Mikhail Mikhailovich (January 1, 1772, Cherkutino, Vladimir province - February 11, 1839, St. Petersburg) - an outstanding statesman of Russia, Siberian in 1819–1821, count.
Born into the family of a rural priest. He studied at the Vladimir Seminary, and from 1788 at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg. Upon graduation, he was left there as a teacher. In 1795 M.M. Speransky becomes the prefect of the seminary, but soon leaves it and becomes the secretary of Prosecutor General A. B. Kurakin, and from 1799 - the ruler of his office.
The rise of M.M.’s career fell on the first years of the reign of Alexander I. Erudition, enormous capacity for work, independence of judgment - all this attracted the young king to M.M. . In 1801, he made him Secretary of State and instructed him to develop a plan for state reforms. MM. Speransky is appointed director of the department of the newly formed Ministry of Internal Affairs and deals with issues of government structures. By 1809, he provided Alexander I with a liberal project for transforming public administration in the country, but due to the opposition of the conservative nobility, it was only partially implemented, and the reformer himself was sent into exile in Nizhny Novgorod in March 1812, and in September of the same year - to Perm.
In 1814 he was allowed to return from exile and live on the Velikopolye estate in Novgorod. In August 1816 M.M. Speransky was again returned to public service and appointed Penza civil governor. In March 1819, he was assigned to head the audit of Siberia and was appointed Siberian Governor-General. In a short time, he traveled almost all of Siberia and resolutely fought against the arbitrariness and embezzlement of the local administration. 680 officials were brought to court, from whom 2.8 million rubles were recovered. August 29, 1819 M.M. Speransky arrived in. A small team of M.M. Speransky, which included the future Decembrist, in a short time prepared a package of reforms to transform the management of Siberia. Among them are the “Charter on the management of foreigners”, “Charter on exiles”, adm. and judicial reform, etc. To consider Siberian cases, a special body was created in St. Petersburg - the Siberian Committee.
In March 1821 M.M. Speransky returned to the capital and was introduced to the State Council. From the late 1820s, he was involved in compiling the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire and codifying civil and criminal law. By 1835 the work was completed and the Code of Laws came into force.
January 1, 1839 M.M. Speransky was elevated to the rank of count, and a month later he died suddenly.
Essays
- Projects and notes. - M.; L., 1961.
- Letters from Speransky from Siberia to his daughter Elizaveta Mikhailovna. - M., 1869.
Irkutsk Historical and local history dictionary. - Irkutsk: Sib. book, 2011.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky in Irkutsk
Among the outstanding statesmen of Russia of the 19th century, one of the first places belongs to M.M. Speransky. A rootless native of the “foal class”, thanks to his natural intelligence and hard work, Speransky in a short time made a brilliant career, experienced the highest ups and the bitterness of the fall, leaving behind the memory of a recognized reformer and an outstanding lawyer. By the will of fate, having found himself in 1819 as the governor-general of the vast Trans-Ural region, Speransky took up reforms here too, the beneficial influence of which Siberians still feel today. The selfless desire for the good of the country will remain in people's memory for a long time.
By sending Speransky to Siberia, Alexander I endowed him with unprecedented powers. Speransky traveled to Siberia in two persons - as an auditor and as the “chief commander of the region”, who was entrusted with carrying out the audit, “ give someone legal judgment", figure out " in place the most useful device of this remote region and draw it on paper" In the spring of 1819, Speransky crossed the border of Siberia. The first Siberian city of Tyumen gave him a “sad” look, and the auditor did not stay long in Tobolsk, the ancient capital of Siberia. He hurried to the distant and mysterious Irkutsk, as if sensing that it was there that the “root of evil” was located. Having finally reached, in a few days Speransky would write the lines that would later become famous. “If in Tobolsk I brought everyone to justice... then here it would remain to hang everyone».
Irkutsk was preparing more than ever for the arrival of the new Governor General. The townspeople remembered the meeting for a long time. The main buildings of the city - the Cathedral, the Triumphal Gate and the main streets - Bolshaya and Zamorskaya - were literally flooded with lights. At the crossing of the Angara, an orchestra thundered, and among the huge crowd of people, Governor N.I. stood out. Treskin with officials in ceremonial uniforms and orders. In his diary, Speransky described his first impressions of: “ The view of the illuminated city from across the river was magnificent" However, already the first acquaintance with the results of the management of the region by I.B. Pestel and Treskin shocked Mikhail Mikhailovich. " The further I descend to the bottom of Siberia, the more evil I find, and almost unbearable evil", he wrote.
When starting the audit, Speransky was well acquainted with the opinion that had taken root in government circles since Catherine’s times that all Siberians were sneakers. Therefore, you should not pay attention to their forgiveness and complaints. With great difficulty he was able to convince the inhabitants of the province that “ that complaints against local authorities do not constitute a crime" And then... complaints poured in as if from a cornucopia. Their number reached three hundred per day. In Irkutsk, in a matter of days, all the stamp paper on which complaints were to be written was sold out.
The governor was, according to Speransky’s description, a man “ arrogant, brave, stupid", But " poorly brought up" And " cunning and cunning like a demon" Matching him was a flock of lower-ranking officials: Verkhneudinsk police officer M.M. Gedenshtrom, Irkutsk - Voiloshnikov, Nizhneudinsky - Loskutov.
The audit revealed a blatant picture of abuses and arbitrariness of the local administration. The auditor himself wrote that the common subject of “investigative cases was extortion in all its forms.” Treskin was put on trial, and together with him, about seven hundred officials of lower rank were involved in various abuses. Speransky was able to clean out the “Augean stables” in a short time. This is his undoubted merit.
The life of our hero in Irkutsk was organized very modestly. Together with the young officials who came with him - G.S. Batenkov, K.G. Repinsky, F.I. Tseyer and others, they lived and worked in the simple, but not very comfortable house of A.A. Kuznetsov, located not in the center, but on the outskirts, not far from the river. The only attraction of this house was the abandoned garden, which became a favorite walking place for Speransky and the young people accompanying him. On Sundays, Speransky attended mass in the parish church, loved to go out of town to the river, and in the evening he could easily drop in to see merchants he knew. Many years later, old-timers of Irkutsk recalled a tall, slightly stooped man walking in the fresh air in any weather, dressed in a simple overcoat without any insignia, and a modest leather cap. It was difficult to sense in this lonely wanderer an outstanding thinker, in exchange for whom Napoleon offered Alexander I to give up any of the European states that belonged to him.
The main work of Mikhail Mikhailovich during his two-year stay in Irkutsk was not an audit, but the development of projects for future reform, which were included in the literature under the general name of the “Siberian institution” or “Siberian reforms” of 1822. Speransky and his “confidants”, through the Siberian Committee, presented at consideration by Alexander I of a package of proposals consisting of 10 bills: “Establishment for the management of the Siberian provinces”; “Charter on the management of foreigners”; “Charter on exiles”; “Charter on stages”; “Charter on the management of the Kyrgyz-Kaisaks”; “Charter on land communications”; “Charter on City Cossacks”; “Regulations on zemstvo duties”; “Regulations on grain reserves”; “Regulations on debt obligations between peasants and between foreigners,” which were approved by the tsar on June 22, 1822. Speransky tried to build a new system of governance of Siberia on a compromise of the interests of the supreme, i.e. autocratic, government with regional characteristics and a clear understanding of the impossibility of time to completely subject Siberia to the action of general imperial legislation.
Since the time of Catherine II, the government at various levels has traditionally recognized the significant features of the Siberian region. One of the manifestations of this was Catherine’s intention to make a special clause on the non-extension of the provincial institutions of 1775 to Siberia. In 1801, sending I.O. Selifontov with a revision to Siberia, Alexander I directly stated in the decree: “ We find that the Siberian region, by its space, by the differences in its natural position, by the state of the peoples inhabiting it... requires... in its division... and in the very way of government a special resolution", based " based on reliable knowledge of local circumstances" But the idea about the need for a special form of governance for Siberia was most clearly expressed in the report of M.M. Speransky on review of the region. The thoughtful auditor returns to this idea more than once on the pages of the document. Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that Siberia, in terms of its space, “ requires special regulations».
In the Siberian legislation of 1822, what is most noteworthy is its careful preliminary preparation. MM. Speransky and his assistants, primarily G.S. Batenkov; A huge range of source materials was collected and analyzed. The final “package” of laws in the approved form is not only striking in its volume - it consists of 4019 paragraphs - but is also distinguished by the exceptionally high quality of development of legal acts for that time. Its most characteristic feature was Speransky’s desire to ensure in the new legislation a combination of the fundamental political principles of the functioning of the empire, Siberian specifics with the solution of national problems.
The regionalism of M.M. Speransky was manifested primarily in the division of Siberia into two general governorates - Western and Eastern Siberia. This essentially marked the beginning of the administrative division of Siberia, which has survived to this day. Regional motives were inspired by the proposal to create two Main Directorates and advisory bodies under them - councils. The same mechanism was introduced at the level of the province and districts (districts). Speransky’s creation of a system of counterbalance to individual power appears to be a unique phenomenon in Russian legislation of the first half of the 19th century. Much later, in the 1860s, something similar can be observed in other general governorates of Asian Russia, for example, in Turkestan. However, at that time this was a fundamental innovation in legislative practice, inspired by the traditional desire of the Siberian bureaucracy for “autocracy”. According to Speransky, collegial councils were supposed to become guarantors of the legality of decisions made. Noteworthy is the composition of the Main Directorates, which, under the chairmanship of the Governor General, included six officials: three by appointment of the most important head of the region, and three representing the interests of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Finance and Justice. This mechanism for the formation of councils combines the principles of sectoral, territorial and national levels of government, centralizing and decentralizing tendencies. The same principles were recorded in the articles of the law defining the relationship of the governor-general with the national government departments represented in the region: the gendarmerie and postal services, cabinet officials, state chambers, etc.
Regional motives were especially evident during the development of the “Charter on the Management of Foreigners.” The fact that a new class category has appeared in Russian legislation is proof of this. The very word “foreigners” was introduced into the practice of the Russian language and legal vocabulary by Speransky. It reflected the evolution of the government’s relationship with the peoples of Siberia, the depth of incorporation of Siberian aborigines into national political, economic and sociocultural mechanisms and processes. It is appropriate to note here that throughout the three-hundred-year history of pre-Soviet Siberia, the official name of the peoples of the region changed several times. In the 17th century The indigenous inhabitants of Siberia were called “yasash foreigners”, since Siberia and its population were just beginning to become part of the Russian state. However, as they established their citizenship, they ceased to be foreigners. In the 17th and first decades of the 19th century. Siberian aborigines were usually called " tribute to infidels“, i.e. people of a different religion, different from Christianity. In the 19th century In connection with the spread of Orthodoxy among the peoples of Siberia, this name disappears as it does not accurately reflect the religious affiliation of the aborigines. Speransky introduces a new term - “foreigners”, which became the official name of the peoples of the region and acquired a class character. Thus, in the very term “foreigners” there are noticeable elements of regional specificity associated with the change in the legal and social status of these peoples within the Russian state. In the same document, attention is drawn to a number of other provisions related to Siberian specifics: the division of aborigines into three categories - sedentary, nomadic and wandering, the proposed codification of customary law - on the one hand, and the possible integration of aborigines into the all-Russian administrative and economic system - with another.
Speransky’s desire to take into account regional characteristics can be easily seen in the analysis of other laws that make up the complex of the “Siberian institution”. An example of this is the regulation of taxes and fees, the creation of state grain reserves, the conclusion of trade transactions, etc.
At the same time, one cannot help but notice that Speransky’s legal regionalism was based on imperial legislation, its postulates and had strictly measured limits. In the “Siberian institution” of 1822, one can easily trace the ideas of Catherine’s Institution on the provinces of 1775, which proclaimed the principle of unity of command in the person of the governor general as an exclusively entrusted person from the emperor. Speransky did not at all intend to limit the power of the governor-general. Under the conditions of an absolute monarchy this was impossible, and Speransky did not want it. However, he tried to place the activities of regional authorities within a strictly defined framework of legislation, which was an undoubted innovation for the region and the empire as a whole.
At the same time, the very fact of the existence of governor-general power, the limits and essence of which were not clearly stated in the legislation, complicated the issue of subordinating institutions of various departments to it and gave rise to discussions and questions that were undesirable from the government’s point of view. It seems that the governor-general's power introduced a certain element of decentralization into the management system, which was a direct result of the contradictions in the internal policies of the autocracy in the first half of the 19th century. " Alexander’s inconsistency in matters of internal improvement affected all events" This is how Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich described the internal policy of his crowned ancestor.
In this description, we see, first of all, a combination of imperial principles and regionalism in the legislation of 1822. In this sense, the “Siberian institution” fit well into the palette of all-Russian legislation on the management of the outskirts of the state, i.e. was in line with national policy. As is known, in 1809, Finland, a former Swedish province, after joining Russia, received the autonomous status of the Grand Duchy of Finland, the position of which was very privileged even “compared to the indigenous regions of the empire.” In December 1815, Emperor Alexander I " granted a constitution to Poland", considered at that time the height of liberalism in Europe. In the Caucasus, which was a very motley conglomerate of ethnic groups and religions, an administrative reform is being carried out, with the goal of more firmly linking this strategically important region with Russia, but at the same time, built taking into account local ethnic, religious and other traditions. The expansion of the territory of the state and, as a consequence, the complication of internal political, including managerial, tasks put forward the government the task of finding ways to incorporate new territories into the overall imperial space. One of these methods was the development of regional-territorial legislation, which clearly reflected the geopolitical characteristics of specific territories. The Siberian legislation of 1822, the foundations of which were developed in Irkutsk, logically fit into and complemented the doctrine of the outlying policy of the autocracy. It became the first experience of comprehensive regional legislation in the empire, which was in force without significant changes until the end of the 19th century and was ten years ahead of the all-Russian codification.
Popova Katya. Usinsk, Komi River (9th grade)
One of the most famous statesmen of Russia of the 19th century was Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839). Speransky was born into the family of a priest in the village of Cherkutino, Vladimir province. From the age of seven he studied at the Vladimir Seminary, and from 1790 - at the newly opened main seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg. His extraordinary abilities promoted him from among his students, and at the end of the course he was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. Having independently studied political and philosophical literature in German, French and English, he acquired very broad knowledge and became acquainted with the views of Voltaire and the French encyclopedists. Later he became the home secretary of Prince A.B. Kurakin, a famous diplomat and statesman.
In 1797, he entered service in the office of Kurakin, who took the place of prosecutor general upon Paul's accession to the throne. During the accession of Alexander, Speransky received the title of Secretary of State and in 1802 he joined the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Here he soon attracted attention, and the next year Minister V. Kochubey instructed him to draw up a plan for judicial and government places in the empire.
In 1806, Speransky made a personal acquaintance with Alexander - during his illness, Kochubey began to send him with a report to the sovereign, the latter appreciated the outstanding ability of the official and brought him closer to himself; he was unlike both Catherine’s nobles and his young friends. Alexander showed interest in this man, which in itself was already a phenomenon. In 1808, he included him in his retinue during his meeting with Napoleon. Having become the main adviser to the emperor, Speransky was given the task of preparing a general project for government reforms in Russia.
“Introduction to the Code of State Laws” was prepared by Speransky by the end of 1809. In it, the author warned the government that the existing social structure was “no longer characteristic of the state of the public spirit.” In order to prevent the revolution, he proposed that Alexander I give the country a constitution, which would only have to “clothe autocratic rule with all, so to speak, external forms of law, leaving in essence the same power and the same space of autocracy.” These external forms, according to Speransky , there must be: elementary legality, election of some officials and their responsibility, new bourgeois principles of the organization of court and control, separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers with the admission of elected representatives from the people to legislative activities, i.e. expansion of political rights of the “middle class”.
According to the project, the head of the state should be a monarch vested with full power. It must have a State Council, which is an advisory body of dignitaries appointed by the monarch.
All major government events are discussed in the council; through him, all matters from lower authorities are received by the sovereign, and in this way the unity of all government activities is achieved.
In addition, there must be elected State and local dumas. The volost duma is composed of all those who have the right to vote and the elders of the state peasants (one per 500 people). It decides all local issues and elects deputies to the district duma for three years. The latter deals with the affairs of its district and elects deputies to the provincial Duma. Deputies to the State Duma - the highest representative body - are elected by the provincial duma from among its members. The State Duma discusses bills proposed to it from above, which are then submitted to the State Council and for approval by the sovereign.
Speransky proposed the principle of election when creating the judiciary. In his opinion, volost, district and provincial courts should be elected. However, the highest judicial authority - the judicial Senate (which at the same time remained an administrative institution) must be appointed by the sovereign for life from among the representatives elected in the provincial dumas.
Speransky's electoral system was based not on the class (feudal) principle, but on the property qualification (ownership of movable and immovable property), which indicated the persistence of inequality between classes. The entire population of Russia was divided into the following three categories: the nobility, which had all civil and political rights; people of “middle status” (merchants, townspeople, state peasants), who had only civil rights - property, freedom of occupation and movement, the right to speak on their own behalf in court, and “working people” - landowner peasants, servants, workers and households, having no rights. Only representatives of the first two categories could enjoy the right to vote. Thus, only two classes received basic political rights.
For the third estate - the “working people” - the reformer’s project provided some civil rights while maintaining the serfdom. Speransky believed that serfdom would be abolished gradually, through the development of industry, trade and education, since “there is no example in history that an enlightened and commercial people could remain in slavery for a long time.” While preserving the existence of classes, Speransky's project weakened class barriers, providing for a wider possibility of transition from the “middle state” to the nobility through seniority, and from the “working people” to the “middle state” through the acquisition of property. Objectively, the reformer’s plans were aimed at some limitation of autocracy by expanding the rights of the nobles and bourgeoisie, at a more rapid evolution of the absolute monarchy towards the bourgeois monarchy. At the same time, the plan was abstract, “but neither the sovereign nor the minister could in any way adapt it to the level of the actual needs and available resources of Russia,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky. Speransky overestimated the possibilities of autocracy and underestimated the dominant power of the nobility, which could not voluntarily limit its power. Therefore, radical social reforms could not be implemented in the conditions of feudal Russia.
Alexander I himself was quite satisfied with only partial transformations of feudal Russia, flavored with liberal promises and abstract discussions about law and freedom. A. Czartoryski, who knew him well, wrote: “The Emperor loved external forms of freedom, just as people are carried away by spectacles. He liked and boasted of the specter of free government; but he sought only forms and appearance, not allowing them to turn into reality; in a word, he would willingly grant freedom to the whole world on the condition that everyone voluntarily submits exclusively to his will.”
Two particular measures, which had an internal connection with the reforms being prepared, indicated what kind of people were required for the new government institutions. The decree of April 3, 1809 on court ranks determined that ranks are not a distinction and do not give the right to a rank. Courtiers were deprived of their rank if they were not in public service. Another decree, dated August 6, established the rules for promotion to civil service ranks. Now, in order to obtain the appropriate rank, it was necessary to go through the entire hierarchy of service: an official, starting from class VIII and above, needed a university diploma; in the absence of the latter, he had to pass an exam according to the program attached to the decree. Both decrees caused discontent and commotion in court society and among officials, as they were prepared secretly and were issued completely unexpectedly.
Essential parts of Speransky's reform plan related to central administration and gave it a more harmonious appearance.
On January 1, 1810, the manifesto of Alexander I was announced on the abolition of the Permanent Council and the establishment of the State Council. The latter included 35 senior dignitaries appointed by the sovereign. The State Council had to discuss all the details of the state structure, as far as they required new laws, and submit their considerations to the discretion of the emperor.
Being very close to the sovereign, Speransky concentrated in his hands all the current affairs of government: he dealt with finances, which were in great disarray, and diplomatic affairs, to which the sovereign himself initiated him, and the organization of Finland, then conquered by Russian troops. In 1811 On Speransky's initiative, the ministries were reorganized. The Ministry of Commerce was abolished, the affairs of which were distributed between the Ministries of Finance and Internal Affairs. The Ministry of Police was formed to deal with internal security matters. New special departments were established - state control, spiritual affairs of foreign faiths and communications - began to exist with the significance of ministries. The composition and office work of the latter, the limits of the power of ministers, and their responsibilities were determined.
This is where the reforms ended. The State Council itself became an opponent of further reforms. The Senate reform was never implemented, although it was discussed for quite some time. It was based on the separation of administrative and judicial cases. It was proposed to divide the Senate into a government one, consisting of ministers, and a judicial one. The composition of the latter provided for the appointment of its members as follows: one part was from the crown, the other was chosen by the nobility. Members of the State Council saw the right to elect members of the Senate by the nobility as a limitation of autocratic power. They did not even bother to transform the provincial government.
The most important event of that time was the financial reform carried out by Speransky through the State Council, which never became the authoritative body that the reformer had hoped for.
As a result of a series of wars, Russia's finances were in a very disorganized state. The state budget deficit reached a huge figure. Back in 1809 Speransky was tasked with developing a plan to improve the country's financial situation. At his proposal, the government stopped issuing new banknotes, sharply reduced government spending, sold part of state-owned estates into private hands, and finally introduced new taxes that affected all segments of the population. the implementation of these activities has yielded positive results. So, in 1812 government revenues increased from 125 million to 300 million rubles. But at the same time, these measures, and above all general taxes, caused discontent among the population. At the same time, general irritation was directed against Speransky. In noble circles he was contemptuously called “the malicious priest.”
Speransky already in 1811 began to understand the impracticability of his far-reaching plans.
In October, he even asked the emperor to release him from all matters and give him the opportunity to continue working on a code of laws. But Alexander I refused him this. However, Speransky's fall was not only inevitable, but also close.
Active opponents of Speransky, who openly opposed his reforms and expressed the views of the most reactionary noble circles, were the well-known writer and historian N.M. Karamzin and the sister of Alexander I, Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna. The fourth daughter of Paul I and Maria Fedorovna, Ekaterina Pavlovna, showed a keen interest in public life. In 1809 she married Prince Georg of Oldenburg and lived with him in Tver. Here a close circle of a decidedly conservative trend formed around her. Karamzin was a welcome guest.
The Grand Duchess considered the constitution
“complete nonsense”, and autocracy is useful not only to Russia, but also to Western European states. In her eyes, Speransky was a “criminal” who had mastered the will of a weak-willed monarch. It can be assumed that, in addition to ideological antagonism, the princess’s hostility to the reformer was also explained by her personal dislike of the man who shielded her from the emperor and more than once stood in her way. Speransky, in particular, had the courage to oppose Karamzin’s candidacy for the post of Minister of Public Education, nominated by Ekaterina Pavlovna after Zavadovsky’s death. He also refused to support the Swedish political party that expected the Grand Duchess's husband, the Prince of Oldenburg, to take the Swedish throne.
N.M. Karamzin tried to play an active role at the court of Alexander I. On March 15, 1811, the emperor visited his beloved sister in Tver. The latter handed him a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations.” In it, the writer sharply criticized all the activities carried out by the government, considering them untimely and contrary to the “spirit of the people” and historical tradition. While advocating enlightenment, he at the same time defended autocracy, proving that Russia “was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by a wise autocracy.” He argued that giving freedom to the peasants meant harming the state: “It seems to me that for the strength of the state’s existence it is safer to enslave people than to give them freedom at the wrong time.”
Karamzin’s general idea was that the country does not need reforms, but “patriarchal power.” In his opinion, “things will go as they should in Russia if you find 50 smart, conscientious people in Russia” who will zealously guard the “good entrusted to each of them” of the Russians. The historian-publicist called, contrary to Speransky, to be “more careful in new state creations, trying most of all to establish existing ones and thinking more about people than about forms.”
The attacks and numerous denunciations against Speransky, as well as the dissatisfaction of the conservative part of the nobles with the latest transformations, had their effect on the weak-willed and indecisive Alexander. On the eve of the war, he decided to put an end to all kinds of reforms and remove their main director from the government scene. If at the beginning of their joint journey to reorganize the country, Alexander respected and trusted Speransky, was interested in the reformer’s plans and even imbued with them, “at the time of this insight they created their constitution,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, then later “they got the same subject for this unusual and backbreaking work assigned to the mind and heart of his sovereign! At the first mistake, as soon as the opportunity presented itself to pull him down from his painful heights and place him on the level of a subject, with what smug and vindictive generosity he read his royal lesson to Speransky and, tenderly bidding him farewell, ordered his enemy, the Minister of Police Balashov, to exile him as guilty official in Nizhny. After that, Alexander no longer respected anyone, but only continued to fear, hate and despise.”
1812, when Napoleon's army was approaching Moscow, he was sent to Perm under stricter supervision. In January 1813 Speransky sent Alexander a letter of justification to Moscow from Perm, to which the emperor did not want, and perhaps could not, respond. Only in the autumn of 1814. The disgraced minister was allowed to live on his daughter’s estate in Velikopolye, near Nizhny Novgorod.
By decree of Alexander I of August 30, 1816. Speransky was completely acquitted, after which he was appointed governor of Penza. Later, from 1819 to 1822, he was Governor-General of Siberia.
The new Siberian governor-general decided to conduct an audit of Siberia. Speransky's audit revealed blatant abuses, arbitrariness of local authorities and complete lack of rights of the population. In order to somehow improve the situation, he decided to carry out reforms in Siberia.
The “first collaborator” in carrying out the Siberian reforms was the future Decembrist S.G. Batenkov. He energetically worked on the development of the “Siberian Code” - an extensive set of reforms of the administrative apparatus of Siberia, which determined government policy towards the indigenous Siberian peoples. Most of the projects were written (statutes on exiles, stages, etc.). Particularly important was the creation of the “Charter on the Management of Foreigners,” which was in force until the beginning of the 20th century.
During the period of work on the Siberian Code,” Batenkov sincerely believed that Speransky, “a good nobleman, strong, and strong only for good,” would truly transform Siberia. Subsequently, it became clear to him that Speransky was not given “any means to fulfill the assigned assignment” and the results of his activities in Siberia did not meet his hopes. However, Batenkov believed that “Speransky cannot be personally blamed for failure.” He wrote about the latter: “The memory of him was preserved throughout Siberia, despite the change of persons, statutes and deeds, for many monuments and the outline of the institution survived among all this. His personality was not easily erased from memory, and many families remembered him kindly.”
In 1812 Speransky returned to St. Petersburg and was received by Alexander I. The history of the rise, state activity and exile of this man in the context of the intensification of the political life of Russia consisted of a series of events that awakened thought and forced one to reflect on the real reasons for what was happening.
The Decembrists were well aware of Speransky’s unspoken political projects: “Introduction to the Code of State Laws”, “Excerpt about the Commission of the Code”, “On the Form of Government”, etc. Therefore, when the idea of creating a provisional revolutionary government arose, M.M. was named the first candidate for it. .Speransky. “A comparative analysis of Speransky’s projects and the Decembrist program on the peasant question shows that, reflecting on the need to eliminate serfdom, the ideology of Decembrism and Speransky proceeded from the general principles of the advanced philosophy of their time - the creation of a natural human right to freedom... However, in the area of specific proposals, clearly a sharp demarcation emerged between the programmatic attitudes of the noble revolutionaries and Speransky.”
Speransky secretly supported the Decembrists, or rather, played a “subtle game,” and after the defeat of the uprising, his fate hung in the balance. The Tsar found an opportunity to “punish” Speransky for his connections with the Decembrists and appointed him in 1826. member of the Supreme Criminal Court, which was a “great personal tragedy” for Speransky. The daughter often saw her father “in torment and with tears in his eyes.”
Speransky’s active participation in the trial of the Decembrists did not completely “redeem” his guilt in the eyes of Nicholas I. Until the last years of Speransky’s life, the tsar, despite external signs of attention (his own awarding of the St. Andrew’s Star in 1833 in connection with the completion of work on a code of laws, the granting of the count’s title, appointment as a teacher to the heir to the throne, etc.), did not forget about the direction of his activities until 1812. and about his undisclosed connections with members of secret societies.
Pushkin in 1834 said to Speransky: “You and Arakcheev, you stand at the opposite door of this reign (under Alexander I), as geniuses of Evil and Good.”
M.M. Speransky died in February 1839. at the age of 67 years.
“Speransky is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable people in Russia. He owes the great merit that he wanted to give his country a constitution, free people, free peasants, a complete system of elected institutions and courts, a magistrate's court, a code of laws, orderly finances, thus anticipating for more than half a century the great reforms of Alexander II and dreaming for Russia about the successes that it could not achieve for a long time.”
There is a great deal of truth in this assessment of Speransky. Indeed, the full implementation of his projects would undoubtedly accelerate Russia's evolution towards a landowner-bourgeois monarchy. The collapse of feudal-serf relations and the foreign policy situation after the Tilsit Peace Treaty forced the nobility to a certain extent to put up with Speransky.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky Born in 1772 into the family of a poor priest, in 1779 he began his studies at the Vladimir Theological Seminary. In 1788, Speransky, as one of the best seminarians, was sent to the Alexander Nevsky Seminary, which was opened in St. Petersburg that same year. Mikhail graduated from this educational institution in 1792, immediately after that he became a mathematics teacher at the same seminary.
He worked intensively on the reform project entrusted to him by Alexander I. However, in 1812, as a result of all sorts of slander against him, Speransky was sent into exile. He returned to St. Petersburg only in 1821 (which, however, was preceded by service in Penza and Siberia). During the reign of Nicholas I he carried out codification activities.
During his years of study at the Vladimir Seminary, Mikhail discovered brilliant abilities. Speransky devoted a significant part of his time to reading, as a result of which Mikhail’s reasoning acquired the character of not just a presentation of thoughts about what he had read, but also what he learned from life: he could talk about the destinies of people, the characteristics of their behavior. Young Speransky preferred intellectual activity to all kinds of entertainment, which was largely facilitated by his strength of character and independent nature.
Mikhail Speransky had a good understanding of people. Studying their psychology was Mikhail's favorite pastime. In his later years he will become an expert in psychology. This feature, and as a result, the ability to get along with others and be liked by them, greatly helped Mikhail Mikhailovich in a variety of life situations.
At the Alexander Nevsky Seminary (where Speransky began studying in 1788), Mikhail became the best. The training program for students was very intense. Speransky, along with other seminarians, under the conditions of a harsh monastic upbringing, was accustomed to prolonged mental activity. Frequent writing of essays on a wide variety of topics allowed students to learn how to easily and correctly express their opinions in writing. MM. Speransky, within the walls of the Alexander Nevsky Seminary, was fond of philosophy and studied the works of many scientists. While studying at this educational institution, Mikhail wrote his first works on a philosophical topic. In them, he expressed his desire to respect the dignity and respect for the civil rights of any Russian person. Thus, Speransky had a negative attitude towards all arbitrariness and manifestations of despotism.
In 1791, Speransky dared to make a speech that warned the sovereign himself. This happened in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The main idea of the report was that the sovereign must learn human rights and adhere to them, and that he is not allowed to tighten the chains of slavery any further. If the tsar does not comply with these instructions, then he, according to Speransky, is a “happy villain”, whom his descendants will call nothing less than “the tyrant of his fatherland.” It should be noted that at the seminary they instilled in students completely different beliefs: seminarians had to be submissive, respect and fear all people higher on the career ladder. However, by this time the personality of Mikhail Mikhailovich was fully formed - it was no longer possible to re-educate him, since within himself Mikhail remained a free man.
Fate predicted Speransky the role of an outstanding church figure. After graduating from the Alexander Nevsky Seminary, Speransky remained to work there as a mathematics teacher. During four years of teaching, he further expanded his horizons - in addition to his passion for philosophy, Mikhail Mikhailovich studied the works of scientists on economic and political topics, learned about Russian reality; his knowledge becomes encyclopedic. Contemporaries notice in him a promising church leader - Metropolitan Gabriel insists on accepting monasticism. But Speransky did not accept this offer - fate had prepared for him the role of an outstanding statesman.
Speransky - home secretary of A.B. Kurakina. Speransky was recommended to Prince Kurakin as a man who knew his business; but before Mikhail Mikhailovich was accepted, he had to pass an exam. The prince ordered Speransky to compose eleven letters that were addressed to different people, but the prince did not give exact information - Kurakin spoke about the correspondence with them in general terms. When at six o'clock in the morning the letters were presented to Kurakin, he was very surprised at how elegantly they were all written. Having begun his service with the prince, M.M. Speransky did not stop teaching at the Alexander Nevsky Chancellery.
Speransky's career was rapidly going uphill. With the accession of Paul I to the throne, Mikhail Mikhailovich became a senator, and after some time he was awarded the post of prosecutor general. Kurakin advised Mikhail Mikhailovich to devote all his time to serving in his office, that is, to stop combining it with teaching. Speransky did not refuse the offer. Surprisingly, in just four years the poor secretary became an important nobleman in Russia. In July 1801, he was granted full state councilor status.
Speransky is the father of business language. Mikhail Mikhailovich's unique abilities became the reason for his rapid career advancement - during the reign of Paul I, when new regulations and decrees constantly appeared, such a competent official as Speransky was in demand. Mikhail Mikhailovich took on the preparation of even the most complex documents. Speransky was patronized by all the prosecutor generals, and under Emperor Paul I there were four of them.
The text of the address of the new Emperor Alexander I to the people was compiled by M.M. Speransky. It was they who spoke the prepared words of Alexander I on the day of his coronation, when he told the people the plan of action for the new reign. M.M. also worked in the office of the Permanent Council (created in 1801), where the emperor’s “young friends” met. Speransky - it was he who was part of the projects for the “young friends”.
Speransky - State Secretary V.P. Kochubey. Mikhail Mikhailovich served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs in parallel with his work in the office of the Permanent Council. And Kochubey, by the way, was a close associate of the emperor himself. By 1814, Speransky first outlined in his own political notes his thoughts on the state apparatus of the Russian Empire; also argued in them the need for reforms.
Speransky is a supporter of the constitutional system. However, Mikhail Mikhailovich rightly assumed that the Russian Empire at the moment was not ready for the transition to a constitutional system, since to begin reforms it was very important to transform the state apparatus itself. Mikhail Mikhailovich substantiated the need for civil and criminal law, freedom of the press, openness in court - that is, he spoke about the introduction of new rights for society.
Until 1806, Mikhail Mikhailovich was regarded as a rising political star. For the time being, while Speransky remained in the shadows, he had no real enemies or envious people. Mikhail Mikhailovich's common origin did not induce feelings of irritation. Probably, such a loyal attitude towards him from the high society is explained by the fact that Speransky at that time did not affect anyone’s interests at all.
The rise of Speransky's career dates back to 1806. It was at this time that Kochubey allowed Speransky to report to Emperor Alexander I, who appreciated the abilities of Secretary of State Mikhail Mikhailovich. The latter had many advantages: Speransky, due to his origin, was not involved in palace intrigues, was not associated with court circles, and Mikhail Mikhailovich’s talents were immediately noticeable. By 1806, “young friends” had already ceased to interest Alexander I - the emperor gave them various assignments outside the capital. Therefore, a person like Speransky was very useful for the emperor.
Speransky did not condemn the Peace of Tilsit concluded in 1807. And it also attracted Alexander I. While the entire public was only talking about national humiliation (due to the defeat of Russian troops by the French), as well as the need for a change of government, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky even somewhat sympathized with both the French in general and himself Napoleon. The Emperor of Russia found support for himself in Mikhail Mikhailovich - after all, Speransky had authority in society. When Alexander I met with Napoleon in Erfurt, the latter also appreciated the choice of the Russian emperor.
Speransky is the chief adviser to Alexander I in state affairs. Mikhail Mikhailovich received this appointment (along with the post of Comrade Minister of Justice) immediately after the meeting of the Russian and French emperors in Erfurt. From now on, all documents intended for Alexander I passed through the hands of M.M. Speransky. A very trusting relationship arose between Mikhail Mikhailovich and the emperor, so trusting that Alexander I could talk for hours with Speransky about state affairs, and in 1808 he instructed him to prepare a plan for the necessary transformations. Mikhail Mikhailovich agreed, although he was afraid that his work would draw a line under the quiet promotion.
The plan for government reforms was ready in 1809. Its appearance was preceded by colossal work on the study of legislative documents of other countries. MM. Speransky, together with his collaborators, analyzed the French Constitution, the US Declaration of Independence and other similar documents. The attempts of Catherine II to compile a code of laws were not ignored. The plan developed in 1809 legally established the class division of society and provided for the organization of the judicial and executive powers as independent structures. At the same time, Mikhail Mikhailovich assumed that the Constitution of the Russian Empire would be presented by Alexander I himself. To implement all points, it was necessary to establish a system of elected bodies, including the State Duma. True, its activities would still be completely dependent on the emperor, who, if desired, could dismiss all members and cancel any meeting. In other words, the State Duma was supposed to be only a legislative body, but not a legislative one.
Speransky's plan for government reforms was considered at a meeting of the State Council. It was created in 1810 and represented the highest advisory body of Russia. Certain points of the plan, although they received very few votes, were approved by Alexander I himself. However, many provisions proposed by Speransky, in the opinion of members of the State Council, replaced the autocratic power of the monarch. After all, the emperor in the Russian Empire has always personally been both the highest judge and the arbiter of all kinds of power. Therefore, the provisions submitted for consideration regarding the separation of judicial and executive powers seemed blasphemous to many. It is because of this that the generalized assessment of Speransky’s plan, which emerged by the fall of 1811, read: “Good, but not the time.” The time for such transformations has indeed not yet come.
Speransky carried out a wide range of activities. The judgment refers to the period from 1807 to 1812. At this time, Speransky was constantly a member of various committees and commissions, however, his work was always correlated with issues of government reforms. The scale of his activities was amazing. But it was precisely during the rise of Mikhail Mikhailovich’s career that he discovered many enemies - people dissatisfied with the transformations carried out by Speransky. For example, on the initiative of M.M. Speransky in 1809, a decree on court ranks was adopted, according to which all chamberlains and chamber cadets became required to serve. For comparison, since the time of Empress Catherine the Great, young representatives of the nobility who received the appropriate titles were also prescribed high ranks in the civil service. From now on, a career could only be made while in the service. This is what dealt a serious blow to the titled nobility.
MM. Speransky - Secretary of State. He received this position in 1810 - immediately after the establishment of the State Council. From this moment on, Mikhail Mikhailovich becomes virtually the second person in the Russian Empire. He can be called the most influential dignitary of the state. Speransky was such a significant person in Russia that even members of the imperial family sometimes asked him for any favor, while Mikhail Mikhailovich himself could reject any of their requests if he regarded it as contrary to existing laws. Speransky always stopped embezzlement and bribery.
Speransky developed a plan for reforms in the field of finance. Reforms were necessary in the context of the wars in which the Russian Empire was involved, and transformations began in 1810. The following measures were taken: the issue of banknotes was stopped; the amounts of money allocated to the ministries, whose activities, by the way, were brought under control, were cut; the tax burden increased (including for noble landowners, who had not previously been burdened with taxes). Naturally, these new developments also caused a storm of discontent among the nobles, mainly the aristocracy.
MM. Speransky was accused of undermining the established foundations of the state. An entire army of officials and nobles came out against him - they gave negative assessments to Speransky. These people knew about the suspiciousness of Alexander I, therefore, in order to protect themselves, they influenced the emperor with unflattering reviews about Mikhail Mikhailovich. They even accused him of Freemasonry, although Speransky himself had a negative attitude towards this movement. And here the enemies of Mikhail Mikhailovich hit the mark - the emperor was afraid of possible revolutionary actions of the Freemasons. However, the decline in Speransky’s authority was also influenced by a blow to the pride of Alexander I - the emperor saw with what zeal Mikhail Mikhailovich was solving matters, for example, related to preparations for the war with France. In addition, the entire capital was full of talk about M.M.’s betrayal. Speransky to his Fatherland - he was even called a French spy. In connection with all of the above, Alexander I decided to resign the outstanding statesman of the 19th century.
Speransky immediately failed to justify himself to Alexander I. On March 17, 1812, Mikhail Mikhailovich was summoned to the palace, and on the night of the same date he was already on his way to exile in Nizhny Novgorod. MM. Speransky regarded the incident as an intrigue. He sent letters to Alexander I, hoping for an acquittal - he asked to be allowed to live on his estate. However, such permission was not forthcoming - Speransky was sent into exile in Perm; His family also moved to a new place with Mikhail Mikhailovich.
In exile, Speransky devoted himself to literature. Its content was mainly spiritual. All this time, Mikhail Mikhailovich sent petitions for permission to return to his native estate. They yielded results - in the fall of 1814, the former reformer was allowed to move to his village of Velikopolye, which was located in the Novgorod province.
Alexander I granted Speransky's request to appoint him to the civil service. In 1816, Mikhail Mikhailovich became governor of Penza.
The formation of socio-political views of M.M. Speransky
One of the factors in shaping a person’s worldview is the influence of family and immediate environment. Mikhail Mikhailovich's father was a village priest. He devoted little time to his family, and his mother was often busy with housework. Mikhail was physically weak, and therefore, instead of playing with his peers, he often talked with his grandfather and read a lot.
In the life of M.M. Speransky had several fateful acquaintances. The first was a meeting with the confessor of Alexander I - Archpriest Andrei Afanasyevich Samborsky - an educated man, an expert in astronomy. While visiting Father Speransky, he talked with the boy and invited him to St. Petersburg.
An invitation casually given to A.A. Samborsky back in 1778, it was accepted: after studying at the seminary in Vladimir, M.M. Speransky continued his studies at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg. Education at the seminary took into account the scientific achievements of enlightenment philosophers and representatives of the exact sciences.
Acquaintance with Prosecutor General Alexei Borisovich Kurakin is the second fateful acquaintance in the life of Mikhail Mikhailovich. As noted by V.A. Tomsinov, M.M. Speransky had “extraordinary mental energy and the art of fast, logical writing,” which played a significant role in his hiring as a home secretary. A.B. Kurakin gave instructions to write several letters - the order was completed in one night. Surprised A.B. Kurakin called M.M. Speransky to serve as a titular adviser, and he agreed.
There comes a certain moment in a person's life when he finds himself at a crossroads. Science outweighed the weight for Speransky, where on the other side was religious activity. No one can confidently name the decisive factor that determined this choice - perhaps M.M. Speransky felt that he could make life in Russia better by following this path, or maybe he thought too freely - all these are assumptions, nothing more.
In 1801, Mikhail Mikhailovich was elevated to the rank of state councilor. The moment of personal acquaintance with the emperor was not far off - this happened in 1806.
MM. Speransky as an ideologist and practitioner of constitutional monarchy: state activities and views on the state
Mikhail Mikhailovich believed that power should be limited by law, that the government has the people as the source of its power, and the power of the government is formed from the power of the people and is a derivative. In theory M.M. Speransky identifies two main forces: popular force and government force. “The forces entrusted by the people to the government were united in its hands into one mass. Armies were made from physical strength, money from people’s wealth, honors from respect.” The people must limit the government by protecting the boundaries of power, for which they need to consolidate so that the principle of “divide and conquer” does not apply. Since it is a very difficult task to enforce the boundaries of power, it should be entrusted to the elite, the so-called independent upper class. The note “On Improving Public Education” proposes establishing a relationship between rank and level of education; officials were required to pass exams. In addition, according to M.M., the guarantor of legality should become. Speransky, freedom of the press and publicity.
In the note “On the fundamental laws of the state” M.M. Speransky distinguishes between the external form of government - the legal framework - and the internal - the real balance of power in the state. The current constitution is the correlation of these forces; Speransky understands the constitution as the existing state of affairs, which F. Lassalle would later call in 1862 “the actual relationship of forces.” When the external form of government does not correspond to the internal one, a defect in the state structure occurs.
In 1809, Mikhail Mikhailovich, on behalf of Alexander I, created the “Plan of State Transformation”. “Introduction to the Code of State Laws” of 1809 includes two sections: on the plan and reason of the State Code. The first deals with state and indigenous state laws, the second with state structure and lawmaking.
Civil rights were understood by Speransky as the protection of property and human rights, and political rights as a guarantee of civil rights, implemented through the separation of powers. Political rights consisted of “participation in the forces of the state: legislative, judicial and executive.”
Mikhail Mikhailovich proposed the following class structure of the population: a) nobles and people of average wealth, who have all civil rights, and political ones - depending on the amount of property, b) working people, who also have civil rights, but do not have political rights at all. MM. Speransky justified this by the fact that people who do not have property are not able to participate in the lawmaking process. “What need, for example, does a person without property have to limit the law on real taxes, when this law does not apply to him?”
Parliament - the State Duma - was conceived by Mikhail Mikhailovich as the supreme legislative body, elections to which should be multi-stage; formation was supposed to begin at the level of volost councils. The legislative initiative, according to Speransky, should belong to the government, the consideration and adoption of laws is the competence of the State Duma, and the approval of laws is the prerogative of the emperor.
In 1810, the State Council was created - a coordinating advisory body, and M.M. Speransky holds the post of Secretary of State, effectively becoming the second person in the state. It influences almost all areas of government activity - from lawmaking to international politics.
But modernization of the state does not seem possible without transforming the legal framework. And this becomes one of the priority areas of Speransky’s activities. The best division of laws, in his opinion, was their division into three types: state law (constitutional), civil law and criminal law. The last two laws are the Code.
An attempt to systematize legislation was made under Alexander I, which from 1810 was carried out under the leadership of M.M. Speransky. But since the Patriotic War began in 1812, and when drawing up draft civil codes, French legislation was taken as a model, the work was interrupted.
In 1826, Nicholas I created the Second Department of His Majesty's Own Office, where work began on systematizing legislation, which was supposed to include three stages: the incorporation of all legal acts of the Russian Empire, which was expressed in the publication in 1830 of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire in the period from 1649 to 1825; the incorporation of existing legislation in the form of the creation of the Code of Laws, first published in 1832; and codification - the distribution of norms by industry with the inclusion of novelties.
Under M.M. Speransky carried out the first two stages of systematization. The complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire was originally published in 40 volumes and 4 volumes of indexes, and the Code of Laws was published in 15 volumes. The Code of Laws laid the foundation for the development of legislation in the Russian Empire, without which the Judicial Reform of 1864 would have been unthinkable.
For some M.M. Speransky is a great reformer, for some he is a freemason who “awakened” the Decembrists, for others he is an unsuccessful politician... The difference in opinions speaks to the complexity of the image of Mikhail Mikhailovich. But he, undoubtedly, was a Statesman with a capital P, a luminary of the Russian administration, as M.A. called him. Corf. The latter described Mikhail Mikhailovich in his diary: “First, an insignificant seminarian, then an almighty temporary worker, a famous exile who rose from the fall with undiminished strength, and finally, the immortal creator of the Code of Laws, as gigantic in thought as in execution - he and with his genius, and with his wonderful destinies, he became some kind of giant above all his contemporaries.”
Mikhail Speransky (1772 - 1839) was not a hereditary nobleman. Four generations of clergy, honest and respectable subjects of the Russian Empire - that’s what their family was proud of. The boy learned to read and write early, and at the age of five he himself read the Law of God and the Psalter. At the age of seven, he easily entered the Vladimir Seminary. Mikhail showed qualities that were rare for a child of his age: curiosity, perseverance, and the ability to briefly and clearly present the most difficult concepts. The teachers first nicknamed him Speransky, and then suggested choosing this word as a surname. Speransky is Nadezhdin in Russian.
The seminary selected the best students and sent them to the Alexander Nevsky Monastery. And in this seminary there was no equal to him in training and diligence. He was ready to teach, but a happy accident intervened. His Excellency A.B. Kurakin chose the secretary. There was no better candidate than Speransky. This is how the former seminarian ended up at the court of Paul I. He was collected, neat, literate and smart. His erudition could be the envy of professors, and his ability to speak could be the envy of the best speakers.
Speransky became an important person in the state in just three years. He is accepted at court, rich, and given the title of nobility. He is married, he loves, is loved and is happy. He is 27 years old, he is an active state councilor. But fate not only spoiled Speransky, it took his beautiful wife away from him. The birth was difficult, the child survived, but the mother died. He was a monogamous man and never married again. He raised his daughter alone and had no mistresses. This story adds one more touch to the portrait of Speransky - he gave all his spiritual strength to the Fatherland and his daughter.
Under Alexander I, he was invited to serve in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Count Kochubey, the head of the department, valued the new employee and instructed him to understand the most complex legal issues. Speransky stood out from his colleagues. He is honest, did not take bribes, and did not know how to be mean. He argued that the rule of law is the main condition for the existence of the state. He openly stated that a reform was needed, as a result of which a constitutional monarchy would appear in Russia. Oddly enough, the Emperor supported Speransky’s innovations; he was not afraid of the phrase “destroy the autocracy.”
Emperor's Secretary- this is the name of the new position of the young official. His career was envied by: Deputy Minister of Justice, Privy Councilor, Secretary of State, Director of the Law Commission. The emperor’s personal order was to develop a State Education Plan, on which the “Unofficial Committee” worked. Alexander I considered this the most important task; he often met with Speransky and demanded daily reports.
Speransky managed to convince the emperor to change the procedure for obtaining titles and privileges. In the Russian Empire, since the time of Catherine II, it was customary to assign ranks to noble children. A child was born, and immediately the rank of fifth grade was handed to him on a platter. That is, he is still not smart, he doesn’t know how to walk, but he is listed as a chamberlain cadet. Ten years will pass, the child will come of age, then he will be awarded the title of chamberlain, and with it - a warm place and bread. Speransky worked on the decree. From now on, “non-service” chamber cadets and chamberlains had to take care of the place. If you do not serve the state, you lose your title, and with it the privileges that come with it. Completion period is two months.
Next, Speransky took up the “Table of Ranks”. He suggested checking officials before assigning them a new rank. The word “exam” scared everyone. Just think, noble children must prove their suitability for rank! Oh, and the little ones started fussing! A university diploma was all right, and it was still possible to master French as a foreign language. But law and economics, physics, statistics and economics... Lord, who is capable of this?! Five percent, ten at best. The rest flew into a rage, anticipating losses in the form of rewards and privileges.
Speransky was bursting with ideas. Before 1812, he managed to reorganize all ministries. He tried to make changes to the structure of the Senate, but his enemies managed to convince Alexander I to postpone the project until better times. Then the war began, then it was necessary to think about restoration. The project was put in a distant box and buried there. But the plan to establish a Lyceum in Tsarskoe Selo was accepted.
Speransky dreamed of a time when Russia would become a legal state. The impending changes and his enthusiasm frightened those close to the emperor, and as a result of palace intrigues, the brave reformer found himself in exile. First Nizhny Novgorod, then Perm. Until August 1816, Speransky lived on the brink of poverty. Having learned about this, the emperor changed his anger to mercy and appointed him governor of Penza. Speransky was in this post for only seven months.
His reforms:
- introduced local self-government;
- gave some of the duties of the governor to vice-governors;
- made officials responsible for receiving citizens;
- banned the sale of landless peasants;
- facilitated the conditions for peasants to leave serfdom;
- assigned a uniform fee;
- determined the conditions for issuing plots to landless peasants.
At the end of March 1812, Speransky received an order to restore order in Siberia and draw up a plan for its development within two years. For this purpose, he was given a new position - governor general. He coped with the task: all his proposals were approved and accepted for execution in 1821. Speransky was not in St. Petersburg for 9 years. The Emperor thanked him by appointing him a member of the State Council for the Department of Laws. Knowing how much Speransky loves his daughter, the emperor appointed her to the position of maid of honor. And he added three and a half thousand acres of land to him - a good increase in salary.
The most respected minister of the country- this is Speransky. Typically, a change of kings on the throne led to the removal of all major officials. Nicholas I, having replaced Alexander I on the throne, asked Speransky to remain in the government. The trial of the Decembrists became a difficult test for him. He knew some of them, and therefore was afraid of being biased. Moreover, Speransky agreed with many of their proposals. The emperor also understood the imperfection of the judicial system. They assembled a commission whose task is to streamline the legislation. Mikhail Speransky, of course, was appointed head of the commission. The work took five years, and the result was forty-five volumes of the “Complete Collection of Laws.”
Based on the material collected by the commission on the history of Russian legislation, the commission, working hard for another three years, compiled a complete “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.” By decision of the State Council, it came into force on January 1, 1835.
For this truly titanic work, Nicholas I awarded Speransky the St. Andrew's Star, and he did this by removing this high award from himself.
Three years later, in December 1838, Speransky fell ill. It seemed like a common cold, but my weakened body couldn’t handle it. A New Year's gift from the emperor was the title of count, but the illness was so severe that there was no strength to rejoice. February 1839 was marked by severe frosts, but on January 11 it became warmer, the clouds cleared, and the sun came out. By noon the great reformer died. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was buried almost according to the royal protocol. The Alexander Nevsky Lavra received its former seminarian. Nicholas I was immensely upset. He understood that he would no longer be able to find a person equal to Speransky. Some courtiers recalled the words of Napoleon, who offered Alexander I to give him Mikhail Mikhailovich in exchange for any of his kingdoms. Others recalled Speransky’s reforms and listed his services to the Fatherland. Still others regretted that this amazing man was unable to realize his dream - to convince the emperor to abandon autocracy and make Russia a constitutional monarchy.