1E - Developments in central and local government: codification of the law
Catherine aimed to govern more consistently across a vast empire. Her Senate reform, attempt to produce a law code and changes to provincial and town government strengthened administration, but preserved autocracy and social distinctions.
Reorganising the Senate
Catherine inherited central institutions whose responsibilities could overlap and whose effectiveness depended on the ruler's supervision. The Senate had judicial and administrative functions; the colleges dealt with areas such as war, foreign affairs and revenue. A monarch could be formally all-powerful while still receiving poor information or failing to make distant officials act consistently.
In 1763 Catherine divided the Senate into six departments, four in St Petersburg and two in Moscow, with more clearly defined responsibilities. This was intended to make business more manageable and supervision more effective. The procurator-general, who oversaw the Senate's work and reported to the monarch, became an important instrument of Catherine's personal control.
The reorganisation did not turn the Senate into a parliament. It did not create a representative body entitled to overrule Catherine. She also resisted proposals for a state council that might develop an independent claim to share supreme power. The central change therefore combined administrative rationalisation with the preservation of monarchical authority. More orderly government and a more powerful autocrat were compatible goals.
A law code and an Instruction were different
Russian government still relied on the law code of 1649 alongside many later decrees. The accumulation could create uncertainty and inconsistency. Codification meant bringing rules together into an organised, coherent legal code; publishing a statement of desirable principles was not enough to achieve it.
Catherine's Nakaz of 1767 set out principles to guide a new code. Drawing on Montesquieu and Beccaria, it discussed safety under law, opposed torture and presented punishment as something that should be rational rather than arbitrary. Yet it also defended autocracy as suitable for Russia and accepted a differentiated social order. Its legal equality language should not be mistaken for the immediate abolition of estate privileges.
The Nakaz helped state Catherine's ambitions and reputation. It was not a constitution transferring sovereignty to subjects, nor did it itself replace the existing body of law. Distinguishing intention from legal result prevents a common error: saying that Russia gained an entirely new comprehensive code in 1767.
Codification
The organisation of laws into a coherent code with defined legal authority. An instruction to those drafting a code is a preparatory document, not necessarily the code itself.
Why the Great Commission did not complete a code
The Great Commission, usually called the Legislative Commission, assembled in 1767 to help prepare a new code. Deputies came from groups including nobles, townspeople, state peasants and Cossacks, as well as government institutions. They brought instructions expressing local grievances and interests. Privately owned serfs were excluded, so the breadth of consultation did not amount to representation of every Russian subject.
Discussion revealed competing priorities. Nobles sought secure privileges and control of their estates. Merchants wanted protection for their commercial interests. Other groups sought relief from local burdens. Agreement about better law did not remove conflicts over who should possess rights or bear costs. Deputies also had uneven experience and no simple common basis for turning their petitions into one code.
The outbreak of war with the Ottoman Empire in 1768 provided the occasion to suspend the general assembly; it never reconvened as the original whole body to finish the code. The war mattered, but it is insufficient as the sole explanation. Conflicting interests and the scale of the task had already obstructed progress. Work in smaller bodies and knowledge gained from petitions influenced later measures, so absence of the intended code did not mean that consultation had no consequences.
This is a useful distinction between an institution's principal task and secondary effects. The Commission failed to deliver comprehensive codification, but gave the government information about society and helped Catherine present herself as a ruler who listened. It neither granted a continuing representative legislature nor emancipated serfs.
The provincial reform of 1775
The Pugachev rebellion exposed the difficulty of detecting and suppressing unrest across large, poorly coordinated territories. Catherine's provincial reform of 1775 addressed that problem, while also drawing on earlier plans for orderly administration. It should not be explained as an idea that appeared entirely after the rebellion.
Provinces were reorganised into smaller units using population criteria, and subdivided into districts. Governors appointed by the crown directed administration; governors-general could supervise larger areas. Clearer arrangements for courts, finance, policing and welfare were intended to bring government closer to the inhabitants and distinguish different functions. Implementation was gradual, so the legislation of 1775 did not instantly create a uniform finished system across every borderland.
The nobility became more involved in local courts and administration through elections within noble assemblies and service in local offices. This increased the state's capacity by drawing on people with local resources and influence. It also preserved a social hierarchy: different estates had different institutions, and landlords retained considerable authority over their serfs. Local participation by nobles therefore did not mean equal self-government for everyone.
The reform combined two processes that may appear contradictory. It extended central authority through appointed governors and more regular institutions, while relying on the gentry to perform local functions. The crown could delegate work without surrendering sovereignty. Effectiveness still depended on staffing, communication and the cooperation of local elites.
Towns and the limits of local participation
Urban government received more regular arrangements through the Police Ordinance of 1782 and the Charter to the Towns of 1785. The ordinance organised policing and the regulation of order in towns. The charter classified urban inhabitants into six categories, including merchants, artisans and property owners, and provided a framework for municipal bodies or dumas. This gave some townspeople a recognised role in managing urban affairs.
Such participation was restricted by property, status and the practical weakness of many towns. Wealthier merchants and officials were better placed to influence local government than poorer inhabitants. Municipal institutions operated under the imperial administrative framework, rather than as independent sovereign communities. Their development was uneven; a charter's existence does not prove that every town immediately enjoyed active self-government.
Taken together, the reforms made government more structured while preserving Catherine's supreme authority. The failed comprehensive code limits the claim of legal transformation; the Senate departments, provincial reorganisation and urban arrangements provide evidence of real administrative change. A defensible judgement is that Catherine achieved more in reorganising how the empire was governed than in giving all subjects equal standing within it.