There are no special works on the history of the Russian consular institute in Soviet literature. Meanwhile, the study of a number of its aspects is of undoubted interest1 and is provided by a wide range of sources, a significant part of which has not yet been introduced into scientific circulation.

Consuls have long been called representatives of the state, called upon to protect the rights - especially commercial-of their compatriots abroad. The need for such an institution increased as Russia's economic relations with other countries developed. In an effort to make this process more stable, to get rid of the services of English and Dutch dealers in foreign trade, the government of Peter I tried to actively influence its course with its own funds. Acting as an entrepreneur, an exporting merchant, the state should, like private merchants, have its agents abroad-representatives who inform about the exchange rates, supply and demand in foreign markets and are engaged at the same time in the sale of state-owned and purchase of foreign goods. Such tasks could only be performed by permanent representatives abroad. One of the first permanent Russian consulates in Europe was established in Venice in 1711 (Consul - D. Botsis); in 1715, A. Lefort was appointed Consul of Commerce in Paris.

Initially, consuls were assigned only two functions: promoting Russian trade and protecting the interests of Russian subjects. To this end, they were instructed not only to collect information about foreign markets, but also to directly conduct trade operations in government goods: to take care of the most profitable sale of them, to conclude supply contracts, etc. The priority of brokerage activity of Russian consuls was one of the characteristic features of their service. While Western European consulates served the interests of private foreign trade, the Russians acted primarily as defenders of the fiscal and own trade interests of their state. Consul in Bordeaux I. Alekseev was appointed to this post "to restore commerce between Russia and France." His appointment was caused, in particular, by the unsatisfactory mediation of Dutch merchants: by order of the tsar, they annually bought a significant amount of red and white wines in Bordeaux. November 8, 1723 Peter I ordered the Board of Commerce "to multiply their commerce, namely to France for wines (for from there they export mixed wines and bad ones, but they charge a great price) and to carry on their ships ... which commerce can bring great profit." On the same day, in order to establish direct trade relations with France and Spain, I, Alekseev in Bordeaux and Ya .Evreinov and A. Veshnyakov in Cadiz were simultaneously appointed consuls.
The effectiveness of the consuls ' activities was assessed solely in terms of their commercial, not political, benefits. At the request of the Senate about whether it is useful to maintain consulates in France and Spain, the Board of Commerce in 1725 found it difficult to give an answer, since the results of trade in government goods in Bordeaux and Cadiz had not yet been clarified. Then she expressed the opinion that" if it is deigned " to continue this work, then it is necessary to appoint a person familiar with trade as consul. Finally, in 1727, it became clear that "there is no state benefit in maintaining consulates in France and Spain, and in the future it is hopeless to maintain them for profit, since the Embassy of the Russian Federation is sent to the United States."-

1 Results and tasks of studying the foreign policy of Russia, Moscow, 1981, p. 376.

2 Ulyanitsky V. A. Russian consulates abroad in the XVIII century Part 1. Moscow, 1899, p. 85.

page 163

many of the government goods and merchant goods sent there were sold with a bill of lading, and more than 6 thousand rubles should be spent annually on the maintenance of consuls and correspondence. " 3
Thus, the desire to impose on the consul functions that are not in principle peculiar to him, the overestimation of his importance as a pioneer of trade routes to Western Europe, as well as the subordination of his activities to the interests of "state", i.e. state, trade, led to the fact that the Russian consulates, as "failed" to cope with tasks alien to them, had to be abolished.

Russia's consular relations with eastern countries have taken on a different character. Unlike the Western states, where Russian merchants were reluctant to go, the Asian East has long been a special attraction for them. With Persia, Khiva, Bukhara, and China, they have long conducted an active mutually beneficial trade. In the East, Russian consuls were not pioneers of new trade markets. Here the main thing was to facilitate the already existing relations, providing patronage and protection to Russian merchants in the face of local authorities, especially necessary in the conditions of the East with its internal instability, separatism of local feudal lords, and often arbitrariness in relation to foreigners. However, patronage of merchants did not exhaust the duties of Russian consuls in the eastern states. When the first consular representatives were appointed, in particular to Persia, purely political goals were put forward for the first Alan, and the protection of trade interests often served only as a cover.

During the Northern War of 1700-1721, the Russian government did not lose sight of events in Persia. With the weakening of the Shah's power, there was a danger of establishing Turkish rule over the country and the appearance of Turkish troops in the Caspian Sea basin. Therefore, in a special instruction, the first Russian consul, "skilled in trade" A. Baskakov, was instructed first of all "to inspect the roads from Terek to Shamakhi and from there to Absheron and Gilani - whether they are convenient for the passage of troops - and in general to inquire about the state there"4 . This question was of great interest to the Russian Government. Since this consular post was of political significance, Baskakov was sent to Shamakhi "from the Office of Foreign Affairs" even without notifying the Commercial Board of his appointment .5
In the second half of the 18th century, the political importance of consulates continued to grow. One of the main foreign policy tasks of Russia at that time was to consolidate its positions on the Black Sea coast, eliminate the danger from Turkey and its vassal, the Crimean Khanate, which constantly threatened the southern outskirts of Russia, and open up export routes for agricultural and industrial products. Turkey controlled the entire Black Sea coast and allowed foreign ships to enter only at its own discretion, considering it its internal sea. In 1769, the Russo-Turkish war began. The Morean expedition of the Russian Fleet was aimed at stimulating the actions of the Slavic peoples and Greeks in the Balkans against Turkey, drawing the forces of the Turkish army away from the Russian troops operating on the Danube, and cutting off Constantinople from the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. In 1770, the Turkish fleet was defeated and burned in the Chesmenskaya Bay. Chios. Turkish influence in the Mediterranean was eroded. The Russian fleet remained in the Mediterranean until 1774, blocking the straits.

"One had to have a lot of faith in providence to send a fleet that Catherine herself had declared worthless four years ago to circumvent almost the whole of Europe," wrote O. Klyuchevsky .6 In addition to "faith in providence," such an undertaking required, of course, serious military training and diplomatic support. A difficult task was to supply the fleet far from the Russian coast, maintain regular communication with the center, and get the fleet reliable information about the political and military situation in the area where the squadron was located. The Government had to recall the consuls previously recognized as insufficiently useful. On the route of the Russian squadrons to Gib-

3 PSZ. Vol. VII, N 5160.

4 Cit. in: S. M. Soloviev, History of Russia since ancient times. Book IX. Moscow, 1963, p. 370.

5 Ulyanitsky V. A. Uk. soch., ch. 2. Moscow, 1899, adj. N 44, pp. CXLIV-CXLV.

6 Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch. Vol. 5, p. 1958, p. 47.

page 164

The first consulates with political functions were established in Raltare in 1769, in the port of Magon (Minorca) in 1770, and in London in 1773.

Due to the circumstances, their activities went far beyond the scope of instructions and were by no means limited to informing the Board of Foreign Affairs about the movement of Russian military vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and facilitating their food supply, sending letters. The Russian Consul in Gibraltar, L. Booth, served as an intermediary between the command of ships and local authorities, and reported to St. Petersburg valuable information, including military and political information - about the internal situation of Turkey, about military and political events in the Archipelago, in general in the Mediterranean basin; about the actions of the Russian fleet and privateers at sea, about the direction of the Danish squadrons to Algiers, on the departure of English ships to sea, on the armament of the French squadron at Toulon, on epidemics in the East 7 . From him, the Russian government also received confirmation of the incomplete information available in St. Petersburg about the alarming technical condition of the vessels of the Russian squadron 8 .

By interviewing the captains of ships that plied the Mediterranean and called at Gibraltar, Booth received and then passed on to the Russian government valuable military information about the combat capability and location of the ships of the Turkish fleet, about the state of Turkish coastal fortresses .9 Given the military plans of A. G. Orlov, this kind of information was of practical interest. In connection with the expedition of the Russian fleet to the Mediterranean Sea, there was a suggestion to open Russian consulates on the Ionian Islands - Corfu, Zante and Kefalonia, but this was done much later .10
These data suggest that the political significance of consular representatives was being re-evaluated in Russian government circles, and an understanding of their possible foreign policy role was growing. Although foreigners were appointed to the posts of consuls and their functions were still rudimentary and elementary, their very establishment to ensure an important political and military event in Russia led to a more thorough establishment of this institution in its diplomatic practice. Under the terms of the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi Peace of 1774, which ended the Russo-Turkish war, Russia provided, in particular, its merchants with solid foundations for the development of trade with Turkey, which has long been the widest market for Russian goods.

The treaty was reviewed by Turkey almost immediately after its signing, and monitoring its compliance with its obligations was fraught with considerable difficulties. Given the huge size of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Embassy in Istanbul, which itself was subject to all sorts of restrictions and harassment, was not able to keep track of everything that was happening in various parts of it and was of interest. In order to be able to monitor Turkey's compliance with Article 17 of the treaty, i.e. respect for the rights of Christian subjects who gravitated to Russia, as well as the rights of Russian merchants, and monitor the constantly changing internal political situation in Turkey, by article 11 of the treaty, Russia reserved the right to " have a stay for consuls and vice-consuls whom the Russian Federation the empire in all those places where they are recognized as necessary, "for the good will judge" 11 .

7 AVPR, F. Relations between Russia and England, op. 35/6, 1770, d. 717, l. 35.

8 In particular, on December 30, 1769, Booth wrote to the Board of Foreign Affairs N. I. Panin: "I regret to inform you that the crew of Admiral Spiridov has many sick people who have been sent to the hospital; and as for his ship, it is in such a bad state that it requires a lot of repairs, and if I am not mistaken, they will be forced to knock him down on his side" (ibid., 715, p. 30).

9 In a report to Panin dated January 20, 1770, Booth reported that " the inhabitants of Smyrna and other Turkish regions and towns in the Levant are moving their goods and belongings with extreme haste, being unspeakably seized with fear and trepidation over the evil consequences that could happen to them in the event of Admiral Spiridov's operation, because they have all the fortresses they are in such a bad state that they cannot make any defense or defense." About the state of the Turkish fleet, Booth reported that " the Turks have twenty ships of the line with 70 and 80 guns at Constantinople, only they lack sailors not equipping them, and the ones they have among them are completely unskilful and unskilful "(ibid., d. 716, l. 13).

10 See AVPR, F. Relations between Russia and Venice, op. 41/3, d. 61, ll. 1-5; d. 62, l. 45.

11 Cit. by: Druzhinina E. I. Kyuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy mir 1774 goda. Moscow, 1955, pp. 288, 309.

page 165

Under the treaty, Turkey recognized Russian consuls with all the rights and privileges of consuls of other European powers, including extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction .12 However, in practice, the establishment of Russian consulates in Turkey and its dependent territories was fraught with great difficulties at that time. For about 10 years, Turkey put the brakes on the opening of the Russian consulate in Varna, which was a fortress, an important stronghold of Turkey on the Black Sea. In a letter to the Turkish Supreme Vizier Yusufupasha, Vice-Chancellor I. A. Osterman, referring to Article 11 of the treaty, wrote on this occasion: "What can be an obstacle to such a Russian consul's stay? The Ottoman Empire does not maintain a large garrison in this one place, where the consuls of other powers are also located, but for all this, there is no hindrance of these latter in the performance of their service."13
In 1783, after lengthy negotiations between Russia and Turkey, a trade treaty was concluded, which played an important role in their trade relations and the fate of the Russian consular institute on Turkish territory .14 The treatise defined the rights and advantages of Russian consuls and was essentially the first treaty between Russia and a foreign state, which regulated in detail the issues of bilateral consular relations. Russia was granted the right to "establish its own consuls in all places of the Ottoman domain", where the Russian government finds their presence necessary for commercial affairs. This was a definite achievement, considering that according to the British and French capitulations, the Turkish government, aware of the danger associated with the presence of representatives of foreign states, constantly sought to limit their number in the territory under its control, insisting always on establishing consulates only in those cities where they existed before.

Ensuring the independence of the consuls was a serious problem. The treaty of 1783 declared them beyond the jurisdiction of the local Turkish authorities, since all lawsuits against consuls "established for merchant affairs" were to be heard at the Port. Local authorities had no right either to" take into custody "the consuls or to" seal " their homes. On the basis of the treatise, no one had the right to force the consuls to appear in person in the Turkish court, if they were accompanied by dragomans (translators). The presence of the latter at the trial was considered absolutely sufficient to decide on claims brought against Russian subjects. All disputes between Russian subjects were subject exclusively to the consideration of the Russian consuls, who decided them according to the laws and customs of Russia.

Based on this treatise, the Russian government in 1783-1784 achieved the opening of a number of important consular posts on Turkish territory, including in Bucharest, Iasi, and Salonika. 15 The district of the Consulate General in Bucharest included Moldova and Wallachia. However, the Russian side's ideas about the establishment of new consulates were constantly met with stubborn resistance from the Turkish authorities. In one of the conversations with the Russian Charge d'affaires N. Pisani, Reiseffendi, the Chancellor and Foreign Minister of Porto, said with exasperation:: "By the way you interpret treaties, you could claim to place one consul on the doorstep of the Sultan's palace and the other in my own home." 16
The growth of the network of Russian consulates was of great political importance. Thanks to the activity of the consuls already approved by the Port, Russia was aware of Turkey's violations of the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi and other Russian-Turkish treaties, primarily with regard to the rights of non-Muslim (Greek and Danubian) peoples subject to Turkey. Russian consuls, as a rule, did not limit themselves to passively collecting information about certain lawlessness, but actively intervened in the course of events. The consul in Bucharest, I. Severin, who was particularly active in this regard, reported to Catherine II about all kinds of" harassment "to which the inhabitants of the Moldavian and Wallachian principalities were subjected, and sought to be allowed" in both principalities...

12 Martinet F. On consuls and consular jurisdiction in the East. St. Petersburg, 1873, p. 254.

13 AVPR, F. Relations between Russia and Turkey, op. 89/8, d. 156, ll. 5-5ob.

14 AVPR, St. Petersburg Main archive, 1/10, op. 28a, 396.

15 AVPR, F. Relations between Russia and Turkey, op. 89/9, d. 283, ll. 1-8; d. 279, ll. 1-2.

16 See the report of Pisani to Ya. I. Bulgakov, 15. IV. 1787 (ibid., 69, l. 3).

page 166

to speak and formally present to both gospodars about all abuses> and when they choose to act contrary to the decrees of the tractate, ... then it is possible to hope that the princes will never dare to transgress at the first appeal... which will lessen the sorrowful state of the people. " 17
Severin, with the consent of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Russia to Turkey Ya. I. Bulgakov, repeatedly addressed such "complaints" to the local authorities, which earned him fame among the population of the principalities. Bulgakov, in particular, wrote to Catherine II on May 8 (19), 1787: "Consul General Severin presented to me in his highest name the thanks addressed to him from the metropolitans of Volozha and Moldavia and from other local boyars, as a result of which he had been made... through this consul of suggestions " 18 . The activity of the Russian consuls led the Turkish government to issue an ultimatum to Bulgakov in July 1787, demanding that the Russian consuls be recalled from Bucharest and Iasi. At the same time, it was proposed to allow Turkish consuls to enter all Russian ports. Later, a provocative demand was made to return Crimea to Turkey.

In August 1787, a new Russo-Turkish war began, which ended with the victory of Russia. In December 1791, a peace treaty was signed in Iasi, which confirmed all the provisions of the Kyuchuk-Kainardzhian Treaty. This allowed Russia to re-deploy a network of consular missions on Turkish territory, which became important during the period of strained relations with France.

From the point of view of the history of the Russian consular service, this period is of independent interest. Nowhere in Western Europe has this institution received such a pronounced political orientation as in Russia: there was a peculiar "dualism" of consular functions - political and commercial. The State appointed consuls abroad who performed separate diplomatic functions and enjoyed the corresponding rights and privileges. As a result, by the beginning of the 19th century, it was no longer possible to draw clear lines between a diplomat and a consul in Russia .19
17 Ibid., op. 89/8, d. 690, l. 15.

18 Ibid., l. 20; see also the letter of Metropolitan Leontius to Catherine II, April 1787 (ibid., l. 32).

19 Similar processes took place at that time in the consular service of some Western European States (see, for example, Lee L. T. Consular Law and Practice. Lnd, 1961, p. 15).

page 167

Permanent link to this publication: