UKRAINE IN THE POST-PETRINE PERIOD
Initially, Peter Γs death did not bring about major policy changes in the Hetmanate. The election of a new Hetman continued to be put off and Polubotok’s associates, like Savych, Charnysh, and later, Apostol, remained in confinement in St.
Petersburg. Meanwhile, the Malorossiiskaia Kollegia lorded over the Ukrainians and sought to send its roots deeper into the land.On 27 May 1726, “For the sake of more effective conduct of affairs,” Veliaminov requested the Senate to transfer the Kollegia from Hlukhiv, near the Russian border, to a more centrally located town in Ukraine such as Nizhyn or Pryluky.1 He also petitioned for permission to erect a building suitable for housing the Russian bureaucrats. But, most importantly, the Kollegia requested that its members be allowed to hold their appointments permanently rather than on an alternating basis. Not to be outdone by the bureaucrats, Russian officers in Ukraine also strove to establish themselves more comfortably. On 23 June 1727, the Voennaia Kollegia petitioned for the right to acquire permanent quarters for the ten regiments stationed in the Hetmanate.2
Not all of these requests received a positive response from St. Petersburg. The Supreme Secret Council, the most influential imperial institution during the reigns of Catherine I and Peter II, rejected the military’s request for permanent quarters and Veliaminov’s petition for the relocation of the Kollegia. In doing so the Council reflected a new sensitivity to the discontent among the Ukrainians. (At about this time a Russian official in the Hetmanate anxiously reported to St. Petersburg that, “I hear of great wrongs that have been inflicted on the local people by members of the Kollegia and there are many petitions (chelobitiia) directed against the deeds of the members (of the Kollegia) as well as their scribes.”)3
At a meeting of the Council on 11 February 1726, Menshikov, F.
M. Apraksin, G. I. Golovkin and D. M. Golitsyn debated a proposal to make concessions to the Ukrainians. The Council decided to recommend to Catherine I that, “Before a rupture occurs with the Turks, a person who is worthy and loyal should be chosen as Hetman in order to satisfy and coddle the local populace.”4 It was, incidentally, on these conciliatory tendencies as well as on his close ties with the Duke of Holstein, who was also a member of the Council, that Orlyk based his hopes for amnesty during this period. In addition, the Council also concluded that it would be wise to deal again with the Ukrainians on the basis of the traditional terms, that is, those based on the Pereiaslav Treaty. Finally, the Kollegia was to be instructed to limit its functions to those of the highest appellate court and cease its intervention in the administration of the Hetmanate. As Krupnytskyi correctly noted, this proposal of the Council was a compromise: while traditional Ukrainian rights were to be reinstated, the Kollegia, albeit with reduced authority, was still to maintain its presence in Ukraine.5Several weeks later, this proposal elicited a sharply negative response from one of the members of the Council, P. A. Tolstoi, who argued:
I could not concur with the advice to allow a Hetman (to be elected) in Little Russia since His Imperial Highness of blessed memory did not allow the election of Hetmans and reduced the power of colonels and Starshyna so that he could take Ukraine (firmly) into his hands. In this way, conflicts were brought about between the Hetmans, colonels and Starshyna (on the one hand) and their subjects (on the other). If today a Hetman were allowed to be elected and the Starshyna were allowed to regain its previous power, then, in view of the current state of affairs between Russia and Turkey, this could have dangerous consequences.6
This echo of Peter Γs Ukrainian policy had a powerful effect on Catherine I. She rejected the Council’s recommendations and agreed to only one concession: that the Starshyna detained in the Polu- botok affair, notably the highly respected Danylo Apostol, colonel of Myrhorod, be allowed to return to Ukraine (but only if he left his son as hostage in St.
Petersburg).7 The Malorossiiskaia KollegiafS hold on Ukraine now seemed more secure than ever.At this point, however, opposition to the Kollegia appeared from an unexpected quarter. After the death of Catherine I on 6 May 1727, A. D. Menshikov, acting as guardian for Peter II, became the de facto regent of the empire. This old and bitter enemy of Mazepa’s and Orlyk’s now emerged as a champion of Ukrainian rights. What lay behind the powerful Menshikov’s new-found sympathy for the Ukrainians and his animosity toward the Kol- legia?
To put it simply, it was a matter of vested interests. As indicated earlier, Menshikov controlled 55,175 peasants in Ukraine, a fact which made him one of the largest landowners in the land. When the Kollegia imposed its taxes, the Tsar’s favorite was hard hit. During Peter Γs reign Menshikov refrained from ConfrontingVeli- aminov and his associates, but s∞n after theTsar’s death, a conflict erupted between him and the Kollegia over the issue of taxation.8 As long as Catherine I reigned, the Kollegia could count on support from St. Petersburg. But, as soon as Menshikov came to power, the fate of the Kollegia was sealed. One of the first orders of the Council, issued less than a week after the death of the Empress, forbade Russians from acquiring land in Ukraine, “So that no harm might come to the Little Russian people.”9 Apparently, Menshikov had this measure passed in order to keep out Russian competitors from the Hetmanate. The same order abolished the taxes imposed by the Kollegia and the per-capita tax collected for the support of Russian troops. On 16 June, the Council decided to return the responsibility for supervising Ukrainian affairs from the Senate to the Kollegia of Foreign Affairs. In July, Veliaminov was axed. He was ordered to appear in St. Petersburg with all of the KollegiaiS accounts.10 With the KollegiaiS dismantlement, the final step towards the restoration of the forms, if not of all of the content, of Ukrainian autonomy had been taken.
On 20 June 1727, the Council appointed a member of the Senate, Fedor Naumov, to go to Ukraine to supervise the election of a new Hetman. There was little doubt about who the new Hetman would be—Danylo Apostol, who was the colonel of Myrhorod and who had very strong personal and commercial ties with Menshikov, was elected on 29 September 1727. Two days earlier, the Council had issued an ukaz abolishing the Malorossiiskaia Kollegia.
But the man who had been instrumental in pushing through these concessions to the Ukrainians did not stay in power long enough to see the election of the Hetman. On 9 September, at the behest of Peter II, Menshikov had been removed from all his offices. Even at his downfall, Menshikov’s close ties with Ukraine were evident. According to Lefort, the Polish envoy to St. Petersburg, when he realized that his position was hopeless in the capital, Menshikov asked the Tsar for permission to retire to Ukraine and to take over the office of Hetman. This request, however, was denied.11 Nevertheless, Peter II did not revoke the concessions made to the Ukrainians and the election of Apostol was allowed to proceed. These conciliatory measures taken during the reign of Peter II toward the Ukrainians helped to a large extent to defuse some, if not all of their dissatisfaction with Russian rule.