246 to create a relationship with the colleges similar to that which existed between the Swedish State Council, which was sometimes referred to as the Senate, and the Swedish collegial administration.^^® The presidents of the Swedish colleges were also members of the Council, and— completely contrary to Miliukov’s portrayal of the situation—the colleges did presuppose the existence of the Council. The presidents of the newly established colleges in Russia, too, were to become members of the Senate. Miliukov was also wrong in saying that there were no governor generalships and governorships in Sweden; later in this chapter we shall see how the Swedish governorships and provincial governorships (or landshövdingships) related to one another, and we will compare this to the corresponding administrative division in the Russian system. As has already been mentioned in the introduction to the present study, an even more detailed study of the Russian provincial administrative reform was undertaken by M. M. Bogoslovskii.^-^ That study did not, however, introduce anything above and beyond what Miliukov had to say about the foreign sources for the local administrative reform. Bogoslovskii explained that, in his opinion, “the preparatory process on the eve of the administrative reform in both its stages—both at the stage when the foreign original w'as revised in the first drafts, and at the stage when these drafts were discussed—was so thoroughly presented by the honored author of Gosudarstvcnnoe khoziaistvo that we are freed from the task of telling about it once again, a thorough and valuable investigation of the practical aspects of the local administrative reform. How the reform turned out in reality and what its results were are questions he attempted to answer on the basis of an extensive amount of source material. Bogoslovskil devoted a chapter of his work to the judicial system introduced in Russia on the basis of Swedish models.’-^ He claimed that while the Swedish judicial system served as the direct prototype for this reform, the organizational structure of the Russian judicial system differed in important ways from its model. His concluding judgement was that “the attempt to separate the judiciary from the administration was the most characteristic aspect of the judicial reform of 1719. conclusions will be presented and evaluated in that which follows. Nonetheless, Bogoslovskii’s work contains ” 122 Bogoslovskii’s ” 124 See above, p. 87. M. M. Bogoslovskii, Oblastnaia reforma Petra Velikogo (Moscow, 1902); sec above, p. 15, where Bogoslovskii’s general conception of the Petrine administrative reforms is dealt with at length. Bogoslovskii (1902), 36. Ibid., 164—256. Ibid., 173. 120
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=