Serbian Liberals and the Struggle for the National Assembly in the Mid-19th Century

Serbian Liberals and the Struggle for the National Assembly in the Mid-19th Century

Momir SamardžićUniversity of Novi Sad

AbstrAct

This chapter examines the political and ideological background to the Serbian Constitu-tion of 1869, namely the struggle of several generations of young Serbs to change the ex-isting political system and obtain political rights for the National Assembly. The first half focuses on their education in western European universities and the influence of liberal political ideas as keys to understanding their future political engagements. The second half deals with their political activities in Serbia and abroad, their opposition to the old regime, and the compromise enshrined in the stipulations of the Constitution of 1869.

Уставна историја Србије била је веома бурна. Обележило ју је шест устава, од првог, Сретењског, 1835. до устава из 1903. Устав из 1869. представља најзначајнији правни акт у Србији у 19. веку и сматра се прекретницом у њеној уставној историји. Према одредбама Устава и пратећих закона, Народна скупштина Србије добила је законодавну власт, право гласа било је готово опште, прокламована је слобода штампе, а посебно поглавље у Уставу посвећено је грађанским правима. Овај рад бави се политичком и идејном предисторијом доношења Устава, односно школовањем младих Срба на западноевропским универзитетима и њиховим политичким ангажманом после повратка у Србију. За време свог школовања током четрдесетих и педесетих они не само да су видели другачији свет, већ су се упознали са тековинама западне цивилизације и либералним идејама на којима су почивали политички и друштвени системи, пре свега у Великој Британији и Француској. У Србију су се вратили с идејом да би представничка влада и грађанске слободе могли благотворно да делују на развој једног заосталог друштва и убрзају национални препород и ослобођење од турске власти, што је било од посебног значаја. Њихов либерализам био је изразито националан, а национализам је српском либерализму дао снагу коју у супротном вероватно не би имао. Посебна пажња у раду посвећена је напорима либерала да промене постојећи политички систем истичући потребу за проширењем политичких права Народне скупштине.

Momir Samardžic90 ‘

Modern Serbia has had a turbulent constitutional history. There have been six constitu-tions – of 1835, 1838, 1869, 1888, 1901, and 1903. The Constitution of 1869 is widely believed to have been the most important legal act in Serbia in the 19th century, and is considered a turning point in the country’s constitutional history. Its provisions, along with subsequent legislation, endowed the National Assembly with legislative power, extended the right to vote so that it became almost general, proclaimed freedom of the press, and dedicated a special part of the basic law to civil rights. This chapter deals with the political and ideological background of the Constitution, namely the education in western universities of the young Serbs, their political engagement in Serbia afterwards, and their pursuit of political and institutional change.

During their studies in the 1840s and 1850s they not only were exposed to a different world and different political systems but also became acquainted with liberal ideology. They returned to Serbia believing that the introduction of parliamentary democracy would have a positive effect on the development of its backward society and probably could speed up a national revival and liberation from Ottoman rule. My approach con-centrates on the efforts of Serbian liberals during the 1850s and 1860s to change the political system by emphasizing the necessity of conferring legislative powers on the pre-existing, but not politically influential, National Assembly.

creAting And OrgAnizing the stAte

The modern Serbian state was created in the opening decades of the 19th century, in the territory of the Sanjak (district) of Smederevo, which was the administrative area of the Ottoman Empire south of the Sava and the Danube rivers that marked the border with the Habsburg Monarchy. Anarchy in the Ottoman Empire and maltreatment by local Turks led to a peasants’ revolt in early 1804 that developed into a general war of inde-pendence. The state the rebels created disappeared when the revolt collapsed in 1813. But two years later a new uprising began. After the first confrontations a verbal com-promise was achieved – the Serbs yielded to the sultan and in return they were given a significant degree of self-government. Thanks to Russian diplomatic support during the crisis of the Greek revolution (1821-1829), a new position of vassalage was confirmed by three Hatt-i-Sharifs or official proclamations by the sultan (1829, 1830, and 1833). The Serbian Principality, a tributary principality of the Ottoman Empire, was created with a territory of 37,740 km² and a population of approximately 700,0001.

During the First Serbian Uprising, the main question was whether leadership would be centralised in the hands of one man – the military leader of the Uprising, Karađorđe Petrović – or would local leaders manage to limit his power by creating a council as one of the branches of executive power. This was settled by a series of constitutional laws in 1805, 1808 and 1811. The existence of the National Assembly during the Uprising was of great importance. However, the members of the Assembly were not elected by the

Serbian Liberals and the Struggle for the National Assembly in the Mid-19th Century 91

Ideology, Society and Values

people. It was an institution of customary law and “a relic of the old patriarchal autono-mous system of local government under Turkish rule”, which was characteristic of the Sanjak of Smederevo in the 18th century2. During and after the Uprising, the Assembly was convened when important matters needed to be decided. It sometimes included several thousands of people, usually armed. However, these were not representatives chosen by the people but a crowd which leaders of certain regions would bring in order to have a say when important decisions were made. The opponents of autocracy saw the Assembly as a means of limiting executive power. In other words, they wanted to replace monarchy with an oligarchy through an Assembly which could be expected to confirm the decisions the leaders made. In spite of that, the Assemblies sat almost every year during the Uprising and sometimes even more than once a year3.

The first decades of the history of the modern Serbian state were marked by a struggle be-tween the established authority and new democratic aspirations. The conflicts between Prince Miloš Obrenović – the leader of the Second Serbian Uprising, who to some ex-tent took over the Ottoman system and ruled autocratically like a pasha – and his oppo-nents began in 1817, and included a few significant rebellions. The struggle continued even after the autonomy proclaimed by the Hatt-i-Sharifs of 1829-1830 was acknowl-edged. Consequently, the first Serbian constitution was proclaimed by the National As-sembly on February 18354. Educated Serbs from the Habsburg Monarchy, especially those coming from Hungary, played an important role in organizing the new state from the beginning of the First Uprising5. They were strongly influenced by the liberal intel-lectual climate in Hungary at the turn of the 19th century6. Dimitrije Davidović, the secretary of the Serbian prince and writer of the constitution of 1835, was also from the neighbouring monarchy7. His liberal beliefs were expressed in the text of the constitu-tion itself. Based on the French Constitution of 1793 and the Constitutional charter of 1814, it proclaimed the division of power into legislative, judicial, and executive author-ites. The prince’s power was limited by the creation of a National Assembly, with which he shared legislative and executive power. It also included plans to form six ministries. Significantly, the constitution looked on the National Assembly as only an advisory in-stitution. It would sit annually and have the right to initiate legislation, as well as to de-cide on tax assessments and the budget. A whole chapter was dedicated to the question of civil rights. The adoption of the constitution caused discontent among members of the Ottoman government and the other great powers because, on the one hand, it was in contradiction with the vassal position of the principality and, on the other, the text was seen as “a French seed in the Serbian forest”8. The Serbian prince was also displeased with the constitution and repealed it only a month after its proclamation9.

After the events of 1835, further constitutional developments took place in Constantino-ple. The Ottoman government, European diplomats, and Serbian delegates all participated in this effort. The so-called ‘Turkish’ constitution was unveiled in December 1838 and was introduced into Serbia in the form of a Hatt-i-Sharif. It was far cry from the previous


charter that had been so marked by French influence. Limits on the prince’s power did not rest with the peoples’ representatives, but with a newly-created oligarchic institution, the State Council. The distribution of authority between the prince and the Council did limit autocracy. The Council’s power was fortified by the fact that seventeen of its members were appointed for life and that the prince had no right to dismiss them; that power was reserved to the Ottoman government. Civil rights were hardly mentioned and the Na-tional Assembly was abolished, although later a special decree allowed it to be convoked in situations of special necessity. The Assembly rarely convened during the next few decades because, according to the new constitution, financial legislation was the Council’s respon-sibility. The abolition of the prince’s autocracy, which laid the foundation for a new legal system in Serbia and brought about limited democratization in the principality, may be regarded as positive features of this constitution. Unwilling to rule in accordance with the constitution, Prince Miloš abdicated in 1839. The struggle between his successor, Prince Mihailo, and the group of oligarchs known as Ustavobranitelji [The Constitution Defend-ers], which took place within the newly founded State Council, ended in 1842 with the prince’s dethronement. His place was taken by Karađorđe’s son Aleksandar10.

Using Aleksandar’s name, the Constitution Defenders were the de facto rulers of Serbia until 185811. Thanks to their efforts to restructure public administration, Serbia was transformed from a half-Turkish pashaluk to a civil state with an organized govern-ment and judiciary and well-conceived economic and educational policies. The adop-tion of the constitution was followed by a flurry of legislative action, which climaxed in the Civil Code of 1844 (Građanski zakonik) and the Police Law of 1850 (Policijski zakonik). The fact that a significant number of Austrian Serbs worked in the public ad-ministration contributed to the organization of the Serbian state along Austrian lines. They had been trained in the Habsburg Monarchy during the period of Franz I, and were thus familiar with a government system marked by the reaction characteristic of the post-Napoleonic era. The Serbian state thus resembled a bureaucratic police system of autocratic monarchy based on legality, but stern and centralistic in character. Oppo-sition to princely autocracy was lodged in the State Council and its supporters involved the clerical staff, not ordinary people. Thus the autocracy of one man was replaced by the autocracy of oligarchy12.

the cOnstitutiOn defenders And the nAtiOnAl Assembly

The Constitution Defenders had a pragmatic attitude toward the National Assembly. Even though the Assembly was not an elected representative body during the early 19th century it had acquired a certain reputation as a serious institution. After all, it had been one of the major institutions of the Serbian state during the First Uprising (1804-1813) and Prince Miloš Obrenović’s reign (1815-1839). It was usually convoked at the most critical political moments and it often discussed the most important state issues. Although



the members of the Assembly were only able to ratify decisions made previously, it was widely regarded as a permanent and necessary governing body. The importance of this perception became obvious in the 1830s and the early 1840s during the struggle between the Constitution Defenders and the Obrenović contenders to the throne, as well as dur-ing the entire period of rule of the Constitution Defenders (1842-1858).

In the mid-1830s, the prince’s opponents decided to enlist the Assembly in their strug-gle against him. The result of this decision was the session of February 1835, which saw the approval of a constitution which regulated the National Assembly. According to these provisions, the National Assembly was to function as the institution in charge of supervising state finances, which was similar to its traditional role. However, in respect of other legislative functions, it would have the right only to propose decisions, not to execute them. The attitude of the opposition to the prince towards the organization of government in Serbia favored the vision of an oligarchy taking over the government and controlling the prince. These ideas were expressed in the “Turkish” constitution of 1838. However, in defending this constitution and the powers it conferred on the Council, the prince’s opponents were aware that they needed the support of the peo-ple. On the other hand, they understood how important it was for Serbian peasants to preserve the Assembly, which they felt represented them. Therefore, the opposition agitated for the revival and maintenance of ancient autonomous rights. At the most critical moments in the struggle against the Obrenović family in 1839 and from 1842 to 1843, the oligarchs frequently convened the Assembly and thus fostered the image of a government interested in the people’s wishes. In fact, they did this rather skillfully. Since there were no legal regulations governing the convocation and composition of the Assembly, its sessions comprised varying numbers of participants who were selected in different ways13. The district and county heads decided who would attend the As-sembly, while the districts the Constitution Defenders trusted sent considerably more representatives than did others14.

Using the Assembly as a means of consolidating power, the Constitution Defenders expressed their insincere interest in the people’s needs by allowing the latter’s repre-sentatives to verbalize their wishes and requests. The one thing that all agreed upon was the need for regular sessions of the Assembly in order to supervise income and expense, and especially tax collection. Demanding the supervision of state finances, the illiterate peasant members of the parliament were not attuned to the spirit of western European liberalism, of which they knew nothing. Rather, they were concerned with reestablish-ing the old reputation and role of the Assembly.

The principle demands of the members of the Assembly were opposed to the interests of the Constitution Defenders, whose main aim was to limit the Prince’s authority by the Council in which they would have a decisive role. Hence the Constitution defend-ers tried to meet their demands about less important questions and thus maintain their fake interest for the people’s needs. The Constitution Defenders were unanimous in


the opinion that it was not possible to allow any tampering with the competence of the Assembly, and they managed to avoid discussion of this question during the sessions of 1842 and 1843. After Aleksandar Karađorđević was elected Prince they strengthened their position and thereafter stopped convoking the Assembly. The Council strength-ened its position within the oligarchy and it was frequently in conflict with Prince Ale-ksandar, who represented the opposite pole. During the next fifteen years the Assembly was convoked only at the most critical moments, namely in 1848 and 1858. The people were dissatisfied with this and a group of young Serbs, often raised in peasant families but educated abroad, took advantage of this situation and brought up anew the ques-tion of the Assembly15.

the first serbiAn students AbrOAd

In order to become a modern European state, Serbia felt it had to abandon the Ottoman model and rebuild its entire state apparatus. Special attention was paid to education. The reason for this was simple – the new institutions demanded literate and educated clerks16. During the 1820s and 1830s, a few educated Serbs drew Prince Miloš’s atten-tion to the need to build schools, pointing out that “only with education can Turkish customs be replaced by European ones”. In other words, Serbia would not gain its inde-pendence from the Ottoman Empire until it paid attention to its people’s education17. After the prince’s abdication, the supporters of culture and education exerted their influence, which soon led to a significant increase in the number of primary schools, along with changes in the existing grammar and semi-grammar schools18. In 1838 the Lyceum was founded and the first generation of law students was enrolled in its newly created department in 1841. The entire school system was regulated in 1844 by a new special law that was changed several times during the next few years19.

Given the relative absence of trained professionals to administer this new system it was especially important to send scholarship holders to be educated abroad20. This decision was implemented in September 1839 (soon after Prince Miloš’s abdication) when ten scholarship holders were dispatched to receive further education in Austria and Saxo-ny. This clearly indicated the government’s desire to educate experts who, in due time, would be able to take over important roles in the state apparatus21. The government soon sent several young men to be educated abroad almost every year, and gradually increased the number of scholarships awarded. Thus, in 1858, 23 were sent abroad for their education22. The principal destinations were the Habsburg Monarchy and Russia. However, from the beginning, a certain number of students were also sent to the Ger-man states and France23.

This experience shaped their political attitudes. Before they were sent abroad, the first generation of students had had no concept of modern political ideas. None of them knew much about European customs and society, nor about life in the large Europe-



an cities in which they were to spend the next few years. The language barrier was a problem for many of them, and there is no doubt that leaving for school was a cultural shock, not only for the first wave of students but also for those who followed. This, however, does not mean that they lacked belief in themselves and their own potential. On the contrary, during the 1840s, the Serbs were greatly influenced by the national re-vival and the students who went abroad were nationally and politically aware. They saw themselves as chosen by the government to finish college in the capitals of European countries and to contribute to their country’s progress upon returning home. All that raised their self-esteem24. Apart from that, education abroad wound up guaranteeing social promotion because scholarship holders were the choice candidates for the high-est positions in the civil service25. Curiously, the absence of an educated, wealthy class enabled educated young people from poor families to play the role of the elite26. Many of them, upon their return, occupied prominent positions in the civil service and soon became ministers and even the prince’s representatives (prime ministers)27.

dimitrije mAtic, KOstA cuKic, And the educAtiOn Of future leAders Of the serbiAn liberAl mOvement

In the decades preceding the Revolution of 1848, most students were trained at central European universities and did not have many opportunities to become acquainted with the more liberal political beliefs that prevailed in France, England, and Germany. Thus, they did not return to Serbia seeking change. However, there were exceptions, such as Dimitrije Matić and Kosta Cukić, who showed an interest in the European liberal po-litical tradition during their education. Following their return to Serbia they significantly influenced the generation that was to dominate Serbian political life from the late 1850s through the early 1880s. Matić and Cukić undertook part of their studies at the Univer-sity of Heidelberg, which was the centre of liberalism and the German Union movement at that time28. They both did their doctoral theses in philosophy, and the main influences on them were not French and English thought, but rather German idealistic philosophy. In spring 1848 they both returned to Serbia and were appointed professors at the Lyc-eum. Their texts and lectures helped lay the theoretical foundations of Serbian liberalism as they criticised the existing political system in Serbia. Matić criticised the police state, ar-guing that people had to be made aware of certain rights. Cukić promoted the freedom of the individual, constitutionality, and the rule of law. Three years later, they were dismissed from their positions because of what was seen as their negative influence on students29.

Still, the ‘damage’ had been done. An entire generation of the most important leaders of the Serbian liberal movement had been educated at the Lyceum. Among them were Jevrem Grujić, Milovan Janković, Vladimir Jovanović, and Jovan Ristić. Reminiscing about his days at the Lyceum, Jevrem Grujić wrote: “Their [Matić and Cukić] conversa-tion and the way they led us, encouraged not only thoughts about the unity and freedom

‘ ‘


of the Serbs, but about political freedom and liberal laws as well”30. In 1847 some Lyc-eum students founded the Družina mladeži srpske [Society of Serbian Youth]31, which was based on the German Burschenschaften. In Neven sloge, the almanac of the Družina, Grujić published an article with the title “The Horizon of the State” (Obzor države). This article became the basic statement of Serbian liberalism that his generation would eventually adopt. He pointed out that the goal of the country was to provide its people with happiness and wellbeing. He criticized the clergy, praised education, expressed faith in progress, and scorned the existing atmosphere in Serbia. His opinion was that Serbs did not have either outer or inner freedom, since Serbia was still a vassal of the Ottoman Empire and was deprived of any kind of constitutional rights. Next, he stated the goals of his platform. He demanded the liberation of the Serbian people from foreign govern-ment, as well as the improvement of relations with other Slavs. He also emphasized the importance of raising political awareness among the people. Grujić closed his text with an exclamation: “Long live the independent, legal (and in time, free) state of Serbia”32.

Pan-Slavism and nationalism, along with Grujić’s writings and activity on the part of Serbian youth, significantly influenced the formation of the new generation. Scholar-ship holders who had been educated at the Lyceum left Serbia “carrying a baggage full of nationalistic sentiment, perceiving their education as a mission that would help their people achieve full national emancipation”33. On the spiritual level, as well as in prac-tice, they were fully dedicated to this task. Unlike the previous generation, they were not forced to do this in order to survive, but were driven instead by the desire to ensure a place for their own people among the developed and educated countries. National independence and the liberation of their countrymen were, for them, just “links in the chain of other freedoms” and a path to general progress. They perceived national lib-eration as equal to political liberation. The Serbian liberals looked on liberation and unification, and the growth of political freedom, as mutually dependent. Their liberal-ism drew strength from their nationalism. Pan-Slavic ideas were interwoven into this liberal nationalism, particularly prior to the Revolution of 1848. However, though the political and spiritual connections between Serbia and Russia were extremely strong, students from the Lyceum favored the pan-Slavist ideas of the Slovakians and Czechs, whose nationalism contained many features of liberalism. Serbs from Austria, professors at the Lyceum, played the most important role here. Having been educated at Slovakian Protestant schools, they embedded their nationalism with pan-Slavism, and conveyed the idea of the Slavic brotherhood to their students34.

the nAtiOnAl Assembly Of 1848

The Assembly held in July 1848 was an opportunity for the Lyceum students to become involved in the political life of the principality. The internal politics of the Constitution Defenders had caused great dissatisfaction among the populace, who were exasperated



by the fact that the Assembly had not been meeting. They perceived this as evidence of disrespect and a lack of interest in their problems and wishes. On the eve of the revolu-tion, and throughout the spring of 1848, it was clear to the Constitution Defenders that something had to be done. Fearing a peasant revolt they decided to convoke the Assembly for the first time in five years. As state elections were called for, the govern-ment, for the first time, introduced special electoral regulation.

Exasperated with the regime of the Constitution Defenders, the peasant representa-tives made more than a hundred demands during the Assembly held on 13 and 14 July. Most of these were aimed at the state bureaucratic apparatus, which tended to make life difficult for peasants. The need for regular annual sessions of the Assembly was a unani-mous demand. Certain regions were even more radical. They wanted the government to submit a report on its activities, especially regarding state finances. The members of parliament had the support of Jevrem Grujić and other students of the Lyceum, who had won the right from the government to have one of their representatives present at the sessions. They strongly backed a demand from the Belgrade region to allow press freedom in Serbia.

Faced with so much agitation, the regime of the Constitution Defenders was forced to concede some of the petitions. Although they were opposed to regular sessions of the As-sembly, some of them, noting the growing mobilization, thought that they should not completely ignore the wishes of the populace. To solve the problem diplomatically, a spe-cial committee was named to weigh this and other demands. Further discussion on the character and rights of the future Assembly did not bring any results and, therefore, the government only issued a notice that the committee had been formed; nothing further was done. The demand for press freedom suffered a similar fate. The government rejected this, pointing out that the press in Serbia was not subject to any other limit except the one im-posed by state interests. During the following decade, the Constitution Defenders did not repeat the mistake of 1848 and they did not convoke the Assembly. However, the grow-ing complexity of the political situation, further liberal demands, and pressure to concede more changes forced them to make an exception in 185835.

entering the pOliticAl ArenA – successes And fAilures

The future leaders of the liberal movement spent the decade after the revolution study-ing at foreign universities. Jevrem Grujić pursued law in Heidelberg and Paris, Milovan Janković studied philosophy, history, and economics in Heidelberg, Berlin, and Paris, Jo-van Ristić studied history in Berlin and Heidelberg, and Vladimir Jovanović was advised to study agriculture in Altenburg and Hohenheim36. Studying in Paris gave Grujić and Janković the opportunity to learn about liberalism at its very source. Ideas of national sov-ereignty, political freedom, and equality fitted well with the agrarian social structure of Serbia, and found wide acceptance among Serbian students37. Encouraged by the uprising


of the Serbs in Herzegovina against Ottoman rule, as well as by the clashes between the Montenegrians and the Turks, they issued a brochure in Paris entitled “The South Slavs” (Južni Sloveni). Their aim was to make Serbian history and the efforts of the Serbs better known to the French public. They also criticized the political situation in Serbia, includ-ing the regime’s police methods, and pressed their demands that the National Assembly meet every year and that it be consulted about all important decisions and informed about the country’s financial situation38. Both Grujić and Janković lost their scholarships because of this brochure and returned to Serbia. Grujić managed to finish his studies at his own expense, while Janković never received a university degree. After journeying around western Europe, Jovanović also returned without a diploma, since the govern-ment needed experts in agriculture, whether or not they had finished their degrees. Jovan Ristić, a future leader of the Liberal party and one of the greatest Serbian politicians of the 19th century, returned to Serbia after writing a doctoral thesis in Heidelberg. Once home he began a successful career and distanced himself from the others39.

During the mid 1850s, all those who defended liberal reforms for Serbia returned home. The political situation in the country provided them with an opportunity to act. In the middle years of the 19th century, agricultural and social crises in Serbia contributed to a decline in patriarchal relations in the countryside. The introduction of monied com-merce in areas that were used to barter and payment in kind created further difficulties and dislocations. Peasants blamed everything on the state and its burgeoning bureauc-racy. They were especially dissatisfied that the National Assembly had not been in session since 1848. The Constitution Defenders were incapable of taking measures necessary for general improvement, and this led to further agitation from supporters of the dethroned Obrenović dynasty. At the same time, conflict between the prince and the Council was becoming ever more pronounced. In spring 1858, the position of Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević became untenable. Internal opposition and the absence of political sup-port from abroad resulted in increased rumours about his losing the throne40.

An influential group of intellectuals, led by Grujić and Janković, also opposed the prince. After returning to Serbia, these two figures had been characterised as “the lawyers of French laws”. In spite of this, both were appointed to important positions in the public service. Although they had some sympathy for attempts by the Constitution Defenders to maintain the legal system, they used every opportunity to stress the importance of po-litical freedoms. In 1857, in an article dealing with organizing judicial authority, Grujić stated that real safety existed only when personal freedom and the immunity of property were based on rights. He also said that there could be no rights in a state that depended on the will of its ruler, but only in a state ruled by laws based upon the people’s experience41.

However, there were few opportunities to criticise the existing system. This was why the liberals focused on economic issues, where censorship was not so strict. During 1856 and 1857 they published numerous articles, in which they expressed their opinions on the economy and offered alternative solutions. Vladimir Jovanović played the leading



role here, since he was the only one among the young liberals who paid attention to economic issues and had attended lectures on political economy when studying abroad. His opinions reflected the teachings of some of the most prominent political econo-mists of the time, such as Karl Rau, Wilhelm Roscher and Claude Frédéric Bastiat42.

Thanks to the efforts of Grujić and others, a group of liberal-minded people was formed within the young Serbian elite. Its members included clerks, traders, teachers, officers, priests, and even wealthy peasants. They were aware that political conditions at the mo-ment (spring 1858) were favourable, but also that they would not be able to make changes on their own. Therefore, they reached an agreement with the supporters of the dethroned Obrenović dynasty to support the return of Prince Miloš. They also began to cooper-ate with the leaders of the conservative opposition. Opponents of Prince Aleksandar be-lieved that the people’s discontent should be used, the National Assembly convoked, and the prince dethroned. The liberals wanted the Assembly to sit as well, but for different rea-sons. They intended to use it to pass a law which would convert it into a legislative body. It would be the only organ which would provide the people with an opportunity to take part in political decision-making. This step would be followed by liberal legislation, as be-fitted the country’s needs. Recognizing that the illiterate populace could not comprehend ideas about the electoral system, the liberals looked to the Assembly to reflect the spirit of the people, and turned to the peasant Assembly to get their project underway43.

The agitation achieved some results. For example, the prince and the Council agreed to convoke the National Assembly in September 1858. The first law concerning the National Assembly in the history of the Serbian state was passed on 9 November 1858. It referred only to the future Assembly and regulated the election process. There were to be two types of members of parliament. The first were to be elected by the people, with one MP per every 500 taxpayers, indirectly in rural regions and directly in urban areas. The second type were those appointed by virtue of their position as regional heads, court presidents, and the like. There was to be a total of 439 MPs, and the franchise was to be almost universal. The candidates were required to be at least 30 years old and spe-cial regulations were designed to prevent electoral fraud. A quorum of two thirds of the members was required for the normal functioning of the Assembly, while an absolute majority of this number was enough to pass legislation.

On 12 December the Assembly started its sessions, and on 23 December Prince Ale-ksandar was dethroned and Prince Miloš took his place. Yet the liberals did not man-age to achieve their goals. Before the prince was dethroned they had proposed a bill regarding the National Assembly. The main idea was for the Assembly to legalize itself, determine its powers, and arrange for regular sessions. The opening language of the bill, which claimed that the Serbian people had sovereignty to act through the Assembly, made this project revolutionary. The Assembly was to act as the supreme government body; have complete legislative power, approve the budget, and approve new taxes; and, finally, it would be competent to call ministers to account. It was to be convoked


annually, and its members were to be elected (one MP per 500 tax payers) and enjoy immunity. Actions against the Assembly could be regarded as serious offenses.

Grujić, the secretary, explained the law before the peasant Assembly, which was ready to ac-cept the project immediately. Nevertheless, the liberals faced resistance from their former allies. The bill was directed to a special committee and it was there that the gradual reduc-tion of the clauses began. A new law passed on 17 January and amended on 26 January 1859 fulfilled almost none of the liberals’ demands. It reduced the Assembly to an advisory organ that would sit once every three years and would not have the right to propose legis-lation. On 11 July 1860, Prince Miloš passed a new law regarding the National Assembly which limited its jurisdiction. In short, the legal creation of the National Assembly was un-doubtedly an achievement of the liberals, but it failed to achieve any political influence44.

The actions of Prince Miloš concerning the National Assembly highlighted the weak influence of the liberals on national affairs, in spite of their significant participation in overthrowing the previous dynasty. Prince Miloš offered to make Grujić the head of gov-ernment (premier), but Grujić’s insistence on governmental responsibility did not suit the authoritarian prince. Similarly, at the beginning of his reign, Prince Mihailo hoped to form a coalition government with the liberals. Grujić accepted this proposal and was appointed Minister of Justice. Nonetheless, this government did not last for long. Even before the change of dynasty after the death of Prince Miloš, the liberals were very hope-ful about Prince Mihailo. At the beginning of his reign, he proclaimed that “the law will be the highest will” in Serbia. However, the young prince reigned in the manner of an enlightened absolutist, and did not want to yield to the liberals’ demands.

Mihailo did not adopt a new constitution because it would have unnecessarily compli-cated his relations with the Ottoman government and the other great powers. Still, sig-nificant legislative activity marked the opening years of his reign. The State Council and Assembly lost powers to the prince, who was able to appoint the president. The number of MPs was reduced to one per every 200 tax payers. The Assembly became a solely ad-visory body that could express opinions regarding important affairs of state such as the renunciation of territory, tax increases, or changes in the constitution. However, even in these situations the government was not obliged to act on its recommendations45.

in OppOsitiOn – liberAls AgAinst prince michAilO’s regime

The liberals became the opposition again. At the beginning of Mihailo’s reign, Jovanović and Janković agreed to publish a newspaper called “The National Assembly” (Narodna skupština). The authorities first approved but then banned the publication, and after an appeal Jovanović and Janković ended up in prison. Since they could not publish their own newspaper, the liberals entered into an arrangement with “The Trade Paper” (Trgovačke novine), which had been founded in 1861. This focused mostly on economic issues, but it also contained political articles. Through allegory, but quite unambiguously



and harshly, these political articles criticised the politics of the prince and his ministers. Government pressure led it to cease publication in 1863. While apparently popularising science, the liberals tried to turn the lectures held in the Društvo srpske slovesnosti [Soci-ety of Serbian Letters] into a forum wherein they could publicize their own ideas. The government prevented this by abolishing the association and later reorganising it as the Srpsko učeno društvo [Serbian Learned Society]. In 1864 the liberals suffered another blow when Grujić was sentenced to three years of prison for, as a judge, releasing the members of a group which had been conspiring against Prince Mihailo46.

The most prominent liberal ideologist during the 1860s was Vladimir Jovanović, who became the leader of the Serbian liberals. His visits to Great Britain in 1860 and 1862-1863 had allowed him to meet famous figures such as Nikolay Ogaryov, Aleksandr Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, Giuseppe Mazzini, William Gladstone, Richard Cobden, and many others. He was in London in 1862-1863 when significant changes took place in the Balkans which included the possibility of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In this context Jovanović issued a brochure entitled “The Serbian Nation and the Eastern Question”. His intention was to gain the favour of the British public for the Serbian cause and to show that the Serbs’ desire for independence sprang not only from dislike for the oppressor, but also from their innate longing for freedom and democracy. He claimed that all democratic institutions and habits were originally theirs, while every-thing autocratic was the consequence of foreign influence – Byzantine, Turkish, and Russian. Therefore, the struggle between the uneducated Serbs and their foreign oppo-nents was one of democracy against despotism. This vision of the Serbs, uneducated but endowed with a special natural propensity for a civil representative government, served as the foundation of the political outlook of the liberals.

This theory was also directly useful in the struggle against the conservatives within Serbia. The liberals resorted to it to refute the latter’s strongest argument – that the idea of a truly democratic society was not intrinsically bad, but would be inappropriate for the illiterate and uneducated people of Serbia. Interpreting Serbian history according to a typically western model, Jovanović enabled the liberals to reconcile their nationalism with western influences47. Serbian liberalism and the nationalism of the previous decades reached ma-turity under the influence of the so-called Central European movement, whose early writ-ten formulations were marked by German philosophy. The influence of French and Brit-ish liberal philosophers was also felt by the end of the 1850s and beginning of the 1860s. Indeed, following his stay in London Jovanović focused on them exclusively. Moreover, ties with Mazzini encouraged the liberals to look to the Young Italy movement. The Brit-ish parliamentary system and Mazzini’s model of democratic nationalism thus became the two principal influences upon Serbian liberalism during the 1860s48.

After the discontinuation of the Society of Serbian Letters the liberals lost the opportu-nity for public activity in the country and Vladimir Jovanović spent the second half of the 1860s in exile. In Geneva he published the newspapers “La liberté” (1864) and “La


liberté serbe” (1865-1866). Afterwards, he moved to Novi Sad and published a newspa-per called “The Flag” (Zastava) along with the leader of the Serbian liberals in southern Hungary, Svetozar Miletić. In this newspaper they openly criticized Prince Mihailo’s regime. Before leaving Switzerland, Jovanović met with Mazzini, who advised him to create a wider national organization. The result was the foundation of the United Ser-bian Youth, which was patterned on the German Tugendbund and Young Italy. These two organisations engaged intellectuals in the tasks of upgrading the level of general education of the people and creating national unity through cultural and educational activities49. Despite initial agreement on the common goal of national union, confronta-tions between the Youth and Prince Mihailo broke out the following year at the Youth Assembly in Belgrade. The Assembly appointed Jevrem Grujić as its chairman, thus openly showing its loyalty to the opponents of the prince’s regime. The latter reacted by suspending the Assembly in Belgrade. This prevented the transfer of the Youth group to Belgrade and the creation of an alternative centre of opposition. In the aftermath well-known liberals lost their positions and Grujić went into exile. The regime persecuted members of the Youth as revolutionaries, and the latter fought back with relentless ver-bal attacks in Serbian newspapers published in the Habsburg Monarchy50.

jOvAn ristic And the cOnstitutiOn Of 1869

The persecution of the liberals did not benefit the regime. In fact, dissatisfaction with the prince’s internal politics only grew, thanks to widespread dislike of the laws which tried to limit local government. At the National Assembly in October 1867, two months after the discontinuation of the Youth Assembly, a group of thirty members asked the government to restore the National Assembly of 1859, pass a special law concerning the responsibility of ministers, restore the municipalities, and protect freedom of the press. That same year, the liberal newspaper “Serbia” (Srbija) began publication. It enjoyed greater freedom of expression than any other paper during Prince Mihailo’s reign. The prince was aware of the need for reform, but wished to carry it out under his personal supervision. Therefore, he commissioned a new bill for a more liberal constitution. At this moment Jovan Ristić began to play a more significant role. Being a German scholar, Ristić had always had inclinations towards moderate liberalism, although he disliked the idea of the populace interfering in politics. This led to a break with his old school friends Grujić, Janković, and Jovanović. While they were persecuted during the 1860s, he gained experience as a statesman, working as a diplomatic representative of Serbia in Constantinople. In the late 1860s, however, he drew nearer to the liberals after re-turning to the country. Being a more pragmatic politician he wrested power from the more famous liberal politicians and soon became the most visible leader. Ristić’s con-frontation with the prince, who valued his diplomatic skills and wanted to appoint him Minister of Foreign Affairs, had crucial consequences. Ristić proposed an entirely new government to the prince, based on an agreement with the liberals that would have led

‘



to a new era of moderate political reforms. Despite his ultimate failure, the demands which he presented to the prince made him highly popular among the liberals51.

The path towards reform was made easier by the assassination of the prince on 10 June 1868. A fourteen-year-old, Milan Obrenović, was chosen to be his successor and Ristić was appointed as one of the members of the regency until the prince reached maturity. His appointment was the result of a decision made by the Minister of Defence and the first regent, Milivoje Petrović Blaznavac, who had been responsible for putting Milan on the throne. Blaznavac realised that he needed allies in the struggle with politically pow-erful individuals in the conservative opposition. The regency immediately announced its intention to carry out certain reforms and in December 1868 formed a special board of people of different political beliefs. The possibility of putting into practice everything they had been talking about over the years proved highly tempting to the liberals. They now had the chance to prove that they really believed in what they had been saying about the readiness of Serbian peasants for parliamentary democracy. Events showed that they did not. Throughout the first half of 1869 the liberals claimed that, bearing in mind the level of education of the Serbian nation, a skilled demagogue could easily end up in control of the peasant Assembly. Therefore, they agreed to introduce a two-house system and proposed that the elections to be held in villages should be indirect rather than direct. However, public opinion turned out not to have exercised much influence on the new constitution. The regency convoked the Board and permitted public discus-sion only in order to calm the political situation in the country after the assassination52.

The most powerful figure at this time was the second regent, Jovan Ristić. His guide-lines for the preparation of the constitutional bill basically ignored public opinion. In order to prevent the appearance of members of the opposition in the National Assem-bly, he made sure that the two most important liberal representatives, Janković and Jovanović, could not be elected. In addition to this, Kragujevac, a provincial town, was chosen to house the Assembly, instead of Belgrade. The government bill was adopted with only minor changes on 11 July 1869. Ristić’s principal concerns in codifying the constitution were to introduce moderate and limited liberal reforms, extend the rights of the National Assembly, and distribute authority between it and the ruler. However, he worked to preserve the centralist state and powerful executive authority. The con-stitution declared Serbia to be “a constitutional monarchy with a representative body”, that is, the National Assembly, whose role would be restricted. The Assembly was grant-ed the right to pass laws. However, it failed to achieve legal initiative, which rested exclusively with the prince. The latter could choose ministers, and they were legally, but not politically, responsible to the Assembly. The Assembly’s authority regarding the budget was similarly restricted by its not being able make the prior solution of non-financial matters a condition for the budget’s approval. The prince and the government moreover preserved the authority to issue ‘legal decrees’, which would remain valid un-til the next session of the Assembly. The prince could also suspend certain articles of


the constitution referring to civil rights and political freedom. The constitution did, however, guarantee civil rights such as equality before the law, freedom of the press, the inviolability of the individual, and property rights. The principle according to which members of the Assembly were elected had a special significance for the government. The Assembly was to be elected for three years, and would sit each year. Three quarters of its members were elected through universal franchise while the other fourth was appointed by the prince. The most important was that clerks and lawyers could enter the Assembly only through such appointments. The government clearly expected to be able to control the three-quarters peasant majority. Criticism of the proposed consti-tution began immediately after its introduction. The conservatives criticized it as too liberal, while the liberals, led by Vladimir Jovanović and Svetozar Marković, rejected its moderation. Nevertheless, it stayed in effect until 1888, and was then revived in a coup d’etat in 1894 and lasted until 190153.

The Constitution of 1869 was the most important legal achievement in Serbia in the 19th century. It also represented the turning point in Serbia’s constitutional history de-spite the fact that Serbia, according to this constitution, did not become a parliamenta-ry monarchy along western European lines as the leaders of the liberal movement of the 1850s and 1860s had envisioned. Indeed, it clearly showed the greater influence of the German constitutional system. Still, the constitution was significant in many respects. As far as foreign relations were concerned, Serbia had repealed the ‘Turkish’ constitu-tion through a unilateral act. Thus, it ended the Sultan’s intervention in internal affairs, one of the last steps taken before full state independence, which came in 1878. In terms of internal affairs, for the first time in the history of Serbia the National Assembly grew more important thanks to its transformation from an advisory organ into a legislative body. Furthermore, the ruler’s power was restricted by his having to share legislative power with the people’s representatives. Thus, the constitution contributed to the in-volvement of the people in the political life of the country, and opened an avenue for future political struggles and the formation of new political parties.

cOnclusiOn

The central question during more than six decades of Serbian history was how to deter-mine the rights of the National Assembly and its role as a leading state institution. Thanks to the Constitution of 1869 the National Assembly evolved from an institution based on customary law and a patriarchal conception of democracy into a fully legislative body. A holdover from the Ottoman past, the Serbian peasant Assembly survived for two reasons – the specific way by which the Serbian state was created in the 19th century and the particular political development of the Serbian principality. Constant internal conflict between the prince and influential oligarchs allowed the Assembly to survive. Ruled by a peasant majority, the Serbian people looked on it both as a part of their tradition and as a



political necessity. The peasant representatives in parliament responded to pressure from the newly-created centralized state by trying to preserve local autonomous rights and reduce the state’s financial demands. To this end they insisted on regular sessions of the Assembly and on its right to supervise the state budget and take an active part in all important decisions.

Young Serbs, educated at European universities, played a crucial role in the battle to ex-tend the powers of the National Assembly. Often coming from poor, rural regions, they were well acquainted with the issues at stake. Their foreign education introduced them to different schools of liberal political ideas. Idealizing the Serbian peasant Assembly and identifying it with the popular representations they read about in their books, they hoped to ‘transplant’ the British parliament into the Serbian context, in the belief that the Ser-bian peasantry was ready to assume this responsibility. Their struggle contributed directly to transforming this institution into a modern parliament. By elevating the National As-sembly from an advisory organ into a legislative body, restricting the ruler’s influence by forcing him to share legislative power with the people’s representatives, and in effect creat-ing a constitutional monarchy, the Constitution of 1869 represented the most important heritage of the generation educated in the 1840s and 1850s. The task of future generations would be to struggle to extend further the rights of the National Assembly and to make Serbia a constitutional parliamentary monarchy.

nOtes

1 S. Novaković, Турско царство пред српски устанак 1780-1804, Belgrade 1906, pp. 349-405; R. Ljušić, Кнежевина Србија 1830-1839, Belgrade 2004, pp. 1-21, 75-76; V. Stojančević, Српска национална револуција и обнова државе од краја XVIII века до 1839, in Id. (ed.), Историја српског народа, V, 1, Bel-grade 1981, pp. 5-158; R. Ljušić, Досељавања, исељавања и губици становништва у нововековној Србији (1804-1918), in D. Ranković (ed.), Сеобе српског народа од XIV до XX века, Belgrade 1990, pp. 77, 83; H. Sundhaussen, Historische Statistik Serbiens 1834-1914. Mit europäischen Vergleichsdaten, Munich 1989, p. 80. The Sanjak of Smederevo covered an area of approximately 24,400 km². The remaining part of the vassal Serbian territory was represented by the districts that the Serbian rebels occupied during the First Uprising.

2 J. Milićević, Прилог познавању порекла србијанског парламентаризма, in “Зборник Филозофског факултета”, Belgrade 1970, XI, 1, p. 609.

3 R. Ljušić, Историја српске државности, II, Србија и Црна Гора – нововековне српске државе, Novi Sad 2001, pp. 54-70; Milićević, Прилог cit., pp. 609-611; Lj. Kandić, Skupštine u sistemu vlasti države prvog ustanka (1804-1813), Belgrade 1963, pp. 9-16; J. Milićević, Народне скупштине у Србији 1839-1843. године, in “Зборник Филозофског факултета”, Belgrade 1957, IV, 1, pp. 157-187; М. Ristić, Народне скупштине у Првом српском устанку, Belgrade 1955, pp. 145-148.

4 Ljušić, Кнежевина cit., pp. 113-150.5 The centuries of Ottoman rule in the Balkans had been marked by mass migrations of Serbs from their

ancestral homeland (today Kosovo and southern Serbia) northward, across the Danube and Sava rivers into the Habsburg Monarchy, particularly into its Hungarian part. Living in the Monarchy, their ancestors had the opportunity to get a good education and to offer their services to the newly formed Serbian state.

6 Z. Ðere, Mađarski i srpski nacionalni preporod, Novi Sad 2004, manuscript, pp. 340-365, 386-387.


7 R. Ljušić, Оријентални новинар, европски политичар. Димитрије Давидовић (1789-1838), Belgrade 2006, pp. 113-134; D. Popović, Dimitrije Davidović – od narodne k pojedinačnoj slobodi, in J. Trkulja, D. Popović (eds.), Liberalna misao u Srbiji. Prilozi istoriji liberalizma od kraja XVIII do sredine XX veka, Bel-grade 2001, pp. 33-42.

8 The Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Aleksandar P. Buteniov, claimed that Serbia “fell into the abyss of French-Swiss constitutionalism”. When Serbian representatives came to Constantinople, they brought the text of the constitution to the Russian ambassador, but he refused to take it fearing that he might contract a disease.

9 Ј. Nicović, Уставни развој Србије 1804-2006, Belgrade 2007, pp. 38-70; D.M. Popović, Прапочетак српског парламентаризма. Клице и преурањен плод, Belgrade 1996, pp. 35-117; D. Đorđević, Страни утицаји и балкански устави у деветнаестом веку, in Огледи из новије балканске историје, Belgrade 1989, pp. 109-110; Ljušić, Кнежевина cit., pp. 145-158.

10 R. Ljušić, О уставу из 1838, in М. Jovičić (ed.), Уставни развитак Србије у XIX и почетком XX века, Belgrade 1990, pp. 29-31; Nicović, Уставни cit., pp. 71-82; Ljušić, Кнежевина cit., pp. 158-202; J. Milićević, Србија 1839-1868. године, in Stojančević (ed.), Историја cit., pp. 251-260.

11 This period (1842-1858) in the history of Serbia is called the time of the Constitution Defenders.12 S. Jovanović, Уставобранитељи и њихова влада, Belgrade 1990, pp. 33-63; V. Jovanović, Државна

власт и појединац, in A. Stolić, N. Makuljević (eds.), Приватни живот код Срба у деветнаестом веку. Од краја осамнаестог века до почетка Првог светског рата, Belgrade 2006, pp. 54-64; V. Čubrilović, Историја политичке мисли у Србији XIX века, Belgrade 1982, pp. 115-118; R. Ljušić, Законодав-ни рад Првог намесништва (1839-1840), in “Историјски гласник”, 1981, 1-2, pp. 107-125; H.M. Bestflajš, Сукоби око бирократије у Србији 1839-1858, in “Историјски часопис”, 1986, XXXIII, pp. 169-185.

13 The Assembly held in June 1839 consisted of representatives of the people’s army who had previously crushed a rebellion by Prince Miloš’s supporters. In the Assembly that sat beginning in September 1842, and which elected Aleksandar Karadjordjevic as the Serbian prince, the regional and district heads re-ceived instructions from Belgrade to choose six or seven “honest and sensible men”. Certain sessions of the Assembly were attended by around 150 members of parliament, while the others were far more numerous, with more than 700 members taking part.

14 Milićević, Прилог cit., pp. 609‒611; Id., Народне cit., pp. 157‒183. For example, in the Assembly held from 9 to 11 August 1843, among the 445 members of the parliament, 168 came from the district of Kragujevac, while the remaining seventeen districts were represented by 277 members.

15 Ibid., pp. 182‒186.16 It took years to eradicate illiteracy within the public administration. When the Civil Code of 1844 was

passed, the chairmen of the courts included three illiterate members. Ten others knew only how to write their own name, and three of them showed knowledge slightly greater than was required in primary school. Finally, only one of them was a lawyer. It was pretty much the same among the members of the court. An opponent of the new judicial organisation, with good reason, said that when the Civil Code was passed there were only four men who could interpret it from a legal standpoint, and many others could not even read it. The number of illiterate judges was reduced, but by the end of the Constitution Defenders regime in 1858, only one-fourth of the judges and members of the court were literate.

17 V.S. Karacić, Писмо кнезу Милошу, Belgrade 1947, pp. 24-30.18 Near the end of Prince Miloš’s reign, in the school year of 1835/6, there were 72 elementary schools with

2,514 enrolled students. During 1845/6, there were 213 schools with 6201 students and near the end of the constitutionalist reign, in 1857/8, there were 343 schools with 10518 students.



19 Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 36-38; S. Ćunković, Школство и просвета у Србији у XIX веку, Belgrade 1970; pp. 19-81; Ž.S. Đorđević, Школе у Србији 1700-1850, Belgrade 1935, pp. 53-85; Филозофски факултет Велике школе, in Сто година Филозофског факултета, Belgrade 1963, pp. 9-14; Постанак и развој Универзитета у Београду, in 150 година Универзитета у Београду, Belgrade 1989, pp. 16-22.

20 Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 73-74.21 J. Milićević, Прва група србијанских студената, државних питомаца школованих у иностранству

(1839-1842), in “Историјски часопис”, 1959, IX-X, pp. 363-365; M. Urošević, Први српски студенти у Бечу и Шемницу, in “Настава и васпитање”, 1978, XXVII, 2, pp. 242-257.

22 Lj. Trgovčević, Планирана елита. О студентима из Србије на европским универзитетима у 19. веку, Belgrade 2003, pp. 33-34; Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., p. 73.

23 Id., Чежња за домовином и светлости велеграда. Студенти у страним земљама, in Stolić, Makuljević (eds.), Приватни cit., pp. 483-484.

24 Milićević, Прва cit., pp. 364-366; B. Bešlin, Европски утицаји на српски либерализам у XIX веку, Novi Sad 2005, pp. 153-155.

25 Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., p. 73.26 Some of the leading Serbian politicians of the 1860s and 1870s were born into peasant families. Jevrem

Grujić, one of the leaders of the liberal movement, came from a patriarchal peasant family. Vladimir Jovanović, the most significant liberal ideologist, was one of six children of a craftsman from a provincial town, while one of the best known Serbian statesmen, Jovan Ristić, was raised by a mother who worked as a washerwoman. “Memories of the Serbian liberals of the time when they were educated, as well as what was written about it by their political fellow-fighters or historians, mostly represent a structure for a truly touching and moral story. It was touching, because it talked about how intelligent and hard-working chil-dren of poor background gained knowledge abroad and gradually became important people – scientists, writers, statesmen. The story itself had a moral…which represented a kind of confirmation of liberal ideal-openness for talents”. See B. Bešlin, Српски либерализам у 19. веку – генеза, идеје, страначке поделе, in “Зборник Матице српске за историју”, 2003, 67-68, p. 71, 73.

27 Milićević, Прва cit., pp. 372-373.28 Matić began his studies in Berlin, continued them in Heidelberg, and got a PhD in Leipzig, while Cukić

started his studies in Vienna and afterwards transferred to Heidelberg where he wrote his doctoral thesis.29 J. Milićević, Јеврем Грујић. Историјат светоандрејског либерализма, Belgrade 1964, pp. 26-35; Bešlin,

Европски cit., 178; S. Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 76-79; M. Subotić, Liberalna misao Dim-itrija Matića, in Trkulja, Popović (eds.), Liberalna cit., pp. 46-60; V. Pavlović, Српски студенти у Паризу 1839-1856, in “Историјски часопис”, 1986, XXXIII, pp. 188-191; M. Subotić, Sricanje slobode. Studije o počecima liberalne političke misli u Srbiji XIX veka, Niš 1992, pp. 55-67; B. Mijatović, Iskušenja liberalizma Koste Cukića, in Trkulja, Popović (eds.), Liberalna cit., pp. 64-68, 82-88.

30 Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., p. 34.31 “Družina mladeži srpske” was the only organisation of Serbian students within Serbia itself. Serbian stu-

dents in the Habsburg monarchy founded organisations. These associations cooperated among them-selves, but their unification was prevented by the Revolution of 1848 and the conservative reaction that followed.

32 J. Ristić, Спољашњи одношаји Србије новијега времена, I, 1848-1860, Belgrade 1887, p. 30; Ј. Skerlić, Омладина и њена књижевност (1848-1871). Изучавања о националном и књижевном романтизму код Срба, Belgrade 1925, pp. 3-30; Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 26-35; Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 209-211; Milićević, Петровска cit., pp. 45-54; D.T. Bataković, Jevrem Grujić: obzori slobode, in Trkulja,


Popović (eds.), Liberalna cit., pp. 109-112; N. Đuretić, Politički liberalizam Vladimira Jovanovića, Novi Sad 2004, pp. 66-72.

33 Trgovčević, Чежња cit., p. 489.34 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 139, 151-160, 163-164; Skerlić, Омладина cit., pp. 139-152; D. Đorđević, Улога

националног чиниоца на Балкану у деветнаестом веку, in Огледи из новије балканске историје cit., p. 34; N. Đuretić, Politički cit., pp. 73-74.

35 Milićević, Прилог cit., pp. 612‒613; Id., Петровска cit., pp. 41‒58.36 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 286-306.37 D.T. Bataković, Француски утицаји у Србији 1835-1914. Четири генерације “Паризлија”, in “Зборник

Матице српске за историју”, 1997, 56, pp. 73-74.38 Ibid., pp. 117-118; Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 40-44.39 Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 44-48; Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 286-300; Pavlović, Српски cit., pp. 191-200;

D. Mekenzi, Jovan Ristić – evropski državnik, Belgrade 2004, pp. 7-12; G. Stokes, Legitimacy through Liberal-ism. Vladimir Jovanović and the Transformation of Serbian Politics, Seattle 1975, pp. 6-13.

40 Milićević, Србија cit., pp. 281-282; Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 121-135.41 Bataković, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 119-120.42 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 303-332; Stokes, Legitimacy cit., pp. 33-42.43 Bataković, Jevrem Grujić cit., pp. 120-121; Id., Француски cit., pp. 78-79; Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 346-

347; Milićević, Србија cit., pp. 282-283; Id., Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 49-73; Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 203-209.

44 Jovanović, Уставобранитељи cit., pp. 209-260; Id., Друга влада Милоша и Михаила, Belgrade 1990, pp. 295-307; Milićević, Србија cit., pp. 283-291; Id., Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 74-106; Nicović, Уставни cit., pp. 91-100.

45 Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 107-114; Id., Србија cit., pp. 286-292; Jovanović, Друга cit., pp. 295-393.46 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 443-456, 512-524; Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 143-148; Id., Србија cit., pp.

292-293; Jovanović, Друга cit., pp. 432-442, 464-471.47 The liberals paid great attention to this question. When Slavophiles accused Serbian liberals of trying to

introduce social institutions that were alien to the Slavic spirit in Serbia, Jovanović tried to confute these accusations.

48 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 477-512; Skerlić, Омладина cit., pp. 187-200; Stokes, Legitimacy cit., pp. 45-68.49 During his stay in Switzerland, Jovanović got in touch with a few famous intellectuals, who would later

play a leading role in the League for Peace and Freedom, an international association of democrats created in Geneva in 1867. The United Serbian Youth had been founded the previous year. Following this, the two organizations were in contact mainly thanks to the efforts of Jovanović.

50 Skerlić, Oмладина cit., pp. 91-105; Jovanović, Друга cit., pp. 471-476; Milićević, Јеврем Грујић cit., pp. 170-175; Ž. Milisavac (ed.), Уједињена омладина српска, Novi Sad 1968, pp. 40-87; Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 553-575; Stokes, Legitimacy cit., pp. 69-88; D.T. Bataković, Vladimir Jovanović – apostol liberalizma u Srbiji, in Trkulja, Popović (eds.), Liberalna cit., pp. 163-170.

51 Jovanović, Друга cit., pp. 477-490; R. Stojanović, Јован Ристић као дипломата, in Живот и рад Јована Ристића – поводом 150-годишњице рођења, Belgrade 1985, pp. 106-108; Mekenzi, Jovan Ristić cit., pp. 24-80; Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 297-300; Milićević, Србија cit., pp. 294-301; B. Petrović, Јован Ристић. Биографске и мемоарске белешке, Belgrade 1912, pp. 31-46; D. Simeunović, Нововековне политичке идеје у Срба, I, Belgrade 2000, pp. 245-281.



52 Bešlin, Европски cit., pp. 649-660; Č. Popov, Srbija na putu oslobođenja 1868-1878. Borba za politički preobražaj i državnu nezavisnost 1868-1878, Belgrade 1980, pp. 48-52; Jovanović, Влада cit., pp. 21-72; Nicović, Уставни cit., pp. 104-113; R. Ljušić, Јован Ристић и уставно питање 1869. године, in Живот и рад Јована Ристића cit., pp. 91-198; Mekenzi, Jovan Ristić cit., pp. 80-85.

53 Popov, Srbija cit., pp. 52-55; Jovanović, Влада cit., pp. 72-86; Nicović, Уставни cit., pp. 113-128; Ljušić, Јован Ристић cit., pp. 198-213; Čubrilović, Историја cit., pp. 244-248; Ljušić, Историја cit., 158-160.

selected bibliOgrAphy

Bataković D.Т., Француски утицаји у Србији 1835-1914. Четири генерације “Паризлија”, in “Зборник Матице српске за историју”, 1997, 56, pp. 73‒95.Bešlin B., Европски утицаји на српски либерализам у XIX веку, Novi Sad 2005.Čubrilović V., Историја политичке мисли у Србији XIX века, Belgrade 1982.Jovanović S., Уставобранитељи и њихова влада, Belgrade 1990.Jovičić М. (ed.), Уставни развитак Србије у XIX и почетком XX века, Belgrade 1990.Ljušić R., Кнежевина Србија 1830-1839, Belgrade 2004.Mekenzi D., Jovan Ristić – evropski državnik, Belgrade 2004.Milićević Ј., Народне скупштине у Србији 1839-1843. године, in “Зборник Филозофског факултета”, 1957, IV, 1, pp. 609‒624.Id., Јеврем Грујић. Историјат светоандрејског либерализма, Belgrade 1964.Id., Прилог познавању порекла србијанског парламентаризма, in “Зборник Филозофског факултета”, 1970, XI, 1, pp. 157‒188.Nicović Ј., Уставни развој Србије 1804-2006, Belgrade 2007.Pavlović V., Српски студенти у Паризу 1839-1856, in “Историјски часопис”, 1986, 33, pp. 187‒202.Simeunović D., Нововековне политичке идеје у Срба, I, Belgrade 2000.Skerlić J., Омладина и њена књижевност (1848-1871). Изучавања о националном и књижевном романтиз-му код Срба, Belgrade 1925.Stojančević V. (ed.), Историја српског народа, V-1, Belgrade 1981.Stokes G., Legitimacy through Liberalism: Vladimir Jovanović and the Transformation of Serbian Politics, Seat-tle 1975.Subotić M., Sricanje slobode. Studije o počecima liberalne političke misli u Srbiji XIX veka, Niš 1992.Trkulja J., Popović D. (eds.), Liberalna misao u Srbiji. Prilozi istoriji liberalizma od kraja XVIII do sredine XX veka, Belgrade 2001.Живот и рад Јована Ристића – поводом 150-годишњице рођења, Belgrade 1985.

Documents

Serbian Liberals and the Struggle for the National Assembly in the Mid-19th Century