What government body in the 17th century. Functions of the Zemsky Sobor

The Time of Troubles (1598-1613) in the history of the Fatherland is characterized by the weakness of state power and disobedience of the outskirts to the center, imposture, civil war and intervention.

Conditions that contributed to the development of the Troubles:

the struggle of the boyars to limit the power of the tsar

decline in morality (according to contemporaries)

boyar disgraces, crop failures, famine and pestilence during the reign of Tsar Boris Godunov (1598-1605)

Cossack activity

interference of Poland and the Catholic Church in the internal affairs of Russia

Consequences of the turmoil:

1. Temporary strengthening of the role of estate-representative authorities: the Boyar Duma and the Zemsky Sobor (during the reign of Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645), 10 convocations of the Zemsky Sobor are known)

2. Economic ruin and impoverishment of the people

3. Deterioration of the international position of the state and the loss of a number of territories during the Time of Troubles (Smolensk and Northern lands went to Poland, the Baltic Sea coast to Sweden)

4. The accession of the new Romanov dynasty (1613-1917) The breakdown of localism weakened the old aristocracy (boyars) and strengthened the position of the serving nobility. Sakharov A.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M., 2006.S. 229.

In the middle of the 16th century. Zemsky Sobors, the highest class representative institutions, began their activities. Zemstvo councils were occasionally convened by the tsar to discuss the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy and represented an advisory body. For the XVI-XVII centuries. There is information about 57 zemstvo cathedrals.

The composition of the zemstvo cathedrals was basically stable: it included the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Cathedral, as well as representatives of the classes - the local service nobility and the posad (city) elite. With the development of new executive authorities - orders - their representatives were also part of the zemstvo councils. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 341.

Starting from the death of Ivan the Terrible and until the fall of Shuisky (1584-1610). This was the time when the preconditions for civil war and foreign intervention were taking shape, and the crisis of autocracy began. The councils performed the function of electing the kingdom and often became an instrument of forces hostile to Russia.

1610-1613 The Zemsky Sobor, under the militias, turns into the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy, the conciliar code. It was during this period of time that the Zemsky Sobor played the most important and significant role in the public life of Russia.

1613-1622 The Council operates almost continuously, but as an advisory body under the royal power. Resolves current administrative and financial issues. The tsarist government seeks to rely on zemstvo councils when carrying out financial activities: collecting five-dollar money, restoring the damaged economy, eliminating the consequences of the intervention and preventing new aggression from Poland. From 1622, the activity of the cathedrals ceased until 1632.

1632-1653 Councils meet relatively rarely, but to resolve important issues of both domestic policy: drawing up the Code, the uprising in Pskov, and foreign policy: Russian-Polish and Russian-Crimean relations, the annexation of Ukraine, the question of Azov. During this period, the speeches of class groups intensifying, presenting demands to the government, not so much through zemstvo councils, but through submitted petitions. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 348.

1653-1684 the importance of zemstvo councils decreases. The last council in its entirety met in 1653 on the issue of accepting the Zaporozhye Army into the Moscow state.

Features of public administration in Russia in the 17th century:

Election of the head of state by representatives of the estates. In 1598, the first election of a tsar took place at the Zemsky Sobor (Boris Godunov was elected). The elections were held without an alternative.

In 1613 the second elections took place. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The purpose of electing the head of state in the conditions of the Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov, the most compromise figure, as king.

In 1645, after the death of Mikhail Romanov, there were no more elections for the Tsar as such, due to the fact that there was a legal heir. However, the new Tsar Alexei was presented to the Zemsky Sobor, which formally approved the new sovereign. In 1682, the Zemsky Sobor elected Ivan V and Peter I as co-tsars. Sakharov A.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M., 2006. P. 115.

Attempts to limit the power of the sovereign were made back in the Time of Troubles, during the elections of Vasily IV and Prince Vladislav. There is an opinion that when elected to the kingdom, Mikhail Romanov signed a letter under which he undertook: not to execute anyone, and if guilty, to send him into exile; make decisions in consultation with the Boyar Duma. No written document confirming the restrictions has been found, but in fact the dictatorial powers of the sovereign established by Ivan the Terrible were eliminated.

Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma or the previous council, resolved the following issues:

tax collection

land distribution

on penalties, including the introduction of monetary fines

investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

spending public funds

adoption of civil laws. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 351.

In 1648-49. At the Zemsky Sobor, the Council Code was adopted, i.e. a kind of civil and criminal codes. If earlier the basic laws in Russia were named after the rulers who prepared them, then the new law was prepared and published by representatives of all classes.

The state administration - the system of orders - was not structured clearly along regional or sectoral lines, but according to problems. If it was necessary to resolve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Orders (central government bodies) regulate any relations throughout the state. The process of forming a unified state ideology continues, and a unified state symbol is being established. A national flag appears in Russia - a white-blue-red tricolor.

In 1619, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the first budget of the Russian state, called the “list of income and expenses.” The budget system in the 17th century was still poorly developed, since there were a large number of in-kind duties that replaced taxes. The Council Code of 1649 regulated the methods and norms of tax collection. Each resident of the Moscow state had to bear a certain duty: either be called up for service, or pay taxes, or cultivate the land. In addition, there were trade duties and paperwork fees. A special item of state revenue was the fee for the maintenance of taverns and the sale of wine in state shops. Independent production of alcoholic beverages was prohibited. Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 2009. P. 356.

Authorities in Russia in the 17th century

The rise of the Kremlin. All Saints Bridge and the Kremlin at the end of the 17th century.

Painting by artist A. Vasnetsov, 1922

17th century This is a difficult time in Russian history. It started with Troubles, brought ruin and decline in all spheres of public life. But it is in this century that begins to rule Romanov dynasty since 1613. The first Romanovs - Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich - had the task of restoring the country after the Time of Troubles, raising Russia's authority in the world, and strengthening the economy. The century ends with the reign Peter 1- one of the outstanding rulers of the state.

Such a number of major events and shocks could not but affect the public administration system, which was changing and improving.

System of government in the 17th century.

Features of public administration in the 17th century:

The revival of statehood after the Time of Troubles took place on the basis dual unity of secular and spiritual power, which remained autonomous but equally contributed to the strengthening of the state.

The restoration of the Orthodox principle in government was facilitated by the fact that the patriarch during the reign of the first Romanov was Filaret, the father of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, an influential man of that time.

The Tsar and the Patriarch equally used the title " great sovereign"

During the reign of the first Romanovs it finally strengthened in Russia autocracy- the power of the “sovereign of all Rus'”

The highest authorities during the reign of the first Romanovs

Unlimited power belonged to to the king.

Had great powers patriarch.

Boyar Duma- the most important body of state power., the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration and court. During the 17th century, the composition of the Duma doubled: the number of okolnichy (headed orders), Duma nobles (headed orders) and clerks (heads of the office, clerks) increased. Hierarchy: boyar - okolnichy - Duma nobleman. It was with the Boyar Duma that the tsar first of all consulted. Members of the Boyar Duma headed orders, were governors, diplomats. The Duma approved decisions of orders and was the highest court

By the end of the 17th century, the Boyar boom became advisory bodyorder judges.

Appears under Alexei Mikhailovich Neighborhood Council(high council, consisting of the aristocracy), confidants of the king) and personal office - Secret order(circa 1653).

The role has increased Zemsky Sobors. They were going to : in 1613 – 1615, 1616 – 1619, 1620 – 1622, 1632 – 1634, 1636 – 1637. So in 1642 the cathedrals decided the issue of Azov - the Azov seat of the Cossacks, in 1649 the cathedral adopted the Cathedral Code, etc. The decisions of the Zemsky Sobors - conciliar acts - were signed by the Tsar, the Patriarch, the highest ranks and lower ranks. Since the 60s Zemsky Sobors stopped convening: the government grew stronger and no longer needed their support.

In the 17th century acted order system. There were the following Orders as executive authorities:

National:

Posolsky (foreign policy)

Discharge (cases about service, army)

Local (patrimonial and local affairs,

active since 1680s)

Great parish (tax collection)

Large treasury (fees from city industries)

Streletsky (army affairs, troops)

Reitarsky (created to organize and control troops of the new system)

Foreign (cases of foreigners serving in Russia)

Armory Chamber (production, purchase, storage of weapons and jewelry, royal household items)

Pushkarsky (production, distribution and accounting of artillery and ammunition, the Cannon Yard was subordinate to him)

Printed (fees for affixing acts with the sovereign seal)

Yamskoy (responsible for postal transportation)

Regional:

Siberian (affairs of Siberia, collected yasak - a type of tax - from the population of Siberia)

Kazan Palace (Volga region affairs, collected yasak from the Volga region population)

Little Russian (Ukrainian affairs)

Smolensk Principality

Palace:

Great Palace (taxed royal lands)

State-owned (production and storage of valuables from the royal treasury, conducted trade operations for the royal needs)

Konyushenny (in charge of the royal stables and palace carriages)

Falconer (in charge of court falconry)

Tsar's workshop chamber (making clothes for the tsar)

Tsarina's workshop chamber 9 making clothes for the queen)

Judicial (since 1664) - legal proceedings in civil suits.

Patriarchal:

Patriarchal treasury (taxation of church and monastic lands)

Patriarchal Palace

The Order of Spiritual Affairs, or the Patriarchal Order, issued letters to clergy, was in charge of the construction of churches, and administered justice to heretics.

Temporary orders:

Secret (Order of secret affairs, existed from 1654-1675, management of the palace economy)

Accounting (1656-1678) - exercised financial control over the activities of orders.

Monastic (in charge of monastic lands and judicial affairs of the population of spiritual estates)

Addition:

Nalgas, in addition to the orders listed above, were also collected by Streletsky, Posolsky and Yamskoy orders. Therefore, the financial system was very complex and confusing.

Were created at the same time for fiscal activities quarter notes orders - carried out financial and judicial-administrative functions to certain territories of the country (New Quarter in 1619, order of the Great Treasury, 1621) and new permanent and temporary orders were created.

According to the Council Code of 1649. the form of government has changed strengthening of absolutism.

Since the second half of the 60s, 17 appear temporary commissions to search for runaway peasants.

By 1698 there were 26 orders.

Government positions in orders:

At the head of the order - chief, judge, okolnichy, member of the Boyar Duma. Some boyars headed several orders at once: boyar B. Morozov under Alexei Mikhailovich headed 5 orders (Streletsky, Big Treasury, New Quarter, Inozemsky, Aptekarsky); A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin - Ambassadorial and Little Russian orders and three quarters - Novgorod, Vladimir and Galitsk)

Assistant chiefs-judges- clerks(from the nobility or clergy). They decided cases, passed sentences. For service they received a local salary (up to 600 quarters of land) and cash (up to 240 rubles per year).

Clerical servants from the nobility and children of clerks were subordinate to the clerks - clerks, received a salary .

Conclusion: The order system was extensive, the bureaucratic apparatus was constantly increasing, this led to abuse and bribery.

Local government

Peculiarities:

The process of centralization and unification of local government bodies

The main administrative unit is counties, they were divided into camps and volosts.

Displacement of the “zemstvo principle” by the voivodeship administration.

Voivodes exercised military control + clerks And clerks who carried out financial management. The purpose of appointing a governor was to administer in the interests of the king and not for the sake of feeding, although voluntary offerings “in honor” were not prohibited, so the governors took even without the king’s letters.

Local administrative office - moving out or official hut

Provincial and zemstvo self-government.

Voivodes controlled provincial and zemstvo huts

Role of the Church:

The role of the church in state affairs increased.

C1589 - Patriarchate approved, autocephaly was consolidated, that is, the independence of the church from Byzantium.

First Moscow Patriarch - Job(1589-1605)

To the Patriarch Filaret managed to get closer to his ideal - duality church and state.

At the head of the church patriarch in unity with the council of the highest church hierarchs.

1620-1626 - Philaret carried out a reform of church management, created orders.

Church parishes were created in certain territories. At the head- episco n, clergy ( priest, deacon) and clergy ( sextons, watchmen, singers) were completely dependent on the world, which allocated lands, other lands, and sometimes material rewards.

After church schism caused by Nikon's reform (1653-1656), the importance of the church begins to decline, the church begins to become completely dependent on the king.

General conclusions:

In the 17th century, autocracy strengthened

The duality of spiritual and secular power is a feature of governance in Russia.

The gradual decline in the role of Zemsky Sobors and their withering away. The last Zemsky Sobor, convened in full, was the cathedral of 1653. 1683-1684 < Назад

Forward >

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Test

Stateeconomic management in Russia inXVIIcentury

Introduction

state power self-government

The turmoil of the early 17th century led to the complete collapse of Russian statehood, undermining the authority of the boyar and palace nobility, and mass terror from all rival factions had serious psychological consequences. The economy was destroyed and the country was depopulated. The geopolitical situation remained extremely difficult.

The 17th century is a time of strengthening the mobilization nature of Russia's development. Restoration of the national economy, constant wars, uprisings and riots as a response to enslavement, financial difficulties and abuses of the administration, rapid expansion of territory (annexation of Ukraine, Eastern Siberia and the Far East, advance to the Caucasus, etc.), which resulted in the transformation of Russia into the largest continental empire of the world, required the concentration of national forces, led to the completion of the process of establishing serfdom. Along with this, small-scale production and manufactories are developing, an all-Russian national market is beginning to form, and European cultural and civilizational achievements are actively penetrating into Russia.

The Romanov dynasty did not have its own real material, forceful means and mechanisms to assert power, gain legitimacy and strength. As already mentioned, the Troubles posed not just a threat to independence, the loss of territorial integrity, but also the loss of the Orthodox self-identification of the Russian people. Therefore, the revival of autocracy and the restoration of statehood took place and could only take place on a basis close to the canonical ideas of the state as a “symphony of powers”, a dual unity of secular and spiritual power, autonomously existing, but equally ensuring the protection and triumph of Orthodoxy by their own means.

The first half of the 17th century was the most complete implementation of these ideas. Ideally, the “symphony of powers” opposed both the concepts of theocracy (papacesarism) and absolute tyranny and despotism.

The restoration of statehood on Orthodox spiritual and moral foundations was facilitated by the fact that Patriarch Filaret (1619-1633) - in the world Fyodor Nikitich Romanov - was the father of the tsar. F.N. Romanov, a prominent and influential boyar during the time of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, even competed with Boris Godunov for power, which ended in his defeat and tonsure as a monk. With his return from Polish captivity after the Deulin truce and election as patriarch, in fact, the process of the revival of Russia begins.

The wavering, unstable policy of the Boyar Duma is replaced by firm power. The Tsar and the Patriarch equally used the title “Great Sovereign.” In fact, power was concentrated in the hands of Patriarch Filaret, who energetically used it to strengthen both state and spiritual power.

1. Bsupreme authorities

Throughout the century after the accession of the Romanov dynasty, attempts were made to strengthen the state system. During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the autocratic power of the “sovereign of all Rus'” was finally established.

The royal title, in which they tried to designate all the subject possessions and tribes, took on very large dimensions, characterizing, among other things, the “geography” of government. Here is the full title of Alexei Mikhailovich in the first half of his reign: “Great Sovereign, Tsar, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, Autocrat of all Great and Little Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Tver, Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Nizovsky land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondiya and the entire Northern side, Sovereign and Sovereign, Iveron land, Kartalinsky and the Georgian kings and the Kabardian land, the Circassian and Mountain princes, and many other Eastern, Western and Northern possessions and lands of Father and Dedich and heir, Sovereign and Possessor.”

The state apparatus became stronger and acquired a bureaucratic character.

Despite the strengthening of the tsar's power, the Boyar Duma remained the most important body of the state, the body of the boyar aristocracy and shared supreme power with the tsar.

Over the course of a century, the composition of the Duma doubled, and the number of okolniki, Duma nobles and clerks especially increased. The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration and court, moreover, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, “although he was written as an autocrat, he could not do anything without the boyar council.” Alexey Mikhailovich had a “close Duma” and a personal office (Secret Order), but on major issues he consulted with the Duma.

Members of the Duma headed orders, were governors, and diplomats. The Duma approved decisions of orders and was the highest court.

By the end of the 17th century, the Duma turned into a kind of advisory body of order judges. Its unborn part, namely the number of Duma clerks, is increasing. At the beginning of the century there were 2 - 3 Duma clerks, in the second half (in 1677) their number increased to 11 people.

In the first half of the 17th century, the role of zemstvo councils increased, which met almost continuously: in 1613-1615, 1616-1619, 1620-1622, 1632-1634, 1636-1637. The councils sought funds to wage wars with Poland, Turkey and others, made decisions on foreign policy issues (in 1642 - on the issue of Azov, taken by the Cossacks, in 1649 - the adoption of the Code - a set of laws, etc.).

The duration of zemstvo councils varied: from several hours (1645), days (1642), to several months (1648-1649) and years (1613-1615, 1616-1619, 1620-1622). The decisions of the zemstvo councils - conciliar acts - were signed by the tsar, the patriarch, the highest ranks and lower ranks. Since the 60s, zemstvo councils ceased to be convened: the government became stronger and no longer needed the “moral” support of “the whole earth.”

2. Headquarters

The first half of the 17th century was the time of the heyday of the order system and its gradual introduction into all branches of management. During the 10-20s of the 17th century, all parts of the public administration system, destroyed during the years of “turmoil,” were restored.

Most direct taxes were collected by the Grand Parish Order. At the same time, territorial orders were engaged in taxation of the population. First of all, the Novgorod, Galich, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma cheti, which served as cash registers; Kazan and Siberian orders, which collected “yasak” from the population of the Volga region and Siberia; An order of the great palace that taxed the royal lands; An order from the large treasury, where collections from city industries were sent; A printed order charging a fee for affixing acts with the sovereign's seal; State patriarchal order in charge of taxation of church and monastic lands. In addition to the above taxes, the Streletsky, Posolsky, and Yamsky orders collected taxes. Because of this, the financial system of Russia in the 15th-17th centuries was extremely complex and confusing.

In the first years of the Romanov dynasty, about 20 new central institutions began to function. The new government had to solve serious socio-economic and political problems. First of all, it was necessary to replenish the devastated state treasury and organize the flow of state taxes. Therefore, in the first years of the reign of the new dynasty, the fiscal activity of the orders intensified. The quarter orders were finally formalized, and a number of new permanent and temporary central institutions were created that were in charge of tax collection (New Quarter in 1619, order of the Great Treasury in 1621-1622).

In the first half of the 17th century, temporary orders were widespread, created obviously as temporary by a special decree defining the functions, head of the order, its entire staff and budget. For example, the war of 1632-1634 with Poland and the beginning of the construction of defensive lines in the south of the country gave rise to a number of temporary orders.

In the second half of the 17th century, due to fundamental changes in the socio-economic life of Russia, in its internal political development and international position, the state apparatus changed. At this time, serfdom was finally strengthened and formalized, an all-Russian market was taking shape, manufacturing production was emerging, and the social settlement of the village was deepening. The contradictory nature of these processes led to the aggravation of social relations in the city and the countryside. In 1670-1671, Russia was engulfed in a powerful peasant war. At the same time, during this period, the development of Siberia continues, defensive fortresses are built in the south, southeast and southwest of the country.

The estate-representative monarchy had by this time become obsolete. The Code of 1649 redefined the rights of different layers of society, primarily the nobility and the upper classes of the town. The nobility sought to actually implement the legislative norms of the Code and ensure the “fortress” of the peasants to the owners and suppress their resistance. The old state apparatus could not fully ensure the implementation of these tasks. This required a change in the form of government by strengthening absolutist principles and restructuring the organization of the army.

The order system has been preserved. Their main core remains the same. But new territorial orders were created to manage the liberated Russian lands. Associated with the new conditions of the country is the creation of the Monastic Prikaz, which was in charge of monastic lands and judicial affairs of the population of spiritual estates, and the Reitar Prikaz, created to organize and control the troops of the new system. A special place was occupied by the order of Secret Affairs, which functioned in 1654-1675. The main part of the affairs of this order was related to the management of the palace economy. This time was characterized by the development of palace institutions. In 1664, for example, the Court Palace Order was created.

A major restructuring with the aim of simplification and further centralization was undertaken in the 80s of the 17th century. The most important was the attempt to unite all financial issues in a strengthened order of the Great Treasury, to which a number of functions of quarters and some other orders were assigned. This time included measures to concentrate all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and service matters in the Rank Order, with their removal from the jurisdiction of territorial orders.

In the second half of the 17th century, temporary institutions became widespread - commissions, which were formed in Moscow from clerks and Moscow clerks and were sent along with detectives, land surveyors, surveyors, etc. to search for runaway peasants. The commissions were created by a special decree, which determined their quantitative composition, direction of activity, and appointed leaders. The creation of such commissions has become widespread since the 60s of the 17th century.

In total, by 1698 in Russia there were 26 orders of national competence (permanent), 1 temporary, 6 palace, 3 patriarchal and 19 other higher city and palace institutions.

At the head of the order was a chief - a judge, mainly from members of the Boyar Duma. Some of them managed several orders at once. So, boyar B.I. Morozov, Alexei Mikhailovich’s favorite, headed 5 orders: Streletsky, Big Treasury, New Quarter, Inozemsky, Aptekarsky; A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin - Ambassadorial and Little Russian orders and three quarters - Novgorod, Vladimir and Galician.

The assistant chief-judges were clerks (their number varied in different orders). Clerks were recruited mainly from the ordinary nobility or from the clergy. They decided cases, passed sentences. For service they received a local salary (up to 600 quarters of land) and cash (up to 240 rubles per year). Subordinate to them were clerical employees from the nobility and children of clerks - clerks, who served at first without salary, then, as they gained experience, received a salary of 1 - 5 rubles per year.

The most important feature of the order system of the 17th century is the increase in the number of people employed in it.

The greatest increase in the number of clerks occurred in the 70s of the 17th century. At the same time, there was a noticeable increase in clerk staffs, which occurred on the initiative of clerks and clerks and was dictated by the internal needs of the institution.

Since the 60s, orders have turned into large institutions with a large staff and an extensive structure. Orders with 1-3 clerks almost disappear. An order with a staff of 20-40 people becomes average. Among the major orders, a prominent place was occupied by the Local with a staff of 416 people in 1698. The Great Treasury Department employed 404 people, the Great Palace - 278 people, and the Discharge - 242 people.

The sharp increase in the group of Moscow clerks from the 70s of the 17th century served as the basis for the formation of the state apparatus of an absolute monarchy, the main features of which clearly emerged in the last decade of the century.

The structure of the orders was determined by their competence and breadth of activity, which was also related to the size of the order staff. Large orders (Local, Discharge, Kazan Palace) were divided into tables. The division took place mainly on a territorial basis. For example, in the Pometny Prikaz during the 17th century there were four territorial tables, although the composition of the cities under their jurisdiction and their names changed. In 1627-1632 there were Moscow, Ryazan, Pskov and Yaroslavl tables; from the middle of the century the Yaroslavl table disappeared, but the Vladimir table was formed. As a result of the restructuring of the work of orders in the 80s, three more desks appeared in it, but organized not on a territorial, but on a functional principle.

The structure of the order of the Kazan Palace was different. In 1629, it had three functional tables (Monetary, Discharge and Local) and one territorial (Siberian). In 1637, the latter was transformed into an independent Siberian order, in which by the end of the century the territorial Tobolsk, Tomsk, and Lena tables appeared.

There were cases when one or another order was transferred the functions of another institution, which led to the allocation of a special table within its composition. Thus, in 1667-1670, as part of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, which previously had no division into tables, a special Smolensk table was created, which was in charge of the lands that became part of Russia under the so-called Andrusovo Truce, concluded with the Poles in the village of Andrusovo. When the Serf Order was destroyed in 1681, the functions of which were transferred to the newly created Judgment Order, within the latter a special table was organized to carry out their work.

The tables were divided into sections, created mainly on a territorial basis. The heights were not stable structural units and did not have a specific name. Sometimes they bore a serial number or name after the surname of the clerk who headed them. In smaller orders there was no division into tables.

The order system with its centralization and bureaucracy, paperwork and lack of control gave rise to red tape, abuse, and bribery, which became especially clear towards the end of the 17th century.

3. Local government

In local government there was a process of centralization, unification and bureaucratization, as in the center, but at a slower pace. Since the end of the 17th century, counties, which were divided into camps and volosts, have become the main administrative-territorial unit of Russia. Since the beginning of the 17th century, the “zemstvo principle” characteristic of the 16th century has been replaced by the voivodeship administration. Even during the period of the existence of governors-feeders, governors were appointed to border cities to carry out military administration, and clerks - for financial administration. They remained in this capacity during the heyday of provincial and zemstvo self-government. The Troubles, which almost led to the collapse of the country, showed the need for the existence in the province not only of military power, but also of a body connecting the entire (and not just the tax) population of the province with the center. In addition, the growing financial needs of the state, the inability to ensure unity and the development of a gigantic territory without redistribution were the most important reasons for the centralization of control. During the Time of Troubles, the population itself, at general class meetings, began to elect a governor not only with military, but also with administrative and judicial functions. After the end of the Time of Troubles, governors began to be appointed (usually for 1-2 years) by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma, sometimes taking into account the wishes of the local population, who sought “they would continue to leave one governor, and Moscow would take the governor.” The government listened to such petitions, but by the middle of the 17th century the voivodeship system had spread everywhere. The purpose of appointing governors was to exercise control in the interests of the king, and not for the sake of feeding, in connection with which the local population was instructed: “... do not give feed to the governors, and do not cause losses to yourself.” But, as noted by V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the governors of the 17th century were the sons or grandsons of the governors (feeders) of the 16th century. Over the course of one or two generations, institutions could change, but not morals and habits. The voivode did not collect feed and duties in the amounts specified in the statutory charter, which was not given to him: but voluntary contributions “in honor” were not prohibited, and the voivode took them without the statutory tax, as much as his hand could. In their petitions for appointment, applicants for voivodeship positions directly asked to be released to such and such a city for the voivodeship “to feed themselves.” They wanted to make the voivodeship an administrative service without a salary, but in reality it turned out to be an unpaid salary under the pretext of an administrative service. The indefinite breadth of the voivode’s power encouraged abuses... The inevitable uncertainty of rights and responsibilities with such a combination of regulation and arbitrariness encouraged the former to be abused and the latter to be neglected, and in the voivode’s administration, abuse of power alternated with its inaction.”

On the other hand, the nature of the abuses should not be exaggerated, given that the governors were highly dependent on the central government, among them there were predominantly persons who had fallen out of favor with the tsar, and their terms of office were not long.

In large cities, several governors could be appointed at the same time, one of whom was the main one. Under all governors, assistants were clerks or clerks with a credential. From them a type of local administrative institution was formed - the moving out, or order, hut (in the 20-30s, names were found - sexton, court hut). Most of the clerk's huts had small staffs - a few people each, but some (Novgorod, Pskov, Astrakhan, etc.) had 20 or more clerks.

Voivodes receive the right to control provincial and zemstvo huts without the right to interfere in the scope of their activities, but in the second half of the 17th century this restriction for voivodes was lifted. However, the complete subordination of local self-government to the voivodeship administration did not happen - in the financial and economic management, the zemstvo authorities were independent, the voivodes were prohibited by orders that determined their competence, “not to interfere in their monetary collections and worldly affairs and their will in their worldly salary and other don’t take away affairs... (elected) don’t change.” Along with zemstvo self-government, there were self-governing volosts and communities; along with elected sotskys and elders, there were fraternal courts, where the “best people” gathered to gather for elections and resolve economic and sometimes judicial matters. Differences in self-government systems were determined mainly by the social composition of the population.

There were various systems of self-government in the cities - in Pskov there was a board of city-wide elders, in Novgorod the Great - a meeting of “city people” and a permanent administration of 5 elders representing the ends of the city; in Moscow there was no city-wide self-government, but each hundred and settlement were self-governing units. During the reign of governor A.L. in Pskov. Ordina-Nashchokin, an attempt was made to reform city government in the spirit of Magdeburg law, but it turned out to be short-lived. In addition, in the districts there were elected customs huts, circle yards, which were led by the corresponding heads and kissers, etc. Gradually they came under the control of the administrative huts.

The reorganization of the armed forces in favor of permanent troops on the ground required the creation of military districts (categories) that united several counties. As a result, an intermediate control link was formed - the discharge center. The order hut of such a city expanded its military-administrative functions and began to be called the discharge hut or the order chamber. The allocation of discharge huts and executive chambers created institutions of an intermediate type, anticipating future provincial chancelleries, and was a prerequisite for Peter's provincial reform.

4. Church and State

The religious theory “Moscow - the third Rome” substantiated the idea of Russia as the last stronghold of the true faith - universal Orthodoxy, and was of a distinctly eschatological, and not imperial, nature, as some researchers consider it. This required raising the status of the Russian church, which coincided with the interests of secular authorities. In 1589. under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the de facto ruler of Russia, boyar Boris Godunov, managed to achieve the establishment of the patriarchate in Moscow, confirmed by the decision of the Council of Constantinople in May 1590. The Moscow Patriarch took fifth place in the diptych after the Eastern patriarchs. Job (1589-1605) became the first Moscow patriarch. The founding of the patriarchate became an important milestone in the history of the Russian church and secured its autocephaly. (However, it must be borne in mind that autocephaly cannot be identified with state independence, sovereignty. The Ecumenical Orthodox Church is not a federation of local churches, they are not subordinate to each other, but they are not absolutely independent, but are mutually subordinate and constitute a catholic, conciliar unity.)

During the Time of Troubles, the church as a whole and especially the monasteries became one of the main strongholds of the struggle for national revival. As already mentioned, Patriarch Filaret largely concentrated in his hands not only spiritual, but also secular power. He equally sought to strengthen both powers and relied on the Byzantine epanagogical theory, well known in Russia, the theory of the “symphony of powers.” If in the 16th century this model of relationships was implemented in a version close to the late Byzantine version of the predominance of the state over the church, then in the first half of the 17th century Filaret managed to come closest to the ideal of the dual unity of church and state.

By the end of the 17th century (after the return of the Kyiv Metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), there were 24 sees on the territory of Russia - one patriarchal, 14 metropolitan, 7 archbishopric and 2 episcopal.

The highest administration of the Russian Orthodox Church was represented by the patriarch in unity with the council of the highest church hierarchs. Unlike the Eastern patriarchs, the Russian first hierarch did not have a permanent council (synod) with him. Consecrated (church) councils under the patriarchs were convened less frequently than under the Moscow metropolitans, but the council of 1667 decided to convene councils twice a year, which was in accordance with canonical rules. Tsars took part in the work of the councils, be it the election of the patriarch or the appointment of other church hierarchs, the canonization of saints, the church court, theological disputes, etc. The difference from other local churches was that archbishops and bishops in their powers did not differ from metropolitans and did not obeyed the latter.

In 1620-1626. Patriarch Filaret carried out a reform in the management of huge church property and personnel. Orders were created to manage the patriarchal region, which then extended their powers to the lands of the church throughout Russia. As a result, the two-part system (state and palace) was replaced by a triple division of administrative institutions. The Order of Spiritual Affairs, or the Patriarchal rank, issued letters to clergy who received ordination from the patriarch, as well as for the construction of churches, and adjudicated crimes against faith against clergy and laity. The state order was in charge of collections for the patriarchal treasury. The palace order was in charge of the patriarch's secular officials and the management of his house. The staff of the orders consisted of both secular and clergy. An autonomous service hierarchy has developed here: patriarchal boyars, okolnichys, clerks and clerks. This strengthened the position of the church, which maintained high authority and possessed enormous material and military power, with fortress monasteries in strategically important places. However, canonical Orthodox ideas about the godly nature of power excluded any consistent claims of the Russian Orthodox Church and its hierarchs to secular power and the creation of a theocratic state.

There was not complete uniformity in church administration and court at the diocesan level, but it was built in accordance with canonical requirements. In local government, a major role was played by the church parish, which in most cases coincided geographically with the volost. Parish priests were appointed by the appropriate bishop, but, as a rule, candidates for a vacant position were elected by the parishioners. The clergy (priest, deacon) and clergy (sacristans, watchmen, choristers) were completely dependent on the world, which allocated lands, other lands, and sometimes material rewards. Not clergy, but literate peasants or townspeople were often elected priests, as a result of which the functions of local civil and church authorities were closely intertwined and even combined.

During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, contradictions arose between the strengthened autocracy and the church. The desire of the secular authorities to put control over the economic activities of the church (the creation of the Monastic Order), to limit monastic land ownership, judicial and fiscal immunity of monasteries and the white clergy met resistance from the church hierarchs, Patriarch Nikon, who defended the “symphony of powers.” The conflict coincided with the split of the church as a result of the reform of Patriarch Nikon to bring liturgical books and rituals into conformity with the Greek originals. Supporters of “ancient piety” irreconcilably opposed the uncompromising reform being carried out; one of the leaders of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum. The spiritual schism weakened the position of the church. Nikon's attempt to put pressure on the tsar by refusing the patriarchate ended in his deprivation of dignity and exile (decision of the Ecumenical Council of 1666). The Church begins to fall, despite the liquidation of the Monastic Order, into direct dependence on the state, which is one of the indicators of the evolution of autocracy towards an absolute monarchy.

5. Especiallystyle of public administration

In 1613 the second elections took place. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The principle of forming the Zemsky Sobor: 10 people from 50 cities plus 200 people from Moscow. Only 700 people. Composition: clergy, townspeople, servicemen, archers, free peasants, Cossacks. Among the contenders for supreme power were prominent statesmen. The purpose of electing the head of state in the conditions of the Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov, the most compromise figure, as king. The main qualities of the new king: he had no enemies, was not vain, did not strive for power himself, and had a good character.

Limitation of the king's power. Attempts to limit the power of the sovereign were made back in the Time of Troubles, during the elections of Vasily IV and Prince Vladislav. There is an opinion that when elected to the kingdom, Mikhail Romanov signed a letter under which he undertook: not to execute anyone, and if guilty, to send him into exile; make decisions in consultation with the Boyar Duma. No written document confirming the restrictions has been found, but in fact the dictatorial powers of the sovereign established by Ivan the Terrible were eliminated.

Increasing role of representative government. Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma or the previous council, resolved the following issues:

Tax collection

Land distribution

On penalties, including the introduction of monetary fines

Investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

Spending of public funds

Adoption of civil laws.

Issue management. The state administration - the system of orders - was not structured clearly along regional or sectoral lines, but according to problems. If it was necessary to resolve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Centralization of power. Orders (central government bodies) regulate any relations throughout the state. For example, the Discharge Order, the Order of the Big Treasury. The process of forming a unified state ideology continues, and a unified state symbol is being established. A national flag appears in Russia - a white-blue-red tricolor.

Expansion of borders: annexation of Siberia, right-bank Ukraine. A new administration was created in Siberia: governors were appointed to large cities from Moscow. The development of Siberia began at the end of the 16th century after Ermak defeated the troops of the Siberian Khanate in the Tyumen region. Detachments of private entrepreneurs engaged in trade with the peoples of Siberia and China advanced into the depths of Siberia along the waterways. Fortresses were built in large retail outlets, where government garrisons were sent. The territory was developed by Cossacks who served on the border in exchange for the right to cultivate the land. Apart from the Tatar Siberian Khanate, a fragment of the Golden Horde, the Siberian peoples did not have in the 16th-17th centuries. their statehood, therefore they relatively easily became part of the Russian state, accepted Orthodoxy, and assimilated with the Russians. The descendants of the Tatar khans received the title of Siberian princes in Russia and entered the civil service.

Streamlining the budget system. In 1619, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the first budget of the Russian state, called the “list of income and expenses.” The budget system in the 17th century was still poorly developed, since there were a large number of in-kind duties that replaced taxes. The Council Code of 1649 regulated the methods and norms of tax collection. Each resident of the Moscow state had to bear a certain duty: either be called up for service, or pay taxes, or cultivate the land. In addition, there were trade duties and paperwork fees. A special item of state revenue was the fee for the maintenance of taverns and the sale of wine in state shops. Independent production of alcoholic beverages was prohibited.

6. Civil service

Based on the materials of the Ambassadorial Order - one of the most important in the management system - it is possible to reconstruct the hierarchy of official positions in the civil service in the 17th century.

Duma ranks:

Boyars - the highest state rank, had the right to vote on all issues of state importance, could be an ambassador, lead an army, and head a boyar commission. Usually five to ten people had the rank of boyar. Average age is 50-60 years. The boyars' salary was 700 rubles. Boyars had the right not to remove their hats in the presence of the sovereign.

Duma clerk - secretary, clerk; did not have the right to vote, but only recorded the decisions of the Duma and drew up documents.

Duma nobles - appeared in the Duma in 1572, could be representatives of the untitled nobility, did not have the right to vote, but participated in public administration, carrying out the orders of the tsar. One of the Duma nobles was the keeper of the state seal. Their salary was 250 rubles.

In addition to Duma ranks, there were order ranks for officials who worked in orders.

Clerks - the main employees of orders, assistants to boyars and okolnichy, performed auxiliary functions, but could also act independently, for example, manage orders.

Clerks - performed the duties of secretaries, notaries, and attorneys.

The composition of the sovereign's court included the following court officials:

Stolnik. Initially they served at the sovereign's table. In the 17th century, this was an honorary title, the holder of which could be appointed by the voivode, the head of a secondary order, to carry out a search in the case.

Solicitor. They served in various services under the sovereign. Solicitors could serve in small voivodeships and be secretaries in embassies and orders.

Tenant - the lowest court rank. Residents guarded the sovereign's chambers, and the royal guard was recruited from them. Residents were required to live in Moscow and be constantly ready for military service.

Until 1682, positions were distributed according to the principle of localism. Every year, all people in the civil service were included in the state rank, and on the basis of this, responsibilities and positions were distributed in subsequent generations. Localism is an impersonal system of personnel appointments; it made it possible to identify a class of employees. Localism became the basis for the oligarchy and inhibited the motivation of low-born employees who had no career prospects.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the 17th century, an unfavorable combination of internal and external factors led to the collapse of Russian statehood. The restoration of the estate monarchy in the form of autocracy occurs on the basis of the principles of the theory of “symphony of powers” - the dual unity of spiritual and secular power. The restoration of statehood in the conditions of the mobilization type of development leads to the gradual destruction of the principles of conciliarity and the “symphony of powers” - the withering away of Zemsky Sobors, changes in the functions and competence of the Boyar Duma, the church, and restrictions on local self-government. There is a bureaucratization of public administration, and on the basis of order work, the civil service begins to take shape as a branch of state, previously predominantly military service.

By the end of the 17th century, the system of public administration of the class monarchy entered a difficult stage of modernization of the entire political system of the country, its institutions and administrative apparatus, borrowing elements of European experience, rationalism, but generally on its own civilizational basis. The pace of this modernization with its contradictions did not keep pace with the increasing complexity of the tasks of public administration, the growth of territory, the process of class transformation of society and new geopolitical tasks. On the agenda was the problem of a radical reorganization of the entire system of central and local government, which would determine the final choice between the development of autocracy as a spokesman for class interests and the establishment of absolutism.

Bibliography

1. Chernyak V.Z. History of state and municipal government Ch498 of Russia. Textbook for universities. - M.: RDL Publishing House, 2001.

2. History of public administration in Russia: Textbook / Rep. ed. V.G. Ignatov. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2005.

3. Demidova N.F. Service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century. and its role in the formation of absolutism. M., 1992.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Legal regulation of relations between regional authorities and local authorities in Russia. The Institute of City Manager as a way to strengthen the relationship between local governments and state authorities.

thesis, added 06/17/2017

The nature and essence of state power. Features of public administration. The concept of regulatory legal acts of government bodies. Principles, directions and forms of relationship between state authorities and local governments.

course work, added 10/12/2015

The problem of the effectiveness of public administration and the need for new content of regional policy in modern Russia. Mechanisms, principles and specifics of interaction between government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments.

course work, added 02/22/2017

State authorities in the Russian Federation. The structure and principles of formation of executive authorities, their classification and areas of activity. Local government bodies, their tasks and functions. Judicial system of a subject of the Federation.

course work, added 01/11/2011

The essence of local self-government and its multidimensional constitutional significance. Analysis of the activities of local government in the Russian Federation. Delineation of powers and interaction between state authorities and local governments.

course work, added 06/24/2015

Concept, types and organizational systems of local government, its principles and functions. The powers of local governments in accordance with federal legislation, their relationships with regional and central government bodies.

course work, added 12/14/2009

Constitutional and legal principles of the organization and activities of local government, its functions and powers. Relationships between local governments and state authorities. Improving the reform of local self-government in the Russian Federation.

abstract, added 08/01/2010

The concept of local self-government, legal regulation of its activities in the Russian Federation. Interaction between state authorities and local self-government. State control over the exercise of state powers.

course work, added 12/22/2017

Brief description of the main theories of local government. Constitutional principles for regulating the foundations of local self-government in Russia. Structure and powers of municipal bodies. Development of a model of local self-government in Russia.

abstract, added 02/06/2011

Organizational and legal foundations of public administration in the socio-cultural sphere, powers of federal government bodies, constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government. Functions of the federal archival agency, protection of cultural heritage.

Features of public administration:

In 1613 the second elections took place. To decide the future of the state, which did not have a supreme ruler at the end of the Time of Troubles, a Zemsky Sobor was convened in Moscow. The principle of forming the Zemsky Sobor: 10 people from 50 cities plus 200 people from Moscow. Only 700 people. Composition: clergy, townspeople, servicemen, archers, free peasants, Cossacks. Among the contenders for supreme power were prominent statesmen. The purpose of electing the head of state during the Time of Troubles is to avoid bloodshed and new tyranny. Therefore, the Council elected Mikhail Romanov, the most compromise figure, as king. The main qualities of the new king: he had no enemies, was not vain, did not strive for power himself, and had a good character.

The growing role of representative government. Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the Tsar, the Duma or the previous council, resolved the following issues:

· Tax collection

· Land distribution

· On penalties, including the introduction of monetary fines

· Investigation of complaints against officials, fight against corruption and abuses of regional authorities

· Spending of public funds

· Adoption of civil laws.

Issues Management. The state administration - the system of orders - was not structured clearly along regional or sectoral lines, but according to problems. If it was necessary to resolve any issue, a separate order was created, which was responsible for all aspects of solving the problem.

Expanding boundaries: annexation of Siberia, right-bank Ukraine. A new administration was created in Siberia: governors were appointed to large cities from Moscow. The development of Siberia began at the end of the 16th century after Ermak defeated the troops of the Siberian Khanate in the Tyumen region. Detachments of private entrepreneurs engaged in trade with the peoples of Siberia and China advanced into the depths of Siberia along the waterways. Fortresses were built in large retail outlets, where government garrisons were sent. The territory was developed by Cossacks who served on the border in exchange for the right to cultivate the land. Apart from the Tatar Siberian Khanate, a fragment of the Golden Horde, the Siberian peoples did not have in the 16th-17th centuries. their statehood, therefore they relatively easily became part of the Russian state, accepted Orthodoxy, and assimilated with the Russians. The descendants of the Tatar khans received the title of Siberian princes in Russia and entered the civil service.

Supreme bodies of the state. Having established a new ruling dynasty of the Romanovs in 1613, patrimonial boyars and landowners-nobles during the reign of Tsars Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) took measures to further strengthen the entire state system. In the 17th century, the autocratic power of the “sovereign of all Rus'” was finally established. Simultaneously with the growth of the tsar’s power, the state apparatus became stronger, which took on the character of a bureaucratic system. This was expressed in the existence of up to 50-60 central institutions - “orders” of varying size and significance: from national departments with a complex structure and a large number of officials (Local, Grand Palace, Discharge) to dwarf institutions with modest functions and composition (Panikhidny order ) - Local government has also become more complicated.

Despite the internal consolidation of the country, in the political system of the Russian state of the 17th century there were still remnants of feudal fragmentation. One of them was localism, expressed in the hereditary right of certain boyar families to one or another “place” in the hierarchy of service ranks in the civil and military service. Localism was a unique form of adaptation of the feudal hierarchy during times of political fragmentation to the conditions of a centralized state. Already from the mid-16th century, measures were taken to limit it. In the 17th century, localism began to hinder the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy. The increased importance of the nobility allowed the government in 1682 to abolish localism as a “hostile, brotherly-hating” phenomenon. Isaev I. A. Lectures on the history of Moscow law and state. M.: Norma, 2010. P. 57.

Although the importance of the nobility increased, the boyars retained their economic and political power. The Boyar Duma was still the most important body of the state, sharing with the Tsar the prerogatives of the supreme power, the body of the boyar aristocracy. The composition of the Duma has doubled over the century. The number of nobles and clerks in the Duma's circles increased especially noticeably. In 1681 there were 15 Duma clerks alone. The Boyar Duma was a meeting of representatives of ancient boyar families and well-established clerk businessmen.

The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body on issues of legislation, administration and court. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, “although he was called an autocrat, he could not do anything without the boyar’s advice.” Alexey Mikhailovich, despite the presence of a narrower “close Duma” and a personal office (Secret Order), consulted with the Duma on all major issues: the Boyar Duma discussed smaller issues without the Tsar.

The 17th century was characterized by a closer connection between the personnel of the Boyar Duma and the order system. Many members of the Duma performed the duties of chiefs (judges) of orders, governors, and were in the diplomatic service.

At meetings of the Boyar Duma, decisions of orders (item lists) were approved. The Duma was the highest judicial authority of the state. Some of the court cases were considered in the Execution Chamber created under the Duma (1681-1694). The importance of the Boyar Duma fell in the last decade of the century.

The first half of the 17th century was the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy, when the most important issues of the state's domestic and foreign policy were resolved with the help of zemstvo councils.

In the first years of the reign of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, the government especially needed to rely on the main groups of the ruling class. Zemsky Sobors met almost continuously: from 1613 to the end of 1615, at the beginning 1616-1619, in 1620-1622. These councils were engaged in finding financial resources to replenish the state treasury and in foreign policy affairs. Since the 20s of the 17th century, state power has become somewhat stronger, and zemstvo councils began to meet less frequently. Gerasimenko G.A. Zemstvo self-government in Russia. M.: Prospekt. 2009. P.48. The councils of the 30s are also associated with foreign policy issues: in 1632-1634. in connection with the war in Poland, 1636-1637. because of the war with Turkey. At these councils, decisions were made on additional taxes necessary to wage war.

At a crowded council in 1642, members of the Boyar Duma, the top clergy, as well as representatives of provincial nobles, streltsy heads and merchants were engaged in finding means of assistance to the Cossacks who had captured the fortress of the Crimean Khan at the mouth of the Don - Azov. After lengthy wrangling among the cathedral class groups, a decision was made to refuse assistance to the Cossacks. At the same council, representatives of the local nobility and cities submitted petitions, expressing their class claims.

One of the most important zemstvo councils was the cathedral, which met in conditions of fierce class struggle in the country (urban uprisings in the summer of 1648 in Moscow and other cities) in June 1648. At the cathedral, petitions were filed from the nobles demanding strengthening of the feudal dependence of the peasants (search for their without lesson years); The townspeople in their petitions expressed a desire to destroy the white (that is, not subject to taxes and fees) settlements, and complained about disorder in administration and the courts. A special commission of the Boyar Duma, headed by the boyar Prince N.I. Odoevsky, prepared a draft of the “Conciliar Code” - a code of laws of the autocratic monarchy of the 17th century, which took into account the wishes of the landowners and the townsfolk elite. This project was discussed by the members of the council, convened in September 1648, and was finally approved on January 29, 1649.

The danger of new social upheavals rallied the ruling feudal class and the upper classes of the town with the government; their elected representatives willingly supported government measures to strengthen the state apparatus. The government, in turn, took into account the wishes of the landowners and townspeople in the “Code”

After 1653, zemstvo councils were essentially meetings of the tsar with representatives of certain classes. Zemsky councils contributed to the strengthening of the autocratic power of the tsar and the state apparatus. By convening the Zemsky Sobor, the government counted on receiving information from its members about the state of affairs on the ground, as well as on their moral support for various foreign policy, financial and other events. Noble landowners and townspeople resolved their affairs through zemstvo councils, bypassing the administrative red tape.

The Zemsky Sobor met in one of the Kremlin chambers (Granovitaya, Stolovaya, etc.) The cathedral was opened by the clerk or the tsar himself. The clerk read out a “letter” (agenda) for the council (for example, at the council in 1642). The answer to the agenda questions was given on “individual articles” by each estate. At the Zemsky Sobor of 1649, the boyars and clergy sat separately from the rest of the deputies.

Zemstvo cathedrals sometimes became the arena of struggle between groups of the ruling class and individual classes. At a number of zemstvo councils, a kind of solidarity (“unity”) was established between the landowners and the upper ranks of the posad on the basis of general dissatisfaction with the imperfection of legislation and the state apparatus, and the dominance of the boyars.

The duration of zemstvo councils varied: from several hours (1645) and days (1642) to several months (1648-1649) and even years (1613-1615, 1615-1619, 1620-1622). The decisions of the Zemsky Sobor were formalized in a conciliar act - a protocol sealed with the seals of the Tsar, the Patriarch, the highest ranks and the kissing of the cross for lower ranks.

The cessation of convening zemstvo councils is closely related to the profound socio-economic changes that took place in the Russian state by the mid-17th century. The restoration of the country's economy and the further development of the feudal economy made it possible to strengthen the country's political system with an autocratic monarchy, a bureaucratic apparatus of orders and governors. The government no longer needed the moral support of “the whole earth” for its domestic and foreign policy endeavors. Satisfied with the final enslavement of the peasants, the local nobility lost interest in zemstvo councils. Since the 60s of the 17th century, zemstvo councils have degenerated into class meetings that are narrow in composition. Kostomarov N.I. Zemsky Sobors. M.: VELBY. 1995. P. 89

The Council Code of 1649, which consolidated the socio-economic changes of the Russian state, also reflected the increased power of the autocratic monarch. Chapters II and III of the “Code” established cruel punishment for crimes directed against the personality of the king, his honor, health, as well as for offenses committed on the territory of the royal court. All these offenses were identified with the concept of state crime, introduced for the first time into the law of the Russian state. The death penalty was established for direct intent (“evil intent”) against the life and health of the tsar, as well as for the discovery of intent directed against the tsar and the state (rebellion, treason, conspiracy, etc.).

The process of bureaucratization of the state apparatus transformed the Boyar Duma from an organ of the boyar aristocracy into an organ of the order bureaucracy (prikaz judges, governors, clerks); all this could not but weaken the independence of the Boyar Duma.

In the legislative activity of the Russian state, from the second half of the 17th century, the concept of a “nominal decree” appeared, that is, a legislative act drawn up only by the tsar, without the participation of the Boyar Duma. Of the 618 decrees given to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich since the publication of the “Cathedral Code”, 588 decrees were personal, and only 49 were adopted by boyar sentences. All nominal decrees were in the nature of minor acts of the supreme administration and court: official appointments, decrees to governors, approval of punishments or their abolition, etc. Boyar sentences were the most important legislative acts related to feudal land ownership, serfdom, the fundamentals of financial policy and other important aspects of state activity. The main legislative acts of this time were still passing through the Boyar Duma.

The number of boyar sentences especially increased after various social upheavals (urban uprising in Moscow in 1662, Peasant War under the leadership of Stepan Razin). During the reign of the weak-willed Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682), the importance of the Boyar Duma also temporarily increased: of the 284 decrees of his reign, 114 were given with a boyar verdict.

Despite the external stability of the position of the Boyar Duma in the system of the apparatus of the Russian state, in the second half of the 17th century there was a process of increasing the personal power of the autocratic monarch, especially in the field of supreme government.

Since the 50-60s, the practice of reports to the Tsar by the heads of the most important orders has been established. So, in 1669, on Mondays the heads of the Discharge and Ambassadorial orders reported to the tsar, on Tuesdays - the Great Treasury and the Great Parish, on Wednesdays - the Kazan and Local, etc. Evidence of the increased power of the tsar by the middle of the 17th century was the creation of the Order of Secret Affairs. Even in the first years of his reign, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich had with him several clerks from the Order of the Grand Palace for personal correspondence. At the end of 1654 or at the beginning of 1655, this state received a certain organization of the Order of Secret Affairs - the personal office of the tsar, a body that allowed the tsar to resolve the most important state issues without the Boyar Duma.

Central institutions. The 17th century was the heyday of the command system of management, but by the last quarter of the century it was beginning to experience a crisis.

An important role, as before, was played by military-administrative orders, the number of which increased. During the 17th century, the armed forces of the Russian state were based on noble cavalry and rifle regiments. Detachments of Cossacks, Tatars and Bashkirs had auxiliary importance in border guards and during wars. From the second half of the 17th century, regiments of the “new” (“foreign”) system appeared with foreign officers and Russian rank and file: soldiers (infantry), reitar and hussars (cavalry and dragoons could operate in both horse and foot formations) regiments. The army had significant fortress, siege and field artillery with domestically produced copper, iron and cast iron cannons.

As before, the Rank Order was in charge of the personnel of service people from the nobility.

The increasing importance of landowners-nobles in the army and the civil state apparatus (prikas and voivodes), an increase in the size of local land ownership, and the gradual convergence of local and patrimonial land ownership made the Local Order one of the most important orders of the state. All matters related to the service, maintenance, management and trial of the Streltsy were carried out by the Streletsky Order. The Reitar regiments (their recruitment, supply, training and court) were in charge of the Reitarsky order (1649-1701). In the last decades of the 17th century, the Reitarsky and Inozemsky orders had one chief and common clerks. Close to the military organization was the Pharmacy Order, founded at the end of the 16th century. Initially, it was a court institution that served the king, the royal family and those close to the palace. In the 17th century, the order turned into a state center for medical affairs.

The 17th century was the century of the rise and fall of the command system of government. More than 90 central bureaucratic institutions - orders of different significance, functions and sizes existed at that time. An important feature of the order management system was the diversity and uncertainty of the functions of orders. Almost every order performed not only management functions; It also had jurisdiction over certain territories (volosts, cities, villages), taxes from which were received for the maintenance of the order and the implementation of its tasks. This difficulty in determining the exact functions of orders also explains the difficulties in classifying orders.

At the head of each order was a chief - a judge; sometimes the person in charge of the order bore a special name (treasurer, printer, butler, gunsmith, etc.). The judges of the orders were appointed from among the members of the Boyar Duma; boyars, okolnichys, Duma nobles, Duma clerks. There was a process of bureaucratization of the top of the feudal class - the Duma officials. If in 1613 Duma officials headed only 43 orders, then by the 80s of the 17th century there were already almost 45 orders. Some thoughtful people managed several orders at once.

With the creation of orders came extensive paperwork. In the process of practical activity of orders, forms of certain types of documents, the order of their execution and movement within each order and between them were developed. Office work required certain clerical skills and experience, which the head of the order sometimes did not have. Therefore, clerks were appointed as assistants to judges. Judges of some orders (most often financial ones, where accounting documentation existed) were appointed from clerks. The clerks were recruited from the ordinary nobility, sometimes from the clergy and even from large merchants (“guests”). The clerks carried out business in orders. Together with the judges, they discussed cases and passed sentences. If a “report” to the king was required, then it was developed under the guidance of the clerk, who was present at the “report” itself. According to the king, the clerk made a “note” (resolution) on the “report”, which formed the basis of the royal decree.

In orders, clerks were subordinated to clerks - clerical servants from the nobility and children of clerks. The novice clerk served for several years “indefinitely,” that is, without salary, on only the “offerings” of petitioners. Then he was “made up” with a small salary (from 1 to 5 rubles per year). There were more clerks in the orders than clerks: from a few people (Aptekarsky, Pechatny, Kostroma Chet) to several dozen (Posolsky, Rozboyny) and up to several hundred (Lomestny). Senior clerks, together with clerks, supervised the preparation of documents; middle ones - compiled the texts of documents, made inquiries in the archives of the order; juniors - carried out technical work on the correspondence ("re-whitening") of documents. The staff of the orders included messengers, watchmen and other persons.

Large orders were divided into tables, and tables into howls. There was no consensus among historians in determining the nature of management in orders: some (V.I. Sergeevich, N.P. Likhachev, etc.) considered it collegial, others - individual. In fact, in the orders there was a special character of management, which consisted in the fact that controversial cases were considered by judges together with clerks, and cases that were not of a controversial nature were considered by each individual. A feature of the order office work was the extreme centralization of management: the orders resolved not only important, but also relatively unimportant matters.

The order system with its centralization and bureaucracy, paperwork and lack of control gave rise to red tape, abuse and bribery. By the end of the century, the order system had fallen into disrepair; it was replaced by a more progressive management system - collegial.

Thus, to summarize Chapter 1, the following should be noted.

Period from 15th - 17th centuries. played a huge role in the history of public administration in Russia. It is transitional from feudalism to the emergence of a noble empire. At the beginning of the 15th century, Muscovite Rus' urgently needed global reforms of the administrative mechanism in the country. A fundamentally new management system was created - the order system. It was far from flawless, but nevertheless it allowed not only to exist, but also to develop at a significant pace, although at its last stage it led to a crisis of governance in the state.

This period also contributed to the development of the institution of autocracy. He prepared the ground for the transition to absolutism, which was necessary for a new radical transformation in the country in the era of Peter I.