Valsčiaus teismas XIX a. antroje pusėje: duoklė valstiečių teisiniam atsilikimui ar modernėjimo pamoka?

LTStraipsnyje bandoma atsakyti į klausimą, kokį vaidmenį pobaudžiavinio kaimo transformacijoje atliko valsčiaus teismas, integruotas į valstiečių savivaldos modelį. Tyrimą apsunkina menkai išlikusi valsčiaus teismų dokumentacija iki 1889 m. šio teismo reformos, kuri Šiaurės vakarų gubernijose prasidėjo 1903 m. Vis dėlto valsčių valdybų ir taikos tarpininkų veiklos revizijos, valstiečių skundai, negausiai išlikusios tyrimui pasirinkto laikotarpio valsčių teismų sprendimų ir nuosprendžių knygos, valdininkų ataskaitos, susirašinėjimas, spauda ir pan. leidžia identifikuoti valstiečių integravimosi į modernėjančią visuomenę problemas. Valdininkų ataskaitos rodo, kad valdžiai pirmiausia rūpėjo, ar valsčiaus teismai laikosi procedūrinių reikalavimų, nepažeidžia kompetencijų ribų. Valsčiaus teismas, vadovaudamasis miglotai suprantama paprotine teise, toleravo savivaldos pareigūnų kišimąsi į jo darbą ir teisėjų papirkinėjimą. Valstietis netruko priprasti prie „savo“ teismo, kreipdavosi į jį dėl sudėtingų santykių šeimoje, giminėje ar bendruomenėje ir siekė teismo sprendimų įgyvendinimo. Tačiau valsčiaus teismas buvo skirtas ribotai nusižengimų nomenklatūrai, buvo lokalus, menkai prisidėjo prie kaimo modernėjimo, o valsčiaus teismo veiklos pobūdis vertė valdžią ir visuomenę kelti klausimą apie jo reformą ar panaikinimą. Raktiniai žodžiai: baudžiavos panaikinimas, valstiečių savivalda, valsčiaus teismas, paprotinė teisė, korupcija, teismo kalba, modernėjimas.

ENThe volost' court was an inseparable part of the peasantry’s self-governance in the post-serfdom village, however its idea and daily practices are often studied separately from other self-governance structures when trying to answer the question of whether its activities were in alignment with the modernisation of the courts system. When introducing a separate estate court for the peasantry, the organisers of the serfdom abolition reform took into account this estate’s communal coexistence traditions and customary law. However, the volost' court only appeared in the imperial courts model when a modern courts reform was being prepared, while a single-person justice of the peace court was created to deal with small-scale cases, which was designated for all citizens. This meant that the legal relations, legal awareness and culture of the largest social group within the population, consisting of former serfs and state peasants, largely formed within an autonomous "customary law" space. However, the peasants, as with the other citizens, could also appeal to the general courts. This article seeks to reveal what role the volost' court played in the transformation of the post-serfdom village. The research was complicated by the scarce availability of volost' court documentation from before this court’s reform in 1889, which only began in the Northwest Provinces in 1903. Nonetheless, the surviving activity reviews of volost' administration and peace arbitrators, peasants’ complaints, the few remaining volost' court judgements and sentencing books from the chosen period, officials’ reports, correspondence, press publications and alike do allow identifying the problems that arose with the peasantry’s integration into the modernising society.The very title of this article raises the question of whether the post-serfdom village volost' court served the purpose of merely paying tribute to the legal backwardness of the peasantry, or was it actually a place where peasants, now granted civilians’ rights, could learn lessons in public life – alas, this question remains unanswered. Officials and observers of village life constantly underlined the illiteracy of judges, their inadequate awareness of the laws and low competency and improper behavior, without taking into account the fact that the application of customary law was associated with the judges’ authority and community approval. When new legal and cultural concepts were introduced into peasant life – laws, competence, summons, complaints, cassation, judgements, court books, etc. – demands started being placed on volost' court judges to adhere to legal institutional practices and to follow the written laws. The legal norms the imperial government introduced for the peasantry were integrated into the General Provisions on Peasants, but not into the court regulations that underwent modern reform. This alone must have led to a collapse of customary law practices, based on community relations. Officials’ reports show that the government was primarily concerned whether the volost' court was adhering to procedural regulations and not going beyond its limits of competency. However, the government also had a vested interest in using this volost' court to manage undesirable expressions of the liberation of village life, first of all the division of unpurchased allotment land, but others as well. Thus, the volost' court along with customary law, where the subject was the peasant, and the law, where the subject was the empire, predisposed a conflict in government and peasant community relations.By gradually assimilating themselves into public activities and performing hitherto unfamiliar roles, the peasants formed certain boundaries for hierarchies, competences and behavior. Following the vaguely understood customary law, the volost' court would tolerate self-government officials’ interference into its work and the bribing of judges. Peasants soon learnt to appreciate their "own" court, and would address it regarding complicated relations within the immediate and extended family or community. They recognized the court’s judgements and would demand their implementation, while those left dissatisfied would continue their search for justice at courts of higher appeal. Sources that would testify to the peasantry’s reaction to the legal process during the hearing of a court case from the period under discussion have not survived, but officials’ reports show that the court sessions were public. Due to attempts to combine the archaic and modern systems simultaneously, the volost' court became an obstacle that was difficult to overcome in the modernisation of the village. This forced the government and society to raise questions about the reformation or dissolution of the volost' court. Keywords: abolition of serfdom, peasant self-governance, volost' court, custom law, corruption, court language, modernisation.

• Kaimas ir dvaras Lietuvoje XIX amžiuje. Vilnius : Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 2003. 502 p.
• Rinktiniai raštai / Jonas Vitartas. T. 1. Vilnius : Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2017. 383 p.