Military Review

Provincial reform 1775 of the year

20
Provincial reform 1775 of the year 240 years ago, 18 in November 1775, a manifesto on a new regional division of Russia was published. The Russian Empire was divided into 50 provinces. The first 8 provinces were formed by decree of Peter I in 1708 year. Empress Catherine II continued the reform. Instead of provinces, counties and provinces, a division of the country into provinces (300-400 thousand people) and counties (20-30 thousand people) was introduced, based on the principle of the tax-paying population.


The administration was headed by a governor-general or governor-general, subordinated to the Senate and the prosecutor's supervision, headed by the procurator-general. At the head of the county was the captain-police officer, who was elected 1 once in 3, by the county gentry assembly. The provincial division existed in Russia until the 1920-ies, when the provinces were replaced by regions, territories and districts.

Peter's regional reform

From the end of 1708, the city of Peter began to implement the provincial reform. The implementation of this reform was caused by the need to improve the administrative division system, which was largely outdated by the beginning of the 18th century. In the 17th century, the territory of the Moscow State was divided into districts - districts that had close economic ties with the city. At the head of the county there was a voivode sent from Moscow. Counties were extremely uneven in size - sometimes very large, sometimes very small. In 1625, the number of counties was 146, besides which there were parishes. By the 18th century, relations between the center and the province became extremely complicated and confused, and the management of the counties from the center became extremely cumbersome. Another important reason for the regional reform of Peter I was the need to create a new system of financing and material support for the armed forces for successful warfare.

In addition, it was necessary to strengthen the "vertical of power". The Astrakhan uprising and the uprising on the Don showed the weakness of the local government, it was necessary to strengthen it so that the heads of the provinces could solve such problems without large-scale intervention by the center. The governors had all the military power and the necessary military contingent to nip the unrest in the bud without the involvement of troops from the front line. Governors had to ensure timely collection of taxes and taxes, recruitment, and mobilize the local population for labor service.

Decree of 18 (29) of December 1708 announced the intention "for the general benefit to inflict 8 provinces and paint cities for them". Originally, Moscow, Ingermanland (later St. Petersburg), Smolensk, Kiev, Azov, Arkhangelsk and Siberian provinces were created. In 1714, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan provinces were separated from Kazan, and in Riga, 1713 was founded. The essence of the reform was that between the old counties and the central institutions in the capital, the county administration directly subordinated to the cat, there appeared an intermediate instance - the provincial institutions. This was supposed to increase the controllability of the territories. The provinces were headed by governors, endowed with full administrative, judicial, financial and military power. The king appointed the people close to him as governors. In particular, the Petersburg province was ruled by the Menshikov, the Kazan and the Azov gubernias were headed by the brothers Apraksin, the Moscow one - by Streshnev.

Peter's reform was "raw", hasty. Thus, the principle of the recruitment of provinces was not defined. It is not known what the king was guided by when he attributed this or that city to one or another province: the size of the province, the population or economic, geographical factors, etc. The provinces were too large for the provincial governments to effectively manage them. The regional reform did not clearly define the place of the provincial administration in the governmental mechanism of Russia, that is, its relation to the central institutions and the county administration.

In 1719, Peter the Great carried out another administrative division reform. The provinces were divided into provinces, and the provinces, in turn, into districts. At the head of the province stood the voivode, and at the head of the district - the Zemstvo commissioner. According to this reform, the province became the highest regional unit of the Russian Empire, and the provinces served as military districts. Revel Province was established in 1719. 1725, Azov Province, was renamed Voronezh.

In 1727, the administrative territorial division was reviewed. Districts were abolished, county was reintroduced instead. The boundaries of “old” districts and “new” counties in many cases coincided or almost coincided. Belgorod (separated from Kiev) and Novgorod (separated from St. Petersburg) provinces were formed.

Further, until 1775, the administrative unit remained relatively stable with a tendency to disaggregate. So, in 1744 two new provinces were formed - Vyborg and Orenburg. Gubernias were formed mainly in the new territories, in some cases several provinces of the old provinces were distinguished into new ones. By October 1775, the territory of Russia was divided into 23 provinces, 62 provinces and 276 counties.



Reform of Catherine II

7 (18) of November 1775 of the year was issued a decree of Empress Catherine II "Institutions for the Management of Provinces", according to which in 1775 — 1785. a fundamental reform of the administrative and territorial division of the Russian Empire was carried out. The reform led to the disintegration of the provinces, their number was doubled, twenty years after it began, the number of provinces reached fifty. I must say that under Catherine the provinces were usually called "governorships".

The need for reform was associated with the same reasons as in the time of Peter. Peter's reform was unfinished. It was necessary to strengthen the local government, to create a clear system. The peasant war under the leadership of Pugachev also showed the need to strengthen local power. Nobles complained about the weakness of local authorities.

The division into provinces and counties was carried out according to a strictly administrative principle, without taking into account geographic, national, and economic characteristics. The main purpose of the division was to solve tax and police matters. In addition, the division was based on a purely quantitative criterion - population size. About three to four hundred thousand souls lived in the province, about twenty to thirty thousand souls lived in the county. Old territorial bodies were liquidated. The provinces were abolished as territorial units.

At the head of the province stood the governor, appointed and displaced by the emperor. He relied on the provincial government, which included the provincial prosecutor and two centurions. Financial and fiscal issues in the province solved the state chamber. Issues of health, education, was in charge of the order of public charity.

The supervision of the legality in the province was exercised by the provincial prosecutor and two provincial conciliators. In the county the same tasks were solved by the county solicitor. At the head of the county administration there was a district police officer (captain-police officer), elected by the county nobility, and a collegial management body - the lower district court (in which besides the police officer there were two assessors). The Zemsky Court supervised the Zemstvo Police, oversaw the implementation of laws and decisions of provincial governments. In the cities was established the post of mayor. The leadership of several provinces was transferred to the Governor-General. Governors submitted to him, he was recognized as commander-in-chief in the territory of the general-governorship, if there was no monarch there at the moment, he could introduce a state of emergency, directly address the report to the king.

Thus, the provincial reform of 1775 g. Strengthened the power of the governors and disaggregated the territory, strengthened the position of the administrative apparatus on the ground. With the same goal, under Catherine II, other reforms were carried out: special police, punitive bodies were created, and the judicial system was transformed. Among the negative aspects, we can note the lack of economic importance, the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus and the strong increase in spending on it. In general, the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy during the years of Catherine II’s rule grew 5,6 times (from 6,5 million rubles in 1762 to 36,5 million rubles in 1796) —much more than, for example, the cost of an army ( 2,6 times). It was more than in any other reign during the XVIII — XIX centuries. Therefore, in the future, the system of provincial government was constantly improved.

It must be said that the provincial (regional) division of Russia according to territorial and demographic principles has more advantages than the division of the USSR and the Russian Federation into autonomous republics, territories and regions. The national character of many republics carries with it a “time bomb” leading to the destruction of Russia. The first such disaster occurred in 1991. If the separation of Central Asia and Transcaucasia can still be reconciled, although our ancestors paid a large price for these lands, and their loss hurt Russia's military strategic stability, then the loss of such parts of Great Russia as the Baltic States, Belaya Rus, Little Russia and Bessarabia , nothing can be justified. The military-strategic situation in the western and north-western directions has deteriorated sharply, in fact, the achievements and victories of several centuries have been lost. The ancestral lands of the Russian super-ethnos are lost. Superethnos Russes (Russians) became the world's largest divided people.

The Trotskyist internationalists, creating national republics, planted a "mine" of enormous destructive power under Russian civilization. And the process is not completed. The national republics of the Russian Federation are a blow to the Russian people, who are denied the privilege of developing their own characteristics in special, "greenhouse" conditions and the threat of further decay. The economic crisis in Russia and the beginning of the Third World War, with Russia getting into the conflict along the South-North fault, lead to aggravation of internal contradictions in the Russian Federation, and the ambitions of ethnocratic elites and national intelligentsia that support from abroad can be very dangerous for unity. country. Therefore, in the long term, in Russia it is necessary to return to the territorial division, while preserving only the cultural autonomy of small nations.
Author:
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 18 November 2015 06: 45 New
    -3
    The Trotskyist internationalists, creating national republics, planted a "mine" of enormous destructive power under Russian civilization. ... Somehow the puzzles do not add up .. The national division .. was completed under Stalin .. by 1936 the borders of the Union republics were determined .. which still exist .. Stalin was a Trotskyist ..?
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 18 November 2015 08: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Stalin, was a Trotskyist ..?

      Stalin was not a Trotskyist, but the Trotskyists prevailed in this matter.

      "... It must be remembered that Stalin became Stalin in our understanding, that is, the leader, only in December 1930. Before that, he was a party leader, who at first - until about the end of the 1920s - had two tasks The first is the national question. Stalin believed that there could be no division of the country along ethnic lines. Back in March 1917, immediately after the February Revolution, he published two articles on the national question, one of which was called: “Against federalization At the same time, he understood that the administrative division of the country had outlived its usefulness, therefore he regarded it as a necessary unification of a number of provinces, which have developed historical and economic ties for 100-200 years, into what Stalin called the region at that time. considered economic and historical ties, and put the life of the population in last place.Not the national language, but namely the way of life, which is again connected with the economy.It is curious that Stalin clearly formulated this in the second half of March1917, and six weeks later this idea was repeated almost word for word by the leader of the Cadet party Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov ... "Leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Nikolaevich Zhukov
      http://www.e-reading.by/chapter.php/1021705/120/Ageev_-_Besedy.html

      The current Trotskyists seized power in the wake of the bourgeois coup of the 90s, they divided present-day Russia into 24 national republics ...
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 18 November 2015 10: 23 New
        0
        Stalin believed that there could be no division of the country on a national basis... Back in March 1917, December 5, 1936, the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets, convened in view of the special importance of the issue, adopted the text of the new Soviet Constitution. Its approval was preceded by a many months of nationwide discussion, in which 55% of the country's adult population participated. In total, about two million various amendments and additions were proposed during the discussion. Are all of the Trotskyists all 55% of the adult population? How is the VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets?
        ARTICLE 13. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a union state formed on the basis of a voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics:
        Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, Kazakh Kyrgyz th Soviet Socialist Republic. USSR Constitution 1936 ...
        October 1924. The Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the RSFSR-19.04.1925-Kazak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the RSFSR-December 5.12.1936, 1924-Kazakh SSR, October 16.10.1929-Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the Uzbek SSR-5.12.1936/1924/25.05.1925 Tajik SSR as part of the Uzbek SSR-01.02.1926-Tajik SSR, October 5.12.36-Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Region as part of the RSFSR-12-Kyrgyz Autonomous Region as part of the RSFSR-1922 Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the RSFSR, -5-Kyrgyz SSR. March 1936 In XNUMX, in Tiflis, the conference of plenipotentiaries of the central executive committees of the Councils of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan SSR and the Georgian SSR adopted a declaration and signed an agreement on the creation of a federal union of the SSR of Transcaucasia in the form of the Federation of Socialist Soviet Republics of Transcaucasia. With the adoption on December XNUMX, XNUMX of the new Constitution (Basic Law) of the USSR, the Transcaucasian SFSR was abolished, the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR and the Georgian SSR were directly incorporated into the USSR.
        This is also all the tricks of Trotsky and the Trotskyists, according to the author and your opinion ..? .. Only Trotskyism here does not smell .. hi
        1. Babr
          Babr 18 November 2015 11: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: Boris55
          . Stalin believed that there could be no division of the country on a national basis.

          Here I agree more with Boris. Stalin thought so. Or maybe there was a mistake.
          (God forbid, not for me to judge). Because the Russians are a state-forming people, both in number and territory. And he had to be strong. It was not us who joined, but us. And with Stalin's death, everything was done in order to weaken Russia, developing the outskirts (republics), but not the center of Russia. The virgin lands of Kazakhstan were developed, not the Russian non-black soil. But this is only one example. In Soviet times, visiting the Baltic states was tantamount to what to visit abroad.
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 18 November 2015 12: 44 New
            -1
            Do you somehow judge with Boris ... the places ... what Stalin was talking about in 1917 ... The reality of the Stalin Constitution of 1936 was Stalin's ..
            At the table, no one is superfluous,
            According to merit, each is awarded,
            In gold letters we write
            Popular Stalin's law. This is a verse from the Song of the Motherland, (hf Circus) They don’t sing it now ..
            .. What is the essence of my comments .. there is nothing to drag "Trotskyist-internationalists" into place absolutely out of place .. You read it carefully .. in fact, the author accuses Stalin of Trotskyism .. I do not agree with the author, the creation of union republics was not a mistake, this knocked the ground out of the nationalists ... Another question is about the fight against nationalists, which was weakened after the death of Stalin ... and under Khrushchev and Brezhnev was almost not conducted ... hence the result of 1991 ... The author writes .. in In the future, in Russia it is necessary to return to territorial division, preserving only the cultural autonomy of small nations... Only the realization of this prospect at present will give an even greater surge in nationalism ..
            1. Babr
              Babr 18 November 2015 14: 03 New
              +1
              Quote: parusnik
              Do you somehow judge with Boris ... the places ... what Stalin was talking about in 1917 ... The reality of the Stalin Constitution of 1936 was Stalin's ..

              ... In places ... Otherwise, it is impossible. The formation of Socialism took place through trial and error.
              There was no beaten track. I never renounced Stalin during the stagnant years and the year of perestroika. But this does not mean that, I cannot assume that he had no mistakes.
              Here are even his words, I am Russian of Georgian nationality (I can be mistaken in the word order, but it doesn’t change the essence) For me it is rallying around the Russian people, and not erosion of identity.
              Quote: Boris55
              The first is the national question. Stalin believed that there can be no division of the country on a national basis

              Stalin was not omnipotent, so this did not materialize. And we do not know what would come of it. I have already said that only rallying around a nation-forming nation will allow us to survive.
              1. parusnik
                parusnik 18 November 2015 17: 42 New
                +1
                It seems that I am forcing you and Boris to renounce Stalin ... as in the film "How the Steel Was Tempered" ... when Korchagin has a dream that he is chained to the wall ... the Petliurists point a machine gun at him and ask: Well, Korchagin, you renounce the revolution .. he says no .. they shoot at him .. and Korchagin wakes up ..
                1. Babr
                  Babr 18 November 2015 19: 13 New
                  +1
                  Well, what are you Alexey. Even in thoughts there wasn’t. We didn’t gather here to impose our point of view. hiIt may even come to a common denominator.
          2. dmb
            dmb 18 November 2015 13: 40 New
            -1
            Greetings Victor, why not you? After all, today you are more Stalin aware of the consequences of this or that decision. Boris is right. In those conditions, it was only possible to unite the already collapsing country, recognizing the possibility of national self-determination. Or by force. In the case of Poland, they tried force. The result is known. As for the further, let me remind you that with the latter Ilyich a slogan was put forward about a single community - the Soviet people. This process is not just one year or even one decade.
            1. Babr
              Babr 18 November 2015 16: 11 New
              -1
              Greetings Dmitry.
              Quote: dmb
              Boris is right. In those conditions, it was possible to unite a already crumbling country only by recognizing the possibility of national self-determination.

              And I don’t argue. At that moment, yes. I agree even with that
              Quote: Boris55
              Stalin believed that there can be no division of the country on a national basis

              An example from life. It was called from Sakhalin. You yourself understand this backyard of a country where all ethnic groups are gathered. Russians, Tatars, Armenians, etc. They grew up not in one yard, but in the same city. Then, if someone called someone a chock they would have torn on white ribbons. They didn’t even know such a word. So they went through the army together.
              But this is a single city. On a national scale, it is impossible.
              A division of the republics ..... there will always be forces that want to quarrel. I see the only way. This is a union around the Russian people.
        2. Boris55
          Boris55 18 November 2015 11: 55 New
          -1
          Quote: parusnik
          This is also all the tricks of Trotsky and the Trotskyists, according to the author and your opinion ..? .. Only Trotskyism here does not smell ..

          Do you remember the EBN's statement: "Take as much sovereignty as you can" ... Writing is easy, but taking it is practically impossible. Why am I all this - I'm talking about Lenin's work "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination." By the year 36, the nations had already decided and the constitution only fixed this position (not vice versa).
          Trotskyists did their dirty deed much earlier hi
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 18 November 2015 17: 50 New
            +1
            Trotskyists did their dirty deed much earlier ..Forced Lenin to write a work "On the right of nations to self-determination." So what? smile By the year 36, the nation had already decided and the constitution only fixed this provision (not for turnover). ... Was it bad or good? .. If it’s bad, what is the role of the Trotskyists .. rather good .. what’s the reason for the Trotskyists .. What about EBN ... he’s ready to lie on the rails for a glass of vodka ... didn’t pour down .. withheld .. And it’s a pity .. His statement about sovereignty, similar to the transfer of Crimea to Khrushchev, Ukraine .. then Khrushchev bought the votes of party apparatchiks .. And EBN bought support from regional leaders ..
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 18 November 2015 19: 29 New
              0
              Quote: parusnik
              Trotskyists ... Forced Lenin to write the work "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination." So what?

              This article was written in 1914 and published in the journal "Education". During this time he lived in Switzerland. I don’t know they made him write this, or he himself, after the prison there, thought of this, but from there we still had a lot of troubles in the form of young reformers like Chubais and Gaidar ...

              The destruction of Russian civilization is undoubtedly bad. By the way, the so-called fighters for the preservation of ethnic groups also work for this, preventing them from becoming Russian and who eventually want to become the same republics ...

              And I recalled about EBN that this was not Lenin’s idea yet, after 70 years it had been repeated exactly exactly again ...
  2. 1234567890
    1234567890 18 November 2015 07: 53 New
    +7
    Yes, to hell with them, with the Trotskyists. The main problem in the article is correctly reflected - the presence of national-territorial entities. It's time to do something with this
    and further enlargement of small regions is also necessary. The approach to territorial division depending on the size of the population is the most correct both from a managerial and economic point of view. And the main lever of influence on the regional "elites" is the budgetary and financial one, which seems to have been tested for a long time. There would be a desire.
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 18 November 2015 08: 45 New
      -3
      Quote: 1234567890
      It's time to do something with this

      "But this is not necessary" (C) "The diamond hand" such "doing" can only serve to strengthen the centrifugal forces in society, Lenin did not just create the division into national districts, he understood that this was the only way to achieve unity and support of the majority of society in the country, power must be shared, the usurpation of power, paradoxically, undermines the power itself
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 18 November 2015 08: 57 New
        +3
        Quote: sa-ag
        Lenin didn’t just create a division into national districts, he understood that the only way to achieve unity and support for the majority of society in the country was to divide power

        The Leninist idea / to share power with national elites on the basis of proletarian internationalism / has now degenerated into its opposite.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 1234567890
        1234567890 19 November 2015 10: 41 New
        0
        Quote: sa-ag
        Lenin didn’t just create a division according to national districts, he understood that the only way to achieve unity and support for the majority of society in the country

        It is necessary to think, take into account the situation. Specifically then, it was even worse than during Yeltsin's "parade of sovereignties" - everything had already fallen apart. To collect all this, it was necessary to give (promise) to everyone everything who wants what. Yes, it's stupid according to the principle "every woman gets a man, every man gets a bottle of vodka", and then tighten the screws. Does anyone say that after Stalin had put things in order, it could have hit someone's head to secede from the Union? Even at the beginning of the Second World War, when everything was hanging by a thread, the USSR did not fall apart. And then the independence of the republics was purely formal and very limited. And as long as there was a strong government in the country, everything remained so.
        But we are already scientists, with the collapse of the USSR, everyone was present, but conclusions must be drawn, however.
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 18 November 2015 09: 04 New
    +5
    Therefore, in the future in Russia it is necessary to return to territorial division, preserving only the cultural autonomy of small nations. Author Samsonov Alexander

    Exactly so and only so! To date, this idea (national-administrative division) is working to erode the Russian Federation. In the first stage (the destruction of the USSR) Lenin's "right of nations to self-determination" simply tore the USSR to pieces. Now the time has come for the dismemberment of the Russian Federation in the same manner, using the previously tested method / of national entities /. The only way to combat this cancerous tumor / nationalism / is the transition to the construction of the Russian Federation in the form of provinces and a rigid, even brutal vertical of power structures. I am not a fan of the "son of a lawyer", but Vladimir Volfovich is 100% right in this matter.
    1. Nikita Gromov
      Nikita Gromov 18 November 2015 11: 22 New
      +4
      Exactly. Federal, national-administrative division, especially under a liberal system of government, is destructive for the country, because it gives rise to parochial-local nationalism, religious tension and separatist tendencies. A vivid example of this: Chechnya (and in general all the other so-called Caucasian "republics"), Tatarstan and Bashkiria.
      1. Down House
        Down House 18 November 2015 12: 27 New
        -1
        Quote: Nikita Gromov
        The federal, national-administrative division, especially under the liberal system of government, is destructive for the country, because it creates small-town-local nationalism, religious tension and separatist tendencies.

        Yeah - to ban any form of national independence, but at the same time stop people giving out salaries - after receiving the money once, they will stop working until they give money more and more and more laughing
        1. Roy
          Roy 18 November 2015 13: 07 New
          +2
          Don't talk nonsense.
  4. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 18 November 2015 11: 07 New
    0
    The beginning of the reign of Catherine II was marked by a turn in the policy of the imperial power towards the Muslim population. The Russian Empire, in order to avoid further military confrontation with the Tatar population, made a number of significant concessions. This primarily concerned the areas of trade and legislation. Traveling along the Volga in 1767 had a great influence on Catherine II and influenced the reorientation of the political course towards the Tatars. Well, what finally changed her point of view on the state of affairs in the state was the massive participation of the Tatars in the Pugachev uprising in 1773-1776. The European educated empress was well aware of the danger of infringement of the religious and social rights of the Tatar population. She not only declared herself a "Kazan landowner", but was the first of the Russian emperors to abandon the policy of direct suppression of Islam and the Muslim clergy. Meeting her in Kazan, the Tatars were amazed at her kindness and greatness. In the historical memory of the Tatar people, she remained as "Abi-patsha" (grandmother - queen). But despite the liberal policy of Catherine II, the Russian empire continued "the tactics of discriminatory laws and petty regulation of the entire life of the Tatar society, from a policy of rapid forced assimilation to the practice of gradual" domestication "and absorption" (K. Ablyazov). And this, as we see from the end of this article, is happening today.

    Therefore, in the future in Russia it is necessary to return to territorial division, preserving only the cultural autonomy of small nations.


    And the small nations, is it all except the Russians?
  5. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 18 November 2015 11: 19 New
    0
    "I must say that under Catherine the gubernias were usually called" governorships "." In my opinion, not quite so. In densely populated areas of Central Russia, indeed, the governorship and the province could coincide territorially. In other regions, the governorship consisted of two or three provinces and was to some extent analogous to the future governors general. There is some confusion in various documents of Catherine's era. Sometimes "governorship" and "province" are synonymous, sometimes governorship covers the territory of several provinces. Very often one governor is a table at the head of several provinces (governorships), while each province still had its own governor.
    1. erg
      erg 18 November 2015 14: 30 New
      0
      Not certainly in that way. Governorate and province are one and the same. But the term province and, accordingly, provincial government, governor, etc. belonged to capitals, that is, territories related to capitals. Others could be called governorates and provinces. Moreover, in the decree of 1775, the term governorship is present, and in the decree of 1781, which lists the provinces, only 40, such a term is not used.
  6. Down House
    Down House 18 November 2015 12: 23 New
    +1
    it was based on the principle of the taxable population.

    They have always been embarrassed by such principles, in my opinion the more relevant causes of division are natural.
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 November 2015 12: 51 New
    +2
    Catherine 2nd - a terrific reformer.
    She managed the incredible - to really bring Russia closer to Europe.
    Thanks to her, Russia was on an equal footing with Napoleon in 1812.

    "Institution of Provinces" (1775), "Charter to the Nobility" (1785),
    "Certificate of Appreciation to Cities" (1785), "Meeting of the City Society" and others.
  8. lubesky
    lubesky 18 November 2015 13: 34 New
    +2
    It's time to reform the territorial division. But it must be supported from the bottom, right? It is necessary to carry out the denationalization of territorial entities, draw the borders with a pencil on a ruler and pursue a competent policy of uniform mixing of nat centers in all provinces. In addition, it is high time to move the capital to the Urals, I consider the best option to divide the branches of government - the administrative and legislative blocs in Yekaterinburg, the executive branch in Rostov-on-Don (control of the Caucasus), and the judiciary in St. Petersburg. But for such serious reforms, we need the potential of power (which is simply absent from domestic politics) and solve the problem of Moscow - if now it is a state in the state, it crushes all the country's large enterprises legally and taxly, concentrated 90% of finances, while at the same time we we hear about the enormous expenses of Moscow for some granite borders - all this is not fair for the plundered regions of Russia. What reform will be supported from below, from the regions when Muscovites do not know - is there life beyond the MKAD ??? With the new division, the weight of local authorities will take on even more pronounced Moscow and St. Petersburg registration and coloring. So in modern conditions, a time bomb is a robbery by Moscow and the center of the rest of Russia as a whole.
  9. marinier
    marinier 18 November 2015 13: 44 New
    +2
    And I prefer the original Rossia. Idushaia in my own way.
    Do not oziraiushaia on rotten values ​​of the West. I always goat, Russia,
    Vladivshiaia vast territory of creation is not a battle of pathos Velikyu
    a crop. Thank you and more than once come to the aid of Europe. Create your own vector,
    development, not depending on internal frustrations.
    And the national question, ruined and continues to destroy more than one State.
  10. rustyle_nvrsk
    rustyle_nvrsk 18 November 2015 16: 16 New
    +3
    Quote: sa-ag
    Quote: 1234567890
    It's time to do something with this

    "But this is not necessary" (C) "The diamond hand" such "doing" can only serve to strengthen the centrifugal forces in society, Lenin did not just create the division into national districts, he understood that this was the only way to achieve unity and support of the majority of society in the country, power must be shared, the usurpation of power, paradoxically, undermines the power itself

    Or maybe just because Lenin was a Russophobe?)
    1. Nikita Gromov
      Nikita Gromov 18 November 2015 20: 03 New
      +1
      Not just a Russophobe, but an ardent Russophobe. Only one of his "classic" phrases: "I don't give a damn about Russia, I'm a Bolshevik." - highlights all his innermost Russophobia.
  11. moskowit
    moskowit 18 November 2015 20: 47 New
    +1
    It turns out that Vladimir Volfovich is right, calling for administrative division in the province according to the principles laid down in the Empire ...
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 18 November 2015 21: 02 New
      0
      Quote: moskowit
      It turns out that Vladimir Volfovich is right, calling for administrative division in the province according to the principles laid down in the Empire ...

      That's right!