lecture v-第6部分

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　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　began　to　exercise　under　the　Lancastrian　kings　remained
totally　unknown　in　France　as　well　as　in　Russia。　At　the　time　when
the　English　Parliament　were　replacing　petitions　by　bills；　the
French　Estates　continued　to　present　their　cahiers　de　doleances；
leaving　to　the　Government　the　right　of　taking　in　its　ordonnances
no　notice　whatever　of　their　demands。　The　same　was　also　the　case
in　Russia；　where　new　laws　were　directly　decreed　by　the　Czar　and
his　Douma　and　the　〃general　verdict　of　the　land〃　remained　for
years　and　years　inoperative。
　　　　If　the　Sobors　only　played　a　secondary　part　in　matters　of
legislation；　the　control　that　they　exercised　over　the　executive
machinery　of　the　State　was　even　less　efficacious。　I　cannot
mention　a　single　case；　in　which　royal　councillors　were　removed
and　new　persons　appointed　in　their　stead　at　the　express　desire　of
the　Sobor。　The　Moscovite　Government　was；　it　is　true；　in　no　way　a
Parliamentary　Government。　Nevertheless　the　fact　does　not　prove
that　the　Sobors　had　nothing　in　common　with　English　Parliaments　or
French　States…General。　We　must　not　forget　that　medieval　Europe
was；　as　a　rule；　ignorant　of　Parliamentary　Government；　and　that
Assemblies；　like　the　Mad　Parliament　of　Oxford　or　the
revolutionary　French　Estates　of　1355；　both　of　which　tried　to
establish　a　kind　of　cabinet；　were　but　exceptions。　Although　the
Sobor　had　no　right　to　impose　on　the　Czar　the　obligation　of
calling　certain　persons　to　his　counsels；　the　part　it　took　in　the
general　politics　of　the　country　was　a　large　one。　We　have　had
occasion　to　show　that　questions　of　war　and　peace　were　settled　by
its　advice。　Both　the　surrender　of　Asov　and　the　annexation　of
Little　Russia　took　place　in　compliance　with　its　desires。　And
though　the　Sobor　was　denied　the　right　of　choosing　the　Ministry；
it　had　a　much　higher　right；　that　of　choosing　the　Czars。　On　this
point　it　had　no　grounds　to　envy　either　the　English　Parliaments；
or　the　States…General　of　France。
　　　　So　long　as　the　new　dynasty　of　the　Romanovs　remained　faithful
to　the　engagements　entered　into　by　the　Czar　Michael；　that　is　to
say　during　the　first　part　of　the　seventeenth　century；　the　voting
subsidies　was　as　much　the　function　of　the　Russian　representative
Assembly　as　it　was　of　the　representative　Assemblies　of　England；
France；　Germany；　or　Spain。　During　the　greater　part　of　the　reign
of　the　first　Romanov　no　subsidy　was　levied；　no　benevolence
extorted　without　the　consent　of　the　Sobor。　This　scrupulous
observance　of　its　financial　authority　required　its　periodical
convocation　just　as　much　as　the　meeting　of　the　English
representatives　was　needed　many　years　before　the　introduction　of
triennial　and　septennial　parliaments。　Excepting　during　the　period
just　mentioned；　the　Sobors　were　summoned　at　irregular　periods　and
only　when　the　needs　of　the　Government　required　their　help。　Like
other　representative　Assemblies　they　were　convened　and　dissolved
by　the　sovereign；　and　had　no　right　to　assemble　according　to　their
own　will。
　　　　If　we　would　know　what　good　they　have　done　to　Russia　we　must
study　the　part　they　have　played　in　the　removal　of　public
grievances　and　the　reform　of　justice。　We　must　remember　that　more
than　once　they　opposed　the　oligarchical　Government　of　the　boyars；
the　local　despotism　of　provincial　Governors　or　voivodes；　and　the
bribery　and　exactions　of　the　bureaucracy　of　Moscow。　We　must
remember　how　often　they　were　the　champions　of　justice　and
equality　in　opposing　the　system　of　judicial　immunities；　the
extravagant　donations　of　crown　lands；　and　the　exemption　from
taxation　of　the　nobility　and　clergy。　We　shall　then　have　no
difficulty　in　acknowledging　that　their　influence　was　truly
beneficial。　On　several　occasions　they　had　the　honour　of
participating　in　large　administrative　and　judicial　reforms；　such
as　the　codification　of　the　law　and　the　abolition　of　the　abnormal
custom　by　which　offices　in　the　army　were　held；　not　by　men　of
ability　and　talent；　but　by　those　of　aristocratic　birth。　Foreign
politics　were　more　than　once　treated　by　the　Sobors　with
discernment　and　practical　good　sense。　Their　patriotic　and
religious　feelings　did　not　keep　them　from　recognising　the　danger
of　a　new　war　and　the　necessity　of　relinquishing　a　conquest　which
had　been　easily　made。　On　the　other　hand　their　natural　dislike　of
new　taxes　did　not　prevent　them　from　stretching　out　a　helping　hand
to　their　orthodox　brethren　in　their　endeavours　to　emancipate
themselves　from　the　religious　persecution　of　Catholic　Poland。
Though　they　opposed　on　one　occasion　the　annexation　of　Asov；
nevertheless　on　another　occasion　these　representatives　of　the
people　of　Great　Russia　openly　manifested　their　desire　for　union
with　Little　Russia；　notwithstanding　the　possibility　of　a　new　war
that　would　necessarily　be　followed　by　an　increase　in　taxation；　In
the　so…called　period　of　troubles　they　stood　forth　as　the
champions　of　the　national　idea　by　the　opposition　which　they　made
to　every　political　combination　which　might　have　resulted　in　the
submission　of　Russia　to　a　foreign　prince。　In　those　unhappy　days
when　so　many　provinces　were　occupied　by　Polish　and　S