Summary of the lesson on literary reading in grade 3 on the topic "I.A. Krylov" Chizh and ...
Management of Siberia in the XIX - early XX century.
Introduction
1. Siberia in the regional policy of the Russian state in the 18th century.
2. Development of the management system of Siberia in the first quarter of the XIX century.
3. The institution for the management of the Siberian provinces in 1822 and
reform of the management of Siberia in the 1820-1840s.
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The study of the system of government in general and a separate territory in particular is impossible without referring to the power structures that implement the administrative policy of the government at the local level. In the Russian Empire XIX v. the dominant position among these power structures was occupied by the administrative apparatus, i.e. direct bureaucratic environment of the person appointed by the supreme power. In Siberia, divided since 1822 into Western and Eastern, the governor-general and, accordingly, the apparatus directly subordinate to him, was vested with the highest powers. Governor-Generals received the status of a supervisory body over the provinces and regions that are part of the territories. The importance of this institution of power, which had enormous weight in the field of regional governance, is beyond doubt. The study of its formation and functioning, the power of individual officials, as well as the service characteristics of specific officials who were its members, is extremely important. The study of the composition of the administrative body, designed to coordinate the management actions of all branches of government in one of the outlying regions of the state, which in many aspects lags behind in its socio-economic development from the domestic specific features of the Siberian bureaucracy as a social institution, as well as a wider range of tasks assigned to it in comparison with similar power structures in the central part of Russia.
The subject of the study of the abstract is the state and administrative development of Siberia during the formation of the system of state administration of the region, the development of managerial relations between the central and local authorities of the state and their reflection in the creation, reform, structure, competence and activities of the Siberian administration.
Abstract objectives:
Establish the main directions, content and specifics of the formation of the system government controlled in Siberia;
Highlight the main trends in the state and management development of Siberia in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries;
Reveal the socio-economic and political conditions for the emergence, development and transformation of the administrative apparatus in the region; reflect the dynamics of the formation and development of the management system of Siberia, taking into account the regional and socio-cultural specifics of the region.
The sources on which the abstract is based can be divided into the following groups: legislative acts; published statistics and reference materials; memoirs, notes, testimonies of contemporaries
The abstract consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.
1. Siberia in the regional policy of the Russian state in the 18th 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 provincial 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 the governors in Siberia, in contrast to Central Russia, was much wider, since they were in charge of the settlement and development of the region, resolved issues of current diplomatic relations with neighboring peoples and countries. The absence of noble land tenure 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 the townspeople and peasants. The internal management of the yasak "foreigners" was preserved in its traditional form.
The political and legal transformations of Peter the Great led to fundamental changes in the management 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 government bodies. Since the 1710s. there were ideas of separation of the court from the administration, the introduction of collegial principles in management, there is a formation of a permanent supervisory body - fiscalatura.
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, acquired a bureaucratic character. These principles were reflected in the organization of management in the city, where class self-government has been developing since then, the influence of service people is decreasing. However, there are no fundamental changes in the management of the estate of state peasants; as before, the state directs 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 reflected later in the "Instructions" to the Siberian governor of 1741.
A deviation from the rational principles of empire building, implemented by Peter I, was the restoration in the late 1720s. Siberian order and management orders of "Moscow antiquity". Such restorations did not justify themselves in practice, since, in addition to the Siberian order, general Siberian affairs were in the competence of the Senate and the collegiums, as well as the Siberian governor. In the course of the provincial reform, specialized financial bodies remained within the framework of regional administration, and a departmental mining and metallurgical administration functioned. The fragmentation and uncertainty of administrative functions did not contribute to the incorporation of the region into the empire.
The 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 downsizing of administrative-territorial units, brought the authorities closer to society. As a result, the Siberian order was liquidated, and the Tobolsk and Irkutsk governors became confidants and representatives of the empress in this huge region. Due to the absence of the nobility in Siberia, it was not possible to strengthen the self-government of the nobility, as it was during the reform in the central part of the empire. The way out of this situation, special for Russia, was the replacement of the noble organs of the court and the management of bureaucratic institutions. An extensive specialized system of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies was created, and the departmental mining and plant administration continued to function in a modified form. During the period under review, urban self-government and management was rationalized through the creation of offices that deal with collegially urban issues. In the 1760-1790s. measures were taken to reorganize the management of the peasants and the indigenous population. By reforming the management of the peasants, government went to liquidate tithe arable land and state clerks, i.e. the demands they made during the previous decades were met. With regard to the indigenous population, the government decided to involve the tribal administration in the state administration of the region, approve the court of the yasak administration and more clearly regulate the collection and amount of yasak, which indicates the government's intentions to specifically deal with the management of the indigenous population of the region.
The absence of noble land ownership in Siberia since the beginning of the 18th century. led to the fact that representatives of the top of the service "device" - the Siberian nobles and the children of the boyars, began to be appointed to government positions. The service "device" was the most important source of manning for local clerks and clerks. Siberian bureaucracy can be spoken of as "all-estates" in origin social group, cut off by the conditions of service from participation in trade, money, economic relations and completely dependent on the state salary. They pledged to serve the monarch in accordance with the rules of law and strict organizational discipline.
The officials, first of all, took care that the yasak was collected accurately. The contingent of serving people was constantly the same in a remote province. There was one commanding estate, which was constantly reshuffled, which led to opportunism and bribery among the local bureaucracy. In Siberia, industrial people created bondage for foreigners, the trading class lived in monopolies. It can be argued that entire classes of the Siberian population were implicated in the abuses.
Transformations of Russian statehood in the 18th century. along the path of empire building were fully extended to Siberia. The main directions of these reforms consisted in the rationalization of the organization and activity of the regional administrative apparatus and the formation of the civil service, the displacement of administrative custom by legislative acts, in the normative regulation of these processes. The social consequence of the reforms was the formation of a patrimonial bureaucracy. In Siberia, the process of its formation took place with some specificity, due to local conditions: the vast space of the still poorly populated and developed by the Russians, its remoteness from the capital's centers of power; a significant number of the indigenous multiethnic population, who protected their beliefs and traditional culture and did not have their own statehood before the Russians; the virtual absence of landlord landownership and nobility among Russian settlers. The peculiarities of the region led to the need to create such regional centers of power that could represent the local society and its governing structures before the monarch. They determined the broader competence of the local state apparatus and strengthened the importance of estate self-government in Siberia.
The provincial reform of 1775, built on the principle of strengthening local power by introducing into the structure of local government, in addition to the provincial administration and the governorship (governor-general), was supposed to increase the efficiency of the entire state system. This was a step towards the deconcentration of government, indicating an understanding of the need to create a strong and relatively independent regional government. By the end of the 18th century. the need to create a separate system of state administration of the region that takes into account the peculiarities of the Siberian territories is clearly manifested.
2. Development of the Siberian governance system in
first quarter of the 19th century
Political view of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. was conditioned by three main tasks: the profitability of the region, the convenience of its administration and the protection of the eastern and southern Asian borders of the empire. Complication of any of these tasks, and more 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 at the beginning of the 19th century. in relation to Siberia, he gave Siberian legislation an inconsistent, inconsistent, largely situational character.
There is no doubt that the lack of organizational and managerial foundations in Siberian government and the responsibility of local officials was not compensated by attempts to improve and increase the responsibility of central government bodies. The establishment of ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management of the Provincial Institution of 1775 in this respect, but even rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine's local government. The inconsistency of the principles laid down in its provisions affected the practice of public administration. While the Institution of Provinces pursued the task of bringing the governors closer to the governed, it tried to fill the provincial institutions with people closely familiar with interests and everyday features localities, ministries concentrated power and managerial powers, "pulled" them to the center and gradually subordinated provincial establishments not only in the order of supervision, but also in the order of administration. The provincial institutions assigned to the ministries lost contact with each other to such an extent that there was a separation between the institutions of various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposite influences, the phenomenon of centralization and the need to take into account local peculiarities in management, should have prompted the supreme power to improve management structures on the axis "center - region", to legally reconcile them with each other in order to ensure the existence of each, in order to protect the weakest from being absorbed by the strongest.
Appointment of the new Siberian governor I.O. Selifontov in 1801, the establishment of the general governorship in Siberia in 1803, as well as the direction of the new ruler I.B. Pestel in 1806 was carried out on the basis of principles that assumed the streamlining of administration and the strengthening of local authority. This step in the management of Siberia meant that the government followed the previous path, betting on strengthening the governor-general's power and centralizing the local state apparatus.
The clash of the competence of ministerial departments with the powers of local government insistently demanded a legislative delimitation of the subjects of competence of local and central institutions as a necessary condition for the implementation of administrative functions by the state in relation to Siberia, both at the level of the center and in the region itself.
Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century, the system of public administration develops, obeying multidirectional and largely contradictory tendencies. In defining the principles of regional policy, the autocracy faced an inevitable choice: to introduce a nationwide system of government or to grant Siberia some administrative autonomy. Recognition of the special status of Siberia within the empire would lead to legislative consolidation separateness of the region, 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 for the management of this vast territory.
Projects of the territorial and administrative transformation of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. were considered by the Ministry of the Interior. In October 1818, the Minister of Internal Affairs, O.P. Kozodavlev submitted to the Committee of Ministers a note on the management of Siberia. It proposed removing Pestel from the management of the region, appointing a new governor-general and supplying him with special instructions. The instruction should be drawn up only after the reasons for the failures of the former Siberian governor-generals have been clarified. Kozodavlev condemned the unbridled desire to uncontrollably strengthen local power, while it, on the contrary, had to be placed under the effective supervision of central institutions. To this end, 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 - should have had the 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 the interested minister about it. Such a structure of Siberian government was supposed to put the governor-general under double control - both from the central government bodies (line ministries) and from the representatives of society (estates). Kozodavlev also suggested, relying on the experience of the Eastsee magistrates, to strengthen the city 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. Speranskiy marked the beginning of a new stage in the government's views on the regional management system. Supreme power by the end of the 1810s. comes to the realization that the shortcomings lie not in individuals, but in the very system of local government in Siberia, the reform of which is becoming a problem within the geopolitical order.
Revision of M.M. Speransky, it was found that the reform of the Siberian government was complicated by the need to fight against abuses, with a personal beginning, alien and indigenous regions. Russian state... The activities of a special body to review the results of the inspection of the management - the Siberian Committee - was supposed to resolve the issue of placing 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 a sparsely populated region. I had to agree general norms management of the empire with the needs, requirements and conditions of the vast Siberian region.
Revision of the Siberian administration and the provisions of the public administration reform in the region, developed by 1822 by M.M. Speransky, identified the basic principles of the administrative-territorial structure of the Asian region Russian Empire meeting the needs of the time. Speransky's transformations meant that the supreme power recognized the need to establish a system of special government in Siberia, which, in turn, testified to the formation of views on the "outskirts", regional policy. This was the first attempt to approach the management of a huge, resource-rich region in a comprehensive manner, which indicated the emerging desire to develop a government concept of relations with Siberia, an integral program for its administrative and economic development.
3. The institution 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 his activities as Siberian Governor-General M.M. Speransky prepared 10 draft legislative acts on the most important issues of management and legal regulation life of the Siberian region. 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 duties of 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 management of the Siberian provinces" in 1822.
Analysis of the main provisions of the "Institutions for the management of the Siberian provinces" allows you to highlight the principles of the proposed reforms, in particular: strengthening supervision over the actions of local government 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 share of autonomy in deciding matters to each local authority; taking into account by local authorities the specifics of specific Siberian regions in which they operate; accounting for the "motley" social composition of the Siberian population in the activities of management structures of various levels; the creation of a low-cost and efficiently operating administrative apparatus, combining 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" in 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, Yakutsk region, and the Irkutsk region also belonged to the Primorsk administrations, including: Okhotsk and Kamchatka, and Trinity-Sava border administration. Provinces and regions were divided into districts, and those, in turn, into volosts and foreign councils. Management of Siberia in accordance with this division had four links (degrees): 1) Main Directorate; 2) Provincial administration; 3) District Office; 4) Volost and foreign administration. The General Directorate was made up of the Governor-General and the Council. The establishment of the Soviets has become an important feature of the ongoing reform.
Speransky's main task was to establish the rule of law in management. The reformer saw its solution in the creation of management and legislative system that would put an end to abuse and arbitrariness. At the same time, the governor-general's power was to become, first of all, an oversight 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 subordinate, district, and administrative structures. The institution for the management of the Siberian provinces "included sections regulating the competence of the governor-general to manage various categories of the population of the region, and provided for the creation of an appropriate system of administrative bodies.
Development of imperial tendencies 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 improved management within the existing links of the administrative apparatus. The cities became a place for organizing social control over the population of the district: in the office work of public places, comprehensive information about the life of the village was concentrated, the offices dealt with complaints and requests of peasants, sentences of provincial and district courts were carried out on squares, and punishment for violation of feudal law and order was carried out. The tasks of the local administration were complicated by the fact that in Siberia of the period under review there were practically no private land ownership and noble estates as centers of peasant management. Power over the Siberian countryside was almost entirely concentrated in the cities. This circumstance was taken into account when assessing the social situation in the city. But, as before, all those elected to office were approved by the governor, which meant the centralization of power at the regional level. The 1822 system turned out to be more rational, since it eliminated "extra" links, which, from the point of view of the government, worked unsuccessfully due to the weak concentration of the population of Siberian cities and because the bulk of the population of Siberian cities were immigrants from the central regions accustomed to the Russian order.
"The Charter on the Management of Siberian Foreigners" of 1822, legislatively determined the legal status of the indigenous Siberian peoples. Despite the combination of conservative and progressive features in Speransky's reform, in general it was aimed at a gradual transition of Siberian aborigines to a sedentary lifestyle. Speransky tried to take a differentiated approach to assessing the level of economic development of various Siberian peoples, dividing their clans into three categories: "sedentary, nomadic and wandering." The Charter was based on the following principles: 1) division of the indigenous population into categories in accordance with the occupation and way of life; 2) limitation of custody of the aborigines by the Russian administration and the police; 3) the introduction of free trade with Aboriginal people; 4) bringing the number of taxes and taxes depending on the economic needs of each tribe.
The "institution" created a whole system of administrative and financial measures that established the material and economic situation and the legal status of the exiles, introduced strict regulations that determined the procedure for transferring the exiles by stages, as well as their placement in places of exile. The statutes introduced measures of control over the exiles, regulated the nature of supervision. It must be concluded that the government, starting with the Statutes, decides on the management of Siberian exile as an independent sphere of the life of Siberian society.
Despite some criticism of the specific norms of the Institution of Siberian Administration in 1822, its implementation became the main content of government policy in this region. The basis of this approach was the consideration in the law of the problems of improving the management of Siberia in the complex of issues of regulating relations of an immature socially Siberian society, including the administrative-territorial structure, the management system, the development of the economy as a whole, Agriculture and industry in particular, the problem of ensuring the security of the Siberian borders of the empire.
Speransky's proposals for the Siberian reform were based on all-Russian laws, taking into account the regional peculiarities of Siberia, primarily with regard to the population: a motley rural population in terms of social composition, the lack of formation of the urban estate, the presence of foreigners of three categories, the absence of the nobility, a large influx of exiles and settlers. Therefore, the "Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces" in 1822 became in form a set of regulations and statutes for regulating many aspects of social relations of various categories of the population.
The implemented concept of reform actually provided for many of the measures that would be implemented on a national scale only 50 years later, in the era of the transformations of Alexander II. These included: 1) strengthening the supervision of local administration by central departments; 2) transformation of the personal power of local chiefs into administrative powers under the law; 3) coordination of relations between different parts of local government and a certain amount of autonomy for each local authority; 4) taking into account local peculiarities and customs.
Siberian legislation of 1822, the Institution itself and numerous charters and regulations, were developed on the basis of the consideration and aspirations of M.M. Speransky to take into account the geopolitical, geographical, ethnic, economic and other features of the Asian part of Russia, to assess the importance of the region in the development of the country, to determine the direction of policy in relation to the region. In fact, this was the first experience of creating comprehensive regional legislation in Russia at the codified level of its organization. Its very appearance testifies to the understanding by the authorities of the special role of the state and its institutions in organizing and regulating the life of various categories of the subordinate population. The government understood and regulated the spatial and geopolitical situation on the outskirts of the empire - the Siberian region, different from European Russia.
And, although it is believed that the Siberian period of M.M. Speranskiy has not yet received proper coverage in the research of specialists, it should be noted that interest in administrative reform in Siberia was and remains great. Criticism of the reform: the ambiguity of the provisions of the "Siberian Institution", the lack of obvious practical results of its implementation in the form of improving affairs in the management of the region, as well as the return in the future to the foundations of legislation laid down by M.M. Speransky, only emphasize the conclusion that the reformer touched upon a wide range of problems in the life of the Siberian government. Not available on this moment and an unambiguous assessment of the administrative transformations of the reformer M.M. Speransky in Siberia, which is due to the continuation of the study of the problems of regional management, taking into account the latest approaches to the problem, as well as the systematization of existing assessments regarding this issue. This is due, in our opinion, not least to the development of the methodology of regional government, new views on the history of regions, the ratio of public administration and self-government. Nevertheless, we believe that the Siberian reform of 1822 and its implementation, despite all the difficulties and contradictions in the administrative policy of the supreme power, was a significant advance in the development of political and legal institutions in Russia. It characterizes the legal cross-section of the regional policy of the authorities as aimed at the desire to ensure the state unity and controllability of the Russian Empire both at the level of this complex political-territorial entity and at the level of its vast eastern region - Siberia.
Conclusion
The formation of the public administration system in Siberia proceeded along the path of using general imperial principles and the beginnings of administrative influence on the life processes in Siberia, but on the basis of flexible application general state approaches and political and legal institutions, combining them with Siberian geopolitical features, taking into account the existing systems of traditional governance 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 tendencies 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 an empire, during the building of which relations “center-region” were formed, where the central power is the government, 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-Generals of Western and Eastern Siberia.
The system of government bodies in Siberia was built on the basis of the experience of the institutions that proved their viability in the central part of the country, but taking into account the characteristics of the region, which was ensured by legislative consolidation of the exemptions from their general imperial legalizations without violating general principles orientation towards the formation of a centralized control system from the level of the imperial center to the level of the Siberian region with the inclusion of all levels of control over Siberia.
In the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. the supreme power deliberately took into account the regional features of Siberia, giving them the status of system-forming factors in the development of legislation in the field of public administration of the region, although a clearly expressed 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, 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 tax-paying population.
Localization of management through self-government of various social categories population within Siberian society, which made it possible, in the conditions of compact residence of certain groups of the population, to provide them with the administrative influence of the state through the appointment or approval of the leaders of self-governing communities. The organization of the Siberian public administration system took into account the spatial and geographical features of the region associated with the presence of territories with an undeveloped communication system and posing the problem of complex localization of administrative functions at various levels of intra-Siberian government structures, which ensured the management of remote territories, but reduced the level and capabilities of the governor-general. control and supervision of central government bodies over the activities of officials of the Siberian administration.
Bibliography:
1. Akishin M.O. Russian absolutism and governance of Siberia in the 18th century: the structure and composition of the state apparatus. Moscow-Novosibirsk, 2003.
2. Dameshek I.L. Siberia in the system of imperial regionalism (a comparative study of Russia's borderland policy in the first half of the 19th century). Irkutsk, 2002;
3. Dameshek L.M., Kuznetsov A.S. Siberian reform of 1822 // Essays on the history of Siberia. Issue 3. Irkutsk, 1973
4. Eroshkin N.P. The history of state institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia. M., 1968.
5. Kolesnikov A.D. Russian population Western Siberia in the XVIII - early XIX centuries. Omsk, 1973
6. Mirzoev V.G. Historiography of Siberia. M., 1970;
7. Rabtsevich V.V. Siberian city in the pre-reform management system. Novosibirsk, 1984;
8. Minenko N.A. Russian peasant community in Western Siberia. XVIII - first half of the XIX century. Novosibirsk, 1991;
9. Pisarkova L.F. From Peter I to Nicholas I: government policy in the formation of bureaucracy // Otechestvennaya istoriya. 1996 No. 4.
10. Rezun D.Ya. Essays on the history of the study of the Siberian city. XVIII century. Novosibirsk, 1991;
11. Remnev A.V. Autocracy and Siberia. Administrative policy in the first half of the 19th century. Omsk, 1995;
Until the beginning of the XX century. Siberia was understood as the whole area east of Ural mountains to the Pacific Ocean, that is, this concept covered such regions as Western, Southern, Eastern Siberia and the Far East.
Unlike the European part of Russia, which was strictly subordinate to the central administration, Siberia had a certain administrative autonomy and a more ramified system of government. The various levels of this system, in some of their parts, formally corresponded to the institutions operating in other territories of the empire, but the specifics of the region introduced the necessary changes to each of them.
Regional factors of the formation of the specifics of the management of Siberia
Political and geographical factors played an important role in the formation of the administrative system of Siberia. The vastness of its territory and remoteness from the capitals of the state lay at the heart of many of the features of the management of Siberia. Although economic goals (primarily income from furs) were indeed one of the main incentives for the establishment of Russian authorities beyond the Ural ridge, it was not the sable magpies that directly influenced the organization of management, but the desire to prevent separatism and embezzlement by numerous Cossack and service chiefs.
The government decided to establish a special administrative center in Siberia, parallel to the capital of the state, to which local authorities would be subordinate. Tobolsk, founded in 1587, became the residence of the supreme Siberian governors. The Tobolsk governor headed the so-called "category" - a large district, which consisted of several county voivodships. Later (in the 18th - early 20th centuries), the administration of the region was built on the principle of organizing large districts, governorships and general governorships. The supreme administrator of Siberia received a much greater amount of power compared to his colleagues in other parts of the empire.
The harsh natural conditions and remoteness from the inhabited European Russia prompted the police department to use Siberia as a place of exile and hard labor.
The political and geographical factors undoubtedly included the proximity of Siberia to the Central Asian and Pacific countries; the great power of the heads of the Siberian administration facilitated the transfer of diplomatic and trade ties with neighboring states... Merchant caravans from China and Mongolia went through Siberia, so the organization of the customs service became one of the main foreign economic prerogatives of Siberian rulers back in the 17th century. In addition, the Tobolsk rank voivode received the right of diplomatic relations (sending and receiving embassies) with the Mongols and Kalmyks.
The most important prerequisite for the formation of the management system was the peculiarities of the settlement of the region by Russians. Siberia was inhabited, on the one hand, by service people who performed the functions of state administration, defense, and "bailing out"; on the other hand, Russian peasants crossed the Urals, attracted by the local open spaces, rich land and the absence of serfdom here. The Siberian authorities could not afford to exceed the measure of tax and political pressure, since the subjects always had the opportunity to move farther into the wilderness and be beyond the reach of the state authorities. The peasants formed posad and rural communities, different from the Russian ones, since they were no longer based on the traditional community.
Posad self-government was practically absent, and the administrative bodies of the posad turned into essentially the lowest police authorities, while in the European part of the country they stood guard over worldly interests and rights. There was no organized nobility in Siberia either. Representatives of the princely and boyar families, who were sent to the voivodeship, after leaving the service, returned "to Russia." Accordingly, therefore, the necessary conditions did not exist for the formation of representative bodies of the nobility, which formed the basis of local government in European Russia.
In the face of a shortage of personnel, the local authorities were forced to replenish their ranks from non-traditional strata for Russia - from merchants, industrialists, and sometimes peasants. It was the lack of qualified management personnel from the nobility, among other reasons, that forced the government to leave some of the administrative powers to the aboriginal nobility.
In Siberia, as such, there was no serfdom and its entire population was "state-owned", the central government, relying on regional bodies, had the opportunity to carry out any reforms there and change the administrative division of the region - after all, the highest and only instance for all Siberians were state institutions ...
The task of turning into citizenship more and more new tribes and territories, and then keeping them subordinate, prompted the central government to grant the Siberian governors not only civil, but also military power.
So, the main factors that influenced the specifics of the management of Siberia were the following: political-geographical- the vastness of the territory, the absence of the old administrative division, the neighborhood with Asian countries; socio-political- the absence of corporate estate organizations of the nobility and the posad, the lack of managerial personnel, the absence of private land, the military-administrative nature of the organization of settlements, the spontaneous resettlement of the peasantry and the small number of the population; ethnosocial- the need to involve the native nobility in management.
Political view of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. was conditioned by three main tasks: the profitability of the region, the convenience of its administration and the protection of the eastern and southern Asian borders of the empire. Complication of any of these tasks, and more 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 politics at the beginning of the 19th century. in relation to Siberia, he gave Siberian legislation an inconsistent, inconsistent, largely situational character.
There is no doubt that the lack of organizational and managerial foundations in Siberian management and the responsibility of local officials was not compensated by attempts to improve and increase the responsibility of central government bodies. The establishment of ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the administration of the Provincial Establishment of 1775 in this respect, but even rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine's local government. The inconsistency of the principles laid down in its provisions affected the practice of public administration. While the Institution of Provinces pursued the task of bringing the governors closer to the governed, it tried to fill the provincial institutions with people closely familiar with the interests and everyday features of the area, the ministries concentrated power and administrative powers, “pulled” them to the center and gradually subordinated 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 contact with each other to such an extent that there was a separation between the institutions of various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposite influences, the phenomenon of centralization and the need to take into account local peculiarities in management, were supposed to induce the supreme power to improve management structures along the "center-region" axis, to reconcile them with each other by law in order to ensure the existence of each in order to secure the weakest from being absorbed by the strongest.
Appointment of the new Siberian governor I.O. Selifontov in 1801, the establishment of the general-governorship in Siberia in 1803, as well as the direction of the new ruler I.B. Pestel in 1806 was carried out on the basis of principles that assumed the streamlining of administration and the strengthening of local power. This step in the management of Siberia meant that the government followed the previous path, betting on strengthening the governor-general's power and centralizing the local state apparatus.
The clash of the competence of ministerial departments with the powers of local government insistently demanded the legislative differentiation of the competences of local and central institutions as a prerequisite 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.
Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century, the system of public administration develops, obeying multidirectional and largely contradictory tendencies. In defining the principles of regional policy, the autocracy faced an inevitable choice: to introduce a nationwide system of government or to grant Siberia 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 in principle the question - the colony of Siberia or the outskirts - the supreme power could not work out a strategy for the management of this vast territory.
Projects of territorial and administrative transformation of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. were considered by the Ministry of the Interior. In October 1818, the Minister of the Interior, O.P. Kozodavlev submitted to the Committee of Ministers a note on the management of Siberia. It proposed removing Pestel from the administration of the region, appointing a new governor-general and providing him with special instructions. The instruction should be drawn up only after the reasons for the failures of the former Siberian governor-generals have been clarified. Kozodavlev condemned the unbridled desire to uncontrollably strengthen local power, while it, on the contrary, had to be placed under the effective supervision of central institutions. To this end, 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 - should have had the advantage only in case of equality of votes, but he could also suspend the implementation of the council's decision with the obligatory communication of this to the interested minister. Such a structure of Siberian government was supposed to put the governor-general under double control - both from the central government bodies (branch ministries) and from the representatives of society (estates). Kozodavlev also suggested, relying on the experience of the Eastsee 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 Cibiri administration under the leadership of Senator M.M. Speranskiy marked the beginning of a new stage in the government's views on the regional management system. 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 is becoming a problem within the geopolitical order.
Revision of M.M. Speransky found that the reform of the Siberian government was complicated by the need to fight against abuses, with a personal principle, alien and indigenous areas of the Russian state. The activities of a special body for reviewing the results of the inspection of the management - the Siberian Committee - had to resolve the issue of placing 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 a sparsely populated region. It was necessary to coordinate the general rules of the empire's governance with the needs, requirements and conditions of the vast Siberian region.
Revision of the Siberian administration and the provisions of the public administration reform in the region, developed by 1822 by M.M. Speransky, identified 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 that the supreme power recognized the need to establish a special management system in Siberia, which, in turn, testified to the formation of views on the "borderland", regional policy. This was the first attempt to approach the management of a huge, resource-rich region in a comprehensive manner, which indicated the emerging desire to develop a government concept of attitudes towards Siberia, an integral program of its administrative and economic development.
During the 20-80s of the XVIII century. the administration of Siberia, together with the administration of other regions of Russia, underwent significant changes. There was a further strengthening of the dictatorship of the nobility through the creation of a more centralized and bureaucratic apparatus of the bureaucratic-noble monarchy.
Created according to the second regional reform of 1719-1725. local institutions were not centralized and, from the point of view of the interests of the ruling class, performed unsatisfactorily their functions, especially financial ones. Therefore, in 1727-1736. a new restructuring of regional institutions was undertaken.
The main provisions of the new regional administration were set forth in the decrees on February 24 and March 15, 1727 1 and in the order issued on September 12, 1728 to "governors, voivods and their comrades, according to which they must act." 2 Subsequent legalizations only supplemented the regional apparatus of power created by these legislative acts, which existed with some changes until the "Institution for the administration of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" on November 7, 1775. 3 Decree on August 27, 1740 on the development of a special instruction for the governor of Siberia "with explanation ”4 was apparently not fulfilled.
Legalization of 1727-1728, keeping basically the prevailing in the first quarter of the XVIII century. system of government, gave all regions of Russia, including Siberia, a monotonous, three-level administrative-territorial, for the first time strictly centralized division.
The main administrative unit of this division was the province. It consisted of provinces, which in turn were subdivided into newly established counties. In the provinces and cities, the sole power of the governors was restored, subordinate, in turn, to sovereign governors. Since all local power was united in one person (in the provinces - the governor, in the province - the governor), court courts, census offices, special financial bodies, fiscal authorities were canceled.
The Siberian province was still headed by the governor with full administrative, police, judicial, financial, economic and military power. He had two lieutenant governors as assistants. The governor and vice-governors were appointed by the Supreme Privy Council (1726-1730) and then by the Cabinet of Her Imperial Majesty (1731-1741) from candidates nominated by the Senate. 5 On December 12, 1741, they were appointed by the Senate. 6 Sometimes the governor received the right to choose a lieutenant governor. Governors and vice-governors were appointed, as a rule, from the top of the nobility.
The term of office of the Siberian (Tobolsk) governor was not precisely defined. Provincial, district (city) and suburban governors were subordinate to him. By the order of 1728, only the governor had the right of direct communication with the central institutions. The governor received the right to independently remove suburban governors from affairs in 1727, and provincial and city governors in 1740, pending decree.
All finances of the province were under the supervision of the governor. He supervised the activities of provincial and city governors in collecting the poll tax. Until 1736, 8 per capita tax was collected by the zemstvo commissars through village elders and clerks with the assistance of regimental ranks. To concentrate all financial affairs in the hands of the governors and governors, by a decree on January 26, 1736, the collection of the poll tax was completely transferred to their jurisdiction, and the regimental ranks were removed from its collection. The district as a unit of taxation was abolished. The poll tax began to gather not according to the location of the regiments, but according to the counties. Retired officers appointed by the Military Collegium became permanent assistants to the governor in collecting the poll tax. With the involvement of retired officers in the poll tax, the elected zemstvo commissars ceased to exist. The bureaucratization and centralization of the financial apparatus was intensified.
In addition to the capitation tax, under the direct control of the governor of Siberia was the financial activities of the town halls (magistrates), subordinate since 1727 to the voivods and governors "for the best posad security." 9 The Governor had the right to audit them financial reports and seek to obtain "full salaries for customs and other fees." 10 In addition, the governor received from them, as well as from the governor, monthly reports on the progress of various fees and could even arrest burgomasters. Such control of the central administration over the financial and other activities of the town halls and magistrates did not contribute to the development of cities.
The governor had the right to authorize the return of fees, except for the town halls, for payment; authorize the conclusion of contracts; enter central institutions with representations about the introduction or cancellation of any fees other than capitation; oversee the maintenance of all receipts and expenditures; monitor the distribution of salaries according to the appropriations of the Chamber Collegium and monitor all other financial affairs of the province. The governor's judicial and police powers were also broad. Its jurisdiction extended to all judicial and search cases. He was the only instance of appeal to the court of provincial and city voivods, he tested the decisions of the voivodeship courts on death penalty and hard labor, tried the bailiffs and encouraged them to quickly solve the court cases, accepted complaints against the governor and the actions of the magistrates, led the fight against class protest, foreign espionage, schism and other "heresies", supervised the preservation public order and improvement, that is, for the state of the guard service, fire-prevention measures, for the cleanliness of the streets and in trading rows, for measures and weights, for suspicious houses, etc. only the Senate could punish the governor for the wrong judgment. In 1728-1737 the collegia were even deprived of the right to impose monetary fines on governors without presentation to the Senate. eleven
In practice, the Siberian governor often turned from a full-fledged ruler into a sovereign master who acted at his own discretion and did not take into account government decrees.
The governor's executive body was the provincial chancellery with a secretary at its head. It concentrated the affairs of all abolished in 1726-1727. zemstvo and rentmasters offices, court courts, judicial commissioners, rentmasters and chamberlains. 12 Cases of all the abolished local institutions were distributed in the provincial chancellery by departments.
The Chancellery was in charge of direct protection of the interests of the ruling class, namely, the suppression of popular movements, the fight against violators of "order", that is, police measures, the dispatch of the court. It was also responsible for fire-prevention and sanitary measures. thirteen
The provincial chancellery was inundated with cases of finding the fugitives and returning them to their place of residence. It also registered the purchase and sale of courtyards, registration of work leave, issuance of passports, etc. Military affairs (recruiting, collecting horses, meeting various requirements of the Military Collegium, supplying military units, identifying soldiers wait, etc.).
A considerable part of the activities of the provincial chancellery was associated with local economic life - agriculture, trade, trades, crafts, manufactures. She also provided the activities of scientific expeditions, observed education, etc.
Through the office, the governor exercised control over the activities of the provincial and district authorities, town halls and magistrates. Provincial governors with their own offices were the middle link in the provincial hierarchy. Since the governor, due to his remoteness, could not always control the actions of the city governors, they had to be "supervised" by the provincial governors. The provincial voivode could not impose a penalty on the policeman on his own. He only reported to the governor about the misdeeds committed by the city governor. In the hands of the provincial governors, power was concentrated over all the inhabitants. In criminal cases, the provincial governor's court was subject to the entire population of the province, regardless of social origin, with the exception of the clergy and those directly under the jurisdiction of the Justitz Collegium of soldiers and officers of the guard. The civil court of regional institutions was limited by class. The trial of the merchants in the first instance belonged to the town halls, and since 1743 - to the restored city magistrates. Moreover, if the voivode found their decision wrong, then he considered the case himself. The peasants of the spiritual estates were tried in the first instance for civil affairs from their clerks. The affairs of state peasants in petty disputes and litigations were dealt with by clerks and village elders. All other civil cases were considered by the governors. Cases of a political nature were decided only by the Office of Secret Investigation Affairs. The decisions of the provincial governor could be appealed against to the governor.
In the police area, the provincial voivode assisted the governor in protecting the class interests of the noble monarchy, helped in overseeing the security of the prevailing serf social "order", and monitored the sanitary, fire-fighting, religious and moral state of the province. Since the 30s of the XVIII century. in Siberia, as in other places, the police began to be established "for better order and equalization of the inhabitants in the inns". It was put on the budget of the town hall, but "under the authority of ... governors and governors." 14 In Tobolsk, the police was created in 1733, in Irkutsk - in 1757.15
In the economic area, the provincial governor was responsible for the state of agriculture, trades, crafts, manufactories, trade, communications and for the timely and accurate receipt of fees to the treasury.
The lowest level of the provincial administration was the city with the county. At the head of the district was the city governor. Within the limits of his competence, he also single-handedly decided all administrative, economic, financial, judicial, police and military matters. The county and volost administration was subordinate to him. He appointed and dismissed volost clerks, dismissed or demoted the servants of the provincial chancellery, supervised the elections of the peasant administration, including the elective worldly clerk, who from mid XVIII v. took the place of the clerk appointed by the voivode. The town hall also obeyed the governor. In relation to the court, the county voivode had equal rights with the provincial voivode. In criminal cases, he had jurisdiction over the entire population of the district. But he was especially obliged to take care of the eradication of "robbers and thieves" in the district and promptly suppress "robber meetings with a large population."
The voivode managed the county through the county provincial chancellery, which worked under his direct supervision and was organizationally a fragment from the provincial and provincial chancelleries. The office was divided into tables (povytya), headed by clerks (clerks). The number of tables varied depending on the amount of work and the needs of the management.
The clerks, sub-clerks and clerks of the provincial chancellery were appointed by the voivode. Occasionally they could be elected by the clerical officers themselves. Supervision of the work of the office of the voivode usually entrusted to his comrade, and in the absence of such - to the clerk "with an assignment." In addition to office clerks, the so-called counters worked in the provincial office, whose duty was to keep records and store treasury money and valuables. They were chosen by the townspeople and replaced the former kissers.
The social origin of clerical workers was different, but the bulk of them were from service people. So, in 1755 in the Ilim provincial chancellery, out of 16 servants, 8 people came from the Cossacks, and 4 - from the clerks. During the first regional reform (1708-1710), a significant group of former provincial cities of Siberia was included in the states.
In 1727, in order to save state funds, the government left in these cities, which were not in the pre-Petrine states, only the governors and their comrades on the state salary, and the clerks and clerks, according to the class logic of the feudal government, had to be content with “voluntary” donations from petitioners. State funds were saved at the expense of additional legalized extortion of the people. This once again testifies to the hypocrisy of numerous government decrees with instructions to local authorities "not to mend" "any offenses and taxes" to the population.
The clerks of these cities began to receive salaries only from 1763. But even after that, a large difference in the payment of the “top” and “bottom” of the provincial office was preserved.
The centralization of administration and the diversity of issues considered by the provincial office inevitably created extensive office work. The movement of affairs began with the decrees of the provincial institutions, which caused reciprocal reports on the receipt and execution of the decrees. In pursuance of the instructions of the provincial government, the provincial office sent out its decrees to the volosts and received responses, reports and statements. Thus, during the period from 1725 to 1774, no less than 200 thousand cases of the most varied volume and content passed through the Ilim provincial chancellery, and on average there were more than 10 cases per day. Their number during the 18th century. increased markedly. sixteen
In this huge heap of paper, the main place belonged to the correspondence of the provincial office with the volost clerk huts. Voivodeship decrees and reports in reply, reports and statements of volosts accounted for 81.5% of all correspondence of the office. Decrees of provincial institutions and responses from the provincial office accounted for only 18.5% 17 of this business correspondence. This ratio reflects the main duty of the provincial office - to manage the work of the volost office huts and control their activities. This leadership took place on the orders of higher institutions and with strict accountability to them. The bureaucratic machine was in full swing.
The distribution of correspondence emanating from the clerk huts by povtyam (tables, departments) of the Ilim provincial chancellery is indicative. According to the data of 1732, 29.2% of it settled in the monetary increase, 21.4% in the grain, 20.6% in the ship, 13.5% in the discharge, 11.1% in the capitation, 2.9% in the salt, 0.9% in the yasak and 0.4% - in countable. Consequently, the provincial office was a huge pump for pumping out money, bread, etc.
The volost clerk hut was headed by a clerk. Until the middle of the 18th century. he was appointed by the city governor from among the service people and was his agent. Assistants of the clerk in his economic activities were the kissers, and in the police - the elders, sotsk, Pentecostal and ten. They were annually chosen by peasants from among their midst, but were not their representatives, but agents of the clerk.
After the liquidation of tithe arable land, the order of governance of the volosts gradually changed. The clerks and kissers, who had previously dealt with all matters related to tithe arable land, gradually began to be abolished. The role of the peasant administration increased somewhat. At the head of the volosts were not the voivodship, but the mundane clerks elected at the volost gathering. From that time on, the order hut began to be called the secular hut. The elective clerk, sotsky and headmen who were in charge of the economic and other affairs of this or that peasant village, constituted the peasant administration of the volost.
After their approval, the elected officials received instructions from the provincial offices of the same type as the previous orders to clerks. The elected were obliged to execute decrees on the eradication of "thieves and robbers", to collect taxes and arrears, to carry out "judgment and punishment" on minor matters; cases of murder, theft and robbery were ordered to be sent to the provincial office.
The yasak volosts were headed by shulengs, who were elected by the yasak and approved by the governors. Shulengi were in charge of collecting yasak and made decisions on all minor economic, administrative and judicial matters. Their rights and duties were reminiscent of the rights and duties of worldly clerks. They also acted on the instructions of the governors and governors. After the collection of yasak was handed over to the princes, zaisans and toyons, elective yasak collectors from the indigenous population became Shuleng assistants. eighteen
In the second half of the 20s of the XVIII century. did not avoid reorganization and local government bodies. In 1727, the Chief Magistrate, who had previously headed all the city magistrates, was destroyed, and the city magistrates were subordinated to governors and voivods, which turned them into an appendage of the tsarist administration. By the decree of July 5, 1728, 19 city magistrates with irreplaceable burgomasters were replaced by town halls with annually re-elected bailiffs. This ensured an easy replacement of the mayors, undesirable for the tsarist administration, and prevented the strengthening of their authority.
Thus, these reforms, to the detriment of the interests of the merchants, placed the city's elected bodies under the full control of the noble administration. At the same time, the prohibition to interfere in the elections and to cancel them was reaffirmed to the governors and voivods. twenty
The general direction of government policy in relation to the bodies of city self-government did not in the least change the decree of May 21, 1743, which restored the Chief Magistrate in St. Petersburg and magistrates in other cities. 21 Local magistrates were still dependent on governors and voivods. The power of the feudal administration was especially strong when the magistrates did not fulfill their duties on payments and fees on time. In such cases, the governor and the voivode could keep the burgomasters under arrest until the arrears were paid. 22 In Tobolsk and Irkutsk, the provincial magistrates were restored, and in Yeniseisk - the provincial. In most of the rest of the cities there are, apparently, town halls. 23 The quantitative composition of the magistrates and town halls themselves was determined by the size of a particular settlement. They were in charge, like the town halls of other provinces, of the economic, tax, recruiting, legal and organizational affairs of their posadov. Each town hall was engaged in the distribution of arable, hay, pasture and fishing grounds, places in the Gostiny Dvor, government contracts, farms and supplies, the layout, collection and dispatch of capitation money, the performance of recruiting, underwater, road, stationary duties, the layout and execution of various magistrate monetary collections and duties, the choice of persons to the state and zemstvo services, the collection of customs, wine, beer, salt and other money, the maintenance of income and expense books, the court of the townspeople on civil matters, the distribution of the townspeople on guard, monitored the cleanliness in the cities, the good condition pavements, sentries, slingshots and other police structures, keeping order in the markets, for the correctness of measures and weights, kept registration of government decrees and instructions of the "main commands" and took measures for their implementation, issued passports to merchants who left for trade in other cities, assigning persons to their city and dismissing them elsewhere. The town hall was also in charge of "orphan" and "verbal" courts, the first of which resolved issues related to custody of minors, inheritance of property, adoption, and the second was the lower court that dealt with petty disputes between the townspeople. 24 Almost all the activities of magistrates and town halls were carried out by zemstvo huts and zemstvo elders.
In the conditions of the developing all-Russian market and the formation of a capitalist structure in the depths of the feudal mode of production, the government was forced to some extent to meet the interests of the merchants. It singled out the merchants from the general mass of the urban population into a special class, freed merchants from the poll tax and burdensome and heavy state services, replaced the merchants' recruiting duty with a one-percent levy from the capital, saved the merchants of the first two guilds from corporal punishment, abolished internal customs, established a merchant bank. introduced a ransom system for drinking, tobacco, customs and other fees, destroyed trade monopolies and allowed freedom of industrial enterprise. 25 By carrying out these measures, the government sought to acquire additional support in the elite of the developing bourgeoisie.
But the well-being of the merchants themselves and their self-governing bodies under the conditions of feudal-serfdom when the nobles were managing the provinces was very unstable. An example of this is the activity of the Siberian "investigator" P. N. Krylov in 1758-1760, sent to Irkutsk by the Chief Prosecutor of the Senate A. I. Glebov with the special purpose of making Irkutsk merchants abandon the wine purchase in favor of Glebov. Arriving in Irkutsk, Krylov arrested and chained seventy-four merchants, including the chairman and members of the magistrate, sealed the shops, houses and all the property of first-class merchants in them and began an "investigation", in the course of which he attracted a hundred more Irkutsk merchants ... As a result of the "investigation" Krylov "extorted" from 120 Irkutsk merchants "voluntary donations" in the amount of 155295 rubles. The "Krylov pogrom", accompanied by undisguised looting of property and indescribable atrocities, cost the Irkutsk merchants, according to a contemporary of the Irkutsk merchant A. Sibiryakov, 300 thousand rubles. and ruined many merchants. Krylov escaped with the deprivation of ranks, and then not for robbery, violence, embezzlement, torture and murder on the rack of the merchant Bichevin, but for the arrest of the Irkutsk vice-governor Wulf and for attaching a plaque with his name to the state emblem. 26
The central institution in charge of Siberia was restored on December 20, 1730, the Siberian order, subordinate to the Senate. Until its restoration, Siberia was governed on a common basis with all other provinces. It was in charge of the branch collegia subordinate to the Senate. The Senate explained the decrease in income from trade and from the receipt of furs in the treasury by the fact that Siberia “does not have such a view as it used to be”, when there was a special Siberian order in Moscow, from which governors were appointed to all Siberian cities, who directly communicated with the order. The arguments of the Senate about the uncontrolled activities of the administration, "especially in such a distant land," where "nothing is visible about how the governors act, they collect cash and yasak income and which of them are in good order and not in good order," order in Moscow. 27
Having restored the Siberian order, the government reduced its rights in comparison with the 17th century. Mining, metallurgical, manufacturing enterprises, Yamskaya service, military teams (since 1748) and ambassadorial relations with neighboring Siberian provinces were removed from the competence of the Siberian Order. Eastern countries... Some issues of foreign trade and the border customs service, the Siberian order was forced to solve together with the Commerce Collegium and the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. 28 To a fuller extent, the powers of the Siberian Order were retained in administrative, financial and commercial matters, but even then under the control of the Senate.
The Siberian order directed the actions of the Siberian administration and controlled it. The opinion of the Siberian Prikaz was taken into account when opening or closing routes of communication with Siberia and customs outposts. Customs, tavern and other fees were under his control. The Siberian order permitted the hunting of fur animals in Siberia and on the islands of the Pacific Ocean, was in charge of Siberian farms and the dispatch of state caravans to China. 29
In the course of these administrative changes, the Siberian province was initially withdrawn from the direct subordination of the Chamber Collegium, the State Office and the Revision Collegium and completely passed into the jurisdiction of the Siberian Order. thirty
In the 30s of the XVIII century. special attention was paid to the social composition of the Siberian administration. By a personal decree of January 12, 1739, the Senate was commanded to "select good and wealthy and conscientious people from the noble gentry as voivods, and, having written which of them in which city to be, send there without any delay." 31 In subsequent years, the governors of Siberian cities were, as a rule, persons of only noble origin. Having received such great powers, the Siberian order, which was "in the directorate" of General PI Yaguzhinsky, began to claim a special position in the system of state institutions. Then the Senate, by a decree on August 20, 1734, ordered the Siberian Order to report to the Chamber Collegium and the State Office on a monthly basis “on the arrival and consumption of the treasury and all kinds of goods”, and to the Revision Board “send bills” and “without bank notes from the State Office. ... ... not to use both money and goods ... in any expenses, except for registered decrees ... not to use. " The affairs of the abolished Siberian order were transferred to the corresponding colleges and offices, and furs and goods - to the Cabinet. Siberia again began to be governed on a common basis with other provinces.
Now, when managing the affairs of the Siberian province, which was subordinate to the collegia and the Senate, the governor relied not only on the "Order to governors and governors" of September 12, 1728, but also on the "Instruction to the governors" published on April 21, 1764 by Catherine II in addition to this I will order. Compared to the Instruction, the "Instructions to the Governors" increased the authority of the governors, and also contained some ideas of "enlightened" absolutism. The governor "as a personage from the empress and as the head and master of the entire province entrusted to him" was obliged to carry out only the decrees of the empress and the Senate and could be punished only by them, but not by the Colleges. The governor had to report important matters in parallel to the Senate and the Empress. The "Instruction" of 1764 and the "Order" of 1728 lost their force only with the introduction of governorates-governorships. Throughout the XVIII century. For administrative and police reasons, the government changed the administrative division of Siberia several times.
By a decree on April 29, 1727, the Vyatka and Solikamsk provinces were transferred from the Siberian province to the Kazan province, 33 and in 1738 the Isetskaya province was separated, and the Siberian province began to consist of Tobolsk (cities with counties - Tobolsk, Verkhoturye, Turinsk, Pelym, Tyumen , Tara, Berezov, Surgut, Narym, Tomsk, Kuznetsk; fortresses - Kamyshevskaya, Semipalatinskaya, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Omsk and Zhelezinskaya), Yeniseiskaya (cities with counties - Yeniseisk, Turukhansk, Krasnoyarsk) and Irkutsk provinces (cities with counties - Irkutsk Verkholensk, Selenginsk, Udinsk, Ilimsk, Barguzin, Ilyinsky stockade, Balagansky stockade, Nerchinsk, Yakutsk with Kamchatka). 34 The distribution of cities by provinces was provided at the discretion of the Siberian governor, as it would be "more convenient for local conditions." 36
On January 30, 1736, the vast Siberian province, in which the "single governor, beyond the distant distance of cities and settlements, had a great inability" "was in control", was divided into two independent administrative units. 37 The Irkutsk province was made independent and entrusted to a special vice-governor, directly subordinate to the Siberian order. The Siberian governor still ruled only the Tobolsk and Yenisei provinces. Thus, the beginning of the administrative division of Siberia into Western and Eastern was laid. 38
On October 19, 1764, Catherine II commanded the Senate “in reasoning of the great vastness of our Siberian kingdom. ... ... to create a second province in it ”- Irkutsk. 39 The definition of local administrative boundaries was left to the discretion of the governors themselves. After the approval of the materials submitted by them, Siberia until 1775, that is, before the publication of "Institutions for the Administration of Provinces", consisted of the Tobolsk and Irkutsk provinces. The Tobolsk province had the Tobolsk province with the Tobolsk, Tyumen, Verkhotursky, Irbitsky, Tarsky, Kuznetsk and Tomsk districts and the Yenisei province with the Yenisei and Krasnoyarsk districts. Irkutsk province consisted of Irkutsk province with Irkutsk, Kirensky and Balagansky districts, Udinsky (Verkhneudinsky) provinces with Udinsky, Selenginsky, Barguzinsky and Nerchinsky districts and Yakutsk province with Yakutsk, Ilimsky, Aldansky and Olekminsky districts. In addition to provinces and cities with counties, there were Commissars in the provinces. 40
After the suppression of the peasant war under the leadership of E. Pugachev in the 70s of the XVIII century. the internal policy of the autocracy was aimed at further strengthening the noble apparatus of governing the country. For these purposes and to strengthen the role of the provincial nobility in management, the "Institution for the management of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" was adopted in 1775.
All provinces received a uniform structure. The province was governed by the governor, who headed the Provincial Board. In each province were established: the treasury chamber, which had financial and economic functions, the treasury, the chambers of the civil and criminal courts and the Upper Zemstvo court, an order of public charity in charge of schools, shelters, almshouses and hospitals.
The county was ruled by the Lower Zemstvo Court, headed by the zemstvo police chief and assessors. The counties were divided into Commissars, which were under the jurisdiction of the zemstvo commissars. The district court and the Lower Repression were in charge of court cases.
City governors performed police functions in the cities. Provincial and city magistrates existed for the court and administration of the urban population (merchants, burghers, guilds). Zemstvo huts were subordinate to them as executive bodies, which had three heads of zemstvo affairs - merchant, petty bourgeois and guild. The city magistrate was headed by an elected burgomaster, a ratman and members of the magistrate's presence. At the end of the 18th century. instead of magistrates, city (city) dumas and councils were established. The mayor was replaced by the mayor from the "eminent merchants".
In some cases, two or three provinces were united under the leadership of a governor or a governor-general.
In 1782-1783 in Siberia, three governorships were established - Tobolsk, Kolyvan and Irkutsk, which were divided into regions. In 1796. governorships were abolished, and Siberia was divided into two provinces - Tobolsk and Irkutsk. Provinces were divided into regions, regions - into counties.
In rural areas, lay-out and collection of taxes, fulfillment of duties, administrative, economic, minor judicial and police issues were in charge of secular huts, for which special "Rules" were drawn up in 1784.
The volost secular hut consisted of a headman, a foreman, two sotsky and tax collectors. All of them were elected at meetings and approved by the district authorities. The Mirskaya hut was obliged to observe everything that was done in the volost, through the elders and tenants. Without their knowledge, the peasants were forbidden to leave somewhere from their homes, except for going to arable land and mowing, to leave for no reason to other volosts and uyezds. Everyone who traveled thirty or more versts from their place of residence had to have a written form (leave certificate). A peasant who came to the county town for shopping or for other purposes was obliged to inform the police officer, zemstvo court or solicitor (assistant prosecutor) about his stay here. Peasants who wanted to go away to work in other places were to receive, with the approval of the secular hut and under the guarantee of their fellow villagers, "feeding". Mirskaya hut kept "true notes" about the material situation of the peasants, noting the wealthy and the poor. This was done "safely and closed." When recruiting a secular hut, it was ordered to dress up in recruits from "fickle" (have-nots) people, even if out of turn, and leave the wealthy. They had to, if they were subject to the next recruitment, pay government fees and private debts for those who went into recruits. The lands left after the recruits were supposed to be "divided by those who are scarce in them." 41 Mirsk huts were directly subordinate to the Lower Zemstvo Court, and through it to the higher administrative bodies.
The rural administration was characterized by administrative and police custody of the peasants as a taxable estate, the use of enslaving measures when collecting government fees (return to work), reliance on the wealthy elite of the village.
In the field of management of the peoples of Siberia, up to 1822, when the "Regulations on the management of foreigners" was adopted, the Siberian administration was guided by private acts and precedents of administrative practice. The first acts in the field of government were the shertis (oaths) of local princes in the 17th century. about citizenship. They pledged for themselves and for the ulus people "to be in eternal servitude", to pay tribute on time and in full, to go along with the sovereign people "in a war against disobedient people." The princes were subordinate to the governors, clerks, but retained independence in the field of internal government.
In the first half of the 18th century. the guiding act was the instruction of the Ambassadorial Chancellery of Count Savva of Raguzinsky to the border patrolmen dated July 27, 1728. It was drawn up to manage the border Buryat population, but extended to other peoples as well. According to the instructions, small cases (disputes about kalym, theft, fights, etc.), with the exception of “creminal” (political) cases and murders, were subject to the courts of the tribal chiefs. More important cases were transferred to the court of district zemstvo commissars. Yasak was collected in kind or in money, the collection was carried out through the ancestral chiefs.
The second document that determined the order of administration and court for the Siberian peoples was an instruction to Major Shcherbachev, who was sent on a mission in 1763 to regulate yasak dues. The main provisions of this document correspond to the "Instructions for Border Patrolmen": I) "the nearest administration for uluses, camps, naslegs, etc. was given to the then former princes and other names of honorary people", 2) they were also given court and punishment "in all grave and unimportant criminal ". 42 When laying out taxes and duties, to solve land, court and other cases, suglans (gatherings) gathered, guided by the norms of customary law. The collection of yasak, the execution of state duties and other activities were carried out by ulus, clan and inter-clan (zaisans, tayshi) chiefs, who became the conductors of the policy of autocracy. The clan was considered the main administrative unit to which the yasak payers were assigned.
Formally, instructions to border guards and to Major Shcherbachev's seconds limited the interference of officials in the internal affairs of the peoples of Siberia (“so that the zemstvo commissars for counties and prison for small reasons do not rob and ruin”). In fact, "all management ... passed for the most part into the dependence of the Zemsky Officials and became a pretext for great abuses." 43
Ancestral and intergeneral chiefs received significant privileges in the areas of administration and court. They used their administrative position for the non-economic exploitation of the ulus people subordinate to them. Yasak these bosses collected "with abundant increments" in their favor, exacted "dark" (illegal) extortions, sought to introduce into the "steppe legalization" norms that essentially affirmed usury and usurious enslavement.
In an atmosphere of enslavement and powerlessness of the masses, officials introduced the customs of the landowners' estates into the management of the Siberian outskirts of the empire. The lack of rights of the people, the almost unlimited powers of the "Siberian satraps" (the expression of the Decembrist V.I. to act as a central authority.
It has already been indicated that the first Siberian governor, Prince M. Gagarin, was hanged in St. Petersburg in 1721 "for unheard of theft". 44 In 1736, the first vice-governor of the Irkutsk province, A. Zholobov, was executed through beheading for “lawless actions”. Vice-governor A. Pleshcheev, who replaced Zholobov, "was ignorant, hot-tempered, selfish in clerical affairs; he whipped and whipped industrial and commercial people for not receiving gifts and oppressed the clerks, he loved to constantly treat and drink various wines to his followers." 45 Irkutsk Governor Nemtsov was a "ill-intentioned man who used excessive severity in order to take more bribes and make more money." The godson of Catherine II, the head of the Nerchinsk mining plants, V.V. Naryshkin, was distinguished by extreme tyranny. He wasted state money, started a "hussar regiment" of criminal convicts. Having quarreled with the Irkutsk governor Nemtsov, Naryshkin decided to seize Irkutsk and deal with his enemy. Naryshkin's "army" departed from the Nerchinsk plant to Irkutsk. On the way, they rang bells, fired cannons, beat drums, seized carts with goods, organized feasts, and robbed local residents. Naryshkin did not manage to get to Irkutsk, he was arrested by the Verkhneudinsky governor and sent to Irkutsk, and then to St. Petersburg. Catherine II, having learned about the tyranny of Naryshkin, called him a "naughty". It was the Trans-Baikal artisans and peasants who were assigned to the factories to pay for these "pranks". The losses caused to the Naryshkin's treasury began to be made up for by the increased exploitation of workers at state-owned factories and mines.
Numerous complaints about the abuse and arbitrariness of the Siberian satraps were usually ignored by the central government. When these abuses assumed such proportions that they strongly affected the interests of the treasury, audits were sent to Siberia, but they usually did not achieve positive results, and sometimes the auditors turned out to be even worse than the audited ones.
The Siberian governor F.I.Soimonov was a colorful figure. He advanced back under Peter I, when he drew up a map Of the White Sea and gave a description of the Caspian coast. Under Empress Anna Ioannovna, Soimonov served as vice-president of the Admiralty Collegium. In 1740, Soimonov was put on trial for his participation in a group of nobility that fought against German domination during the Bironovism. He was beaten with a whip and sent to hard labor at the Okhotsk salt plant. Empress Elizabeth returned his freedom, but Soimonov lived in Siberia for another 16 years. In 1757 he was appointed Siberian governor. Soimonov spent six years in this position, differing from other Siberian rulers in education, honesty, and attention to the needs of the region. He organized a naval school in Nerchinsk, achieved the construction of a lighthouse and a harbor on Lake Baikal, strengthened the Omsk border line, laid the main Siberian route through the Barabinsk steppe, measured the fairway of the river. Shilki, explored the paths along the Amur. Soimonov has published several articles about Siberia.
Of course, an administrator like Soimonov was an exception. The system of government was determined by the regime of a feudal state based on the autocracy of the tsar, the nobility and officials and the lack of rights of the masses. It was in this atmosphere that Siberian satraps appeared, like Gagarin, Zholobov, Pleshcheev, Nemtsov, Naryshkin and others.
1 PSZ, t. VII, No. 5017, 5033.
2 Ibid., Vol. VIII. No. 5333.
3 Ibid. vol. XX, No. 14392.
4 Ibid., Vol. XI. No. 8218.
5 Ibid., Vol. VII, no. 5017; vol. XI, No. 8218.
6 Ibid., Vol. XI. No. 8480.
7 Ibid., Vol. VII. No. 5017; vol. XI, No. 8017.
8 Ibid., Vol. IX, No. 6872.
9 Ibid., Vol. VII, no. 5033.
10 Ibid., Vol. VIII, No. 5333.
11 Ibid., Vol. X, no. 134.
12 The rent-master's office (treasury) with the chamberlain was left only in Tobolsk. Irkutsk rent, abolished in 1726, was restored in 1754 due to the large turnover of the monetary and commodity treasury; its annual arrival since 1748 amounted to approximately 300 thousand rubles. (P. A. Slovtsov. Historical review of Siberia, book I. SPb., 1886, p. 218; PSZ, vol. XIV, No. 10300).
13 PSZ, vol. VIII. No. 5333; vol. X, No. 7298; v. XII, No. 8956.
14 Ibid., Vol. X, no. 724.
15 P. A. Slovtsov. Historical review of Siberia, Vol. 1, p. 219; PSZ, vol. XIV, No. 10769.
16 V.I.Sherstoboev. Ilimsk arable land, vol. II. Irkutsk, 1957, p. 75.
17 Ibid, p. 75. (The percentages are calculated by us, - Leg.).
18 Ibid., P. 137; F.G.Safronov. Russian peasants in Yakutia (17th - early 20th century). Yakutsk, 1961, pp. 135, 136, 384, 385, 619-623.
19 PSZ, t. VII, No. 5017.5142; t. VIII, No. 5302.
20 Ibid., Vol. X, no. 7728; t. VIII, No. 5333; V.N.Sherstoboev. Ilimsk arable land, vol. II, p. 465.
21 PSZ, v. XI, No. 8734.
22 Ibid., Vol. XII, No. 9149; t. XIII, No. 9765.
23 F.A.Kudryavtsev, G.A. Vendrikh. Irkutsk. Essays on the history of the city, Irkutsk, 1958, p. 55; V.N.Sherstoboev. Ilimsk arable land, vol. II, pp. 464-466.
24 PSZ, v. VIII, No. 5333; t. IX, No. 6584; t. X, No. 72111 7877; t XI, No. 8734; t. XII, Nos. 8955, 9033; t. XIII, No. 9754; v. XIV, no. 10222, v. XVII, no. 12721; v. XVIII, No. 13247.
25 V. N. Sherstoboev. Ilimsk arable land, vol. II, p. 465; PSZ v. XIII, No. 10164; t. XIV. No. 10312, 10497; v. XIII No. 10078; t XII Nos. 8791, 9348; t. XVI, No. 11630; t. XX, Nos. 14275, 14327, 14509; t. XXI, No. 15721; t. XXII, No. 16188; M Chulkov Historical description of Russian commerce ..., vol. III, book. 1, M., 1785, pp. 324, 344.
26 S. S. Shashkov. Irkutsk pogrom in 1758-1760 Collected cit., vol. II SPb., 1898, pp. 652-666; P. M. Golovachev. Extract from the chronicle about Krylov. Irkutsk hard times of 1758-1760 M., 1904, p. 32; F.A.Kudrya in tsev and E.P. S and l and n. Irkutsk. Essays on the history of the city. Irkutsk, 1947, pp. 64-67.
27 PSZ, vol. VIII, No. 5659.
28 Ibid., Vol. IX, Nos. 6376, 6715; vol. X, No. 7498; t. XII, No. 9319; vol. XX, no. 52.
29 Ibid., Vol. VIII, Nos. 5659, 6165, 6319; t. IX, No. 6326, 6394.
30 Ibid., Vol. VIII, no. 6227; t. IX, Nos. 6326, 6617, 7107; t. X, Nos. 7465, 7498, 7644, 7741; t. XI, No. 8234; v. XII, No. 8852, 9480, 9543, and DR.
31 Ibid, vol. X, No. 7730. v Ibid, vol. IX, No. 6617.
33 Ibid., Vol. VII, no. 5065.
34 Yu. V. Got e. History of regional administration in Russia from Peter I to Catherine II, vol. I. M., 1913, p. 110; PSZ, vol. X, No. 7347; t. XI, No. 8794; v. XII, No. 8900.
35 PSZ, vol. VII, No. 4916.
36 Ibid., Vol. VIII, No. 5733.
37 Ibid., Vol. IX, No. 6876.
38 Ibid., Vol. XI, No. 8017.
39 Ibid., Vol. XVI, no. 12269; vol. XX, No. 14241.
40 Ibid., V. XX, Nos. 14241, 14243; Yu. V. Gauthier. The history of regional administration in Russia ..., vol. I, pp. 122-125.
41 GAIO, f. Kirensky Lower Zemsky Court, op. I, d. 3, l. eight.
42 S. Prutchenko. Siberian outskirts. SPb., 1899. Appendix, p. 176.
44 I. V. Shcheglov. Chronological list of the most important data from the history of Siberia. 1032-1882 Irkutsk, 1883, p. 174.
45 Irkutsk Chronicle (Chronicles of P.I. Pezhemsky and V.A.Krotov) Tr. Vost.-Sib. dep. Russian Geographical Society, No. 5. Irkutsk, 1911, p. 50.
The process of Russia's annexation of new territories continued in the 18th century. As a result of the campaign of 1697-99 V.V. Atlasov began the subordination of Kamchatka. Relying on the Nizhnekamchatsky (1697), Verkhnekamchatsky (1703) and Bolsheretsky (1704) forts, the Cossacks by the 1720s. explained the Itelmens and the "Kuril men". Their attempts to resist (1707-11, 1731) were suppressed. In 1711, a Cossack expedition led by D.Ya. Antsiferov and I.P. Kozyrevsky visited the first (Shumshu) and, possibly, the second (Paramushir) islands of the Kuril ridge. At the same time, from Anadyrsk and Okhotsk, the explanation of the Koryaks intensified, a significant part of whom stubbornly refused to recognize Russian domination. Equally ineffectual were attempts to explain the Chukchi who lived on the Chukchi Peninsula.
Since the end of the 1720s. The Russian government, planning to expand and strengthen Russia's position in the northern Pacific Ocean, has stepped up efforts to subjugate the peoples and lands in the far north-east of Siberia. In 1727, a military expedition was created, later called the Anadyr Party, headed by A.F. Shestakov and D.I. Pavlutsky. The expedition, having conquered the "non-peaceful foreigners", was supposed to provide the rear and the base for the Russian advance to North America, the search for ways to which was one of the tasks of the First and Second Kamchatka expeditions. But the campaigns of 1729-32 by Shestakov and Pavlutsky, who preferred brute force to diplomacy, provoked armed opposition from the Koryaks and Chukchi. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Chukchi reindeer herders from the end of the 17th century, expanding their grazing lands, began to make systematic attacks on the Yukaghirs and Koryaks. The Russians were supported by the reindeer Yukaghirs and Koryaks who lived in the Anadyr region and suffered from the Chukchi raids, as well as the Tungus Lamut, who settled in the territory of the Okhotsk Sea Koryaks. All territorial groups of the Chukchi resolutely resisted the Russians. The sedentary Koryaks, who lived along the coast of the Okhotsk and Bering Seas, either fought with the Russians, then stopped hostilities and even brought in yasak. Arms took place at the same time. clashes between the Chukchi and the Koryaks. The apogee of the military. action fell on the 2nd floor. 1740s 1st half. 1750s K ser. 1750s as a result of punitive campaigns and the construction of fortresses (Gizhiginskaya, Tigilskaya, Viliginskaya and others), the Koryaks were broken and recognized the Russian power. In 1764, Empress Catherine II announced their admission to Russian citizenship. At the same time, having failed to cope with the Chukchi, the Russian government abandoned the use of force and switched to diplomacy. During negotiations in the second half of the XVIII century. with influential Chukchi toyons, peace agreements were reached on the terms of payment of yasak by the Chukchi on a voluntary basis. In 1764 the Anadyr party was abolished, in 1771 the Anadyr prison was liquidated. In 1779 the Chukchi were declared subjects of Russia.
The annexation of the northeast of Siberia was accompanied by sea expeditions to survey the northern waters of the Pacific Ocean (see. Geographic research Siberia), which led to the discovery of Alaska, the Aleutian and Kuril Islands. The initiative in their development was taken by merchants and industrial people, who rushed there in pursuit of furs. By the end of the 18th century. they founded several Russian settlements in Alaska, the islands of Kodiak, Afognak and Sitka, which led to the emergence of the so-called Russian America. In 1799, the Russian-American company was created, which included the Kuril Islands in the sphere of its interests.
In the XVIII century. the international situation on the South Siberian borders has changed. From the end of the 17th century. began an acute rivalry between Dzungaria and Qing China for the possession of Mongolian lands. A struggle also developed between Dzungaria and the Kazakhs. All this distracted the attention and forces of the Dzungars from the south of Western Siberia, Altai and Khakassia, forced them not to aggravate relations with Russia. In 1703-06, in order to increase their troops, the Dzungars took to their lands most of the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Altai Teleuts. Taking advantage of this, the Russian side, having eliminated the remaining small groups of Kyrgyz, quickly occupied the vacated territory, where the yasak people of the Beltyrs, Sagays, Kachins, and koibals began to move. With the construction of Umrevinsky (1703), new Abakansky (1707), Sayansky (1718), Bikatunsky (1709, 1718), Chaussky (1713), Berdsky (1716) forts and Beloyarsky fortress (1717), the Northern (steppe) Altai became part of Russia and the Khakas-Minusinsk Basin. Since the end of the 1710s. fortresses, outposts and redoubts are erected from the Southern Urals to Altai to protect against raids of nomads, from which fortified (border) lines are made. Their advancement to the south ensured the annexation of significant steppe regions by Russia upstream of the Tobol, Ishim, north of the Irtysh and in the foothills of Altai. Attempts by the Dzungars to stop the Russian advance were unsuccessful. Mutual Russian-Dzungarian territorial disputes persisted. A part of the Baraba Tatars, Yenisei Beltirs, Madas, Koibals, Altai Az-Kyshtyms, Kergeshes, Yussians, Kumandins, Toguls, Tagapians, Shors, Tau-Teleuts, Teles remained in the position of the Dyedans. Since the beginning of the XVIII century. the northern Mongol khans began to make territorial claims to the upper reaches of the Yenisei (Uryankhai-Tuva).
In 1691, the Manchus finally subjugated Northern Mongolia, which made the issue of delimiting the possessions of Russia and China urgent. As a result of negotiations on the border and the status of border buffer territories between the empires, the Burin treaty was signed in 1727, according to which the Russian-Chinese borders were demarcated from Argun in the east to the Shabin-Dabag pass in the Sayan Mountains in the west. Transbaikalia was recognized as the territory of Russia, and Tuva (Uryankhai Territory) of China. After the defeat in 1755-58 by the Qing troops of Dzungaria, China seized the whole of Tuva and began to lay claim to Gorny Altai. Fleeing from the Qing aggression, many zaisans of Gorny Altai, who had previously been Dzungarian subjects, turned to the Russian authorities with a request to accept them with their subordinate population into Russian citizenship, which was carried out in 1756. However, the weakness of the military forces stationed in Siberia did not allow the Russian government to prevent the spread of the Ch'ing influence in the southern regions of Gorny Altai, which was carried out mainly by force. St. Petersburg's proposals to delimit this territory were rejected by Beijing. As a result, the southern Altai lands (the Ulagan plateau, the Kurai steppe, the basins of the Chuya, Argut, Chulyshman, Bashkaus, Tolysh rivers) turned into a buffer zone, and their population, teleses and telengits, became the Russian-Chinese Dyedans, while preserving, however, their significant independence in the internal affairs. From the second half of the 18th century. In Gorny Altai, Russian settlements of fugitive schismatics, soldiers, peasants, working people from the Kolyvano-Voskresensk (Altai) factories of the so-called Altai masons began to appear, Russian-Altai trade developed. At the turn of the 1820s and 30s. Biysk merchants founded the Kosh-Agach trading post in the Chui valley. China, for its part, did not make any attempts to develop the Gorny Altai economically.
In the first half of the XIX century. Russia has significantly strengthened its position in Asia. The process of the annexation of the Kazakh zhuzes, which began in the previous century, intensified. By the 1850s. the Semirechensky Territory up to the Ili River was included in Russia, and the development of the Zailiysky Territory began in 1853. After the expeditions of A.F. Middendorf (1844-45) and N.H. Agte (1848-50) established the absence of Chinese settlements on the Amur and not subject to China local population, and the expedition of G.I. Nevelskoy (1849-50) proved the navigability of the Amur estuary and founded the Nikolaevsky post there (now Nikolaevsk-on-Amur), in the 1850s. on the initiative of the East Siberian Governor-General N.N. Muravyov Priamurye was occupied by Russian troops. Taking advantage of the military-political weakening of China, Russia obtained from Beijing the official recognition of its rights in the Altai Mountains and the Far East. According to the Aigun Treaty (1858), the Tianjin Treaty (1858) and the Beijing Treaty (1860), the Russian-Chinese border passed along the Amur, Ussuri, Lake Hanko and up to the mouth of the Tumyngjiang River. Blagoveshchensk (1858), Khabarovsk (1858) and Vladivostok (1860) were founded in Priamurye and Primorye. In 1864, the Chuguchak Protocol was signed, which defined the border in Gorny Altai from Shabin-Dabag to Lake Zaisan. Altai dyedantsy passed into the department of Russia, in 1865 they took the oath of allegiance to the Russian monarch.
In 1853 Russian settlements (Muravyevsky and Ilyinsky military posts) appeared on Sakhalin, the first information about which was received in the middle of the 17th century. This led to a conflict with Japan, which was developing the southern part of the island, as well as the Kuril Islands. In 1855, according to the Treaty of Shimod, the Russian-Japanese border was determined in the Kuril Islands, it passed between the islands of Urup and Iturup; Sakhalin remained undivided. In 1867, the Russian government sold to the United States the holdings of the Russian-American company in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. In 1875, according to the Petersburg treaty, Russia ceded the northern Kuril Islands to Japan, securing in return all rights to Sakhalin. In 1905, as a result of the defeat of Russia in Russo-Japanese War 1904-05 southern part Sakhalin (up to the 50th parallel) was seized by Japan.
The annexation of Gorny Altai facilitated the expansion of Russian economic influence in Tuva (Uryankhai Territory). Here the development of gold mines begins, and fishery is mastered. By the end of the XIX century. trading posts were opened and the first peasant settlers appeared. Since 1911, as a result of the national liberation movement of Tuvans, the Chinese power in Tuva has been virtually liquidated. On April 18, 1914, at the request of a number of Tuvan noyns and lamas, Russia officially established a protectorate over Tuva, which, under the name of the Uryankhai Territory, was administratively subordinate to the Irkutsk Governor-General.
