home Facebook Cancellation of internal customs duties 1754 at com. Cancellation of internal customs duties. The reign of Elizaveta Petrovna

Cancellation of internal customs duties 1754 at com. Cancellation of internal customs duties. The reign of Elizaveta Petrovna

Domestic policy of the second half of the 40-50s. is largely connected with the activities of Count P.I. Shuvalov, who became the de facto head of the Elizabethan government. On his initiative, budget revenues were reoriented from direct taxation to indirect taxation. This made it possible to increase treasury revenues. He felt that the time had come for another customs reform. The most important event in the field of customs policy was the elimination of customs restrictions within the country. The Russian state, the political formation of which took place back in the 15th-16th centuries, was economically until the middle of the 18th century. remained fragmented. Transport and trade duties were levied in each region. In addition to “taxes”, “transports”, “mostovshchina” and others, there were many other “petty fees” that greatly constrained domestic trade.

It was a very bold, progressive step. Suffice it to remember that in France internal customs barriers were eliminated only as a result of the revolution of 1789–1799, and in Germany only by the middle of the 19th century. Shuvalov's report, approved by the Senate, formed the basis of the highest Manifesto on December 20, 1753.

In addition to the enormous state benefit, this event brought considerable benefits to its initiator: he himself received the opportunity for more active commercial and industrial activities and, in addition, accepted rich gifts from the delighted merchants. Treasury losses from the abolition of internal customs duties were more than compensated by an increase in duties on imported goods, which also served the interests of Russian merchants and industrialists.

In 1753-1754 internal duties, as well as all 17 “petty fees” were replaced by a uniform customs duty at the borders of the state, levied on all imported and exported goods at ports at border customs in the amount of 13 kopecks per 1 ruble value (additional taxation of foreign trade should have been, in the opinion of Shuvalov, to compensate for the budget shortfall due to the abolition of internal duties and fees). In 1754, a table of normal prices was published, on the basis of which the new fee was calculated.

Unlike the “efimochny” duty, which was levied according to the 1731 tariff in gold currency, the 13% duty was paid in Russian “walking money,” which made the work of customs officials extremely difficult. The inconsistency of this order was obvious. However, it could not be overcome only through a general revision of the 1731 tariff. This was also prompted by the fact that, firstly, many changes were made to the previous tariff under Elizaveta Petrovna; secondly, it did not include many imported goods that first appeared on the Russian market after 1731; thirdly, duty rates were less and less consistent with their original purpose due to changes in prices for goods; fourthly, the tariff of 1731, based on the idea of liberalizing foreign trade, did not correspond to the protectionist sentiments of Elizabeth Petrovna and her entourage, their desire to provide systematic patronage to everything national.

Revision of the tariff in 1754-1757. was dealt with by a special commission established under the Senate. She developed a system of duties, similar in nature to that established by the tariff of 1714. In many cases, the basis for assigning salaries under the new tariff was a reference to the customs duties of 1724. According to the tariff of 1757, the amount of customs taxation of imported factory products was established depending on mastery of their production in Russia. At the same time, the duty rate increased simultaneously with the increase in the degree of processing of raw materials. Imported goods were subject to a 17.5-25% ad valorem rate (“efim” duty), as well as an “internal” duty, which was levied at port and border customs offices. In total, this amounted to 30-33% of the cost of imports.

The tariff of 1757 turned out to be inconvenient in practical terms. Duties continued to be levied on both metallic currency and "walking" money. The large number and excessive detail of the articles for which customs clearance of homogeneous goods was carried out made it difficult to apply the tariff. Its highly protective nature encouraged smuggling.

In order to combat smuggling, a border guard was established in 1754 as a special corps of troops guarding the border in Ukraine and Livonia. In the same year, customs inspectors were installed at the state border. In order to interest the raiders in the capture of smugglers, it was decided to reward them with a quarter of the confiscated goods.

The customs reform was a success for the treasury: in 1753, the customs gave 1.5 million rubles, and in 1761, 5.7 million rubles. The process of establishing an all-Russian market was accelerated, and domestic trade developed rapidly. Elizabeth's government strongly encouraged the development of foreign trade, combining this line with a policy of protectionism. During the period from 1725 to 1760, Russian exports grew from 4.2 to 10.9 million rubles, and imports from 2.1 to 8.4 million rubles. Russia's foreign trade was focused primarily on Western Europe, where its leading partner was England. Mainly raw materials went to Europe - hemp and flax, and in smaller quantities - Ural iron and linen. Mostly luxury goods, silk fabrics and fine cloth, jewelry, tea, coffee, wine, and spices were purchased there.

The abolition of internal customs duties in the Russian Empire removed obstacles to the development of trade. This reasonable decision was made during the reign of Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great. There were compelling reasons for the elimination of trade barriers within the country. The presence of customs posts on Russian roads infringed on the interests of the merchant class and adversely affected the state of the empire's economy. A law passed in 1754 completely changed this situation.

Protectionism of Peter the Great

At the beginning of the 18th century, the economic policy of the Russian Empire was based on the idea of protecting the domestic market. Customs restrictions served the interests of domestic industry. After the death of Peter the Great, a different era began. At the imperial court, the influence of favorites of foreign origin, who did not care about the economic development of Russia, increased. By decree of Tsarina Anna Ioannovna, the protectionist policy developed by Peter the Great was canceled.

The reign of Elizaveta Petrovna

The accession to the throne of the new empress changed the views of the ruling elite on the country's economic problems and ways to solve them. During the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, it became obvious that one of the most serious obstacles to the development of domestic industry and trade was the internal customs system. There were 17 different duties that merchants were forced to pay when transporting goods within the territory of the Russian Empire.

Bill

The initiator and inspirer of the reform of the customs system was Count Pyotr Shuvalov. This statesman actually led the government of Elizabeth Petrovna. Count Shuvalov prepared a project for the abolition of internal customs duties. He presented a report to the Senate justifying the need for this reform. The main goal of lifting restrictions on the transport of goods within the country was to increase revenues to the state treasury. The project to abolish internal customs duties received approval from the Senate. It became the basis of the law approved by Elizaveta Petrovna.

Lack of a common market

At that time, the Russian Empire was a single political and administrative space, divided by economic borders. This made the costs of moving goods within the country unreasonably high. Numerous fees and transportation costs could add up to half the cost of the goods. This caused sharp discontent among the merchant class. Duties were collected in each province. In addition to the main fees, there were a large number of secondary ones. On average, there was one customs post for every 20 kilometers of travel.

Reasons for cancellation

The complex and confusing system of trade fees on the roads gave rise to corruption and abuse. The state authorities did not have the resources necessary to eradicate these phenomena. From a practical point of view, establishing total control over customs officials was impossible. The only way to solve this problem was to completely eliminate the ineffective system. According to the author of the project for the abolition of internal customs duties, this was supposed to contribute to the explosive growth of trade and industry. In addition, Count Shuvalov proposed an alternative source of replenishment of the treasury. In his opinion, it was necessary to increase the fees imposed on export and import goods at the external borders of the state.

It is worth noting that the abolition of internal customs duties, approved by Elizabeth Petrovna, was a progressive step by the standards of the 18th century. In France and Germany, trade barriers within the territory of the state remained in place for several decades.

Carrying out reforms

The abolition of internal customs duties in 1754 was carried out quickly and in an organized manner. All trade tolls on roads within the empire ceased. Only border customs remained, where duties on exports and imports of goods were increased to 13%. Tax amounts were calculated on the basis of a special table of standard prices for various types of raw materials and industrial products. The reforms did not lead to the eradication of corruption, but in general the abolition of internal customs duties in Russia achieved its goal.

World History in ten volumes. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of History.

Institute of Asian Peoples. African Institute. Institute of Slavic Studies. Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature “Mysl”. Edited by: V.V. Kurasova, A.M.

Nekricha, E.A. Boltina, A.Ya. Grunta, N.G. Pavlenko, S.P. Platonova, A.M. Samsonova, S.L. Tikhvinsky. The development of domestic trade prompted the government to make major changes in its economic policy.

They were determined both by the interests of the trading nobility, who sought the elimination of trade monopolies and restrictions, and by the interests of the merchants. In the middle of the 18th century. 17 different types of internal customs duties were levied.

The existence of internal customs duties hampered the development of the all-Russian market. By decree of December 20, 1753, internal customs duties were abolished. Equally important for the growth of trade and industry was the abolition of the decree of 1767.

and the manifesto of 1775 industrial monopolies and the proclamation of freedom of industry and trade. Peasants were given the opportunity to freely engage in “handicrafts” and sell industrial products, which contributed to a more rapid development of small-scale commodity production into capitalist manufacture. The abolition of monopolies, which were, as a rule, in the hands of court favorites, was also beneficial to the broad masses of merchants.

The Arkhangelsk merchants enthusiastically greeted the destruction of P.'s monopoly.

I. Shuvalov for seal fishing in the White Sea and for tobacco and organized celebrations with fireworks and illuminations for this occasion.

Despite the ultimately aristocratic nature of the government's economic policy, this policy objectively, contrary to the will and intentions of the autocracy and the nobility, led to the growth of capitalist relations, promoting the development of capitalist entrepreneurship of the peasants and accelerating the decomposition of feudal-serf relations.

However, the progress of these interventions was limited. Even when proclaiming freedom of industrial activity, the autocracy still had in mind primarily the interests of the nobility. The class system in Russia limited the transition of peasants to merchants.

Freedom of industrial activity was understood as freedom of noble enterprise. The merchants sharply opposed such a noble understanding of free trade and industrial activity, considering trade and crafts in general to be their privilege and believing that the nobility should “practice solely in agriculture,” because trade and industry are not at all a noble matter. The interests of the merchants were especially affected by the trade of the peasants, who, in the opinion of the merchants, had to cultivate the land, “and this is their lot.”

Rapidly growing domestic and foreign trade prompted the tsarist government to also take into account the interests of the merchants.

A Commercial Bank was established to provide credit to merchants; in order to develop foreign trade, a number of agreements are concluded; children of merchants are sent abroad at public expense to study commercial sciences.

Revision of the tariff in 1754-1757.

was dealt with by a special commission established under the Senate. She developed a system of duties, similar in nature to that established by the tariff of 1714. In many cases, the basis for assigning salaries under the new tariff was a reference to the customs duties of 1724. According to the tariff of 1757, the amount of customs taxation of imported factory products was established depending on mastery of their production in Russia. At the same time, the duty rate increased simultaneously with the increase in the degree of processing of raw materials. Imported goods were subject to a 17.5-25% ad valorem rate (“efim” duty), as well as an “internal” duty, which was levied at port and border customs offices. In total, this amounted to 30-33% of the cost of imports.

The tariff of 1757 turned out to be inconvenient in practical terms.

Abolition of internal customs duties in Russia in 1754

Duties continued to be levied on both metallic currency and "walking" money. The large number and excessive detail of the articles for which customs clearance of homogeneous goods was carried out made it difficult to apply the tariff. Its highly protective nature encouraged smuggling.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS
in the second half of the 18th century.

Publication date: 2014-10-19; Read: 5134 | Page copyright infringement

Reasons for the need to abolish internal customs duties of the Russian Empire

Its highly protective nature encouraged smuggling.

In general, the trade and economic policy of the administration of Empress Elizabeth was successful and, of course, favored the development of Russia. Here Elizaveta Petrovna achieved greater results than in domestic politics itself, where the mixing of powers continued and favoritism, corruption and bureaucracy flourished.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS
AND CUSTOMS POLICY OF RUSSIA
in the second half of the 18th century.

⇐ Previous16171819202122232425Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-19; Read: 5135 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…

Cancellation of internal customs duties History of external customs duties in Russia

At the same time, the duty rate increased simultaneously with the increase in the degree of processing of raw materials. Imported goods were subject to a 17.5-25% ad valorem rate (“efim” duty), as well as an “internal” duty, which was levied at port and border customs offices. In total, this amounted to 30-33% of the cost of imports.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS
AND CUSTOMS POLICY OF RUSSIA
in the second half of the 18th century.

⇐ Previous16171819202122232425Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-19; Read: 5133 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…

In 1753-1754

internal duties, as well as all 17 “petty fees” were replaced by a uniform customs duty at the borders of the state, levied on all imported and exported goods at ports at border customs in the amount of 13 kopecks per 1 ruble value (additional taxation of foreign trade should have been, in the opinion of Shuvalov, to compensate for the budget shortfall due to the abolition of internal duties and fees). In 1754, a table of normal prices was published, on the basis of which the new fee was calculated.

Cancellation of internal customs duties in Russia

During the period from 1725 to 1760, Russian exports grew from 4.2 to 10.9 million rubles, and imports from 2.1 to 8.4 million rubles. Russia's foreign trade was focused primarily on Western Europe, where its leading partner was England. Mainly raw materials went to Europe - hemp and flax, and in smaller quantities - Ural iron and linen. Mostly luxury goods, silk fabrics and fine cloth, jewelry, tea, coffee, wine, and spices were purchased there.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS
AND CUSTOMS POLICY OF RUSSIA
in the second half of the 18th century.

⇐ Previous16171819202122232425Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-19; Read: 5132 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…

Cancellation of internal customs duties who canceled

The Russian state, the political formation of which took place back in the 15th-16th centuries, was economically until the middle of the 18th century. remained fragmented. Transport and trade duties were levied in each region. In addition to “taxes”, “transports”, “mostovshchina” and others, there were many other “petty fees” that greatly constrained domestic trade.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS
AND CUSTOMS POLICY OF RUSSIA
in the second half of the 18th century.

⇐ Previous16171819202122232425Next ⇒

Publication date: 2014-10-19; Read: 5151 | Page copyright infringement

Studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…

Types of personnel policy Direct and indirect tax How to close a LLC branch in another city

Domestic policy of the second half of the 40-50s. is largely connected with the activities of Count P.I. Shuvalov, who became the de facto head of the Elizabethan government. On his initiative, budget revenues were reoriented from direct taxation to indirect taxation. This made it possible to increase treasury revenues. He felt that the time had come for another customs reform. The most important event in the field of customs policy was the elimination of customs restrictions within the country. The Russian state, the political formation of which took place back in the 15th-16th centuries, was economically until the middle of the 18th century. remained fragmented. Transport and trade duties were levied in each region. In addition to “washing”, “transportation”, “bridging”, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
There were also many “petty fees” that greatly constrained internal trade.

It was a very bold, progressive step. Suffice it to remember that in France, internal customs barriers were eliminated only as a result of the revolution of 1789–1799, and in Germany - only in the middle of the 19th century. Shuvalov's report, approved by the Senate, formed the basis of the highest Manifesto on December 20, 1753.

In 1753-1754. internal duties, as well as all 17 “petty fees” were replaced by a uniform customs duty at the borders of the state, levied on all imported and exported goods at the port and border customs in the amount of 13 kopecks per 1 ruble of value (an additional tax on foreign trade was supposed to according to Shuvalov, to compensate for the budget shortfall due to the abolition of internal duties and fees). In 1754 ᴦ. a table of normal prices was issued, on the basis of which the new fee was calculated.

In contrast to the “efimochny” duty, levied according to the tariff of 1731 ᴦ. in gold currency, the 13% duty was paid in Russian “running money,” which made the work of customs officials extremely difficult. The inconsistency of this order was obvious. However, it could not be overcome only through a general revision of the 1731 tariff. This was also prompted by the fact that, firstly, many changes were made to the previous tariff under Elizaveta Petrovna; secondly, it did not include many imported goods that first appeared on the Russian market after 1731; thirdly, duty rates were less and less consistent with their original purpose due to changes in prices for goods; fourthly, the tariff of 1731, based on the idea of liberalizing foreign trade, did not correspond to the protectionist sentiments of Elizabeth Petrovna and her entourage, their desire to provide systematic patronage to everything national.

Revision of the tariff in 1754-1757. was dealt with by a special commission established under the Senate. She developed a system of duties, similar in nature to that established by the tariff of 1714. In many cases, the basis for assigning salaries at the new tariff was a reference to customs duties of 1724 ᴦ. According to the tariff 1757 ᴦ. the amount of customs taxation of imported factory products was established based on the development of their production in Russia. At the same time, the duty rate increased simultaneously with the increase in the degree of processing of raw materials. Imported goods were subject to a 17.5-25% ad valorem rate ("efomochny" duty), as well as an "internal" duty, which was levied at port and border customs. In total, this amounted to 30-33% of the cost of imports.

Tariff 1757 ᴦ. turned out to be inconvenient in practical terms. Duties continued to be levied on both metallic currency and “current” money. The large number and excessive detail of the articles for which customs clearance of homogeneous goods was carried out made it difficult to apply the tariff. Its highly protective nature encouraged smuggling.

In order to combat smuggling in 1754 ᴦ. A border guard was established as a special corps of troops guarding the border in Ukraine and Livonia. In the same year, customs inspectors were installed at the state border. In order to interest the raiders in the capture of smugglers, it was decided to reward them with a quarter of the confiscated goods.

Customs reform was a success for the treasury: in 1753 ᴦ. customs gave 1.5 million rubles, and in 1761 ᴦ. 5.7 million rub. The process of establishing an all-Russian market was accelerated, and domestic trade developed rapidly. Elizabeth's government strongly encouraged the development of foreign trade, combining this line with a policy of protectionism. For the period from 1725 ᴦ. to 1760 ᴦ. Russian exports increased from 4.2 to 10.9 million rubles, and imports from 2.1 to 8.4 million rubles. Russia's foreign trade was focused primarily on Western Europe, where its leading partner was England. Mainly raw materials went to Europe - hemp and flax, and in smaller quantities - Ural iron and linen. Mostly luxury goods, silk fabrics and fine cloth, jewelry, tea, coffee, wine, and spices were purchased there.

Topic 9. CUSTOMS AFFAIRS AND CUSTOMS POLICY OF RUSSIA in the second half of the 18th century.

§ 50. Socio-economic policy

Nobility. Under Peter the Great, the nobility was a service class, burdened with lifelong military service and the obligation to study. After Peter, there was a slow process of liberating the nobility from duties and transforming it from the service class into landowning, who cared most about his household.

The government of Anna Ivanovna in 1730, meeting the wishes of the nobility, abolished the decree on single inheritance, and the following year established the Land Noble Corps. The number of students in it was limited, and therefore the network of class educational institutions for the nobility expanded significantly in subsequent decades: the Naval Academy was transformed into the Naval Noble Cadet Corps, and in 1762 the Artillery and Engineering Schools were reorganized into the Artillery and Engineering Noble Corps. The Corps of Pages, founded in 1759, prepared the children of nobles for court and civil service.

If in the time of Peter I, studying in schools was considered a burdensome duty, now child-loving parents went to great lengths to place their children in some cadet corps - studying there became prestigious. The obligation thus turned into a privilege.

Simultaneously with the expansion of the network of class educational institutions, children of parents who had over a thousand serfs were allowed to receive home education.

The government satisfied the demand of the gentry projects to reduce the service life. True, by the manifesto of December 31, 1736, it was set at 25 years, and not at 20, as the nobles demanded. Since the manifesto was published during the Russian-Turkish War, its implementation began in 1740.

The nobles, however, were burdened by the 25-year service period and sought complete exemption from it. This issue was intensively discussed under Elizaveta Petrovna in the mid-1750s. And even then he matured so much that Manifesto Peter III about the freedom of the nobility 18th of Febuary 1762 repeated his words verbatim.

Both the small landed nobles and the nobles who owned many hundreds of serfs and hastened to retire soon returned to service - the salary turned out to be necessary for them.

Peasants. To the privileges of the nobility discussed above, one more should be added - the expansion of the rights to personality and the results of the peasant’s labor, which also constituted one of the cornerstones of government policy.

The labor of the peasant was the source of well-being for himself, the state and the landowner. Of the numerous duties of peasants and townspeople, one was fixed (the size of which was precisely established) - payment of a poll tax of 70 kopecks. from a male peasant soul that belonged to a landowner, monastery or palace department, 1 rub. 10 kopecks – from state peasants and 1 rub. 20 kopecks - from the townspeople.

Another tax obligation of peasants and townspeople - recruitment - was not a constant value and depended on whether recruitment was carried out in peacetime or wartime, as well as on losses in the theater of military operations. Non-fixed duties included periodically collecting dragoon horses, attracting peasants and townspeople for construction work, transporting goods, etc.

Duties in favor of the landowner were also not regulated, but their size was constantly increasing. The growth of landowner duties can be more easily traced in the size of the peasant quitrent: in the mid-1720s. it was equal to 40 kopecks. from a man’s soul, that is, it was almost 2 times less than the poll tax. Throughout the 18th century. the size of the per capita tax remained unchanged, while the monetary rent was constantly increasing and by the middle of the century reached 1 - 2 rubles, and by the end of the century - 4 - 5 rubles.

In order for the landowner to have the opportunity to extract an increased quitrent or force the peasant to devote more time to corvée, it was necessary to grant the master additional rights in the fields of judicial, police and administrative. The legislation on this subject is extremely poor - it was not so much the law as the common law that was in force here.

An important source of customary law are patrimonial instructions to clerks. Each landowner's instruction reflected the master's personality, his moral character, the degree of education and mercy. Some of them persecuted laziness and discourtesy, others considered drunkenness to be the main vice, others considered theft and turned a blind eye to drunkenness, others unceremoniously invaded family life, etc. Only three types of crimes were excluded from the punitive power of the master and his clerks: political , robbery and murder.

It would, however, be wrong to limit ourselves to a presentation of the punitive functions of the master and the regulation of the economic and spiritual life of dependent peasants. The votchinnik also acted as a caring owner, concerned about the well-being of the peasant family, because he understood that his own well-being was directly dependent on the wealth of the peasant family. Hence the readiness to help a peasant who finds himself in trouble: in case of loss of livestock, destruction of crops, fire, deprivation of a breadwinner, etc. Such guardianship is called paternalism, it is organically inherent in a society with a patriarchal way of life.

Patronage of noble entrepreneurship. The economic policy of the government, as well as the social policy closely related to it, was also carried out primarily in the interests of the nobility. Its goal was to help landowners adapt to new conditions - the penetration of market relations into the estate. Landowners were no longer content with selling surplus agricultural products on the market in their original form and began to process them, which brought in immeasurably more income than the sale of grain, hemp, wool, etc. The most important industry in the processing of agricultural raw materials was distillation.

Supplies of wine to the treasury in the first half of the 18th century. Both merchants and landowners were engaged, but the latter, due to the obligation to perform lifelong service in the army, were deprived of the opportunity to closely engage in economic concerns: in 1719 - 1725. landowner distilleries supplied the treasury with less than 1/5 of the wine. As the official concerns of the nobles weakened and their farms were involved in market relations, the ability of the estates to satisfy the demand for wine increased. In the early 1750s. The government became convinced of the ability of noble distilleries, together with state-owned distilleries, to abundantly supply drinking yards with wine. As a result, in 1754, a decree was issued prohibiting merchants from distilling distillation: they were asked to break down their distilleries within six months or sell them to the nobles. Distillation was thus declared a monopoly of the nobility, and the landowners got rid of their competitors in the form of merchants.

In the 1740s - 1750s. the beginning was laid for noble entrepreneurship in other industries, where nobles could use their own raw materials in linen and cloth factories.

Prohibition of buying peasants into merchant manufactories. In 1721, Peter I granted the right to industrialists to buy serfs for manufactories, thereby violating the monopoly right of the nobles to own serfs. The right of peasants to purchase manufactories was one of the most important privileges of merchant industrialists, and they made wide use of this right, because it provided their enterprises with cheap labor. By 1780, there were over 76 thousand souls of purchased male peasants among the manufacturers.

By decree of 1762, Peter III prohibited the purchase of peasants for factories. This prohibition had three consequences: the monopoly right of the nobles to soul ownership was restored; noble entrepreneurs gained an advantage over merchant industrialists; The third consequence of the decree was the expansion of the use of hired labor in industry, which in the long term led to the spread of more advanced relations in production.

Manufacturers stubbornly sought the restoration of the lost privilege, but the government sacredly looked after the interests of the nobles and numerous petitions and speeches of deputies in the Statutory Commission of 1767 - 1768. left without consequences.

Establishment of banks. The government used another means of helping the nobles - it provided them with cheap credit and thereby saved them from the danger of ending up in the tenacious arms of moneylenders. We are talking about the creation of two banks in 1754 - Noble And Merchant. The government's preferential attitude towards the interests of the nobles is evidenced by the amount of initial capital in banks and the conditions for issuing loans: the initial capital of the Noble Bank was 750 thousand rubles, while the Merchant Bank was only 500 thousand rubles; The loan repayment period in the Noble Bank reached three years, while in the Kupechesky Bank it was six months.

In theory, the Noble Bank was intended to support the initiatives of the nobles in restructuring their economy. In practice, the bank did not live up to these hopes, because the lion's share of bank loans ended up in the hands of nobles, who used them not for investing in the economy, but for consumer needs. Thus, a bank loan for the nobles, like the distribution of state-owned factories, was government-sanctioned robbery of the treasury.

Cancellation of internal customs duties. Catherine II wrote about the projects of P.I. Shuvalov that they “although not very useful for society, are quite profitable for him.” However, one of his reforms turned out to be useful not only to him and dozens of nobles, but also to the entire country, to all segments of its population. It was precisely this national significance that the collection of internal customs duties, which was abolished at his proposal, had. Submitting his project to the Senate in 1752, Shuvalov argued for the harmful impact of collecting duties on peasant trade: a peasant who delivered a cart of firewood from Trinity to Moscow could earn 15–20 kopecks for it. From this amount, he must pay a tax in Moscow, pavement in both directions, spend the money on himself and on the horse, so that in the end he will bring home hardly half of the proceeds.

Since the collection of customs duties replenished the revenue side of the state budget, the Senate rejected the project. The projector invented a simple way out of the situation, unanimously approved by the Senate: it was found that over the past five years the average annual amount of customs duties was 903.5 thousand rubles. It was decided to shift this amount to the import and export of goods, increasing the duty here by 3% of the price of the goods. As a result, it reached 13%, and the treasury received a benefit of 255 thousand rubles from the reform.

Main result abolition of the collection of internal customs duties V 1754– eliminating obstacles to domestic trade, which had a beneficial effect on the economic development of the country.

Secularization process. The position of the church also changed. In its history, two different in content, but interconnected plots can be traced: one of them is the secularization process, that is, the confiscation of land and peasants from the clergy; the second plot concerns purely church affairs: maintaining the purity of faith, the fight against schism and sectarianism, the Christianization of non-Russian peoples, the printing and distribution of church literature.

The partial secularization of church estates, carried out by Peter I in 1701, was canceled in 1721. The fate of church estates was returned to in 1726, when, under the pretext that the attention of the Synod was focused on the management of estates to the detriment of purely church concerns, they decided to divide it was divided into two departments, with the first department consisting exclusively of spiritual hierarchs, and the second - of secular ranks. The first department managed all the spiritual affairs of the church; everything related to the household and judicial matters was transferred to the care of the second.

Soon after the reform of 1726, the second department was called the College of Economy. In April 1738 it was subordinated to the Senate. Things were moving toward secularization, but the following circumstances prevented this: the author of the secularization project, P. I. Musin-Pushkin, became involved in the trial of A. P. Volynsky, fell into disgrace and was removed from office. Six months later, Anna Ivanovna also died, so the census of church property that had begun ceased. Moreover, under Anna Leopoldovna, the Synod managed to return the estates to its control.

After the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne, the Synod achieved another, by the way the last, victory - the liquidation of the College of Economy and the creation in its place of the Office of the Synodal Economic Board, which was completely subordinate to the Synod and staffed by clergy, not secular officials.

The hesitation of governments testifies to the stubborn defense of the spiritual feudal lords of their rights to land and soul ownership and their no less stubborn resistance to secularization. On the other hand, behind these fluctuations it is not difficult to discern a general trend: the inevitability of secularization and the approach of its completion. Even the devout Elizaveta Petrovna in 1757 declared the need to remove the management of estates from the hands of monastic servants and transfer them to staff and chief officers, to draw up inventories of the property of monasteries, to establish the amount of duties from monastic peasants, equal to those received by landowners from their peasants.

A new impulse in the secularization of monastic estates is associated with the name of Peter III, who was not burdened with sympathies for either the clergy or the Orthodox faith. The decree of February 16, 1762 freed monastics “from everyday and worldly cares” and confiscated the real and movable property of monasteries and churches for the benefit of the state.

Spread of Christianity. Having come to terms with the role of an institution entirely subordinate to secular power, the Synod focused on the spread of Christianity among the Gentiles of the Middle Volga region and Siberia, as well as the education of the clergy.

The first attempts to convert people of other faiths to Christianity date back to the 17th century, but Christianization had not yet become widespread. This was explained by the prohibition of resorting to violence, as well as by the fact that the baptized peoples of Siberia (Khanty, Voguls, Mansi) were exempt from paying yasak, which was detrimental to the interests of the treasury. Under Peter I, on the contrary, forced Christianization was carried out, and a decree of 1710 threatened those who refused to accept Christianity with the death penalty. In subsequent decades, they returned to the practice of encouraging those who converted to Christianity by exempting them from paying yasak.

Often baptism was formal. The newly baptized, freed from paying yasak and receiving free salt, flour, clothes, but not knowing the Russian language and not understanding the essence of the new religion for him, continued to pray to idols, did not venerate icons and, in order to receive benefits and gifts, was baptized again.

More serious successes were achieved in the Christianization of the peoples of the Volga region, especially after the establishment in 1740 of the Office of Newly Baptized Affairs. According to her data, most likely exaggerated, in 15 years (1741 - 1756) she baptized 407 thousand Chuvash, Cheremis, and Udmurts. Christianity, in comparison with idolatry and shamanism, represented a more perfect religious system, and therefore the missionary activity of Orthodox priests deserves a positive assessment.

The Synod was in charge of schools for the children of the clergy. By the early 1740s. there were up to 17 seminaries in the country, and by the early 1760s. there were already 26 of them with 6 thousand students. The church, thus, played the role of a disseminator of education: often in the village the priest and the sexton were the only literate people, and not only peasants, but also landowners used their services to educate their children.

Questions and tasks

Remember what secularization is. Think about why the solution to this issue, which began under Peter I, dragged on for a long time. When answering, use the text on p. 411 textbooks. 8. What goals did the Christianization of non-Russian peoples pursue? By what methods was it carried out? Evaluate its consequences. This text is an introductory fragment.