which, in an effort to maintain order, de facto pushed into the background all other bodies of state power.
So already from the moment of the emergence of the Kingdom of Poland, it appeared in the 1820s. The illegal opposition - secret revolutionary organizations - has reached a significant level. The Sejm and illegal opposition were united by the desire to restore the former Polish borders, mainly due to the lands of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine lost as a result of the first three “partitions”. The commonality of this aspiration, combined with the unequal socio-political programs of various movements, affected the character, which led to the loss of the Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. The Polish question in international politics 1813-1815
§ 2. Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland 1815
§ 3. Attitude to the Constitution in society and implementation of its principles in life
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Introduction
The first years of the existence of the “Viennese system” became a time of relative external calm in Europe: “at the forefront of concerns and practical activities European monarchs were faced with the task of solving internal problems." However, Russian Emperor, continued to live in European affairs. The course of his foreign policy was characterized by “political expansionism”, a shining example which can serve as a policy towards the Kingdom of Poland in the first years of its creation.
In 1815 The division of Polish lands was carried out, according to which Russia received a fairly vast territory, forming the Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland on it. To prevent the Poles, dissatisfied with the new partition of Poland, from turning into open enemies of Russia, Alexander I used not only the stick, but also the carrot. This was the constitution of 1815, which was essentially declarative in nature.
The emperor granted his new subjects the maximum number of benefits and privileges. In fact, the Kingdom of Poland was an independent state, connected with Russia only by personal union. Poland retained the elected Sejm, its government, army, and national currency - the zloty. Polish continued to have the status of the state language. The most important government positions were held by Poles. It seemed that Alexander I did everything possible to satisfy the national pride of the local population. However, the gentry wanted not just a Polish state, but the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth within the borders of 1772, that is, the annexation of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands. In addition, she was not satisfied with the too broad powers of the monarch, especially since this monarch was the Russian Tsar. Constitution of 1815 was only a “demonstration of the liberal views” of the Russian emperor; in fact, it was carried out with serious amendments and restrictions.
The purpose of this work is to consider the main provisions of the Constitution of 1815. The Kingdom of Poland, as the first serious attempt by the Russian emperor to introduce constitutional order in this region. In accordance with the goal, the following tasks were set:
1. identify the knot of contradictions around the Polish issue at the level international politics(§1);
2. highlight the basic principles of the Constitution of 1815. (§2);
3. consider a range of issues related to what was the attitude towards the Constitution in society, and how it was put into practice (§3).
§1. The Polish question in international politics 1813-1815.
In January - March 1813 Russian troops, pursuing Napoleon's retreating army, occupied the territory of the Principality of Warsaw, headed by the Provisional Supreme Council chaired by N.N. Novosiltsev and V.S. Lansky, as well as Polish statesmen Wawrzhetsky and Prince Lubetsky.
Wanting to strengthen his position in the upcoming negotiations on the Polish issue and gain the favor of the gentry society, Alexander I adopted a benevolent tone towards the Poles: he amnestied officers and soldiers whose political activities were directed against Russia. In 1814 The Polish army returned to the principality from France. These gestures gave reason to think that Alexander I decided to restore the Polish state, which aroused sympathy among influential circles of the Polish gentry. Adam Czartoryski proposed to Alexander his plan for restoring the Kingdom of Poland from all its parts under the scepter of the Russian emperors. This idea was supported by a group of Polish aristocrats and gentry, who saw in such a resolution of the issue a necessary condition for maintaining their class advantages.
Meanwhile, the question of the fate of Poland became a pressing international issue: “it moved into the sphere of diplomacy, turned into the “Polish question” in its vague meaning, allowing for all sorts of interpretations and maneuvers, into one of the main objects of the diplomatic struggle of the European powers.”
Alexander I did not want to let go of the Polish lands that made up the Duchy of Warsaw from his hands, however, there were no specific statements from the emperor. Adam Czartoryski, dissatisfied with the emperor's evasive answers on this problem, turns to England with a request to convince Alexander I to create the Kingdom of Poland.
While the war with France was going on, and Russia was the only force on the continent that was crushing Napoleon, the British government showed every kind of consideration towards Alexander and his plans, including on the Polish issue. English “observer” at the Russian headquarters, General Wilson in 1812. stated that England approved the plan for the creation of the Kingdom of Poland under the scepter of Alexander I. In the summer of 1813. the situation has changed dramatically. England, alarmed by the rapid advance of Russian troops, began to actively oppose the Polish plans of Alexander I. To this end, Wilson went to Warsaw, where he told the Poles in salons: “Do not enter into negotiations with anyone. You are considered subjects of the Saxon king. … Be passive for now.” This agitation, as Wilson himself admitted, did not find much approval among his listeners. At the same time, British diplomacy tried in every possible way to emphasize controversial issues between Prussia and Austria with Russia. Wilson, for example, advised Prussia to strive to retain Gdansk, Austria not to agree to the transfer of Zamosc to the Russians, Czartoryski to focus on Prussia, etc. In general, England's policy on the Polish issue was to prevent the formation of a separate Polish kingdom; England sought to delay the resolution of this issue in order to use it for its diplomatic plans against Russia and other continental powers.
Austria and Prussia also opposed Alexander’s plans, naturally not wanting Russia to strengthen in this region.
At the Congress of Vienna, which opened in the fall of 1814. The main contradictions between the powers were revealed precisely during the discussion of the Polish issue. Austria, Prussia (at the first stage), France and mainly England fiercely disputed the project put forward by Alexander I to annex the territory of the Principality of Warsaw to Russia and create the Kingdom of Poland. Particularly sharp disagreements arose over the size of the territory that would be annexed to Russia, and about the status of this territory - whether it would be a province or an autonomous constitutional kingdom.
During the autumn, some changes took place in the anti-Russian bloc: Russia managed to come to an agreement with Prussia. Prussia laid claim to Saxony - and in this the Russian Tsar was ready to support the Prussian king Frederick William III (after all, whoever owns Saxony has passes in the Bohemian Mountains, i.e. the shortest route to Vienna; thus, Saxony would turn into a constant bone of contention between Austria and Prussia, which would preclude a rapprochement between these two German powers). In response to this, in January 1815. England, France and Austria concluded a secret convention directed against Russia and Prussia.
Negotiations continued, but now with even greater tension. Alexander I agreed to territorial concessions to Austria (renunciation of Krakow, Wieliczka, transfer of the Ternopil district to Austria).
Napoleon's return to France disrupted the discussion of issues and forced a rush to complete the work of the congress. May 3, 1815 Treaties were signed between Russia, Prussia and Austria on the Duchy of Warsaw, and on June 9 - the general act of the Congress of Vienna. According to the treaties of the Congress of Vienna, Prussia received the Poznań and Bydgoszcz departments of the Duchy of Warsaw, from which the Grand Duchy of Poznań was formed, as well as the city of Gdansk; Austria – Wieliczka region. Krakow and its surroundings became a “free city” under the protectorate of Austria, Prussia and Russia. The remaining territory was annexed to Russia and formed the Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland.
In addition, the congress adopted two decisions, according to which, firstly, it promised to introduce national representation in all Polish lands and, secondly, to proclaim the right of free economic communication between all Polish territories. These declarations remained on paper: the constitution was introduced only in the Kingdom of Poland (November 27, 1815), and the promise of free economic space turned out to be mostly a fiction.
Thus, the Congress of Vienna carried out a new, fourth, division of Polish lands. The borders determined at that moment were destined to remain in place until 1918, when the Polish state was restored.
The Kingdom of Poland was approximately 127,700 sq. km with a population of 3.2 million people. The kingdom occupied less than ¼ of the territory with ¼ of the population of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
§2. Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland 1815
In the last days of the meetings of the Congress of Vienna on May 22, 1815. The “Fundamentals of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland” were signed. This document emphasized the decisive role of the constitution as an act connecting Poland with Russia.
Almost simultaneously, a decree was published on the transformation of the Provisional supreme council to the Provisional Polish Government, of which A. Czartoryski was appointed vice-president. The reorganization of the army was to be carried out by the Military Committee, chaired by Grand Duke Constantine. The existence of a Military Committee, independent from the government and formally equal to it, became a source of disagreement between the Polish authorities and Constantine.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was signed on November 27, 1815. in Warsaw, where it was published in French. It was not published in Russian periodicals at that time for political reasons. It was based on a project proposed by A. Czartoryski, N. Novosiltsev, Shanyavski and Sobolevski.
When approving the constitution, Alexander I made several amendments to its text, in particular, the emperor did not agree to granting legislative initiative to the Sejm, reserved the right to change the budget proposed by the Sejm and postpone its convening indefinitely.
The Constitution proclaimed that the Kingdom of Poland would forever join the Russian Empire and be associated with it by a personal union, the community of the reigning dynasty. The Russian emperor ascended the Polish throne in accordance with the order of succession to the crown that existed in the Russian Empire. Foreign policy was also the same for the Empire and the Kingdom. After the coronation in Moscow, Nicholas I was crowned the Polish king in Warsaw, which resolved the issue of the procedure for enthroning the Polish throne. The Emperor-King was the constitutional monarch of the Kingdom of Poland, bound by the constitutional law he himself issued. The ministers were responsible for the king's acts. Royal power covered:
1. the exclusive initiative of constitutional legislation, that is, that which relates to the addition of the constitution through organic laws;
2. the right to approve or reject laws adopted by the Sejm;
3. the full scope of government administrative functions (executive power).
The King's Deputy was a viceroy who performed his functions in the absence of the monarch in the Kingdom. Fearing the growth of A. Czartoryski’s authority, Alexander I made General Józef Zajonczek viceroy. He turned out to be an obedient instrument in the hands of the emperor and the Russian senator N. Novosiltsev, who was appointed by him to the post of imperial commissioner at the Administrative Council of the Kingdom. After Zajoncek's death in 1826. the position of governor remained vacant until 1832, and Nicholas I transferred his functions to the Administrative Council. The decisions of the governor had to be announced in the Administrative Council and countersigned by one of the ministers. The viceroy had to act within the powers established by the king.
A large extra-constitutional role, significantly beyond the official powers of the commander-in-chief of the Polish army, was played by Grand Duke Constantine, who essentially exercised comprehensive supervision over the public life of the Kingdom.
In practice, the power of the monarch, represented by the governor, Grand Duke Konstantin and Novosiltsev, pushed into the background all other bodies of state power. The Sejm was not allowed to perform some of its functions, and the civil rights and freedoms proclaimed by the constitution were violated. The Constitution introduced the right to restrict the personal freedom of citizens if required by “the circumstances of the moment, that is, the possibility of administrative repression.”
The only truly guaranteed principle was the principle of private property.
The Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press, however, by decree of the governor of 1819. preliminary censorship of the daily and periodical press was introduced, and then censorship of all publications.
The king had to exercise legislative power together with the Sejm, which consisted of two chambers: the Senate and the Ambassadorial Hut.
In accordance with the previously existing order, the Senate included members of the royal family, bishops, governors and other senior officials appointed by the king in a number that would not exceed half the number of deputies of the Ambassadorial Hut (no more than 64 people).
The embassy hut consisted of 128 members, of which 77 deputies (representatives from the gentry) were elected at sejmiks, and 51 deputies were elected from communes. Passive suffrage extended to persons who had reached 30 years of age and paid at least 100 zloty taxes per year. Active suffrage was enjoyed by gentry landowners over the age of 21, and from the rest of the population - priests, teachers, artisans, landowners, tenants and merchants who owned goods worth 10 thousand zlotys. Peasants, workers, apprentices and military personnel did not receive voting rights. Deputies were elected for 6 years with re-election every 2 years by one third of their members. The Sejm was convened once every 2 years for 30 days, or as needed. However, it was convened only 4 times: the first - in 1818. and then in 1820, 1825. and 1830
During meetings, deputies were guaranteed personal integrity.
The constitutional competences of the Sejm were reduced to the following points:
1. legislation in the field of judicial and administrative law;
2. decisions on issues of the monetary system, tax and budget. However, the first budget was approved by the emperor himself and in practice the Diet was not allowed to participate in budgetary matters;
3. decisions on issues of conscription into the army;
4. constitutional legislation. The Sejm had the right to discuss and accept or reject (but not amend) bills submitted to it by the government;
5. control over the government, although to a limited extent.
In practice, the Sejm was mainly concerned with changes in the field of civil and criminal law. Administrative and economic issues were most often regulated by decisions of the governor, and later of the Administrative Council. The legislative initiative belonged only to the king. Changes to government bills could be made after an agreement between the Sejm commissions and the Administrative Council. Each of the chambers, however, could submit requests to the king to submit a particular project to the next meeting of the Sejm. The embassy hut was allowed to contact the king with petitions and complaints against ministers, advisers, and judges of the highest tribunal. State crimes and crimes of officials were examined by the Senate, which had the powers of a Sejm court.
The central body of power and administration was the State Council, which was divided into the General Assembly and the Administrative Council.
The competence of the General Meeting of the State Council included:
1. discussion and drafting of laws and institutions relating to the general administration of the region;
2. resolutions to bring to trial all government officials appointed by the Tsar on charges of crimes in office, with the exception of those subject to the Supreme State Court;
3. resolution of disputes about the limits of department and power;
4. annual review of reports submitted by each of the main parts of management;
5. monitoring compliance with the Constitution, combating abuses.
The general meeting of the State Council was to meet at the behest of the king, the governor, or at the proposal of the head of the department in accordance with organic laws. In order for the decisions of the General Assembly to come into force, they had to be submitted for approval by the king or the governor.
The Administrative Council included the royal governor, five ministers, and other members appointed by the king. It was the highest organ of the executive power, an advisory body to the king and the viceroy in matters that went beyond the powers granted to the ministers. He also implemented royal decrees and decrees of the governor. After the actual abolition of the position of governor in 1826. The Administrative Council was transformed into the highest government body.
The country was governed by five government commissions subordinate to the Administrative Council:
1. Commission for Religion and Public Education;
2. justice commission;
3. commission of internal affairs and police (“order and security police”);
4. military commission;
5. Commission on Revenue and Finance (since 1824 – National Economy).
There was a Secretary of State in St. Petersburg, who acted as an intermediary between the royal court and the authorities in the Kingdom.
Subordinate to government commissions various kinds general directorates (post office, urban transport, forests and state property, etc.). Advisory functions and functions of self-government were performed by councils - medical, construction, etc., chambers - trade and crafts - in the amount of four, as well as the General Council of Trade and Crafts under the Commission of Internal Affairs and the Police, and charitable councils.
There was a Chamber of Accounts, which was supposed to depend on the Senate and perform certain functions of political control, but in practice it became dependent only on the king.
IN administratively The kingdom was divided into 8 voivodeships, which in turn were divided into 77 povets and 51 urban communes. At the head of each voivodeship were government voivodeship commissions and elected voivodeship councils - local government bodies.
In cities, the governing bodies were burgomasters, and in several of the most big cities– presidents and council members appointed by the government. The commission bodies in the districts were district commissioners. In the villages, landowners remained as voits.
As for the sejmiks, they consisted of noble owners from each povet, who had to elect from among themselves one ambassador, two members of the voivodeship council and draw up a list of candidates for administrative positions. Sejmiks met upon the convocation of the king, who established the duration and subjects of the meeting, and also appointed a marshal - the chairman of the sejmik.
In each commune district, a commune meeting was convened, which elected one deputy to the Sejm, one member of the voivodeship council and compiled a list of candidates for administrative positions. Gmina meetings included:
1. every citizen is an owner (not a nobleman) who pays any tax on his real estate;
2. manufacturers; workshop owners; merchants who own a shop;
3. all rectors and vicars;
4. professors/teachers;
5. particularly distinguished artists.
At the same time, it is interesting to emphasize the fact that the work on compiling lists of participants in commune meetings was quite long and serious. The list of owners entitled to vote was compiled by the voivodeship council. A list of manufacturers, merchants and artists was compiled by an internal affairs commission. The list of abbots, vicars, and professors was compiled by the commission of religions and public education. As at sejmiks, commune meetings were presided over by a marshal appointed by the king.
The Constitution provided for the creation of many new courts, but in general its provisions were not implemented; the old courts remained untouched. At the same time, the State Council ceased to be a court of cassation. Civil disputes were decided by the highest court, and criminal disputes by the appellate court. The Senate was the court for the most important matters of a political and governmental nature. The judiciary was declared “constitutionally independent”; judges were not subject to criminal liability. They were either appointed by the king (in this case they were irremovable and remained in office for life) or were elected on the basis of an organic statute. There was a class of justices of the peace, which were specific for each class of the population; Their competence included the resolution of disputes of an economic nature, as well as the verification and analysis of cases before sending them to the civil court of first instance. Under civil court of first instance was understood to be a court that hears cases for an amount not exceeding five hundred zlotys. It was established in every commune and in every city.
To consider cases worth more than five hundred zlotys, several courts of first instance and congress courts were established in voivodeships. In addition, there were also police and commercial courts.
The highest court of the Kingdom of Poland was established in Warsaw, which heard in the final instance all civil and criminal cases, with the exception of cases of state crimes. It consisted of several senators, who sat in rotation, and some judges appointed by the king for life.
Cases of state crimes and criminal acts committed by government officials were considered by the Supreme Court of the Kingdom, composed of all members of the Senate.
As for the army, it is important to note the fact that the Polish army was transformed according to the Russian model while maintaining the Polish uniform and the Polish language of command. The armed forces consisted of a permanent army and temporary militia units. Military service lasted 10 years and was an incredible burden that fell especially heavily on the masses. The total number of the army was about 30 thousand people, but its size was regulated by the king depending on needs and the budget.
Thus, the constitution of November 27, 1815 proclaimed that the Kingdom of Poland would forever join the Russian Empire and be bound with it by a personal union. The Russian emperor became the Polish king, his competencies were incredibly great: “the government is based on the person of the Tsar,” this is how the constitution defines his role. The king was a sacred and inviolable person. All government acts were issued in his name. He had executive and administrative power; the king exercised legislative power together with the Senate. He had the right to appoint and dismiss ministers, members of the State Council, chairmen of voivodeship commissions, judges, archbishops and bishops of various faiths, prelates and canons. He had the right to pardon, conclude peace and declare war, conduct international politics, manage the income of the Kingdom and bestow titles of nobility. Thus, the entire internal and external policy of the Kingdom of Poland was in the hands of the king and the officials appointed by him.
However, despite the fact that the constitution was kept in a moderate tone and set itself the task of strengthening the power of the Russian emperor in the Kingdom of Poland, it retained the traditions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which were expressed in the names of state institutions, in the organization of the Sejm, in the collegial system state bodies, in the proclamation of the election of administration and judges. The Constitution, as well as the associated provision on elections to the Seimas, were the most liberal in Europe at that time, extending the right to vote to a significant electoral corps at that time - over 100 thousand people, which was achieved by a relatively low property qualification. In Central Europe after 1815 The Kingdom of Poland was the only country to have a parliament elected directly by all social classes, although with little participation from the peasants.
Both the family nobility and the nobilized nobility retained their privileges, replenished by persons who had merit to the country; rich merchants, townspeople; owners of manufactories; rich artisans; soldiers who rose to the rank of captain; officers awarded the cross; teachers and professors of the University of Warsaw, as well as officials after 10 years of service.
In the Kingdom of Poland, the principle of equality before the law was preserved, but it was officially stated that this equality applied only to those professing the Christian religion. Jews were deprived of political rights. The principle of personal freedom was preserved, which was supposed to guarantee peasants the right to move from one place to another, that is, freedom of movement, but mandatory administrative and political regulations significantly limited it.
A negative feature of the constitution was the non-accidental ambiguity of some of its provisions and too general formulations. "Alexander I followed in the footsteps of Napoleon, who avoided precise formulations for provisions of public law that constrained the ruler and government."
§3. Attitude to the Constitution in society and the implementation of its principles in life.
The very fact of the creation of the Kingdom of Poland and its constitution, which was quite progressive for its time, met with a positive attitude from a significant part of the Polish public.
The majority of the gentry society accepted the constitution of 1815 with satisfaction. It was considered to be fully consistent with the class interests of the Polish nobility. Tycoons who play a major role in political life kingdoms that owned vast lands, pinned great hopes on the Russian emperor to consolidate their rights and privileges, as well as to abolish some old anti-feudal laws. They "wanted political and social reforms, acquiring broader rights and new opportunities to find employment in the government apparatus, in school, in court, in the army, etc.” . They pinned their hopes on the existence and strengthening of the constitutional order in the Kingdom.
Considering the constitution of 1815 as a stage on the path to the restoration of the Polish state within the borders of 1772, Polish gentry politicians were completely satisfied with the situation in the Kingdom. However, one circumstance filled them with anxiety - this was the appointment of Grand Duke Constantine as commander-in-chief of the Polish army and the appointment as governor of General Zajoncek, who was completely dependent on Constantine. The tyranny of Konstantin, the humility of Zayonchek and the hidden anti-Polish activities of the imperial commissar at the Administrative Council N.N. Novosiltsev was made to fear future violations of the constitution. The highest positions in the Kingdom were filled by persons who participated in the administration of the Duchy of Warsaw (for example, Matuszewicz (Minister of Finance), General Wielgorski (Minister of War), Stanislav Kostka Potocki (Minister of Education and Confessions), etc. Soon, however, Matuszewicz and Wielgorski went to resignation, they were replaced by people more obedient to Konstantin).
In March 1818 The first Sejm met, opened with a promising speech by Alexander I, containing hints about the introduction of a constitution throughout the Russian Empire and the expansion of the Kingdom of Poland by annexing lands that were previously part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This speech made a great impression in Poland, in Russia and abroad.
Several bills were introduced to the Sejm: on a more precise delimitation of land holdings, on the creation of a new criminal code, on the procedure for marriage and divorce. There were no special arguments or opposition; “the deputies behaved loyally.”
The situation with the public was worse, the political revival of the masses began, liberal views began to appear and take root, new press organs and secret anti-government organizations were created. This was enough to introduce censorship on newspapers and magazines, and then on all printed publications, contrary to the constitution.
Impressed by Constantine's insinuations about a supposedly impending Polish uprising in the Kingdom, Alexander I threatened to completely destroy the Polish constitution.
Revolutionary events in the West, uprisings in Spain, Piedmont and Naples, etc., on the one hand, and peasant movements on the Don, the uprising of the Semenovsky regiment, numerous manifestations of the activities of noble revolutionaries, on the other, frightened the tsarist government. Alexander I abandoned his game of “liberal on the throne” and switched to reactionary politics.
It was in such a situation in September 1820. Alexander I opened the Second Seimas with a dry and restrained speech.
The Sejm was marked by active actions of the liberal-gentry opposition - the Kalisz party (received its name due to the fact that its main ideologists, brothers Vincent and Bonaventura Nemoevsky, were deputies from the Kalisz department), representing the views of wealthy landowners. The central point of the Kalisz party's program was the idea of the inviolability of political rights and constitutional guarantees. Like the majority of the gentry, they were satisfied with the monarchical system and the union of the Kingdom with the Russian Empire, but, fearing the emerging strengthening of reactionary tendencies in the policy of tsarism, they did their best to ensure compliance with constitutional guarantees. The tsarist bureaucracy, especially N.N. Novosiltsev responded to this by persecuting the head of the Kalishan B. Nemoevsky and trying to convince Alexander I of the need to abolish the constitution.
At the Second Sejm, two projects caused stubborn resistance: the Code of Criminal Procedure (contained deviations from the principles of bourgeois law: limited publicity court hearings, provided excessively great rights prosecutor's office and refused to introduce a jury trial. The Code was subject to unanimous criticism and was defeated by 117 votes out of 120) and the “Organic Statute” of the Senate (on depriving the Ambassadorial Hut of the right to bring ministers to trial. The bill was rejected by the majority).
During the session, the Presidium of the Sejm received petitions complaining about the unconstitutional actions of the government. The number of petitions by the end of the session reached 80, and the Sejm did not satisfy any of these complaints.
After 1820 reactionary politics in the Kingdom of Poland is even more intensified, Alexander I left for St. Petersburg immediately after the end of the second Sejm, giving freedom of action to Constantine.
N.N. Novosiltsev developed active work, directed against liberal ideas and against the constitution. The tsarist bureaucracy was looking for a reason to abolish the constitution. The question was raised about the advisability of the very existence of a constitutional kingdom. The government did not take into account the constitution in its fight against the liberal opposition. It twice voted for the election of V. Nemoevsky to the Kalisz Voivodeship Council, and after the second election the council was dissolved by imperial decree. Under the patronage of Konstantin and Novosiltsev, the secret police flourished.
In such a situation, a national liberation movement took shape in the Kingdom of Poland in the form of secret illegal societies organized by liberal gentry circles.
During the preparation of the next Sejm, an “additional article” appeared, abolishing the publicity of Sejm meetings; B. Nemoevsky was first denied access to the meetings, and then he was arrested.
In May 1825, after a five-year break, the third Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland was convened. Despite the significant excitement in the country, the Sejm gentry this time demonstrated their loyalty to the monarch, however, it became increasingly clear that “the hopes of the first years of the Kingdom’s existence turned out to be illusory for both sides.”
Almost from the moment the Kingdom of Poland arose, and in the 20s. reached a significant level, illegal opposition to the existing order - secret revolutionary or educational organizations, consisting mainly of youth and military personnel. Their main goal was the restoration of an independent Polish state, combined with rather radical social changes of an anti-feudal nature. The Sejm and illegal opposition, like other ideological and political forces, were united by the desire to restore the former Polish borders, mainly at the expense of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. The commonality of this aspiration, combined with the unequal socio-political programs of various movements, was reflected in the nature of the uprising of 1830-1831.
In 1830 The fourth and final Seimas met. With the revolution already under way, the government convened a Sejm to formally elect a dictator and establish a Supreme National Council with advisory functions and to control the dictator’s undertakings. Back on December 5, the Provisional Government (the transformed Administrative Council) entrusted the dictatorship to General Yu. Khlopitsky, but now this appointment was legalized. The actual purpose of establishing a dictatorship was the desire “to reach an understanding with Grand Duke Constantine and St. Petersburg on the basis of respect for the letter and spirit of the Constitution of 1815.” . However, the intransigence of St. Petersburg, which demanded unconditional surrender, led to this. That December 21, 1830 it was decided to declare the uprising national, and on January 25, the Sejm decided to dethronize Nicholas I and abolish those paragraphs of the Constitution that related to the union with Russia. The Sejm declared itself the highest authority in the country. Heated discussions begin on the issue of state structure, Khlopitsky in January 1831. gives up his post, takes over the leadership of the uprising National Council Led by A. Czartoryski, General J. Krukowiecki becomes the de facto dictator. Transformations came one after another, the military potential of the Russians also increased, and a radical change in the uprising began. As a result, on September 8, 1831. detachments I.F. Paskevich was captured in Warsaw. The uprising was suppressed.
This uprising put an end to the “liberal game” of the Russian Emperor with the Poles. In 1831 The Kingdom of Poland lost its autonomy, and the Constitution of 1815 has been cancelled. The Kingdom was granted the Organic Statute, which abolished the Sejm. The Polish army ceased to exist, and the Poles began to serve in the Russian army. Active Russification and the introduction of territorial and administrative division according to the Russian model. A new stage in the history of Poland began.
Conclusion
To summarize, it should be noted that the Polish issue has long been a serious stumbling block for several European powers. The diplomatic struggle on the eve of and during the Congress of Vienna showed how important and complex this issue is. The results of the Congress of Vienna, however, were quite expected: Russia received a significant territory, forming the Kingdom of Poland on it. This success of Russian diplomacy can be explained not so much by her personal merits as by the status of Russia at that time: Russian troops were the main force that defeated Napoleon, and the world community had to take this into account and recognize it.
In 1815, as the first action of Alexander I in the Kingdom of Poland, the Constitution was approved, which became an attempt at “liberal reforms” of the Russian emperor. The announcement of a constitutional system in Poland “at first raised hopes for a change in the existing system in it and a limitation of autocracy, but the further actions of the tsar showed the unrealizability of such hopes.”
For Alexander I, the grant to Poland in 1815 The constitution was, first of all, a diplomatic and political act. The Russian emperor wanted to tie it more firmly to Russia; it “had to serve the military-strategic, economic and political interests of Russia. This territory was also necessary as a springboard for a quick military response.”
However, it soon became clear that the Russian emperor was not ready for such a democratic step; he introduced several amendments to the constitution, as well as language that made further autocratic changes possible. In practice, the Constitution was implemented with restrictions, being largely declarative in nature. It functioned primarily in the interests of the central government. Since the 20s Alexander set a course for tightening domestic policy, which gave rise to growing discontent among the Russian public and individual representatives of the ruling elite. This caused protests and unrest in society, which led to the uprising of 1830-1831, which ended with the abolition of all benefits and privileges, and, most importantly, the liquidation of the Constitution of 1815.
List of used literature
1. Bardakh Y., Lesnorodsky B., Pietrczak M. History of the state and law of Poland. M., 1980. P.330-345.
2. History of Poland: in 3 volumes. M., 1958. T. I. P.490-513.
3. Short story Poland from ancient times to the present day. M., 1993. P.96-99.
4. Orlik O.V. Russia in international relations 1815-1829. M., 1998. P.22-25.
5. Sergeevsky N.D. Constitutional Charter of 1815 and some other acts of the former Kingdom of Poland 1815-1881. St. Petersburg, 1907. P.41-63.
Orlik O.V. Russia in international relations 1815-1829. M., 1998. P.22.
History of Poland: in 3 volumes. M., 1958. T. I. P. 491.
Bardakh Y., Lesnorodsky B., Pietrczak M. History of the state and law of Poland. M., 1980. P.337.
Sergeevsky N.D. Constitutional Charter of 1815 and some other acts of the former Kingdom of Poland 1815-1881. St. Petersburg, 1907. P.44.
Bardakh Y., Lesnorodsky B., Pietrczak M. History of the state and law of Poland. M., 1980. P.334.
History of Poland: in 3 volumes. M., 1958. T. I. P. 497.
A brief history of Poland from ancient times to the present day. M., 1993. P.98.
Bardakh Y., Lesnorodsky B., Pietrczak M. History of the state and law of Poland. M., 1980. P.342.
Orlik O.V. Russia in international relations 1815-1829. M., 1998. P.24.
Orlik O.V. Right there. P.25.
Alexander I Historians know very well: when at the end of the 18th century Prussia, Austria and Russia divided Poland in three steps, the Polish lands themselves went to Prussia and Austria, and Russia - only and exclusively the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, which were previously subordinate to Poland during a centuries-long expansion. Russia annexed lands where only the gentry were Polish, and the absolute majority of the people who were in servile dependence on it were the basis on which the ethnic groups of Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians were soon formed. But until very recently, in the historical mythology of Poland, these lands of the now independent Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine were demanded from Russia to be “returned”, and their own development - to be “cancelled” Tsarist power in Russia - regardless of what the stigma is now - liberal on Alexander the First or protective on Nicholas the First - for a very long time went towards the imperialist sentiments of the Polish gentry, allowing it, even as part of Russia, to maintain its “inner empire” - confessional, linguistic, educational, economic, legal, political monopoly in almost the entire western part of Russia - and a powerful lobby in St. Petersburg. Russia made concessions. Poland demanded more - not only independence, but also the restoration of the Polish empire of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the expense of Russia, at the expense of those whom it continued to consider its slaves inside Russia. Learn, ignorant parquet “appeaser”! Don't give your people into slavery. Do not trade in what was not created and conquered by you! November 27 marks two hundred years since Alexander I signed the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland - the very first constitutional act of Russia and, perhaps, the most progressive constitutional charter in Europe at that time. At the same time, the modern political aphorism fits the Polish constitution of 1815 - “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” So, Poland, which swore allegiance to Napoleon after his defeat, naturally found itself hostage to a great geopolitical game. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which at that time was a rotten French protectorate, was claimed by all participants in the anti-Napoleonic coalition: Prussia in the north, Austria in the south and Russia. I deliberately do not focus on the “Polish share” for Russia, because, unlike the allies, who simply dissolved the Polish outskirts within themselves, Moscow made more subtle and at the same time ambitious plans. “I hope to bring about the revival of your brave and respectable people,” Alexander I wrote in those years to the already elderly Tadeusz Kosciuszko, who not so long ago fought with Russia for Polish independence. “I have taken upon myself this sacred duty. A little more, and the Poles, through prudent policies, will regain their homeland and name.” The fact remains that the Russian Tsar decided to experiment to create a prototype federal state. He created an autonomous Kingdom of Poland, “united with the Russian Empire.” Reading the 200-year-old constitution today, you catch yourself thinking how advanced the charter was for the Poles. Napoleon, who promised the lords the restoration of statehood in case of victory over Russia, as they say, was not even close. So, the constitution of Alexander I: preserved the armed forces of Poland, the number of which was not limited, but depended on state budget revenues; established the Sejm with popular representation “for eternity”; recognized Catholicism as the national religion of the Kingdom of Poland; established Polish as the state language; provided exclusive right Poles to hold government and other positions; ensured freedom of the press, personality, and property in Poland. As for the elections to the Sejm, here the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was too revolutionary. The document declared an electoral system based on broad direct elections due to the moderation of the electoral qualification. Already in 1820, up to 100 thousand voters took part in the elections to the “embassy hut” for a population of 3.5 million people. For comparison: in France at that time, with 26 million people, no more than 80 thousand voters took part in the elections. And in even more “advanced” England, 75% of the members of the House of Commons were simply appointed by large capitalists. After such a royal gift, the Poles everywhere rejoiced. Even yesterday’s troublemaker Kosciuszko wrote to Alexander I that “until my death I will retain a feeling of just gratitude to the sovereign for resurrecting the name of Poland” (two years later, “Polish Lafayette” died, remaining faithful to the Russian Tsar). Why, after 15 years, was the constitution and “liberal values” of Poland done away with? On this score, in Polish journalism there are a lot of opinions about the tyranny and tyranny of Grand Duke Constantine, who became the viceroy of the Polish Tsar (read Alexander I), and the personal imperial committee? Source
Coronation: |
|
Predecessor: |
|
Successor: |
Nicholas I |
Birth: |
|
Dynasty: |
Romanovs |
Maria Fedorovna |
|
Elizaveta Alekseevna (Louise Badenskaya) |
|
Maria Alexandrovna (1799-1800) Elizaveta Alexandrovna (1806-1808) |
|
Autograph: |
|
Monogram: |
|
Accession to the throne
Secret committee
State Council
Holy Synod
Ministerial reform
Financial reform
Education reform
Peasant liberation projects
Military settlements
Forms of opposition: unrest in the army, nobles secret societies, public opinion
Foreign policy
Franco-Russian alliance
Patriotic War of 1812
Russian expansion
Personality
Contemporary assessments
Interesting Facts
Memory of Alexander I
Film incarnations
Alexander Column
Alexander I (Blessed) (Alexander Pavlovich; December 12 (23), 1777, St. Petersburg - November 19 (December 1), 1825, Taganrog) - Emperor of All Russia from March 11 (24), 1801 to November 19 (December 1), 1825, the eldest son of Emperor Paul I and Maria Feodorovna.
At the beginning of his reign, he carried out moderate liberal reforms developed by the Secret Committee and M. M. Speransky. In foreign policy he maneuvered between Great Britain and France. In 1805-07 he participated in anti-French coalitions. In 1807-1812 he temporarily became close to France. He led successful wars with Turkey (1806-1812), Persia (1804-1813) and Sweden (1808-1809). Under Alexander I, the territories of Eastern Georgia (1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812), Azerbaijan (1813), and the former Duchy of Warsaw (1815) were annexed to Russia. After the Patriotic War of 1812, he led the anti-French coalition of European powers in 1813-1814. He was one of the leaders of the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815 and the organizers of the Holy Alliance.
In the last years of his life, he often spoke of his intention to abdicate the throne and “retire from the world,” which, after his unexpected death from typhoid fever in Taganrog, gave rise to the legend of “elder Fyodor Kuzmich.” According to this legend, it was not Alexander who died and was then buried in Taganrog, but his double, while the tsar lived for a long time as an old hermit in Siberia and died in Tomsk in 1864.
Name
The name was given by his grandmother Catherine II (who loved him very much), based on the proposed creation of the Greek Empire with its capital in Byzantium. Catherine named one of her grandchildren Constantine in honor of Constantine the Great, the other Alexander in honor of Alexander Nevsky - according to the plan, Constantine was to liberate Constantinople from the Turks, and Alexander was to become emperor of the new empire. However, there is information that she wanted to see Constantine on the throne of the Greek Empire.
Childhood, education and upbringing
Grew up in the intellectual court of Catherine the Great; his teacher, the Swiss Jacobin Frederic César La Harpe, introduced him to the principles of Rousseau's humanity, the military teacher Nikolai Saltykov introduced him to the traditions of the Russian aristocracy, his father passed on to him his passion for military parades and taught him to combine spiritual love for humanity with practical concern for his neighbor. Catherine II considered her son Paul incapable of taking the throne and planned to elevate Alexander to it, bypassing his father.
In 1793 he married the daughter of the Margrave of Baden, Louise Maria Augusta ( Louise Marie Auguste von Baden), who took the name Elizaveta Alekseevna.
For some time he served in the Gatchina troops formed by his father; here he developed deafness in his left ear “from the strong roar of the guns.”
Accession to the throne
At half past twelve on the night of March 12, 1801, Count P. A. Palen informed Alexander about the murder of his father.
Already in the manifesto of March 12, 1801. new emperor accepted the obligation to govern the people " according to the laws and the heart of his wise grandmother" In decrees, as well as in private conversations, the emperor expressed the basic rule that would guide him: to actively introduce strict legality in place of personal arbitrariness. The Emperor more than once pointed out the main drawback that the Russian suffered from public order. He called this shortcoming " the arbitrariness of our rule" To eliminate it, it was necessary to develop fundamental laws that almost never existed in Russia. It was in this direction that the transformative experiments of the first years were carried out.
Within a month, Alexander returned to the service all those previously dismissed by Paul, lifted the ban on the import of various goods and products into Russia (including books and musical notes), declared an amnesty for fugitives, restored noble elections, etc. On April 2, he restored the validity of the Charter of Complaint nobility and cities, abolished the secret chancellery.
Even before Alexander’s accession to the throne, a group of “young friends” rallied around him (P. A. Stroganov, V. P. Kochubey, A. A. Chartorysky, N. N. Novosiltsev), who from 1801 began to play extremely important role in government.
On June 5 (17), 1801, a Russian-English convention was signed in St. Petersburg, ending the interstate crisis, and on May 10, the Russian mission in Vienna was restored. On September 29 (October 8), 1801, a peace treaty was signed with France, and a secret convention was concluded on September 29 (October 11).
On September 15 (Old Art.), 1801, in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow, he was crowned Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin); The same coronation ceremony was used as under Paul I, but the difference was that Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna “during her coronation she did not kneel before her husband, but stood up and accepted the crown on her head.”
Domestic policy of Alexander I
Reform of senior management bodies
Secret committee
From the first days of the new reign, the emperor was surrounded by people whom he called upon to help him in his reformative work. These were former members of the Grand Duke's circle: Count P. A. Stroganov, Count V. P. Kochubey, Prince A. Czartoryski and N. N. Novosiltsev. These people formed the so-called “Secret Committee”, which met during 1801-1803. in the emperor’s secluded room and together with him developed a plan for the necessary transformations. The task of this committee was to help the emperor " in systematic work on the reform of the shapeless building of the administration of the empire" It was necessary to first study the current situation of the empire, then transform individual parts of the administration and complete these individual reforms." code established on the basis of the true spirit of the people" The “Secret Committee,” which functioned until November 9, 1803, over the course of two and a half years, considered the implementation of Senate and ministerial reform, the activities of the “Essential Council,” the peasant question, the coronation projects of 1801, and a number of foreign policy events.
Started with central control. The State Council, which met at the personal discretion of Empress Catherine on March 30 (April 11), 1801, was replaced by a permanent institution, called the “Permanent Council,” to consider and discuss state affairs and decisions. It consisted of 12 senior dignitaries without division into departments. On January 1, 1810 (according to the project of M. M. Speransky) the Permanent Council was transformed into the State Council. It consisted of the General Assembly and four departments - laws, military, civil and spiritual affairs, state economy (later a 5th temporarily existed - for the affairs of the Kingdom of Poland). To organize the activities of the State Council, the State Chancellery was created, and Speransky was appointed its Secretary of State. A Commission for Drafting Laws and a Commission for Petitions were established under the State Council.
The Chairman of the State Council was Alexander I, one of its members by appointment of the Emperor. The State Council included all ministers, as well as senior dignitaries appointed by the emperor. The State Council did not issue laws, but served as an advisory body in the development of laws. Its task is to centralize legislative affairs, ensure uniformity of legal norms, and avoid contradictions in laws.
Senate
On September 8, 1802, a personal decree “On the rights and duties of the Senate” was signed, which determined both the organization of the Senate itself and its attitude towards others higher institutions. The Senate was declared the supreme body in the empire, concentrating the highest administrative, judicial and supervisory power. He was given the right to make representations regarding decrees issued if they contradicted other laws.
Due to a number of conditions, these newly granted rights to the Senate could not in any way increase its importance. In terms of its composition, the Senate remained a meeting of far from the first dignitaries of the empire. Direct relations between the Senate and the supreme power were not created, and this predetermined the nature of the Senate’s relations with the State Council, ministers and the Committee of Ministers.
Holy Synod
The Holy Synod also underwent changes, the members of which were the highest spiritual hierarchs - metropolitans and bishops, but at the head of the Synod was a civil official with the rank of chief prosecutor. Under Alexander I, representatives of the highest clergy no longer gathered, but were summoned to meetings of the Synod to select the chief prosecutor, whose rights were significantly expanded.
From 1803 to 1824, the position of Chief Prosecutor was held by Prince A. N. Golitsyn, who was also the Minister of Public Education from 1816.
Ministerial reform
On September 8, 1802, the Manifesto “On the Establishment of Ministries” began a ministerial reform - 8 ministries were approved, replacing the Peter the Great Collegiums (liquidated by Catherine II and restored by Paul I):
- foreign affairs,
- military ground forces,
- naval forces,
- internal affairs,
- finance,
- justice,
- commerce and
- public education.
Matters were now decided solely by the minister, reporting to the emperor. Each minister had a deputy (comrade minister) and an office. Ministries were divided into departments headed by directors; departments - into departments headed by department heads; departments - on tables headed by clerks. A Committee of Ministers was established to jointly discuss matters.
On July 12, 1810, the manifesto “On the division of state affairs into special departments” prepared by M. M. Speransky was published, on June 25, 1811 - “The General Establishment of Ministries.”
This manifesto shared all state affairs " in an executive manner" into five main parts:
- external relations, which were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
- external security arrangement, which was entrusted to the military and naval ministries;
- state economy, which was in charge of the Ministries of Internal Affairs, Education, Finance, State Treasurer, General Directorate for Audit of Public Accounts, General Directorate of Communications;
- the organization of civil and criminal courts, which was entrusted to the Ministry of Justice;
- an internal security device that came under the purview of the Ministry of Police.
The manifesto proclaimed the creation of new central government bodies - the Ministry of Police and the Main Directorate of Spiritual Affairs of various confessions.
The number of ministries and equivalent Main Directorates thus reached twelve. The preparation of a unified state budget began.
The reform program of M. M. Speransky and its fate
At the end of 1808, Alexander I instructed Speransky to develop a plan for the state transformation of Russia. In October 1809, a project called " Introduction to the Code of State Laws"was presented to the emperor.
The objective of the plan is to modernize and Europeanize public administration by introducing bourgeois norms and forms: “In order to strengthen the autocracy and preserve the class system.”
Estates:
- the nobility has civil and political rights;
- The “average state” has civil rights (the right to movable and immovable property, freedom of occupation and movement, to speak on one’s own behalf in court) - merchants, townspeople, state peasants.
- The “working people” have general civil rights (civil freedom of the individual): landowner peasants, workers and domestic servants.
Separation of powers:
- legislative bodies:
- The State Duma
- provincial dumas
- district councils
- volost councils
- executive bodies:
- Ministries
- provincial
- district
- volost
- judicial authorities:
- Senate
- provincial (civil and criminal cases are dealt with)
- district (civil and criminal cases).
Elections are four-stage with a selective property qualification for voters: landowners - landowners, upper bourgeoisie.
A State Council is created under the emperor. However, the emperor retains full power:
- The emperor could interrupt sessions of the State Duma and even dissolve them by calling new elections. The State Duma was considered as a representative body under the emperor.
- ministers are appointed by the emperor.
- The composition of the Senate is appointed by the emperor.
The project met with stubborn opposition from senators, ministers and other senior dignitaries, and Alexander I did not dare to implement it.
By the beginning of 1811 preparations were being made Senate transformation project, and in June it is submitted to the State Council for consideration.
It was proposed to transform the Senate into two institutions:
- Governing Senate concentrated in itself government affairs and a committee of ministers - ministers with their comrades and heads of special (main) parts of the administration.
- Senate judicial was divided into four local branches in accordance with the main judicial districts of the empire: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan.
A special feature of the Judicial Senate was the duality of its composition: some senators were appointed from the crown, others were elected by the nobility.
The State Council sharply criticized this project, but the majority voted in favor. However, Speransky himself advised against taking it.
Thus, of the three branches of higher management - legislative, executive and judicial - only two were transformed; The third (that is, judicial) reform did not affect. As for provincial administration, not even a reform project was developed for this area.
Financial reform
According to the estimate of 1810, all banknotes put into circulation (the first Russian paper money) were considered to be 577 million; external debt - 100 million. The revenue estimate for 1810 promised an amount of 127 million; the cost estimate required 193 million. A deficit was expected - 66 million appropriations.
It was planned to stop issuing new banknotes and gradually withdraw old ones; further - increase all taxes (direct and indirect).
Education reform
In 1803 a new one was published regulations on the organization of educational institutions, which introduced new principles into the education system:
- lack of class in educational institutions;
- free education at lower levels;
- continuity of educational programs.
Education system levels:
- university
- gymnasium in the provincial town
- district schools
- one-class parochial school.
The entire education system was in charge Main Directorate of Schools. 6 educational districts were formed, headed by trustees. Over the trustees were scientific advice at universities.
Five universities were founded: in 1802 - Dorpat, in 1803 - Vilna, in 1804 - Kharkov and Kazan. Opened in 1804, the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute was transformed into a university in 1819.
1804 - University Charter provided universities with significant autonomy: election of the rector and professors, their own court, non-interference of the highest administration in the affairs of universities, the right of universities to appoint teachers in gymnasiums and colleges of their educational district.
1804 - the first censorship charter. At universities, censorship committees were created from professors and masters, subordinate to the Ministry of Public Education.
Privileged secondary educational institutions - lyceums - were founded: in 1811 - Tsarskoye Selo, in 1817 - Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, in 1820 - Nezhinsky.
In 1817, the Ministry of Public Education was transformed into Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education.
In 1820, instructions were sent to universities on the “correct” organization of the educational process.
In 1821, verification of the implementation of the instructions of 1820 began, which was carried out very harshly and biasedly, which was especially observed at Kazan and St. Petersburg universities.
Attempts to solve the peasant question
Upon ascending the throne, Alexander I solemnly declared that from now on the distribution of state-owned peasants would cease.
December 12, 1801 - decree on the right to purchase land by merchants, townspeople, state and appanage peasants outside the cities (landowner peasants received this right only in 1848)
1804-1805 - the first stage of reform in the Baltic states.
March 10, 1809 - the decree abolished the right of landowners to exile their peasants to Siberia for minor offenses. The rule was confirmed: if a peasant once received freedom, then he could not be assigned to the landowner again. Those who came from captivity or from abroad, as well as those taken through conscription, received freedom. The landowner was ordered to feed the peasants in times of famine. With the permission of the landowner, peasants could trade, take bills, and engage in contracts.
In 1810, the practice of organizing military settlements began.
For 1810-1811 due to severe financial situation The treasury was sold to private individuals over 10,000 state-owned peasants.
In November 1815, Alexander I granted a constitution to the Kingdom of Poland.
In November 1815, Russian peasants were forbidden to “seek freedom.”
In 1816, new rules for organizing military settlements were introduced.
In 1816-1819 Peasant reform in the Baltic states is being completed.
In 1818, Alexander I instructed the Minister of Justice Novosiltsev to prepare a State Charter for Russia.
In 1818, several royal dignitaries received secret orders to develop projects for the abolition of serfdom.
In 1822, the right of landowners to exile peasants to Siberia was renewed.
In 1823, a decree confirmed the right hereditary nobles own serfs.
Peasant liberation projects
In 1818, Alexander I instructed Admiral Mordvinov, Count Arakcheev and Kankrin to develop projects for the abolition of serfdom.
Mordvinov's project:
- peasants receive personal freedom, but without land, which remains entirely with the landowners.
- the amount of the ransom depends on the age of the peasant: 9-10 years - 100 rubles; 30-40 years old - 2 thousand; 40-50 years -...
Arakcheev's project:
- The liberation of the peasants should be carried out under the leadership of the government - gradually redeeming peasants with land (two dessiatines per capita) by agreement with the landowners at prices in the given area.
Project Kankrin:
- the slow purchase of peasant land from landowners in sufficient quantities; the program was designed for 60 years, that is, until 1880.
Military settlements
At the end of 1815, Alexander I began to discuss the project of military settlements, the first experience of implementation of which was carried out in 1810-1812 on the reserve battalion of the Yelets Musketeer Regiment, located in the Bobylevsky eldership of the Klimovsky district of the Mogilev province.
The development of a plan for creating settlements was entrusted to Arakcheev.
Project goals:
- create a new military-agricultural class, which on its own could support and recruit a standing army without burdening the country’s budget; the size of the army would be maintained at wartime levels.
- free the country's population from constant conscription - maintain the army.
- cover the western border area.
In August 1816, preparations began for the transfer of troops and residents to the category of military villagers. In 1817, settlements were introduced in the Novgorod, Kherson and Sloboda-Ukrainian provinces. Until the end of the reign of Alexander I, the number of districts of military settlements continued to grow, gradually surrounding the border of the empire from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
By 1825, there were 169,828 regular army soldiers and 374,000 state peasants and Cossacks in military settlements.
In 1857, military settlements were abolished. They already numbered 800,000 people.
Forms of opposition: unrest in the army, secret societies of the nobility, public opinion
The introduction of military settlements met with stubborn resistance from peasants and Cossacks, who were converted into military villagers. In the summer of 1819, an uprising broke out in Chuguev near Kharkov. In 1820, peasants became agitated on the Don: 2,556 villages were in revolt.
Oct 16 1820 The head company of the Semenovsky regiment submitted a request to cancel the strict orders introduced and change the regimental commander. The company was deceived into the arena, arrested and sent to the casemates of the Peter and Paul Fortress.
In 1821, secret police were introduced into the army.
In 1822, a decree was issued banning secret organizations and Masonic lodges.
Forms of opposition: unrest in the army, secret societies of the nobility, public opinion
The introduction of military settlements met with stubborn resistance from peasants and Cossacks, who were converted into military villagers. In the summer of 1819, an uprising broke out in Chuguev near Kharkov. In 1820, peasants became agitated on the Don: 2,556 villages were in revolt.
On October 16, 1820, the Head Company of the Semenovsky Regiment submitted a request to cancel the strict orders introduced and change the regimental commander. The company was deceived into the arena, arrested and sent to the casemates of the Peter and Paul Fortress.
The entire regiment stood up for her. The regiment was surrounded by the military garrison of the capital, and then sent in full force to Peter and Paul Fortress. The first battalion was put on trial by a military court, which sentenced the instigators to be driven through the ranks, and the remaining soldiers to exile to distant garrisons. Other battalions were distributed among various army regiments.
Under the influence of the Semenovsky regiment, fermentation began in other parts of the capital's garrison: proclamations were distributed.
In 1821, secret police were introduced into the army.
In 1822, a decree was issued banning secret organizations and Masonic lodges.
Foreign policy
The first wars against the Napoleonic Empire. 1805-1807
In 1805, through the conclusion of a series of treaties, a new anti-French coalition was actually formed, and on September 9, 1805, Alexander left for the active army. Although the commander was M.I. Kutuzov, in fact, Alexander began to play the main role in decision-making. The Emperor bears primary responsibility for the defeat of the Russian-Austrian army at Austerlitz, however, serious measures were taken against a number of generals: General. A.F. Langeron was dismissed from service, General. AND I. Przhibyshevsky and Loshakov were put on trial, and the Novgorod Musketeer Regiment was stripped of its honors. On November 22 (December 4), 1805, a truce was concluded, according to which Russian troops were to leave Austrian territory. On June 8 (20), 1806, a Russian-French peace treaty was signed in Paris. In September 1806, Prussia began a war against France, and on November 16 (28), 1806, Alexander announced the Russian Empire would also act against France. On March 16, 1807, Alexander left for the army through Riga and Mitau and on April 5 arrived at the General’s Main Apartment. L. L. Bennigsen. This time Alexander interfered less in the affairs of the commander than in the last campaign. After the defeat of the Russian army in the war, he was forced to enter into peace negotiations with Napoleon.
Russian-Swedish War 1808-1809
The cause of the war was the refusal of the King of Sweden, Gustav IV Adolf, to Russia's offer to join the anti-British coalition.
Russian troops occupied Helsingfors (Helsinki), besieged Sveaborg, took the Aland Islands and Gotland, the Swedish army was driven to the north of Finland. Under pressure from the English fleet, Aland and Gotland had to be abandoned. Buxhoeveden, on his own initiative, agrees to conclude a truce, which was not approved by the emperor.
In December 1808, Buxhoeveden was replaced by O. F. von Knorring. On March 1, the army crossed the Gulf of Bothnia in three columns, the main one being commanded by P.I. Bagration.
- Finland and the Åland Islands passed to Russia;
- Sweden pledged to dissolve the alliance with England and make peace with France and Denmark, and join the continental blockade.
Franco-Russian alliance
June 25 (July 7), 1807 concluded with France World of Tilsit, under the terms of which he recognized territorial changes in Europe, pledged to conclude a truce with Turkey and withdraw troops from Moldavia and Wallachia, join the continental blockade (severing trade relations with England), provide Napoleon with troops for the war in Europe, and also act as a mediator between France and Great Britain. The British, in response to the Peace of Tilsit, bombarded Copenhagen and took away the Danish fleet. October 25 (November 6) 1807 Alexander announced the break trade relations with England. In 1808-1809, Russian troops successfully fought the Russian-Swedish War, annexing Finland to the Russian Empire. On September 15 (27), 1808, Alexander I met with Napoleon in Erfurt and on September 30 (October 12), 1808, he signed a secret convention in which, in exchange for Moldavia and Wallachia, he pledged to act jointly with France against Great Britain. During the Franco-Austrian War of 1809, Russia, as an official ally of France, advanced the corps of the general to the Austrian borders. S.F. Golitsyn, however, he did not conduct any active military operations and limited himself to meaningless demonstrations. In 1809 the union was broken.
Wars against the Ottoman Empire and Persia
In 1806-1812 Russia waged a war against Turkey.
Patriotic War of 1812
On June 12 (24), 1812, when the Great Army began its invasion of Russia, Alexander was at a ball with the general. Bennigsen on the Zakret estate near Vilna. Here he received a message about the beginning of the war. On June 13 (25) he gave orders to the army:
|
“From a long time ago, WE noticed the hostile actions of the French Emperor against Russia, but we always hoped to reject them in meek and peaceful ways. Finally, seeing the incessant renewal of obvious insults, with all OUR desire to maintain silence, WE were forced to take up arms and gather OUR troops; but even then , still caressed by reconciliation, remained within the borders of OUR Empire, without violating the peace, but only being ready for defense. All these measures of meekness and peacefulness could not maintain the peace that OUR desired. The French Emperor opened the first war with an attack on OUR troops at Kovno. And so, Seeing him inflexible to peace by any means, there is nothing left for US but to call upon the help of the Witness and Defender of the truth, the Almighty Creator of heaven, to put OUR forces against the forces of the enemy. I do not need to remind OUR leaders, generals and warriors of their duty and courage. Since ancient times, the blood of the Slavs, resounding with victories, has flowed in them. Warriors! You defend the faith, the Fatherland, freedom. I am with you. God for the beginner. Alexander. " |
and also issued a manifesto on the beginning of the war with France, which ended with the words
Then Alexander sent A.D. to Napoleon. Balashov with a proposal to begin negotiations on the condition that French troops leave the empire. On June 13 (25) he left for Sventsyany. Arriving at the active army, he did not declare M.B. Barclay de Tolly commander-in-chief and thereby assumed command. On the night of July 7 (19), he left the army in Polotsk and went to Moscow. Alexander approved the plan of defensive military action and forbade peace negotiations until at least one enemy soldier remained on Russian soil. December 31, 1812 (January 12, 1813) issued a manifesto, c. which also said:
Foreign campaigns of the Russian army. Congress of Vienna
Participated in the development of the plan for the campaign of 1813-1814. He was at the headquarters of the Main Army and was present at the main battles of 1813-1814, leading the anti-French coalition. On March 31, 1814, at the head of the Allied forces, he entered Paris. He was one of the leaders of the Congress of Vienna, which established a new European order.
Russian expansion
During the reign of Alexander, the territory of the Russian Empire expanded significantly: Eastern and Western Georgia, Mingrelia, Imereti, Guria, Finland, Bessarabia, and most of Poland (which formed the Kingdom of Poland) came under Russian citizenship. The western borders of the empire were finally established.
Personality
The unusual character of Alexander I is especially interesting because he is one of the most important characters in the history of the 19th century. His entire policy was quite clear and thoughtful. An aristocrat and a liberal, at the same time mysterious and famous, he seemed to his contemporaries a mystery that everyone solves in his own way. Napoleon considered him an “inventive Byzantine,” a northern Talma, an actor who was capable of playing any significant role. It is even known that Alexander I was called the “Mysterious Sphinx” at court. A tall, slender, handsome young man with blond hair and blue eyes. Fluent in three European languages. He had an excellent upbringing and brilliant education.
Another element of the character of Alexander I was formed on March 23, 1801, when he ascended the throne after the assassination of his father: a mysterious melancholy, ready at any moment to turn into extravagant behavior. At the beginning, this character trait did not manifest itself in any way - young, emotional, impressionable, at the same time benevolent and selfish, Alexander from the very beginning decided to play a great role on the world stage and with youthful zeal set about realizing his political ideals. Temporarily leaving in office the old ministers who overthrew Emperor Paul I, one of his first decrees appointed the so-called. a secret committee with the ironic name “Comité du salut public” (referring to the French revolutionary “Committee of Public Safety”), consisting of young and enthusiastic friends: Viktor Kochubey, Nikolai Novosiltsev, Pavel Stroganov and Adam Czartoryski. This committee was to develop a scheme for internal reforms. It is important to note that the liberal Mikhail Speransky became one of the tsar's closest advisers and drew up many reform projects. Their goals, based on their admiration for English institutions, far exceeded the capabilities of the time, and even after they were elevated to the ranks of ministers, only a small proportion of their programs were realized. Russia was not ready for freedom, and Alexander, a follower of the revolutionary La Harpe, considered himself a “happy accident” on the throne of the kings. He spoke with regret about “the state of barbarity in which the country was found due to the serfdom.”
Family
In 1793, Alexander married Louise Maria Augusta of Baden (who took the name Elizaveta Alekseevna in Orthodoxy) (1779-1826, daughter of Karl Ludwig of Baden. Both of their daughters died in early childhood:
- Maria (1799-1800);
- Elizabeth (1806-1808).
The paternity of both girls in the imperial family was considered doubtful - the first was considered born from Czartoryski; the father of the second was the cavalry guard headquarters captain Alexei Okhotnikov.
For 15 years, Alexander practically had a second family with Maria Naryshkina (nee Chetvertinskaya). She bore him two daughters and a son and insisted that Alexander dissolve his marriage to Elizaveta Alekseevna and marry her. Researchers also note that from his youth Alexander had a close and very personal relationship with his sister Ekaterina Pavlovna.
Historians count 11 of his illegitimate children (see List of illegitimate children of Russian emperors#Alexander I).
Contemporary assessments
The complexity and contradictory nature of his personality cannot be discounted. With all the variety of reviews from contemporaries about Alexander, they all agree on one thing - the recognition of insincerity and secrecy as the main character traits of the emperor. The origins of this must be sought in the unhealthy environment of the imperial house.
Catherine II adored her grandson, called him “Mr. Alexander”, and predicted, bypassing Paul, to be the heir to the throne. The august grandmother actually took the child away from the parents, establishing only visiting days, and she herself was involved in raising her grandson. She composed fairy tales (one of them, “Prince Chlorine,” has come down to us), believing that literature for children was not at the proper level; compiled “Grandmother’s ABC,” a kind of instruction, a set of rules for raising heirs to the throne, which was based on the ideas and views of the English rationalist John Locke.
From my grandmother future emperor inherited flexibility of mind, the ability to seduce an interlocutor, a passion for acting bordering on duplicity. In this, Alexander almost surpassed Catherine II. “Be a man with a heart of stone, and he will not resist the appeal of the sovereign, he is a real seducer,” wrote Alexander’s associate M. M. Speransky.
The Grand Dukes - brothers Alexander and Konstantin Pavlovich - were brought up in a Spartan way: they got up early, slept on hard things, ate simple, healthy food. The unpretentiousness of life later helped to endure the hardships of military life. The main educator of the heir was the Swiss republican Federick Cesar Laharpe. In accordance with his convictions, he preached the power of reason, the equality of people, the absurdity of despotism, and the vileness of slavery. His influence on Alexander I was enormous. In 1812, the emperor admitted: “If there had not been La Harpe, there would have been no Alexander.”
The last years of the reign of Alexander I
Alexander claimed that under Paul “three thousand peasants were distributed like a bag of diamonds. If civilization were more developed, I would end serfdom, even if it cost me my head.” Addressing the issue of widespread corruption, he was left without people loyal to him, and filling government positions with Germans and other foreigners only led to greater resistance to his reforms from the “old Russians.” Thus, the reign of Alexander, begun with a great opportunity for improvement, ended with the heavier chains on the necks of the Russian people. This happened to a lesser extent due to the corruption and conservatism of Russian life and to a greater extent due to the personal qualities of the tsar. His love of freedom, despite its warmth, was not based in reality. He flattered himself, presenting himself to the world as a benefactor, but his theoretical liberalism was associated with an aristocratic willfulness that did not tolerate objections. “You always want to teach me! - he objected to Derzhavin, the Minister of Justice, “but I am the emperor and I want this and nothing else!” “He was ready to agree,” wrote Prince Czartoryski, “that everyone could be free if they freely did what he wanted.” Moreover, this patronizing temperament was combined with the habit of weak characters of seizing every opportunity to delay the application of the principles which he publicly supported. Under Alexander I, Freemasonry became almost a state organization, but was prohibited by a special imperial decree in 1822. At that time, the largest Masonic lodge of the Russian Empire, “Pont Euxine,” was located in Odessa, which the emperor visited in 1820. The Emperor himself, before his passion for Orthodoxy , patronized the Freemasons and was more of a republican in his views than the radical liberals of Western Europe.
In the last years of the reign of Alexander I, A. A. Arakcheev acquired special influence in the country. A manifestation of conservatism in Alexander's policy was the establishment of military settlements (since 1815), as well as the destruction of the professorial staff of many universities.
On August 16, 1823, Alexander issued a secret manifesto, in which he accepted the abdication of his brother Konstantin from the throne and appointed his younger brother, Nikolai Pavlovich, as the legal heir.
Death
The emperor died on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog from fever with inflammation of the brain. A. Pushkin wrote the epitaph: “ He spent his whole life on the road, caught a cold and died in Taganrog».
The sudden death of the emperor gave rise to a lot of rumors among the people (N.K. Schilder, in his biography of the emperor, cites 51 opinions that arose within a few weeks after Alexander’s death). One of the rumors reported that " the sovereign fled in hiding to Kyiv and there he will live in Christ with his soul and begin to give advice that the current sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich needs for better governance of the state" Later, in the 30-40s of the 19th century, a legend appeared that Alexander, tormented by remorse (as an accomplice in the murder of his father), staged his death far from the capital and began a wandering, hermit life under the name of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich (died January 20 (February 1) 1864 in Tomsk).
This legend appeared during the life of the Siberian elder and became widespread in the second half of the 19th century. In the 20th century, unreliable evidence appeared that during the opening of the tomb of Alexander I in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, carried out in 1921, it was discovered that it was empty. Also in the Russian emigrant press in the 1920s, a story by I. I. Balinsky appeared about the history of the opening of the tomb of Alexander I in 1864, which turned out to be empty. The body of a long-bearded old man was allegedly placed in it in the presence of Emperor Alexander II and the minister of the court Adalberg.
The question of the identity of Fyodor Kuzmich and Emperor Alexander has not been clearly defined by historians. A definitive answer to the question of whether Elder Theodore had any relation to Emperor Alexander could only be genetic examination, the possibility of which is not ruled out by specialists from the Russian Forensic Science Center. Archbishop Rostislav of Tomsk spoke about the possibility of carrying out such an examination (the relics of the Siberian elder are kept in his diocese).
In the middle of the 19th century, similar legends appeared regarding Alexander’s wife, Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, who died after her husband in 1826. She began to be identified with the recluse of the Syrkov Monastery, Vera the Silent, who first appeared in 1834 in the vicinity of Tikhvin.
- Alexander I was the godfather of the future Queen Victoria (baptized Alexandrina Victoria in honor of the Tsar) and the architect Vitberg (baptized Alexander Lavrentievich), who built the Cathedral of Christ the Savior for the emperor.
- On December 13, 1805, the Cavalry Duma of the Order of St. George turned to Alexander with a request to confer on himself the insignia of the 1st degree order, but Alexander refused, stating that he “did not command the troops” and accepted only the 4th degree. Considering that this was done after the terrible defeat of the Russian army at Austerlitz, and it was Alexander who de facto commanded the army, it can be noted that the emperor’s modesty was still not phenomenal. However, in the battle of Austerlitz, he himself tried to stop the fleeing soldiers with the words: “Stop! I'm with you!!! Your king is with you!!!"
Memory of Alexander I
- Ensemble of Palace Square.
- Arch of the General Staff.
- Alexanderplatz (German: Alexanderplatz, Alexander Square) is one of the most famous squares in Berlin, until 1945 - main square cities.
- Monument to Alexander in Taganrog.
- The place of his prayer is in Starocherkassk.
Under Alexander I, the Patriotic War of 1812 ended victoriously, and many monuments dedicated to the victory in that war were in one way or another connected with Alexander.
- In Yekaterinburg, in honor of the visit of the city by Alexander I (the emperor visited the city in 1824), Alexandrovsky Avenue (since 1919, Decembrist Street) and the Tsarsky Bridge (on the same street across the Iset River, wooden since 1824, stone since 1890, preserved) were named still.)
Film incarnations
- Mikhail Nazvanov (Ships storm the bastions, 1953).
- Victor Murganov (War and Peace, 1967; Bagration, 1985).
- Boris Dubensky (Star of Captivating Happiness, 1975).
- Andrey Tolubeev (Russia, England, 1986).
- Leonid Kuravlev (Lefty, 1986).
- Alexander Domogarov (Assa, 1987).
- Boris Plotnikov (“Countess Sheremeteva”, 1994).
- Vasily Lanovoy ("The Invisible Traveler", 1998)
- Toby Stephens (Napoleon, 2002).
- Vladimir Simonov (Northern Sphinx, 2003).
- Alexey Barabash (“Poor, poor Pavel”, 2003)
- Alexander Efimov (Adjutants of Love, 2005).
- Igor Kostolevsky (War and Peace, 2007).
Alexander Column
The Alexander Column is a menhir, one of the most famous monuments in St. Petersburg.
Erected in the Empire style in 1834 in the center of Palace Square by the architect Auguste Montferrand by order of the younger brother of Emperor Alexander I, Nicholas I, in memory of the victory over Napoleon.
The column is a monolithic obelisk, which stands on a pedestal decorated with bas-reliefs with a dedicatory inscription “Grateful Russia to Alexander I”. At the top of the column is a sculpture of an angel by Boris Orlovsky. The angel's face is given the features of Alexander I.
In his left hand the angel holds a four-pointed Latin cross, and raises his right hand to heaven. The angel's head is tilted, his gaze is fixed on the ground.
The column faces the Winter Palace.
She is not only outstanding architectural monument, but also a great engineering achievement of its era.