392 right to present to the government the business of other colleges, too. The kanslikollegium was thus in a position to have some influence on the decisions reached by the government and was thereby able to gain a certain amount of influence over the other organs of the central administration.^** A similar range of functions was also planned for the kollegiia inostrannykh del at the beginning of the reform, as the third draft of the General Regulation reveals in its third article, “Concerning presentations of collegial business”: And since it is His Tsarist Majesty’s most gracious will that all matters which are presented by the colleges to his high person or, in his absence, to the Senate for execution are reported in the proper order . . ., for that reason His Tsarist Majesty has deigned to appoint some ministers in his state chancellery college who shall countersign each matter which belongs to their respective ckspcditsii. As is clear from this passage, the college was also given domestic responsibilities, as was the case with the Swedish kanslikollegium.'^^ Just as the state secretaries in Sweden were to present the matters which fell under their respective expeditioner, or sections, the Russian “state secretaries {shtats sekretari) or chancellery councillors (kantseliarnye sovetniki), one after the other . . . [were to] present the most important and necessary matters belonging to their respective ekspeditsii.” As the reform took final shape, however, the idea of giving the Russian college the position enjoyed by the kanslikollegium in the Swedish administrative system was abandoned and the area of responsibility of the Russian college was drastically reduced in comparison with its Swedish prototype. Domestic matters were excluded from the college’s jurisdiction, for which reason its name was changed from kantseliarnaia kollegiia to kollegiia inostrannykh del. Instead, the Russian Senate retained the direct control over domestic matters, and thereby over the various administrative organs, that it had enjoyed before the collegial reform.60 Stellan Dahlgren, “Kansler och kungamakt vid tronskiftet 1654,” Scandia, 26 (1960), 104—105, and, Hjalmar Haralds, “Kansliet — anima regni,” Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 31 (1928), 234—258. - ZA (no. 400), 417. “Instead of the Posol’skii prikaz, the kollegiia inostrannykh del was established and was divided into two departments, one foreign and one domestic: the first to deal with all sorts of foreign, diplomatic, and secret matters; the other for the internal governance of the realm and matters connected therewith.” I. I. Golikov, Deianiia Petra Velikogo, mudrogo preobrazitelia Rossii, sobrannye iz dostovernykh Istochnikov i raspolozhennyc po godam (12 v., Moscow, 1788—1789), VI, 234. ZA (no. 400), 418. See the survey of the Senate’s responsibilities that was drawn up in connection with the founding of the chancellery college; TsGADA, f. 96 (1715 g.) delo 21 11. 37—43.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=