The proposed draft expresses the views of the Russian liberals (the right wing of the future Cadet party). Its main author is the well-known jurist Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev (1850-1910). He was the son of a colonel and an Oryol landowner, graduated from the law faculty of Moscow University, served as his assistant professor (1875-1877), extraordinary (1877-1878) and ordinary (1878-1884) professor, was a secretary Faculty of Law(1880-1884) and vice-rector (1880-1881). Since the 1870s. was a member of the Law Society at the University, in 1880-1899 was its chairman, in 1878-1892 he was a co-editor of the journal "Legal Bulletin", was actively published in other periodicals. He advocated the continuation of the Great Reforms. In 1884 Muromtsev was dismissed from the university by the Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov, dissatisfied with the social activities of the professor. After that, Muromtsev was engaged in law practice, and was also a zemstvo and city official in Moscow and the Tula province, was the chairman of the financial commission of the Moscow provincial zemstvo assembly. From 1903 he participated in the Zemstvo liberal movement, in 1905 he joined the Constitutional Democratic Party and was elected to its Central Committee, but was not part of its narrow leadership.

In 1906, Muromtsev was elected to the First State Duma from Moscow and, at the suggestion of the Cadet faction, became its chairman. He made a huge contribution to the organization of its work and was one of the authors of the draft Order (regulation). After the dissolution of the Duma, Muromtsev signed (more likely out of party discipline) the Vyborg Appeal urging to refuse to pay taxes and fulfill conscription, for which he was sentenced to 3 months in prison with deprivation of voting rights.

The document offered to the readers' attention was written by Muromtsev with the participation of another future leader of the Cadet party, assistant professor of state law at Moscow University, landowner and zemstvo vowel F.F. Kokoshkin (1871-1918). The project was based on the basic requirements of the Cadets: the election of parliament by universal and equal suffrage (with an overestimation, however, of the representation of cities) and the responsibility of the government to it. Also striking is the absence of a ruling on the inviolability of property. At the same time, the draft emphasizes the role of the emperor as head of state and retains the forms and a number of secondary provisions of the previous legislation.

This document had some influence (mainly editorial) on the Basic Laws of 1906, namely their chapters 8-9. The draft is abbreviated.

SECTION ONE. About laws.

1. The Russian Empire is governed on firm foundations of laws issued in the manner prescribed by the basic law.

3. Each law is valid only for the future time, except for the case when it is stated in the law itself that its power extends to the preceding time.

4. All laws issued must not contradict the provisions of this basic law.

5. Draft laws come from the Imperial power or from the State Duma and not otherwise receive the force of law, as with the approval of the State Duma and upon approval by the Emperor for his Majesty's own signature.

6. Laws are promulgated to the general public by the governing senate by means of printing in the prescribed manner and are not put into effect before promulgation.

7. Legislative decisions are not subject to promulgation if the procedure for their publication does not comply with the provisions of this basic law, or when such decisions violate in some way the exact meaning of this basic law (Art. 4).

8. Court rulings refuse to apply legislative rulings, even if promulgated in the form of laws, when such rulings violate by their content the exact meaning of this fundamental law (Art. 4).

12. Decrees and other acts of the Emperor, which followed in the order of the supreme government, refer to execution only with the help of the State Chancellor or one of the ministers who, with their strength, take responsibility for them.

13. The image of the execution of laws, since it is not predetermined in the law itself, can be established by decrees of the Emperor. Decrees supplementing the law may be issued only if their publication is provided for by the very laws that are supplemented by the indicated decrees.

Such decrees are subject to promulgation in the manner specified for the laws (Articles 6 and 7).

14. An order of a government seat or person that violates the law is not binding on anyone ...

SECTION TWO. On the rights of Russian citizens.

15. The conditions and procedure for the acquisition and loss of the rights of Russian citizenship are determined by law.

16. All Russian citizens, regardless of the difference in their tribal origin, faith, or class status, with respect to their political and civil rights are equal before the law.

17. All Russian citizens are free to practice their faith. No one can be persecuted for the beliefs or beliefs he or she professes, nor compelled to observe religious rites; no one is prohibited from going out and abandoning the faith he professes.

19. No one can be prosecuted otherwise than in the manner prescribed by law.

20. No one can be detained otherwise than on the grounds specified in the law.

21. Any person detained in cities and other places of stay judiciary within 24 hours, and in other localities of the empire not later than within three days from the time of detention, must be either released or presented to the judicial authorities, which, upon immediate consideration of the circumstances of detention, either releases the detainee, or decides, with an announcement grounds for his further detention. For remote rural areas, where compliance with the above deadline seems impossible, it can be extended by a special law.

22. Anyone who becomes aware of the detention of someone else has the right to declare with the nearest judge who, upon such a statement, examines the existence of legal grounds for the detention or its continuation.

23. No one may be tried by another court, except for the one to which his act at the time of the act was under the law jurisdiction, and subjected to another punishment, except for the one that was established by law for his act during the act.

24. No punishments, penalties or restrictions in the enjoyment of rights may be imposed on individuals by any other authority, except for the judiciary.

25. Without the consent of the owner of the premises, entry into it, as well as the performance of a search or seizure in it, is allowed only in cases and in the manner determined by law.

26. Private correspondence and any other kind of correspondence shall not be subject to detention, opening and reading otherwise; as by order of the judiciary in cases and in the manner prescribed by law.

27. Everyone is free, without providing himself with a passport or other identity card, within the general limits established by law, to freely choose and change his place of residence and occupation, acquire property, movable and immovable everywhere, freely move within the state and travel outside its borders.

The law may restrict the right to travel abroad only in the form of prevention of evasion from serving military service or from the court and investigation.

28. Everyone is free, within the limits established by law, to express their thoughts orally and in writing, as well as to make them public and disseminate by print or by other means.

29. No censorship is allowed.

30. All Russian citizens are free to gather both indoors and outdoors, peacefully and without weapons, without asking for prior permission.

The conditions for notifying local authorities about upcoming meetings, the presence of these authorities at meetings and the mandatory closure of these last, as well as restrictions on places for meetings in the open, are determined only by law.

31. All Russian citizens are free to form societies and unions for purposes not contrary to criminal laws, without seeking prior permission.

The conditions for informing the authorities about the formation of societies and their mandatory, in cases of violation of the criminal law, closure are determined only by law.

32. The conditions and procedure for communicating the rights of a legal entity to societies and unions are determined by law.

33. All Russian citizens have the right to apply to state authorities with petitions on matters of public and state needs.

34. Foreigners enjoy the rights granted to Russian citizens, subject to the restrictions established by laws.

35. A law may establish exemptions from Articles 21, 27, 28, 30, 31 of this Basic Law for persons in active military service and for areas declared under martial law.

Outside the area of ​​hostilities, martial law can each time be introduced only through the publication of a special law for a period of not more than six months.

SECTION THREE. Establishment of the State Duma.

Chapter one. On the composition and procedure for the formation of the State Duma.

36. The State Duma is formed by assemblies with the confidence of the people of endowed persons, elected from the population, who are called upon by this election to participate in the exercise of legislative power and in the affairs of supreme government.

37. The State Duma is divided into two chambers: the Zemstvo Chamber and the House of People's Representatives.

38. The Zemstvo Chamber is composed of state vowels, elected by provincial zemstvo or regional assemblies and city councils of cities with a population of over 100,000 inhabitants.

39. From provinces and regions with a population of up to 1,000,000 inhabitants, two state vowels are elected, with a population from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 - three each, from 2-3 million - four each, over 3 million .-by five. From cities with a population of 100 to 200 thousand inhabitants, one state vowel is elected; from 200 to 400 thousand - two each, from 400 thousand to 1 million - three each, over 1 million - four each ...

40. State vowels are elected from among those who can be representatives of the people ...

41. The election of state vowels is carried out in zemstvo assemblies during their first regular session and in city Dumas in one of the first three sessions after the renewal of their composition; with the subsequent election of the state vowels of the new composition, the powers of the state vowels of the previous composition are terminated ...

42. The House of People's Representatives is elected by the people through universal, equal, direct and closed suffrage.

43. The right to participate in elections of people's representatives belongs to every Russian male citizen who has reached the age of 25, with the exception of: 1) persons who are under guardianship or guardianship; 2) persons declared insolvent debtors, except those recognized as non-private; 3) persons deprived of their rights by court sentences for the period of such deprivation; 4) persons who are called up in charitable institutions; 5) persons in active military service, and 6) persons holding the positions of governors and vice-governors, officials of the prosecutor's supervision and the police.

46. ​​The term of office of each House of People's Representatives is four years from the date of the opening of the first assembly of the House after its election.

47. By decree of the Emperor, the House of People's Representatives may be dissolved and previously appointed in Art. 46th four-year term.

48. Elections of people's representatives ... are appointed by Imperial decrees on one Sunday for the whole empire. Election day must be followed no earlier than three months and no later than six months after the promulgation of the decree. In the event of an early dissolution of the chamber (Art. 47), the decree on dissolution must also set the day for a new general election, observing the above-mentioned deadlines.

50. The buildings allocated to the chambers at the expense of the state treasury for occupation with the adjacent terrain within the limits established by a special law are at the exclusive disposal of the chambers themselves according to their ownership.

Chapter two. On the members of the State Duma.

55. Those in the public service, being elected as members of the State Duma, do not need permission from their superiors to join it and to appear at its meetings.

56. Members of the State Duma may not be granted ranks, orders or court titles, as well as leases or any other property grant.

57. Members of the State Duma lose their rank if, not being in the civil service, they enter this position, associated with the production of rank or receiving any salary from the treasury, or, if, already in the civil service, they are appointed to a higher position by class, or associated with the receipt of the highest salary from the treasury.

The rule of this article does not apply to the case of the appointment of a member of the State Duma as a minister.

59. In addition to death and cases provided for in art. 52, 53 and 57, members of the State Duma are also considered to have retired upon the occurrence of conditions that prevent election (Articles 40, 43 and 45).

60. In his judgments and decisions, a member of the State Duma cannot be bound by the orders or instructions of his electors.

62. Outside the State Duma, its members shall not be subject to any persecution or responsibility for the vote cast when discharging the duties of a member of the State Duma, or for judgments expressed when discharging these duties.

63. During meetings of the State Duma, its members cannot be, without the prior permission of the relevant Chamber, neither brought to criminal investigation and court, nor subjected to house arrest or taking into custody on suspicion of committing a criminal act, or personal detention due to insolvency, nor summoned to any court or other place as a witness or knowledgeable person. From this, only the case is excluded when a member of the State Duma will be caught while committing a criminal act or immediately after it has been committed (clause 1 of Art. . 250 mouth. Angle, court.) Suspicion arises against a member of the State Duma and grounds for taking measures against him to suppress ways to evade the investigation (article 257 of the law. Angle. Court.). But even in these cases, the subject chamber of the State Duma must be immediately notified of what happened, and it is up to the Chamber to which the detained member of the State Duma belongs to approve or, conversely, cancel the order of detention.

Criminal proceedings that arose before the opening of the meeting against a member of the State Duma, as well as any kind of deprivation of his freedom, are interrupted for the entire duration of the meeting, if required by the respective chamber.

64. Members of the State Duma receive remuneration in the amount determined by law. Waiver of remuneration will not be accepted.

Chapter three. On the meetings of the State Duma.

65. Meetings (sessions) of both chambers are opened, suspended and closed at the same time.

66. Meetings of the State Duma are convened and closed by Imperial orders.

67. Meetings of the State Duma are convened annually on the third Monday of October, unless the need is seen for an earlier, in that year, convocation of the chambers.

After the early dissolution of the House of People's Representatives (Art. 47), a meeting of the State Duma is convened no later than two months after the election date.

71. Interruptions in the meetings of the assembly cannot follow without the consent of both houses; such breaks cannot be longer than one month.

The Chambers cannot order an interruption of their studies for more than ten days if an objection is raised by the ministers.

Termination of classes due to the observance of Sundays, holidays and other non-attendance days is not considered a break of the meeting.

Chapter four. On the internal structure and the order of the State Duma.

76. Sessions of both chambers are held in public; but, on the proposal of the presiding officer or ten members present, the meeting is declared secret, after which the chamber is informed of the reasons for demanding the secret continuation of the meeting, about which the chamber decides.

78. Decisions of the Chambers are made by a simple majority, except as provided in Articles 95 and 96. For the decision to be valid, at least half of the legal number of members of the chamber must participate in the voting ...

79. Ministers, even if they were not members of the chamber, have, by their position, the right to be present at all sessions of it and to participate in the discussion of all issues considered by it.

80. The supreme management of the security of order inside the buildings belonging to the chambers and in the surrounding area (Article 50) belongs to the chairmen of the respective chambers or, in the case of both chambers staying within the boundaries of the same locality, to one of the chairpersons in turn, for the duration of each meeting ... At the disposal of the chairpersons is, for this purpose, the required number of special guards, exclusively subordinate to them.

Chapter five. On the subjects of the department and the space of power of the State Duma.

82. Draft laws, before submitting them to the discretion of the Emperor (Art. 84th), are proposed for discussion by both chambers of the State Duma (Art. 5th).

83. These projects are proposed to the State Duma by submitting them to one of the chambers by the ministers, on behalf of the Emperor, or they arise in the environment of which either from the chambers on the proposal of at least 30 members in the House of People's Representatives or 15 members in the Zemstvo Chamber. The project in the form in which it was adopted in one of the chambers is transferred to the other. If this final amendment is proposed, it shall be returned to the chamber that originally discussed it.

84. Drafts approved by both chambers are presented by the State Chancellor to the Emperor, who has their approval.

85. Draft laws rejected by one of the chambers of the State Duma or by the Emperor may not be proposed again during the same meeting of the State Duma.

86. State treaties, peace and trade, as well as all those that are associated with the establishment of obligations for the state treasury, with a change in the boundaries of the state territory, or the implementation of which requires amending or supplementing existing laws, do not take effect before they are approved by the State Duma in the legislative order (Art. 82-84).

87. The state list is established for no more than one year by a special law. But the amount released from the state treasury for the personal disposal of the Emperor and for the maintenance of the Imperial court is determined by the State Duma at the beginning of each reign and during it cannot be changed without the consent of the Emperor.

88. The draft state painting is proposed to be downloaded to the House of People's Representatives, from which, having been approved, is transferred to the Zemstvo Chamber. The draft painting, approved by both chambers, is presented to the Emperor (Art. 84).

89. The establishment of taxes, taxes, duties and other fees, state loans, the adoption of guarantees by the state, the establishment of states, the permission of state structures, the alienation of certain state property or income, the addition of arrears and state penalties and, in general, the establishment of all kinds of state revenues and expenditures, if is not provided for by the state registration, it can follow only by issuing a special law about it.

90. The chambers of the State Duma are offered for their consideration and approval all reports on the execution of the state list.

92. During meetings of the State Duma, its members have the right to make inquiries both to individual ministers and to the council of ministers as a whole on the subject of the course of action of the government or individual government agencies and officials. Explanations for such requests shall be presented by the ministers personally to the respective chamber in one of its sessions, no later than the term specified by the chamber.

93. Each of the chambers has the right to conduct an investigation everywhere through the commissions it has elected for that purpose.

94. The institution of the Imperial Family ... may be subject to legislative revision only as directed by the Emperor.

Chapter six. Special rules.

95. If a draft law adopted by one of the chambers is rejected by the other, or if after the return of the draft to the chamber that considered it originally, with amendments of the other chamber and after a new discussion of such a draft law in both chambers, there is no agreement of the decisions of the majority of both chambers, then each of the chambers has the right to decide on the transfer of the project for discussion at the general meeting of the State Duma. Such a decision is considered valid if at least two-thirds of the legal number of votes is given for it.

96. Execution by a decision to convene a general meeting of the State Duma is suspended until the resumption of the powers of the people's representatives. After that, within three months after the opening of the meetings of the chambers, the question of convening a general meeting of the State Duma is again discussed by the chamber that initiated it. If the chamber, by a majority of two-thirds of the legal number of votes, approves the previous decision, the draft law is submitted for discussion at the general meeting of the State Duma.<…>The decisions of the general meeting of the State Duma are adopted by a simple majority of votes and are considered to be tantamount to an agreed decision of the majority of both chambers.

97. If a disagreement between the decisions of both chambers ensues during the discussion of the state list, and if, after a second consideration of the issue that caused the disagreement, no agreement is reached on the decisions of the majority of the chambers, the controversial issues are brought up for discussion at the general meeting of the State Duma, without waiting for the renewal of the powers of the people's representatives and without decisions on this chambers ...

SECTION FOUR. About ministers.

98. The State Chancellor and, on his proposal, other ministers are appointed by decrees of the Emperor.

By the same decrees, the aforementioned persons are dismissed from office.

99. The State Chancellor presides over ministerial meetings; the title of State Chancellor is compatible with the management of one of the ministries.

100. Each minister is individually responsible: 1.) for his personal actions or orders; 2) for the actions and orders of the authorities subordinate to him, based on his instructions; 3) for decrees and other acts of the Emperor confirmed by his signature.

101. The State Chancellor and other ministers are collectively responsible to the chambers of the State Duma for general course government controlled.

102. Ministers shall be subject to civil and criminal liability for violations of the laws or the rights of citizens committed during the administration of office.

For deliberate violations of the resolutions of this fundamental law and for causing grave damage to the interests of the state by excess, inaction or abuse of power, ministers may be brought to justice by each of the chambers of the State Duma, with the trial of the general meeting of the first and cassation departments of the ruling senate.

103. A pardon of a convicted minister may follow only at the request of the chamber, by the ruling of which he was brought to trial.

SECTION FIVE. About the basics of local self-government.

104. Regions, provinces, uyezds and volosts or their corresponding divisions form self-governing unions called zemstvos. Cities form self-governing communities.

106. Local self-government of the lower unions has to be based on universal, equal, direct and closed voting. Every person who has the right to participate in elections to the House of People's Representatives has the right to the same participation in local elections if he has lived in the given place - county or city - for at least one year, or paid local zemstvo or city dues during the same period. ... The assemblies of the higher self-governing unions may be elected by the assemblies of the lower self-governing unions.

SECTION SIX. About the judiciary.

109. Places and persons exercising government (administrative) power cannot be invested with judicial power.

110. A judicial authority cannot be subordinate to any authority other than the judicial authority.

111. Judges can not be, against their will, neither dismissed, nor relocated, nor removed from office, except by order of the subject of the court and on the grounds determined by law.

112. No exceptions from the general procedure of criminal proceedings with the participation of jurors, by the nature of the crime, are allowed, except for the case provided for in Article 102 of this Law. Officials for violations of the laws and rights of citizens committed during the exercise of their official duties are subject to judicial civil and criminal liability on a common basis with other citizens; to bring officials to court, neither an opinion nor the prior consent of their superiors is required.

113. No one is excluded from being included in the lists of jurors on the basis of their property or social status.

Electoral law.

Constitutional projects in Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries. M, 2010

With the coming to power of the new emperor - Nicholas II - the autocracy in Russia underwent significant changes. And most of them passed through the prism of the personal perception of the last of the Romanovs.

By the end of the 19th century, it became obvious that the autocracy had outlived its usefulness, turning into an outdated form of government that hindered the development of the country. The bloated bureaucratic apparatus, the absence of a flexible system of local self-government, which gave rise to the forced growth of supervisory and executive bodies, and a sharp stratification of society can be attributed to the most noticeable negative features of the existing form of power. In an attempt to change the existing system of government, some reforms were undertaken to limit the autocracy.

These reforms include elections to the State Duma. Some legislative functions of the central government were transferred to this body. An agrarian reform was initiated, the purpose of which was to revise land relations.

The evolution of autocracy

The reasons for existence in Russia at the beginning of the XX century. a huge army of bureaucracy: the autocracy's need for a strong army, police, judicial authorities in the absence of rights and freedoms of the population the government's desire to isolate the top of society from the people lack of broad all-class central and local self-government	At the beginning of the XX century. important events took place in the life of Russia: State Duma elected agrarian reform started peace signed with Japan
"The Russian Empire is governed on firm foundations of positive laws, institutions and statutes, outgoing from the Autocratic power ...". This statement is characteristic of an absolute monarchy.
Did there exist within the Russian Empire at the beginning of the XX century? national regions with state autonomy? The Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland

Socio-economic situation of the Russian Empire at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries

High level	Average level	Low level
Monopolization of the economy	Rapid but chaotic destruction of the patriarchal order	Education
Centralization and concentration of production and labor. (Russia surpassed all countries in the world)	A sharp increase in the mass of marginals and lumpen.	Long absence of representative board
At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries in the Russian economy the government gave preference to the development of: railway transport	The economy of Russia at the beginning of the XX century. characterized by high the level of government intervention in the economy	The emancipation of the peasants imposed on them an unbearable burden of payments and duties, the depletion of the productive forces, and the inhibition of social progress.
		Lack of a stable middle class and a base for parliamentarism.
		Weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie. Only by the beginning of the First World War did Russian entrepreneurs strengthen their influence in the domestic economy.
		Funds for modernization were pumped out of the village.
	The main feature of the Russian labor movement in 1900-1903. is an: dominance of political demands participation of the proletariat only in the largest industrial centers spontaneity and disorganization spread from national outskirts to the center of the country	Agriculture of Russia at the beginning of the XX century. (until 1905) was characterized by the predominance of landlord ownership peasant land shortages agrarian overpopulation of the village

1. The reign of Paul I, his personality and reign

2. Domestic policy of Nicholas I

3. Ideological struggle and social movement in the second quarter of the XIX century. (theory of the official nationality, Westernizers and Slavophiles)

4. Reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century. (do not consider the abolition of serfdom)

Literature:

1. Great reforms in Russia in 1856-1874. - M., 1992.

2. Vyskochkov, L.V. Emperor Nicholas I: Man and Statesman. - SPb., 2001.

3. Gershenzon, M. Nicholas I and his era. - M., 2001.

4. Ilyin, V.V., Panarin, A.S., Akhiezer, A.S. Reforms and counterreforms in Russia: cycles of the modernization process. - M., 1996.

5. History of Russia in the XIX century. The era of reforms. - M., 2000.

6. Obolensky, G. Emperor Paul I. M., 2001.

7. Peskov, A.M. Pavel I. - M., 2000.

8. Pushkarev, S.G. Russia 1801 - 1917: Power and Society. - M., 2001.

9. Russian liberals. - M., 2001.

10. Sorokin, Yu.A. Paul I. Personality and destiny. - M., 1996.

11. With a sword and a torch: Palace coups in Russia 1725 - 1825. - M., 1991.

12. Eidelman, N. Ya. "Revolution from above" in Russia. - M., 1989.

Practical tasks

1. Compare the views of the Slavophiles, Westernizers and supporters of the theory of "official nationality". Fill out the answer in the form of a table.

2. Guess what historical event is referred to in this passage. What caused such bitter words of S.M. Solovyov?

“At the very time when Russia began to endure the unfamiliar shame of military failures, we were in a difficult situation: on the one hand, our patriotic feeling was terribly offended by the humiliation of Russia, on the other, we were convinced that only a disaster, namely an unhappy war, could produce saving coup ... ".

3. Read an excerpt from the appeal of Moscow manufacturers in the 1840s to the government and indicate the name of the phenomenon in question.

"... in the conditions of replacing manual needs with the automatic action of mechanics, the worker requires not only manual dexterity, but also mental ability that ordinary workers do not show ...".

4. Read the passage from the monarch's speech and write a term that denotes the form of authority referred to in the above passage.

"The Russian Empire is governed on firm foundations of positive laws, institutions and statutes, from ... the authorities outgoing ...".

5. Determine who you are talking about:

Societies, universities, institutes, congresses of scientists are named after him;

He took part in the defense of Sevastopol;

He became the founder of military field surgery;

He was the first in the world to use anesthesia in the field;

Thousands of Russian soldiers owe him that they did not lose their arms or legs after being wounded.

In the normal course of events, he should not have reigned;

Prior to his accession to the throne, he had no experience in public affairs or in the military field;

He was a kind family man and not at all an evil person, but the desire to subordinate everything and everyone to the strictest discipline led him to injustice and cruelty;

His reign began with a lengthy trial.

6. Fill in the table "Bourgeois reforms in Russia in the second half of the XIX century."

Seminar No. 5

Russia at the beginning of the 20th century

1. State system of Russia: autocracy, its institutions and social base. Nicholas II

2. The first Russian revolution: reasons, nature, stages, results

3. Russia in the First World War. February revolution

4.Russia in 1917: from February to October, the coming of the Bolsheviks to power

Literature:

1. Avrekh, A. Ya. Tsarism on the eve of the overthrow. - M., 1989.

2. Power and Reforms: From Autocracy to Soviet Russia. - SPb., 1996.

3. Ganelin, R.Sh. Russian autocracy in 1905. Reform and revolution. - SPb., 1991.

4. Danilov, Yu.M. Towards Collapse: Essays from the Last Period of the Russian Monarchy. - M., 1992.

5. Iskenderov, A.A. Russian monarchy, reforms and revolution // Questions of history. 1993. No. 3,5,7; 1994. No. 1,6,7.

6. Modernization: Foreign experience and Russia / Otv. ed. Krasil'shchikov V.A. - M., 1994.

7. Pushkarev, S.G. Russia 1801 - 1917: Power and Society. - M., 2001.

8. Shambarov, V.E. State and revolution. - M., 2001.

9. Shanin, T. Revolution as the moment of truth. 1905 - 1907 - 1917 - 1922 - M., 1997.

10. 1917 in the fate of Russia and the world. October Revolution. From new sources to new understanding. - M., 1998.

Practical tasks

1. What is the name of the historical figure?

- "Byzantine" - nicknamed him N.N. Lvov, a well-known public figure;

The former commander-in-chief of the Russian army during the Japanese war, A.N. Kuropatkin;

Ordinary people considered him to be an insignificant, weak-willed, stupid, insufficiently prepared for the extremely difficult role of the monarch of a great power.

Born into the family of a wealthy Jewish landowner from among the colonists in the Kherson province;

One of the organizers of the October events of 1917, the founder of the Red Army, the founder of the Soviet state;

After the Bolsheviks came to power, he held the posts of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the republic;

He died in Mexico in 1940.

Student of the Faculty of Law at Kazan University, expelled from it for participating in student unrest;

Publicist, philosopher and theorist of Marxism;

Revolutionary, one of the main organizers and leaders of the armed uprising of 1917;

Founder of the Soviet State;

The first head of the Bolshevik government

2. Solve the crossword puzzle.

6) An event that occurred in 1905-1907. in Russia.

8) Mayor of St. Petersburg, who received his post after the "Bloody Resurrection".

9) A document signed by the tsar on October 17, 1905, granting citizens freedom of personality, conscience, speech, assembly.

10) Battleship, whose team took part in the events of the revolution of 1905 - 1907.

12) How can you characterize the socio-political situation in the country on the eve of the revolution?

13) The Bolshevik Party.

Vertically:

4) The Emperor of Russia, during whose reign the first Russian revolution took place.

5) Nicholas II signed this document to Bulygin with an order to prepare a law on a legislative council.

7) The main vestiges of feudalism in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century were class division, the absence of peasant ownership of land and absolute ....

11) The Socialist Party, which used terror as a means of struggle.

14) The Chief Military Prosecutor of Russia, killed by terrorists in December 1906.

3. Find and fix errors:

After the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, a political crisis is growing in the country. More and more events are taking place that make us talk about the approach of the revolution. The terrorist movement is growing, in July 1904 the Socialist-Revolutionary E. Sazonov killed the Minister of the Interior P.A. Stolypin.

On January 9, 1905, priest Georgy Gapon organized a procession of workers to the Winter Palace to present the tsar with a petition demanding the introduction of a constitution in the country. The workers were greeted by volleys of rifle, about 1200 people were killed. The brutal massacre shook the country. Strikes began, the country actually entered the revolution.

On June 14, 1905, an uprising of sailors broke out on the battleship Potemkin, led by P.P. Schmidt. Unrest began in the Kingdom of Poland.

In August 1905, the Minister of the Interior A.G. Bulygin published a Manifesto on the creation of a new legislative body - the Duma, and in the winter of 1905, elections to it began.

On October 17, 1905, the tsar signed the Manifesto "On the improvement of state order", which introduced the basic political freedoms - assembly, unions, press and others. Russia became a constitutional monarchy.

However, the revolution was only on the rise. In October 1905, the All-Russian political strike began, and the events culminated in the December armed uprising in Moscow.

In April 1906, the First State Duma was opened, but it turned out to be so radical that Prime Minister S.Yu. Witte dismissed it.

The Second Duma began its activity in February 1907, in an atmosphere when the revolutionary movement began to decline. Prime Minister S.Yu. Witte organized court martial, which executed more than 2 thousand people without investigation. However, the Second Duma turned out to be no less radical than the First, which also predetermined its dissolution.

On June 3, 1907, a new electoral law was published that raised the property qualification for voters. The law was introduced without the approval of the Duma; thus, the Manifesto of October 17 and the provisions of the Basic Laws of Russia were violated. On June 3, the Duma was dissolved, the revolution ended.

4. Fill in the table "Alternatives of social development in Russia in 1917".

5. Read an excerpt from the address "To Workers, Soldiers, Peasants!" and state the date of its adoption.

“Relying on the will of the vast majority of workers, soldiers and peasants, relying on the victorious uprising of the workers and the garrison that took place in Petrograd, the congress takes power into its own hands. The congress decides: all local power is transferred to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies.

Domestic history (until 1917) Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich

§ 6. Autocracy on the eve of the revolution of 1905-1907.

Liberal reforms of the 1860s-1870s did not touch, as is known, the foundations of the system of state administration of the empire. By the beginning of the XX century. Russia remained an unrestricted monarchy. Article 1 of the Code of Basic State Laws, approved by Nicholas I and retained in force until 1906, read: “The All-Russian Emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch. Obeying his supreme power is not only out of fear, but God himself commands the conscience. "

Of course, the autocracy at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. in many respects significantly different, for example, from the autocracy of the first half of the 18th century. The process of freeing the authorities from the "impurities of tyranny", which was indicated, as noted, back in the Catherine's era, went quite far. In Art. 47 of the Code of Basic Laws specially emphasized: "The Russian Empire is governed on firm foundations of positive laws, statutes and institutions, emanating from the autocratic power." The presence of this article, as it were, obliged the monarchs to administer state affairs not arbitrarily, but in accordance with the laws, which, however, the autocrats could issue, change and abolish at their discretion. In practice, the holders of supreme power, when making certain decisions, did not always reckon with the existing legal norms. However, a simple declaration of Art. 47 likewise never appeared.

In managing the empire, the tsar relied on a ramified bureaucratic apparatus. Throughout the XIX century. the total number of officials of various ranks increased by about 7 times and amounted to approximately 385 thousand people by the beginning of the 20th century. All in all (i.e., together with clerical workers) in the administrative apparatus then about 500 thousand people were employed, which was at that time a significant figure, although by no means unique if we compare in this respect the situation in Russia with situation in other countries. For example, in France, the population of which (even together with the population of its colonies) was significantly inferior to the population of the Russian Empire, 468 thousand people served in the state apparatus.

The social appearance of the tsarist bureaucracy at the turn of the century reflected the realities of the then Russian life... The proportion of hereditary nobles by origin in the total mass of the bureaucracy has been steadily decreasing. By 1897, they held only 30.7% of all class positions. At the higher rungs of the bureaucratic ladder, the situation, however, was different. Here more than 2/3 of all positions in the same 1897 were occupied by hereditary noblemen by origin.

However, even the bureaucratic elite of Russia turned out to be less and less connected with local land tenure. In 1901, 70% of the officials of the I-IV classes of the Table of Ranks either did not have land at all, or owned estates less than 100 dessiatines. Progressive complication public life initiated the process of professionalization of management activities and required the involvement of persons who had received special training in the civil service in such an amount that the local nobility could not provide. The administration of the empire was increasingly concentrated in the hands of professional officials, whose main (and most often the only) source of income for whom was salary. They wrote about the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, about its actual usurpation of the prerogatives of the crown at the beginning of the 20th century. many. For example, L. A. Tikhomirov, one of the most prominent representatives of the conservative-monarchist movement in Russian journalism (in the past, a Narodvolets), complained that "the bureaucracy is getting a tendency to actually free itself from the supreme power and even subjugate it to itself." There were known grounds for such judgments. The complication of the tasks facing the state forced the bearer of the supreme power, when making certain decisions, to increasingly reckon with the opinion of professional officials who served in the relevant bureaucratic structures.

The political course of the autocracy was worked out in a bitter struggle between various court-bureaucratic groups. In Russia, until 1905, there was no government (in the legal sense), that is, there was no supreme collegial executive body called upon to directly govern the country. The leaders of the central links of the state apparatus - the ministries - acted completely independently, reckoning little with each other and obeying only the tsarist instructions. The ministers were not united by a common political program. As a result, departmental disunity reached significant proportions, which negatively affected the functioning of the state machine. However, for society, for subjects, conflicts between individual links of this machine could, on the contrary, have good consequences. As noted back in the middle of the XIX century. one astute observer, “under the autocracy of our rulers, their separation is often the only protection [of the population] from oppression [of the authorities], giving [the petitioner] an opportunity to leave one power under the protection of another”.

The crisis of the situation in the country on the eve of the 1905–1907 revolution was, to one degree or another, realized by many representatives of the ruling circles. However, the question of how to prevent a revolutionary outbreak was an object of sharp disagreement. Some of the representatives of the higher bureaucracy saw the way out in the "crowning" of the building of the reforms of the 1860-1870s. an advisory representative body, in carrying out a number of other transformations designed to modernize the existing system, and in an agreement on this basis with moderate elements liberal opposition... The most conservative circles at the top, however, opposed such concessions, believing it necessary to resolutely suppress any "games with the constitution" in the name of preventing revolution. These views, the source of which was, among other things, the perceived weakness of Russian liberalism at the top, its inability to control the behavior of the elements of the people, were close to Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894 after the death of Alexander III.

The new emperor, a person deeply and sincerely believing, considered it his moral and religious duty to protect the power inherited from his ancestors in every possible way. The views of Nicholas II fully corresponded to the concept of “people's autocracy” proclaimed at the beginning of his father’s reign, which was described in his memoirs by the director of the Chancellery of the Ministry of the Court A. A. Mosolov: “The Tsar loves the people ... He wishes the people well. He has almost unlimited possibilities to fulfill this desire ... which may hinder his good deeds. Only one condition is needed - to know exactly what the people need. And the subjects love their sovereign: he is the source of all blessings and hopes.

Bureaucracy, including ministers, is one of the barriers separating the sovereign from the people. Bureaucracy is a caste that has its own interests, which do not always coincide with the interests of the country and its sovereign ...

Another obstacle is the so-called intelligentsia, people who have not reached power, but are eager to seize it. For this category of persons, the direct outcome is revolution.

The mediastinum is the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia, in other words, people who achieved goals and sought to change them ... These two forces built a true wall around the tsar, a real prison. This wall prevented the emperor from addressing directly to his people, telling him, as an equal, how much he loves him. The same wall prevented the sovereign's sincere loyal subjects ... to tell the tsar how many people are like them, simple, grateful and attached to him. "

Nicholas II professed this idea until the last days of his reign. In the autocracy, he saw a form of government that can best ensure the well-being of its subjects, the most consistent with the moods of the general population. "A peasant will not understand the constitution," Nicholas II once remarked, "but he will understand only one thing, that the tsar's hands have been tied, and then - I congratulate you, gentlemen."

On the eve of the revolution of 1905-1907. the situation in the countryside was of particular concern in the ruling circles. The growing dissatisfaction of “free rural inhabitants” with their position, the low level of paying capacity of the bulk of their farms, which negatively affected the state of public finances - all this testified at least to the need for a serious adjustment of the autocracy's policy towards the peasantry. In the second half of the 90s. some measures were taken to facilitate the resettlement of the peasants of European Russia who suffered from "land tightness" beyond the Urals. On January 1, 1895, new passport rules came into force, according to which the peasants were given the opportunity to move more freely across the territory of the empire. At the beginning of 1902 under the chairmanship of the Council of Justice. Witte, a Special Conference on the needs of the agricultural industry was formed. It started looking for recipes for solving the peasant problem, relying on the assistance of the local agricultural committees (provincial and district) created at the same time. The special meeting lasted for about three years and was liquidated at the beginning of 1905, already during the revolution, and did not complete its work. However, the Conference nevertheless managed to clearly declare the need for a radical revision of the autocracy's policy towards the peasantry, speaking, in particular, for the adoption of measures aimed at the gradual elimination of the community and the imposition of individual peasant ownership of land. The corresponding recommendations of the Special Meeting, therefore, mainly anticipated the main provisions of the Stolypin agrarian reform. The peasant problem was discussed on the eve of the 1905-1907 revolution. not only in the Special Conference on the needs of the agricultural industry. Parallel to it, the Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, also formed in 1902, functioned. In contrast to the Special Conference, the commission (it finished its work in the fall of 1903) spoke only in favor of some adjustment of the traditional government policy in relation to the countryside, considering, in particular, the preservation of the existing forms of land tenure.

Thus, by 1905, various groups in the ruling circles were unable to develop a common approach to solving the peasant problem. The choice of this or that version of the agrarian reform remained a matter of the future. The autocracy was hopelessly late in solving the painful problems of the Russian countryside.

At the turn of the century, the workers' movement, which was gradually gaining strength, also aroused serious concern at the top. Attempts by the authorities to "neutralize" it resulted in the policy of the so-called police socialism, associated with the name of the head of the Moscow security department SV Zubatov. Recognizing the struggle of the workers to improve their economic situation, in principle, a natural phenomenon, Zubatov only tried to prevent the revolutionary parties from using it to attack the government. In this regard, he advocated the creation of workers' organizations capable of protecting the interests of the factory people and under the control of the police. According to Zubatov, the authorities and the police were also supposed to take care of the needs of the workers, not indulging the entrepreneurs, in order to deprive the revolutionaries of the opportunity to "exploit the minor flaws of the existing legal order for their own benefit."

Taking advantage of the patronage of the Moscow Governor-General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, and then the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Pleve, Zubatov launched an active work to implement his plans. In 1901, under the auspices of the police, the Society for the Mutual Assistance of Workers in Mechanical Production was formed in Moscow. The same "Zubatov" organization was the "Jewish Independent Party" operating in Minsk, Vilno, Odessa.

The policy of "police socialism" did not, however, bring the expected results. During the general strike in southern Russia in 1903, it was not possible to limit the workers' actions to the framework of a purely economic struggle. On the other hand, Zubatov's activities caused extreme irritation in business circles, whose representatives were outraged by the attempts of the police to get them certain concessions to the workers. In the end, Zubatov, who was, moreover, involved in an unsuccessful intrigue started by S. Yu. Witte against V. K. Pleve, was dismissed in 1903 and sent to Vladimir.

Thus, the authorities were unable to prevent the growth of revolutionary sentiment among the workers. The laws on accident insurance and factory stewards, adopted in 1903 as concessions to their demands, did not change anything in this respect. The situation in the country was heating up. The Russo-Japanese War that began in 1904, provoking at first a certain upsurge of loyal feelings, ultimately only contributed to discrediting the authorities.

Under these conditions, P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who replaced the one killed on July 15, 1904 by the Socialist-Revolutionaries Plehve as Minister of Internal Affairs, tried to find mutual language with the moderate wing of the liberal opposition. He returned the disgraced Zemstvo members from exile, softened censorship, etc. The new minister declared his confidence in the "society", which gave the press a reason to talk about the onset of the "era of trust." In November 1904 Svyatopolk-Mirsky presented a report to Nicholas II, in which he recommended a series of liberal reforms. As the most important point in the program of the Minister of Internal Affairs, there was a proposal to attract elected representatives of the population to participate in legislative activities. The plans of Svyatopolk-Mirsky, however, met with resistance from conservative dignitaries, who were ultimately supported by Nicholas II. In the decree signed by the tsar (December 12, 1904) following the discussion in the ruling circles of the Svyatopolk-Mirsky program, there was no mention of any participation of the elected representatives of the population in lawmaking. The decree promised a gradual equalization of peasants in rights with other estates, expansion of the competence of zemstvo and holy institutions, revision of laws on schismatics, etc. However, with these concessions, the authorities were too late. The decree on December 12, 1904 did not affect the further development of events - less than a month after its appearance, a revolution broke out in Russia.

From the book History. Russian history. Grade 11. Advanced level. Part 1 the author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 6. 1905: autocracy under the onslaught of the revolution Shooting start. The events of January 9, 1905, which went down in history as Bloody Sunday, marked the beginning of the first Russian revolution. They were preceded by a strike at the enterprises of St. Petersburg, caused by the dismissal

From the book History. Russian history. Grade 11. Advanced level. Part 1 the author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 8. Political parties in the revolution of 1905 - 1907 Socialist revolutionaries. By the beginning of the first Russian revolution, the most massive party of the populist trend was the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Their goal was to “revolutionize the development of our

From the book History of Russia. XX - early XXI century. Grade 9 the author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich

§ 5. 1905: REVOLUTION AND AUTHORITY "BLOODY SUNDAY". The beginning of the first Russian revolution was the events of January 9, 1905, which went down in history as "Bloody Sunday". They were preceded by a strike at the enterprises of St. Petersburg, caused by the dismissal

From the book Stalin. Frozen throne the author Bushkov Alexander

On the history of the Bolshevik organizations of Transcaucasia during the first Russian revolution (1905-1907) Comrade Stalin in February 1904, after escaping from exile (Siberia), returns to Tiflis and becomes the head of the Bolshevik organizations of Transcaucasia, organizes and directs

From the book Russia. Crimea. History. the author Nikolay Starikov

Chapter 7 Crimea in the first Russian revolution. 1905-1907 Our British "partners" have a wonderful saying: "Why bark yourself if you have a dog." In terms of politics, this means using other states for their own purposes. Set it on, make it fight

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

Autocracy before the revolution of 1905-1907 Liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century. did not touch the foundations of the system of state administration of the empire. By the beginning of the XX century. Russia remained an unrestricted monarchy. The emperor concentrated in his hands the legislature,

From the book History of Russia [for students of technical universities] the author Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich

§ 1. THE REVOLUTION OF 1905-1907. The beginning of the revolution. On July 15, 1904, the Social Revolutionaries killed the Minister of the Interior V.K. Pleve. The new minister, PD Svyatopolk-Mirsky, preferred to pursue a more liberal policy. He prepared a draft reform, which involved the creation of a parliament.

From the book History of Russia the author Munchaev Shamil Magomedovich

From the book History of Belarus the author Dovnar-Zapolsky Mitrofan Viktorovich

§ eight. Labor movement on the eve of the revolution of 1905. Thus, by the beginning of the nine hundredths, the revolutionary movement of Belarus was widely developed, it managed to outlive those hostile trends that were advanced in it from within and those that were advanced by an external force.

From the book Patriotic history: lecture notes the author Kulagina Galina Mikhailovna

14.4. Revolution of 1905–1907 The first Russian revolution of 1905–1907. occurred as a result of a nationwide crisis, which has acquired a large-scale, deep and acute character. The social costs of capitalist industrialization turned out to be extremely high with

From the book Patriotic History (until 1917) the author Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich

§ 5. The workers 'and peasants' movement on the eve of the revolution of 1905-1907. Radical political organizations From the very beginning of the new century, the symptoms of a revolutionary crisis in the country were clearly visible. Dissatisfaction with the existing order covered

From the book History of Georgia (from ancient times to the present day) author Vachnadze Merab

Chapter XII Georgia during the Revolution of 1905-1907 §1. Formation political parties in Georgia K early XIX century, a new social structure characteristic of capitalist society was formed in Georgia. Society became multi-layered. Respectively

From the book History the author Plavinsky Nikolay Alexandrovich

From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume Five: Ukraine in the Period of Imperialism (early XX century) the author Team of authors

CHAPTER II UKRAINE DURING THE FIRST RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905–1907 Already on the eve of 1905 in Russia all the signs of the current revolutionary situation were clearly manifested - a set of objective conditions and subjective factors that expressed the economic and political

From the book of S.M. KIROB Selected articles and speeches 1916 - 1934 the author D. Chugaeva and L. Peterson.

IN THE YEARS OF THE FIRST RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 1905–1907 In 1904 Kirov graduated from the Kazan technical school and on the very eve of the 1905 revolution left for Siberia, in Tomsk. He is already a revolutionary-minded young man, full of firm determination to devote his strength to the fight against the prevailing violence.

From the book Complete Works. Volume 16. June 1907 - March 1908 the author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

The agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian revolution of 1905–1907 (78) Published in 1908 in St. Petersburg as a separate book by the Zerno publishing house (confiscated); reprinted in 1917 in Petrograd by the publishing house "Life and Knowledge" Published according to the manuscript,

Why this article will be of interest to you:

The names of the participants in the conspiracy against the king have been revealed. How did the conspirators deceive Nicholas II and the entire Russian people?

Lawyer A.Yu. Sorokin: “The Holy Tsar-Martyr remained the legitimate Sovereign of the Russian Empire until martyrdom July 17, 1918 ".

What exactly were the conspirators afraid of in the Code of Basic State Laws of April 23, 1906?

According to Article 58 of the OGZ“Emperor Nicholas II, during the Holy Crowning and Confirmation, accepted Autocracy from God as a“ great service ”, and it was not in his royal power to renounce it.”

The emperor was openly threatened with the murder of his son and the death of the entire dynasty.

Was the Provisional Government legitimate, or was Russia taken over by ordinary bandits?

One of amazing features Russian history is that least of all we know about the events closest to our days. However, on mature reflection, we can conclude that there is nothing surprising in this. Just truthful information about what happened in front of the still living eyewitnesses is more relevant in modern political life, and, therefore, more dangerous for today's liberal-democratic balancing act, trying to hide the truth for the sake of momentary, self-serving interests.

This fully applies to the so-called. The "abdication" of Emperor Nicholas II. Only 90 years have passed since the first days of March 1917 (article written in 2009 - ed.), but the "fact of renunciation" is recognized by almost everyone as obvious and not worthy of any attention and time. "Renunciation" has already become an axiom of Russian history.

But we will nevertheless allow ourselves an attempt to assess the actions of the Sovereign ... moreover, a legal assessment, as the most impartial.

As you know, until March 1, 1917, the "progressive community", together with the highest army generals, demanded from the Autocrat a "responsible ministry" or, in another interpretation, a "ministry of public trust." As recognized by one of the most active conspirators, the leader of the Cadet faction in the State Duma PN Milyukov, there was no fundamental difference between these revolutionary "formulas", since it was all the same about the same circle of persons of "responsible ministers". It's just that the first formula, supported, in particular, by the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko, required the government to be responsible to the legislative institutions - the State Duma and the State Council. The formula of the "ministry of public trust" cultivated by Milyukov expanded the range of institutions to which the ministers were to be "responsible", including the All-Land Union headed by Prince G.E. Lvov, the Military-Industrial Committees headed by the former chairman of the III Duma , the Moscow "non-trading merchant" AI Guchkov and other self-proclaimed organizations, whose representatives were unable to obtain the legal right to be called "representatives of the people" by 1917. In any case, the demand was for a government not accountable to the Emperor.

The Holy Tsar-Martyr remained the legitimate Sovereign of the Russian Empire until his martyrdom on July 17, 1918.

It is amazing, but all these professors, assistant professors, attorneys at law and other representatives of the "educated society" did not bother to begin to ask at least the question of the legality of making such a requirement and the possibility, from the legal point of view, to satisfy it. The blinding of the charms of Western "democracy" was so great that the question of the legality and legitimacy of such statements, with rare, and even then not enough, persistent exceptions, to put it mildly, did not even arise. And the matter was that not responsible to the Supreme Power of the government in the Russian Empire simply could not be... In accordance with Art. 10 Basic State Laws (OGL), which are the main source (if you will, the autocratic constitution) of Russian imperial law, “The power of government in all its scope belongs to the Sovereign Emperor; ... in the affairs of the management of a subordinate, a certain degree of power is handed over from Him "... This situation excludes the possibility of the existence of any civil servants who are not responsible, including up to and including dismissal, to the Monarch. That is why Art. 17 Laws establishes the provision that "The Sovereign Emperor appoints and dismisses the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Ministers and Chief Governors of individual units"... Article 123 directly states: "The Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Ministers and Chief Governors of individual units are responsible to the Sovereign Emperor", while "each of them is individually responsible for their actions and orders.".

"What is the problem? - you ask, - It was necessary to change the State laws, and everything would be in order. " Not at all. It was precisely these laws that could not be changed under those conditions.

In accordance with Art. 84 OGZ "The Russian Empire is governed on firm foundations of laws issued in the prescribed manner." According to Art. 92 "Legislative resolutions are not subject to promulgation if the procedure for their publication (not publication, of course, but adoption - A.S.) does not comply with the provisions of these Basic Laws"... Article 91 says that the laws "Before publication", and such for general information was carried out by the Governing Senate, "Are not activated"... This is exactly the procedure for adopting new Basic Laws or introducing amendments and additions to them and could not be, and indeed was not observed.

According to Art. 8 OGZs were subject to revision "Solely by initiative" Sovereign Emperor. However, the initiative to change the existing system, no doubt, did not come from him. Moreover, under Art. 86 OGZ of the Russian Empire "No new law can follow without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma"... Classes of the latter, as is known, were suspended on February 27, 1917, without having begun. Thus, there could be no preliminary approval of the chambers participating in the legislation. But the subsequent approval of the law by the Monarch was also required.

During the termination of the State Duma's studies, changes in the OGZ, in accordance with Art. 87, could not be made even in an emergency order, including by the Emperor himself.

But the main thing is that "public figures" could never understand. The All-Russian Emperor belongs to the Supreme Autocratic Power. This means that the Russian monarchy, in principle, cannot become "constitutional." The constitutional "monarchy" so dear to the hearts of many "progressive" monarchists is no longer a monarchy at all, but a beautiful screen for the backstage republican political gesheft. The Russian monarch had no right to limit his power, transfer the right to legislate, form and control the activities of the government. As the famous Russian historian N. Karamzin wrote to Emperor Alexander I: "You can do everything, but you cannot legally limit your power."

Yes, yes, the Emperor of the greatest in the twentieth century. the empire could not do whatever it wanted. His power was limited, but not by human will, but by the Orthodox faith, the guardian of which the Emperor was in accordance with Art. 64 Basic Laws. The autocratic-monarchical form of government is one of the main principles of the Christian doctrine of the state. Here is how St. Philaret of Moscow (Drozdov) writes about this: “As heaven is indisputably better than earth and heavenly is better than earthly, then, just as indisputably, the best on earth should be recognized that is arranged in the image of the heavenly, as it was told to the god-seer Moses: see so create everything in the image shown to you on the mountain (Ex., 25, 40), that is, at the height of the vision of God. Accordingly, God, in the image of His heavenly one-man rule, established a king on earth; in the image of His heavenly sovereignty, he made an autocratic king on earth; in the image of his immortal kingdom, lasting from time to time, he set in the earth a king of the hereditary. "

The Church-State Council of 1613, as an instrument of restoring God's lawful power in the period of anarchy, reflected the deep popular conviction that hereditary autocracy is a great relic, an object of our political faith, Russian dogma, the only reliable protection against external and internal disasters in the future. Our holy fathers taught that the man-assured self-will of the crowd in choosing the form of government and the content of Russian statehood is the fight against God.

Emperor Nicholas II, during the Holy Crowning and Confirmation, accepted Autocracy from God as a “great service” (Note 2 to Article 58 of the OGZ), and it was not in his royal power to abandon it.

Could the disbelieving Russian-speaking "dandies" who imagined themselves to be the spokesmen of the will of the Russian people understand this? Could they have realized that the Christian crowning commandments, including “Fear God, honor the Tsar” (1 Peter 2:17), “Do not touch My anointed ones” (1 Chronicles 16, 22), are an integral and irrevocable part of the Russian state law?

But the Russian imperial legislation, which does not ignore, in contrast to the republican, the being of God, but, on the contrary, derives the very principle of power from the fact of this being, in Art. 4 OGZ initially enshrines the principle that obey the Royal government "God Himself commands for conscience"(see also Rom. 13: 5). But the words “God” and “conscience” were empty words for these “advanced” figures, who supposedly represented the will of the Orthodox Russian people.

All this suggests that a telegram sent on behalf of the Tsar (although there are doubts that it was sent on his behalf), in which Nicholas II allegedly agrees to the demand of a "responsible ministry" and instructs the chairman of the closed State Duma Rodzianko to draw up a cabinet " from persons enjoying the trust of the whole of Russia ”has no legal significance. So the works of the unnamed compilers of the draft of this "manifesto", sent from the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief to the headquarters of the Northern Front, turned out to be useless.

Likewise, the documents that preserve their historical value, called acts or manifestos of abdication, have no legal significance.

As is known, after a conversation between the commander of the Northern Front, General Ruzsky, with Rodzianko on the night of March 1–2, 1917, the conspirators openly put forward a demand for the Tsar's abdication. In the first half of the day on March 2, General Alekseev and General A.S. Lukomsky organized the presentation of the sovereign's "loyal" demand for abdication by all the commanders-in-chief of the fronts: Generals Brusilov, Evert, Sakharov and Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Having secured a mutual guarantee, General Ruzsky on March 2 for two hours "persuaded" the Emperor to abdicate, even allowing himself phrases like: "Well, make up your mind." As a result, at 3 pm on March 2, 1917, the Tsar signed a telegram agreeing to abdicate in favor of his son, Tsarevich Alexei.

It is noteworthy that General Ruzsky did not send this telegram, and when the Emperor, having changed his mind, demanded to return the unsent telegram, he refused to comply with the Emperor's order. It is understandable, because this was the only “document” on renunciation so far. Return it to the Ruza Tsar, the conspirators might not have any written evidence of the Tsar's attitude to abdication in general.

There are two versions of this document.

According to most sources, the text of the telegram was as follows:

“The chairman of the state. thoughts. Peter. There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of the real good and for the salvation of my dear Mother Russia. Therefore, I am ready to renounce the Throne in favor of my Son, so that he will remain with us until he comes of age under the regency of my brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Nikolay ".

However, a number of historians believe that this telegram was transmitted by the Emperor to General Alekseev on March 3, 1917 in Mogilev, when the Emperor learned that the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich did not accept the Throne. This telegram, according to this version, was not sent by General Alekseev in order "not to confuse the minds."

“In the difficult time of the grievous trials sent down for Russia, we, not having the strength to bring the Empire out of the grievous turmoil experienced by the country in the face of an external enemy, considered it for the good, meeting the desires of the Russian people, to lay down the burden of the power entrusted to us from God.

In the name of the greatness of the beloved Russian people and victory over the fierce enemy, we invoke God's blessing on our son, in whose favor we abdicate our throne. Until the age of majority he is the regent of our brother Mikhail Alexandrovich. "

Let's try to assess these documents.

The fact is that Russian Basic State Laws do not know at all the concept of abdication from the throne... This is what the home-grown Robespierres did not take into account, "tormented" by the question: "Is Nicholas entitled to renounce his son in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich?"

The only article in the OGZ that mentions the right to abdicate is Art. 37. But she speaks of the right to abdication not of the reigning monarch, but only of the heirs. It directly speaks of the freedom to "renounce" the right, "Subject to the rules set forth above regarding the order of the succession to the Throne." Yes, and this freedom is limited only by those cases "when there is no difficulty in the further inheritance of the Throne."... In other words, even the inheritance of the throne in certain cases is understood as an obligation, the refusal of which is not allowed.

It may be objected that even if the right to abdicate from the Throne was not provided for by the Laws, then, guided by the principle "everything that is not prohibited is permitted," the Emperor could still abdicate. However, this principle is the beginning of civil, not state law, which regulates property turnover. In relation to the Supreme power, relations of "subordination", it is not applicable.

Considering that enormous rights were given by God to the Sovereign in inseparable connection with his duty, the duty of the Royal service, as well as the fact of chrismation, it should be recognized that the refusal of the duty, and the duty to God, is completely unacceptable either from the point of view of the secular, including and civil, law, nor from the point of view of canon law, at least without the appropriate prior permission, if not of the Church Council, then, in any case, of the Holy Synod. As is known, there was no such permission.

Firstly, when Emperor Peter III abdicated, there were no written laws on the Throne succession, except for the "Charter" of Emperor Peter I, which, by the way, allowed not to renounce the throne, but to bequeath it. The rules on succession to the throne, which made up chapter II of the first section of the UGZ Code, were adopted only by Emperor Paul I.

Secondly, the possibility of taking into account the abdication of non-Orthodox monarchs when considering the principles of Russian autocracy is highly doubtful, to say the least.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the quoted Laws establish the only basis for the occupation of the Throne by the Heir - according to Art. 53 heir to the throne "After the death of the Emperor"... There are no other grounds for the occupation of the Russian Imperial Throne.

Art. 43, 44 and 52, providing for the appointment of the Ruler and the Guardian, as well as the appointment of the Council of Government, in the case when, precisely after the death of the Emperor, the Throne passes to a minor heir.

Therefore abdication of the throne under Russian imperial law, by no one, as already mentioned, not changed, impossible in principle.

There are, in addition to this, a number of private remarks about these "documents of renunciation."

Thus, both telegrams speak of the regency. But the concept of "regency" is not known to the Laws. Chapter three "On the age of majority of the Sovereign Emperor, on government and guardianship" provides for the appointment of a Ruler and Guardian until the Emperor reaches the age of 16 (Article 41). Moreover, its appointment is carried out in accordance with Art. 43, the reigning Emperor and namely "In case of His death"... Moreover, Art. 44 provides that "The government of the state and guardianship over the face of the Emperor in childhood belongs to the father and mother"... Thus, what is called "regency" in the telegrams, if still understand "government and guardianship" by it, could be established only in the event of the death of Nicholas II. The assignment of the "governments" to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, since the parents of the Heir to the Tsarevich were alive, is generally illegal.

We now turn to the analysis of the most famous text of "renunciation". Here is the full text:

"Bid. To the chief of staff. In the days of the great struggle with the external enemy, who has been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send down a new ordeal to Russia. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threaten to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of a stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end by all means. The fierce enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally crush the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, We considered it our duty of conscience to facilitate the close unity and rallying of all the forces of the people for the speedy achievement of victory for Our people, and, in agreement with the State Duma, We recognized it for the good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power. Not wishing to part with our beloved Son, We pass our legacy to Our Brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless Him for accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command our Brother to govern the affairs of state in full and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on the principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath to this. In the name of our beloved Motherland, we call upon all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their sacred duty to Him, obey the Tsar in a difficult moment of nationwide trials and help Him, together with representatives of the people, lead the Russian State on the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia.

There are some ambiguities regarding the appearance of this document. V.V.Shulgin in his memoirs asserts that the text was completely written by the Tsar himself even before the arrival of V.V.Shulgin and A.I. Guchkov in Pskov on the evening of March 2, 1917.However, it is unlikely that the idea of ​​abdicating the throne in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich arose with Nicholas II before the arrival of these "delegates". The fact is that the right of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich to inherit the throne "first of all" was quite obvious. Could not serve as the only reason for such a decision and hemophilia, which the Tsarevich was sick with.

Here there was, most likely, another circumstance.

As we have seen, Emperor Nicholas II wanted Alexei Nikolaevich to stay with him until he came of age, as provided by the Basic State Laws. However, this situation was completely unacceptable to the conspirators. According to the memoirs of General A.S. Lukomsky, on March 2, 1917, after a conversation with A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgin, the Tsar wanted to sign an abdication in favor of the heir. But when asked whether it would be possible for him to live in the Crimea, A.I. Guchkov replied that the Tsar would have to immediately go abroad. "Can I then take an heir with me?" The Emperor asked. Guchkov replied that "the new Tsar under the regent must remain in Russia."

Thus, the conspirators actually demanded a renunciation in favor of Mikhail Alexandrovich. We have already said that such a demand, as well as renunciation, as such, is illegal and has no legal significance. The conspirators themselves recognized the illegality of the abdication "bypassing" Alexei Nikolaevich. But a minor Emperor cannot abdicate the throne or "swear allegiance to the constitution." Consequently, the creation, as it seemed to them, of a "legal vacuum" as a result of Mikhail Alexandrovich's "abdication", already planned by the traitors, would have been impossible. Hence the conclusion - the only possibility of establishing a constitutional "monarchy" or the earliest proclamation of Russia as a republic was, in the case of abdication in favor of Alexei Nikolaevich, regicide. This, quite understandably, deprived the "persons invested with the country's trust" of any semblance of legal succession. Therefore, the revolutionaries went on to completely ignore the law. But dura lex est lex, the law is harsh, but it is the law. The "renunciation" in favor of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was, of course, absolutely illegal.

According to Art. 39 Basic State Laws "The Emperor or Empress, inheriting the Throne, upon entering on this and chrismation, undertake to sacredly observe ... the laws of the throne's inheritance."

Article 25 states that "The Imperial Russian Throne is hereditary" and Article 28 states that "The legacy of the Throne belongs first of all to the eldest son of the reigning Emperor"... All Members of the Imperial House also swear to observe this right of inheritance (Article 206 of the Code of Fundamental State Laws). To the oath "Loyalty to the allegiance to the reigning Emperor and His rightful Heir, even if he was not named in the manifesto" about the accession to the Throne, are given "In general, all male subjects who have reached the age of twenty, of any rank and rank"(Note 2 to Art. 55).

Consequently, while the Heir Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich was alive, the Throne, in any case, could not pass to the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Grand Duke Having sworn allegiance to the Heir of Nicholas II and the laws on the succession to the Throne, he had no right at all to officially speak out on the issue of the seizure of the Throne, except, of course, on the rejection of the Throne due to violation of the Law. The entire Russian people owed the same loyalty to citizenship.

Just as legally insignificant are the words invented by the Sovereign himself about abdication "in agreement with the State Duma" and about the right of legislative institutions to establish the principles by which Mikhail Alexandrovich should be guided in the management of "state affairs." They, like the "responsible ministry", contradict the principle of the inevitability of autocracy. About taking an inviolable oath, it is generally not clear who should take it: Mikhail Alexandrovich or "representatives of the people."

Let's also pay attention to the form of this document. This, as we see, was addressed on March 2, 1917, not to “all our loyal subjects,” as it should be, but to the Headquarters, the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Traitor General Alekseev, a telegram signed, by the way, in pencil.

The Basic State Laws provide that even the abdication of a person entitled to inherit the throne becomes irrevocable only when it is promulgated, as already mentioned, according to Art. 91 by the Governing Senate, and translated into law.

Consequently, this, if I may say so, "state document", then forgedly called the "manifesto" on abdication, did not acquire the force of law, and, as was discussed earlier, could not acquire it.

In conclusion, we note one more very important, if not the main, circumstance, along with the violation of the foundations of law and order, the rules for the adoption, promulgation and execution of the considered "documents".

The Emperor was almost openly threatened with the murder of the Son and the destruction of the entire dynasty. Truly, "treason, cowardice and deceit" reigned all around.

The main condition for the recognition of an act as having legal significance is "free will".

V. V. Shulgin, in a revolutionary blinding, believed that “in case of renunciation ... there would be no revolution (here, exactly,“ as it were ”). The sovereign will abdicate the throne of his own free will, power will pass to the regent, who will appoint a new government. The State Duma, which obeyed the decree on dissolution and took over the power (like this “obeyed”) ... - will transfer power to this new government. "

And it is precisely the absence of this very “own” desire that finally convinces of the legal nullity of all these “acts” and “manifestos”.

If the action, and this is true not only for civil law relations, is committed under the influence of violence, threat, deception, delusion or a combination of difficult circumstances, then the existing will of the actor himself to perform the corresponding action is absent, the expression of will that takes place reflects the will of another person - in case of violence or threat, or the will of the actor in other cases is formed under the influence of circumstances that distort his true will.

All these circumstances took place during the "abdication" of Emperor Nicholas II, as well as the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.

The Emperor was misled about the adherence of the "Duma members" to the "inviolability of the monarchist principle" proclaimed in the appeal of the Provisional Committee. The Minister of War, General Belyaev, without taking any measures to restore order, irresponsibly telegraphed "to calm down." The commander of the Petrograd Military District, General Khabalov, proposed to open bridges as a way to pacify the revolt of spare parts - this is when trams were running on the ice of the Neva. Naval Minister Grigorovich, with the aim of "preserving valuable shipbuilding maps", demanded the departure of the troops loyal to the Emperor from the Admiralty. The imperial train was not allowed to go to Petrograd. The emperor was not allowed near the telegraph and telephone - the headquarters of the Northern Front had direct telephone and telegraph communication with Petrograd. Orders of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief were sabotaged and canceled even without His knowledge. Both Rodzianko and Alekseev - all shamelessly lied to the Tsar about the true situation in the capital, and in fact, according to Bublikov, who seized the Ministry of Railways, one division was enough to suppress the revolt; in the Tauride Palace, when the news of the movement of troops against Petrograd was reported, panic arose several times; when random shots were fired in the street, "revolutionary soldiers" jumped out of the windows.

The Tsar was deceived in the most despicable way both in relation to the real mood of the Petrograd population, which allegedly opposed the Tsar personally, and in relation to the troops, among which there were allegedly no reliable units. The august family, unable to leave Tsarskoye Selo due to the illness of its children, was in the greatest danger. Well, of course, the threat of internal unrest during the most intense struggle with an external enemy, on the eve of victory, testified to the confluence of difficult circumstances, which are directly mentioned in the telegram of March 2, 1917. The Emperor was almost openly threatened with the murder of the Son and the death of the entire dynasty. Indeed, "treason, cowardice and deceit" reigned all around.

The circumstances of the adoption of the considered decision by the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich are interesting. On March 3, 1917, Prince Lvov, Guchkov, Rodzianko, Milyukov, Kerensky, Nekrasov, Efremov, Rzhevsky, Bublikov Tereshchenko, Shidlovsky, Shulgin arrived almost in full force at house number 12 on Millionnaya Street in Petrograd, where the Grand Duke was located , Nabokov, Nolde and other persons and persuaded him to give up the throne in favor of the people, who would later elect him or someone else. At the same time, Kerensky said: "I have no right to hide here what dangers you personally are exposed to if you decide to take the throne ... In any case ... I do not vouch for the life of your Highness! .."

All this clearly indicates that the renunciation did not take place. The Holy Tsar-Martyr remained the legitimate Sovereign of the Russian Empire until his martyrdom on July 17, 1918.

The power of the Provisional Government, as well as the power of its “heirs”, is a usurped power, an illegal power. From March 2, 1917 throughout the territory Russian Empire not a single moment existed and does not exist any kind or kind ("branch") of state power, which could claim any kind or kind of legal succession. All available documentary acts of the transfer of power from its legal carriers, rejection of it, and so on. - all this from a legal point of view does not stand up to the most condescending criticism. Russia to this day is the Autocratic Orthodox Monarchy. Any “voter” or his “chosen one” is just a link in the criminals' relay race, the continuation of which is the guarantee of the destructive success achieved 85 years ago.

In 1613 the Russian people swore allegiance to the House of Romanov until the end of the century, "firmly and indestructible in the coming years, in childbirth and childbirth." "And whoever does not want to listen to this Cathedral Code ... according to the sacred rules of the Holy Apostles and the Ecumenical Seven Councils of the Holy Father and Local ... will be thrown out, and excommunicated from the Church of God, like a schismatic of the Church of God and all Orthodox Christianity ...".

Text of the speech at the conference “There was no renunciation? (study of the circumstances of the February coup of 1917) ”, Moscow, November 7, 2009. The text is abbreviated.

Member of the Russian Imperial Union-Order since 2001. Senior Companion-Leader. In 2005 he was elected a Member of the Supreme Council of RIS-O. Since 2006 General Secretary RIS-O.