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！

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