The Brest-Belarus Group
small-area-map
Also: Divin, Drogichin, Khomsk, Malech, Telechany
 
Table of Contents  (?)
Site Page Counts
Public: 510
Restricted: 677
 
3-5: Government of the Liberated
To commence a discussion of the post-reform political climate, the author quotes a folk proverb:
No matter where you throw – everything becomes a wedge.
This means: in the distribution of political power as in the distribution of land slivers so small as to be useless, the peasants suffered; they could not win. The authoritarian landlords were replaced by a local government hierarchy:
In place of the landlord, who managed serfs, a peasants’ world was created –a congregation– led by government authorities. The peasants, having come out of bondage, were included in the rural municipality. Rural municipality were combined in larger union-townships (parishes).

The structure of rural municipality comprised peasants living on the lands of a [particular] former landowner. The civil parishes included adjacent rural communities with populations ranging from 300 to 2,000 people. Each rural municipality had a village assembly and village starosta. The village assembly was elected from among the peasant heads of household. The starosta was elected by the village assembly, for a term of 3 years and was the executive arm of the assembly. The starosta gathered the assembly, if necessary, and fulfilled their requirements. Duties of the starosta: the supervision of the whole farm economy, provisioning of work, and serving policing duties.

The starosta had the right to subject peasants to a fine (up to 1 ruble), forced labor and arrest (up to 2 days).

The parish office was the ultimate authority over the rural municipality. It was composed of the parish assembly, parish starosta, parish administration, and parish peasant court. The parish assembly consisted of elected persons: one for every 10 plots. He issued verdicts related to household and social affairs. This affected the entire parish (including conscriptions, including the establishment of parish schools and parish stores).

A parish starosta was elected by the parish assembly. His responsibilities included the carrying out of township sentences, the supervision of parish management, and {33} management of the village starostas. He was also engaged in police-administrative affairs. This comprised his main competency: he declared the laws and orders of the government, protected the superficial order, detained vagrants, deserters and criminals. Village starostas were his main aides in all matters and the collection of taxes. All of this comprised the parish government, a collective body, which from time to time gathered to solve economic problems. The district clerk led all the paperwork of the parish board. The parish starosta had the power to impose penalties on the peasants in the same size, of those imposed by the village starosta.

The parish court consisted of judges elected by the parish assembly. They resolved the smaller property disputes between peasants and minor crimes committed by the peasants of the parish. The parish court had the right to sentence guilty persons to forced labor (up to 6 days), to levy a fine (up to 3 rubles), arrest peasants (up to 7 days) and order a beating punishment (up to 20 strokes).
Though nominally representative of the local peasant-citizens, this system was dominated by central government, and –significantly– the local landowners:
Thus, the district and village authorities had control over a Conciliator, who was elected from among the local landowners, hereditary nobles. The central government of the country authorized this composition through the representation of the governors.

The duties of the Conciliator included resolving disputes between landlords and peasants, to check and approve charters, to facilitate the conclusion of the redemption transactions and direct the transactions of the peasants’ elected bodies. By law, the peasants’ elected representatives, included in the village assembly, were dependent on the Conciliator for everything. He had the right to dismiss the peasants’ elected people, make comments and reprimands to the starostas, to put them on trial, subject them to monetary penalties, arrest and so on. One could submit complaints about the actions of the Conciliator to the county congress, that is, to those same local landlords. For the decision of the county congress, one could file a petition to the Provincial Department of Peasant Affairs, which consisted of senior provincial officials and representatives of the same wealthy nobility.
In a division lasting until WWI, Divin had four municipalities defined:
After the liberation of our ancestors from the Divin gentry, 4 communities formed and were included among the Divin parish, namely:

1. The municipality of the Jewish population
2. The municipality of the Ratensk, Brest, and Kobryn Streets
3. The municipality of Povitsk Street
4. The municipality of all of the Klebantsevs

Every community elected its own starosta. This arrangement was in effect until 1915.
 
Notes: starosta: mayor.

Page Last Updated: 12-Jul-2015->