Knyazhevich Minister of Finance. Alexander Maksimovich Knyazhevich: biography. Russian statesman, senator

OH, ALEXEY MAKSIMOVITCH! Gorky wanted to see and saw a lot of evil in America. I also saw the root cause of this evil - in wealth, in the Yellow Devil. “People’s faces are motionless calm - none of them must feel the misfortune of being a slave to life, the food of a city-monster. IN

MAKSIMOVICH

MAKSIMOVICH Ivan Petrovich, prot. (1807–61), Russian. Orthodox church historian and *Hebraist. He graduated from KDA, where he later was prof. by department euro language. M. participated in the preparatory work for the publication of * syn. Bible translation. When St. The Synod addressed theological academies with an appeal

Alexander Maksimovich Knyazhevich(October 11, 1792, Ufa - March 2, 1872, St. Petersburg) - Russian statesman, senator (since 1854), honorary guardian (since September 2, 1855), active privy councilor(from April 12, 1859), Minister of Finance of Russia (from March 23, 1858 to January 23, 1862), member of the State Council (from January 23, 1862).

Alexander Knyazhevich was born into a family of immigrants from Serbia. His father Knyazhevich, Maxim Dmitrievich, fled through Austria to Russia in 1773 and was accepted into service in the cavalry guards. Later, after retiring, he served on civil service- was the provincial prosecutor in Ufa, where his son Alexander was born. After the dissolution of the Ufa province in 1797, the family moved to Kazan, where the father received the position of chairman of the treasury chamber. Alexander Knyazhevich was educated first at the Kazan gymnasium, and then, in 1805, he entered Kazan University. He studied roughly and was in good standing. Thus, there is a known case when in the senior year a professor fell ill, the faculty assigned Knyazhevich (as the best student) to lecture his friends on pure mathematics. At this moment he was only 17 years old.

In 1811, Alexander Knyazhevich, together with his three brothers, moved to St. Petersburg, where he entered the service in Expedition of state revenues, soon included in the Ministry of Finance. In 1815, Alexander Knyazhevich was sent to Vienna as part of the commission to liquidate post-war settlements between Russia and Austria following the results of the Congress of Vienna. During the work of the commission, Knyazhevich became close to the intendant general (and future minister of finance) Yegor Kankrin and long years became his close collaborator. In addition to fulfilling his position, Knyazhevich, together with his brothers, was also interested in literary pursuits. In 1822, the Knyazhevich brothers jointly published the “Library for Reading,” which included a selection of translations of foreign fiction. Publishing activity gave Knyazhevich additional acquaintances and connections in literary circles.

In 1823, Alexander Knyazhevich married the daughter of Baroness Wistinghausen (director of the Patriotic Institute), who was close to the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. After this, Knyazhevich’s career began to move a little faster. In the 1830s, he was in charge of the affairs of the committee for the improvement of agriculture, but still only after twenty years of exemplary service he received his first significant position - vice director of the state treasury department. Quite soon after this appointment, he took up the higher post of director of the office of the Minister of Finance, and in 1844 became director of the department of the state treasury.

During his years of service in the Ministry of Finance, Knyazhevich acquired a reputation as a moderate reformer, a liberal, calm person and not prone to extremes. As a rule, he did not come up with his own initiatives and projects, but readily supported those changes that seemed to him acceptable moderate. So, back in 1852, Knyazhevich, together with Pavel Gagarin, supported the project of Adjutant General Pavel Kiselyov for reforms in the matter of state audit. As a result of court intrigues and opposition from the conservative party at court, Nicholas I rejected this project.

But later, in 1859-61, when Alexander’s reforms were in full swing, Knyazhevich also adhered to the so-called “average” project of peasant reform (more moderate than that supported by Alexander II, but more courageous than the purely conservative project of the same Prince Paul Gagarin). However, the project presented by the Minister of Agriculture, General Mikhail Nikolaevich Muravyov, did not have any success and ultimately only secured Knyazhevich’s reputation as a “man of the old school” and a moderate reformer.

In general, Alexander Knyazhevich’s career did not develop quickly or smoothly. Despite his long acquaintance with the Minister of Finance Kankrin, apparently, Knyazhevich had many ill-wishers. And the Minister of Finance himself did not like him too much. Being ex-officio director of the minister's office, and then director of the state treasury department, that is, right hand minister and his faithful student, in society Knyazhevich for many years had a reputation as his likely successor. However, in 1840, Yegor Kankrin, going abroad for treatment, to everyone’s surprise, entrusted the management of the ministry not to Knyazhevich, but to the lower-ranking Fyodor Vronchenko, who managed the special office for the credit department. For the sake of this appointment, Kankrin specially elevated Fyodor Vronchenko to the rank of Comrade Minister of Finance (that is, made him his deputy). Knyazhevich himself explained this unfortunate circumstance by the fact that the most important part of financial management at that moment was credit policy.

There are also versions that Knyazhevich’s appointment as Kankrin’s successor, or at least as a fellow minister, was prevented by his well-known financial participation in drinking tax farming in some circles. And although this participation was almost nominal (Knyazhevich himself and his brothers simply provided their capital to tax farmers for collateral for tax farming), this circumstance was later fully used for intrigues against him. Thus, due to the malfunction of a certain tax farmer, rumors arose about bribery, allegedly widespread in the Ministry of Finance. Naturally, these gossip temporarily harmed Knyazhevich, although they had no basis. Most likely, the court intrigue had as its goal the Minister Kankrin himself, and not Knyazhevich, for whom it had no consequences other than not being appointed to the post of comrade minister.

As a result, the same Fyodor Vronchenko managed the Ministry of Finance during Kankrin’s next trip abroad, and in 1844, after Yegor Kankrin’s final retirement, he took over the post of minister. All these years, Knyazhevich continued to remain, essentially, the second person in the Ministry of Finance. But even with the death of Vronchenko in 1852, the post of Minister of Finance was again given not to Knyazhevich, but to Pyotr Brok, a man frankly incompetent in financial matters, but who had extensive connections and had held the position until that moment Administrator of the Committee of Ministers.

Five years (under Minister Brock) became the most difficult years in the career of Alexander Knyazhevich. Having already had forty years of service and professional experience by that time, Knyazhevich often challenged the judgments and proposals of the new minister, which very soon caused his natural irritation. As a result, in 1854, Knyazhevich, under a plausible pretext, was removed from the Ministry of Finance, receiving an honorary appointment to the Senate. Soon after, he also received a position primal presence in the department of heralds.

Alexander Knyazhevich was born into a family of immigrants from Serbia. His father fled through Austria to Russia in 1773 and was accepted into service in the cavalry guards. Later, after retiring, he was in the civil service - he was the provincial prosecutor in Ufa, where his son Alexander was born. After the dissolution of the Ufa province in 1797, the family moved to Kazan, where the father received the position of chairman of the treasury chamber. Alexander Knyazhevich was educated first at the Kazan gymnasium, and then, in 1805, he entered Kazan University. He studied roughly and was in good standing. Thus, there is a known case when in the senior year a professor fell ill, the faculty assigned Knyazhevich (as the best student) to lecture his friends on pure mathematics. At this moment he was only 17 years old.

In 1811, Alexander Knyazhevich, together with his three brothers, moved to St. Petersburg, where he joined the State Revenue Expedition, which was soon included in the Ministry of Finance. In 1815, Alexander Knyazhevich was sent to Vienna as part of the commission to liquidate post-war settlements between Russia and Austria following the results of the Congress of Vienna. During the work of the commission, Knyazhevich became close to the intendant general (and future minister of finance) Yegor Kankrin and became his close collaborator for many years. In addition to fulfilling his position, Knyazhevich, together with his brothers, was also interested in literary pursuits. In 1822, the Knyazhevich brothers jointly published the “Library for Reading,” which included a selection of translations of foreign fiction. Publishing activity gave Knyazhevich additional acquaintances and connections in literary circles.

In 1823, Alexander Knyazhevich married the daughter of Baroness Wistinghausen (director of the Patriotic Institute), who was close to the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. After this, Knyazhevich’s career began to move a little faster. In the 1830s, he was in charge of the affairs of the committee for the improvement of agriculture, but still only after twenty years of exemplary service he received his first significant position - vice director of the state treasury department. Quite soon after this appointment, he took up the higher post of director of the office of the Minister of Finance, and in 1844 became director of the department of the state treasury.

During his years of service in the Ministry of Finance, Knyazhevich acquired a reputation as a moderate reformer, a liberal, calm person and not prone to extremes. As a rule, he did not come up with his own initiatives and projects, but readily supported those changes that seemed to him acceptable moderate. So, back in 1852, Knyazhevich, together with Pavel Gagarin, supported the project of Adjutant General Pavel Kiselyov for reforms in the matter of state audit. As a result of court intrigues and opposition from the conservative party at court, Nicholas I rejected this project.

But later, in 1859-61, when Alexander’s reforms were in full swing, Knyazhevich also adhered to the so-called “average” project of peasant reform (more moderate than that supported by Alexander II, but more courageous than the purely conservative project of the same Prince Paul Gagarin). However, the project presented by the Minister of Agriculture, General Mikhail Nikolaevich Muravyov, did not have any success and ultimately only secured Knyazhevich’s reputation as a “man of the old school” and a moderate reformer.

In general, Alexander Knyazhevich’s career did not develop quickly or smoothly. Despite his long acquaintance with the Minister of Finance Kankrin, apparently, Knyazhevich had many ill-wishers. And the Minister of Finance himself did not like him too much. Being ex-officio the director of the minister's office, and then the director of the state treasury department, that is, the minister's right hand and his faithful student, Knyazhevich had a reputation in society for many years as his likely successor. However, in 1840, Yegor Kankrin, going abroad for treatment, to everyone’s surprise, entrusted the management of the ministry not to Knyazhevich, but to the lower-ranking Fyodor Vronchenko, who managed the special office for the credit department. For the sake of this appointment, Kankrin specially elevated Fyodor Vronchenko to the rank of Comrade Minister of Finance (that is, made him his deputy). Knyazhevich himself explained this unfortunate circumstance by the fact that the most important part of financial management at that moment was credit policy.

There are also versions that Knyazhevich’s appointment as Kankrin’s successor, or at least as a fellow minister, was prevented by his well-known financial participation in drinking tax farming in some circles. And although this participation was almost nominal (Knyazhevich himself and his brothers simply provided their capital to tax farmers for collateral for tax farming), this circumstance was later fully used for intrigues against him. Thus, due to the malfunction of a certain tax farmer, rumors arose about bribery, allegedly widespread in the Ministry of Finance. Naturally, these gossip temporarily harmed Knyazhevich, although they had no basis. Most likely, the court intrigue had as its goal the Minister Kankrin himself, and not Knyazhevich, for whom it had no consequences other than not being appointed to the post of comrade minister.

As a result, the same Fyodor Vronchenko managed the Ministry of Finance during Kankrin’s next trip abroad, and in 1844, after Yegor Kankrin’s final retirement, he took over the post of minister. All these years, Knyazhevich continued to remain, essentially, the second person in the Ministry of Finance. But even with the death of Vronchenko in 1852, the post of Minister of Finance was again given not to Knyazhevich, but to Pyotr Brock, a man who was frankly incompetent in financial matters, but who had extensive connections and until that moment held the position of manager of the affairs of the Committee of Ministers.

Five years (under Minister Brock) became the most difficult years in the career of Alexander Knyazhevich. Having already had forty years of service and professional experience by that time, Knyazhevich often challenged the judgments and proposals of the new minister, which very soon caused his natural irritation. As a result, in 1854, Knyazhevich, under a plausible pretext, was removed from the Ministry of Finance, receiving an honorary appointment to the Senate. Soon after, he also received the position of chief presenter in the department of heralds.

Minister of Finance

Only on March 23, 1858, Alexander Knyazhevich was appointed to replace the case that completely upset and finally dismissed Peter Brock. Despite the fact that this appointment was both long-awaited and flattering, he did not accept the Sovereign’s offer with a light heart. Knowing full well the complexity and difficulty of the country’s financial situation at that time, he could not help but understand how difficult this service would become for him. In addition, the long-awaited ministerial position overtook him already in his old age: by that time Knyazhevich was sixty-six years old and he was not in excellent health. At first, Knyazhevich went to the Emperor with the firm intention of refusing his belated appointment to the post of minister. He directly told the Emperor that “he does not find in himself the qualities and abilities necessary for this title, knowing fully all the duties and all the difficulties of this position and his weak abilities,” not to mention his years and the difficulty of the then state of affairs. In addition, he said that the Minister of Finance must have an independent fortune and too extensive connections to stand firmly in his post, because, he said, “a good Minister of Finance should more often refuse those besieging him with various requests, petitions and proposals, which brings him ill-wishers , ready to harm him and even denigrate him.” However, Alexander II stood firm and promised him his full support, under the indispensable condition of “always telling the truth.” Thus, Alexander Knyazhevich had to “fall into this pool” in his old age, as he sadly described his appointment in a letter to his brother.

And in fact, it was difficult to envy Knyazhevich in this situation. The Crimean War of 1853-1856 with its catastrophic consequences for both financial and political system empire, as well as a change of reigns occurred in the Ministry of Finance during the leadership of Pyotr Fedorovich Brock. The closure of European money markets for Russia and the inability to replenish the treasury through external loans led to a reduction in metal reserves and increased issuance of banknotes. In two recent years Under Brock's leadership of the Treasury, almost half a billion banknotes were printed in 1855-1856. The measures he took were of an emergency and unsystematic nature, and every year the state of public finances became more and more deadlocked. It was in this situation that Pyotr Brock was dismissed and Alexander Knyazhevich, who had a solid business and professional reputation, took his place.

And although there was an opinion in court and ministerial circles that this moderate dignitary was already too old for reform activities and the implementation of new ideas, nevertheless, the development of the first reforms in the field of finance took place precisely with his direct participation. So, on July 10, 1859, Knyazhevich established a Commission to review the system of taxes and fees, which then existed for more than twenty years. Among the measures that she prepared were the following: the introduction of a tax on real estate in cities, towns and towns, the transformation of the salt tax collection system, the addition of the zemstvo tax to general state revenues, the adoption of a charter on private gold mining, statutes on stamp duty and sugar excise tax .

The reforms of the 1860s could not have happened without major changes in the financial sector. Knyazhevich's first step on this path was the unification of all previously existing credit institutions and the creation in 1860 of the State Bank. The entire mass of funds received from the State Commercial and State Loan Banks, the treasury and public charity orders was transferred to his disposal, and its management was concentrated in the Ministry of Finance. The state bank was entrusted with both maintaining the stability of monetary circulation and developing the production sector. But at first, his role was mainly to centralize monetary policy.

A separate concern of Knyazhevich as minister was the deplorable state of the state budget and finances. From the first days he paid much attention to streamlining monetary policy. Under him, the borrowings of the previous ten years were partially consolidated into 4 and 5 percent obligations, and the missing funds were filled with external and internal loans and special issues of credit notes. Knyazhevich considered the then state of Russian monetary circulation with depreciated and highly fluctuating paper money abnormal and insisted on a speedy return to their metal exchange and state guarantees.

During his four-year ministerial reign, Knyazhevich managed to significantly reduce (but not completely eliminate) the budget deficit of previous years, primarily by increasing taxation: poll tax, postal taxes, serf and stamp duties, as well as the reorganization of tobacco, tar and sugar excise taxes. In contrast to the policy of his teacher and boss, Yegor Kankrin, Knyazhevich finally eliminated the tax-paying system of the drinking trade, rightly seeing in it a source of degradation of the people and corruption of the local administration. He finally transferred alcohol circulation to the excise system. However, rising taxes and slow progress in combating the budget deficit caused dissatisfaction and gradually created a not very popular name for Knyazhevich.

Under Minister Knyazhevich, certain customs rates were significantly increased, but at the same time a number of significant reliefs were introduced, mainly for the Russian engineering industry. In particular, he allowed duty-free import of iron, cast iron, parts of machine tools and mechanisms, and individual parts of agricultural machinery (to the southern ports). To facilitate the purchase of capital goods, the export of credit notes abroad to pay for machines and some other measures that facilitated the import of equipment were also allowed. In order to make the foreign trade balance more active, a number of export duties were abolished under Knyazhevich.

Knyazhevich also showed himself to be a supporter of private construction and provided the railways with special benefits in the field of customs and stamp duties. Under Knyazhevich, active measures were taken to seriously develop gold mining, an important treaty on Asian trade was concluded, under the terms of which it gradually lost its strictly standardized character. For example, sea imports of Cantonese tea were allowed, mainly to combat widespread smuggling. Knyazhevich was a staunch supporter of openness in the field of budget and financial management, however, he did not manage to fully implement these intentions and his planned publication of the state budget had not yet taken place. At his insistence, experts from the largest cities and individual provinces were invited to the commission to review the system of taxes and fees.

Knyazhevich carried out an operation to finance the peasant reform of 1861, developed drafts of the Trade Charter (1860) and joint stock legislation (1861).

Feeling completely tired, unhealthy and not being able to bear the heavy burden of financial management during a period of great changes, on January 23, 1862, Alexander Knyazhevich resigned (at the age of seventy). The reforms that were not completed or unfinished by Knyazhevich during the four years of his leadership were entrusted to the new, young Minister of Finance, Mikhail Reitern, generally recognized as one of the best ministers of Russia in the 19th century.

He was buried in St. Petersburg at the Smolensk Orthodox Cemetery.

Essays

• Note from A. M. Knyazhevich to Alexander II “On the current situation of public finances” // Destiny of Russia. Problems of the country's economic development in the 19th - early 20th centuries. Spas - Faces of Russia, St. Petersburg, 2007. ISBN 978-5-903672-02-8.

Knyazhevich, Alexander Maksimovich, Minister of Finance, b. October 11, 1792 in Ufa, d. March 2, 1872 His father, a Serbian native, arrived in Russia in 1773 and was accepted into service in the cavalry guards; Subsequently, he was in the civil service - the prosecutor of the upper zemstvo court, the provincial prosecutor in Ufa, and from 1797 in Kazan, where he was then chairman of the treasury chamber. A. M. Knyazhevich was brought up in the Kazan gymnasium and at the Kazan University, entering the latter in 1805. When he was in his senior year, being only 16-17 years old, the faculty entrusted him, as the best student, with the illness of the professor, read pure mathematics to your friends. In 1811, he moved to St. Petersburg and joined the State Revenue Expedition, which soon became part of the Ministry of Finance.

Living in St. Petersburg for the first time with his three brothers, Knyazhevich, in addition to his official activities, also worked in the literary field: in 1822, the Knyazhevich brothers published the “Library for Reading,” which consisted of translations of foreign novels and short stories. This activity brought them closer to the literary world. In 1823, with the marriage of A. M. Knyazhevich to the daughter of Baroness Wistinghausen, director of the Patriotic Institute, a person close to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, he began to move up his career somewhat faster; but even then only after 20 years of service he received a more significant position - vice director of the state treasury department. Soon afterwards he was made director of the office of the Minister of Finance, and in 1844, director of the department of the state treasury. In the 30s he was also in charge of the affairs of the committee on the improvement of agriculture, chaired by Mordvinov.

Knyazhevich became close to the Minister of Finance, E.F. Kankrin, back in 1815, when Kankrin was the intendant general, and he was sent to Vienna to take part in the liquidation of accounts with Austria after the Russian army’s overseas campaign. By the rank of director of the minister's office, and then director of the state treasury department, Knyazhevich was, one might say, the right hand of the minister and his student, and in society he was considered his likely and desirable successor. However, Kankrin, going abroad for treatment in 1840, entrusted the management of the ministry not to him, but, to everyone’s surprise, to F.P. Vronchenko, who then managed the special office for the credit department, making him a colleague of the Minister of Finance. According to Knyazhevich himself, Kankrin did this because at that time the most important part of financial management was the credit part. Vronchenko managed the ministry during Kankrin’s second trip abroad in 1843, and with Kankrin’s final retirement in 1844 he became a minister. With the death of Vronchenko in 1852, P. F. Brock, who managed the affairs of the Committee of Ministers and a man with little knowledge of financial matters, was again appointed Minister of Finance. Knyazhevich, having enormous service experience and 40 years of service in the Ministry of Finance, often challenged the opinions and proposals of the new minister and this, naturally, became unpleasant to him; in 1854 he was removed from the ministry under a plausible pretext, having received an appointment to the Senate; soon after that he was appointed chief of staff in the department of heralds. It is quite possible that Knyazhevich’s appointment as Kankrin’s successor or at least as a fellow minister was prevented by his participation in drinking tax farming, although this participation was almost nominal: he and his brothers gave their capital to tax farmers for collateral for tax farming; due to the malfunction of one tax farmer, rumors arose about bribery allegedly being practiced in the Ministry of Finance, which temporarily harmed Knyazhevich, although these rumors were completely unfounded and the intrigue was directed more against Kankrin himself than against Knyazhevich; for him it had no further consequences.

On March 23, 1858, in place of the dismissed P.F. Brock, A.M. Knyazhevich was called to manage the Ministry of Finance. This appointment was, of course, very flattering to him, but he did not accept it with pleasure. He knew very well the complexity and difficulty of the duties of the Russian Minister of Finance and, as an honest and conscientious servant, did not accept the Sovereign’s offer with a light heart. He declared to the Emperor that he “does not recognize in himself the qualities and abilities necessary for this title, knowing fully all the duties and all the difficulties of this position and his weak abilities,” not to mention his years and the difficulty of the then state of affairs; in addition, he found that the Minister of Finance should have an independent fortune and connections in order to stand firmly in his post, for, he said, a good Minister of Finance should more often refuse those besieging him with various requests, petitions and proposals, which brings him ill-wishers who are ready to harm him, even denigrate him. But the Emperor promised him his support, under the condition of “always telling the truth.” Thus, Knyazhevich had to “fall into this pool,” as he put it in a letter to his brother, informing him of his appointment.

His relationship with the Emperor was excellent; but he could not help but be burdened by his new position: he had to work too hard for his age - he was already well over 60; in 1861 he celebrated the 50th anniversary of his service; Perhaps he did not fully sympathize with new trends, as a man of the old school... In January 1862, he was dismissed from the post of Minister of Finance, with an appointment to a member of the State Council. Influential circles were dissatisfied with his activities; They said: “He did not live up to expectations.”

Of course, in that era of general revival and desire for reform, Knyazhevich was not comfortable at the head of the Ministry of Finance. He was a man with a good education, humane, honest, condescending to human weaknesses and shortcomings; but his entire past did not give him the opportunity to rise to the heights of the demands of that time; he apparently did not have either the breadth of vision or the courage of action that was required in an era of such feverish activity as the era of the 60s. He did not have sufficient energy or independence, so necessary for the Minister of Finance; There is no doubt that he understood the matter of financial management well, but understanding the matter alone is not enough. A further outline of the activities of the Ministry of Finance during the era of Knyazhevich’s management will fully confirm this conclusion. - In 1858, a Commission was established to revise the rules of state reporting and the system of estimates, the result of which were the rules of May 22, 1862, which put this matter on a normal basis. The activities of this commission thus coincided with the period of Knyazhevich’s administration. But that in general the state of affairs at that time was beyond his control can be seen from the fact that in the era of state growth, which inevitably required strong tension and development of the financial and economic forces of the state, in the note he presented to the Sovereign in 1859 on the economic and financial situation sets up empires for himself main goal and the duty of extreme frugality. True, the Finance Committee, to which he turned for assistance, fully agreed with his statements, and the Emperor wrote to the Committee’s conclusion that everything possible would be done to reduce the budget of the War Ministry and measures would be taken to limit the demands of all ministries. At the same time, it was ordered that no ministry ask for increases without prior agreement with the Minister of Finance. But all this was only pia desideria, incompatible with the course of state life. - Of greater importance was the Finance Committee’s indication of the weak increase in state revenues (except for drinking), as a sign of the incorrectness of the tax base and the need to significantly change the tax system. The Minister of Finance took note of this requirement and responded to it by establishing, on July 10, 1859, the “Commission for the Review of the System of Taxes and Fees.” The establishment of such a commission was, of course, understandable; such a big deal could not be done immediately and quickly; but this commission worked very slowly and sluggishly and, having existed for about 20 years, died a slow death. For the time being, Knyazhevich, out of necessity, had to moderate his concern for reducing expenses and take measures to increase income, to correct the mistakes of his predecessor Brock and to prevent financial hardships expected from the reforms undertaken by the government, mainly the peasant reforms. Indeed, our funds, which had stood well until then and had increased even more since 1857 due to a decrease in bank interest rates, began to decline already in 1859 and fell especially in 1860; The exchange rate also dropped rapidly. The ongoing liquidation of Crimean War accounts generated large budget deficits - over 100 rubles. per year for 1857 and 1858. The measures taken by Knyazhevich to correct the exchange rate, unfortunately, were not successful: the unsuccessful 3% loan in 1859 was all spent on maintaining the exchange rate; The proceeds from the issue of 60 rubles also went there. 4% metal notes of the State Bank - and all this without any benefit. Equally useless was the increased repayment of internal loans with free capital (up to 30 rubles), transferred in 1860 to the Ministry of Finance from ministries and main departments; the same fate befell 3 m. rubles. capital of the "State Militia", made up of donations. The 4½% external loan undertaken under Knyazhevich in 1860 was realized after him, in 1863. It was possible, of course, to improve our credit only by reworking the outdated financial system, as Rothschild and Pereira instilled in our ambassador in Paris, Count. P. D. Kiselev. But Knyazhevich did not dare to do this; Yes, he did not have sufficient talent and energy to successfully carry out such a difficult and important task.

Under such circumstances, in anticipation of the development of a general reform of the financial system, it was necessary to turn to various private measures to increase state revenues, which were so persistently required by the entire course of public life.

The measures taken were as follows. By decree of December 30, 1861, the salaries of capitation and quitrent taxes were increased (from 1862) - the first by an average of 25 kopecks per capita, - the second from 10 to 44 kopecks per capita; the prices of stamp paper and postal fees for parcels have been increased since 1861; new rules for the salt business were developed, put into effect, however, after Knyazhevich, by decree on May 14, 1862; the tobacco excise tax system was improved and the excise tax itself was increased (1861); the drinking tax system was transformed, not only for the sake of increasing income, but also in the national and moral interests: the farm-out was replaced by an excise system (the statute on the drinking tax on July 4, 1861); new system However, it was introduced after Knyazhevich, on January 1, 1863; but indirectly, even under him, it contributed to an increase in drinking income: the last auction for farming, in 1858, gave a huge increase in the farming amount. “It’s sad for me to rejoice at this,” Emperor Alexander II said to Knyazhevich about this. Finally, the Central Statistical Committee made a new classification of provinces for the distribution of zemstvo fees.

That's all the main thing that was done under Knyazhevich regarding the financial economy of the Empire. These measures cannot be called either outstanding or completely successful. Thus, the most important reform - the drinking reform - did not live up to expectations in a moral sense, although it led to a significant increase in drinking income. In addition, Knyazhevich sometimes allowed direct exaggerations, with the help of which a truly unenviable state of affairs was covered up - for example, unfulfilled expenses of one year were recorded in resource savings for the coming year.

The most important measures of Knyazhevich in the field of economic life in Russia were the following. Due to the increased need for cast iron and iron, duties on their import were lowered from 1861, and then duty-free import for railways, mechanical factories and shipbuilding. At first, this measure brought quite noticeable benefits, but at the same time it harmed the development of our mining industry, which had already suffered as a result of the cessation of serf labor. Further, permission was given to purchase tea in China for gold and silver, instead of the mandatory exchange for goods. This measure was rational, although it was strongly condemned at one time. Indeed, our barter trade was a complete incongruity: our manufactured goods - especially with the opening of the internal markets of China to the British and French, after their war with China - were ceded to the Chinese at half price, and the merchants' losses were applied to the cost of tea, so that our tea consumers paid for cheaper clothing Chinese. Tea obtained by purchasing metals began to cost less, and the admission, since 1861, of the previously prohibited import of it by sea, further contributed to its reduction in price. It is to Knyazhevich’s honor that he understood the change in our trade with China, caused by the force of circumstances that changed the course of international trade; persistence in maintaining barter would certainly not lead to useful results. The consequences fully justified Knyazhevich’s measure; Our trade relations with China were undoubtedly established on more correct foundations.

It also fell to Knyazhevich’s lot to carry out two major transactions- banking reform and the financial part of the peasant reform.

The need to transform credit institutions was caused partly by the mistakes of Knyazhevich’s predecessors, partly by new views that penetrated our national economy. Our old credit institutions - guardianship councils, commercial and loan banks, and public charity orders accepted deposits, paying them with compound interest of 4%. By decree of July 20, 1857, the interest was lowered to 3%, in order to cause demand for deposits that were not fully allocated in loans, and meanwhile were constantly paid interest to depositors. In 1857, such free amounts were up to 140 million rubles. Another reason for the decrease in interest was the difficult situation of the State Treasury, as a consequence of the system of borrowing from bank deposits introduced by Kankrin for government needs. By 1857, these borrowings already amounted to 553 million rubles, more than half of all deposits. Of these, 428 million rubles. were paid with interest from the state treasury, the rest from land taxes and other sources. The treasury expenditure on this debt was 30½ million rubles. in year; Brock, in order to reduce it, deferred the repayment for 56 years, reducing the payment from 5% to 4½% (including 1/2% repayment). This reduced expenses by 11¾ million rubles; but the transition of the treasury to a lower interest rate naturally entailed a decrease in the interest paid on deposits - otherwise credit institutions would not have been able to pay depositors. Since, according to the existing rules, the demand for deposits was not subject to any deadlines, and the deposits were distributed almost all into long-term loans, the measures taken to expel deposits from banks should have put the latter in great difficulty; the inconvenience of these measures was intensified by the fact that this pushing out of deposits by lowering the interest rate was done at a time when money was not at all cheap, and even in Western Europe due to the economic crisis, the discount rate reached 7½%. The money forced out of the bank in this way had nowhere to go; exchange transactions with money and funds then almost did not exist; all that remained was for all this free money to be rushed indiscriminately to different industrial enterprises, which is what happened, to the detriment of our national economy and to the ruin of the masses of gullible people.

The consequences of the mistake soon affected: due to the strong demand for deposits, it was necessary to suspend the issuance of loans against real estate and even remortgage; Further, it turned out to be necessary to delay the collection of deposits, which was unbearable for banks, by consolidating them. For this purpose, 4% continuous-income notes of the Debt Repayment Commission were issued, with a proposal to convert bank deposits into them; These tickets did not find sympathy among the public; but class and social contributions were necessarily turned into them. Later, these tickets and the remaining deposits (but not necessarily the latter) were replaced by 5% State Bank notes of the 1st issue (in the amount of 277½ million rubles); At first the public received them well, but soon they too dropped greatly in price. In this way, deposits from state credit institutions were squeezed out, with an excess of credit notes issued for the needs of the war.

Finally, it was recognized as necessary to transform all credit institutions; by decree of May 31, 1860, the former Commercial Bank transformed and named State; The loan bank was abolished; safe treasuries and orders of public charity are left only until final settlements with borrowers. The reform, however, was one-sided. The State Bank was assigned only a commercial purpose, without the right to issue long-term loans against real estate, which was thus left without a loan precisely at a time when it especially needed it. Although a project for zemstvo land banks was developed under Knyazhevich, it was not implemented without meeting the sympathy of his successor Reitern. Under Knyazhevich, a project for city banks for pledging real estate was also drawn up; On the basis of this project, the St. Petersburg City Credit Society was formed, July 4, 1861.

In general, the banking reform was carried out under Knyazhevich insufficiently deliberately. But even here he was more passive than active; he was aware of the impossibility of leaving agriculture without credit, and especially in that critical era for our land ownership, but he was powerless against the circle of people operating this business in the highest spheres.

As for the peasant reform, while not yet a minister, Knyazhevich sympathized with it, although he did not expect, as he said, “great improvements” from it. His participation in this matter was expressed by the arrangement of the redemption operation. Again, it cannot be said that this operation was a complete success. But here, too, it is not Knyazhevich’s fault, but, in all likelihood, the previous banking reform, with the subsequent revival of industrial enterprise, which absorbed the money released from the banks. The government issued redemption papers (under the names of 5% notes of the 2nd issue, 5% redemption certificates and 5½% annuities), taking special precautions so that they did not clutter the market. Nevertheless, these securities, thanks to the indiscriminate sale of them by landowners, fell greatly in price, to the great ruin of the landowners. A significant mistake in the redemption operation was that the bank did not retain the debts of the landowners and were not even paid in installments, but were completely deducted from the redemption amount. Thus, many received only an insignificant ransom payment, which was spent unproductively. Again, in this case, it is difficult to say how much Knyazhevich is to blame for this, as the executor of plans that did not come from him.

The decline in the value of the credit ruble, a legacy of the Crimean War, caused him a lot of worries. Compared to the later ones, the decrease was not yet great: the average exchange rate of the credit ruble in 1858 was 93.1 metal. kopecks; in 1859 - 90.5 kopecks; in 1860 - 92.51 kopecks; even when the government stopped artificially maintaining the exchange rate, at the beginning of 1861, the ruble was worth about 86 kopecks. metal. Nevertheless, even this state of the exchange rate worried the government. In April 1860, credit notes worth 60 million rubles were burned - this, however, did not affect the exchange rate at all. But since the whole trouble was still attributed to the surplus of credit notes against the need for turnover, Knyazhevich proposed to get rid of it by selling part of the state property. Fortunately, this measure was not implemented; It is obvious that it would not be practical: the treasury would have lost a significant part of its assets, while increasing the value of the paper ruble to the level of the metal ruble would hardly have been achieved, judging by past historical examples. - Unsuccessful experience in exchanging credit notes for gold, at a gradually increasing rate, up to the normal 5 rubles. 15 kopecks for the semi-imperial, took place after Knyazhevich’s dismissal from the post of Minister of Finance.

It should be recalled with deep gratitude that thanks to Knyazhevich it became possible for us to discuss financial issues in print. Realizing the benefits of publicity, although not always pleasing to the pride of the administration, Knyazhevich asked Highest resolution allow the press to discuss financial events. He went even further and made public the state registration, which until then had been a deep state secret. The question of publishing the painting was raised by him in the Council of Ministers back in 1859, but did not receive approval; and only in 1862 did the Highest decree on the publication of the painting for 1863 take place. The list (“report card”) of 1862 was also published, but not in a legislative manner, but in the form of a simple message for the attention of the public. This alone by Knyazhevich introducing openness into financial matters is enough to say that his management was not fruitless. - The last 10 years of Knyazhevich’s life no longer represented anything interesting; he faded away quietly and died on March 2, 1872.

Skalkovsky, "Our state and public figures", 1891; his: "Les ministres des finances de la Russie"; article by Sudeikin in "Russian Antiquity" 1892, XI, Bliokh "Finances of Russia in the 19th century", 1882

The pseudonym under which the politician Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov writes. ... In 1907 he was unsuccessful as a candidate for the 2nd State Duma In Petersburg.

Alyabyev, Alexander Alexandrovich, Russian amateur composer. ... A.'s romances reflected the spirit of the times. As then-Russian literature, they are sentimental, sometimes corny. Most of them are written in a minor key. They are almost no different from Glinka’s first romances, but the latter has stepped far forward, while A. remained in place and is now outdated.

The filthy Idolishche (Odolishche) is an epic hero...

Pedrillo (Pietro-Mira Pedrillo) is a famous jester, a Neapolitan, who at the beginning of the reign of Anna Ioannovna arrived in St. Petersburg to sing the roles of buffa and play the violin in the Italian court opera.

Dahl, Vladimir Ivanovich
Numerous novels and stories of his suffer from the absence of the present artistic creativity, deep feelings and a broad view of the people and life. Dahl did not go further than everyday pictures, anecdotes caught on the fly, told in a unique language, smartly, vividly, with a certain humor, sometimes falling into mannerism and jokeiness.

Varlamov, Alexander Egorovich
Varlamov, apparently, did not work at all on the theory of musical composition and was left with the meager knowledge that he could have learned from the chapel, which in those days did not at all care about the general musical development of its students.

Nekrasov Nikolay Alekseevich
None of our great poets has so many poems that are downright bad from all points of view; He himself bequeathed many poems not to be included in the collected works. Nekrasov is not consistent even in his masterpieces: and suddenly prosaic, listless verse hurts the ear.

Gorky, Maxim
By his origin, Gorky by no means belongs to those dregs of society, of which he appeared as a singer in literature.

Zhikharev Stepan Petrovich
His tragedy “Artaban” did not see either print or stage, since, in the opinion of Prince Shakhovsky and the frank review of the author himself, it was a mixture of nonsense and nonsense.

Sherwood-Verny Ivan Vasilievich
“Sherwood,” writes one contemporary, “in society, even in St. Petersburg, was not called anything other than bad Sherwood... his comrades in military service shunned him and called him by the dog name “Fidelka.”

Obolyaninov Petr Khrisanfovich
...Field Marshal Kamensky publicly called him “a state thief, a bribe-taker, a complete fool.”

Popular biographies

Peter I Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich Catherine II Romanovs Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich Alexander III Suvorov Alexander Vasilievich