SECTION D THE COSSACK OFFICER’S COUNCIL

If the Cossack General Assembly was the only supreme organ in Hetman Ukraine, the governmental system of the Ukrainian state would have been quite unique, and sharply different from the poli­tical structures of other European countries.

In the history of most European countries in the early postfeu- dal period we usually find the representative institutions of heredi­tary classes. In some states these organs overcame all external and internal obstacles to development — foreign conquest, the absolutist tendencies of the king and princes, — and came, in a modified form, to our time. It is clear that in the first place we have in mind the magnificent organization of the British Parliament. In other countries these organs for some reason or other could not survive, the Etats generaux of France, the Snem of Bohemia, the Sejm of Poland, to name some of them. But in the second half of the seventeenth cen­tury, the time of the Cossack Officers’ Council in Hetman Ukraine, most of them flourished, evidently answering the needs of their societies. The characteristic feature of these organs was the principle of representation — a more effective form of government than direct participation of all the people. But, it was a representation of hereditary classes as separate social divisions, and did not include all classes.

Most of these institutions had long and complex development. Their origin could be traced to the early feudal period when they had the form of ’’council of elders” which consulted and controlled the tribal leaders. Later they became the councils of feudal princes and dukes, and still later on, of kings. Alongside with them were the assemblies of the people where the larger social groups had a voice in the decision of common affairs. The peculiar synthesis of these two early institutions that followed was a turning point in the evolution of methods of government, and a long step toward the constitutional principles of our time. The first of these old institutions was transformed into a ’’House of Lords” (or the Senate, or the Pany-Rada, as it was called in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania); the second became a ’’House of Commons,” a Sejm, etc. When the proud English barons defeated King John at Runnymede and forced him to call two knights from each county and two representatives from each city for the discussion and decision of problems connected with the imposition of taxes, they opened a new page in the history of con­stitutional government.

Ukraine did not pass through all the phases of such development. There were some interruptions of the historical path caused by a temporary though lengthy loss of statehood. Thus the councils of boiars and the vicha (sing, viche or veche) — the popular assemb­lies of the capital cities — of the period of medieval Kievan Rus’ were not substituted by the new organs because the Ukrainian princi­palities lost their independence. In the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania the Pany-Rada and the Soim (Diet) were the real in­stitutions of class representation like those postfeudal parliamentary institutions in other European countries. At the meetings of these institutions the representatives of Lithuania, Belorussia, and Ukraine met as equals among the equal until in 1569 when the regions of the Ukrainian Dnieper Valley were incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland.

The fact that in Hetman Ukraine the restored Ukrainian state started again the organization of a representative organ of social estates proves that the general line of Ukrainian socio-political de­velopment followed the historical development of other European nations. The Cossack Officers’ Council of Hetman Ukraine was, in our opinion an organ corresponding to the European institutions of estate (class) representation.

Before starting the description and evaluation of this institution we have to note the uncompleted path of its development. The Cossack Officers’ Council, with its enlarged session, had just begun its development, making only the first steps towards its logical goal. Therefore, we see only the rough and Uncrystalized forms of this organization. The time of Ivan Samoilovych’s and Ivan Mazepa’s rule (1672-1708), when this body began to develop into a real organ of class representation, lasted, after all, only three and half decades. This time was too short. In 1708 the Hetman state was defeated. In the ’’Constitution of Philip Orlyk” (1710) the idea of the Cossack Officers’ Council as a form of European parliamentarism was lucidly expressed. ’’There is in the independent countries a good and useful for common weal order — said Section VI of this document — that always, in the time of war as well as in the time of peace, the prob­lems of national importance are decided by the special councils.” But this Constitution was a document prepared by the Ukrainian refugees outside Ukraine and it could not directly influence the subsequent political development of Hetman Ukraine. In the eigh­teenth century the Cossack Officer’s Council continued its existence in a manner corresponding to the changed form of the Ukrainian political structure and under the powerful and direct influence of the Russian Government.

We have to start with the description of this institution, at first — its structure. In this connection we have to distinguish its three forms. The first was a conference of the Hetman and his chief aids (ministers) and advisers — the Council (or Collegium) of Cossack Chief (General) Officers.

The enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council indeed comprised a great many members: the chief officers and officials of the army and state, colonels, the officers and officials of Cossack regiments, and the hundred commanders. As a rule the noble army fellows also participated in the sessions of this institution. In addi­tion to them we often encounter at these sessions in the seventeenth century the mayors and burgomasters of Ukrainian towns. There was some participation by the higher clergy, but evidently this was not regular or obligatory. The ordinary Cossacks, peasants and lower clergy did not participate in the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council.

The enlarged sessions were, as a rule, attended by all those who had a right to attend by their social or official positions, and also those invited persons who wished to participate. Starting from the 1660’s and after this period we often find in documentary materials notes showing the participation in enlarged sessions of the ’’coun­cilmen” or the ’’Cossack advisers.” The documentary materials do not give a detailed description of this category. It is possible that they were the elected representatives of the noble army fellows who were unable to attend, empowered to defend their interests at the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council.

Section VI of the ’’Constitution of 1710” or the ’’Constitution of Philip Orlyk” stated that for participation in ’’common council” there ’’should be elected, with the Hetman’s consent, from each regi­ment one noble, eminent, wise and honoured councilman.

The ’’Constitution of Philip Orlyk” was adopted in 1710 in Bendery (Moldavia) by the Ukrainian political refugees who, in the place of the deceased Hetman Ivan Mazepa, elected Philip Orlyk as their new Hetman. We can assume that in their constitutional docu­ment, in general, they tried to continue the old governmental tra­dition of the Ukrainian state, while introducing some new forms and principles. As far as they used the term ’’councilmen” it is clear that they tried to restore the old tradition of the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council which, as we have seen, included the re­presentatives of the upper social strata. The really new feature was the establishment of this order in a written constitution.

We often notice that in the eighteenth century the membership of the Cossack Officers’ Council was extended by invitation. ’’Seve­ral noble army fellows” joined the Council in the autumn of 1755 and ten standard fellows (i. e. one from each regiment) in early 1759. In all probability these noble army fellows were the elected re­presentatives of their social group. We can state that the Cossack Officers’ Council was gradually developing into a representative body. But this form was just in its embryonic stage. The ’’Constitution of 1710” tried to establish it as a form of Ukrainian parliament but this Constitution never really became the law of the country.

The normal development of the governmental system in Hetman Ukraine was interrupted after the defeat of 1709 (the Battle of Pol­tava) and the Cossack Officers’ Council did not develop into an or­gan of the Ukrainian parliamentary system. Before this, in harmony with the parliamentary forms of other European countries, the Ukrainian organization was also developing into a dual chamber system.

The times of meetings of the Cossack Officers’ Council were determined by the character of its two ’’chambers.” The meetings of the Collegium of the Cossack Chief Officers were regular and, evidently, took place several times during the week, when there were problems which had to be decided. The enlarged sessions also had specially fixed terms. They usually met in the period between Christmas and Epiphany and in spring, at Easter. The Cossack officers and noble army fellows as well as the representatives of the towns arrived at the Hetman’s residence to greet the head of the government and at the same time to discuss with him the pressing problems of the state. Such a combination of holiday festivities with the meetings of repre­sentative organs was not a special feature of Ukraine. We find a similar situation, for instance, in England where in the early history of her parliamentary organs, their sessions took place three times in the year — on Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday. In the ’’Consti­tution of 1710” adopted at Bendery we also find three terms of these sessions — on Christmas, Easter, and in autumn (on Intercession of Holy Virgin Day). The first two terms were established before, the third was new.

The documentary materials of the period show us explicitly that the enlarged sessions usually lasted several days. In the eigh­teenth century the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Coun­cil regularly met during Hetman Skoropadsky’s rule. Later on they only met from time to time, and rather as an advisory body and not as a real organ of central government.

The procedure of these meetings and sessions was in the first place determined by the fact that they took place in the Hetman’s residence, i. e. in the capital city of the Ukrainian state. Usually they met at the Hetman’s palace. Some of the sessions — certainly not all of them — took place during festive banquets. Very often, we learn from documentary materials, that there was a prepared and announ­ced preliminary agenda. The meetings and sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council were presided and directed by the Hetman. They were opened by his introductory and salutary address. Only Peter Doroshenko had the habit of leaving the meeting after the opening address, giving the members an Opportxmity to discuss the problems of the agenda in his absence. Evidently this showed his intention to ensure a free discussion. Numerous sources provide information about the discussions at these meetings. Thus we see in the report on the session of January 1, 1697 that the decision concerning measures for the defense of the country was reached ’’after a long discussion and argumentation.” Sometimes there were sharp disputes with the Het­man. For instance, at a session of the Cossack Officers’ Council sum­moned by Hetman Doroshenko in 1666 members of this body ’’shouted loudly at the Hetman.”

It is not clear whether the Cossack Officers’ Council decided by formal voting based on the opinion of the majority. It is possible to find some instances leading in this direction. For example, at the enlarged session of the Cossack Officers’ Council on Easter in 1673 there were ’’more of those” who decided to impose taxes on the taverns. This might be a hint on the possibility of counting votes. On the other hand, many documents say that the opinion and decisions were ’’unanimous and harmonious” and this seems to exclude formal voting. There was no special confirmation of the decisions of the Cossack Officers’ Council by the Hetman. Evidently it was not neces­sary because the Hetman himself participated in and directed the work of this organ. The resolutions were promulgated as the joint decisions of ’’the Hetman and Starshyna (Cossack officers).” The sessions were closed by the Hetman. Not all the decisions of the Cossack Officers’ Council were made in written form. But we have found some written decisions of this body — in the spring of 1671, on the Epiphany of 1690, and some others.

In the eighteenth century — especially after Ivan Skoropadsky’s rule — the meetings and sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Coxmcil changed their form and character. Now as a rule, the Hetman did not attend them. At this time the Cossack Officers’ Council had always to present its written ’’opinions” signed by all its members. Those who disagreed had to submit their ’’dissenting opinions.” The ’’opinions” did not bind the Hetman and had to be confirmed by him (or by the chief of the administration when the Hetman’s position did not exist).

The fxmctions and jurisdiction of the Cossack Officers’ Coxmcil — before it became an advisory body — were fairly large. But very often they competed with and repeated the functions and jurisdiction of the Hetman and the Cossack General Assembly. There was no clear-cut delimitation of functions and authority. During Ivan Sa- moilovych’s and Ivan Mazepa’s rule the comparison of the authority of the Cossack General Assembly and that of the Cossack Officers’ Council shows clearly the greater influence of the second organ; this coincided with the decline of the Cossack General Assembly. The Cossack Officers’ Council discussed and decided problems of foreign policy. As a rule there was a session of this body preceeding the meeting of the Cossack General Assembly. The problems which were on the agenda of this organ were preliminarily examined by the Cossack Officers’ Council; in many cases this in fact predetermined the decisions of the Cossack General Assembly.

Examination and discussion of financial problems was a very important function of the Cossack Officers’ Council. The examination and discussion of revenues for the upkeep of the standing (mercenary) military units played a decisive role in the development of the en­larged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council which began their existence during the rule of Demian Mnohohrishnyi and continued to regularly meet during the rule of Ivan Samoilovych and Ivan Mazepa (1669-1708). Under the conditions of a natural economy with poorly developed monetary resources it was not easy to find money for the soldiers. The Ukrainian Government tried to find a way out in the taxation of distilleries and taverns for the production and sale of alcoholic liquor. Because the ordinary Cossacks were very often small-scale producers of alcoholic beverages they vehemently oppo­sed the imposition of these duties. That explains why the problem of taxes on alcoholic liquors and their sale was regularly discussed and examined by the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Coun­cil, where some of its members tried to protect the interests of the small-scale producers and sellers of alcoholic beverages and, conse­quently, opposed the taxation of taverns and distilleries, while the other members tried to prove its need for the state. Problems of the taxation of alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and wood tar were discussed and approved by the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Coun­cil in 1678, 1684 and 1685. The Cossack General Assembly, which elected Ivan Mazepa the Hetman in 1687, abolished these taxes and blamed Hetman Ivan Samoilovych, — who was accused of treason — for their imposition. But the enlarged session of the Cossack Offi­cers’ Council in 1690 restored these duties. During the rebellion of I. Petryk, who called for the abolition of the unpopular taxation of alcoholic liquors in 1692, these taxes were discontinued by the en­larged session of the Cossack Officers’ Council. This decision was confirmed by the enlarged session of this body in 1693. However, they were reestablished by the enlarged session of the Cossack Offi­cers’ Council in 1694.

This shows that the maintenance of mercenary military units was one of the most important political problems of that time and that in most cases the enlarged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council were called to discuss and to decide it. In the eighteenth century we also find the advisory ’’opinions” of the Cossack Officers’ Council concerning some problems of financial policy.

The jurisdiction of the Cossack Officers’ Council in judicial cases is indicated by its examination of some important political offences. Thus the enlarged session examined on Christmas — Epiphany 1676- 1677 the attempt of the Colonel of the Starodub Regiment to sepa­rate this regiment from Hetman Ukraine. An enlarged session exami­ned the case of L. Polubotok, the Colonel of the Pereiaslav Regiment in 1687; and it tried the notorious monk Solomon in 1691.

Quite often the Cossack Officers’ Council discussed and exa­mined other important military problems such as military campaigns, and construction of fortresses and military installations. We also know about several decisions of the Cossack Officers’ Council to confiscate the landed estates of the noble army fellows and Cossack officers (for instance, the decisions of the enlarged session of the Cossack Officers’ Council in 1692).

In the eighteenth century the Cossack Officers’ Council discus­sed problems relating to the codification of Ukrainian laws. Some­times the Council discussed the means of preventing the peasants’ escapes from their landlords’ estates. In 1764 this organ decided to submit to the Russian Empress a petition for the establishment of the hereditary hetmancy in Ukraine.

During Cyril Rozumovsky’s rule we see a certain revivification of the Cossack Officers’ Council. It still remained the organ with only advisory functions but at this time the Hetman quite often asked it to submit to him its ’’opinions.” However, this intensification of its activity lasted but a short time and after the incorporation of Hetman Ukraine into the Russian Empire the Cossack Officers’ Council ceased to exist.