SECTION G THE ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
We have to describe separately the organization of government and administration in the eighteenth century because, after the defeat of Hetman Ivan Mazepa in 1709, the regular historical development of the Ukrainian state was interrupted by Russian influence, although this was not always consistent.
Periods of intensive action against the Ukrainian socio-political order were often followed by the restoration of some old Ukrainian socio-political forms and of some concessions to Ukrainian autonomy. The Ukrainian state was able to preserve some institutions of its government, and sometimes was even able to develop them further. In general, however, the political and cultural influence of Russia grew stronger. The Russification of members of the upper social layer — who envisaged the inevitable victory of Russia and became reconciled to it — was more and more successful. This development eroded the principles on which the Ukrainian polity had been built in the seventeenth century.In the eighteenth century Russian state, the social position of the nobility (dvorianstvo) became stronger and the bondage of enser- fed peasants more burdensome. During the reign of Peter III the nobility was released from compulsory duties in the army and government services, and from this time enjoyed full property rights to their estates. This happened because it was now possible to maintain paid governmental officials and employees as well as the army officers. In the past armed noblemen were called for temporary military services, now they were replaced by regular soldiers drafted from among their able-bodied serfs. Peter I introduced the ’’Table of Ranks” (TabeV î rangakh, with fourteen ranks) for the army officers and public officials. They received new European-type names and designations.
The reformed Russian state — The Russian Empire (since 1721) — developed a new policy toward the non-Russian dependencies.
While the old Tsardom of Muscovy was content to leave their old socio-political system intact if their rulers and governors were loyal to the Russian suzerain, this was not enough for the St. Petersburg Empire. The imperial government tried to curb and then abolish the autonomy of these dependencies by introducing direct rule, in order to bring the governmental system of these lands closer to that of Russia. Meanwhile, in accordance with new conditions and objectives, the eighteenth century Russian Empire introduced new administrative organs which replaced the old prikazy of the seventeenth century Muscovite state. The new bodies were governmental boards (’’colleges”), noted for their bureaucratic forms and procedures that in many aspects exceeded the bureaucratic forms of government in the seventeenth century. We have to remember these characteristics of the eighteenth century Russian state when we try to understand the development of the Ukrainian social system and governmental organization in the eighteenth century.Russian efforts to transform Hetman Ukraine into an ordinary Russian province failed at first, and this process was extended for several decades. The Ukrainians endeavoured to preserve their own established socio-political forms, and there were mutual concessions. Hetman Ukraine maintained some forms of government but these forms were strongly influenced by the Russian system. In some periods Hetman Ukraine was directly ruled by the resident officials of the Russian state. After that followed periods when Ukraine restored some old forms of her governmental and social system (for instance, under the rule of Cyril Rozumovsky, the last Ukrainian Hetman). However, even under such conditions the Ukrainian polity was strongly influenced by the Russian trends and forms.
After the Poltava defeat of Hetman Ivan Mazepa and his Swedish allies in 1709 the organization of the Ukrainian Government went through several stages. From 1709-1722 Ukraine was governed by Hetman Ivan Skoropadsky but his rule was restricted by a resident Russian representative in the seat of the Hetmanate.
Several months before Ivan Skoropadsky’s death the functions of this Russian representative were transferred to the ’’Little-Russian College” (Mdlo- rossiiskaia Kollegiia), a standing board of Russian officials. The responsibilities of this organ were more extensive than the duties of its predecessors — the resident representatives. For instance, it imposed taxes on the TTkrainian population and collected them directly. Its control was strengthened by the ominous rule that no decision of the Ukrainian Government was valid unless it was approved by the ’’Little-Russian College” (and signed by its members, side by side, with the signature of the Hetman). Notwithstanding Ivan Skoropadsky’s protests, the College frequently interfered with the internal affairs of Hetman Ukraine. In several cases the Russian Government directly appointed Ukrainian colonels without the Hetman’s consent; some of 1hem were Russian officers, who had not been connected with Ukraine. As a result the Ukrainian colonels started to regard the Russian Government as a real source of power, and in some cases disregarded the orders of their own government. Forbidding the Hetmar to grant the landed estates, under the conditions of that time, was another very serious limitation of his prerogativesEventually, supervision over the Ukrainian affairs in the capital of the Empire were transferred from the ’’College of Foreign Affairs” (the successor of the Agency of Legations as well as the Little-Russian College) to the Russian central administrative organ — the Senate, which governed all Russian provinces. At the request of the Russian Government in 1720 the apparatus of the Cossack Chancellery, administered by the Secretary-General, was transferred to the new ’’Genera] Chancellery of the Cossack Army” (general'na viis’kova kantseliariia). This in effect established a Ukrainian ’’college”, following the Russian example. This organ had a board (pri- sutstvie), with several Cossack chief officers as members (later, in some periods, half of these were Russian officers), and the clerical staff of the General Chancellery, i.
e. the chancellery in the proper sense of the word. I i the decision-making process the Secretary- General was just one of the members of the General Chancellery, but he directed the work of the office clerks. The board of the General Chancellery acted as an organ of central government and, in some cases, as administrator of justice.After Hetman Ivin Skoropadsky’s death, from 1722-1727 the Russian Government did not give its consent to the election of a new Hetman, and subsequently Hetman Ukraine was ruled by the Collegium of Cossack Chief Officers headed by Paul Polubotok, the Colonel of the Chernihiv Regiment, as the Acting Hetman. The Cossack chief officers, however, clashed with the Little-Russian College. The Little-Russian College won and the Acting Hetman and some of the ' Cossack chief officers were imprisoned in St. Petersburg.
After Emperor Peter I death in 1727, Ukraine was again allowed to elect its new hetman. Daniel Apostol, the Colonel of the Myrhorod Regiment, won the election. He remained the Hetman until his death in 1734. As a Hetman Apostol was controlled by the permanent representative of the Russian Government, its ’’Minister-Resident.” This official also directed the work of a special organ, the so-called ’’Ministerial Chancellery.” Its principal function was the investigation of the cases of political dissent.
After Daniel ApostoFs death and an unsuccessful attempt by Cossack chief officers to revive government by their collegium, the Ukrainian state again remained without its own ruler. This situation changed in 1750 when Cyril Rozumovsκy was elected the Hetman. From 1734 to 1750 the country was ruled by the so-called ’’Administration of the Hetman’s Office” (praυlinnia het’manskoho uriadu), instead of Ukraine’s own Hetman, with an equal number — (three from each side) — of Russian and Ukrainian members but presided over by the Russian ’’Director” (praυitel,). This gave the Russian members the upper hand.
During Cyril Rozumovsky’s rule (1750-1764) the principal forms of the Ukrainian governmental system were temporarily restored. But Ukraine in the time of Cyril Rozumovsky was not the same country as Cossack Ukraine of the seventeenth century. There were clear signs of the ’’Russification” of the Ukrainian upper social strata. This was due to steady contacts with the Russian upper classes as well as with the Russian governmental apparatus. Also at that time many Ukrainian noble army fellows (or shliaκhta, as they started to call themselves tracing their origin to the nobility of the former period) were employed directly by the Russian government. These were the tragic features of the time when Hetman Ukraine for the last time tried to restore its old forms of government. The new Hetman, as was clearly revealed by the historical studies of the 1920’s and 1930’s, was eager to do his best for the preservation of the Ukrainian governmental system. But all his efforts in this direction could not restore this governmental system because the changes brought by Russian influence were too deep and too decisive.
There was a significant group of patriotic Ukrainian noblemen who petitioned the Russian Empress in 1764 for the establishment of the hereditary hetmanate. This would have completed the monarchic tendencies in the development of the Ukrainian governmental system and preserved the Ukrainian state. But the Russian Government decided instead to abolish the Hetmanate. Cyril Rozumovsky was forced to renounce his position. The hands of his supporters did not grasp the handles of their sabers in the defence of this cause. Ukraine obediently accepted this decision, and after that there was no chance to preserve the identity of the Ukrainian state, even as an autonomous dependency of Russia.
The Hetmanate was replaced by the second ’’Little-Russian College” in 1764. Its board had four Russian and four Ukrainian members; it was headed by General (later Field Marshal) Rumiantsev.
This was a return to the form of collegial government which was preferred in eighteenth century Russia. Jurisdiction and authority of the second Little-Russian College corresponded to the previous authority and functions of Ukrainian hetmans. In this respect it differed from the first Little-Russian College which was only an organ of Russian control and supervision.The second Little-Russian College existed till 1781, when it was abolished and Hetman Ukraine was incorporated into the Russian Empire as an ordinary province. Administrative and territorial division of Hetman Ukraine into Regiments and Hundreds was abolished. In their place, new divisions were created — the viceregencies (namestnichestυa) and later on the guberniias (provinces) of Chernihiv and Poltava. The governmental and administrative organs of Hetman Ukraine were replaced by the regular administrative apparatus of the Russian provinces. The Cossack regiments, as military units, were also abolished. The noble army fellows and Cossack officers became the noblemen (dvoriane) of the Russian Empire. It was the death of Hetman Ukraine.
This closed the most interesting pages of Ukrainian history. It meant the downfall of the reborn Ukrainian state. This state had weaknesses as many historians convincingly showed, and it occupied only the lesser part of the Ukrainian ethnic territory; its hereditary social structure was based on inequality. But it was truly Ukrainian and so long as it existed, it could assure the progressive development of its people and country as equals among other European peoples. The downfall of Hetman Ukraine set back the Ukrainian emancipation struggle for more than a century.