291 Moscow, and Tobolsk, were to be eliminated. From its arguments in favor of this decision, it is evident that the Council issued this ukaz on the basis of the Senate proposal mentioned above.-"- With this move, then, the dismantling of the local administrative reform of 1719 had begun. At the same time, the Council claimed that the collegial principle of decision-making did not work in the Russian colleges, “since there can be no greater success with such a large number (of civil servants) in the administration, for upon the consideration of affairs they are all considered as one ear . . . but because of many differences of opinion concerning affairs there arise interruptions and delays, and when it comes to the salaries there is an unnecessary loss, that the number of board members in the colleges be reduced to six, namely a president, a vice president, two collegial councillors, and two assessors. Of these, only half were to serve in the colleges at any one time, while the other half were to remain at home without pay. The two groups were to change places once a year.-^‘‘ “In this manner,” commented the Council, “they can: 1) when it comes to dealing with affairs, act without counting upon one another, which many do now; 2) when it comes to the payment of salaries, there will be no unnecessary expenditure; 3) since they will take turns in the administration, they will be able to supervise their homes.” The Council’s proposal for changes in the budgets of the colleges was approved by Catherine I in July 1726.-"** As is evident from the Council’s arguments, it was above all the administration’s lack of efficiency that brought about this measure. In January 1727, Catherine signed a manifesto “concerning the improvement of domestic affairs,” which was largely a summary of what had been discussed in the Supreme Privy Council. Much of the manifesto simply summarized Menshikov’s statements at the Council meetings.-”' Those parts of the document which involved new changes in the local adminlstratlve organization shall be presented briefly below. To begin with the soul tax, the idea of a further decrease was rejected until it could be known “with what sum the army and the navy can be maintained at a minimum.” For the time being, only a delay in the collection of the soul tax until September of that year was approved, but a Therefore, the Council proposed " 273 4,928, p. 677; cf. the report of the Supreme Privy Council to PSZ, VII, Catherine I, July 13, 1726, SIRIO, LV, 459—460. no. 2” SIRIO, LV, 458. 2-^ Ihid., 459. 27!> loc.cit. 2'" Ibid., 474—475. 2" Bogoslovskii (1902), 485; Soiov’rv, IX, 578—580.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=