The question of what was new in the management of cities under Peter I is one of the main topics in the study of the course of Russian history of the 18th century. This reform should be considered in the context of the transformational activities of the emperor in general, who, in view of the new status of the country in the international arena and changes in its domestic political structure, paid special attention to the sphere of governance not only in the center, but also in the localities.
Background
An analysis of what was new in the management of cities under the first emperor should begin with what goals the ruler pursued in modernizing the administration and the old bureaucracy. Military needs (throughout almost the entire Petrine reign, our country waged a long war with Sweden for access to the Baltic Sea) demanded constant and regular tax revenues to the state treasury. That is why the ruler carried out regional reform, for the same purpose he took up urban governance. However, he also sought some expansion of the rights of the merchants, as if in contrast to the high taxes with which they levied. But his main task was to ensure the uninterrupted flow of taxes to the treasury for the needs of the army and navy.
First stage
The topic “What's new was introduced in the management of cities under Peter I” should begin with a designation of the two stages of this reform. The first of them dates back to 1699, when the future emperor introduced the institute of elected Burmeers, to whom the townspeople now obeyed. Thus, they were removed from the authority of the governor.
New officials were selected from the merchants, as they were the main owners in the cities and, therefore, the main category of taxpayers. They had direct access to the king and could appeal to him, bypassing orders. Burmister chambers were created in the cities, which were subordinate to the Moscow City Hall. The main task of the new governing bodies was the collection of taxes and taxes to the state treasury, as well as control over the judicial and commercial affairs of owners and producers.
Second phase
Peter I returned to city reform in 1720. Around the same time, his government was working on regional government. Perhaps that is why the king returned to the difficult question of the city administration.
In the aforementioned year, the main magistrate was created, which was located in the capital and from there controlled all the city authorities. On the ground, its branches were created, which were manned from burmisters and rattman. As the war was drawing to a close, the emperor took care of the mechanism of functioning of the new system in peaceful conditions.
Now, representatives of the city authorities were obliged not only to collect taxes and duties, but also to take care of the improvement of the plots entrusted to them. The latter circumstance is especially important in determining what is new was introduced into the management of cities at the time in question.
From now on, burmistrams and ratmans were charged with the duty of monitoring security (that is, they were to create police bodies), maintain hospitals, schools, and almshouses. In addition, the population, again, in order to properly collect taxes, was divided into two guilds: regular and irregular. Owners belonged to the first, and persons who did not have private property belonged to the second.
Guilds also had their own control. Their members gathered at gatherings and selected foremen. Those who were busy with black work chose their elders and tithes. In addition, guild organizations were created according to the Western European model. Thus, the first emperor tried to stimulate the development of urban self-government, but this reform was not successful.
results
The attempts of Peter I to introduce self-government in the country on the model of European countries were unsuccessful for one very simple reason: the magistrates did not have the means to cope with the duties assigned to them. After all, all funds from fees and taxes went to the state treasury, while the cities actually did not have their own finances.
Nevertheless, it is indicative that even this not too successful reform lasted until the second half of the 19th century, which suggests that it more or less adapted to the conditions of Russian reality, despite the fact that it did not lead to city self-government .