with a gubernia-level governor (gubernator) with somewhat less direct power. The
reform reintroduced the short-lived Petrine division of powers in three
hierarchies—police, judicial, andfiscal. The governor oversaw the judicial and
police apparatus, but had less authority over thefiscal, which reported directly to
the procurator at gubernia level and procurator-general in St. Petersburg. Further-
more, procurators were assigned in all offices, enhancing an inherent tension
between the governor and the procurator-general. (A further tension was created
in 1785 when the office of Marshall of the Nobility was instituted, a potential rival
to local governors, but with less authority.)
At the highest level, the reform was structured around meta-units of governor-
generalships (namestnichestvo). In use in border areas before 1775, these powerful
military commanders oversaw two gubernii. During the reforms this structure was
kept in areas (Left Bank, Novorossiia, and Orenburg) where strong authority was
needed to dismantle local autonomies and/or to organize and control newly
annexed lands. In central Russia as well, by the 1780s governor-generals had
been appointed for every two gubernii, but here the post was more political than
administrative; the appointees were Catherine’s eyes and ears in the localities,
asserting central oversight while gubernia governors did the work.
Staffing the new offices revealed some of Catherine’s Enlightenment convictions:
she reintroduced a strong element of participation by all social classes in regional
and local government, like the old Muscovite system of selected representatives and
Peter I’s recruitment of local nobles into administration. These offices were
integrated into the Table of Ranks with status and salary, making the reform hugely
expensive for the state and a boon to the nobility, which received the majority of the
new offices.
At the gubernia level, the governor, appointed by the Senate, ruled with a deputy
governor who was primaryfiscal officer and an appointed administrative board of
himself, two councilors at high rank,five secretaries, the procurator, and his two
deputies. Probably the central institution of the reform was the Treasury Chamber,
directly responsible to the procurator-general and headed by the deputy governor
and a board offive more, with a wide array of collection and administrativefiscal
roles. Judiciary was also a central focus, divided by social estate. The gubernia level
had an Upper Land Court with Criminal and Civil Departments; each, with six
appointed noble members, heard appeals from district courts and complaints from
local nobles on service-related issues. Areas settled by state peasants or ethnic groups
had an upper court with appointed noble chairman and elected peasant or native
assessors. Each court also had a procurator and his staff to oversee procedure and
legality. Above these courts, also in gubernia capitals, were civil and criminal
chambers (Palata ugolovnogoandgrazhdanskogo suda) with six appointed noble
members to serve as courts of appeal for all social groups; above them was the
Senate with territorially defined Departments in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
The reform introduced two new functions as well. Thefirst was a Court of
Equity with an appointed noble chairman who convened for each case a board of
assessors elected by the social estates of the litigants. This court was intended for
minor civil and criminal cases that fell outside the usual law, particularly involving
308 The Russian Empire 1450– 1801