Supreme bodies of state power

Central government bodies

Civil service and service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century.

The revival of autocracy took place on the basis of ideas about the state as a “symphony of powers”, a dual unity of secular and spiritual authorities, autonomously existing, but equally ensuring the protection and triumph of Orthodoxy through their own means.

In the 17th century, the national form of monarchy finally emerged - autocracy. Although all the autocrats of the 17th century. Romanov dynasties were elected by Zemsky Councils (1613 - Mikhail, 1645 - Alexey, 1682 - Peter I and Ivan V, the only exception was the accession of Fyodor Alekseevich in 1676, for which the decision of the Boyar Duma was sufficient), the source their power was not the will of class, but God. The image of power was of a sacred nature. The Tsar was perceived as the embodiment of the highest Orthodox values ​​- truth, goodness, justice, as the defender of “Holy Rus'”. At the symbolic level, this was enshrined in the sacrament of royal weddings, which consisted of placing a crown and barm on the king, presenting a scepter, an orb, and vestments in purple, pronouncing the symbol of faith.

In the 17th century The title of Russian tsars officially included the concept of “autocrat” (“great sovereign, tsar and grand duke, autocrat of all Russia”; after the reunification of Ukraine with Russia - “autocrat of all Great and Little Russia”). In 1625, a new state seal was introduced.

However, the essence of autocratic power was not enshrined in legislation. The tsar's power was limited by Orthodox morality and established traditions, which the tsar was forced to strictly follow.

Throughout the 17th century. The Boyar Duma spoke supreme council under the king. The functions of the Duma were not clearly defined and were based on customary law. The competence of the Duma included issues of domestic and foreign policy, court and administration. The formula “the sovereign indicated, and the boyars sentenced” was strictly applied. Some independent decrees of the tsar are explained by the need to resolve some issue or its relative insignificance.

The Boyar Duma remained essentially an aristocratic body, but in the 17th century. constantly increased its composition at the expense of lower ranks - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, who were introduced to the Duma on the basis of their personal service merits. Thus, a major statesman A. Ordin-Nashchokin left the Pskov nobles. As a result, the number of the Boyar Duma increased from 35 people in the 30s. to 94 by the end of the century.

Under the tsar, there was a “close council” of especially trusted persons, with whom he previously discussed and made decisions on issues of public administration. Thus, for Mikhail Fedorovich, the Middle Duma included four boyars connected with the tsar by family ties (I. Romanov, I. Cherkassky, M. Shein, B. Lykov). In 1681-1694. From the Boyar Duma, a special Execution Chamber was separated, in which the most important court cases were considered.

During the period of restoration of Russian statehood, the autocracy needed the support of class representation. This determined the growing importance of Zemsky Sobors in the system of government bodies. They participated in all the most important state acts of the period 613-1653: the election of a king, changes in legislation, taxation, foreign policy issues and the annexation of new territories. The initiative to convene Zemsky Sobors came from the Tsar, the Boyar Duma or the previous council.

Zemsky Sobors did not have clear regulations, numbers and composition. Usually, representatives of classes and territories necessary to resolve a specific issue were convened at the council. The meetings of the cathedral were necessarily attended by the tsar or his representative, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated (church) cathedral. Representation of other groups of the population could be by conscription (without choice) and by choice from various layers of the service and draft population. In the latter case, the government sent letters to the governors, which indicated the number of those summoned, the date of arrival and sometimes the purpose of the council. The electoral districts were counties. As a rule, there was no property qualification, and the moral qualification was indicated by the call to choose “strong, reasonable, kind” people.

The meetings of the Zemsky Sobor opened with a general meeting, at which the tsar or, on his behalf, the clerk motivated the convening of the council and put forward issues for discussion. These issues were discussed according to class ranks. Boyar Duma, clergy, meeting of Moscow nobles, city nobles, archers, etc. The categories were divided into articles. Each category or article submitted its written opinion, and in case of disagreement with the general opinion of its category, each member of the council could submit his opinion. Based on a synthesis of opinions, a unanimous decision was made.

The Zemsky Sobor was inseparable from the power of the tsar and, in principle, could not become an opposition body. This is the peculiarity of Russian statehood - representative bodies acted not as a counterweight, but as the most important condition for strengthening the power of the tsar. Zemsky Sobors viewed themselves as a spiritual and moral phenomenon, a special form of service to the Tsar. Therefore, they did not bargain for privileges and new rights, as the estates did in the West.

The active work of the Zemsky Sobors was due to the temporary weakness of the autocracy and its need to overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles with the help of class support. The state apparatus was destroyed by the events of the Time of Troubles, which did not allow the king to rely on it.

By the middle of the 17th century. the autocracy strengthened, the mechanisms of government were restored. In 1649, the Council Code was adopted, which determined the position of the main classes and stabilized the legal situation in the state. This freed the hands of the tsarist administration to pursue independent policies, including actions that could not find support from representatives of the estates.

The last Zemsky Sobor was convened by Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in 1681-1682. The Council decided to abolish localism. Since the issue concerned primarily the nobility and representatives of the service class, its composition included mainly representatives of the corresponding classes, and church hierarchs were also fully represented. However, in order to better inform the population about the abolition of localism, the decision of the Council was announced publicly from the Bed Porch of the royal palace, where it could be heard by people of all ranks who were not present at the Council. This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors in Russia ended.

The system of central government bodies was destroyed during the Time of Troubles. Meanwhile, without its restoration, it was impossible to effectively carry out government functions, maintain the unity of the state, and connect the center with local government structures. Mikhail Fedorovich took steps to restore the order system. This process began energetically after the return of Filaret Nikitich, the tsar’s father, to Moscow from Polish captivity.

Due to the urgency of the financial problem (after the Time of Troubles, the treasury was empty), the government strengthened the fiscal activities of orders. New permanent and temporary orders were created that were in charge of collecting taxes - the New Quarter, the Order of the Great Treasury, the Order of Five Pieces and Request Money. The new quarter was the department responsible for drinking and tavern fees. The order of the Great Treasury was in charge of merchant corporations, including “guests”, merchants of the living room and cloth hundreds and merchants of cities; collected taxes, farm-outs and other annual fees from guests, merchants, peasants and peasants. The order of five and request money collected emergency taxes.

Gradually, the order system was introduced into all spheres of public administration. Judicial and administrative bodies played an important role. These included those created back in the 16th century: The Local Order - was in charge of the distribution and transfer of estates, estates and related litigation, formalized all transactions for local lands, and then received judicial functions on these issues, compiled the most important accounting documents - scribe and census books , in which the land holdings of service people and peasant households were recorded; Robbery order (in 1682 renamed Sysknaya) - was in charge of criminal police affairs throughout the country, except for Moscow (here these functions were performed by the Zemsky order), it approved labial elders, kissers and clerks for positions, sentences of labial organs were considered in second instance robbery cases; Serf order - issued and released from servitude, and also resolved litigation over slaves.

In the 17th century, orders were created that related to the central-regional government bodies and were traditionally called quarter orders. They represented the former central bodies of the former appanages annexed to Moscow. They were moved to the capital while maintaining their territory of jurisdiction. At first there were 3 of them, and they were called thirds, and then 4 - and were called quarters, but soon there were already 6 of them: Nizhny Novgorod, Galician, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma, Siberian quarters (the latter was renamed the order). They were in charge of the population of cities, counties and courts for tax-paying groups of the population.

A separate group were special-purpose orders. This is, first of all, the Ambassadorial Order, transformed from the Ambassadorial Chamber in 1601. It was divided into 5 subdivisions, three of which carried out relations with Western Europe, and two with eastern countries. The Yamsk order provided state postal services; The order of Stone Affairs was in charge of stone construction. The printed order sealed government acts with a seal; The pharmacy order monitored the health of the sovereign and his family; The petition order transmitted the results of the analysis by the Tsar or the Boyar Duma to the relevant orders or directly to the petitioners. In 1649, the Monastic Order appeared, which was in charge of the monastic lands and the court of the population of church estates.

A special block consisted of orders from the palace and financial management. The Order of the Grand Palace was in charge of the maintenance of the palace. And also the population and lands located throughout the country, obliged to supply this content, judged privileged persons exempted by the king from the court of ordinary bodies. The palaces that were responsible for the appropriate supply were subordinate to him: fodder, grain, food and nourishment,

The order of the Great Treasury gradually turned into the tsar's personal treasury and a repository of precious items. The Monetary Court, which was in charge of coinage, was subordinate to him. The Order of the Great Parish was in charge of indirect taxes of the state, and the Order of Accounting Affairs (created in 1667) exercised control functions.

In the period 1654-1676. The Order of Secret Affairs functioned, which was the personal office of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and acted as an institution of political control and investigation. The most important matters related to royal and state security were transferred to his competence: control over the activities of all central and local government bodies, diplomacy, the production of firearms, mining, investigation of political affairs, management of the household of the court.

In the 1680s, the central government was restructured. By that time, the total number of orders was 80-90, although some of them were temporary. Such a larger number of orders gave rise to the interweaving of their functions, which did not contribute to increasing the efficiency of their activities.

The main goal of the reform is to simplify and centralize orders. The largest links of the reform were the unification of all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and service matters in the Rank Order, with their removal from the competence of territorial orders. As a result of these actions, there was a transition in financial management from the territorial to the systemic principle. Also during the reform, orders were combined into groups with their subordination to one government body in the state.

As a result of the transformations, the orders turned into large institutions with a large staff and a complex bureaucratic structure.

In the first half of the 17th century. in local government there was a displacement of the zemstvo principle, characteristic of the 16th century. voivodeship office. There were governors even during the period of the existence of boyar-governors, who “fed” at the expense of the local population. During the Time of Troubles, it became clear that the province needed a body connecting its entire population with the center. This was also prompted by other reasons, including the growing financial needs of the state and the need to ensure the unity of the vast Russian territory. During the Time of Troubles, the population itself, at general class meetings, began to elect governors who had not only military powers, but also administrative and judicial functions.

After the end of the Troubles, the governor began to appoint a Discharge Order, the decision of which was approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. The term of office of the governor was 1-3 years. Since 1613, 33 cities received government-appointed governors; in 1625, governors were appointed in 146 cities. By the middle of the century, the voivodeship system had spread everywhere. The governors were supposed to govern the territory in the interests of the king, and they were officially prohibited from collecting food. However, the voivodes were allowed to accept voluntary donations from the local population, which contributed to their enrichment. For their service, voivodes received estates and local monetary salaries.

The governors were highly dependent on the central government. Control over the activities of the governor was carried out by the order under whose jurisdiction the given territory was located. The order prepared an order to the governor, which defined the latter’s terms of reference. When the governor changed, all affairs and state property were handed over according to the inventory and books.

The governor himself supervised the work of elected officials (elders, tselovalniks, heads), who collected direct and indirect taxes from the population, supervised the court of governors and zemstvo elders, and recruited service people (nobles and boyar children) into the service.

Voivodes headed a local institution - a clerk's office or a moving hut (in the 20s of the 17th century there were names - sexton, court hut).. In them, matters regarding the management of the county or city entrusted to the voivode were decided. The clerical work in the hut was carried out by clerks and clerks. Most of the clerk's huts had small staffs - a few people each, although in some (for example, in the Novgorod and Pskov huts) 20 or more clerks served.

Due to the reorganization of the armed forces, categories (military districts) were created on a permanent basis, uniting several counties. The ranks were under the command of one governor. Relying on the corresponding official hut. The latter gradually expanded its military-administrative rights and began to be called the discharge hut or the chamber of orders, which served as the forerunner of future provincial offices of the 18th century.

In the first half of the 17th century. voivodes received the right to control provincial (in charge of judicial and police matters) and zemstvo (oversaw the collection of direct taxes) elders and huts without the right to interfere in the scope of their activities. But in the second half of the century this restriction was lifted, although complete subordination of local self-government did not occur. In financial and economic management, zemstvo authorities remained independent. The authorities were forced to take into account the opinion of representatives of the classes defending the rights of local self-government.

Throughout the 17th century. There was an increase in the staff of orders, caused by the complication of public administration and the internal needs of order institutions. All clerks were included in the structure of the service class of Russian society, but they occupied a special place in it. They created their own system of ranks, parallel to the general one, but not related to the birth of origin. The orderly bureaucratic ladder was distinguished by the absence of internal barriers between individual ranks, which formally opened up the possibility of promotion up to the highest rank - Duma clerk.

By the middle of the 17th century. There is a separation of the civil service from the service in general, which was predominantly military. This was reflected in the changes that the oaths of the commanding people underwent, given when the king was replaced by the entire population and by individuals upon taking office or increasing their rank. General oaths for the entire mass of the serving population were supplemented by postscripts to clerks. At the same time, the attributions were constantly becoming more complex and specific for various ranks and positions, taking into account changes in their official duties. In the general oath, the clerks pledged to protect the life and health of the tsar and members of his family, not to plot against the sovereign, and to serve him honestly. And special attributions defined the service of clerks as work in government institutions, i.e. was a civil service. Thus, the responsibilities of clerks were divided by the middle of the 17th century. for “sovereign service” (considered as honorable) and “order work” (current work in orders and official huts, considered as forced labor). Since the 60s of the 17th century. The documents clearly separated the performance of service and administrative work by clerks and clerks, with the latter becoming the main and determining one.

In the 17th century the formation of government positions took place. At first, they coincided with the service hierarchy of ranks: Duma clerks - the supreme administration, clerks - the middle level of management of central and local institutions, clerks occupied a subordinate position. As the number of administrative officials grew, their positions and functions began to differ. The clerks' places in the order were now determined by the time they received their rank, which established their official subordination and division into “big” and “other.” The size of the salary paid to clerks directly depended on their official position.

In the orders, there was a qualified division of clerks into three articles: first (old), second (middle) and third (young). A category of clerks with an accreditation was allocated (the highest clerical position to which experienced old clerks were appointed). In the second half of the 17th century. such division acquired an official character and was controlled by the Discharge Order.

Under the first Romanovs, there was a decline in the role of local salaries in ensuring the administrative service and a simultaneous increase in the importance of cash salaries. However, the payment of cash salaries was carried out irregularly, which forced the clerks to “feed” from work. This led to an increase in the number of unemployed clerks.

By the end of the 17th century. the principle of localism finally gave way to new criteria for the advancement of a clerk in the service. Entrepreneurship, abilities, experience, qualifications and favor of the higher administration or the king came to the fore.

- 99.00 Kb

Changes in Russian public administration in the 17th century

XVII century - one of the most turbulent centuries not only in the history of Russia, but also of many Western and Eastern states. In Russia, it was of a transitional nature, when the previous system of government of the class monarchy and its institutions flourished, but in the second half of the century they died out and the process of forming an absolute monarchy began.

At the beginning of the 17th century. an unfavorable combination of internal and external factors leads 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.

The emergence of an absolute monarchy dates back to the second half of the 17th century. At this time, the actual merging of regions, lands and principalities into one whole takes place. There is a concentration of small local markets into one all-Russian market. At this time, bourgeois relations emerged, the role of the townspeople in the political life of the country increased, and the first manufactories appeared.

In the initial period of the formation of absolutism in Russia, the monarch, in the fight against the boyar aristocracy, relied on the top of the settlement. And the posad is still happy with the tsar, since the Council Code of 1649 fulfilled the posad’s requirement to eliminate the main posad competitors - the “white” settlements, which belonged to secular and spiritual feudal lords.

The tsar also fulfilled another requirement - he limited the rights of foreign merchants. Thus, the Russian merchants were interested in the development of absolutism in Russia.

Although the emergence of bourgeois relations took place during this period, the foundations of feudalism had not yet been undermined. The dominant system continues to be the feudal economy. However, it was increasingly forced to adapt to the market and commodity-money relations. In the 18th century there is an increasing role of the local economy in the country's economy and a rise in the political importance of the nobility. During the period of the formation of absolutism, the monarch relied on the nobles in the fight against the boyar and church opposition, which opposed the strengthening of tsarist power.

Absolutism in Russia arose in the second half of the 17th century, when Zemsky Sobors, limiting the power of the tsar, ceased to be convened. The command system of government, directly subordinate to the tsar, was strengthened. At the end of the 17th century. A permanent royal army was created. The tsar acquired significant financial independence, receiving income from his estates, the collection of taxes from conquered peoples, and from customs duties that increased due to the development of trade. These taxes, as well as the tsarist monopoly on the production and sale of vodka, beer, and honey, gave the tsar the opportunity to maintain a huge state apparatus.

With the weakening of the economic and political role of the boyars, the importance of the Boyar Duma decreased. Its composition began to be replenished with nobles. Of particular importance is the secret or close council of a small number of persons close to the king. The decline of the Boyar Duma is also evidenced by the sharp increase in the number of personal decrees issued by the Tsar without consulting the Duma. Thus, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued 588 personal decrees, while there are only 49 decrees approved by the Duma. An intensive process of subordination of the church to the state is taking place.

Absolutism finally took shape in the first quarter of the 17th century. under Peter I. In the first years of the reign of Peter I, the Boyar Duma formally existed, but had no power, and the number of its members decreased. In 1701, the functions of the Duma were transferred to the “Near Chancellery”, which united the work of the most important government bodies. The persons who were in the Duma were called ministers, and the council of ministers was called the council of ministers, and the number of members of the council ranged from 8 to 14 people.

With the establishment in February 1711 The Senate finally ceased to function, the Boyar Duma - the last state. body that limited the power of the monarch.

In the first half of the 18th century. A bureaucratic state apparatus was created, as well as a regular standing army subordinate to the king.

At the beginning of the 18th century. absolute monarchy received legislative recognition. In particular, in the Military Regulations of 1716. it was said: “His Majesty is an autocratic Monarch, he should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs, but he has power and authority,” etc.

In October 1721 In connection with the brilliant victory of Russia in the Northern War, the Senate and the Spiritual Synod presented Peter I with the title “Father of the Fatherland, All-Russian Emperor.” Russia is becoming an empire.

Over the 250 years of the existence of absolutism in Russia, 5 main stages of development can be distinguished:

absolute monarchy of the second half of the 17th century. with the Boyar Duma and the Boyar aristocracy.

Official-noble monarchy of the 18th century.

Absolute monarchy of the first half of the 19th century. before the reform of 1861

Absolute monarchy 1861 - 1904, when the autocracy took a step towards a bourgeois monarchy.

A feature of the social system of this period was a clear division of society into 4 estates: nobility, clergy, peasants, urban population. At the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries. there is an expansion and consolidation of the privileges of the nobility. The basis of the legal status of the nobles was the monopoly right to land property. Nobles could own land, which gave them the right to exploit the peasants who lived on these lands.

According to the decree on the per capita census of January 26, 1718, the privileged position of the nobility as a non-taxable class, in contrast to other groups of the population, which paid a per capita tax, was legislated.

The nobility is being transformed into a single class. With the creation of a regular army and a bureaucratic apparatus, there was a further blurring of the lines between different groups of feudal lords.

The Table of Ranks, published on January 24, 1722, was important in strengthening the position of the nobility. It contained a list of military, naval, land, artillery, guards, as well as civil and court ranks. The ranks established for different departments were divided into XIV classes. Service had to start from the lower ranks. Therefore, the opportunity was created for people from other classes to become nobles, which expanded the opportunity to become a nobleman in the Russian state, as, in their time, a boyar.

At the end of the XVII - beginning of the XVIII centuries. All leading positions in the state apparatus were occupied by nobles.

In the interests of the ruling class and strengthening the state apparatus, Peter I carried out a number of events. He was an absolute monarch, who had the highest legislative and executive powers in the state. He was also the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces. With the subordination of the church to the state, the monarch also becomes the head of state.

In February 1711, the Senate was established. Initially it consisted of nine people appointed by the king, independent of origin. The Tsar controlled the activities of the Senate through specially created bodies. The main role in the Senate was played by the general meeting of senators. Here the main issues were discussed and decided by voting. The Senate also included presidents of the colleges. At the Senate there were: a discharge table (later it was replaced by a heraldic office headed by a herald master), which was in charge of accounting for nobles, their service, the appointment of nobles to government positions, and an execution chamber - for investigating official crimes.

Under the Senate, there were several special positions that were important in the field of public administration, among which were fiscal officers. They were supposed to secretly report and expose all abuses of officials, high and low, monitor the implementation of laws, pursue embezzlement, bribery and theft committed by officials. At the head of the fiscals was the fiscal general, appointed by the king, with his assistant chief fiscal, appointed by the Senate. Fiscals at collegiums, provincial fiscals in provinces and city fiscals in cities were subordinated to them.

An independent position in the Senate was occupied by the Prosecutor General with his assistant, the Chief Prosecutor.

The position of chief prosecutor was established in 1722 for public oversight of the activities of all institutions, including the Senate. The prosecutor general, responsible only to the king, was subordinate to the collegiums and court courts. All cases received by the Senate passed through the hands of the Prosecutor General

The Senate played a big role in strengthening absolutism. He concentrated the leadership of central and local government bodies, and his decisions were not subject to appeal.

After the death of Peter I, the role of the Senate as a body directing the activities of central government institutions began to decline.

In February 1726, the Supreme Privy Council with an extremely narrow composition was created to resolve issues of domestic and foreign policy of the state. At first, Menshikov and his closest supporters played a decisive role in his activities. After the death of Peter, the Senate and collegiums were actually subordinate to the Supreme Privy Council. In 1730 the Supreme Privy Council was abolished.

In 1731, the Cabinet of Ministers was established, which was initially of an advisory nature, but by decree of November 9, 1735, it was given legislative powers. Boards and local government enterprises exercised their powers by submitting reports and reports to the Cabinet of Ministers. In December 1741, the Cabinet of Ministers was abolished.

The activities of the Senate intensified again. In addition to the Senate, issues of a national nature were also resolved by the Cabinet of His Majesty, created in 1741, headed by the secretary of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.

Under Peter III, the Imperial Council was established, which consisted of eight people. In 1769, Catherine II created a council at the highest court. At first he was involved in military issues, and then in the internal politics of the country. It included the heads of central government bodies, and it operated until 1801.

Before the creation of collegiums, orders were the central governing bodies. The number of orders varied depending on government needs. In the middle of the 17th century. there were more than 40 standing orders, and in 1699 there were 44 orders in force. The orders had a disadvantage in that they often duplicated each other.

Peter I sought to adapt the order system to the needs of the state (mainly military). In 1689, the Preobrazhensky Prikaz was formed, initially in charge of the affairs of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky soldier regiments. The Preobrazhensky Order existed until 1729. During preparations for the second Azov campaign in 1696, the Ship or Admiralty Order was created, which was engaged in the construction of ships, their weapons and equipment.

In 1700, the Provision Order was formed for the centralized supply of troops with food and uniforms. In 1700, the Reitarsky and Inozemny orders were combined into one, called the Order of Military Affairs.

Noting the serious shortcomings of the command system of management, it must be said that it still fulfilled its role in centralizing the Russian state.

A radical restructuring of the order system took place in the period from 1718 to 1720, when collegiums were created instead of orders. The advantage of boards over orders was that their competence was strictly limited by law; cases were considered and decided collectively.

The functions, internal structure and procedure of office work in the boards were determined by the General Regulations of the boards. The Military Collegium was in charge of the ground forces, engaged in the training of officers, recruitment, weapons and financing of the army. It was in charge of clothing and food supplies to the army, as well as the construction of military fortifications.

Description of work

XVII century - one of the most turbulent centuries not only in the history of Russia, but also of many Western and Eastern states. In Russia, it was of a transitional nature, when the previous system of government of the class monarchy and its institutions flourished, but in the second half of the century they died out and the process of forming an absolute monarchy began.

Features of public administration:

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 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.

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.

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 a decision 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Local government in Russia in the 17th century

1.2 Higher and central institutions

In the 17th century, as before, the Boyar Duma was the most important body of the state, the body of the boyar aristocracy and shared supreme power with the tsar. It included the boyars of the Moscow prince, former appanage princes, representatives of the local nobility (they were called “Duma nobles”), and the top of the service bureaucracy - “Duma clerks” who carried out office work. The Boyar Duma decided on the most important state affairs. She was the legislature. 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 still remained the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration and court.

The boyar duma did not play an independent role; it always acted together with the tsar, constituting, together with the sovereign, a single supreme power. This unity was especially evident in matters of legislation and international relations. In all cases, a decision was made in the following form: “The sovereign indicated and the boyars sentenced” or “By the sovereign’s decree the boyars sentenced.”

The chairmanship of the Duma belonged to the tsar, but he was not always present; The boyars decided matters without him, definitively, or their decisions were approved by the sovereign. Members were distributed in the Duma according to the order of ranks, and each rank according to the local ladder of breed. The Council Code instructs the Duma to “do all sorts of things together.” This indirectly confirms the beginning of unanimity in decisions. At the end of the 17th century. a special branch of the Duma for judicial matters arises: the “execution chamber”, consisting of Duma delegates (several members from each rank). When the boyars leave Moscow with the tsar on a campaign, several members are left in place “to conduct Moscow.” All reports from orders went to this commission of the Duma, but only matters of lesser importance were finally decided by it; the rest were sent to the tsar and the boyars who were with him.

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 turns 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. The word "zemsky" meant "state". The Zemsky Sobor is a meeting of representatives of “all lands,” or the entire Russian land. In this sense, Zemsky Sobors had strong “earthly” roots. They “grew up” from the Novgorod veche, from princely “congresses” on the most important events of Russian history and old traditions of discussing controversial issues “with the whole world.”

Zemsky Sobors met almost continuously: 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 economic issues (in 1642 - on the issue of Azov, taken by the Cossacks, in 1649 - the adoption of the Code - a code 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 - collective acts - were signed by the tsar, the patriarch, the highest ranks and lower ranks. Since the 60s, zemstvo councils have ceased to be convened: the government has strengthened and no longer needed the “moral support of “the whole earth.”

First half of the 17th century - the heyday of the order system and its constant implementation in all branches of management. In the first years of the Romanov dynasty, about 20 former 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 orders intensifies. A number of new permanent and temporary central institutions were created that were in charge of collecting taxes (New Quarter in 1619, order of the Great Treasury in 1621-1622).

A new element in the command system of management was the formation of patriarchal management institutions. After the return of Patriarch Filaret from captivity, three orders were created on the basis of the patriarchal court (Palace, State, Rank), which managed the entire patriarchal economy.

In the first half of the 17th century. temporary orders were widespread, created obviously as temporary by a special decree defining the functions, the head of the order, its entire staff and budget.

In the second half of the 17th century. In connection with fundamental changes in the socio-economic life of Russia, its internal political development and international position, the state apparatus is changing.

At this time, serfdom was finally strengthened and formalized, an all-Russian market was taking shape, manufacturing production was emerging, and the social stratification of the village was deepening. The contradictory nature of these processes led to the aggravation of social relations in the city and the countryside.

The estate-representative monarchy had outlived its usefulness by this time, but the system of orders was 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 one that functioned in 1654-1675. order of Secret Affairs. The main part of the affairs of this order was related to the management of the palace economy.

A major restructuring with the aim of simplification and further centralization was undertaken in the 80s. The most important was the attempt to combine all financial issues in a consolidated order of the Great Treasury. This time included measures to concentrate all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and service cases in the Razryadny Order, with their removal from the jurisdiction of the territorial orders.

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. The clerks were assistants to the chief judge. Clerks were recruited mainly from the ordinary nobility or from the clergy. They decided cases, passed sentences. Subordinate to them were clerical employees from the nobility and children of clerks - clerks.

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. 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. 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, but only howls.

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 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.

The history of the creation of the 1918 Constitution

So, the state structure of the RSFSR was federal in nature, the subjects of the Federation were national republics. The creation of regional unions was also envisaged...

Collective farm law of Russia

The central bodies that govern the collective farms are: a) bodies of general competence - the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Supreme Councils of the Union and Autonomous Republics, the Council of Ministers of the USSR...

Local government in Russia in the 17th century

In the 20-30s, a new type of local administrative institution was formed. It is characteristic that at this time a uniform name for voivodeship huts had not yet been established everywhere. Some of them were traditionally called in the old way. So...

The formation of a command system of management in the Russian state

The Tsar (Grand Duke) is the head of the Moscow state, supreme power belongs entirely and inseparably (unlimitedly) to the Tsar. The king makes laws and appoints officials. The Boyar Duma is the highest authority in the Russian state...

Orders and medals of Russia

In the history of Russia, many orders were known. They were awarded to various people for various feats, both military and civilian. There were times when several orders were awarded together for some feat. There were even such awards...

Features of monarchical rule in England and Russia

Russian state of the mid-16th - mid-17th centuries. V. was an estate-representative monarchy. Estate-representative is a centralized feudal monarchy in which a relatively strong monarch, exercising his power...

Craft and factory schools in the USSR in the first half of the twentieth century

Professional education as a part of social life arises at a certain historical stage and develops in the unity of theoretical and practical components...

Reforms of government bodies during the crisis of the serf system in the first half of the 19th century

Local institutions occupied a significant place in the system of government institutions. With the creation of ministries, local government institutions were assigned to the relevant ministries...

Reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century: prerequisites and consequences

According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. A former serf, from whom the landowner could previously take away all his property, and sell it, donate it, pawn it...

Russian truth

The prototype of the first central body was the sovereign treasury (office). She had a large staff of clerks. Treasurers were in charge of financial matters. There was a printer on the staff of the office, the custodian of the sovereign seal...

College records management system

In 1699, under the Boyar Duma, the Near Office was established for financial control over the receipt and expenditure of funds from all orders. Soon the competence of this office increased. It became the meeting place for members of the Boyar Duma. Since 1704...

College records management system

In conditions of intensifying class struggle, the old system of local institutions and officials, with the lack of uniformity in territorial division and government bodies, and the uncertainty of functions, no longer satisfied the ruling class...

Formation of the Soviet state

Joining efforts in the fight against devastation required the creation of special governing bodies. The decree of the Second Congress of Soviets on the creation of the government provided for the formation of a number of economic people's commissariats. Soon, however, it became clear...

Evolutionary development of the constitution of the RSFSR

The supreme authority in the USSR became the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, endowed with legislative power and consisting of two chambers: the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. The Council of the Union was elected by territorial districts...

Characteristics of local government

Voivode Institute

Turbulent events of the early 17th century. required the efforts of local authorities. This problem was solved by introducing the institution of voivode as the main link in local government. The position of governor existed from the second half of the 16th century. only in some border towns, where there was a need to exercise firmer military and civil authority. Peasant war and Polish-Swedish intervention at the beginning of the 17th century. demanded the creation of this firm power everywhere. All governors were appointed by the Discharge Order, approved by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma and obeyed the order that administered cities and counties. The rank order had within its competence the management of service people, assigning them to service, assigning land (local) and monetary salaries, and was also in charge of their accounting. According to the list of cities and districts of Russia in 1614, it is clear that in 103 cities with districts there were already governors, and in 1616 - 138, in 1625 governors were appointed to 146 cities with districts.

Candidates for the position of voivode - boyars, nobles and boyar children submitted a petition addressed to the tsar, in which they asked to be appointed to the voivodeship in order to “feed”, but officially the voivode received, in addition to estates, local monetary salaries and salaries for his service.

The term of service of a voivode usually lasted one to three years. In Shuya from 1613 to 1689, in 79 years, 52 governors were replaced, and in Yakutsk for 1645-1652 - five governors. In large cities there were several governors (in Astrakhan - three or four, Pskov - two or three); one of the governors (appointed from among the boyars) was in charge, the others were considered his comrades; they were appointed from okolnichi, stolniks and nobles. In small towns there was one governor. The voivode had an office, or moving hut, in which all matters related to the administration of the city and district were carried out; it was headed by a clerk. Here the sovereign's letters, receipts and expenditure books and lists of various taxes and fees and the fees themselves (the sovereign's porridge) were kept. In large cities, administrative huts were divided into tables; the desks were run by clerks. In addition to the clerks, in the administrative hut there were bailiffs, or allottees, messengers and watchmen, who carried out the orders of the governor. The sovereign's seal was kept in a special box; The governor also had his own seal. When one voivode was replaced by another, the old voivode handed over to the new one all affairs and government property according to inventories and books (delivery inventories or written lists); one copy of the inventory was sent to the order in which the city and the county were in charge. Heading to the voivodeship, the voivode received from the order an order that determined the scope of his activities. The voivode ruled the territory entrusted to him. He protected feudal property, fought against the concealment of fugitives, against violation of government interests (feeding), against all sorts of violations of order in general (battle, fire, pestilence), was in charge of city and road affairs, and supervised the court of provincial and zemstvo elders. Performed administrative and police functions, as well as military ones. His duties were not clearly regulated (“as beautiful,” “as God will instruct,” said the order to the governor from the order), and this created the basis for arbitrariness. And although feedings were cancelled, the governors robbed the population.

In large cities, police supervision over the population, fortifications and guards was carried out by a mayor (former city clerk) subordinate to the governor. In settlements and volosts, the governor exercised power with the help of clerks.

The financial functions of the governor were broad. The scribe books compiled in this case contained a description of the lands by quantity and quality, the profitability of the lands (productivity), duties and benefits of the landowner-feudal lord. Where courtyards (in cities) were taken as the basis for the calculation, information about them was also entered into the scribe books. In the first years after the end of the Polish-Swedish intervention, watchmen were sent from Moscow to determine the solvency of the population, compiling special watch books. The governors were obliged to provide these financial agents from the center with all possible assistance, to issue them with the documents needed for the “big letter” from the traveling hut. Tax collections were carried out by elected officials: direct - headmen and tselovalniks, indirect (customs and tavern fees) - heads and tselovalniki. Voivodes exercised supervision and financial control over the activities of these elected authorities. All the collected money was taken to the hut. The military-administrative functions of the governor were very broad. He recruited service people into the service - nobles and boyar children, kept their lists indicating the estate, salary, serviceability of each, gave them periodic inspections and sent them to service at the first request of the Rank Order. The voivode was also in charge of local service people “according to the instrument”: archers, gunners, etc. The voivode was responsible for all city institutions, fortress cannons, various military and government food supplies, which he accepted and handed over according to the inventory. On the outskirts of the state, the voivode was in charge and border affairs: he sent traveling “stanitas” and “watchmen” to the steppes, set up “zasechki”, forts and abatis fortresses. Due to these complex functions, a number of officials were in varying degrees of subordination to the governor: siege head (commandant of the fortress), zasechnye, prison, streltsy, Cossack Pushkar, bypass, granary and pit heads. The governors were never content with voluntary offerings. Throughout the 17th century. From cities, districts and volosts of the Russian state, tearful petitions from the population came to the capital for the extortions and extortion of the governors. In the first decades of the century, the government itself was forced to send out letters “about not giving feed to the governors, messengers and messengers in the future,” but all this was to no avail. At the Zemsky Sobor of 1642, the emboldened merchants directly declared to the government that “in the cities all sorts of people became impoverished and completely impoverished by your sovereign governors”1. The governors of Siberia were particularly arbitrary. Almost every shift of Siberian governors ended with an investigation (detective) about their abuses, with the involvement of other officials as accomplices: clerks, clerks, etc. n. In the 17th century. Both forms of “self-government” continued to exist - provincial and zemstvo. Lip cases (i.e., criminal court) in each district - gub - were in charge of the lip chief; his assistants were lip kissers. All legal proceedings and paperwork on provincial affairs were carried out in the provincial hut, where the provincial clerk and clerks were located. The labial elders were in charge of prisons with prison servants (kissers, guards), executioners, as well as elected from the population - sotskys, tens. The provincial headman was chosen by the free population of the district from the nobles or children of the boyars; tselovalniks were chosen from black-sowing peasants or townspeople. The range of activity of the labial organs in the 17th century. increased significantly. In addition to robbery, Taty’s cases and murder, virtually all criminal cases fell under their jurisdiction: arson, violence, detection of fugitives, etc. Although Article 21 of Chapter XXI of the “Code” of 1649. emphasized the independence of provincial affairs from the governor, but in fact the provincial elders were under the supervision, and then completely subordinate to the governor. The voivode became the head of the provincial court, and the provincial elder became his assistant. Dissatisfaction with the state of the criminal court and the abuses of the governors themselves pushed the government towards various reforms. In 1669 provincial elders were subordinate to government-appointed provincial detectives; labial and prison kissers were abolished, and instead of the former, labial sextons were appointed, and the latter - archers and hired guards. Throughout the century, there were also zemstvo bodies of “self-government” - zemstvo elders (sometimes they were called zemstvo judges) and kissers, elected by black-sown peasants and townspeople people at gatherings in cities, towns, volosts and churchyards. These bodies were in charge of the distribution of taxes among the population and ensured that tax collectors did not evade paying taxes. Zemstvo bodies carried out some police functions, monitored the maintenance of peace, compliance with customs duties, etc. Record keeping on zemstvo affairs was carried out in a special zemstvo hut, where zemstvo salary books were kept. In police terms, zemstvo bodies were completely subordinate to the governors. Financially, although unsuccessfully, the government tried to remove the governor from influence on the zemstvo bodies. In addition to the provincial and zemstvo bodies, there were other elected bodies. In each district there were several customs houses headed by customs officers; The county customs houses were subordinate to the customs head, under which there was a special customs hut. Circle courts and taverns were headed by corresponding heads and kissers. In addition, there were stall elders, household and mill clerks and other elected officials who were chosen mainly from the townspeople under the supervision of the governor. The voivode oversaw their activities, accepted their reports and money. Sometimes the government farmed out customs and tavern fees.

Serving as elected heads and kissers during customs tavern and other duties was perceived by the population as a grave duty, since the governors and orders “corrected” any shortcomings from the heads and kissers themselves. Petitions against the arbitrariness of the voivodes often included elected officials - victims of the voivode's arbitrariness. Voivode Barkov, about whom the Shuyans complained in 1665, beat the stall kisser Selivanov and the head of the circle court Karpov “half to death.” The governor and his bailiffs and other elected officials got it. In 1633, a bailiff with archers came to the Podosinovskaya volost, Usolsky district and arrested the zemsky headman (judge) of the volost and several peasants for non-payment of taxes, and then daily put them on the right. All this caused a real uprising of the population, which came to the camp (center) of the volost. It expanded significantly in the 17th century. the sphere of activity of the court, which turned into one of the most important links in the state’s punitive policy, which was distinguished by great cruelty. The death penalty was often used as a punishment - according to the Council Code of 1649, it punished criminals in 60 cases. In addition to simple forms of the death penalty (cutting off the head, hanging and drowning), there were forms of qualified death penalty associated with particularly cruel torture of the punished (burning, burying alive, pouring molten metal into the throat, quartering and wheeling). Other punishments were also cruel: the convicts had their noses, ears, hands cut off, their eyes gouged out, etc., they were beaten with a whip, batogs and sticks, they were imprisoned (in fact, they were often walled up) in prisons - in those days, damp, cramped, cold rooms without windows . For relatively unimportant crimes (tavern keeping, smoking tobacco, concealment of the treasury by clerks, etc.) exile to Siberia was also used. Property punishments (fines and confiscation) were relegated to the background; they most often accompanied one of the punishments mentioned above. The death penalty and corporal punishment in the 17th century. were carried out publicly. The criminal legislation of that time pursued one goal - to intimidate the masses, to deprive them of the will to resist increasing exploitation and enslavement. A significant innovation in the judicial practice of the 17th century. was a category of state crimes cruelly punishable by death. “Izvet” (denunciation) “about the sovereign’s affairs” was fully encouraged by the government in the first decades of the century, even if these were simply “unseemly” words about the tsar or members of his family. The Code of 1649 made “notice in the sovereign’s affairs” the responsibility of everyone. The very concept of “sovereign affairs” expanded greatly in the second half of the century and began to mean any event and matter affecting state interests. In relation to the main criminal offenses of that time (state crimes, robbery, “theft”, theft)1, the search process was widely used, which was distinguished by its extraordinary cruelty. Torture was necessarily used against the accused, but the Code attached decisive importance not to the confession of the accused, but to his slander and accusation of a general search. Torture was also used against those who slandered. If after three times of torture the informer refused the slander, then this slander was not considered valid. However, in cases of state crime, the main role in the testimony was played by witnesses, “general reference” (that is, when both parties referred to one and the “indictor” himself and his witnesses, with whom the accused was confronted (put “eye to eye”) eyes"). By the end of the century, the role of the general search had fallen and the role of witness testimony had increased in the consideration of other criminal cases.

The concept of “theft” in the 17th century. It was unusually broad and included virtually all types of criminal offenses: robbery, robbery, theft, fraud, deception, cheating, forgery, etc.; robbery meant a crime committed by a group of people, theft - theft. It began with the interested person filing a petition outlining the essence of the claim. In evidence, great importance was attached to the oath, testimony (of the same witness), search, written documents, and in small claims, lots. During the consideration of the case, the judge gave the floor to one side or the other. The testimonies of the parties were recorded in the court list (protocol). When passing a verdict, judges could make final decisions or submit a “report” to a higher authority (order, the Boyar Duma, its Execution Chamber, or the Tsar). The winner was given a right certificate. If the defendant could not immediately return things or money to the plaintiff, then the archers grabbed him and placed him at the order or moving hut in the morning and released him only in the evening. A special official - the pravetchik - stood near the debtor and beat him with a stick (batog) on ​​the calves. Before the Discharge Order, every day more than 10 pravets, dividing the guilty among themselves, put them in a row and beat them one by one with batogs. A judge or clerk watched this execution from the window. The previously existing features of governing individual parts of the Russian state almost completely disappeared. Differences in management in the 17th century. depended only on the social composition of the population. So, for example, in areas with a predominance of feudal-dependent (serf) populations (royal, patriarchal, monastic and proprietary), zemstvo bodies of self-government were completely absent; in the royal volosts, instead of the governor and his agents, special clerks, etc., ruled. Some exception was Ukraine, reunited with Russia in 1654. Forming part of the Russian state, it enjoyed a certain autonomy, that is, it had a special administration, army, court, tax system, customs borders, etc. The general administration of Ukraine was carried out by certain central institutions. Initially, it was the Ambassadorial Prikaz, where a special department was in charge of Ukrainian (“Little Russian”) affairs, and from 1663 - the Little Russian Prikaz. At the head of Ukraine was a hetman, who was elected by the Cossack Rada and approved by the tsarist government. The hetman exercised supreme control and justice in Ukraine. The so-called foreman's council, an advisory body consisting of the Cossack elite (general foreman), had a great influence on the hetman's policy. This council included the most important officials of Ukraine: a general judge, a general clerk (the head of the hetman's office), a general convoy (the head of artillery), a military podskarbiy (the head of finance), two general esauls (the hetman's assistants for military affairs), a general cornet (guardian military banner), General Bunchuzhny (keeper of the Hetman's Bunchuk). Territorially, Ukraine was divided into 17 “regiments” (Chigirinsky, Cherkasy, Kanevsky, etc.) - in each territory of the “regiment” a Cossack regiment was stationed, led by an elected or appointed hetman colonel, who controlled the population of the “regiment” with the help regimental Cossack foreman (clerk, baggage officer, esaul, cornet, etc.). The regiment was divided into hundreds, led by a centurion, elected by the population of the hundred or appointed by the hetman. In regimental and centurion cities, the population elected city atamans. The entire Cossack administration of Ukraine was elected from representatives of the Cossack elders and wealthy Cossacks. In cities where the Cossack trade and craft population predominated, there was medieval merchant “self-government” in the form of magistrates and town halls; they were headed by mayors, and included rains (advisers). Peasants in the villages elected voits (foremen) and lavniks (jurors). The peculiarities of governing Ukraine were caused by the specific form of its annexation to the Russian state (reunification).

Mandatory institutions

In the 20-30s, a new type of local administrative institution was formed. It is characteristic that at this time a uniform name for voivodeship huts had not yet been established everywhere. Some of them were traditionally called in the old way. Thus, the institution under the Novgorod governors was in 1620-1632. the name of the deacon's hut and only by the middle of the century began to be called the congress. A similar institution in Nizhny Novgorod in 1623-1624 was called a court hut, and only from the late 20s - a congress. The clerks sitting in the Pskov hut in 1625 bore the title of “quarter” in contrast to “palace”. The name of the moving out hut was assigned to the Pskov hut a little later, but lasted for a very long time, almost until the 80s. For voivodeship institutions of other cities, the name of congress and administrative hut is used. However, in official documents for the entire first half of the century, the dominant term was movable hut.

Along with the central orders, there were a large number of administrative huts in the cities. Prikaznye, or movable huts, represented the voivodeship office of the 17th century. They were real institutions, which in big cities were also divided into tables, and in other cities into howls. For example, according to the estimate of 1655. in the Pskov exit hut there were four tables: Razyadny, Monetary, Local and Judgment. From this list it is clear that the administrative huts were already divided by industry: Class - means military; Monetary is related to income and expenses; Local is associated with local land ownership, estates; The judge resolved various court cases.

Until the middle of the century, relatively few mobile huts operated (see Appendix 1), which was partly explained by Russia’s loss of large western regions during the period of the Polish-Swedish intervention. In the 40s, there were only 212 mobile huts throughout the country, which is slightly less than the number of existing ones at that time there were cities, since movable huts were not available everywhere. There is a well-known practice of cities and points being “paired” in the administration. For example, the Dvinsk orderly hut operated alternately in Arkhangelsk and Kholmogory, the Mangazeya - in Mangazeya and Turukhansk. There were no official huts with a staff of clerks in some Pskov suburbs, as well as in a number of newly built fortresses along defensive lines. In these cases, the city manager also conducted the necessary correspondence. There were cases when there was no official in the city. Most of the huts were small institutions. Only some had relatively large staffs of clerks. So, in the 40s, 25 people worked in the Novgorod congress hut, in Pskov - 21, in Astrakhan - 20, in Nizhny Novgorod and Tobolsk - 16 each. In more than 40 huts there was only one clerk. The most typical for this time were huts with staffs of two to five people. The personnel of the moving huts were divided into temporary and permanent parts. The first was represented by governors, clerks, and sometimes clerks with a post, sent to the city for 2 - 3 years. The second consisted of local clerks who constantly worked in the administrative huts. Clerks with credentials were usually appointed from the clerical staff of the order in charge of the given city. Total cities in which during the 17th century. sent In the first half of the century, a system of local palace institutions developed, of which the local palace orders of Novgorod and Pskov, headed by clerks, are similar to the institutions of the voivodeship administration. Of these, the most important was the Novgorod Palace Order, the first information about which, as a large institution, dates back to 1620-1621. The Pskov palace order was created later, in 1631-1632.

Speaking about local government and palace institutions and their staffs, it should be remembered that they functioned simultaneously and in close connection with a number of other types of institutions that existed in cities - customs houses, tavern yards, provincial and zemstvo huts. The elective principle and free work of the heads, kissers and elders who stood at their heads, as well as zemstvo hiring as a form of payment for clerks, put these institutions to a certain extent in the independent position of governors. As a rule, customs huts were small. The largest in terms of the number of sextons working in them were: a hut in Nizhny Novgorod where in 1623-1624 there were five customs and one tavern sexton (the same number remained in 1656) and a hut in Tyumen, in which in 1629. there were two sextons, and in 1633 there were three. There were the same number of sextons in the Vologda customs office in the middle of the century. It was common to combine customs and circle sextons in one person.

Provincial and zemstvo institutions became widespread mainly in the cities of the European part of the country. In the border towns of the recently annexed and newly founded cities there were no provincial huts, and cases of robbery and theft in them were decided by the governors. At the same time, the elective principle in the organization of provincial administration was reduced here to the choice by the population of sextons “for the hut affairs”, who sat in the administrative huts. A similar situation existed in 1666 in Toropets, where it remained until the end of the century. There were no labial sextons at all in Volokolamsk in the early 60s. At the same time, the provincial administration experienced an undoubted crisis throughout the century. Guba huts, although they were class-elected institutions for the nobility, were often used by governors as an additional administrative apparatus. At the same time, their very existence was alien to the government’s line of strengthening the power of local governors. Hence the repeated attempts to limit functions in the elimination of labial huts. In labial huts, most often there was one sexton.

Thus, for this period, the total number of people employed in the work of the Moscow orders is somewhat greater than the number of people serving the huts, while the sexton stratum in central institutions occupies an incomparably larger place than in local ones. For central institutions, there is an undoubted increase in the entire command group, especially noticeable among clerks; the number of clerks in the field has had much greater stability.