Pile foundation 100 RUR
Work theme Select type of work Thesis Course work
Contact email
Find out the price Subsequently, within the framework of the first phase of the development of medieval civilization, a different order of succession to the throne emerged - patrimonial. The concept of “fatherland” is understood as the land owned by the heir’s father. IN. Klyuchevsky
believed that the consolidation of the patrimonial order undermined the idea of the indivisibility of clan dynastic ownership. Ultimately, this became one of the reasons for the disintegration of the Russian land into several territories, medieval fragmentation. With the development of the patrimonial order, the system of public administration changed, palace-patrimonial system
. State administration was built on the basis of the management of the princely court. Princely servants (court servant, groom, hunter, cup maker, steward, swordsmen, etc.) performed state functions. In the XI-XIII centuries. body of local peasant self-government, was the territorial neighborhood community - rope
. Its functions included land redistribution, police supervision, tax and financial issues related to the imposition of taxes and their distribution, resolution of legal disputes, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. The conglomerate of small settlements was a volost-community. The state was interested in preserving the community structure, which is fully consistent with the values of medieval civilization. IN Ancient Rus' the community was autonomous education
with its own sovereign rights. Although the state power gradually strengthened its control over the community: at first, the figure of a princely clerk appeared next to the elected headman, later the elected elders were replaced by courtiers appointed by the prince, and finally, the village clerk began to govern the community. as special institutions in the XI-XIII centuries. did not exist in Rus'. Judicial functions were performed, as previously stated, by government and administrative bodies in the center and locally; the Court was not separated from the administration. The judges were princes, mayors, volostels, etc. Their assistants were tiuns and many other auxiliary persons (swordsmen, sweepers, sneakers).
Armed forces Old Russian state consisted of the squad of the Grand Duke, squads of local princes, and militia (military detachments placed at the disposal of the princes by their vassals). During wars, a people's militia (“voi”) was created.
Palace-patrimonial management system - division of government bodies depending on the territory. Under this management system, the governing bodies in the palace are simultaneously the governing bodies in the state. The entire territory of Rus', and later the Moscow Prince, was divided into the territory of the princely palace and boyar estates.
This system was convenient and it replaced decimal system management, under which thousands, hundreds, and tens were allocated. The princely palace is the center of specific administration of the prince's estate; this territory was governed solely by the prince. The patrimony of the boyars is a territory in which palace management and household management were entrusted to individual boyars, free servants. Princely officials: governor, tiuns, firemen, elders, stewards. Palace management system: palace - managed by a butler; department of palace routes - falconer, hunter, equerry, steward. Puti - administrative and judicial authorities, were headed by good boyars. Appointment as governor is an award. To help the governor, a circle of closest people was formed - the hut, which was in charge of the court and finances. The feeding system in local government became widespread during the period of the palace-patrimonial system. Feeding - the Grand Duke's salary for service, the right to use viceroyal income in the volost. Governors in cities or volosts received feeding.
You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:
More on topic 17. Palace-patrimonial control system:
- The formation of a palace-patrimonial government system in the Russian principalities.
- 32. General characteristics and comparison of palace-patrimonial and administrative management systems.
- 15. LEGAL REGIME OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE MOSCOW STATE 15-17 centuries. (“black” and palace lands, estates, estates).
- Financial management: objectives, principles and methods. System of government financial management bodies.
The manual contains informative answers to exam questions on academic discipline"History of state and law of Russia." Accessibility of presentation, relevance of information, maximum information content, given the small format of the manual - all this makes the cheat sheet an indispensable tool in preparing for the exam. This manual is not an alternative to the textbook, but will become an indispensable assistant for students in consolidating the studied material in preparation for taking tests and exams.
17. Palace-patrimonial management system. Feeding system
Palace-patrimonial system- this is a system in which the governing bodies in the palace were at the same time governing bodies in the state, which divided into:
1) princely palace- the center of appanage administration, the patrimony of the prince, who is the ruler of the state;
2) boyar estate - the territory in which palace-patrimonial administration was entrusted to individual boyars. The main princely officials were the voivode (military leader, ruler of the region, district and city), tiuns (a group of privileged princely and boyar servants who participated in the management of the feudal economy in the 14th–17th centuries);
3)ognishchan– the prince’s servants, who were responsible for the safety of property in the prince’s house (“princely husbands”);
4) prefects– elected or appointed officials appointed to lead small administrative-territorial units and public groups. According to the Russian Pravda, there was a village headman (in charge of the rural population), a warrior headman (in charge of the patrimonial arable land);
5) stolnikov– initially court officials serving the princes (kings) during ceremonial meals and accompanying them on trips, and later voivodeship, embassy, clerk and other officials.
System palace and patrimonial administration:
1) a princely (royal) palace, under the jurisdiction of a butler (dvorsky);
2) departments of palace roads - separate departments in the palace economy, which were headed by the corresponding respectable boyars. The names of the boyars who controlled one route or another depended on the name of the route itself. Highlighted:
a) falconer, head of the Grand Duke's bird hunt;
b) a hunter in charge of palace hunting;
c) an equerry in charge of stables, court grooms and estates allocated for the maintenance of princely herds;
d) a steward who serves during ceremonial meals with great princes and kings;
e) chashnich, in charge of drinking business, beekeeping, economic, administrative and judicial management, palace villages and villages.
During the period of the palace-patrimonial management system, the feeding system became widespread. Feeding refers to the Grand Duke's salary for service, the right to use viceroyal income in the volost according to the mandate or income list.
Types of food:
1) incoming food;
2) periodic feeding;
3) trade feed (duties levied on out-of-town merchants);
4) judicial, marriage fodder.
Feeding was limited to the fee specified in the charters, exceeding which was punishable.
* * *
The given introductory fragment of the book History of state and law of Russia. Cheat sheet (M. I. Petrov, 2009) provided by our book partner -
The expansion of the territory of the state and the complication of its activities led to the gradual withering away of the palace-patrimonial system and the emergence of a new administrative administration.
The control system was divided into two parts. One was the palace administration itself, headed by a butler (dvorsky), who was also in charge of the arable land of the princely peasants. The other part was formed by the so-called “paths”, which provided for the special needs of the prince and his entourage: falconer’s, hunter’s, stable, steward’s, chashnich’s, etc. To carry out their tasks, certain princely villages and entire areas were allocated to maintain the paths. The routes were not only limited to the collection of certain products, but also acted as administrative and judicial bodies.
The competence and functions of the system of palace-patrimonial bodies also increased. From bodies that served the personal needs of the prince, they grew into national institutions that performed important tasks in managing the entire state. Thus, the butler from the 15th century. began to be, to a certain extent, in charge of issues related to land ownership of church and secular feudal lords, and to exercise general control over the local administration. Performing certain duties in public administration lost the character of a temporary princely assignment and turned into a permanent service. At the same time, the complication of the functions of palace bodies required the creation of a large and ramified apparatus.
The grand ducal treasury was separated from the palace service, and a large palace chancellery with an archive and other departments was also created.
Feeding system. The administrative units were headed by officials - representatives of the center. The districts were headed by governors - volostels. These officials were supported at the expense of the local population - they received “feed” from them, that is, they carried out in-kind and monetary exactions, collected judicial and other duties in their favor. Feeding was both a public service and a form of reward for the princely vassals for their service.
Feeders were obliged not only to manage the corresponding districts and volosts, but also to maintain their own administrative apparatus (tiuns, closers, etc.), and have their own military detachments. At the same time, the feeders were not personally interested in the affairs of the counties or volosts they controlled, since their appointment was relatively short-term - for a year or two. All the interests of the governors and volosts were focused on personal enrichment through legal and illegal exactions from the local population. Small estates and landowners especially suffered from the feeding system, who could not independently protect themselves from “dashing” people. The rising nobility was also dissatisfied with the feeding system, since the income from local government went into the pockets of the boyars and feeding provided the boyars with great political weight.
2. Crisis of ruling parties
The split in the ruling parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks (they occupied the majority of ministerial posts) that took place in the fall was a manifestation of the crisis of public administration. This split reflected the process of the masses moving to the left, their departure from the parties of democratic socialism to the Bolsheviks.
The largest Russian party - the Socialist Revolutionaries (leader V.M. Chernov) in the summer of 1917 numbered more than 500 thousand people in its ranks, had organizations in 63 provinces, on the fronts and fleets. But it split in the fall of 1917. The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries emerged from it, who at the First Congress on November 19-27, 1917. formed the party of left socialist-revolutionary internationalists (leaders B.D. Kamkov, M.A. Nathanson, M.A. Spiridonova).
The Menshevik Party numbered 193 thousand people in August 1917.
Evidence of the crisis of the Menshevik Party ( official name RSDLP (united)) was the formation of an independent party of the left wing of Menshevism - non-factional Social Democrats, grouped around the newspaper " New life" In October 1917, they held an All-Russian Conference, at which over 4 thousand members of their organizations were represented, and in January 1918. - First Congress, which proclaimed the creation of the RSDLP (internationalists). Leaders L. Martov, Y. Larin, A.S. Martynov and others.
The split in the ruling parties swept through all their organizations in the country, manifested itself among party members and in the bodies of state power and administration, testifying to their crisis.
Dissolution of public executive committees
and discrediting the institution of government commissioners
In 1917, Russia was a huge state with a ramified and complex system management. In 1917, it included 78 provinces, 21 regions and 2 districts. The provinces were divided into 679 districts, and the regions into districts and departments. The counties, in turn, consisted of volosts. In the first weeks of March 1917. public executive committees quickly spread throughout the country and operated at the provincial (regional and district), district, volost and even village levels. It was a local government and management body that included representatives of all organizations and institutions that recognized the revolution, and reflected the will of all segments of the population as fully as possible. The commissioners of the Provisional Government (who had the rights of abolished governors) relied on public executive committees. In the spring and summer of 1917, there was an increase in the activities of the committees, but by the autumn of 1917 their role began to weaken, partly due to the lack of necessary funding.
Professor G.A. Gerasimenko considers public executive committees to be representatives of the interests of the middle strata of the city and village. He came to the conclusion: “The social differentiation of society and the intensification of political struggle led to the polarization of forces between the left and right flanks at the expense of the democratic camp. Both left-wing radicals and bourgeois-landowner elements began to leave public executive committees. Organizations and institutions based on broad sections of the population lost ground and weakened... The bulk of public executive committees were liquidated by the time of the decisive battle for power.”
By the fall, the institution of government commissars, appointed by the Provisional Government on the recommendation of the Cadet Party, was discredited. By May 1917 there were 57 provincial and 353 district commissars, mostly cadets and Octobrists. Socialist parties, primarily the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, played a major role in undermining the power of the commissars. They decided to replace the appointed commissioners with “properly” elected ones (i.e. based on universal suffrage). From spring to autumn 1917, they waged a campaign against the “appointed” and unwittingly contributed to the weakening of the local power of the center. In many places, by the autumn of 1917, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries replaced the previously appointed commissars. However, this institution of power was weakened and disorganized. The food crisis also played a fatal role in discrediting the power of the commissars (commissars, as a rule, headed local food authorities). The masses of the population held them responsible for the famine that had begun in the country, high prices, and growing anarchy.
The growth of Sovietization of Russia and the crisis of the zemstvo
and city governments
By October 1917, Russia was covered with a dense network of Soviets (according to incomplete data, there were 1,429 of them). The strengthening of the power of the Soviets was determined by the weakening of the authorities of the Provisional Government. For the development of Soviets in cities, the self-government skills acquired by workers in the conditions of a capitalist factory were useful - sick and insurance funds, cooperatives, trade unions, councils of elders, Sunday schools. The strength of the Soviets was not only in themselves, but also in the system of those public organizations which they represented (soldiers' committees, trade unions, labor committees, councils of elders, factory committees, etc.).
Councils of peasant deputies were formed on the traditions of the Russian peasant community. It was, as is known, a land-based neighboring organization of small direct producers, an economic association and a lower administrative unit. Regulation of intra-community relations was carried out on the basis of the principles of social organization laid down in the community, which found expression in unwritten customary law. These principles were basic both for the entire peasant world and for individual members of society: collectivism, gathering, the authority of the headman, mutual support and revenue, the artel form of labor, social justice. The main bodies of rural public administration were the village assembly (in 1917 - the Congress of Soviet Deputies), the village headman and his deputies: field, forest, haymaking (in 1917 - the Presidium of the Council, the Executive Committee). Community traditions manifested themselves especially significantly in the work of the grassroots Soviets.
The Provisional Government contrasted the Soviets with local bodies of self-government (provincial and district zemstvo assemblies, city dumas and their councils, which were created throughout Russia, and were previously absent in the national outskirts). The role of self-government was increasingly assumed by the Soviets, and the zemstvos introduced in the summer of 1917 in the volosts and national outskirts did not have time to develop. “In the village, the situation could have been saved by a rooted all-class zemstvo,” noted P.V. Volobuev and V.P. Buldakov, - but this rarely existed; There was also no balance between self-government at various levels (from provincial to volost). In these conditions, rural gatherings became the real grassroots power...”
A number of circumstances contributed to the deepening of the crisis in local governments:
1) in the fall of 1917, they became heavily politicized, began to move away from their direct functions of caring for the needs of the population, and lost contact with voters, with the people;
2) during the days of the Kornilov rebellion, the shadow of involvement in its organization and sympathy for the Kornilovites fell on the city dumas. At least the question of the role of the vowel cadets in organizing the rebellion was discussed in municipalities, Soviets and everywhere else. The appearance of the cadets on the side of the Kornilov rebels is one of the reasons that it was not the city dumas, but the Soviets that became the centers of the fight against the Kornilovism (under them the “Revolutionary Committees - Committees for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution” arose).
In February-October 1917, the Provisional Government began restructuring the country's government.
The four government compositions included 38 people belonging to ten different parties and movements. For this reason alone, in conditions of an acute crisis, the government could not become a union of like-minded fighters, but was an arena for the struggle of various political parties and movements. In the fall of 1917, the bloc of two blocs ruling Russia disintegrated: the bloc of the bourgeoisie and landowners and the bloc of this bloc with the bloc of Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. The struggle in the government between “capitalists” and “socialists” interfered with coordinated work and weakened the government. Every two months its composition changed almost completely (all four government compositions included only two ministers out of 38 - A.F. Kerensky and M.I. Tereshchenko). Naturally, the government could not carry out any serious long-term work. The main line of his work - to be a mediator in the confrontation between various political and socio-economic forces - required a huge number of managers. The ministers of the Provisional Government were ready to fulfill their duties, had necessary preparation, however, they were unable to prove themselves as statesmen due to a number of reasons (general devastation, strengthening of anti-government sentiments of the population caused by the war, etc.). The government did not have the necessary support on the ground. In the fall of 1917, the committees of public organizations, which had given massive support to the government in the spring, dissolved. The institution of government commissioners was discredited. The local nomenklatura of the Socialist Revolutionary Party split, like the Socialist Revolutionary Party itself, into two parties - the right Socialist Revolutionaries (V.M. Chernov) and the left Socialist Revolutionaries (M.A. Spiridonova). Administration A.F. Kerensky has outlived its usefulness, having failed to develop anti-crisis management.
The peak point of the deep and protracted imperial crisis that began in Russia at the turn of the 20th century has not yet passed. The main symptom of this crisis was clearly manifested - the desacralization of power - the loss of its sacredness and authority. Your hatred for royal power the population transferred to the power of the Provisional Government.
Boyar Duma
Throughout the 17th century. the importance of the Boyar Duma remains as supreme council under the king. “A sovereign without a Duma and a Duma without a sovereign were equally abnormal phenomena” (M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov). The functions of the Duma were not clearly defined, they were based on common law, tradition and were determined by the formula “the sovereign said, and the boyars sentenced.” Her competence included issues of domestic and foreign policy, court and administration. Individual independent decrees of the tsar, as a rule, are explained by the need for a prompt resolution of any issue or its relative insignificance, and boyar sentences without a decree of the tsar are explained by a corresponding assignment or interregnum.
The status of the Boyar Duma remained unchanged, but its actual role in governing the state changed. Remaining an aristocratic body, the Duma constantly increased its composition at the expense of lower ranks - Duma nobles and Duma clerks, whose corps was formed not on the basis of the principle of birth, but on the basis of personal service merit. From the composition of the Boyar Duma, a “close Duma” began to stand out from the tsar’s especially trusted representatives (including those who did not have a Duma rank), with whom he previously discussed and made decisions on issues of public administration. The process of bureaucratization of the work of the Duma is gradually increasing, from its composition in 1681-1694. a special Execution Chamber with a variable composition of clerks is allocated.
Formation of the Soviet state-political system. On October 25, 1917, the Bolsheviks led by V.I. came to power in Russia. Lenin. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks needed allies. Their natural allies could be parties with a socialist orientation - the Socialist Revolutionaries (right, left) and the Mensheviks. But the leaders of the socialist parties perceived the October Revolution as a usurpation of power by the Bolsheviks and, instead of seeking an alliance with the Bolsheviks, took the path of fighting them. In an atmosphere of ever-increasing confrontation with all the political forces of the country, the Bolsheviks demonstrated high political will: in a short period they were able to create a functional state system, in which the Bolshevik Party occupied a dominant position.
The highest representative and legislative body became the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. During the breaks between congresses, a permanent body operated - the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). The first chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was L.B. Kamenev. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee had the right to issue decrees, cancel or amend decrees and resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars, appoint and remove the Council of People's Commissars as a whole and individual people's commissars.
The highest executive body was the Council of People's Commissars (SNK), approved on October 26 by the Second Congress of Soviets. V.I. became the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Lenin, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs - L.D. Trotsky, Internal Affairs - A.I. Rykov, enlightenment - A.V. Lunacharsky. The Committee on Nationalities Affairs (Narkomnats) was created within the government, headed by I.V. Stalin. The Bolsheviks offered to join the government to three left Socialist Revolutionaries (B.D. Kamkov, V.A. Karelin, V.B. Spiro), but they refused. There was no clear separation of powers between the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars. The Council of People's Commissars carried out both executive and legislative branch. Local government was concentrated in provincial and district councils (See additional illustrative material).
Among the first measures of the Soviet government was the creation of a new judicial system. On November 22 (December 5), 1917, the Council of People's Commissars issued decree on court No. 1, according to which all old judicial institutions were abolished. On February 18, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars issued decree on court No. 2, on July 13, 1918 - decree on court No. 3. With these decrees, the Bolsheviks laid the foundations of a new - Soviet - judicial system. The local court became the lowest court, followed by the district court and regional court. The court was headed by a local judge elected by the local Council. People's assessors took part in the administration of justice. The Supreme Judicial Control became the highest judicial body. To consider cases of counter-revolutionary activities, looting, theft, and sabotage, revolutionary tribunals were created, elected by local Soviets.
On October 28 (November 11), 1917, to protect public order, the Bolsheviks began to organize a workers' and peasants' militia. There was a need to create a special body to combat internal counter-revolution. On December 7 (20), 1917, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission - the Cheka - was formed, which over time became a body state security Soviet state. At the suggestion of V.I. Lenin, F.E. was appointed chairman of the Cheka. Dzerzhinsky. The Cheka was removed from under state control and coordinated her actions only with the top party leadership. The Cheka had unlimited rights: from arrest and investigation to sentencing and execution.
In November - December 1917, the Council of People's Commissars subjugated the leadership of the army and dismissed more than a thousand generals and officers who did not accept Soviet power. The old army was demobilized.
On January 15 (28), 1918, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree on the creation of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, and on January 29 (February 11) - the Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet on on a voluntary basis. The creation of the Red Army was led by the People's Commissariat of Military Affairs, which from October 1917 to 1918 was headed by People's Commissars V.A. Antonov - Ovseenko, N.V. Krylenko, N.I. Podvoisky. From 1918 to 1922 The military commissar was L.D. Trotsky.
Until 1918, Russia lived according to Julian calendar, which in the twentieth century. lagged behind the European Gregorian by 13 days. On February 1, 1918, the Bolsheviks switched to Gregorian calendar: February 1, 1918, February 14 was announced.
The activities of the Bolshevik government aroused resistance from many social strata - landowners, bourgeoisie, officials, officers, and clergy. Anti-Bolshevik conspiracies were brewing in Petrograd and other cities. One of the counter-revolutionary centers in those days was the All-Russian Executive Committee of the Railway Trade Union (Vikzhel), created in the summer of 1917. It was the most powerful trade union in Russia, uniting more than 700 thousand workers and employees of the railways. On the second day of the revolution, Vikzhel leaders began sending letters and telegrams to railway workers’ committees and local Soviets demanding the creation of a “uniform socialist government” and the removal of V.I. Lenin from the post of chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Otherwise, Vikzhel threatened a general strike in transport. This proposal gave rise to serious disagreements among the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. L.B. Kamenev, G.E. Zinoviev, A.I. Rykov, V.P. Nogin supported the Vikzhel’s demand and in early November resigned from the Central Committee, and some of the people’s commissars left the government.
On October 29, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) entered into negotiations with Vikzhel for power. IN AND. Lenin managed to resolve the conflict: in mid-November, an agreement was reached with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries on the inclusion of 7 of their representatives in the government, which amounted to about a third of the total number of the Council of People's Commissars. At the same time, Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee L.B. Kamenev, who supported Vikzhel, was replaced by Ya.M. Sverdlov. The Left Social Revolutionaries were part of the Council of People's Commissars until mid-March 1918, when, on their own initiative, they left the government in protest against the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty.
Zemsky Sobors
To the system higher authorities State power included Zemsky Sobors, whose role in the first half of the 17th century. has increased significantly.
Zemsky Sobors met and participated in all the most important state acts in 1613-1615, 1616-1618, 1619-1621, 1632-1634, 1636-1637, 1642, 1645-1647, 1647-1649, 1650, 1651, 1653. Among the issues considered: the election of a tsar, changes in legislation, taxation, issues of foreign policy and the annexation of new territories, etc. Zemsky councils did not have clear regulations, numbers and composition. They were functional in nature, and the council convened representatives of classes and territories necessary to resolve a specific issue. The meetings of the council were necessarily attended by the tsar or his representative, the boyar Duma and church cathedral. Representation of other groups of the population could be by conscription (without choice) - heads and centurions of archers, headmen of settlements, etc., and by choice from various layers of the service and tax population. As a rule, there was no property qualification, and the moral qualification was indicated by the call to choose “strong, reasonable, kind, consistent”, who could talk about the problems of their territories and population groups, to whom “sovereign and zemstvo affairs are customary.”
The initiative to convene the council came from the tsar, the boyar Duma, or the previous Zemsky Sobor. The summoning authority sent letters to the governors, which indicated the number of those summoned, the date of arrival, and sometimes the purpose of convening the council. The electoral districts were counties. The election of service people was carried out in the hut, and for taxation - in the zemstvo. Voters drew up a written act of election, gave instructions to the electors and provided them with “reserve” (content).
The meetings opened with a general meeting, at which the tsar or, on his behalf, the Duma clerk motivated the convening of the council and put forward issues for discussion, sometimes the elected officials were informed about the activities of the government based on the decisions of the previous council. Then the issues were discussed according to class categories: the boyar Duma, the council of the clergy, the meeting of stolniks, Moscow nobles, city nobles, archers, etc. Numerous categories (for example, city nobles) were divided into articles. Each category or article submitted its written opinion; in case of disagreement, each member of the council could also submit his opinion. On the second general meeting Based on a body of opinions, a unanimous decision was made, sealed with the seals of the Tsar, the Patriarch, representatives of the categories (articles) and the kiss of the cross. For the 17th century. characterized by a wide representation of the lower classes with the leading role of the nobility and the wealthy part of the townspeople. The emerging mobilization type of development and features of the “middle” geopolitical situation Orthodox power made class relations in Russia fundamentally different in civilization than in the West. The class division in Russia grew not so much from socio-economic development as from the needs of the state, which actively influenced the development of society and was at the same time a spiritual and moral phenomenon, a special form of spiritual service. Elected people appeared at the Zemsky Sobors not only in order to inform the higher authorities about their needs, but also in order to find the place of their class rank and territory in resolving the problems of the entire state, which made it possible to adopt a conciliar, i.e. voluntary unanimous decision. The Zemsky Sobor is inseparable from the power of the Tsar and the Boyar Duma; in principle, it could not be an opposition body (with all the divergences in the material interests of the estates) and in this sense, in its pure form, was neither only a legislative nor only an advisory body (and sometimes performed individual functions of the executive authorities). This also reveals the civilizational peculiarity of Russian Orthodox statehood - autocracy as a conciliar class monarchy, where representative bodies, possessing real power, act not as a counterweight, but as the most important condition for strengthening the power of the tsar, and play a prominent role in the legitimation of the new dynasty. Misunderstanding of the spiritual foundations of Zemsky Sobors inevitably leads researchers to a dead end in attempts to explain why, having real power and strength, the estates did not bargain for rights and privileges in difficult times for the authorities, like similar Western European institutions.
After the decision on reunification with Ukraine, the “fading of councils” begins (L.V. Cherepnin). This was due to a number of circumstances. By the middle of the 17th century. the autocracy strengthened, the mechanisms of government were restored. The most important indicator was the adoption by the Zemsky Sobor of 1649 of the Council Code. Unparalleled at that time in its volume (almost 1000 articles), this is the last all-Russian code based on the religious-Orthodox understanding of political and legal processes. It testifies to the high professionalism of Russian clerks of the 17th century. The code proclaimed the principle of equal trial for all ranks; any person was protected, but taking into account his class status. The Code has been legally formalized serfdom, declaring an indefinite search for fugitives and attached the townsfolk population to the cities, eliminating white-mest settlements, which were exempt from townsman duties.
Crimes against religion were considered especially dangerous, followed by state crimes against the order of government. The code determined the position of the main classes. It was a response to numerous legislative requests from the localities and stabilized the legal space of the state. This freed up the hands of the tsarist administration to pursue independent policies, including actions that might not have found support from representatives of the estates. In addition, since 1654, Russia had to wage difficult wars with Poland, the Crimean Khanate, and within the country the government was faced with a peasant-Cossack uprising under the leadership of Stepan Razin, confrontation between the Old Believers and other protests. During this period, meetings were held with representatives of individual classes. In 1681 - 1682 Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich convened the Zemsky Sobor, which abolished localism. But it was not possible to restore the activities of the highest class representative body.
An aristocratic project for changing the shape of the Russian state was born, presented to Patriarch Joachim. According to this plan, the tsarist state was divided into several states, each of which was forever headed by a boyar - the tsar's governor (Novgorod the Great, Kazan, Siberia and other regions). As a result, Russia turned into an aristocratic federation under the supreme rule of the tsar, but relying on a council of governors. Fyodor Alekseevich approved the project in principle, but the patriarch rejected it as a threat to the integrity of the country.
2.The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 - the first constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic(Soviet Russia).
The III All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918 put forward the preparation of the Constitution of the RSFSR as one of the priorities of Soviet power and instructed the Central Executive Committee to prepare for the new Congress of Soviets the main provisions of the Constitution of the RSFSR, however, due to the complicating internal situation and the aggravation of the international situation, the work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the development of the Constitution was temporarily postponed.
The Constitution was adopted by the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets at a meeting on July 10, 1918 and was published in the “Collection of Legislation of the RSFSR”. Contained 6 sections, 17 chapters and 90 articles. The basic principles that formed the basis of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 (as well as the Constitution of the USSR of 1924) were set out in the “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People.” The Constitution of 1918 established the dictatorship of the proletariat. Persons who lived on unearned income or used hired labor were deprived of political rights. This Constitution was the most ideological of all Soviet constitutions. It lost force due to the adoption of the Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR, approved by the Resolution of the XII All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers, Peasants, Cossacks and Red Army Deputies of May 11, 1924.
Basic principles of the Constitution. The basic principles of the Constitution were formulated in its six sections:I. Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited People;II. General provisions Constitution of the RSFSR; III. Construction of Soviet power (organization Soviet power in the center and localities); IV. Active and passive suffrage; V. Budget law;VI. About the coat of arms and flag of the RSFSR. The Declaration defined the social basis of the new statehood - the dictatorship of the proletariat and its political basis - the system of councils of workers, peasants and soldiers' deputies. The first economic transformations were legislated: nationalization of forests, land, mineral resources, transport, banks, and part of industry. The duration of the Constitution was defined as “the transition from capitalism to socialism.” The state structure of the RSFSR was federal in nature, the subjects of the federation were national republics. It also provided for the creation of regional unions that were part of the RSFSR on a federation basis and consisted of several national regions. The Constitution proclaimed the All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers, Soldiers, Peasants and Cossack Deputies as the highest body of power. The Congress elected the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) responsible to it. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee formed the Government of the RSFSR - the Council of People's Commissars, consisting of people's commissars, who headed the sectoral people's commissariats. Local authorities were regional, provincial, district and volost congresses of councils, which formed their own executive committees. In cities and settlements, city and village councils were created. Competence central authorities power was determined as follows. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee approved and amended the Constitution, admission to the RSFSR, declaration of war and conclusion of peace, general management of foreign, domestic and economic policy, established national taxes and duties; the foundations of the organization of the armed forces, the judicial system and legal proceedings formed the national legislation. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets had the exclusive right to amend the Constitution and ratify peace treaties. It is characteristic that legislative power in the RSFSR was exercised by three supreme bodies at once: the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars. The latter could issue decrees and orders in the field of public administration, which were of a generally binding nature. The most significant of them were approved by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The most important task assigned to lower-level councils was to implement the decisions of higher-level bodies and subordinate them vertically. Horizontally, within their territory, local councils were given broad powers to implement their competence. This principle was called “democratic centralism.” The electoral system, enshrined in the Constitution, reflected the current socio-political situation in the country. Only representatives of individual social groups, in respect of which restrictions were not applied on the basis of gender, nationality, residence, education and religion. These groups were united by the concept of “workers”. A significant part of the population was deprived of voting rights: persons using hired labor for profit; living on “unearned income”; private traders and intermediaries; representatives of the clergy; employees of the gendarmerie, police and security department. The exclusion of “socially alien elements” from the electoral corps did not make it possible to consider suffrage as universal. The Constitution established a multi-stage system of elections to councils (a rule that was in force even during elections to zemstvos and State Duma). There were direct elections to village and city councils; delegates at all subsequent levels were elected at the corresponding congresses of councils based on the principles of representation and delegation. This created an organizational filter designed to filter out “alien elements,” all the more effective since in practice and in the election instructions the procedure for open voting was enshrined. The set of proclaimed constitutional rights of citizens was placed in the closest connection with their duties and was declared specifically guaranteed, and not only proclaimed.The expansion of the territory of the state and the complication of its activities led to the gradual withering away of the palace-patrimonial system and the emergence of a new administrative administration.
The control system was divided into two parts. One was the palace administration itself, headed by a butler (dvorsky), who was also in charge of the arable land of the princely peasants. The other part was formed by the so-called “paths”, which provided for the special needs of the prince and his entourage: falconer’s, hunter’s, stable, steward’s, chashnich’s, etc. To carry out their tasks, certain princely villages and entire areas were allocated to maintain the paths. The routes were not only limited to the collection of certain products, but also acted as administrative and judicial bodies.
The competence and functions of the system of palace-patrimonial bodies also increased. From bodies that served the personal needs of the prince, they grew into national institutions that performed important tasks in managing the entire state. Thus, the butler from the 15th century. began to be, to a certain extent, in charge of issues related to land ownership of church and secular feudal lords, and to exercise general control over the local administration. The performance of certain duties in public administration lost the character of a temporary princely assignment and turned into permanent service. At the same time, the complication of the functions of palace bodies required the creation of a large and ramified apparatus.
The grand ducal treasury was separated from the palace service, and a large palace chancellery with an archive and other departments was also created.
Feeding system. The administrative units were headed by officials - representatives of the center. The districts were headed by governors - volostels. These officials were supported at the expense of the local population - they received “feed” from them, that is, they carried out in-kind and monetary exactions, collected judicial and other duties in their favor. Feeding was both a public service and a form of reward for the princely vassals for their service.
Feeders were obliged not only to manage the corresponding districts and volosts, but also to maintain their own administrative apparatus (tiuns, closers, etc.), and have their own military detachments. At the same time, the feeders were not personally interested in the affairs of the counties or volosts they controlled, since their appointment was relatively short-term - for a year or two. All the interests of the governors and volosts were focused on personal enrichment through legal and illegal exactions from the local population. Small estates and landowners especially suffered from the feeding system, who could not independently protect themselves from “dashing” people. The rising nobility was also dissatisfied with the feeding system, since income from local government went into the pockets of the boyars and feeding provided the boyars with great political weight.
General characteristics of the Pskov judicial charter
general characteristics
The Pskov court charter dates back to the end of the 15th century. Unlike Russkaya Pravda, it fills significant gaps in the field of civil law, which was determined by the development of commodity-money relations in Pskov.
Civil law. Property was divided into movable – “belly”, and immovable – “fatherland”. The methods of acquiring property rights were contracts and inheritance, the discovery and offspring are also known, and the prescription of possession is mentioned. The right to other people's things is represented by the “kormlya” - the lifelong right to use real estate.
The procedure for concluding a contract was simplified. The main method of concluding an agreement was a record - a written document, a copy of which was deposited in the archive. Contracts for the purchase and sale of land, storage, loans for large sums, and guarantees were formalized by recording; a will was drawn up using the recording. The execution of contracts for small amounts (loans up to 1 ruble) was carried out using a board - an informal written document. The oral form of concluding transactions was also preserved; in this case, four to five witnesses were required.
When inheriting by law, the property passed to the relatives of the deceased, who ran the household together with him. The will was drawn up in writing and certified by a priest. In the absence of close relatives, property could be bequeathed to distant relatives, as well as to people who were not related to the testator.
Criminal law. General concept crimes expanded in comparison with Russian Pravda: all acts prohibited by criminal law were considered criminal. The system of crimes has changed: state crimes, crimes against the order of government and court, and malfeasance appear.
Property crimes expanded significantly, at the same time, crimes against the person were represented significantly less than in Russkaya Pravda, probably because Russkaya Pravda continued to operate in Pskov.
Only two types of punishment are known - the death penalty and a fine; specific types of the death penalty have not been defined. Fines were collected in favor of the prince, part of the amount went to the treasury of Pskov. At the same time as paying the fine, the perpetrator had to compensate for the damage.
Procedural law. The adversarial process continued to exist, but at the same time the investigative and search forms of the process also developed. There was an institution for pre-trial preparation of the case - a code, but the code was not regulated in detail, the norms of the Russian Pravda were in effect.
Representation of the parties was allowed at the trial, but officials were prohibited from acting as a representative of the party.
Evidence was of great importance, written evidence, as well as witnesses, played a serious role. A new type of ordeal was introduced - a judicial duel, a "field", the procedure for conducting a duel, and the rules for replacing a side in it with a hired fighter were discussed in detail. The process was oral, but the decision was made in in writing, when issuing it, court fees were collected.
Law code 1497
The Code of Law of 1497 introduced uniformity into the judicial practice of the Russian state, consolidated new social orders, introduced restrictions on the judicial activities of feeders, and laid the foundation for the general enslavement of peasants.
Civil law. Independent communal ownership of land completely disappears. The lands of the communities passed into the hands of patrimonial owners and landowners and were included in the princely domain. Patrimonial and local land ownership was more clearly formalized. The owner of the estate had an almost unlimited right to it, while at the same time the prince could take away the estate of a vassal. The estate was given by the lord to his vassals only for the duration of their service.
The Grand Duke's domain was divided into palace lands - the peasants of which bore corvée or quitrent and were governed by representatives of the palace authorities, and black tax lands - the peasants paid cash rent and were subordinate to state officials.
Less attention is paid to commitments. Loan, purchase and sale and personal hire agreements are mentioned. The obligations arising from causing harm are more clearly distinguished.
Inheritance law has changed little. When inheriting by law, the son received the inheritance; in the absence of sons, the daughter received the inheritance. The daughter received both movable property and land. If there were no daughters, the inheritance went to the closest relative.
Criminal law. The concept of crime in the Code of Laws is different from the Russian Pravda. A crime - a “dashing deed” - was understood as any action that in one way or another threatened the state or the ruling class as a whole and was therefore prohibited by law. The serf was already considered as a person capable of independently answering for his actions and crimes. The system of crimes also became more complex, and state crimes appeared: sedition and insurrection. The death penalty was established as a punishment for state crimes.
A developed system of property crimes was envisaged: robbery, theft, destruction and damage to other people's property. Among the crimes against the person, murder (murder), insult by action and word are mentioned.
In punishment, the goal of intimidation came first; new punishments appeared - the death penalty and the trade penalty (whip on the trading floor). Imprisonment and self-harm (blinding, cutting out the tongue) were also provided for.
Procedural law. The system of evidence has changed. All witnesses were called hearsay; evidence from slaves was allowed. Various types of documents were accepted as evidence. An oath was still considered proof, and the “field” - a judicial duel - was also recognized, but in the 15th century. the use of the “field” was increasingly limited in the 16th century. gradually ceased to exist.
Along with the old form of court (adversarial process), a new form of legal proceedings was also envisaged - search. The search was distinguished by the fact that the court itself initiated, conducted and completed the case according to own initiative. The main method of “finding out the truth” during a search was torture.