No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Finland
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
The war between Russia and Sweden culminating in the treaty of Fredrikshamn in 1809 decided the fate of Finland; according to the terms of the treaty Sweden ceded to Russia her Finnish provinces. Article VI of the treaty states, however, that Russia guaranteed Finland her laws and privileges. It is this latter clause, which at the present day is the bone of contention in the Finnish question.
The campaign of the Russian army corps in Finland was very far from being a decisive one; the progress was slow, the resistance of the enemy strong; finally, the Finns started a guerilla war against the Russians, causing the latter very great annoyance.
At the same time the Russian government had many other troubles on hand. The figure of Napoleon loomed high on the horizon of Europe and his shadow began to fall on Russia too, causing the Tsar Alexander I much anxiety.
All this was a strong inducement for Alexander to settle the Finnish question as soon and as peacefully as he could.
All through the year 1808 the Russians pursued a wavering policy; first they would threaten the Finns, then make them certain promises or concessions and so on; thus for example, two important manifestos were issued on March 28 and 31, 1808.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1910
References
page 350 note 1 The text of Article VI is as follows: “Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les Russies ayant donné déjà les preuves les plus manifestes de la clémence et de la justice avec lesquelles Sa Majesté a résolu de gouverner les habitants des pays qu'elle vient d'acquérir, en les assurant généreusement et d'un mouvement spontané du libre exercise de leur religion, de leurs droits de propriété et de leurs privilèges,” etc.
page 353 note 1 Similar to the mediæval German diets.
page 354 note 1 An international agreement concerning a territory does not establish the inner administration or public law status of such a territory.
page 355 note 1 The oath of ascension to the throne of the Tsars mentioned separately the “throne of Finland;” thus corresponding to the two juridial persons there might be asserted two thrones, the Russian and the Finnish; the author however thinks that in this case it is only a question of a double title.
page 355 note 2 Russian reactionaries later on raised the objection, that Alexander, being an autocrat, could not restrict his own power and always remained an autocrat for Finland as well as for Russia. This objection, however, hardly needs discussion; it really comes to a negation of any grant of a constitution and could be directed against the modern Russian constitution of 1905 just as well. Needless to say the history of the nineteenth century stands in flagrant contradiction with that theory. We know of many instances where constitutions have been granted which have restricted the monarchical power very effectively. From the moral point of view this theory is most defective, as it amounts to a negation of the sanctity of the monarch's word.
page 356 note 1 The text of the tsars' oath will be found in the book of J. K. Fisher, Finland and the Tsars, p. 39 et seq.
page 356 note 2 A similar example can be found in the German empire which has no laws of its own concerning the succession to the German throne; it is the Prussian laws that regulate these questions; the federal laws simply refer the matter to the latter.
page 360 note 1 Details concerning the act of June 2, 1908, can be found in the pamphlet of Th Kokoshkine, Le Conseil des Ministres de Russie et les affaires Finlandaises, 1909.
page 361 note 1 This latter theory had some defendants in the nineteenth century.
page 362 note 1 Professor Ullman, for example, and the Finnish Professor R. Hermanson defined Finland as a subordinate state.
page 362 note 2 An important fact is to be noted here; not summoning the diet and increasing the powers of the governor-general, Nicholas never violated the constitution of Finland, only those laws were considered as having force in Fairland, which were passed by Finnish organs.
page 363 note 1 Sir E. Fry very well defined this point in saying that “the treaty of Fredrikshamn recognizes the existence of the previous transaction between the czar and the people of Finland and that as res inter alias acta this could in no case rescind the solemn contract of Borgo.”
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.