p only due to authority of the state which should not be unlimited. Second, in the XVIII century the principle of the freedom of a person was formed as a principle of the natural right; people were considered free and equal by nature and on birth; therefore there was an aspiration to determine precisely the border of this freedom on the basis of the theoretical and abstract analysis. Though this opinion was kept even in such late legal acts as the Californian constitution of 1879, but actually in the XIX century nobody seriously supported it. On the contrary, from the end of XIX century there has affirmed the opinion that the freedom of a person has arisen, as the principle of the right, rather late, developed slowly and gradually, is still developing and will develop further ,; therefore it is impossible to specify precisely once and for all, times and people, the contents of this principle; the border between the spheres of the state and the freedom of a person changed and should change.influence of these positions apprehended by constitutions there has appeared the doctrine about subjective public law. According to the VV Vodovozov, here sharply collide two different from each other cores of view: The one recognizes the subjective public law homogeneous on structure with the right private from which it differs only on character of subjects of public legal relation: in the later there are opposed to each other the dominating state or the public union and the subordinated individual, as opposed to the private law based on coordination to the private right. The second denies existence of the subjective public law of the individual and sees that ordinarily designate this name, only the reflex of positions of the public law. The middle is occupied with a number of the transitive positions ordinarily based on ambiguities and contradictions [85] .expansion of the list of the subjective public rights required from the constitutionally-legal science of their appropriate ordering. At the end of XIX century in the political-legal theory there were traditionally allocated three categories of the subjective public rights though the constitutional practice, according to A. Dzhivelegov, there has not still grown up to requirements of scientific classification [86]. The first category of these rights was determine by the attribute, that the state recognizes for the person the sphere of relations, absolutely free from his claims. The second category was determined by the recognition by the state for the person of the right to demand from it the known sort of services, positive activity in the certain direction. The third, at last, was determined by the recognition of the state for the person of the right to participation in government and in political activity in general. Exactly, the first category of the rights referred to the rights of personal and public freedom. These rights made the so-called negative status of the person or status libertatis on terminology of G. Ellineck [87] That opportunity of the individual display of the person which remains minus its legal restrictions, - wrote G. Ellineck, - forms the sphere of freedom of the person. This freedom has not only the actual character - by virtue of restriction of the government and recognition of the person it has the legal sanction. The physical condition of freedom in which there is the person presented to himself, turns in legal condition owing to the recognition of such limited submission [88] .in XVIII century the classic of the British constitutionalism W. Blackstone characterized the civil freedom as the great purpose of all human societies and management: the state in which each individual has the right to achieve own happiness according to his views at his own interest and to follow the commands of the conscience which has been not limited by anything, except for fair, impartial and equal laws for all raquo ;. As we see, in the XIX century this purpose got the precise constitutionally-legal outlines.was considered, that the personal rights belong to citizens as to the separate persons, subordinated to the government; they determine the attitude of the personal freedom to authority [89]. Thus, traditionally there was focused that these rights serve as the important guarantee of free development of the person, forming the certain protective zone in relations with authorities. Submitting to the government, the personal freedom is exposed to necessary restrictions whose definition depends on the supreme authority. But at the same time, as freedom in the state should be separated from arbitrariness, here are established the lawful guarantees for the persons, believing the limits to action of authorities" [90] .the further classification the rights of the person became more and more developed. So, the well-known Russian lawyer BN Tchitcherin brought the following system of the personal rights of citizens:
<...
