307 in the various prikazy were to adjudicate the cases before them according to a single book of laws. But this attempt to create a common legal system for the entire realm also failed to produce any results.^^ Instead, it was the collegial reform that finally provided the Russian legal establishment with a uniform and systematic organization. This reform, as we shall see below, was based on the Swedish system’s distinction between administrative and judicial functions. According to the plans, therefore, the administration of justice was to be separated from the administrative institutions of the realm. A central department, the iustits-kollegiia, or college of justice, was organized to deal with “all sorts of justice in all types of cases” (“vsiakii sud vo vsekh delakh”) and to have jurisdiction throughout the country.'^ Seven prikazy, the Pomestnyi prikaz (service estates chancellery), Sysknoi prikaz (investigatory chancellery), Zcmskii prikaz (provincial chancellery), and four judicial prikazy were absorbed by the new iustits-kollegiia, while the other prikazy with judicial functions were abolished. The one exception to this reform was the Preobrazhenskii prikaz, which continued to Investigate and adjudicate political crimes.^® The projected court system was to be organized in a hierarchical manner and was to be independent of the administrative organs, while, in the legislative arena, a third attempt was made to create a uniform legal system for the entire realm. A commission was appointed in 1720 to draft a Russian legal code along the lines of the Swedish and Danish codes, in particular. Reforms designed to give trials a uniform and detailed regulation were Introduced in the area of procedural law in order to eliminate the arbitrariness and unpredictability that had characterized the administration of justice by the prikazy. It was thought that these legislative measures would enable the regime to gain the control over the administration of justice that was necessary for political reasons. As has been mentioned earlier in this study, the Svea Court of Appeals {Svea hovrätt) in Stockholm was the Swedish institution which served as the organizational model for the Russian iustits-kollegiia during the initial stages of the collegial reform. At least one recent treatment of this question, however, has rejected this comparison; Ellinor von Puttkamer has argued that “ein Vergleich des ‘Justizkollegiums’ Peters mit dem ‘Hofgericht’ Schwedens scheint mlr verfehlt, da in Schweden die Trennung zwischen Justiz und Verwaltung zu dleser Zeit bereits wesentlich welter fortgeschritten war als in Russland.” It is, of course, correct to say that *•' Latkin, 18—20. 1-* SIRIO, XI, 361. ZA (no. 387), 382; Amburger, 116—117. Ellinor von Puttkamer, “Einfliisse schwcdischen Rechts auf die Reformen
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=