lecture v-第6节
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!
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