Management of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. State administration of Siberia at the end of the 19th - the first third of the 20th centuries

Sheveleva A.A., Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure of the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Candidate of Historical Sciences.

The issues of the efficiency of the system of state administration of regions in pre-revolutionary Russia, little studied in Russian science, are considered on the example of Siberia in the first half of the 19th century. The author gives an assessment of the state of organization of regional authorities on the territory of Western Siberia.

One of the most difficult problems in the history of public administration in Russia is the problem of efficiency and rationalization of the system of administration of Russian regions, in accordance with the goals and needs of a large state on the territory, on the successful solution of which the integrity of our country largely depends. According to the researchers, it is the lack of proper management on the part of the subjects of power, the oblivion of the interests of controlled objects that inevitably leads to an increase in tension and conflicts.<1>. This thesis is confirmed by our entire centuries-old history with existing and existing regional problems.

<1>Atamanchuk G.V. Management: essence, value, efficiency. M., 2006. S. 59 - 60.

When studying the problem of efficiency in management, we proceed from the fact that this category characterizes the degree of success of the management system in achieving its goals.<2>. The purpose of public administration, according to A.I. Elistratov, is the implementation of the tasks of the state within the legal order<3>. In the public administration system of pre-revolutionary Russia, the region played the role of a managed object, consisting of a set of interrelated and interdependent elements that needed effective organization. One of these elements that make up this set were regional authorities, the effectiveness of which was influenced by the correct definition of their powers and the existence of an effective system of state control. As the modern researcher D.N. Bahrach, the settlement of the implementation public authority system of legal norms on competence, implementation and strict adherence to these norms - essential conditions compliance with the law, and therefore effectiveness in order to legal regulation <4>. Consequently, the effectiveness of management is achieved under the condition that there is an orderliness of managerial relations and connections of the system capable of performing the assigned tasks in order to maintain stability in society.

<2>The functioning of the state apparatus of government / Ed. ed. Yu.A. Tkachenko. M., 1998. S. 59.
<3>Elistratov A.I. Textbook of Russian administrative law. Issue. 1. M., 1910. S. 4.
<4>Bahrakh D.N. Jurisdiction of legal cases and its levels // SPS "ConsultantPlus".

When considering issues of improving the efficiency of regional management, the reconstruction of regional policy deserves special attention. Russian Empire in the pre-reform period, which is characterized by attempts to link national and local interests while maintaining and strengthening imperial structures. The Siberian direction in this policy occupied far from the last place. This is evidenced by the administrative transformations of the early 20s of the 19th century, the activities of the Siberian committees, repeated Senate revisions and the constant attention to the "Siberian issues" of the emperor himself.<5>. The search for new administrative approaches to the management of Siberia was due to the negative results of the existing system regional government, introduced everywhere on the territory of the empire by the provincial reform of 1775. Implementation of the Institution for the management of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire in 1775<6>on the territory of Siberia did not provide, unlike the central provinces, effective state-administrative activity, which required the central government to revise the management system of this region, taking into account its specific features. And the point is not that the norms of the Institution did not work in the Siberian space, it’s just that the management of the region was always based on the principle of the emperor’s unlimited trust in the appointed regional ruler, who was endowed each time with more and more “special powers”, which was due to the need for proper management and control over the annexed territory. However, more often than not, this ended in even more "egregious riots" associated with the abuse of office.

<5>Ivonin A.R. Imperial center and management of the West Siberian region in the pre-reform period: a possible approach to the study // Regional management of Siberia in the panorama of centuries: Collection of scientific papers. Art. / Ed. A.R. Ivonina, A.A. Sheveleva. Barnaul, 2008, p. 51.
<6>Establishment for the management of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire from 1775 // Russian legislation of the X - XX centuries. T. 5. M., 1985.

Administrative reform of the 20s of the XIX century. an attempt is being made to rationalize the management system in Siberia by building new structure and organizing regional governments to establish the rule of law and order. The rule of law was to become a property of public administration by strengthening the role of legal means and levers in the management of regions, since the state mechanism of governance marginal territories, including the Siberian region, has been faltering for many years, and the political will has not been transferred to local performers. Any state, regardless of form state structure, cannot exist for a long time without a strong and capable regional government that implements its tasks everywhere to achieve national goals. In a study of that time, which describes the socio-political state of Siberia for the first half of XIX c., it is noted that "the power of the governor-general was not determined by sufficient rules, was not limited by any public establishment, and this power, due to the lack of nobility and the peculiarities of the composition of the population, acted without supervision and responsibility, therefore it often degenerated into autocracy. Due to the lack of rules, weak supervision, a system of government that is not characteristic of either distances, or local position, or the type of population, must of necessity have arisen and, indeed, there have arisen those disorders and abuses that in Siberia until 1819 were repeatedly noticed, but so significantly and not fixed"<7>.

<7>Review of the main foundations of local government in Siberia. SPb., 1841. S. 17 - 18.

Thus, administrative transformations were aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the management system in Siberia through the creation of a different structure of regional authorities and levels of execution. management decisions. The reform was based on the following tasks - improving supervision and control, streamlining the functions carried out by authorities that were previously mixed in several, systematizing office work and creating special bodies to manage individual peoples living in Siberia, which in general allows us to talk about the creation special mechanism state administration of a separate region.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the new system of regional management allows for a comparative analysis of revisions in Siberia by M.M. Speransky before its introduction and N.N. Annenkov after several years of its existence. The results of these audits show that behind the general negative assessment of the governance of Siberia lie serious differences. If M.M. Speransky believed that in Tobolsk almost all officials could be put on trial, and in Tomsk "it would only be left to hang everyone directly," N.N. Annenkov concerned mainly shortcomings in the delimitation of powers between power structures and omissions in terms of office work<8>. Considering the indicators of the actions of the authorities, as well as the results of their activities, one can note a certain orderliness in their functioning. First of all, a system of management document flow is being formed, procedures for the implementation of management decisions are being streamlined, mechanisms are being worked out to improve the management system from below, through the proposals of the participants themselves - employees of the regional apparatus. One of the indicators of the effectiveness of public administration is the state of social sphere, and as evidenced by statistical reports and data from archival documents, then on the territory of the West Siberian Governor General in the second quarter of the 19th century. there was no information about any noticeable scale of social tension.

<8>Ivonin A.R. Decree. op. pp. 62 - 63.

It should also be taken into account that the level of efficiency of regional governments was largely influenced by the economic and cultural development of the Siberian region. The negative moment was primarily the exile, which significantly influenced the level of public consciousness. In addition, the low level of legislation regulating other spheres of public life was an obstacle to the successful functioning of regional authorities.

Thus, if after the reform of the regional governance system Siberia did not turn into an exemplary realm of law and order, then nevertheless it is a positive experience in solving national problems in a separate region and an attempt to develop a concept of regional governance based on the rule of law. The set of normative legal acts adopted, aimed at improving the management system of Siberia, not only established the procedure for the functioning of new authorities, but also contained mechanisms for the implementation of management decisions, a system for monitoring material resources, as well as measures of responsibility. officials. Today, it is precisely these criteria that are mandatory requirements for the content of anti-corruption legislation. In general, the legal registration of the forms of activity of regional authorities has made it possible to significantly modernize the system of regional governance in Siberia. Besides historical heritage to improve the mechanism for managing individual regions laid down the traditions used today in modern management activities. However, when creating new forms of management activity in Siberia, the interests of the center were taken as the basis, without taking into account the socio-economic interests of the region itself.

The following reasons became obstacles in achieving all the goals set by the administrative reform in Siberia:

1. lack of education and lack of practical skills in working with documents among local officials, while with the increase in the flow of normative legal acts, the work on their implementation was constantly becoming more complicated, the result was a low legal culture of employees, which was directly reflected in the sense of legality;
2. shortcomings in the management system itself, which were expressed in the insufficient functional separation of regional authorities from central ones;
3. the presence of discrepancies in the definition of the powers of some provincial officials to implement laws and the absence of official regulations, which led to the presence of parallelism and duplication in the work of administrative structures;
4. lack of consistency in the implementation of state control.

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) Presence of areas special administration- mountainous regions and 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. Aboriginal people were allowed to give their children to government educational establishments to open their 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, administrative reform on the management of 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 metropolis, 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.

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."

Creation of specific peripheral power institutions in the highest degree 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, came into conflict with the preservation of governor-generals as institutions that did 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 governors-general 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 administration 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 Affairs 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, administrative policy 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 policy of modification 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 issues of current diplomatic relations with neighboring peoples and countries. The absence of noble land ownership 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 government in the emerging empire, which was later reflected in the “Instructions” to the Siberian governor in 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. In the course of the provincial reform, within the framework of the regional administration, specialized financial bodies were retained, and a departmental mining administration 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 in the early nineteenth century. 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 the ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management of the provincial institution of 1775 in this respect, but 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 assigned to the ministries lost contact with each other to such an extent that there was a disconnect between the institutions of the 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 took place 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 as part of the empire would lead to the legislative consolidation of the separateness of the region, 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 develop 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 management 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, complaints and requests from peasants were dealt with in the offices, 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 public administration system 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 state 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 peculiarities of the region, which was ensured by the legislative consolidation of withdrawals 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.

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 the government policy of the early XIX century. in relation to Siberia, he gave Siberian legislation an inconsistent, inconsistent, and 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 the ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management of the Provincial institution of 1775 in this respect, but rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine's local government. The inconsistency of the beginnings, incorporated 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 subjugated the provincial establishment not only in the order of supervision, but also in the order of management. The provincial institutions assigned to the ministries lost their connection with each other to such an extent that there was a disconnect between the institutions of the various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposite influences, the phenomenon 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 being swallowed up 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 took place 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 subjects of competence of local and central institutions as necessary condition 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 fundamentally resolving the question - the colony of Siberia or the outskirts - the supreme power could not work out a strategy in managing this vast territory.

Projects of the 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, appoint a new governor-general and provide him with special instructions. The instruction should be drawn up only after the reasons for the failures of the former Siberian governors-general have been clarified. Kozodavlev condemned the unbridled desire to uncontrollably strengthen local authorities, while, on the contrary, it was necessary to put it under the effective supervision of central institutions. To do this, he proposed to establish a Supreme Council, partly from officials appointed by the government, and partly from Siberian residents elected from different classes. The chairman of the council - the governor-general - was supposed to have an advantage only in case of equality of votes, but he could also suspend the implementation of the council's decision with the obligatory notification of this to the interested minister. Such a structure of the Siberian government was supposed to put the governor-general under double control - both from the side of the central government (branch ministries) and from representatives of society (estates). Kozodavlev also proposed, relying on the experience of the Baltic magistrates, to strengthen urban self-government in Siberia, which would bring undoubted benefits to trade, industry and education. Kozodavlev's project and the decision of the Committee of Ministers to appoint an audit of the Siberian administration under the leadership of Senator M.M. Speransky marked the beginning of a new stage in the views of the government on the system of governance in the region. Supreme power by the end of the 1810s comes to the realization that the shortcomings are not in individuals, but in the very system of local government in Siberia, the reform of which becomes a problem within the geopolitical order.

Revision M.M. Speransky, it was found that the reform of the Siberian administration was complicated by the need to fight against abuses, with a personal beginning, alien and indigenous areas of the Russian state. The activity of a special body for reviewing the results of the management audit - the Siberian Committee - was supposed to resolve the issue of setting local government on a clear legislative basis, introduce a system of effective control over the legality of the activities of local officials in conditions of extreme remoteness from the government and sparsely populated region. I had to coordinate general rules management of the empire with the needs, needs and conditions of the vast Siberian region.

Revision of the administration of Siberia and the provisions of the reform of public administration in the region, developed by 1822 by M.M. Speransky, determined the basic principles of the administrative-territorial structure of the Asian region of the Russian Empire, corresponding to the needs of the time. Speransky's transformations meant the recognition by the supreme power of the need to establish a system of special administration in Siberia, which, in turn, testified to the formation of views on the "outlying" regional policy. This was the first attempt to approach the management of the vast, resource-rich region in a comprehensive manner, which indicated the emerging desire to develop a government concept of attitude towards Siberia, a holistic program for its administrative and economic development.

One of the most significant constituent parts Russia, both in the pre-Soviet period and at present, is Siberia. it geographical name, several centuries ago was common to all territories beyond the Urals. For many Russians, even today it combines the Urals, Western and Eastern Siberia, as well as Far East, that is, 87% total area Russian Federation.

The entry of Siberia into our country accelerated the development of this region. However Russian government immediately faced with the difficulties associated with the management of this territory. It was necessary to keep the acquired lands, suppress the protests of the disaffected, establish diplomatic relations with Asian countries, develop trade, open crafts, colonize the country and provide it with food. The situation was complicated by the fact that Siberia was far from government supervision - Moscow and St. Petersburg. As a result, in the exercise of central control of Siberia in the pre-Soviet period, the supreme power faced difficulties even more significant than those faced by modern Russian authorities.

In the ruling circles of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, the main idea was the retreat on the outskirts of the country from the universal nationwide administrative and political structure. The significant size of the territory, ethnic and social heterogeneity of the population, remoteness from the center complicated the management of Siberia. In addition, by the beginning of this time, the profitability of this territory had sharply decreased. The desire to take into account local specifics was reflected in the legislation of 1803-1806. In 1803, by personal decree of Alexander I, it was entrusted to Privy Councilor I.O. Selifanov to conduct a survey of Siberia and put forward his proposals on how it is more convenient to divide Siberia and what special laws are needed for it.

In 1803 a new administrative reform was carried out. The post of governor-general, abolished in 1877, was restored. By a personal decree "On the manner of governing these provinces," the competence of the governor-general expanded even more, his rights and duties were determined. He was the supreme representative of the royal power in Siberia. The governors of all Siberian provinces and the head of Kamchatka were subordinate to him. The supreme administrative power was concentrated in the hands of the Governor-General: he was entrusted with the supervision of the activities of all administrative and economic structures. He approved the decisions of judicial institutions, ruled over the Siberian national minorities; all the troops located on the territory of Siberia were subordinate to him. He could, at his own discretion, remove "negligent" officials, except for governors, vice-governors, and heads of chambers. In fact, it was a return to the management system of Peter the Great.

The main tasks of the governor-general were as follows: to ensure the proper and accurate performance by officials of their duties, to promote the spread of agriculture, to take care of the settlement beyond Baikal; to eradicate in Siberia "the spirit of quarreling and sneak" by punishing scammers in court; see that, apart from the established dues and duties, no others are established, leave the yasaks with their own rights and customs, and see that no one interferes in their affairs.

The Office of the Governor General was divided into 4 departments:

• the department was in charge of affairs and relations with the ministry and justice;
• branch - affairs and relations with the Ministry of Finance;
• department - with the ministries of foreign, internal, spiritual affairs and education;
• department - affairs and relations with the War Department. .

During the transformations of 1803-1806. measures were also envisaged to increase the provincial and district administrative apparatus. In 1804 the number of counties was reduced from 33 to 23-25. Due to the low population density, they were divided into commissariats, the Tomsk province was created with a staff of institutions; in the Tomsk and Irkutsk provinces, instead of boards, governments were established with two expeditions - executive and state (instead of state chambers). The Siberian governor-general during this period was I.O. Selifontov. In 1806 he was replaced by I.B. Pestel (until 1819). In 1819, M.M. was appointed Governor-General of Siberia. Speransky. He had to draw up a draft of the reforms necessary for Siberia and personally present it to the tsar.

On July 28, 1821, the Siberian Committee was established in St. Petersburg to consider the draft submitted by Speransky. In July 1822, a new administrative reform began to be carried out, the system of institutions of which was more in line with the conditions of the Siberian Territory. Additional units of the state apparatus were created. All Siberia was divided into Western and Eastern; they organized the main departments consisting of the governor-general and 6 members of the Council. In the provincial system public institutions advisory - collegiate general administrations (civil governor and provincial council) appeared. The former sectoral bodies were concentrated in private administration - provincial boards, state chambers, courts, and prosecutorial affairs.

The regional apparatus did not have a standard. For example, in Omsk, a structure similar to the provincial one was used. In Yakutsk, the simplest organization was adopted - only the head and the board without branch structural parts. At the third stage were institutions of district competence (former county). Districts were differentiated by categories (population was taken into account).

The I category included populous counties: Tyumen, Tarsky, Ishimsky, Kainsky, Tomsky, Yenisei, Minusinsky, Verkhne and Nizhneudinsky, Nerchinsky. They introduced general (district chief, council of representatives of branch institutions) and private (district and zemstvo courts, state administration, prosecutorial affairs) district administrations. Category II included uyezds with average population, in which only private branch management was introduced. This included in the Tobolsk province - Tobolsk, Berezovsky, Turin, Yalutorovsky, Kurgan, Tyukalinsky counties; in Tomsk - Kolyvansky, Barnaulsky, Kuznetsky, Charyshsky (Biysky); in the Yenisei - Achinsk, Kansk, Krasnoyarsk; in Irkutsk - Irkutsk, Kirensky. III category made up sparsely populated counties, where there was only a district police officer, a district doctor: in the Yakutsk region - Vilyuysky, Olekminsky, Verkholensky, Srednekolymsky counties; in Okhotsk - Okhotsk and Chizhiginsky; in Kamchatka - Petropavlovsk .. In addition, the reform created special management bodies for certain sectors of the economy and categories of the population.

The administrative reform of 1822, in principle, did not affect the foundations of the management system in Siberia. It did not limit the powers of the head of the local government apparatus. The advisory body - the Council - was completely dependent on him. The Governor General was the conductor domestic policy local absolutism. Along with the growth of the competence of the governor-general, there is also an increase in the responsibility and power of governors, the separation of their offices from the provincial government into independent institutions.

After 1822, the administrative structure of Siberia did not change radically. Partial transformations were carried out in the Omsk region and in the organization of new regions on the eastern outskirts of Siberia.

Thus, the development of political and administrative institutions at the beginning of the XIX century. reflected the complication of the tasks of the state in the conditions of development, and then the crisis of feudal relations. This was expressed primarily in the compaction of the administrative structure and the rationalization of management. In Siberia, the rationalization of administration was expressed in the multiplication of the number of temporary committees, elected bodies, in taking into account the internal regional characteristics of this territory. A distinctive feature of this period was that the local administration provided for the specialization of the activities of institutions of a judicial, financial, and administrative profile.

Bibliographic list:

1. Review of the Fund of the Siberian Governor-General. Omsk. 362s.
2. Rabtsevich V.V Siberian city in the pre-reform management system. Novosibirsk: M., 625p.