lecture v-第5部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


expression　in　1626；　when　on　the　demand　of　English　merchants　to　be
allowed　to　trade　with　Persia；　the　members　of　the　guild　of　guests
and　the　Moscow　merchants　insisted　on　the　necessity　of　upholding
the　monopoly　which　the　Moscovite　tradesmen　enjoyed　in　going　to
Astrachan　to　buy　Persian　goods。　The　majority　of　the　merchants
declared　themselves　unable　to　compete　with　foreign　merchants；　and
even　the　minority　were　of　opinion　that　if　free　trade　were
permitted　to　English　traders　in　return　for　large　payments　made　by
them　to　the　crown；　this　liberty　ought　not　to　be　extended　to　the
traffic　in　Russian　commodities。　Half　a　century　later；　in　1667；
the　same　Moscovite　merchants；　consulted　by　Alexis；　stoutly
opposed　the　demand　of　Armenian　merchants　for　free　trade　in
Persian　commodities；　and　begged　the　Government　not　to　endanger
their　own　trade　by　foreign　competition。　Ten　years　later　the
Moscow　tradesmen；　together　with　the　delegates　of　the　black
hundreds　and　villages；　were　called　together　to　give　their　opinion
as　to　the　causes　which　tended　to　raise　the　price　of　corn。　They
complained　of　engrossers　and　asked　that　their　practices　might　be
forbidden　in　future。　They　also　spoke　of　the　great　damage
agriculture　had　sustained　through　recent　wars。　The　increase　in
the　number　of　distilleries　was　also　mentioned　as　one　of　the
principal　reasons　for　the　dearness　of　corn。
　　　　In　1681…2　the　〃men　of　service〃　were　convened　together　with
the　Douma　to　reform　the　military　administration。　it　was　this
memorable　Assembly　which　abolished　the　old　custom　of　appointing
men　to　the　chief　posts　in　the　army；　not　according　to　their
personal　merit；　but　to　the　rank　of　their　family；　and　the　length
of　time　it　had　served　the　State；　and　which　also　ordered　the
heraldic　books　to　be　burnt。
　　　　The　last　instances　we　have　of　the　convening　of　the　Russian
Sobors　belong　to　the　period　of　Eternal　trouble　which　followed　the
death　of　the　Czar　Theodore。　In　1682　a　Sobor　to　which　the
inhabitants　of　Moscow　alone　were　summoned；　pronounced　itself　in
favour　of　the　occupation　of　the　vacant　throne　by　the　youngest　son
of　Alexis；　the　future　emperor；　Peter　the　Great。　A　new　Assembly；
which　in　its　composition　answered　even　less　than　its　predecessor
to　the　idea　of　a　general　representative　council；　was　convoked　a
few　months　later　by　the　party　that　favoured　the　political　designs
of　the　Princess　Sophia；　sister　to　Peter　the　Great。　It　insisted　on
the　division　of　the　sovereign　power　between　the　two　brothers　of
Theodore；　Peter　and　John。　Princess　Sophia　became　from　that　time
the　real　ruler　of　the　empire。　Again　Moscow　alone　was　represented
though　the　Acts　speak　of　the　presence　of　delegates　from　all　the
provinces　and　cities　of　the　empire。
　　　　It　was　in　1698　that　the　Sobor　was　convoked　for　the　last　time。
It　was　called　together　to　pronounce　judgment　on　the　Princess
Sophia　who；　during　the　absence　of　Peter　the　Great　in　the　Western
States　of　Europe；　had　tried　by　the　help　of　the　strelzi　（a　kind　of
Life…Guards）　to　seat　herself　on　the　Russian　throne。　The　only
contemporary　writer　who　mentions　this　Assembly　is　a　German　of　the
name　of　Korb；　who　was　secretary　of　the　German　Legation。　According
to　him　the　young　monarch　insisted　on　this　occasion　on　the
presence　of　two　delegates　from　each　of　the　Estates；　beginning
with　the　highest　and　ending　with　the　lowest。　Unfortunately　no
information　has　come　down　to　us　as　to　the　decision　arrived　at　by
this　quasi…general　representative　body　of　the　Russian　people。
　　　　One　fact　especially　merits　our　attention：　The　Sobors　were
never　abolished　by　law。　They　simply　ceased　to　exist　just　as　did
the　States…General　of　France　from　the　beginning　of　the
seventeenth　（1613）　to　the　end　of　the　eighteenth　century。　No　legal
act；　therefore；　lies　in　the　way　of　a　new　convocation　of　the
representatives　of　the　empire。　Should　the　present　Emperor　convoke
them；　in　so　doing　he　would　be　in　perfect　accord　with　the　first
founders　of　his　dynasty；　and　also　with　the　promises　contained　in
the　Magna　Charta　of　the　first　Romanov。
　　　　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