376 proposals and that the instructions for the berg-kollegiia thus were drawn up principally on the basis of some other materials. Because of the fragmentary nature of the available source materials, it is impossible to say what sources might have been used by the authors of the Russian instructions. But it is possible that one of these sources was the Swedish generalhcrgsprivilegium of 1649, which, like the berg-privilegiia, was a more general document concerning economic policy. A comparison of the texts of the two legislative acts, the Swedish one from 1649 and the Russian one from 1719, does indeed support this idea. In addition to the fact that the berg-privilegiia stated the principles expressed by the Swedish generalbergsprivilegium, it is possible to observe verbal parallels which can hardly have been coincidental. A couple of excerpts may serve to illustrate this. The two documents open with the following description of the situation in the mining industry and the reasons for that situation: Swedish generalbergsprivilegium We Christina, etc., make known that since our dear Fatherland and Realm, (which, thank God) is richly blessed with many fine and beautiful metals, which great gifts of His Divine Majesty, to his honor, to Our benefit, and to that of the Crown, and to the growth and betterment of Our Subjects, it is both necessary and just to mine and cultivate: Thus, We in Our Reign, as former Praiseworthy Kings have been inclined to do, have also been concerned to the utmost over how the mines which already exist may continue as they are in the best manner and how more may be found, set into operation, and brought into their right essence. But while many such have been revealed and found, for the most part they remain silent and hidden, partly for the stubbornness and fear of new Russian berg-privilegiia Compared with many other lands. Our Russian Realm is blessed with large quantities of both necessary metals and minerals, which have not hitherto been sought with any diligence; since they have not been made use of as they should have been, much good and many profits, which could have been derived from them for Us and Our subjects, have been neglected. We acknowledge that the main reason for this neglect has partly been that Our subjects have not understood mining affairs and what can be done with them for the benefit of the state and the people, and partly also that they have not wished to take the risk and invest money and work, fearing that once these mining works are established and there are good profits from them, they will be taken away from their owners. See above, p. 82, for what has been said about von Luberas’ participation in the reforms. Nor is it likely, as Miliukov assumes, that von Luberas influenced the work in the berg- i manufaktur-kollegiia to a very great extent, since he was a sick man and often absent from his post. There was a report from that college in 1722 to the effect that von Luberas was a “clever and knowledgeable man, but constantly ill, and for that, his illness, he is in the college very seldom, and (earlier) he was ordered by an ukaz to go to Moscow, but because of his illness he did not go to Moscow, cither”; see Baburin, 58. Generalbergsprivilegiiim (Stockholm, July 6, 1649). ®' TsGADA, f. 9 otdelenie 1 delo 53 1. 188 a.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=