第4章
thenumberofyearsthatseparatetheoldcensusofapopulationfromanewone。Thenumberofsharesallottedtoeachhouseholdeithercorrespondstothenumberofmalepersonsforwhomthehouseholdpaysthepersonaltax，ortothatofthesoulsactuallyliving。Instancesoccurinwhichthevillagersassignhalfsharestothewomen，orreservecertainsharesunoccupiedforthegenerationtocome。Asforthemeadows，theyarefrequentlymownincommon，thehaybeingdividedinequalpartsamongallthemembersofthecommune。Veryoften，too，ayearlydivisiontakesplacebeforeharvest；accountistakenofthegreaterorsmallerdistanceofeachmeadowfromthevillage，andofthequalityofitsgrass，andtheneachcommonerreceivesastripinallandeveryoneofthemeadows。ButIneednotinsistonthevariousaspectsunderwhichthesystemofre-allotmentsmaypresentitself。Itisnotmypurposetogiveyouacompletedescriptionofthevariousformswhichthevillagecommunitymaytake，butageneralpictureofallitscharacteristicfeatures。
AmongsttheseImustplacethecontrolexercisedbythevillageauthoritiesovertheperformanceatthepropertimeofeachpartofagriculturallabour。Thestripsoftheseveralhouseholdsbeingscatteredoverthewholevillagearea，andintermixedwiththoseoftheirneighbours，thesamesystemofagriculturemustofnecessitybefollowedbyall。Thesysteminuse，asIhavealreadytoldyou，isthatofthethreefields，thewinter，thesummer，andthefallow；thefieldsbecomingcommonpastureafterthegatheringinoftheharvest。Allagriculturallabourmustthereforebeginandendatfixedperiods，andthedifferenthouseholdswhichconstitutethevillagemustdotheirploughing，sowing，harrowing，mowingandreaping，preciselyatthesametime。Theauthoritiesofthevillageareempoweredtoinsistuponthis；the"Flurzwang，"touseawellknownGermanexpression，isanecessaryconditionofthiskindofagrariancommunism，whichisembodiedinthesystemofthemir。
Theperformanceatitspropertimeofeachpartofagriculturallabourcouldnotbeattainedifthecommonersdidnothelponeanotherinitsaccomplishment。Thisistherealoriginoftheobligationwhichcompelseverypeasanttohelphisneighboursinmowingandreaping。Thissortofcommunalhelp，regularlyperformedatharvesttime，isknowninRussiaunderthenameof"villageassistance。"Itwasunderlikeconditionsthatthemedievallovebones，orloveboons（angariaeautumni），tooktheirriseinEngland。
Thefeelingofmutualdependence，whichhasitsorigininthecommonownershipanduseofland，isthesourcefromwhichspringsanothercuriousinstitution。Certainagriculturallandsremainundividedandarecultivatedbythecombinedworkofthewholevillage；theiryearlyproducebeingregularlybroughttothecommonstoreandequallydistributedamongallincaseofdearth。
InRussianvillagestherearenospecial"poor"or"schoollands"（Armen-undSchulguter），similartothoseofSwitzerlandorGermany，althoughthequestionhasbeenrecentlyraisedastothedesirabilityofassigningcertainsharesofthecommonlandstotheschoolmaster，hebeingauthorisedtocultivatethemwiththehelpofhispupils。Thisplanforturningtheschoolmasterintoanagriculturallabourerbelongstothenumberofthosemeasures，bywhichthereactionarypartyhopetopreventthebadlypaidvillageschoolmastersfrombecomingwhattheycall"revolutionarydreamers。"IamhappytosaythatithasnotyetmetwiththesupportoftheGovernment。
Inowcometothecapitalquestionoftheadvantagesanddisadvantages，whichthesystemofvillagecommunitiespresents，andwhichwillofcourseexerciseadecisiveinfluenceastoitsfuture。Thereisnoquestionsomuchdiscussed，andImaysay，sooftenmisunderstoodbymycountrymen，asthatofthesuperiorityorinferiorityoftheexistingsystemincomparisonwiththatofsmallholdings。
Bothsocialistsandreactionarieshavetakenholdofthequestion，andbothpartiestrytoworkitoutinfavouroftheirownsystems。Thevaluewhichtheyattachtothesystemofthemirdiffersconsiderably。Whatthesocialistsadmireinitarethefruitfulgermswhichtheysupposeittocontainofafuturereorganisationofsocietyontheirownmodel。AstotheSlavophils，theythinkitperfectinitspresentform，andnevertireofrepeatingasayingwhich，withdoubtfulauthenticity，isattributedtothegreatCavour："Russiawillrevolutionisetheworldwithhersystemofthemir。"
Toanimpartialobserverthevillagecommunalsystemappearstobeacompoundofsmalladvantagesandgreatdisadvantages；theadvantagesareratherofamoral，andthedisadvantagesofaneconomiccharacter。Itencourages，nodoubt，toamuchgreaterdegreethanthesystemofprivateholdings，thefeelingofmutualinterdependenceandtheinclinationtomutualhelp，withoutwhichnosocietycanexist。Butitisamanifesterrortospeakofthissystemasaseriousbarriertopauperism。For，althoughthecommonerispreventedbylawfromalienatinghisshare，hemay，andoftendoes，disposeofitinfavourofsomerichneighbour，whointimeofwanthasofferedtopaytheamountofthecommoner’staxesonconditionofhavingtheuseofhisland。IftheSlavophilswererightintheiropinion，that，thankstothesystemofthemir，pauperismwasimpossibleinRussia，weshouldcertainlynotheardailyoftheso-called"Koulaks"eatingupthemir，or，whatcomestothesamething，sacrificingtheinterestsofthecommunitytotheirown。
TheeconomicdisadvantageswhichthesystempresentsaresoevidentthatIneedscarcelyinsistuponthem。Insteadofgivingmyownopiniononthissubject，IprefertoquotethewordsofaRussianeconomist，whoisfarfrombelongingtothemuchdecriedManchesterSchool。"Agrariancommunism，asitisappliedinRussia，"saysProfessorIvanukov，"isahindrancetotheinvestmentofcapitalinagriculture，andtotheintroductionofamorethorough，abetterandmoreremunerativesystemofcultivation；forthestripsbelongingtothisorthathomesteadwillincaseofeachnewdivisionpassintostrangehands，sothatthepeasantdoesnotfindittohisinteresttolayoutmoneywhichcouldonlyberecoveredduringalongtermofpossession。"Itistruethatlocalinquirershavebeenabletoproduceseveralinstancesinwhichpeasantcommonershaveintroducedasomewhatthoroughsystemofgrasssowing；*butwemustnotforgetthatthishasbeendoneduringaperiodwhenthereadjustmentoflotswasrare。
Wemustnotforget，too，onegreatdisadvantageofthemirsystem，whichconsistsinthefactthatwhereveritexists，thepiecesoflandbelongingtothesameholderare"scatteredaboutonallsidesofthetownship，oneinthisfurlongandanotherinthat，intermixed，anditmightalmostbesaid，"writesMrSeebohm，"entangledtogetherasthoughsomeoneblindfoldhadthrownthemaboutonallsidesofhim。"*
SeveralRussianeconomistshaveshownthatthisdefectisnotpeculiartothemir，butistobefoundinthesystemofsmallholdings，*asifthesesmallholdingshadnotinheriteditfromtheirdirectpredecessor，thevillagecommunity。Whatis，however，offarmoreimportancethantheopinionofthisorthatstudentofthemiristhefactthatitisgraduallyandspontaneouslybreakingtopieces。Thereisnodoubtthatageneralredistributionofshareshasnottakenplace，atleastinthemorefertileareaoftheblacksoil，sincetheyearofthepeasants’emancipation。Itisdifficulttoexplainthissolelybythedislikeoftheprovincialanddistrictadministratorstothesystem；theunwillingnessofthepowerfulminorityofrichpeasantstoproceedtoanewdivisionisrecognisedonallsides，andquitesufficestoexplainthedifficultiesencounteredinthewayofafreshreadjustment。Forwemustrememberthatthelawrequiresthattwo-thirdsofthevotersshallagreeonanydecisiononthissubject，andtheKoulaks，althoughinaminority，aresuretohaveinfluenceenoughamongthepoorerpeasants，whoaretheirdebtors，toobtaintheirownwayinafolkmote。
Thefactthatamovementinfavourofare-divisionofthecommonlandshasariseninthenorthernandcentralprovinces，wherethesoilispoor，andtheincomewhichthepeasantreceivesfromhissharedoesnotcovertheamountofthetaxeshehastopay，cancertainlynotbeadducedinfavouroftheideaofafurtherspontaneousdevelopmentofRussianagrariancommunism。
Themajorityofthepeasantsinsistonsuchareadjustment，sothattheymayhavefewertaxestopay，andnotbecausetheylongtoseethegreatprincipleofequalitybecometherulingpoweroftheworld。Ifwewishtopointtoareallyspontaneousmovementinthesphereofland-tenure，itmustcertainlybetothatwhichhasinducedthousandsofpeasantstopaybackthemoneywhichwasadvancedtothembytheGovernmentintheyearoftheiremancipationtoenablethemtobecomethefreeproprietorsofthesoil。IhavealreadymentionedthefactthatfivemillionroubleshavebeenrepaidtotheCrown；itisinterestingtonotetherateatwhichthisrepaymenthasbeenmade。From1861to1868，accordingtoMrKeuszler，theamountofmoneypaidbypersonswishingtoexchangetheircommonrightsforprivateproperty，hardlyformedtheseven-hundredthpartofthewholesum。From1868to1872ithadamountedto10percent；from1873
to1877to331/2percent；therestofthesum，or55percent，havingbeenpaidbackduringtheyears1877to1881。*
Ifthissteadyincreaseisnotconsideredaconclusiveproof，Imustdeclinetobringforwardanyother，noteventhedisappearanceofvillagecommunitiesintheneighbourhoodofthelargertowns，suchasSt。Petersburg，Moscow，andevenVoroneg，owingtothefactthatintheirneighbourhoodhighfarmingpaysbest，andthatthishighfarmingisimpossiblewithoutachangeinthesystemoflandproperty。
Howlongvillagecommunitieswillexistisnotaquestioneasytoanswer。TheGovernmentmaycertainlypreventforatimetheirdissolutionbysomeartificialmeasures，likethosetakeninrelationtotheundividedhousehold。Aproposalhasevenbeenmadetodeclarethatthecommon-landshallnotbecomeprivatepropertyevenaftertherepaymentofthewholesumwhichitsholderowestotheGovernment。Suchameasuremight，indeed，longarrestthespontaneousmovementwhichproducesthedissolutionofthisarchaicformofagrariancommunism。
Iflefttoitself，itwillcertainlybemaintainedinthoseremotepartsofRussiawherethepopulationisstillsosmallastoretardagriculturalprogress；butitislikelysoontodisappearinthemanufacturingdistricts，wherethepeasantpassesmoretimeinthefactorythaninthefieldsandwhere，whenheleaveshisoldhome，hehastofind，andthatofttimesunderveryunsatisfactoryconditions，somepartnertoperformhisshareoffieldlabour。ItisalsomorethanprobablethattheSouthofRussia，thetruegranaryoftheEmpire，willsoonbecomeacountryofprivateownershipinland。Thesystemofthemir，asIhavealreadysaid，isinmorethanonepartofthisdistrictacomparativelymoderninnovation。TheLittleRussianistoofondofindependenceandself-controltoacquiesceinasystemwhichconfineshisindustryineverydirection。
Thevillagecommunity，thatvenerablesurvivalofanepochcloselyakintothepatriarchal，willdisappearinRussia，asitalreadyhasdisappearedinothercountriesinEurope——inEngland，Germany，andSwitzerland。Itwillgivewaytoprivateland，unless，andthisisnotverylikelypropertyinunderpresentconditions，itbecompletelytransformedbytheextensionofcommunisticprinciplestocapital。Thosewho，likemyself，donotbelieveinthepossibilityofleapsandboundsinmattersofsocialprogress，willprobablyconsiderthatsuchastateofthingsbelongstothenumberofthosedreams，thepracticalrealisationofwhichistobelookedforonlyinaremotefuture。
ModernCustomsandAncientLawsofRussiabyMaximeKovalevsky1891
LectureIV
OldRussianFolkmotesItisacommonsayingamongtheRussianConservatives，whohavelatelybeendignifiedinFrancebythenameof"Nationalists，"thatthepoliticalaspirationsoftheLiberalsareinmanifestcontradictionwiththegeniusandwiththehistoricalpastoftheRussianpeople。
Sharingtheseideas，theRussianMinisterofPublicinstructionCountDelianov，afewyearsagoorderedtheProfessorsofPublicLawandofLegalHistorytomaketheirteachingconformtoaprogrammeinwhichTzarism，theunlimitedpoweroftheRussianemperors，wasdeclaredtobeatrulynationalinstitution。
Someoftheprofessorswhorefusedtocomplywiththisorderwerecalledupontoresign，othersweresimplydismissedfromtheirchairs。ThequestionIamabouttodiscussinthisandthefollowinglectureis，whetherthistheorybearsthetestofhistory。IsittruethatRussianautocracyisathoroughlynationalinstitution，therootsofwhicharefoundintheremotestperiodofRussianhistory？IsitthefactthatnofolkmotesandnorepresentativeinstitutionseverexistedintheeasternpartofEurope，andthattheByzantineprincipleofanunlimitedmonarchicalpower，havingnoothersourcebutitsdivinerightderivedfromGodhimselfandbeingresponsibletonoonebutHeaven，hasbeenalwaysrecognisedbymycountrymen？
Ishallbeginbysavingthat，hadsuchbeenthecase，thehistoricaldevelopmentofRussiawouldformamonstrousanomalytothegeneralevolutionofpoliticalinstitutions，atleastamongpeopleofAryanblood。
ItisnotbeforeanOxfordaudiencethatIneedrecallthiswell-establishedfact，thatinearliertimestheassemblyofthepeople，theFolkmote，sharedintheexerciseofsovereignpowersidebysidewiththeelectedheadofthenation，whatevermayhavebeenhistitle。ProfessorFreemanandSirHenryMainehaveleftnopossibilityofdoubtonthispoint；thefirst，whentreatingoftheGreeks，Romans，andGermans；thesecond，inrelationtotheancientCelticpopulationofIreland。Thebarrieroflanguage，ofwhichSirHenryMainesooftencomplainedtome，preventedthesetwoeminentscholarsfromcompletingtheircomparativestudyofearlypoliticalorganisationbyaminuteinvestigationofthatofthemedievalSlavs；butrecentresearches，carriedonbothinRussiaandinPoland，BohemiaandServia，permitustoextendtoSlavonicnationsthegeneralconclusionswhichhavebeenarrivedatbythoseEnglishscholars，whohavetakenastheirbasisacarefulstudyofHellenic，German，andCelticlaw。
Byzantinechronicles，whichcontaintheearliestinformationonthesocialandpoliticalconditionoftheassertionthatthetheSlavs，areunanimousinSlavonicpeopleknewnothingofastronglycentralisedautocraticpower。"Fromtheremotestperiod，"saysProcopius，awriterofthesixthcentury，"theSlavswereknowntoliveindemocracies；theydiscussedtheirwantsinpopularassembliesorfolkmotes"（chapterxivofhis"GothicaseuBellumGothicum"）。Anotherauthority，theByzantineEmperorMauriquius，whenspeakingoftheSlavs，writesasfollows："TheSlavslikeliberty；theycannotbearunlimitedrulers，andarenoteasilybroughttosubmission"（"Strategicum，"
chap。xi）。ThesamelanguageisusedalsobytheEmperorLeo。
"TheSlavs，"sayshe，"areafreepeople，stronglyopposedtoanysubjection"（"Tacticaseuderemilitari，"ch。xviii。99）。
PassingfromthesegeneralstatementstothosewhichdirectlyconcernsomedefiniteSlavonicpeople，wewillfirstofallquotetheLatinChroniclesofHelmoldandDithmarofMerseburg，bothoftheeleventhcentury，inordertogiveanideaofthepoliticalorganisationoftheNorthernSlavsdwellingonthesouth-easternshoreoftheBaltic。SpeakingofoneoftheirearliestchiefsnamedMistiwoi，Helmoldsaysthathe，thechief，oncecomplainedtothewholeassemblyoftheSlavsofaninjuryhehadreceived（ConvocatisomnibusSlavisquiadorientemhabitant，intimaviteisillatamsibicontumeliam）。
TheRussianscholarswhohavemadeaspecialstudyofthehistoryofthoseSlavonictribeswhoweresoearlyGermanised，giveusadescriptionoftheproceedingsandfunctionsoftheirpopularassemblies。Thefolkmotewasconvenedinanopenplace。
InStettinthemarket-placewasfurnishedforthispurposewithakindofstandfromwhichthespeakersaddressedthemultitude。
Thefolkmoteswerenotperiodicalassemblies，butwereconvenedasoftenastherewassomequestionofStatewhichneededpublicdiscussion。
Itiswellknownthattheprivilegeenjoyedinourdaysbythemajoritywasquiteunknowntotheprimitivefolkmotes。Inearlytimesthedecisionsofthepeoplewereunanimous。Thisdoesnotmeanthatitwasalwayseasytoarriveatageneralagreement。Opinionswerecertainlyasdividedthenastheyarenow。Whatismeantisonlythis——that，incaseofdifferenceofopinion，theminoritywasforcedtoacquiesceinthatofthemajority，unlessitcouldsucceedinpersuadingthemajoritythattheywereinthewrong。IntheChronicleofDithmarofMerseburgthe"unanimousvote"isdistinctlystatedtobeapeculiarityoftheprimitiveSlavonicfolkmotes：
"Unanimiconsilio，"saysthisauthor，"adplacitumsuimetnecessariadiscutientesinrebusefficiendisomnesconcordant。"
Incasesomeonerefusedtoacquiesceinthecommondecision，hewasbeatenwithrods。Ifanyoppositiontothevoteofthemajorityaroseaftertheassemblyhadbeenheld，thedissentientlostallhisproperty，whichwaseithertakenfromhimordestroyedbyfire，unlesshewasreadytopayacertainamountofmoney，varyingaccordingtohisrank。Theunanimousvoteisveryoftenmentionedbycontemporarychroniclers，whoforthispurposeemploythefollowingexpressions："Remotacontroversia，"or"quasiunushomo。"（1*）ThemattersdiscussedattheseearlySlavonicfolkmoteswereofagreatvariety：theelectionorthedethroningofaprince，decisionsaboutgoingtowarormakingpeace，aremorethanoncementionedbycontemporaryauthorsasthedirectworkoftheseassemblies。
IfweturnourattentiontothestudyoftheearliestperiodinthehistoryofBohemianpoliticalinstitutions，weshallseethedevelopmentoffactssimilarorquasi-similartothosejustmentioned。TheBohemianfolkmote，the"snem，"asitwascalled，isknowntoLatinchroniclersunderthenamesofconventus，generalecolloquium，orgeneraliscuria。Personsofdifferentestatesorordersconstitutedtheassembly。Thechroniclesmention，asarule，thepresenceofthemajoresnatu，oftheproceresandcomites，asalsothatofthehigherclergy，incleromeliores；butinadditionwefindatthesemeetings，atleastasfarbackastheendoftheeleventhcentury，thecommonpeople，thepopulus，Bohemorumonmes，Bohemicaegentismagnietparvi，nobilesetignobiles。Intheyear1055thepeopleareespeciallymentionedastakingpartintheelectionofaduke，andin1068
and1069asengagedinthenominationofabishop。In1130theDukeSobeslavconvenedanassemblyof3000persons，nobilesetignobiles，tojudgethosewhohadconspiredagainsthim。Atalaterperiod，afterthebeginningofthetwelfthcentury，thecommonpeopledisappearfromtheseassemblies，andtheproceresandmajoresnaturemainedalonewiththehighclergytodiscusstheaffairsoftheState。ButintheearlydayswithwhichweareatpresentconcernedtheconstitutionoftheBohemiansnemwasnotveryunlikethatofanordinaryfolkmote，towhichallclassesofsocietywereequallysummoned。LikethefolkmotesoftheBalticSlavs，theBohemiangeneralisconventuswasnotaperiodicalassembly。Likethemalso，itsdecisionsweretheresultofaunanimousconsent，afactwhichisshownbythecontemporarydocuments，whentheystatethatthisandthatmatterhavebeensettledattheassembly"communioconsilioetvoluntatepari"（CosmusofPrague，ii。87），orevenmoreexplicitly，"deconsensuomnium，""unanimiter。"
Theelectionfirstofthedukeandlateronoftheking，thenominationofthebishop，theconfirmationorrejectionofthelawsproposedbythekingandhiscouncil，thejudicialdecisionofcertainexceptionallyimportantcases，suchweretheregularfunctionsoftheBohemianfolkmote。YouwillhavenodifficultyinseeingthatthesefunctionsarethesameasthoseofthepopularassembliesoftheBalticSlavs。
InPoland，thefolkmotes，knownunderthenameofcongregationesgenerales，sometimesalsounderthatofconciones，coltoquia，orconsilia，wereinearlydayscomposednotonlyofthehigherordersofsociety，butalsoofthecommonpeople。TheLatinChronicleofGallusmentionsanoccasiononwhichkingBoleslaus"imprimismajoresetseniorescivitatis，deindetotumpopuluminconcionemadvocavit。"ThemeaningofthisquotationleavesnodoubtastothepopularcharacteroftheseearlyPolishpoliticalassemblies。InnoSlavonicstatewasthispopularcharactersoearlylostasinPoland。Asearlyasthebeginningofthethirteenthcenturythehighernobilityandclergy，the"milites"andtheknights，begintobetheonlyconstitutivepartsofthePolish"generalcouncil。"
Theotherfeatureoftheprimitivefolkmote，theunanimousvote，wasmuchbetterpreservedbythePolishparliament。Fromtheearliesttimesdowntothefalloftheirpoliticalindependence，thePolesremainedfaithfultothisveryincongruoussystem。The"liberumveto，"therightofeachmembertomakenullandvoidbyhissingleoppositionthedecisionsoftheentireassembly，becamethroughtheinterferenceofforeignStatesoneofthebestmeansofkeepingincheckthepoliticalactivityofthenation。Bythisveto，Russian，Austrian，andPrussianintriguesmorethanoncepreventedthepassingoflawsandmeasures，whichmighthavepreservedtheindependenceofthecountry。ThattheliberumvetohaditsrootsinthemostremoteperiodofPolishhistorymaybeshownbyquotationslikethefollowing。AccordingtothechronicleofCromer，thePolishthronehadbeenofferedtothehalfmythicalCracus，"unasententia，"i。e。，bytheunanimousdecisionofthepeople，whohad，asweknow，noothermeansofmanifestingtheirfeelingthanthefolkmote。Thesameunanimousconsentismentionedbyanotherchronicleontheoccasionofanelectionwhichtookplacein1194。
ThelegalpowerofthePolishgeneralcouncilwasidenticalwiththatoftheBohemiansnem。Itelectedthechiefrulerofthelandandenteredintowrittencovenantswithhim；itdiscussedquestionsofinternationalpolicy，expresseditsopiniononmattersoftaxation，gaveitssanctiontothelegalenactmentsoftheking，theso-calledstatutaandconstitutiones，andfromtimetotimeitexercisedjudicialauthorityincertainexceptionallyimportantcivilcases。Inaword，itpossessedthesamemultiplicityofpowerswhichwehavenoticedwhenstudyingthepowersoftheBohemianfolkmote。
HithertowehaveconsultedonlythehistoryoftheNorthernandWesternSlavs。LetusnowturntothatoftheSouthernSlavs。
ThedemocraticelementislessprominentintheconstitutionoftheancientServianandCroatianfolkmotes。Ataveryearlyperiodthehighnobilityandclergytookpossessionofthevariouspowersofthepopularassembly。ButthisdoesnotmeanthatnodocumentaryevidencehasreachedusconcerningthepartwhichthelowerclassesofsocietyatleastinCroatia，wereancientlycalledupontoplayinthepoliticalorganisationofthecountry。TheoldCroatianchronicleexplicitlystatesthatinthetimeofSvonomir，thefirstelectedCroatianchief，the"Ban，"thenationalassemblyknowninlatertimesunderthenameof"Sobor，"wascomposednotonlyofthehigherorders（viteze，barune，vlasnike），butalsoofthecommonpeople（pukzemlie）。
ThesamecommonpeopleismentionedbytheLatinchronicleashavinghaditsshareintheelectionofthisfirstBan，whowaschosen"concorditotiusclerietpopulielectione。"Thishappenedinthesecondhalfoftheeleventhcentury（1076）。Duringthefollowingcenturiesthenobility，andamongthemthehigherclassofnoblesrepresentedbysevenBans，alonehadadirectinfluenceonthenominationoftheCroatianking。Butthememoryofold，days，whenthepeoplechosetheirrulers，wasstillpreserveddowntotheendofthefifteenthcentury，asmaybeseenfromthefollowingwordsofacharterissuedin1490byKingVladislasthesecond："Domini，prelatietbarones，caeteriqueprimoresetuniversiincoloeregni，adquosscilicetjuseligendinovumregemexvetustissimaregniipsiusliberateetconsuetudinedevolutumexstiterat……oculosmentisipsoruminnosconjecerunt。"
ThetextsalreadyquotedestablishthefactthatlikeotherSlavonicassemblies，theSoborsofCroatiawereignorantoftherightsofthemajorityandinsistedonthenecessityofaunanimousdecision。Expressionslike"concordielectione，"
"omnibuscollaudantibus，"andthecompleteabsenceofanyinformationconcerningdecisionstakenbyamajorityofvoters，leavenodoubtonthispoint。ThesametextsmentionseveralofthefunctionswhichtheSoborwascalledupontoexercise。andfirstamongthesewastheelectionofthepoliticalheadsofthenation，whomightbesimplebansorkings。Questionsofpeaceandwarwerealsosettledbythisassembly。
ButthechiefoccupationoftheSoborwasofalegislativecharacter。FromtimetotimetheChroniclesstatethat"manygoodlawshavebeenmade"bythisorthatassembly，andProfessorBogisichassucceededintracingawholelistofthedifferentstatutesresultingfromtheirdeliberations。
Theexistenceofthesenationalcouncilsdidnotpreventthepeopleofdifferentlocalitiesfrommeetinginsomekindofprovincialassemblies，andfromexercisinginthemevenlegislativefunctions。AninstanceofthisfactispresentedbytheislandofVinodol，theinhabitantsofwhichin1288metinakindoflocalfolkmote——atwhichcertainmenwerechosentomakeageneralcodificationofoldlaws，thememoryofwhichwasstillpreserved。InthiswaywasformedthecelebratedstatuteofVinodol，oneofthechiefsourcesofinformationastotheearlylawoftheSouthernSlavs。
TheServianStates-General，althoughmuchlessdemocraticthantheCroatian，meritourattentiononaccountofthegreatinfluencewhichtheyexercisedonthemanagementofpublicaffairs。ItistruethattheServianSoborisratheracouncilofthehigherorders，asortofAnglo-SaxonWitenagemote，thanafolkmoteorpopularassembly。Thethirdestatewasnotadmittedtoitsmeetingseitherasabodyorbyrepresentation，andoneoftheparagraphsofthecelebratedcodeofStefanDouschan（fourteenthcentury）evenstrictlyforbidsthepeasantstomeetinpoliticalassemblies。Butthelowernobility，whoafterwardsplayedsuchaprominentpartinthedestiniesofthePolishnation，regularlysatinthosemeetingssidebysidewiththeking，hiscouncil，thesuperiorofficersofState，thepatriarch，theecclesiasticalsynod，andthemembersofthehighernobility。
Theseorderstakentogetherexercisedprettyneatlyallthefunctionsofsovereignty。Theymadelegalenactments，suchasthecodejustmentioned，andtheyweretheauthorsofthedifferentamendmentsintroducedintoitinthecourseoftime。Theyveryoftenelectedtheking，andsometimesdethronedhim。ThearchbishopandtheprovincialgovernorswerealsochosenbytheSobor，whichlikewisedisposedofthepubliclands，anddiscussedthemostimportantmattersofcivilandecclesiasticalgovernment。
ThisrapidandrathersuperficialsketchoftheearlypoliticalinstitutionsoftheSlavs，mayatleastservetoshowhowconsiderablewastheinfluencewhichthehigherordersofsociety，andveryoftenthecommonpeople，exercisedinthemanagementoftheSlavonicState。Mynecessarilydryexpositionofancientchroniclesandcharters，cannotfailtorecallthewell-knownpassageinthe"Germania"ofTacitus："Deminoribusprincipesconsultant，demajoribusomnes。"LiketheoldGermanicfolkmotetheSlavonicwasasortofsupremecouncil，convenedoncertainexceptionallyimportantoccasions。Duringaninterregnumallauthoritypassedintoitshands，anditwasaccordinglyempoweredtochoosethefutureruleroftheland，andtodeclareunderwhatconditionshewastobeadmittedtotheexerciseofthesovereignpower。Intheordinarycourseofpublicaffairs，thefolkmotediscussedimportantmattersofcivil，andinsomecountriesevenofecclesiasticalgovernment。Itpronouncedonquestionsofwarandpeace，controlledtheexerciseofthelegislativeauthority，andwassometimesevendirectlyengagedinthemakingofnew，andthecodifyingofancientlaws。Althoughitsauthoritywaslessprominentinexecutiveandjudicialmatters，yetitveryoftenexercisedthesupremerightofdethroningaking，andofjudgingpersonsaccusedofhightreason。
Whenwecalltomindthesefacts，theideaofanearlyRussianautocracy，admittingofnocontrolonthepartofthegoverned，willcertainlyappeartoustobeindirectcontradictionnotonlyofthegeneralevolutionofpoliticalinstitutions，butalsoofitsusualformamongSlavonicnations。
Wemustrefusetoacceptananomalyunlessitisestablishedontheauthorityofwell-authenticatedhistoricalfacts。Butnosuchfactscanbeproduced。TheRussianchronicles，inwhich，fromthewantofothersourcesofinformation，weareobligedtoseekforthechiefelementsofageneraltheoryofancientRussianpoliticalinstitutions，showusastateofthings，whichhasnothingincommonwithabsolutemonarchy。OnthefirstpagesofthechronicleattributedtothemonkNestor，theEasternSlavsarespokenofaspossessingasortof"gens"organisation；"eachonelivingwithhiskindred，andthesekindredsoccupyingdistinctterritorialdistricts。"（Kojdossvoimrodominasvoichmestech，kojdovladeiuscherodomsvoim。）inthesentencejustquoted，thechroniclerdescribesthesocialorganisationofthemostenlightenedtribeoftheEasternSlavs，thePolians，andimmediatelyafterwardshespeaksofthreebrothersandtheirsister，whoexercisedincommonsomesortofpoliticalauthorityoverthetribe。Accordingtothischronicler，thedirectdescendantsofthesebrothersruledoverthePolians。ItisalsorecordedoftheDrevlians，anotherSlavonictribe，thatithaditsownprince，Mal。butthePoliansandtheDrevliansseemtohavebeentheonlytribeslivingundermonarchicalrule。TherestoftheSlavonictribesestablishedinRussiaarerepresentedtousashavingnoprinces，butaslivingdividedintoclansor"gentes，"whichwereoftenatwaronewithanother（vstarodnarod），astateofthingswhichatlengthinducedthem"toseekaforeignprince（kniaz）tocommandandjudgethemaccordingtojustice。"Theestablishmentofmonarchicalpowerthusappearstohavebeenthedirectresultofafreedecisiononthepartofthepeople。Thechroniclespeaksofthetribes，whichsentforaforeignprince，ashavingpreviouslyassembledtogether（snidoschasiavkoupe，sobravschesia）。Thismeansthatthedecisiontocallinaforeignprincewastheworkofafolkmote。
SuchisthefirstmentionwepossessofaRussianpopularassembly。ThefactsIhaverecordedhappenedinthesecondhalfoftheninthcentury，intheyear862。Alludingtothem，thechronicleofSousdal，undertheyear1176，makesthefollowinggeneralstatement。"TheinhabitantsofNovgorod，ofSmolensk，ofKiev，andofPoloczk，andofalltheprincipalities（volosti）ofRussia，werefromthebeginning，andarestill，inthehabitofmeetingatfolkmotesasatasortofcouncil。"Thetermemployedtodesignatethefolkmoteisthatofvechefromtheverbveschat，toannounce，todeclare。Accordingtothesentencejustquoted，thevechemaybetracedfromtheoldestperiodofournationalexistence。Thisisdirectlyconfirmed，inrelationtothePolians，bythefollowingstatement："Intheyearsnextfollowing，"saysNestor，speakingoftheendoftheninthcentury，"theythoughtincommon（sdoumavsche）anddecidedtopaytotheChasarsacertaintax，theamountofwhichwasoneswordfromeveryhearth。"TheDrevliansarealsospokenofbythechronicleashavingononeoccasion"thoughtincommonwiththeirprinceMal，"anddecidedtoslaughterthesonofRurik，Igor。
Now，this"thinkingincommon"ofawholetribewithitspoliticalhead，canonlymeanthattheprinceconsultedthefolkmote，andwithitshelparrivedatadefinitedecision。
ApeculiarfeatureoftheoldestRussianfolkmotes，afeaturewhichtotallydisappearsbytheendofthetenthcentury，is，thattheyaretheassemblyofawholetribe，sometimesevenofseveraltribes，andnotoftheinhabitantsofonesingleurbandistrict。TheChronicleofNestorspeaksofthePolians，theDrevlians，theKrivichs，theSever，andsuchlikepeople，asofpersonscomingtogether，consultingoneanotherand"accomplishingcertainactsincommon。"Ihavealreadysaidthatthesewereseparatetribes，eachonesubdividedintokindredsor"gentes"（rodi）。Suchbeingthecase，thevecheoftheearlydaysofRussianhistoricaldevelopment，wasakindoftribalassemblyverylikethosewhichCaesarandTacitusfoundamongtheancientGermans。
Withthebeginningoftheeleventhcentury，theRussianfolkmoteorvecheacquiredanewcharacter，whenthethiefcitiesofRussia，thepoliticalcentresofmoreorlessindependentstates，obtainedtheirseparateassemblies。ThechroniclesmentionondifferentoccasionsthevechesofBelgorod，ofVladimirinVolhynia，ofBerestie，ofRiazan，Mourom，andPronsk，ofSmolensk，PoloczkandKoursk，ofRostov，Sousdal，PereiaslavlandVladimirontheKliasm，besidesthoseofKiev，Novgorod，Pscov，andViatka。
Ifweinquireintotheinternalconstitutionandfunctionsoftheveche，weshallhavenodifficultyinascertainingthatinboththesepointstheRussianfolkmotesdidnotessentiallydifferfromthoseofotherSlavonicnations。
Thechronicles，whentheyspeakofthosesummonedtotheseassemblies，brieflynotethepresenceofallthecitizensofadefiniteurbandivision。Expressionssuchasthefollowingarealsomorethanoncemetwithinthecourseofthenarrative："themenofourland，""thewholelandofGalich，"andsoon。Hence，itisevidentthatwehavetodealwithathoroughlydemocraticassembly。Butitdoesnotfollowthatalltheinhabitantsofthecityweresummoned。Thevechewasnotsomuchanassemblyofthewholepeopleasthatoftheheadsoffamilies，orratherofthenaturalchiefsofSlavonichousecommunitiesknowntotheearliestcodeofRussia，thepravdaofJaroslav，underthenameof"verv。"
OnseveraloccasionstheunknownauthorsofRussianchroniclesseemtoimplythatthemenassembledatthefolkmotemadecertainengagements，notonlyontheirownbehalfbutalsoonthatoftheirchildren。Forinstance，"themenofKiev，infolkmoteassembled，"declarein1147，thattheywillfightagainsttheHouseofOleg，oneofthebranchesofthedynastyofRurik，notbythemselvesalone，butalsobytheirchildren。ThisdeclarationclearlyshowsthatchildrendidnotappearataRussianfolkmote，butthattheirabsencewassolelycausedbytheirpersonaldependenceontheheadoftheundividedfamily。Wemay，therefore，inferthatallthosewhowerenotfreetodisposeofthemselveswereexcludedfromtheveche；andsuchwasthecaseasregardedcertainmembersofundividedhouseholdsandthosewhohadforfeitedtheirlibertythroughwarordebt。Inasocietybased，liketheoldRussian，ontheprincipleofbloodrelationship，undividedhouseholdsmusthavebeennumerous，andthefactthattheheadsofthesehouseholdswerealonesummonednaturallydiminishedthenumberofpersonscomposingtheveche。
Itmay，therefore，beeasilyunderstoodhowalargesquaresuchasthoseonwhichtheprincelypalacesofNovgorodorofKievwerebuilt，wasquiteabletocontainanentireassembly，notwithstandingthefactthatthecitizenswerenottheonlypersonsadmittedtothemeetingsoftheveche，forthesuburbsandeventheneighbouringtownshipshadtherighttohaveanequalsharewiththemonthemanagementofpublicaffairs。Thechroniclesveryoftenmentionthefactofthe"blackpeople，"
"thesmerds，"andtheso-called"badpeasants"（termsdesignatingtheagriculturalpopulationofthecountry）beingpresentattheveche。Theurbandistrictwasasaruleverylarge，thelandsownedbythecitizensinsomecasesextendingtohundredsandeventhousandsofmilesoutsidethecitywall。Inordertopreservethesewidelyscatteredpossessions，thecityoftenbuiltfortresses，whichincaseofwarofferedarefugetotheinhabitantsofthesurroundingcountry。Intimeofpeacethesefortifiedplacesansweredanotherpurpose；marketswereregularlyheldinthemandhenceincourseoftimeartisansandmerchantswereinducedtochoosethemfortheirsettledabode。Thepopulationincreaseddaybyday，thefortressbecamesurroundedbysuburbs，andanewcityappearedwhereoriginallytherehadbeennothingbutawoodenfencewithamoatorditcharoundit。
Theinhabitantsofthisnewcityhadgenerallytherighttoappearatthevechesofthemetropolis，buttheyusuallypreferredmeetingatassembliesoftheirown。Theroadsbeinghadandnotalwayssafe，theydidnotseewhatwastobegainedbyalongjourney，butchoserathertostayathomeandholdtheirownfolkmotesfromtimetotime。
ThechroniclesofSousdalseemtoimplythatthedecisionsofthelocalfolkmotesdidnot，asarule，differfromthoseofthemetropolis。"Whathasbeenestablishedbytheoldestcity，ismaintainedbyitsboroughs。"Sucharethewordsinwhichthechronicleexpressesthemutualrelationsofthemetropolisandthedaughtertowns。Therealmeaningofthesentenceisnotatallthatofdutifulsubjectiononthepartofthenewtowntowardsthemothercity。Thewritermerelywishestosuggesttheideaofagoodunderstandingbetweenthemetropolisandtheboroughsithasbuilt。Thisgoodunderstandingwasnotalwaysmaintained，andonmorethanoneoccasiontheboroughcametoadecisionthereverseofthatofthechiefcity。Asimilardisagreementoccurredmorethanoncebetweendifferentquarters（konzi）ofthesamecity。SuchwasoftenthecaseatNovgorod，dividedasitwasintofivedifferentadministrativedistrictsorwards，whichmorethanonceheldtheirownseparatefolkmotesandopposedthedecisionsofthegeneralassembly。Suchamisunderstandingsometimesendedinopenwar，theminorityrefusingtosubmittothedecisionofthemajority。
ThisfactaloneshowsthattheRussianvechesadmittednoothermodeofsettlingpublicaffairsthanthatofunanimousdecision。IthasbeenalreadyshownthatthismodewasgeneralamongstSlavonicpeoples。AfewquotationswillproveitsexistenceamongtheEasternSlavs。Wheneverthechroniclerhasoccasiontospeakofoneoftheirdecisionsheemployssuchexpressionsasthefollowing："Itwasestablishedbyalltheoldestandalltheyoungestmenoftheassemblythat，"&c。；"allwereunanimousinthedesire"；"allthoughtandspokeasoneman，"&c。
Ifunanimitycouldnotbearrivedat，theminoritywasforcedtoacquiesceinthedecisionofthegreaternumber，unlessitcouldpersuadethemembersofthemajoritythattheywerewrongintheiropinion。Inbothcasesthevechespassedwholedaysindebatingthesamesubjects，theonlyinterruptionsbeingfreefightsinthestreet。AtNovgorod，thesefightstookplaceonthebridgeacrosstheVolchov，andthestrongerpartysometimesthrewtheiradversariesintotheriverbeneath。Aconsiderableminorityveryoftensucceededinsuspendingthemeasurealreadyvotedbytheveche，butiftheminoritywassmall，itswillhadsoontoyieldtoopenforce。
ThecompetenceoftheRussianfolkmotewasaswideasthatofsimilarpoliticalassembliesamongtheWesternandSouthernSlavs。Morethanonceitassumedtherightofchoosingthechiefruleroftheland；butitwasnotanunrestrictedrightwhichtheyenjoyed，thechoicebeingconfinedtomembersofthefamilyofRurik；fortheRussiansconsideredthatoutsideRurik’sdynasty，noonehadarighttoexercisesovereignpower。ThefolkmotewasmerelyempoweredtogiveitspreferencetosomedistrictlineofthehouseofRurik，forinstancetothatdirectlydescendingfromVladimirMonomach，fromwhichthevecheofKievelecteditsrulers。ItwasalsofreetopronounceinfavourofayoungermemberofRurik’sfamily，notwithstandingthecandidatureofanolderone。ThechoicemadewasofteninopencontradictionofthelegalorderofsuccessionmaintainedbythedynastyofRurik。ThisorderwasverysimilartotheIrishlawoftanistry，accordingtowhichtheIrishcrowndevolvedupontheoldestrepresentativeofthereigningfamily。Inpracticeitgenerallymeantthesuccessionofthedeceased’snextbrother，notthatofhiseldestson。Thestrictapplicationofthislawoftanistrywouldhavenecessitatedaconstantchangeinthepersonoftheruler，notonlyinKiev，whichwasforalongtimeconsideredthemostimportantprincipalityofRussia，andwhichwas，therefore，theappanageofthechiefrepresentativeofthedynasty，butalsointheotherRussiandukedoms，whichweresubdividedintoagreatnumberofsecondaryprincipalities。Openforcehadveryoftentodecidewhichofthetwosystems，thatoffreeelectionorthatoflegalsuccession，wastoprevail。
Whateverwastheissueofsuchastrugglethenewrulerwasonlyadmittedtotheexerciseofsovereignpowerafterhavingsubscribedasortofcontractbywhichhetookuponhimselftheobligationofpreservingtherightsofthoseoverwhomhewascalledtorule。Theseverycuriousdocuments，knownunderthenameof"riad，"haveunfortunatelybeenpreservedinonlyoneoftheRussianprincipalities，thatofNovgorod，——afactwhichhasinducedmanyscholarstobelievethatthisrightofcovenantingwiththedukewaslimitedtothisNorthernprincipality。
ProfessorSergievitch，thewell-knownProfessorofLegalhistoryintheUniversityofSt。Petersburg，wasthefirsttoprovebyaconsiderablenumberofquotationsfromRussianchronicles，thatcovenantslikethatofNovgorodwereknownalloverRussia。MorethanoncementionismadeofaprincesecuringthethronebyacompromisewiththemenofKiev（sliudmiKievaoutverdisia）。
Thesecompactsorcovenantsbetweenprinceandpeople，sofarastheyareknowntousbythefewexamplesamongthearchivesofNovgorod，wereakindofconstitutionalchartersecuringtothepeoplethefreeexerciseoftheirpoliticalrights，suchastherightofthefolkmotetodiscusspublicaffairsandtoelecttheruleroftheState。ThislatterrighthadbeenalreadyguaranteedtoNovgorodbyageneralassemblyofRussiandukesheldin1196。
Wereadinthetextofthedecisionscometobythisprincelycongress；"AllthedukesrecognisethelibertyofNovgorodtochooseherrulerwherevershelikes。"Otherconstitutionalrestraintsonprincelypowerare——nodeclarationofwarwithout"Novgorod’sword"；noforeignertobenominatedtothepostofprovincialgovernor（volostel）；nopublicofficialtobedismissedwithoutlegalcause，acknowledgedtobesuchbythedecisionofaCourtoflaw。ThustheprincipleaccordingtowhichmostEnglishofficialsholdoffice"duringgoodbehaviour"wasalreadyrecognisedinRussianprincipalitiesinthemiddleofthethirteenthcentury。ThisefficientmodeofsecuringtheindependenceanddignityofpublicofficialshasbeencompletelyabolishedinlaterdaysundertheTzarsandEmperors，althoughoncemorein1863itsnecessitywasadmittedbythelegalenactmentsofAlexanderII。Unfortunatelynoattentionisanylongerpaidtothepromisesgiventothiseffectbythecodesofcivilandcriminalprocedure，andmanyajudgehasbeenremovedinrecenttimesbyasimpleorderoftheMinisterofPublicJustice。
Returningtotheconstitutionalguaranteessecured。bythenewrulertohisfuturesubjects，ImustpointoutthatthosealreadymentionedseemtohavebeencommontoallthedifferentprincipalitiesofRussia。Thesamecannotbesaidofthefollowingtwo：first，theobligationtojudgenobodywithouttheassistanceofaspecialofficer，calledtheposadnik，andsecondly，therightofthefolkmotetochoosethisofficial，arightwhichfirstappearedinthebeginningofthetwelfthcentury。Theseexceptionsoncemade，wehavetherighttosaythatthecompactsenteredintobythepeopleofNovgorodwiththeirfutureruler，giveusafairideaoftherelativestrengthoftheprinceandofthepopularassemblyalloverRussia。
OurreviewoftheagreementsignedbytheprinceonhisaccessiontothethronehasalreadyreveaLedtoussomeofthefunctionsoftheveche。Questionsofwarandpeacewereregularlydecidedbyit。Nowarcouldbebegunbutwiththeconsentofthepeople，because，intheabsenceofaregulararmy，theprincecouldlevynootherforcebutthatofthemilitia。Treatiesofpeaceandalliancewerealsosignedinthenameoftheprinceandpeople，asmaybeseenfromthefollowingwordsusedinthetreatyofIgorwiththeByzantineempirein945；"ThistreatyhasbeenconcludedbytheGrandDukeofRussia，byallthedukeswhatsoeverandbyallthepeopleoftheRussianlands。"
Sometimes，itistrue，thedukedecidedongoingtowaragainstthewishofhispeople，butinsuchacasehehadtorelyexclusivelyonhisownmilitaryfollowers，hisso-called"drougina，"aninstitutionveryliketheoldGerman"comitatus"
（Geleit）。Aslongasthesystemoflanddonationsremainedunknown，andthedukehadnootherpropertytodistributeamonghisfollowersbutthattakenintimeofwar，thedrouginaorcomitatuswasfarfrombeingnumerous。Hencethedukewasforcedtoaskthevecheforassistancewheneverhethoughthimselfobligedtogotowar。Thevecheeitheragreedtohisdemandandorderedthelevyofmilitaryforces，orrefusedallhelp；inthelattercasethedukehadnootheralternativebuttoabandonhisprojectentirely，ortoresignhisthrone。Thecontrolinmattersofpeaceandwarwasmaintainedbythepeoplesolongasthedukehadnoothertroopsthanthemilitia。Butakindofregulararmyhadbeencreatedbytheendofthethirteenthcentury，owingtothecustomofrewardingmilitaryservicebygrantsofland。Theso-called"pomestnaia"system，whichwassimilartotheCarlovingiansystemof"benefices，"producedinRussiaeffectssimilartothoseproducedinFrance。Thepopularmilitiawassupersededbyasortoffeudalarmy，paidnotinmoneybutinland。Incaseofwarthedukewasnotsomuchinterestedinhavingtheacquiescenceofthepeopleasthatofthe"menofservice，"slougiliiliudi，whoconstitutedhismilitaryforce，andcorrespondedsomewhattotheknightsinFeudalEngland。Thischange，asweshallhereaftersee，hadagreatinfluenceonthefuturedestinyoftheRussianfolkmote。
Anotherfunctionofthefolkmote，whichappearstobepeculiartotheNorthernprincipalities，andespeciallytothoseofNovgorodandPscov，isthatoflegislation。ThatthelegislativefunctionsofthevechewereunknownintheSouthernprincipalitiesofRussiamaybeseenfromthefact，thatnomentionismadeoftheminthemostancientcodeofthecountry。
ThePravdaofJaroslavinitsdifferentversionsshowsnotraceoftheinterferenceofthepeopleinmattersoflegislation；itistheexclusiveworkofthedukeandhiscouncillors。ThefewamendmentsintroducedintothislegalcodeduringthefirstpartofthetwelfthcenturyhavealsonoothersourcebuttheexpressdesireofthedukesandthedecisionsoftheirDoumasorCouncils。
TheexerciseoflegislativepowerbythevechesofNovgorodandofPscov，atleastduringthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies，isillustratedbytwojudicialcharters，thoseof1397
andof1471，which，asisevidentfromtheircontents，weredrawnupbythepopularassembly。ThecharterofPscovplainlystatesinoneofitslaterversions（thatof1467whenevertheposadnik，thesupremejudgebythepeople，hastodecideacasetowhichnoexistinglawapplies，hemustconsulttheassemblyofthepeople。
Thesamevechehadtherighttoannuleveryarticleofthejudicialcharterwhichnolongermetwithitsapproval。Mentionofthisrightismadeinthecharteritself。
Astojudicialpowers，theyremainedunknownto。theWesternandSoutherntheveche，atleastinprincipalitiesofRussia，whichknewnootherjudgesthanthedukeandtheofficerswhomheappointed。Idonotalludetothosearbitratorstowhomprivatepersonsfrequentlyhadrecoursetosettletheirdifferences。
ButinNovgorod，thefactoftheelectionofthechiefjudge，theposadnik，byapopularvote，showsthatthepeoplewerenotindifferenttotheexerciseofjudicialpower。Appointedashewasbythefolkmote，theposadnikcouldbejudgedbynoothertribunalthanthefolkmoteitself。CasesofhightreasonwerealsoreferredtothepopularassemblyjustastheywereinPolandandBohemia。
WhathasbeenstatedestablishesbeyondadoubtthegreatextentoftherightsandprivilegesbelongingtothefolkmoteintheNorthernprincipalitiesofRussia。ThesamecannotbesaidofsomeWesternprincipalities，suchasthoseofVolhyniaandGalicia。TheexampleofPoland，wherethearistocracywasverypowerful，inducedtheboyarsofthosetwocountriestomakemorethanoneattempttoconcentrateintheirownhandsthechiefrightsofsovereignty。Thelargeestateswhichtheypossessedandtheconsiderablerevenues，whichtherichblacksoilofthecountryyearlysecuredtothem，greatlyfavouredtheiroligarchicalaspirations。In1210，theyseemtohaveattainedtheirends。ThedynastyofRurikhadceasedtoruleoverthecountry，andaboyar，amemberofthelocalaristocracy，hadbeenraisedtothethrone。Buthisruledidnotlastlong。Hiscontemporaries，theotherrulers，lookeduponhiselevationasillegal，andtheKingofPolandwasthefirsttodeclarethataboyarhadnorighttooccupyathrone。ToopposetheoligarchyoftheboyarsDukeDaniel，in1230，convenedthepopularassembly，thevecheandwiththehelpaffordedhimbypeople，foughtthearmyoftheboyarsandreducedthemtoobedience。Thisis，however，theonlycaseinwhichthevecheseemstohaveplayedanypartinthepoliticalhistoryofthecountry。Thepowerofthenoblespreventedanyfurtherdevelopmentinthatdirection，andwhentheprincipalitypassedintothehandsoftheKingofPoland，itwasalreadyundertheyokeofthearistocracy。
Nevertheless，evenunderPolishrule，thememoryoftheoldfolkmoteswaspreservedbythecountry。Documentsofthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturiessometimesmentiontheexistenceofthevecheasofalocalassemblywithveryconsiderableexecutiveandjudicialrights。
OfalltheprincipalitiesofRussiathoseoftheNorth-Eastseemfromthemostremotetimestohavebeenunfavourabletothegrowthofpopularassemblies。InthoseofSousdalandofRiasan，thedukesearlyfreedthemselvesfromthenecessityofelectionbythepeoplebyestablishingprimogenitureasthelawofsuccessiontothecrown。Thewayinwhichtheeldestsonwasadmittedtosucceedtothethronewasbyassociatinghim，duringhisfather’slifetime，intheexerciseofsovereignpowers。
VsevolodIIIwasthefirstprincewhobenefitedbysuchacourse。
Hesecuredthethronetohisdescendantsandthusannulledoneofthemostimportantrightsofthefolkmote，thatofchoosingtheruleroftheland。Itisnottobewonderedat，therefore，thatfromthemiddleofthethirteenthcenturynomentionismadeofthepopularassembliesofSousdal。