330 to the tsar in September 1719. In this second complaint, the iustits-kollegiia requested that, “in future, the final distribution of these cases (should be decided) according to an ukaz {immennoi ukaz), that is, which matters are to belong where, so the college shall know, in accordance with His Majesty’s decision, which of these matters the college is to deal with and which it is not to deal with, and so that thereby the previous disorders shall cease.” As far as it is possible to determine, the mstits-kollegiia was unsuccessful, at least for the time being, in its efforts to obtain a decision from the tsar in its favor. In 1722, Peter published an ukaz which went into more detail in defining the jurisdiction of the Preobrazhenskii prikaz. As had been the case earlier, political crimes were to constitute its principal area of concern, just as the guards regiments were to continue to serve under its supervision. To an extent, disturbances in St. Petersburg and Moscow were also to be investigated by the Preobrazhenskii prikaz, and the ukaz closed by stating that “the prikaz shall never receive any other (business) except that listed above, so that no confusion {komfuziia) shall be caused in the established order {polozhennyi reglament). The Preobrazhenskii prikaz was a very important instrument for the absolutist government, and the tsar could not allow its position to be questioned by the iustits-kollegiia. Not even the Senate could demand that the Preobrazhenskii prikaz relinquish any documents or cases to another administrative organ, for such an action required the personal sanction of the tsar.^”^ This prikaz and its chief. Prince I. F. Romodanovskii, were very close to Tsar Peter. An important change was made in the organization of the iustitskollegiia in 1722, when all cases and matters concerning the landholdings of the nobility, that is, those matters previously dealt with by the Pomestnyi prikaz, were transferred fromits jurisdiction to that of an entirely new college, the so-called votchinnaia kollegiia, or college of hereditary lands.In spite of the fact that the responsibilities of the iustits-kollegiia were thereby curtailed in certain respects, it still retained a leading position in the state apparatus during the reign of Peter the Great. No court system such as that planned according to Swedish models was 2A (no. 384), 381. '«■ ZA (no. 307), 254. N. B. Golikova, “Organy politicheskogo syska i ikh razvitic v XVII—XVIII vv.,” in N. M. Druzhinin, et al., cds., Absoliutizm v Rossii (XVII—XVIII vv.) Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia i 40-letiiu nauchnoi i pcdagogichcskoi de'uUel'nosti B. B. Kafengauza (Moscow, 1964), 254—255. PSZ, VI, no. 3,881, p. 481; see ZA (no. 297), 247. William Slany, “Russian Central Governmental Institutions, 1725—1741" (Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University 1958), 218. ’’ 107 110 1U6 108 109 110
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=