Nicholas was born the third son in the family of Emperor Paul I. His rights to the throne were initially illusory, so military discipline was the basis for the education of the Grand Duke.

The Grand Duke was married to the daughter of the Prussian king, baptized Alexandra Fedorovna. The family had 7 children. The couple's eldest son became the next emperor.

After his brother Constantine renounced his rights to the throne, Nikolai Pavlovich was proclaimed the heir of his older brother, the childless Emperor Alexander I. The Manifesto on the succession to the throne, published by Alexander I, was kept secret for some time, so after the sudden death of the emperor, tension arose in the country.

The nobility, which returned victoriously from France, was already ripe for changing the internal policy of Russia, and was preparing a coup. The oath to Nikolai Pavlovich was scheduled for December 14, 1825 - dissatisfied nobles, who received the name “Decembrists” in history, planned an uprising on the day of the oath. Their goal was to overthrow the autocracy.

Since Nicholas knew about the intentions of the dissatisfied, the oath was postponed to December 13. The uprising was suppressed.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I

Realizing that the country needed reforms, Nicholas I created a special Committee that was involved in their preparation. The Chancellery played a serious role in state policy.

M. M. Speransky and a special Commission developed the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Laws were codified, legislation was streamlined, and legal practice emerged. But all this did not bring changes to the social policy of Russia.

Nicholas I was against liberal reforms and the constitution. He believed that society should be similar in structure to the army. Therefore, the main feature of his political regime is the militarization of the entire state apparatus under the rule of the autocrat.

The following were subject to strict censorship at that time:

• literature,
• art,
• education,
• periodicals.

In the social sphere, emphasis was placed on strengthening the class system: for example, the nobility was only inherited. The “Decree on Majorates” prohibited the division of estates when children inherited.

New classes were created for employees:

• officials,
• famous,
• honorary

S. S. Uvarov introduced the “theory of official nationality,” which proclaimed the unique development of our state, which does not need “the influence of the West.”

Nothing has changed in serfdom.

Foreign policy of Nicholas I

Nikolai believed that Russia has a unique path of development and therefore should be isolated from Europe, whose influence it does not need. In the West, the emperor began to be called “the gendarme of Europe” behind his back.

In foreign policy, Nicholas I adhered to two postulates:

• the principle of the Holy Alliance - the fight against the revolutionary movements of Europe.
• Eastern Question: Caucasian War (1817–1864), Russian-Persian War (1826–1828), Russian-Turkish War (1828–1829) – aimed at annexing Armenia, the Caucasus and the eastern shore of the Black Sea.

E. Vernet "Portrait of Nicholas I"

According to the description of contemporaries, Nicholas I was “a soldier by vocation,
a soldier by education, by appearance and by inside.”

Personality

Nicholas, the third son of Emperor Paul I and Empress Maria Feodorovna, was born on June 25, 1796 - a few months before the accession of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich to the throne.

Since the eldest son Alexander was considered the crown prince, and his successor Konstantin, the younger brothers - Nicholas and Mikhail - were not prepared for the throne, they were raised as grand dukes destined for military service.

A. Rokstuhl "Nicholas I in childhood"

From birth, he was in the care of his grandmother, Catherine II, and after her death, he was raised by a nanny, Scottish woman Lyon, to whom he was very attached.

Since November 1800, General M.I. Lamzdorf became the teacher of Nikolai and Mikhail. This was the choice of the father, Emperor Paul I, who said: “Just don’t make my sons such rakes as German princes.” Lamsdorf was the future emperor's tutor for 17 years. The future emperor did not show any success in his studies, with the exception of drawing. He studied painting as a child under the guidance of painters I.A. Akimov and V.K. Shebueva.

Nikolai realized his calling early. In his memoirs, he wrote: “The military sciences alone interested me passionately; in them alone I found consolation and a pleasant activity, similar to the disposition of my spirit.”

“His mind is not cultivated, his upbringing was careless,” Queen Victoria wrote about Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in 1844.

During the Patriotic War of 1812, he passionately wanted to participate in military events, but received a decisive refusal from the Empress Mother.

In 1816-1817 To complete his education, Nikolai made two trips: one throughout Russia (he visited more than 10 provinces), the other to England. There he became acquainted with the state structure of the country: he attended a meeting of the English Parliament, but remained indifferent to what he saw, because... believed that such a political system was unacceptable for Russia.

In 1817, Nicholas's wedding took place with the Prussian princess Charlotte (in Orthodoxy, Alexandra Fedorovna).

Before ascending the throne, his public activities were limited to the command of a guards brigade, then a division; from 1817, he held the honorary position of inspector general for the military engineering department. Already during this period of military service, Nikolai began to show concern for military educational institutions. On his initiative, company and battalion schools began to function in the engineering troops, and in 1818. The Main Engineering School (the future Nikolaev Engineering Academy) and the School of Guards Ensigns (later the Nikolaev Cavalry School) were established.

Beginning of reign

Nicholas had to ascend the throne under exceptional circumstances. After the death of childless Alexander I in 1825, according to the Decree on Succession to the Throne, Constantine was to become the next king. But back in 1822, Constantine signed a written abdication of the throne.

D. Doe "Portrait of Nicholas I"

On November 27, 1825, having received news of the death of Alexander I, Nicholas swore allegiance to the new emperor Constantine, who was in Warsaw at that time; swore in the generals, army regiments, and government agencies. Meanwhile, Constantine, having received news of his brother's death, confirmed his reluctance to take the throne and swore allegiance to Nicholas as the Russian Emperor and swore in Poland. And only when Constantine twice confirmed his abdication, Nicholas agreed to reign. While there was correspondence between Nicholas and Constantine, there was a virtual interregnum. In order not to drag out the situation for a long time, Nicholas decided to take the oath of office on December 14, 1825.

This short interregnum was taken advantage of by members of the Northern Society - supporters of a constitutional monarchy, who, with the demands laid down in their program, brought military units to the Senate Square that refused to swear allegiance to Nicholas.

K. Kolman "Revolt of the Decembrists"

The new emperor dispersed the troops from Senate Square with grapeshot, and then personally supervised the investigation, as a result of which five leaders of the uprising were hanged, 120 people were sent to hard labor and exile; The regiments that took part in the uprising were disbanded, the rank and file were punished with spitzrutens and sent to remote garrisons.

Domestic policy

Nicholas's reign took place during a period of aggravated crisis of the feudal-serf system in Russia, a growing peasant movement in Poland and the Caucasus, bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe and, as a consequence of these revolutions, the formation of bourgeois revolutionary movements in the ranks of the Russian nobility and the common intelligentsia. Therefore, the Decembrist cause was of great importance and was reflected in the public mood of that time. In the heat of revelations, the tsar called the Decembrists “his friends of December 14th” and understood well that their demands had a place in Russian reality and the order in Russia required reforms.

Upon ascending the throne, Nicholas, being unprepared, did not have a definite idea of ​​​​what he would like to see the Russian Empire. He was only confident that the country’s prosperity could be ensured exclusively through strict order, strict fulfillment of everyone’s duties, control and regulation of social activities. Despite his reputation as a narrow-minded martinet, he brought some revival to the life of the country after the gloomy last years of the reign of Alexander I. He sought to eliminate abuses, restore law and order, and carry out reforms. The Emperor personally inspected government institutions, condemning red tape and corruption.

Wanting to strengthen the existing political system and not trusting the apparatus of officials, Nicholas I significantly expanded the functions of His Majesty’s Own Chancellery, which practically replaced the highest state bodies. For this purpose, six departments were formed: the first dealt with personnel issues and monitored the execution of the highest orders; The second was concerned with the codification of laws; The third monitored law and order in government and public life, and later turned into a body of political investigation; The fourth was in charge of charitable and women's educational institutions; The fifth developed the reform of state peasants and monitored its implementation; The sixth was preparing governance reform in the Caucasus.

V. Golike "Nicholas I"

The emperor loved to create numerous secret committees and commissions. One of the first such committees was the “Committee of December 6, 1826.” Nicholas set him the task of reviewing all the papers of Alexander I and determining “what is good now, what cannot be left and what can be replaced with.” After working for four years, the committee proposed a number of projects for the transformation of central and provincial institutions. These proposals, with the approval of the emperor, were submitted for consideration to the State Council, but events in Poland, Belgium and France forced the king to close the committee and completely abandon fundamental reforms of the political system. So the first attempt to implement at least some reforms in Russia ended in failure, the country continued to strengthen clerical and administrative methods of management.

In the first years of his reign, Nicholas I surrounded himself with major statesmen, thanks to whom it was possible to solve a number of major tasks that were not completed by his predecessors. So, M.M. He instructed Speransky to codify Russian law, for which all laws adopted after 1649 were identified in the archives and arranged in chronological order, which were published in 1830 in the 51st volume of the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire”.

Then the preparation of the current laws began, drawn up in 15 volumes. In January 1833, the “Code of Laws” was approved by the State Council, and Nicholas I, who was present at the meeting, having removed the Order of A. the First-Called from himself, awarded it to M.M. Speransky. The main advantage of this “Code” was the reduction of chaos in management and arbitrariness of officials. However, this over-centralization of power did not lead to positive results. Not trusting the public, the emperor expanded the number of ministries and departments that created their local bodies in order to control all areas of life, which led to the swelling of the bureaucracy and red tape, and the costs of their maintenance and the army absorbed almost all state funds. V. Yu Klyuchevsky wrote that under Nicholas I in Russia “the building of the Russian bureaucracy was completed.”

Peasant question

The most important issue in the domestic policy of Nicholas I was the peasant question. Nicholas I understood the need to abolish serfdom, but could not carry it out due to opposition from the nobility and fear of a “general upheaval.” Because of this, he limited himself to such minor measures as the publication of a law on obligated peasants and the partial implementation of the reform of state peasants. The complete liberation of the peasants did not take place during the life of the emperor.

But some historians, in particular V. Klyuchevsky, pointed to three significant changes in this area that occurred during the reign of Nicholas I:

— there was a sharp reduction in the number of serfs, they ceased to constitute the majority of the population. Obviously, a significant role was played by the cessation of the practice of “distributing” state peasants to landowners along with lands, which flourished under the previous kings, and the spontaneous liberation of the peasants that began;

- the situation of state peasants greatly improved, all state peasants were allocated their own plots of land and forest plots, and auxiliary cash desks and grain stores were established everywhere, which provided assistance to the peasants with cash loans and grain in case of crop failure. As a result of these measures, not only did the welfare of state peasants increase, but also treasury income from them increased by 15-20%, tax arrears were halved, and by the mid-1850s there were practically no landless farm laborers eking out a miserable and dependent existence, all received land from the state;

- the situation of serfs improved significantly: a number of laws were adopted that improved their situation: landowners were strictly forbidden to sell peasants (without land) and send them to hard labor, which had previously been common practice; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business, and received relative freedom of movement.

Restoration of Moscow after the Patriotic War of 1812

During the reign of Nicholas I, the restoration of Moscow after the fire of 1812 was completed; on his instructions, in memory of Emperor Alexander I, who “restored Moscow from the ashes and ruins,” the Triumphal Gate was built in 1826. and work began on the implementation of a new program for planning and development of Moscow (architects M.D. Bykovsky, K.A. Ton).

The boundaries of the city center and adjacent streets were expanded, Kremlin monuments were restored, including the Arsenal, along the walls of which trophies of 1812 were placed - guns (875 in total) captured from the “Great Army”; the building of the Armory Chamber was built (1844-51). In 1839, the solemn ceremony of laying the foundation of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior took place. The main building in Moscow under Emperor Nicholas I is the Grand Kremlin Palace, the consecration of which took place on April 3, 1849 in the presence of the sovereign and the entire imperial family.

The improvement of the city’s water supply was facilitated by the construction of the “Alekseevsky water supply building,” founded in 1828. In 1829, the permanent Moskvoretsky Bridge was erected “on stone piers and abutments.” The construction of the Nikolaevskaya railway (St. Petersburg - Moscow; train traffic began in 1851) and St. Petersburg - Warsaw was of great importance for Moscow. 100 ships were launched.

Foreign policy

An important aspect of foreign policy was the return to the principles of the Holy Alliance. Russia's role in the fight against any manifestations of the “spirit of change” in European life has increased. It was during the reign of Nicholas I that Russia received the unflattering nickname of “the gendarme of Europe.”

In the fall of 1831, Russian troops brutally suppressed the uprising in Poland, as a result of which Poland lost its autonomy. The Russian army suppressed the revolution in Hungary.

The Eastern Question occupied a special place in the foreign policy of Nicholas I.

Russia under Nicholas I abandoned plans for the division of the Ottoman Empire, which were discussed under the previous tsars (Catherine II and Paul I), and began to pursue a completely different policy in the Balkans - a policy of protecting the Orthodox population and ensuring its religious and civil rights, up to political independence .

Along with this, Russia sought to ensure its influence in the Balkans and the possibility of unhindered navigation in the straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles).

During the Russian-Turkish wars of 1806-1812. and 1828-1829, Russia achieved great success in implementing this policy. At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the broad autonomy of Serbia (1830); According to the Treaty of Unkar-Iskelesiki (1833), which marked the peak of Russian influence in Constantinople, Russia received the right to block the passage of foreign ships into the Black Sea (which it lost in 1841). The same reasons: the support of Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire and disagreements over the Eastern Question - pushed Russia to aggravate relations with Turkey in 1853, which resulted in its declaration of war on Russia. The beginning of the war with Turkey in 1853 was marked by the brilliant victory of the Russian fleet under the command of Admiral P. S. Nakhimov, which defeated the enemy in Sinop Bay. This was the last major battle of the sailing fleet.

Russia's military successes caused a negative reaction in the West. The leading world powers were not interested in strengthening Russia at the expense of the decrepit Ottoman Empire. This created the basis for a military alliance between England and France. Nicholas I's miscalculation in assessing the internal political situation in England, France and Austria led to the country finding itself in political isolation. In 1854, England and France entered the war on the side of Turkey. Due to Russia's technical backwardness, it was difficult to resist these European powers. The main military operations took place in Crimea. In October 1854, the Allies besieged Sevastopol. The Russian army suffered a number of defeats and was unable to provide assistance to the besieged fortress city. Despite the heroic defense of the city, after an 11-month siege, in August 1855, the defenders of Sevastopol were forced to surrender the city. At the beginning of 1856, following the Crimean War, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed. According to its terms, Russia was prohibited from having naval forces, arsenals and fortresses in the Black Sea. Russia became vulnerable from the sea and lost the opportunity to conduct an active foreign policy in this region.

Carried away by reviews and parades, Nicholas I was late with the technical re-equipment of the army. Military failures occurred to a large extent due to the lack of roads and railways. It was during the war years that he finally became convinced that the state apparatus he himself had created was good for nothing.

Culture

Nicholas I suppressed the slightest manifestations of freethinking. He introduced censorship. It was forbidden to print almost anything that had any political overtones. Although he freed Pushkin from general censorship, he himself subjected his works to personal censorship. “There is a lot of ensign in him and a little of Peter the Great,” Pushkin wrote about Nicholas in his diary on May 21, 1834; at the same time, the diary also notes “sensible” comments on “The History of Pugachev” (the sovereign edited it and lent Pushkin 20 thousand rubles), ease of use and the king’s good language. Nikolai arrested and sent to soldiery for Polezhaev’s free poetry, and twice ordered Lermontov to be exiled to the Caucasus. By his order, the magazines “European”, “Moscow Telegraph”, “Telescope” were closed, P. Chaadaev and his publisher were persecuted, and F. Schiller was banned from publication in Russia. But at the same time, he supported the Alexandria Theater, both Pushkin and Gogol read their works to him, he was the first to support the talent of L. Tolstoy, he had enough literary taste and civic courage to defend “The Inspector General” and after the first performance to say: “Everyone got it - and most of all ME.”

But the attitude of his contemporaries towards him was quite contradictory.

CM. Soloviev wrote: “He would like to cut off all the heads that rose above the general level.”

N.V. Gogol recalled that Nicholas I, with his arrival in Moscow during the horrors of the cholera epidemic, showed a desire to uplift and encourage the fallen - “a trait that hardly any of the crown bearers showed.”

Herzen, who from his youth was painfully worried about the failure of the Decembrist uprising, attributed cruelty, rudeness, vindictiveness, intolerance to “free-thinking” to the tsar’s personality, and accused him of following a reactionary course of domestic policy.

I. L. Solonevich wrote that Nicholas I was, like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan III, a true “sovereign master,” with “a master’s eye and a master’s calculation.”

“Nikolai Pavlovich’s contemporaries did not “idolize” him, as was customary to say during his reign, but were afraid of him. Non-worship, non-worship would probably be recognized as a state crime. And gradually this custom-made feeling, a necessary guarantee of personal safety, entered the flesh and blood of his contemporaries and was then instilled in their children and grandchildren (N.E. Wrangel).

1. ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS I TO THE THRONE

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

2. MAIN FEATURES OF NICHOLAS I’S DOMESTIC POLITICAL COURSE. “PROTECTIONAL” POLICY AND REFORMERism

In the domestic politics of Russia in the first half of the 19th century there were two important milestones: the end of the Patriotic War of 1812 and 1825 - the change of reign and the Decembrist uprising.

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

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

At the same time, on the basis of the “Complete Collection of Laws”, the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” was also being prepared. During its preparation, laws that had lost force or were replaced by subsequent acts were withdrawn. Text processing of the Code articles was also carried out. Moreover, all corrections, and even more so additions, were made only with the sanction of the emperor, who controlled the entire course of codification. The prepared “Code of Laws” was preliminary considered in a special Senate commission, then its individual parts were sent to the ministries. In 1832 it was published in 15 volumes containing 40 thousand articles. In addition, the “Code of Military Regulations” (12 volumes), “Code of Laws of the Baltic and Western Governorates” and “Code of Laws of the Grand Duchy of Finland” prepared by Speransky were published.

Under Nicholas I, the “Complete collection of spiritual laws in Russia since the establishment of the Holy Synod” and “Collection of maritime laws from 1845 to 1851” were also published. " and "Code of laws of nomadic foreigners of Eastern Siberia."

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

The codification of laws carried out under Nicholas I undoubtedly streamlined Russian legislation. At the same time, it did not at all change the political and social structure of autocratic-serf Russia, nor the management system itself; it did not eliminate arbitrariness, red tape and corruption, which reached a special peak during Nicholas’s reign. The development of bureaucracy led to paperwork that proceeded uncontrollably in clerical secrecy. The bureaucratic administrative apparatus has increased sharply: in the first half of the 19th century. the number of officials increased from 16 thousand to 74.3 thousand. Nicholas I saw the vices of the bureaucracy, complained that “the empire is ruled by the mayor,” but it was impossible to eliminate these vices under the conditions of the absolutist regime.

Nicholas I considered the issue of serfdom to be the most important. The situation of the landowner peasants was eased. The government issued a number of laws that emphasized that “a serf is not the mere property of a private person, but, first of all, a subject of the state” (V.O. Klyuchevsky).

It should be noted that during the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I, criticism of the autocrats as guardians of serfdom increasingly intensified among the nobility. Alexander I in 1803 issued a decree “On free cultivators”, Nicholas I in 1842 issued a decree “On obligated peasants”, which allowed the landowner to voluntarily release his peasants. But the consequences of these decrees were insignificant. From 1804 to 1855 The landowners released only 116 thousand serfs. This indicated that landowners were primarily interested in preserving serfdom.

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

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

About 2.8 million acres of free land were transferred to the peasants; 3 million acres of forest were transferred to educated rural communities.

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

Reform of the state village under the leadership of Count P.D. Kiselev became an undoubted achievement of Nikolaev's time. As a result of the measures taken, the legal and financial situation of state peasants has significantly improved. The landowner peasants began to look with envy at the state peasants.

Education policy became increasingly conservative. In 1828, a reform of lower and secondary specialized educational institutions was carried out.

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

Rural parish schools - for peasants;

District schools - for urban residents;

Gymnasiums are for nobles.

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

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

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

The activities of the third branch of the imperial chancellery became notorious. The favorite of Nicholas I, General A. X. Benckendorff, was placed at the head of the III department. He was also the chief of the Corps of Gendarmes. Back in January 1826, he presented Nicholas I with a project “On the structure of the high police,” on the basis of which the Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery was created. Benckendorff held the posts of head of the III department and chief of gendarmes until his death (1844). He was replaced by another favorite of the tsar, a prominent military and statesman, Count A.F. Orlov. The prerogatives of the III Department were truly comprehensive. It collected information about the moods of various segments of the population, carried out secret supervision over “unreliable” individuals and the periodical press, was in charge of places of imprisonment and cases of “schism,” monitored foreign subjects in Russia, identified carriers of “false rumors” and counterfeiters, and collected statistical information and illustration of private letters, supervised the actions of the administration. It was the organ of informing the tsar about all “incidents” in the Russian Empire. Nicholas I carefully read the reports and reports of the head of the III department. The activities of the III Department gave rise to the widespread practice of denunciations. Section III had its own network of secret agents, and in the 40s it created secret agents abroad to spy on Russian emigrants. Under her vigilant supervision were the publishers of the Russian foreign press, Prince V.V. Dolgorukov, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev.

In the sphere of economic policy, the autocracy was more consistent and went much further than in matters of social policy. The very process of economic development of the country forced people to patronize industry, trade, and ultimately contribute to the development of bourgeois relations. Tsarism sought to take advantage of the capitalist relations developing in the country. Hence the planting of industry, the establishment of banks, the construction of railways, the founding of special technical educational institutions, the encouragement of the activities of agricultural and industrial societies, the organization of exhibitions, etc.

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

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

Reform 1839--1843 Kankrina temporarily strengthened the monetary system. However, the government was never able to get out of the financial crisis: by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, especially due to sharply increased expenses during the Crimean War, banknotes began to fall in price, internal and external public debt increased significantly; in 1855 it was almost twice the state budget revenue.

3. MAIN DIRECTIONS OF RUSSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY. PARTICIPATION IN THE SOLUTION OF THE “EASTERN QUESTION”

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

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

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

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

The Russian army in this region was small. Only the extraordinary heroism of the Russian soldiers made it possible to hold back the offensive. Russian troops actively supported Armenian and Georgian volunteer detachments. Russian soldiers, having conquered the important fortress of Erivan, captured the city of Tabriz and marched on the capital of Persia, Tehran. Persia sued for peace. In February 1828, the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty was signed. According to this agreement, the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan completely became part of Russia. The Armenian region was formed on the territories of both khanates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, as a result of the Russian-Turkish war, Russia fulfilled its historical mission in relation to the Greek people. As a result of the signing of the Adrianople Peace Treaty, Russia could consider the major conflicts that arose in Russian-Turkish relations during the Eastern Crisis of the 20s to be resolved: freedom of commercial navigation in the straits, the rights of the Danube principalities and Serbia, the autonomy of Greece. Thus, due to the conditions of the Peace of Adrianople, Russia received the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Turkey as the intercessor and patroness of the Sultan’s subjects of the same tribe and faith.

As a result of the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Iranian wars of the late 20s of the 19th century, Transcaucasia was finally included in the Russian Empire: Georgia, Eastern Armenia, Northern Azerbaijan. From that time on, Transcaucasia became an integral part of the Russian Empire.

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

At the end of the 40s, a new, even more formidable wave arose in Western Europe. In February 1848, a revolution broke out in France, and in the spring - in Germany, Austria, Italy, Wallachia and Moldavia. Nicholas I considered all these events as a direct threat to the Russian autocracy. That is why he took an active part in suppressing the revolutionary movement.

In 1849, Nicholas helped Austria suppress a revolution that broke out in Hungary, which was then part of the Austrian Empire. Russian troops also strangled revolutionary protests in Moldova and Wallachia. Nicholas, of course, experienced anxiety during the revolutions of 1848-1849. in Europe. He personally wrote a Manifesto, in which he spoke about the “new unrest” that agitated Western Europe after the “long-term peace”, about the “rebellion and anarchy” that arose in France, but also covers Germany and threatens Russia.

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

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

The Austrian Empire, which owed Russia peace after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, could not help but intervene in the fate of the Balkans, the territory of which it itself was counting. Türkiye, relying on the support of Western European states, hatched broad aggressive plans against Russia. The prestige of the Russian name was falling in Turkey. The dispute between Russia and France over the rights of Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem could not hide the political background, which was the struggle for influence in the Middle East between European states. In addition, Turkey, where quite a lot of Christians lived, refused to provide them with equal rights with Muslims. Thus, since Russia had no allies, the Crimean War began in an atmosphere of diplomatic isolation of Russia, which had to fight a coalition of the most technically developed states. To resolve the issue, Emperor Nicholas I in 1853 sent an extraordinary envoy, Prince Menshikov, to Constantinople, who demanded that the Porte confirm the Russian protectorate over all Orthodox Christians in the Turkish Empire, established by previous treaties. After almost 3 months of negotiations, Prince Menshikov, having received from the Porte, supported by England and France, a decisive refusal to accept the note presented to him, returned to Russia on May 9. Then Emperor Nicholas I, without declaring war, brought Russian troops, under the command of Prince Gorchakov, into the Danube principalities.

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

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

History of Russia [Tutorial] Team of authors

6.7. Domestic policy of Nicholas I

Unlike Alexander I, Nicholas I ascended the throne in unfavorable social conditions. The interregnum was a kind of crisis of power, and this forced Nicholas I to quickly navigate the situation and restore order in the country with a firm hand.

This was also facilitated by the personal qualities of the emperor. Sufficiently educated, strong-willed, pragmatic, he immediately took an active position in government affairs. The new autocrat correctly assessed the internal political situation in Russia, which, undoubtedly, was the reason for the Decembrists' speech.

The state activities of Nicholas I, so to speak, were completely based on the principles of noble conservatism. Historian V. O. Klyuchevsky described the emperor’s policy as follows: “not to change anything, but only to maintain the existing order, fill gaps, repair revealed dilapidations with the help of practical legislation, and do all this without any participation from society.”

Nikolai took upon himself the decision of all major and minor state issues, considering his entourage only as executors. He sought to impart military harmony and rigor to the entire management system.

Centralization of management

Nicholas I considered the main condition for the functioning of the state to be the strengthening of autocratic power. To this end, he pursued a course towards police-bureaucratic centralization of government bodies. In parallel with the already established structure of the highest governing bodies, His Imperial Majesty’s Own Office, consisting of six departments, began to develop and transform.

The office was created during the war of 1812. It did not have official status as a governing body. Rather, it was a tribute to Alexander's public policy; its formation was also necessitated by the need to process a huge number of petitions, complaints and other materials received in the name of the king. The head of the Chancellery was A. A. Arakcheev.

At the beginning of his reign, Nicholas I, as a concession to public opinion, removed Arakcheev, like some other most odious figures, from state affairs, and in 1826 the former Chancellery became the first department within the newly formed Own Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty. In 1826, the II Department, which dealt with the codification of laws, and the III Department, which became the body of political supervision and investigation in Russia, were established. The head of the III department was General A. H. Benckendorf, chief of the gendarme corps created in 1827.

The responsibilities of the III Department were extremely broad: collecting information about state criminals, the mood of various segments of the population, monitoring unreliable individuals and foreign nationals in Russia, monitoring periodicals and viewing private correspondence, collecting statistical information and supervising the actions of the local administration.

Codification of laws

Nicholas I was fundamentally against any constitution, but actively sought to streamline the legislative framework of the state, believing that the main guarantor of the rule of law was the autocrat.

The work on codifying Russian laws was headed by M. M. Speransky. He saw his task, firstly, in the publication of all existing laws, starting from the “Conciliar Code” of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649 to 1825; secondly, in the compilation of a Code of current laws, systematized by areas of law and interpreted accordingly, but without making corrections and additions. The final stage of the work was to be the publication of a new “Code” - with additions and corrections in relation to existing legal practice and in accordance with the needs of the state.

Total during 1828–1830. 45 volumes of the first Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire were published. At the same time, the Second Complete Collection was published, which included laws adopted during the reign of Nicholas I.

Subsequently, volumes of the second collection began to be published annually; its publication continued until 1881 (55 volumes). The Third Complete Collection of Laws, which consisted of 33 volumes and covered the legislative period from 1881 to 1913, was published already at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century.

In parallel with the Complete Collection of Laws, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was being prepared, which incorporated existing legislative acts and court decisions that became precedents in their application. Moreover, all corrections and additions were made only with the approval of the emperor. On January 19, 1833, a discussion of the Code of Laws took place in the State Council. Nicholas I, in his speech at the meeting, especially emphasized the outstanding role of M. M. Speransky in the codification of Russian legislation and awarded him the ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called as a reward.

Peasant question

Codification, while streamlining Russian legislation, did not change the political and class essence of the state in any way.

In his domestic policy, Nicholas I was quite clearly aware of the need to resolve the most important social issue - the peasant one. The severity of the problem and its principled discussion led to the organization of secret committees and closed hearings of cases.

The committees outlined only political approaches to solving the peasant issue, which were reflected in a number of legislative acts (in total, more than 100 were issued). Thus, by the law of 1827, landowners were prohibited from selling peasants without land or only land without peasants. In 1833, a decree was issued banning public trade in serfs; it was forbidden to use them to pay off debts, to transfer peasants to courtyards, depriving them of their plots.

In the secret committee of 1839, the leading role was played by the supporter of moderate reforms, Minister of State Property P. D. Kiselev. He considered it necessary to regulate the relations between peasants and landowners, and thereby take a step towards the liberation of the peasants. The result of the committee’s work was the publication in 1842 of the decree “On Obligated Peasants.” According to the decree, the landowner could provide the peasant with personal freedom and land allotment, but not for ownership, but only for use. The peasant was obliged to bear duties, essentially the same corvee and quitrent, of a strictly fixed amount. The law did not establish any norms in this regard - everything depended on the will of the landowner. The decree on obligated peasants did not bring real results - the peasants did not agree to the dubious conditions of the “freedom”, which did not give them either land or freedom.

The government acted more decisively in the western provinces - in Lithuania, Belarus, and Western Ukraine. Here a policy was openly pursued aimed at weakening the landlord's bondage in relation to the serfs. In the second half of the 40s. In the western provinces, the so-called inventory reform was carried out: descriptions (“inventories”) of landowners’ estates were compiled, the size of peasant plots was fixed, and duties (mainly corvée days) were regulated.

Reform of Count P. D. Kiselev

By the beginning of the 30s. The income received by the treasury from the farms of state peasants fell noticeably. The government of Nicholas I saw the key to solving the problem of serfdom in improving their economic situation. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, the government preferred “to give the state-owned peasants a structure that, while raising their well-being, would at the same time serve as a model for the future structure of the serfs.”

In 1835, specifically to develop a reform of the management of state peasants, the V Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery was formed. Count P. D. Kiselev was appointed head of the department. After a survey of the state of affairs in the state village, he presented Nicholas I with a draft of the main directions of reform, which were approved.

State peasants transferred from the authority of the Ministry of Finance to the authority of the Ministry of State Property, newly established in 1837, headed by P. D. Kiselev. This ministry was supposed to pursue a policy of guardianship towards state-owned peasants. Land-poor peasants were allocated land from the state reserve; hayfields and forest lands were cut off for them. More than 200 thousand peasants were resettled in an organized manner to provinces with fertile lands.

Credit offices were created in large villages, and loans were issued to those in need on preferential terms. In case of crop failures, “grain stores” were opened. Schools, rural hospitals, veterinary centers, “model” farms were organized, and popular literature was published promoting advanced farming methods. The Ministry of State Property had the right to purchase, at the expense of the treasury, noble estates together with peasants, who became state-owned.

In 1838, the Decree “On the management of state property in the provinces” was issued. A multi-stage management system was created: village assembly - volost - district - province. The volost assembly was composed of delegates from householders and elected a volost government (“volost head” and two assessors) for three years. Several volosts made up the district.

The reform of the management of state peasants and property preserved communal land ownership with periodic redistribution of land. The quitrent was also still distributed “per soul,” but its size was determined by the profitability of peasant plots.

Thus, the nature of the reform was contradictory. On the one hand, it contributed to the development of rural productive forces, on the other, it strengthened tax oppression and bureaucratic guardianship over the peasants, which caused peasant unrest.

As for the legislation of Nicholas I on the peasant issue, its general thrust was the gradual introduction into public consciousness of the view of the serf peasant not only as the property of a private individual, but first of all as a subject of the state, a payer of state taxes and duties, inextricably linked with the state wealth - land.

Education Policy

In May 1826, the “Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions” was established, whose responsibilities included developing new approaches to organizing the public education system and drawing up educational programs.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the principle of class education was officially consolidated in the form of an order to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov prohibiting the admission of serfs to gymnasiums and universities.

On December 8, 1828, a new Charter of gymnasiums, district and parish schools was approved. Education was based on the division into classes: children from tax-paying classes could study for one year in a parish school or two years in a city school; children of merchants and townspeople - in a three-class district school. Gymnasiums with a seven-year period of study were intended only for the children of nobles and officials. Gymnasium graduates could enter universities.

The Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov (headed the ministry from 1833 to 1849), upon taking office, uttered the famous phrase, which became the national idea of ​​Nicholas’s reign: “our common duty is to ensure that public education is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality." At the same time, the concept of “autocracy” meant, first of all, unquestioning obedience to state power headed by an autocrat. “Orthodoxy” brought to the people the concept of universal moral values, so the official ideology was based on it. In addition, Orthodoxy, emphasizing national Russian features, constituted a counterbalance to European liberal views on the state. From this point of view, Orthodoxy was inseparable from autocracy. Instilling among the people unlimited faith in the tsar meant ensuring political support for the autocratic government and minimizing civic activity of all social strata.

The principles of Orthodoxy and autocracy were quite traditional for Russia. The third component of the formula – “nationality” – was directed against the spread of European liberation ideas in Russia and, in a broad sense, against Western influence in general. The positive meaning of this idealistic principle lay in the appeal to Russian national values, the study of Russian culture, and the development of ideas of patriotism.

In 1833, the national anthem of Russia was approved with a text by V. A. Zhukovsky, beginning with the words “God save the Tsar.”

The political program for strengthening autocratic power affected the change in university policy towards extreme conservatism. On July 26, 1835, a new Charter of universities was issued, significantly limiting their autonomy. Universities were no longer considered as centers of scientific life; they were given the task of training civil service officials, gymnasium teachers, doctors, and lawyers. As educational institutions, they were completely dependent on the trustee of the educational district and were under administrative and police control. Access to universities was restricted for people from the lower classes, terms were extended and tuition fees were raised.

At the same time, economic development required expanding the training of qualified specialists for industry, agriculture, transport, and trade. Therefore, during the reign of Nicholas I, the network of institutions of higher specialized education expanded: technological, construction, pedagogical institutes and law schools were opened in St. Petersburg, the Land Survey Institute in Moscow, and the Naval Academy was founded.

Tightening censorship

On June 10, 1826, the Charter on Censorship was issued, which contemporaries called “cast iron.” A Main Censorship Committee was established within the Ministry of Public Education to coordinate the actions of all other censorship bodies.

Censors at all levels were tasked with not allowing works that even indirectly criticized the authorities and the government to be published; various kinds of satirical works that could weaken “respect for authorities,” and even more so works containing any assumptions about the need for political changes. Thus, it was intended to shape the “literary taste” of the reading public in accordance with the main ideological task. All literature coming from abroad was subject to censorship. Authors whose works were not passed by censorship came under police surveillance.

The censorship charter discredited the authorities so much that two years later Nicholas I agreed to sign a new charter that softened censorship requirements and, most importantly, prohibited censors from arbitrarily interpreting the statements of writers “in a bad way.” At the same time, the censors were constantly under threat of punishment for their “mistakes.” In many cases, in addition to general censorship, the release of a work in print required approval from the Senate, various ministries and the police. Thus, a bureaucratic system of obstacles to advanced social thought was created.

From the book History of Russia XX - early XXI centuries author Tereshchenko Yuri Yakovlevich

2. Domestic policy Economics. The main task of the USSR's domestic policy in the first post-war years was economic restoration. The war caused enormous material damage. 1,710 cities and towns, more than 70 thousand villages and hamlets were destroyed,

From the book History of Russia XX - early XXI centuries author Tereshchenko Yuri Yakovlevich

1. Domestic policy Economics. Since the summer of 1953, the leadership of the USSR set a course for reforming the economy, which had a beneficial effect both on the pace of development of the national economy and on the well-being of the people. The main reason for the success of the reforms that went down in history as

From the book History of Russia. XVII–XVIII centuries. 7th grade author

§ 29. INTERNAL POLITICS Country's economy. In the second half of the 18th century. The Russian Empire included Right Bank Ukraine, the Northern Black Sea region, the Azov region, Crimea, as well as the territory between the Bug and Dniester rivers. For 1745 – 1795 the number of people in the country has increased from

From the book History of Russia [Tutorial] author Team of authors

6.7. Domestic policy of Nicholas I Unlike Alexander I, Nicholas I ascended the throne in unfavorable social conditions. The interregnum was a kind of crisis of power, and this forced Nicholas I to quickly navigate the situation and direct

From the book History of Russia. XX – early XXI centuries. 9th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich

§ 27. INTERNAL POLICY Industry. The Soviet people victoriously completed the Great Patriotic War. He was faced with the most difficult task - the restoration of the country. The Nazis turned 1,710 cities, more than 70 thousand villages, thousands of factories, mines, hospitals, and schools into ruins.

From the book History of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries author Milov Leonid Vasilievich

Chapter 21. Domestic policy of Nicholas I

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century author Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich

Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1825–1855) The Decembrist uprising had a great influence on government policy. An active and purposeful fight against any manifestations of public discontent has become the most important component of the internal political course of the new

From the book National History (before 1917) author Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich

§ 13. Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1825–1855) The Decembrist uprising had a great influence on government policy. An active and purposeful fight against any manifestations of public discontent has become the most important component of the internal political course

author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Internal policy 1.1. The course of the revolution The uprising in Petrograd The October Revolution of 1917 at its initial stage quite accurately repeated the scenario of the February coup. From the center to the provinces - such was its course. The starting point of the revolution was the capture

From the book Russia in 1917-2000. A book for everyone interested in Russian history author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Internal policy 1.1. The crisis of 1921 The cessation of the war initially had little effect on the political and economic course of the ruling party. The simplicity and temporary effect of military-communist methods of production and distribution gave rise to the illusion of their eternity and

From the book Russia in 1917-2000. A book for everyone interested in Russian history author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Internal policy 1.1. Plan "Barbarossa" Establishment of Nazi control over Europe in 1938–1940. made the Soviet Union the only real force capable of resisting Germany. On December 18, 1940, Hitler approved the Barbarossa military operational plan. Them

From the book Russia in the middle of the 19th century (1825-1855) author Team of authors

INTERNAL POLITICS OF NICHOLAS I During his reign, Nicholas I created ten Secret Committees, which were intended to discuss various reforms. One of the first such offices appeared on December 6, 1826. The Emperor set him the task of “surveying

author Galanyuk P. P.

Domestic Policy of Emperor Nicholas I Part I When completing multiple-choice tasks (A1-A20), circle the number of the correct answer in the exam paper. A1. In what year was the III Department of the Imperial Empire formed to protect state security?

From the book History. 8th grade. Thematic test tasks to prepare for the State Examination author Galanyuk P. P.

Domestic policy of Emperor Nicholas I

From the book Course of Russian History author Devletov Oleg Usmanovich

3.3. Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1828–1855) Historiography notes the profound influence that the Decembrist movement had on all spheres of politics during Nicholas’s reign. However, there are different estimates of the extent of this influence. Russian historiography (V.O.

From the book My 20th Century: The Happiness of Being Yourself author Petelin Viktor Vasilievich

6. Internal review for the Military Publishing House (Yuri Karasev. Always in battle. Literary portrait of Nikolai Gribachev) “I experienced complex, as they say, feelings when reading this manuscript. On the one hand, I also know Nikolai Gribachev well, I edited his book

Throughout the great history of our great Motherland, many kings and emperors reigned. One of these was, who was born on July 6, 1796, and ruled his state for 30 years, from 1825 to 1855. Nikolai is remembered by many as very careful emperor, not pursuing an active internal policy in his state, which will be discussed later.

In contact with

The main directions of the domestic policy of Nicholas 1, briefly

The vector of development of the country that the emperor chose had a very great influence Decembrist revolt, which occurred in the year when the ruler ascended the throne. This event determined that all reforms, changes and, in general, the entire course of the ruler’s internal policy would be aimed at any destruction or prevention of the opposition.

Fight against any dissatisfied- this is what the head of state who ascended the throne adhered to throughout his reign. The ruler understood that Russia needed reforms, but his primary goal was the need for the stability of the country and the sustainability of all bills.

Reforms of Nicholas 1

The emperor, realizing the importance and need for reforms, tried to implement them.

Financial reform

This was the first change that the ruler made. Financial reform also called the Kankrin reform- Minister of Finance. The main goal and essence of the change was to restore confidence in paper money.

Nikolai is the first person who made an attempt not only to improve and create stability in the financial situation of his state, but also to issue a powerful currency that was highly valued in the international arena. With this reform, banknotes were to be replaced with credit notes. The entire change process was divided into two stages:

1. The state accumulated a metal fund, which later, according to the plan, was supposed to become a security for paper money. To achieve this, the bank began to accept gold and silver coins and subsequently exchange them for deposit tickets. In parallel with this, the Minister of Finance, Kankrin, fixed the value of the assigned ruble at the same level, and ordered that all state payments be calculated in silver rubles.
2. The second stage was the process of exchanging deposit tickets for new credit tickets. They could be exchanged for metal rubles without any problems.

Important! Thus, Kankrin managed to create a financial situation in the country in which ordinary paper money was backed by metal and was valued in exactly the same way as metal money.

The main features of Nicholas's domestic policy were actions aimed at improving the lives of peasants. During his entire reign, 9 committees were created to discuss the possibility of improving the lives of serfs. It’s worth noting right away that until the end The emperor failed to resolve the peasant issue, because he did everything very conservatively.

The great sovereign understood the importance, but the ruler’s first changes were aimed at improving the lives of the state peasants, and not all:

• The number of educational institutions and hospitals has increased in state-owned villages, villages and other populated areas.
• Special plots of land were allocated where members of the peasant community could use them in order to prevent a bad harvest and subsequent famine. Potatoes are what these lands were mainly planted with.
• Attempts were made to solve the problem of land shortage. In those settlements where peasants did not have enough land, state peasants were transferred to the east, where there were a lot of free plots.

These first steps that Nicholas 1 took to improve the lives of the peasants greatly alarmed the landowners, and even caused them discontent. The reason for this was that the life of state peasants began to really get better, and consequently, ordinary serfs also began to show discontent.

Later, the government of the state, headed by the emperor, began to develop a plan to create bills that, one way or another, improved the lives of ordinary serfs:

• A law was passed that prohibited landowners from retail trading in serfs, that is, the sale of any peasant separately from his family was henceforth prohibited.
• The bill, called “On Obligated Peasants,” was that now landowners had the right to release serfs without land, as well as to release them with land. However, for such a grant of freedom, the freed serfs were obliged to pay certain debts to their former masters.
• From a certain point, serfs gained the right to buy their own land and, therefore, become free people. In addition, serfs were also given the right to purchase property.

ATTENTION! Despite all the above-described reforms of Nicholas 1, which came into force under this emperor, neither the landowners nor the peasants used them: the former did not want to release the serfs, and the latter simply did not have the opportunity to redeem themselves. However, all these changes were an important step towards the complete disappearance of serfdom.

Education Policy

Ruler of the State decided to distinguish three types of schools: parish, district and gymnasiums. The first and most important subjects studied in schools were Latin and Greek, and all other subjects were considered additional. As soon as Nicholas the first ascended the throne, there were about 49 gymnasiums in Russia, and by the end of the emperor’s reign their number was 77 throughout the country.

Universities have also undergone changes. Rectors, as well as professors of educational institutions, were now elected by the Ministry of Public Education. The opportunity to study at universities was given only for money. In addition to Moscow University, higher educational institutions were located in St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov and Kiev. In addition, some lyceums could provide higher education to people.

The first place in all education was occupied by the “official nationality”, which consisted in the fact that the entire Russian people are the custodians of patriarchal traditions. That is why in all universities, regardless of faculty, subjects such as church law and theology.

Economic development

The industrial situation, which had settled in the state by the time Nicholas came to the throne, was the most terrible in the entire history of Russia. There could be no talk of any competition in this area with Western and European powers.

All those types of industrial products and materials that the country simply needed were purchased and delivered from abroad, and Russia itself supplied only raw materials abroad. However, by the end of the emperor's reign the situation had changed very noticeably for the better. Nikolai was able to begin the formation of a technically developed industry, already capable of competition.

The production of clothing, metals, sugar and textiles has developed very strongly. A huge number of products from completely different materials began to be produced in the Russian Empire. Working machines also began to be manufactured in the homeland, and not bought abroad.

According to statistics, for more than 30 years, industrial turnover in the country in one year it more than tripled. In particular, engineering products increased their turnover by as much as 33 times, and cotton products by 31 times.

For the first time in the history of Russia, the construction of highways with hard surfaces began. Three major routes were built, one of which was Moscow-Warsaw. Under Nicholas 1, the construction of railways also began. The rapid growth of industry served to increase the urban population by more than 2 times.

Scheme and characteristics of the internal policy of Nicholas 1

As already mentioned, the main reasons for the tightening of domestic policy under Nicholas 1 were the Decembrist uprising and new possible protests. Despite the fact that the emperor tried and made the life of the serfs better, he adhered to the principles of autocracy, suppressed opposition and developed bureaucracy . This was the internal policy of Nicholas 1. The diagram presented below describes its main directions.

The results of Nicholas’s domestic policy, as well as the general assessment of modern historians, politicians and scientists, are ambiguous. On the one hand, the emperor managed to create financial stability in the state and “revive” industry, increasing its volume tenfold.

Attempts were even made to improve life and partially free ordinary peasants, but these attempts were unsuccessful. On the other hand, Nicholas the First did not allow dissent and made it so that religion occupied almost the first place in people’s lives, which, by definition, is not very good for the normal development of the state. The protective function was, in principle, respected.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I

Domestic policy of Nicholas I. Continued

Conclusion

The result of everything can be formulated as follows: for Nicholas 1, the most important aspect during his reign was precisely stability within your country. He was not indifferent to the life of ordinary citizens, but he could not improve it much, primarily because of the autocratic regime, which the emperor fully supported and tried to strengthen in every possible way.