Zemsky Sobor adoption of the cathedral code. Adoption of the cathedral code in Rus'

The Council Code of 1649 is the source of law of the Russian centralized state during the period of the estate-representative monarchy

The leading place among the sources of Russian feudal law during the period of the estate-representative monarchy is occupied by the Council Code of 1649. It should be noted that this code largely predetermined the development of the legal system of the Russian state in subsequent decades. The Code, first of all, expressed the interests of the nobility and legally consolidated serfdom in Russia.

Among prerequisites that led to the adoption of the Council Code can be distinguished:

ь general intensification of the class struggle;

b contradictions among the feudal class;

b contradictions between feudal lords and the urban population;

ь the interest of the nobles in expanding the rights to local land ownership and the enslavement of peasants on them;

b the need to streamline legislation and formalize it in a single code;

A special commission was formed to develop a draft code of laws. The project was discussed in detail by the Zemsky Sobor, after which it was the first printed set of laws of Russia, sent out for guidance to all orders and localities.

The Code consists of 25 chapters and 967 articles, the content of which reflects major changes in the socio-political life of Russia, which occurred in the 17th century.

Chapter XI “The Court of Peasants” establishes the complete and general enslavement of the peasants. Chapters XVI-XVII reflect the changes that have taken place in the settlement situation.

The norms of state, criminal and civil law, judicial system and legal proceedings are developing.

The main attention, as in previous sources of feudal law, is given to criminal law and legal proceedings.

In the development of the Cathedral Code the following were used:

~ previous judges,

~ index books of orders,

~ royal legislation,

~ boyar sentences,

~ articles of Lithuanian status,

~ Byzantine legal sources.

The Code enshrined the privileges of the ruling class and the unequal position of the dependent population.

The Council Code did not completely eliminate the contradictions in the legislation, although a certain systematization was carried out by chapter.

Civil law reflects the further development of commodity-money relations, especially in terms of property rights and the law of obligations. The main forms of land ownership during this period were royal palace lands, estates and estates. Black tax lands owned by rural communities were the property of the state. In accordance with the Code, palace lands belonged to the tsar and his family, state (black-tax, black-mown) lands belonged to the tsar as the head of state. The fund of these lands by this time had decreased significantly, due to distribution for service.

Patrimonial land ownership, in accordance with Chapter XVII of the Council Code, was divided into patrimonial, purchased and granted. Votchinniki had privileged rights to dispose of their lands than landowners, since they had the right to sell (with mandatory registration in the Local Order), mortgage or inherit.

The Code established right of patrimonial redemption(in case of sale, mortgage or exchange) for 40 years, and by persons precisely defined by the Code. The right of ancestral redemption did not apply to purchased estates.

Ancestral and honored estates could not be transferred by will to strangers if the testator had children or collateral relatives. It was forbidden to give ancestral and honored estates to churches.

The estates purchased from third parties, after their transfer by inheritance, became ancestral.

Chapter XVI of the Council Code summarized everything existing changes in the legal status of local land ownership:

» the local owners could be both boyars and nobles;

» the estate was inherited in the prescribed manner (for the service of the heir);

» part of the land after the death of the owner was received by his wife and daughters (“for subsistence”);

» it was allowed to give the estate as a dowry;

» the exchange of estate for estate or patrimony was allowed, including more for less (Article 3).

Landowners did not have the right to freely sell land without a royal decree or mortgage it.

The Code confirmed the decrees early XVII century on the prohibition of recruiting into the service and allotting estates to “priests’ and peasants’ children, boyar slaves and monastery servants.” This situation turned the nobility into a closed class.

Considering land ownership, it should be noted the development of such an institution of law as collateral law. The Code of Law regulates the following provisions:

b the mortgaged land may remain in the hands of the mortgagor or pass into the hands of the mortgagee;

ь pledge of courtyards in the suburbs was allowed;

ь mortgage of movable property was allowed;

ь delay in redemption of the pledged property entailed the transfer of rights to it to the pledgee, with the exception of courtyards and shops in the suburbs.

Mortgages placed on yards and shops in the name of foreigners were considered invalid. If the pledgee's property was stolen or destroyed without his fault, he would reimburse the cost in half.

The cathedral code determines rights to someone else's thing(so-called easements). For example:

b the right to erect dams on the river within the boundaries of one’s property without harming the interests of neighbors,

b the right to set up nights and kitchen huts without causing damage to a neighbor,

b rights to fishing, hunting, mowing under the same conditions, etc.

b the right to graze livestock in the meadows or stop in places adjacent to the road until a certain time - Trinity Day.)

Law of obligations. According to the Code, the debtor is liable for an obligation not with his person, but only with his property. Another Decree of 1558 prohibited debtors from “becoming full slaves” to their creditor in case of non-payment of the debt. It was only allowed to give them “head before redemption”, i.e. before debt is worked off. If the defendant had property, then the penalty extended to movable property and yards, then to patrimony and estate.

At the same time, during this period, responsibility was not individual: the husband was responsible for his wife, children for their parents, servants for their masters and vice versa. Legislation has made it possible to transfer rights under some contracts (bondages) to previous persons. The debtor could not transfer his obligations only by agreement with the creditor.

Contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate had to be drawn up in writing and in a “deed of sale” (secured by the signatures of witnesses and registered in orders). The purchase and sale of movable property was carried out by verbal agreement and transfer of the thing to the buyer.

But the decree of 1655 ordered judges not to accept petitions under loan, payment and loan agreements “without servitude”, i.e. without written documents.

Thus, there has been a transition from the verbal form of concluding contracts to the written form.

Loan agreement in the 16th - 17th centuries. was made only in written form. To smooth out social contradictions, interest rates on loans were limited to 20 percent. The Code of 1649 attempted to prohibit the charging of interest on loans, but in practice lenders continued to charge interest. The agreement was accompanied by a pledge of property. The mortgaged land passed into the possession of the creditor (with the right to use) or remained with the mortgagor with the condition of paying interest until the debt was repaid. If the debt was not paid, the land became the property of the creditor. When pledged, movable property was also transferred to the creditor, but without the right to use.

With the development of crafts, manufacturing and trade, it was widely distributed personal hire agreement, which was drawn up in writing for a period of no more than 5 years. Orally, personal hiring was allowed for a period of no more than 3 months.

Luggage agreement was made only in writing. Military men could transfer things for storage without a written agreement.

Known construction contracts craftsmen and property rental(rent).

Marriage and family relations in the Russian state were regulated by church legislation. Sources of church law allowed marriages in early age. According to “Stoglav” (1551), it was allowed to get married at the age of 15, and to get married at the age of 12. The engagement (betrothal) took place at an even earlier age (parental agreement and compilation of a row record). It was possible to terminate a row entry by paying a penalty (charge) or through the court, but for serious reasons. In practice, ordinary people did not make a row record and got married at a later age. According to church laws, the first marriage was formalized by a wedding, the second and third by a blessing, and the fourth marriage was not recognized by church law. In accordance with the Code of 1649, the fourth marriage did not give rise to legal consequences.

Divorce was carried out by mutual consent of the spouses or at the unilateral request of the husband. Although in the 17th century the process of softening the rights of the husband in relation to his wife and the father in relation to children began, until the end of the 17th century, entry into bondage was not abolished at all. The husband could give his wife into service and sign her into bondage along with him. (The father had a similar right in relation to the children).

Intrafamily relations were regulated by the so-called “Domostroy”, compiled in the 16th century. In accordance with it, the husband could punish his wife, and she had to be submissive to her husband. If parents, while punishing their children, beat them to death, the Code imposed a punishment of only one year in prison and church repentance. If children killed their parents, they were punished by death.

Later, starting from the 17th century, it is planned process of dividing marital property, children and parents. This can be explained by the desire of the legislator to assign property to a certain person, incl. and dowry. The husband was not allowed to dispose of his wife's dowry without her consent. Since the 17th century the right to give the debtor to the “creditor with an annual interest until redemption” along with his wife is abolished. Later, the responsibility of the wife and children for the debts of the husband and parents, established by the Council Code, was abolished.

During the period under review, legislation distinguishes right of inheritance by law and will. The main attention is paid to the procedure for transferring land by inheritance. The will was drawn up, as in the Code of Laws of 1497, in writing. An oral will was allowed if the testator was illiterate, if it was made in the presence of witnesses and representatives of church authorities.

IN land law The defense of church interests and the struggle of the central government against the expansion of church land ownership were reflected.

Ancestral and granted estates were subject to inheritance only to members of the same family to which the testator belonged. And testamentary dispositions applied only to purchased estates and movable property.

The right of inheritance according to the law belonged to sons, and in their absence - to daughters. Widows were allowed to inherit. Thus, since 1642, it was established that the widow of a landowner who died in war receives 20% of the estate “for subsistence” until death or marriage, 15% for someone who dies on a campaign, and 10% for someone who dies in service (at home). The widow's share in the inheritance of movable property was 25% of the inheritance.

From the beginning of the 17th century, daughters began to be called upon to inherit even if they had brothers. After the death of their father, they were given a portion “for subsistence.” If a widow or daughters married, the “subsistence” estate was given as a dowry. However, daughters inherited ancestral and venerable estates only in the absence of sons. Widows were given land only from awarded estates, and in the event of a widow's marriage or death, the earned estate passed into the husband's clan.

Of the lateral relatives, brothers and their descendants were allowed to inherit, and from the middle of the 17th century. and distant relatives.

Legislation, protecting class interests, prohibited bequeathing lands to churches. In the absence of a will or legal heirs, the property now went not to the church, but to the royal domain. The church and monasteries received money from the treasury to commemorate the soul of the deceased in the amount of the value of the estate.

A superficial acquaintance with the Council Code allows us to conclude that the punitive nature has increased criminal law. Still not in the law general definition concept of crime. Only from the content of the articles can we conclude that disobedience to the royal will, violation of the instructions of the king, his will, i.e., was considered a crime. acts that undermine the feudal order and are dangerous for the ruling class. Since wrongfulness, as the most important element of the concept of a criminal act, was not clearly defined by law, the scope of criminal liability was established by judicial and administrative authorities.

Subjects of the crime all members of society were recognized, incl. and slaves. Children under 7 years of age and the insane were not brought to criminal liability. For minors with physical disabilities (deafness, muteness and blindness), the punishment was mitigated.

Code of 1649 delineates crimes intentional, careless and accidental. The articles examine “thieves' intent,” “starting a fire on purpose,” and talk about unintentional, sinful murder, and murder “without cunning.” Unintentional and accidental actions were not punished. Murder "drunken" was considered as intentional and did not entail a mitigation of punishment.

At the same time, the Code does not always clearly distinguish between an accidental, unpunished action and a careless form of guilt (Articles 223, 225, 226, 228 Chapter X of the Council Code).

The Code knew the institution of necessary defense (Article 200, Chapter X). At the same time, the question of proportionality between the means of defense and attack was not raised. Killing was considered a necessary defense not only to protect one’s own life, but also “the life of the one he serves,” i.e. Mr. Dependent people who did not defend their master from attack were subject to the death penalty. It was absolutely necessary to kill a dog when it attacked a person (Article 263, Chapter X).

The Code distinguishes between the stages of committing a crime:

s - naked intent;

s - assassination attempt;

s - committing a crime.

The Council Code more clearly regulates complicity. In Art. 19 Ch. XXII talks about incitement, in Art. 198 Ch. X - about complicity, in Art. 20 Ch. XXI - about concealment. In some cases, complicity is punishable by the same punishment as the criminal, in others - different.

The Code, like previous laws, punishes the crime of “recidivism” more severely (Articles 9, 10, 12, Chapter XXI).

In the Council Code of 1649, it was first carried out classification of crimes according to a certain system.

For the first time, a secular legislative monument was given first place crimes against religion and church(blasphemy, seduction into the Muslim faith, making obscene speeches during a church service, committing atrocities in the church: murders, injuries, insults, etc.). Most of them were assigned the death penalty.

The second chapter of the Code (“On state honor and how to protect its state health”) reveals state crimes, as the most dangerous, entailing the death penalty “without any mercy.” Among them is "intention to public health", "evil intent to take possession of the Moscow state and become the sovereign", "surrendering the city to the enemy by treason", "destroying the city or households by intent or treason", etc. Treason was punishable by death with confiscation of property. Members of the criminal's family were also brought to criminal responsibility: the wife , children, father, mother, brothers, sisters, stepchildren, who knew about the betrayal and did not report to the authorities (Article 6, Chapter II). The Code allowed peasants and servants to report the betrayal of their master, although in other cases they were forbidden to go to court with a claim against his master.

The Code provides for a reward for the murder of a traitor.

To crimes against order management The Code included: forgery of documents ("scraping" and "blackening"), forgery of seals, counterfeiting ("making thieves' money"), violation of the rules for collecting trade duties, the procedure for maintaining drinking establishments.

Like the Code of Laws of 1497, the Code for counterfeiters establishes special kind death penalty - pouring molten metal down the throat of all participants.

To crimes against judiciary included:

b the judge passing an incorrect sentence for a bribe;

ь forgery, incorrect entry by the clerk in the verdict of the court session;

b red tape used for extortion;

b false testimony of witnesses, false oath, false denunciation (“slander”);

There's a fight in court.

Chapter XII of the Code “On the service of military men of the Moscow State” considers military crimes. The Code strictly punishes treason by military men (Article 20, Chapter VII).

Behind desertion the punishment was assigned depending on the time the crime was committed: for the first leaving the service (“whoever runs away first”) - “beat him with a whip”, for the second leaving the sovereign’s service - “beat him with a whip, and reduce his local salary ", "and he will run away to the trerie, and beat him with a whip, and take away his estate and give it away as distribution" (Article 8, Chapter VII).

In case of desertion of the archers and Cossacks and Danish people, they were found, beaten with a whip and returned to serve in the regiments. If the Danish people who escaped from service could not be found, then their owners paid a fine of “twenty rubles for each person” (Article 9, Chapter VII).

The Code provides for punishment of military men for committing on the road any violence or harm to the local population("on the way to work... or from service to their homes... they will rob, and commit capital murder, or violence against the female sex, or in the threshing floor they will spoil the bread, or... they will forcefully catch fish from ponds, or they will commit other violence to whomever" Art. .thirty). Those guilty of murders and rapes were sentenced to death, and the damage caused was compensated double.

For stealing weapons in the regiments they were punished by beating the whip “mercilessly”, and the weapons were returned to the owner. For stealing a horse the thief was punished by cutting off his hand (v. 29).

It was forbidden to grant leave for promises under penalty of punishment of commanders with a whip. Vacations were allowed only “for the most necessary matters” (in the case of “house destruction or human beatings”).

Chapter XXII of the Council Code provides for punishment for a crime against the individual.

Murder differed: intentional (punishable by death) and unintentional (punishable by whipping and imprisonment). The murder of parents is especially highlighted: “if a son or daughter commits capital murder against his father or mother, they will be executed by death without any mercy for paternal or maternal murder.” There followed a strict punishment for the murder of the master: “If someone’s man kills the one he serves to death: and he himself will be executed by death without any mercy.”

A wife who killed her husband was buried alive in the ground (if the woman was pregnant, she was kept in prison until she gave birth, then executed).

To crimes against the person The Code refers to:

ь crimes against health (mutilation, beatings),

b crimes against honor (insult by action and word).

Punishments for them were assigned depending on the position held, social and property status of the victim.

Punishment for causing bodily harm was established according to the principle TALIONA(an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) and, above all, the victim was compensated for damages in the amount of 50 rubles. for every wound (Article 10, Chapter XXII). If the injury or beating was inflicted by a peasant, then they received compensation in the total amount of 10 rubles.

The Code pays significant attention property crimes, devoting Chapter XXI “On Robbery and Terrorist Affairs” to them. The law distinguishes “theft” (secret theft of property), robbery (violent, overt, open seizure of property), robbery (robbery accompanied by an attack on the life and health of the victim).

For the first theft they beat him with a whip, cut off his left ear, put him in prison for 2 years and “without taking him out of prison” he was sent in shackles “to do all sorts of things”, then exiled to the outskirts. For the second theft, whipping, cutting off the right ear and imprisonment for 4 years, 2 parcels for goods in shackles", then exile to outlying cities. (According to the Code of Law of 1550 - death penalty). For the third theft, Article 12 establishes torture and the death penalty “even though he did not commit murder,” and the property of the criminal was given to the plaintiff for use.

Death penalty for church theft. Article 13 reads: “If a thief commits murder at the first thief, he will be executed by death.” Thus, the Code considers theft for the third time, theft with murder and theft of church property as qualified types of theft.

Punishment for robbery:

ь for the first time was prescribed in the form of cutting off the right ear, a three-year imprisonment and link;

In the second - the death penalty.

If the first robbery was accompanied by murder, then the law imposed the death penalty.

For failure to inform and concealment of people “whose ears were cut off,” a fine of 10 rubles was imposed, so that “there would be no refuge for thieves and robbers anywhere.”

The Code also punishes for arson, destruction of other people's property and fraud.

The Council Code partially defines crimes against morality (violation of family foundations, pimping, etc.), previously known only to church law (Articles 25, 26, Chapter XXII).

The system of punishments according to the Council Code pursues the goal of intimidation: to punish “so that, despite this, others would be discouraged from doing so.”

Types of punishment reflect the extreme cruelty of the punitive functions of the Council Code; for many crimes the death penalty is provided.

According to the severity of the crime, punishments were divided into the following types:

~ the death penalty is the capital punishment, provided for in 36 cases, it was simple (cutting off the head, hanging and drowning), and qualified (quartering, wheeling, pouring molten metal into the throat, burying in the ground up to the shoulders, impalement, burning, etc. .).

~ corporal punishment (painful and self-harmful) - beating with batogs, whips, cutting off a hand, branding, punishment according to the Talion principle,

~ hard labor,

~ property penalties,

~ deprivation of rank, removal from office,

~ church repentance.

The Council Code finally approves 2 process forms: search and trial.

The investigative (inquisitorial) process is finally approved in law enforcement practice and is used more widely than in the previous period. It is used in cases of church and religion, political crimes, murder, theft, robbery and robbery. The search began not only at the request of the victim, but also at the initiative of government agencies. At the same time, they interrogated the accused and witnesses, asked neighbors, conducted a “massive search” - a mass survey of the population, torture. The provincial elders and judges, the best people, the convicts, were present during the torture. The “torture speeches” were recorded by the zemstvo clerk, and they were signed by judges and other persons.

The indictment-adversarial process (“court”) was retained for the consideration of property and minor criminal cases. The proceedings were conducted orally, but were recorded in the “court list” (protocol).

The field (duel) and rightness gradually disappeared from the system of evidence. During this period, the institution of recusal of a Judge appeared (Article 3, Chapter X).

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

1. Decree books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
2. 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:

1. Intimidation.
2. Retribution from the state.
3. Isolation of the criminal (in case of exile or imprisonment).
4. 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 conditional land ownership, 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 fiefdoms 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

1. The Council Code generalized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 17th century.
2. It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism.
3. 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 relatively early, already in 1649, codified Russian civil law. 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 Story domestic state and rights.. - 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.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Every openly expressed thought, no matter how false, every clearly conveyed fantasy, no matter how absurd, cannot fail to find sympathy in some soul

Lev Tolstoy

In this article we will briefly consider the Council Code of 1649, as one of the first documents that systematized the legislation of Rus'. In 1649, for the first time in the history of Russia, codification was carried out state law: The Zemsky Sobor developed the Council Code. In that regulatory document For the first time, the basic laws of the state were not only collected, they were classified by industry. This significantly simplified the system of Russian legislation and ensured its stability. This article describes the main reasons for the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, its main meaning and a brief description of, and also analyzes the main consequences of the adoption of the law on the development of Russian statehood.

Reasons for the adoption of the Council Code of 1649

Between 1550 and 1648, about 800 decrees, laws and other regulations were issued. Especially many of them came out during the Time of Troubles. Working with them required not only great knowledge, but also a lot of processing time. In addition, there were cases when some provisions of one decree could conflict with others, which brought great damage system of legislation of the Russian kingdom. These problems forced us to think about codifying existing laws, that is, processing them and compiling them into a single and integral set of laws. In 1648, the Salt Riot took place in Moscow; one of the demands of the rebels was a call for the convening of a Zemsky Sobor to create an agreed and unified law.

Another reason pushing Alexei Mikhailovich to create the Council Code of 1649 was the state’s tendency to absolute monarchy, which required clear enshrinement in laws. The tsar from the young Romanov dynasty actually concentrated all power in his hands, limiting the influence of the Zemsky Sobor, however, the new politic system needed to be enshrined in law. Also, new class relations, and especially the status of the nobility and peasantry (the tendency towards the formation of serfdom) also needed legal revision. This whole set of reasons led to the fact that at the end of 1648, Alexei Mikhailovich convened the Zemsky Sobor, giving him the task of forming a single set of laws, which went down in history as the Council Code.

Sources of the Code and work on its creation

To create a code of laws, a special commission was created, consisting of those close to the tsar, headed by Prince Nikita Odoevsky. In addition to him, the commission included the hero of the Smolensk War, Prince Fyodor Volkonsky, as well as clerk Fyodor Griboyedov. Tsar Alexei personally took part in the work of the commission. The basis for writing the Council Code of 1649, in short, was the following legal sources:

1. Law codes of 1497 and 1550. The basis of the Russian legal system of the 16th century.
2. Decree books of orders, where the basic laws and orders issued in the late 16th - first half of the 17th centuries were collected.
3. Lithuanian Statute of 1588. The Basic Law of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of this period served as a model of legal technique. From here legal formulations, phrases, rubrics, as well as ideas about the situation of the peasantry were taken.
4. Petitions submitted for consideration to government bodies from the boyars. They indicated the main requests and wishes regarding the existing legal system. Also, during the work of the commission, petitions were sent to its participants from different regions countries.
5. The helmsman's book (Nomocanon). These are collections of laws that related to church affairs. This tradition came from Byzantium. The helm book is used in the management of the church, as well as in the organization of church courts.

Characteristics of Codes by industry

In 1649, the Council Code was completely completed. It is interesting that this was not only the first collection of Russian laws, formed according to headings that were determined by areas of law. This was the first set of laws of Russia that was in printed form. In total, the Council Code consisted of 25 chapters, which contained 967 articles. Historians Russian law The following legal branches are identified, which were disclosed in the Council Code of 1649:

State law

The law completely determined the legal status of the monarch in Russia, as well as the mechanisms of inheritance of power. Articles from this branch of law addressed questions from the point of view of the legality of the Romanov dynasty on the throne. In addition, these articles consolidated the process of establishing an absolute monarchy in Russia.

Criminal law

Firstly, the types of crimes were classified here. Secondly, all possible types of punishment are described. The following types of crimes were identified:

1. Crimes against the state. This type of crime first appeared in the Russian legal system. Insults and other illegal actions against the monarch, his family, as well as conspiracy and treason were considered a crime against the state. By the way, in cases where the relatives of the criminal knew about the crime against Russian state, then they bore the same responsibility.
2. Crimes against government controlled. This category included: counterfeiting coins, unauthorized crossing state border, giving false evidence and accusations (recorded in the law with the term “sneaking”).
3. Crimes against "decency". These crimes meant sheltering fugitives and criminals, selling stolen goods and maintaining brothels.
4. Official crimes: bribery, waste of public money, injustice, as well as war crimes (primarily looting).
5. Crimes against the Church. This included blasphemy, conversion to another faith, interruption of church services, etc.
6. Crimes against the person: murder, mutilation, beatings, insult. By the way, killing a thief at the scene of a crime was not considered a violation of the law.
7. Property crimes: theft, robbery, fraud, horse theft, etc.
8. Crimes against morality. In this category there was a wife’s betrayal of her husband, “fornication” with a slave, and disrespect for parents.

As for punishments for crimes, the Council Code of 1649 identified several main types:

1. Death penalty by hanging, quartering, beheading, burning. For counterfeiting, the criminal had molten iron poured down his throat.
2. Corporal punishment, such as branding or whipping.
3. Terme conclusion. The term was from three days to life imprisonment. By the way, the prison inmates were supposed to be supported by the relatives of the prisoners.
4. Link. Originally used for senior officials who fell out of favor (“disgraced”) with the king.
5. Dishonorable punishments. Also applied to the upper classes, it consisted of deprivation of rights and privileges through demotion in rank.
6. Fines and confiscation of property.

Civil law

For the first time in the history of Russia, attempts were made to describe the institution of private property, as well as to highlight the legal capacity of subjects. Thus, a young man of 15 years old could be given an estate. The types of contracts for the transfer of property rights were also described: oral and written. The Council Code defined the concept of “acquisitive prescription” - the right to receive a thing into private ownership after using it for a certain time. In 1649 this period was 40 years. The basis of the civil sector of the new set of laws was the consolidation of the class character Russian society. All classes of Russia were regulated, the nobility became the main support of the absolute monarchy.

In addition, the Council Code of 1649 briefly but finally completed the enslavement of the peasants: the landowner had the right to look for runaway peasants any time after the escape. Thus, the peasants were finally “attached” to the land, becoming the property of the landowner.

Family law

The Council Code did not directly concern family law, since it was within the competence of the church court. However, certain articles of the code of laws concerned family life, describing the basic principles family relations. So, parents had great power over their children, for example, if a daughter killed one of the parents, she was executed, and if a parent killed a child, he received a year in prison. Parents had the right to beat their children, but they were forbidden to complain about their parents.

As for married couples, the husband had actual ownership over his wife. The age of marriage for a man was 15 years, and for a woman - 12. Divorce was strictly regulated and was allowed only in certain cases (entry to a monastery, the wife’s inability to give birth to children, etc.).

In addition to the above provisions, the Council Code dealt with the procedural component of law. Thus, the following procedures were established, the purpose of which was to obtain evidence:

1. "Search". Inspection of things, as well as communication with possible witnesses.
2. "Pravezh". Caning of an insolvent debtor for a specified period of time, in exchange for a fine. If the debtor had money before the end of the “right” period, then the beating stopped.
3. "Wanted." The use of various means to search for a criminal, as well as to conduct interrogations to obtain the necessary information. The Code described the right to use torture (no more than two or three times, using breaks).

Additions to the law in the 17th century

During the second half of the 17th century, additional laws were adopted that introduced changes or additions to the Code. For example, in 1669 a law was passed to increase penalties for criminals. It was associated with the increase in crime in Russia during this period. In 1675-1677, additions were adopted on the status of the estate. This was due to an increase in disputes regarding land rights. In 1667, the “New Trade Charter” was adopted, which was designed to support Russian manufacturers in the fight against foreign goods.

Historical meaning

Thus, the Council Code of 1649 has several meanings in the history of the development of the Russian state and law:

1. This was the first set of laws to be printed.
2. The Council Code eliminated most of the contradictions that existed in the laws of the late 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. At the same time, the Code took into account the previous achievements of the Russian legislative system, as well as the best practices of neighboring states in the field of lawmaking and codification.
3. It formed the main features of the future absolute monarchy, the support of which was the nobility.
4. Serfdom finally formed in Russia.

The Council Code of 1649 was in force until 1832, when Speransky developed the Code of Laws Russian Empire.

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 the result 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 Griboyedov. 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. It's more of a code than 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 rights orders, 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 tenure. 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 fiefdoms 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, state, family, 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 established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on social status 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), and the latter acquired all higher value. 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.

The most significant measure of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich was a new codification of laws - the publication of the Code of 1649, which replaced the outdated Code of Laws of 1550.

On July 16, 1648, the Tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Holy Council, “for the sake of fear and civil strife for all black people,” sentenced to create a commission of 5 boyars (boyars Princes Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, okolnichy Prince Volkonsky, clerks Leontyev and Griboyedov) to draw up a project collection of laws. By September 1, 1648, elected officials from “all people” of the Moscow state were summoned to the capital to discuss and approve the Code of Laws.

During the work of the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. The original project was significantly modified to take into account the petitions that the elected representatives brought with them. Then the final text of the Code was read out and all participants in the Council signed it.

1. The Council Code interpreted royal power as the power of God’s anointed on earth.

The concept was first defined state crime. These were all acts directed against the power, health, honor of the king and his family. The death penalty was imposed for everything: only for actions that caused unexpected damage to the royal authority, for example, for mistakes in the title or name of the sovereign, they could be torn out with a whip or long sticks (batogs) or sent to eternal life in Siberia.

Every resident of the Muscovite kingdom, having learned about plans against the tsar, was obliged to report. To do this, it was enough to shout on the street: “The Sovereign's Word and Deed!” The authorities immediately opened an investigation.

2. The sovereign's economy was also especially protected. For stealing the royal goods, “royal wheat”, catching fish in the royal pond, etc. the death penalty was imposed.

3. Crimes against the church and the patriarch were strictly punished. “If anyone,” said the Code, “begins to utter obscene speeches to a priest in a church, he will be subjected to trade execution,” - flogged at the auction. For “blasphemy against God and the cross,” burning was prescribed.

4. Many articles regulated relations between the population and local authorities. Disobedience of ordinary people was punished, but punishments were also imposed on governors and other officials for extortion, bribes and other abuses.

5. The Code regulated job responsibilities and landownership rights of nobles and children of boyars. The old custom was fixed. However, a new thing was proclaimed in relation to the landowner peasants.

6. From the beginning of the 17th century. service people in their homeland sought an indefinite search for their fugitive peasants. Fearing the desolation of the central districts and the weakening of the army, Mikhail Romanov went to meet the noble petitions halfway. In 1637, the period of investigation was increased from 5 to 9 years. In 1641, the fixed-term summers were extended to 10 years to search for escaped peasants and to 15 years to search for peasants taken out by other landowners.

The Code of 1649 allowed the owners to search for peasants forever, without a time limit, and return them to the estates. The last step was taken towards the establishment of serfdom in Russia. Now nowhere in the center of the country could a fugitive find shelter to wait out the lesson of the summer. The lessons of the summer, like St. George’s Day in its time, have sunk into oblivion. (True, the custom was still in effect - “there is no extradition from the Don.” It was possible to hide in Siberia and other distant outskirts, from where neither the government nor the owners had the opportunity to return the fugitive).

7. The Code limited the sources of complete servitude. Only a slave by birth was recognized as a white (full) serf. The rest of the slaves were temporary, serving in bondage (under contract or working off a debt). It became impossible to turn an enslaved slave into a whitewashed (full) one.

The authorities hoped that now the discontent of the debtors being turned into complete slaves would subside. The transformation of ruined service people into slaves will also stop.

8. The Moscow uprising of 1648 and a number of other urban uprisings forced people to listen to the voice of the town. Cherny Posad was indignant at the “competitors” - the Belomestians, residents of settlements owned by monasteries and private individuals. They worked as craftsmen and traded in the city, but did not bear any burdens or expenses. Black tax-payers pledged their property to the owners of white settlements, became white-town residents, and their share of the tax had to be distributed among the remaining black townspeople. The Code re-registered all Belomest residents as black posads, imposed taxes, and private individuals and monasteries were henceforth prohibited from having posad courtyards and shops in the city.

Fighting the flight of the townspeople, the Code forever attached the townspeople to the settlement. The law of 1658 required the death penalty for escaping from a posad.

8. The interests of rich townspeople - merchants, guests (merchants), the Code protected by the fact that severe punishments were announced for encroaching on their property, honor and life.

"NEED FOR SOMETHING NEW"

In general, the Code summed up the development of Russia in the middle of the 17th century. In addition, it was the basis for further development Russian legislation. As noted by V.O. Klyuchevsky, “completing the legislative work of the previous time, the Code served as the starting point for further legislative activity. Its shortcomings began to be felt soon after it came into effect. It was supplemented and corrected in parts by new decree articles, which served as a direct continuation of it: these are the articles on tateb, robbery and murder cases in 1669, on estates and estates in 1676 - 1677. etc. This detailed, often minute revision individual articles The Code, full of hesitation, then abolished and then restored individual legalizations of the code of 1649, is very curious as a reflection of the moment in Moscow state life, when its leaders began to be seized by doubts about the suitability of the norms of law and methods of management, in the goodness of which they so believed, and they became embarrassed to feel the need for something new, ungrown, “European”.