III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery: reason for creation, functions, leader

See also in the Presidential Library:

Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1830. T. 1. No. 449. P. 665-666 ;

His Imperial Majesty's Own Office // Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. prof. I. E. Andreevsky. T. 30a. St. Petersburg, 1900. pp. 653-657 .

“Creation and activities of the 3rd Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery and a special corps of gendarmes”

Introduction

III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery

Separate Corps of Gendarmes

His Imperial Majesty's own convoy

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

With the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, the country entered a new stage of its development. As noted by historian C.B. Mironenko, “the previous centuries of formation and strengthening of the autocratic state gave way to a time when the inexorable course of the historical process subjected its existence to severe tests and made inevitable the imminent collapse of the entire former feudal-serf system”1. The absolutism of Western Europe, shattered by a series of revolutionary upheavals, was experiencing its last days, and the political system adopted, as a rule, constitutional forms of government. At the same time, Nicholas I - “the sovereign without doubts and hesitations” - throughout his life (perhaps until the terrible epiphany at the end of it) defended the principles of the absolute power of the monarch.

The concept of “power distance,” introduced in our time, defines the “degree” to which citizens of a country who are not endowed with power admit and accept the fact that power dictates its own terms of interaction with society. The emerging relationship between power and society under Nicholas I created the conditions for the formation of special power structures that controlled the “power distance” established by the autocracy. Therefore, it was the III Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery that was entrusted with the task of becoming a link between the autocracy and society and keeping it (society) under constant control. Any deviation from the accepted norm had to be suppressed and punished.

The authorities' fear of the unknown determines the active activity of the political police. This can be considered an emergency event in the state and means that the government has entered into conflict with a society that does not accept its policies. For its own protection, the autocracy carries out measures of both a preventive and repressive nature, often guided solely by expediency and violating the norms of the law. But at the same time, the police are forced to take into account the mood in society, or, as we say, public opinion. At one time V.O. Klyuchevsky noted: “Public opinion among the people is the same as personal consciousness in an individual”

The activities of the police and the III department created a suffocating atmosphere of denunciations, espionage, suspicion and fear in the country, in which it became increasingly difficult to live. The educated part of Russian society reacted very negatively to the establishment of control by the police authorities of the state over their public and private lives. Thinking, educated people greeted police innovations especially painfully; literature, which was the object of the most careful supervision of the authorities, suffered. B.N. Chicherin, assessing the Nicholas era, wrote: “At that time in Russia there was no social life, no practical interests that could attract the attention of thinking people. All external activity was suppressed. Civil service represented only a routine ascent up the bureaucratic ladder, where patronage had an all-powerful effect. “Under the censorship of that time, everything that might seem even remotely hinting at a liberal way of thinking was mercilessly cut off.”

Undoubtedly, the specifics of the police practice of the III department were influenced by the person who stood at one time or another at the head of this institution. The attitude of society towards police structures depended on his activities.

This work aims to identify and determine, based on analysis and extensive use of available sources, the Creation and activities of the 3rd Branch of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery and a special corps of gendarmes

The following problems were solved in the abstract:

consider the origins and reasons for the creation of the III Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery;

analyze the activities of the political police under the command of Count A.Kh. Benckendorf, the internal mechanisms of its functioning, the peculiarities of the relationship of this institution with society and government structures;

to establish what the III department was like under the chief manager, Count A.F. Orlov, determine the methods of his leadership and find out how the relationship between the head of the “high police” and Nicholas I developed;

The formation of the special services of the Russian Empire began on June 3, 1826. On this day, Emperor Nicholas I signed a decree on the formation of the III Department as part of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery (SEIVK). It was this structure that became the prototype of the special services in the field of state security of the Russian Empire.

The formation of the III Division is directly related to the events of December 14, 1825, when part of the guards regiments went to Senate Square in St. Petersburg, trying to use the usual methods of palace coups to change the direction of the political development of the Russian Empire.

The events of December 14, 1825 created a real danger for the life of the young monarch Nicholas I. It was on this day that the issue of the personal safety of Nikolai Pavlovich and his family became clear. Nicholas I himself calmly assessed his chances when, on December 11-12, 1825, he decided to “take the throne” himself. On the morning of December 14, 1825, Nikolai Pavlovich, getting dressed, said to A.Kh. Benckendorf: “Tonight, perhaps, both of us will no longer be in the world, but at least we will die having fulfilled our duty.” Indeed, the Decembrists had significant forces under their control. They considered regicide as one of the options for the development of events. They had the opportunity to do this. From December 11 to December 12, 1825, a company of the Moscow Regiment under the command of the Decembrist staff captain Mikhail Alexandrovich Bestuzhev was on guard in the Winter Palace. On the night of December 14, K.F. Ryleev was looking for a plan of the Winter Palace, to which Alexander Bestuzhev, grinning, said: “The royal family is not a needle, and if it is possible to captivate the troops, then, of course, it will not hide...”

Therefore, after the suppression of the rebels’ speech (later they would be called Decembrists), it was logical for Adjutant General A.Kh. to appeal to Nicholas I at the end of January 1826. Benckendorf with a note “On the structure of the external police,” which discussed the creation of a special political police. After its consideration, on June 25, 1826, Nicholas I signed a decree on the organization of a Separate Corps of Gendarmes. On July 3, 1826, another decree followed - on the transformation of the Special Chancellery of the Ministry of Internal Affairs into the III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. A.Kh. was appointed chief of the Gendarme Corps and chief commander of the III Division of the SEIVK. Benckendorf. The creation of these structures meant a transition from political investigation to a system of political control in the Russian Empire.

It should be emphasized that the creator and long-term leader of the III Department, Count A.Kh. Benckendorff was a military general and did not make his career on the palace floors. In 1803, he took part in hostilities in Georgia (Order of St. Anne and St. Vladimir, IV degree), and took part in the wars with France in 1805 and 1806-1807.

For distinction in the battle of Preussisch-Eylau A.H. Benckendorff was awarded the Order of St. Anne, II degree. In the Russian-Turkish War of 1806-1812. distinguished himself in the battle of Rushchuk (June 1811, Order of St. George, IV degree).

During the Patriotic War of 1812 and foreign campaigns, he established himself as a dashing cavalry commander, distinguished by personal courage. For this campaign, Benckendorff received the Order of St. George, III degree, St. Anne, I degree, St. Vladimir, II degree, and a gold sword decorated with diamonds with the inscription “For bravery.” Nevertheless, he did not consider it shameful for his honor to submit to Emperor Alexander I a detailed note with information about the “Union of Welfare” in 1821. The emperor left the general's note without action, but the events of 1825 showed Benckendorff's foresight.

The new unit was not formed out of nowhere. Until 1826, a Special Chancellery operated within the structure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the leadership of M.Ya. von Fock. His experience was used to the fullest. In a note dated July 14, 1826, M.Ya. von Fock proposed dividing Section III into four expeditions. Von Fock saw the task of the first expedition as preventing “malicious intentions against the person of the sovereign emperor.” By this it was meant that Section III primarily ensures the strategic security of the king and his entourage, protecting the “security of the throne.” At the same time, it must be emphasized that the III Department itself was a rather analytical structure, the main task of which was the collection and synthesis of the collected information. The new structure used the agent network created by von Fock. Since the main danger to the throne then came from among the opposition nobility, these were not ordinary agents. These included state councilor Nefediev, Count Lev Sollogub, collegiate councilor Blandov, writer and playwright Viskovatov. Special attention of the employees of the III Department was paid to the army and the guard, since it was the military during the 18th - early 19th centuries. were the main organizers of conspiracies and regicides.

Over time, Section III gradually abandoned operational work, since this was not part of its tasks, and its staff was very small. The total number of employees of Division III at the time of its founding was only 27 people. At the time of the abolition of Division III in 1880, the number of employees was not much larger - 58 people. The department was repeatedly reorganized. In 1839, after combining the position of Chief of Staff of the Corps of Gendarmes and the manager of the III Department in the person of L.V. Dubelt, a unified structure was created that existed until 1880.

It should be noted that in addition to collecting information and its analytical understanding, Section III, with its small staff of officials, resolved many issues that had nothing to do with issues of state security and state protection. Therefore, when in the 1860s. The internal political situation in the Russian Empire became sharply more complicated, and new tasks were assigned to Section III. The main one is the fight against the revolutionary movement in Russia.

Among the measures to protect the imperial family in the early 1860s. It can be attributed to the fact that the head of the III Department and the Chief of Gendarmes V.A. Dolgorukov227 and St. Petersburg military governor-general A.L. Suvorov was entrusted with constant surveillance of everyone traveling to Tsarskoe Selo by rail. In turn, the Tsarskoe Selo police were tasked with monitoring all visitors.

But these were measures of a traditional nature. Time required new solutions. After the assassination attempt of D. Karakozov in April 1866 and the resignation of V.A. Dolgorukov, the new Minister of Internal Affairs, Pyotr Andreevich Shuvalov, took over the reforms. On his initiative, the gendarmerie corps lost its police prerogatives. The main task of the corps became “surveillance of society,” i.e. Section III actually became a “pure intelligence service.” However, these reforms also had their negative consequences. The fact is that the liberal intelligentsia, which formed public opinion in Russia, was very sympathetic to the tyrannical sentiments of the revolutionaries, so the cases of the arrested revolutionaries “fell apart” by the liberal courts.

Therefore, in 1871, the III Department was returned to police functions, which made it possible to actively influence investigative and judicial processes.

It was also important to increase funding for all structures fighting the revolutionary movement in Russia. The budget of the Security Guard of the III Division, directly involved in guarding the Tsar, amounted to 52,000 rubles. in year. In July 1866, additional funds were allocated for “strengthening foreign agents” in the amount of 19,000 rubles. 29,000 rubles were allocated for the maintenance of the “secret department” under the St. Petersburg chief of police. in year. These measures have yielded certain results. Contemporaries P.A. Shuvalov is remembered as a man under whom not a single attempt was made on the emperor.

Thus, in 1826, a structure was created that was used in the 1820-1850s. significant influence in society. In fact, Section III of the Seivk became the foundation for the creation of professional intelligence services in Russia. At the same time, the III Department, due to a number of objective reasons, “did not keep up” with the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia in the late 1870s - early 1880s. actually lost the initiative in opposing the political terror of the Narodnaya Volya. This was precisely the main reason for the liquidation of Section III in 1880.

2. Separate corps of gendarmes

If the III Division of SEIVK was engaged in the collection of operational information and its analysis, then the Separate Corps of Gendarmes was created for direct operational work to ensure state security within the borders of the Russian Empire.

Gendarmes appeared in the Russian army under Alexander I. In June 1815, a gendarme team was created in each cavalry regiment to combat looters and other military crimes. By 1826, there were more than 4 thousand gendarmes, in 1880 - 6808 people, i.e. over 55 years, the staff of the gendarmerie corps increased by 60%229. In 1826-1827 The gendarme units were brought together into a single structure - the Separate Corps of Gendarmes, which was engaged in operational work. For this purpose, the entire empire was divided into 7 districts, in which secret police structures were created. At the same time, strict requirements arose when recruiting personnel for the corps, which persisted until the beginning of the 20th century. To be transferred to the elite corps of gendarmes, army and guards officers were required to be at least 25 years old, hereditary nobility, graduate from a military or cadet school in the first category, as a rule, Orthodox religion230, no debts and stay in service for at least 6 years.

The procedure for transitioning to gendarmerie officers from the army gradually developed. In March 1830, army officers transferring to the Corps of Gendarmes began to be subjected to special “tests.” We haven't talked about exams yet. Candidates were seconded for 2-4 months to Corps Headquarters, where fellow soldiers assessed their “skills and abilities,” moral qualities and degree of education.

The actual “examination tests” for enrollment in the Corps were introduced later. First, it was necessary to pass preliminary exams at the Headquarters of the Gendarmerie Corps. Then those who passed the exams were included in the candidate list, and as vacancies appeared, they were called to St. Petersburg for 4-month courses, after which they still had to pass the final exam. And only then those who passed through this sieve were enrolled in the Separate Corps of Gendarmes by the highest decree. The following data testifies to the strict selection for the Gendarmerie Corps. In 1871, 142 army officers applied for transfer to the Corps of Gendarmes, of which 21 were selected. Only 6 people were allowed to attend the courses, i.e. only 4.2% of the number of applicants.

One of the main tasks of the III Department and the Separate Corps of Gendarmes is to ensure the personal safety of Nicholas I. Although the tsar’s best protection was himself. His imperious charisma was such that Nicholas I alone managed to bring the rebellious crowd on Sennaya Square to their knees during the outbreak of the cholera epidemic early in 1831 in St. Petersburg. Admiral A.I. Shestakov wrote about this character trait of Nikolai Pavlovich: “Courage, which brought mad crowds to his knees, illuminated him with the radiance of power, which did not allow the thought of disobedience, which rejected villainy itself. No hand could rise against a man who carried within himself the conviction of invulnerability. The fear in his eyes was for mere mortals, and not for the anointed one, over whom a supernatural guard stood.” The Tsar realized this, therefore, after the reconstruction of the Winter Palace in 1838-1839. night fasts at the emperor's personal chambers, introduced under Alexander I, were abolished by order of Nikolai Pavlovich.

As contemporaries testify, the tsar, like his elder brother Alexander I236, allowed himself solitary walks along the Palace Embankment and Summer Garden in a simple overcoat, bowing to meeting acquaintances. Subjects could often see the emperor without any security. He regularly attended public masquerades at Engelhart's house. The subjects knew exactly where and when they could meet Nicholas I on the street. For example, Baron M. Korf mentions in “Notes” that if someone wanted to meet the emperor “face to face,” then “it was only necessary to walk along Malaya Morskaya about 3 hours before lunch and about 7 hours along Bolshaya. At this time he visited his daughter in the Mariinsky Palace...”

But during periods of political crises, contemporaries asked whether the sacred person of the emperor was protected at all? Thus, in 1848, when Europe was shaken by the convulsions of bourgeois revolutions, Baron Korff wrote: “With confidence in the mass of the people, it was difficult to vouch for each individual person and, for all that, not only were no external precautions, guards and etc., not only was it allowed to freely, as always, enter the palace and walk around its halls, but the sovereign himself walked the streets every day completely alone, the heir too, and the royal ladies rode for hours in open carriages. Of course, however, this did not and should not have weakened secret surveillance measures.” It can be assumed that this behavior of members of the imperial family is associated with a conscious demonstration of the political stability of the Russian Empire. Nevertheless, contemporaries believed that there were “secret surveillance measures.”

It is difficult to say whether the king was constantly accompanied by his secret guard and what its composition was. But nevertheless, in the memoirs there are references indicating that such secret security existed.

On the street, Nikolai Pavlovich could strike up a casual conversation with people he personally knew. However, this could end disastrously for the interlocutor. For example, after a conversation with the actor-comedian of the French troupe Berne, whom the emperor especially favored, he ended up in the police station for “molesting” the emperor, since, “having a poor command of the Russian language, he could not communicate with the policeman. And only later, when everything became clear, he was released with an apology.” It can be assumed that the king’s guards, the “policemen,” immediately found out the identities of the emperor’s interlocutors, if they were not already known to them. According to the memoirs of actress A.Ya. Panaeva, the emperor loved to be on stage in the theater, but at the same time “no one walked, officials stood everywhere, watching so that no one would accidentally jump onto the stage... finally, the sovereign was tired of this deathly silence behind the scenes and on stage, and he gave the order that they should never be embarrassed in his presence, and everyone would do their job. You should have seen how the officials fussed so that, for example, the carpenters, dragging the curtain, would not touch the sovereign, how all the artists walked around the stage in the hope that the sovereign would make them happy with his attention.” These “officials,” of course, could have been representatives of the theater administration, but it can be assumed that the “officials” were gendarmerie officers who were responsible for the personal safety of the tsar. Perhaps these were special officials “on special assignments” of the III Division, whose names were first mentioned in the order of April 17, 1841. They, quite legally engaged in intelligence activities, could secretly accompany the emperor.

But in any case, they had little work to do. Of the many memoirs about personal protection, there are only a few indirect references, so we can only speak hypothetically about its existence. But this does not mean that during the entire 30 years of his reign there were no real threats to the life of the king. In the first half of the 1830s, after the brutal suppression of the uprising in Poland by Russian troops, this threat became quite noticeable. So noticeable that, when preparing for maneuvers in Kalisz in 1835 and assuming the possibility of assassination attempts by the Poles, Nikolai Pavlovich left something like a will for the heir. In June 1833, it became known that in Avignon, France, Polish rebels decided to kill Nicholas I. Soon Marcel Szymanski, who had secretly returned from France, was arrested in Vilna, and poison and a dagger were confiscated from him. In the 1830s. In the secret correspondence of the Peterhof palace administration with the ranks of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes, several Poles were identified as persons who were considered as persons capable of committing an attempt on the life of the Tsar. Thus, the gendarmes reported to the palace guard the signs of one of the possible terrorists: “Plater Vladislav. Average height, light brown hair, blue eyes, moderate nose, pleasant appearance"

An episode that occurred in 1843 in Poznan can also be attributed to the attempted assassination of the emperor. In September 1843, Nicholas I left Berlin for Warsaw via Poznan. On the evening of September 7, he approached Poznan, but local officials asked him to go around the city, since a large funeral procession was moving through it. The Tsar agreed, but one of the lagging carriages of the Military Campaign Office did not know about the Tsar’s decision and drove through the city. “While walking along the main street, at the corner of a small alley, shots were fired. The bullets, ten in number, pierced the body of the carriage, and three of them remained in the cotton wool of the overcoat of one of the officials. It is unlikely that this assassination attempt was a pre-planned action. Most likely, it was an emotional outburst of some unknown Pole.

Problems of the personal safety of Nicholas I became the subject of discussion during the emperor's travels abroad. Thus, in 1844, on the eve of Nicholas I’s visit to Great Britain, consultations on this issue took place between interested parties. As a result, Count Nesselrode wrote to the Russian ambassador in London: “The Emperor is not at all opposed to the precautions that the English ministers would consider necessary to take... the Emperor does not want to know anything about them or see them. It would be too unpleasant for him to walk around constantly surrounded by precautions.” These words actually outlined the position of Nicholas I in relation to his personal security in general. He perfectly understood its importance and necessity and agreed with its existence. I agree, but on one condition. He didn't want her to be noticed not only by others, but also by himself. The Emperor was convinced that too intrusive guards, endlessly demonstrating their zeal, only undermined the prestige of imperial power in Russia.

Ultimately, the threats of an attempt on the life of Emperor Nicholas I remained only threats, and the ulcer of political terrorism, which had already begun to corrode the political life of Europe, did not affect Russia during his reign. Under Nicholas I, the special services that provided the Tsar’s personal security had little work to do. Actually, during this period, Section III cannot yet be called a special service in the modern meaning of the term. The military security was mainly of a demonstration nature. The charm of this man’s personality was so great, and the power inherent in him so organically, that during the entire period of his reign not a single organized attempt was made on him.

3.His Imperial Majesty's own convoy

Throughout the 19th century. The backbone of the Russian monarchs' guard was the Cossacks. The beginning of the creation of its own convoy dates back to the time of Catherine II, who in 1775 ordered the formation of a military team for her personal protection. In 1796, this team was transformed into a Hussar-Cossack regiment, consisting of three Don squadrons. But in fact, the history of the Own Convoy begins on May 18, 1811, when the Life Guards Black Sea Cossack Hundred of Kuban Cossacks was formed. This formation formed the personal guard of Emperor Alexander I during the foreign campaigns of the Russian army in 1813-1814. It is fundamentally important that the Convoy was the first special military unit designed to protect the emperor and members of his family.

Under Nicholas I in 1828, the Caucasian-Mountain Half-Squadron was formed as part of the Convoy. They were commanded by Captain Sultan-Azamat-Girey, a descendant of the Crimean khans. It is characteristic that the mountain cavalry was under the authority of the Chief of Gendarmes and the Commander of the Main Imperial Apartment A.Kh. Benckendorf. For responsible service in the Convoy, the highlanders were previously trained in the Noble Regiment, since they all came from noble Caucasian families. Due to the fact that the mountaineers were Muslims, the rules for their training were drawn up personally by A.Kh. Benckendorf. These rules took into account the peculiarities of the mentality and religion of the mountaineers. For example, it was prescribed “not to give pork and ham. Strictly prohibit the ridicule of the nobles and try to make friends with the highlanders with them. Don’t teach guns and marching, trying to get the mountaineers to do this hunting in free time"; “It is not forbidden to wash your face, as is customary, several times a day. Effendiy is allowed to visit the Highlanders whenever he wishes, even in the classrooms. Make sure that the nobles do not disturb them while the highlanders are praying. Do not interfere with meetings with fellow tribesmen”; “Make sure that not only teachers, but also nobles do not say anything bad about the faith of the mountaineers and do not advise changing it.”

According to the states of 1830, a half-squadron was supposed to have 5 officers, 9 cadets and 40 squires. At the same time, mountain horsemen played a dual role. On the one hand, they were entrusted with honorable service in the personal guard of the emperor. During visits to Russia by rulers from European countries, the highlanders with their medieval weapons were perceived as an element of “Russian exoticism.” On the other hand, they played the role of a kind of hostages in the conditions of the ongoing war in the Caucasus. Therefore, they tried to keep the mountaineers at some distance from the king. When recruiting highlanders for the Convoy, attention was paid to the degree of influence and wealth of the clan. Preference was given to Kumyks, Kabardins, Ossetians, Nogais and Lezgins. They tried not to take Chechens into the Convoy.

In the 1830s. The convoy was deployed to three hundred: linear Terek Cossacks (from October 12, 1832), Lezgins (from 1836) and Azerbaijanis (from 1839). In 1857, a team of Georgians appeared in the Convoy. It was the linear Terek Cossacks who were entrusted with the responsible task of constant personal protection of Nicholas I. According to the staff of a hundred, there were two officers, four officers and 24 Cossacks; the Cossacks were given the same uniforms and weapons as the Life Guards of the Caucasian-Mountain half-squadron. In March 1833 The composition of the team was doubled and divided into two shifts: one was in service for 3 years in St. Petersburg, and the second was “on benefits,” i.e. in their villages.

The Cossacks accompanied the Tsar on his trips and were used for guard duty. One of the favorite residences of Nicholas I was Peterhof, in which a Cottage was built for the imperial family, and the park around it was named after the Tsar’s wife “Alexandria”. In 1832, a team of linear Cossacks of the Convoy patrolled the Peterhof parks, where the imperial summer residence was located. By 1833, a certain order of service had already developed, and clearly fixed posts appeared. So, during the guarding of Peterhof Park, one post was located “at the house” on the shore of the Gulf of Finland on the way to Alexandria, another at Monplaisir, a third at the Marly Pavilion, the fourth carried the daily duty in Alexandria, “to send news.” During the emperor’s walks, the Cossacks were placed along the route in advance in order to protect it.

In the mid-1830s. a new tradition was formed that persisted until 1917. The Tsar’s personal bodyguards began to be recruited from the Terek Cossack hundred of the Convoy.

In 1836, the constable Podsvirov was first taken to serve at the Court as an indoor “Cossack chamber”. It was he who laid the foundation for the tradition of the existence of “personal guards” - bodyguards for the king’s person.

In addition to the Cossacks, the residences of Nicholas I were guarded by guards from guard posts. To guard the imperial residence in Peterhof, two guards regiments were permanently stationed. When the Tsar was resting outside Peterhof, the security of Alexandria Park was provided by seven permanent posts, two privates for each post. During the Tsar's vacation in the Cottage, the army security of the park was reinforced by gendarmerie officials. According to the memoirs of a contemporary, “not a single mortal was allowed through the gates of the Alexandria Park unless this mortal was sitting in a court carriage.”

By the mid-1840s. The first stage of the formation of the imperial guard ended. Until 1845, the order of Convoy service was determined by short job descriptions. In May 1845, the Tsar was presented with additions to the brief rules of combat service for irregular troops in terms of His Majesty’s Own Convoy. Nicholas I personally made amendments to these documents. The rules determined the composition of the Convoy, the staff of each of its units, the order of organization and service during events with the participation of the Tsar. In 1845, barracks were built for the Convoy in Tsarskoye Selo.

IN last years In the life of Nicholas I, the “highest command” established the medal “For Service in His Own Convoy.” The order for its establishment was issued in December 1850. However, only on January 19, 1855, a month before the death of Nicholas I, the Minister of War

The Cossacks of the Convoy served in a completely different way during the reign of Alexander II (February 19, 1855 - March 1, 1881). On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the fateful Manifesto for Russia on the emancipation of serfs. At the same time, he well remembered the fate of Paul I, so it was in February 1861 that the first steps were taken to strengthen the immediate protection of Alexander II.

At the beginning of February 1861, the Life Guards Black Sea Cossack division was combined with the Life Guards linear Cossack squadron of its own convoy. As a result, the number of the Own Convoy reached 500 people. Their number included Kuban (2/3) and Terek (1/3) Cossacks. Along with other military formations, the Cossacks performed guard duty in the Winter Palace. During this alarming time, the Convoy Cossack guard, consisting of one platoon, was in the Field Marshal's Hall, in addition, a post was posted near the Tsar's office (an officer, a non-commissioned officer and two Cossacks) and two Cossacks occupied a post at night near the Tsar's bedroom. During court balls, seven Cossacks were appointed to the tsar’s entrance “to take off their coats.”

An important feature of the current situation was that Alexander II personally and very concerned began to deal with issues of his own security. So, according to his instructions, from December 20, 1861, “in the hall with the portrait of Prince. Volkonsky" placed 23 Cossacks of the Convoy for the period from 12 o'clock at night to 9 o'clock in the morning. Total in the Winter Palace in the 1860s. Cossacks, alternating with guards units, occupied five posts. The Cossacks began to periodically accompany the Tsar during his trips to St. Petersburg and constantly accompanied the Tsar during his walks in country residences and in the Crimea.

In May 1863, after the abolition of the Crimean Tatar squadron, a team of the Life Guards of the Crimean Tatars became part of the Convoy. It was in this team that Prince Nikolai Georgievich Tumanov served as an officer. At the end of the reign of Alexander III, he was one of the persons who determined the order of the emperor's security.

The practice of hostage-taking continued to some extent into the 1860s. Thus, the son of the captive Shamil served as part of the mountain unit of the Convoy, who for decades fought against Russian troops in the Caucasus. On August 21, 1860, Shamil wrote to the Minister of the Imperial Court from Kaluga: “When the news reached us that the Great Sovereign Emperor ordered our son Muhammad-Shefi to be accepted into military service in His Majesty’s Own convoy and even showed him the favor of awarding an officer rank, we are indescribably we rejoiced at this... I bring you sincere and great gratitude for this, for you were the reason for this and helped to complete this matter, and we know this for sure, because you are honored and respected by the Sovereign, he accepts your words and approves your actions. May God restore your health, this is our constant prayer for you. Mortal servant of God Shamil."

Since October 1867, the Cossack squadrons of the Convoy began to be recruited independently. Gradually, a tradition of selecting reinforcements for the Own Convoy developed, which was maintained until 1914.

Conclusion

The reactionary course that Alexander I began to pursue from the beginning of the 20s is closely related to the emperor’s disappointment in the possibility of carrying out the transformations he had planned in Russia. His historical mission turned out to be impossible. What forced the monarch to direct his activities towards creating conditions for the security of power and ensuring public order. With this state setup, the police were the means to achieve and ensure the “common good.” The creation of police structures by Alexander I with their primitive methods of activity (denunciations, espionage, inspection of correspondence) caused not only discontent among the public, but also aggravated its relations with the authorities.

Represented by A.Kh. Benckendorf, who headed the new police structure, the autocrat acquired a devoted and capable government official. He managed to organize the activities of the III department so that it covered all spheres of social influence.

The traditional direction in the work of the higher police was political supervision, investigation, as well as control over the state of public opinion. OH. Benckendorff was one of the first to understand what role the opinion of society would play in the life of the empire and entered into single combat with it. But he was mistaken, seeing in him only a threat to power; the chief of gendarmes did not see anything constructive.

Undoubtedly, the specifics of the police practice of the III department were influenced by the person at the head of this institution. Having headed the department entrusted to him, A.Kh. Benckendorf managed to fulfill his assigned duties: to prevent a repetition of the events of 1825. and hold back the social upsurge. The police basically played the role of an “all-seeing eye”; they not only observed, but practically controlled all spheres of public and government activity.

Secret police officers were scattered throughout the empire. The denunciation was in initial period management A.Kh. Benckendorff's III department was the main method of obtaining information, but already in the mid-1830s, tendencies towards provocation began to appear. In addition, the police practiced preventive arrests and repressive actions.

It should be noted that at the first stage of the functioning of the III department, many progressive people consciously tried to help the government “restore order” in the state. A significant role in this belonged to A.Kh. Benckendorf.

Despite some condescension towards the first chief manager on the part of society, the attitude towards him was respectful. OH. Benckendorff was precisely the person who was able to reconcile the emperor with society. He managed to keep Russian society within the framework of the law that Nicholas I wanted to see. He was not as indifferent as the subsequent ruler of the III department to the fate of people, he was not alien to sympathy, which manifested itself in relation to the Decembrists, but he In all this he was a man of duty. Speaking of A.H. Benckendorff as an official, it should be noted that state abilities and “the associated right to the appreciation of contemporaries and descendants” are not the lot of everyone admitted to the helm of power. It is among such persons, engaged in public administration and vested with power, that the first chief manager of the 111th department can be considered. He conscientiously carried out his duties and clearly carried out the tasks assigned by the emperor. He managed to keep the entire empire under control. He knew how to sense the spirit of the times: when necessary, tighten control or make easing. The opinion of the chief of gendarmes was accepted for execution. But it should be borne in mind that A.Kh. Benckendorff, being a “dear friend,” never abused the emperor’s trust and remained faithful to this principle until the end of his life.

A completely different type of leader was represented by A.F. Orlov. In the minds of society, he left a bad reputation for himself, despite his diplomatic successes in representing Russia in the international arena. Unlike A.Kh. Benckendorf, he was not a creator, but an executor of the monarch's will, a typical official of the outgoing Nicholas era.

Having become the head of the III department, he did not seek to change anything. Although time required certain adjustments to be made both to the methods of activity of the “higher” police and to the structure of police agencies. Using the system of “police-protective” and “prohibitive” measures developed under A.Kh. Benkendorf, the 3rd department was gradually losing its position by the end of the 1840s, which was clearly demonstrated by the “Petrashevites case.”

The main goal pursued by Nicholas I, according to the testimony of the maid of honor of the court A.F. Tyutcheva, creating a political police - “to see everything with your own eyes, to hear everything with your own ears, to regulate everything according to your own understanding, to transform everything with your own will.” And it turned out to be unattainable. In 1840-1850 publicists, writers and scientists of various opposition movements, despite the constant vigilant supervision established over them by the gendarmes, managed to prepare the internal liberation of Russian society and instill in it a thirst for decisive change.

police imperious benckendorf nikolai

Bibliography

1. SOURCES1. Archival documents1. A). State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF)

Gr. OH. Benckendorff about Russia in 1827-1830. Annual reports of the III department and the gendarme corps // Red archive. 2006. No. 6, 7.

Decembrists. Unpublished materials and articles. Edited by B.L. Modzalevsky and 23. Report from an agent of the III department from Moscow. (1848) The past. 1906. No. 11

Report of Yakov Tolstoy from Paris to the III department. Message E. Tarle Literary heritage. T. 31-32. M., 2007.

Project gr. Benkedorf A.H. about the structure of the higher police //Russian antiquity. 1900. T. 100.

Benckedorf. OH. Emperor Nicholas 1 in 1830-1831. //Russian antiquity. 2006. T. 88.

Emperor Nicholas I and his associates. Memoirs of gr. Otto de Brey. 1849-1852 //Russian antiquity. 1992. No. 1-3.

From the life of the Decembrists in Siberia. Secret letter to gr. Benkendorf S.B. Bronevitsky. 30. 12. 1836. No. 4101 // Russian antiquity. 1999. T. 100.

Karatygin V.A. Benckendorf and Dubelt // Historical Bulletin. 2007. No. 10.

Corf. M.A. Materials and features for the biography of Emperor Nicholas I. And the history of his reign // Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. St. Petersburg, 2008. T. 98.

Andreevsky I. Police law. St. Petersburg, 2001.

Abakumov O.Yu. Personal files of officials of the 3rd department, as a historical source // General and national history: current problems. Saratov, 2003.

Abakumov O.Yu. He knows everything, goes everywhere, accepts everyone. New touches to the portrait of Y143. Herzen A.I. and III department // Voice of the past. 2008. No. 4-5.

Derevnina T.G. From the history of the formation of the III department // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Story. 2003. No. 4.

Derevnina T.G. Political police under Nicholas I // Liberation movement in Russia. Saratov, 2005. No. 4.

190 years ago - July 3, 1826 - by personal decree of NicholasIwas createdIII A branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, the main task of which was political investigation.

The ranks of the Life Guards of the Gendarmerie Half-Squadron. Hood. A.I. Goebens

In 1880, under the thunder of the Narodnaya Volya terror, the publicist and publisher Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov delivered a verdict to Section III:

“That this institution was useless is loudly demonstrated by recent history: it did not warn anything, did not stop anything, and the evil with which it was called upon to fight not only did not decrease, but grew and intensified. Upon closer examination, it will turn out that it was not only useless against evil, but itself contributed to its development.” Then, in 1880, it seemed that the whole society greeted with enthusiasm the decree on the abolition of the discredited department, which opponents of the authorities (for example, Alexander Herzen) and was even called the “central office of espionage.”

However, already in March 1881, a few days after the death Alexandra II, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev a project was submitted to recreate the III Division under a new name - the Supreme Committee. The anonymous author recalled that the III Department “in the first 20 years of its existence had mandatory supervision over the ministers and made them de facto responsible, if not before the law, then before the person of the emperor.”

Reaction to the uprising

In the last years of his reign Alexandra I the powers of the high police were delegated to the Special Chancellery of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which, however, did not prevent the secret police from functioning at the headquarters of the Guards Corps, in the Second Army and southern military settlements. In addition, the Conservation Committee, established back in 1807, continued to operate general security; finally, the chief commander of the Separate Corps of Military Settlements had his own secret agents A.A. Arakcheev and St. Petersburg military governor general M.A. Miloradovich.

However, despite the abundance of secret services, the activities of the Decembrist circles were never stopped. Therefore, when in January 1826, immediately after the Decembrist uprising, Lieutenant General Alexander Khristoforovich Benkendorf, who was one of the most trusted representatives of Nicholas I, proposed reorganizing the political police department in such a way that it would “submit to a system of strict centralization” and “cover all points empire", the young emperor instructed him to compile detailed project corresponding reform. And a little later he entrusted the leadership of the new department.

Subsequently, Nikolai Pavlovich strictly adhered to the principle of unity of command in matters of political investigation. So, in the summer of 1828, when the sovereign went to the theater of military operations with Turkey, the Minister of Internal Affairs A.A. Zakrevsky proposed to temporarily resume the work of the Special Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but received a rebuke from Benkendorf:

“The Emperor does not allow this at all, it is contrary to the intentions of His Majesty and exceeds the power of the Minister of Internal Affairs, and, finally, the Emperor, having the highest police under my command, prohibits the formation of any other.”

Nicholas I chose to move the secret police department outside the ministerial system. “The highest police power in its narrow, basic sense must emanate from the person of the monarch himself and flow through all branches government structure“- wrote then Benckendorff’s closest assistant, former director of the Special Chancellery Maxim Yakovlevich von Fock.

A personal decree on the establishment of the III Department of the Imperial Chancellery followed on July 3, 1826 - a few days before the execution of the Decembrists.

In this building on the Moika in the 1830s there wasIIIBranch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery

The bulk of the staff of the new department (15 out of 16 officials) were employees of the abolished Special Chancellery. Benckendorff was appointed chief, and von Fock - manager of Section III. By 1842, the department's staff had grown to 30 people, and its official expenses exceeded 120 thousand rubles per year. But organizationally, Division III was still a small office, whose officials served in one position for decades and did not move to other departments.

Expeditions and "forwarders"

Cases in the III Division were carried out on four expeditions. The first was responsible for “all subjects of the highest surveillance police”, “monitoring the general opinion and national spirit”, collecting “detailed information about all people under the supervision of the police, expulsion and placement of suspicious and harmful persons”. This expedition was supposed to prevent malicious intent against the emperor and look for secret societies; cases of abuses in government institutions, during recruitment, and in elections to noble assemblies passed through it.

The competence of the second expedition included “news of discoveries on counterfeit notes, coins, stamps, documents”, observation of sects, obtaining information about various inventions and improvements, consideration of complaints in family matters, as well as issues of personnel of the III Department. Later she was also assigned to oversee four prisons for state criminals.

The third expedition controlled the passage of foreigners to Russia, monitored their stay and dealt with issues of deportation. Finally, the fourth expedition was in charge of “all general incidents in the state,” that is, it submitted to the highest discretion monthly statistics of epidemics, fires, unrest and murders in the provinces. In 1842, a fifth expedition appeared, which included censorship matters, mainly in the theater.

Portrait of A.Kh. Benckendorf, chiefIIISection, chief of gendarmes, in the uniform of the Life Guards of the Gendarmerie half-squadron. Hood. E.I. Botman

A small apparatus of officials prepared notes to the chief commander of Section III, as well as all-subtle reports. The number of incoming papers from other departments was constantly growing: from 198 in 1826 to 2564 in 1840, and this is not counting the numerous complaints and petitions of private individuals, censorship materials, reports of agents and gendarmerie officers.

The agent network of the III Division in the time of Nicholas was unbranched: its sphere of attention was limited mainly to the two capitals and the Caucasus. There were no special instructions for agents. The simple methods of his work as an official on special assignments ON THE. Kashintsev described it like this:

“Having comprehended the sublime significance of useful observations, I am ready to continue it with zeal, to report everything that reaches me, reporting, as always, sincerely: what is mine is mine, what is reported is someone else’s; that the truth is true, that a rumor is a rumor. I can’t answer for someone else’s and hearsay, but if I wrote that it’s true, then believe that it’s true based on the incident.”

Investigations based on intelligence reports were rarely carried out. Benckendorff himself was of the opinion that secret agents could not serve as the main source of information for the higher police. In 1832, he opposed the establishment of secret agents in Warsaw, since “the general methods for secret supervision of the morals and behavior of people consist in approaching the most well-behaved of them and enjoying general trust, who usually act on the said occasion not out of self-interest, but solely out of noble competition for the public good."

At the same time, during the Nikolaev reign, the network of inspection points at post offices, which had existed since the time of Catherine II. In the second quarter of the 19th century, such “black offices” operated in five to eight cities, and extracts from opened letters began to flow into Section III.

Corps of Gendarmes

The most important component of the reform of the secret department was subordination to the head of the III Department of the Paramilitary Police - the Corps of Gendarmes formed in 1826-1827.

The corps included provincial, port and fortress gendarme teams, gendarme divisions in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and a little later the Life Guards Gendarme Half-Squadron and the Gendarme Regiment (army police) - in total over 4 thousand combat ranks. According to the “Regulations on the Corps of Gendarmes” of 1836, these teams were engaged in capturing thieves, pursuing robbers, pacifying “disobedience and riots,” apprehending fugitives and deserters, escorting recruits, criminals, prisoners and prisoners. All this was not directly related to the affairs of the high police, but related to the traditional activities of the “classical” Napoleonic gendarmerie, according to the model of which the paramilitary police were also formed in Spain, Italy and some German states in the first half of the 19th century.

Portrait of Major General L.V. Dubelt, chief of staff of the Corps of Gendarmes. Hood. A.V. Tyranov

Meanwhile, at the same time, according to the project of Benckendorff, who in June 1826 was approved as chief of gendarmes, the European part of Russia was divided into five gendarmerie districts with headquarters in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vitebsk, Kyiv and Kazan. By the end of the 1830s, the gendarmerie network covered the entire empire, including Siberia, the Kingdom of Poland and Transcaucasia, although the latter two districts were primarily subordinate to the governors. By the mid-1830s, a separate gendarmerie staff officer was sent to each province. It was these officials who were entrusted with the tasks of the higher police.

Benckendorff compiled two secret instructions for the guidance of provincial headquarters officers. His boss defined the idea of ​​​​establishing the Corps of Gendarmes as follows:

“To establish the well-being and tranquility of all classes in Russia, to see them protected by laws and to restore perfect justice in all places and authorities.”

For this purpose, the headquarters officer was charged with the duty of paying special attention to “abuses, riots and acts contrary to the law”, to ensure that the rights of his subjects were not violated by “anyone’s personal power or dominance strong people" And of course, the staff officer should always remember the chief’s main wish:

“The purpose of your office should be, first of all, to prevent and avert all evil.”

The instructions - a kind of “moral code of the gendarme” - soon began to circulate from hand to hand. Opposition-minded writer Mikhail Dmitriev recalled how he “obtained, with great difficulty, the instructions that Benckendorff gave to his secret agents.” “The institution had the goal of secretly finding the guilty and the right, the vicious and the virtuous, in order to punish the former and reward the latter, especially to prosecute bribe-takers,” the memoirist noted. “And this right of the gendarmes was based ... on their own virtue and on the purity of their hearts, probably on the assumption that anyone who puts on a blue uniform of heavenly color immediately becomes an angel in the flesh!” A secret cart that delivered two exiled Poles to Irkutsk, 6,000 miles from St. Petersburg. Hood. EAT. Korneev

For his part, journalist and writer Thaddeus Bulgarin, who actively collaborated with the III Department, already in February 1827 reported to Benckendorff: “The instructions to the gendarmes are passed around. It is called the charter of the Union of Welfare. It amazed me and made me happy.”

The legend of the scarf

At the same time, the authorities sent a certain signal to society: gendarmerie officers should be perceived as conductors of the will of the emperor, standing in defense of justice and called upon to help everyone whose rights are violated. It is no coincidence that the “legend of the scarf”, which first existed among the gendarmerie, became widespread. This story is beautiful:

“In response to the boss’s repeatedly repeated request for instructions, instead of answering, the Emperor once handed him a white handkerchief, saying: “Don’t miss opportunities to wipe away the tears of the unfortunate and offended - here are your instructions.”

The gendarmerie officers also sought to imbue themselves with the spirit of the high mission ahead of them. For example, in January 1830, then retired colonel Leonty Vasilievich Dubelt wrote to his wife:

“Don’t be a gendarme,” you say, but do you understand... the essence of the matter. If, upon joining the corps of gendarmes, I become an informer, an earpiece, then my good name, of course, will be tarnished. But if, on the contrary, I... will be a support for the poor, a defense of the unfortunate; If I, acting openly, force justice to be given to the oppressed, I will see that in places of justice they give legal cases a direct and fair direction, then what will you call me?.. Will I not then be worthy of respect, will not my place be the best? excellent, the most noble? Reception room of Count A.Kh. Benckendorf. Unknown artist. Late 1820s

Benckendorff's colleague during the Napoleonic Wars, the Decembrist prince Sergei Volkonsky argued that the idea of ​​​​creating such a “cohort of good-thinking people” came to Benckendorff in France. Even the Soviet historian Nathan Eidelman noticed that “Bencendorff invited almost “everyone” to his department and was especially glad to see yesterday’s freethinkers, who, he knew, were smarter, more lively than their tongue-tied antipodes, and would serve better if they went.”

When selecting gendarmerie ranks, the emphasis was placed on participants in the Napoleonic Wars, known for their military merits. As a gendarme general wrote at the beginning of the 20th century Alexander Ivanovich Spiridovich:

“What other environment could provide the appropriate contingent of people to perform such a high task? Only the Russian army, for the most part, has always served its sovereigns faithfully.”

The competence and responsibilities of provincial headquarters officers, even in an unspoken document, were formulated very vaguely, and therefore their official position turned out to be peculiar. Without legally defined powers, the gendarmes could not give orders or instructions to local authorities and even demand files and certificates from provincial government institutions. But through their boss they had a direct channel of communication with the emperor. At the same time, the vagueness of the gendarmerie’s powers was part of the general plan of the “cohort of good-thinking people.”

“The power of the gendarmes,” wrote Benckendorff in 1842, “in my opinion, should not be executive; its actions should be limited to observations alone, and here the more independent they are, the more useful they can be... Gendarmes should be... like envoys to foreign powers: if possible, see everything, know everything and not interfere in anything.”

So if we call the provincial headquarters officers the political police, we must not forget that they acted quite openly (hence the “blue uniforms”) and did not receive funds to create an agent network in Nikolaev’s time.

Channel feedback

Nicholas I demanded from the highest police vigilant supervision over the exiled Decembrists, guards, students and literary circles. In the second quarter of the 19th century, through the first expedition of the III Division, famous cases of students of the brothers took place Petra, Mikhail And Vasily Kritskikh, mug Nikolai Sungurov, “About persons who sang libelous poems” (that is, the first case of Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Ogarev), about the Polish uprising of 1830–1831. The overwhelming majority of such cases concerned Poles - participants in the uprising and exiles, but in the general series of archival folders of the III Division, political cases did not occupy the first place.

The sphere of interests of the higher police gradually emerged. Over the years, Section III has become a kind of receiving power or, as they say now, a feedback channel between the government and society.

With the expansion of university education and the formation of the intelligentsia, public opinion turned into a factor in political life. The first chief of gendarmes believed that the government's targeted influence on public sentiment was absolutely necessary. “Public opinion is for the authorities what a topographic map is for the commander of the army during the war,” we read in the very first report of the III Department.

The printed word became the main channel for developing public opinion, and the highest police could not remain aloof from the literary process of the era. The censorship and even repressive measures of Section III in this area have been thoroughly studied, but there was another aspect of the participation of the high police in literary affairs.

Thus, Benkendorf’s secretary was the prose writer and poet A.A. Ivanovsky, and the writer V.A. served as an adjutant to Dubelt, who became the chief of staff of the Gendarme Corps. Vladislavlev; officials of the III Division in the 1840s were the poet V.E. Verderevsky, writer P.P. Kamensky, son of the director of the Imperial Theaters M.A. Gedeonov. The department on the Fontanka used the services of “Northern Bee” F.V. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech and actively collaborated with a number of publications. Articles and notes commissioned by the III Department were written by N.A. Polevoy, M.N. Zagoskin, P.A. Vyazemsky, for financial support in the III Department in different years contacted A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol.

However, the “literary aristocracy” sought greater independence. In 1831, Pushkin made a proposal to the chief of gendarmes: “I would gladly take on the editorship of a political magazine... I would unite writers with talents around it and thus bring useful people closer to the government, who are still shy, in vain believing it to be hostile to enlightenment." But this idea never found a response.

Benckendorff, who at the same time served as commander of the Imperial Headquarters from 1826, accompanied the sovereign on all trips to Russia and Europe. On such trips, subjects of the Russian Empire often submitted complaints, petitions and notes to the highest name. These papers then went to the III Department: they were sorted and transferred to the responsible departments, and the III Department controlled the outcome of the case.

On the intricacies of the bureaucratic system

It was clear to Nicholas I that he had inherited from his older brother a long-standing problem - the disorder of the central and local government apparatus. He was worried that the strengthening bureaucracy was gathering all the threads of control in its hands, while a “bureaucratic mediastinum” was growing between the highest authorities and its subjects. Section III reported to Nikolai about the officials:

“They are the ones who rule, and not only individual, the largest of them, but, in essence, everyone, since they know all the intricacies of the bureaucratic system.”

In this situation, the III Department and the gendarmes were tasked with collecting information about central departments and provincial officials (especially in remote provinces) and supervising their activities. Observant "Decembrist without December" Nikolai Turgenev noted in this regard that “the need for secret surveillance is characteristic of almost all autocratic sovereigns and can only be explained by complete ignorance of what is happening around.”

In February 1832, all provincial headquarters officers received a secret circular, which ordered “to pay the most vigilant attention to those gentlemen, officials, landowners, merchants and other classes who, by their rank, or wealth, connections, intelligence, education, or other merits, have a bad or good influence on others and even on high-ranking officials.” The statements had to be submitted twice a year: the secret supervision of the provincial bureaucracy became systematic.

Landowner politicians. Hood. K.A. Trutovsky

In the III Department, a huge card index has been collected: many gendarmerie characteristics of the officials of the empire allow us to “materialize” the world of Gogol’s “The Inspector General”. For example, the chairman of the Yaroslavl treasury chamber “is not content with those benefits of his place, which, so to speak, are sanctified by time and, as it were, included in the permanent budget, but concentrated in his hands the entire revenue part of the chamber’s branches, thus depriving the advisers of most of the benefits that they could use it.” The emperor learned the following about the Kazan governor, Major General Albert Karlovich Pirkh:

“The governor does not have due respect. I would not dare to rely on rumors for such a respectful person in the province, but I myself am an eyewitness to everything; In addition to the daily lunches of the merchants, and after dinner at the theater, he is also burdened with hibernation. It’s impossible to keep up with business in such a life.”

The gendarmes reported cases of abuse that required an immediate response in urgent reports. Nicholas I, based on Benckendorff’s report, could immediately make an administrative decision - to transfer, remove or bring the official to trial. But more often the notes were transferred to the responsible ministry, after which a lengthy interdepartmental correspondence arose, the outcome of which was difficult to predict. However, to clarify all the circumstances, the emperor could send auditors to the province. As a result of gendarmerie reports, more than ten governors and hundreds of officials of various ranks were dismissed during the Nikolaev era. The conflict with the local gendarmes also cost the positions of higher-ranking officials, in particular the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia V.Ya. Rupert and Governor General of Western Siberia P.D. Gorchakov.

The nature of gendarmerie supervision is illustrated by the case of the Orenburg civil governor I.D. Talyzin. In 1841, a local gendarmerie staff officer accused the governor of numerous abuses, as well as drunkenness and indecent behavior. The head of the Kazan gendarme district, however, denied this information. The secret police found themselves in a quandary. “Being confused about which of the information that has reached me, which contradicts one another, to believe,” Benckendorf asked for the opinion of the Orenburg military governor, Lieutenant General V.A. Perovsky.

Perovsky took Talyzin’s side, but the gendarmerie officer presented a new note about the governor’s riotous lifestyle. The matter was reported to the emperor. To clarify all the circumstances, Nicholas I sent a senator-auditor to Orenburg, who ultimately accused the gendarme of spreading ridiculous rumors (“instead of taking care, as a gendarmerie staff officer, to eliminate all grumbling and distrust of the government”). The gendarme was immediately dismissed. Years later, as a private citizen, he became aware of facts that confirmed Talyzin’s abuses and pointed to the bias of the senatorial report, and this time the new military governor of Orenburg did not defend the civilian governor. A resolution was preserved in the margins of the former gendarme's note Alexey Fedorovich Orlov, chief of gendarmes since 1845:

“It’s a pity, my heart hurts, but I can’t help it.”

Well aware of the inner workings of the capital's ministries and departments, the chief of gendarmes, through his most loyal reports and notes, had a direct influence on the emperor's personnel policy. Benckendorff was behind a number of important reshuffles, for example, the resignation of the Minister of Internal Affairs A.A. Zakrevsky and Minister of Justice A.A. Dolgorukov, as well as for the appointment of S.S. as Minister of Public Education. Uvarov.

"Moral Police Chiefs"

Based on the results of observations, the gendarmes transferred various projects to the III Department - from provincial reform to wine farming reform. Thus, Section III has accumulated a unique array of information about the internal state of the empire. Based on these materials, employees of the high police compiled annual all-subject reports, which have long attracted the attention of historians with non-trivial judgments about the political and social life of the country (among them one of the most famous is “serfdom is a powder magazine under the state”).

It is worth noting that the political police department was the least bureaucratic institution in the management system created by Nicholas I. For example, in 1848, gendarmerie colonel A.V. Vasiliev did not hesitate to accuse his own boss L.V. of abuses in his memo. Dubelta. And for Vasiliev this trick remained without consequences.

A good illustration is the published notes of the Simbirsk staff officer Erasmus Ivanovich Stogov. He happened to be involved in the reconciliation of the bride and groom, amicably resolving stories with gambling losses; once he stood up for a local architect, whom the governor threw out of his house. In relation to employees of the judicial chambers, Stogov acted as follows:

“...secretaries, clerks, assessors and the like came across complaints: they take bribes - take them, God be with them, that’s why they are nettle seeds, otherwise they are greedy, they will take from one and take from the enemy, the offended party complains.<…>The culprit comes, I most kindly say that I am at a loss in one matter and turn to his experience; I ask his advice and invite him into the office, lock the doors - and there is an explanation that will take three soaps off your head! Seeing cowardice and repentance, a promise to immediately return the money and an oath not to do this again, leaving the office, I politely thank him for his smart and experienced advice. Things didn’t go further than the office. I don’t remember a case where there were repeat offenders. The goal was achieved without insult.” Stogov himself called himself a “moral police chief.”

There was no secret police in this form anywhere in the world; its indispensable feature was the absolute, unshakable trust of the tsar in the chief of the gendarmes - the entire system of secret surveillance was built “under Benckendorff.” Thus, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, after a long conversation with Nicholas I, wrote in his diary: the emperor “believes that Benckendorff cannot be deceived.”

The role of the III Division declined already under Alexei Orlov, who was also his closest friend and right hand Nicholas I, but treated the affairs of the higher police rather coolly. And during the reign of Alexander II, six chiefs of the high police were replaced. By this time, their status in the informal court hierarchy had become incomparably lower. With the weakening of government control of the press and with the zemstvo reform of the 1860s, the secret supervision of the III Department over the provincial administration and society already looked like a clear anachronism: indeed, it would be extremely difficult to imagine the chief of gendarmes of the era of Alexander II in the role of the personal censor of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy or Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky . The provincial gendarmes, in turn, were ill-prepared to confront the underground circles of revolutionaries.

Returning to the words Mikhail Katkov, it is worth mentioning that at the end of his invective against the Third Section, he quite rightly added: “It had meaning and could act in its own sense when it was part of the system corresponding to it.” By and large, the system that Katkov wrote about collapsed with the death of Nicholas I. Section III never managed to climb out from under its rubble.

Grigory Bibikov,
Candidate of Historical Sciences

STOGOV E.I.. Notes of a gendarmerie staff officer from the era of Nicholas I. M., 2003
BIBIKOV G.N. OH. Benckendorff and the politics of Emperor Nicholas I. M., 2009
Oleinikov D.I. Benckendorf. M., 2009 (series “ZhZL”)