245 the Russians had faithfully held to the Swedish pattern. The uezd, which was the counterpart of the Swedish härad, was of course larger in Russia, but “the highest unit—the landsgevdinstvo (province, translator’s note)— had been borrowed in its entirety, along with all of its officials. Miliukov also showed that the Russian instructions for the local administration were written in close keeping with the comparable Swedish legislation. He did not, however, analyze any of these texts, but merely demonstrated in his footnotes how the Swedish and Russian instructions matched one another in terms of organization. Miliukov also discussed the problems which arose when the projected reform of the local administration was to be implemented. According to him, the reform had a “weak side” even in its basic premises, since “the Swedish administrative organs, if they were to be introduced in their correct form, were all too costly for the Russia of the day and did not correspond to the level of her economic development.” In addition, he argued, important aspects of the Swedish system had been neglected: when, in connection with the introduction of a new network of central and local administrative organs, the old ones were forgotten: the Swedish colleges did not assume, and indeed excluded the possibility of, the existence of the Senate; the Swedish landsgevdinstva (provinces) eliminated the existence of the gubernii. In theory the colleges and provinces were to replace the Senate and the gubernii, but in practice they came to exist side by side. Miliukov’s reasoning can thus be summarized in the following manner. The point of departure for the entire reform period was the increased need of resources brought about by the war.*^® Peter and his collaborators expected that, by creating the preconditions for more efficient management, the reform of the fiscal administration would give Russia the economic resources she needed. At the same time, however, Miliukov argued that the newly established administrative apparatus was much too costly for Russia and that it led to a deterioration, rather than an improvement, of her state finances. We shall evaluate this interpretation in that which follows.^'** The picture Miliukov painted, in the quotation cited above, of the Swedish administrative system is not in keeping with the historical facts. In an earlier context, we have seen that the Russian Senate was reorganized in connection with the reform of the central administration in order ” 114 11.'> Ibid., 537. Ibid., 465—471. Ibid., 460. Ibid., 537. Ibid., 534—535. For an analysis of this question, see below, p. 294. 119
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=