Catherine's charter 2. Charter granted to the nobility

Measures to improve the public administration system

Catherine II, using the idea of ​​the French enlightener Montesquieu that the natural environment, the size of the country and the character of its population determine the form of the political system, proved the regularity and necessity of autocracy in Russia. The task of the monarch was to issue the “best laws”, and the government and other governing bodies were to carry out his will. All subjects and the monarch himself are obliged to follow these laws, which, as the empress believed, distinguishes an enlightened monarchy from despotism. However, the “omnipotence of the law” was ignored in practice by officials, and sometimes by Catherine herself.

In addition, Catherine’s active lawmaking was intended to strengthen the legislative basis of the autocracy.

Reform of central institutions. Immediately after the coup of 1762, dignitary Nikita Panin developed a project designed to limit the power of the autocrat by the “imperial council.” After some hesitation caused by the fact that at the beginning of her reign Catherine II, who had no legitimate rights, felt extremely insecure on the throne, he was rejected. Moreover, in 1763, the Empress carried out a reform of the Senate, which was divided into 6 departments, deprived of many powers and turned into the highest judicial appellate institution.

The most important mechanism of public administration was Catherine's Cabinet with its secretaries of state. In general, the bureaucratic apparatus in the country became stronger.

Relationship with the church. In 1763-1764. the secularization of church lands was carried out, i.e. They were transferred to the administration of the treasury, which strengthened the economic power of the state and stopped the unrest of the monastic peasants, which destabilized the situation in the country.

Management of the outskirts. In 1764, the hetmanate in Ukraine was abolished, and the privileges of the Cossacks were limited. In 1775, the Zaporozhye army was abolished, and the usual system of provincial institutions was introduced on the Don, which deprived the Cossacks of the remnants of autonomy. All these measures strengthened the centralization of the country and unified the management system.

Stacked commission. In 1767, Catherine convened the Legislative Commission, designed to develop a new set of laws. It was given the form of both ancient zemstvo councils and the European parliament at the same time. Deputies were elected from all classes, except for the landed peasants, but the overwhelming majority of seats on the Commission belonged to nobles and townspeople.

Catherine II prepared the "Order" of the Legislative Commission, which contained proposals to soften the serfdom. The parliamentary orders did not go further than the protection of narrow-class interests.

The activities of the Commission led Catherine to the conclusion that it was impossible to harmonize the interests of various classes, as well as to mitigate serfdom without the risk of losing the throne. At the same time, its convening made a favorable impression on Europe, strengthened the authority of the authorities, and allowed Catherine to become acquainted with the “state of mind” in society. Having made sure that nothing threatened her rule, dissatisfied with the harsh criticism of the nobility voiced in some public speeches, and also realizing the unpreparedness of society for radical changes in the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Empress dissolved the Commission under the pretext of the war with Turkey that began in 1768. The Commission's committees continued their work to mutually harmonize many laws that often contradicted each other.

The reform of local government was a response to the shock that the empire experienced as a result of the social explosion - the “Pugachevism”. It was intended to strengthen state power locally, transfer some functions of central bodies there and thereby increase their efficiency and strengthen the position of the nobility, which, after the suppression of the uprising, was assessed as the only reliable support of power.

In 1775, Catherine published “Institution for the Administration of Provinces.” Russia was divided into 50 provinces, each of which, in turn, into 10 - 15 districts with a population of up to 30 thousand people. The functions of the provincial government and the governor who headed it were significantly expanded due to the transfer of financial, administrative and judicial powers from the center.

In the district, the main governing body was the “lowest zemstvo court,” headed by a police captain. Unlike the governor, who was appointed from the center, he was elected by nobles from local landowners. In addition, the nobles received the right to create district and provincial noble assemblies, at which leaders of the nobility and candidates for various positions were elected, and issues of local life were discussed.

Granted certificates

In order to formalize the class privileges of the nobility, the Charter of the Nobility was issued in 1785. The “Certificate for the rights of liberty and advantages of the noble Russian nobility” was a set of noble privileges, formalized by the legislative act of Catherine II of April 21. 1785. Under Peter I, the nobility carried out lifelong military and other service to the state, but already under Anna Ioannovna it became possible to limit this service to 25 years. The nobles had the opportunity to begin their service not as a private or a simple sailor, but as an officer, having completed the noble military school. Peter III issued a decree on the freedom of the nobility, giving the right to serve or not to serve, but the effect of this decree was suspended. Now, the freedom of the nobles from compulsory service was confirmed. The complete emancipation of the nobility made sense for several reasons:

1) there was a sufficient number of trained people knowledgeable in various matters of military and civil administration;

2) the nobles themselves were aware of the need to serve the state and considered it an honor to shed blood for the fatherland;

3) when the nobles were cut off from the lands all their lives, farms fell into decay, which had a detrimental effect on the country’s economy.

Now many of them could manage their peasants themselves. And the attitude towards the peasants on the part of the owner was much better than on the part of a random manager. The landowner was interested in ensuring that his peasants were not ruined. By granting a charter, the nobility was recognized as the superior class in the state and was exempt from paying taxes; they could not be subjected to corporal punishment; only a court of the nobility could judge them. Only nobles had the right to own land and serfs; they also owned mineral resources on their estates, could engage in trade and set up factories, their houses were free from troop billets, and their estates were not subject to confiscation. The nobility received the right to self-government, formed a “noble society”, the body of which was a noble assembly, convened every three years in the province and district, which elected provincial and district leaders of the nobility, judicial assessors and police captains who headed the district administration. This grant called upon the nobility to participate broadly in local government. Under Catherine II, nobles occupied positions of local executive and judicial power. The charter granted to the nobility was supposed to strengthen the position of the nobility and consolidate its privileges. Contributed to greater consolidation of the ruling class. Its effect was also extended to the nobles of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus and the Don. The letter granted to the nobility testified to the desire of Russian absolutism to strengthen its social support in an environment of aggravated class contradictions. The nobility turned into the politically dominant class in the state.

Along with the Letter of Commendation to the nobility on April 21. 1785 The charter granted to the cities was issued. This legislative act of Catherine II established new elected city institutions, somewhat expanding the circle of voters. The townspeople were divided into six categories based on property and social characteristics: “real city dwellers” - property owners from the nobility, officials, and clergy; merchants of the three guilds; artisans registered in workshops; foreigners and non-residents; "famous citizens"; “Posadskie”, i.e. all other citizens who live in the city by fishing or handicrafts. These categories under the Charter of Grant to the cities received the basics of self-government, in a certain sense similar to the foundations of the Charter of Grant to the nobility. Once every three years, a meeting of the “city society” was convened, which included only the wealthiest townspeople. The permanent city institution was the “general city council,” consisting of the city mayor and six councilors. Magistrates were the elected judicial institutions in cities. However, the privileges of the townspeople against the background of the permissiveness of the nobility turned out to be imperceptible, the bodies of city self-government were strictly controlled by the tsarist administration - the attempt to lay the foundations of the bourgeois class failed.

In addition to the Charter to the nobility and the Charter to the cities, Catherine II also developed the Charter to the peasantry (it was addressed only to state peasants). “The Rural Situation” was a completely finished project. It did not contradict the “Order”. However, this project was not implemented.

Throughout the reign of Catherine II, there was a discussion of how to alleviate the plight of the serfs. The empress herself was an opponent of serfdom. At the beginning of her reign, she dreamed of freeing the peasants from serfdom. She could not do this, firstly, because she did not find sympathy among many close, and secondly, because the views of Catherine II herself changed after the Pugachev rebellion.

A. On the personal advantages of nobles

1st. The title of nobility is a consequence that excludes from the quality and virtue of the men who commanded in ancient times, who distinguished themselves by merit, thereby turning the service itself into dignity, acquiring a noble name for their offspring.

2nd. It is not only beneficial for the empire and the throne, but it is also fair that the respectful state of the noble nobility be preserved and established unshakably and inviolably; and for this reason, from time immemorial, now, and forever, the noble dignity of the nobility will remain inalienable, hereditary and hereditary to those honest families that enjoy it, and consequently:

3rd. A nobleman imparts noble dignity to his wife.

4th. A nobleman imparts to his children the noble dignity of the nobility hereditarily.

5th. May a nobleman or a noblewoman not be deprived of their noble dignity, unless they themselves have deprived themselves of it by a crime contrary to the grounds of noble dignity.

6th. Crimes that destroy and disgust the foundations of noble dignity are the following: 1. Violation of an oath. 2. Treason. 3. Robbery. 4. Theft of all kinds. 5. Deceitful actions. 6. Crimes for which, according to the laws, there is deprivation of honor and corporal punishment. 7. It will be proven that he persuaded or taught others to commit similar crimes.

7th. But the dignity of the nobility is not taken away, except for crime; marriage is honest and established by God’s law, and for this reason, a noble noblewoman, having married a non-nobleman, should not lose her fortune; but she does not give nobility to her husband and children.

8th. Without a trial, let the noble not lose his noble dignity.

9th. Without trial, let the noble not lose his honor.

10th. Let no noble lose his life without trial.

11th. Without a trial, let the noble not lose his property.

12th. Let no noble man be judged except by his equals.

13th. The case of a noble person who has fallen into a criminal offense and, according to the laws, is worthy of deprivation of noble dignity, or honor, or life, may not be accomplished without being submitted to the Senate and confirmed by the Imperial Majesty.

14th. Any kind of crime (noble), for which ten years have passed, and after such a time they have not become public, and there has been no proceedings against them: we command from now on that all such cases, if any claimants, plaintiffs, or informers appear about them, will be consigned to eternal oblivion.

15th. Let no corporal punishment touch the noble.

16th. The nobles serving in the lower ranks of our troops should be dealt with in all fines in the same way as, according to our military rules, the chief officer ranks are dealt with.

17th. We confirm liberty and freedom to the Russian noble nobility for all eternity and through hereditary generations.

18th. We confirm to the nobles who are in the service the permission to continue serving and to ask for dismissal from the service according to the rules made for this.

19th. We confirm the nobles' permission to join the services of other European allied powers and to travel to foreign lands.

20th. But as a noble noble title and dignity from ancient times, now, and in the future, is acquired by service and labors useful to the empire and the throne, and the essential state of the Russian nobility is independent of the security of the Fatherland and the throne; and for this purpose, at every necessary time for the Russian autocracy, when the service of the nobility to the common good is needed and necessary, then every noble nobleman is obliged, at the first call from the autocratic power, not to spare either labor or his very belly for state service.

21st. A noble person has the right, according to his vocation, to be described as both the landowner of his estates and the patrimonial owner of his ancestral, hereditary and granted estates.

22nd. The noble is left with free power and will, having been the first acquirer of any property, to give the acquired property as a gift, or to bequeath, or as a dowry or for subsistence, to give, or to transfer, or to sell to whomever he pleases. Let him not dispose of hereditary property otherwise than prescribed by law.

23rd. The noble's inherited estate, in the event of conviction and for a major crime, may not be given to his rightful heir or heirs.

24th. Since our desire and desire was, is and will continue to be, with God’s help, that the All-Russian Empire be governed by laws and regulations issued by the autocracy of our government, to establish justice, truth and the security of everyone’s estate and property, we find it right to again prohibit and strictly confirm the ancient about this prohibition: let no one dare, without trial and sentence, by virtue of the laws of those judicial places to which courts are entrusted, to arbitrarily take away from a noble person, or to ruin it.

25th. Justice and retribution for crime are entrusted in each governorship to the only judicial places established for that purpose; they listen to the complaints of the plaintiff and the justifications of the defendant and make decisions according to the laws, which everyone, no matter what kind or generation, is obliged to obey: and in order for a noble person to have a legal claim, or someone against a noble person, then it must be sorted out in the established and on then the power of having judicial places in a prescribed manner; for it would be unfair and inconsistent with the general order if everyone in his own business decided to become a judge.

26th. The right to buy villages is confirmed to the nobles.

27th. The nobles confirm the right to sell wholesale what is born in their villages, or is produced by handicrafts.

28th. The nobles are allowed to have factories and factories in their villages.

29th. Nobles are allowed to establish small towns in their estates and in them auctions and fairs, in accordance with state regulations, with the knowledge of governors-general and provincial boards, and with the supervision that the terms of fairs in their towns are consistent with the terms in other surrounding places.

30th. The nobles are confirmed the right to have, or build, or buy houses in cities, and to have handicrafts in them.

31st. If anyone who is noble wishes to use city law, let him obey it.

32nd. The nobles are allowed to sell wholesale, or ship goods from designated harbors overseas, whatever goods are born or produced on the basis of laws, for they are not prohibited from having or starting factories, handicrafts and all kinds of factories.

33rd. The noble right of ownership, granted by the gracious decree of June 28, 1782, is confirmed, not only on the surface of the earth, which belongs to each of them, but also in the bowels of that earth and in the waters belonging to him, to all hidden minerals and plants, and to all From this, metals are made in full strength and intelligence, as explained in that decree.

34th. The right of ownership of the forests growing in their dachas, and their free use with full strength and reason, is confirmed by the nobles, as depicted in the gracious decree of September 22, 1782.

35th. In the villages, the landowner's house is free from standing.

36th. The noble person is personally exempt from personal taxes.

B. About the meeting of nobles, the establishment of a noble society in the province and the benefits of a noble society

37th. We grant our loyal nobles permission to gather in the province where they reside, and form a noble society in each governorship, and enjoy the following rights, benefits, distinctions and advantages.

38th. The nobility gathers in the province at the call and permission of the governor-general, or governor, both for the elections entrusted to the nobility, and for listening to the proposals of the governor-general, or governor, every three years in the winter.

39th. The assembly of the nobility in the viceroyalty is allowed to elect the provincial leader of the nobility of that province; and for this, the assembly of the nobility, every three years, to present two of the district noble leaders to the sovereign's governor or ruler, and whichever of these the governor-general or governor appoints, he will be the provincial leader of that province.

40s. By virtue of Articles 62 and 211 of the Institutions, the district leader of the nobility is elected by the nobility of the same district every three years at balls.<...>

47th. The assembly of the nobility is allowed to present to the governor-general or governor about their public needs and benefits.

48th. The permission of the assembly of the nobility to make representations and complaints through their deputies to both the Senate and the Imperial Majesty on the basis of legislation is confirmed.<...>

64th. In the assembly of the nobility there may be a nobleman who did not serve at all, or, having been in the service, did not reach the rank of chief officer (even if the rank of chief officer was given to him upon retirement), but he should not sit with the deserving ones, not a voice in cannot have a meeting of the nobility, nor, having chosen, be capable of those positions that are filled by the choice of the meeting of the nobility.

65th. The assembly of the nobility is allowed to exclude from the assembly of the nobility a nobleman who has been discredited by the court, or whose obvious and dishonorable vice is known to everyone, even if he has not yet been tried, until he is acquitted.<...>

68th. In the noble genealogy book in the viceroyalty, enter the name and title of every nobleman who owns real estate in that province, and can confirm his nobility with evidence.<...>

Charter granted to cities in 1785

The preparation of the “Charter of Grant to the Cities” (full title “Charter of Rights and Benefits to the Cities of the Russian Empire”) began in 1780. In its preparation, materials from the established commission, the Guild Charter, the Charter of the Deanery, the Institution for governing the province, the Swedish Guild Charter and regulations were used about the broker, the Prussian Crafts Charter, the legislation of the cities of Livonia and Estonia.

The charter secured a single class status for the population of cities, regardless of professional occupations and types of activity. This was quite consistent with the idea of ​​​​creating a “middle class of people.” The unified legal status of the urban population was based on the recognition of the city as a special organized territory (with a special system of administrative management and types of occupation of the population).

Belonging to the philistine class, according to the legislator, was based on hard work and good morals, was hereditary and associated with the benefits brought by the philistinism to the fatherland. Belonging to the bourgeois class was not a natural phenomenon, like, for example, the nobility. Deprivation of philistine rights and privileges could be carried out on the same grounds as the deprivation of class rights of the nobility; the letter of complaint contained a complete list of such acts (for example, for committing certain criminal acts).

The personal rights of the bourgeoisie included the right to protection of honor and dignity, personality and life, the right to travel and travel abroad.

The property rights of the petty bourgeoisie included the right of ownership of owned property (acquisition, use, inheritance), the right of ownership of industrial enterprises, crafts, and the right to conduct trade.

The entire urban population was divided into 6 categories:

- “real city dwellers” who have a house and other real estate in the city:

Merchants registered in the guild (1 guild - with capital from 50 thousand rubles; 2 guild - from 5 to 10 thousand rubles; 3 guild - from 1 to 5 thousand rubles);

Craftsmen in workshops;

Foreign and out-of-town merchants;

Nonresident and foreign merchants;

Famous citizens (capitalists and bankers with capital of at least 50 thousand rubles, wholesale traders, shipowners, members of the city administration, scientists, artists, musicians);

Other townspeople.

Merchants of the 1st and 2nd guilds enjoyed additional personal rights, were exempt from corporal punishment, and could own large industrial and commercial enterprises.

Eminent citizens were also exempted from corporal punishment.

Rights and obligations were regulated by internal shop rules and the “Charter on Shops”.

The right of corporate organization was recognized for city residents, as well as for nobles. Citizens constituted “urban society” and could gather for meetings with the approval of the administration. The assembly could make representations to local authorities and monitor compliance with the laws. The right of a legal entity was recognized for the city society. Participation in society was limited to:

property qualification – payment of an annual tax of at least 50 rubles;

age limit – not younger than 25 years.

The townspeople elected burgomasters, assessors-ratmans (for three years), elders and judges of verbal courts (for a year).

A general city council was created in the city, which included the elected mayor and councilors (one from each of the six categories of citizens and in proportion to the parts of the city). The general city duma formed its own executive body - a six-vote city duma from among the councilors, in the meetings of which one representative from each category participated. The mayor represented.

The competence of the City Duma included:

Ensuring silence, harmony and order in the city;

Resolution of intraclass disputes;

Monitoring city construction.

Court cases were not under the jurisdiction of the city duma; they were decided by the judiciary.

The charter granted to the nobility begins a new stage in the history of this class. After the adoption of the document, the nobles became a legally privileged stratum and received extensive opportunities and rights.

The charter granted to the nobility was accepted by the great reformer Catherine 2. No one suspected that a woman who had no rights to the Russian crown could become the second Great Empress after Peter 1. Her policy went down in history as “enlightened absolutism.” And indeed it is. With her charter, she made the nobility the most noble class.

The charter granted to the nobility in 1785 freed nobles from compulsory service. But it is worth noting that the beginning of such legal registration of the rights of this class was laid by Peter 3 in his Manifesto on the liberties of the nobility. This document gave the nobles the right to continue serving at their own request, and they were also allowed to enter service in other states, but on the condition that at the first request of the Russian Empire they would return to the location of the Russian army.

The charter to the nobility also stipulated that for children under 18 years of age, only information about the place of education must be provided. The contents of this Manifesto raised doubts among Catherine, and she convened a special commission to correct the document. After which, on the basis of already existing provisions, a Letter of Complaint was issued. It had its own structure and was divided into 4 parts:

• personal benefits;
• meetings and reform of noble society;
• instructions for compiling genealogical books;
• proof of origin.

The new document freed the nobles from the type, allowed a man, if he married a non-noblewoman, to give her his status, but a woman, if she married a non-nobleman, was not granted such a right.

Also, this document of Catherine 2 established the following position: only a court equal to him and no one else could judge a nobleman. The nobles received the right to gather their societies and meetings - this speaks of their self-government. It is worth noting that literacy leveled all families: from noble to ordinary. Thus, all noble families had the same rights and opportunities. A distinctive feature of that time was the creation of genealogical books, by the presence of which the nobility of the family was judged.

Charters granted to the nobility and cities became a symbol during the time of Catherine 2. Adopted on her birthday, they became as symbolic as the figure of the Great Empress. The adoption of these documents was of great importance for the final Russian society.

The charter granted to the nobility was adopted at the end of the 18th century. She consolidated the privileges of the nobility, determined their living conditions and greater opportunities for disposing of the peasants. The document was an excellent opportunity for the development of managerial and entrepreneurial qualities of the class, as well as for the formation of confident noble self-government.

FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY

Perm State University

Course work

Letter of grant to the nobility

student Ershov A.S.

Scientific adviser:

Garyaeva T.V.

Introduction

1.1 History of creation

1.2 Ideology of Literacy

1.3 Document language

2.1 Structure

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Due to its broad information content and great educational value, the history of law contributes to the formation of a legal culture in the public consciousness. In the process of becoming familiar with the origins of legislation, a citizen understands and, as a result, begins to respect legal norms. In addition, the future lawyer needs the search, analytical knowledge, skills and abilities that are developed when working with sources of law.

During the period of the “Palace Coups,” one of the main areas of reform was class legislation, especially in relation to the nobility, which achieved from the absolute monarchy the unification of all achievements in one document.

Therefore, the topic chosen for the work is “Certificate granted to the nobility.” Currently, there is a large amount of literature on the process of development of the rights of nobles, but in it the named document is considered only as the result of a struggle. This work will analyze the legislative material of the Charter itself in connection with the history of the state.

The following tasks were set for the study:

Study the literature on this issue;

Give a general description of the document;

Consider the regulatory part of the document on its merits.

The work consists of two chapters. The first chapter defines the history of creation, ideology and language of the Charter, and the second chapter defines the structure of the document, the personal and corporate rights of the nobles.

In conclusion, it was concluded that the natural consequence of nobility should have been the removal from the nobility of everything that equated it with other classes. Catherine II understood this and therefore developed in the Charter a whole system of norms on personal and corporate rights and privileges, while eliminating the “gaps in legal technology” for the practical implementation of granted rights, which ensured the existence of the document until 1917.

During the research process, a specific historical approach was used, with the help of which basic state and legal phenomena were examined, in terms of class legislation. The comparative method and system analysis were used to identify general patterns and matching features in the state of the object.

The work used research by A.B. Kamensky, who in the monograph “From Peter I to Paul I. Reforms in Russia in the 18th century. Experiences of holistic analysis" gives a comparative description of the Charters granted to the nobility and cities. In the work “History of Russian Law” A.N. Filippov analyzes in detail the legislative material of the document. When studying individual articles, the works of M.F. were used. Vladimirsky-Budanov, S.V. Yushkogo, O.I. Chistyakov, as well as the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire since 1649 and Legislation from the heyday of absolutism.

Chapter I. General characteristics of the Certificate

1.1 History of creation

Catherine II inherited from her defeated husband not only a very unstable position on the throne, but also a document that required great political prudence. On the one hand, the long-overdue need for a new positive design of relations between the authorities and the nobility remained. The document signed by Peter III contained very specific terminology, and therefore the ruling class rightly expected the confirmation not of new rights and privileges, but of “freedom.” On the other hand, Catherine, as a talented and far-sighted ruler, intuitively felt that it was necessary, gently bypassing the concept of “liberty,” to build new relations with the political elite of the nobility, not cooling, but, on the contrary, strengthening its zeal to “serve the monarch and the Fatherland.” In addition, from the point of view of specific legislative support for the implementation of the privilege granted to the nobility, it was more of a preliminary project than a well-thought-out document, on the basis of which it was possible to change the order of civil service of an entire class.

The manifesto of July 28, 1762 “On the accession to the throne of Empress Catherine II” contained a standard form of an “oath promise”, according to which all subjects solemnly swore an oath to “serve faithfully and unhypocritically and obey in everything”, “to act” as expected “ the kind and faithful servant of Her Imperial Majesty." The freedom granted to the nobility was not mentioned at all in the legislation of the first months of the new reign.

The pause with the confirmation of the Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility was clearly dragging on. In the fall of 1762, Catherine wrote to N.I. Panina: “I forgot to tell you just now that there is not much grumbling among the nobility about the non-confirmation of their liberties, and we must not forget to make an attack about this.”. Finally, in February 1763, a personal decree was issued “On consideration of the act by which Emperor Peter III gave freedom to the noble Russian nobility, and about bringing its contents to the best perfection." For this purpose, a Commission was created, the activities of which were regulated not by the clear instructions of the Empress, but by the general priorities of the new government. The decree was not about “liberty,” but about “a guarantee of royal favor,” which, apparently, was considered by the throne as a higher value than freedom from service. The contents of the Manifesto were to be “brought to the best possible perfection” “on the basis of reasonable policies.” In other words. The commission was not so much supposed to develop the “rights of freedom of the nobility” as to strengthen the articles “who would most naturally encourage ambition. "for the benefit and service of ours and our dear Fatherland" .

During the work of the Commission, the issue of the privileges of the nobility was raised at 14 meetings and received its conceptual design in the projects of Chancellor M.I. Vorontsov and the head of the Commission A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, comments by N.I. Panin and other courtiers, as well as in the final report presented to the Empress in April 1763 as the draft “Rights of the Noble”. After conducting a comparative analysis of the two projects, Panin’s comments and the text of “The Rights of the Noble,” Kamensky came to the conclusion that in the report “there is a noticeable desire to create two independent social hierarchies, to separate social status from rank in the public service system.” At the same time, the author notes the Commission’s unwillingness “to solve the fundamental problem of the nature of the nobility and its society, while the rights of the nobility in the plane of its relations with the state were of less interest to the courtiers.”

The minutes of the meetings of the Commission, which worked for two months, as well as the “Report on the Project of the Rights of the Nobility” prepared for presentation to the Empress, indicate a high degree of dependence of the consciousness of the political elite on the official ideology. Having discussed the privileges of the clan and titled nobility, the relationship between ranks and the status of the upper class, the courtiers came to the conclusion that the dignity of the nobility was determined solely by its merits before the throne. The authors of the project reproduced the main ideas of the Manifesto on liberty, relating primarily to the conditions for its limitation: “the law according to which every nobleman serves and does not serve indefinitely, but will have to know the time and circumstances in which he can use this granted right.” The members of the Commission absolutely correctly grasped the main pathos of the Manifesto, stimulating in the minds of the nobleman “an incentive to serve H.I.V., based on direct ambition.” The main efforts of court legislators were aimed at correctly understanding the expectations and preferences of the empress. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that any representative of the noble class is obliged to “do good for the sovereign and the Fatherland” either as an official and officer, or “through agriculture and economy.” “For these reasons, the meeting reasons,” the draft said, “that the most mercifully confirmed freedom to serve and not serve a nobleman will be useful to H.I.V., the Fatherland and the nobles themselves. But in order for the service of E.I.V. if I have weakened, then articles two and three... will be incentives to serve.” Having completed work on the project, the Commission waited for specific instructions from Catherine, since “laws should be the consequence of those rights that E.V. the Russian nobility will be welcome; without knowing exactly the rights themselves, they cannot accept anything as genuine and as a basis for the creation of laws.” .

Catherine copied the draft “Rights of the Noble” with her own hand, made notes in the margins and returned it to the compilers six months later. However, the highest instructions seemed too general to the members of the Commission, and they never began writing the final text. The commission ceased its work, and the empress herself had to begin to legislate the class status of the nobility and the policy of absolutism in relation to the ruling class.

The Manifesto on Liberty was neither canceled nor confirmed, although some of its provisions were implemented in the practice of the Senate and the office work of the Heraldry Office. “The question of the privileges of the nobility (their expansion and final legislative registration) remained open: Its discussion was continued first in the Commission on Commerce created in December 1763, then in the Statutory Commission and, finally, twenty-three years later, in 1785. ended with the publication of the Charter to the nobility.

1.2 Ideology of Literacy

The freedom granted to the nobility from the compulsory nature of public service, proclaimed in the Manifesto and confirmed in the Charter, was in fact not welcomed by the authorities, which was manifested in the deliberate limitation of opportunities to receive resignation, and in the obvious ideological condemnation of removal from affairs, which “brings neither private, no public benefit, but only multiplies the number of loitering parasites." The most acceptable argument for leaving service was officially recognized as temporary resignation “to study science” or due to serious illness. However, the removal of a nobleman from business under the pretext of illness aroused increasing distrust, since among those who retired could also be clever careerists seeking to “get ranks without serving.”

However, the document in question dealt not only with the rights and liberties of the nobles, but also with their main privilege - to zealously serve the Emperor and the Fatherland. In other words, the serving nobleman was under the special protection of the authorities. A landowner seeking resignation, an official or military man who dared to repeatedly take advantage of the freedom of the nobility, a minor who had no intention of serving at all, could not count on the favor of the throne. It is no coincidence that information confirming nobility should have included “a genealogy in which at least the surname was brought up to the grandfather, with a description of the service of each ancestor... did anyone have any letters of commendation from the sovereigns, of which copies should be attached with certification” .

Thus, noble dignity was directly associated with rank and royal favor. The authorities tried in every possible way to strengthen and support class ambition, based on the privilege of “noble service.” The leading criterion for the intraclass differentiation of the nobility was the position occupied by the group in the system of power of the absolute monarchy. The political weight of one or another layer among the ruling class depended on the degree of involvement in the imperial entourage. It was not a complex system of hierarchical dependence, but the sovereign's disposition that united the emperor's direct subjects. The absence of a complex hierarchical structure of the Russian ruling class and the growing authority of power gave rise in the minds of every nobleman to a feeling of personal dependence on the monarch. The corporate pride of the noble class consisted of proximity to the throne and access to supreme power through public service.

The high social prestige of the civil service was maintained through the dominant value of status and position in the minds of the nobility. The rank bestowed by the imperial power, supplanting clan dignity, acted as the main indicator of the class hierarchy, set the main criteria for attitude towards a person in society and had a decisive influence on the individual’s self-esteem system. The entire lifestyle of the nobleman and his family depended on his position on the official ladder. The number of horses in the carriage, the liveries of the footmen, the place during services in the church - everything was determined by the bureaucratic status and favor of the empress.

Targeted studies of the actual normative part of the charter and the practice of service of the upper class after the publication of the document led many experts to an unexpected, at first glance, conclusion about the readiness of the nobility for the most part to remain in the service both after the Manifesto of Peter III and after the publication of the charter of 1785.

Moreover, while recognizing the absence of a rapid increase in the number of resignations after the publication of these documents, experts note the approving and sometimes enthusiastic reaction of the nobility to the liberties granted. Many members of the nobility celebrated the publication of the charter, although they had no intention of using all the rights granted to them.

The autocracy in every possible way supported the nobleman’s desire to “give great fame to his career” and encouraged “ambition for the benefit of the service and profit of the empire of Her Imperial Majesty.” The nobility’s commitment to the “godly and praiseworthy” work of public service was also stimulated by real material benefits. However, the value of awards was measured not so much by their nominal value as by the degree of prestige. A hand-delivered snuffbox with a portrait of the empress could mean more to a dignitary than a village gift.

The authorities skillfully combined all of the listed levers of influence on the consciousness of the subject - “zealous performance of duty” was followed by an increase in rank, the rank was supported by a generous award, and the highest position was materialized in villages, positions and ribbons. The mechanism of such social regulation was designed to function flawlessly, since it not only appealed to the desire to have a prestigious measure of wealth, but also generated in the nobleman high self-esteem, a proud sense of belonging to power, the ruling class, and a strong state.

Terminological comparisons of documents of the noble legislation reveal the striking stability of the ideological component of the government’s policy towards the ruling class. More than 20 years after the abolition of compulsory service and more than 60 years after the proclamation of the Table of Ranks, the main provisions of this famous Peter's document continued to remain the main principle of structuring the upper class. The “Charter on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility” of 1785 also formulated the priority of sequential passage through all ranks based on personal service: “The Russian nobility, entering military or civil service, goes through all the levels of rank and from their youth in the lower ones they learn the basis of service.”. As during the reign of Peter I, the only indicator of nobility in the Charter was recognized as service to the sovereign: “Those famous persons who are distinguished by... their service reach the highest ranks of the Russian nobility.”. And in the same way, royal favor remained the main source of tribal dignity: “Russia has been accustomed since ancient times to see service, loyalty, zeal... Authentic evidence of this is found in the most ancient generations of the families of our subjects of the Russian nobility”. The Charter of Grant confirmed the privileges granted by the Manifesto of Liberty of 1762, but a more careful reading revealed that the main privilege of the nobility was still the privilege to serve the sovereign. The possibility of resignation was not excluded, but was stipulated by a number of conditions and, ultimately, was made directly dependent on the will of the emperor: “We confirm to the nobles who are in the service the permission to continue their service and to ask for dismissal from the service according to the rules made for that... But as a noble noble title and dignity... acquired by the service... for this purpose at the right time for the Russian autocracy... Every noble nobleman is obliged, at the first call from the autocratic power, not to spare either labor or his very belly for public service.” .

Thus, the essence of the “Charter on the rights, liberties and privileges of the nobility” is intended not so much to proclaim new and confirm old privileges of the upper class, but to strengthen the impact on the motivation of its representatives in the direction necessary for absolutism. All of the above instructions were ultimately supposed to increase the prestige of education, strengthen the authority of officials and intensify the competition for them among the nobility.

In general, in its pathos, the Letter is consistent with the ideology of an absolutist state, which continues to see in the ruling class not only a privileged class, but also a “service” class. At the same time, the main idea of ​​the document, according to which all noble Russian nobles will enjoy benefits “for eternity,” further complicated the meaning of public service, which had previously been interpreted simultaneously as both an honorable right and a strict duty.

1.3 Document language

Researchers note that it is not typical for the legislative terminology of the 18th century to call documents “letters.” And it is no coincidence that in the historiographic tradition it became a “charter”, because it was precisely about the granting by the highest power of rights and benefits, which were not a natural immanent property, but were granted to the class by the will of Catherine II. In the source itself, this feature was manifested in the following words: “... according to the prudence and will of our emperor, we command, announce, decree and approve in memory of the families for the benefit of the Russian nobility of our service and the Empire, the following articles for eternal times and unshakably.”

Catherine II studied Russian history well and indirectly, through the semantics of words, pointed out the vassal-suzerain relationship between the throne and the class of nobles. And it is no coincidence, according to Kamensky, that the usual formula “Her Imperial Majesty” was replaced in the text of the letter with the formula simply “Imperial Majesty”. Chistyakov notes that the charter, as a source of law, is laws that indicated the rights and privileges of a particular class, how it differed from the manifesto, which was also a law, but in especially important cases declared the will of the emperor in the form of an appeal to individual groups population

Researchers of this issue point to the stability of the legal language of Catherine II, while she was the first to use the concept of “property” in her works. For example, in Article 33 of the Charter we read: “... the right of ownership is confirmed by the noble...”. Before it, the terminology of laws was not distinguished by certainty and stability, which was a consequence of the era of reforms, when in legislative practice normative acts that were homogeneous in content and form “appeared under different names,” and vice versa, similar in content, were called the same.

In general, an analysis of the terminology and political symbolism of the document indicates its continuity from previous class legislation, starting with the appeal to the nobility as “noble” and ending with the citation of decrees.

Chapter II. Legal characteristics of the Certificate

2.1 Structure

The letter of commendation begins with an introductory preamble, in which, in the style of the ideology of the absolutist state, after listing all the exploits of the nobility, it concludes: “... we find it worthwhile to extend our care to our loyal subject of the Russian nobility, having in mind the above-mentioned merits, jealousy, zeal and unshakable loyalty... the following articles ..." .

Chapter “B” - “On the meeting of nobles, the establishment of a noble society in the province and the benefits of a noble society” (Article 37-71) - approved the creation of noble societies, regulated the creation and activities of their elected bodies and other corporate benefits, which we will consider in clause 2.3.

Chapter “B” - “Instructions for the creation and continuation of a noble genealogical book in the governorship” (Articles 72-90) - explained in detail the procedure for compiling noble lists in the provinces, maintaining and composition of genealogical books.

Chapter “D” - “Evidence of nobility” (Articles 91-92) - listed “acceptable” evidence of noble origin. We will consider the last two chapters within the framework of paragraph 2.3.

In addition to the above, the Charter contains a number of legislative acts on the nobility adopted before 1785. Thus, the document in question cites the Personal Decree of January 16, 1721 (Article 78), the Table of Ranks (Article 79, etc.), and in Article 92 in full - the Decree of Fyodor Alekseevich on the abolition of localism of 1682.

The structure of the articles is complicated by the presence of interpretations, clarifications, notes and regulations. Researchers explain this by the legislator’s desire to avoid the mistakes of the Manifesto of Peter III, which lacked the necessary specific legal support for the possibility of realizing the granted rights.

2.2 On the personal advantages of nobles

The natural consequence of nobility should be the removal from the nobility of everything that made it equal to others. Catherine II understood this and therefore developed in the Charter (Chapter “A”) a whole system of norms on personal rights and privileges.

In Article 1, the merits of ancestors to the state in ancient times are considered as the most important criterion for belonging to the nobility: “The title of nobility is a consequence emanating from the quality and virtue of the men who commanded in ancient times, who distinguished themselves by merit, thereby turning service itself into dignity, and acquired the noble title for their offspring "

In articles 2 - 5 we are talking about hereditary nobles. Personal nobility is not mentioned at all: “...noble noble dignity is inalienable, hereditary and hereditary to those honest families...”. A nobleman imparts noble dignity to his wife and children. In addition, “Let no nobleman or noblewoman be deprived of their noble dignity unless they deprive themselves of it by a crime contrary to the grounds of noble dignity.”

Article 6 provides an insufficiently clear and extremely approximate list of crimes, which opened up the possibility of different interpretations when applying the law. Such acts as theft of all kinds and deceitful acts were especially uncertain.

Article 7 emphasizes the inequality between women and men. A noblewoman is deprived of the right to convey nobility not only to her husband, but also to her children.

The more privileges the nobles received, the more they developed a view of themselves as a noble class, which should not be equated with other, taxing classes. In an effort to ensure the protection of their noble dignity and honor, the nobles intensified the fight for their personal rights and freedoms.

The nobles were especially dissatisfied with the fact that they could be subjected to disgraceful punishments and torture. Under Peter I, a rule was established according to which defamation and public punishment of a nobleman in the square entailed deprivation of all titles and ranks. If a nobleman was naked in public and subjected to corporal punishment, or if he was subjected to torture, having sufficient grounds for this, then he could no longer remain a nobleman. However, it was not established then that a nobleman was subject to deprivation of the rights of his estate only by court. For the first time, the Charter takes into account all the demands of the nobles and clearly states in Articles 8 - 11 that without trial "let him not lose" noble noble dignity, honor, life and estate.

Article 12 enshrines the right, so important for nobles, to be judged only by their peers. Pre-revolutionary literature notes that the court of equals for nobles existed only on paper. There were no changes in the judicial system. As for the district court and the upper zemstvo court, they previously consisted of elected nobles. The higher courts (trial chambers) were seated by appointed crown officials, i.e. the same nobles, but not necessarily “their own”, elected from the area where the defendant-nobleman lived.

An important privilege of the nobles in relation to justice is enshrined in Article 13. For the feudal court, there was no equality of all before the law; nobles were tried in a special manner. The court's verdict in the case of any nobleman was necessarily subject to consideration in the Senate, and the guilty verdict entered into legal force only after its approval by the Empress, who could free the nobleman from punishment regardless of the severity of the crime he committed. In the Certificate we read: “The case of a noble person who has fallen into a criminal offense and, according to the laws, is worthy of deprivation of noble dignity, or honor, or life, may not be accomplished without being submitted to the Senate and confirmed by the Imperial Majesty.”

Article 14 introduces the institution of limitation for the first time. A similar norm of the general part of criminal law was established only for nobles (as a kind of privilege). It did not apply to other classes. It is characteristic that the statute of limitations is not linked to the severity of the acts committed - it is the same for both minor and grave crimes.

The charter, freeing the nobles from corporal punishment, established their most important privilege for the first time in Russian legislation. Article 15 deals not only with the imposition of punishment for crimes committed, but also with the use of corporal measures for offenses (they were especially widely used in relation to military personnel). In addition, nobles were exempt from torture. Under Elizabeth Petrovna and before her, nobles were tortured, as a rule, secretly. Under Catherine II, torture against nobles continued for political crimes.

According to the meaning of the article, the court could not apply corporal punishment to a nobleman who committed a crime. However, if a nobleman was deprived of his noble title for an act committed, then the court was not bound by the choice of punishment. This privilege was abolished by Paul I, who ordered corporal punishment to be applied to nobles.

Article 16 provides for exemption from corporal punishment for nobles serving in the lower ranks of the army. This type of punishment was applied to them very often, while the officers were not subject to such punishment.

As already noted, official confirmation of the main provisions of the Manifesto on February 18, 1762 followed only on April 21, 1785. Article 17 proclaims that the liberty and freedom of the nobility are confirmed forever. It is unlikely that Catherine II herself believed in this, but she loved demagoguery and pompous declarations. Paul I, balancing legislation with life, actually abolished some freedoms and liberties of the nobility and limited their freedom in relation to military service. The relevant provisions of the Letter of Complaint were not observed.

Article 18 provides for the right of a nobleman to continue serving or to ask for resignation. It is not entirely clear whether a nobleman who received this title from his ancestors could not begin his service at all. From the meaning of the article it follows that the nobility was not exempt from the obligation to begin public service. However, regardless of the length of time served, the nobleman could end it by asking for resignation.

Article 19 confirms the ancient right of feudal lords to serve any overlord.

It follows from the meaning of Article 20 that nobles must perform public service until their resignation. The requirement not to spare strength and life at the call of the autocracy provided for the use in military and other public service of those nobles who could benefit with their knowledge and experience, and not those who had never served anywhere. It is specially emphasized that noble titles have always been acquired through conscientious service.

Articles 21-23 deal with the right of nobles to dispose of their estates and the procedure for their inheritance. The nobles have enjoyed this right for a long time; the charter only confirms it.

The meaning of Article 24, which is largely demagogic in nature, is not entirely clear. It is not clear from whose specific encroachments the protection of noble estates is provided: “let no one dare, without trial and sentence, by virtue of the laws of those judicial places to which courts are entrusted, to arbitrarily take away a noble estate or destroy it.” The main danger to noble estates always came from monarchs, who confiscated them in favor of the state for poor performance of military and other public service, as well as for various abuses in the service. Peter I especially often used such measures. The article can be understood in such a way that henceforth the autocratic government will not take away estates from the nobles unless a court decision follows. However, absolute monarchs could not be bound by the requirements of the laws. Consequently, the legal norms contained in the article had no practical significance.

Article 25 proclaims the bourgeois principle, according to which only a court can recognize an act committed as a crime. However, this principle only applied to nobles.

In Articles 26-32, for the first time, landowners-nobles are given broad opportunities to acquire certain property, participate in certain types of production, as well as in trade. The diploma consolidates what has already been established in fact for a long time. The noble landowners had their own manufactories, factories and factories in rural areas, where certain products were produced that had to be sold on markets. Noble estates were increasingly drawn into commodity-money relations.

Catherine II considered trading to be an unacceptable and inglorious activity, incompatible with the dignity of a noble nobleman. Previously, when noble landowners were busy with service, such an occupation and the title of nobleman were really mutually exclusive. Participating more and more actively in economic activities, the nobles inevitably became involved in commodity-money relations, and the autocracy was forced to grant them certain rights related to this economic activity.

Peter I limited the right of landowners-nobles to subsoil resources on their estates. With the knowledge of the Berg College, other persons could also develop mineral resources. In fact, the bowels of the landowner's land came under state control. Catherine II abolished these restrictions in her manifesto of June 28, 1782, indicating that ownership applies to all products of the earth, both on the surface and in its depths. Each owner could mine metals and minerals from his lands and process them. The charter of grant enshrines this right of the nobles in Art. 33.

Peter I also introduced significant restrictions on the rights of owners to forests growing on their lands, allowing for state needs to cut down any tree in all forests, without paying anything to the forest owner. Some forests and tree species were declared protected. Certain tree species could be used only for state needs. Catherine II, by decree of September 22, 1782, abolished the previous restrictions, ordering that all forests growing in the dachas of landowners be given full ownership to the owners of the estates, even if they had been declared reserves until now. The letter of complaint confirms this right in Art. 34.

Articles 35-36 secure the exemption of nobles from taxes and duties associated with military and other billets in residential buildings. The nobles actually enjoyed these privileges before, but in the charter they were more specifically formulated: “in the villages, the landowner’s house can be free from housing” and “the noble is personally exempt from personal taxes.”

As a result, if liberty and freedom according to the Manifesto of 1762 were understood as the right not to serve, then according to the Charter of 1785, it was expressed in general privilege, which consisted of the class exclusion of the nobility from the operation of general laws, including criminal ones.

2.3 Corporate rights of nobles

Naturally, only with the release of the nobles from compulsory service could the question of local self-government be raised and resolved by legislation. This is what Empress Catherine the Great did in chapters “B”, “C” and “D”.

Articles 37-56 provide greater rights to noble assemblies and at the same time local officials (governors, governors-general, sovereign governors) are entrusted with careful control over their activities.

Catherine II, relying on the governors personally devoted to her from among the highest dignitaries, implemented the idea of ​​​​decentralization of public administration. Paul I sought to centralize management - he abolished the institution of governors and took measures to limit the rights of local noble corporations granted to them by charter. In the document we read: “We grant our loyal nobles permission to gather in the province where they reside, and form a noble society in each governorship and enjoy the following rights, benefits, distinctions and advantages.” The nobility gathers in the province at the “call and permission” of the governor-general or governor, both for the elections entrusted to the nobility and for listening to the proposals of the governor-general or governor, every three years in the winter.

The assembly of the nobility in the viceroyalty was allowed to elect a provincial leader and for this “... every three years, to present two from the district noble leaders to the sovereign governor or ruler, and whichever of these the governor-general or governor appoints, he will be the provincial leader of the nobility of that province.”

The district leader of the nobility was elected by the nobility of that district every three years at balls.

It was necessary to elect ten assessors and two assessors of the conscience court to the Upper Zemstvo Court by the nobility of those districts, “who constitute the jurisdictional department of that upper zemstvo court every three years and are represented by it to the ruler or governor when the governor-general is not in place; and if there is no obvious vice behind them, then the sovereign’s governor or, in the absence of his governorship, confirms the noble choice.”

Ten assessors (the upper zemstvo court and assessors of the conscientious court, the district court and the lower zemstvo court) are elected every three years by the nobility of those districts, “which constitute the jurisdictional department ...” of that court, from the nobles living in the place, or from those in the nobility list of that province are written.

The district or district judge and the zemstvo police officer or captain are elected by the nobility after three years and are presented to the ruler by them; “... and if there is no obvious vice behind them, then the governor confirms the noble choice.” The assessors of the district court and the noble assessors of the lower zemstvo court are elected by the nobility after three years and are presented to the ruler; “...and if there is no obvious vice behind them, then the governor confirms the noble choice.”

The assembly of the nobility was allowed to present to the governor general or the governor about their public needs and benefits, to make representations and complaints through their deputies to both the Senate and the imperial majesty on the basis of legislation.

The assembly of the nobility in each governorate was allowed to have a meeting house in the provincial city, as well as its own archive, seal, treasury, its own secretary and solicitor.

It was proclaimed: “Let the nobility in general not be punished for the personal crime of a nobleman.”

Article 57 contains an important guarantee that assemblies of other classes could not have: “The assembly of the nobility is in no case subject to guards.” At the end of the 18th century. The autocracy trusted the nobility, considering it its strong support.

Articles 58-61 establish the procedure for considering appeals against district courts, noble guardianships, and lower zemstvo courts in the upper zemstvo courts. The procedure for organizing and operating guardianships for noble widows and minors is provided. Noble assemblies also took part in the formation of these institutions.

Articles 62-64 contain an explicit restriction of the rights of the poor nobility, as well as nobles who have never served or whose service was not sufficiently successful: “The assembly of the nobility is prohibited from electing for those positions that, according to the power of institutions, are filled with choice, a nobleman whose income from the villages is lower is one hundred rubles, and who is under twenty-five years old,” who himself does not own the village (he was allowed to be present, but was not given a vote).

It is not entirely clear from Article 65 whether it is necessary to bring a nobleman to trial in order to be excluded from the assembly of the nobility. Perhaps notoriety among the neighbors is enough.

Articles 66-71 regulate the procedure for compiling noble genealogical books. The legislator associates this with the acquisition of noble privileges.

Articles 72-92 regulate in detail the procedure for registering noble genealogical books locally. To be included in these books, entries in which were the legal basis for recognizing the validity of the title of nobility, evidence was required - an approximate list of them is given in the relevant articles. In Art. 92 cites previous legislation on servicemen, in particular the Decree on the abolition of localism in 1682.

Thus, we can conclude that in the Charter (Chapter “B”) the nobility of each province is finally recognized as a legal entity - “local society” (Article 37). As such, it forms governing bodies, creates “share” capital, has its own seal, representation in court and other necessary rights. Moreover, it is “closed” with regard to membership in it, so in chapters “C” and “D” the legislator established strict restrictions on nobles joining the corporation.

Conclusion

Certificate of rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility brought into a coherent system all the privileges of the nobility that had been given to him up to that time and which consolidated his dominant position in politics and economics.

In accordance with it, the nobility was provided with special significant benefits in comparison with other classes - freedom from compulsory service, payment of taxes, the right to own serfs and subsoil within the boundaries of their possessions. The nobles could organize manufactories, engage in industrial production and trade, and were freed from the duty of troops.

For the first time, the right to organize noble meetings in governorships, provinces and districts was granted. The main purpose of their activities was to consolidate and defend noble privileges at the local level, resolve emerging disputes, etc. Election to the governing structures of noble assemblies was limited for those elected by age (not younger than 25 years) and condition (income from villages could not be lower 100 rub.).

Bibliography

1. Belyavsky M.T. Noble empire of the 18th century. Basic legislative acts. Collection of documents. M., 1960.

2. Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. Rostov-on-Don. 1995.

3. Isaev M.A. History of state and law of Russia. M., 1999.

4. History of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 18th century / Ed. Academician B.A. Rybakova.M., 1983.

5. Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I. Reforms in Russia in the 18th century. Experiences in holistic analysis. M., 2001.

6. Korf S.A. The nobility and its class management for the century 1762 - 1855. St. Petersburg, 1906.

7. Omelchenko O.A. “Legitimate monarchy” of Catherine II: enlightened absolutism in Russia. M., 1993.

8. Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. Minsk, 2006.

9.Nosov B.V. On the right to dispose of feudal land property in the 18th century. M.1983.

10. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire since 1649: in 45 volumes, // Printed in the Printing House of the II Department of His Majesty’s Own Chancellery, St. Petersburg, 1830.

11. Romanovich-Slavatinsky A. Nobility in Russia from the beginning. XVIII century before the abolition of serfdom. St. Petersburg, 1879.

12. Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries: Text and comments, in 9 volumes / Under the general editorship. O.I. Chistyakova. T.V: Legislation during the heyday of absolutism./ Rep. ed. E.I. Indova. M., 1987.

13. Sergeevich V.A. Lectures, research on the history of Russian law. M., 1883.

14. Steshko L.A., Shamba T.M. History of state and law of Russia. in 2 volumes: T.I.M.2003.

15. Troitsky S.M. Russia in the 18th century. M., 2002.

16. Filippov A.N. History of Russian law. Lecture notes for the author's students: in IIch., ChI., issue I. Printing house of the Society for the Distribution of Useful Books., M., 1905.

17. Filippov A.N. Textbook of the history of Russian law: in IIch., ChI., edition 5., printed in the printing house of K. Matthiesen., Yuryev, 1914.

18. Khavsky P.V. Collection of legislation on Russian nobles or Charter to the noble nobility with the inclusion of previous and subsequent laws from 1762 to 1823. St. Petersburg, 1996.

19. Chistyakov O.I. Domestic legislation XI-XX centuries: II part., CHI., M. 1983.

20. Chistyakov O.I., Martysevich I.D. History of state and law of the USSR. Ch.I., M., 1985.

21. Cherepnin L.V. The main stages of the development of feudalism in Russia. M., 1998.

22. Encyclopedia of the Russian History of Russia from ancient times to 1917. Volume II. M., 1996.

PSZ, T XVI, No. 17073.

Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. Rostov-on-Don.1995.P.557.

Romanovich-Slavatinsky A. Nobility in Russia from the beginning. XVIII century before the abolition of serfdom. St. Petersburg, 1879. P. 213.

Troitsky S.M. Russia in the 18th century. M., 2002. P. 145.

Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. Minsk, 2006. P.269-270.

Nosov B.V. On the right to dispose of feudal land property in the 18th century. M.1983. P.41.

Khavsky P.V. Collection of legislation on Russian nobles or Charter to the noble nobility with the inclusion of previous and subsequent laws from 1762 to 1823. St. Petersburg, 1996.P.132.

She signed two legislative acts: “Certificate for the rights, liberties and benefits of the noble Russian nobility” and “Certificate for the rights and benefits of the cities of the Russian Empire.”

The “Charter Committed to the Nobility” consisted of an introductory manifesto and four sections (92 articles): About personal advantages of nobles; ABOUTmeeting of nobles, the establishment of a noble society in the province, and the benefits of a noble society; Instructions for composing and continuing a noble genealogy book in the viceroyalty; Evidence of nobility.

The charter brought together and finally consolidated all the privileges of the nobility. In accordance with it, the nobility was provided with special significant benefits in comparison with other classes - freedom from compulsory service, payment of taxes, the right to own serfs and subsoil within the boundaries of their possessions. The nobles could organize manufactories, engage in industrial production and trade, were freed from the duty of troops, and their estates were not subject to confiscation. For the first time, the right to organize noble assemblies in provinces and districts was granted (noble assemblies could make representations to the authorities about their needs). The honor, life and property of a nobleman could henceforth be taken away only after he had committed a crime, proven by a court consisting of his equals. The nobility was now called "noble".

Signed on the same day, the “Charter to the Cities” consisted of an introductory manifesto and fourteen sections: City Regulations; ABOUTcity ​​dwellers. Establishment of a civil society, and the benefits of a civil society; Instructions for composing and continuing a city philistine book; Evidence of the condition of urban inhabitants; ABOUTpersonal benefits of city dwellers, middle class people or townspeople in general; ABOUTguilds and guild benefits in general; ABOUTfirst guild; ABOUTsecond guild; ABOUTthird guild; ABOUTworkshop benefits; ABOUTout-of-town and foreign guests; ABOUTbenefits of eminent citizens; ABOUTcity ​​revenues; ABOUTcity ​​general duma and the city six-vote duma.

The charter established new elected city institutions, expanding the circle of voters and consolidating the foundations of self-government. The townspeople were divided into six categories based on property and social characteristics: “real city dwellers” - property owners from the nobility, officials, and clergy; merchants of the three guilds; artisans registered in workshops; foreigners and non-residents; "famous citizens"; “Posadskie” (all other citizens who live in the city by crafts or handicrafts). In accordance with the Charter, a meeting of the “city society” was convened in cities every three years, which included only the wealthiest citizens. The permanent city body was the “general city council,” consisting of the city mayor and six councilors. Magistrates were the elected judicial institutions in cities.

With the coming to power of Paul I, much changed in the field of class politics. Fighting against the “noble freemen,” Paul abolished a number of provisions of the “Charter of Complaint.” Provincial noble assemblies were liquidated. In 1797, a review was announced for all officers in the regiments; those who did not appear were dismissed. Nobles who did not serve the state were prohibited from participating in noble elections and holding elective positions; contrary to the legislation of Catherine II, corporal punishment was restored for persons of noble birth.

Lit.: Certificate of rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility // Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 5. M., 1987; The same [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www. hist. msu. ru/ER/Etext/dv_gram. htm ; Certificate of rights and benefits to the cities of the Russian Empire // Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 5. M., 1987; The same [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www. hist. msu. ru/ER/Etext/gorgram. htm; Klyuchevsky IN. O. Russian history: a complete course of lectures. M., 2008 // Lecture 79. Letters granted to the nobility and cities; The same [Electronic resource]. URL : http://bibliotekar.ru/rusKluch/79.htm; Essays on the history of the USSR. The period of feudalism. Russia in the second half of the 18th century, M., 1956; Ryndzyunsky P. G., Urban citizenship of pre-reform Russia, M., 1958.

See also in the Presidential Library:

Glebov I. A. Administrative activities of Empress Catherine II // Empress Catherine II. Vilna, 1904. P. 121 ;

Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Essay on the internal policy of Empress Catherine II. Pg., 1898. P. 36 ;

Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire, since 1649. T. 22. No. 16187. St. Petersburg, 1830. P. 344, 358 .

The reign of Catherine II is called the “golden age of the Russian nobility.” A significant role in this was played by the fact that in 1785 the Charter of the Nobility was adopted. Its full name is “Certificate on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility" What kind of document is this, what privileges did the nobles receive under it? Let’s figure it out.

The charter is a rather impressive document in terms of the number of articles. It contained 92 articles, and all of them were about the privileges of the nobility, which stood out sharply among other classes of the country. What rights and privileges did Catherine II grant to the nobles?

Privileges of the nobility

The charter confirmed all the privileges that the nobility had at that time.

The nobility began to be called "noble".

The nobles were exempted from compulsory service (this freedom was proclaimed by the empress literally in the first year of her reign - in 1762).

They didn't have to pay taxes

Nobles were not subject to corporal punishment, even for criminal offenses.

The court under Catherine II was class-based, so only the noble court could judge nobles.

It was impossible to confiscate the property of nobles.

The nobles had the exclusive right to own land and serfs.

They could engage in business and trade. Own all the mineral resources that are located on the territory of their estate.

The estates of the nobles were free from the presence of troops.

Self-government of the nobles expanded. They could choose a noble assembly, which was the body of self-government. They were re-elected to it every three years. At its head was the leader of the nobility (district and provincial).

The nobles themselves elected the court, court assessors, and police captains who headed the district administration.

The meaning of the Letter of Complaint

• The charter significantly strengthened the position of the nobility in society. turning it into the noble, ruling class of society.

  It contributed to the consolidation of the ruling class

  The diploma strengthened the power of the empress, whose support was the nobility.