216 excluded in the process.^-® The revizion-kollegiia did not present a draft of an instruktsiia to the Senate until January 1721. In the letter accompanying that draft, the college pointed out that “in writing it we should have had, for the better establishment of the revizion-kollegiia, access to copies of the instruktsii for the other colleges and their subordinate organs . . . And as soon as copies of their instruktsU have been received, and what is found to be useful in the fulfillment of this instruktsiia (is discerned), the High Ruling Senate will be informed about this later on.” Thus, the college was not satisfied with the draft it had presented, since it felt that it had not had sufficient materials available for drawing up such a document. The members of the revizion-kollegiia also took the opportunity to complain about the college’s personnel shortage. It was reported that “without commissioners, and because of a shortage of staff people (pod’iachie), there are repeated interruptions in the administration of these tasks.” Since the draft instruktsiia has not been accessible for this study, it is impossible to say anything about its contents or its fate. A preliminary instruktsiia was finally issued for the revizion-kollegiia in December 1722.^-® By this time, however, the auditing office was no longer an independent college; it had been absorbed into the Senate’s organizational hierarchy as a special auditing office in January 1722. The instruktsiia, consisting of ten articles, was very brief, and it is not possible to trace any noticeable influence fromthe comparable Swedish instruktion from 1695.^2^ The instruktsiia dealt primarily with the office’s responsibility for auditing the state accounts. At the end of each year, the authorities administering the state funds were to submit their accounts to the auditing office, which was to investigate carefully “whether all revenues and expenditures have been discharged in an appropriate manner without any harmor loss to His Majesty’s treasury. tsiia coincided with the original intentions of the reform, but it did not provide any clarity as to whether the auditing office was also to retain the judicial authority given to it earlier. It was only stated that the auditing office was to “inform the Senate of any inaccuracies and violations which are subject to investigation {rozysk) or corporal punishment. A necessary prerequisite for the auditing office’s continuous fulfillment of its duties, of course, was that the kamer-kollegiia and the shtats-kontorIn this respect, the instruk- ” 330 ” 331 Blinov, I. A., ed. Opis’ dokumentov i del, khraniashchikhsia v Senatskom arkhive (St. Petersburg, 1909), part 1, vol. 1, 36. 2A (no. 101), 90. 328 PSZ, VI, no. 4,127, pp. 794—796. 329 Instruktioner II, 195—212. 33» PSZ, VI, no. 4,127, p. 795. 331 Ibid., 796. 326
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=