3. M. 117.906. e 1-5. 49. 51,—otit rii real In 56 we are calling the name of our administrative unit, sounding like an old, outdated management order. Above we saw that some categories continued to exist even after the appearance of provinces. from the Novgorod Pyatinaavs, half of them and according to: Ostakhb was mentioned back in 1791
9. From some decrees it is evident that they did not completely lose even their administrative significance: from one decree of 1795 it is evident that the Obonezhskaya pyatina had its own special zemstvo commissar *); a decree of 1749 mandated that the revision tales in the Novgorod uezd be compiled for each pyatina separately 3), and in 1767 deputies to the Commission for the Drafting of a New Code in the Novgorod province were elected not by uezd, but 1 person from each pyatina 4). Pyatinas can be traced even in 1773, when there is a mention of the Shelonskaya, Votskaya, Derevskaya, Obonezhskaya, and Povotskaya pyatinas, and in the Shelonskaya pyatina — of the Zarusskaya half 5). In 1767, there is also a mention of the Komelskaya third of the Vologda uezd 6), and in 1756 — of eight prisuds of the Yenisei province 7). We have not traced Pskov gubas in the 18th century. As for the special financial and police districts that existed in the 17th century — gubny districts and volosts — the former must have disappeared following the abolition of the gubny starostas and the transfer of their jurisdiction to the voivodes in 1702 8); the latter — following the new system of assessment and collection of taxes established by Peter the Great. However, Peter the Great established special military-financial districts — distrikts. These distrikts, which appeared as a consequence of the stationing of regiments across the provinces, from the revenues of which they were to be maintained, did not always coincide with the uezd: sometimes they included two or three uezds, and sometimes, on the contrary, they constituted only a part of some uezd. That uezds and distrikts differed betw[een themselves...] S. Z. No. 3794. — 9
3. M. 8877.— 6) P.S. 3. No. 19.864. - 7) P.S.
1. S. Z. No. 1900. [Between] themselves, it can be seen from the fact that under Anna Ioannovna, in 1736, it was ordered that the poll tax money for the maintenance of regiments be collected not by uezds, but by distrikts 7); that a distrikt constituted a part of another uezd is evident from such mentions, for example: the Lappan distrikt of the Galich uezd of the Archangelgorod province 8).. Distrikts are especially frequently encountered in Siberia 9), but not infrequently in other places as well: in the Iset province, for example, of the Orenburg province, in 1756, three distrikts are mentioned 10). From the historical sketch we have made of the administrative division that existed in the 18th century, the systematization of the regional administration of that time naturally reveals itself. Through this division, a ladder of administrative instances was established: 9.) The structure of the provincial chancellery, ...volution par A. Tocqueville [L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution by A. Tocqueville], p. 137). Thinking about this division, one involuntarily recalls the words of Mirabeau, who was commissioned by the Assemblée constituante [Constituent Assembly] to draw up a plan for a new administrative division of France. "I have tried," said the speaker, "to resolve the administrative divisions in a thousand ways; I have divided the surfaces sometimes into triangles, sometimes into squares; but it is in vain that I have exhausted all geometric figures: the unequal distribution of population and wealth mocked my efforts." (See De l'administration intérieure de la France par F. Bérenger [On the Internal Administration of France by F. Bérenger], Vol. II, p. 25).