324 for this reason there should be a separate court of appeals in St. Petersburg in addition to the iustits-kollegiia.’^^ “His Tsarist Majesty’s Explanation and Ukaz {Ob^iavlenie i ukaz) to the People, Concerning the Manner in which Parties to a Dispute (chelobitchiki) are to Proceed Beginning with the Coming Year, 1719” was finally promulgated on December 19, 1718. This ukaz, which was based entirely on Matveev’s proposal, included an introductory explanation of the utility of the thorough reform of the local administration. Referring to the successful reforms within the military, an attempt was made to justify and legitimize the changes in the administrative apparatus in the following manner: However, His Majesty has, in spite of his unendurable efforts in this heavy war, which have not only involved fighting the war, but also teaching the people how to do it, been forced to draw up a military code {prava i ustav voinskie), and he has with the help of God brought this into such good order that it is known to all how the military nowadays is in comparison with the earlier forces and what fruits it has born. Now that this is done. His Majesty shows his goodwill toward the people, and he does not want the just administration of the provinces to be neglected, but takes pains to see that this, too, shall be brought into as good order as the military. The real motive, however, was to reinforce the power of the absolutist state through a systematic administrative reform in the provinces of the realm. The establishment of a systematic, and thereby effective, apparatus for the collection of taxes, together with the requisite judicial and executive system, was to guarantee the maintenance of the military forces and the civil administration. The final edition of this ukaz was, according to Voskresenskii’s collection, the sixth.®^ The texts of the various versions show that the tsar himself edited the emerging legislation to a great extent. By comparing the various versions of the drafts with one another it is possible to see how the court system proposed by the iustits-kollegiia was altered after Pick presented his memorandum on the courts in Sweden. One notes that the important changes concerning the judicial hierarchy and the position of the iustits-kollegiia were made in the fifth edition. When we look at the relevant parts of the first and fifth editions, together with the final text of the ukaz, the following picture emerges (the italics in English indicate Peter’s own additions): Ibid., loc.cit. s* ZA (no. 381), 377—379. Ibid., loc. cit.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=