Division III. 1. Historical development of laws regarding governors and their comrades

3. M. 5333, 15.089.— 4). P. S. Z. No. 12701.— but also direct — was not completely eliminated. We dare to think: generally by the publication of the Establishment of the Provinces. But it did not fully achieve this goal: the governor's influence on judicial affairs—not only indirect, but in the final elimination of this influence, in the complete independence and inviolability of judges (l'inamovibilité des juges) lies the task of further improving our administrative system. Regional rulers were generally elected by the Senate. 1) This continued until the establishment of the Supreme Privy Council in 1726. 2). During the short existence of this highest institution, the appointment of governors was made through its mediation: in 1726 Chernyshev was appointed governor of Livonia by a personal decree announced from the Supreme Privy Council to the Senate 3), and with the abolition of some institutions of Peter the Great, in 1727, the new regional rulers—governors and voivodes—were elected in the Supreme Privy Council, and the voivodes of assigned cities were elected by the Senate together with the Kamer-Collegium and approved in the Council 5). With the abolition of the Council by Anna Ioannovna on March 4, 1730 5), the appointment of governors was made by personal decrees to the Senate. The Senate administered the oath to the appointed governor and issued an instruction for managing the province 6). Orders were issued to the regional rulers of the 17th century as well, but they were not as precise and definite as the gubernatorial and voivode instructions of the 18th century. There was no general norm for these orders at that time, and each voivode was given a special order. This resulted in the extreme diversity of their content: some were extensive and definite [Footnote: ...mentary administrative concept of the 18th century, can be seen from the reform carried out in the regional administration of France in 1787, when the executive power of the intendants was limited by provincial assemblies, that of subdelegates by district assemblies, and communal administration was entrusted to the municipal council (See L'ancien régime et la révolution by Tocqueville). ) P. S. Z. No. 8880.—], others—too short and indefinite. The law often allowed the voivodes not to follow the order: "if in these articles," it is said in one order to the Tobolsk voivodes, "something appears for the present case and time not in accordance with the correction, and which will be impossible to do and unprofitable for the treasury, and burdensome for people of all ranks, then the voivodes and their comrades shall act in those articles according to their rightful discretion, so that it would be more profitable for the treasury and not ruinous for the people, without any bias, remembering the fear of God and the kissing of the cross." Conscious, therefore, of the inaccuracy of the order, the law itself allowed the voivode "to act according to this order, and looking at the local matter and according to his own discretion, as it will be fitting, and as God will instruct them 1)." The inaccuracy of the orders—a natural consequence of the then prevailing system of bureaucratic decentralization—gave great scope to the arbitrariness of the regional rulers of the 17th century. Therefore, very early on, Peter the Great realized the need to establish a norm defining the range of rights and responsibilities of regional rulers. This awareness can be seen in one measure adopted in 1695, when it was ordered to write out articles from the orders separately for each city, securing them with the signatures of the Duma people and affixing the royal seal. The articles written out in this way were sent to the cities and placed in the syezzhiye izby (administrative offices) "from now on for other voivodes." This measure, however, was limited to Siberia alone, where the arbitrariness of regional rulers always reached terrifying proportions, and where there was therefore a great need to clearly establish their rights and responsibilities 2). The general norm for orders to regional rulers was finally established only in 1719. This norm—the instruction to voivodes of 1719—is the ancestor of all subsequent general instructions 3). After this, changing only the name, the instruction of 1719 was issued [Footnote: 1) See Regional Institutions of Russia in the 17th Century. — 2) Ibid.] to all governors and voivodes: such instructions were received by the Siberian governor Prince Cherkassky in 1719, the Smolensk governor Panin in 1720, and many others. Reading this instruction and comparing it with the orders of the 17th century, one cannot fail to see in it a clearer definition of the rights and responsibilities of regional rulers; at the same time, the public-welfare character of their position is more visible in it, but the hierarchy of regional rulers is not yet designated, and governors are mixed with voivodes. Following the publication of this instruction, copies were made of it and distributed to governors, voivodes, ober-commandants, and commandants 4). In some instructions, only new points were added, according to the local circumstances of the region, and then the points of the instruction of 1719 were literally written in: a similar instruction was issued, for example, to the Astrakhan governor Volynsky 5). But the initial instructions to governors at the beginning of the 18th century still vividly recall the voivode orders of the 17th century: it is enough to compare the instruction of the Astrakhan governor Volynsky of 1720 with the order of the Astrakhan voivode of 1700 6). In 1721, it was intended to issue a charter that would define the duties of all civil rulers 5). But this intention was not carried out, and only in 1728 a new order was issued to governors, voivodes, and their comrades 6). In this order, the public-welfare character of the regional rulers is revealed even more, and the regional instances are more clearly demarcated, designating the hierarchy of regional rulers. Finally, the instruction to the governors of 1764, which entrusted them with "more than the former power," fully expresses the new features of the position of the governor as the master and guardian of his province, and his distinction from subordinate rulers is fully determined. The instruction of 1764 already constitutes a step towards the reforms of 1775. The need for these reforms is expressed here with complete clarity: "Our constant and tireless efforts in inventing means to increase the prosperity of our subjects and to bring our entire empire into the desired well-being have revealed to us, among other things, this indisputable truth, that the whole cannot be completely perfect if its parts remain in disorder and disarray. The main parts that make up our entire fatherland are the provinces, and they are the very ones that most of all require correction, which over time We, with God assisting Us, shall endeavor to correct and thereby fulfill our intentions... 1)." This general instruction to the governors was supplemented for the governors of some provinces by special instructions, the content of which was determined by the local circumstances of the region: such instructions were issued to the governor of the Sloboda province in 1765, and to the governors of the Pskov and Mogilev provinces in 1772. Thus, whereas in the 17th century there was no general norm for orders to regional rulers, in the 18th century such norms appear: in the instruction to voivodes of 1719, in the order to governors and voivodes of 1728, and in the instruction to governors of 1764. The general principles of these norms were supplemented and modified by private instructions, according to the local circumstances of the region: e.g., the instruction to the Astrakhan governor, the instruction to the Moscow and St. Petersburg governors, and the instructions to the Sloboda, Pskov, and Mogilev governors. The uncertainty of the 17th-century instructions—a natural consequence of bureaucratic decentralization; the exact definition of the range of rights and responsibilities of regional rulers in the instructions of the 18th century is the result of the gradually developing administrative centralization. From these instructions, one can further trace the changing character of regional administration—the gradual replacement of the state profit and the predominance of government interests by the idea of public welfare. — To the instruction issued to the governor, a seal was affixed, for which a duty was collected in the Pechatny Prikaz (Seal Prikaz) 1), which existed until December 15, 1763. Governors received a salary—in money and in grain. In 1714, a decree was issued defining the procedure for receiving the salary: it was issued only at the end of the year, after the verification of the annual report of the governors. When, according to the testimony of this report, "the governor's affairs were in good order in everything," he submitted a report to the Senate chancellery, by which he requested a decree on the payment of his salary 2). With the establishment of the collegia, the salary was issued by assignations of the Stats-Kontor-Collegium. The amount of the salary was determined by the staffing tables of 1715: monetary—1200 rubles, grain—600 chetverts. The St. Petersburg governors received double 3). However, the grain salary was not always issued: for governors who had their own villages, it was withheld in case of crop failure. Sometimes, instead of a grain salary, the monetary salary was increased or villages were given 4). Being a trace of the system of in-kind payments prevailing under an undeveloped national and government economy—a trace reflected even up to now in the issuance of rations to clerical servants—the grain salary gradually merged with the monetary one, and already in the staffing tables of 1763 it was determined to issue governors only a monetary salary—2950 rubles a year, except for the St. Petersburg and Baltic provinces 5).