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

From the history of formation of city self-government



chesky situation, relation to supreme authority, and its economic state. Proceeding from a thesis about gain as the initial basis of division of society when society was divided into "conquerors and defeated" [2. Page 318], Klyuchevsky carries "ognishchanin" to number of exclusive classes. The prince with the team, winning rebellious tribes, turned their population into slaves. Slaveholding was a widespread source of income of combatants and was the integral characteristic of a ruling class. Therefore, in the first half of the 10th century "ognishchanam were the same knyazh men" [2. Page 314]. Having sated the yards with slaves, they began to lodge them on the lands, they had its benefit enough.

As class division, according to the historian, extremely movably and floatingly, with development of agriculture among the main estates new economic states appear. The Russian truth distinguishes boyars from knyazhy husbands. "Boyars were the same knyazh the men or members of team only acquiring land property" [2. Page 316]. Referring to the Russian Truth, Klyuchevsky absolutely definitely specified social accessory of nobility of Ancient Russia - "a class of privileged land owners" [1. Page 251]. In a class of free people there are smerda and purchases which are engaged in agriculture: the first on the state land, the second on the earth of private owners. Purchases unlike a smerd had "no stock and the agricultural capital to which their land owners lent" [2. Page 316]. As a part of servility the Russian truth selects the category

"seigniorial tiun". In fact, it is the same lackeys only put at the head of the others and administrators of the owners.

So, according to Klyuchevsky, in the 11th century the position of estates was defined by their relation to supreme authority, and "the unequal attitude of persons towards the prince was expressed in distinction of the state duties falling on people sluzhily tyagly and lackeys; the unequal attitude of the law towards persons was expressed in various price what the law gave to persons of different classes on property of their attitudes towards the prince, unequally punishing for their murder" [2. Page 317]. In the 12th century the provision of classes was defined by also property inequality and distinction of their civil rights. Klyuchevsky noticed that if "three former classes differed with political signs - the unequal attitude of persons towards the prince and the unequal attitude of the princely law towards persons" [2. Page 317], "new, more fractional classes differed with two other signs, economic and legal: distinction of property states and inequality of the civil rights connected to it" [2. Page 318].

Thus, the scientist strengthens the thesis that all subsequent development of society developed from previous, once again proving that "each following stage of development was a complication previous" [2. Page 318].

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch. In 9 t. T. 1. Course of the Russian history. Part 1., M.: Thought, 1987.
2. Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch. In 9 t. T. 6. Special courses. M.: Thought, 1989.

UDC 947.081.12

from the HISTORY of FORMATION of CITY SELF-GOVERNMENT

A.V. Borisov

Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky

department of history and right

Article is devoted to the history of formation of city self-government in Russia, since activity of Peter the Great trying to lay the self-government foundation and finishing with the acceptance of the Policeman of provision of 1870 which opened the new page in the history of local management.

The modern legal thought considers the population it is assigned to local electoral bodies.

local government as part of the general public administration. At the same time the local government is the special organization of the government on places founded on the elective beginning. The central power does not recognize for itself as possible to operate from one center all social needs and interests. It reserves only determination of the general legislative rules for all state, takes in hand the general economic policy, manages the enterprises and institutions, most significant for the state, exercises the general supervision of compliance with laws. Application of laws on places and also satisfaction within the law of various needs and requirements local

Before great reforms of the end of the 19th century this duty was carried out by the officials appointed by the government, the local community did not take any part in management and self-government then did not exist. As a result of city reform of 1870 a part of the cases which were earlier in competence of machinery of government [1] was transferred to the independent jurisdiction to electoral local bodies. It put the beginnings of local city government. However some researchers consider that city self-government begins to arise much earlier, during an era of Peter the Great who the decree of 1699 establishes in Moscow Bur-mistersky chamber, and in other cities territorial log huts and

elective bailiffs. These institutions pursued not communal, but state interests and in the twenties the 18th century were replaced with magistrates, like the German city institutions [2]. The rights were granted to magistrates insignificant, they had no nature of the bodies knowing mainly city, local interests. Establishing city magistrates, Pyotr borrowed only a form, filling it with at the same time domestic contents.

Activity of city magistrates was directed only to the state needs and requirements: observation of the correct departure of the money dues and natural duties, collecting customs and tavern money. The organization of magistrates, their dependence on elected officials points to exclusively state nature of these institutions, besides, purely class. They were created for the sake of the state interests, replenishment of "monarchic treasury", and "therefore also it is impossible to recognize them as self-government institutions" [3].

Most of researchers believe that formation of city self-government begins in Catherine the Great's government with her famous Gorodova of the Diploma on April 21, 1785. The famous researcher of city self-government of of Semyonov finds it possible even to claim that the city representative office during Catherine's era was much wider, than during action of the Policeman of provision of 1892 [4]. According to the Appointed diploma in Russia for the first time there is a concept of "town society" which consisted not of representatives of separate estates, and of all city inhabitants who reached 25-year age and having not less than 50 rubles of revenue. "Town society" expressed will of all urban population as legal entity and possessed any property - movable and immovable [5]. City estates were for the first time allowed to elections, they elected special governing bodies of affairs of municipal economy - the general and six-public thoughts at the head of which there was a mayor elected by society for three years. In structure and the general, and a six-public thought representatives from six estates of urban population entered. Vowels of the general thought chose in a six-vowel from the environment on one representative from each estate. The six-public thought collected weekly dealt with issues of municipal economy, could provide to the governor of the petition for local polza and needs, knew the auction and collecting, public buildings. the general thought gathered every three years, and all its activity was limited to election of vowels in a six-public thought. let's note that in the Appointed diploma the volume of the power of city institutions was not determined at all, and the general thought was responsible before the administrative authority acting through the governor and state chamber [6].

Apparently, the general plan of reforming of a system of city public self-government was conceived on quite wide and reasonable grounds, but Catherine's plans advanced time. Rational

the beginnings the Policeman of the Diploma did not correspond to the bureaucratic views and living conditions of the Russian life dominating then and the cities were not ready to changes neither in economic, nor in social, nor in the spiritual plan [7].

After Catherine's death the numerical structure of City Councils was sharply reduced, and later they were succeeded by establishment with quite strange name - "the commission about supply of the residence with supplies, the schedule of apartments and other parts, to police of relating". The chairman of the commission was the grand duke Alexander Pavlovich. The Ekaterina's Appointed diploma to the cities of 1785 was restored by her grandson on April 1, 1801. From now on the organizational structure of city self-government did not change, and the municipal economy gradually fell into decay. The general thoughts did not gather in some cities at all, six-vowels were directed provincial administration, turning thereby into executive institutions. The municipal economy appeared in a full disorder: the cities practically did not equip with modern conveniences, income from city imushchestvo did not come to cash desk, and the most insignificant expenses were allowed only with the permission of the governor or provincial board. Representatives of administration saw the reasons of such sad condition of city self-government in strong government guardianship, in absence appropriate including financial, independence of city institutions. The government more and more made sure of need of radical reforming of municipal economy. Reform became urgent need. For this purpose in 1825 the special "Committee about improvement of the cities" was founded, and in 1827 the similar committee was formed at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Work on reforming of city self-government was carried out only in offices. It was initially decided to be limited to reform of the municipal government of St. Petersburg. Prominent liberals - Yu. Samarin and I. Aksakov took part in development of reform. As a result, in 1846 St. Petersburg received new Gorodovy situation.

The beginnings of the Diploma of 1785 were the basis for the new city device: city society was made by all inhabitants of the city attributed to a city state and all owners of immovable imushchestvo paying a tax in favor of the city. What is the most important, the noble element, people competent and educated was entered into the structure of city society, capable "to restore true value" city self-government and "to ennoble spirit of society" [8]. 5 estates took part in elections of the general thought. All power concentrated in hands of the administrative thought from 12 people which replaced with itself a thought six-public. In both thoughts the mayor - "the chief of all public management and the chief representative from all city society" presided. Both the mayor, and vowels of the general thought were elected in a general meeting of all estates.

The general thought was establishment consultative: it made sentences on public affairs, and execution of these sentences was assigned to a thought administrative. Three members from the hereditary nobility, three were a part of an administrative thought - from personal and six from honourable citizens, and all of them had to own land property. Not all structure of an administrative thought was elective: one - the so-called member from a crown - was appointed by the government. observation of an office order, bookkeeping and the reporting on the basis of special instructions of the Minister of Internal Affairs was assigned to it.

Volume put, subject to department of the municipal public government, in new situation was determined slightly more precisely in comparison with the provision of 1785. However the dependence of a thought on administration considerably increased: the administrative thought began to be considered as the local administrative agency accountable in the general order to the Ruling Senate, and in local - to the chief of the province [9].

So, during an era of conservatism of Nicholas I public management of St. Petersburg was reformed. Despite this, the purpose of reformers - to make city institutions validly self-government institutions - was not reached. Though in 1863 the Guo-patrimonial situation was entered in Moscow and Odessa, in 1862 Alexander II the highest command disposed to change the law of 1846 and to take measures to "improvement of public management in all cities of the empire, being applied to the main beginnings accepted for St. Petersburg" [10].

The project of the new policeman of situation was developed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In all provinces the special commissions in which future reform was discussed with participation of urban population were created. As the management the special program in which it was offered to answer the questions concerning reorganization of local management was distributed to the commissions. The commissions presented the huge mass of materials and reasons, having given to the government the chance to study carefully features and an economic situation of the cities. However implementation of city reform dragged on for the whole 8 years that it is possible to explain with complexity of preparatory work and change of the Interior Minister in 1868 when A.E. Timashev replaced P.A. Valuyev. All practical work on preparation of reform was headed by the director of Economic department A.D. Schumacher. In 1864 the project was ready and in 1866 is introduced in the State Council. However even before discussion there was an attempt at the tsar, and the project was left. Remembered it in 1868 and transferred to the new Minister of Internal Affairs A.E. Ti-mashev. In March, 1870 the final version of the project was submitted for consideration of the State Council. At its discussion the connected departments of laws instead of the projected "City situation" gave to the Provision of 1870 naimenova-

ny "Policeman" in memory of beneficial reform Catherine II. On June 16, 1870 new Gorodovy situation was approved by Alexander II in the city Weimar [11].

the pre-revolutionary researcher A.G. Mikhaylovsky adheres to the point of view that city self-government originates only in reform of 1870: "... what was earlier has nothing in common with self-government and does not deserve attention" [12].

According to the Policeman to situation in the cities the vsesoslovny bodies of public management elected on the basis of bourgeois property qualification were created. Electoral meetings, a thought and a justice became institutions of the municipal public government. Those city inhabitants who reached 25-year age began to be a part of city society, were the Russian citizens and owned in city boundaries real estate from which the tax was paid. The City Council was considered as principal organ of public management and was equipped with administrative functions, executive functions were allocated for town council. The City Council was kind of legislature on management of public affairs of the city, and the justice put all solutions and actions of a thought into practice. The City Council consisted under the chairmanship of the head and represented all city society on behalf of which worked. She was elected for 4 years, established the constant and temporary commissions, carried out selection and placement in institutions subordinated to it, considered the city budget, established the amount of local collecting and taxes, approved obligatory resolutions in objects of city improvement, was engaged in contents and the device of pavements and sidewalks, cleaning of streets and also had the right to petition "on behalf of the city before the highest government for local polza and needs".

the justice in the actions was accountable to

before a thought: distribution of classes and an operations procedure of a justice and the bodies subordinated to it were established by the special instruction published by a thought. Members of a justice were elected by City Council for 4 years and depended only on it, without needing the approval by administration. the thought could discharge any member of a justice from a position and prosecute.

The town council functioned under the chairmanship of the mayor and consisted of several members whose number was defined by a thought. One of members of a justice was elected in the taking-up place of the head, that is fulfilled its duties at the moment of absence. The persons which are in relationship could not be members of a justice at the same time: father and son, father-in-law and son-in-law, brothers.

Department of town council included urban governance: external improvement of the city, welfare of its population, providing national food, the structure of the markets and markets, care about national education and national

health, development of local trade and industry, prevention of the fires, device of charitable institutions and hospitals, construction of roads. In addition, the justice made estimates of city expenses, raised city collecting and carried out their expenses, carried out audits of reports on activity of structures subordinated to it and submitted to a thought own reports. At a justice there were special executive commissions which were created in coordination with City Council. The general supervision of the course of affairs in a justice was exercised by the mayor. the relations of public management with the provincial administration were also conducted through the mayor.

The mayor was considered as the main official of the municipal public government. Combination of duties of the Chairman of the State Duma and a justice in one person considerably facilitated functions of the state supervision and control over activity of these institutions. Carrying out functions of the head of legislative and executive power, the mayor was given wide powers and had an opportunity to affect the fate of the city. Often this influence was in direct dependence on personal qualities of mayors [13].

the mayor of the provincial city was confirmed to the post by the Minister of Internal Affairs, and to all others - the governor. The head admitted the leading responsible person before the government. The special uniform was developed for mayors, and they were subordinated to governors as well as other government officials of the province. On the other hand, the mayor was quite independent in economic affairs of the city. It was granted the right to stop execution of the definitions of a thought recognized by it illegal, and in case of refusal of a thought to change the resolution the head immediately submitted business of the governor. Thus, through the mayor the provincial authorities controlled activity of the municipal public government.

Public institutions in an economic field of activity were allocated with the right of the independent solution of questions. This right was accurately registered in the Policeman situation. The law provided certain restrictions of independence only in questions of selectivity, the budgetary right and administrative functions of thoughts. The right of intervention of administration and function of control which are carried out by provincial administration were reduced generally to supervision of legality of actions of self-government institutions.

Some restrictions also worked for powers of authority of city self-government. On the Policeman to the provision of 1870, only the most important resolutions of City Councils concerning questions of the loans, guarantees or guarantees on behalf of the city exceeding a certain sum needed the obligatory approval by the Minister of Internal Affairs or governor. Huge

the majority of cases were solved a thought independently, without needing someone's statement. But at the same time copies from one and all resolutions of a thought should be submitted urgently to the governor who could stop in two weeks their execution as illegal. If the governor does not see violation of laws in definitions of a thought, then they came into force and were transferred for the publication in "Provincial sheets".

It is important to emphasize that the Policeman the provision of 1870 to the governor assigned supervision only of legality of actions of city self-government. The right of administration to estimate solutions of thoughts in terms of their expediency was not provided. for consideration arising between the governor and a thought of disagreements in each province the special collegial body - presence, provincial on city affairs, under the chairmanship of the governor was established.

The main statutes which for 20 years defined the main directions of activity of city self-government are that. It is important to note that though reform and had limited character, nevertheless it represented a step forward in comparison with the prereform city device. All system installed by the Policeman the provision of 1870 worked quite well, considerably having lifted improvement of city settlements and having improved conditions of city life.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. A.G. Mikhaylovsky. Reform of city self-government in Russia. M.: Advantage, 1908. Page 40.
2. S.M. Vasilevsky. City self-government and economy. SPb.: S.M. Propper's printing house, 1906. Page 8.
3. K.A. Pazhitnov. City and territorial self-government. SPb.: Prod. M.I. Semyonova, 1913. Page 6.
4. D.D. Semyonov. City self-government. Essays and experiments. SPb.: Release, 1901. Page 89.
5. I.I. Dityatin. Device and management of the cities of Russia. In 2 t. SPb., 1875. T.1. Page 425.
6. I.I. Dityatin. Our city self-government//Articles on stories of the Russian right. SPb.: Prod. O.N. Popova. 1895. Page 241.
7. G.A. Dzhanshiyev. Era of great reforms. Historical information. M.: Dawn, 1896. Page 506-507.
8. I.I. Dityatin. Our city self-government//Articles on stories of the Russian right. SPb.: Prod. O.N. Popova. 1895. Page 243.
9. S.M. Vasilevsky. City self-government and economy. SPb.: S.M. Propper's printing house, 1906. Page 11.
10. The materials relating to new social system in the cities of the empire. In 3 t. SPb., 1877. T.1. Page 1-2.
11. Great reforms in Russia. 1856-1874 / Under the editorship of L.G. Zakharova, etc. M.: MSU publishing house, 1992. Page 57.
12. A.G. Mikhaylovsky. Reform of city self-government in Russia. M.: Advantage, 1908. Page 9.
13. The provincial city of Penza at a turn of the XIX-XX centuries//Sost. S.I. Schukin. Penza: Prod. - half-games. Penza Truth complex, 2001. Page 32.
Albert Johnston
Other scientific works: