Section I. General view of the development of regional administration in the 18th century

3. P. S. Z. 7408. — ...especially peasants, come to ruin and poverty.” Bribes are divided here into two categories: those relating to state interests — theft of the state treasury, and bribes from petitioners' affairs and offenses against the people. For the former, the decree prescribes the death penalty, for the latter it leaves the old fines. In addition to this decree, another one was issued in the same year, obliging all inhabitants — from the highest state ranks down to the farmers — to report directly to the sovereign himself about those who damage interests and rob the people, within a designated period — from October to March. Even more remarkable is the decree of December 24, 1714, which prohibits bribes and promises, specifying the punishment for them; our legislation repeatedly refers to this decree not only in the 18th century, but also during the reign of Alexander I. The main motivation for issuing the decree was that extortionists often justified themselves with the reason that this had not been forbidden to them..... “so that in the future,” says the decree, “rogues... would not be able to find any excuse: for this reason it is forbidden to all ranks who are assigned to affairs, great and small, spiritual, military, civil, political, merchant, artistic and others, whatever rank they may hold, that they should not dare to take any promises of state money or money collected from the people, by trade, contract and other contrivances, of whatever rank and manner they may be, neither in their own person nor through an outsider..., whoever dares to do this shall be very severely punished corporally, deprived of all property, defamed and expelled from the number of good people, or even executed by death °)...” For the same reason, so that none of the officials could excuse themselves by ignorance of this decree, in 1724 it was ordered that all those appointed to positions in the governorates sign two copies of the decree of 1714, of which one was sent to the Senate, and the other was left in the place where the signatory served ') [P. S. Z. No. 2707, 2726, 2871]. Even earlier, in 1715, people of all ranks were ordered to submit written reports against census takers, tax collectors, and recruiters, if they caused offenses and took bribes, to St. Petersburg to the chancellery of the Senate, and in the governorates to the governors, who were to immediately submit these reports to the Senate; for failure to submit reports by persons who knew about bribes, strict liability was established ?). And in order to prevent abuses during the collection of state taxes, in 1720 it was ordered to send printed decrees about the amount of taxes to the governorates and provinces, which priests were ordered to read in churches to parishioners on Sundays and holidays, “so that everyone would be truly informed about those taxes and no one could add or subtract. And if anyone starts taking extra on top of that, they are not obliged to obey 3)...” Empress Elizabeth Petrovna also cared no little about the eradication of bribes, and Catherine II pursued them with even greater energy. Having ascended the throne on July 18, 1762, she issued a decree on restraining judges and officials from extortion ‘“). Even more remarkable is the decree of December 15, 1763, which we will discuss below. In 1765, a new decree was issued on the essential duties of all officials, in which it was ordered “to consider extortionate affairs not as unimportant, but as destroying justice and damaging the state order 5).....” During the 18th century, the government did not undertake a single measure without forbidding the executors to take bribes. Whether state taxes were being collected — their collectors were forbidden from extortion 5). Whether arrears were being exacted — judges and other lower servants, under pain of death, were forbidden to touch bribes and gifts. Whether recruits were being gathered — recruiters were forbidden to take money and food supplies from those handing them over *) [P. S. Z. No. 3586, 4077, 9003, 2918]. Whether a new census was being conducted, whether land surveying was being appointed — the same prohibition of bribes *). To whomever an instruction was issued — to a government office — it was also always accompanied by regulations on bribes: in the Naval Charter of 1720, the General Admiral was prescribed to be brave and of good conduct, whose qualities should be bound with virtue... “and since the root of all evil is the love of money, therefore every commander-in-chief must guard himself against extortion, and not only guard himself, but also restrain others from it.” — Here, too, the captain of a warship was forbidden to take promises from merchant ships 3). The General Regulations of 1720 also stipulated: “if anyone from the ranks of the collegium... out of bribes or other intentions neglects anything, for such a crime, both higher and lower ranks shall be subjected to the death penalty, or eternal exile to the galleys, with the cutting out of nostrils and the confiscation of all property “.” In the instructions of an infantry regiment to the colonel and companies of 1764, it was also prescribed: “all unpermitted profiteering in the regiment shall be forbidden and prevented by all means 5)...” In the mandate to governors, voivodes and their comrades of 1728 8); in the manual for governors of 1764 " the same prohibition of bribes. A clear definition of the range of rights and duties of regional rulers, their strict subordination to the control of the central government, established by the institution of governorates, should have significantly contributed to the eradication of bribery. Prior to this time, there were fewer guarantees against bribery in the structure of regional administration [P. S. Z. No. 6490, 7046, 786. Ch. 1. Art. 17]. Prepared by a demoralized social environment for all kinds of administrative abuses, the rulers of the 18th century were further driven to extortion by extreme poverty, resulting from insufficient salaries, which they sometimes did not receive at all. This dependence of bureaucratic morality on economic circumstances was well noted by Empress Catherine II. By the Manifesto of December 15, 1763, she established new staff rosters, according to which the rates of the previous salary were increased and an allowance was assigned for those persons who until then had not received it at all, making do with accidentals [perquisites] — constantly ridiculed in the satirical journals of that time. By establishing the new staff rosters, the Empress hoped to correct the previous order of things, under which, as she says, people were appointed to affairs who were not only incapable, but also extremely poor, barely having daily sustenance; receiving no salary, they looked upon the government office as an almshouse, designated not for the execution of affairs, but for their sustenance ) True, even after the establishment of these new staff rosters, it was not infrequently “discovered that there were still those who took bribes to the oppression of many and to the detriment of the state interest, and what is most of all, being themselves in command and obliged to present an example of keeping the laws to their subordinates, they themselves became criminals and led them into the same evil *)...” But nevertheless, the dependence of bureaucratic morality on economic causes was correctly noted by the Empress, and the establishment of salary rates, instead of the indefinite previous accidentals, represented a considerable guarantee against the extortion of regional rulers. Until then, “the oppressive poverty of destitute judges” was an incessant stimulus that drove them to terrible exactions, from which the society of the 18th century suffered so much. t) P. S. Z.