Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born on January 1 (12), 1772 in the Vladimir province. His father was a clergyman. From a young age, Misha constantly visited the temple and sorted through holy books together with his grandfather Vasily.
In 1780, the boy was enrolled in the Vladimir Seminary. There, because of his own abilities, he became one of the best students. After completing his studies, Mikhail becomes a student at the Vladimir Seminary, and then at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary. After graduating from Alexander Nevskaya, Mikhail began his teaching career there.
Already in 1995, the public, political and social activities of Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich began, who became personal secretary high-ranking Prince Kurakin. Mikhail is rapidly moving up the career ladder and quickly receives the title of actual state councilor.
In 1806, Speransky had the honor of meeting Alexander I himself. Due to the fact that Mikhail was wise and worked well, he soon became municipal secretary. Thus, his intensive reform and socio-political work begins.
Speransky's activities
Not all the plans and ideas of this progressive figure were brought to life, but he managed to achieve the following:
- The growth of the economy of the Russian Empire and the economic attractiveness of the state in the eyes of foreign investors helped to create strong foreign trade.
- In the domestic economy, he established a good infrastructure, which enabled the country to rapidly develop and prosper.
- The army of civil servants began to function more efficiently with a minimum amount of municipal resources spent.
- A stronger legal system was created.
- Under the direction of Mikhail Mikhailovich, the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” was published in 45 volumes. This act includes laws and acts of the state.
Speransky had a huge number of opponents among the top officials. He was treated like an upstart. His ideas often faced aggressive attitudes from the conservative rulers of society. This was reflected (1811) in Karamzin’s famous “Note on Ancient and New Russia” and (1812) in his two secret messages to Emperor Alexander.
Particular bitterness against Speransky was due to By 2 decrees he carried out (1809):
- About court ranks - the ranks of chamberlains and chamber cadets were recognized as differences with which practically no ranks were associated (primarily they provided the ranks of the 4th and 5th classes according to the Table of Ranks).
- On examinations for civilian ranks - it was ordered not to promote to the ranks of collegiate assessor and civil adviser persons who had not completed an institute course or had not passed a certain test.
A whole army of ill-wishers rose up against Speransky. In the eyes of the latter, he was considered a freethinker and a revolutionary. There was awkward talk in the world about his hidden connections with Napoleon, and the proximity of the war increased anxiety.
From 1812 until 1816, Mikhail Mikhailovich was in disgrace with the tsar due to his activities as a reformist, as a circle of a significant number of high-ranking persons was affected. But starting in 1919, Speransky became governor-general of the entire region in Siberia, and in 21 he returned to St. Petersburg again.
After the coronation of Nicholas I, Mikhail acquired the post of teacher of the future sovereign Alexander II. In addition, during this period Speransky worked at the Higher School of Law.
Unexpectedly, in 1839, on February 11 (23), Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky died of a cold, without completing many of his progressive reforms.
Speransky's political reforms
Speransky was a reformer of the state. He believed that the Russian Empire was not ready to say goodbye to the monarchy, but was a supporter of the constitutional order. Mikhail believed that the management organization should be changed, introducing the latest legislation and regulations. According to the decree of Emperor Alexander I, Mikhail Speransky created a broad program of reforms that could change the government and lead Russia out of the crisis.
In his reform program he suggested:
- equalization before the law of absolutely all classes;
- reducing costs for all municipal departments;
- transformations in the domestic economy and trade;
- introduction of the latest tax order;
- creation of the latest legislative law and the formation of the most advanced judicial organizations;
- changes in the work of the ministry;
- division of legislative power into judicial and executive bodies.
Conclusion:
Speransky sought to develop the most democratic, but still monarchical government structures, a system where any citizen, regardless of his origin, would have ability to rely on protection the state's own rights.
Not all of Michael’s reforms were carried out due to Alexander I’s fear of such drastic changes. But even those changes that were made significantly boosted the country’s economy.
Alexander I wished Russia liberal reforms. For this purpose, a “secret committee” was created, and Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky became the emperor’s main assistant.
M. M. Speransky- the son of a village priest, who became the emperor's secretary without patronage, had many talents. He read a lot and knew foreign languages.
On behalf of the emperor, Speransky developed a project of reforms designed to change the management system in Russia.
Speransky's reform project.
M. Speransky suggested the following changes:
- introduce the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial;
- introduce local self-government at three levels: volost, district (district) and provincial
- allow all land owners to participate in the elections, including state peasants (45% of the total)
The election of the State Duma was for the first time assumed to be based on suffrage - multi-stage, unequal for nobles and peasants, but broad. M. Speransky's reform did not give the State Duma broad powers: all projects were discussed, approved by the Duma, they would come into force only after the tsar's permission.
The tsar and the government, as executive power, were deprived of the right to make laws at their own discretion.
Assessment of M. Speransky's reforms.
If the project of state reform of Russia by M. Speransky had been translated into action, it would have made our country a constitutional monarchy, and not an absolute one.
Draft of a new Russian Civil Code.
M. Speransky dealt with this project in the same way as the first: without taking into account the real situation in the state.
The activist drew up new laws based on the philosophical works of the West, but in practice many of these principles simply did not work.
Many articles of this project are copies of the Napoleonic Code, which caused outrage in Russian society.
M. Speransky issued a decree changing the rules for assigning ranks, tried to fight the budget deficit that was devastated by wars, and participated in the development of the customs tariff in 1810.
The end of reforms.
Opposition to the reformer both at the top and at the bottom dictated to Alexander I the decision to remove M. Speransky from all positions and exile him to Perm. So in March 1812 his political activity was interrupted.
In 1819, M. Speransky was appointed Governor-General of Siberia, and in 1821 he returned to St. Petersburg and became a member of the established State Council. After forced exile, M. Speransky revised his views and began to express thoughts opposite to his previous ones.
1. But Alexander I saw that the actions of the “Unofficial Committee” did not lead to serious changes. A new person was needed who would decisively and consistently carry out reforms. He became Secretary of State, Deputy Minister of Justice Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky - a man of broad outlook and outstanding abilities.
2. In 1809, on behalf of Alexander I, Speransky drew up a draft of state reforms called “Introduction to the Code of State Laws.” It contained the following provisions:
> the principle of separation of powers;
> legislative power should be in the new parliament - the State Duma;
> executive power is exercised by ministries;
> judicial functions belong to the Senate;
> The State Council reviews draft laws before they are submitted to the Duma (an advisory body under the emperor);
> three classes of Russian society were established: 1st - the nobility, 2nd - the “middle state” (merchants, state peasants), 3rd - the “working people” (serfs, domestic servants, workers);
> political rights belong to the 1st and 2nd estates, but the 3rd can pass into the 2nd (as property accumulates);
> the 1st and 2nd estates have the right to vote;
> at the head of the Duma is the Chancellor, appointed by the Tsar.
3. Speransky saw the ultimate goal in limiting autocracy and eliminating serfdom. Legislative power remained in the hands of the tsar and the highest bureaucracy, but the judgments of the Duma must express the “opinion of the people.” Civil rights were introduced: “No one could be punished without a judicial verdict.”
4. Alexander I generally approved of Speransky’s political reform, but decided to carry it out gradually, starting with the simplest. In 1810, the State Council was created, which reviewed draft laws, explained their meaning, and controlled ministries; Speransky stood at its head. In 1811, decrees were issued on the functions of ministries and on the Senate. But the highest nobility expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with the reforms being carried out. Alexander I, remembering the fate of his father, suspended the reforms.
5. In 1807, Russia was forced to join the continental blockade, which had an extremely negative impact on its economy. Under these conditions, Alexander I instructed Speransky to develop a project for improving the economy.
6. In 1810, Speransky prepared a project of economic reforms. It included:
> cessation of issuance of unsecured bonds;
> the need to buy paper money from the population;
> sharp reduction in government spending;
> introduction of a special tax on landowners and appanage estates;
> carrying out an internal loan;
> introduction of an emergency additional tax for 1 year, which was paid by serfs and amounted to 50 kopecks per year;
> introduction of a new customs tariff;
> ban on the import of luxury goods.
7. Criticism of Speransky’s reforms intensified, and was joined by the historian N.M. Karamzin, an ideologist of enlightened absolutism. Speransky was even accused of treason because of his sympathies for Napoleon. Alexander I decided to resign Speransky, who in March 1812. was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, then transferred to Perm.
8. Mikhail Speransky’s reforms were almost a century ahead of the time of their creation. But the projects of the “luminary of the Russian bureaucracy” formed the basis on which liberal reforms were developed in Russia in the 50-60s of the 19th century.
Libmonster ID: RU-7859
At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, capitalist relations began to emerge in Russia; part of the Russian nobility took the path of bourgeois development and began to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
The extent to which capitalist relations began to penetrate among the nobility can be judged by the fact that in the Commission of the Code of 1767 - 1768 there were strong tensions between the bourgeois nobility and the merchants as their competitors. Capitalist ideology began to take hold of the consciousness of the top of Russian society.
Marx in his “Critique of Political Economy” pointed out that in Russia, already at the beginning of the 19th century, interest in classical political economy appeared. He refers to a place from Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", where even the idle nobleman Onegin
"...I read Adam Smith,
And there was a deep economy,
That is, he knew how to judge that.
How does the state get rich?
And how does he live, and why?
He doesn't need gold
When a simple product has..."
("Eugene Onegin" by A. S. Pushkin)
In fact, the works of Adam Smith were presented in the St. Petersburg Journal in 1804 - 1810; Articles by other authors appeared in this magazine, for example: “On free trade in gold and silver”, “On exceptional privileges and their abuse”, “On money”, “On obstacles in improving agriculture”, “On credit and taxes”. Bourgeois ideology was born along with the emergence of the capitalist mode of production in Russia.
True, in its industrial development Russia lagged behind Western Europe for many decades. The lack of machinery and equipment, serf labor with its low productivity still had a predominant importance in Russia; nevertheless, with each decade of the 19th century, capitalist elements penetrated the Russian economy.
If at the end of the 18th century the metallurgy and textile industries worked for export, then at the beginning of the 19th century they began to satisfy the demand of the domestic market. In 1808, spinning machines appeared, which were initially used in the Aleksandrovskaya manufactory established by the government. Along with the development of capitalist relations in the field of industry, there is a desire of some landowners to increase the marketability of their farms. The export of grain from Russia doubled from 1800 to 1810. However, the development of capitalism was hampered by the dominance of serfdom in the economy and the autocracy, which was the stronghold of these relations. Therefore, the propaganda of capitalism had to be aimed not only at criticizing feudal relations in the economic field, but also at criticizing the autocracy that protected them.
page 65
Radishchev at the end of the 18th century and Speransky at the beginning of the 19th century were the first to make this criticism in Russia. It is necessary to immediately make a reservation that there is a fundamental difference between Radishchev’s criticism and Speransky’s criticism: Radishchev thought of the destruction of serfdom and its stronghold - autocracy - through revolution, and Speransky was only a supporter of reforms; Radishchev was a republican, and Speransky was a supporter of a constitutional monarchy.
Radishchev first expressed his negative attitude towards autocracy in 1772, after returning from France, he said: “Autocracy is the state most contrary to human nature.” But Radishchev clearly understood that “... the kings will not give up their power with goodness and that they need to be overthrown, that there is no head where there would be more inconsistencies, if not in the royal one.” In the ode "Liberty" Radishchev appears as an opponent of the serfdom system.
Radishchev expected the liberation of the peasants, as Catherine II herself said, from a “revolt of the peasants.” In “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” in the chapter “Zaitsevo,” Radishchev spoke out against the tyranny of the Duryndins, and “without the Duryndins, the light (read: absolute monarchy - I.B.) would not have lasted three days,” and Radishchev comes to the conclusion , that power in the country should belong not to representatives of the “noble breed, but to those who, through their useful activities, have earned the trust of the people.” Radishchev was the first to publicly sharply criticize the existing system in Russia. That is why Lenin begins the genealogy of Russian revolutionaries with Radishchev: The Russian people are proud that from their midst came Radishchev, the Decembrists and the raznochintsy revolutionaries of the 70s1.
At the end of the 18th century, at the time when Radishchev lived, the Russian bureaucratic state flourished. All state power in the capital and in the provinces was concentrated in the hands of the nobility.
This characteristic can be attributed entirely to the reign of Alexander I, during which Speransky’s activities unfolded.
There is a traditional division of the reign of Alexander I into two periods: liberal - in the first years of his reign - and reactionary. This opinion arose because Alexander I, with the hypocrisy characteristic of him, like all Romanovs, made liberal gestures in the first years of his reign.
“They (the nobles - I.B.) remembered how the monarchs either flirted with liberalism, or were the executioners of the Radishchevs and “let loose” on the loyal Arakcheevs”2.
Alexander needed his nods towards liberalism in order to wash away the stain of the blood of his father, who was killed with the knowledge and participation of Alexander. Stepping over his father’s corpse, he decided to win over to his side all those who were dissatisfied with the barracks regime of Paul I. How dissatisfied the nobles were with Pavel can be seen from the fact that even Derzhavin wrote after his death: “The hoarse roar of the Nord fell silent, the formidable , a terrible look..." Therefore, it was very important to return from exile all the nobles exiled by Paul, loosen the reins of censorship and flirt with those nobles who wanted the transformation of Russia. If we lift the veil and look at the facts of the first years of Alexander’s reign, which are considered the era of his “liberal” activity, then we will see the contours of the future emperor, who crowned his reign with the “Holy Alliance.”
An example characterizing Alexander’s “liberal” activities is the secret committee that examined the project according to which the ministries were to be subordinated to the Senate. Alexander rejected this moderate project, since he did not want to allow control over either himself or his officials.
The secret committee included friends of the emperor Count Stroganov, Novosiltsev, Count Kochubey and Prince Czartoryski.
The secret committee dealt with various issues, including serfdom and government structure. Committee members warned Alexander against radical reforms in these matters, so as not to irritate the nobles.
On the initiative of Mordvinov, a member of the Committee of Ministers, in 1803 a draft was introduced on free cultivators, according to which state and appanage peasants were allowed to buy their freedom. But only 3% of peasants took advantage of this law, since the rest did not have the funds for this.
To this we can also add the “Secret Instruction of 1805” to the High Police Committee on political supervision.
The listed facts are enough to discard once and for all the traditional version about the alleged one-time liberal period in Alexander’s activities. It is very typical that in
1 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. XVIII, p. 81.
2 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. IV, p. 127.
page 66
In the manifesto of March 12, upon his accession to the throne, Alexander promised to rule the country in the same way as his grandmother, who, as you know, was an ardent supporter of absolutism.
In this political situation of the first years of Alexander’s reign, M. M. Speransky appeared on the scene, trying to breathe a fresh breath into the musty atmosphere of the Russian autocracy, surrounded by a bureaucratic caste of the aristocracy, who looked at their positions as their own, inviolable possessions.
Speransky was one of the first ideologists of the emerging Russian bourgeoisie. All his projects and ideas were aimed at changing social and state relations in Russia in the image and likeness of bourgeois France.
Speransky was born in 1772 into the family of a priest. After successfully completing the theological seminary, he was appointed to the position of teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. Then he moved to the position of personal secretary of Prince Kurakin. In 1797, he went to serve in the office of the Prosecutor General (the same Kurakin). At the beginning of Alexander's reign, Speransky was promoted to the rank of Secretary of State, and in 1802 he was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
In 1806, Alexander personally met Speransky, who made a very good impression on him. Already in 1808, Speransky was in Alexander’s personal retinue during his meeting with Napoleon in Erfurt. Soon Speransky became a major statesman: he served as chairman of the Code Commission, dealt with issues of communications, Polish and Livonian affairs, headed the commission of religious schools, etc.
The fight against abuses, against bribery, projects to eliminate these shortcomings, which Speransky fought from the very first steps of his state activities - all this immediately caused discontent among noble nobles with the “impudent priest”.
Speransky stood above them not only as a statesman, but also in his education: he was well versed in issues of mathematics and literature, knew French perfectly, had great knowledge in the field of history and philosophy: he read Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Kant, Schelling , Fichte and others, wrote fragments on mathematics, law, ethics, philosophy, pedagogy, economics, politics and other issues.
The bourgeois French revolution had a great influence on Speransky's worldview. All his life - before the start of his government activities, during his rise, and also after his fall - Speransky was distinguished by liberalism.
As a nineteen-year-old boy, during the period of Catherine II’s most severe reaction directed against the French Revolution, Speransky preached a sermon at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in which he addressed Catherine with the following words: “Wise sovereign, but if you are not on the path of man... you will descend from the throne to wipe away the tears of the last of your subjects; if your knowledge will only pave the way for your lust for power; if you will use it only to more skillfully gild the chains of slavery, in order to more inconspicuously impose them on people and in order to be able to show love for the people and from -under the curtain of generosity, it is more skillful to steal his acquisitions at the whim of your voluptuousness and your favorites... in order to completely erase the concept of freedom... and with fear assure them that you are more than a man: then, with all your talents, with all your splendor, you will only be a happy villain."
And in the “Rules of Higher Eloquence,” dating back to the same period, Speransky sympathizes with Demosthenes, who led the Greek democracy in the fight against Macedonia.
Already in the post of household secretary to Prince Kurakin, Speransky shunned the company of the aristocracy, preferring to communicate with the prince’s household servants: he had a special friendship with Kurakin’s valet Lev Mikhailov, whom Speransky did not forget about later, when he already occupied a high position. And during his exile in Perm and Nizhny Novgorod, Speransky could be found in taverns and among the crowd. Finally, to fully characterize Speransky’s liberalism, we point out his connection with such a prominent Decembrist as Yakushkin.
Of course, it is possible to narrow down Speransky’s liberalism and bourgeois ideology most fully on the basis of documents and works.
Unfortunately, most of the information about Speransky has to be gleaned from official documents, written by him in Aesopian language, so as not to arouse the anger of
1 Quoted from Dovnar-Zapalsky “From the history of social movements in Russia”, p. 81. Ed. 1905.
page 67
the great persons for whom they were intended.
Proving the need to limit autocracy in the interests of expanding political and personal freedom, as well as freedom of entrepreneurial activity, and outlining reforms of state institutions accordingly, Speransky appeals to natural law, morality, reason and enlightenment - these pillars of bourgeois ideology. Based on natural law, Speransky proves the need for civil rights that ensure “the safety of trees and property.” “It is contrary to human nature (emphasis added - I.B.) to assume that anyone would agree to live in a society where neither his life nor his property are secured in any way"1.
Serfdom, according to Speransky, also contradicted the natural principles of human society, since in the past people were free.
Freedom, according to Speransky, is the victory of “moral necessity” over “physical necessity.”
Of course, Speransky’s understanding of freedom did not go beyond the bourgeois understanding of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, freedom of the press (or, as he put it, freedom of “stamping”), the provision of government and judicial positions not only to the nobles, but also to representatives of the middle class.
From Speransky’s concept of freedom flowed the formulation of bourgeois equality:
1. No one’s property may be alienated without a trial.
2. “No one is obliged to perform material service, nor to pay taxes and duties, except by law or condition, and not by the arbitrariness of another”2.
For the triumph of reason and the natural principles of freedom, enlightenment is necessary: “Enlightenment, honor (by honor Speransky understands freedom. - I.B.) and money are elements that are mainly part of good governance; without them, no institutions, no laws can have strength"3.
Speransky proceeds from the fact that all transformations in the state must be carried out when the “time” has come for them. “So, time is the first beginning and source of all political updates. No government that is not in accordance with the spirit of the time can resist its omnipotent action.
All the political transformations that have taken place in Europe represent to us a continuous, so to speak, struggle between the system of republics and the feudal system. As the states became enlightened, the first came into strength, and the second into exhaustion."4
Russia at that time was already ripe for economic and political transformations, and therefore Speransky warned Alexander that “an autocrat who would not renounce autocracy would meet a solid barrier to his violence, if not in these very institutions, then in opinion, in confidence, in the habits of the people.” "5 .
He states that in Russia there is “civil slavery,” that is, a situation “where subjects not only do not have any participation in the forces of the state, but, moreover, do not have the freedom to dispose of their person and property in connection with others6 .
Speransky's views on the peasant question were outlined in the "Introduction to the Code of State Laws of 1809." and to the “Note on Serfs” attached to it.
Speransky notes that in the 18th century there came a sharp change in the legal position of the Russian peasantry; Engels also pointed out this feature. The peasant, as Speransky put it, has become a thing that can be alienated on a par with land, with the only difference being that land belongs to immovable property, while the peasant belongs to movable property.
Speransky points out the unprofitability of serfdom. The houses of the landowners were filled with “idle people”, “dissolute undertakings” intensified, insane luxury expanded, which led to an increase in peasant duties and unpaid debts; and most importantly, serfdom with its subsistence economy narrows the sales market: “Who should the philistines work for, when every landowner produces everything he needs and even whimsically, although it is bad, although it is not harmonious and unprofitable, but he produces it at home and even puts it on sale” 7 .
Speransky emphasized that serfdom hampered economic development.
1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". T. X, p. 29. Ed. 1899.
2 Ibid., p. 30.
3 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”. p. 174. Ed. 1906.
4 M. Speransky “Historical Review”. T. X, p. 11. Ed. 1399.
5 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”, p. 211. Ed. 1906.
6 M. Speransky “Historical Review”. T. X, p. 6. Ed. 1890.
7 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”, p. 307. Ed. 1905.
page 68
It not only narrows the market, but also inhibits freedom of competition, or, as Speransky puts it, freedom of “competition,” which negatively affects the development of industry and the growth of cities.
In his criticism of serfdom, Speransky acts as a typical bourgeois. The contradictions of serfdom can be eliminated, according to Speransky, through its final abolition. Paul's laws on three-day corvee, Alexander's laws on free cultivators were only palliatives in this direction. They do not satisfy Speransky. In his opinion, the liberation of the peasants had to be carried out in two stages: in the first period it was necessary to limit oneself to the definition of the duties of the peasants in relation to their owners, the transfer of the poll tax into a land tax, and the establishment of courts to resolve disputes between peasants and landowners; in the second period, peasants should be given the full right to freely move from one landowner to another.
It must be emphasized that Speransky was opposed to the liberation of peasants without land; in his opinion, “the fate of the peasant, who pays his duties according to the law and has his own plot of land as compensation, is incomparably more profitable than the position of the peasants, which is what all working people in England, France and the United States already are.”
Moreover: he believed that it was necessary to “resell one land without peasants to the same or another owner - all such sales should be considered invalid and insignificant and for forgery, if discovered, be judged according to the laws”1.
It was not without reason that in the Penza province, where Speransky was appointed governor in 1816, there was a rumor about him among the peasants that, having risen “from rags to high ranks and positions and being smarter than all the tsar’s advisers, he stood up for the serfs, submitted to the sovereign a project for their liberation and thus angered all the masters against himself, who decided to destroy him for this, and not for any betrayal."2
Speransky, like the Decembrists, realized that it was impossible to abolish serfdom without thereby affecting the autocracy, which expressed the interests of the serf owners. Therefore, he sought to limit autocracy.
Speransky distinguishes three forms of state: feudal, despotic (by despotic Speransky means absolute monarchy) and republican. The republican form, as Speransky notes, won for the first time in England, Switzerland, Holland and France. The monarchs tried to fight against republican forms of government, but could not win, since the despotic form of government no longer corresponded to the times. Russia can avoid a violent revolution if the monarchy is limited in time. The first attempts at this limitation, as Speransky believed, were made under Alexei Mikhailovich, and then under Anna Ioannovna and Catherine II. But these attempts were not crowned with success, since the time had not yet come.
In Speransky’s view, “the most striking sign of despotic autocracy in a state is when the supreme ruler, who gives the general law, herself applies it to particular cases,” and he comes to the conclusion that Russia is a country of “despotic monarchy,” he points out that all government institutions in Russia do not have any “substantial connection” with each other.
In addition, all these institutions do not have independent political power and depend exclusively “on the single will and wave of the autocratic force,” they do not exercise legislative power and cannot in any way influence the autocracy. This situation, according to Speransky, is “the most striking sign” of a despotic state; under these conditions, all concepts of order and freedom are overthrown. Speransky concludes that the “despotic monarchy” must be replaced by a “true monarchy,” that is, a constitutional one.
Speransky expected that the limitation of the monarchy in Russia, unlike Western countries, would occur without a revolution, here it would be “not an inflammation of passions and extreme circumstances, according to the beneficent inspiration of the supreme power, which, having arranged the political existence of its people, can and has all the ways to give it the most correct forms."
Speransky's constitutional plans reflect his bourgeois ideology and the influence on him of the bourgeois French revolution of 1789 and the constitution of 1791, which expressed the interests of the big bourgeoisie. Imitating French models, Speransky believed it was necessary to introduce active and passive suffrage - depending on
1 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”. T. X, p. 320. Ed. 1905.
2 V. Semevsky “The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and 1st half of the 19th centuries.” T. I. St. Petersburg. 1888.
page 69
property status. He proceeded from the idea that personal civil and political rights should belong to everyone, but not to the same extent: only people who have property should be allowed “to participate in political rights.” In defense of this position, he gives the following arguments: the law protects property, “the more a person accepts participation in property, the more naturally (my disposition - I.B.) he cares more about its protection.” Such a person can create laws better than “a man without property or a bog.” But if we allow persons “who do not have property” to participate in political rights, then the naked and condemnation of these latter by their number will, without a doubt, take precedence and, consequently, all the electoral forces of the people will pass into the hands of those very people who are least in their kindness elections have participation and in the least ways to their correct discretion..."
“This is the basis for the important rule according to which in all states, in France itself during the revolution, the right to vote was limited only to those people who have property.”1
Based on property status, Speransky divides the entire population of the country into three classes. Above all is the nobility, enjoying civil freedom, political rights and, in addition, special "noble privileges. Then comes the middle class, consisting of merchants, burghers and state peasants, enjoying civil and political rights. Finally - artisans, household servants and landowner peasants, constituting one category of working people, endowed only with civil rights (i.e., as under the French constitution of 1791, persons who did not have property and were in service did not enjoy political rights).
Speransky was accused of indecision, of proposing to carry out reforms over several years. But this is not true. In fact, Speransky dreamed of introducing all the reforms at once: he accepted the project of gradual transformation at the insistence of Alexander. This is evidenced by Speransky’s letter from Perm exile to Alexander, which says that it would be better to “open all the reforms at once: then they would all appear in their size and harmony and would not cause any confusion in matters. But Your Majesty preferred firmness to this brilliance and considered it better to endure for a while the reproach of some confusion, rather than suddenly change everything, based on one theory."
According to Speransky, the monarchy should be limited by the State Duma, which is elected on the following basis. The volost councils are elected from among the owners of real estate in the towns and in each volost; from the deputies of the volost dumas, district dumas are formed, and from the deputies of the latter, provincial dumas are created; and, finally, from the deputies of the provincial duma “a legislative estate is formed, under the name of the State Duma”3.
Speransky attached great importance to the law, by which he understood the constitution: “State law was adopted instead of the word constitution and always means a law that defines the initial rights and relations of all state classes among themselves”4.
With the help of the “law” - the constitution - he sought to limit autocracy: “Not to cover autocracy with external forms only, but to limit it internally and with the essential force of regulations and to establish sovereign power by law, not in words, but in deed itself”5.
“The goodness of government necessarily depends on the goodness of the law.”
The primary function of law is “to establish the relations of the people to the general safety of persons and property.”
The Russian tsars understood the law completely differently. For example, in Paul's view, legality meant uncomplaining submission to police orders; Alexander recognized legality, which would protect autocratic power from interference by the people.
Speransky was a supporter of “firm” laws, that is, those approved by popular representation (of course, only the first two estates), which protect property, destroy the arbitrariness of officials, who interpret the laws each in their own way, and establish the equality of all people before the law; thus, bourgeois law is proclaimed. The absence of special legislative bodies does not make it possible to create strong laws and does not ensure their precise implementation. Hence the conclusion: all state power must be divided into legislative
1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". T. X, p. 33. Ed. 1899.
3 Ibid., pp. 38 - 41.
4 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”, p. 123. Ed. 1906.
5 M. Speransky “Historical Review”. T. X, p. 18. Ed. 1899.
page 70
dative and executive: legislative power should be concentrated in the hands of the State Duma and the State Council, it cannot act without the sanction of the monarch, but the latter, however, should not constrain the legislative power, so that “the opinions of it (the State Council. - I.B.) were free and expressed the opinion of the people."
Judicial bodies must be elected. The executive branch - the government - must be responsible to the legislative branch.
Speransky explains the need for the government to be accountable to the legislative branch by the fact that laws can be distorted. Correct execution of the law can only occur when it is accurately codified.
“Everyone complains,” writes Speransky, “about the confusion and confusion of our civil laws. But how can they be corrected and established without firm state laws? Why laws that distribute property between private people, when this property has no firm basis in any way?” grounds. What is the use of civil laws, when their tablets can be broken every day on the first stone of autocracy (emphasis added by me. - I.B.). They complain about the complexity of finances. But how to organize finances where there is no general trust, where there is no public establishment , the order that protects them"2.
While serving as a fellow minister of justice, Speransky in 1808 began drawing up a civil code, based on the Napoleonic Code.
In the "Code Draft" the influence of Napoleon on Speransky was most clearly reflected. Speransky himself tried to deny this in order to defend himself from accusations of treason in favor of Napoleon. And this accusation was seriously brought against him by his enemies as the most effective means of eliminating Speransky. Both in form and content, Speransky’s Code is identical to the Napoleon Code. It is divided into three parts: the first part is devoted mainly to family and marriage and is similar to the first book of the Napoleonic Civil Code; the second part deals with property, the third - with contracts. A large place in the Code, as in the Napoleonic Code, is occupied by issues of property and inheritance.
Why did the Napoleonic Code migrate from France to Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium and Russia? We have an exhaustive answer to this question from Engels.
The Napoleonic Code could serve as the basis for codification in various countries because it skillfully adapted the “old Roman law” to the bourgeois relations that were then developing in Western Europe and Russia. That is why Speransky adopted the Napoleonic Code.
Speransky also dreamed of creating a criminal code. But it is not enough to codify the laws: it is necessary that those who implement these laws be responsible to those who approve them.
Lenin noted: “A particularly impressive reactionary institution, which attracted relatively little attention from our revolutionaries, is the domestic bureaucracy, which de facto (in fact, in fact - Ed.) rules the Russian state"3.
This bureaucracy was staffed mainly by nobles who stood close to the court. As Speransky emphasized, they looked at their service as a source of enrichment and abused their official position. This happened because “both the responder and the questioner are one person and one side”4.
According to Speransky, the ministries suffered from three main shortcomings: 1) lack of responsibility; 2) some inaccuracy and disproportion in the division of affairs and 3) lack of precise rules or institutions on which the ministry should act. For example, the Ministry of Internal Affairs includes: the police, part of finance, salt, factories, etc.: the Ministry of Commerce deals with the collection of customs duties, while this issue should be dealt with by the Ministry of Finance, and the general police are not assigned to any of the ministries at all .
To eliminate these shortcomings, it was necessary to reorganize the ministries, which is what Speransky did. The manifesto of June 25, 1810 published the “New division of state affairs in an executive manner,” i.e., a decree on the transformation of ministries, and the manifesto of June 25, 1811, according to the new project, established the following ministries: external affairs, military land and maritime affairs, national industry, finance, police, education and roads
1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". T. X, p. 19. Ed. 1899.
2 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”.
3 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. I, p. 186.
4 M. Speransky “Plan of State Transformation”, p. 135. Ed. 1905.
page 71
messages - in addition, a department of spiritual affairs was created.
“Three forces move and govern the state: legislative, executive and judicial power”1. Therefore, after the legislative and executive powers are reorganized, it is necessary to begin transforming the third force - the court, where abuses and bribery were especially felt, where the laws, as Speransky put it, were known only to clerks, who each interpreted them in their own way.
In 1811, Speransky submitted to the State Council for consideration a project on the formation of a government senate, which was to be the executive branch of the State Council. Along with senators appointed by the monarch, elected senators should also sit here. This proposal aroused strong opposition from dignitaries who believed that the election of senators was “contrary to the reason of autocratic rule.”
Of all Speransky’s projects, only the opening of the State Council was carried out (January 1, 1810).
Speransky’s activities were not limited only to reforms in the field of public life: he had many responsibilities, in particular, he was tasked with taking measures to improve finances, which by that time had fallen into disarray.
The continuous wars of the 18th century and the ever-increasing expenses of the empresses aggravated this crisis. Catherine already had to resort to the establishment of an assignation bank, which issued 157 million assignats. During her reign, the rate of banknotes fell to 70 kopecks.
Under Alexander, Russia's financial condition continued to deteriorate: wars with France, Turkey and Sweden greatly depleted the treasury.
The situation was further complicated by the consequences of Tilsit, as a result of which foreign trade was carried out under the sign of a passive balance and the banknote rate dropped to 25 kopecks by 1810.
On January 1, 1810, at the opening of the State Council, Speransky made a proposal to take measures to eliminate financial ruin. The main reason for the financial ruin, according to Speransky, was the systematic deficit of the state budget. As measures to eliminate this situation, he proposed:
1) withdrawal of banknotes and replacement with full-fledged state signs; 2) reduction of some items of expenditure, 3) introduction of a special tax of 50 kopecks per head of landowners and appanage peasants.
In 1810, a deficit of over 100 million rubles was again discovered, and the same phenomenon was observed in 1811 in connection with preparations for war. Speransky proposed in February 1812 to introduce a progressive tax on large landholdings. Speransky borrowed the idea of a progressive tax from the French enlighteners of the 18th century: Montesquieu, Reinol and Rousseau. Speransky's tax policy increased state revenues from 1810 to 1812 by two and a half times. The rise in taxes embittered the nobles, and they took up arms against Speransky.
It is no coincidence that the day after Speransky’s exile (March 18, 1812) at a meeting of the State Council there were heated debates regarding the further functioning of the progressive tax. However, it was canceled only in 1819, i.e. 7 years after the fall of Speransky.
The introduction of a progressive tax was the last event in Speransky's activities: on March 17, 1812, he was removed from public service and sent into exile.
When analyzing the reasons for the failure of Speransky’s reform, one must discard the existing opinion that the main reason for Speransky’s fall was his “criminal” connection with Napoleon. Not only friends, but also Speransky’s enemies did not believe in his connection with Napoleon.
In a conversation with Vasilchenkov in 1820, when Alexander decided to return Speransky to St. Petersburg, he stated that he never believed Speransky’s betrayal and that he sent him out only to satisfy public opinion.
Alexander’s cooling towards Speransky began much earlier than the time he learned about Speransky’s “betrayal”. Back in 1811, Alexander abandoned his plans. In a conversation with de Senglin, he said: “Speransky involved me in stupidity. Why, I agreed to the State Council and the title of Secretary of State. It was as if I had separated myself from the state. This is stupid and was not in Lagarnov’s plan.”2
Relations between Alexander and Speransky worsened after, in one of the conversations regarding the impending
1 M. Speransky "Historical Review". T. X, p. 4. Ed. 1899.
2 Schilder "Alexander I". T. III. page 366.
page 72
war with Napoleon, Speransky, analyzing the real balance of forces, came to the conclusion that all the advantages in this war in military-technical terms would be on Napoleon’s side, that Russia could achieve superiority only if Alexander renounced personal leadership of the war, transferring their powers to the convened "boyar duma".
From this conversation, the tsar concluded that Speransky continues to insist on limiting autocracy.
A complex intrigue began against Speransky, which was carried out by people of very dubious integrity and political adventurers. The following people took up arms against Speransky: Baron Armfeld, who repeatedly fled from Sweden and was sentenced to death in absentia for intrigues at the court of the Swedish kings; Balashov, the Minister of Police, who did not disdain any dirty means to enrich himself and who, together with Armfeld, dreamed of carrying out a coup in Finland; Duke de Serra Captiola, a protege of the Neapolitan king deposed by Napoleon, exposed by Speransky as a spy of Napoleon, French emigrants, etc., etc.
Armfeld went on a provocation: he initiated Speransky into his plan to carry out a coup d’etat in Finland together with Balashov and tear it away from Russia and invited him to join the conspiracy. Speransky abandoned this adventure, but did not inform Alexander about it. This fact played a well-known role in the fall of Speransky.
In addition, shortly before the fall of Speransky, Alexander received an anonymous letter, which proved that Speransky was an agent of Napoleon, and received from him a huge amount of diamonds and other valuables. This letter is believed to have been written by Rostopchin. Accusation of treason in the context of an impending war was the surest means by which Speransky could be removed from business.
On March 17, Speransky had a two-hour audience with Alexander. After his return home, Speransky saw a postal carriage at his house, and the Minister of Police Balashov was waiting for him in the apartment. All his papers were sealed, and he was asked to leave St. Petersburg immediately. He did not even have time to say goodbye to his family and was sent under police supervision to Nizhny Novgorod, from where he was transported to Perm; and in 1816 Speransky was appointed governor of Penza; in March 1819 he was appointed governor-general of Siberia; in 1821, Speransky returned from Siberia to St. Petersburg with the results of his audit of Siberian affairs and with an extensive project for Siberian reform.
After returning to St. Petersburg, Speransky became a simple performer; all documents coming from his pen were not signed by Alexander without prior consultation with Arakcheev.
Speransky alienated major government officials, each of whom considered the ministry entrusted to him “to be a granted village... Anyone who touched this property was a clear Illuminati and a traitor to the state”1, “if people performing other public functions valued not according to one's official position, but according to one's knowledge and merits - then doesn't this logically inevitably lead to freedom of public opinion and public control discussing this knowledge and these merits? Doesn't this undermine at the root the privileges of classes and ranks that is it only autocratic Russia that holds on?”2.
From these words of Lenin, it also becomes clear why the nobles were hostile to Speransky’s project on a mandatory university qualification for nobles entering the civil service.
The failure of Speransky's reforms must also be explained by the dissatisfaction of the nobility with Alexander's foreign policy after Tilsit. The nobles saw Napoleonic principles in all Speransky's reforms.
The years of Speransky's transformative activity - 1809 -1812 - coincided with the crisis of Franco-Russian relations. The irritation of the nobility against the continental blockade reached its highest limits, so everything French: ideas, people, laws - was hated by the nobles. In order to calm them down, Alexander, as he himself admitted, had to remove Speransky from business.
Speransky was aware of the inconsistency of existing orders with the given time, but “the means for eliminating conscious evil must lie - in a more or less developed form - in the changed conditions of production themselves. The human mind cannot invent these means; it must discover them in the given material phenomena of production"3 .
Speransky fell because the material prerequisites for victory were not yet sufficiently developed in Russia
1 Letter from Speransky from Perm. Quoted from Schilder "Alexander I". T. III, p. 518.
2 V. I. Lenin. T. IV, p. 316.
3 F. Engels "Anti-Dühring". Collection Op. T. XIV, p. 270.
page 73
bourgeois system. On the other hand, there were also subjective reasons for Speransky’s fall.
Speransky had few like-minded people: the Russian bourgeoisie, of which he was an ideologist, was small and weak; Speransky did not believe in the peasantry, since it was not yet “enlightened.”
Speransky's reforms were not implemented. Nevertheless, this does not diminish their historical significance and progressive character, since they were primarily directed against absolutism, serfdom and the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy.
“In Russia, the remnants of medieval, semi-feudal institutions are still so infinitely strong (compared to Western Europe), they lie with such an oppressive yoke on the proletariat and on the people in general, retarding the growth of political thought in all estates and classes - that one cannot help but insist on the enormous importance for the workers to fight against all feudal institutions, against absolutism, class and bureaucracy" (my discharge - I.B.)1.
Only half a century after the further development of capitalism in industry and agriculture became incompatible with feudal relations, after the defeat of the Russians in the Crimean War, which revealed all the rottenness and weakness of the feudal system, after peasant uprisings in the first half of the 19th century undermined the feudal system, - only after all this did tsarism and the serf owners, fearing that the peasants would “begin to liberate themselves from below,” carried out the reform of 1861 “from above”, only after this did the autocracy take the first step towards a bourgeois monarchy.
1 V. I. Lenin. Op. T. I. p. 186.
Brief biography of M.M. Speransky.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was a kind of Pushkin for the Russian bureaucracy. At the beginning of the 19th century, through his efforts, a ministerial system of government was introduced in Russia (ministries of finance, foreign affairs, military, naval, Ministry of Internal Affairs, police, justice, public education). The system of ministries he invented is still in effect today. He compiled a complete set of laws of the country. One cannot envy his fate; he was one of the strangers. By education, abilities and rank he belonged to the most privileged circle, but had no close friends. Even those few people in high society who respected and admired his abilities shunned him.
Speransky was born in January 1772 into the family of a rural priest in the village of Cherkutin, Vladimir province. His father, a simple illiterate village priest, sent him to the Suzdal Theological Seminary. In January 1790 he was sent to the First Theological Seminary in St. Petersburg. After graduating from the seminary in 1792, Speransky was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence, and French. Speransky taught all subjects with great success. From 1795, he also began to lecture on philosophy and received the position of “prefect of the seminary.” The thirst for knowledge forced him to join the civil service. In 1797, he began his career with the rank of titular adviser in the office of the Prosecutor General of the Senate, Prince A.B. Kurakina. Each subsequent year he will receive a promotion: in three months he will become a collegiate assessor, in 1798 a court councilor, in 1799 a collegiate councilor, in 1799 a state councilor, in 1801 a full state councilor.
The accession to the throne of Alexander I broke the monotony of his career. Speransky invited D.P. to be his secretary. Troshchinsky, the Tsar's closest assistant. His career was, in the full sense of the word, rapid: after four and a half years of public service, Speransky had a rank equal to the rank of general in the army and giving the right to hereditary nobility.
Yesterday's seminarian rose to the very top of government power.
Activities of M.M. Speransky.
In the first years of the reign of Alexander I, Speransky still remained in the shadows, although he was already preparing some documents and projects for members of the Secret Committee, in particular on ministerial reform. After the reform was implemented in 1802, he was transferred to serve in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. All the most important draft laws issued since 1802 were edited by Speransky as the manager of the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 1803, on behalf of the emperor, Speransky compiled a “Note on the structure of judicial and government institutions in Russia,” in which he showed himself to be a supporter of a constitutional monarchy, created through the gradual reform of society on the basis of a carefully developed plan.
However, the Note had no practical significance. Only in 1807, after unsuccessful wars with France and the signing of the Peace of Tilsit, in conditions of internal political crisis, Alexander I again turned to reform plans. Alexander entrusted him with the leadership of the Law Drafting Commission and gave him the task of developing a general plan for state transformation.
Mikhail Mikhailovich was engaged in this work for almost a year. He worked 18-19 hours a day: he got up at five in the morning, wrote, received visitors at eight, and after the reception went to the palace. I wrote again in the evening. In October 1809, he presented his plan to the Tsar.
Speransky proposed to “equip Russia” like the current prosperous monarchies. The plan for state reorganization began with the first Russian constitution (Another outstanding bureaucrat, Sergei Witte, exactly a hundred years later forced the last monarch to accept it.) Elections were introduced to the administrative and executive bodies of power at four levels - at the level of the volost, province and empire. But participation in management was granted only to persons with a certain property qualification.
Speransky's plan (completed in the fall of 1809) provided for three parallel rows of legislative, judicial and executive or administrative institutions.
The highest administrative body was the State Duma, which stood at the head of legislative institutions and led the network of volost, district and provincial dumas. It was proposed to create ministries at the head of the executive branch and a Senate at the head of the judiciary, with corresponding lower institutions.
Another supreme body was also established, designed to unite the activities of the legislative, executive and judicial powers - the State Council, consisting of the highest state dignitaries, appointed by the monarch. Over time, it became an influential government structure and existed until the October Revolution. Due to the complexity and difficulty of the matter, the transformation was started from the top. The State Council was divided into four departments: 1) laws, 2) military affairs, 3) civil and spiritual affairs, and 4) state economy. The general meeting was composed of members of all departments and ministers. The sovereign himself or a special person appointed by him presided. This body did not ensure public participation in management. This would lead to the transformation of the monarchy from a judicial to a constitutional one.
The legislative series was formed by volost, district, provincial and state “dumas”. The executive power is the volost, district and provincial boards, elected by local dumas, and the highest executive power, ministers, is appointed by the sovereign. The judicial power is formed by volost courts, then district and provincial courts, consisting of elected judges and operating with the participation of juries; The highest court is the Senate, whose members are elected (for life) by the State Duma and approved by the emperor. Civil and political rights were introduced, that is, we were talking about a constitutional monarchy. Speransky was sincerely convinced that his project to limit autocracy fully met the aspirations of the sovereign. Contemporaries did not even know about this plan, amazing in its boldness. Only a few positions remain from the entire package of reforms.
Perhaps the only person who was able to appreciate Speransky’s bureaucratic genius was Napoleon. He told Alexander that he would give half of France for such an official. Alexander approved Speransky’s plan in general and intended to begin its implementation in 1810.
Speransky paid special attention to the state of finances. Russian finances were in a rather bleak state at that time. The periodic fluctuations to which this part of our government has been subjected ever since it existed were renewed at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I.
Emperor Alexander did not know who to entrust this ministry to, and having finally entrusted it, after the refusal of others, to Guryev, he demanded Speransky’s plan for a possible transformation. Speransky was entrusted with the solution of such a fundamental (postponed since the time of Catherine II) and urgent problem as the improvement of public finances. In accordance with what was planned, already in the first months of 1810, a discussion took place on the problem of regulating public finances. Speransky drew up the “Plan of Finance”, which formed the basis of the Tsar’s manifesto on February 2, 1810. These measures yielded results, and already next year the budget deficit decreased and state revenues increased. Finally, for the first time there was some order in the expenses. Thanks to these measures, income was doubled within two years. Despite the public's grumbling about taxes, and ministers about control and reporting, despite gloomy predictions from all sides, the government was freed from its main difficulties. However, all ventures failed due to the need for money for anti-Napoleonic campaigns.
In 1810 -1811 followed by the transformation of the ministries established in 1802; a new Ministry of Police was established and the Ministry of Commerce was abolished; the Ministry of the Interior was to have “custody of the spread and encouragement of agriculture and industry.” In addition to the ministries, “main departments” of communications, state control and the main department of spiritual affairs of other (except Orthodox) confessions were established. Ministries were divided into departments (headed by a director), and departments into branches. A council of ministers was formed from the highest officials of the ministry, and a committee of ministers from all ministers to discuss matters relating to various ministries. When drawing up the draft legislative code, Speransky borrowed some norms of French civil laws (the so-called Napoleon Code), seeing in them the last word in legal science.
According to Speransky's project, only nobles, merchants, townspeople, and state peasants received political rights. By a special decree, Speransky limited the privileges of the nobility. In his opinion, all rights should be divided into three groups: 1) general civil rights for all residents of Russia, regardless of their social status; 2) special civil rights for a particular class; 3) political rights given only to owners. Implying that serfdom would be abolished, he assumed the existence of three classes: the nobility, the middle class and the people
worker
Speransky's project met with opposition from senators, ministers and other senior dignitaries, who considered it too radical and “dangerous.” Alexander I met their demands, and the emperor decided to implement Speransky’s project in stages. Speransky was present, sitting on the right side of the tsar, at the weekly meetings of the State Council, which he created and consisted of 35 members. It was possible to implement only some parts of Speransky’s plan: he failed to understand the duality of the emperor’s character, frightened by the obvious opposition of the nobility to new, liberal trends, and failed to enlist the assistance of the nobility and court circles.
In 1810, the “General Establishment of Ministries” developed by Speransky was introduced, which determined the composition, limits of power and responsibility of ministries. And in 1811, the reorganization of ministries was completed.
The reforms carried out by Speransky caused dissatisfaction among many. But Alexander himself can be blamed for this, he constantly hesitated, fearing the possible discontent of the nobility. And this, this discontent, already at the first experiments of Alexander and Speransky in the state reorganization of Russia made itself felt menacingly. They talked about this openly, not yet knowing what the threatening danger was. Rich landowners with serfs lost their heads at the thought that the constitution would abolish serfdom. The discontent of the upper class was universal.
Also the activities of M.M. Speransky was displeased by the conservative nobility, who opposed the transformation of the Russian political system, who accused him of high treason and achieved his resignation. Some openly called Speransky an enemy of the nobility.
Growing tensions in relations with France affected Russia's domestic politics. The noble opposition, dissatisfied with the education reform, made the draft of Napoleon's Civil Code, prepared by Speransky in 1812, the occasion for a decisive and successful blow to the reform tendencies characteristic of the first decade of Alexander's reign. In Erfurt, Speransky became friends with the French lawyers Locret, Legras, Dupont de Nemours and achieved their appointment as corresponding members of the legislative commission of the State Council. Intending to “cut to the quick, cut from a whole piece,” he dreamed of civil freedom, equality before the law, and the abolition of serfdom. His reforms, the establishment of laws, and especially his admiration for Napoleon aroused fierce opposition from the nobility. A few years later, difficult trials from the failures of the first coalitions against Napoleon raised the question of the need for political reform. Now general discontent, the financial crisis, and the fragility of the state persistently reminded of the unsuitability of the old forms of government. And from vague dreams of political freedom it was necessary to move on to drawing up a precise plan for state transformation. This need brought the great taxonomist Speransky to the forefront of the internal politics.
At the beginning of 1811, Speransky presented a new project for the reorganization of the Senate. The essence of this project was significantly different from what was originally planned. This time, Speransky proposed dividing the Senate into two - government and judicial, i.e. separate its administrative and judicial functions. But this very moderate project was rejected by the majority of members of the State Council, and although the tsar approved it anyway, it was never implemented. As for the creation of the State Duma, about it in 1810 - 1811. there was no talk.
Speransky's transformative activities did not receive further development and were soon interrupted by external and internal circumstances. Firstly, Speransky’s very approach to the Tsar aroused envy and enmity against him in the “high society” of St. Petersburg. Secondly, his French sympathies caused discontent throughout Russian society, which was imbued with an increasingly hostile attitude towards Napoleon and France, and Emperor Alexander himself felt the fragility of the French alliance and foresaw the inevitability of a struggle with Napoleon in the near future. General dissatisfaction was increased by the ongoing disorder of public finances, which Speransky's financial plan could not stop. In March 1812, Speransky was dismissed from service and exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, and then to Perm (although, as he rightly wrote in his letter of acquittal, everything he did, he did with the consent of Alexander or on his instructions).
From exile, Speransky addressed letters to Alexander I in which he tried to justify his transformations. In 1814, he addressed the sovereign with a letter. In this letter he asks permission to settle in his small Novgorod village, Velikopolye. In 1816, the emperor appointed Speransky first as the Penza governor, and then as the Siberian governor-general. In 1821, Speransky was returned to St. Petersburg, appointed a member of the State Council and the Siberian Committee, manager of the commission for drafting laws, and received land in the Penza province. But when Speransky returned to St. Petersburg, new disappointment awaited him here. He hoped, if not for the previous closeness, then for reconciliation and complete recognition of his innocence. Nothing of the sort happened. Times have changed. The former Secretary of State had no place in this system, and he soon felt it. His personal relations with the sovereign never again took on the same character.
His government works were insignificant. He took part in council meetings, was a member of the Siberian Committee and again began his previous work on the civil code; but all these studies remained almost without results. They reflected the stagnation that, after 1815, gradually took over public life.
Codification work by M.M. Speransky.
The codification work was entrusted to Rosenkampf, but in 1808
The commission included Comrade Minister of Justice M.M. Speransky. He began by reforming the commission, which was divided into a Council, a board and a group of legal advisers. M.M. Speransky became secretary of the board. Since 1810 he became director of the commission. In 1810, the State Council considered the draft civil code (code) 43 times.
After Alexander, his brother Nicholas I ascended the throne, under whom Speransky’s activities began again. The new sovereign valued his administrative experience, but at first did not have much confidence in him. On December 13, 1825, Speransky drafted a manifesto on the accession to the throne of Nicholas I; after December 14, appointed by Emperor Nicholas I to the Supreme Court of the Decembrists, Speransky took a special part in drawing up the verdict against them.
The new sovereign drew attention to the unrest in government and the abuses of officials that occurred because there were no precise laws. Since the publication of the Code under Alexei Mikhailovich, no new collection of laws has been made. Then, on January 31, 1826, by order of Nicholas I, the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery was formed, which was designed to restore order in the legislation of the empire, i.e. create a complete set of laws, starting with the Council Code of 1649 and a set of existing laws. In fact, it was headed by the rehabilitated Speransky, one of the largest statesmen in Russia.
Codification work was carried out as follows. Registers of all laws were collected from the state Senate and college archives, a single register was compiled on their basis, and after that they turned to the primary sources. The first “Complete Collection of Laws” contained more than 30,000 various decrees, regulations, and resolutions, starting from the “Conciliar Code” and before the accession to the throne of Nicholas I. The indisputable advantage of this collection was that in many parts it was not an abstract work. The “code” included many principles developed and tested by life. Laws previously known primarily to a few lawyers became accessible to many. Extensive scientific-critical, historical and other works related to the rich material contained in the “Complete Collection of Laws” and in the “Code of Laws” significantly contributed to the revitalization of legal thought and undoubtedly prepared the ground for the creation of the “Code” in the future.
The complete collection of laws consisted of 45 volumes, which included more than 30,000 legislative acts from 1649 to December 3, 1825. The printing of all volumes took almost two years and was completed on April 1, 1830. The circulation of the publication was 6 thousand copies. At the same time, six continuation volumes were prepared and soon published. By 1833, 15 volumes of the Code of Laws had been prepared. On January 17, 1833, a general meeting of the State Council was held, which recognized the Code of Laws as the sole basis for resolving all cases and established that it would come into force on January 1, 1835. Thus, in a very short time, Speransky carried out colossal work on the collection and systematization of laws. However, no radical changes have occurred in Russian legislation. Nicholas I resolutely shied away from updating and improving the laws of the Russian Empire, therefore the published “Code of Laws” only stated the traditional autocratic structure of power and serfdom relations.
For his work on Russian legislation, Speransky was generously showered with favors from the monarch. His old age passed in glory and honor. Elevated to the dignity of count on January 1, 1839, Speransky died on February 2 of the same year.
CONCLUSION
Almost all of Alexander 1's undertakings were unsuccessful. The best of them are those that remained fruitless, others had a worse result, i.e. worsened the situation. One of the best laws of the first years was the decree of February 20, 1803 on free cultivators; they thought that he would prepare the gradual peaceful liberation of the peasants.
The reason for their failure was their internal inconsistency. Alexander I’s refusal to carry out reforms is explained both by the obvious opposition from the ruling circles and the nobility in general, and by his own fears of causing a peasant revolt by “touching the foundations of the existing system.”
Even the gradual nature of the reforms and the fact that they did not encroach on the main privilege of the nobility, and their details were kept secret, did not save the situation. The result was general discontent; Alexander I faced the danger of a noble rebellion. The matter was complicated by foreign policy circumstances - a new war with Napoleon was approaching.
Perhaps the desperate resistance of the elite of the nobility, intrigue and denunciations against Speransky ultimately would not have had an effect on the emperor if, in the spring of 1811, the camp of opponents of reforms had not suddenly received ideological and theoretical reinforcement from a completely unexpected quarter.
In Tver, around the Grand Duchess, an intelligent and educated woman, a circle of people dissatisfied with Alexander’s liberalism and especially the activities of Speransky formed. Among them was N.M. Karamzin, who read here the first volumes of his “History of the Russian State.” Karamzin was introduced to the sovereign, and he handed him the “Note on Ancient and New Russia” - a kind of manifesto of opponents of change, an expression of the views of the conservative direction of Russian thought.
According to Karamzin, autocracy is the only possible form of political structure for Russia. To the question, is it possible to have at least some
ways to limit autocracy in Russia without weakening the tsarist power - he answered negatively. The author saw salvation in the traditions and customs of Russia, which do not need to follow the example of Western Europe and France. One of these traditional features of Russia is serfdom, which arose as a consequence of “natural law”.
Karamzin’s Note did not contain anything new: many of his arguments and principles were known in the previous century. However, this time these views were concentrated in one document, written on the basis of historical facts and (which was the most important thing for the emperor) by a person not close to the court, not vested with power. He said goodbye to Karamzin coldly and did not even take the text of the Note with him. Alexander understood that rejection of his policies had spread across wide sections of society and Karamzin’s voice was the voice of public opinion.
The denouement came in March 1812, when Alexander I announced to Speransky the termination of his official duties, and he was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. The pressure on the emperor intensified, and the denunciations he received against Speransky could no longer be ignored. Alexander was forced to order an official investigation into the activities of his closest employee, and he would have done so if he had believed the slander. Speransky's self-confidence, his careless statements, his desire to independently resolve all issues, pushing the sovereign into the background - all this served as the reason for Speransky's resignation and exile.
The reforms of the early 19th century failed to affect the foundations of autocracy, although the proposals of the reformers were aimed at eliminating the contradictions between the state institutions of the feudal-absolutist monarchy. In fact, the king alone decided the most important issues. The traditions of autocracy continued to operate, and the tsar was the first to actively support them. The system worked, the man of the system took a step back at the decisive moment, because Russia, Russian society, which was being drawn into a new social channel, were not ready for them.
Thus ended another stage of the reign of Alexander I, and with it one of the most significant attempts in Russian history to implement radical state reform. A few months later, the Patriotic War with Napoleon began, ending with the expulsion of the French from Russia. Several years passed before problems of domestic politics again attracted the attention of the emperor.
Alexander's domestic policy, first liberal, then reactionary, aimed at strengthening the autocracy, objectively contributed to the activation of the noble revolutionary movement - Decembrism.
The desire to strengthen the feudal-serf system was served by the systematization of legislation. Despite its serf-dominated nature, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire is a great achievement of legal thought.
M.M. Speransky is one of the most remarkable people in Russia. He owes the great merit that he wanted to give his country a Constitution, free people, 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. Full implementation of the projects would undoubtedly accelerate Russia's evolution towards a landowner-bourgeois monarchy.