The results of the foreign policy activities of Peter I
Main directions foreign policy Russia of this period - northwestern and southern - was determined by the struggle for access to ice-free seas, without which it was impossible to break out of economic and cultural isolation, and, consequently, overcome the general backwardness of the country, as well as the desire to acquire new lands, strengthen border security and improve Russia's strategic position.
Russia's victory in the Northern War (1700-1721) was in many ways natural, since the war had a historically justified character. It was determined by Russia’s desire to return the lands that previously belonged to it, without which its progressive development became impossible. The fair nature of the war was especially clearly manifested during the Swedish invasion, when the struggle for independence came to the fore before the Russian and Ukrainian peoples.
The country, under the leadership of Peter, who “raised it on its hind legs,” was able to mobilize all its resources, create a defense industry, a new regular army and navy, which for a long time had no equal in Europe. During the war, the Russian army acquired a high level of organization and leadership, and the courage, fortitude and patriotism of its soldiers became one of the main sources of victory.
Russian diplomacy, using the contradictions between European countries, managed to create the foreign policy conditions necessary for concluding peace.
As a result of a long and painful war, Russia took the most important place in Europe, gaining the status of a great power. Access to the Baltic Sea and the annexation of new lands contributed to its economic and cultural development. During the war, Russia created a powerful regular army and began to turn into an empire.
Results and assessment of Peter's reforms
Assessing Peter's reforms and their significance for further development The Russian Empire needs to take into account the following main trends.
1. The reforms of Peter I marked the formation of an absolute monarchy, in contrast to the classical Western one, not under the influence of the genesis of capitalism, the balancing of the monarch between the feudal lords and the third estate, but on a serf-noble basis.
2. The new state created by Peter I not only significantly increased the efficiency government controlled, but also served as the main lever for the modernization of the country.
3. In terms of its scale and speed of carrying out the reform of Peter I, there are no analogues not only in Russian, but also, at least, in European history.
4. A powerful and contradictory imprint was left on them by the features of the country’s previous development, extreme foreign policy conditions and the personality of the tsar himself.
5. Based on some trends that emerged in the 17th century. in Russia, Peter I not only developed them, but also, in a minimal historical period of time, brought it to a qualitatively higher level, turning Russia into a powerful power.
6. The price for these radical changes was the further strengthening of serfdom, the temporary inhibition of the formation of capitalist relations and the strongest tax and tax pressure on the population.
7. Multiple increases in taxes led to the impoverishment and enslavement of the bulk of the population. Various social uprisings - the revolt of the archers in Astrakhan (1705 - 1706), the uprising of the Cossacks on the Don under the leadership of Kondraty Bulavin (1707 - 1708), in Ukraine and the Volga region - were directed not so much against the transformations as against the methods and means of their implementation.
8. Despite the inconsistency of the personality of Peter I and his transformations, in national history his figure became a symbol of decisive reform and selfless service to the Russian state, not sparing either himself or others.
9. Transformations of the first quarter of the 18th century. so grandiose in their consequences that they give reason to talk about pre-Petrine and post-Petrine Russia. Peter I the Great is one of the most prominent figures in Russian history. Reforms are inseparable from the personality of Peter I - an outstanding commander and statesman.
However, it should be noted that the cost of the transformations was prohibitively high: when carrying out them, the tsar did not take into account either the sacrifices brought to the altar of the fatherland, or the national traditions, nor with the memory of ancestors. Hence the inconsistency in assessing transformations in historical science.
Russia at the end of the 17th century by itself historical development was faced with the need for radical reforms, since only in this way could it secure its worthy place among the states of the West and the East. Its backwardness posed a serious danger to the independence of the Russian people. Industry was feudal in structure, and in terms of production volume it was significantly inferior to the industry of Western European countries. The Russian army largely consisted of backward noble militia and archers, poorly armed and trained. The complex and clumsy state apparatus, headed by the boyar aristocracy, did not meet the needs of the country. Education hardly penetrated the masses, and even in the ruling circles there were many uneducated and completely illiterate people.
The renewal of Russia carried out by Peter was his personal matter, an unprecedentedly violent matter, but at the same time necessary. The reforms affected literally all aspects of the life of the Russian state and the Russian people.
There are different views on the consequences of Peter the Great's reforms.
In a letter to the French ambassador to Russia, Louis XIV spoke of Peter in the following way: “This sovereign reveals his aspirations with concerns about preparing for military affairs and the discipline of his troops, about training and enlightening his people, about attracting foreign officers and all kinds of capable people. This course of action and the increase of power, which is the greatest in Europe, make him formidable to his neighbors and excite very thorough envy."
Voltaire also wrote repeatedly about Peter. Voltaire defines the main value of Peter’s reforms as the progress that the Russians achieved in 50 years; other nations cannot achieve this even in 500.
Westerners also positively assessed Peter's reforms, thanks to which Russia became a great power and joined European civilization.
Famous public figure P.N. Miliukov, in his works, develops the idea that the reforms carried out by Peter spontaneously, from case to case, under the pressure of specific circumstances, without any logic or plan, were “reforms without a reformer.” He also mentions that only “at the cost of ruining the country, Russia was elevated to the rank of a European power.” According to Miliukov, during the reign of Peter, the population of Russia within the borders of 1695 decreased due to incessant wars.
All state activities of Peter I can be conditionally divided into two periods: 1696-1715 and 1715-1725.
The peculiarity of the first stage was haste and not always thought out, which was explained by the conduct of the Northern War. The reforms were aimed primarily at raising funds for the war, were carried out by force and often did not lead to the desired result. In addition to government reforms, at the first stage, extensive reforms were carried out with the aim of modernizing the way of life.
In the second period, reforms were more systematic and aimed at the internal development of the state.
Medieval Muscovite Rus' turned into the Russian Empire. In its economy, the level and forms of development of the productive forces, political system, the structure and functions of government bodies, management and courts, in the organization of the army, in the class and estate structure of the population, in the culture of the country and the way of life of the people, enormous changes took place. Russia's place and role in international relations of that time changed radically.
The complexity and inconsistency of Russia's development during this period also determined the inconsistency of Peter's activities and the reforms he carried out. On the one hand, they had enormous historical meaning, since they contributed to the progress of the country and were aimed at eliminating its backwardness. On the other hand, they were carried out by serf owners, using serfdom methods and were aimed at strengthening their dominance. Therefore, the progressive transformations of Peter the Great’s time from the very beginning contained conservative features, which, in the course of the further development of the country, became more and more pronounced and could not ensure the elimination of socio-economic backwardness. As a result of Peter's reforms, Russia quickly caught up with those European countries where the dominance of feudal-serf relations remained, but it could not catch up with the countries that took the capitalist path of development. Peter's transformative activity was distinguished by indomitable energy, unprecedented scope and purposefulness, courage in breaking down outdated institutions, laws, foundations and way of life. Understanding perfectly great importance development of trade and industry, Peter carried out a number of measures that satisfied the interests of the merchants. But he also strengthened and consolidated serfdom, substantiated the regime of autocratic despotism.
In general, Peter's reforms were aimed at strengthening Russian state and the introduction of the ruling layer to Western European culture with the simultaneous strengthening of the absolute monarchy. By the end of the reign of Peter the Great, a powerful Russian empire, headed by an emperor who had absolute power. During the reforms, the technical and economic lag of Russia from a number of other European states was overcome, access to the Baltic Sea was won, and transformations were carried out in all spheres of life of Russian society. At the same time, the popular forces were extremely exhausted, the bureaucratic apparatus grew, and the preconditions were created (Decree on Succession to the Throne) for a crisis of supreme power, which led to the era of “palace coups.”
Among the noteworthy personalities associated with the unforgettable pages of the chronicle of the state, there are many sonorous names, however special attention deserve the actions of Peter the Great.
As well as the methods and styles by which they were achieved, the results of the reign of Peter 1 are ambiguous. There are plenty of adherents to his reform practices, despite the fact that the goals outlined in them were achieved through the most severe exploitation and coercion. There are many critics who claim that the Russian State has not overcome the level of backwardness. But, in any case, it is impossible to underestimate the key role of this Great Ruler in the formation of Russia as a state with a fundamentally new regime of government.
Drawing a line under the activities of Peter the Great
So, summing up the results of the reign of Peter 1, first of all, it should be noted that the main set of his activities is determined by the change in the ruling regime of power. Through titanic efforts, a coherent mechanism for governing the state was achieved, the stronghold of a powerful, strong, victorious fleet and army was founded. Like a Phoenix bird, the country's economy, rising from the ashes, not only loudly declared itself throughout the global trade space, but also gained the opportunity to exert considerable influence on certain issues of world politics. For some, the regime seemed like absolutism, but it was precisely this interpretation of it that radically changed the essence of governance.
Without changing the principles of the captain in life, Peter 1 managed to transform a huge, untamed country into a ship for military purposes, where the absolute command of the captain determines the success of the maneuver. The crown of transformation was characterized by the changes of 1721, when Russia tried on the new title “Empire”, and the sovereign himself began to be called Emperor.
Thanks to the extraordinary data of the autocrat, Russia not only overcame swampy places. Without running aground, masterfully avoiding underwater rocks and reefs, she victoriously entered the expanses of the seething world ocean.
Great Reign Period
Of course, the years of the reign of Peter 1 are called difficult, but managed to take a worthy place in history. The baptism of fire occurred in deep childhood, when the Streletsky riot began in Moscow, made an indelible impression on the future monarch. Forced to stay with his mother in the villages belonging to the palace family, the teenager wasted no time. A sweet childhood passion for martial arts transformed into a serious transformation of the Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments, many times superior in number and skill to the army of archers.
The history of the reign of Peter 1 began with the revival of a poor, backward, ruined country, without definite prospects for the future. The rehabilitation path was chosen to be tough, different from the European reform of society, when changes came from below from the least protected layers of society to its top. The so-called path in Russian assumed the dictatorship of the ruling layer of power, with a gradual increase in the degree of despotism at each new stage of development.
The very activity of a leader, a commander, can be conditionally divided into several periods. During the first, which covers the time period from 1695 to 1715, rash decisions were often made. The only reasoned explanation for this could be the Northern War, in which Russia was drawn into. Hence the hasty, not always justified actions. The need to arm the army became a prerequisite for a strict method of collecting money for these purposes.
The time frame of the second period of reign falls on the years 1715-1725. The main goal of the sovereign’s activities included the need for internal reorganization of the country. To this end, a number of reforms were carried out, lightning-fast, superficial, but which ultimately turned out to be quite effective.
Reform transformations of Russia
Characterizing the reforms of Peter 1 in general as positive, it is necessary to briefly note a number of the most significant changes that affected various areas of the country’s economic and production activities.
Changes in government
The prototype of the future Senate of the Government can be considered the creation of the Council of Ministers, which assumed the duties of the Duma of the Boyars, which had long ago lost confidence, and the effectiveness of its meetings was reduced to zero. The immediate goals of the Council included managing the collection and expenditure of funds, with mandatory consideration of the feasibility of upcoming expenses. Moreover, equipping the army has always remained a priority.
The transformation of executive power included the creation of 11 collegiums, the forefathers of today's ministries.
The policy of Peter 1 involved the strengthening of local self-government, which was facilitated by the division of the Russian state into several provinces, each of which was headed by a governor. In the original interpretation, the decrees did not lead to anything other than additional costs for maintaining the administrative apparatus. But the second wave of reforms turned out to be more effective, making it possible to truly formalize an absolute monarchy, in a strong tandem with the bureaucratic apparatus, on which the ruler relied.
Denunciations and secret denunciations formed the basis for control over the activities of civil servants with the aim of convicting them of embezzlement, bribery, and corruption.
Transformation of the army, navy
To achieve the creation of a powerful regular army and a powerful navy succeeded thanks to the experience of foreign specialists. It was he who formed the basis of the Maritime Academy, which opened for the education of its own officers, recruited from their class of nobles.
Competent preparation of the general recruitment of recruits, similar to that used in the formation of the Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments, ended in triumph Russian army in the Northern War.
Church - reform innovations
The policy of Peter 1 touched upon church reform, providing for the improvement of the hierarchy of church governance. The Holy Synod replaced the activities of the patriarchate, and the autonomy of the clergy was eliminated. The church became unquestioningly subordinate to the state.
There has been a strong trend towards religious tolerance. The green light was given to faiths and denominations other than Christianity.
Economic transformation
Russia under Peter 1 received a new monetary unit - the kopeck, and household taxation was replaced by the poll tax. This made it possible to increase the collection of funds for the restoration and maintenance of the army. Not only representatives of the peasants, but also landowners were subject to taxes.
Industry, trade - the principle of radical reform
The misfortune of Russian industry was a clear lack of qualified specialists. Results of the reign of Peter 1 on the development of this industry economic activity states were marked by the attraction of specialists from abroad, as well as training and advanced training own strength Abroad. In addition, this gave rise to the development of another area - education.
Domestic producers became a priority, but a significant tax was imposed on foreign-made products.
The result of the transformations was more than convincing - the Russian state took first place in the vastness of the global industrial market.
Transformations of social policy
Russia under Peter 1 ceased to be known as a serf power, since the reforms of his rule provided for the transfer of some serf peasants to the category of personally free.
Peasants could be attached to manufacturing institutions, working for them, or to the land.
The principle of managing the place has changed. The introduced city government was represented by the City Magistrate, who was elected.
The results of the reign of Peter 1 are more than obvious. The transformations never went smoothly, especially in the conditions of a country that had fallen into anarchy, which neighboring states were trying to occupy.
However, the reforms of Peter 1 briefly speak of the extraordinary abilities of the ruler, who were able to direct Russia to a fundamentally new path of development, which became an important factor for all future generations.
In the political system, the reforms of Peter the Great became the logical conclusion of the trends in the development of statehood that had emerged in the so-called Moscow period. We are talking about a phenomenon that various researchers call “oriental despotism” (L. S. Vasiliev, M. P. Pavlova-Silvanskaya), “despotic autocracy” (V. B. Kobrin, A. L. Yurganov, V. M. Paneyakh), others “a universal state as a goal” (English historian A. Toynbee) or “state-society” (French historian F. Braudel). Some historians, however, identify the political system of Russia in a more complex manner: in the 18th century. as a noble paternalistic monarchy based on the leading positions of the nobility in social organization and in the public service, as well as in the trustee functions of the monarch in relation to all subjects; in the 19th century as a “legitimate monarchy” - the lowest level of the rule of law, in which governance is based on the law, but power is in the hands of the bureaucracy with the absence or very meager participation of public representatives (B. N. Mironov). Nevertheless, no matter what features of the state-political system these and other definitions take into account, their common basis is the recognition of several fundamental positions. Firstly, the state, within the framework of such a model, acts in relation to society as a self-sufficient force, and representatives of power combine several functions at once - rulers, mentors. An expression of the complete subordination of society to the state was the nationalization (etatization) of all elements of the public sector. Any social activity of an individual or a group could develop only in the mainstream of public service and only with support from certain parts of the state apparatus. The only exceptions were grassroots autonomous collectives such as peasant rural communities, estate-corporate organizations - bodies of noble self-government established in 1785. The state monopoly of power was first undermined only by zemstvo and city institutions created during the “great reforms” of the 60-70s. XIX century Secondly, for such political system characterized by deep structural violations in the field of law, in particular in the regulation of relations of power and property. Thirdly, significant influence in the state is acquired by political police and punitive authorities directly accountable to the head of state. Fourthly, this is the militarization of the state apparatus and the spread of military principles to the sphere of civilian life. The army becomes not only a standard for organizing society, but also a kind of “forge” of personnel for the entire bureaucratic corps. Fifthly, the main social support of power and the conductor of reforms became the bureaucracy, the growth dynamics of which in the 18th-19th centuries. 9 Kurukiya was significantly ahead of population growth rates throughout the country. The transformations of Peter I greatly changed the nature and structure of the Russian political system. First of all, the idea of the scope and rights of supreme power became different. The power of Russian autocrats before Peter I still had a number of limitations. For example, such a limitation was the “law” or “rank”, which meant a way of life enshrined in tradition. V. O. Klyuchevsky noted that “the Moscow Tsar had extensive power over individuals, but not over order.” Besides, state institutions, framing the supreme power - Zemsky Sobor, Boyar Duma, Consecrated Cathedral - participated in governance and legislative work. Finally, individual monarchs in the 17th century. they gave cross-kissing records containing certain guarantees to their subjects. These customs were decisively crossed out by Peter I, contrasting them with his own formula of power: “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an account of his affairs to anyone in the world, but he has the power and authority of his own states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, by his own will. to govern with goodness." Subjects were charged with the duty of “doing everything commanded by the autocrat without grumbling or contradiction” (Feofan Prokopovich. “The Truth of the Will of the Monarchs,” 1722). This scheme remained virtually unchanged throughout the entire 19th century, when the supreme power in Russia, despite the desire for a legal justification for the actions taken, did without even a formal legal limitation of its powers. One of the expressions of this arbitrariness of the supreme power legalized by Peter I was the decree of February 5, 1722, which abolished the previous tradition of succession to the throne and asserted the right of the monarch to appoint his own successor. With this decree, which, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, turned the state law of Russia back to the patrimonial track, many politicians and historians have linked subsequent upheavals to the throne. The justification for the unlimited power of the autocrat was carried out through sacralization (giving sacred status) royal power and the assignment of a special charisma to her, mediated by the liquidation of the patriarchate in 1721 and Peter I declaring himself the “ultimate judge” of the spiritual board - the Synod. The theory of metamorphosis - the transformation of Russia under the beneficial influence of Peter I, and the personal cult of the monarch were of considerable importance. The main ideologist of Peter the Great's time, Feofan Prokopovich, theoretically substantiated the omnipotence of autocratic power. A student of the Roman Jesuit college, Prokopovich combined in his reasoning all the European teachings he knew about the rights of the monarch. Using the ideas of the theorists of the school of natural law of the absolutist direction - G. Grotius, S. Puffendorf, Prokopovich proclaimed such prerogatives of power as independence and non-accountability (not subject to human judgment and punishment), supra-legality (itself is the source of laws), sacredness and inviolability, unity and inseparability. These exceptional properties were traced back to two sources - divine institution (“By God do kings reign”) and the social contract (“national intention”), by which “the monarchy was introduced and maintained, of course.” But unlike his European teachers, who talked about individuals sacrificing their own primordial rights to the ruler, Prokopovich had in mind not the individual, but the collective alienation of their own rights in favor of the monarch. In numerous legislative acts of Peter I and the writings of his associates, other theoretical provisions were developed that formed the core of the new doctrine. This is, first of all, the idea of “common benefit”, or “common good”, which implied a wide range of measures to comprehensively strengthen the state. This idea was almost completely consistent with another concept - “state interest”. Thus, the ideology of Peter the Great’s time equated state and public interests. These ideas were clarified in relation to each of the classes. From the peasants, the “common benefit” required regular arable farming (like the “artery”, the peasants fed the entire state) and the fulfillment of state taxes, including payment of the poll tax and conscription duties. For the townspeople, this meant active participation in the development of trade and industry, payment of taxes, supply of recruits, maintenance of hospitals, orphanages, and permanent service. For nobles - mandatory public service in the military or civilian field, mastering the necessary knowledge and skills. The clergy was not ignored either: they were charged with the responsibility not only of caring for the moral health of the people, but also of maintaining at their own expense crippled and decrepit soldiers, and for monasteries - schools. The ideological statements of Peter I, thus, were aimed at the fullest possible mobilization of the entire society to serve the state. Reconstruction of the state building in the first quarter of the 18th century. was not carried out systematically, but as needs arose. At the same time, Peter I could not rely on the example of carrying out large-scale reforms in countries with a catching-up type of development (in Turkey, Japan and other non-Western countries of the world they were carried out much later). Hence the need to focus on the experience of developed countries - Sweden, France, adapting it to local conditions. At the same time, the reforms in Russia quite fully reflected the basic principles of so-called inorganic modernization. In a generalized form, these principles included: rationalization - the need to introduce reasonable, expedient rules and norms that determine the procedure for the activities of any government agency, unification, i.e. the introduction of uniformity in the structure, staffing, methods of work of similar institutions, centralization and differentiation of the functions of the management apparatus. (See: Medushevsky A.N. The establishment of absolutism in Russia. Comparative historical research. M., 1994. P. 48.) Reforms of power and management covered all levels: highest, central, local. In 1711, going to Prut campaign, Peter I established a Governing Senate of nine persons. This was the highest body; it replaced the Boyar Duma, which ceased to meet at the beginning of the 18th century. Initially, the Senate was conceived by the tsar as a temporary body operating during the period of “our absences.” The scope of his responsibilities was not clearly defined. In 1718, the heads of the collegiums, newly established bodies, were included in the Senate ex officio. central government. Since 1722, the Senate could include those high-ranking dignitaries who were not heads of central departments. The previous principle of recruitment was recognized as erroneous on the basis of completely rational argument: the leaders of the boards assembled in the Senate could hardly effectively control their own work. From this time on, the Senate became a permanent advisory and administrative body. He was entrusted with control over justice, and also granted the rights of the highest appellate instance (for an attempt to appeal his sentence, a the death penalty). In addition, the responsibilities of the Senate included control over the activities of central and local government, management state economy, conducting audits, recruiting, land surveying, finding new income for the treasury, setting up food stores and warehouses, fighting natural disasters, etc. In accordance with the areas of activity, two departments were created in the structure of the Senate: the Execution Chamber for Judicial Affairs and the Senate Office on management issues. In addition, at the end of Peter the Great’s reign, the Senate included two auxiliary services: the Office of the Armorial Master, or the Heraldry, which replaced the abolished Rank Order (its competence included accounting for all nobles, registering their official appointments and movements, as well as the development of noble coats of arms), and the Reketmeisterskaya office (it was engaged in receiving and analyzing complaints against boards and offices, checking the validity of appeals). A special place in the Senate system was given to the fiscal department and the prosecutor's office. These bodies exercised general supervision over the work of the entire bureaucratic apparatus, over the behavior of citizens, identifying everything that “could be harmful to the state interest.” The position of fiscal officers was introduced at both the local and central levels. As a reward, the fiscal received half of the property confiscated from the criminal he exposed. The unsubstantiated accusation was written off as a “production defect” and the fiscal actually got away with it. At the end of the 1720s. The Institute of Fiscals was abolished, and its personnel were partially absorbed into the prosecutor's office. The position of prosecutor was introduced by Peter I in 1722 in collegiums and chancelleries, and the prosecutor general was placed at the head of the Senate. The prosecutor's office was established to prevent and promptly respond to offenses. The Prosecutor General was considered “like the eye” of the emperor and “a lawyer for state affairs.” His position in the bureaucratic hierarchy occupied first place. He was responsible for organizing supervision in the state; being first among equals, he directed the work of his fellow senators and led the Senate office. Over time, the power of the prosecutor general grew to a volume that was not laid down in the constituent acts of Peter I. From the middle of the 18th century. and up to early XIX V. he actually concentrated in his hands the leadership of three branches of management - finance, internal affairs and justice. Throughout the 18th century. Prosecutor generals were changed infrequently - persons who enjoyed the personal trust of the monarch and were able to bear the heavy burden of official responsibility were appointed to this high post. The first prosecutor general was Pavel Ivanovich Yaguzhinsky. The reason for the consistent strengthening of the role of the prosecutor general was the desire of the supreme power to influence senators with his help, moderating their ambitions and attempts at arbitrariness. Peter I also foresaw the potential tendency of senators to demonstrate independence or even opposition, so he did not include the position of senator in the nomenclature of officials in the Table of Ranks. Despite the fact that the Senate was not a legislative body, in certain periods, for example, under Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1761), it aggressively invaded the legislative sphere: the overwhelming majority of the empress’s legislative acts arose on his initiative. Often, the legislative role of the Senate acted in hidden forms: in the procedure for interpreting laws, as well as in a successfully found (under the conditions of interdepartmental red tape) option - making a decision that had normative significance until the appearance of the corresponding highest decree. Such precedents contributed to the formation of the concept of the transfer of political sovereignty during periods of interregnum to the Senate, with the subsequent delegation of power to the monarch. This idea was popular among the highest dignitaries of the empire in Last year life of Elizaveta Petrovna. Such a plan, which tended to recognize the legal priority of the senatorial board over the supreme power at the time of its legitimation, was rejected by Elizabeth Petrovna’s successor. However, the very idea of expanding the powers of the Senate, including turning it into the political representation of the entire nobility, turned out to be extremely tenacious among the liberal nobility. Under Peter I it was also created Personal Area monarch, who in 1704 inherited some functions of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and the nearby office of the Boyar Duma. The office was transformed into the tsar's personal office, which was in charge of his correspondence, including foreign policy, accounting for financial receipts in personal income and nominations for positions and awards. Here acts were drawn up to be published on behalf of the monarch. Along with the Senate, although in a much smaller volume, the Cabinet developed the government policy and monitored its implementation. Like the Attorney General of the Senate, the Cabinet Secretary had enormous influence in the bureaucratic environment and became the object of “searches” on the part of small and large officials and private individuals. In 1717-1718 The central management apparatus was restructured. It was based on the principle of cameralism, borrowed from the experience of European countries. Cameralism is the organization of central institutions through a clear division of their functions into branches of management. (Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I. Reforms in Russia in the 18th century. Experience of holistic analysis. M., 1999. P. 128.) New institutions were created - boards that had the same staffing and general principles of work. They were in charge of national issues. At the head of the boards was the president, who, unlike the judge of the old order, did not have sole authority over his department. Collegial discussion of all issues under consideration and the adoption of a final decision by a majority vote served as a guarantee against arbitrariness by the authorities. The members of the presence, or officials with voting rights, were the vice-president, four council advisers, and four collegiate assessors (assessors). The current technical work was carried out by the secretary and the so-called clerks, or clerical servants. Some boards also appointed a foreign adviser and secretary as experts. Initially collegiate! there were few of them, but in the early 1720s. their list has expanded. The three main ones were the Foreign Affairs Collegium, the Military Collegium, and the Admiralty Collegium (in charge of fleet affairs). Three other boards dealt with finances - the Chamber Board (in charge of government revenues), the State Office Board (oversaw government expenditures), the Revision Board (kept records of government expenses), two boards - Berg and Manufactory - supervised industry, the first - metallurgical plants, the second - light industry enterprises. The Commerce Board directed foreign trade . The College of Justice was in charge of the court and lower courts, and registered various private acts (deeds of sale, promissory notes, powers of attorney, wills, documents on the sale of estates, etc.). The Patrimonial Collegium, which largely took over the functions of the abolished Local Prikaz, dealt with land litigation, formalized transactions for the purchase and sale of land and serfs, handled cases of escheated estates, runaway peasants, etc. In 172i, the Theological Collegium, or Synod, was created . This body took the place of the patriarchal throne, which was actually abolished by Peter I even earlier. From now on, church affairs were decided by government officials appointed from among the clergy (and sometimes from the secular), included in the same disciplinary framework as the rest of the bureaucracy. The Chief Magistrate, who governed the townspeople and supervised the local magistrates, was structured like a collegium. The only difference between the Chief Magistrate and other boards was its elected composition. It included representatives of the highest commercial and industrial corporations of the city, and only the chief president and the president were crown (government) officials. All new central institutions relied in their work on the General Regulations (1720) - a set of rules developed by Peter I. Later, the general principles of activity were clarified in relation to each board in a special regulation pertaining to it. The collegiate reform of Peter I was also an attempt to separate administration from the court, which was an important step towards establishing the principle of separation of powers. In 1708-1709 reform of local authorities was launched. The territory of the country was divided into 8 provinces of unequal size. Later, their number was increased to 11. As a result of regional reforms in 1708 and 1719, a three-member administrative-territorial division was formed: province - province - district. Governors were at the head of the provinces. Under the governor, there were Landrat councils of 8-12 people, elected by the nobility of the province. The Landrat Council was seen as a necessary counterbalance to the excessive development of the personal principle in the management of the provinces. Under the governor, a provincial government was also established consisting of a landrichter - a provincial judge (from 1719 he was replaced by a court court), a chief commissar in charge of finances, a chief provision master in charge of grain reserves for the army, and a manager of palace estates. At the head of the provinces, the number of which reached 50 in 1719, were governors, under whom zemstvo offices were created. Since 1719, the center of gravity in regional government was shifted to the provinces, so the most important of them received management similar to the provincial government with a governor-general at its head. The district administration was represented by zemstvo commissars - elected from among the local nobility. Communication with higher authorities, in particular with the Senate, was carried out through provincial commissars. Despite the efforts of Peter I to ensure a coherent system of management from top to bottom, many regional institutions, unlike central ones, barely survived their creator. This was caused, firstly, by difficulties with personnel - a constant shortage of trained officials was even more pronounced at the local level. Secondly, the overload of taxes on the tax-paying population, especially after 1725, made the further maintenance of an expensive local bureaucratic apparatus very problematic. Thirdly, hostility to the electoral service was deeply rooted in the public consciousness of even the upper classes: this phenomenon explains the rapid collapse of Peter I’s experiment with the Landrat Council. Finally, the state innovations of Peter I, in particular his regional reform, became the object of fierce criticism from certain political groups at court after his death.