Public administration. Ensuring the efficiency of the state administration system in Siberia in the first half of the 19th century

1) the leading role of the state in the management and development of the region

2) Priority of executive power (military-administrative form of government)

3) A variety of forms of management, but there were no national principles for organizing management

4) Lack of organized nobility and township self-government

5) Simplicity of apparatus, compact device

6) Law usually acted inside

7) The presence of areas of special management - mountainous regions and a protectorate, which was associated with the border position, the social and class specifics of the region, the border position

8) The main form of land tenure is monastic land tenure

9) The highest Siberian dignitaries also had VP powers (especially in terms of customs control and diplomatic relations with neighboring states)

the main trend is the centralization of management

In Siberia, regional division (ranks) formed early, which in a certain sense preceded the provincial administration of the 18th century. From the end of the 16th century, the tsarist government sought to create an administrative center directly in Siberia. Built in 1587 Tobolsk the role of such a center was assigned to him.

The Siberian uyezd was divided into Russian "prisudki" (settlement or prison with adjacent wooden repairs) and yasak volosts.

In managing the yasak volosts, the administration relied on noble people. The tsarist authorities did not interfere in the internal affairs of the yasak volosts. The local nobility, the authorities tried to win over to their side, provided her with various privileges.

In Siberia, the offering "in honor" was widely developed, and the governors easily crossed the line between "honor" and outright robbery.

In 1822, the "Charter on the management of the aliens of Siberia" was put into effect, he divided the Siberian peoples into three groups, depending on their social development: nomadic, vagrant and settled. The lands on which they roamed were assigned to nomadic peoples. Aborigines were allowed to send their children to government educational institutions, to open their own educational institutions. In relation to religion, the Charter stood on positions of complete religious tolerance. In an effort to weaken guardianship on the part of state officials, the Charter provided for the creation of tribal councils and Steppe Dumas among the nomads. Officials were elected at general meetings of the clans. To know in their rights was largely equalized with their relatives. The hereditary principle in tribal administration was also allowed, but only where it existed before.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, an administrative reform was carried out to manage the indigenous inhabitants of Siberia. Steppe councils, foreign councils were replaced by volost government bodies arranged according to the Russian type. This spoke of the decline of tribal relations in the life of the peoples of Siberia.

37. Formation of the border with China

For 100 years, Russian explorers crossed the vast expanses of Siberia and by the middle of the 17th century. approached the northern borders of the great power - China. Cossack detachments reached the Pacific Ocean and established control over the Amur and its tributaries. The annexation of Siberia took place peacefully, which contributed to such rapid advance. 1618-1619 - Petlin's expedition to China (to establish diplomatic relations). The development of the Far East by Khabarovsk: defeated a detachment sent by the Manchu dynasty. At the same time, a diplomatic mission was sent to China. mission led by Boikov (mission failed, the first precedent of a territorial dispute.)

Clashes with the Manchus threatened to escalate into an armed conflict. The Russians, who were too far from the mother country, could not fight at this stage, and the Nerchinsk Treaty of 1689 was signed. It established a border along the Argun River (a tributary of the Amur), Russia ceded almost all the lands along the upper Amur to the Qing Empire and liquidated Russian settlements there. The border, in fact, was not demarcated, difficulties arose due to confusion in geographical concepts, translation difficulties, the contract turned out to be legally imperfect. The territory to the east of the Argun remained undelimited.

1727 - Burin Treaty - established more precise boundaries along the lines of villages, natural boundaries. 1727 - The Kyakhta Treaty - rather a trade one, delimited the borders along the Sayans, the Chinese wanted to reconsider the Amur in their favor, the Russian ambassadors referred to the lack of authority, and this issue remained uncertain, especially since the region was little developed. Under Governor Muravyov, attempts were made to examine the region in detail. The Crimean War demonstrated the insufficiency of Russia's fortifications and communications in the Far East. The complication of the situation in China, the threat of European penetration forced the governments of China and Russia to officially delimit the region - the Aigun Treaty (1858) - the border along the Amur, to the Ussuri River to China, to the south - in common ownership. The treaty also allowed trade between the local population and left undelimited territories from the Ussuri to the Pacific Ocean. The Tianjin treaty of the same year expanded Russia's political and trade rights in China, provided for defining the part of the border between Russia and China that had not been established until that time. 1860 - The Beijing Treaty - confirmed the Aigun Treaty and annexed the Ussuri Territory to Russia. A detailed demarcation of the border was carried out, at the same time the final border with Korea was determined. The Russian government allowed the Chinese to stay in place and engage in their activities. 1881 - Treaty on the Ili region - transferred the Ili region to the Qing Empire, completed the demarcation of the Russian-Qing border, corresponding to the Russian-Chinese in its modern form. The final clarifications and changes took place in 1911 - the Qiqihar Treaty. River islands are not defined. Mongolia gained independence and entered the sphere of influence of Russia. Tuva - under the Russian protectorate, however, legally the status of Tuva was not determined.

The provincial administration and the court were reorganized as a result of the second reform of Peter I (1719-27). In Siberia, this reform is associated with a new administrative-territorial division and the appointment on May 29, 1719 as the Siberian governor of Prince A.M. Cherkassky . In accordance with the "staff of the Siberian province" (1724), it was headed by the provincial government, consisting of a governor (rank - lieutenant general), vice-governor (major general), commandant (brigadier), parade-major. Voevodas were the heads of administration in the Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces. Under their supervision, specialized governing bodies operated: chamberlain - head of tax collection and state property; rentmeister - treasurer responsible for the treasury; proviantmeister - head of in-kind collections. In the Tobolsk, Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces, rentmaster and chamberlain offices were established, and in the Tobolsk chamberlain. the office "acquired ... collections of all the Siberian province of 18 cities and 8 districts." Governors remained in the counties during the introduction new position zemstvo commissars, to whom all administrative and police power in the districts was transferred. All persons in the provincial administration had to follow the job description, which had the force of Russian law.

Offices became the technical apparatus that ensured the activities of all officials. They were led by secretaries (clerks) at the provincial and provincial levels, and by clerks at the county level (clerks "with an inscription", old clerks). Office work was carried out by clerks, sub-clerks, copyists (most of them in the 1720s were called in the old way - clerks). At the offices there were also watchmen, messengers, etc.

In addition to administrative and fiscal bodies, specialized bodies were also created in Siberia - for the management of mining affairs, headed by a collegium.

In accordance with the plan of the reform, the court was separated from the administration. At the provincial and provincial levels in Siberia, 2 court courts were created - Tobolsk (1720) and Yenisei (1722). Like the College of Justice, they were created on a collegiate basis, the presence was the president, vice president and several assessors; under them, there were offices headed by secretaries. The lowest instance of the state courts in Siberia became the individual tribunals of "city" ("zemstvo") judges (since 1722 - judicial commissioners).

The provincial reform and the poll census led to radical changes in estate self-government. In ensuring these major events in Siberia, an emergency management body, the census office of Colonel Prince I.V., played an important role. Solntseva-Zasekina, subordinated directly to Peter I and the Senate. The "Evidence of Souls" in the Siberian province actually became a new general census, in which the census office dealt with the problem of class belonging in Siberian society.

In 1722-23 Solntsev-Zasekin put all service people "according to the instrument", writing them down in the settlement or in the state peasants. But due to the protests of the Siberian governors, who proved the need to preserve the class of service people in Siberia with their military service and administrative and police duties, the Senate approved the "states" necessary for the Siberian provincial service people, who were exempted "up to the decree" from the poll tax. This estate-tax reform led to the strengthening of the military hierarchy, the withering away of elements of "military" self-government, and a sharp decrease in the role of the Cossacks in the socio-political life of Siberia.

In the same years, the city administration and self-government, as well as the management of the peasantry, changed.

During the first revision, attempts were made to change the legal status of the Siberian "foreigners". In 1720-21 A.M. Cherkassky proposed to replace yasak with a poll tax for the "newly baptized" natives, but this was opposed by Metropolitan Theodore. The bishop was supported by Peter I, and Siberian aborigines were not ordered to determine the head salary. Such a legal status of yasak "foreigners" also meant the preservation of the former system of government in their "zemlitsa" and "volosts". This was also reflected in the competence of state courts in relation to the aboriginal population, which was traditionally judged by their princes and foremen on the basis of customary law. In 1727 governor and court president M.V. Dolgorukov wrote to the Senate that "in the cities of Berezov and Pelym, there should not be judicial commissioners for the fact that only yasak infidels are found in those cities."

The provincial administration and the court in Siberia were reorganized during the counter-reforms of the second half of the 1720s. As a result of the counter-reforms (1727-28) in Siberia, as in all of Russia, a three-tier administrative-territorial division was established, for the first time strictly centralized. The main was the province. It included provinces, which were divided into counties. In the provinces and cities, the sole power of the voivods, subordinate to the governors, was restored. The Siberian province included the Tobolsk, Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces. A vice-governor was appointed to the Irkutsk province, who was subordinate only to Siberian order .

In 1764 Siberia was divided into 2 independent provinces - Tobolsk and Irkutsk . Tobolsk included the Tobolsk and Yenisei provinces. In 1767 the borders of the counties were changed, and in some of them the governors were replaced by commissars. Changes in the administrative-territorial division during 1736-75 occurred repeatedly.

The Siberian province was headed by a Siberian governor with full administrative, police, judicial, financial, economic and military power. He was appointed by personal decree on the proposal of the Supreme Privy Council (1726-30), the Cabinet of His Imperial Majesty (1731-41) and the Senate. Since 1736 the position of the Irkutsk vice-governor was introduced, and from 1764 - the governor, who were also appointed by personal decree.

The provincial and district governors were appointed by the Siberian order from candidates recommended by the Heraldmeister office of the Senate, and commissars and governors in districts and settlements - by the Siberian Provincial Chancellery. If the county was temporarily left without a voivode, the Siberian governor had the right to appoint a temporary governor "for the voivode" at his own discretion. Beginning in 1764, governors, commissars, and governors were appointed by the governor on the proposal of the Senate. The provincial and county governors, the governors in the districts, were subordinate to the governor. From 1727, he had the right to independently dismiss the governors in the districts, from 1740 - the provincial and district governor in case of their abuse.

Executive bodies under the governor, governors, commissars and administrators were offices. Their structure included a presence, their own office and ministers. In the presence of the provincial office were the governor, the vice-governor (from 1764 - a deputy of the governor), the provincial prosecutor; in the presence of the provincial office - provincial voivode, staff officer at the poll tax (1736-64), provincial prosecutor (since 1764); in the presence of the voivodship office - voivode and staff officer at the poll tax (1736-64).

The chanceries were divided into povytya with clerical (clerical) servants, who were led by a secretary or clerk "with an assignment." The non-clerical servants of the voivodeship offices included teams of messengers (4-27 retired soldiers, according to the states in 1732), who received land plots instead of a salary, counters elected by townspeople, as well as active duty soldiers with capitation officers. The duties of the counters included accounting and storage of state money and valuables, and the soldiers carried guards, carried out executions, forced them to pay taxes and fought robberies.

One of the main goals of the counter-reforms of 1727-28 is to reduce the cost of the state apparatus. The salaries of governors were reduced, and for some categories of clerical servants, instead of a salary, it was allowed “to be content with work. still." Since 1763, all employees of the state apparatus began to receive salaries.

The most important legislative acts that determined the competence of local rulers in the 1730s-50s: the all-Russian order to governors and governors (1728), instructions to the Siberian governor (1741), "Manual to the governor" (1764). The local authorities were obliged to execute the decrees of the Senate, collegiums and the Siberian order (until it was liquidated in 1763). The governor also united the local authorities; considered complaints against all structures subordinate to him and was for the provincial and city governors a “near team”, which they “know over themselves” and therefore “act carefully”. Administrative-police and fiscal functions were assigned to local rulers. Governors and governors received the exclusive right to judge any robbery cases. In the instruction of 1741, the governor was also charged with the diplomatic part, including the annexation of "non-peaceful lands", and diplomatic relations with China and the Kalmyks.

In their activities, governors and voivodes relied on state bodies and local self-government bodies. In the 1730-50s. sectoral state bodies were formed that managed mining plants (see. Mountain districts management ).

Under the Siberian provincial and Irkutsk provincial offices, there were special financial bodies - rent-meister offices at the provincial and provincial offices, the Siberian Prikaz and the State Offices Collegium. As a financial management body, they were the provincial and provincial treasuries: they received, stored and distributed Money received from local institutions and from the population of the province and provinces. At the Siberian provincial and Irkutsk provincial offices, taverns and salt offices and a commissariat were established. In the 1730s-70s. in Siberia, the formation of regular police took place (see. Police in Siberia ).

The local body for the management of white-located Cossacks, state and ascribed peasants, raznochintsy remained a court hut under the department of the district governor. It was led by a clerk appointed by the governor (in the districts - the manager) from the Siberian service people, or sent from Europe. Russian nobleman. Office work was conducted by a deacon (scribe). The clerk and the clerk were kept at the expense of the peasant community, which, to help the clerk, elected kissers (for receiving and storing bread), elders, fifties and tenths (for police functions).

In the 1730s-70s. on the territory of Siberia there were emergency bodies that conducted investigations into the abuses of local authorities. They were established either by the Siberian governor or by the Senate; often acted under the personal control of monarchs. The most famous are the commissions of inquiry about the Irkutsk vice-governor A.I. Zholobov (executed in 1736), Siberian governor A.M. Sukharev, Governor of Tobolsk DI. Chicherin , Irkutsk Governor F.G. Nemtsov and Nerchinsk mountain commander V.V. Naryshkin.

The beginning of the reforms of the 1770-80s. in Siberia, it was marked by the introduction of the “Institution for the Administration of Provinces” (1775), the “Charter of the Deanery, or Policeman” (1782) and the “Charter for the Rights and Benefits of Cities” (1785). In 1780 he was appointed Governor-General of Perm and Tobolsk E.P. Kashkin , in 1782 governor general Irkutsk and Kolyvan - I.V. Jacobi.

In August 1782, the Tobolsk and Tomsk region (16 counties). On March 6, 1783, the Irkutsk governorship was formed: Irkutsk, Nerchinsk, Okhotsk and Yakutsk regions (17 counties). In 1779, Kolyvan Oblast was detached from the Tobolsk governorate, and in 1783 it was transformed into a governorship, which became part of the Governor-General of Irkutsk and Kolyvan.

The Siberian provinces were ruled by governor-generals, who represented the supreme power. They were appointed by the monarch and had unlimited powers, including the highest police authority, state security, command of garrisons, and provision of food to the province. They also had the right to control the courts, eliminate "judicial red tape" and cancel the execution of sentences until a special decision of the highest judicial authority. However, they were not allowed to interfere in legal proceedings.

The vicegerent board consisted of a governor, 2 councilors, a secretary and an office. It was the highest executive body in the territory of the province, which "is on a par with the collegiums and for this reason, apart from the imperial majesty and the Senate, it does not accept laws and decrees from anyone." Its competence included: control over the execution of decrees and resolutions of the supreme power, the Senate and other higher bodies, as well as court decisions, supervision of the activities of all officials of the province. The powers of the governor-general and the governor were not legally defined, and this effectively placed the latter under the control of the former.

Acted under the governor order of public charity, who carried out government policy in public education, social security, medicine, was in charge of correctional institutions. During the governorship, there were a provincial land surveyor, an architect and a mechanic (machine or mill master). In the Irkutsk province, the office of border affairs was retained, as before, subordinate to both the Irkutsk governor and the Military and Foreign collegiums.

At the county level, administrative power was entrusted to the governor (county town) and the lower zemstvo courts (consisting of a police captain, 2 noble and 2 rural assessors, a secretary with an office). In the cities, the positions of a county surveyor, a doctor, a doctor, 2 assistant doctors and 2 doctor's students were also established.

Managed economic and trusteeship and financial and tax affairs in the Siberian provinces treasury chamber headed by the Lieutenant Governor. In the regional cities of Tobolsk and Irkutsk governorships ( Tomsk , Okhotsk and Yakutsk) regional treasuries were opened. County treasuries were subordinate to the treasury chambers and regional treasuries.

The organization of the administrative-fiscal bodies of the Kolyvan region (governorship) reflected the specifics of this mining region.

From the end of the XVIII century. the judiciary is partly removed from the administration. The activities of local government institutions were placed under the supervision of the prosecutor's office. The positions of the provincial prosecutor and 2 solicitors were introduced; the prosecutor and 2 attorneys sat in the upper court, provincial magistrates and upper massacres ; in counties, supervisory functions were carried out by county lawyers.

According to the "Institution for the management of the provinces" (1775), the local government included estate representatives. Due to the absence of landlord landownership in Siberia, these positions were occupied by “headquarters and chief officers free from service,” i.e., noble assessors were not elected, but were appointed by governors indefinitely. At conscientious courts, there were 2 philistine and rural assessors each, at city magistrates - 2 burgomasters and 4 ratmans each, at upper reprisals - 10 assessors each, at lower zemstvo courts and at lower reprisals - 2 rural assessors each.

In accordance with the "Institution ..." provincial and city magistrates and town halls became the bodies of city self-government.

Police affairs in the city were under the jurisdiction of 2 state bodies - the office of the city (commandant's) board and deanery administration . The first were opened on the basis of the "Institution ...", the second - in accordance with the "Charter of the deanery, or policeman" (1782). Under the councils, private verbal courts for minor civil claims (no more than 25 rubles).

A major innovation in the management of the Tobolsk governorship was the reform of peasant self-government - the creation of volost courts. In 1786-87 state clerks were abolished, the former units of administrative division (prisons, settlements, etc.) were replaced by new ones - volost ones. Volost courts elected for 3 years became the organs of peasant self-government: the headman, 2 elected ones, a hired clerk, centurions and foremen elected by rural communities. These courts were directly subordinate to the lower zemstvo courts and executed their decisions. Their duties included the collection of taxes, administrative and police supervision and the analysis of "unimportant" civil and criminal cases of peasants.

The provincial administration and court in Siberia were reorganized in 1797 under Paul I.

Lit .: Gauthier Yu.V. The history of regional administration in Russia from Peter I to Catherine II. M., 1913. T. 1-2; 1941; Rabtsevich V.V. Siberian city in the pre-reform system of government. Novosibirsk, 1984; She is. State institutions of pre-reform Siberia. Last quarter of the 18th - first half of the 19th century. Directory. Chelyabinsk, 1998; Bykonya G.F. Russian exempt population in Eastern Siberia in the 18th - early 19th centuries. (Formation of the military-bureaucratic nobility). Krasnoyarsk, 1985. Akishin M.O. Police state and Siberian society. The era of Peter the Great. Novosibirsk, 1996; He is. Russian absolutism and administration of Siberia in the 18th century: the structure and composition of the state apparatus. M.; Novosibirsk, 2003; Rafienko L.S. Problems of the history of management and culture of Siberia in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Favorites. Novosibirsk, 2006.

M.O. Akishin

Management of Siberia and the Far East (XIX - early XX century). By the beginning of the XIX century. the structure of the Siberian government had the following main levels: vicegerent ( governor general ), provincial ( governor, provincial government, state chamber , judicial chamber, prosecutor), regional (intermediate position between the provincial and district), county (lower zemsky court, county treasury, attorney), city (commandant or mayor who oversaw elected city bodies). The system was completed by peasant self-government, which performed a number of important state functions.

The administrative reforms of Paul I were aimed at the centralization and bureaucratization of state administration, which also affected Siberia. In 1797, viceroyalties were abolished here, and provincial authorities were directly subordinated to the Senate. Siberia was divided into 2 provinces - Tobolsk and Irkutsk, otherwise the transformations were reduced to a slight reduction in the number of provincial and district institutions.

At the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, the current ministerial system of government allowed the existence of governor-generals, including in Siberia. In 1803 I.O. Selifontov. In 1803-05, he made changes in the administrative structure of the region: Tomsk province , formed Kamchatka and the Yakutsk region, the number of counties has been reduced, populous counties are divided into commissioners . Under him, the influence of the governor on the activities of the state chambers increased, the possibilities for the intervention of the governor-general and the governor in the affairs of the financial and economic part of local government expanded. Controlling the work of the administration, Selifontov brought several high-ranking officials to justice for abuses.

Governor General I.B. Pestel (1806-19) also took steps to strengthen his power in Siberia. He replaced the Siberian governors with his proteges, achieved the appointment to the post of the Irkutsk governor personally devoted to him N.I. Treskina . Zemstvo officials (police officers and zemstvo assessors) became important figures in the local administration; they were assigned all the fullness of police, judicial and economic power in the county. The increased intervention of the administration in the economy and everyday life of the population, the desire to manage everything and everyone, to act even with threats and violence - all this led to indignation on the part of the Siberian merchants. In addition, the strengthening of the governor-general and governor's power ran into resistance from local representatives of the central ministries, including the Naval and Military.

The next period in the history of management is associated with the appointment in 1819 to the post of Governor-General of Siberia. MM. Speransky who was instructed to conduct an audit in the region. The new governor-general managed to recruit talented employees (including the future Decembrist G.S. Batenkova ), and he himself explored most of Siberia. The audit revealed egregious cases of arbitrariness, embezzlement and bribery. A lot of abuses were associated with the procurement of grain, the distribution of duties, the collection of taxes, yasaka , trade and industrial management. As a result, the governors of Tomsk and Irkutsk, as well as 48 officials, were put on trial, 681 people were involved in illegal actions. main reason identified abuses considered not only the personal qualities of officials, but also the imperfection of the management system in Siberia.

In 1838, instead of the Omsk regional government, the Border Administration of the Siberian Kirghiz (as the Kazakhs were called) was created, in 1854 it was liquidated, 2 regions were formed - Semipalatinsk and Siberian Kirghiz. In 1849, the Okhotsk Primorsky Administration was abolished in connection with the transfer of the main Pacific port from Okhotsk to Petropavlovsk, and the entire Okhotsk district is included in the Yakutsk region. In 1851, the Yakutsk region received independence and its own governor. Formed in the same year Transbaikal and the Kamchatka region, separated from the Irkutsk province, as well as the Kyakhta city government (abolished in 1862). Aigun Treaty(1858) and Beijing treatise(1860) with China assigned to the Russian Empire Eastern Kazakhstan, the Amur region and Primorye. In 1856, after the annexation of the Amur region, the Primorsky region Eastern Siberia with a center in Nikolaevsk-on-Amur (since 1871 in Vladivostok), the Kamchatka region was liquidated. In 1858, two regions were created on the territory of the Amur Territory: Primorsky and Amurskaya. Primorsky included Nikolaev, Sofia and Okhotsk districts, Amur - Amur district, Amur Cossack army and a special mining and police district, which included all the gold mines. In 1860, in accordance with the Peking Russian-Chinese Treaty, the Ussuri Territory was annexed to the Primorsky Region, after which the South Ussuri District was formed in the Primorsky Region.

Provinces and regions were divided into districts (districts, districts), districts- on volosts and foreign councils. So 4 levels of management were created.

An important place in the transformations of Speransky was occupied by the management of the indigenous peoples of Siberia (see. Aboriginal (foreign) politics ).

A new control system was installed in Siberia . Until 1822, the escort, as well as the registration and distribution of exiles, were not in any way satisfactorily organized. Now the Order on exiles in Tobolsk was established and expeditions were organized under the provincial governments to receive and distribute exiles in Siberia. However, the increasing flow of exiles reduced the entire work of this body to their accounting.

Collegial advisory bodies of various levels were created for the Siberian Institution - councils of the main departments, provincial and district councils , but in reality the powers belonged to the heads of administration.

The highest administrative and supreme control power was concentrated in the hands of the Siberian governor-generals. They were appointed and dismissed by the highest nominal decrees, were, as a rule, personally known to the emperor and invested with his trust. All Siberian provincial institutions were subordinated to them, with a few exceptions. The governor-general had the right to oversee the activities of any institution subordinate to him. He could supplement and cancel the decisions of the governors, demand reports on the work of the governors, heads and other local bodies. The governor-general had the right to appoint, dismiss and move officials, to present them for awards. The circle of his actions included the solution of border and foreign policy issues (within certain limits). The degree of activity of the governor-general largely depended on his personal qualities. Equally immense were the duties of the governor-general. He was responsible for the quick and legal proceedings in subordinate instances, conducted audits, oversaw the activities of the mining and educational departments, the management of the Cossacks, and the provision of food to the population, his functions included "stopping ruinous luxury" and "monitoring the state of mind."

Extensive powers, the complete legal absence of delimitation of functions between the governor-general and governors created the opportunity for the governor-general to become either a nominal figure or the sole owner of a vast region. Everything depended on his own position, on relations with the central authorities, mainly with the monarch and members of the imperial family, their trust and support. The main activities of the heads of local administrations were largely determined by the needs of the region. The governor-general had to solve the problems of exile and colonization, gold mining and foreign trade, border affairs and communications, the composition of the administrative corps and relations with the local society.

During the existence of the governor-generals in Western and Eastern Siberia, these positions were occupied by 18 people. As a rule, these were military men (with the exception of a real Privy Councilor A.S. lavinsky ) at the age of about 50 years old, had experience in commanding troops, only a few previously headed the civil administration. In the second half of the XIX century. already trained people were appointed to this post, they understood the scale of the tasks of managing the region, were engaged in its development, sought to study it, surrounded themselves with employees who knew Siberia. The most prominent role in the history of Siberia was played by N.N. Muraviev-Amursky, G.Kh. Gasford, N.G. Kaznakov, N.P. Sinelnikov .

At the provincial level, there were general and private administrations. The first included the governor and the provincial council. The provincial council was headed by the governor, it included the chairman of provincial institutions and the provincial prosecutor, the provincial postmaster, directors of schools, etc. were invited to meetings. . The governor also obeyed Order of public charity , a medical board, a construction department and a printing house, as well as the provincial statistical committee, a recruiting presence (later a recruiting committee), a national food commission, a road and construction commission.

In the 19th century in Siberia and throughout Russia, the key figure in the system of government was the governor - the highest official of local government, he controlled all state bodies located in the province. Until the 1880s Siberian governors were largely subordinate to the courts. The law of 1866 ordered them to audit local financial bodies - state chambers, provincial and county treasuries, and excise departments. But at the same time, the governor was considered only an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), although a high-ranking one, and local bodies of other ministries were not subordinate to him. The boundaries of the power of governors and governors-general remained still indefinite. Directly subordinate to the governors were the district chiefs and heads of the police (zemstvo police officers in the districts, governors or police chiefs in the cities). Governors handled the most important issues of governance and oversight. The appointment and dismissal of most officials in the province and their presentation for awards actually depended on them.

The provisions on the duties of the heads of individual provinces (especially Tomsk) and border regions in this period had their own characteristics. In the regions there was a simplified procedure for administration and a reduced administrative apparatus. Instead of the provincial government, there was a regional government with a smaller staff compared to the provincial staff: instead of a chairman, a senior adviser, fewer advisers and departments. In the border areas, administration is largely militarized. In the Region of the Siberian Kirghiz and the Semipalatinsk Region, the board united the functions of the provincial government, the treasury and the provincial court in the respective departments. In the Amur and Primorsk (until 1866) regions, the functions of regional governments were performed by the offices of military governors. In Eastern Siberia for the period 1822-87 there were 46 governors, and in Western Siberia for 1822-82 - 37. Of these, 10 served in this position for more than 10 years, some were appointed successively by the Siberian governors several times (for example, I.K. Pedashenko in the Amur and Trans-Baikal regions, then in the Irkutsk province; K.N. Svetlitsky in Yakutsk region, then to the Irkutsk province). Over time, the composition of the governor's corps has undergone major changes. At the beginning of the century, these were officials who cared primarily about their own interests, well-being and tranquility, with a low educational level, but with practical knowledge and clerical skills. Socio-political changes in the country demanded both education and professional competence of the governors. The personal qualities of officials, their progressive views, even character traits and habits were important. Among them there were quite ordinary people, sometimes accidentally occupying such a high post. But outstanding, talented personalities also served in this position - such as A.P. Stepanov, V.A. Artsimovich, P.V. Kazakevich, A.I. Despot-Zenovich .

In Siberia, as in all of Russia, there were local bodies of a number of ministries. At the provincial level, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was subordinated to the governor, the provincial government and the institutions attached to it. At the district level (cf. Siberian districts management ) this ministry was represented by the district chief (in crowded districts), the district police officer and the district court. District administrations, depending on the number of population, were divided into crowded, medium and sparsely populated. Until 1867, the district councils and the district chief were at the head of the populous districts. In all districts, administrative and police functions were performed by zemstvo courts, led by zemstvo police officers. Zemsky court was only a police body. In accordance with the then adopted rules, the duties of the police were extensive, and many functions were assigned to it (see Police in Siberia). In practice, zemstvo police officers and assessors of the zemstvo court were mainly involved in the investigation of criminal cases, were constantly traveling over the vast territory of the Siberian districts, and the secretaries of the zemstvo courts actually conducted ordinary administrative cases. The number of provincial and regional institutions grew, the population increased, and the district administration remained the same until the 1880s. Then the positions of special officials for peasant affairs, for resettlement affairs, etc. were introduced. Formalism, incompetence in provincial institutions, lack of funds, slow office work and low professional qualities of officials led to the fact that the district and volost departments turned out to be virtually without supervision. Volost administration was carried out by elected representatives of the peasantry. Peasant self-government consisted of the volost headman (head), volost board and volost court. At the same time, the role of the volost clerk was extremely important - it was he who connected the activities of the state apparatus and peasant self-government. In 1879 in Western Siberia and in 1882 in Eastern Siberia, new order, which assigned administrative and police functions to the peasant self-government bodies. In populous and medium-sized cities, police affairs were in charge of the mayor and the city government (see. City government ).

The local bodies of the Ministry of Finance were the state chambers and county treasuries, and since 1862 also excise offices. The audit of treasuries, cash desks, all financial services was carried out by local bodies of state control - the control chamber. Provincial and district courts, provincial (regional) prosecutors, provincial and district attorneys represented the Ministry of Justice.

The gendarmes played a huge role in the administration. They did not have the right to make binding decisions, but were for the supreme power an instrument of tacit control over the state of affairs in the regions and official representatives authorities. In 1833, the VII (since 1837 - VIII) Siberian gendarmerie district was created (with its center in Tobolsk, since 1839 - in Omsk), it included all of Siberia and the Perm province. Provincial gendarmerie headquarters officers repeatedly revealed cases of flagrant abuses, their reports contained unflattering information about many Siberian officials, including high-ranking ones.

An extraordinary governing body was the Nerchinsk commandant's office, created in 1826 to supervise the Decembrists and taken out of the control of the local administration.

The low efficiency of the Siberian administrative apparatus, distrust of its employees forced them to resort to such control measures as senatorial and other audits. Revision in Western Siberia, headed by senators princes B.A. Kurakin and V.K. Rootless, led to the resignation of the Governor General P.M. Kaptsevich and Tobolsk Governor D.N. Bantysh-Kamensky. Audit in Eastern Siberia - it was carried out by Senator N.I. Tolstoy - and Western Siberia - Adjutant General N.N. Annenkov - led to the resignation of governors general V.Ya. Rupert and prince P.D. Gorchakova.

An important event in the history of the Siberian government was the creation in 1852 II Siberian Committee , the reason for which was the revision of N.N. Annenkov. The Committee was entrusted with the tasks of uniting the efforts of all departments, coordinating the actions of the central and local administrations, and developing comprehensive programs for the development of the region. The Committee, whose competence covered the whole of Siberia to the Pacific Ocean, Russian America , the Amur and Steppe Territories, the Orenburg Governor General, lasted until the end of 1864.

In the second half of the XIX century. The "Siberian Institution" and the entire management system in Siberia were increasingly criticized both in the Center and in the region itself.

Already in the 1850s and 60s. some changes were made to the administrative-territorial division of the region (see above), later it was fragmented. After lengthy negotiations in St. Petersburg in 1875, an agreement was signed with Japan, according to which, in exchange for the Kuril Islands, Russia received full possession of the island of Sakhalin, and the border began to run along the La Perouse Strait. In 1880, the Vladivostok military governorship was formed, in 1889 - Ussuri Cossack army . In 1884, the Primorsk, Amur, and Trans-Baikal regions and the Vladivostok military governorate were merged into (Khabarovsk). In 1882, the Governor-General of Western Siberia was abolished, the Tobolsk and Tomsk provinces were transferred to the direct jurisdiction of the ministries, and Omsk became the administrative center. Steppe Governor General . In 1887 the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia was renamed Irkutsk. The very name "Siberia" is gradually disappearing from the administrative map, the concept of "Asian Russia" is being introduced into circulation.

A new surge of foreign policy activity in the Far East is associated with the penetration of Russia into Manchuria and the construction , on the part of the Liaodong Peninsula leased from China, was created in 1898 Kwantung region . In 1902, in the Amur Governorate-Generalship, the districts were transformed into districts; in the Yakutsk Region, the district system was retained until February 1917. In 1903, the Far Eastern Viceroyalty was created, headed by Admiral E.I. Alekseev, it included the Amur General Governorship and the Kwantung Region. For the first time in Russian history, a large administrative center was located on the territory rented from a neighboring state - in Port Arthur. To coordinate efforts to organize railway construction and harmonize departmental interests, there were (1892-1905) and the Far East Committee (1903-05).

Along with the change in the territorial-administrative structure of the region, transformations were carried out in other areas of public administration. In the 1870-80s. the organization of the peasant, foreign (see. ), mining, educational, police, prison, postal and telegraph (see. Postal and telegraph business ) departments, provincial presences for peasant and city affairs were created, positions of officials for peasant affairs appeared, a new city regulation was introduced (see. City government ), etc. In 1885, some changes were made to the judicial system. In the course of the military reform in August 1865, in the existing governorates general, West Siberian and East Siberian Military District , their commanders are governors-general. In 1882, after the liquidation of the West Siberian General Government, the West Siberian Military District was transformed into Omsk, which included the Steppe General Government, Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces. In July 1884, the East Siberian Military District was divided into 2 - Irkutsk and Amur . In 1899 the Omsk and Irkutsk military districts were merged into the Siberian military district with headquarters in Omsk. In March 1906, the Irkutsk military district was again formed from the Irkutsk and Yenisei provinces, the Yakutsk and Transbaikal regions; and from Tobolsk and Tomsk provinces, Semipalatinsk and Akmola regions - Omsk. Until February 1917, the Governor-General of the Steppe Territory was both the commander of the troops of the district and the chief ataman. Siberian Cossack army. In the Irkutsk and Amur Governorates-General in the 1910s. there was a separation of functions of military and civilian departments. In June 1895, the administration system in Tobolsk, Tomsk, Yenisei, and Irkutsk provinces was reorganized through the establishment of provincial administrations chaired by governors. In 1896, state property departments were opened in the Siberian provinces, created in the Center. Russia in 1883. In 1898, peasant officials were replaced by peasant chiefs who controlled the organs of peasant self-government. In 1901-02, these posts were introduced in the Amur General Government, but they never appeared in the Yakutsk Region. Until February 1904, the Order on exiles was in effect in Tyumen, taking into account and distributing throughout Siberia all those sent to or into exile of criminal and state criminals.

The overall system of administrative bodies was complicated by the intricate structure of the constantly growing governing bodies. For example, in 1882 Omsk ceased to be the administrative center of Western Siberia, but the excise department and the management of state property for the whole of Western Siberia continued to operate here. The head of the Siberian Customs District was located in Petropavlovsk and reported to the Department of Customs Duties of the Ministry of Finance. The southern borders of the Tomsk province were under the jurisdiction of the Semipalatinsk customs district. Supervision of salt mines in Western Siberia was assigned to the Altai Mining Board, and in Eastern Siberia - to the mining department. Main Directorate of Eastern Siberia . The borders of the mountainous regions did not coincide with the general administrative division. The Altai and Nerchinsk District Cabinets of His Imperial Majesty had administrative autonomy.

Defeat in Russo-Japanese War led to the liquidation of the governorship and the transfer to Japan of South Sakhalin and the right to lease the Liaodong Peninsula. In 1906, the Trans-Baikal region was transferred to the Irkutsk Governor General. In 1909, Kamchatka (Anadyr, Gizhiginsky, Udsky, Okhotsky, Petropavlovsky and Commander Islands counties) and Sakhalin region. In 1909-15, the Committee for the Settlement of the Far East was functioning to coordinate efforts to build the Amur Railway. At the same time, to study the construction area, develop proposals for the construction of new communication routes, settlements, measures for colonization and development of the productive forces of the southern part of the Far East under the leadership Administrative-territorial structure of Siberia and the Far East.

Lit.: Remnev A.V. Autocracy and Siberia. Administrative policy in the first half of the XIX century. Omsk, 1995; He is. Autocracy and Siberia. Administrative policy of the second half XIX - early XX centuries. Omsk, 1997; He is. Russia Far East. Imperial geography of power in the 19th - early 20th centuries. Omsk, 2004; Matkhanova N.P. Governor-Generals of Eastern Siberia in the middle of the 19th century: V.Ya. Rupert, N.N. Muravyov-Amursky, M.S. Korsakov. Novosibirsk, 1998; She is. Higher administration of Eastern Siberia in the middle of the 19th century: Problems of social stratification. Novosibirsk, 2002; Power in Siberia XVI - early XX century: Interarchive reference book. Novosibirsk, 2002; Dameshek L.M., Dameshek I.L., Pertseva T.A., Remnev A.V. MM. Speransky: Siberian version of imperial regionalism. Irkutsk, 2003; Palin A.V. Tomsk provincial administration (1895-1917): structure, competence, administration. Kemerovo, 2004.

Introduction

Power in Russia in the 17th century. was, as you know, monarchical, and society - class. The main estates - with a significant deduction of privately owned peasants, serfs and walking people - were represented at different stages of the mechanism of state administration: power could only function based on the class-representative institutions of society.

Under monarchical power in Russia in the 17th century. society traditionally consisted of zemstvo class associations that decided their internal affairs on the basis of the principles of election and self-government: their members were bound by a common responsibility to the state authorities in many fiscal, judicial, and administrative matters. Nobles, townspeople, black-haired peasants, instrument military people had their own country associations.

At the head of the state administrative apparatus in Siberia was the governor, whose areas of activity were: 1) military affairs: recruiting troops, distributing salaries; 2) diplomatic affairs; 3) financial and economic affairs; 4) concern for the welfare and security of the people (for example, the capture of thieves, robbers and fugitives) and 5) legal cases. The purpose of the abstract is to consider the organization of governance in Siberia in the 17th century and in an attempt to identify the shortcomings of this system that prevailed at that time.

The tasks are to consider the bodies of central and local government in Siberia in the 17th century, the delimitation of their functions and powers, as well as to consider the contradictions that develop between them.

The topic of the abstract today is relevant, since the question of organizing the management system of Siberia, its role and place in the development of the entire history of Russia is becoming more and more controversial.

Management of Siberia in the 17th century

The development of Siberia was associated with fundamental changes in social relations among the population of this region. Indigenous people became more and more fully involved in the process of development, not only as an object, but also as an active subject, a participant in all ongoing socio-political transformations. A special category of service Tatars appeared. In each city of Western Siberia, they formed a detachment, headed by a Tatar head, who was appointed by the governor. For their military work, serving Tatars received bread and cash salaries, were exempted from yasak and retained power over "black people".

“Most of the native population paid yasak. The tax went to the central government and was used to support local authorities and service people. It should be noted two features in the organization of management in the annexed lands. The first is that the interaction between the central and local authorities in different regions of Siberia was not the same. For Western Siberia, the central Moscow government not only determined the general political direction, but also, as a rule, made decisions on specific cases. Developed detailed instructions how governors to act in certain situations. “The farther to the east the borders of the annexed territories were moved, the more independence was given to local authorities. On the one hand, it was good, as it developed the ability to act at your own peril and risk, but, on the other hand, it created chaos in business. However, such was the real dialectic of political life at that time.

The second feature is that the political administration in Siberia was carried out in conditions of multi-confessionalism. Siberian Tatars professed Islam. The small peoples of Siberia (the Nenets, Nganasans, Selkups, Tunguses, etc.) retained their patriarchal tribal organization and paganism before the arrival of the Russians. The newcomers were mostly Orthodox Christians, and gradually representatives of both large Siberian ethnic groups and small peoples began to convert to Christianity.

“In essence, a significant part of the population of Siberia was still in the Stone Age. The political superstructure also corresponded to economic life. Regarding the established state political history had only a part of the Siberian Tatars in the Siberian Khanate. With the arrival of Russians in Siberia, for many native peoples, political existence begins for the first time, and what happened earlier was only its prehistory.

In the 17th century, tsarist power and its centralization were strengthened, and the structure of governance in Siberia became more complicated. “As the region was developed, a mechanism was formed for its transition under the auspices of the central government. A problem arose: either Siberia should have a power apparatus similar to that which was in the western regions of the country, or the center in managing this vast region should pay special attention to its specifics.

Already since the 16th century, the trusted people of the tsar - the boyars and governors were in charge of the Siberian territory, its population and huge wealth. Initially, Siberia was ruled by the Posolsky Prikaz, and since 1599 - by the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace. In 1637, a special Siberian order was created - the central institution for managing this eastern territory. It was headed by one of the feudal lords close to Tsar Alexei Romanov - Prince Boris Mikhailovich Lykov. “The staff of the order, along with his boss and subordinate clerks - clerks and clerks, also included several specialists who were in charge of a particular regional industry. These were appraisers and controllers involved in furs, persons responsible for creating favorable conditions for trading people, and kissers who sought out income items, specific Siberian taxes and collected them with diligence. Created legal framework for those social strata that objectively played the most important role in the colonization of Siberia.

The governor was the supreme ruler, the founder of the norms of morality and law, a formidable, but far from always fair judge. He did court and reprisals, often punishing completely innocent people, appropriating for himself the yasak collected in the state treasury. Petitions to the king, coming from the field, although little, but influenced the improvement of the situation. They were encouraged by the highest authority.

In addition, the rulers had to rely on objectively progressive layers that contributed to the development of Siberia. Among them were many true professionals, bearers of Russian folk culture. They were connoisseurs of the construction business: carpenters and joiners, stove-makers and blacksmiths, coachmen and plowmen. They poured into a wide stream of migrants who decided to settle in Siberia forever. It was a commercial and industrial colonization that occasionally took place even until the middle of the 17th century.

The second stream and the social support of the institution of management is agricultural colonization, during which the proportion of aliens steadily increased, primarily cultures and the formation of Siberian, Eurasian culture. In this stream there were those who ended up in it against their will (criminals, disobedient tsar, “thieves”), and those who, on their own initiative, rushed to foreign lands in search of freedom and happiness.

“The fundamental basis of the emerging management system was state ownership of a large array of lands involved in the turnover. This weakened the personal, including economic, interest of the peasants.

Siberia was a marginal territory with a special legal status. The administrative reforms of the first half of the 19th century assigned to Siberia a special model of government based on the combination of the principles of centralization and decentralization of power in the state. In the second half of the 19th century, the situation in Siberia changed and it acquired the status of an inner outskirts, which necessitated another administrative reform. This article attempts to analyze the content and general principles administrative reform in Siberia at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries.

Revision of imperial traditions during the Great Reforms of the 60s. The 19th century, caused by the modernization and rationalization of Russian political culture, led to changes in the system of state administration. One of its elements, most strongly associated with imperial political technologies, was the institute of governor-generals (governorships) created by the gubernatorial reform of 1775. The legal nature of the power of governors-general was never clearly defined, in particular, the issue of attributing it to the sphere of management or supervision was not even finally resolved. In practice, in general, "the enormous power of the governor-general was based mainly on the personal confidence of the monarch and was almost uncontrollable."

The creation of specific peripheral power institutions is highly characteristic of empires. The border situation in empires and local states is fundamentally different. The local state clearly defines its territory and develops a stable and, as a rule, long-term political course that does not change, the empire does not know such a clear distinction.

In general, the institution of governors-general was the clearest confirmation that in Russia, as is typical for the empire in general, “there were no clear differences either between the spheres of colonial administration and foreign policy, or between colonial and administration and domestic policy.”

The extraordinary breadth of governor-general and vicegerent powers was, in addition, largely forced, precisely on the periphery. The personal power of the governor-generals compensated for the lack of administrative presence. Gradually, nation-building, combined with a rationalization trend, comes into conflict with the preservation of governor-generals as institutions that do not fit into a regular hierarchical structure. In the second half of the XIX century. the governor-general's power is increasingly turning into a political figure, designed to maintain and strengthen order and the integrity of the empire. Therefore, the governor-general's power, as a rule, is retained in the outskirts, where political circumstances demanded local centralization of administrative efforts.

Siberian governor-generals in the second half of the 19th century. still retained emergency powers. By a decree of September 25, 1865, Alexander II granted the governor-generals of Eastern Siberia “until the introduction of a new judicial system in Siberia” to bring the exiles to court-martial “in case of treason, rebellion, or inclination to them by the inhabitants of the region, open resistance to military force in places their content, the forcible release of prisoners, murder, robbery and arson.

Characteristically, at the same time, the center was concerned about the growing desire of governors-general in connection with the granting of emergency powers to expand their power functions. The abolition of the Siberian Committee was one of the steps aimed at eliminating this contradiction. The governors-general were forced to apply more and more often to the Ministry of the Interior. Their financial independence, already very limited, was narrowed as a result of the financial reform by creating a single cash desk and strengthening the control of the center over the spending of funds.

The Siberian governors-general unsuccessfully tried to expand their financial rights, at least within the framework of spending the funds allocated from the budget. The law forbade the governors-general to introduce new taxes, change the list of expendable funds by branches of government (with the exception of amounts earmarked for extraordinary needs), and transfer state property to private hands. Interpreting the duties of governors-general very broadly, the law at the same time prescribed: “The governor-general, having supreme supervision over all parts in general, does not enter into a detailed and internal order of any of them separately, keeping each in the order established by law.”

In a country with such different economic, geographical, ethnic and political conditions, it was simply impossible to create a comprehensive unified administrative system. In the post-reform period, the central government was forced to pursue a flexible administrative policy, allowing within certain limits regional pluralism in public administration.

At the same time, one should not exaggerate the desire of the central administration for a flexible, balanced administrative policy in Siberia after the liberal transformations that began in the country, caused by the abolition of serfdom. Administrative management reform in the 1980s and 1990s. 19th century (during the period of the so-called counter-reforms) was one of the links in the chain of imperial transformations in Siberia. In the Siberian administrative policy at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. the general line is clearly visible, aimed at the gradual unification of the Siberian administration and the convergence of the administrative structure of Siberia and the center of Russia.

The maturing of the crisis of traditional imperial politics by the end of the 19th century. affected the area of ​​administration. It was caused by the growing contradiction between the central authorities and local governments. Initially, with the beginning of the reforms of the 60-70s. In the 19th century, decentralization and the development of local self-government were considered by the authorities as a means of preserving the central government unchanged and at the same time satisfying the oppositional claims of Russian society.

The new provision, introduced on June 12, 1890 in 34 zemstvo provinces, provided for significant changes in the electoral system: along with the property qualification, estate curia were also introduced. The new law contributed to the strengthening of the nobility in the zemstvo administration and, at the same time, government control over it. For this purpose, in particular, provincial representatives for zemstvo affairs of presence were created.

In the spring of 1895, the Ministry of the Interior developed a project for the unification of Siberia into one central body of the provincial institutions of the ministry. In June 1895, this opinion of the State Council was approved by the emperor. At the same time, the State Council made a recommendation to carry out a similar reform in the provinces of European Russia.

However, this project during the period when Goremykin and then Sipyagin were ministers of internal affairs was not considered, and thus the administrative administration of Siberia was considered in the general direction of the imperial policy of the center in the sphere of administration.

With the appointment of Plehve as Minister of the Interior, the project for the reform of provincial government throughout the empire became the object of a special commission that began its work on February 27, 1903. The expansion of the governor's administrative power was recognized as "one of the main tasks of the reform." The implementation of the provincial reform was of great importance for Siberia, which did not have a Zemstvo. Reforms in the 1860s very disappointed governors. And not because most of them were conservatives, but because the transformations carried out by the center made the heads of the provinces more dependent on the Ministry of the Interior and did not provide them with a permanent staff.

On May 3, 1903, Nicholas II approved the Plehve reform project. As a result, the following decades were marked by a serious expansion of the powers of governors in all regions of the country, including Siberia, in relation to the police, zemstvos, and in resolving social conflicts on the ground.

A feature of the Plehve provincial administration reform was that, along with the strengthening of the power of the governors, there was also a strengthening of control by the Ministry of the Interior over the sphere of administration, which caused some dissatisfaction among the governors, depending on this ministry.

Against the background of the obvious strengthening of the influence of the Ministry of the Interior in the provinces, reflecting the desire of the state authorities to continue to adhere to the traditional imperial course in the field of administrative policy, the legislation prepared by Plehve by the autumn of 1903, which proclaimed the expansion of the rights of local governments, looked very modest. The meaning of the reform consisted in some reorganization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Previously disparate subdivisions of the ministry, which were in charge of zemstvo and city affairs, were united as part of the Main Directorate for Local Economy Affairs. Now, under the chairmanship of the minister himself, the Council for Local Economy was created as a permanent institution, consisting of the heads of departments of the Ministry of the Interior, as well as representatives of other departments and local figures - “leaders of the nobility, chairmen of provincial and county administrations and administrations for zemstvo affairs, urban heads."

The Council was supposed to have an "exclusively advisory character", its conclusions were not binding on the Minister of the Interior in his activities to manage the local economy. The project for the reorganization of the Ministry of the Interior, prepared by Plehve, was approved by the State Council at the beginning of 1904, and after approval on March 22, 1904, became law.

Thus, we see that in its administrative policy, the Russian state power, unlike other areas of activity, “did not compromise its principles”, striving at all costs to maintain the political unity of the empire with the help of a tough administrative policy, and, in fact, thereby creating an obstacle to a relatively harmonious balancing act between the aggravated socio-economic and political contradictions between the center and the suburbs.

Despite the strengthening of the power of governors by the beginning of the 20th century. the staff of subordinates and the instruments of power that they possessed, nevertheless, remained clearly insufficient compared to the scale of the tasks that they faced. However, all these weaknesses and difficulties paradoxically increased the role of the governor in the provinces, including Siberia. Since the head of the province could not fully rely on either the order or the bureaucratic mechanism, he was forced to go into many details of local affairs himself.

Thus, the administrative policy of the Russian state in Siberia did not contribute to the preservation of the empire. In the Siberian administrative policy at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. the general line is clearly visible, aimed at the gradual unification of the Siberian administration and the convergence of the administrative structure of Siberia and Russia. However, the achieved level of unification could not prevent the collapse of the empire. The fact is that the modification policy took place against the backdrop of increasing rationalization and complication of the functions of the Siberian administration, which specialized the bureaucratic structure of the region and thereby forced it to oppose the policy of the center in cases where it infringed on regional interests. Thus, there was a constant element of confrontation between the imperial center and the Siberian administrative apparatus, which did not contribute to the preservation of the empire.

Summing up, it can be argued that the main problems of the administrative policy of the autocracy in Siberia, which were not fully resolved, were:

Search for the optimal administrative-territorial administration of the region;

Relations between central and local authorities, delimitation of their competence;

Consolidation and coordination of actions of the Siberian government at the central and local levels;

Interaction of state institutions of power and bodies of public self-government.

In 1852, the Second Siberian Committee was created, the main task of which was to carry out transformations of the Siberian court. During the twelve years of its activity, the committee developed the Regulations of 06/21/1864, limiting itself to questions about the cognizance of cases. In accordance with this Regulation, the consideration of cases in the Siberian courts was carried out not according to the estate, but according to the territorial principle. Thus, a step was taken towards the elimination of the class structure of society in Siberia. Later, by 1871, the Ministry of Justice developed a package of documents on the transformation of the Siberian judicial system. These included the following bills:

- "On strengthening the composition of police departments in Siberia with special officials for the production of investigations";

– “On the introduction in Siberia of the institute of judicial investigators and bailiffs for the judicial part”;

- "On the introduction of world courts";

– “On the reorganization of prosecutorial supervision”;

- "On changing the staff of judicial administration in Siberia."

Organization of administration of the peoples of Siberia at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. Charter on the management of foreigners 1822

1. Siberia in the regional policy of the Russian state in the XVIII century. The changes that took place in the structure and composition of the administration of Siberia at the end of the 17th-18th centuries began with the reform of the prikaz-voivodship administration. The central position in it was occupied by the Siberian order, the judge of which was the main institution and represented the king in the administration of the region. The competence of governors in Siberia, in contrast to Central Russia, was much wider, because. they were in charge of the issues of settlement and development of the region, resolved the issues of current diplomatic relations with neighboring peoples and countries. The absence of noble landownership and the peculiarities of Russian settlement in the vast expanses of Siberia led to developed self-government among the settlers - the service "army", "worlds" of townspeople and peasants. The internal management of the yasach ¬ nyh "foreigners" was preserved in its traditional form. The political and legal transformations of Peter I led to fundamental changes in the governance structure of Siberia. Already in the course of the provincial reform of 1711, the Siberian order was actually liquidated and the regional administration was united in the hands of the Siberian governor, which strengthened the hierarchical subordination of local governments. Since the 1710s there were ideas of separation of the court from the administration, the introduction of collegiate principles in management, the formation of a permanent body of supervision - the fiscal office. The provincial reform of 1719 contributed to the separation of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies, introduced the collegial principle of decision-making. Management began to be based not on custom, but on the rule of law, and acquired a bureaucratic character. These beginnings were reflected in the organization of management in the city, where since then class self-government has been developing, the influence of service people is decreasing. However, there are no fundamental changes in the management of the class of state peasants; as before, the state leads this social group through state clerks. It should be emphasized that the transformations of the beginning of the 18th century. in Siberia were carried out taking into account the specifics of the region and, as a result, there were deviations in the desire to create a unified system of provincial administration in the emerging empire, which was later reflected in the “Instructions” to the Siberian governor of 1741. Deviation from the rational principles of empire building implemented Peter I, was the restoration in the late 1720s. Siberian order and management procedures of the "Moscow antiquity". Such restorations did not justify themselves in practice, since, in addition to the Siberian order, all-Siberian affairs fell within the competence of the Senate and collegiums, as well as the Siberian governor. During the provincial reform in the framework of regional government specialized financial bodies were preserved, and a departmental mining department functioned. The fragmentation and uncertainty of administrative functions did not contribute to the incorporation of the region into the empire. Transformations in the field of regional administration of Catherine II, namely the small regional reform of 1764 and the provincial reform of 1775, in the course of the disaggregation of administrative-territorial units, led to the approximation of power to society. As a result, the Siberian Order was liquidated, and the governors of Tobolsk and Irkutsk became trusted representatives and representatives of the Empress in this vast region. Due to the absence of the nobility in Siberia, it was not possible to strengthen the self-government of the nobility, as was the case during the reform in the central part of the empire. The way out of this situation, especially for Russia, was the replacement of the nobility of the court and management of bureaucratic institutions. An extensive specialized system of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies was created, and the departmental mining department continued to function in a modified form. During the period under review, city self-government and management were rationalized by creating presences that collectively solve city issues. In the 1760-1790s. measures were taken to reorganize the management of peasants and indigenous people.

2. Development of the management system in Siberia in the first quarter of the 19th century. Political view of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. was determined by three main tasks: the profitability of the region, the convenience of its management and the protection of the eastern and southern Asian borders of the empire. The complication of any of these tasks, and most often all at the same time, forced the supreme power to take measures that could, if not improve, then at least stabilize the situation. This approach in government policy early XIX in. in relation to Siberia gave the Siberian legislation an inconsistent, inconsistent, largely situational character. There is no doubt that the lack of organizational and managerial foundations in the Siberian administration and the responsibility of local officials was not compensated by attempts to improve and increase the responsibility of the central government. The establishment of ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management of the provincial institution of 1775 in this respect, but even rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine's local government. The inconsistency of the principles laid down in its provisions affected the practice of public administration. While the Institution of Governorates pursued the task of bringing the governors closer to the governed, tried to fill the provincial institutions with people who were closely familiar with the interests and everyday features of the area, the ministries concentrated power and managerial powers, "pulled" them to the center and gradually subordinated provincial institutions not only in oversight, but also in management. The provincial institutions, organized according to ministries, lost contact with each other to such an extent that there was a disconnect between the institutions of various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposite influences, the phenomena of centralization and the need to take into account local characteristics in management, were supposed to encourage the supreme power to improve the administrative structures along the axis "center - region", legally reconcile them with each other in order to ensure the existence of everyone, in order to secure the weakest from absorption by the strongest. Appointment of the new Siberian governor I.O. Selifontov in 1801, the establishment of the governor-general in Siberia in 1803, as well as the direction of the new ruler I.B. Pestel in 1806 was held on the basis of principles that implied the streamlining of management and the strengthening of local authorities. Such a step in the management of Siberia meant that the government followed the same path, relying on the strengthening of the governor-general's power and the centralization of the local state apparatus. The clash of the competence of ministerial departments with the powers of local government urgently required a legislative delimitation of the areas of competence of local and central institutions as a necessary condition for the implementation by the state of administrative functions in relation to Siberia, both at the level of the center and in the region itself. At the beginning of the 19th century, therefore, the system of state administration developed, subject to multidirectional and largely contradictory trends. In determining the principles of regional policy, the autocracy faced an inevitable choice: to introduce a state-wide system of government or to provide Siberia with some administrative autonomy. Recognition of the special status of Siberia within the empire would lead to the legislative consolidation of the region's separateness, the formation of relations "Russia-Siberia" (center - region). Without resolving the question of principle - the colony of Siberia or the outskirts - the supreme power could not work out a strategy in managing this vast territory. Projects of territorial and administrative transformation of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior. In October 1818, Minister of the Interior O.P. Kozodavlev submitted a note to the Committee of Ministers on the administration of Siberia. It proposed to remove Pestel from the administration of the region, to appoint a new governor-general. . Establishment for the management of the Siberian provinces in 1822 and the reform of the management of Siberia in the 1820-1840s. As a result of the activities of the Siberian Governor-General M.M. Speransky prepared 10 draft legislative acts on the most important issues of management and legal regulation of the life of the Siberian Territory. They provided for the reform of the territorial and administrative structure of Siberia, stimulated the development of the economy and trade, streamlined the nature of the performance of duties by the population, determined the legal status of various categories of the population of the region (indigenous peoples, peasants, Cossacks, exiles, etc.). Together, these 10 acts were combined and received a common name - “Institution for the Administration of the Siberian Provinces” of 1822. An analysis of the main provisions of the “Institution for the Administration of the Siberian Provinces” allows us to highlight the principles of the proposed reforms, in particular: strengthening supervision over the actions of local authorities management by transferring supervisory functions to one of the central executive authorities; ensuring uniformity in the activities of various administrative bodies with a clear delineation of their competencies; the transfer of a certain amount of autonomy in dealing with affairs to each local body; taking into account by local authorities the specifics of specific Siberian regions in which they operate; taking into account the "variegated" social composition of the Siberian population in the activities of management structures at various levels; creation of a low-cost and operational management apparatus that combines the activities of the state administration with the inclusion in the implementation of its competence of local self-government of various categories of the population of the region and, especially, the tribal administration of indigenous Siberian peoples. In accordance with the "Siberian Institution" of 1822, the region was divided into Western and Eastern Siberia. Western Siberia was made up of the provinces: Tobolsk and Tomsk, as well as the Omsk region; Eastern Siberia - the provinces: Irkutsk and Yenisei, the Yakutsk region, and the Primorsky administrations also belonged to the Irkutsk region, including: Okhotsk and Kamchatka, and the Trinity-Sava border administration. Provinces and regions were divided into districts, and those, in turn, into volosts and foreign councils. The Administration of Siberia, in accordance with this division, had four links (degrees): 1) the Main Directorate; 2) Provincial administration; 3) District administration; 4) Volost and foreign administration. The main administration was the Governor-General and the Council. The establishment of the Soviets became an important feature of the ongoing reform. The main task of Speransky was to establish the rule of law in management. The reformer saw its solution in the creation of an administrative and legislative system that would put an end to abuses and arbitrariness. At the same time, the governor-general power was to become, first of all, a supervisory body. At the provincial level, a “main provincial administration” was formed, headed by the governor, under which a Council was formed with the competence to exercise general supervision over the actions of lower, district, administrative structures. Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces "included sections regulating the competence of the governor-general to manage various categories of the region's population, and provided for the creation of an appropriate system of administrative bodies. The development of imperial trends in state building at the beginning of the 19th century. led to the creation of new governing bodies of the Siberian city, at the same time management was improved within the existing links of the administrative apparatus. Cities became a place for organizing social control over the population of the district: comprehensive information about the life of the village was concentrated in the records management of the presence of places, the complaints and requests of the peasants were examined in the offices, the sentences of provincial and district courts were carried out in the squares, and punishments for violations were carried out. feudal law and order.

Conclusion The formation of the system of public administration in Siberia took place along the path of using general imperial principles and the beginning of managerial influence on the processes of life in Siberia, but on the basis of the flexible application of nationwide approaches and political and legal institutions, combining them with Siberian geopolitical features, taking into account the existing systems of traditional management and customary law of local peoples in order to incorporate the outlying territory into the state and ensure the geopolitical stability of the state. The main trends in the development of public administration in Siberia are the centralization and localization of power in the region while modeling a unified model of power relations, characteristic of the empire, in the course of building which relations "center - region" were formed, where the government acts as the central authority, and its local level and representative on the territory of Siberia - the Main Directorate headed by the Governor-General of Siberia as a whole, and after 1822 by the Governor-General of Western and Eastern Siberia. The system of public administration in Siberia was built on the basis of the experience of institutions that proved viability in the central part of the country, but taking into account the characteristics of the region, which was ensured by the legislative consolidation of exemptions from their general imperial legalizations without violating the general principles of focusing on the formation of a centralized management system from the level of the imperial center to the level of the Siberian region with the inclusion in it of all links in the management of Siberia. In the XVIII - first half of the XIX centuries. the supreme power consciously took into account the regional characteristics of Siberia, giving them the status of system-forming factors in the development of legislation in the field of state administration of the region, although a clearly defined concept and policy of regional administration was not developed. State administration in Siberia and local Siberian self-government were built taking into account the need for managerial influence and legal regulation of social relations among various categories of the Siberian population, which were formed in the course of free peasant colonization in conditions of predominance already at the beginning of the 18th century. and the constant growth of the Russian taxable population. Of great importance in the management of Siberia was the localization of management through the self-government of various social categories of the population within the Siberian society, which made it possible, in the conditions of compact residence of certain groups of the population, to ensure the managerial influence of the state on them through the appointment or approval of the leaders of self-governing communities. The organization of the system of Siberian public administration took into account the spatial and geographical features of the region, associated with the presence of territories with an undeveloped system of communications and posing the problem of complex localization of administrative functions at various levels of intra-Siberian public administration structures, which ensured the management of remote territories, but reduced the level and the possibilities of governor-general control and supervision of the central bodies of state administration over the activities of officials of the Siberian administration.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

Gergilev Denis Nikolaevich The development of the system of administrative management of Siberia in the XVIII - the first third of the XIX centuries: dissertation ... Candidate of Historical Sciences: 07.00.02 / Gergilev Denis Nikolaevich; [Place of protection: Kemer. state un-t].- Krasnoyarsk, 2010.- 200 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 10-7/323

Introduction

Chapter I. Development of the system of administrative control of Siberia in 1708-1763 26

1. The system of administrative management of Siberia in the first quarter of the 18th century 26

2. Features of the management of Siberia in the 1730s - 1760s 55

Chapter II. Changes in the development of the administrative management system of Siberia in 1763-1801 80

1. Reasons for the provincial reform of 1775 in Siberia 80

2. Changes in the administration and territorial structure of Siberia in 1796-1801 102

Chapter III. Directions of development of the system of administrative management of Siberia in 1801 - 30s of the XIX century 114

1. Search for a model of regional government in Siberia in 1801 - 1821 114

2. Implementation of the reforms of M. M. Speransky in the first third of the XIX century.. 139

Conclusion 164

List of sources and literature 169

Introduction to work

Relevance. In recent years, serious transformations of state power and administration in the Russian Federation have been carried out. These include the process of enlargement of the regions, as well as the appointment of governors by the representative body of the subject of the Federation on the proposal of the president. The importance of the dissertation research is determined by the fact that the future of the country to a large extent depends on the development of the regions.

Any changes in the regional governance system should be based on the study of historical traditions, innovations, including successes and failures in the country's governance system. This is necessary to understand the processes of centralization of the Russian state in the modern period. Studying the historical experience of the solution managerial problems can contribute to the development of a clearer state policy in relation to the regions of the Russian Federation, in particular Siberia.

In this connection historical experience, historical traditions, innovative approaches to the administrative-territorial structure of the country seem to be the most relevant.

The degree of scientific development of the topic. In the history of the study of the problem under study, several chronological stages can be distinguished: 1) XVIII - the first quarter of the XIX centuries; 2) the second quarter of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century; 3) 1920s - the second half of the 1980s; 4) 1990s - the beginning of the XXI century.

The collection and generalization of information about the administrative and legislative activities of Russia in the first century of the empire began by contemporaries. The activities of the local Siberian administration in the 18th century were written in their works by the publishers of city chronicles (A.K. Shtorkh), participants scientific expeditions(G.F. Miller, G.V. Steller, I.G. Gmelin, P.S. Pallas and others), as well as officials (I.K. Kirilov, V.N. Tatishchev). These works described mainly the attitude of the population towards local authorities. At this stage, this nature of the work was predominant.

Scientific, educational and reference literature related topics began to take shape in the mid-1840s, receiving a powerful impetus with the promulgation in 1830 of the Complete Collection of Laws Russian Empire».

One of the first attempts to present the history of public administration in Russia as a continuous process that has its own logic and deserves its own scientific study, in the 19th century was undertaken by K. I. Arseniev. The researcher wrote about the origin and the first, the longest, stage of the bureaucratization of management in Russia, associated with the development of the order system.

A critical attitude to the management of Siberia in the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries was inherent in the compilers of the official "Review of the main foundations of local government", designed to justify the need for the reform of 1822. True, it was published in a limited edition and was intended for official use.

In the 1850s - 1860s, in the context of the preparation and implementation of the reform of local government, I.E. Andreevsky was engaged in the study of its history.

In the 1860s - 1880s, the authors of journalistic and local history articles (N.S. Shukin, S.S. Shashkov, I.S. Moskvin) in publications of the "democratic" direction focused on describing the abuses of officials, primarily in East Siberian cities, where central control was weakest. I. S. Moskvin reported information about the most prominent Yakut governors of the 18th century, who for the most part either did not leave any memory of themselves or were known as "notorious robbers."

An attempt to explain the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of local government in Siberia in the 18th century was made by the Siberian intelligentsia: P. A. Slovtsov, V. I. Vagin, N. M. Yadrintsev. Representatives of the Siberian regionalism most consistently defended a critical attitude towards the local Siberian administration and perceived the administrative policy of the tsarist government in Siberia as part of the general "colonial" policy of the metropolis.

The initial theoretical basis of the works of B. N. Chicherin, A. V. Romanovich-Slavatinsky, I. E. Andreevsky, P. N. Mrochek-Drozdovsky was the conclusion of B. N. Chicherin about the strengthening of the state in the 17th - 18th centuries, as opposed to the developed " private law interests" inherent in feudal society. In local government, a great achievement of the state was the strengthening of "administrative centralization" with the subordination of "minor regional rulers" to the governor.

This concept was revised by A. D. Gradovsky. The introduction of the principle of collegiality, "separation of powers" (meaning only the specialization of government bodies) and the rule of law became a tool for increasing the efficiency of management.

In recent decade XIX century, the history of the administration of Siberia was considered in the framework of generalizing works of a compiling nature, based mainly on legislative materials and secondary sources. Without proposing new concepts to explain the history of governance in Siberia, historians have maintained an established view of the low efficiency of local government.

Thus, at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, in the study of the history of Siberia, there was a lack of both new theoretical concepts explaining the evolution of the administrative system of Siberia in the 18th - first third of the 19th centuries, and the lack of a source base for research on the history of local government from Peter I to Alexander I.

The historical and legal analysis of the administrative policy towards the Siberian region was carried out by S. M. Prutchenko. The author drew attention to the correlation of general imperial interests and regional needs, pointed out the need to take into account local characteristics in the process of making government decisions.

In the work of M. M. Bogoslovsky, the specific activities of local institutions were revealed on the basis of a study of extensive archival material, which made it possible to show the order of interaction between various institutions of local government and evaluate the effectiveness of their work in terms of the requirements of bureaucratic administrative legislation.

One can agree with the opinion of A.P. Shchapov, who noted that the Siberian merchants constituted a significant opposition to the local bureaucracy, which determined the essence of the government's approach to the management of the region.

Yu. V. Gauthier proposed to consider the history of local government in the following chronology: from Peter I to Catherine II. The scientist noted the specifics of Siberia. In his opinion, the features characteristic of the regional administration have developed in the region.

In general, pre-revolutionary historiography has accumulated quite a lot of information on the history of the administration of Siberia in the 18th - early 19th centuries. Historians and lawyers of that time studied domestic legislation in particular detail, and the clerical documentation of the government and local authorities was introduced into scientific circulation fragmentarily and illustratively.

The regional aspect of local government in the pre-Soviet period did not receive sufficient coverage. The researchers provided information about the work of administrative bodies various parts empires, including Siberia, in cases where these examples described situations typical of the entire system of local government.

In the Soviet period, the problems of economic and social history, the class struggle and the revolutionary movement were in the center of attention. V. I. Ogorodnikov, S. V. Bakhrushin, I. Barer and B. Syromyatnikov studied the relationship of representative bodies of state power in the field with the steppe alien tribal elite. The development of the bourgeois orientation of the reform of the Siberian government in 1822 within the framework of the all-Russian trends was studied by L. I. Svetlichnaya.

In Soviet historiography, the task of studying the management of Siberia in the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries remained without due attention for many years. In the 1920s-1940s, the study of the history of the administration of Siberia was reduced either to an analysis of the "colonial policy of tsarism" and the publication of archival materials illustrating this thesis, or to proving the progressive significance of Russian colonization of the remote outskirts.

An important event in the development of the historical science of the region was the 5-volume academic publication "History of Siberia", where the second and third volumes deal with the administrative management of Siberia in the 18th - 19th centuries.

The issues of organizing administration in Siberia in the 1720-1780s were considered by L. S. Rafienko. In her works, she correlated government policy towards Siberia with the general course of state development in the 18th century. Its research was built on the basis of studying the status and competence of local institutions, the personnel of the apparatus of local bodies, their practical activities, as well as the compliance of this activity with the requirements of the law.

S. M. Troitsky undertook a special study of the administrative management system and the role of the nobility in it. Subsequently, the researchers developed his conclusion that the chinoproizvodstvo of the 18th century is characterized by a clear preference for estate origin over personal merits.

In the 1980s-1990s, G.F. Bykonya and M.O. Akishin studied the system of administrative management in Siberia. According to G. F. Bykoni, “the social role of state-feudal relations at the late stage of the formational self-development of feudalism as a whole was contradictory. The contradictions between the actual position of the layer of officials and their class aspirations could not but manifest themselves in their official activities, contributing to various kinds of abuses and violations of bureaucratic administrative legislation. The researcher for the first time put forward the thesis that Siberian officials acted as carriers of private landlord and other relations of exploitation, occupying an unequal role in the private and mixed sectors of social production, exchange and distribution.

M. O. Akishin considered the mechanism of transition from the "sovereign" service to the state, analyzed the changes in the composition of the Siberian administration, traced the evolution of the structure of state administration and local self-government, and also highlighted the features of the application of administrative legislation in Siberia in the 18th century.

Modern theoretical approaches have allowed researchers to approach the rethinking of the main scientific categories of the history of the Russian Empire, to reach an interdisciplinary and serious comparative level of research into the history of the empire and national politics in Russia and the world. Researchers L. M. Dameshek, I. L. Dameshek. determined the place of Siberia in the socio-economic mechanisms of the state.

In comparative terms, the works of A. V. Remnev are valuable, who explores the features of the administrative-territorial model in Siberia and the Far East, the problems of organizing central and local governments, personnel policy on the outskirts, however, it does this mainly on the materials of Western Siberia and the Far East of the second half of XIX century.

In a number of articles by O. A. Avdeeva, the process of formation and evolution of the judicial system in Siberia was subjected to a detailed analysis, as part of the administrative mechanism by the region.

The problems of managing Siberia were often touched upon in biographical studies devoted to M. M. Speransky (V. A. Tomsinov, L. M. Dameshek, I. L. Dameshek, T. A. Pertseva, A. V. Remnev). However, if we take into account the influence of the “personal” factor on the process of determining the direction of government policy and its implementation, then the involvement of works of a historical and biographical nature becomes necessary. For example, the works of N.P. Matkhanova allow us to look at administrative policy through the prism of personal interests and ambitions of the highest administration. S. V. Kodan analyzed the legislative legacy of M. M. Speransky, especially the parts relating to the regulation of exile. From foreign authors highest value have studies by M. Raev devoted to M. M. Speransky and his reforms in Siberia.

Problems related to the management of Siberia were considered in foreign historiography (F. Golder, R. Kerner, J. Lantsev, P. Fisher). Following the Russian and then Soviet Siberian scholars, Western historians paid the most attention to the management of Siberia in the 18th century.

The British historian T. Armstrong and the West German researcher Y. Semyonov wrote about the government's lack of a clear plan for administrative policy and about the weakening of attention to the state of governance in Siberia in the 18th century. A. Wood, B. Dmitrishin, W. Lincoln noted the contradictions between the plans of the government and the actual activities of the Siberian administration. M. Bassin considered the problem of relations between Russia and Siberia from the position of the West-East dichotomy.

Thus, the analysis of historical literature allows us to conclude that, despite a significant number of studies close to the stated topic of the dissertation, no comprehensive and special study of the legislative policy of the imperial authorities in relation to the Siberian region has been undertaken.

Object of study in this paper is the administrative management of Siberia in the XVIII - the first third of the XIX century.

The subject of the study is the system, mechanisms and features of the functioning of the administrative authorities of Siberia as a structural-variant subdivision of the administrative system of the Russian Empire.

The purpose of the dissertation research is to identify trends and directions in the development of the system of administrative management of Siberia in the XVIII - the first third of the XIX centuries.

Achieving this goal involves solving the following tasks:

1) to characterize the development of the system of administrative control of Siberia in 1708 - 1763;

2) assess the reasons for the provincial reform of 1775 in Siberia;

3) to identify the nature of changes in the administration and territorial structure of Siberia in 1796-1801;

4) show the implementation of M.M. Speransky in Siberia in the first third of the 19th century.

Timeline of the study cover the period from 1708 to the 1830s. The lower bound is due to the start administrative reforms Peter I - 1708, the provincial reform. In this regard, the government, on the one hand, seeks to create the most complete administrative centralization with the unity of the supreme power, on the other hand, to strengthen and preserve the external power of the state. This led to the establishment of provinces and the emergence of a new authority - the governor. The upper boundary of the study is associated with the beginning of the implementation of the "Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces", approved by the emperor in 1822. The appearance of this document summed up a certain result of the evolution of the system of administrative control of Siberia in the 18th - the first third of the 19th centuries and served as the beginning of a special system of control in Siberia. The need to identify weaknesses and strengths"Institutions for the management of the Siberian provinces" in its implementation brings the upper limit of the study to the 30s of the XIX century.

Territorial scope of the study defined within the administrative boundaries of Siberia in the 18th - first third of the 19th centuries. In this study, the concept of "Siberia" includes, with a few exceptions, all territories east of the Urals, which became part of Russia in the 16th-18th centuries.

According to the administrative-territorial division, Siberia of the 18th - the first third of the 19th centuries consisted of the Siberian province (1708) and its constituents: Vyatka (until 1727), Solikamsk (until 1727), Tobolsk, Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces (1719 - 1724). ); Tobolsk and Irkutsk provinces (1764) of the "Siberian kingdom"; Tobolsk, Kolyvan and Irkutsk governorships (1782 - 1783); Tobolsk and Irkutsk provinces (1798); Siberian Governor General (1803 - 1822); West Siberian and East Siberian Governor General (1822).

Methodological and theoretical basis of the dissertation. The main general scientific and special historical research methods were used. Analytical, inductive and deductive methods, as well as the method of description were used as general scientific methods. In some cases, when describing events or phenomena, the method of illustration was used. The systematic approach implied the search for answers to questions about the reasons for the emergence of special Siberian legislation, about the factors that influenced its evolution and stages. In addition, one of the most used general scientific methods was the method of generalization.

The problem-chronological method made it possible to single out a number of narrow problems from broad topics, each of which was considered in chronological order. The historical-genetic (retrospective) method made it possible to show cause-and-effect relationships and patterns of development of the administrative system on the territory of Siberia in a specific historical period. This method was used to identify the role of the subjective, personal factor in historical development management systems in Siberia.

Special methods of historical and other sciences (methods of historicism, comparative analysis and statistical research) were also widely used in the dissertation research.

Source base of the dissertation. When writing the dissertation, the author used both published and unpublished sources. In general, the source base consisted of: 1) legislative acts and projects; 2) office materials; 3) materials of personal origin; 4) reference publications; 5) memories.

On the basis of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, a rather large amount of imperial legislation regarding Siberia from 1708 to the 1830s was analyzed. For this dissertation research, the legislative acts that determined the structure, composition and functions of local authorities were of interest: the order to governors and governors of 1728, the instruction to the governor of Siberia in 1741, the Instructions of 1764, the Special Secret Instruction of 1833.

Normative acts of the Russian Empire in relation to Siberia make it possible to determine the ratio of public and exploitative functions in relation to the Siberian region in state policy.

The records of local institutions allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of the administrative policy of the government. They can be divided into two subgroups: relations (correspondence of the institution) and internal documents. The first group is represented by: prescriptions, orders, orders, circulars, reviews, reports, reports, petitions, relations, official letters. From the documents of the internal office work of the institution, “reports”, administrative documents, official letters were used.

Of the greatest interest are the all-subject reports and reports of representatives of the local administration, which make it possible to identify the reasons for the appearance of certain laws, the process of their revision, revision or cancellation as part of their application in practice, to determine the degree of compliance of legislative norms with the real conditions and needs of the Siberian region.

In general, business documentation is important information about the organization, internal structure and competencies of the Siberian provincial administration, which was different at different historical stages. The implementation of specific legislative norms of the supreme administration in the field can be traced from the records management documentation of the provincial, provincial and county offices. It reproduces the duties of officials of the institution, allows you to explore its interaction with higher and local authorities, as well as to identify the composition and salaries of the Siberian bureaucracy.

Among the published sources of clerical character, the report of the Siberian Governor-General “Report of the Privy Councilor M. M. Speransky in the Review of Siberia with preliminary information and grounds for the formation of its administration” should be singled out. The materials of the report largely influenced the transformation of the government's view of the role of the Siberian region in imperial politics, determined the beginning of two stages in the history of relations between the "Russian Empire and Siberia": Speransky's position pushed the supreme government to move again from unified principles to a system of separate management of regions, especially with ethno-religious differences.

When studying the regional administration of Siberia, narrative sources were widely used - scientific works I. K. Kirilov, V. N. Tatishchev, G. F. Miller, P. S. Pallas, I. G. Gmelin, G. V. Steller; descriptions of the Tobolsk and Irkutsk governorships; memoirs and letters of officials, office notes O. P. Kozodavlev, I. B. Pestel, I. O. Selifontov and others; Siberian chronicles and notes of foreigners.

Documents of personal origin (memoirs of governors and governors-general), despite their inherent subjectivity, make it possible to identify different opinions and views on the system of government in Siberia among civil servants close to the system of government, contemporaries and direct observers. This type of sources is valuable for reconstructing the general conditions in which the implementation of the legislative policy of the autocracy took place; they contain personal characteristics of representatives of the local administration and bureaucracy.

An additional basis for the study was statistical data that allows us to talk about the personnel of the Siberian administration, about tax collections on the territory of Siberia.

The dissertation used materials from the federal and regional archives of the Russian Federation: the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, the Russian State Military Historical Archive, the State Archive of the Irkutsk Region, the State Archive Krasnoyarsk Territory, State Archives of the Tomsk Region, State Archives of the Omsk Region.

Widely used documentary written sources included in the funds of the local government of Siberia for 1700-1800, stored in the RGADA. These include current records management: documents of government commissions to resolve specific issues of legislation, administration and courts and to investigate abuses of officials; Correspondence of central and local authorities on the organization, management and functioning of the administrations of "provinces and provinces", reports on matters of internal administration. The documents of the archives also reflect the legislative activity of the emperors in relation to the administration of Siberia, statistical indicators of various types of accounting for data on Siberian officials (information on the states, on the class affiliation of officials, on salaries to officials in Siberian provinces for the 18th - first third of the 19th century).

The use of these sources, together with a comparative study of scientific literature, allowed the dissertation author to create a comprehensive study of the problems identified in the dissertation.

Scientific novelty of the research is that:

1) the relationship and interdependence of administrative reforms in Siberia in 1708 - 1760s was determined;

2) it was revealed that the implementation of the provincial reform of 1775 was influenced by a set of reasons: a) the peasant war led by E. Pugachev, b) the aggravation of the situation on the Russian-Chinese border, c) the strengthening of the centralization of local administrative management, requiring legislative registration;

3) it was established that the administrative transformations of 1797 were by their nature a new provincial reform, which provided for fundamental changes in the organization of local government;

4) it is proved that the reforms of M. M. Speransky did not fully resolve the issues of administrative management of Siberia.

The practical significance of the dissertation lies in the possibility of using the results of the study to determine the consequences of modern administrative changes in Siberia. These dissertations were used to teach historical disciplines and special courses on the history of Siberia and Russian history.

The System of Administrative Management of Siberia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century

In the first quarter of the 18th century, many transformations took place in Russia, affecting all spheres of life. In particular, the administrative-territorial appearance of Russia was changing. Siberia, as an important component of this appearance, played a significant role in common system state building. The specific features of the Siberian region were: an extended territory and vast distances from the capitals with an undeveloped system of communications, a harsh climate, sparse population and a multi-ethnic composition of the population. Features of the process of development of this region influenced the formation of the social structure of Siberian society.

The first stage of state building in Siberia (the end of the 16th - the beginning of the 18th centuries) coincided with the period of existence of the order system in the central apparatus and the local voivodship administration. A characteristic feature of that period was the creation and functioning of the Siberian order - one of several territorial orders. The main administrative-territorial unit of Siberia (as well as the whole country) was the county, headed by the governor. By the time of Peter the Great, all administration was distributed among the central institutions of the Muscovite state (orders) not by separate branches, but by districts, not systematically, but territorially.47 The prototype of the regional division was the ranks.

A new phase in the strengthening of autocratic power and the organization of local government in Russia begins in the 18th century. Peter I sought to achieve two main goals - the creation of the most complete administrative centralization with a single supreme power and the strengthening of the external power of the state. Under Peter I, a genuine cult of the institution, the administrative instance, began to be created. Not a single social structure - from trade to the church, from a private courtyard to a soldier's barracks - could exist without management, control, supervision by specially created general or special purpose bodies. As a model for the planned state reform, Peter the Great chose the Swedish state system, which was based on the principle of cameralism: the introduction of a clear bureaucratic principle into the management system, in which the structure of the apparatus was created on a functional basis.

Under these conditions, a new form of government of the feudal-serf state is taking shape in Russia - an absolute monarchy. The establishment of absolutism was marked by major changes in the principles of organization of the civil service, the introduction of bureaucratic principles and the formalization and unification of the activities of institutions and officials.

The destruction of the voivodship-prikaz system of government in Siberia occurred during the provincial reform of 1708. The reform was caused by the needs of the state to increase revenues and attract large masses of people to form the army and navy in the conditions of the Northern War. V. O. Klyuchevsky described its essence as follows: “The purpose of the reform was exclusively fiscal. Provincial institutions have received the repulsive nature of the press of squeezing money out of the population"

Reasons for the provincial reform of 1775 in Siberia

Catherine II at the beginning of her reign thought about the system of government of the Russian Empire. In the manifesto of 1762, the empress declared the need for a reform of the administration of Russia, promising “to legitimize such state institutions, according to which the government of our dear Fatherland, in its strength and belonging to the borders, would have its own course so that each public place had its own limits and laws for the observance of good order in everything. The state of Catherine II was to be based not only on the law, but also on enlightened subjects - a “new breed of people”, including honest bureaucracy. As one of the Senate decrees of that time stated, governors are appointed not “to receive food from the voivodeship”, but “according to their ability to carry out the tasks entrusted to them”.

Due to the remoteness of the region from the center in Siberia, there were commissions of inquiry to investigate cases of malfeasance. Commissions were created to analyze a denunciation or project. Denunciations concerning the actions of governors, vice-governors, governors, as well as those affecting broader issues throughout Siberia, for example, the collection of yasak, the smuggling of furs, were appointed by the Senate. The investigator was appointed by the Senate and had to not only stop regular abuses, but also come up with proposals for improving the region. Minor questions were investigated by the provincial office. The largest for this time was the case of the collegiate assessor P. N. Krylov, who, under the auspices of his patron, Prosecutor General of the Senate A. I. Glebov, committed major abuses in Siberia.

The identified malfeasance led to new transformations in the administrative management system. The development of a reform of local government began a month after the accession of Catherine P. By decrees of July 23 and August 9, 1762, she instructed the Senate to draw up new military and civilian states. The Senate entrusted the preparation of the draft to Prince Ya. P. Shakhovsky, who turned to F. I. Soimonov, a former Siberian governor, who is a senator and adviser "on Siberian affairs," for help. Local government, according to the project developed by Ya. P. Shakhovsky together with the Senate, had to undergo significant changes. Proposals for the administrative-territorial structure of Russia were associated with the creation of 7 general governments, 17 provinces, 30 provinces, 116 affiliated cities and 13 suburbs, in the institutions of which a total of 16,860 people were to correspond. Ya. P. Shakhovsky's project was discussed in the Senate and considered by the Empress, but was not approved. But the results of this work were not in vain. Based on the proposals of Ya. P. Shakhovsky, N. I. Panin and A. I. Glebov182, major legislative acts appeared: “On the States” of December 15, 1763, “Instruction to the Governor” of April 21, 1764 and a decree of October 11, 1764 year on the new administrative-territorial division. It is important to note that Catherine II considered these measures only as the beginning of the reform and promised her subjects "over time" "to try" to correct all the shortcomings of the country's governance. However, the adoption of legislative acts of the early 1760s led to important changes in the administrative-territorial division and the system of government in Russia.

Search for a model of regional administration of Siberia in 1801 - 1821

With accession to the throne, Alexander I continues the policy aimed at the centralization of power. Defiantly emphasizing his denial of the nature and methods of Pavlovian rule, he took many features of his reign, and in its main direction - further bureaucratization and centralization of government as a measure to strengthen the autocratic power of the monarch.

The socio-economic processes of the late 18th - early 19th centuries in Siberia required a revision of the system of administrative management of the region. Thus, the Siberian population from 1795 to 1850 doubled from 595 thousand souls to 1 million 210 thousand male souls257. In terms of population growth, Siberia was ahead of the central regions of the Russian Empire. The proportion of the population of Siberia in relation to Russia increased from 3.26% to 4.32%. Population growth outpaced the development of the region's economy.

The administrative reforms of the highest and central levels of state power were poorly coordinated with local government, the principles of which were laid down by Catherine II. decentralization of power. The governor-general and the governor, being outside the hierarchy of supreme power, personified the link between the central and local administrations. The governor-general, being included in the system of local government, had to simultaneously be the head of local government and exercise the function of supervision. However, he did not have the right to issue binding decrees, change the staff list of institutions, dispose of financial resources, which led to contradictions in the system of administrative management of the territory.

On June 13, 1801, the Permanent Council decided that governors-general were needed not only for the frontier territories, but everywhere. In the first years of his reign, the needs of the Siberian administration fell into the field of view of the government of Alexander I. One of the influential dignitaries, Count A. R. Vorontsov, expressed doubts about the applicability of the “Institution for the Administration of Provinces ...” to Siberia. The indispensable council decided to restore the governor-general in Siberia. And in order to study local conditions, he proposed sending a “special official” to Siberia, who would present a draft of a new administrative structure.

Senator Ivan Osipovich Selifontov was sent to Siberia as an auditor, who was instructed to develop a project of administrative transformations of the territories entrusted to him 5 . The senator had experience of working in Siberia, since in the 90s of the 18th century he served as vice-governor in Tobolsk, and in 1796 he was appointed governor-general in Irkutsk260. He was given a special instruction, which stated that "the Siberian region in terms of its space, in terms of the differences in its natural position, in terms of the state of the peoples inhabiting it, mores and customs" needs "the very image of management of a special decree" based on a reliable representation of local circumstances, “which, in all their details, it is impossible to comprehend and bring into proper unity at such a great distance.”