expression in 1626； when on the demand of English merchants to be
allowed to trade with Persia； the members of the guild of guests
and the Moscow merchants insisted on the necessity of upholding
the monopoly which the Moscovite tradesmen enjoyed in going to
Astrachan to buy Persian goods。 The majority of the merchants
declared themselves unable to compete with foreign merchants； and
even the minority were of opinion that if free trade were
permitted to English traders in return for large payments made by
them to the crown； this liberty ought not to be extended to the
traffic in Russian commodities。 Half a century later； in 1667；
the same Moscovite merchants； consulted by Alexis； stoutly
opposed the demand of Armenian merchants for free trade in
Persian commodities； and begged the Government not to endanger
their own trade by foreign competition。 Ten years later the
Moscow tradesmen； together with the delegates of the black
hundreds and villages； were called together to give their opinion
as to the causes which tended to raise the price of corn。 They
complained of engrossers and asked that their practices might be
forbidden in future。 They also spoke of the great damage
agriculture had sustained through recent wars。 The increase in
the number of distilleries was also mentioned as one of the
principal reasons for the dearness of corn。
In 1681…2 the 〃men of service〃 were convened together with
the Douma to reform the military administration。 it was this
memorable Assembly which abolished the old custom of appointing
men to the chief posts in the army； not according to their
personal merit； but to the rank of their family； and the length
of time it had served the State； and which also ordered the
heraldic books to be burnt。
The last instances we have of the convening of the Russian
Sobors belong to the period of Eternal trouble which followed the
death of the Czar Theodore。 In 1682 a Sobor to which the
inhabitants of Moscow alone were summoned； pronounced itself in
favour of the occupation of the vacant throne by the youngest son
of Alexis； the future emperor； Peter the Great。 A new Assembly；
which in its composition answered even less than its predecessor
to the idea of a general representative council； was convoked a
few months later by the party that favoured the political designs
of the Princess Sophia； sister to Peter the Great。 It insisted on
the division of the sovereign power between the two brothers of
Theodore； Peter and John。 Princess Sophia became from that time
the real ruler of the empire。 Again Moscow alone was represented
though the Acts speak of the presence of delegates from all the
provinces and cities of the empire。
It was in 1698 that the Sobor was convoked for the last time。
It was called together to pronounce judgment on the Princess
Sophia who； during the absence of Peter the Great in the Western
States of Europe； had tried by the help of the strelzi （a kind of
Life…Guards） to seat herself on the Russian throne。 The only
contemporary writer who mentions this Assembly is a German of the
name of Korb； who was secretary of the German Legation。 According
to him the young monarch insisted on this occasion on the
presence of two delegates from each of the Estates； beginning
with the highest and ending with the lowest。 Unfortunately no
information has come down to us as to the decision arrived at by
this quasi…general representative body of the Russian people。
One fact especially merits our attention： The Sobors were
never abolished by law。 They simply ceased to exist just as did
the States…General of France from the beginning of the
seventeenth （1613） to the end of the eighteenth century。 No legal
act； therefore； lies in the way of a new convocation of the
representatives of the empire。 Should the present Emperor convoke
them； in so doing he would be in perfect accord with the first
founders of his dynasty； and also with the promises contained in
the Magna Charta of the first Romanov。
Turning from the political history of the old Russian
Parliaments； we will now consider their internal constitution。 As
we have seen； the seventeenth century introduced a complete
change in their composition。 During the reign of Ivan the
Terrible the administrative and military classes had alone been
represented； from the time of the interregnum they became
meetings of delegates from all the different Estates。 The
following were the classes of the people who were represented：
the superior clergy； the higher nobility； the lower clergy； and
the lower nobility； or what is the same thing the ministerial or
knightly class as they were called at that time； the three Guilds
of Moscovite merchants； the citizens of the different urban
districts and； on two different occasions； in 1614 and 1682； the
black hundreds and villages； which meant in the technical
language of the time； the peasants established on the lands of
the State。 Serfs； and persons who had lost their personal liberty
on account of debts or any other reason； were never admitted to
the right of representation。 The army was very often represented
by delegates from the regular regiments； such as the strelzi； and
some irregular troops； the Cossacks for instance。 The large
extent of the Russian dominions and the consequent remoteness of
certain places from the metropolis； was a natural barrier to the
appearance of certain delegates at the Sobor。 It was for this
reason that the cities of Siberia remained without
representation。 Other places less remote got exemption from the
duty of choosing delegates on account of the bad state of the
roads and the difficulty and even danger connected with
travelling。 Some few considered it a great burden； on account of
the expense of the journey and the maintenance of the delegates。
In this they acted like those mediaeval English cities and
boroughs； which under the Plantagenets did their best to shirk
the duty of representation。 The number of persons sent by each
electoral circuit was not strictly fixed。 Generally the writs of
summons speak of two or three delegates。
The electoral district was； as a rule； the city and its
outlying parts。 Larger cities； as Novgorod； constituted by
themselves several districts； in Novgorod there were no less than
five such districts。 The Metropolis （Moscow） was largely
represented by delegates from the lower nobility； by those of the
three classes of Moscovite traders and the representatives of the
black hundreds and villages。
The writs of summons were addressed to the voivodes； or
Governors of provinces； and to the goubnii starosti； or elective
district heads。
To give you a clear notion of the mode in which the elections
were managed； I will translate one of these writs。 The writ in
question was issued on the 9th of September； 7128； counting from
the beginning of the world （that is the year 1619）： 〃In the name
of the Czar Michael； the voivode of Oustujna； named Boutourlin；
is ordered to elect among the clergy； one man or two； and from
the nobility （the sons of boyars） two persons； and two more from
the inhabitants of the urban district （posadskii liudi）。 The
persons must be well…to…do and intelligent； capable of narrating
the wrongs they have sustained； and the oppression and
destruction which they have suffered。 The election rolls must be
sent by the voivode to Moscow； and should be received not later
than on St。 Nicholas's day。〃
The voivode； or goubuoi starosta； as soon； as the writ was in
his hands； summoned the electors and ordered them to proceed to
the nomination of their delegates。 Each estate or order acted
separately。 In answer to the writs they had received； the
voivodes sent in a detailed account of the election proceedings。
Several of these very interesting documents have been found in
the archives of the Ministry of Justice in Moscow。 Professor
Latkin has published a great many of them in his valuable
〃Materials for a history of the Sobors；〃 and； in reading them；
the conclusion is arrived at； that the election as a rule was
made by the Estates themselves； without the intervention of the
voivode or oubnoi storasta。 〃The nobility of voroneg；〃 states the
voivode of this place； Prince Alexis Krapotkin； in the year 1651；
〃have elected from among themselves two persons； the one called
Trofim Michnev； and the other Theodor Philoppof。 The citizens
only one person named Sacharof； and I； your Majesty's slave
（cholop）； have sent you these three men to Moscow。〃 The action of
those voivodes； who； instead of consulting the electors；
proceeded to a direct nomination of the delegates； was sometimes
disavowed。 Such was； for instance； the case of the voivode of
Kropivna； a certain Astafiev。 In the letters sent to him in the
name of the Government； he was greatly blamed for having
misunderstood the orders given to him； 〃the nobility were asked
to elect a good nobleman from among themselves； and you had no
justification for making the nomination of the delegate
yourself。〃
The delegate belonged； as a rule； to the same estate as his
elector； but it sometimes happened that on account of the small
number of persons capable of supporting the burden of
representation； a person of another order was intrusted with the
duty of delegate。 The voivodes and starostas mention more than
once such facts as the following。 In 1651 the starosta of
Zvenigorod； Elizar Marcov； declares in a letter addressed to the
Czar； that it was impossible for him to nominate a delegate from
among the inhabitants of the city district （posadskii liudi）； for
the best of them were engaged in masonry work at the Storojevoy
monastery； accomplishing their 〃hedge duty；〃 which they owed to
the crown （ograduaia povinnost）。 Another starosta from Kropivna
wrote at the same time； that in his district the number of city
residents was not more than three。 They were all very poor and
gained their livelihood by going from one household to another to
work at cleaning the court…yards。 Therefore； he found it more
suitable to name a gentleman to represent them at the Sobor。
The delegates； as a rule； received instructions called
Nakasi； in which the electors stated their opinions on the