The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Why affranchised pitiya? To a question of preparation of wine reform of 1861.



19. Ostrovskih P. E. K voprosu o naselenii Tajmyrskogo poluostrova (po povodu stat&i B. O. Dolgih)//Sev. Azija. 1929. No. 2. S. 77-82.

20. Popov A. A. Materialy po rodovomu stroju dolgan//SE. 1934b. No. 6. S. 116-139.
21. Popov A. A. Tehnika dolgan//SE. 1937a. No. 1. S. 91-135.
22. Popov A. A. Semejnaja zhizn& u dolgan//SE. 1946. No. 4. S. 50-74.
23. Popov A. A. Materialy po istorii religii jakutov b. Viljujskogo okruga//SMAE. 1949. T. 11. S. 255323.
24. Popov A. A. Kochevaja zhizn& i tipy zhilishch u dolgan//SES. M.; L., 1952. T. 1. S. 142-172.
25. Popov A. A. Dolgany//Narody Sibiri. M.; L.: Nauka, 1956. S. 742-759.
26. Popov A. A. Perezhitki drevnih doreligioznyh vozzrenij dolgan na prirodu//SE. 1958a. No. 2. S. 7799.
27. Popov A. A. Kollekcii po material&noj kul&ture dolgan v MAE//SMAE. M.; L., 1958b. S. 5-121.
28. Prytkova N. F. Odezhda chukchej, korjakov i itel&menov//Material&naja kul&tura narodov Sibiri. L.: Nauka, 1976. S. 5-88.
29. Radlov V V Opyt slovarja tjurkskih narechij. SPb., 1893-1911. T. 1-4.
30. Seroshevskij VL. Jakuty: Opyt etnograficheskogo issledovanija. M.: ROSPJEN, 1993. T. 1. 713 s.
31. Simchenko Ju. B. Nganasanskie ornamenty//SE. 1963. No. 3. S. 166-171.
32. Smoljak A. V. Tradicionnoe hozjajstvo i material&naja kul&tura narodov Nizhnego Amura i Sahalina: Etnogeneticheskij aspekt. M.: Nauka, 1984. 245 s.
33. Snesarev G P. Relikty domusul&manskih verovanij i obrjadov u uzbekov Horezma. M., 1969. 335 s.
34. StrelovE. D. Odezhda i ukrashenija u jakutki v polovine XVIII veka//SE. 1937. No. 2-3. S. 74-99.
35. Tugolukov V A. Sledopyt verhom na olenjah. M.: Nauka, 1969. 215 s.
36. Tugolukov V A. Idushchie poperek hrebtov. Krasnojarsk: Kn. izd-vo, 1980. 183 s.
37. Fedorova E. G. Istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki material&noj kul&tury mansi. SPb.: Izd-vo MAE, 1994. 284 s.
38. ShatinovaN. I. Sem&ja u altajcev. Gornoaltajsk, 1981. 183 s.

N.E. Goryushkina

WHY AFFRANCHISED PITIYaM?

To the QUESTION OF PREPARATION of WINE REFORM of 1861

Article is devoted to one of poorly studied aspects of the history "Velikikhreform" — wine reform of 1861. The author investigates the reasons of cancellation of payoffs, an economic and public background of the outlined transformation. Special attention is paid to work of the commissions on development of the project of wine reform.

N. Goryushkina

WHY WAS "FREEDOM" TO SPIRITS GIVEN?

TO THE ISSUE OF PREPARING THE "WINE REFORM" OF 1861

The paper is devoted to one of the little-known aspects of the history of the "Great reforms" — the alcohol reform of 1861. The reasons of farming revenues abolition, economic and social background of the taking shape reorganization are investigated. A special consideration is given to activities of commissions which worked out the project of alcohol reform.

Studying Great reforms has rich historiographic tradition, but the reform of 1861 which transformed the income source, most important for Russia — a tax on drinkable trade, was investigated extremely restrictedly. "Fiscal reforms such — the American historian D. Krischn wrote — not the most fascinating historical event but when they besides are represented so ephemeral, can just "get lost"" [5, page 127].

a Number of essential aspects of drinkable transformation either was not considered by authors, or was covered within the researches on more general subjects. In studying wine reform it is necessary to carry questions to number of obvious gaps: about the bases of cancellation of payoffs, about activity of the commissions on drawing up a new statute, about the circumstances accompanying legislative process. Process of preparation of wine reform will become a consideration subject in this article.

It is known that soon after an abolition of serfdom, Situation according to which since January 1, 1863 the new — excise — system of collection of a tax on pity was introduced was published on July 4, 1861. The resonance of peasant reform was so big that the being outlined tax transformation looked an event insignificant. But everyone in the slightest degree understanding public finances understood importance and riskiness of a government step [11].

First, the order — to the one who granted the large sum on treasury was destroyed ancient otkupny, the right of taxation and duties which collecting from pity was among was transferred. The convenience of transportation, concentration of great value of goods in small volume, ease of division and sale, lack of a problem of storage made alcohol ideal means of taxation, by the end of the 18th century the drinkable collecting surpassed by the size everything assigned

articles. The wine payoff actually became a synonym of all otkupny system, and the word "farmer" was perceived not differently as "the wine farmer".

Secondly, wine transformation endangered the most essential source of the government budget. Any of taxes did not come to treasury "with such opredelitelnost, serviceability and a convenience" as drinkable collecting [7, page 110]. From 1767 to 1863 the wine payoff provided 33% of state revenues, surpassing receipts from direct taxes — a subear tax and a quitrent from the state peasants. In the 1850th this figure grew almost to 38%, considerably contrasting with other taxes which in times and after the Crimean campaign decreased or ceased to grow [4, page 3].

Thirdly, the essence of a tax on alcohol radically changed. All former history of collecting was based on the regalny right of treasury for trade in hard liquors transferred in the rent contents. The consumer goods were never subject to taxation though production it was constrained by sale prohibition not differently, as in treasury or to farmers. Wine reform entered the western model of the organization of collecting which cornerstone the thesis about freedom of a turn pity was — the alcohol paid with an excise at an exit from hands of the producer should not have been exposed to constraining measures in the further movement.

The excise system is how applicable to the Russian conditions, it was only necessary to find out, but the power after many years of fluctuations decided to destroy a vinnootkupny system.

The main reason of discontent of the highest administration with existence of a payoff consisted in an uskolzaniye in more and more increasing sizes from the state taxation of income from drinkable collecting. The most careful calculations showed that the farmers paying treasury in

the end of the 1850th 124.5 million rubles a year, got annual profit in 600-780 million rubles: four they them had revenue of more than 5 million rubles, four — more than 1 million rubles, thirty — from 500 thousand to 1 million rubles, the income of 85 farmers was from 100 thousand rubles to 500 thousand rubles [12, page 264].

Except these losses the government budget incurred losses because of otkupny shortages. From 1827 to 1859 for farmers of Great Russian provinces the debt in the sum of 14.8 million rubles accumulated. Farmers, as a rule, tried to obtain shortage payment by installments for 10, 12 or 20 years without charge of percent with an annual discount in 6% at payment of debt of earlier preferential terms, and then repaid the debt, acquiring on volume the considerable capitals: at 1 million rubles the shortages spread for 20 years and paid at once, the valid payment equaled 490 thousand rubles [12, page 265]

Inconveniences of an otkupny system consisted in the steady growth of consumption of alcohol by the population that excited complaints "on distribution between peasants of alcoholism to whom are connected debauchery, a gambling game, vagrancy, perfect frustration of a household and poverty" [13, t. 1, page 98]. At a research of the reasons of such phenomenon it became clear that, on the one hand, otkupny conditions constantly increasing encouragement promoted distribution of places of sale pity, with another — farmers complemented "popushcheniye" of otkupny conditions with the abuses.

Serious concern in the government was caused also by the large-scale corruption generated by a wine payoff. Long-term attempts to put wine trade on "the moral soil" were vain. What the drinkable legislation became more strict, that the big sizes were reached by bribes to "interpreters" of laws. In 1859 not less than 14.1 million rubles were spent for bribery of "agents of the power". "Under hypnosis of an all-powerful bribe officials

at all "had no watching" behind drinkable trade and freely allowed any tricks": business was done at inflated price, on credit, under a mortgage of things, for working off [6, page 13]. Sellers of alcohol did not shun measurement, "rassiropky", introduction of the stupefying substances. On retail 1/5 part of a bucket of vodka in practice were usual water. In the last otkupny years at the factory price of vodka in 40-45 kopeks for a bucket the selling price reached 10-12 rub, and raspivochno — 20 rub [9, page 233-234].

Increase in the prices of alcohol had the same serious consequences as though the main taxes or a quitrent raised for the Russian peasant. Single protests against an otkupny arbitrariness, characteristic to start the 1850th, developed in the fall of 1858 into the grass-roots trezvenny movement. "Hundreds of thousands of people in some five-six months, without any preliminary discussions and leaflets, in the different ends of the extensive kingdom refused vodka" — for sobriety N.A. Dobrolyubov so described a start of motion [2, page 283]. In May, 1859, break-in of pubs, punishments of employees by an otkupny part, clashes with the police and thrown for suppression of "disorders" by retaliatory groups began [15, page 123-124].

In this situation the Select committee founded at the Ministry of Finance for research of "expedient" replacement to a payoff got to work. Without calling into question (in any case, it is opened) need of reform per se, the Committee offered as an alternative a payoff an excise system with state management, but did not present a certain opinion on terms of introduction of an excise. The conclusion of Committee which is extremely washed away in formulations removed wine transformation for an indefinite term [13, t. 1, page 37].

However the publicity of the solution of a drinkable question barred to the government the way to retreat. A payoff underwent criticism from "Pole star", "A voice from Russia", A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev's "Bell", body of Westerners of "The Russian messenger", the moderate and liberal magazine Ateney, Slavophile magazines

"Russian conversation" and "Rural improvement" and so forth. The tone was set by the Sovremennik magazine where the leading positions were taken by N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov. In articles "Otkupnaya System" published in 1858-1859, "A wine excise",

"About distribution of sobriety in Russia" the requirement of immediate cancellation of payoffs sounded.

Wine reform was supported by "the same group of participants" that discussed the project of peasant reform. According to P.P. Semyonov (Tyan-Shansky), the chairman of Drafting panels on country affairs Ya.I. Rostovtsev "wanted to undertake itself its implementation, but, withheld by a sensible advice, postponed this attempt". In February, 1860, dying, he secured with Alexander II's promise to put wine reform "on a waiting list immediately after release of peasants" [10, page 220].

The emperor, faithful to a word, demanded activity in the solution of a drinkable question. Discussion of reform was transferred to department of laws of the State Council. At a personal request of the convinced supporter of cancellation of payoffs grand duke Konstantin Nikolaevich at the head of Select committee there was a secretary of state of department of laws A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky.

The closest associate of the minister of the state imushchestvo P.D. Kiselyov, the person of the state mind and huge commitment A.P. Zablotsky began work with preparation of the reference "About the main bases of collection of drinkable collecting". Archive materials of the Ministry of Finance and other departments concerning drinkable payoffs were processed within four months and became a basis submitted for consideration of department of the state economy, and then a general meeting of the State Council of "Data on drinkable collecting".

"Data" bared financial and moral perversity of wine payoffs that inclined the conservative-minded majority of a general meeting of the State Council on the party of reform. By results of the meetings which took place on October 3 and 8, 1860 the conclusion was made: "Leaving after 1862 of the real otkupny system in any look will have an inevitable consequence increase in the abuses connected with it which to suffer would be incompatible neither with advantage, nor with an obligation of the government" [13, t. 5, page 45-48].

The State Council supported the offer on replacement of a payoff with an excise, believing that free turnover of alcohol "will eliminate all constraining measures and all useless formalities, will not demand restrictions in the rights of owners of manors on the maintenance of the plants, will not constrain neither the national industry, nor long since entered and need of the forced order of economy and will protect the value of noble manors, will not cause to treasury of excessive expenses for collection of a tax, will not subject the people without any advantage for treasury to those weights and oppressions which are unseparable with the system of payoffs, will not leave state revenue in conjectural situation and will reduce number of cases to abuses" [13, t. 5, page 126-127].

On October 26, 1860 "the radical beginnings" reforms were approved by Alexander II.

In November, 1860 at the Ministry of Finance the Special commission which was engaged in detailed development of conditions of drinkable situation was created. Earlier heading A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky Select committee became the leader of legislative activity. Under its management worked: from the Ministry of Finance — P.I. Golubev,

And. De Roberti, P.D. Kisilev, I.A. Gunn,

And. M. Knyazhevich; from the Ministry of Internal Affairs — A.K. Girs; from the Ministry go - sudarstvenny imushchestvo — P.S. Konda - a roar; from the Ministry of destinies — N.N. Tyutchev; from the Ministry of Defence — A.D. Krylov. The commission included M.H. Reytern, N.I. Sto-yanovsky, K.I. Domontovich, A.A. Abaza, N.P. Semyonov, A.I. Koshelev and Yu.A. Gage-meyster. As experts academicians A.Ya. Kupfer, E.H. Lenz, Yu.F. Fritsshe, B.S. Jacobi, the teacher of Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology N.P. Ilyin and also landowners, distilling and brewing manufacturers, mechanics were invited [14, page 71-72].

The Samara governor K.K. Grot whose administrative abilities were highly appreciated by A.P. Zablotsky was a member of the commission also. The chairman of the Special commission recommended K.K. Grota as the director of the department of different taxes and collecting, and on January 1, 1861 appointment took place [10, page 220].

Work on the "Regulations on Drinkable Collecting" project was continued by

from December, 1860 to April, 1861, in May — June, 1861 the project was transferred to discussion of department of the state economy and a general meeting of the State Council. Its final version was most highly approved on July 4, 1861 [11].

According to "Situation" the drinkable tax had to come to treasury in the form of an excise with 1 ° or 0.01 parts of a bucket of waterless alcohol, patent collecting from the plants, "manufacturing drinks and products from alcohol and wine", and institutions from which sale pity is made. Each type of excise goods was preparing by the special plants which structure and a way of production it was difficult regulated as the size of the produced alcohol defined quantity of money in the Russian treasury. Sale of alcohol was allowed from specialized institutions with different types of trade (raspivochno, takeaway and in a combination) on condition of a payment for use to the belonging treasury regalia. Restrictive conditions and norms concerning drinkable trade were not severe and aimed at creation of the defined order in realization of socially dangerous product. For supervision over receipt of drinkable collecting the excise management with attraction in it exclusively honest and reliable officials was established [8].

Between K.K. Grot and the Minister of Finance A.M. Knyazhevich "from the very beginning there were quarrels", and formation of the excise case upset the relations finally. The Minister of Finance who had a big circle of friends promised much of them places in provincial excise managements. The department director found that "the candidates introduced by the minister do not represent enough guarantees for successful conducting business", and resigned. But K.K. Grot's application was not satisfied. Then A.M. Knyazhevich put from himself a rank of the Minister of Finance, and his place was taken by M.H. Reytern [3, page 181-182].

Despite publication "Provisions

about drinkable collecting", farmers, including

V. A. Kokorev, I.V. Mamontov, D.E. Benar-daki, made desperate efforts to preservation of a payoff. At first they offered a bribe of 1 million rubles to the main organizer of excise business K.K. Grot, but he was incorruptible [1, page 771]. Then they offered the project of "the agency by a drinkable part" and "associations for the device of the railroads". The first undertook the obligation to operate wholesale trade in wine "with return to treasury of the high sums", the second promised to construct without the state subsidies 2800 versts of the railroad [3, page 176]. Very attractive project had a negative side — it aimed to keep an otkupny system. The rejection of the offer of "otkupny party" became K.K. Grot and M.'s personal merit of X. Yards sloes to which opinion Alexander II listened.

1 June, 1862 on the project of farmers the royal resolution laid down: "To declare it that their project is resolutely rejected, and my indispensable will consists in that the new excise system approved by me was introduced since January 1, 1863" [6, page 27]. The destiny of reform was decided.

Running forward, say, that transition to the new system of collecting from alcohol was carried out without any adverse investigations for finance. Drinkable collecting continued "to take priority" in state revenues, providing financial stability of the government in the period of the accelerated industrial modernization. Wine reform released huge amounts of money for more productive capital investment: otkupny savings were directed to such industries, important for the country, as bank

business, railway construction, freight transportation, oil fields, etc. Reform of 1863 had big consequences and for development of law and order: she put an end to practice of the systematic corruption connected with a wine payoff. Deception and corruption in wine trade became one of possible commercial strategy, but were not an integral part of all system any more. Reform brought notable changes in orders, habitual for provincial officials, promoted rooting in consciousness of a thought of need of compliance with laws. And at last, wine reform of 1861 marked transition of the Russian society to more modern forms of government, at least, in the fiscal relation.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. G.A. Dzhanshiyev. Era of great reforms. Historical information. SPb., 1907. 855 pages
2. N.A. Dobrolyubov. National business. Distribution of sobriety societies. SOBR. soch.: In 3 TM, 1986. T. 2. 814 pages
3. Konstantin Karlovic Grot as the state and public figure (on January 12, 1815 — on October 30, 1897): Materials for its biography and characteristic: In 3 t. Pt., 1915. T. 1. 446 pages
4. Short essay of the 50 anniversary of an excise system of collection of a tax on hard liquors and 50 anniversary of activity of institutions, zavedyvayushchy neokladny collecting. 1863-1913. SPb., 1913. 295 pages
5. D. Krischn. "The forgotten reform": cancellation of wine payoffs//Great reforms in Russia. 1856-1874: The collection / Under the editorship of L.G. Zakharova, B. Eklof, J. Bushnell. M, 1992. Page 126-139.
6. V.A. Lebedev. Drinkable business. SPb., 1898. 106 pages
7. Ministry of Finance. 1802-1902: In 2 t. SPb., 1902. T. 1. 640 pages
8. The provision on drinkable collecting which is Most highly approved on July 4, 1861 the SPb., 1862. 160 pages
9. I.G. Pyzhov. The history of taverns in connection with history of the Russian people. Kazan, 1913. 285 pages
10. P.P. Semyonov's speech at the celebration of the XXXVII anniversary of release of peasants//the Russian old times. 1898. No. 4. Page 217-223.
11. Russian State Historical Archive (RSHA). T. 574. Op. 1. 30. L. 3-5.
12. The collection of data and materials on department of the Ministry of Finance: In 3 t. SPb., 1865. T. 2.
630 pages
13. Data on drinkable collecting: In 5 t. SPb., 1860-1861. T. 1. 291 pages; T. 5. 251 pages
14. N.S. Tersky. Drinkable collecting and an excise system in Russia: historical essay and present provision. SPb., 1890. 252 pages
15. V.A. Fedorov. The country trezvenny movement of 1858-1859//the Revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859-1861 of M., 1962. Page 107-126.

REFERENCES

1. Dzhanshiev G A. Epoha velikih reform. Istoricheskie spravki. SPb., 1907. 855 s.
2. Dobroliubov N. A. Narodnoe delo. Rasprostranenie obshchestv trezvosti. Sobr. soch.: V 3 t. M., 1986. T. 2. 814 s.
3. Konstantin Karlovich Grot kak gosudarstvennyj i obshchestvennyj dejatel& (12 janvarja 1815 — 30 oktjabija 1897): Materialy dlja ego biografii i harakteristiki: V 3 t. Pt., 1915. T. 1. 446 s.
4. Kratkij ocherk 50-letija akciznoj sistemy vzimanija naloga s krepkih napitkov i 50-letija dejatel&nosti uchrezhdenij, zavedyvajushchih neokladnymi sborami. 1863-1913. SPb.? 1913. 295 s.
5. Krischn D. "Zabytaja reforma": otmena vinnyh otkupov//Velikie reformy v Rossii. 1856-1874: Sbornik/Pod red. L. G. Zaharovoj, B. JEklofa, Dzh. Bushnella. M., 1992. S. 126-139.
6. Lebedev V. A. Pitejnoe delo. SPb., 1898. 106 s.
7. Ministerstvo finansov. 1802-1902. V 2 t. SPb., 1902. T. 1. 640 s.
8. Polozhenie o pitejnom sbore, Vysochajshe utverzhdennoe 4 ijulja 1861 g. SPb., 1862. 160 s.
9. PyzhovI. G Istorija kabakov v svjazi s istoriej russkogo naroda. Kazan&, 1913. 285 s.
10. Rech& P. P. Semenova na prazdnovanii XXXVII godovwiny osvobozhdenija krest&jan//Russkaja starina. 1898. No. 4. S. 217-223.
11. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv (RGIA). F. 574. Op. 1. D. 30. L. 3-5.
12. Sbornik svedenij i materialov po vedomstvu Ministerstva finansov: V 3 t. SPb., 1865. T. 2. 630 s.
13. Svedenija o pitejnyh sborah: V 5 t. SPb., 1860-1861. T. 1. 291 s.; T. 5. 251 s.
14. Terskii N. S. Pitejnye sbory i akciznaja sistema v Rossii: istoricheskij ocherk i nastojashchee polozhenie. SPb., 1890. 252 s.
15. Fedorov V. A. Krest&janskoe trezvennoe dvizhenie 1858-1859 gg.//Revoljucionnaja situacija v Rossii v 1859 - 861 gg. M., 1962. S. 107-126.

V. A. Rubin

The MEMORABLE PLACES AND CONSTRUCTIONS of the BORDER AREA of RUSSIA DEVOTED to the GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR:

PROBLEMS of ACCOUNT, PROPERTY, PROMOTING AND SCIENTIFIC STUDY (on the example of the Orenburg region)

Article is devoted to the analysis of modern problems of development of the military and memorial sphere in the Russian Federation (on the example of monuments of the Great Patriotic War of the border area — the Orenburg region). The author focuses attention on the issues of account and the property of the memorable places and constructions devoted to the Great Patriotic War which are effectively resolved today and also comes to a conclusion about need of complex scientific research of memorial objects which in 65 years after the end of war turned into the peculiar cultural institute which is fundamentally promoting maintaining historical memory of events of 1941-1945 and patriotic education of the Russian citizens.

V. Rubin

RUSSIAN BORDER REGION MEMORIAL SITES AND CONSTRUCTIONS DEDICATED TO GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR: THE ISSUES OF REGISTRATION, OWNERSHIP, POPULARIZATION, AND STUDIES (ORENBURG REGION)

An analysis of contemporary problems of the development of military and memorial sphere of the Russian Federation, particularly the monuments of Great Patriotic War in the border area of Orenburg region is presented. The paper is focused on the current problems which are effectively dealt with the registration and ownership of monuments and constructions dedicated to Great Patriotic War. A conclusion is made on the necessity of comprehensive scientific research of the memorial objects which, 65 years after the end of the war, became a sort of a cultural institute

Gail Jackson
Other scientific works: