In 1711, Peter I, setting out on the Prut campaign, issued a decree on the establishment of a new supreme state body - the Senate. The Prut campaign was only a motive for the establishment of the Senate.

It must be assumed that the establishment of the Senate was an important step in the formation of the bureaucratic apparatus of absolutism. The Senate essentially became at that time an obedient instrument of the autocracy. All appointments and resignations of senators took place according to nominal royal decrees. The bureaucratic principle of responsibility to the tsar, inherited from the council of ministers, was further strengthened. On March 2, 1711, the senators were sworn into the faithful exercise of their office.

Peter I repeatedly reminded the senators that in case of violation of the oath, they face severe punishment, including the death penalty, disgrace, removal from office, monetary fines - “... and if this Senate, through its now uttered promise before God, it is unrighteous that they will act in some particular case ... then it will be destined before us and the guilty will be severely punished. Voskresensky N.A. Legislative acts of Peter I. M.-L., vol. I, p. 201.

There are several points of view that interpret the status of the Senate in different ways. Thus, some authors expressed the opinion that the Senate was at first an emergency, temporary body and only later acquired the character of a permanent institution.

Such an assessment of the Senate does not correspond to its actual position, which was rightly noted by A.N. Filippov. Filippov A.N. Governing Senate under Peter the Great and his immediate successors. SPb., 1911, p. 799. Although Peter I himself, in his decree of February 22, 1711, speaks of the definition of the Senate “for our absences,” these words only indicated the motive that forced the monarch to resort to the creation of a new institution. K.A. Nevolin saw here the preserved ancient tradition of “Russian sovereigns during their absence ... to entrust the capital to the jurisdiction of the boyars, for which each time they are appointed” Nevolin K.A. Complete collection of works, vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1889, p. 214. But this was only a purely external appeal to tradition, which had the goal in the usual form to explain to the subjects the creation of a new institution, which in principle had nothing to do with the boyar commissions of the 17th century.

In confirmation of the fact that the Senate was originally established by Peter I as a permanent body, the following fact testifies - from the moment the Senate was established until the beginning of the Prut campaign, four decrees were issued (regulating the activities of the Senate), including: “On the establishment of the Governing Senate”, “On entrusting the ruling Senate with the care of justice, the organization of state revenues, trade and other branches of the state economy”, “On the power and responsibility of the Senate”, “On the procedure for meetings and office work in the Governing Senate” Voskresensky N.A. Legislative acts of Peter I. M.-L., 1945, p. 197-200..

Apparently, the establishment by Peter I of the Senate for a time (the Prut campaign) would not have implied such careful regulatory regulation. On the contrary, such a thorough approach suggests that Peter I established the Senate as a permanent body.

It should be noted that the Senate did not interrupt its activities during the stay of the king in the capital. Apparently, the competence assigned to him (the Senate) did not have the nature of temporary powers, but was designed for many years of work. The Senate was the permanent supreme state body.

The Senate was established as a collegiate body exercising the functions of the supreme body government controlled in the country, modeled on a similar institution that existed in Sweden. “Studying state institutions in Sweden, Peter the Great settled on the Senate; this institution, with some changes adapted to the life of Russian life, was, in his opinion, to find convenient ground in our system of government. By means of such an institution, based on a purely collegiate principle, he thought to achieve: firstly, unity in all administration and, secondly, to put an end to all abuse of officials. Ivanovsky V. State law. News and scholarly notes of Kazan University. According to edition No. 5, 1895 - No. 11, 1896

The ruling Senate Russian Empire- the highest state body subordinate to the emperor. Established by Peter the Great on February 22 (March 2), 1711 as the highest body of state power and legislation.

The building of the Senate and Synod in St. Petersburg

From the beginning of the 19th century, he carried out supervisory functions over the activities of state institutions; since 1864 - the highest instance of cassation.

Senate in the reign of Peter the Great

Peter I, during his constant absences, which often prevented him from dealing with current management affairs, repeatedly (in 1706, 1707 and 1710) handed over cases to several selected persons, from whom he demanded that they, without turning to him for any explanations, manage affairs how to give them an answer on the day of judgment. At first, such powers were in the nature of a temporary personal assignment; but in 1711 they were entrusted to an institution created at the same time on February 22, which received the name of the Governing Senate.

The Senate founded by Peter did not bear the slightest resemblance to foreign institutions of the same name (Sweden, Poland) and corresponded to the peculiar conditions of Russian state life of that time. The degree of power granted to the Senate was determined by the fact that the Senate was established instead of His Royal Majesty himself. In the decree of March 2, 1711, Peter says: “We have determined the governing Senate, to which everyone and their decrees may be obedient, as we ourselves, under severe punishment, or death, depending on the fault.”

In the absence at that time of the division of cases into judicial, administrative and legislative, and in view of the fact that even the most insignificant matters of the current administration constantly ascended to the permission of the monarch, who was replaced by the Senate, the terms of the Senate's department could not receive any definite outlines. In a decree issued a few days after the establishment of the Senate ( Complete Collection Laws No. 2330), Peter determines what, upon his departure, the Senate should do: “the court has a non-hypocritical, set aside wasteful expenses; collect as much money as possible; nobles to gather the young; bills to fix; and try to give salt at the mercy; bargaining Chinese and Persian multiply; caress the Armenians; make fiscals." This, obviously, is not an exhaustive list of subjects of the department, but an instruction on what to pay primary attention to. “Now everything is in your hands,” Peter wrote to the Senate.

The Senate was not a political institution, limiting or restricting Peter's power in any way; he acted only on the instructions of the king and was responsible to him for everything; in the decree of March 2, 1711, it is said: “And if this Senate, through its promise now before God, is unrighteous, what to do ... and then we will be destined, and the guilty will be severely punished.”

The practical, business value of the Senate was determined not only by the degree and breadth of the powers granted to it, but also by the system of those institutions that were grouped around it and formed one whole with it. These were, first of all, the commissars, two from each province, "for the demand and the adoption of decrees." Through these commissars, appointed by the governors, direct relations between the Senate and the provinces were created, where in 1710 Peter, in the interests of the economic organization of his army, transferred a significant part of the cases that had previously been carried out in orders. The commissars not only adopted decrees, but also monitored their execution, delivered the necessary information to the Senate, and carried out its instructions locally. Subsequently, with the establishment of collegiums, the importance of commissars falls: the collegiums become an intermediate link between the Senate and the provinces. Simultaneously with the establishment of the Senate, Peter ordered "instead of ordering a discharge table, there should be a discharge table at the Senate." Thus, “writing to the ranks” went to the Senate, that is, appointment to all military and civil positions, management of all the service class, maintaining lists for him, conducting reviews and monitoring non-concealment from the service. In 1721-1722, the discharge table was first converted into a collapsible office, also attached to the Senate, and on February 5, 1722, a king of arms was appointed to the Senate, who was in charge of the service class through the king of arms office.

A few days after the establishment of the Senate, on March 5, 1711, the position of fiscals was created, their duty was to “secretly supervise all affairs”, conducting and denouncing in court “all sorts of crimes, bribes, theft of the treasury, etc., as well as other silent deeds , who do not have a petition about themselves.

Under the Senate there was a chief fiscal (later a general fiscal) with four assistants, in each province - a provincial fiscal with three assistants, in every city - one or two city fiscals. Despite the abuses with which the existence of such secret spies and informers (until 1714 they were not punished even for a false denunciation) are inextricably linked, the fiscals undoubtedly brought a certain share of benefit, being an instrument of supervision over local institutions.

When the constant absences of Peter, which caused the establishment of the Senate, ceased, the question of closing it does not arise. With orders increasingly losing their significance, the Senate becomes the place where all the most important affairs of administration, court and current legislation are carried out. The significance of the Senate was not undermined by the establishment (1718-1720) of the colleges, despite the fact that their regulations, borrowed from Sweden, where the colleges were the highest institutions in the state, did not determine the relationship of the colleges to the Senate, which the foreign leaders of the reform - Fik and others - assumed seems to be abolished. On the contrary, with the establishment of collegiums, to which the mass of current petty cases went, the importance of the Senate only increased. By decree of 1718 "on the position of the Senate" all the presidents of the collegiums by their very rank were made senators. This order did not last long; the slowness of the senate's office work forced Peter to admit (in a decree of January 12, 1722) that the presidents of the collegiums do not have enough time to carry on top of that the "continuous" labors of the senator. In addition, Peter found that the Senate, as the highest authority over the colleges, cannot consist of persons who sit in the colleges. Contemporaries also point out that the presidents of the colleges, being such dignitaries as the then senators, completely suppressed their "advisers" and thereby destroyed any practical significance of collegial decision of cases. Indeed, the newly appointed presidents, instead of the former ones who remained senators, were people incomparably less noble. On May 30, 1720, Peter ordered, for the sake of admission to the Senate, a petition to the collegium and to the office to make a noble person; the duties of this position were determined on February 5, 1722 detailed instruction, and the “person” clothed with it was called the racketmaster. The racketmaster very soon acquired great importance as a body of supervision over office work in the colleges and over the course of justice.

Of all the institutions that have ever been under the Senate, the institution of the prosecutor's office, also appearing in 1722, had the most practical significance. Peter did not immediately come to the establishment of the prosecutor's office. His dissatisfaction with the Senate was reflected in the establishment in 1715 (November 27) of the post of auditor general, or overseer of decrees. Vasily Zotov, appointed to this position, turned out to be too weak, however, to influence the senators and prevent their voluntary and involuntary violations of decrees. In 1718, he was assigned to the tax audit, and his position was abolished by itself.

The constant strife between the senators again forced Peter to entrust someone with monitoring the course of the senatorial meetings. The person chosen (February 13, 1720) by him - Anisim Shchukin - turned out to be unsuitable for these duties; being at the same time chief secretary of the Senate, Shchukin himself was subordinate to him. A few days after the death of Shchukin (January 28, 1721), Peter entrusted the supervision of the deanery of Senate meetings to the monthly changing staff officers of the guard. On January 12, 1722, they were replaced by the prosecutor's office in the form of a complex and harmonious system of supervision not only over the Senate, but also over all central and local administrative and judicial institutions. At the head of the Prosecutor's Office was the Prosecutor General as the head of the Senate Chancellery and as a body of supervision over the Senate presence in terms of not only deanery during meetings, but also the compliance of Senate decisions with the Code and decrees. The Assistant Prosecutor General in the Senate was the Chief Prosecutor. Being in direct relations with the sovereign, the prosecutor general brought the Senate closer to the supreme power; at the same time, his supervision to a large extent streamlined the proceedings both in the very presence of the Senate and in its office, and greatly increased its business value. On the other hand, however, the Attorney-General robbed the presence of the Senate of its former independence; being in many cases legally equal to the entire Senate, the Attorney General in fact often prevailed over him.

AT last years the reign of Peter, when, after the end of the Northern War, he began to pay more attention to the affairs of internal administration, the emergency powers vested in the Senate lost their meaning. The decrease in the power of the Senate affects mainly in the field of legislation. In the first decade of its existence, the Senate, restrained in the field of civil law by the authority of the Council Code of 1649, in the field of administrative law, enjoyed very broad legislative power. On November 19, 1721, Peter instructs the Senate not to repair any determination of the general without signing his hand. In April 1714, there was a ban on bringing complaints to the sovereign about the unfair decisions of the Senate, which introduced a completely new beginning for Russia; up to that time, the sovereign could complain about every institution. This prohibition was repeated in a decree on December 22, 1718, and the death penalty was established for bringing a complaint to the Senate.

From 1711 to 1714, the seat of the Senate was Moscow, but sometimes for a time, in general or in the person of several senators, he moved to St. Petersburg, which from 1714 became his permanent seat; since then, the Senate has moved to Moscow only temporarily, in the case of Peter's trips there for a long time. In Moscow, a part of the Senate office called "the office of the Senate government" remained. On January 19, 1722, offices from each collegium were established in Moscow, and a Senate office was placed above them from one senator, who changed annually, and two assessors. The purpose of these offices was to facilitate relations between the Senate and colleges with Moscow and provincial institutions and the processing of petty current affairs.

Initially, nine people were included in the Senate: Count Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin, boyar Tikhon Nikitich Streshnev, Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Golitsyn, Prince Mikhail Vladimirovich Dolgorukov, Prince Grigory Andreevich Plemyannikov, Prince Grigory Ivanovich Volkonsky, Krigsalmeister General Mikhail Mikhailovich Samarin, Quartermaster General Vasily Andreevich Apukhtin and Nazariy Petrovich Melnitsky. Anisim Shchukin was appointed chief secretary.

The Senate in the Era of the Supreme Privy Council and Cabinet (1726-1741)

Established on February 8, 1726, the Supreme Privy Council under Catherine I, and especially under Peter II, actually exercised all the rights of supreme power, as a result of which the position of the Senate, especially in comparison with the first decade of its existence, completely changed. Although the degree of power granted to the Senate, especially during the first period of the council's reign (decree of March 7, 1726), formally did not undergo any decisive changes, and the range of subjects of its department sometimes even expanded, but general meaning The Senate in the system of state institutions changed very quickly already by virtue of the mere fact that the Supreme Privy Council became above the Senate. The value of the Senate was also dealt a considerable blow by the fact that the most influential senators moved to the supreme council. Among these senators were the presidents of the first three colleges (military - Menshikov, marine - Count Apraksin and foreign - Count Golovkin), which become to some extent equal to the Senate. Even more important was the disorganization that was introduced by the Supreme Privy Council into all the institutions of the empire. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky, an enemy of the party that formed the Supreme Privy Council, was appointed a resident in Poland, and the position of Prosecutor General was actually abolished; its execution was entrusted to Chief Prosecutor Voeikov, who had no influence in the Senate; in March 1727 the post of racketmaster was abolished. At the same time, the posts of fiscals are gradually disappearing.

After the radical breakdown that Peter's local institutions (1727-1728) underwent, the provincial administration fell into complete disarray. With this state of affairs, the central institutions, including the Senate that headed them, lost all real force. Almost deprived of the means of supervision and local executive bodies, the Senate, weakened in its personnel, continued, however, to bear on its shoulders the hard work of petty current government work. The title of Governing, even under Catherine, was recognized as "indecent" by the Senate and replaced by the title "High". The Supreme Council demanded reports from the Senate, forbade it to make expenses without permission, reprimanded the Senate, and threatened with fines.

When the plans of the leaders failed and the Empress Anna again "assumed" autocracy, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished by decree on March 4, 1730, and the Governing Senate was restored in its former strength and dignity. The number of senators was increased to 21, and the Senate included the most prominent dignitaries and statesmen. A few days later, the post of racketmaster was restored; The Senate again concentrated all control in its hands. To facilitate the Senate and free it from the influence of the office, it was divided (June 1, 1730) into 5 departments; Their task was the preliminary preparation of all cases that were to be decided, as before, by the general meeting of the Senate. In fact, the division of the Senate into departments did not materialize. To supervise the Senate, Anna Ioannovna at first thought of limiting herself to the weekly presentation of two statements to her, one on resolved cases, the other on cases that the Senate could not resolve without a report to the Empress. On October 20, 1730, it was recognized, however, that it was necessary to restore the post of prosecutor general.

In 1731 (November 6), a new institution officially appeared - the Cabinet, which had already existed for about a year in the form of a private secretariat of the Empress. Reports from all institutions, including the Senate, went back to the empress through the cabinet; from it the highest resolutions were announced. Gradually, the participation of the empress in the resolution of resolutions decreases; On June 9, 1735, decrees signed by three cabinet ministers receive the force of personal names.

Although the competence of the Senate was not formally changed, in fact, subordination to the cabinet ministers had a very hard effect on the Senate even in the first period of the existence of the cabinet (until 1735), when it was mainly engaged in foreign policy affairs. Later, when the cabinet began to extend its influence to the affairs of internal administration, the constant direct relations of the cabinet with the collegiums and even with the Senate office in addition to the Senate, prodding for slowness, demanding reports and registers of resolved and unresolved cases, and finally, an extreme reduction in the composition of senators (at one time there were only two in the Senate, Novosiltsov and Sukin, individuals with the most unflattering reputation) brought the Senate to an unprecedented decline.

After the decree of June 9, 1735, the actual dominance of the cabinet ministers over the Senate acquires a legal basis, and resolutions are placed on the reports of the Senate in the name of the cabinet. After the death of Anna Ioannovna (October 17, 1740), Biron, Munnich and Osterman were alternately absolute masters in the office. Absorbed by the struggle of the parties, the cabinet was not up to the Senate, the importance of which therefore at that time somewhat increased, which is expressed, among other things, in the appearance of "general discussions" or "general meetings" of the cabinet with the senate.

On November 12, 1740, the position of the court recetmeister was established, first to consider the most subjective complaints about colleges and lower places, and from November 27 of the same year - to the Senate. In March 1741, this position was abolished, but the permission to bring all-subject complaints against the Senate remained in force.

Senate under Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter III

On December 12, 1741, shortly after her accession to the throne, Empress Elizabeth issued a decree abolishing the Cabinet and restoring the Governing Senate (before it was again called the High Senate) in its former position. The Senate not only became the supreme body of the empire, not subordinate to any other institution, not only was the center of the court and all internal administration, again subjugating the military and naval collegiums, but often completely uncontrollably exercised the functions of supreme power, taking legislative measures, resolving administrative affairs that used to go back to the approval of monarchs, and arrogating to themselves even the right of self-replenishment. The foreign collegium remained, however, not subordinate to the Senate. The position of Prosecutor General, which under Elizabeth almost all the time was occupied by the unremarkable Prince Trubetskoy, by no means suppressed the Senate, although it had already acquired great importance in the general system of internal administration, since most of the reports to the Empress went through the Prosecutor General (even on St. . Synod). The establishment of a conference at the royal court (October 5, 1756) at first did little to shake the importance of the Senate, since the conference dealt primarily with foreign affairs; but in the years 1757-1758 the conference began to intervene constantly in the affairs of internal government. The Senate, despite its protests, is forced to respond to the requests of the conference, to fulfill its requirements. Eliminating the Senate, the conference begins to communicate directly with the places subordinate to it.

Peter III, having ascended the throne on December 25, 1761, abolished the conference, but on May 18, 1762 he established a council, in relation to which the Senate was placed in a subordinate position. A further belittling of the importance of the Senate was expressed in the fact that the military and naval boards were again withdrawn from its jurisdiction. The freedom of action of the Senate in the field of internal administration was severely constrained by the prohibition "to issue decrees, which serve to some law or confirmation of the former" (1762).

Senate under Catherine II and Paul I

Upon the accession to the throne of Empress Catherine II, the Senate again becomes the highest institution in the empire, for the council ceases its activities. However, the role of the Senate in common system state administration is changing significantly: Catherine greatly dropped her because of the distrust with which she treated the then Senate, imbued with the traditions of the Elizabethan time. In 1763, the Senate was divided into 6 departments: 4 in St. Petersburg and 2 in Moscow. Department I was in charge of state internal and political affairs, II - judicial, III - affairs in provinces that were in a special position (Little Russia, Livonia, Estonia, Vyborg province, Narva), IV - military and naval affairs. Of the Moscow departments, V was in charge of administrative affairs, VI was in charge of judicial affairs. All departments were recognized in equal strength and dignity. By general rule, all matters were decided in the departments (unanimously) and only after disagreement were transferred to the general meeting. This measure had a very serious impact on the political significance of the Senate: its decrees began to come not from the assembly of all the most dignitary people in the state, but only from 3-4 persons, with whom it was much easier to reckon with. The Prosecutor General and Chief Prosecutors received much more influence on the resolution of cases in the Senate (each department, except for Department I, had its own chief prosecutor since 1763; in Department I, this position was established in 1771, and until then its duties performed by the Attorney General). In business terms, the division of the Senate into departments was of great benefit, largely eliminating the incredible slowness that characterized the senate's clerical work. Even more sensitive and tangible damage to the value of the Senate was caused by the fact that cases of real state importance were gradually taken away from it, and only the court and ordinary administrative activities were left to its lot. The removal of the Senate from legislation was most sharply manifested. Previously, the Senate was a normal legislative body; in the vast majority of cases, he also took the initiative in the legislative measures taken. Under Catherine, all the largest of them (the establishment of provinces, charters to the nobility and cities, etc.) are worked out in addition to the Senate; their initiative belongs to the Empress herself, and not to the Senate. Even from participating in the work of the commission of 1767, the Senate was completely removed; he was only allowed, like collegiums and offices, to elect one deputy to the commission. Under Catherine, the Senate was left with the completion of small gaps in the laws that had no political significance, and for the most part the Senate presented its assumptions for approval by the supreme power. Catherine, apparently, had very little confidence in the talents of those who sat in the then Senate, she perfectly understood the complete dependence of the Senate on his chancery and its inability, with the clumsy forms of its office work, to energetic, active work. Upon accession to the throne, Catherine found that the Senate had brought many parts of the government to an impossible disorder; it was necessary to take the most energetic measures to eliminate him, and the Senate turned out to be completely unsuitable for this. Therefore, those affairs to which the empress attached highest value , she instructed individuals who enjoyed her confidence - mainly the Prosecutor General Prince Vyazemsky, thanks to which the importance of the Prosecutor General increased to unprecedented proportions. In fact, he was, as it were, the Minister of Finance, Justice, the Interior and the State Comptroller. In the second half of Catherine's reign, she began to transfer cases to other persons, many of whom competed with Prince. Vyazemsky according to the degree of business influence. Whole departments appeared, the heads of which directly, bypassing the Senate, reported to the Empress, as a result of which these departments became completely independent of the Senate. Sometimes they were in the nature of personal assignments, determined by Catherine's attitude towards this or that person and the degree of trust placed in him; e.g. after the death of Baur, who was, as it were, the Minister of Railways, his affairs were distributed between Admiral Greig, Field Marshal Chernyshev and Prince. Vyazemsky. The post office was entrusted either to Vyazemsky, or to Shuvalov, or to Bezborodko. A huge blow for the Senate was also the new removal of the military and naval collegium from its jurisdiction, and the military collegium is completely isolated in the area of ​​​​judiciary and financial management. Having undermined the general significance of the Senate, this measure had a particularly hard effect on its III and IV departments. The significance of the Senate and the extent of its power were further dealt a heavy blow by the establishment of provinces (1775 and 1780). Quite a few cases passed from the colleges to the provincial offices, and the colleges, with which the Senate had already developed the well-known modus vivendi, were gradually closed. The Senate had to enter into direct relations with the new provincial regulations, which were neither formally nor in spirit consistent with the establishment of the Senate. Catherine was well aware of this and repeatedly drew up projects for the reform of the Senate (the projects of 1775, 1788 and 1794 were preserved), but they were not implemented. The inconsistency between the institutions of the Senate and the provinces led, firstly, to the fact that matters of greatest importance could always be reported to the empress by the governor or governor-general directly, in addition to the Senate, and secondly, to the fact that the Senate was overwhelmed by petty administrative matters that came to him from 42 provincial boards and 42 state chambers. Heraldry from the institution in charge of all the nobility and appointment to all positions, turned to the place of maintaining lists of officials appointed by the governors. The significance of the Senate suffered the least damage in the area of ​​the court; in comparison with previous reigns, when the governmental activity of the Senate took precedence over the judiciary, it even seemed that the Senate had become par excellence a judicial seat. Formally, the Senate was considered the highest judicial instance; and here, however, its significance was diminished, firstly, by the hitherto unprecedented influence that the chief prosecutors and the prosecutor general exerted on the decision of cases, and secondly, by the wide admission of all-subject complaints not only against departments, but also at general meetings Senate (these complaints were submitted to the racket master and they were reported to the empress). Although the law threatened punishment for an unlawful petition to the Senate, but, according to Speransky, during all this time there was only one case when a certain Berezin was brought to the court of the Senate itself, which, imitating the mercy of the empress, asked for his forgiveness. During the reign of Pavel Petrovich, despite all his dissympathy for the Catherine's system, the position of the Senate among state institutions remained almost exactly the same as it was under Catherine. New departments were formed, the affairs of which were not included in the terms of reference of the Senate. The restoration of some of the colleges abolished under Catherine did not entail the restoration of the former relations between them and the Senate: they were entrusted to the chief directors, who had a personal report from the emperor. The Prosecutor General (Prince Kurakin, then Obolyaninov), having concentrated in his office an unprecedented number of cases until then, used almost autocratic power in these cases. His pressure on the Senate increased even more. The Senate remained primarily a judicial place, but even here it was subjected to new restrictions: in cases of state property, it ceased to be the highest authority (1799), these cases could only be resolved by nominal decrees. All restrictions on the right to appeal against the decisions of the departments and the general meeting of the Senate were abolished (1797), as a result of which complaints begin to be brought in almost every case. This caused, despite the most resolute measures to speed up Senate proceedings, a terrible burden on the Senate with court cases, which at that time were considered by all its departments.

In 1711, the Governing Senate was put at the head of not only judicial, but also all administrative institutions without exception. Being the successor of the “boyar (or “ministerial”) councils”, which replaced the old “boyar Duma”, as the highest body of state administration, the Senate at the same time received a number of features that brought it closer to state institutions. Western Europe . But even in the reign of Peter the Senate went through several phases of development, without a brief indication of which it is difficult to correctly understand the true significance of the Senate in the entire state administration and, in particular, in the judicial system. The Senate was organized by decree of Peter on February 22, 1711, when 9 senators 604 were appointed to its composition. But its functions as the highest state institution were determined by two decrees on March 2 of the same year, of which the first in nine paragraphs determined the tasks assigned to the Senate (“Decree what to do after our departure”), and the second contained three additional clauses 605. Of all these clauses, only the first clause of the main decree determined in bright, but legally very vague terms, the judicial power of the Senate: “The court has an impartial and unjust judges to punish the taking away of honor and all property, so it will also follow the snitches.” In addition, in the ninth paragraph, without direct connection with its specific content, it was said about the establishment of the position of fiscals, also within a little defined framework, which was also emphasized by the legislator himself. In view of the great importance of the activities of the fiscal bodies both in the Senate and in other institutions, we cite this part of the ninth point: “Fiscals should be involved in all sorts of affairs, and how to be them, news will be sent.” Other paragraphs of both decrees instruct the Senate to organize the recruitment of troops and their food, collect money, funds (“because money is the artery of war”), organize trade, look for nobles who evade service, and take away their estates. Thus, according to this original outline in the law, the Senate was the central judicial-military-financial institution, exercising supreme supervision over the course of state administration in these areas606. However, during Peter's frequent absences from the capital and even from Russia, the functions of the Senate actually expanded, and in urgent matters the Senate itself issued "decrees". Therefore, a number of historians attributed even a legislative function to the Senate607. In the period from 1711 to 1718, when the colleges were organized, all the administrative, judicial and supervisory functions of the Senate were combined without any distribution, which gave the historian of the Russian court a reason to call the Senate a “monster institution”!. However, the complexity of the functions of the Senate and the small number of its members forced him to self-imposed formation of an auxiliary body for the consideration of court cases - the "reprisal chamber". It consisted partly of senators, partly of "judges of legal cases" appointed by the Senate 608. This chamber arose in 1712, but more or less precisely its powers were determined later, in September 1713. The “verdict” of the Senate established that the chamber was to accept for consideration only “cases that were decided” in cases where the petitioner indicated that the judge ruled his case “inefficiently and contrary to His Majesty’s decrees and the Code.” At the same time, the petitioner should have “taken a fairy tale by the hand, so that he would declare exactly what judicial wrongness and opposition to the sovereign’s decree and Code were in that case.” Having recognized the petition as worthy of respect, the reprisal chamber accepted the “done thing” for its consideration and passed a decision on it. When complaining about red tape, the chamber sent a decree to the appropriate institution to immediately resolve the case. In case of failure to comply with the decree, the requirement was confirmed by "second and third decrees under the taking of fines." And only then did the House report this to the Senate. The Chamber also had to consider fiscal reports, reporting monthly to the Senate on the number of reports "and what will be done about them." In its "judgment" the Senate instructed the chamber to circulate, by provincial orders, both the "undecided cases" received from the lower courts, and those sent by the petitioners did not prove the validity of their statements about a wrongful trial. From this “verdict” it is clear that in the early years the Senate did not have a very clear idea of ​​​​its competence, accepting “unfinished cases” for proceedings, and not only cases in which it was possible to assume the decision of “unrighteous judges”. But the reprisal chamber decided not only court cases, but also cases related to administrative and financial management *. The uncertainty of the position of the reprisal chamber is also evident from the fact that when the courts were established by decrees of 1714, cases subject to the governor's court were transferred directly to the Senate without mentioning the reprisal chamber, although it continued to operate under the Senate. In 1718, when “the Justice Collegium was committed to discriminate between wrongful deeds and reprisals”, the reprisal chamber became subordinate to the Justice Collegium. In 1719, the functions of the reprisal chamber were transferred to the St. Petersburg court court609. Attempts to outline the functions of the Senate as the highest court of appeal were made in the decrees of 1714 and 1715. The first commanded to bring petitions in the cities to the commandants, to complain about them to the governors, and about the latter - to the Senate. The second pointed out that in cities where there are no garrisons and commandants, complaints are submitted to the Landrichters. Filing complaints directly to the sovereign or to the Senate, bypassing the lower instances * is prohibited. After the establishment of the Collegium of Justice, only petitions against the wrong decisions of this latter could come to the Senate. In 1722, in order to streamline the movement of petitions and control the activities of the collegiums, the post of General Requetmaster under the Senate was established. He had the right to accept petitions to the boards and offices, check the progress of cases in them and report to the Senate on red tape. In cases where the complaint was found to be incorrect, the general-requetmeister reported to the Senate on the imposition of punishment on the petitioner 610. However, even after all these measures, which turned the Senate into the highest court of appeal, it remained the court of first instance in cases of public interest and in cases "against the first two points", that is, in political cases, the Senate was also the court of first instance for the crimes of the fiscals, as well as for cases that were initiated in the senate by a personal decree of the sovereign. The question of the possibility of complaints about injustice or red tape on the part of the Senate itself in court cases was decided differently. The decree of 1714 allowed complaints to the sovereign against the Senate on the passage of the case through the instances only in cases “if no decision is made in the Senate”, that is, in case of denial of justice or slowness in resolving the case on appeal. But the decree of 1718 proclaimed: “The supreme Senate from His Tsarist Majesty is highly trusted and consists of honest and noble persons, who are not only petitioners, but also the government of the state is trusted.” Therefore, the decree forbade his Majesty to brow the Senate under pain of execution. These were the central administrative institutions that replaced the old orders. With this reform, all the administrative functions of the Senate were transferred to the colleges, to which, at the beginning of 1719, the corresponding cases were sent from the Senate. As mentioned above, the cases of the reprisal chamber were transferred to the Justice College. In connection with the establishment of collegiums, only supreme control was left to the Senate. It was carried out by a meeting of the presidents of the collegiums, who were supposed to discuss matters that did not fall within the competence of individual collegiums. This gave reason to some authors to conclude that from 1718 to 1722. The Senate did not exist as a permanent institution at all! However, in the "Positions of the Senate" on December 3, 1718, such a function of the Senate was indicated as the consideration and decision of cases on petitions that were awarded the highest signature, "in order to search between the petitioner and the justice collegium." Thus, the Senate retained the importance of the highest judicial oversight body, which, under certain circumstances, could receive complaints about the decisions of the collegium of justice. In the last paragraph of the “Positions”, the legislator emphasized the main function of the Senate. “The head of everything is that (the senators) have their office and our decrees in memory and until tomorrow - do not postpone, for how can the state be managed when the decrees are not valid.” Thus it was proclaimed that the Senate was to be the "repository of the laws." 612 In the General Regulations for the Collegia of February 28, 1720, the idea of ​​the position of the Senate as the highest* organ of the government above the Collegia was again emphasized. All state colleges“only under his special royal majesty, so also the Governing Senate is acquired by decrees”613. However, the activity of the Senate in the composition of the presidents of those collegiums over which it was supposed to exercise supreme supervision turned out to be little satisfactory. The Decree of Peter on January 12, 1722 explicitly recognized this, emphasizing the impossibility of combining the positions of presidents of the colleges and members of the senate. “The government of this state, as if not disposed of before this, requires unceasing labors in the Senate, and the members of the Senate, respect everyone, have their own collegiums, for that they cannot demolish it alone, this at first, despite what has been done, which now must be corrected ^” 614. But during the reorganization Senate by appointing to it senators who were not connected with the leadership of the collegiums, this principle was not fully observed, and the presidents of the military, admiralty, foreign and berg colleges remained its members. Since 1722, it has been clearly established that the Senate has no legislative power, but exercises supreme supervision over all government bodies. In particular, the Senate had the right to send senators to the provinces to audit the activities of local bodies. The revision activity of the Senate in relation to court cases was expressed in the acceptance of complaints and decisions of the collegium. 124.

Chapter II. Composition, structure, functions and competence of the Senate

2.1 Composition and structure of the Senate

2.2 Functions, competence and interaction with other authorities

2.3 Officers and their responsibilities

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

One of the most significant periods in the history of Russia, which had the greatest impact on shaping the future path of development Russian state, is the reign of Peter I, the Great.

The time of Peter the Great, or, in other words, the era of Peter's transformations, is the most important milestone in Russian history. Historians have long come to the conclusion that the reform program matured long before the beginning of the reign of Peter I and they began under his grandfather and father, Tsars Mikhail and Alexei. Perestroika then touched many aspects of life. But Peter, who continued the work of his predecessors, went much further than they did, invested such energy and passion in transformations that he never dreamed of.

One of the main transformations of Peter is the creation of the Senate, a self-governing body. Currently, Russia is on the path of new reforms and, undoubtedly, a new round in history awaits it, especially Russia, which is in dire need of public administration reform. Therefore, the relevance of this work lies in the possibility of using it to analyze the past experience of our state and the possibility of applying this knowledge in practice at the present time, as well as the material of this work can be used in the educational process.

This topic has been studied for more than a century, and there are publications on this topic by various historians, such as: Feofan Prokopovich wrote a manuscript about Peter the Great back in 1773, which also touches on the topic of the Senate, P.P. Pekarsky in 1862 published a work in which he described the reforms of Peter I, the Senate. Platonov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, P.N. Milyukov and other scholars have repeatedly touched on the topic of Peter I, as well as his reform of state self-government, one of the main topics of which is the creation of the Senate. This work uses the works of the largest representatives of the national history of state and law, such as Voskresensky N.A., Isaeva I.A., N.V. Kalacheva, Eroshkina N.P., Stashenko L.A. and others.

The main purpose of this work is a detailed analysis of the Senate - the governing body in Russia in the 17th-20th centuries. To do this, you must complete the following tasks:

Analyze the history of the creation and development of the Senate

Consider in detail its structure and functions

Track what changes followed in the Senate when changing the ruler in Russia

To characterize the activities of the Senate in different chronological periods of time;

Also analyze the competence and functions of officials

Also track the interaction of the Senate with other authorities

To analyze the process of reforming the Senate of the 18th century.

The object of the study is the state-legal reality in the era of the reign of monarchs of the XVIII century.

The subject of the study is all the reforms of the Senate during the 18th century and their consequences for the statehood of Russia.

The methodological basis of the study was the general scientific dialectical method of cognition and private scientific methods for studying legal phenomena: formal-logical (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, etc.), concrete-historical, systemic, historical-legal, comparative-legal, technical-legal and others

Structure term paper is subject to the logic of research and consists of an introduction, two chapters, combining seven paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

After the radical breakdown that Peter's local institutions underwent (1727-1728), the provincial administration fell into complete disarray. With this state of affairs, the central institutions, including the Senate that headed them, lost all real force. Almost deprived of the means of supervision and local executive bodies, the Senate, weakened in its personnel, continued, however, to bear on its shoulders the hard work of petty current government work. Even under Catherine, the title of Governing was recognized as “indecent” by the Senate and replaced by the title “High”. The Supreme Council demanded reports from the Senate, forbade it to make expenses without permission, reprimanded the Senate, threatened fines.

When the plans of the leaders failed and the empress Anna re-accepted autocracy, by decree on March 4, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished and the Governing Senate was restored in its former strength and dignity. The number of Senators was increased to 21, and the Senate included the most prominent dignitaries and statesmen. A few days later, the post of racketmaster was restored; The Senate again concentrated all control in its hands. To facilitate the Senate and free it from the influence of the office, it was divided (June 1, 1730) into 5 departments; Their task was the preliminary preparation of all cases that were to be decided, as before, by the general meeting of the Senate. In fact, the division of the Senate into departments did not materialize. To oversee the Senate Anna Ioannovna At first, she thought of limiting herself to the weekly presentation of two statements to her, one on resolved cases, the other on cases that the Senate could not resolve without a report to the Empress. On October 20, 1730, however, it was recognized as necessary to restore the position Prosecutor General.

The reprisal chamber and the Senate office. However, in the future, in view of the fact that the Senate was the highest national institution, which had an exceptionally wide field of activity, there was a need to create subsidiary bodies. They were to assist the Senate in the exercise of its functions. Thus, the structure of the Senate took shape gradually. Two departments were formed in its composition: the Punishment Chamber - for judicial cases and the Senate Office - for management issues.

Senators of cassation departments may not hold any other position in the service of the state or public. Some of the Senators are appointed to attend departments, some are present only in general meetings, and some are completely exempted from any activities in the Senate. The latter usually include senior dignitaries, members of the state. councils, ministers, etc. The main work is carried out by the Senators present in the departments. Since the state and political position of an institution is determined by the social position of its members, the position of the Senate depends precisely on these Senators present in the departments. These are almost always persons who have held positions of III, sometimes IV class, and their appointment to the Senate is the crowning achievement of their service career. Such a disadvantageous position of the Senate among others higher institutions empire is largely paralyzed by the power granted to the Senate as the supreme seat of the empire.

The Senate acted in the form of departments, general assemblies and united presences. Although in some cases the general meetings are, as it were, an authority over the departments, yet, as a general rule, each department has the power to act on behalf of the entire Senate; his decrees "are executed by all places and persons subordinate to him, as the own of the Imperial Majesty, and one Sovereign or his nominal decree can stop the Senate command." The number of departments reached 12. In 1871 and 1876. the Moscow and Warsaw departments of the Senate were abolished. With the spread of action judicial reform Emperor Alexander II, the judicial departments of the old system (II-V and boundary) were gradually reduced and were merged into one. There are two general assemblies of the old Senate: the first, consisting of the Senators of the first and second departments and the department of heraldry, the second - of the Senators of the Judicial Department and one of the cassation, criminal or civil, according to affiliation. The subjects of the department of these general assemblies are: cases transferred from the old departments of the Senate according to the highest orders as a result of the most submissive complaints; cases transferred from departments due to disagreement; cases requiring clarification or addition of laws. From the departments of cassation, sometimes with the participation of the first or second, a number of general meetings and joint presences are formed. Apart from general assemblies and joint presences consisting of Senators of only a few departments, on certain occasions the general presence of the entire Senate meets. Each department is composed of Senators appointed by the highest discretion. To supervise the proceedings and (in the old departments) the correctness of decisions in each department in the general meeting of the cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and cassation and the highest disciplinary presence, the Governing Senate consists of chief prosecutors with comrades. In the department of heraldry, the chief prosecutor is called the king of arms. In the general assemblies of the old Senate, the prosecutor's duties as prosecutor general are carried out by the Minister of Justice. In each department, in the general meeting of the cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and civil cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and criminal cassation departments and in the combined presence of the first and cassation departments, there is an office consisting, under the direction of the chief prosecutor, of the chief secretaries and their assistants.

2.2 Functions, competence and interaction with other authorities

Since its inception, the Senate has dealt with issues of legislation, staffing the army, the development of trade and industry, and controlled finances. Also, the Senate was also a body of supervision over an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, for this the positions of "fiscals" were introduced, who reported (that is, reported) on all violations of laws, bribery, embezzlement and similar actions that harm the state.

The degree of power granted to the Senate was determined by the fact that the Senate was established instead of His Royal Majesty himself. In the decree of March 2, Mr. Peter says: “We have appointed a governing Senate, to which everyone and their decrees may be obedient, as we ourselves, under cruel punishment, or even death, depending on the fault.”

In the absence at that time of the division of cases into judicial, administrative and legislative, and in view of the fact that for resolution monarch, which was replaced by the Senate, even the most insignificant matters of the current administration constantly ascended, the circle of the Senate's department could not get any definite outlines. In a decree issued a few days after the establishment of the Senate, Peter determines what, after his departure, the Senate should do: “the court has an unhypocritical, set aside wasteful expenses; collect as much money as possible; nobles to gather the young; bills to fix; and try to give salt at the mercy; bargaining Chinese and Persian multiply; caress the Armenians; make fiscals." “Now everything is in your hands,” Peter wrote to the Senate.

The Senate, having less powers in comparison with the Boyar Duma, favorably differed from it by greater centralization in the conduct of affairs, expressed in the establishment of the Chancellery responsible for accounting and processing incoming documentation, control over outgoing documentation and the correctness of their execution. The Senate also had special books of registration of instructions, books of decrees and regulations. Decrees were divided into two types - those of a temporary nature and those that had the form of permanent laws. Decrees were also subdivided into Senate decrees and royal decrees given to the Senate. What was new for clerical work in the 18th century was the compilation of extracts on cases, which are a statement of the essence of the case and a report on its implementation. The Senate participated in organizing the government of the country along with the tsar, making proposals for the arrangement of collegiums.

Participation of the Senate in legislation:

Being eliminated from legislation since 1802 as a legislative body, the Senate retained, however, a certain attitude towards legislation. First of all, the Senate is granted the right of the initial design of laws: the general meetings of the Senate can develop a draft law and submit it for the highest approval through the Minister of Justice and the Council of State, and the Minister must ask for the highest permission to submit the draft to the council. In fact, the Senate does not use this right, because in the course of business and with the money and personal resources placed at its disposal, it is deprived of the opportunity to carry out all the work that is necessary for the preparation and development of any complicated bill. The rule, by virtue of which the Senate does not proceed to the decision of such cases for which there is no exact law, but for every such incidental case draws up a draft decision and presents it to the sovereign, in the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th was of great importance for legislation: in this way many gaps in the law have been filled. The power of the Senate to report to the sovereign on inconveniences in existing laws, granted to the Senate by decree of 8 Sept. 1802, was subjected to a significant restriction at the first attempt of the Senate to use it. The Senate must receive decisions of the general presences of provincial institutions, which have the right, upon receipt of a new law, to report on its ambiguity or inconvenience in its implementation; but the hostility with which the Senate treated such ideas led to the fact that provincial seats have not used this right since the beginning of the 19th century. and it only exists on paper.

Participation of the Senate in the affairs of government:

Since 1802 the most complex change has taken place in the field of administrative affairs in the Senate. In 1802, when the ministers were established, they were placed above the boards. When it was discovered that the coexistence of collegiums and ministers led to serious inconveniences, and when, as a result of this, from 1803 the collegiums began to be gradually closed and transformed into departments of ministries, the relations of the Senate with the ministries became completely unclear, and the ministers benefited from this ambiguity. . In fact, the submission of annual reports by ministers to the Senate is stopped; those cases that previously went to the Senate are considered by the Committee of Ministers. In the field of administrative affairs, the competence of the committee almost merged with the competence of the Senate, so that around 1810 a number of projects arose to abolish the administrative department of the Senate with the transfer of its affairs to the committee. Not only was the Committee of Ministers not abolished, but on the occasion of the departure of the sovereign for the war, new emergency powers were given and nothing was ceded from the previous ones. When the emergency powers of the committee of ministers ceased, its general importance nevertheless continued to grow; in the era of Arakcheev's sovereignty, the committee becomes the center of all state administration. The role of the Senate in administrative matters is declining. Ministers are at the head of the executive bodies of the state. The law, however, still recognizes the Senate as the supreme one in the court and administration of the seat of the empire, having no other power over itself than the power of the imperial majesty, sending decrees to the ministers, receiving reports from them. The provincial seats are actually completely dependent on the ministries, but are considered subordinate to the Senate. The Senate was unsuitable for direct participation in an active administration both in its composition and in the slowness of office work, and because it was excluded from disposing of the executive bodies, even from direct contact with them. Thus, by the force of things, the Senate turned little by little from an organ of real administration to an organ of supervision over legality, as it was in the drafts of 1788 and 1793. wanted to do Ekaterina. Between the Senate and the Committee of Ministers a certain demarcation took place, as it were: the Senate keeps in its activity the principle of legality in administration, the Committee - the principle of expediency. Cases of an administrative nature that came before the Governing Senate can be divided into the following two categories:

1) Cases of an executive nature.

2) Cases for the supervision of the legality of management.

Participation of the Senate in court cases:

The participation of the Senate in court cases takes various forms depending on whether the case came from the court of the old or new (according to the judicial charters of Emperor Alexander II) device. Cases from the old judicial places came to the Senate on appeal, on revision, on the protests of the provincial prosecutors and on the disagreement of the governors with the decisions of the courts. Cases from court rulings, formed according to the judicial charters of Emperor Alexander II, go to the cassation departments. In criminal cases, requests may concern either the annulment (cassation) of a sentence, or the resumption of a criminal case; in civil cases, requests may be for the cassation of a decision, for its revision and requests from third parties who did not participate in the case. From the cassation departments, sometimes with the participation of the first and second, the following general presences are formed: the general meeting of the cassation departments; general meeting of cassation departments with the participation of the first; general meeting of cassation departments with the participation of the first and second departments. On questions of disagreement between prosecutors and provincial governments on bringing officials to court, a joint presence of the first and criminal cassation departments or the first, second and criminal cassation departments is formed. For cases of supervision of judicial places and officials of the judicial department, a joint presence of the first and cassation departments was established, for the review of court decisions of provincial presences - a combined presence of the first and civil (or criminal, according to affiliation) departments. Finally, a special presence for cases of state crimes and a higher disciplinary presence stand out from the composition of the cassation departments.

The new system of central institutions of the ball was created together with the system of higher authorities and local government. Particularly important was the reform of the Senate, which occupied a key position in state system Peter I. The Senate was entrusted with judicial, administrative and legislative functions. Communication between the Senate and local government was carried out through local commissioners. The need to establish this position was caused by the fact that the provincial reform entailed a redistribution of the competence of government bodies; many of the activities of the orders were transferred to the provincial jurisdiction. Regional and some financial orders were eliminated. On March 16, 1711, the Senate passed a verdict on the position of provincial commissars, which stated that the provincial commissars should be "incessantly ... for the question of the necessary affairs of those provinces."

The centralization of the state apparatus under absolutism required the creation of special control bodies. At the beginning of the XVIII century. two control systems were formed - the prosecutor's office (headed by the prosecutor general of the Senate) and the fiscal department. Already during the formation of the Senate in 1711, a fiscal was established under it. Fiscals were charged with the duty to report on any state, official and other serious crimes and violations of the law in institutions. It was their duty to appear in court as prosecutors.

Fiscality was a complex centralized system. The decree of March 2, 1711, was supposed to "inflict fiscals in all sorts of cases." Gradually, the network of fiscals expanded; Two features emerged that determined the main fiscal systems: territorial and departmental. The entire organization of fiscals was headed and united by the Chief Fiscal of the Senate.

The establishment of collegiums caused changes in the organization of fiscals. Due to the fact that in the Senate fiscal cases were considered and reported by the Punishment Chamber, and the latter, with the establishment of the College of Justice, fell under its leadership, a decree on January 14, 1719 prescribed: “Those who acquire fiscal cases in the office of the Senate and other offices and orders and unfinished, collecting and making registers, for genuine research and execution of cases, send to the College of Justice immediately.

The first legislative act on the prosecutor's office was a decree on January 12, 1722. Soon prosecutors were appointed at court courts. Of great importance was the decree of April 27, 1722 "On the post of prosecutor general." With the creation of the prosecutor's office, supervision was extended to the Senate. The prosecutor controlled the financial statements and statements of the collegiums.

2.3 Officers and their responsibilities

The Senate consisted of nine Senators and one secretary appointed by the Sovereign: “Mr. Count Musin Pushkin, Mr. Streshnev, Mr. Prince Pyotr Golitsyn, Mr. K. Mikhail Dolgoruky, Mr. Nephews, Mr. K. Grigory Volkonsky, Mr. Samarin, Mr. Vasily Apukhtin, Mr. Melnitsky , Obor-Secretary of this Senate Anisim Shchukin.

Three of them were representatives of the nobility; three are former members of the Boyar Duma, and three are from the nobility.

The Fiscals were led by an "Ober-Fiscal" who was a member of the Senate. The denunciations (reports) of the fiscals were monthly reported to the Senate by a special judicial presence consisting of four judges and two Senators - the Punishment Chamber. Fiscals were encouraged, being freed from taxes, jurisdiction to local authorities and from responsibility for false slander.

Although the Senate was the leading supervisory body, control was also established over its activities. The work of the Senate was overseen by the Prosecutor General and the Chief Prosecutor, to whom the prosecutors in all other institutions were subordinate. The Prosecutor General controlled all the work of the Senate, its apparatus, the office, the adoption and execution of all its sentences, their protest or suspension. The prosecutor general himself and his assistant chief prosecutor were subordinate only to the tsar, subject only to his court. Acting through prosecutors and fiscal officers subordinate to him, the prosecutor general acted as "the tsar's eye and attorney on state affairs."

As you know, the members of the Senate, not only of the Russian Empire, but also of other countries, stood out among the rest of the dignitaries of the state with their regalia.

Decisions of departments are made, as a general rule, unanimously (since 1802); but since 1869, private cases, as well as cases on complaints against administrative institutions and on the representations of these institutions, are decided by a 2/3 majority vote of the Senators present. Cases on crimes of office of administrative officials and on compensation for harm and losses caused by these crimes, as well as cases on termination of investigations on state crimes, are decided by a simple majority. If the required majority is not obtained in the department, then the chief procurator should try to bring the Senators to an agreement; if he fails, then within eight days he gives a written "conciliation proposal", on the report of which the opinions of only the Senators who participated in the hearing of the case are asked. The senators can either fully accept the opinion of the chief prosecutor, or reject it. In the latter case, the case is transferred to the general meeting. In general meetings, a simple majority is required, except for cases coming from the first and second departments, in which a 2/3 majority is required. The right to make conciliatory proposals to general assemblies belongs to the Minister of Justice. These conciliatory proposals are subject to preliminary discussion by the “consultation at the Ministry of Justice” (October 21, 1802), consisting of the deputy minister, directors of departments, all chief prosecutors and specially appointed members. If the general meeting does not accept the conciliatory proposal of the minister, the matter is transferred to the Council of State. Incomparably more significant than the influence exercised by the prosecutor's office on the old Senate through conciliatory proposals, is the influence that the prosecutor's office receives by virtue of the right to skip Senate determinations: each determination of the Senate, upon its preparation by the office, is submitted primarily to departments - chief prosecutors, to general meetings - to the Minister of Justice, who, if they agree with the decision, make the inscription “read” on it. In case of disagreement of the chief prosecutor with the definition of the department, and the minister of justice - with the definition of the general meeting, they may propose to the Senate. If the Senate does not abandon its original view, then the departmental decision may, with the permission of the Attorney General, be transferred to the general meeting; the decision of the general meeting, in case of disagreement with the Minister of Justice, is transferred to respect State Council. In many cases, the chief prosecutor is in any case obliged to submit the decision to the minister for approval before passing the decision. If the ruling is omitted by the chief prosecutor, then it is submitted to the Senators for signature, but upon signing by them, it can be executed no earlier than upon presentation to the chief prosecutor (according to the general meeting - the Minister of Justice) and according to his resolution "execute". From departmental cases, those cases of the first department that are decided by a simple majority of votes are not subject to omission of prosecutorial supervision, and from cases of general meetings - all cases of the second general meeting, except for those in which the Senate recognizes the need to enact a new law or repeal an existing one. These restrictions on the influence of prosecutorial supervision were established in the early eighties and have not been extended since then. Of even greater practical importance than the supervision of chief prosecutors are the rights granted to all ministers in relation to the Senate. If the department does not agree with the opinion of the minister, then the case is transferred to the general meeting, where the minister's vote is calculated in the general vote of the Senators. The proceedings in the cassation departments are concentrated not in the office, but in the presence of the Senate. The case is prepared for a report and reported by one of the Senators, and the role of the office is limited only to collecting information, etc. preparatory work. Most of the cases are reported not in the department itself (for the legal composition of which 7 Senators are required), but in the department, where the presence of three Senators is sufficient. The decision made by the department has the force of the department; but in complex cases or raising some fundamental issue that has not yet been considered by the department, the case is transferred from department to department. Determinations are drafted by the reporting Senators, not by the Chancellery. The duties and rights of the chief prosecutors in the cassation departments of the Senate are completely different than in the old departments: the chief prosecutors of the cassation departments do not have the right to supervise Senate decisions and protest in case of disagreement with them; their role is limited to presenting (in person or through the associates of the chief prosecutor) an opinion on the degree of solidity of the cassation complaint or cassation protest. The right to supervise the office and the cassation departments is vested in the prosecutor's office.

Reketmeister, king of arms, provincial commissars. In addition to the branches, which included members-Senators, the Senate also had subsidiary bodies, which included no members-Senators. Such bodies were the racket master, the king of arms, provincial commissars.

On April 9, 1720, the position “for the sake of receiving petitions” was established under the Senate, which, since 1722, received the title of racketmaster. The duty of the racketmaster was to receive complaints about the boards and the chancellery. Under the Senate was chief fiscal(subsequently fiscal general) with four assistants, in each province - provincial fiscal with three assistants, in every city - one or two city fiscals. In spite of the abuses with which the existence of such secret spies and snitches is inextricably linked (until now they were not punished even for a false denunciation), the fiscals undoubtedly brought a certain share of benefit, being an instrument of supervision over local institutions.

Conclusion

In this work, the essence and main problems of the highest authority in Russia in the 17th beginning were comprehensively disclosed. 20th century - The Senate.

Summing up this work, it can be argued that the development of the Senate was due to the internal needs of the country, its international position and had a historically progressive character. Also, the meaning, role and functions of the Senate changed depending on the ruler of the state, the relationship of individuals in government circles, the general situation in the state, etc.

The Senate acquired the greatest power and flourishing under Peter the Great. Then he again occupies a leading position in the political life of the country under Empress Elizabeth. The Senate acquired its final positive changes under Alexander II and remained almost the same until the October Revolution.

The activity to reform the Senate slowed down for some time, but did not stop.

Studying the question of the legal status of the Senate, one cannot avoid comparison with the modern Federal Assembly. Russian Federation. In this regard, I would like to express the opinion that the modern parliament should not become an obedient instrument of the political leadership of the country and should not turn into a "pocket state body". After all, the citizens of Russia do not pay their taxes in order to have a farce played out in front of them like the Governing Senate.

Thus, I believe that all the tasks and the main goal have been achieved.

List of used literature

I. Regulations

2. Decree of Peter the Great "On the position of the Senate" from the city of

3. Decree of Peter the Great "On Senate office work" dated January 12 G.

4. Decree of Catherine I "On the creation Supreme Privy Council a "from 8.02. .

6. Decree of Catherine II "On the division of the Senate" of 1763

II. Scientific literature

1. Buganov V.I. Peter the Great and his time. - M.: Nauka, 1989.-27p.

2. Voskresensky N.A. Legislative acts of Peter I, vol. I, 1834.

3. Ivanovsky A.V. Textbook of state law of Russia. SPb, Jurist, 2003.-272p.

4. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. M, Yurayt, 2005.-371s.

5. Pushkarev A.T., Review of Russian history. M, Knowledge 1991.-283p.

5. Stashenko L.A. Fiscals and prosecutors in the system of state bodies of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. - Bulletin of Moscow State University, p. 12. Law, 1966, No. 2.

6. Reader on the history of the state and law of Russia: textbook. allowance / comp. Titov Yu.P.. - 2nd ed., revised. and add.-M., Prospekt Publishing House, 2008.-464p.

7. Shcheglov V.P., State Council in Russia, M., 1992;

III. Encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.

Voskresensky N.A. Legislative acts of Peter I, vol. I, Senate, 173s.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Senate in the reign of Peter the Great

After the radical breakdown that Peter's local institutions (1727-1728) underwent, the provincial administration fell into complete disarray. With this state of affairs, the central institutions, including the Senate that headed them, lost all real force. Almost deprived of the means of supervision and local executive bodies, the Senate, weakened in its personnel, continued, however, to bear on its shoulders the hard work of petty current government work. Title ruling even under Catherine, it was recognized as “indecent” by the Senate and replaced by the title "High". The Supreme Council demanded reports from the Senate, forbade it to make expenses without permission, reprimanded the Senate, and threatened with fines.

When the plans of the leaders failed and Empress Anna again "perceived" autocracy, by decree of March 4, the Supreme Privy Council was abolished and the Governing Senate was restored in its former strength and dignity. The number of senators was increased to 21, and the Senate included the most prominent dignitaries and statesmen. A few days later, the post of racketmaster was restored; The Senate again concentrated all control in its hands. To facilitate the Senate and free it from the influence of the office, it was divided (June 1, 1730) into 5 departments; Their task was the preliminary preparation of all cases that were to be decided, as before, by the general meeting of the Senate. In fact, the division of the Senate into departments did not materialize. To supervise the Senate, Anna Ioannovna at first thought of limiting herself to the weekly presentation of two statements to her, one on resolved cases, the other on cases that the Senate could not resolve without a report to the Empress. On October 20, 1730, it was recognized, however, that it was necessary to restore the post of procurator-general.

Senate under Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter III

Senate under Catherine II and Paul I

Upon the accession to the throne of Empress Catherine II, the Senate again becomes the highest institution in the empire, for the council ceases its activities. However, the role of the Senate in the general system of state administration is changing significantly: Catherine greatly dropped it because of the distrust with which she treated the then Senate, imbued with the traditions of the Elizabethan time. In 1763, the Senate was divided into 6 departments: 4 in St. Petersburg and 2 in Moscow. Department I was in charge of state internal and political affairs, II - judicial, III - affairs in provinces that were in a special position (Little Russia, Livonia, Estonia, Vyborg province, Narva), IV - military and naval affairs. Of the Moscow departments, V was in charge of administrative affairs, VI was in charge of judicial affairs. All departments were recognized in equal strength and dignity. As a general rule, all matters were decided in the departments (unanimously) and only after disagreement were transferred to the general meeting. This measure had a very serious impact on the political significance of the Senate: its decrees began to come not from the assembly of all the most dignitary people in the state, but only from 3-4 persons, with whom it was much easier to reckon with. The Prosecutor General and Chief Prosecutors received much greater influence on the decision of cases in the Senate (every department, except for Department I, had its own chief prosecutor since 1763; in Department I, this position was established in 1771, and until then Her duties were performed by the Attorney General). In business terms, the division of the Senate into departments was of great benefit, largely eliminating the incredible slowness that characterized the senate's clerical work. Even more sensitive and tangible damage to the value of the Senate was caused by the fact that cases of real state importance were gradually taken away from it, and only the court and ordinary administrative activities were left to its lot. The removal of the Senate from legislation was most sharply manifested. Previously, the Senate was a normal legislative body; in the vast majority of cases, he also took the initiative in the legislative measures taken. Under Catherine, all the largest of them (the establishment of provinces, charters to the nobility and cities, etc.) are worked out in addition to the Senate; their initiative belongs to the Empress herself, and not to the Senate. Even from participating in the work of the commission in 1767, the Senate was completely removed; he was only allowed, like collegiums and offices, to elect one deputy to the commission. Under Catherine, the Senate was left with the completion of small gaps in the laws that had no political significance, and for the most part the Senate presented its assumptions for approval by the supreme power. Catherine, apparently, had very little confidence in the talents of those who sat in the then Senate, she perfectly understood the complete dependence of the Senate on his chancery and its inability, with the clumsy forms of its office work, to energetic, active work. Upon accession to the throne, Catherine found that the Senate had brought many parts of the government to an impossible disorder; it was necessary to take the most energetic measures to eliminate him, and the Senate turned out to be completely unsuitable for this. Therefore, those cases to which the Empress attached the greatest importance, she entrusted to individuals who enjoyed her confidence - mainly the Prosecutor General Prince Vyazemsky, thanks to which the importance of the Prosecutor General increased to unprecedented proportions. In fact, he was, as it were, the Minister of Finance, Justice, the Interior and the State Comptroller. In the second half of Catherine's reign, she began to transfer cases to other persons, many of whom competed with Prince. Vyazemsky according to the degree of business influence. Whole departments appeared, the heads of which directly, bypassing the Senate, reported to the Empress, as a result of which these departments became completely independent of the Senate. Sometimes they were in the nature of personal assignments, determined by Catherine's attitude towards this or that person and the degree of trust placed in him; e.g. after the death of Baur, who was, as it were, the Minister of Railways, his affairs were distributed between Admiral Greig, Field Marshal Chernyshev and Prince. Vyazemsky. The postal administration was entrusted either to Vyazemsky, or to Shuvalov, or to Bezborodko. A huge blow for the Senate was also the new removal of the military and naval collegium from its jurisdiction, and the military collegium is completely isolated in the area of ​​​​judiciary and financial management. Having undermined the general significance of the Senate, this measure had a particularly hard effect on its III and IV departments. The significance of the Senate and the extent of its power were further dealt a heavy blow by the establishment of provinces (1775 and 1780). Quite a few cases passed from the colleges to the provincial offices, and the colleges, with which the Senate had already developed the well-known modus vivendi, were gradually closed. The Senate had to enter into direct relations with the new provincial regulations, which were neither formally nor in spirit consistent with the establishment of the Senate. Catherine was well aware of this and repeatedly drew up draft reforms of the Senate (drafts of 1775, 1788 and 1794 have survived. ), but they were not implemented. The inconsistency between the institutions of the Senate and the provinces led, firstly, to the fact that matters of greatest importance could always be reported to the empress by the governor or governor-general directly, in addition to the Senate, and secondly, to the fact that the Senate was overwhelmed by petty administrative matters that came to him from 42 provincial boards and 42 state chambers. Heraldry from the institution in charge of all the nobility and appointment to all positions, turned to the place of maintaining lists of officials appointed by the governors. The significance of the Senate suffered the least damage in the area of ​​the court; in comparison with previous reigns, when the governmental activity of the Senate took precedence over the judiciary, it even seemed that the Senate had become par excellence a judicial seat. Formally, the Senate was considered the highest judicial instance; and here, however, its significance was diminished, firstly, by the hitherto unprecedented influence that the chief prosecutors and the prosecutor general exerted on the decision of cases, and secondly, by the wide admission of all-subject complaints not only against departments, but also at general meetings Senate (these complaints were submitted to the racket master and they were reported to the empress). Although the law threatened punishment for an unlawful petition to the Senate, but, according to Speransky, during all this time there was only one case when a certain Berezin was brought to the court of the Senate itself, which, imitating the mercy of the empress, asked for his forgiveness. In the reign of Pavel Petrovich, despite all his dissympathy for the Catherine's system, the position of the Senate among state institutions remained almost exactly the same as it was under Catherine. New departments were formed, the affairs of which were not included in the terms of reference of the Senate. The restoration of some of the colleges abolished under Catherine did not entail the restoration of the former relations between them and the Senate: they were entrusted to the chief directors, who had a personal report from the emperor. The Prosecutor General (Prince Kurakin, then Obolyaninov), having concentrated in his office an unprecedented number of cases up to that time, used almost autocratic power in these cases. His pressure on the Senate increased even more. The Senate remained primarily a judicial place, but even here it was subjected to new restrictions: in cases of state property, it ceased to be the highest authority (1799), these cases could only be resolved by nominal decrees. All restrictions on the right to appeal against the decisions of the departments and the general meeting of the Senate were abolished (1797), as a result of which complaints begin to be brought in almost every case. This caused, despite the most resolute measures to speed up Senate proceedings, a terrible burden on the Senate with court cases, which at that time were considered by all its departments.

The Senate from the reign of Alexander I to the end of the XIX

To restore the power of the Governing Senate

The Senate lies in the dust, covered with gray darkness
Arise! - Rivers Alexander. He got up - yes, only cancer

Anonymous epigram

The main character of S., like other central institutions, is finally outlined in the reign of Alexander Pavlovich. Almost immediately after accession to the throne, Emperor Alexander began to reform S., realizing the need to put an end to the humiliating position to which the supreme institution of the empire had been reduced. On June 5, 1801, a personal decree was issued, by which S. was invited to draw up a report on his rights and duties. This decree, which clearly expressed the emperor's intention to raise the importance of S., made a strong impression not only on S., but also on the educated public in general. In response to the decree, several drafts of the most obedient report were submitted, written with extraordinary animation (Count Zavadovsky, Derzhavin, Vorontsov) and expressing S.'s desire to regain the significance that he enjoyed under Peter I and Elizabeth. S. accepted the project gr. Zavadovsky. Upon presentation to the sovereign, a detailed discussion of S.'s reforms began both in the "Informal Committee" (see), and in the Council of State established shortly before that (March 30, 1801). The result of all these meetings was a personal decree on 8 September. 1802 on the rights and obligations of S. This decree is the last legislative act that systematically determines both the organization of S. and its relationship to other higher institutions. Despite the fact that the decree of 8 Sept. 1802 was the result of a serious desire of the emperor and those close to him to raise the importance of S., he did not introduce almost anything new into his organization and his relations with other institutions: he only restored to memory the rights of Catherine S., forgotten and actually destroyed by Paul, that is, S. already diminished in its original dignity. The only innovations were the following rules: in the event of a protest by the Prosecutor General against the determination of S., the case was reported to the sovereign not only by the Prosecutor General, but during a deputation from S.; the senate was allowed, if he sees important inconveniences in existing laws, to represent it to the sovereign. Simultaneously with the decree on S., a manifesto was issued on the establishment of ministries, and it was decided that the annual reports of the ministers were submitted to S. for reporting to the sovereign. Due to a number of conditions, these newly granted rights to S. could not raise his value in any way. In terms of its composition, S. remained a collection of far from the first dignitaries of the empire. Direct relations between S. and the supreme power were not created, and this predetermined the nature of S.'s relations. to the Council of State, the Ministers and the Committee of Ministers.

Participation of the Senate in legislation.

Already the decree of 1802 does not look at the Senate as a legislative institution: legislative affairs were concentrated in the State. council, established in 1801. When the value of this council fell, the legislation passed to the confidants of the sovereign and to the ministers, and from 1810 - to the newly organized States. advice. Being removed from legislation as a legislative body, the Senate retained, however, a certain attitude towards legislation. First of all, S. has been given the right of the initial design of laws: general meetings of S. can develop a draft law and submit it for the highest approval through the Minister of Justice and the State Council, and the minister must ask for the highest permission to submit the project to the council. In fact, the Senate does not use this right, because in the course of affairs and with the money and personal resources placed at its disposal, it is deprived of the opportunity to carry out all the work that is necessary for the preparation and development of any complicated bill. The rule, by virtue of which the Senate does not proceed to the decision of such cases for which there is no exact law, but for every such incidental case draws up a draft decision and presents it to the sovereign, in the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th was of great importance for legislation: in this way many gaps in the law have been filled. The right of S. to present to the sovereign about inconveniences in existing laws, granted to S. by decree on 8 September. 1802, was subjected to significant restrictions at the first attempt by S. to use it. When the Senate introduced imp. Alexander I that the decree of 5 Dec. 1802 on the terms of service of non-commissioned officers from the nobility contradicts the decree on the liberty of the nobility and the charter to the nobility, the sovereign, accepting this remark very mercilessly, explained by decree on March 21, 1808 that S.'s objections were unfounded and that S. had the right to present objections refers solely to existing laws, not to newly issued or confirmed ones. The right of representation, with the above reservation, also entered the current institution of S., but in the state life of Russia at that time it had no practical significance. The Senate must receive resolutions of the general presences of provincial institutions, which have the right, upon receipt of a new law, to report on its ambiguity or inconvenience in its implementation; but the hostility with which the Senate treated such ideas led to the fact that provincial seats have not used this right since the beginning of the 19th century. and it only exists on paper.

Participation of the Senate in the affairs of government.

Since 1802, the most complex change has taken place in the area of ​​administrative affairs in S.. In 1802, when the ministers were established, they were placed above the boards. Although the manifesto of 1802 on the establishment of ministries left in most cases the question of S.'s attitude to ministries open, but since S.'s relations with colleges had already been more or less determined, initially the mutual relations of ministers and S., apparently, did not cause difficulties. When it was discovered that the coexistence of colleges and ministers leads to serious inconveniences, and when, as a result, from 1803 the gradual closure of the colleges and their transformation into departments of ministries begins, S.'s relations with the ministries became completely unclear, and from this ambiguity they took full advantage ministers. In fact, the presentation of annual reports by ministers in S. is stopped; those cases that were previously raised in S. are considered by a committee of ministers. In the field of administrative affairs, the competence of the committee almost merged with the competence of S., so that around 1810 a number of projects arose either on the abolition of the administrative department of S. with the transfer of its affairs to the committee (Speransky's draft of 1809), or on the abolition of the committee with the transfer of its affairs S. (Speransky in 1810 and 1811, later Troshchinsky). This last thought underlies the current establishment of ministries on June 25, 1811: it does not contain a mention of a committee of ministers, and those functions that until then were performed by the committee and later remained intact with it were transferred to S. this transfer did not take place. Not only was the Committee of Ministers not abolished, but on the occasion of the departure of the sovereign for the war, new emergency powers were given and nothing was ceded from the previous ones. When the emergency powers of the committee of ministers ceased, its general importance nevertheless continued to grow; in the era of Arakcheev's sovereignty, the committee becomes the center of all state administration. The role of S. in administrative matters is falling. Ministers are at the head of the executive bodies of the state. The law, however, still recognizes S. as the supreme in the order of court and administration of the place of the empire, having no other power over itself, except for the power of the imperial majesty, sending decrees to the ministers, receiving reports from them. Provincial seats are in fact completely dependent on the ministries, but are considered subordinate to S. Therefore, S. was always formally in his right if he turned to ministries or provincial places with any demand. It was most convenient for S. to act by pointing out the mistakes made or deviations from the laws, restoring the force of the law, demanding the correction of illegal orders. The Senate was unsuitable for direct participation in an active administration both in its composition and in the slowness of office work, and because it was excluded from disposing of the executive bodies, even from direct contact with them. Thus, S., by the force of things, turned little by little from an organ of actual administration to an organ of supervision of legality, which he did in the projects of 1788 and 1793. wanted to do Ekaterina. Between S. and the Committee of Ministers, there was a certain delimitation, as it were: S. keeps in his activity the beginning of legality in management (Legalit ä tsprincip), the committee - the beginning of expediency (Opportunit ä tsprincip). Cases of an administrative nature that came to the consideration of the governing Senate can be divided into the following two categories:

1) Cases of an executive nature. There are very few cases of a purely executive nature in S., and in most cases they little elevate the value of S. Of these cases, the following are relatively more significant: 1) the publication of laws. What matters in practice is not to whom the promulgation of laws is entrusted, but that the laws be promulgated at all and that their publication be concentrated in one place. Our legislation, however, not only allows for the existence of secret laws that are not subject to promulgation, but also does not fully ensure that laws intended for general information are promulgated precisely through S. In the second half of the 19th century. laws were often communicated to the subject places and persons in addition to S., in circulars of the Minister of the Interior to governors, etc. or official publications did not publish laws before S. But this achieves little, especially with regard to the military department: the laws are enforced here by orders from the department and are reported to S. for publication only later, sometimes after several decades (Regulations on the Siberian Cossack army, high approved March 5, 1861, published in No. 53 of the Collection of Legalizations for 1899). For what counts as the moment when a law is promulgated, see Promulgation of Laws. For the importance of S.'s publication of administrative orders, see Binding Orders. 2) Accounts for the treasury and for the treasury: the addition of arrears, the return of money that was incorrectly received by the treasury, the resolution of disagreements between state control and those institutions or officials on which the account was made. 3) Cases of state administration: approval of tenders, disputes between ministries about state property. 4) Approval of justices of the peace, county qadis. The cases listed in these 4 points are carried out in the first department. 5) Certification of the rights of the state (estate): transitions from one state to another; certificates of belonging to one state or another; maintenance of armorials, promotion to ranks for long service. These affairs are handled partly by the first department, partly by the department of heraldry. Of serious practical importance are the cases being carried out in the second department on the land organization of the peasants.

2) Cases for the supervision of the legality of management. Here, S. acts, firstly, as an organ, on its own initiative or on the proposals of the underlying institutions, resolving by force of law difficulties and misunderstandings that may be encountered in the execution of its work, having supervision over the actions of various places of government and taking measures to punish, compel, confirm and encourage . C. resolves disputes about power that arise between administrative places and transfers cases from one government office to another. S. considers cases of bringing to justice for crimes the positions of officials of the IV and V classes, appointed by the highest authorities. Secondly, S. is an instance that receives complaints from individuals and self-government bodies about incorrect orders of ministers and provincial places. Although this side of his activity is the least developed in the law (complaints against ministers, for example, are not provided for by law at all), but the cases related to this, constantly developing quantitatively, acquire enormous state significance. Despite all the imperfection of the Senate office work on administrative cases, slow and secret, despite the weakness of the political and social significance of S., the Senate, accepting such complaints for its consideration and, while resolving the case, strictly adhering to the soil of the law, created a type of administrative justice, not free from shortcomings. , but, in any case, contributing to the establishment of legality in management. Of all the guarantees of legality existing in the Russian state system, S.'s supervision is undoubtedly the most valid.

Participation of the Senate in judicial matters.

The participation of the Senate in court cases takes various forms, depending on whether the given case came from the court of the old or new (according to the judicial charters of Emperor Alexander II) device. Cases from the old judicial places came to S. on appeal, on revision, on protests of provincial prosecutors, and on disagreement of the governors with the decisions of the courts. These cases are being considered in the courtroom. governs. S., who resolves them on the merits, in a pre-reform, only partly modified order. Cases from court rulings formed according to the judicial charters imp. Alexander II, enter the cassation dpt. In criminal cases, requests may concern either the annulment (cassation) of a sentence, or the resumption of a criminal case; in civil cases, requests may be for cassation of a decision, for reviewing it, and requests from third parties who did not participate in the case. On the essence of the cassation proceedings, see the Court of Cassation and the Reopening of Court Cases. In the Criminal Cassation Department, cases of crimes are considered on the merits by positions of ranks above V class. From the cassation departments, sometimes with the participation of the first and second, the following general meetings are formed: the general meeting of the cassation departments (some cases of judicial administration, disputes about jurisdiction between the courts of civil, military and spiritual departments, appeals against court verdicts of the criminal cassation department, cassation complaints against decisions of special presence for cases of state crimes); general meeting of cassation departments with the participation of the first (arguing about jurisdiction between government and judicial institutions, complaints against decisions of the joint presence of the first and civil cassation departments in cases of recovery of damages from officials; discussion of issues resolved in different ways in different judicial places); general meeting of the cassation departments with the participation of the first and second departments (cases of the same kind, but concerning the subjects of the department of the second department). On questions of disagreement between prosecutors and provincial governments on bringing officials to court, a joint presence of the first and criminal cassation departments or the first, second and criminal cassation departments is formed. For cases of supervision of judicial places and officials of the judicial department, a joint presence of the first and cassation departments was established, for the review of court decisions of provincial presences - a combined presence of the first and civil (or criminal, according to affiliation) departments. Finally, a special presence for cases of state crimes and a higher disciplinary presence stand out from the composition of the cassation departments.

Composition and division of the Senate

The Senate is composed of persons of the first three classes; senators are determined by the direct election of the imperial majesty, both from civil and military ranks, and senators, without losing their rank, can hold other positions. The exception is the senators of the cassation departments, who can only be appointed from persons who have held the positions of chief prosecutor, his comrade or chairman, member or prosecutor of the judicial chamber for at least three years, and the appointment to these latter positions is also conditioned by a certain service and educational qualification. Senators of cassation departments may not hold any other position in the service of the state or public. Of the senators, some are appointed to be present in departments, some are present only in general meetings, some are completely exempted from any classes in S. The latter usually include senior dignitaries, members of the state. council, ministers, etc. The main work is carried out by the senators present in the departments. Since the state and political position of the institution is determined by the social position of its members, the position of S. depends precisely on these senators present in the departments. These are almost always persons who held positions of the III, sometimes IV class, and their appointment to the S. is the crown of their service career. Such a disadvantageous position of S. among other higher institutions of the empire to a large extent paralyzes the power granted to the senate as the supreme seat of the empire.

The Senate operates in the form of departments, general assemblies and united presences. Although in some cases general meetings are, as it were, an instance over departments, but as a general rule, each department has the power to act on behalf of the entire S.; his decrees "are executed by all places and persons subordinate to him, as the own of the Imperial Majesty, and one Sovereign or his nominal decree can stop the Senate command." The number of departments reached (according to the Code of the Legislative edition of 1857) up to 12; d-you I-V , surveying (from 1765 to 1794 - surveying expedition) and heralds (department from 1848) were in St. Petersburg, VI-VIII in Moscow, IX and X in Warsaw. In 1871 and 1876 the Moscow and Warsaw departments of S. were abolished. With the spread of judicial reform, imp. Alexander II, the judicial departments of the old system (II-V and boundary) were gradually reduced and were merged into one. Now S. consist of the following departments: the first, in charge of all administrative affairs, when they can be brought to an end only through the Governing S. and do not belong by law to the subjects of departments of other departments; the second, established in 1882 (June 23) and in charge of peasant administrative affairs: judicial, established in 1898 (June 2) and in charge of the old judicial departments and land surveying; heraldry, in charge of cases of nobility and honorary citizenship, of princely, count and baronial titles, changes of surnames, compilation of armorials; two cassation d-tov, established by the Judicial Charters imp. Alexander II (civil and criminal). All departments, except for cassation departments, operate on the basis of the Uchr. Etc. S. and are usually called "old S.". There are two general meetings of the old S.: the first, consisting of the senators of the first and second departments and the doctor of heraldry, the second - of the senators of the judicial department and one of the cassation, criminal or civil according to affiliation. The subjects of the department of these general meetings are: cases transferred from the old departments of S. on the highest orders as a result of the most submissive complaints; cases transferred from departments due to disagreement; cases requiring clarification or addition of laws. From the cassation dpt., sometimes with the participation of the first or second, a series of general meetings and joint presences is compiled (see above). In addition to general assemblies and joint presences, consisting of senators of only a few departments, on certain occasions the general presence of the entire S. gathers. This happens, for example, when the emperor ascends the throne and when S. is sworn in to him and on some other solemn occasions. According to Art. 182 Const. Etc. of the Senate on each attendance day, before the start of meetings in the departments, all senators must enter the general meeting to listen to all the highest orders submitted by S.; in practice this is not followed. Each department is made up of senators appointed at the highest discretion. By law, their number cannot be less than three; in reality, the number of senators ranges from 6 to 7 (dpt. heraldry) up to 18 (civil. cass. dpt.). In each department, except for the first, a first-present is appointed (since 1832) for one year (in cassation departments, the appointment of first-presents is not subject to annual renewal). The non-appointment of the first present to the first department in the imperial order of 1832 is motivated by the fact that administrative affairs were entrusted to this department. This supreme command did not cancel the principle that does not manifest itself in practice, that the single face of the emperor. Majesty presides in the C. To supervise the proceedings and (in the old departments) for the correctness of decisions in each dpt., in the general meeting of the cash registers. departments, in the combined presence of the first and cassation and supreme disciplinary presence of the govern. S. consists of chief prosecutors with comrades. In the department of heraldry, the chief prosecutor is called the king of arms. In the general assemblies of the old S., the Minister of Justice bears the prosecutor's duties in the capacity of Prosecutor General. In each department, in the general meeting of the cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and civil cassation departments, in the combined presence of the first and criminal cassation departments and in the conjunct. the presence of the first and cassation. departments there is an office, consisting, under the control of the chief prosecutor, of the chief secretaries and their assistants.

The order of record keeping in S. The procedure for the conduct of cases in the old departments of S. (administrative and judicial) and in their general assemblies is, with only minor deviations, the order that existed in pre-reform courts. Both the departments of cassation themselves, and those general assemblies and joint meetings to which these departments belong, act on the basis of the judicial statutes of imp. Alexander II. In the old S., cases are received, as a general rule, through the office; only S.'s relations with the supreme power, Gosud. Council and Committee of Ministers are made through the Minister of Justice. Cases are prepared for the report by the office, which collects all the necessary certificates, information and documents (in civil cases - only if the parties ask for it) and draws up a note that summarizes the circumstances of the case and provides all relevant laws. The report of the case is also made by the office and consists in an oral presentation of the case and in the reading of those documents and information that, according to their significance, should be reported in their literal content. In the form of an addition to the report since 1865 in criminal and civil (as well as boundary) cases, the parties are allowed to submit explanations. After reading the report (for civil and criminal cases - for posing questions to those present), a vote takes place; the adopted resolution is drawn up by the office and entered in the journal. The office also prepares the text of the final determination of C. The decisions of the departments are decided, as a general rule, unanimously (since 1802); but since 1869, private cases, as well as cases of complaints against administrative institutions and on the representations of these institutions, are decided by a 2/3 majority of the votes of the senators present. Cases on crimes of the position of administrative officials and on compensation for harm and losses caused by these crimes, as well as cases on the termination of investigations in the state. Crimes are decided by a simple majority. If the required majority does not take place in the department, then the chief procurator should try to bring the senators to an agreement; if he fails, then within eight days he gives a written "conciliation proposal", according to the report of which the opinions of only the senators who participated in the hearing of the case are asked. The senators can either fully accept the opinion of the chief prosecutor, or reject it. In the latter case, the case is transferred to the general meeting. In general meetings, a simple majority is required, except for cases coming from the first and second departments, in which a 2/3 majority is required. The right to make conciliatory proposals to general assemblies belongs to the Minister of Justice. These conciliatory proposals are subject to preliminary discussion by the “consultation at the Ministry of Justice” (October 21, 1802), consisting of the deputy minister, directors of departments, all chief prosecutors and specially appointed members. If the general meeting does not accept the conciliatory proposal of the Minister, the case is transferred to the State Court. advice. Incomparably more significant than the influence exercised by the prosecutor's office on the old S. through conciliatory proposals, is the influence that the prosecutor's office receives by virtue of the right to skip Senate determinations: each definition of S., upon its preparation by the office, is presented primarily by departments - chief prosecutors, by general meetings - to the Minister of Justice, who, if they agree with the definition, make the inscription “read” on it. If the chief prosecutor disagrees with the definition of the department, and the minister of justice with the definition of the general meeting, they can propose that S. If S. does not give up his original opinion, then the departmental decision can be transferred to the general meeting with the permission of the minister of justice; the decision of the general meeting, in case of disagreement with the Minister of Justice, is transferred to the respect of the Council of State. In many cases, the chief prosecutor is in any case obliged to submit the decision to the minister for approval before passing the decision. If the definition is omitted by the chief prosecutor, then it is submitted to the senators for signature, but upon signing by them, it can be executed no earlier, both by presentation to the chief prosecutor (at the general meeting - by the Minister of Justice) and by his resolution "execute". From departmental cases, those cases of the first department that are decided by a simple majority of votes are not subject to omission of prosecutorial supervision, and from cases of general meetings - all cases of the second general meeting, except for those in which S. recognizes the need to enact a new law or repeal the current one. These restrictions on the influence of prosecutorial supervision were established in the early eighties and have not been extended since then. Of even greater practical importance than the oversight of chief prosecutors are the rights granted to all ministers in relation to S. In a number of cases, the determination of S. can take place only with the participation of the subject minister. This participation is expressed either in the fact that the decision of the department, before signing the decision by the senators, is forwarded to the minister, or in the fact that the matter itself is reported only in the presence of the minister or his comrade. In some cases, S., in addition, requires the ministers to provide preliminary conclusions before hearing the case on the merits. If the department does not agree with the opinion of the minister, then the case is transferred to the general meeting, where the minister's vote is calculated in the general scoring of the senators. The proceedings in the cassation departments are concentrated not in the office, but in the presence of S. The case is prepared for a report and reported by one of the senators, and the role of the office is limited only to collecting certificates, etc. preparatory work. Most of the cases are reported not in the department itself (for the legal composition of which 7 senators are required), but in the department, where the presence of three senators is sufficient. The decision made by the department has the force of the department; but in complex cases or raising some fundamental issue that has not yet been considered by the department, the case is transferred from department to department. Draft definitions are drawn up by the reporting senators, not by the office. The duties and rights of the chief prosecutors in the cassation departments of S. are completely different from those in the old departments: the chief prosecutors of the cassation departments do not have the right to supervise Senate decisions and protest in case of disagreement with them; their role is limited to presenting (in person or through the associates of the chief prosecutor) an opinion on the degree of solidity of the cassation complaint or cassation protest. The right to supervise the office and the cassation departments is vested in the prosecutor's office.

Complaints against the Senate

As a general rule, established in , there could be no appeal against the Senate; but according to Art. 25th Decree of September 8, “how can there be extremes in which to forbid any refuge to His Imperial Majesty it would be to take away deliverance from the afflicted", then complaints were allowed with the fact that "when the complaint turns out to be unjust, the complainant will be put on trial for filing it."

The decree of 1802 did not distinguish between the decisions of departments and general assemblies. This distinction appeared in 1810, when formed under the State. Council Commission of Petitions left without respect all complaints on serious cases, decided in the General Assembly of the Senate.

Subsequently, complaints against the general meetings of the Senate were not accepted.

Literature

• Gradovsky, "The Beginning of Russian. state rights” (vol. II, 1887);
• his own, "High Administration Russia XVIII Art. and prosecutor generals” (1866; included in the first volume of “Collected Works” by A. D. Gradovsky, 1899);
• Korkunov, "Russian state. law” (vol. II);
• his own, “Four Projects of Speransky” (“Bulletin world history", 1900, No. II and III);
• his own, "Two Projects for the Transformation of S." (“Journal of the Ministry of Justice”, 1899, book V);
• his own, “Project for the structure of the Senate by G. R. Derzhavin” (“Collected Articles”, St. Petersburg, 1898);
• his own, “The project of the judicial system of M. A. Balugyansky” (vol.);
• Petrovsky, "On the Senate in the reign of Peter the Great." (1875); * Filippov, “The History of S. in the Board of the Supreme Privy Council and the Cabinet” (part I: “The Senate in the Board of the Supreme Privy Council”, 1895);
• his own, “The Cabinet of Ministers and Rules. S. in their mutual relations” (“Collection of jurisprudence and social knowledge”; vol. VII);
• V. Shcheglov, “Gosud. council in Russia" (1892);
• his own, “Gosud. advice during the reign of the imp. Alexander I" (1895);
• "Senate Archive" (vols. I-VIII); "Journals of the Committee December 6, 1826" (“Collection of the Imperial Historical Society”, vol. LXXIV);
• “Papers of the Committee 6 Dec. 1826" (the same Collection, vol. XC); *M. Zeil, "Right. senate "(1898)," Archive of the State Council "(published by Kalachov, vol. III).

Links

• History of judicial institutions in Russia. Composition by Konstantin Trotsina. St. Petersburg, Eduard Weimar Printing House. 1851 Senate in Russia - I. Senate in the reign of Peter the Great. Peter, during his constant absences, which often interfered with his current management affairs, repeatedly (in 1706, 1707, 1710) handed over the cases to several selected persons, from whom he demanded that they not ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
• 
  

The highest governing body in the Russian Empire, combining three aspects of power: lawmaking, executive and judicial functions. Takovo general definition Governing Senate.

Despite a wide range of powers, this authority was completely subordinate to the emperor, was appointed by him, controlled and was responsible to him.

Over the centuries, its functions have changed in accordance with the instructions of the reigning persons. The establishment of the Governing Senate, its work and transformation will be discussed today.

Stages of development. Under Peter the Great

The founder of the Governing Senate is Peter I. Due to his constant traveling, which was required by the vigorous activity of the reformer tsar, he was forced to organize the work of the state machine in such a way that it would function even during periods of his long absence.

This reason was the impetus for the emergence of the Governing Senate. The date of its formation is February 19, 1711. There was no separation of powers at that time, since we are talking about an absolute monarchy, therefore the body replacing the king, who was away, was "one in three persons." He united three branches of power at once: he wrote laws, monitored their execution and punished.

After Peter I

After the death of Peter the Great, in the period from 1726 to 1730, the Senate became known as the High and lost a large share of its powers. His activities mainly extended to the financial and administrative spheres.

Under the reign of Catherine II, the Senate was divided into departments and lost its legislative powers.

C early XIX centuries, the functions of this body included supervision over the work of various government agencies. And starting from 1864, one more aspect of its activity was added - it became the highest instance of cassation. Some of the departments of the Governing Senate were engaged in the implementation of the registration of commercial transactions.

The dissolution of this instance took place on November 22, 1917, after October revolution. However, in the course of events that took place during civil war, in the southern and eastern regions of Russia, its activities were resumed. But the period of work was short-lived and ended when Admiral Kolchak was taken prisoner. The place where the Senate met changed several times, but the main points of its deployment were St. Petersburg and Moscow.

Establishment of the Governing Senate

As already noted, this body is the brainchild of Peter I. The Tsar was not at all eager to share power with anyone just like that. The creation of the Governing Senate was a necessary measure. Those grandiose tasks that were set before the country required the improvement of the state apparatus.

But, unlike other countries, such as Sweden or Poland, for example, the Senate was by no means a body that limited the autocracy in any way.

• Firstly, this institution was not elected, its members were appointed by the king himself. And these were the closest associates, invested with the personal trust of the sovereign. Among them are such names as P. Golitsyn, M. Dolgorukov, G. Volkonsky and other eminent nobles.
• Secondly, the Senate was not an opposition structure. He was in complete submission to the royal person and controlled by her. He was also responsible to the monarch. The Senate, as it were, represented the “second self” of the sovereign, and by no means protected the interests of the aristocratic elite. And he had to obey, as the king himself. So, in one of the orders, Peter warned that those who dare to disobey the decrees of the Governing Senate will be subject to severe punishment or even death - "depending on the fault."
• Thirdly, the functions of this body at the first stage were not clearly defined. The field of his activity was subject to constant changes, depending on this or that situation. And he did what his Majesty the Emperor saw fit. In his decree, Peter determines that after his departure, the Senate should: judge without hypocrisy, not make wasteful expenses, try to farm out salt, increase Chinese and Persian trade, caress the Armenians and establish a fiscal authority. That is, the senators did not have a list of duties, they only received instructions from the king.

Secret surveillance

The formation of a new management structure dictated the need to create new positions. In March 1711, a new position was established - fiscal. His duties included:

• "Secretly oversee" all affairs.
• Learn about various crimes.
• Expose bribes, embezzlement and other "silent deeds" in court.

And also the position of Chief Fiscal, who is attached to the Senate, was established. Later, she began to sound like a fiscal general. He had four assistants. In each of the provinces there was a provincial fiscal, to whom three assistants were assigned. And in each city, depending on its size, there are one or two fiscal police officers.

The existence of such secret informers in the public service did not pass without a number of abuses and settling of scores. Moreover, until 1714, even for a false denunciation, no sanctions were provided. On the other hand, in a certain positive influence the Institute of Fiscals cannot be denied the task of restoring order in institutions at the local level.

The system of prosecutorial supervision

Initially, the chief secretary was the head of the Governing Senate. Peter I was forced to appoint him because of the strife that was constantly observed at meetings. In 1720, A. Shchukin, who turned out to be unsuitable for the performance of duties of this kind, became it. After Shchukin died in 1721, the guards staff officers, who were replaced every month, were instructed to keep order at the meetings.

In 1722, the officers were replaced by the prosecutor's office, which not only supervised the Senate, but also was a system of supervision over other institutions - in the center and in the field - that carried out administrative and judicial functions.

At the head of this system was the Prosecutor General. He was also the head of the office of the Senate and oversaw this body. And not only in terms of order at meetings, but also in terms of the legality of its decisions.

The prosecutor general had an assistant - the chief prosecutor. The establishment of the post of Attorney General played a twofold role in the development of the Senate. On the one hand, supervision on his part contributed to the establishment of order in the proceedings. On the other hand, the independence of this body has greatly decreased.

Liaison with local government

The vast territory of Russia has always needed an extensive and efficient management system. Peter I also paid special attention to this issue. It was under him that the division of the state into provinces took place, as well as the gradual replacement of obsolete governing bodies - orders - with collegiums.

The signal for their formation was the establishment of the Senate. All the presidents of the newly created collegiums became its members. Thus, the direct connection of the Senate with the regions was visible.

Metamorphoses

After the death of Peter the Great, the functions of the Governing Senate underwent serious changes in the direction of their reduction. Under Catherine I and Peter II, in fact, an alternative body was formed - the Supreme Privy Council. The favorites of the Empress became its members.

This council, step by step, pulled the blanket over itself, taking over the powers of the Senate. Over time, the Senate almost completely lost its rights and was engaged in the analysis of petty cases. However, under Anna Ioannovna, the secret council was abolished by her, and the Senate was restored to its former status.

But under the reign of Empress Anna, another institution arises - the Cabinet, which becomes a kind of gasket between the Senate and the monarch. Over time, this had a negative impact on the work of the Senate. After the abolition of the Cabinet by Elizaveta Petrovna, the latter regained the status quo by her decree.

Reformation under Catherine II

Having come to power, Catherine II decided to reform the Governing Senate. She divided this body into 6 departments. Each of them was assigned to one or another sphere of state activity. This allowed the empress to make clearer understanding of the powers of the Senate. The areas of activity between the departments were distributed as follows.

• 1st department - domestic politics.
• 2nd - judicial activity.
• 3rd - supervision of provinces with a special status - Livonia, Estonia, Little Russia, Narva and Vyborg.
• 4th - the solution of military and naval issues.
• 5th - administrative affairs.
• 6th - conducting court cases.

At the same time, the first 4 departments worked in St. Petersburg, and the last two - in Moscow.

In addition, the influence of the Prosecutor General on each of the departments was expanded. In the short period of the reign of Paul I, the Senate again lost a wide range of its powers.

Under Alexander I

In the form in which the Senate existed before its abolition, it was created by Emperor Alexander I. He got the state with an outdated administrative apparatus, which he undertook to remake.

Understanding the important role played by the Governing Senate, the young tsar was aware of the fact that over time his importance had declined sharply. Shortly after his accession to the throne, Alexander by his decree ordered the senators to submit to him for consideration projects relating to the reform of this institution.

Work on the discussion of a package of necessary improvements in the work was carried out for several months. Members of the newly created secret committee- an informal body with advisory functions. It included supporters of Alexander I in his undertakings of a liberal nature: Stroganov P. A., Kochubey V. P., Czartorysky A. E., Novosiltsev N. N. As a result, transformations were carried out, which are discussed below.

Work regulations

As under Peter I, the emperor himself appointed senators. Only officials belonging to the first three classes could apply for membership in this body. In certain cases, the senatorial position could be combined with some other. In particular, this concerned the military.

Specific decisions on this or that issue were to be made within the walls of the department that was authorized to decide them. But from time to time, general events were also held, involving the presence of all members of the Senate without exception. Decrees adopted by this body could only be canceled by the emperor.

New features

In 1810, Alexander I decided to create the State Council - the highest legislative body. Thus, this part of the functions of the Government Senate was abolished.

But he was left with the prerogative of lawmaking. Draft laws could be submitted to them for consideration by the Minister of Justice. Since the 19th century, he was also the prosecutor general.

In the same period, collegiums were replaced by ministries. Although at first there was confusion between the Senate and the newly created executive bodies. It was possible to bring everything into line only by 1825 - by the end of Alexander's reign.

One of the main functions of the Senate was financial. The departments were obliged to control the execution of the budget and report to the highest authorities about the identified arrears.

Another important area of ​​work was the resolution of interdepartmental property disputes. And also the Senate was engaged in the regulation of trade, the appointment of magistrates and the maintenance of the imperial armorial. As mentioned above, this body ceased to exist after the revolutionary events at the end of 1917.