Ing. Dr. J. Schrank ; S úvod. prof. dra Vlad. Brdlíka, Se 4 grafikony, Zvl. otisk Zemědělského archivu, and Z ústavu soukr. ekonomiky při c. k. čes. vys. škole techn. v Praze a ústavu pro zeměděl. účetnictví čes. odboru rady zeměděl. pro král. Čes.
doplnil příslušnými zákony a nařízeními, zejména o úpravě konces. živností stavebních a opatřil výkladem, jakož i úplnou judikaturou správního soudu, rejstříkem abecedním a chronologickým Josef Žalud., NTM, and Obsahuje vysvětlivky a rejstříky
Using the example of several royal dowry towns, this article examines the transformation in the practices of town offices in 18th century Bohemia – an important milestone in the field of study under consideration. In earlier times, the sophistication of some town offices – the quality and extent of their official agenda; the number and expertise of their staff – was, as a provisional study of the sources indicates, a reflection of the cultural and economic development as well as the population of the city in question. Each town office had its own individual character, the study of which can provide important insights into the history of our towns. Research into town offices is still in its early stages, as numerous case studies must be undertaken before any solid conclusions can be reached. Yet it is already clear that at the beginning of the 18th century town offices, which can be seen as an extension of city administrations, started implementing changes aimed at unification, especially in the areas of official competences and organizational structure., The process reached its peak as part of a wider conception of judicial reform, which in our towns manifested itself in the so-called regulation of municipalities. In the case of Hradec Králové it is clear these changes must have taken place with a certain continuity of personnel, and that this regional centre had difficulty filling some posts. The task remains for researchers of 18th century history to establish whether and to what extent Bohemian towns were able to fulfil the demands of the reform. The limits imposed on the number of county courts in the 1750s and 1760s is itself an indication that a number of towns were unable to meet all the requirements of the new dispensation. The transformation of the town offices certainly did not occur without external intervention. But pre-existing mechanisms were also at play in the process, as even after such interventions the offices’ performance depended on the quality of the individuals who worked there., and They accrued their life and work experience within a particular environment that modified their personalities in multiple ways. We may therefore assume that future research will also discover sympathisers who lent their support to the incoming reforms. Working conditions were another important factor, with officials complaining of overwork in the years following the introduction of the regulation of municipalities. This too might over time have affected the quality of their work. On the other hand it should be said that even before the reforms, towns had in times of need taken on new staff (e.g. temporary teaching assistants in schools), with the main aim of serving the town’s long-term interests. State interventions and ballooning agendas, however, began to upset this (approximate) balance, until a new division of towns was decreed, this time into three categories based on size and wealth. The result was an acrossthe- board unification, especially in the areas of official competences and organizational structure. Here too there is plenty of room for further research to fill out our knowledge of the 18th century town environment.