This fact alone shows that the Russian veches admitted no
other mode of settling public affairs than that of unanimous
decision。 It has been already shown that this mode was general
amongst Slavonic peoples。 A few quotations will prove its
existence among the Eastern Slavs。 Whenever the chronicler has
occasion to speak of one of their decisions he employs such
expressions as the following： 〃It was established by all the
oldest and all the youngest men of the assembly that；〃 &c。； 〃all
were unanimous in the desire〃； 〃all thought and spoke as one
man；〃 &c。
If unanimity could not be arrived at； the minority was forced
to acquiesce in the decision of the greater number； unless it
could persuade the members of the majority that they were wrong
in their opinion。 In both cases the veches passed whole days in
debating the same subjects； the only interruptions being free
fights in the street。 At Novgorod； these fights took place on the
bridge across the Volchov； and the stronger party sometimes threw
their adversaries into the river beneath。 A considerable minority
very often succeeded in suspending the measure already voted by
the veche； but if the minority was small； its will had soon to
yield to open force。
The competence of the Russian folkmote was as wide as that of
similar political assemblies among the Western and Southern
Slavs。 More than once it assumed the right of choosing the chief
ruler of the land； but it was not an unrestricted right which
they enjoyed； the choice being confined to members of the family
of Rurik； for the Russians considered that outside Rurik's
dynasty； no one had a right to exercise sovereign power。 The
folkmote was merely empowered to give its preference to some
district line of the house of Rurik； for instance to that
directly descending from Vladimir Monomach； from which the veche
of Kiev elected its rulers。 It was also free to pronounce in
favour of a younger member of Rurik's family； notwithstanding the
candidature of an older one。 The choice made was often in open
contradiction of the legal order of succession maintained by the
dynasty of Rurik。 This order was very similar to the Irish law of
tanistry； according to which the Irish crown devolved upon the
oldest representative of the reigning family。 In practice it
generally meant the succession of the deceased's next brother；
not that of his eldest son。 The strict application of this law of
tanistry would have necessitated a constant change in the person
of the ruler； not only in Kiev； which was for a long time
considered the most important principality of Russia； and which
was； therefore； the appanage of the chief representative of the
dynasty； but also in the other Russian dukedoms； which were
subdivided into a great number of secondary principalities。 Open
force had very often to decide which of the two systems； that of
free election or that of legal succession； was to prevail。
Whatever was the issue of such a struggle the new ruler was
only admitted to the exercise of sovereign power after having
subscribed a sort of contract by which he took upon himself the
obligation of preserving the rights of those over whom he was
called to rule。 These very curious documents； known under the
name of 〃riad；〃 have unfortunately been preserved in only one of
the Russian principalities； that of Novgorod； a fact which has
induced many scholars to believe that this right of covenanting
with the duke was limited to this Northern principality。
Professor Sergievitch；the well…known Professor of Legal history
in the University of St。 Petersburg； was the first to prove by a
considerable number of quotations from Russian chronicles； that
covenants like that of Novgorod were known all over Russia。 More
than once mention is made of a prince securing the throne by a
compromise with the men of Kiev （s liudmi Kieva outverdisia）。
These compacts or covenants between prince and people； so far as
they are known to us by the few examples among the archives of
Novgorod； were a kind of constitutional charter securing to the
people the free exercise of their political rights； such as the
right of the folkmote to discuss public affairs and to elect the
ruler of the State。 This latter right had been already guaranteed
to Novgorod by a general assembly of Russian dukes held in 1196。
We read in the text of the decisions come to by this princely
congress； 〃All the dukes recognise the liberty of Novgorod to
choose her ruler wherever she likes。〃 Other constitutional
restraints on princely power are no declaration of war without
〃Novgorod's word〃； no foreigner to be nominated to the post of
provincial governor （volostel）； no public official to be
dismissed without legal cause； acknowledged to be such by the
decision of a Court of law。 Thus the principle according to which
most English officials hold office 〃during good behaviour〃 was
already recognised in Russian principalities in the middle of the
thirteenth century。 This efficient mode of securing the
independence and dignity of public officials has been completely
abolished in later days under the Tzars and Emperors； although
once more in 1863 its necessity was admitted by the legal
enactments of Alexander II。 Unfortunately no attention is any
longer paid to the promises given to this effect by the codes of
civil and criminal procedure； and many a judge has been removed
in recent times by a simple order of the Minister of Public
Justice。
Returning to the constitutional guarantees secured。 by the
new ruler to his future subjects； I must point out that those
already mentioned seem to have been common to all the different
principalities of Russia。 The same cannot be said of the
following two： first； the obligation to judge nobody without the
assistance of a special officer； called the posadnik； and
secondly； the right of the folkmote to choose this official； a
right which first appeared in the beginning of the twelfth
century。 These exceptions once made； we have the right to say
that the compacts entered into by the people of Novgorod with
their future ruler； give us a fair idea of the relative strength
of the prince and of the popular assembly all over Russia。
Our review of the agreement signed by the prince on his
accession to the throne has already reveaLed to us some of the
functions of the veche。 Questions of war and peace were regularly
decided by it。 No war could be begun but with the consent of the
people； because； in the absence of a regular army； the prince
could levy no other force but that of the militia。 Treaties of
peace and alliance were also signed in the name of the prince and
people； as may be seen from the following words used in the
treaty of Igor with the Byzantine empire in 945； 〃This treaty has
been concluded by the Grand Duke of Russia； by all the dukes
whatsoever and by all the people of the Russian lands。〃
Sometimes； it is true； the duke decided on going to war against
the wish of his people； but in such a case he had to rely
exclusively on his own military followers； his so…called
〃drougina；〃 an institution very like the old German 〃comitatus〃
（Geleit）。 As long as the system of land donations remained
unknown； and the duke had no other property to distribute among
his followers but that taken in time of war； the drougina or
comitatus was far from being numerous。 Hence the duke was forced
to ask the veche for assistance whenever he thought himself
obliged to go to war。 The veche either agreed to his demand and
ordered the levy of military forces； or refused all help； in the
latter case the duke had no other alternative but to abandon his
project entirely； or to resign his throne。 The control in matters
of peace and war was maintained by the people so long as the duke
had no other troops than the militia。 But a kind of regular army
had been created by the end of the thirteenth century； owing to
the custom of rewarding military service by grants of land。 The
so…called 〃pomestnaia〃 system； which was similar to the
Carlovingian system of 〃benefices；〃 produced in Russia effects
similar to those produced in France。 The popular militia was
superseded by a sort of feudal army； paid not in money but in
land。 In case of war the duke was not so much interested in
having the acquiescence of the people as that of the 〃men of
service；〃 slougilii liudi； who constituted his military force；
and corresponded somewhat to the knights in Feudal England。 This
change； as we shall hereafter see； had a great influence on the
future destiny of the Russian folkmote。
Another function of the folkmote； which appears to be
peculiar to the Northern principalities； and especially to those
of Novgorod and Pscov； is that of legislation。 That the
legislative functions of the veche were unknown in the Southern
principalities of Russia may be seen from the fact； that no
mention is made of them in the most ancient code of the country。
The Pravda of Jaroslav in its different versions shows no trace
of the interference of the people in matters of legislation； it
is the exclusive work of the duke and his councillors。 The few
amendments introduced into this legal code during the first part
o