After the Peasant Reform of 1861, the peasant question was not the object of close attention of the government for a long time, and the problems that arose

were resolved by palliative measures. At the turn of the 1870s and 1880s, a number of objective reasons led to a new attempt at a comprehensive solution to the accumulated problems. The government set the task of lowering redemption payments and transferring the remaining temporarily liable (vremennoobiazannye) peasants to compulsory redemption. The case was considered by the State Council in 1881, and within six months two diametrically opposed decisions were made on this issue. The article examines the origins of the dispute that arose in the government and the arguments of the parties, as well as the reasons for reviewing the case and changing the final decision.

A variety of chancelleries was an integral part of the bureaucratic system of the Russian Empire. They drew up all the official papers, the final fate of many projects depended on the actions of their officials. Both contemporaries and researchers perceived such an organization of office work as a necessary evil. However, the offices themselves were far from homogeneous in terms of the level of the institutions they served, and hence in their functions and personnel. A special place among them was occupied by the State Chancellery, which ensured the work of the highest legislative advisory body of the Russian Empire – the State Council. The article reveals the features of the work and the formation of the personnel of the State Chancellery, which ensured its compliance with the requirements imposed on it. The author comes to the conclusion that the professionalism of the officials who made up the office was able to partially compensate for the shortcomings of the system.

The article focuses on emperor’s dual position towards the State Council. Up until the year 1906 monarch remained nominal head of the highest legislative authority of Russian Empire but his links with the Council weakened with time. So, in the second half of the 19th century his attempts to influence (to control) the outcome of the discussion of laws were qualified as unwarranted interference and violation of the rules of the law-making process. At the same time emperor’s involvement in bureaucratic process grew steadily so he finally became not only the final part of legislative process but necessary component of records management.

The State Council was the highest legislative authority of Russian Empire. And originally it wasn’t designed to play a judicial role. But new administrative system created by Alexandre I required some adjustment already in their first years. So, the State Council (and, first and foremost, its Department of Civil and Religious Affairs) became the highest judicial body of the state. The article reveals features of work of the State Council as the highest court, attempt to relieve the Civil Department of functions that do not properly belong to it, the impact of the reform process, economic and social development of the latter half of the 19th century on the evolution of activities of the Civil Department.

Confusion on the roles of the supreme organs of government was an important characteristic of administration of the state of Russian Empire. So, two its highest legislative authorities, the State Council and the Committee of Ministers, performed both legislative and administrative functions. The situation not so much led to confrontation as to cooperation of the institutions. The success of bureaucracy means the settlement of any conflicts between its component units. So, throughout the second half of the 19th century the division of labour based on the status of the case was established between the State Council and the Committee of Ministers. And it was made not through legislation but through practice.

The author argues that authorities couldn’t rely on social forces, so strong statist tendencies continued in post-reform Russia and bureaucracy remained the engine of the reform process. There were many lawyers among statesman in the higher levels of administration, and this contributed to manifestation of legal consciousness in the legislative sphere, increased attention to issues of law and order. Sometimes this happened at the expense of narrowing of other functions of the state. In particular, social security issues were often neglected when they contravened the principle of legality. The return of attention to them by the bureaucracy occurs only under the threat of social upheaval.