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！
impossibility of increasing their payments。
The 〃memorial〃 of the hundredmen and headmen of the black
hundreds and townships； under which name must be understood the
representatives of the rural population； contains more or less
the same complaints and similar desires。 The people are exhausted
by taxes； forced labour； military service； etc。； they have also
suffered much from fire； the voivodes have ruined them by their
exactions； so miserable is their condition that many of them have
run away； leaving their houses and lands。 The conclusion of this
very interesting document has unfortunately not come down to us。
Our general impression on reading the memorials or petitions
of this Sobor is that； although all Estates were unanimous in
their patriotic desire to keep their hold on the newly conquered
fortress； they still felt themselves scarcely in a position to
bear the expense of a new war with the Turks； and sharing in
these apprehensions the Czar did not dare to incur the
responsibility； and sent orders to the Cossacks to withdraw from
Asov。
The Sobor of 1642 was the last general Assembly convened by
the first of the Romanovs。
Although the direct successor of Michael； Alexis
Michaelovich； ascended the throne without entering into any
covenant with his people； nevertheless the Sobor was called to
confirm the act of his coronation。 This happened in 1645。 Four
years later the Sobor was called upon to aid in the important
business of codification。 Modern inquirers have brought to light
the fact that the petitions presented at this Assembly more than
once furnished important materials for the reformation of the
Russian law； and that their influence may be traced through the
whole code of Alexis （known under the title of Oulogenie）。 During
the following year the Sobor was again convened at Moscow in
order to advise the Government as to the suppression of
insurrectionary movements in different parts of the empire； and
especially at Pskov。 The Assembly advised lenient treatment of
the insurgents； and the Government acted accordingly。
In 1651 and 1653 the Sobor on two different occasions
declared itself in favour of the annexation of Little Russia。
This country had been liberated from the Poles by the 〃Hetman〃 of
the Cossacks； Bogdan Chmelnizky； who soon afterwards offered it
to the Czar of Russia。 It was feared that the acceptance of this
offer might involve Russia in a new war with Poland； therefore
the advice of the Sobor of 1651 was only conditional。 If Poland
acquiesced in the demands of the Czar； Russia was to abstain from
annexation； if not； the risk of a new war ought not to be
avoided； and Christian brethren were to be taken under the
protection of the orthodox Czar。 Three years later； when the
Polish king Jan Kasimir entered into direct alliance with the
ancient enemies of Russia the Swedes and the Crimean Tartars
and when therefore no doubt could be entertained as to the
necessity for war； the Sobor openly invited the Czar to take the
Hetman and the Cossacks of the Dnieper 〃under his high hand；
together with their cities and lands； and that in order to
preserve the true Orthodox Church。〃 The delegates spoke of their
readiness to fight the Polish king and to lose their lives for
the honour of the Czar。
The Sobor of 1653 was the last general Assembly called in the
time of Alexis。 Following the example of bis predecessors； the
Czar on several occasions also convened representatives of one
single estate to consult with them on matters directly concerning
their order。 Such an assembly of notables sat in Moscow in the
year 1617。 It consisted chiefly of Moscovite merchants。 It was
convened to hear the opinion of Russian tradesmen as to the
desirability of granting to English merchants trading in Moscow；
and to their chief agent； John Merrick； the right of making
explorations in search of a new road to China and India 〃by way
of the river Ob。〃 The majority of the delegates were opposed to
the project。
The same feeling of animosity towards foreigners found its
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