In 1649 a set of laws was adopted. The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was adopted. Introduction of “search”, “rights” and “search” procedures

The Council Code of 1649 is a set of laws of the Russian state, a monument of Russian law of the 17th century, the first regulatory legal act in Russian history that covered all existing legal norms, including the so-called “new decree” articles.

Pushed to the adoption of the Code The Salt Riot that broke out in Moscow in 1648 ; One of the demands of the rebels was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The revolt gradually subsided, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar convened the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 1649.

To develop the draft Code, a special commission was created headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. It included Prince S.V. Prozorov, okolnichy Prince F.F. Volkonsky and two clerks - Gavrila Leontyev and Fyodor Griboyedov. At the same time, it was decided to begin the practical work of the Zemsky Sobor on September 1.

The cathedral was held in a broad format, with the participation of representatives of the townspeople's communities. The hearing of the draft Code took place at the cathedral in two chambers: in one were the king, Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral ; in the other - elected people of various ranks.

Deputies of nobles and townsmen had a great influence on the adoption of many norms of the Code. January 29, 1649 The drafting and editing of the Code was completed. Externally, it looked like a scroll consisting of 959 narrow paper columns. At the end were the signatures of the participants of the Zemsky Sobor (315 in total), and along the gluing of the columns were the signatures of the clerks.

From this original scroll (for the storage of which more than a century later, under Catherine II, a silver reliquary was made) a copy was compiled in the form of a book, from which 1200 copies were printed twice during 1649, 1200 copies in each edition. Cathedral Code 1649 was a new stage in the development of domestic legal technology.

The Council Code was in effect until 1832, when, as part of the work to codify the laws of the Russian Empire, carried out under the leadership of M. M. Speransky, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was developed.

The Council Code of 1649 is a set of laws of Moscow Rus' regulating a wide variety of spheres of life.

Reasons for the creation of the Council Code

The last code of law adopted before the creation of the Council Code was dated 1550 (Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible). Almost a century has passed since then, the feudal system of the state has changed somewhat, numerous new decrees and codes have been created, which often not only made previous decrees obsolete, but also contradicted them.

The situation was also complicated by the fact that numerous regulatory documents were widely scattered among departments, which is why there was complete chaos in the state’s legislative system. Situations were common when only those who accepted it knew about the new act, and the rest of the country lived according to outdated standards.

In order to finally streamline lawmaking and the judicial system, it was necessary to create a completely new document that would meet the requirements of the time. In 1648, the Salt Riot broke out; the rebels, among other things, demanded the creation of a new regulatory document. The situation became critical and it was no longer possible to delay.

In 1648, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which until 1649 was engaged in the creation of the Cathedral Code.

Creation of the Cathedral Code

The creation of the new document was carried out by a special commission headed by N.I. Odoevsky. The creation of a new code of law took place in several stages:

Working with multiple sources of laws and regulations;
Meeting on the content of legislative acts;
Editing by the Tsar and the Duma of the submitted drafts of new bills;
Joint discussion of certain provisions of the code;
Signing of the new version of the bills by all members of the commission.

Such a careful approach to the creation of the document was caused by the fact that the commission members wanted to create a carefully systematized and as complete and accessible legal code as possible, correcting all the shortcomings in previous documents.

Sources of the Council Code

The main sources were:

Code of laws of 1550;
Decree books, where all issued bills and acts were recorded;
Petitions to the Tsar;
Byzantine law;
The Lithuanian statute of 1588 was used as a model for the law.

It was in the Council Code of 1649 that there was a tendency towards dividing the rules of law into branches, corresponding to modern legislation.

Branches of law in the Council Code

The new code determined the status of the state and the tsar himself, contained a set of norms regulating the activities of all government bodies, and established the procedure for entry and exit from the country.

A new system of classification of crimes has appeared in criminal law. The following types appeared:

crime against the church;
crime against the state;
crime against the order of government (unauthorized departure from the country);
crimes against decency (keeping brothels);
malfeasance:
crimes against the person;
property crimes;
crimes against morality.

New types of punishment also appeared. Now the criminal could count on the death penalty, exile, imprisonment, confiscation of property, fine or dishonorable punishment.

Civil law also expanded significantly due to the growth of commodity-money relations. The concept of an individual and a collective appeared, the legal capacity of women in matters of making transactions increased, the oral form of the contract was now replaced by a written one, laying the foundation for modern purchase and sale transactions.

Family law did not change much - the principles of “Domostroy” were still in effect - the supremacy of the husband over his wife and children.

Also in the Council Code the procedure for legal proceedings, criminal and civil, was described - new types of evidence appeared (documents, kissing the cross, etc.), new procedural and investigative measures were identified aimed at proving guilt or innocence.

An important difference from previous codes of law was that, if necessary, the Council Code of 1649 was supplemented and rewritten when new acts appeared.

Enslavement of the peasants

However, the most prominent place in the Council Code is occupied by issues regarding serfdom. The Code not only did not give the peasants freedom, it completely enslaved them. Now the peasants (including their families and property) actually became the property of the feudal lord. They were inherited like furniture and had no rights of their own. The rules regarding escaping from oppression also changed - now the peasants had practically no opportunity to become free (now a runaway peasant could not become free after a few years, now the investigation was carried out indefinitely).

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

The Cathedral Code of 1649 is a monument of Russian law. It outlined new trends in the development of Russian law and consolidated new social features and institutions. In addition, the Code has made significant progress in terms of systematization and drafting of legal documents, since a distinction has been made by industry.

The Code was in force until 1832.

The emergence of the Council Code was a direct result of the popular uprisings of the first half of the 17th century, the basis of which were the movements of serfs, and the need to draw up a single all-Russian law, since the casual nature inherent in the previous legislation became ineffective. Clarity and precision in the wording of the law was required

At the beginning of the century, the foundations of the serf state were shaken by the peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov. In the future, anti-feudal movements did not stop. The peasants opposed the continuously increasing exploitation, increasing duties, and the deepening of their lack of rights. Serfs were also active participants in popular, especially urban, movements of the 17th century. In the middle of the 17th century, the struggle reached particular intensity. In Moscow in the summer of 1648 there was a major uprising. Supported by the peasants, the uprisings were anti-feudal in nature. Among the most popular slogans was a protest against the arbitrariness and extortion of the administration. But in general, the Code acquired a clearly expressed noble character. It is important to note that criticism of the current legislation was also heard from the ranks of the ruling class itself.

Thus, the creation of the Council Code from a socio-historical point of view was a consequence of an acute and complex class struggle and a direct result of the uprising of 1648. In such difficult conditions, the Zemsky Sobor was convened and decided to develop a new set of laws - the Council Code.

The need for a new set of laws, reinforced by administrative abuses, can be considered the main motivation that gave rise to the new code and even partly determined its character.

Sources The Council Code was served by: Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550. Decree books of orders, royal decrees, verdicts of the Boyar Duma, resolutions of Zemsky Councils, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation.

A special codification commission of 5 people, from the boyars Prince, was entrusted with drawing up a draft Code. Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, the okolnichy Prince Volkonsky and two clerks, Leontyev and Griboedov. The three main members of this commission were Duma people, which means that this “order of Prince Odoevsky and his comrades,” as it is called in the documents, can be considered a Duma commission; it was established on July 16. Then they decided to gather the Zemsky Sobor to consider the adoption of the project by September 1. It should be noted that the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 was the largest of all that were convened during the period of the existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia. By September 1, 1648, elected officials “from all ranks” of the state, servicemen and commercial and industrial townspeople were convened in Moscow; electors from rural or district inhabitants, as from a special curia, were not called up. From October 3, the tsar with the clergy and members of the Duma listened to the draft Code drawn up by the commission. Then the sovereign instructed the highest clergy, Duma and elected people to fix the list of the Code with their own hands, after which it, with the signatures of the members of the Council in 1649, was printed and sent to all Moscow orders and throughout the cities to the voivodeship offices in order to “do all sorts of things according to that Code".

The speed of adoption of the code is amazing. The entire discussion and adoption of the Code of 967 articles took just over six months. But it should be borne in mind that the commission was entrusted with a huge task: firstly, to collect, disassemble and rework into a coherent set of existing laws that were different in time, not agreed upon, scattered among departments; it was also necessary to normalize cases not provided for by these laws. In addition, it was necessary to know public needs and relationships, to study the practice of judicial and administrative institutions. This kind of work required many years. But they decided to draw up the Council Code at an accelerated pace, according to a simplified program. Already by October 1648, more precisely in 2.5 months, the first 12 chapters for the report, almost half of the entire code, were prepared. The remaining 13 chapters were compiled, heard and approved in the Duma by the end of January 1649, when the activities of the commission and the entire council ended and the Code was completed in manuscript. The speed with which the Code was drawn up can be explained by the alarming news of the riots that broke out in the wake of the June riot, in addition, there were rumors about a new uprising being prepared in the capital, not to mention the need to create a new code. That is why they were in a hurry to draw up the Code.

Structure of the Code

The Council Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of legal technology. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of committing abuses by governors and officials,

The Council Code had no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. The Council Code is the first systematized law in the history of Russia.

In literature, it is often called a code, but this is not legally correct, since the Code contains material related not to one, but to many branches of law of that time. This is more likely not a code, but a set of laws

Unlike previous legislative acts, the Council Code differs not only in its large volume ( 25 chapters, divided into 967 articles), but also with greater focus and complex structure. A brief introduction contains a statement of the motives and history of the drafting of the Code. For the first time the law was divided into thematic chapters. The chapters are highlighted with special headings: for example, “On blasphemers and church rebels” (chapter 1), “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect his sovereign’s health” (chapter 2), “On money masters who learn how to make thieves’ money” (chapter 5) etc. This scheme for constructing chapters allowed their compilers to adhere to the usual sequence of presentation for that time from the initiation of a case to the execution of a court decision.

Local and patrimonial land ownership

The Code as a code of feudal law protects the right of private property, and above all, ownership of land. The main types of land ownership of feudal lords were estates ( Articles 13,33,38,41,42,45 of Chapter 17) and estates ( Art. 1-3,5-8,13,34,51 chapter 16). The Code takes a serious step towards equating the legal regime of estates with the regime of estates; this concerned a wide range of feudal lords, especially small ones. It is no coincidence that the chapter on estates appears earlier in the law than the chapter on estates.

Equating estates with estates proceeded along the lines of primarily granting landowners the right to dispose of land. Until now, essentially only patrimonial owners had the right to own land (but their rights were somewhat limited, which was preserved in the Code), but in principle, the patrimonial owner had the necessary element of property rights - the right to dispose of property. The situation with the estate is different: in previous years, the landowner was deprived of the right to dispose, and sometimes even the right to own land (this was the case if the landowner left the service). The Council Code introduced significant changes to this matter: first of all, it expanded the landowner’s right to own land - now the landowner who retired retained the right to the land, and although he was not left with his former estate, he was given, according to a certain norm, a so-called subsistence estate - a kind of pension. The widow of the landowner and his children up to a certain age received the same pension.

During this period, the previously established three main types of feudal land tenure received legal recognition. First type - state property or directly the king (palace lands, lands of black volosts). Second type - patrimonial land ownership. Being conditional ownership of land, estates still had a different legal status than estates. They were passed down by inheritance. There were three types: generic, honored (complained) and purchased. The legislator made sure that the number of clan estates did not decrease. In this regard, the right to buy back sold ancestral estates was provided for. The third type of feudal land tenure is estates, which were given for service, mainly military. The size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The estate could not be inherited. The feudal lord used it as long as he served.

The difference in the legal status between votchinas and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by a son if he served. It was established that if the landowner died or left the service due to old age or illness, then he himself or his widow and young children could receive part of the estate for subsistence. The Council Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid under the following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record between themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the Tsar.

Criminal law according to the Code

In the field of criminal law, the Council Code clarifies the concept of “dastardly deed” - an act dangerous for feudal societies; developed back in Sudebniki. The subjects of the crime could be: individuals, so group of persons. The law divided them into main and secondary, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity can be as physical(assistance, practical assistance, etc.), and intellectual(for example, incitement to murder- chapter 22). In connection with this subject, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized. The law distinguished persons from accomplices only those involved in the commission of a crime: accomplices (who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), connivers, non-informers, concealers. The subjective side of the crime is determined by the degree of guilt: The Code knows the division of crimes into deliberate, careless And random. For careless actions, the person who committed them is punished in the same way as for intentional criminal actions. The law highlights softening And aggravating circumstances. The first includes: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect), the second - repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes. Stand out individual stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law knows concept of relapse(coinciding in the Code with the concept of “dashing person”) and extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the necessary defense and was punished. The Council Code considered the objects of crime to be the church, the state, the family, the person, property and morality.

Crime system

1) Crimes against the church, 2) state crimes, 3) crimes against the order of government (intentional failure of the defendant to appear in court, resistance to the bailiff, production of false letters, acts and seals, counterfeiting, unauthorized travel abroad, moonshine, taking a false oath in court, false accusation), 4) crimes against the decency (keeping brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, imposing duties on persons exempt from them), 5) official crimes (extortion (bribery, extortion, illegal exactions), injustice, forgery in service, military crimes), 6) crimes against the person (murder, divided into simple and qualified, beatings, insults to honor. The murder of a traitor or thief at the scene of the crime was not punished), 7) property crimes (simple and qualified theft (church, in the service, horse theft, committed in the sovereign's courtyard, theft of vegetables from the garden and fish from the fish tank), robbery committed in the form of a trade, ordinary and qualified robbery (committed by servicemen or children against their parents), fraud (theft associated with deception, but without violence), arson, forcible seizure of someone else's property, damage to someone else's property), 8) crimes against morality (children's disrespect for their parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pimping, "fornication" of a wife but not a husband, sexual relations between a master and a slave).

Punishments according to the Council Code

The punishment system was characterized by the following features: 1) individualization of punishment: the wife and children of the criminal were not responsible for the act committed by him, but the institution of third party liability was preserved - the landowner who killed the peasant had to transfer another peasant to the landowner who suffered the damage, the “right” procedure was preserved, to a large extent the guarantee was similar to the responsibility of the guarantor for the actions of the offender (for whom he vouched), 2) nightingale nature of punishment, expressed in the difference in the responsibility of different subjects for the same punishments (for example , chapter 10), 3)uncertainty in establishing punishment(this was due to the purpose of punishment - intimidation). The sentence may not have indicated the type of punishment, and if it was indicated, the method of its execution (“punish with death”) or the measure (term) of punishment (throw into prison until the sovereign’s decree) was unclear, 4) plurality of punishment- for the same crime several punishments could be established at once: whipping, cutting of the tongue, exile, confiscation of property.

Purposes of punishment:

Intimidation and retribution, isolation of the criminal from society was a secondary goal. It should be noted that the uncertainty in establishing the punishment created an additional psychological impact on the criminal. To intimidate the criminal, they applied the punishment that he would have desired for the person he had slandered. The publicity of punishments and executions had a socio-psychological significance: many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as analogues of hellish torment.

The Council Code provided for the use of the death penalty almost in 60 cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into qualified(chopping, quartering, burning, pouring metal into the throat, burying alive in the ground) and simple(hanging, beheading). Self-harm punishments included: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting off a nose, ear, lip, tearing out an eye, nostrils. These punishments could be applied as additional or as main ones. Mutilating punishments, in addition to intimidation, served the function of identifying the criminal. Painful punishments included flogging with a whip or batogs in a public place (at a market). Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be set for a period from 3 days to 4 years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (or as the main one), exile was imposed (to monasteries, fortresses, prisons, to boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged classes were subject to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights (from complete surrender by the head (turning into a slave) to the declaration of “disgrace” (isolation, ostracism, state disfavor). The accused could be deprived of rank, the right to sit in the Duma or order, deprive the right to file a claim in court. Property sanctions were widely used ( Chapter 10 of the Code in 74 cases it established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on the social status of the victim). The highest sanction of this type was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. In addition, the sanctions system included church punishments(repentance, penance, excommunication, exile to a monastery, confinement in a solitary cell, etc.).

Bodies administering justice

Central judicial bodies: the court of the king, the boyar duma, orders. Justice could be carried out either individually or collectively.

“Court” and “search” according to the Code

Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of rules that regulated the organization of the court and process. Even more clearly than in the Code of Laws, there was a division into two forms of process: “trial” and “search ”. The legislation of that time still lacked a clear distinction between civil procedural law and criminal procedural law. However, two forms of the process were distinguished - adversarial (court) and investigative (search), with the latter becoming increasingly important. Chapter 10 of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the “trial”: the process was divided into court and “completion”, those. sentencing. The "trial" began (Chapter X. Art. 100-104) With “initiation”, filing a petition. Then the defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff. The defendant could provide guarantors. He was given the right not to appear in court twice for good reasons (for example, illness), but after three failures to appear, he automatically lost the process ( Chapter X. Art. 108-123). The winning party was given a corresponding certificate.

Proof, used and taken into account by the courts in the adversarial process, were diverse: witness's testimonies(practice required the involvement of at least 20 witnesses), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents), kissing the cross (allowed in disputes over an amount not exceeding 1 ruble), drawing lots. Procedural measures aimed at obtaining evidence were “general” and “indiscriminate” search: in the first case, the population survey was carried out about the fact of a crime committed, and in the second - about a specific person suspected of a crime. Special types of testimony were: “link to the guilty” and general link. The first consisted in the reference of the accused or defendant to a witness, whose testimony must absolutely coincide with the testimony of the referrer; if there was a discrepancy, the case was lost. There could be several such references and in each case full confirmation was required. General link consisted in the appeal of both disputing parties to the same or several witnesses. Their testimony became decisive. The so-called “pravezh” became a kind of procedural action in court. The defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, the number of which was equal to the amount of debt (for a debt of 100 rubles, they were flogged for a month). “Pravezh” was not just a punishment - it was a measure that encouraged the defendant to fulfill the obligation: he could have guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt. The adjudication in the adversarial process was oral, but was recorded in the “court list”. Each stage was formalized with a special document.

The search or “detective” was used in the most serious criminal cases. Special place and attention was given to crimes in which the state interest was affected. The case in the search process could begin with a statement from the victim, with the discovery of a crime (red-handed) or with an ordinary slander unsupported by the facts of the accusation - “linguistic rumor”). After that, let's get to work government agencies stepped in. The victim submitted a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff and witnesses went to the crime scene to conduct an inquiry. The procedural actions were a “search”, i.e. interrogation of all suspects and witnesses. IN Chapter 21 of the Council Code For the first time, such a procedural procedure as torture is regulated. The basis for its use could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the accused, part against him. If the results of the “search” were favorable for the suspect, he could be taken on bail. The use of torture was regulated: it could be apply no more than three times, with a certain break. Testimony given during torture (“slander”) should have been rechecked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimony of the tortured person was recorded.

Civil law according to the Council Code of 1649

Ownership is defined as a person's dominance over property. Researchers agree that the right of property according to the Code must be respected by everyone and the protection of this right is allowed only by the court, and not by one’s own force. In extreme cases, the Code allows the use of force to protect property. For the same purpose, unauthorized management of other people's property, unauthorized taking of other people's property, and recognition of rights through the courts were prohibited.

The Council Code protected the right of private ownership of land.

Code of the Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich: reprinted from the Complete Collection of Laws: [in memory of the tercentenary of the House of Romanov]. – [B.M.]: State Printing House, 1915. – 337, CXXX p.
Attached: Photos from the original list of the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

In 1767, on the occasion of the establishment of a Commission in Moscow to draft a new Code, Empress Catherine II wished to see the original Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the intention of finding out who exactly secured it with their assault. Prince Alexander Alekseevich Vyazemsky, who was holding the post of Prosecutor General at that time, and who was entrusted with presenting the Code to the Empress, looked for it in the Senate and Razryadny archives, in the Synodal Printing House and even under the altar in the Assumption Cathedral, where the most important state documents were usually kept. But all searches were in vain. The Column Laid, as it was called in the 17th century, was kept, almost from the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, in the so-called Prikaz of the Great Treasury, which later became part of the Workshop and the Armory Chamber together with the Treasury Prikaz. It was here, as the repository of many state documents, that the Prosecutor General finally turned to demand news of the original Code. The presence of the Workshop and the Armory Chamber gave an affirmative answer, and on the same day, April 18, in the ancient Treasury Chamber “near the Annunciation Cathedral, an iron chest was found, where the original Code of the Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was kept; only that chest, because the key was not found, was not opened”; That's why it was decided to make a new key immediately. The next day, the original Code and a printed copy of its first edition, 7157, were “taken out of this chest in a red cloth bag.” On the same day, April 19, both the column and the books were presented by Prince Vyazemsky to the Empress. Her Majesty, examining the original, “Highly deigned to command, with all care, that Councilor Miller write down who had a hand in the genuine Code.” The collegiate adviser and professor Miller, who was in the Archives of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and was called by Prince Vyazemsky to listen to this command of the Empress, announced that it was impossible for him to do this in the Workshop and Armory Office. Therefore, the presence of the Office determined: “Having weighed the original Code of Pillars, give it to Miller with a receipt.” Thus, the “Column” was hung in compliance with the legal order, i.e., in the presence of a member of the Office and in the presence of two merchants, and was given to Miller. The weight turned out to be 11 pounds 79 spools without wrapping paper and without string.

The Code column, as Miller announced, is 334 arshins in length; there are up to 400 different hands. There are 315 of all persons who had their hands on the Code. However, in the list of assaults compiled by Miller, there are 1416 of them; but the voters of two Streletsky Orders were incorrectly included in this account, the electors of which, when signing, mentioned their number, one 500 houses, the other 600 people, which gave rise to their inclusion in the general account. In addition, one person ended up here who signed only due to inability to read and write.

The statute was signed by: Patriarch Joseph, 2 metropolitans, 3 archbishops, one bishop, 5 archimandrites, abbot, 15 boyars, 10 okolnichy, treasurer, Duma nobleman, printer, Duma clerk, Blagoveshchensk archpriest, confessor of the Sovereign, 5 Moscow nobles, 148 city nobles , three guests, 12 elected from Moscow hundreds and settlements, 89 elected townsmen from cities and, finally, 15 elected from 15 Moscow Streletsky Prikaz.

The assaults are written on the back of the sheets of paper and follow one after another, for the most part warehouse after warehouse, continuously, on each sheet (with the exception, however, of five), with the intention that all sheets of the original were fixed by the Zemsky Sobor, as accurately as all The gluing of the column, numbering 960, on the front side and on the back are fastened with clerks. On the front side, these gluings were signed by the Duma clerk Ivan Gavrenev, and on the back by the Duma clerks Fyodor Elizarov and Mikhailo Volosheninov and clerks Gavrilo Leontyev and Fyodor Griboyedov.

And Empress Catherine, having appointed to keep the original Code as before in the Workshop and Armory, ordered “to immediately make a silver ark with gilding for its preservation.” Thus, instead of the previous red cloth bag, sewn for the Code probably under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the famous and most important monument of ancient Russian legislation was placed in a silver gilded ark, in which it is preserved to this day. On this ark, the following inscription is carved on the sides: “The authentic Code of Rights in the Russian State, composed under the rule of His Majesty Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, “1649. - To preserve this Code, this ark was made “by the most merciful command of Her Majesty the Empress Catherine Alekseevna the Second, 1767.”

Begins active legislative activities.

The intensive growth in the number of decrees for the period from the Code of Laws of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is visible from the following data:

1550-1600 - 80 decrees;
1601-1610 −17;
1611-1620 - 97;
1621-1630 - 90;
1631-1640 - 98;
1641-1648 - 63 decrees.

In total for 1611-1648. - 348, and for 1550-1648. - 445 decrees

As a result, by 1649, the Russian state had a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

The adoption of the Code was also prompted by the Salt Riot that broke out in Moscow that year; One of the demands of the rebels was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The rebellion was suppressed, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar convened a Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 2006.

Legislative work

He was intended to review the draft Code. The cathedral was held in a broad format, with the participation of representatives of the townspeople's communities. The hearing of the draft Code took place at the cathedral in two chambers: in one were the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of various ranks.

All the delegates of the Council signed the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders for guidance in action. When drawing up the code, the task was not to draw up a code; it was only intended to summarize the entire existing stock of legal acts, harmonizing them with each other and abolishing outdated norms.

The elected representatives submitted their amendments and additions to the Duma in the form zemstvo petitions. Some decisions were made through the joint efforts of elected officials, the Duma and the Sovereign.

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

Decree books of orders - from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, current legislation on specific issues was recorded in them.
year - was used as an example of legal technique (wording, construction of phrases, rubrication).

Branches of law according to the Council Code

View of the Kremlin. 17th century

The Council Code only outlines the division of norms into branches of law. However, the tendency towards division into industries, inherent in any modern legislation, has already emerged.

State law

The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch.

Criminal law

The death penalty is hanging, beheading, quartering, burning (for religious matters and in relation to arsonists), as well as “pouring a red-hot iron down the throat” for counterfeiting.

Corporal punishment - divided into self-harm(cutting off a hand for theft, branding, cutting off nostrils, etc.) and painful(beating with a whip or batogs).

Imprisonment - terms from three days to life imprisonment. The prisons were earthen, wooden and stone. Prison inmates fed themselves at the expense of relatives or alms.

Exile is a punishment for “high-ranking” persons. It was the result of disgrace.

Dishonorable punishments were also used for “high-ranking” persons: “deprivation of honor,” that is, deprivation of ranks or reduction in rank. A mild punishment of this type was a “reprimand” in the presence of people from the circle to which the offender belonged.

Fines were called “sale” and were imposed for crimes that violate property relations, as well as for some crimes against human life and health (for injury), for “incurring dishonor.” They were also used for “extortion” as the main and additional punishment.

Confiscation of property - both movable and immovable property (sometimes the property of the criminal’s wife and his adult son). It was applied to state criminals, to “greedy people”, to officials who abused their official position.

Purposes of punishment:

Intimidation.
Retribution from the state.
Isolation of the criminal (in case of exile or imprisonment).
Isolating a criminal from the surrounding mass of people (cutting off the nose, branding, cutting off an ear, etc.).

Civil law

The main ways of acquiring rights to any thing, including land, ( real rights), were considered:

The grant of land is a complex set of legal actions, which included the issuance of a grant, entry in the order book of information about the grantee, establishment of the fact that the land being transferred is unoccupied, and taking possession in the presence of third parties.
Acquiring rights to a thing by concluding a purchase and sale agreement (both oral and written).
Acquisitive prescription. A person must in good faith (that is, without violating anyone’s rights) own any property for a certain period of time. After a certain period of time, this property (for example, a house) becomes the property of a bona fide owner. The Code set this period at 40 years.
Finding a thing (provided its owner is not found).

Law of obligations in the 17th century, it continued to develop along the line of gradual replacement of personal liability (transition to serfs for debts, etc.) under contracts with property liability.

The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by a written one. For certain transactions, state registration is mandatory - the “serf” form (purchase and sale and other real estate transactions).

Legislators paid special attention to the problem patrimonial land ownership. The following were legislatively established: a complicated procedure for alienation and the hereditary nature of patrimonial property.

During this period, there were 3 types of feudal land ownership: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land ownership and estate. Votchina is a conditional land tenure, but they could be inherited. Since feudal legislation was on the side of the land owners (feudal lords), and the state was also interested in ensuring that the number of patrimonial estates did not decrease, the right to buy back sold patrimonial estates was provided for. Estates were given for service; the size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could only use the estate during his service; it could not be passed on by inheritance. The difference in the legal status between votchinas and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by a son if he served. The Council Code established that if a landowner left the service due to old age or illness, his wife and young children could receive part of the estate for subsistence. The Council Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid under the following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record between themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the Tsar.

Family law

Scenes of Russian life. 17th century

year - Order on city deanery (on measures to combat crime).
year - New Trade Charter (on the protection of domestic producers and sellers from foreign competition).
year - Scribe's mandate (about the rules for land surveying estates and estates, forests and wastelands).

An important role was played by the “verdict” of the Zemsky Sobor of the year on the abolition of localism (that is, the system of distributing official places taking into account the origin, official position of a person’s ancestors and, to a lesser extent, his personal merits.)

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

The Council Code generalized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 17th century.
It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism.
The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; An attempt was made to differentiate the rules of law by industry.

The Council Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their announcement in marketplaces and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of abuses by governors and officials in charge of legal proceedings. The Council Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in terms of the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times over.

When compared with Western Europe, it is striking that the Council Code codified Russian civil law relatively early, already in 1649. The first Western European civil code was developed in Denmark (Danske Lov) in 1683; it was followed by the code of Sardinia (), Bavaria (), Prussia (), Austria (). Europe's most famous and influential civil code, the French Napoleonic Code, was adopted in -1804.

It is worth noting that the adoption of European codes was probably hampered by the abundance of the legal framework, which made it very difficult to systematize the available material into a single coherent, readable document. For example, the Prussian Code of 1794 contained 19,187 articles, making it overly long and unreadable. By comparison, the Napoleonic Code took 4 years to develop, contained 2,281 articles, and required the personal active participation of the emperor to push for its adoption. The cathedral code was developed within six months, numbered 968 articles, and was adopted in order to prevent the development of a series of urban riots in 1648 (started by the Salt Riot in Moscow) into a full-scale uprising like the uprising of Bolotnikov in 1606-1607 or Stepan Razin in 1670-1670. 1671.

The Council Code of 1649 was in effect until 1832, when, as part of the work to codify the laws of the Russian Empire, carried out under the leadership of M. M. Speransky, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was developed.

Notes

Literature

Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history. Full course of lectures. - M.: 1993.
Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. - M.: 2006.
Ed. Titova Yu. P. History of state and law of Russia. - M.: 2006.
AND ABOUT. Chistyakov History of the domestic state and law.. - M.: 1996.
Grigory Kotoshikhin About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - Stockholm: 1667.

A.G. Mankov"The Code of 1649 - the code of feudal law of Russia." - M.: 1980.

Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F."Review of the history of Russian law", 6th ed. - St. Petersburg. ; Kyiv: Publishing house of bookseller N.Ya. Ogloblin: 1909.

Yu.L. Protsenko"Estate-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th centuries)", 6th ed. - Volgograd: 2003.