The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Noble officials in district and territorial courts of the St. Petersburg province (first quarter of the 19th century)



k. K. Smirnova

NOBLE OFFICIALS IN DISTRICT AND TERRITORIAL COURTS of the ST. PETERSBURG PROVINCE (FIRST QUARTER of the 19th century)

Work is presented by department of the Russian history.

The research supervisor - the candidate of historical sciences, associate professor T.G. Frumenkova

Article is devoted to an interesting and poorly studied plot of the Russian history in general and stories of the nobility of the St. Petersburg province in particular. Work is based on a large number of sources, a part from which is for the first time introduced for scientific use. The author investigates a role of the nobility in police and judicial department of the capital province, analyzes essence of noble guardianship, class body at district court. In article it is shown that participation of the nobility in protection of law and order and legal proceedings was, on the one hand, the privilege of noble estate, and with another - a duty which not all officials carried out with identical conscientiousness.

The article "Nobiliary Bureaucrats in Uezdny Sud and Zemsky Sud of Saint-Petersburg Province (first quarter of XIX with.)" is dedicated to the interesting and insufficiently known subject of the Russian history, as a whole, and a history of nobility of Saint-Petersburg province, specifically. The work is complied with lots of original historical sources; part of them is being leading to the scientific rotation. The author investigate a role of nobility in police and justice province, analyzies an essence of Nobiliary Tutelage - the class bodies attached to the Uezdny Sud. In the article is shown, that the participation of nobility in protection of law and legal procedure was the privilege of nobility, on the one hand, and it was the duty, on the other hand.

Formation of nobility for - was managed at Peter I when the nobility began to be replenished with natives of other population groups as a result of their promotion. Peter I's successors gradually exempted the nobility from obligatory military service that promoted departure of sluzhily estate to the estates. Finally this trend was enshrined in the manifesto on liberty noble Peter III. Concentration of noblemen in estates caused the need for their self-organization, attraction to formation of local class government and consequently, and to participation of representatives of noble estate in work of local courts and police. The foundation for this process was laid by Establishment about provinces of 1775 - the main document of Ekaterina's reform of local management.

Reform provided creation of a system of class legal agencies. For noblemen courts opened lower territorial, district and top territorial, or provincial. The first of them treated police department, the second - judicial proceedings, and the third was the court of appeal. On Establishment about provinces the participation of officials, elective from noblemen, in district and territorial vessels (Chapter II, Article 50-53) 1 was for the first time provided. It established also procedure for determining in a position: in the High Provincial Court got out for a period of three years of 10 assessors of noblemen of counties which made jurisdictional department of this court (Chapter III, Article 64-65) 2. On the same bases it was necessary to elect the district (district) judge, the territorial district police officer (the highest official of the county and the chairman of the lower territorial court) and noble assessors district and lower territorial vessels (Chapter III, Article 66-67) 3. The competence of territorial and district courts was established. District and lower territorial courts and also noble guardianship were subordinated to the High Provincial Courts. Appeals on the lowest instances, civil and criminal noble cases came to this court, put commoners.

At each High Provincial Court the noble guardianship was created. It should be noted that Establishment about provinces remained the main act defining the provision of noble guardianship in the last quarter of the XVIII and first quarter of the 19th century. Noble guardianship was entrusted with the care about juvenile orphans and widows of noblemen. Noble leaders had to notify guardianship on widows and orphans. Guardianship could begin to be engaged in any given business only after obtaining the application or command of the persons designated in Establishment. First of all the will of parents about trustees was investigated and if it was not, trustees who were tried to be selected from among relatives were appointed. Establishment contained detailed manual to trustees who needed to provide annually to noble guardianship the report on income, the contents and education of the juvenile. After appointment of trustees at the secretary of district court and two foreign noble witnesses the detailed inventory of inheritance became. If the trustee had to pay debts on a manor of the juvenile, he had to present data on debts to noble guardianship which, in turn, informed on it to the High Provincial Court. If the orphan had no manor, guardianship tried to place it in public school or to define on public service. Guardianship free of charge provided to widows the solicitor for the petition in various offices on their affairs. If widows did not have manor, noble guardianship tried "to deliver a haven and livelihood, decent to their state". Orphans and the widows dissatisfied with the solution of affairs in noble guardianship could transfer them to district sud4.

In Alexander I's reign the rules on guardianship changed a little. In 1804 it was decided to provide management of the manors which are in different provinces, to one trustee for avoidance of disputes and misunderstanding he submitted reports to one noble opeku5 (according to 222 Articles 16 the offices of Establishment about provinces reports needed to be given in guardianship

each county). Numerous offenses opekunov6 caused emergence in 1815 of the new law. Now reports on management of a manor should have been submitted annually in January in guardianship and orphan courts which, in turn, needed to bring immediately them to audit in the highest judicial instantsii7. The same year it was offered to noble guardianship to take manors under supervision at emergence of disputes on inheritance up to their permission. If disputes did not arise, then the manor remained in possession of that person to which it was bequeathed, what reported in the newspaper about. At the same time within two years from the date of the publication of news the will could be challenged. If there was a dispute, then the manor was left at the owner to the solution of business. In guardianship his manor was not taken any more, but sent the written ban on its pledge and sale. After two-year term the successor was put in possession of a manor okonchatelno8. Other rules defining activity of noble guardianship in Alexander I's reign changed a little.

In the capital province of the announcement of capture of any manor under guardianship were published in "The St. Petersburg sheets". Generally it were manors of juvenile orphans. So, in No. 14 for 1804 we read the announcement of the official of the IX class M. Lander determined by the trustee "after madam of a mayorsha Matrona Savelova to her juvenile children and their manor". In this announcement the address to which all those who had any property claims to pokoynoy9 could be was specified. A similar advertisement was placed in No. 10 for the same year. Unlike the first example, in this case over juvenile children of the late councilor of state G. of Borisov and their manor several trustees were appointed. Three close relatives (the dead's widow, the daughter and the son is the outdoor adviser P.G. Borisov) and two strangers became them: councilor of state Mr. Bibikov and collegiate asessor I. Malinovkin. This announcement also aimed to notify

creditors pokoynogo10. Insolvency of the owner on the credits and his numerous debts was other basis for capture of a manor in guardianship. Such cases often came to an end with sale of a manor. So, P. Hvostov's manor in the Gdov County was estimated by district court at 700 rubles for non-payment to the major Hrizoskuleev till a century - I lodge 800 rubley11. The manor of the outdoor adviser of Shlaterova was described and estimated at 700 rubles for non-payment to the petty bourgeois Dushkin of 658 rubles 80 kopeek12. Sometimes debts of the owner of the manor taken under guardianship led to the fact that the trustee refused guardianship. So, K.S. Ikonnikov elected the trustee to the retired lieutenant colonel A.P. Shcherbinin asked creditors to wait until A.P. Shcherbinin elects to himself other trustee. The K.S. Ikonnikov explained refusal with the fact that the retired lieutenant colonel continued to borrow money without it vedoma13.

After the announcement in the newspaper of capture of a manor under guardianship terms during which creditors could impose the debt requirements were appointed. Then case was closed. So, the trustees elected to a manor of the valid chamberlain of prince A.N. Golitsyn notified on March 1, 1804 his creditors that the announcement of capture of a manor of the prince under guardianship with the notice of creditors was published in December, 1802. Many refrained from immediate presentation of the requirements and could show them within two more months then all debt obligations appeared nedeystvitelnymi14.

Besides guardianship, noblemen performed judicial and law-enforcement functions. They were defined by Establishment about provinces and the Appointed diploma, were partially cancelled by Paul I and restored at Alexander I. However he to restore the lower territorial punishments closed by Paul I (the lowest judicial authorities for peasants) not stal15. The manifesto on recovery of the Appointed diploma became on April 2, 1801 one of the first acts of the noble legislation in Alexander I's reign. Even earlier, March 15, 1801, for the third day after accession to the throne, the emperor gave to the Senate the decree "About Restoration of Noble Elections" which, strangely enough, drops out of a field of vision of researchers. Nevertheless it was the first for - the game of new reign concerning participation of noble officials in vessels. The right of appointment of officials in district and territorial courts given by Paul I to department of heraldry returned to the nobility for what were restored noble vybory16. Alexander, apparently, wanted to restore noble self-government and to strengthen positions of local legal agencies by elections of persons, authoritative for noble estate.

Further resolutions of 1801 broke the class principle of the organization of vessels entered by Establishment. The courts of appeal in provinces - chambers of criminal and civil court - kept vsesoslovny character that made the judicial system more difficult and tangled. On May 31, 1802 the Senate, considering a question of vessels, decided that, according to 340 St. Institutions about provinces, came to district courts the affairs concerning the nobility and state poselyan, and affairs of merchants understood city magistrate. Only the faces chosen the nobility could judge noblemen. At chambers criminal and citizens - sky court according to regulations there had to be assessors both from the nobility, and from kupechestva17.

Besides, in laws the competence of each of vessels was not accurately outlined. The district court, besides cases on noble guardianship, was engaged in sale of personal estate about what it did announcements in sheets. So, the announcement that "persons interested to acquire the described personal estate-pitanshi of Lobanova sostoyashchey in pieces of furniture and a dress estimated at 43 rubles appeared on February 9, 1804

3 kopeks for non-payment to the valid state adviser of Pasevyeva and in treasury of these

money, can be on the auction on March 23 in

4 o'clock in the morning "in the auction camera"" 18.

The district court was engaged also in the direct duties, namely lawsuits. So, the Shlisselburg district court considered the complaint of the secret adviser of A.V. Smirnova that in 1814 during her stay in Moscow her late husband, being a patient, gave in to flattering beliefs of a certain collegiate adviser of Palmov and signed the separate record brought by it with the earth of the wife (A.B. Smirnova. - K.S.) on which conceded it a small part of the haying forest from a heathland the Abrupt stream. On this record Palmov, without the knowledge of the petitioner, through the land surveyor Samoylovich incorrectly otmezhevat several times the bigger site. However according to plans and the bill of sale of fortress this heathland belonged to the village consisting in A.V. Smirnova's property. The court found the signed act illegal owing to what it was destroyed, and the heathland was returned to the owner. Judges also recognized finished a dispute between A.V. Smirnova and peasants of department of gof-quartermaster office of the village of Putilova who, on Palmov's instigation, began to appropriate the earth of the landowner under a pretext that they "suffer a shortcoming of the earth". A.V. Smirnova was not satisfied with such decision and complained of territorial court which obligation was to stop "svoyevolstvo" of a way-lovtsev that between them and her peasants there were no "interstine" collisions. The court, according to its message, did not stop a disgrace, and the former territorial district police officer A.P. Antonov himself permitted to palace peasants to cut the wood and to cut the grass in a manor of the secret adviser. A.V. Smirnova gave also examples of arbitrariness of putilovets. In 1822 they took away a stone plate which the last carried for sale from her peasants; in 1824 pulled out and threw out boundary columns, and in the summer of 1825 mowed clean meadows, broke

fences about a track, were trampled oves19. The last hooligan actions exhausted all patience of the landowner, and she filed a complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The legislation concerning participation of noblemen in police department was very indistinct. The district police department in 1775 was separated from city and provided to the lower territorial court which members were elected dvoryanami20. Alexander I restored the lower territorial courts in the form they worked at Catherine II. Possibly, and the police department was regained in the previous form. At the same time the extensive, not stipulated anywhere, and traditionally developed duties were assigned to territorial district police officers.

In archives a few examples of conscientious execution by district police officers of the duties are still revealed though it is known that the Ekaterina's system of local management and court was quite strong, so, the responsible attitude to service was norm. Only the office eagerness, worthy government award found reflection in documents. So, in 1812 the St. Petersburg territorial district police officer F.I. Franken, having learned

about the fact that ran away from the Riga merchant Veltsin with money an artelshchik Mikhail Prokofiev, at once took "so active measures", having dispatched on all roads of assessors of territorial court that a few hours later the fugitive was caught. K.K. Rodofini-kin replacing the district leader of the Shlisselburg nobility noted, as earlier F.I. Franken detained many criminals and tramps. At the head of territorial court he showed continuous care about the troops passing through the county, cared for providing them with good supplies, than deserved appreciation of the director of the 2nd military school of the lieutenant general A. Kleynmikhel. K.K. Rodofinikin noted, as "all protchy affairs in a duty its entering

flow exact - tyyu and success" 21 is unceasing with big.

In 1822 the St. Petersburg military governor recommended for a decoration the territorial district police officer of the Luga County retired captain count L.K. of Dyulonye-Luxembourg for capture of robbers and return of the things stolen by them. The detective story of the first half of the 19th century is connected with exposure of these criminals. According to the order of the district police officer in August, 1822 the gang of robbers from five armed people which disappeared in forests was caught. At capture of criminals sotsky Rodion Sidorov whom robbers, trying to escape, beat by a gun butt perfectly acted. However sotskiya together with the bureaucrat Utilov who was at the district police officer, the private of leyb-guard of the Cossack regiment Klyanitsem and desyatsky Ivan Filatov after all did not allow gang to leave. After that the count found for main "prestupoderzhatel" of gang, arrested them and found the stolen things which returned vladeltsam22. As we see, territorial district police officers and assessors quite often with risk for life protected tranquility of residents of the county, carrying out one of the main tasks.

Sometimes, however that territorial courts and territorial district police officers did not cope with the duties, showed negligence, indifference or self-interest. It is natural that negative examples in archival documents meet much more often as they were the cause for complaints and trials. The above-mentioned landowner A.V. Smirnova complained of the territorial district police officer. Case of a manor of the tsarevitch David can serve as other example of not zeal of territorial district police officers. When moving the Georgian royal house to Russia his manors which were in Georgia passed into treasury, and his representatives were given means for purchase of peasants in Russia. In particular, in 1804 to the tsarevitch David the capital in 300 thousand rubles was appointed to purchase of 2000

by

of serf souls. Purchase of manors for all Georgian tsarevitches was entrusted the Ministry of Finance. In the letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs the tsarevitch explained that in 1806 the Minister of Finance count A.I. Vasilyev bought for it in the Yamburg County a manor in 186 souls from state pledge from the collegiate adviser of Krivtsova and the lieutenant of the fleet Lingart. On purchase the highest permission followed then bills of sale of fortress were made in the St. Petersburg civil chamber. However in 1809 the Yamburg territorial court, without any notice, arrived to a manor and wrote at the choice of 70 souls of the best peasants whom it approved for the privy councilor Kolokoltsev. Subsequently the territorial court notified the tsarevitch that it was made according to the instruction of the St. Petersburg civil chamber under decree VIII of department of the Senate at the solution of a contentious case between former owners of a manor. The tsarevitch David quite fairly was indignant with the fact that the manor forbidden to sale was sold to him and at the same time lawful bills of sale are made. In addition, it became clear that sold to it several "dead souls", and some peasants and domestic sold also to it, and other landowner. The tsarevitch addressed the Minister of Justice who submitted the case to the St. Petersburg district court that did not satisfy the claimant. In the new complaint he offered the Minister of Internal Affairs fair, in his opinion, conflict solutions. The committee of ministers decided to deliver business to the minister yustitsii23. Quite often come - to solve similar tangled cases an elk to territorial and district vessels. It is characteristic that the Yamburg territorial court did not notify the tsarevitch David on the order of the St. Petersburg civil chamber and the decree of the senate. The reasons of the problems which arose at the Georgian tsarevitch probably are in aversion of old Russian noblemen for newly appeared representatives of noble estate. It is quite possible, however, that noble

officials of the Yamburg County just worked carelessly, were incompetent or got a bribe.

So, judicial and police business was the most important sphere of activity of the officials chosen as noblemen. The authorities involved noble estate in creation of class vessels, the territorial police which had extremely broad functions and covered a set of lawsuits were transferred to hands of noble societies. Important function of the nobility in district court was guardianship over noble manors. Noble guardianship was institute of internal noble self-government. It helped widows and orphans and also was engaged in debt obligations and sale of manors, both for debts, and at the initiative of the owner.

The judicial noble legislation underwent considerable changes at Paul I. After Alexander I's accession the former legal process was partly restored. Participation of the St. Petersburg nobility in district and territorial vessels, on the one hand, was its important privilege, and on the other hand, - a duty which noble officials carried out with different degree of eagerness therefore there were misunderstanding, up to sale of "dead souls". Care of tranquility and law and order of the province fell on territorial district police officers.

1 PSZ - I. T. XX. No. 14.392.
2 In the same place.
3 In the same place.
4 PSZ - I. T. XX. No. 14.392.
5 PSZ - I. T. XXVIII. No. 21.361.
6 Of abuses of trustees in Alexander I's reign a bright idea is given by the comedy by the contemporary of events G.F. Kvitki-Osnovyanenko "Noble elections".//Kvitka-Osnovyanenko G.F. "Noble elections" - the comedy in 3 actions. M.,1829.
7 PSZ - I. T. XXXIII. No. 26.107.
8 PSZ - I. T. XXXIII. No. 26.004.
9 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 14:16 February. 1804 of Page 372.
10 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 10. 2 February. 1804 of Page 262.
11 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 9. 29 January. 1804 of Page 230.
12 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 16. February 23. 1804 of Page 435.
13 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 10. 2 February. 1804 S. 262.
14 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 18. 1 March. 1804 S. 495.
15 Korf S.A. The nobility and its class management in a century 1762-1855. SPb., 1906. Page 288 - 289.
16 PSZ - I. T. XXVI. No. 19.790.
17 PSZ - I. T. XXVII. No. 20.284.
18 Sanktpeterburgsky sheets. No. 12. February 9. 1804 of Page 319.
19 RGIA. T. 1286. Op. 3. 164. L. 1-2 about.
20 Members of territorial court were the territorial district police officer or the captain, 2 or 3 noble, 2 rural (sent by the lower punishment) assessors.//A. Romanovich-Slavatinsky. The nobility in Russia from the beginning of the 18th century to an abolition of serfdom. SPb., 1870. Page 468-469.
21 RGIA. T. 1286. Op. 2. 14. L. 1-2.
22 RGIA. T. 1286. Op. 3. 65. L. 1-1 about.
23 Magazines of Committee of ministers. 1810-1812 SPb., 1891. T. 2. Page 346-347.
Harry Taylor
Other scientific works: