The Ownership of Altai and Nerchinsk Plants within the Cabinet Household (1747-1861): Is the Discussion Worth Being Continued?

Since the late 1950s the research into the issue of Cabinet household ownership was accompanied by a discussion which is still ongoing. Concepts based on assumptions, the patrimonial theory of Russian statehood, and the unsupported statements on the absence of Cabinet household's legal status not only contributed to the continuation of the discussion, they laid the foundation for the search for new research niches, for finding new ways to define the owner of the Cabinet household since 1747. The common denominator for all these concepts was the neglect of the clauses of the Decrees of May 1 and May 12, 1747, which gave an unambiguous answer to the questions about the terms of confiscating plants and determining their new owner. Despite the unquestionable competence of all the scholars engaged in the solution of the most debatable issue over the nature of Cabinet household, it turns out that no one went beyond speculations on the wording of the titles of the Decrees of May 1 and May 12, 1747, such as "taking in favour of the treasury" and "ordered to take upon Ourselves". Nobody paid attention to the clause on those living near the Kolyvano - Voskressensk plants who were obliged to to carry out work for those plants. They began to pay poll tax to the owner of the plants and to the state budget separately. This fact is still being disregarded. Obviously, that clause turned out to be sufficient to decide on the owner of the plants since 1747 as all the subsequent legislation further confirmed the aforementioned decrees. It is possible that this way of solvingthe ownership problem after having confiscated the plants from A. Demidov's heirs reflected the disguised appropriation by Elizaveta Petrovna of the territory of West Siberia rich in ore, forests and farmland. New ways proposed to solve the problem of Cabinet household ownership through referring to the materials of state revisions in Altai or through the interdisciplinary approach can hardly bring results. The reliance on the contemporary achievements of history as well as those of political science, economics, theory of state and law and other latest theoretical concepts do not promise positive results for the ongoing discussion. Reading carefully the Decrees of May 1 and May 12, 1747, which are not easy - to perceive by contemporary scholars, allows drawing a convincing and very simple, at first sight, conclusion that the tax reform of Peter I which replaced the household tax of the state peasantry with the 70-copeck poll tax became the basis for the definition of the plants' ownership since 1747. Apart from that, as was the case with the landlord peasantry, they were to pay the 40-copeck "landlord taxes" to the state budget. Apparently, the emergence and decades-long continuation of the debate which can last for years to come has become an inevitable outcome of neglecting the Decrees of 1747. It resulted in the scholars' hesitations in search for the owner of the Cabinet household. The entrenched since the 1980s idea that the state was the supreme owner of land and manufacturing facilities in Siberia where no landlord estate emerged is not consistent with the reality. Such estate did emerge and develop until the reform of 1861 providing its owner with the status of Russia's major landlord. All the economic resources of this estate were oriented to mining. The conditions of owning the Cabinet plants and lands and the reception of income from them satisfied all the successors of Elizaveta Petrovna up to Nicholay II. After the reform of 1861, Emperors being landlords received 4.5 rubles out of the six-ruble rent paid by peasants while the remaining 1.5 rubles went to the state treasury in accordance with the order legalized yet in 1747.

Keywords

Authors

References