lecture v-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　　　　Turning　from　the　political　history　of　the　old　Russian
Parliaments；　we　will　now　consider　their　internal　constitution。　As
we　have　seen；　the　seventeenth　century　introduced　a　complete
change　in　their　composition。　During　the　reign　of　Ivan　the
Terrible　the　administrative　and　military　classes　had　alone　been
represented；　from　the　time　of　the　interregnum　they　became
meetings　of　delegates　from　all　the　different　Estates。　The
following　were　the　classes　of　the　people　who　were　represented：
the　superior　clergy；　the　higher　nobility；　the　lower　clergy；　and
the　lower　nobility；　or　what　is　the　same　thing　the　ministerial　or
knightly　class　as　they　were　called　at　that　time；　the　three　Guilds
of　Moscovite　merchants；　the　citizens　of　the　different　urban
districts　and；　on　two　different　occasions；　in　1614　and　1682；　the
black　hundreds　and　villages；　which　meant　in　the　technical
language　of　the　time；　the　peasants　established　on　the　lands　of
the　State。　Serfs；　and　persons　who　had　lost　their　personal　liberty
on　account　of　debts　or　any　other　reason；　were　never　admitted　to
the　right　of　representation。　The　army　was　very　often　represented
by　delegates　from　the　regular　regiments；　such　as　the　strelzi；　and
some　irregular　troops；　the　Cossacks　for　instance。　The　large
extent　of　the　Russian　dominions　and　the　consequent　remoteness　of
certain　places　from　the　metropolis；　was　a　natural　barrier　to　the
appearance　of　certain　delegates　at　the　Sobor。　It　was　for　this
reason　that　the　cities　of　Siberia　remained　without
representation。　Other　places　less　remote　got　exemption　from　the
duty　of　choosing　delegates　on　account　of　the　bad　state　of　the
roads　and　the　difficulty　and　even　danger　connected　with
travelling。　Some　few　considered　it　a　great　burden；　on　account　of
the　expense　of　the　journey　and　the　maintenance　of　the　delegates。
In　this　they　acted　like　those　mediaeval　English　cities　and
boroughs；　which　under　the　Plantagenets　did　their　best　to　shirk
the　duty　of　representation。　The　number　of　persons　sent　by　each
electoral　circuit　was　not　strictly　fixed。　Generally　the　writs　of
summons　speak　of　two　or　three　delegates。
　　　　The　electoral　district　was；　as　a　rule；　the　city　and　its
outlying　parts。　Larger　cities；　as　Novgorod；　constituted　by
themselves　several　districts；　in　Novgorod　there　were　no　less　than
five　such　districts。　The　Metropolis　（Moscow）　was　largely
represented　by　delegates　from　the　lower　nobility；　by　those　of　the
three　classes　of　Moscovite　traders　and　the　representatives　of　the
black　hundreds　and　villages。
　　　　The　writs　of　summons　were　addressed　to　the　voivodes；　or
Governors　of　provinces；　and　to　the　goubnii　starosti；　or　elective
district　heads。
　　　　To　give　you　a　clear　notion　of　the　mode　in　which　the　elections
were　managed；　I　will　translate　one　of　these　writs。　The　writ　in
question　was　issued　on　the　9th　of　September；　7128；　counting　from
the　beginning　of　the　world　（that　is　the　year　1619）：　〃In　the　name
of　the　Czar　Michael；　the　voivode　of　Oustujna；　named　Boutourlin；
is　ordered　to　elect　among　the　clergy；　one　man　or　two；　and　from
the　nobility　（the　sons　of　boyars）　two　persons；　and　two　more　from
the　inhabitants　of　the　urban　district　（posadskii　liudi）。　The
persons　must　be　well…to…do　and　intelligent；　capable　of　narrating
the　wrongs　they　have　sustained；　and　the　oppression　and
destruction　which　they　have　suffered。　The　election　rolls　must　be
sent　by　the　voivode　to　Moscow；　and　should　be　received　not　later
than　on　St。　Nicholas's　day。〃
　　　　The　voivode；　or　goubuoi　starosta；　as　soon；　as　the　writ　was　in
his　hands；　summoned　the　electors　and　ordered　them　to　proceed　to
the　nomination　of　their　delegates。　Each　estate　or　order　acted
separately。　In　answer　to　the　writs　they　had　received；　the
voivodes　sent　in　a　detailed　account　of　the　election　proceedings。
Several　of　these　very　interesting　documents　have　been　found　in
the　archives　of　the　Ministry　of　Justice　in　Moscow。　Professor
Latkin　has　published　a　great　many　of　them　in　his　valuable
〃Materials　for　a　history　of　the　Sobors；〃　and；　in　reading　them；
the　conclusion　is　arrived　at；　that　the　election　as　a　rule　was
made　by　the　Estates　themselves；　without　the　intervention　of　the
voivode　or　oubnoi　storasta。　〃The　nobility　of　voroneg；〃　states　the
voivode　of　this　place；　Prince　Alexis　Krapotkin；　in　the　year　1651；
〃have　elected　from　among　themselves　two　persons；　the　one　called
Trofim　Michnev；　and　the　other　Theodor　Philoppof。　The　citizens
only　one　person　named　Sacharof；　and　I；　your　Majesty's　slave
（cholop）；　have　sent　you　these　three　men　to　Moscow。〃　The　action　of
those　voivodes；　who；　instead　of　consulting　the　electors；
proceeded　to　a　direct　nomination　of　the　delegates；　was　sometimes
disavowed。　Such　was；　for　instance；　the　case　of　the　voivode　of
Kropivna；　a　certain　Astafiev。　In　the　letters　sent　to　him　in　the
name　of　the　Government；　he　was　greatly　blamed　for　having
misunderstood　the　orders　given　to　him；　〃the　nobility　were　asked
to　elect　a　good　nobleman　from　among　themselves；　and　you　had　no
justification　for　making　the　nomination　of　the　delegate
yourself。〃
　　　　The　delegate　belonged；　as　a　rule；　to　the　same　estate　as　his
elector；　but　it　sometimes　happened　that　on　account　of　the　small
number　of　persons　capable　of　supporting　the　burden　of
representation；　a　person　of　another　order　was　intrusted　with　the
duty　of　delegate。　The　voivodes　and　starostas　mention　more　than
once　such　facts　as　the　following。　In　1651　the　starosta　of
Zvenigorod；　Elizar　Marcov；　declares　in　a　letter　addressed　to　the
Czar；　that　it　was　impossible　for　him　to　nominate　a　delegate　from
among　the　inhabitants　of　the　city　district　（posadskii　liudi）；　for
the　best　of　them　were　engaged　in　masonry　work　at　the　Storojevoy
monastery；　accomplishing　their　〃hedge　duty；〃　which　they　owed　to
the　crown　（ograduaia　povinnost）。　Another　starosta　from　Kropivna
wrote　at　the　same　time；　that　in　his　district　the　number　of　city
residents　was　not　more　than　three。　They　were　all　very　poor　and
gained　their　livelihood　by　going　from　one　household　to　another　to
work　at　cleaning　the　court…yards。　Therefore；　he　found　it　more
suitable　to　name　a　gentleman　to　represent　them　at　the　Sobor。
　　　　The　delegates；　as　a　rule；　received　instructions　called
Nakasi；　in　which　the　electors　stated　their　opinions　on　the　chief
subjects　to　be　discussed　at　the　General　Assembly。　Unfortunately
no　documents　of　this　kind　have　been　preserved；　and　we　know　of
their　existence　only　through　their　being　by　chance　mentioned　in
some　contemporary　documents。　Speaking　of　the　delegates　summoned
to　the　Sobor　of　1613；　the　charters　of　the　time　directly　state；
that　they　brought　with　them　from　Moscow　〃complete　instructions〃
（dogovori）　concerning　the　election　of　the　Czar。　The　delegates
received　from　their　electors　the　supply　of　victuals　（zapassi）；
which　they　would　need　during　their　stay　in　Moscow。　Nevertheless
they　very　often　made　an　application　to　the　Government　for　money
to　cover　their　expenses。　This　fact　is　mentioned　more　than　once　in
the　documents　of　the　time。　The　writs　of　summons　establish　no　rule
as　to　the　amount　of　fortune　which　a　delegate　was　required　to
possess；　they　only　recommend　the　election　of　〃good　sensible；　and
wealthy　persons；　accustomed　to　treat　of　matters　of　State。〃　This
did　not　imply　that　the　delegates　were　required　to　know　the　rules
of　grammar　or　to　be　able　to　sign　their　names　on　the　rolls　of　the
Sobor　correctly。　The　number　of　illiterate　persons　was　rather
large　even　at　so　late　an　Assembly　as　that　of　1649；　and　they　were
to　be　found；　not　only　among　the　lower　nobility　and　the
representatives　of　cities；　but　also　in　the　ranks　of　the　boyars；
not；　however；　in　those　of　the　higher　clergy。
　　　　The　ordinary　place　of　meeting　was　the　palace　in　the　Hall
called　the　granovitaia　Palata。　Sometimes　the　Sobor　sat　in　the
palace　of　the　Patriarch；　or　in　the　Cathedral　（Ouspenski　Sobor）。
The　session　was　opened　either　by　the　Czar　in　person；　or；　as　was
more　often　the　case；　by　one　of　his　secretaries；　who；　in　a　written
paper　or　in　a　speech；　declared　the　reason　for　which　the　Assembly
was　called　together；　and　the　questions　it　had　to　discuss。　The
reading　of　this　address　was　listened　to　by　all　the　delegates　and
all　the　members　of　the　Douma；　and　of　the　clerical　synod。　The
division　by　Estates　took　place　immediately　after；　and　each　order
deliberated　separately　on　the　questions　which　the　Government　had
proposed。　The　result　of　the　discussions　was　presented　to　the　Czar
in　writing　separately　by　each　Estate。　The　documents　were　drawn　up
by　secretaries；　specially　attached　for　this　purpose　to　the
Assemblies　of　the　different　Estates。　On　two　occasions　only；　in
1649　and　1682；　were　the　members　of　the　Sobor　assembled　in　two
different　chambers；　a　higher　and　lower。　The　Upper　House　was
formed　by　the　Douma　and　the　higher　clergy；　and　the　lower　by　the
delegates　of　the　lower　orders　But　the　custom　according　to　which
each　Estate　deliberated　separately；　prevailed　even　on　these　two
occasions；　the　higher　and　lower　chambers　being　subdivided　into　as
many　sections　as　there　were　Estates。
　　　　In　answering　the　demands　of　the　Government；　the　delegates
very　often　expressed　their　own　sentiments　as　to　the　course　of
Russian　politics。　They　complained　bitterly　of　the　wrongs　done　to
the　people　by　the　officers　of　the　State　and　judges；　they　pointed
to　the　necessity　of　amending　the　whole　executive　and　military
administration；　and　by　written　petitions　（chelobitnia）；　they
insisted　on　the　necessity　of　introducing　certain　amendments　into
the　existing　laws。　The　large　part　which　these　petitions　played　in
the　work　of　codifying　the　laws　of　Russia；　a　work　which　rendered
illustrious　the　reign　of　Alexis　Michaelovitch；　has　been　amply
recognised　by　recent　inquirers；　and　especially　by　Ditiatin；
Zagoskin；　and　Latkin。
　　　　The　decisions　to　which　the　different　Estates　arrived　were　at
the　end　of　the　session　condensed　into　one　single　document；　known
under　the　name　of　Zemskii　prigovor；　which　means　the　general
verdict　of　the　land。　Several　documents　of　this　kind　have　been
preserved。　They　are　sealed；　as　a　rule；　with　the　seals　of　the
Czar；　of　the　Patriarch；　and　of　the　higher　orders。　As　to　the　lower
orders；　their　members　kissed　the　cross　in　sign　of　approval。
　　　　Having　thus　considered　the　political　history　and　internal
constitution　of　the　Sobors　we　will　now　examine　the　functions
which　they　discharged。　Foreign　residents；　and　among　them　the
well…known　Fletcher；　have　noticed　certain　weak　points　in　their
organisation　which　prevented　our　representative　Assemblies　from
rising　to　the　level　of　English　Parliaments。　Fletcher　makes　the
ingenious　observation　that　the　members　of　the　Sobor　had　no　right
to　present　bills。　This　does　not　imply　that　the　initiative　of　all
reforms　could　proceed　only　from　the　Government；　more　than　once
the　Estates　complained　of　wrongs　which　were　not　mentioned　in　the
address　from　the　crown　and　asked　for　reforms　which　had　not　been
thought　of　by　the　Government。　But　their　right　to　petition　the
crown　did　not　go　further　than　that　of　the　French　Estates…General。
Like　them　the　Sobors　were　unable　to　provide　for　the　fulfilment　of
their　demands；　and　for　the　same　reason　which　prevented　the
Estates…General　of　France　from　getting　into　their　own　hands　the
legal　power。　The　right　of　initiating　reforms；　which　the　English
Parliament