CC BY
30
V.A. Shekhovtsov*
ORIGIN OF THE DOMESTIC PARLIAMENT: FIRST STEPS
Abstract. This article analyzes two directions of the originating of national parliament: pre- parliamentary bodies of state power, their structure, forms of action and projects of creating a parliament in Tsarist Russia. Multistage, contradictory process of becoming domestic parliament covers the creation, organization of work — pre-parliamentary bodies of state power and the emergence and development of ideas of parliamentarism. Russian (Kiev) state formed in the IX century refers to the type of early feudal monarchy, it saves veche, people's assembly, as a part of state government. Veche — a meeting of plenipotentiary male city residents — was considered the highest legal authority in Novgorod, exercised legislative, executive and judicial functions. Other sovereigns (kniaz-power prince, vladyka-lord, posadnik-mayor and tysiatskiy- captain of the thousand) took authority and reported to Novgorod veche. The Boyar Duma is of great interest for investigating the first signs of origin of representative (legislative) authorities in Russia. Since the mid of XVI to the mid of XVII centuries the Boyar Duma activities was complemented by the Zemsky Sobors. With the beginning of the epoch of «Educated absolutism» of the Empress Catherine II the liberal ideas of the theory of separation of powers, the natural law, social contract etc. penetrate to Russia from the West. State authorities, pre-parlia-mentary forms of work, ideas of establishing a parliament in Russia were those springs, brooks, sources, the merger of which after centuries of evolution led to the creation of the Russian parliament, formation of the Russian parliamentarism.
Keywords: law, legislative process, State Duma, Zemsky Sobor, council code, sovereign, Parliament, draft Constitution, state power, bodies.
Multistage, contradictory process of forma- Russian (Kiev) state, formed in IX century, retion of the domestic parliament has been lates to the early feudal monarchy type and retains developed in two directions: creation, or- public meeting (veche) among national public au-ganization of work of the pre-parliament state au- thorities. It's interesting to note the etymologically thorities and the origin, development of the ideas the term «veche» (as well as parliament) derives of parliamentarism. The state was being created in from the word «to speak». In ancient Russia the difficult conditions: a huge territory, harsh climate, word «veche» also meant every meeting, talk, ne-low population density, the need to fight militancy gotiations, and not only popular meeting, popular neighbors. These and some other strong reasons Duma2.
caused the grand ducal (later royal, imperial) pow- In IX-XI centuries in Novgorodthere was formed er, reducing role of democratic principles and not a Republic. Novgorod had not experienced the full allowing limitation of its power. ducal power so typical for Russia. This created op-However, social traditions of the pre-state period portunities for the development of democratic of the development of Eastern-Slavic tribes confirm forms of governance, one of which was Novgorod the presence of the democratic tendencies. Byzan- veche. Basing on the analysis of great historic matine writer Procopius of Caesarea (VI century) noted terial there were successfully allocated its most that Slavic tribes are not controlled by one person, important powers: conclusion and termination of from ancient times they live in «people's rule», their the agreement with the kniaz (power prince); the entire life and legitimizations are the same1. election and dismissal of the posadniks (mayors),
1 See: Materials for the history of the ancient Slavs // Bulletin 2 See: S. Solovyov History of Russia from ancient times. Book. II. on ancient history. 1941. № 2 (14). P. 273. Vol. 3. M., 1988. P. 27.
© Shekhovtsov V.A., 2014
* Shekhovtsov Viktor Afanasievich — JD, professor of the Constitutional and Administrative law department, Far
Eastern Federal University.
[gos_i_adm-pravo@mail.ru]
690950, Primorsk Territory, Vladivostok, 25, Oktiabrskaya street.
1533
LEX RUSSïCA
Constitutional Law
tysyatskys (captains of the thousand), vladykas (lords); appointment of the Novgorod voivodes (warbosses), posadniks and voivodes of the province, control over the activities of kniaz, posadniks, tysyatskys, vladykas and other officials, legislation, exemplified by the Novgorod Sudnaya Gramota (Judicial Charter); foreign affairs, war and peace issues, trade relations with the West; legal and economic disposal of Novgorod land ownership, award of land; establishment of trade rules and benefits, establishment of the population duties and control over serving them, control over the judicial terms and execution of decisions, direct proceedings of court trials in cases agitating the whole city, providing court benefits3.
Text analysis of the regulatory act adopted by veche, Novgorod Judicial Charter, allows defining the role of veche and its correlation with the power of kniaz. It mentions all the elements of the political system of Novgorod: veche, posadniks, tysyatskys, Boyar council, vladyka, kniaz. Each official position has a certain place in the authority hierarchy. The power of kniaz is limited: «Without a posadnik you, kniaz, should not judge a case»; then the same with the other officials. Only veche is the body uniting everybody: «Posadniks, tysyatskys, boyars, ordinary people, merchants, rabble, all the five sides, all the Veliky Novgorod at the veche, at Yaroslavovo Dvorishche» take a decision4.
Veche, a meeting of rightful male residents of the city was legally considered the supreme authority in Novgorod. It implemented legislative, administrative and judicial functions; from Novgorod veche other power holders (kniaz, vladyka, posadnik and tysyatsky) took authority and reported to it. During the mentioned period Novgorod to a certain extent represented the prototype, an analogue of the parliamentary republic.
All free Novgorod residents, representatives of all social groups could be veche participants5. However, with the growth of wealth of feudal lords its pressure on the dependent social groups was growing, and aggravation of social contradictions required use of bribery, various forms of pressure, previous concert and lobbying the decisions made at the veche. Right are those historians who believe that veche was the highest authority only from the formal legal point of view. Real power in the city belonged to the Board generated from the boyars and senior officials of Novgorod administration: posadnik, tysyatsky, former posadniks tysyatskys, headmen of the city ends. This body was headed by the vladyka.
3 See Martyshin O. Free Novgorod. Social and political system and feudal republic law. M., 1992. P. 175-176.
4 Novgorod Judicial Charter // Russian legislation X-XX centuries. Vol. 1. M., 1984. P. 304.
5 See Shumilov I. Veliky Novgorod: specificity of social, eco-
nomic and legal status of the Republic city // History of State and
Law. 2012. № 17. P. 24.
Democracy, veche, state independence of Novgorod were lost on December 14, 1477, when Novgorod was forced to accept the ultimatum of Ivan III troops standing on the outskirts of Moscow6.
To investigate the origin of the first signs of representative (legislative) authorities in Russia the Boyar Duma is of interest along with the veche. In X century the Boyar Duma included two groups of kniaz advisers: boyars, higher service people, and elders of land (land boyars). In XI century service boyars and land boyars merged. Boyar Duma usually was composed of «those who were well up in the parsed question, that is by the Commission of two to five people. Only in especially important cases the presence of all members of the Duma was required»7.
Rights of the Boyar Duma were not determined in any legal act but were regulated by custom rules. However in the Law Books of 1497 and 1550 and in the text of the Council Code of 1649 there are some regulations that allow to judge about the extent of powers of the Boyar Duma and its place in the system of public authorities of the Russian state. It was in the Law Book of 1550 where it was negotiated the Boyar Duma participation in the legislative process: «And the new deals, and deals not written in this Law Book, as well as the deals reported to the tsar and deals decided by all the boyars in this Law Book should be described». (Article 98). Any law was discussed in the Boyar Duma and its enforcement was sanctioned by the tsar.
On its social composition Boyar Duma was a relatively narrow corporation which included not all the representatives of the ruling class. Wherein the composition of the Boyar Duma was not representative in current understanding, as its formation, especially in the later stages of development, was carried out with appointments of the tsar.
At certain moments of history the Boyar Duma had a decisive influence on the course of events. For example, the role of the Duma increased after the death of Basil III, when the young Ivan IV and the Dowager Grand Duchess Elena could not have serious influence on public affairs. The power concentrated in the Boyar Duma, some conditions for the sharpest conflict with the grand authority appeared. In the beginning of XVII century in the Time of Troubles the Duma's role increased again, boyars in the absence of the monarch decided the most important state issues.
But in most cases the Boyar Duma was a dependent, accessorial institution, with the certain advisory functions of the sovereign. While increasing the power of the tsar in the class-representative monarchy the value of the collegial body — Boyar
6 See: Petrov A. Novgorod Veche // History of Russia: people and power. SPb., 1997. P. 95-132.
7 Shtamm S. Law Book of 1497. M., 1955. P. 13.
1534
№ 12 (TOM XCVII) ^EKABPb 2014
Duma — was falling, it was gradually transforming into a patriarchal outdated institution and was abolished under Peter I.
Often the meeting of the Boyar Duma smoothly passed in the meetings where elected, «advisory» people, representatives of lands were attracted to participate. In the most important cases of the public life from mid XVI to mid XVII centuries the Boyar Duma activities were complemented by Zemsky So-bor (Assembly of the Land), which temporarily had the same meaning for supreme, royal power that the Boyar Duma had permanently. However council activities in the first half of the XVII century were constant as well.
Zemsky Sobors are in the connection with the veche both theoretically (participation of the people in the power) and actually (Sobors are sometimes replaced by the veche reigning in Moscow), but are not made with it due to the historical sequence; on their composition veche and Sobors are of opposite phenomena. In the historical sequence Sobors of the Moscow State are in close relation to the Boyar Duma in its common lineup.
The reason of appearance of the Zemsky Sobor «was the tradition of participation of the people in the legislature and management going from the veche»8, needs of authorities to know the situation in the country, the aim to get support of representatives of the people.
It is necessary to distinguish the concept of «sobor» as an assembly, meeting organizational form of work, and «Sobor» as the highest lawmaking institution, representative boby of the public authority that most often referred to as «the Zemsky Sobor». Famous Scientists also used the following names: N. Karamzin — Veliky Sobor, «Land Duma», State Sobor9; S. Solovyov — Zemsky Sovet (Land Council)10; S. Pushkarev — Codified Council (Sobor that adopted the Council Code of 1649)11 and other names.
Zemsky Sobors had a special place within the Government. They were composed of the Boyar Duma, Consecrated Sobor (church hierarchy) and elected representatives of the lands, nobility and trading quarters.
Having convened the first Zemsky Sobor on February 27 of 1549 Ivan the Terrible aimed to weaken the authorities of boyars and to increase the power of the tsar. In formal legal sense Sobor pursued the goal of «social reconciliation» in conditions of instability caused by the boyar revolt. The tsar called
8 Fadeev V., Varlen M. Parliamentary mandate in the Russian Federation: the constitutional and legal framework. M., 2008. P. 138.
9 See: Karamzin M. History of the Russian State. Book. 4. Vol. 10. M., 1997. P. 112-113.
10 See: S. Solovyov. Readings and stories on the history of Russia. M., 1990. P. 105.
11 See: S. Pushkarev. Overview of the Russian history. M.,
1991. P. 170.
«elected people of every rank and wealth» and made a speech on the Red Square on the place of execution, he asked people to forget lies of boyars and promised to be the judge and the defense «by himself». Probably it was only the opening act of the Zemsky Sobor, which was then engaged in a discussion of the inferior matters of the state and pre-approved the contents of the Book of Laws 1550 (after that in 1550-1552 a series of large reforms and legislation followed). The meeting on the square indicates a close communication of first Sobors with the veche form.
In November 1612, at the end of Disturbances, the interim government invited the elected people from all parts of the state (including Siberia), «strong and reasonable people, as they are well-beseen». They arrived in early 1613 and after a long debate elected Mikhail Romanov as the tsar. Thereafter Zemsky Sobor continued sitting and participating in all important matters of the state in 1613-161512. This Sobor may be called «the Great» on the importance of decisions and durability of its meetings, and representatives of the «county» people, i.e. peasants participated in it. On the Election letter of the tsar there are 255 signatures, including signatures of the elected representatives of 39 cities.
In the early years of the reign of Mikhail Romanov Zemsky Sobor was a regular feature of the power; this allowed some researchers to talk about the action of peculiar sessions of three years: 16131615, 1616-1619 and 1619-1622. Still, one should not exaggerate importance of the Zemsky Sobors, as they have always been lawmaking authorities in the sovereign.
The tsar and the Boyar Duma voluntarily resigned with some self-restraint, gaining an undoubted benefit for themselves. Analysis of issues discussed at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613-1619 shows that the council of elected people from different cities and regions of Moscow State was necessary first of all for making unpopular decisions.
To characterize the role of Sobors as legislative, representative bodies it's necessary to give the fundamental importance to Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649. Its famous decision Ulozhenie of 1649 in literature is often called Code. It's difficult to overestimate the importance of this act for the development of the Russian law. For the first time in the history of Russia the systematic law was printed in of 2,000 copies and distributed across the state.
The bill was being prepared by a special commission, the members of Sobor, «in chambers» (social classes). They discussed it entirely and in parts. In the process of finalizing «there were added several articles, formulated on the basis of petitions that
12 See: Zenin S. The role and importance of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 // History of State and Law. 2013. № 3. P. 12.
1535
arrived at the Sobor during its work»13. The material was summarized in 25 chapters, comprising 967 articles. On its content Ulozhenie of 1649 is a «diversified normative act, which includes regulations of state law, judiciary, substantive law, criminal law, criminal procedure and statutory law»14.
This important piece of legislation became the first printed record of Russian law, getting familiar with its rules in some extent contributed to the achievement of results in the confrontation with mandative clerks, then the only type of lawyers. Abuse of voivodes, boyars and clerks did not disappear, but anyway their positions were somewhat weakened.
Zemsky Sobors are representative institutions, that's where their composition differs fromof ancient veche and the composition of the Boyar Duma. However, Zemsky Sobor is not only the representative assembly. Just as veche was a public administration body (people power element included kniaz and Duma), Zemsky Sobor includes tsar and the Boyar Duma. Common body, the Sobor, was not an element of power opposite to the power of tsar and the Duma. Tsar, members of the Boyar Duma, the higher clergy composed the upper chamber of the Sobor, whose members were not elected but were involved therein in accordance with the occupied position in the state. The second integral part of representatives can be called a lower chamber of Zemsky Sobor. Representation could be exercised without any election: streltsys were represented by their heads and sotniks, the representatives of the Black Hundereds and suburbs were their elders and heads.
The importance of Sobors was in the right to supply the sobor petitions, applications, which were to some extent the right of legislative initiative (submission of draft laws), and the right of monitoring the activities of government and local authorities.
Ivan the Terrible reforms were carried taking into account the statements of the Zemsky Sobor in 1550, the idea of the preparation and adoption of Ulozhenie (Law Code) is also happened by demand of the Sobor.
Strengthening of the royal power, the lack of Russian social and economic basis for the formation of strong opposition, the establishment of the absolute monarchy in the late XVII — beginning of the XVIII century led to the fact that after January 12, 1682 (the date of the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and abolishing localism), Sobors in Russia were no longer held. A characteristic feature of the absolute monarchy in Russia has become such a form of structure of the state in which all
13 History of national State and Law / Ed. by I. Isaev. M., 2012. P. 94-95.
14 Sitnikov A. Ulozhenie of 1649 as a lawmaking legal record // History of State and Law. 2010. № 22. P. 24-26.
Constitutional Law
powers — legislative, executive and judicial — belonged to the tsar (since 1721 — the emperor). During more than two centuries, until 1906 there was no nationwide representative, legislative state power even with limited rights. But history shows, the analysis of the practice shows that certain elements of Zemsky Sobor structure, organizational forms of work, procedural rules (part of the experience gained from Zemsky Sobor, veche assembly and even the Boyar Duma) were used subsequently in the process of creation, organization of the royal State Duma, Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the RSFSR. In the organization and operation of the modern Russian parliament — the Federal Assembly of the RF — some roots going into depth of the national history are also visible.
The unlimited power of the Russian monarch, arbitrariness engendered the discontent of representatives of various oppositional social groups, called the intention to limit the power of the monarch, including legislative area.
Some historians associate the start of establishment of absolutism in Russia with Ivan the Terrible time of reign. It was during this period when appeared the first draft of restrictions of the power of tsar, written by his former collaborator, prince A. Kurbski.
According to the prince, a limited monarchy is the best variant of organization of the state authorities. Elective class- representative body acts as a form limiting the power of the tsar, the inverse image of the future parliament having legislative powers.
Since the beginning of the era of «enlightened absolutism» of the Empress Catherine II liberal ideas, theories of separation of powers, the natural law, ideas of public contract etc. penetrate to Russia from the West. Count N. Panin drafted a new state structure of the country, the doctrine of "legitimate monarchy". Its main provisions were set forth in the «Mandate of the Commission about writing a new Code». It was supposed to edit constitutional foundations of the state and social system and thus limit the imperial power.
The ideas of Moscow University professor S. Desnitskiy are of great interest. In February 1768 he sent to Catherine II «Presentation of establishing legislative, judicial and penal power in the Russian Empire» which expressed his views on the state structure different from the ideas of the «Mandate».
Supporter of the constitutional monarchy S. Desnitsky noted that «in the Russian Empire, nobody in the full sense can have the legislative power except monarchs» but there must be a governmental Senate near the monarch, which «is allowed to make new orders, to correct old orders, amend or delete them as the monarch's purpose
1536
№ 12 (TOM XCVII) ^EKABPb 2014
and need requires». Desnitsky also endowed Senate the right to set taxes, implement control over costs, administrative activities and judicial institutions of the country, «to continue wars and observe concluding of treaties with neighboring countries, so that they were not improper for the fatherland». Professor S. Desnitsky believed that «The legislative power comes higher than all the others», he offered to make the Senate as highest court. The Senate must be elected and consist of 600 or 800 members elected on the basis of property qualifications and not on caste basis.
Each guberniya, province, cast must have «a representative, an intercessor and an advocate in the legislature power...». Senators are elected for five years, but in the aggregate not more than for three terms. Substantially «Presentation» of S. Desnitskiy is one of the first world history projects establishing national representative legislature — Parliament.
Interesting proposals for reformingof the state power in Russia belong toM. Speranskiy. In early 0ctober1809 he completed the work on the «Introduction to the codifying of the state laws» or, as the author himself called it, «the plan of universal public education». The basis of the reform was the principle of separation of powers. M. Sperans-kiy proceeded from the fact that it is impossibleto establish the ruling based on the law if the same power will both make laws and implement them. Therefore, he proposed to concentrate legislative power in the hands of the State Duma, impose the executive power on the Government Senate, ministries, and give the judicial power- to the Judiciary Senate.
The project was proposed to involve the population (basing on the property qualifications) to participate in the executive, legislative and judicial power through the four-stage election system15. Monarch had the status of the head of states, without his sanction none of the branches of government could act. It was supposed to establish the State Council — an advisory authority under the emperor, which would coordinate the activities of the legislative and executive power. «In order of state establishments» — M. Speranskiy wrote in the «Introduction to the codifying of the state laws — the Council is an organ where all the powers: legislative, judicial and executive are connected and go through it to the supreme power and pour out from there»16. Members of the State Council had not to be elected but appointed by the emperor. All the prepared laws beforehand are considered in the Council of State, and then are approved by the sovereign.
Next, again unsuccessful, attempt to change the system of state authorities in Russia is associated with the activities of Decembrists. The
See: Chibiryaev S. The great Russian reformer. M., 1993. P. 78-90. Speranskiy M. Projects and notes. M., 1961. P. 217.
draft constitution of N. Muraviov and «Russian truth» of P. Pestel offered two solutions of the organization and activity of the representative, legislative body of the Russian state power. These two projects differed in the principle question — form of government. Constitution of N. Muraviov was reinforcing the constitutional monarchy and «Russian truth» of P. Pestel — the republic. However, these documents have much in common: both projects are based on the federal principle of organization of the state, declare people as a source of power, set the principle of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Issues of organization and activity of legislative authorities in more details are specified in N. Mu-raviov's draft Constitution. According to Art. 59 of the Constitution legislative power belongs to the People veche, consisting of two houses: the Supreme Duma and the House of People's Representatives. Houses differ in methods of forming, allowing separate them into upper and lower ones. Supreme Duma has significantly more rights compared to the House of People's representatives: it has the right of trial of ministers, supreme court justices and other dignitaries (Art. 77). House of People's Representatives is composed of 450 people elected by the people directly from 15 provinces of Russia on the basis of one representative from 50 000 voters (Art. 60, 69). Unlike it, Duma being smaller in size, is composed of the representatives elected by the governmental estates of areas and regions.
The draft Constitution describes in detail the procedure for adoption of laws. A bill must pass the procedure of three readings in both houses. Each reading finishes with «Reasoning» longing for at least three days.
A bill passed through the People's veche, was submitted to the emperor. After its approval, expressed in the signature, it becomes law (Article 89). In case of disapproval of the emperor the project returns with his comments. The draft constitution provides for measures to overcome the traditional Russian bureaucracy: if the emperor does not sign and does not return a bill, after ten days it becomes law (Article 90).
The emperor is granted the right to a suspensive veto (the ban), which is relatively easily to overcome: in the Upper House by two-thirds of votes, in the House of People's representatives to overcome a veto half of the votes is enough (Article 89).
Veto of one of the Houses is more difficult to overcome: if the bill is rejected by one of the chambers of the People's veche, the reconsideration is held then at the next convention (Article 91). It is necessary to note that the draft Constitution does not specify how often congresses are to be held, whether the legislature is constantly current or if
1537
15
it convenes periodically. As a general rule, meetings of the People's veche are public (Article 81), but on the suggestion of the Emperor, it is entitled to hold a private meeting. The Supreme Duma together with the Emperor is involved in the conclusion of peace, appointment of upper court judges, appointment of commanders in Chief and other military officials.
Muraviov's draft constitution is a mature document providing system of checks and balances to ensure the real separation of powers. Despite some shortcomings, the Draft Constitution is generally characterized by high levels of legal technique; it incorporated the ideas of Russian liberalism and the same level of democracy development in Europe at the beginning of the XIX century. This project provides a real part of national representation in the legislative process, and in spite of retaining the imperial power, it was the first time of establishing the balance of powers, and even certain dominance of the representative, legislative public authority.
Due to the fact that in two saved editions of the «Russian Truth» text there is no Sec. VI, which contained ideas of organization of the supreme power, scientists have been forced to restrict themselves with the analysis of the constitutional state covenant prepared by P. Pestel in 1823.
All legislative power in Russia, according to the Section 9 of this document, «is acquired» in People's vecha (in spite of the Russian tradition this body in Pestel's documents is referred to in the feminine gender). Unlike Muraviov's project People's vecha of Pestel has the unicameral structure and consists of People's Representatives elected for a term of five years. One-fifth of the People's vecha rotates annually. In the document it is emphasized: «No one can dissolve the People's vecha. It represents the will of the state, soul of the people»17.
The first constitution of the centuries-old Russian history was called «Statutory Diploma of the Russian Empire». Its project was completed in 1820 having many conservative provisions for that time. It's sufficient to say that in the draft Russian constitution the fundamental principle of all the European constitutions — sovereignty of people, recognition of it as a source of the state power — was replaced by sovereignty of the imperial power:
Constitutional Law
«The Emperor is the source of all the powers: civil, political, legislative and military». (Art. 12).
The constitution proclaimed the establishment of the body that was fundamentally new for Russia and inherently bourgeois — bicameralParliament, without consideration and approval of which the monarch could not utter a single law.
Legislative initiative belonged only to the emperor, he also was declared the chief executive («Sovereign is the supreme head of the general management of the Empire»). An essential innovation was a federative structure of the country which was provided by the constitution. The country was divided into so-called «vicegerencies» where there were also created bicameral parliaments. Governor appointed by the tsar together with the Parliament exercised his full power in the «vicegerency».18
As you know, Alexander I refused the constitution. Powerful resistance of overwhelming majority of the nobility prevented the implementation of the identified reforms. During this period of time in Russia it was not possible to adopt a constitution evolutionary, create the parliament and install a parliamentary system.
After the 20-year stubborn denial of the idea of public representation Alexander II the Emperor was ready to adopt the draft constitution.
At a special meeting in February 1881 all the preparations made by M. Loris-Melikov and his ideas about «to fasten the charity link between the government forces and the best society powers» were approved. On the first page of the record of the Meeting Alexander II with his hand inscribed: «To execute. St. Petersburg. February 17, 1881». Then the draft had to be discussed in the Council of Ministers. Despite the limitations of this project it was a completion of the reforms that were initiated due to the abolition of the serfdom and provided for the establishment of the Russian parliament. After the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 a reaction came for a long time. Counterreforms of 80 — early 90 -ies turned to be even one more obstacle for the outlined democratization of Russian political system.
Considered bodies of the governmental power, pre-parliamentary forms of work, ideas of establishing a parliament in Russia were those springs, streams, sources, merge of which after centuries of evolution led to the creation of the Russian parliament, formation of the Russian parliamentarism.
References:
1. Documents on the history of the Decembrist revolt. Vol. VII. — M., 1958.
2. Zenin S. The role and importance of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 // History of State and Law. — 2013. — № 3.
3. History of State and Law / Ed. by I. Isaev. — M., 2012.
1538
17 Documents on the history of the Decembrist revolt. Vol. VII. 18 See: Parliamentary Law of Russia / Ed. By A. Kokotov. Ekat-M., 1958. P. 214-215. erinburg, 2008. P. 52-58.
№ 12 (Том XCVII) ДЕКАБРЬ 2014
4. Karamzin M. History of the Russian State. Book. 4 . Vol. 10. — M., 1997.
5. Mankov A. Ulozhenie of 1649 — Code of the Federal Regulations Russia . — Leningrad, 1980.
6. Martyshin O. Free Novgorod . Social and political system and feudal republic law. — M., 1992.
7. Materials for the history of the ancient Slavs // Journal of Ancient History . — 1941. — № 2 (14).
8. Russian parliamentary law / Ed. by A. Kokotov. — Ekaterinburg, 2008.
9. Petrov A. Novgorod veche / History of Russia: people and power. — SPb., 1997.
10. Pushkarev S. Overview of the Russian history. — M., 1991.
11. Sitnikov A. Ulozhenie of 1649 as a statutory monument // History of State and Law. — 2010. — № 22.
12. Solovyov S. Rreadings and stories on the history of Russia. — M., 1990.
13. Speranskiy M. Projects and notes. — M., 1961.
14. Solovyov S. History of Russia since ancient times. Book I. Vol. 3 — M., 1988.
15. Fadeev V., Varlin M. Parliamentary mandate in the Russian Federation: constitutional and legal basics. — M., 2008.
16. Chibiryaev S. The great Russian reformer. — M., 1993.
17. Stamm S. Book of Law of 1497 — M., 1955
18. Shumilov I. Veliky Novgorod: specific of social, economic and legal status of the republican city // History of State and Law. — 2012. — № 17.
Перевод И.А. Мартыненко,
преп. кафедры английского языка № 2 Университета имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)
1539
