By the way, what does our MU historical and legal ‘literature’ represent for the study of the 18th century? Without exaggerating, we can say: almost nothing. The majority of our historical and legal studies are devoted to distant times: 18 accounts for the smallest number of them. We are not talking about the recently published work of Mr. Mitrev, which we have not yet had time to familiarize ourselves with, but we are talking about Mr. Kavelin’s dissertation, which was outstanding in its time, depicting the development of the judicial system and civil proceedings from the law to the establishment of the governors, which now constitutes an almost bibmographic Russian Federation - but from the work of Arsenyev, Vitsyn and Trotsina, with their relative merits, do not fill the gap we have identified in our historical and legal literature.
And by the way, for studying Art. 18. We need the most handy material: we are talking about the collection of laws - the unforgettable memory of the enlightened works of the 2nd department of the Emperor's chancellery. But now it’s 29 years since the meeting was published, but to this day it still constitutes lost capital, not enriching the domestic law with high interest rates. And each new researcher has to take on the rigors, without x guiding principles, drawn from literature - no generally devoid of literary knowledge, when studying the subject we have chosen, they put their hands on the floor. a lot of unprocessed material, we could not come to a satisfactory solution to the chosen problem, and the predicted solution was solved without any pretensions to its natural processing.
In this situation there were also ‘scientific dignity’. When we began our work, we took into account our own teaching: by studying the historical development of regional administration in the 18th century, we wanted to prepare ourselves for understanding the current system of modern sciences. As we began our work, we thought: how insignificant was the service of the contractor who introduced Article 18 for the regional administration. work similar to the work of the author of the Regional institutions of Rososh v 17 vkb. Who does not know this brilliant piece of research, which brought its author such deserved popularity, one at once joining his name to the small Phalanx of our talented lawyers - Nevolina, Valuev, Kalachova in Velina.
Mr. Chicherin's study, together with his other articles, is the best asset of our young legal science. We confess: having familiarized ourselves, through Mr. Chicherin's book, with the regional institutions of the 17th century, we initially intended, on the basis of the material presented by the Collection of Laws, to trace their further historical development in the 18th century, up to the reform of 1775. But the more the relevant material accumulated, the more impracticable this intention seemed to us under our present circumstances; the more we familiarized ourselves with certain theoretical aspects of the question, the more our very point of view on the subject changed.
This is how little by little our backside became smaller: this is how little by little another administrative theory took shape. Having originally conceived of depicting the historical development of the entire system of regional administration in the 19th century, WE then limited ourselves only to its highest authority; having bowed to the principle of the state, the structure of the systems of the French administration, we gradually moved over to the side of the beginning of the social, systemless order of the English administration.
The author of the Essay on English and Franchi thinks that the task of the publicist at present is to protect the principle of the state; We think that his task is to raise the social principle. Or more precisely: Mr. Chicherin believes that journalism is obliged to protect a peaceful and reasonable human community, consisting of a harmonious reconciliation of the elements of state and public - order and freedom. The truth is undeniable. But the question is where to look for this reconciliation: in systems of prevention or suppression, in harmonious and symmetrical French centralization, in systemless English administrative self-government?