Government in the 17th century and the political system:
During the reign of the first Romanovs, the number of representatives from the lower classes increased in the Zemsky Sobor. Representatives of all estates received from voters " orders”(wishes) and defended them before the king. But with the gradual strengthening of royal power, the cathedrals began to be held less and less, since the ruler no longer needed their support. The Zemsky Sobor never became a parliament. The representation of the lower strata gradually decreased, with the growth of serfdom, and in 1653 the last council was held.
Thought during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, it increased 5 times, since he owed his accession to the throne, including the boyars. The work of the Duma was controlled by the tsar, but it was rather difficult to resolve issues with hundreds of boyars. Therefore, from the Duma was allocated " near» part, with a significantly smaller number of participants. The Near Duma eventually became the main one.
The number of orders(now in Russia they are called departments). There were about 100 of them. Here are some of them:
Posolsky Prikaz - responsible for foreign policy;
State order - the values of the royal family;
Local order - land, taxes;
Petition order - considered petitions from subjects;
Order of secret affairs (founded under Alexei Mikhailovich) - a personal order of the tsar, who controlled the work of everyone, including the boyars, which made the tsar's power absolute over everyone;
And other orders.
The system of orders was not very convenient, since their duties were not clearly delineated between them. And there were too many between orders red tape(high difficulty in reaching agreements between the two orders).
Royal power. At the head of the state system of Russia in the 17th century, as before, was the tsar. He had the right to legislate and all the fullness of the executive power; he was the supreme judge and commander in chief. The new dynasty, although it had the source of its status from the election of Mikhail Romanov by the Zemsky Sobor, was transferred to the old ideological justification for royal power: its divine origin and hereditary character. The decision of the Zemsky Sobor only confirmed the divine providence.The way of life of the tsar, in rare cases appearing before the people, put him on an unattainable height. The magnificent title, adopted under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), testified to the tsar's great claims to foreign policy influence. In the second half of the 17th century, a new trend in the development of the state system was clearly outlined - a gradual transition from a class-representative monarchy to an absolute one.
In Russia, absolute monarchy was formed in the process of Peter the Great's reforms, but since the middle of the 17th century, measures aimed at strengthening the autocratic power of the sovereign have been clearly traced. Special chapters of the Council Code of 1649 were devoted to the protection of life and honor, as well as the health of the king. The concept of a state crime was introduced, and no distinction was made between a crime against the state and an action directed against the person of the king. The protection of order was established inside the royal court or near the residence of the sovereign.
In the second half of the 17th century, there was a process of increasing the personal power of the monarch in the field of supreme administration. Personal decrees appeared, that is, legal acts issued on behalf of the tsar and without the participation of the Boyar Duma. Of the 618 decrees of Alexei Mikhailovich, 588 were nominal. And although they, unlike the verdicts of the Boyar Duma, concerned secondary issues, the very fact of their presence testified to the strengthening of the autocratic principle in management. The practice of reports to the tsar by the chiefs of the most important orders was also established. Indicative is the creation in the middle of the 17th century of the Order of Secret Affairs - the personal office of the tsar, which allowed him to do without the Boyar Duma in solving the most important state issues. Performing at first the functions of the secret police and the class court, the order later became the body of the monarch's personal control over the administration.
Of particular relevance in the second half of the 17th century was the question of the relationship between the state and the church. Patriarch Nikon, striving to turn the Russian Church into the center of world Orthodoxy, in 1653 embarked on church reforms. Their goal is the unification of rites and the correction of liturgical books according to Greek models. Nikon's reforms were supported by the authorities, but the result was a split in the Russian Orthodox Church into the official and Old Believers.
Gradually, Nikon began to claim primacy, arguing that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom. The theocratic habits of the patriarch led to his conflict with the sovereign. In 1666, a church council, held with the participation of the eastern patriarchs, having approved Nikon's church innovations, decided to remove the reformer from the patriarchal throne. The fall of Nikon marked the beginning of the process of subordination of the church to the state.
Boyar Duma. The Duma still included representatives of the four Duma ranks: boyars, roundabouts, Duma nobles and clerks. Over the course of a century, the composition of the Duma has doubled, and the number of Duma nobles and clerks has especially increased. In the 17th century, representatives of 85 families of petty Russian nobility became duma nobles. In the 70s. In the 17th century, there were 97 people in the Duma: 42 boyars, 27 roundabouts, 19 duma nobles, 9 duma clerks. That is, the aristocratic character of the Duma still remained, although the proportion of nobles and clerks grew. The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body in matters of legislation, administration, and the courts. The beginning of the 17th century was a period of noticeable growth in the influence of the Duma, since the royal power was weakened during the Time of Troubles. According to G. Kotoshikhin, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich "although he was written as an autocrat, he could not do anything without boyar advice." In the 17th century, the role of the Boyar Duma gradually declined, which was one of the signs of the strengthening of absolute monarchy in Russia.
Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century. After the Time of Troubles, there were changes in the composition, work schedule and powers of Zemsky Sobors. At the electoral Council of 1613, along with representatives of the nobility, the boyars, the clergy, the townspeople (for the first and last time), deputies from the ordinary clergy and the black-haired palace peasantry were invited. Since that time, elected deputies began to numerically predominate over the official part of the cathedrals. Elections were held:
from the capital's nobility and merchants - by rank;
from service people "according to the instrument" - according to combat units;
from the nobles of the "city police" - by class corporations;
from "hard people" (capital and city) - by communities.
The deputies were elected at local gatherings, in county towns - at the call and under the supervision of the governor. The elected were sent to Moscow along with the minutes of the meeting, the discharge order checked the correctness of the elections. Deputies received orders from voters. From a government agent, a deputy of the cathedrals of the 17th century becomes a people's petitioner (V.O. Klyuchevsky).
The royal power, weakened after the Time of Troubles, needed the support of "the whole earth." Zemsky sobors in this period turned into administrative authorities, representatives of the nobility and townspeople played a decisive role.
Between 1613 and 1622 the cathedrals operated almost continuously and almost all of them are devoted to financial matters. The government, in order to fill the treasury, introduced emergency taxes and resorted to loans, often directly turning to the deputies with a request for gratuitous assistance. Collecting money by voluntary subscription has become a practice. The cathedral rescued the treasury, but did not ask for any rights in return.
The status of cathedrals in the 17th century remained uncertain: either legislative or legislative. The dates for the convocation of councils, their composition, competence, and attitude towards the highest state institutions were not documented. The electors themselves looked at the cathedral as an auxiliary tool of power and showed indifference to the zemstvo representation. The deputies were serving their service, and the voters were reluctant to attend the congresses, often on the secondary agenda of the governors. The minutes of the councils recorded the mood of class disunity and even hostility. All classes complained about the inequality "in hardships", each class looked into the pocket of another. Political alienation, according to Klyuchevsky, grew from cathedral to cathedral.
Such sentiments allowed the ruling dynasty to refuse to convene councils as soon as this was no longer needed. During the second decade of the reign of Mikhail Romanov - from 1622 to 1632 - they did not gather; in the period from 1632-1653. - were convened rarely and on very important issues: the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, the uprising in Pskov, Russian-Polish, Russian-Crimean relations, the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the question of Azov. After 1683-1684 Cathedral activity is fading away. The monarchy ceases to need the support of the councils; its main support is the army and the bureaucracy.
Reasons for the collapse of cathedrals (according to V.O. Klyuchevsky):
- lack of official status;
- strengthening autocracy;
- serfdom, which placed the vast majority of the population of Russia outside the scope of cathedrals;
- class disunity, clearly manifested at the last councils;
- the predominance of a servile political culture over a civil one: the deputies and the population who elected them perceived participation in councils as a duty imposed from above.
Command control system. The 17th century saw the heyday of the command system of government. The largest group was formed by national orders, subdivided, in turn, into administrative and judicial-police, regional (territorial), military and financial. They were directly under the jurisdiction of the Boyar Duma: many of its members headed orders, and their decisions were approved at its meetings. Another group of orders were palace orders, which were subordinate to the king and managed his property. The third group included patriarchal orders that managed patriarchal property, as well as adjudicating crimes against the faith.
A characteristic feature of the command system of administration was the diversity and uncertainty of the functions of orders. There was no clear delineation of competence between orders. During the existence of the order system, an act was never prepared and issued that regulated the organization and procedure for the operation of orders on a national scale.
Serious restructuring in order to simplify and further centralize the order system was undertaken in the 80s: an attempt to combine all financial issues in an enlarged order of the Great Treasury; measures to concentrate all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and cases of service - in the Bit with their withdrawal from the jurisdiction of territorial orders.
In total, by 1698 in Russia there were 26 orders of national competence (permanent), 1 temporary, 6 palace, 3 patriarchal and 19 other higher city and palace institutions.
At the head of the orders was the chief-judge, mainly from members of the Boyar Duma, some of them controlled several orders at once. The assistant judges were clerks. The clerks were recruited mainly from the ordinary nobility or from the clergy. They decided cases, pronounced sentences, receiving for their service a local salary of up to 600 quarters of land and a cash salary of up to 240 rubles a year. They were subordinated to clerks from the nobility and children of clerks - clerks, who served at first without a salary, then, as they gained experience, received a salary of 1-5 rubles a year; the senior clerk could count on an annual salary of 60-65 rubles.
In the second half of the XVII century. there was a significant increase in the number of clerks: in 1664, there were 882 people in orders, in 1698. - 2762 people. By this time, small orders with one or three clerks are absorbed by larger ones.
The average becomes an order with a staff of 20-40 people. Such orders as Local, Discharge, Great Treasury, Great Palace, numbered two to four hundred orders. In large orders, a branched internal structure developed. They were subdivided into tables, and tables - into povity. The table was headed by a deacon, howling - by a clerk. Most often, povyas were formed according to the territorial principle, had a serial number or were named after the clerk who headed them.
The command system, with its centralization, bureaucracy and lack of control, gave rise to red tape, abuse and bribery.
Local government. In the 17th century, labial and zemstvo huts, elected by the population, continued to function on the ground. At the same time, now they actually fell into submission to the governors. In 1625 governors were appointed to 146 cities with counties. The voivode obeyed the order that was in charge of the corresponding city with the county. Voivode service life - from 1 to 3 years; for it he received local and monetary salaries. In large cities there were several governors. The terms of reference of the governor: administrative and police functions, guarding the borders, searching for fugitives, recruiting service people, collecting taxes, supervising the condition of roads, the activities of labial and zemstvo elders. A number of officials were subordinate to the governor: siege, bypass, prison, security, Cossack, barn, pit, Pushkar, customs and tavern heads.
Rice. 5. Local government in the 17th century
In the 20-30s of the XVII century. a type of local institutions is being formed, called prikazhny huts (voivodship, congress). The personnel of the command huts were divided into permanent and temporary parts. The temporary part consisted of governors, clerks, sometimes clerks with an inscription, sent to the city for 1 - 3 years by the appropriate order. The permanent part included local clerks who worked by choice or hired on a permanent basis.
Since the middle of the 17th century, with the expansion and strengthening of state borders, the number of clerk's huts has sharply increased. The reorganization of the armed forces led to the creation of military districts-ranks, territorially overlapping the boundaries of counties. In the discharges, an intermediate link of management is formed - discharge huts with extended military-administrative functions.
So, in the 17th century, features of bureaucratization appeared in the state apparatus of Russia, which consisted in the appearance of a whole chain of institutions and bodies subordinate to each other (Boyar Duma - order - governor), the creation of a hierarchical ladder of officials (the judge of the order - clerks - clerks). At the same time, it should be noted that there are non-bureaucratic institutions in Russia - Zemsky Sobors (until 1684) and Zemstvo governments at the lowest level. The cumbersomeness and irrationality of the order system, the lack of a personnel training system, reduced the efficiency of the state apparatus, did not meet the needs of the new time.
Control questions and tasks
1. Why did Moscow become the new center for the unification of Russian lands?
2. How did the role of the Boyar Duma in state administration change during the 15th-17th centuries?
3. What were the features of the command management system?
4. Reveal the tendencies of Russia's transition in the 17th century from a class-representative to an autocratic monarchy.
5. How did the Zemsky Sobors of the 17th century change and why did they stop working in the middle of the century?
6. How did the system of local government in Russia change as the centralized state took shape?
7. What was the manifestation of the bureaucratization of the state apparatus in the 17th century?
" back
Table of contents
forward "
5.1 The crisis of Russian statehood during the Time of Troubles « | » 6. The system of state administration during the formation of absolutism in Russia (the first quarter of the 18th century)
|
02/11/2007 / term paper General characteristics of the ancient Russian institute veche. Veche origin. The social composition of the veche. Veche in ancient Novgorod. State Administration of Novgorod. The range of issues to be resolved by the veche. The system of veche organs. 01/25/2009/abstract Formation of the ancient Russian state. The formation of statehood and public administration in Kievan Rus. Governing bodies and authorities. The crisis of Russian statehood during the Time of Troubles. State apparatus of the Russian Empire. 05/05/2009 / term paper |
Changes in the state administration of Russia in the 17th century
17th century - one of the most turbulent centuries not only in the history of Russia, but also of many Western and Eastern states. In Russia, it was of a transitional nature, when the former system of government of the estate monarchy and its institutions flourish, but die off in the second half of the century and the process of formation of an absolute monarchy begins.
At the beginning of the XVII century. an unfavorable combination of internal and external factors leads to the disintegration of Russian statehood. The restoration of the estate monarchy in the form of autocracy takes place on the basis of the principles of the theory of the "symphony of authorities" - the dual unity of spiritual and secular power. The restoration of statehood in the conditions of the mobilization type of development leads to the gradual destruction of the principles of sobornost and the “symphony of authorities” - the withering away of the Zemsky Sobors, changes in the functions and competence of the boyar Duma, the church, and the restriction of local self-government. There is a bureaucratization of public administration, and on the basis of order work, the civil service begins to take shape as a branch of the state, previously mainly military service.
The emergence of absolute monarchy dates back to the second half of the 17th century. At this time, the actual merging of regions, lands and principalities into one whole takes place. There is a concentration of small local markets into one all-Russian market. At this time, bourgeois relations arise, the role of the townspeople in the political life of the country increases, the first manufactories appear.
In the initial period of the formation of absolutism in Russia, the monarch, in the fight against the boyar aristocracy, relies on the top of the settlement. And the settlement is still satisfied with the tsar, since the Cathedral Code of 1649 complied with the requirement of the settlement to eliminate the main competitors of the township - the "white" settlements that belonged to secular and spiritual feudal lords.
The king also fulfilled another requirement - he limited the rights of foreign merchants. Thus, the Russian merchants were interested in the formation of absolutism in Russia.
Although during this period the process of the emergence of bourgeois relations takes place, the foundations of feudalism have not yet been undermined. The dominant system continues to be the feudal economy. However, it was increasingly forced to adapt to the market and commodity-money relations. In the XVIII century. there is an increase in the role of the estate economy in the country's economy and the rise of the political significance of the nobility. During the formation of absolutism, the monarch relied on the nobles in the fight against the boyar and church opposition, which opposed the strengthening of tsarist power.
Absolutism in Russia arose in the second half of the 17th century, when Zemsky Sobors, which limited the power of the tsar, ceased to be convened. The command system of government, directly subordinate to the tsar, was strengthened. At the end of the XVII century. a permanent royal army was created. The tsar acquired significant financial independence, receiving income from his estates, collecting taxes from conquered peoples, and from customs duties that increased due to the development of trade. These taxes, as well as the tsarist monopoly on the production and sale of vodka, beer, and honey, gave the tsar the opportunity to maintain a huge state apparatus.
With the weakening of the economic and political role of the boyars, the significance of the Boyar Duma decreased. Its composition began to replenish the nobles. Of particular importance is the secret, or close, thought from a small number of people close to the king. The decline of the Boyar Duma is also evidenced by a sharp increase in the number of nominal decrees issued by the tsar without consulting the Duma. Thus, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued 588 nominal decrees, while there are only 49 decrees approved by the Duma. An intensive process of subordinating the church to the state is taking place.
Absolutism finally takes shape in the first quarter of the 17th century. under Peter I. In the first years of the reign of Peter I, the Boyar Duma formally existed, but had no power, and the number of its members also decreased. In 1701, the functions of the Duma were transferred to the "Near Chancellery", which united the work of the most important state bodies. Persons who were in the Duma were called ministers, and the council of ministers was called the council of ministers, and the number of members of the council ranged from 8 to 14 people.
With the establishment in February 1711. The Senate finally ceased to function Boyar Duma - the last state. body that limited the power of the monarch.
In the first half of the eighteenth century a bureaucratic state apparatus was created, as well as a regular standing army subordinate to the tsar.
At the beginning of the XVIII century. absolute monarchy was legalized. In particular, in the Military Charter of 1716. it was said: “His Majesty is an autocratic Monarch, he should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs, but he has power and authority,” etc.
In October 1721 in connection with the brilliant victory of Russia in the Northern War, the Senate and the Spiritual Synod presented Peter I with the title "Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia." Russia becomes an empire.
Over the 250 years of the existence of absolutism in Russia, 5 main stages of development can be distinguished:
absolute monarchy of the second half of the seventeenth century. with the Boyar Duma and the Boyar aristocracy.
Bureaucratic-noble monarchy of the eighteenth century.
Absolute monarchy in the first half of the nineteenth century. before the reform of 1861.
The absolute monarchy of 1861-1904, when the autocracy took a step towards a bourgeois monarchy.
A feature of the social system of this period was a clear division of society into 4 classes: the nobility, the clergy, the peasants, the urban population. At the end of the XVII - beginning of the XVIII centuries. there is an expansion and consolidation of the privileges of the nobility. The basis of the legal status of the nobles was the monopoly right to land ownership. Nobles could own land, which gave them the right to exploit the peasants who lived on these lands.
According to the decree on the poll census of January 26, 1718, the privileged position of the nobility, as a tax-exempt estate, was legislated, in contrast to other groups of the population, which paid a poll tax.
There is a transformation of the nobility into a single estate. With the creation of a regular army and a bureaucratic apparatus, there was a further blurring of the lines between different groups of feudal lords.
The Table of Ranks, published on January 24, 1722, was of great importance in strengthening the position of the nobility. It contained a list of the ranks of the military, naval, land, artillery, guards, as well as civil and courtiers. The ranks established for different departments were divided into XIV classes. The service had to begin with the lower ranks. Therefore, an opportunity was created for people from other classes to become nobles, which expanded the opportunity to become a noble in the Russian state, as, at one time, a boyar.
At the end of the XVII - beginning of the XVIII centuries. all leading positions in the state apparatus were occupied by nobles.
In the interests of the ruling class and the strengthening of the state apparatus, Peter I carried out a number of measures. He was an absolute monarch, who owned the highest legislative and executive power in the state. He was also the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces. With the subordination of the church to the state, the monarch also becomes the head of state.
In February 1711 the Senate was established. Initially, it consisted of nine people appointed by the king, independent of origin. The tsar controlled the activities of the Senate through specially created bodies. The main role in the Senate was played by the general meeting of senators. Here the main issues were discussed and decided by voting. The Senate also included presidents of the collegiums. Under the Senate there were: a discharge table (later it was replaced by a heraldic office headed by a king of arms), which was in charge of registering the nobles, their service, the appointment of nobles to public positions, the reprisal chamber - to investigate official crimes.
Under the Senate, there were several special positions that were important in the field of public administration, among which were fiscals. They were supposed to secretly inform and denounce all the abuses of officials, higher and lower, monitor the implementation of laws, pursue embezzlement, bribery and theft committed by officials. At the head of the fiscals was a general-fiscal, appointed by the tsar with his assistant chief-fiscal, appointed by the Senate. They were subordinate to the fiscals at the boards, the provincial fiscals in the provinces and the city fiscals in the cities.
An independent position in the Senate was occupied by the Prosecutor General with his assistant, the Chief Prosecutor.
The position of chief prosecutor was established in 1722 for public supervision of the activities of all institutions, including the Senate. The procurator-general, responsible only to the tsar, was subordinate to the colleges and court courts. All cases that came to the Senate passed through the hands of the Prosecutor General
The Senate played a big role in strengthening absolutism. He concentrated the leadership of central and local government bodies behind him, and his decisions were not subject to appeal.
After the death of Peter I, the role of the Senate as a body that directed the activities of the central institutions of government began to decline.
In February 1726, the Supreme Privy Council with an extremely narrow composition was created to resolve issues of domestic and foreign policy of the state. At first, Menshikov and his closest supporters played a decisive role in his activities. After the death of Peter the Senate and colleges actually submitted to the Supreme Privy Council. In 1730 the Supreme Privy Council was abolished.
In 1731, the Cabinet of Ministers was established, which at first had an advisory character, but by decree of November 9, 1735, it was given legislative powers. Collegiums and local state administration enterprises exercised their powers by submitting reports and reports to the Cabinet of Ministers. In December 1741 the Cabinet of Ministers was abolished.
The activity of the Senate became more active again. In addition to the Senate, issues of a national nature were also resolved by the Cabinet of His Majesty, created in 1741, headed by the secretary of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.
Under Peter III, the Imperial Council was established, which consisted of eight people. In 1769, Catherine II created a council at the royal court. At first, he dealt with military issues, and then with the domestic policy of the country. It included the heads of central government bodies, and it operated until 1801.
Prior to the creation of collegiums, orders were the central governing bodies. The number of orders fluctuated depending on state needs. In the middle of the XVII century. there were more than 40 permanent orders, and in 1699 there were 44 orders. The orders had the disadvantage that they often duplicated each other.
Peter I sought to adapt the order system to the needs of the state (mainly the military). In 1689, the Preobrazhensky Prikaz was formed, initially in charge of the affairs of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky soldier regiments. The Preobrazhensky Prikaz existed until 1729. During the preparations for the second Azov campaign in 1696, a Ship or Admiralty Prikaz was created, which was engaged in the construction of ships, their armament and equipment.
In 1700, the Provisional Order was formed for the centralized supply of troops with food and uniforms. In 1700, the Reitarsky and Foreign orders were combined into one, called the Order of Military Affairs.
Noting the serious shortcomings of the command system of government, it must be said that it nevertheless fulfilled its role in centralizing the Russian state.
A radical restructuring of the order system took place in the period from 1718 to 1720, when boards were created instead of orders. The advantage of colleges over orders was that their competence was strictly limited by law; cases were considered and decided collectively.
The functions, internal structure and order of office work in the boards were determined by the General Regulations of the boards. The military college was in charge of the ground forces, was engaged in the training of officers, recruitment, armament and financing of the army. She was in charge of clothing and provisions for the army, as well as the construction of military fortifications.
Description of work
17th century - one of the most turbulent centuries not only in the history of Russia, but also of many Western and Eastern states. In Russia, it was of a transitional nature, when the former system of government of the estate monarchy and its institutions flourish, but die off in the second half of the century and the process of formation of an absolute monarchy begins.
Characteristics of local government
Governor Institute
Stormy events at the beginning of the 17th century. required the efforts of local authorities. This task was solved by introducing the institute of governors as the main link in local government. The position of voivode existed from the second half of the 16th century. only in some border towns, where there was a need to carry a firmer military and civil authority. Peasant war and Polish-Swedish intervention at the beginning of the 17th century. demanded the creation of this firm power everywhere. All governors were appointed by the Discharge order, approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma, and obeyed the order, which included cities with counties. The discharge order had within its competence the management of service people, their assignment to the service, the appointment of land (local) and monetary salaries, and was also in charge of their accounting. According to the list of cities and counties of Russia in 1614, it can be seen that in 103 cities with counties there were already governors, and in 1616 - 138, in 1625 governors were appointed to 146 cities with counties.
Applicants for the position of voivode - boyars, nobles and boyar children filed a petition in the name of the tsar, in which they asked to be appointed to the voivodeship in order to "feed", but officially the voivode for his service received, in addition to estates, and local cash salaries, salaries.
The term of service of the voivode usually lasted one to three years. In Shuya from 1613 to 1689, for 79 years, 52 governors were replaced, and in Yakutsk for 1645-1652 - five governors. In large cities there were several governors (in Astrakhan - three or four, Pskov - two or three); one of the governors (appointed from the boyars) was the chief, the others were considered his comrades; they were appointed from roundabouts, stewards and nobles. In small towns there was one governor. The voivode had an orderly, or moving out hut, in which all the affairs of managing the city and county were exhausted; she was headed by a deacon. Here the sovereign's letters of credit, receipt and expenditure books and paintings of various taxes and fees, and the fees themselves (the sovereign's porridge) were kept. In large cities, clerk's huts were divided into tables; the tables were run by clerks. In addition to the clerks, there were bailiffs, or allotters, messengers and watchmen in the order's hut, who carried out the orders of the voivode. The sovereign's seal was kept in a special box; The voivode also had his own seal. When one voivode was replaced by another, the old voivode handed over to the new one all affairs and state property according to inventories and books (delivery inventories or painted lists); one copy of the inventory was sent to the order in which the city was in charge of the county. Going to the voivodeship, the voivode received from the order an order that determined the scope of his activities. The voivode ruled over the territory entrusted to him. He carried out the protection of feudal property, fought against the harboring of the fugitives, with violation of the state interest (feeding), with all sorts of violations of the order in general (battle, fire, pestilence), was in charge of city and road affairs, supervised the court of labial and zemstvo elders. Performed administrative and police functions, as well as military. His duties were not clearly regulated (“as handsome”, “as God will reason”, it was said in the instruction to the governor from the order), and this created the basis for arbitrariness. And although feeding was canceled, the governors robbed the population.
In large cities, police supervision of the population, fortifications and guards was carried out by the mayor (former city clerk) subordinate to the voivode. In settlements and volosts, the governor exercised power with the help of clerks.
The financial functions of the governor were wide. The scribe books compiled in this case included a description of the lands in terms of quantity and quality, the profitability of the lands (yield), duties and benefits of the landowner - the feudal lord. Where yards (in cities) were taken as the basis for calculating, information about them was also entered into scribe books. The governors were obliged to provide these financial agents from the center with all kinds of assistance, to give them the documents they needed for the “sock letter” from the hut. Tax collections were carried out by elected persons: direct - elders and kissers, indirect (customs and tavern fees) - heads and kissers. The governors exercised supervision and financial control over the activities of these elected authorities. All the collected money was brought to the moving house. The military-administrative functions of the voivode were very broad. He drafted into the service of service people - nobles and boyar children, kept their lists indicating the estate, salary, serviceability of each, made periodic inspections for them and sent them to the service at the first request of the Discharge Order. The voivode was also in charge of local service people “according to the instrument”: archers, gunners, etc. The voivode was responsible for all city institutions, fortress cannons, various military and government food supplies, which he accepted and handed over according to the inventory. On the outskirts of the state, the voivode was in charge and border affairs: he sent traveling "villages" and "watchmen" in the steppe, arranged "notches", prisons and fortresses. Due to these complex functions, a number of officials were in varying degrees of subordination to the voivode: the siege head (commandant of the fortress), secession, guard, archery, Cossack Pushkar, bypass, barn and pit heads. Governors were never content with voluntary offerings. Throughout the 17th century from the cities, counties and volosts of the Russian state, tearful petitions of the population came to the capital for extortion and extortion of the governors. The government itself in the first decades of the century was forced to send out letters "on the failure to continue to provide food to the governors, sent and messengers," but all this was to no avail. At the Zemsky Sobor in 1642, the emboldened merchants directly declared to the government that “in the cities, all kinds of people have become impoverished and have become impoverished to the end from your sovereign governors”1. The governors of Siberia were especially arbitrariness. Almost every shift of the Siberian governors ended with an investigation (search) about their abuses, with the involvement of other officials as accomplices: clerks, clerks, etc. n. In the XVII century. both forms of "self-government" continued to exist - the lips and the zemstvo. Lip cases (i.e., a criminal court) in each district - lip - were in charge of the labial headman, his assistants were lip kissers. All legal proceedings and paperwork on labial cases were carried out in the labial hut, where the labial clerk and clerk were located. The labial elders were in charge of prisons with prison servants (kissers, watchmen), executioners, as well as elected from the population - sotsky, tenth. The free population of the district chose the headman of the lips from among the nobles or the children of the boyars; kissers were selected from the black-haired peasants or townspeople. The range of activities of the labial organs in the 17th century. increased significantly. In addition to robbery, tatin cases and murder, virtually all criminal cases fell into their jurisdiction: arson, violence, the search for fugitives, etc. Although article 21 of chapter XXI of the Code of 1649. emphasized the independence of the labial affairs from the voivode, but in fact the labial elders were under supervision, and then in full subordination to the voivode. The governor became the head of the lip court, and the lip head became his assistant. Dissatisfaction with the state of the criminal court, the abuses of the labial elders themselves pushed the government to various reforms. In 1669 the labial elders were subordinate to government-appointed lab detectives; labial and prison kissers were abolished, and instead of the first, labial deacons were appointed, and the second - archers and hired watchmen. Throughout the century, there were also zemstvo bodies of "self-government" - zemstvo elders (sometimes they were called zemstvo judges) and kissers, elected by black-haired peasants and townsmen people at gatherings in cities, camps, volosts and churchyards. These bodies were in charge of the distribution of taxes among the population, supervised that the taxpayers did not shy away from bearing the tax. Zemstvo authorities also carried out some police functions, monitored the preservation of calm, observance of customs duties, etc. Office work on zemstvo affairs was carried out in a special zemstvo hut, where zemstvo books were kept. In police respect, zemstvo bodies were completely subordinate to the governors. In financial terms, although unsuccessfully, the government tried to remove the governor from influence on the zemstvo bodies. In addition to the lip and zemstvo bodies, there were other elected bodies. In each county there were several customs offices, headed by customs kissers; county customs were subordinate to the customs head, in which there was a special customs hut. Kruzhnye yards and taverns were headed by the respective heads and kissers. In addition, there were stall elders, life and mill kissers and other elected persons, who were chosen mainly from the townspeople under the supervision of the governor. The voivode observed their activities, accepted their reports and money. Sometimes the government handed over customs and tavern fees.
The service of elected heads and kissers at customs taverns and other gatherings was perceived by the population as the gravest duty, since any shortfalls of the governors and orders were “corrected” from the heads and kissers themselves. In the petitions for the arbitrariness of the voivode, elected persons often appeared - victims of voivode arbitrariness. Voivode Barkov, whom the Shuyans complained about in 1665, beat “to a pulp” the stall kisser Selivanov and the head of the kruzhets yard Karpov. Got from the governor and his bailiffs and other elected officials. In 1633, a bailiff with archers appeared in the Podosinovskaya volost, Usolsky district, and arrested the zemstvo headman (judge) of the volost and several peasants for non-payment of taxes, and then daily put them on the right. All this caused a real uprising of the population, which appeared in the camp (center) of the volost. Significantly expanded in the 17th century. the sphere of activity of the court, which has become one of the main links in the punitive policy of the state, which was distinguished by great cruelty. The death penalty was often used as a measure of punishment - according to the "Council Code" of 1649, criminals were punished with it in 60 cases. In addition to simple forms of the death penalty (cutting off the head, hanging and drowning), there were forms of a qualified death penalty, associated with especially cruel torment of the punished (burning, burying alive, pouring molten metal into the throat, quartering and wheeling). Other punishments were also cruel: the convicts had their noses, ears, hands cut off, their eyes gouged out, etc., they were beaten with a whip, batogs and sticks, they were imprisoned (in fact, they were often walled up) in prisons - in those days damp, cramped, cold rooms without windows . For relatively unimportant crimes (grocery farming, tobacco smoking, concealment of the treasury by clerks, etc.), exile to Siberia was also used. Property punishments (money fines and confiscation) were pushed into the background; they most often accompanied one of the punishments mentioned above. The death penalty and corporal punishment in the 17th century. were carried out publicly. The criminal legislation of that time pursued one goal - to intimidate the masses, to deprive them of the will to resist the growing exploitation and enslavement. A significant innovation in the judicial practice of the 17th century. was the category of state crimes, severely punishable by death. "Izvet" (denunciation) "about the sovereign's business" was strongly encouraged by the government in the first decades of the century, even if it was just "unfit" words about the king or members of his family. The Code of 1649 made "reporting in the sovereign's business" the duty of everyone. The very concept of "the sovereign's business" in the second half of the century greatly expanded and began to mean any event and business affecting the state interest. In relation to the main criminal offenses of that time (state crimes, robbery, "theft", tatba)1, the search process was widely used, which was distinguished by unusual cruelty. Torture was necessarily used against the accused, but the “Code” attached decisive importance not to the confession of the accused, but to his slander and accusation of a general search. Torture was also used against those who slandered. If, after being tortured three times, the scammer refused the slander, then this slander was not considered valid. However, in cases of state crimes, the main role in the testimony was played by witnesses, “common exile” (i.e., when both parties referred to one and the “reporter” himself and his witnesses, with whom the accused was confronted (put “with eyes on eyes"). By the end of the century, the role of the general search fell and the role of witness testimony increased in the consideration of other criminal cases.
The concept of "theft" in the XVII century. It was unusually wide and included virtually all types of criminal offenses: robbery, robbery, theft, fraud, deceit, swindle, forgery, etc.; robbery meant a crime committed by a group of persons, tatba - theft. It began with the fact that the person concerned filed a petition outlining the essence of the claim. In evidence, great importance was attached to the oath, testimony (of the same witness), search, written documents, and in small claims and lots. During the consideration of the case, the judge gave the floor to one side or the other. The testimonies of the parties were recorded in the court list (protocol). When passing a sentence, judges could make final decisions or apply with a “report” to a higher authority (an order, the Boyar Duma, its Punishment Chamber, to the tsar). The winner was given the right diploma. If the defendant could not immediately return things or money to the plaintiff, then the archers grabbed him and placed him at the order or moving house in the morning and released him only in the evening. In front of the Discharge Order, more than 10 right-wingers daily, dividing the guilty among themselves, put them in a row and beat them in turn with batogs. From the window, this execution was observed by a judge or a clerk. The previously existing features of managing individual parts of the Russian state almost completely disappeared. Differences in management in the 17th century. dependent on the social composition of the population. So, for example, in areas with a predominance of the feudal-dependent (serf) population (royal, patriarchal, monastic and possessory) there were absolutely no zemstvo self-government bodies; in the tsarist volosts, instead of the governor and his agents, special clerks were in charge, etc. Some exception was Ukraine reunited with Russia in 1654. Being part of the Russian state, it enjoyed a certain autonomy, that is, it had a special administration, an army, a court, a tax system, customs borders, etc. The general administration of Ukraine was carried out by some central institutions. Initially, it was the Posolsky Prikaz, where a special povyt was in charge of Ukrainian (“Little Russian”) affairs, and from 1663, the Little Russian Prikaz. At the head of Ukraine was a hetman who was elected at the Cossack Rada and approved by the tsarist government. The Hetman exercised the supreme administration and court in Ukraine. The so-called foremen's council, an advisory body consisting of the Cossack elite (general foreman), had a great influence on the policy of the hetman. This council included the most important officials of Ukraine: the general judge, the general clerk (head of the hetman's office), the general escort (head of artillery), the military guardian (head of finance), two general captains (hetman's assistants for military affairs), the general cornet (guardian military banner), general horsetail (custodian of the hetman's horsetail). In territorial terms, Ukraine was divided into 17 "regiments" (Chigirinsky, Cherkassky, Kanevsky, etc.) - on each territory of the "regiment" there was a Cossack regiment headed by a colonel elected or appointed by the hetman, who controlled the population of the "regiment" with the help of regimental Cossack foreman (clerk, convoy, captain, cornet, etc.). The regiment was divided into hundreds, headed by a centurion, elected by the population of the hundred or appointed by the hetman. In regimental and hundred cities, the population elected city atamans. The entire Cossack administration of Ukraine was elected from representatives of the Cossack foreman and wealthy Cossacks. In cities dominated by the Cossack trade and craft population, there was a medieval merchant "self-government" in the form of magistrates and town halls; they were headed by burmisters, and the rains (advisers) were part of them. The peasants in the villages elected voits (foremen) and lavniki (juries). The peculiarities of managing Ukraine were caused by the specific form of its accession to the Russian state (reunification).
Mandatory institutions
In the 1920s and 1930s, a new type of local government office was being formed. It is characteristic that at that time a uniform name for voivodship huts was not yet established everywhere. Some of them were traditionally called in the old way. So, the institution under the Novgorod governors wore in 1620-1632. the name of the clerk's hut and only by the middle of the century began to be called the congress. A similar institution in Nizhny Novgorod in 1623-1624 was called a ship's hut, and only from the end of the 20s - a congress. The clerks who were sitting in the Pskov hut in 1625 bore the name "quarter" in contrast to the "palace". The name of the sezzhaya hut was assigned to the Pskov izba a little later, but it lasted for a very long time almost until the 80s. For voivodship institutions of other cities, the name of the congress and command huts is used. However, in official documents for the entire first half of the century, the term hut was dominant.
Along with the central orders, there were a large number of order huts in the cities. Orders, or congress huts, represented the voivodship office of the 17th century. They were real institutions, which in large cities were also divided into tables, and in other cities - into howls. For example, according to the estimate of 1655. in the Pskov congress hut there were four tables: Discharge, Money, Local and Judicial. From this list it can be seen that the clerk's huts were already divided by industry: Discharge - means military; Cash is associated with income and expenses; Local is associated with local land ownership, estates; The judiciary resolved various court cases.
Until the middle of the century, there were relatively few huts (see Appendix 1), which was partly due to the loss of Russia's large western regions during the period of the Polish-Swedish intervention. In the 40s, there were only 212 huts throughout the country, which is slightly less than the number of existing at that time cities, since the huts were not everywhere. Known practice as if "paired" in the management of cities and towns. For example, the Dvina command hut alternately acted in Arkhangelsk, then in Kholmogory, Mangazeya - in Mangazeya and Turukhansk. There were no official huts with a staff of clerks in some of the Pskov suburbs, as well as in a number of newly built fortresses along defensive lines. In these cases, the official managing the city also conducted the necessary correspondence. There were cases when there was not even an orderly person in the city. Most of the huts were small establishments. Only a few had relatively large staffs of clerks. So, in the 40s, 25 people worked in the Novgorod congress hut, 21 in Pskov, 20 in Astrakhan, 16 each in Nizhny Novgorod and Tobolsk. More than 40 huts had only one clerk each. The most typical for this time were huts with staffs of two to five people. The staff of the huts was divided into temporary and permanent part. The first was represented by governors, clerks, sometimes clerks with an inscription, who were sent to the city for 2-3 years. The second consisted of local clerks, constantly working in order huts. Clerks with an inscription were usually appointed from the clerks of the order that was in charge of the given city. Total cities in which during the XVII century. In the first half of the century, a system of palace local institutions developed, from which the local palace orders of Novgorod and Pskov with clerks at the head approach the institutions of the voivodeship administration in the same way. Of these, the most important was the Novgorod Palace Order, the first information about which, as a large institution, dates back to 1620-1621. The Pskov Palace Order was created later, in 1631-1632.
Speaking about local state and palace institutions and their states, it should be remembered that they functioned simultaneously and in close connection with a number of other types of institutions that existed in cities - customs, taverns, labial and zemstvo huts. The elective beginning and the free work of the heads, tselovalniks and elders, who were at the head of them, as well as zemstvo hiring, as a form of payment for clerk clerks, put these institutions to a certain extent in an independent position of governors. As a rule, customs huts were small. The largest in terms of the number of deacons working in them were: the hut of Nizhny Novgorod, where in 1623-1624 there were five customs deacons and one tavern deacon (the same number remained in 1656) and a hut in Tyumen, in which in 1629. there were two deacons, and in 1633 - three. The same number of deacons was in the middle of the century in the Vologda customs. It was common to combine the customs and mug deacons in one person.
Gubernia and zemstvo institutions became widespread mainly in the cities of the European part of the country. In the recently annexed and newly founded border towns, there were no lab huts, and cases of robbery and theft in them were decided by governors. At the same time, the elective principle in the organization of the provincial administration was reduced here to the choice by the population of deacons "for hut affairs", who were sitting in the clerk's huts. A similar situation was in 1666 in Toropets, where it remained until the end of the century. In the early 1960s, there were no lip clerks at all in Volokolamsk. At the same time, the provincial administration experienced an undeniable crisis throughout the century. Lip huts, although they were noble class-elected institutions, were often used by governors as an additional administrative apparatus. At the same time, their very existence was alien to the government's line of strengthening the power of governors in the field. Hence the repeated attempts to limit functions in the liquidation of labial huts. In the mouth huts, most often one deacon worked.
Thus, for this period, the total number of people employed in the work of the Moscow orders is somewhat larger than the number of people serving the moving huts, while the clerk's layer in central institutions occupies an incomparably larger place than in local ones. For the central institutions, there is an undoubted increase in the entire prikaz group, especially noticeable among the clerks, the number of prikazhny people in the field had a much greater stability.
The highest bodies of state power
Central government bodies
State service and service bureaucracy in Russia in the 17th century.
The revival of autocracy took place on the basis of ideas about the state as a "symphony of authorities", the dual unity of secular and spiritual authorities, autonomously existing, but equally ensuring the protection and triumph of Orthodoxy by their own means.
In the 17th century, the national form of the monarchy finally took shape - autocracy. Although all the autocrats of the XVII century. The Romanov dynasties were elected by the Zemsky Sobors (1613 - Mikhail, 1645 - Alexei, 1682 - Peter I and Ivan V, the only exception was the accession of Fyodor Alekseevich in 1676, for which the decision of the Boyar Duma was sufficient), source their power was not the estate will, but God. The image of power was sacred. The tsar was perceived as the embodiment of the highest Orthodox values - truth, goodness, justice, as the defender of "Holy Russia". On a symbolic level, this was enshrined in the sacrament of weddings to the kingdom, which consisted in placing a crown and barm on the king, presenting a scepter, power, vestments in purple, pronouncing the symbol of faith.
In the 17th century the title of Russian tsars officially included the concept of "autocrat" ("great sovereign, tsar and grand duke, autocrat of all Russia"; after the reunification of Ukraine with Russia - "all Great and Small Russia autocrat"). In 1625 a new state seal was introduced.
However, the essence of autocratic power was not enshrined in legislation. The power of the tsar was limited by Orthodox morality and established traditions, which the tsar was forced to strictly follow.
Throughout the 17th century The Boyar Duma acted high council with the king. The functions of the Duma were not clearly defined and were based on customary law. The competence of the Duma included issues of domestic and foreign policy, court and administration. The formula "the sovereign indicated, and the boyars were sentenced" was rigorously applied. Separate independent decrees of the king are explained by the need to resolve some issue or its relative insignificance.
The Boyar Duma remained essentially an aristocratic body, but in the 17th century. constantly increased its composition at the expense of the lower ranks - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, who were introduced to the Duma on personal merit. So, a prominent statesman A. Ordin-Nashchokin was taken out of the Pskov nobles. As a result, the number of the Boyar Duma increased from 35 people in the 30s. to 94 by the end of the century.
Under the tsar, a "near Duma" of specially trusted persons functioned, with whom he had previously discussed and made decisions on issues of public administration. Thus, under Mikhail Fedorovich, the Middle Duma included four boyars connected with the tsar by family ties (I. Romanov, I. Cherkassky, M. Shein, B. Lykov). In 1681-1694. from the composition of the Boyar Duma, a special Reprisal Chamber stood out, in which the most important court cases were considered.
During the period of restoration of Russian statehood, the autocracy needed the support of estate representation. This determined the growing importance of Zemsky Sobors in the system of state authorities. They participated in all the most important state acts of the period 613-1653: the election of the king, changes in legislation, taxation, foreign policy issues and the annexation of new territories. The initiative to convene Zemsky Sobors came from the tsar, the Boyar Duma, or a previous sobor.
Zemsky Sobors did not have a clear regulation, number and composition. Usually, representatives of the estates and territories necessary to resolve a specific issue were convened at the council. The meetings of the council were attended by the tsar or his representative, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated (church) cathedral. The representation of other groups of the population could be by conscription (without choice) and by choice from various strata of the service and draft population. In the latter case, the government sent letters to the governors, which indicated the number of those called, the time of arrival, and sometimes the purpose of the cathedral. The constituencies were counties. The property qualification, as a rule, was absent, and the moral one was indicated by the call to choose "strong, reasonable, kind" people.
Sessions of the Zemsky Sobor were opened by a general meeting, at which the tsar or, on his behalf, the clerk motivated the convocation of the council and put forward questions for discussion. These issues were discussed by class ranks. The Boyar Duma, the clergy, the meeting of Moscow nobles, city nobles, archers, etc. The ranks were divided into articles. Each category or article submitted its written opinion, and in case of disagreement with the general opinion of its category, each member of the council could submit its opinion. Based on the generalization of opinions, a unanimous decision was made.
The Zemsky Sobor was inseparable from the power of the tsar and, in principle, could not become an opposition body. This is the peculiarity of Russian statehood - representative bodies acted not as a counterbalance, but as the most important condition for strengthening the power of the tsar. Zemsky Sobors considered themselves as a spiritual and moral phenomenon, a special form of service to the tsar. Therefore, they did not negotiate for themselves privileges and new rights, as the estates in the West did.
The active work of the Zemsky Sobors was due to the temporary weakness of the autocracy and its need to overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles with the help of class support. The state apparatus was destroyed by the events of the Time of Troubles, which did not allow the king to rely on him.
By the middle of the XVII century. autocracy was strengthened, the mechanisms of state administration were restored. In 1649, the Council Code was adopted, which determined the position of the main estates and stabilized the legal situation in the state. This freed the hands of the tsarist administration to pursue an independent policy, including actions that could not find support from representatives of the estates.
The last Zemsky Sobor was convened by Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich in 1681-1682. The Council decided to abolish localism. Since the issue concerned primarily the nobility and representatives of the service class, it consisted mainly of representatives of the respective classes, church hierarchs were also fully represented. However, in order to more widely inform the population about the abolition of parochialism, the decision of the Council was announced publicly from the Bed porch of the royal palace, where people of all ranks who were not present at the Council could hear it. This is where the history of Zemsky Sobors in Russia ended.
The system of central government bodies during the Time of Troubles was destroyed. Meanwhile, without its restoration, it was impossible to effectively carry out state functions, maintain the unity of the state, and link the center with local government structures. Mikhail Fedorovich took steps to restore the order system. This process began vigorously after the return to Moscow from Polish captivity of Filaret Nikitich, the father of the tsar.
In view of the urgency of the financial problem (after the Time of Troubles, the treasury was empty), the government stepped up the fiscal activity of orders. New permanent and temporary orders were created that were in charge of tax collection - the New Quarter, the order of the Big Treasury, the Order of Five and Request Money. The new quarter was the department responsible for the drinking business and tavern fees. The order of the Great Treasury was in charge of merchant corporations, including "guests", merchants of the living room and cloth hundreds and merchants of cities; collected taxes, farms and other annual fees from guests, merchants, peasants and beavers. The Order of Fives and Request Money collected emergency taxes.
Gradually, the order system was introduced into all spheres of public administration. The judiciary played an important role. These included those created back in the 16th century: The Local Order - was in charge of the distribution and transfer of estates, estates and related litigations, executed all transactions for local lands, and then received judicial functions on these issues, compiled the most important accounting documents - scribes and census books , which recorded the land holdings of service people and peasant households; The robbery order (in 1682 it was renamed Detective) - was in charge of criminal police affairs throughout the country, except for Moscow (here these functions were performed by the Zemsky order), it approved the posts of labial elders, kissers and clerks, sentences of the labial authorities, were considered in second instance robbery cases; Kholopy order - issued and freed from servility, and also resolved litigation because of serfs.
In the 17th century, orders were created that belonged to the bodies of the central regional administration and were traditionally called quarter orders. They were the former central bodies of the former appanages attached to Moscow. They were moved to the capital while maintaining the territory of reference. At first there were 3 of them, and they were called thirds, and then 4 - and were called quarters, but soon there were already 6 of them: Nizhny Novgorod, Galician, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma, Siberian quarters (the latter was renamed the order). They were in charge of the population of cities, counties and the court for taxable groups of the population.
A separate group were orders for special purposes. This is primarily the Ambassadorial order, transformed from the Ambassadorial Chamber in 1601. It was divided into 5 povyties, three of which carried out relations with Western Europe, and two with eastern countries. The Yamsky order provided the state postal service; the order of Stone Affairs was in charge of stone construction. A printed order sealed government acts with a seal; Apothecary order monitored the health of the sovereign and his family; The petition order transmitted the results of the analysis by the tsar or the Boyar Duma of the gutter to the corresponding orders or directly to the petitioners. In 1649, the Monastery Order appeared, which was in charge of the monastic lands and the court of the population of church estates.
A special block was made up of orders of the palace and financial management. The order of the Grand Palace was in charge of the maintenance of the palace. And also by the population and lands located throughout the country, obliged to supply this content, judged privileged persons, released by the king from the court of ordinary bodies. The palaces responsible for the corresponding supply were subordinate to him: fodder, bread, living and satisfying,
The order of the Great Treasury gradually turned into the personal treasury of the king and the repository of precious items. He was subordinate to the Money Court, which was in charge of minting coins. The Order of the Grand Parish was in charge of the indirect taxes of the state, and the Order of Accounts (created in 1667) exercised control functions.
In the period 1654-1676. the Order of Secret Affairs functioned, which was the personal office of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and acted as an institution of political control and investigation. The most important matters related to tsarist and state security were transferred to his competence: control over the activities of all central and local government bodies, diplomacy, the production of firearms, ore mining, investigation of political affairs, and management of the household.
In the 1680s, the central state administration was restructured. By that time, the total number of orders was 80-90, although some of them were temporary. Such a large number of orders gave rise to the interweaving of their functions, which did not contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of their activities.
The main goal of the reform is the simplification and centralization of orders. The largest links of the reform was the unification of all patrimonial and local affairs in the Local Order, and cases of service - in the Discharge Order with their removal from the competence of territorial orders. As a result of these actions, there was a transition in financial management from the territorial to the systemic principle. Also in the course of the reform, orders were combined into groups with their subordination to one government body in the state.
As a result of the transformation, the orders turned into large institutions with a large staff and a complex bureaucratic structure.
In the first half of the XVII century. in local government, the zemstvo principle, characteristic of the 16th century, was being supplanted. provincial administration. Voevodas were still in the period of the existence of boyars-governors, "fed" at the expense of the local population. During the Time of Troubles, it became clear that the province needed an organ that would connect all its population with the center. This was also driven by other reasons, including the growing financial needs of the state and the need to ensure the unity of the vast Russian territory. During the Time of Troubles, the population itself at general meetings began to elect governors, who had not only military powers, but also administrative and judicial functions.
After the end of the Troubles, the voivode began to appoint a discharge order, the decision of which was approved by the tsar and the Boyar Duma. The term of office of the governor was 1-3 years. Since 1613, 33 cities have received governors appointed by the government; in 1625, governors were appointed in 146 cities. By the middle of the century, the voivodship system had spread everywhere. The governors were supposed to manage the territory in the interest of the king, and officially they were forbidden to collect fodder. However, governors were allowed to accept voluntary donations from the local population, which contributed to their enrichment. For their service, the governors received estates and local cash salaries.
The governors were in great dependence on the central government. Control over the activities of the governor was carried out by the order in whose jurisdiction this territory was. The order prepared an order to the governor, which determined the terms of reference of the latter. When changing the governor, all affairs and state property were surrendered according to the inventory and books.
The governor himself controlled the work of elected officials (starosts, kissers, heads), who collected direct and indirect taxes from the population, supervised the court of labial and zemstvo elders, recruited service people (nobles and boyar children) into the service.
The governors headed a local institution - a command or exit hut (in the 20s of the 17th century there were names - a deacon, a court hut). Clerks and clerks were engaged in the clerk in the hut. Most of the huts had insignificant states - several people each, although in some (for example, in the Novgorod and Pskov huts) 20 or more clerks served.
In view of the reorganization of the armed forces, ranks (military districts) were created on a permanent basis, uniting several counties. The ranks were under the command of one governor. Relying on the corresponding command hut. The latter gradually expanded its military-administrative rights and became known as a discharge hut or command chamber, which served as the forerunner of the future provincial offices of the 18th century.
In the first half of the XVII century. voivodes received the right to control the labial (in charge of judicial and police issues) and zemstvo (supervised the collection of direct taxes) elders and huts without the right to interfere in their sphere of activity. But in the second half of the century, this restriction was lifted, although the complete subordination of local self-government did not happen. Zemstvo authorities remained independent in financial and economic management. The authorities were forced to reckon with the opinion of representatives of the estates defending the rights of local self-government.
Throughout the 17th century there was an increase in the staff of prikaz, caused by the complication of state administration and the internal needs of prikaz institutions. All clerks were included in the structure of the service class of Russian society, but they occupied a special place in it. They created their own system of ranks, parallel to the general one, but not connected with the noble origin. The ordered bureaucratic ladder was distinguished by the absence of internal barriers between individual ranks, which formally opened up the possibility of promotion up to the highest rank - the duma clerk.
By the middle of the XVII century. there is a separation of the civil service from the service in general, which was predominantly military. This was reflected in the changes that have undergone the oaths of clerks, given when the king is replaced by the entire population and individuals upon taking office or raising their rank. General oaths for the entire mass of the service population were supplemented by postscripts to clerks. At the same time, the attributions were constantly becoming more complicated and specified for various ranks and positions, taking into account changes in their official duties. In the general oath, the clerks pledged to protect the life and health of the king and members of his family, not to plot against the sovereign, and honestly serve him. And with special attributions, the service of clerks was defined as work in state institutions, i.e. was a civil service. Thus, the duties of clerks were divided by the middle of the 17th century. to "government service" (considered as an honorary one) and "command work" (current work in orders and command huts, considered as forced labor). Since the 60s of the XVII century. the documents clearly separated the performance of clerks and clerks of service and order work, while the latter became the main and determining one.
In the 17th century there was a rise in public office. At first they coincided with the service hierarchy of ranks: duma clerks - the supreme administration, clerks - the middle link in the management of central and local institutions, clerks occupied a subordinate position. As the number of clerks increased, their positions and functions began to differ. The places of clerks in the order were now determined by the time they received the rank, which established their official subordination and division into "great" and "others." The size of the salary paid to the clerks directly depended on the official position.
In the orders, a qualified division of clerks into three articles has developed: the first (old), second (middle) and third (young). A category of clerks with an inscription was singled out (the highest clerk's position, to which experienced old clerks were appointed). In the second half of the XVII century. such a division became official and was controlled by the Discharge Order.
Under the first Romanovs, there was a decline in the role of local salaries in providing order service and a simultaneous increase in the value of monetary salaries. However, the payment of monetary salaries was carried out irregularly, which forced the clerks to “feed” from their deeds. This led to an increase in the number of undeclared clerks.
By the end of the XVII century. the principle of parochialism finally gave way to new criteria for the promotion of an orderly person in the service. The enterprise, abilities, experience, qualifications and favor of the higher administration or the king came to the fore.
