On the initiative of Speransky, the creation project was implemented. Reformatory activity of Speransky M. M.: plans and results. drawing up the Code, i.e. bringing into the system of existing laws with appropriate additions and corrections

Going to meet Napoleon in
Erfurt in autumn 1808,
Alexander I took Speransky with him.
After one of the conversations with Mikhail Mikhailovich
The French emperor said to Alexander:
“Would you like, sir, to exchange this man
to some kingdom?
"The only bright head in Russia",
- so spoke about Speransky
Bonaparte.

The project of M.M. Speransky (Project of State Transformations on “Introduction to the Code of State Laws”) is an outstanding plan in the field of state changes. This is an exact scheme, a consistent guide to improving and strengthening the state system. In addition to the actions themselves, this document describes the problems of the then state apparatus and ways to solve them. The characteristic of all positive moments and all shortcomings is given. The implementation of this entire plan would greatly strengthen Russia: a powerful state apparatus would be created, all rights and obligations would be legitimized, the tasks of state officials would be specifically formulated, and a clear division of power would appear. But, unfortunately, the project met with stubborn resistance in the highest circles, and Alexander I had to reject it. From the Speransky plan, those parts of it that concerned the introduction of the State Council and the completion of the ministerial reform were implemented, that is, only the top of power was strengthened, and the lower bureaucratic apparatus remained unchanged.
The “Introduction to the Code of State Laws” project is quite complicated, so it is doubtful that Speransky planned to implement it in one year (1810-1811). Russia then “possessed” a rather complex and intricate state apparatus, in which there was no clear separation of powers, and officials often did not do their own thing at all, which could not positively influence the internal structure of the Russian Empire. And this plan implies an almost complete restructuring of all levels of government, starting with the creation of the State Council and ending with the provincial courts. But first things first.
The creation of the State Council, of course, strengthened and centralized the top of power, but this was not enough for Russia at that time. It was necessary to carry out transformations in the direction of the peasants (transformations in the field of courts and laws (civil and state)), because then they were in an oppressed position, despite such “indulgences”, such as the “Decree on free cultivators” (February 20, 1803) .
Section three. About the rights of subjects.
I. Determination of the distinctive features of a Russian citizen.
II. Separation of states.
III. Foundations of civil rights, common to all subjects.
IV. Political rights assigned to different states:

1) in drafting the law;
2) in the performance of it.
The above provision from the "Introduction to the Code of State Laws" would strengthen the position of the peasants, give them a certain freedom of action and expand their opportunities. But this was not part of the plans of the highest circles of power, they were already quite satisfied with their position. And the progressive views of Speransky only led to conspiracies against him and denunciations, and another denunciation led to disgrace on the Russian reformer, after which he was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod (1812). Subsequently, the king said that he was forced to sacrifice him in order to pay off the growing discontent of the nobility caused by the reform measures. MM Speransky expressed the ideas of civil freedom of the peasants: “Civil freedom has two main types: personal freedom and material freedom.
The essence of the first consists in the following two propositions:
1) No one can be punished without trial;
2) No one is obliged to send personal service except by law, and not by the arbitrariness of another ”
This remark hides the negative attitude of the legislator to Serfdom, which just the same prevents these two provisions. The implementation of these points, as well as a number of other positions, could well rid Russia of Serfdom. And Alexander I understood this, he was aware of all the minuses and shortcomings of the state system of his time, because it was not for nothing that Speransky met with the emperor every day and discussed each paragraph of the plan. But dependence on the nobility had a negative impact on Alexander I, which prevented the implementation of the entire project.
There is no doubt that the implementation of this project would have a positive effect on the internal organization of the Russian Empire, because many of the points have already been applied in Europe, and Speransky himself did not hide this, often making footnotes that any of the points is successfully implementing itself in France or England . But it was impossible for us to implement this plan in one or two years, each point had to be introduced gradually, that is, one point at each level of power, in order to coordinate their actions, otherwise everything would be mixed up in one heap and the situation would repeat itself. "Introduction to the code of state laws" is a very extensive project covering the entire state. Its implementation is like a small revolution. Therefore, it was impossible to rush here, but it was necessary to take into account that this plan very much affects the interests of the nobility, which at that time was a very formidable force, that is, in addition to the emperor himself, it was necessary to coordinate the project with the top of power. The most successful moment for this was after the creation of the State Council. It was a kind of impetus to action. The nobles strengthened and adjusted their power, and then it was necessary to start reforms at the next levels of power, at the level of provinces, regions, and so on. Subsequently, the levels of power would be consistent with each other, and it would be possible to start a reform in the peasant environment. Then the whole plan would have been successfully implemented, and Russia would have received a strong system of government.
In the end, I would like to talk about such a point as ...
“On the Reason of the State Code”
... where Speransky speaks of the division of state administration systems: “Three great systems have since ancient times divided the political world: the system of republics, the feudal system and the despotic system.

The first, under various names and forms, had the distinctive property that sovereign power was moderated in it by law, in which citizens more or less participated.
The second was based on autocratic power, limited not by law, but by its material or, so to speak, its material division.
The third did not allow any measures or borders. This view of the system Speransky also refracts to Russia. All his thoughts boil down to the fact that at this stage the Russian Empire is in the stage of feudalism. And here he sums up his plan in a peculiar way, saying that Russia needs to choose a further path: either a despotic system, which will lead to the degradation of society and the state itself, or to some other, fourth system (here the democratic direction is meant).
So, finishing the disclosure of this topic, I would like to say that although quite a lot of time has passed, but, in my opinion, this project has not lost its relevance. Despite the fact that Russia nevertheless “achieved” not a despotic form of government, but entered the democratic path (albeit having passed the stage of communist development before that), our state apparatus leaves much to be desired, and the modern government should once again study the “Introduction to the code of state laws” and draw certain conclusions from this for improving our democratic system and strengthening the internal state of the state.

Sections: History and social studies

Means of education: illustrations: portraits of Speransky, Alexander I, scheme “The system of state authorities according to the project of Speransky” (Appendix 1), scheme “The system of central administration of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century” (Appendix 2).
Leading task: read the relevant material in the textbook and additional literature, prepare reports on the topic.
Lesson plan:

1. Repetition of the reforming activity of Alexander I.
2. The main milestones in the biography of M.M. Speransky.
3. Political Reform Project: Intentions and Results.
4. Reasons for Speransky's resignation.
5. Summarizing

The purpose of the lesson: to consider the prerequisites and content of Speransky's reform projects, to analyze the reasons for their incomplete implementation. Determine the consequences of the decisions taken on his proposal. To characterize Speransky not only as a statesman, but also as a person. Emphasize such features as intelligence, diligence, the desire to serve for the good of Russia. Based on independent work with sources, develop the ability to express judgments about causal relationships, search for the necessary information, explain what the motives, goals and results of people's activities in history were. Explain the meaning, meaning of historical concepts.

Basic concepts: reform, separation of powers, legislative power, executive power, judiciary, civil rights, voting rights.

Main dates: 1809 - "Introduction to the code of state laws."
1810 - Creation of the State Council.
1812 - Resignation of Speransky.

In his opening remarks the teacher emphasizes that in terms of intelligence and talent, Speransky is undoubtedly the most remarkable of the statesmen working with Alexander I. Napoleon saw Speransky in Alexander's retinue in Erfurt. The French emperor quickly appreciated the modest secretary of state, who outwardly did not stand out in any way in the Russian delegation. “Would you like, sir,” he asked Alexander, “to exchange this man for some kingdom?” To update students' knowledge at the beginning of the lesson, you can organize work on questions:

1. Why did the first period of the reign of Alexander I go down in history under the name of the "era of liberalism", and Pushkin described the wonderful beginning as "Alexander's days"?
2. Why was the “Secret Committee” created? Why didn't it become an official body? Who was on this committee?
3. List the first decrees of Alexander I. Which of them do you consider the main ones?
4. List the measures that Alexander took to mitigate serfdom. Were these measures effective?
5. Describe the central government system of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century.
6. Which of the organs was created at the initiative of Speransky?

We turn to the reforming activity of this person today in the lesson.
At the second stage of the lesson students make brief reports on the main stages of Speransky's activities, which were prepared at home (3-4 people). The class is given the task to write out in a notebook the main milestones in Speransky's life, to list the personal qualities that helped him make a career.

Student communication material.
MM. Speransky was born in 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 main seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg. Extraordinary abilities put him forward from among the students, and at the end of the course he was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. Speransky himself, without any patronage, managed not only to get out into the people, but also to get acquainted without outside help with the best political, economic and legal writings in French, which he mastered perfectly. For 4 years, from the house secretary of Prince Kurakin, he managed, solely by virtue of his talents, to advance to the state secretaries of the emperor (since 1807). And in 1803, he already became the director of the department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, having taken this general post at the age of 31. However, Speransky did not like to brag. He was hardworking, modest, restrained and focused on one goal: the reorganization of the Fatherland in the interests of the Fatherland. In 1803 - 1807. Speransky drew up several projects of state reforms, and in 1809, on behalf of Alexander I, he was preparing a plan for state reforms - “Introduction to the Code of State Laws”. But the reforms he planned were never implemented. In 1812 he was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, and then to Perm. He returned to St. Petersburg only in 1822. In relation to him, Alexander I was cunning. With one hand, he elevated him, gave awards (the title of count, the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky), with the other, he accepted denunciations against Speransky, instructed the Minister of Police to secretly supervise him and those close to him.

Speransky was familiar with many Decembrists and was very popular among them. The Decembrists proposed to include him in the interim government, which was in effect until the elections to the new authorities. Although Speransky himself had no idea about this. But now - a turn of history, and the reformer of the beginning of the century in 1825 judges the Decembrists, who went out to Senate Square, because Speransky's reforms were not completed. He was a member of the Supreme Criminal Court over the Decembrists, was a member of a number of higher state committees in the 20-30s, and in 1833 completed the compilation of the 15-volume Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Leaving dreams of a constitution, Speransky now sought to restore order in government, without going beyond the autocratic system. Emperor Nicholas I was present at the approval of the Code of Laws by the State Council, took off the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called and placed it on Speransky. And one more ironic grin of history: in 1835 - 1837. MM. Speransky taught jurisprudence to the heir to the throne, the future Emperor Alexander II, who abolished serfdom and even tuned in to sign the Constitution (which was prevented by an explosion of terrorists). Speransky's religious searches are interesting. He was from a real Russian priestly milieu. At the age of four, he was already reading The Apostle, he studied with honors at the Vladimir Seminary. His wife, an Englishwoman, died after giving birth to a daughter. Left with a baby in his arms, Speransky again turned to religion for consolation - but not his own, Orthodox, in which he was brought up, but rather to Protestantism. And it took gossip, accusations of espionage, exile to Novgorod and Perm, so that Speransky again turned to Orthodoxy.

At the 3rd and 4th stages of the lesson, laboratory and practical work is organized in a group form.
Task for groups: On the basis of the scheme “The system of public authorities according to the Speransky project” and the texts of the documents, describe the main directions of Speransky's political reform and its principles.
1 group.
“Speransky argued that in order to prevent a revolution, it is necessary to give the country constitution, which, without affectingautocratic rule, would introduce elective legislativebodies and principles of separation of powers in the organization of the state authorities. “Constitutions in almost all states were arranged at different times in fragments and for the most part in the midst of cruel political transformations. The Russian Constitution will lend its existence not to the inflammation of passions and extreme circumstances, but to the beneficent inspiration of the supreme power, which, arranging the political state of its people, can and has every means to give it the most correct forms. However, Speransky's plan did not provide for the introduction of a constitutional system in Russia, similar to Western European countries, that is, the limitation of the power of the monarch by the Constitution. The purpose of the project, as Speransky clearly defined it, was “to clothe autocratic rule with all external forms of law, leaving in essence the same force and the same space of autocracy.” The autocratic power of the emperor, acting within the framework of the law, was fully compatible with the new political structure of the country proposed by him. In Speransky's plan, the principle of separation of powers was put at the basis of the state structure - into legislative, executive and judicial (of course, with the supremacy of power of an autocratic monarch. ”The emperor appoints ministers, members of the senate and the State Council.

2 group.
“In each volost center (village or small town), every three years, a meeting is formed from all owners of immovable property (regardless of their class affiliation) - a volost council. The volost duma elects deputies to the district duma. The District Duma, in addition to electing the chairman, his chief secretary, the district council and the district court, elects deputies to the provincial duma and considers issues of local needs within the boundaries of its body. Every three years, the provincial duma also meets from among the deputies from the district duma, electing the chairman, secretary, provincial court and deputies to the highest representative body of the country - the Statethought. The chairman (or "chancellor") of the Duma was appointed by the "supreme authority" (emperor) from among the three candidates nominated by the Duma. The Duma meets annually in the month of September and sits for as long as the agenda requires. The emperor retains the right to interrupt the session of the Duma or completely dissolve it. The "proposal" for consideration by the Duma of laws "belongs to one sovereign power." Thus, the State Duma, according to Speransky's project, did not have the right of legislative initiative. The Duma was limited in its control over the activities of ministers. Thus, although the State Duma was called the Speran "legislative institution", in essence it was a consultative, deliberative body. Even in this scenario, the Duma will not be created.”

3rd group.
“The principle of election was also used in the formation of the judiciary, but only in its three first instances: the volost, district and provincial courts. The highest court (“the supreme court for the whole empire”) was Judicial Senate (in difference from the ruling Senate). It consisted of four departments - two for civil and two for criminal cases, one each in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The Senate reform proposed by Speransky was not implemented.
The executive power was formed on the same principle as the judges. Its first three instances (volost, district and provincial administrations) were elected at volost, district and provincial assemblies. “State administration” (ministries) as the highest authority was formed from among the persons appointed by the emperor and responsible to him. In this part of the project, Speransky outlined the principles that were later embodied in the legislative acts of 1810-1811, which completed the ministerial reform. The responsibilities of the ministers and the spheres of activity of the ministries were precisely defined.

4 group.
“According to Speransky’s plan, the supreme body, which was called upon to unite the activities of the legislative, judicial and executive powers, should be State Council.“In the order of state establishment, the Council represents an organ,” wrote Speransky, “in which all the actions of the legislative, judicial and executive parts in their main relations are connected and through it ascend to the sovereign power and pour out from it. Therefore, all laws, statutes and institutions in their first outlines are proposed and considered in the Council of State and then, by the action of the sovereign power, they come to the fulfillment intended for them in the order of legislative, judicial and executive.

The State Council was established on January 1, 1810. State Council:
a) assessed the content of the laws and the very need
reforms;
b) explained the meaning of laws;
c) take steps to implement them.

5 group.
“In his project, Speransky proposes to grant civil rights to the entire population, albeit to an unequal degree:
"one. No one can be punished without trial.
2. No one is obliged to send personal service at the will of another,
but according to the law that determines the type of service according to the states.
3. Anyone may acquire movable property and
immovable and dispose of it according to the law.
4. No one is obliged to send public services for
arbitrariness of another, but according to the law or voluntary conditions.

The nobles retained the right to own serfs, although in principle Speransky was against serfdom and developed a project for its gradual elimination.
The voting rights must be given to all who have property, that is, to the first two estates. Accordingly, he established a new class division:

1. nobility;
2. “average condition” (merchants, petty bourgeois, state
   peasants);
3. “working people” (landlord peasants, domestic servants, etc.)

It was allowed to move from a lower “state” to a higher one by acquiring immovable property.

Summing up the group work on the third point of the lesson plan, The teacher draws conclusions after the students' presentations. Students write in their notebooks:

The main principles of Speransky's political reform project:

1. At the head of the state is the monarch, who has full power.
2. Objectively, the first step towards limiting autocratic power.
3. Implementation of the principle of separation of powers.
4. The three branches of power converge in the State Council - an advisory body appointed by the emperor.
5. The executive power belongs to the ministries.
6. Legislative power is vested in representative assemblies at all levels.
7. Four-stage elections to the State Duma.
8. The State Duma was supposed to discuss the bills proposed to it from above, which are then submitted for approval by the State Council and the emperor.
9. The chancellor appointed by the tsar was to supervise the work of the Duma.
10. Judicial functions belonged to the Senate, whose members were appointed by the emperor for life.
11. Only persons with movable and immovable property could have the right to vote.

Assignment to groups according to point 4 of the lesson plan: Based on the text of the documents, find out the reasons for the resignation of M.M. Speransky.

1 group.
“The mystery of his fall is not so mysterious. Alexander broke up with Speransky on the merits. He was disappointed in his “plan for universal state education,” which did not solve the desired task of an agreement between the autocracy and law-free institutions. Disappointed Alexander and financially Speransky. Speransky was also dissatisfied with Alexander for being "too weak to govern and too strong to be managed."
“For one year, I was alternately a champion of Freemasonry, a defender of liberty, a persecutor of slavery ... A crowd of clerks pursued me for the decree of August 6 with epigrams and caricatures; another similar crowd of nobles with all their retinue, with their wives and children, are persecuting me, neither by my kind, nor by property did not belong to their estate .., they tried to cover up their personal enmity in the name of state enmity.
“The difficulty of Speransky's position lay in his seminary origin. If he were the natural son of some nobleman, all reforms would be easier for him. Popovich, the secretary of state and confidant of the sovereign, was a thorn in the eye of everyone - none of the smartest dignitaries of Rostopchin, nor even Catherine's aces, could digest him.

2 group.
Speransky is evaluated by the hero of the novel G.P. Danilevsky “Burned Moscow” Basil Perovsky: “Finally, they got to the point that they were removed from the throne and exiled as a criminal, as a traitor, the only statesman, Speransky, but for what? For his open preference for the judges of Yaroslav and Tsar Alexei of the brilliant code of the one who broke up the bloody Convention and gave Europe true freedom and a wise new order.
“Speransky himself was blamed for the failure to fulfill the financial plan of Speransky, who fell into the hands of the bad Minister of Finance Guryev. There were voices that he deliberately invented his financial plan in order to irritate the opposition, that he was in criminal relations with Napoleon. And Alexander could not withstand the onslaught of Speransky's enemies. He considered it necessary then to strengthen the heightened patriotic mood, since he hoped to repel Napoleon only if the war had a popular character; he did not see the opportunity to enter into explanations and decided to sacrifice his best collaborator to the fury of the privileged crowd. The whole fault of Speransky actually consisted in the fact that through one official he received copies of all important secret papers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, of course, he could, in his position, receive by asking for official permission.

3rd group.
“There was serious opposition to Speransky's reform activities. In St. Petersburg, these are the literary salons of Derzhavin and Shishkov. In Moscow - the salon of the sister of Alexander I - Ekaterina Pavlovna, where the leading place was occupied by one of the ideologists of the conservative movement N.M. Karamzin and Moscow Governor Rostopchin. The hatred of society for Speransky found a vivid and strong expression in the well-known note: “On Ancient and New Russia” by Karamzin. The essence of this note was to criticize Alexander's policy and to prove the need to preserve autocracy in Russia forever. The main mistake of the legislators of Alexander's reign was, according to Karamzin, that instead of improving Catherine's institutions, they undertook reforms. Karamzin spares neither the State Council nor the new establishment of ministries. He argued that instead of all the reforms, it was enough to find 50 good governors and provide the country with good spiritual shepherds.”
“Active opponents of Speransky were N.M. Karamzin and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna. In 1809 she married Prince George of Oldenburg and lived with him in Tver. Here, a conservative circle has formed around her. The Grand Duchess considered the constitution "complete nonsense, and the autocracy - useful not only to Russia, but also to the Western European states." In her eyes, Speransky was a "criminal" who had mastered the will of a weak-willed monarch. The enmity of the princess was also explained by personal reasons. The "malicious priest" had the courage to speak out against Karamzin's candidacy for the post of Minister of Public Education, nominated by Ekaterina Pavlovna. He refused, in addition, to support the Swedish political party, which predicted the husband of the Grand Duchess to the Swedish throne.

4 group.
“A hostile attitude was formed against Speransky not only in courtiers, but also in bureaucratic circles. It became especially aggravated due to two decrees on April 3 and August 6, 1809, which were attributed to the direct influence of Speransky. The first decree prescribed that all persons who bore court titles should choose some service for themselves. After this law, all court titles, which until then were considered positions, became only honorary distinctions. The second decree required that the ranks of collegiate assessor (VIII class) and state councilor (V class) be given only after passing the exam for the rank or upon presentation of a university diploma. The Decree of August 6 was dissatisfied not only with the middle-level officials themselves, but also with influential dignitaries. After all, they were losing trained executive subordinates. “The vice-governor is obliged to know the Pythagorean figure, and the warden in the asylum is obliged to know Roman law,” N.M. taunted. Karamzin, Note on Ancient and New Russia.

5 group.
“Russia's accession to the continental blockade has led to catastrophic consequences for its economy. Treasury revenues in 1808 amounted to 111 million rubles, and expenses - 248 million rubles. Under such conditions, Speransky received an order from the sovereign to develop a project to improve the economy. Such a plan was prepared by Speransky by January 1, 1810:

1. cessation of issuance of banknotes not backed by valuables;
2. sharp cuts in government spending;
3. the introduction of a new special tax on landlord and specific estates, which is then directed to the repayment of the state debt;
4. the introduction of an emergency additional tax for 1 year, which was paid by serfs and amounted to 50 kopecks per capita;
5. the introduction of a new customs tariff, which imposed huge duties on the import of imported goods into Russia

“As for the public, from Speransky’s financial plans, she drew very disappointing conclusions for herself:

1. that the country's finances were in a bad position;
2. that the treasury is involved in significant internal debts;
3. that ordinary funds are not enough to cover the costs,
   therefore new taxes are coming;

Summing up new results of group work on the fourth point of the plan lesson, the teacher after the performances of the students draws conclusions. Students write in their notebooks:

The main reasons for the resignation of M.M. Speransky:

1. The reforms were opposed by conservatives led by N.M. Karamzin and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna.
2. The extreme dissatisfaction of the aristocracy was caused by Speransky's intention to abolish the assignment of ranks to persons with court ranks.
3. Officials were outraged by the introduction of the rank exam.
4. The imperial entourage was contemptuous of the upstart, the son of a popovich.
5. The nobles opposed the financial reform and the empowerment of serfs with civil rights.
6. Speransky's accusations of espionage and secret ties with France and Napoleon.
7. Mutual disappointment between Alexander I and Speransky. “He does everything by half” (Speransky about Alexander!).

At the end of the lesson, the teacher emphasizes that Speransky was ahead of his time, many of the ideas of the reformer were implemented only at the beginning of the 20th century. As a homework task, students can be asked to write down their thoughts in a notebook on the topic: “Could M.M. Speransky?

The plans for the most significant transformations of the state system of Russia in the Alexander era are associated with the name of the largest statesman Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839) was born into the family of a village priest in the village of Cherkutino, Vladimir province. He received a thorough theological education at the Main Seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg. His bright abilities drew the attention of the spiritual authorities to him even in the seminary. At the end of the course, he was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. During this period, Speransky independently studied the works of Western European philosophers, politicians, read treatises of French encyclopedists. In Russia, these works were translated little, their study required a good knowledge of German, English and French.

A distinctive feature of Speransky the thinker was strict logic, systematization of the acquired knowledge and the ability to convey them in a concise, clear form.

In the conditions of an urgent need for competent and simply literate officials, Speransky had good chances for a civilian career. However, a strong obstacle to this was his spiritual origin. Therefore, Speransky began as the house secretary of the influential dignitary Prince A.B. Kurakin, who held the post of Prosecutor General of the Senate in the government of Paul I.

Clearly and cleverly drawn up reports for Kurakin drew the attention of Count V.P. Kochubey to Speransky, who at that time was selecting employees for the newly created Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In 1802, Mikhail Mikhailovich received the position of director of one of the expeditions of the Ministry. And the next year, Kochubey instructed him to draw up a plan for the arrangement of judicial and government places in the empire. Speransky brilliantly fulfilled this order by writing a corresponding note. In it, the author declared himself as a supporter of a limited monarchy, representative government and opposed serfdom.

In 1806, Speransky made a personal acquaintance with Alexander I. During his illness, Count Kochubey began to send his assistant with reports to the emperor. Alexander I became interested in a young man who did not have a noble origin, but who possessed brilliant knowledge and a flexible mind. As a result of many hours of conversations, by the end of 1807, Speransky became one of the closest advisers to the emperor. It was he who was instructed by the monarch to develop a plan of reforms that were to significantly change the political structure of the country. In less than two years, Speransky developed a package of documents in which the existing forms of government were analyzed, the system of state institutions desired for Russia was substantiated, and the functions, connections, and structure of new institutions were worked out. This package of documents is known as the Introduction to the Code of State Laws. Not without reason, the reformer warned that changes should be introduced gradually, keeping the names familiar to society, so as not to give rise to a sense of destruction and panic in society.

For many decades, historians have been searching for these documents. The fact is that during the reign of Nicholas I, the archive of Alexander I was distributed among those departments that were tasked with studying the miscalculations and experience of the previous reign. Therefore, the reconstruction of the "Introduction" was carried out on the basis of a comparison of passages found in various archival funds. When Speransky's plan was restored, the panorama of a large-scale project for the state reorganization of the country opened before the researchers, which was supposed to make the empire a bourgeois-type power.

The reforms were based on the principle of separation of powers. The legislative power was to become the privilege of the State Duma, the executive power was to be transferred to the ministries, and the judicial power was to be entrusted to the Senate. Thus, the new state body - the State Duma - was supposed to limit the power of the monarch: not a single law could be issued without the approval of the Duma. She also controlled the ministries. Bypassing the Duma, the emperor could only make decisions about war and peace.

The highest legislative body of the country was to be formed on the basis of elections. Certain civil rights, according to Speransky, should have all the inhabitants of the country, including serfs (hence, serfdom was preserved). So penalties can only be imposed through the courts. But political rights were received only by free estates - the nobility and people of the middle. Consequently, only people who owned immovable property could take part in elections and govern the state. The implementation of political rights in practice was envisaged through the creation of a system of elected dumas: volost, district, provincial and State.

The Senate was to become the highest judicial and administrative unit. It was supposed to be divided into two parts - Governing and Judicial. The first part was to deal with administrative affairs and was composed of ministers; the second, that is, the judicial one, would be formed through imperial appointments and noble-gubernia elections. The verdict of the Judicial Senate was recognized as final.

Executive power was concentrated in ministries, as well as in provincial and district government bodies. The pinnacle of the new state system, according to Speransky, was to be the State Council. He would serve as a link between the emperor and the new system of legislative, executive and judicial power. The members of the Council were not elected, but appointed by the emperor.

Such was the general plan for the transformations, which, as Speransky emphasized more than once, was the development of the general wishes of the emperor himself. Implementing it proved to be difficult.

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. It included 35 senior dignitaries appointed by the emperor. They were supposed to discuss all major state events and present their views to the monarch.

A year later, in 1811, on the initiative of Speransky, the ministries were reorganized. The Ministry of Commerce was abolished. His affairs were distributed between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of Police was created to deal with internal security matters. On the rights of ministries, State Control and 2 Main Directorates were established: the first - for the spiritual affairs of foreign confessions and the second - for communications. The composition and office work of the latter, the limits of the power of ministers, their responsibility were determined. And then the reforms began to “slip”. The State Council itself became an opponent of further reforms. The reform of the Senate was never implemented, although it was discussed for a long time.

Thus, despite the fact that the organization of state power in the empire did not meet the needs of the time, Speransky's further plans did not receive practical implementation. None of the reforms of the state apparatus carried out affected the political foundations of the feudal-absolutist system. And this despite the fact that even a brief review of the efforts made by the supreme power convinces that the emperor's intentions to modernize and improve the state system of the country were serious. What stood in the way of the country's much-needed transformations?

It is striking that a very narrow social stratum, part of the court aristocracy, was included in the struggle for reforms. The government kept their development secret and the advanced nobility had to create secret societies to discuss political issues. The vast majority of the nobles did not want fundamental changes in the existing political system. In this situation, the autocratic monarch, "possessing unlimited power", was afraid of an open confrontation with the nobility. The very first open attempts by the government to carry out transformations of the state structure provoked a sharp rebuff.

Speransky's projects were regarded by the nobility as a betrayal of Russian tradition - as an attempt to weaken the power of the monarch, the main guarantor of noble privileges. The State Council was perceived by many as an organ of the noble oligarchy, reflecting not state, but narrow clan interests. Not many of the capital's nobles knew the essence of Speransky's project, but everyone judged it by rumors. The mood of the Moscow and St. Petersburg nobility was not in favor of the reformer.

In many ways, the negative perception of the reforms was provoked by the personality of Speransky. They saw him as an “upstart”, a “priest”, who crept into the confidence of the emperor, to whom the interests of the nobility were alien and even hostile. In addition, Speransky aroused dissatisfaction with a number of bills that painfully affected the interests of wider social groups. So, on his initiative, in April 1809, a decree on court ranks was adopted. From now on, ranks were not distinctions and did not give the right to a rank. Courtiers were deprived of their titles and privileges if they were not in the public service. This decree set the influential court nobility against the reformer. And the law of August 6, 1809 "On the ranks" aroused the indignation of the middle bureaucracy. According to him, to get a promotion in the ranks, an appropriate education was required. Starting from the VIII class and above, the official had to have a university diploma or pass an exam in a special program. The implementation of the decree removed hundreds of illiterate officials from "profitable" jobs, opening the way to a career for young people with a university education. Thus, it was supposed to increase the prestige of knowledge in society.

The financial reform did not add Speransky's popularity either. As a result of active military activity, the finances of Russia on the eve of the war of 1812 were in a very upset state. The state budget deficit reached a huge figure. Back in 1809, the emperor instructed Speransky to develop a plan to stabilize the financial situation. At the suggestion of the reformer, the government stopped issuing new banknotes, sharply reduced government spending, sold part of the state estates into private hands, and finally introduced new taxes that affected all segments of the population. The implementation of these highly unpopular measures has produced positive results. In 1812, state revenues more than doubled. But the tension and discontent of the population increased greatly.

The most incredible gossip about Speransky circulated in circles in the capital. He was accused of betraying national interests, spying for Napoleon, trying to usurp power, undermining confidence in the government. The emperor repeatedly received anonymous denunciations of the reformer. The unpopularity of government policy was spoken about by people with different political views. In 1811, the well-known historian and writer M.N. Karamzin frankly wrote about this to the emperor. In a private conversation, as well as in the Note on Ancient and New Russia, Karamzin warned the monarch about the danger of the political line taken. The historian considered the unlimited power of an enlightened sovereign to be the ideal of government. An example of it was the reign of Catherine II. The transformation of Russian life according to the European model, according to Karamzin, will bring nothing but harm.

At first, Alexander I took criticism and persuasion irritably. But at the same time, feeling the growing dissatisfaction of the nobles, the emperor was afraid to seek the implementation of reforms. The situation developed in such a way that the noble opposition posed a real threat to both the emperor and the political independence of the state. Alexander I remembered well the circumstances of his father's death and admitted the possibility of his own murder. In addition, the coming war with Napoleon forced the emperor to make concessions to the opposition in order to maintain political stability.

Alexander I succumbed to the pressure. On March 29, 1812, without trial, Speransky was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod, and in September 1812, when Napoleon's army approached Moscow, he was sent to Perm under stricter supervision. In March 1813, Speransky sent a letter of acquittal from Perm to Alexander I, where he tried to clarify the circumstances of his disgrace. But the emperor did not answer him. Only in the autumn of 1814 was the former secretary of state allowed to settle in his daughter's estate near Nizhny Novgorod.

By the decree of Alexander I of August 30, 1816, Speransky was nevertheless forgiven and appointed governor of Penza. Later, in 1819-1822, he became the governor-general of Siberia. The state mind of Speransky again found a use for itself. Based on the results of the revision of Siberia, Speransky, in collaboration with the future Decembrist S.G. Batenkov, developed the “Siberian Code” - a set of laws governing Siberia. It was the first to set out the legal status of the indigenous Siberian peoples and the principles of government policy towards them. Almost unchanged, this Code was in effect until the beginning of the 20th century.

In 1822 Speransky returned to St. Petersburg under the patronage of Arakcheev. Many associated with his return the hope for changes in the political course of the “Arakcheevshchina”. But Speransky returned as a man with a different political experience, with different convictions - and the "miracle" did not happen.

§ 6. The last decade (1815-1825)

After the war of 1812, the political prestige of Alexander I, and of the Russian autocracy as a whole, grew considerably stronger. It seemed that now it was possible to carry out internal political reforms more persistently. And many statements and actions of the emperor gave contemporaries a sense of impending changes.

In November 1815, Alexander I signed the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland formed within the Russian Empire. The highest legislative power in Poland was exercised by the Sejm, which met every two years, and the State Council, which acted permanently. Freedom of the press and the individual was proclaimed. All documents had to be kept in Polish. The Russian emperor was declared king, represented in Warsaw by the governor. They became the younger brother of Alexander I Konstantin Pavlovich.

An important event was the emperor's speech at the opening of the Polish Sejm in the spring of 1818. Alexander openly declared that he intended to limit the autocracy throughout Russia. After that, he instructed the Minister of Justice N.N. Novosiltsev to draw up a draft of the Russian constitution. This document is known as the State Charter of the Russian Empire.

The "statutory charter" provided for the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy. This was achieved by the proclamation of popular representation in the form of a bicameral parliament. Russia was supposed to acquire a federal structure. Civil liberties were proclaimed.

In 1820, it seemed that the implementation of the Charter was quite possible. There was even prepared an "experiment of introduction to the Literacy", which, if published in the form of a manifesto, would announce that Alexander I would grant the subjects a constitution. However, the "Charter" remained lying in the office of N.N. Novosiltsov.

Having met the resistance of the vast majority of the nobles, Alexander I did not dare to carry out his constitutional plans. In addition, the emperor himself was not completely sure of their need. On the one hand, he expected the nobility to take the initiative in reforms. On the other hand, Alexander I did not use those cases when such an initiative was expressed. His inconsistency often manifested itself when he had to solve complex and important state problems.

With the beginning of the anti-Napoleonic wars, the government's attention to the peasant question weakened. The most intensive searches in this direction fall on the second half of the reign of Alexander I. The immediate impetus for practical action was the initiative of the Estonian nobility, who announced at the beginning of 1816 their readiness to free their serfs. In 1816, a decree was issued regarding Estonia, in 1817 - Courland, in 1819 - Livonia. The abolition of serfdom in the Baltic provinces was facilitated by the fact that it was expressed there in a relaxed form, and in 1804 the peasants had already received some rights. In addition, the peasants, gaining personal freedom, were infringed economically. They were deprived of land, which became the personal property of the landowners. And yet in 1816 the supreme power publicly, not in words, but in deeds, demonstrated its readiness to free the landowning peasants in at least one region of the empire.

The desire of the government to solve the peasant question reached its climax in 1818-1819. At this time, Alexander I was presented with several projects and notes with options for the release of landlord peasants. Some of them, in particular, the projects of A.A. Arakcheev and D.A. Guriev, were compiled on behalf of the emperor.

For the release of the peasants, Arakcheev proposed to allocate 5 million rubles each. notes per year. Peasants should receive a minimum allotment of land of 2 acres per audit soul.

Arakcheev's plan was painless for the landlords. He meant to redeem the peasants. However, at the cost of one soul of 100 rubles. the redemption operation threatened to be delayed until 2018. In addition, the plan did not provide for leverage on landowners who did not want to sell their serfs.

The emperor approved Arakcheev's project, but it was not implemented, most likely due to the lack of money for the redemption operation. Alternative projects came to the emperor from the Minister of Finance, Count D.A. Guryev, and from a group of advanced landowners headed by N.I. Turgenev.

After 1820, work on the preparation of the peasant reform was stopped.

Thus, it is obvious that the intentions of Alexander I to solve the peasant problem were serious. However, an extremely narrow circle of nobles was among the supporters of his decision, the majority of landowners did not at all sympathize with this idea of ​​government, moreover, they opposed it. Perhaps a public discussion of the problem could change their mood. But the supreme power did not allow this, fearing a dangerous development of events. Under pressure from reactionary and conservative circles, the government postponed the solution of the peasant problem.

In the postwar years, the emperor paid much attention to the organization of military settlements. Their main meaning is to reduce the cost of maintaining the army. Experience in creating such settlements was available in Prussia and Austria. In Russia, it was first used in 1810-1812. in the Mogilev province. Then the experience was considered unsuccessful. In 1815-1816. on the initiative of Alexander I, Count A.A. Arakcheev developed new principles for organizing settlements.

Settled troops ("owner villagers") were formed from family soldiers who had served for at least 6 years, and local residents - state peasants. Each settlement consisted of 60 houses, in which a company of 228 people was located. Freed from all taxes and duties, the settlers had to supply the army with food. For them, houses with outbuildings were built, in the settlements of the infantry units, the "owners" received livestock and equipment.

Military settlements were arranged on state lands. By 1825 they were created in St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Mogilev, Sloboda-Ukrainian, Kherson, Yekaterinoslav and other provinces. According to various sources, the settlements accounted for from 1/4 to 1/3 of the Russian army. This form of organization of troops and their maintenance existed in Russia until 1857.

The emperor believed that the settlements could provide not only financial benefits. By taking serfs into recruits, the state can, through military settlements, make them free citizens. For this purpose, a program was developed to teach the villagers to read and write and to manage the economy effectively.

Another thing is that these intentions of the supreme power were not known to the villagers themselves. Already life in the settlements was perceived by them as a double enslavement. Petty regulation of life, barracks discipline, the system of punishments caused acute discontent. The private life of the settlers was ugly. From rise to lights out, she was under the supervision of commanders. Marriages were concluded with the permission of the authorities. Children from the age of 7 were enrolled in the school of cantonists. They formed training squadrons. All this gave rise to mass demonstrations of the villagers.

Count A.A. Arakcheev was appointed head of the military settlements. A whole period in the political history of Russia, called "Arakcheevshchina", is associated with his name. By this concept is meant the regime of autocracy of the temporary worker. Alexander I, first distracted from managing the country by foreign policy problems, then in a state of depression, entrusted the decision of state affairs to Count Arakcheev. He became the first person in the empire after the king.

Contemporaries feared and hated the all-powerful temporary worker. The characteristics left by them passed into the research literature. Meanwhile, Arakcheev is an ambiguous personality. He was born into a poor noble family, who did not have the opportunity to give their sons a good military education. Funds for education had to be collected from wealthy relatives. After graduating from the Shlyakhetsky artillery corps, Arakcheev, as the best artillery officer, was appointed inspector in the Gatchina army of Pavel Petrovich.

Even then, his political creed was designated. On the count's coat of arms, presented to Arakcheev by Paul I, there was a motto: "Without flattery, betrayed." The earl understood loyalty as the absence of his own convictions, the clear fulfillment of the will of the monarch.

In the political environment of Alexander I in the first years of his reign, Arakcheev did not play any significant role. Its ascent began during a period of political crisis on the eve of the war of 1812. In 1808-1810. the count served as minister of war and carried out a number of transformations in the army. Under him, the recruitment and training of combatant personnel improved, recruiting depots were created, examinations of artillerymen began to be held, the army was divided into divisions.

Since 1815, Arakcheev headed the State Council, the Cabinet of Ministers, His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. All reports addressed to the monarch were made on behalf of Arakcheev. Judging by the memories, the count had a cruel character. But Alexander I fully trusted him until the last days of his reign.

However, for Alexander I himself, the last years were especially difficult.

The Semyonovsky Regiment rose up (1820), information appeared about the actions of secret societies in Russia. Against the Russian viceroy in Warsaw, Konstantin Pavlovich, discontent grew in the army and society, terrible news periodically came about the height of European revolutions. All this was connected in the mind of the emperor in a single chain of events. In the early 1820s. Alexander I, for the first time on a scale not only in Russia, but also in Europe, suddenly realized with absolute clarity what an abyss lies between his liberal dreams, cautious constitutional steps and the storm of a popular revolution or military rebellion. The danger from the right threatened personal destruction, while the danger from the left called into question the entire system that had nurtured Alexander and which he faithfully served, wanting only to bring it into line with rapidly changing times.

All this led to the fact that from the beginning of the 1920s, a reactionary trend began to manifest itself more and more in the domestic policy of the emperor and his government.

This may explain the appearance in the early 1920s. a number of decrees that again unleashed the arbitrariness of the landowners in relation to the peasants, allowed them to be exiled "for presumptuous deeds" to Siberia, and forbade them to complain about the landowners. At the same time, censorship and persecution of the press intensified.

Alexander I approved the reactionary and religious fanatic M.L. Magnitsky for the post of trustee of the Kazan educational district, who carried out a formal defeat of Kazan University. Magnitsky drew up a new instruction for the university. University autonomy was abolished, 11 professors were fired, lecture notes were checked for seditious ideas, barracks discipline was established among students. The student library was smashed: all the books that were suspected of being "malicious" were confiscated and destroyed. The publishing activity of the university freezes. Despite all this, only in 1826 did Nicholas I recall Magnitsky from Kazan.

Following Kazan, St. Petersburg University was subjected to the same rout. The local trustee D.P. Runich used Magnitsky's instructions in his practice. Leading specialists in general history, philosophy, and statistics were expelled from the university.

Crisis phenomena were growing in all public spheres of Russia - in the economy, finance, and management.

Alexander I himself is increasingly turning to religion and even to mysticism. He supported the activities of the so-called Bible Society - a religious organization that was engaged in the publication, distribution and promotion of the Holy Scriptures. In the manifesto on the transformation of the Ministry of Public Education, the emperor announced that from now on, education should be based solely on religious values.

In the summer of 1825, the state of health of the wife of Alexander I, Elizaveta Alekseevna, deteriorated sharply. Doctors recommended that she spend the winter in a warmer climate. The imperial couple decided to go to the Black Sea coast, to Taganrog. Alexander rode most of the way on horseback and caught a cold. From Taganrog to St. Petersburg began to receive alarming reports about the state of his health. On November 19, 1825, unexpected news came of the emperor's sudden death.

The delivery of the body of Alexander I to the capital took about two weeks, and the farewell took place with a closed coffin. The unexpectedness of this death, the mystical mood of the emperor, the depression of the last years of his life gave rise to contemporaries' suspicions of the veracity of official reports. And in the middle of the XIX century. arose, and then developed in historiography, a version about the departure of Emperor Alexander I from the "world" to the elders. There are many publications devoted to the Tobolsk elder Fyodor Kuzmich, in whom researchers see the former emperor of Russia.

The life and death of Alexander I is indeed a dramatic page in Russian history; to an even greater extent, it is a drama of a rushing human soul, forced to combine in itself, it seems, such incompatible principles as power and humanity.

During his lifetime, Alexander I was called "the Winner" by his contemporaries. After his death, the title "Blessed" was assigned to him. Thus, his merits were emphasized not only in foreign policy, but also in the internal life of Russia. During the 24 years of his reign, the country has greatly changed its political status in the world. Thanks to the victory over Napoleon, Russia became the leading power in the European alliances. The territory and population of the empire changed significantly. In the reign of Alexander I, East Prussia, Finland, Poland, and Bessarabia were annexed to Russia.

In domestic politics, his reign was marked by major transformations of the state apparatus; attempts to eliminate serfdom and its restrictions in the country; the introduction of a constitutional device in the western part of the empire - the Kingdom of Poland. An extensive educational program was implemented. Between Russian society at the end of the 18th century. and 20s. 19th century there was a huge gap in life values, everyday life, culture, worldview. To a large extent, this is the merit of Alexander I.

Nevertheless, the emperor himself at the end of his life, as well as advanced contemporaries, were disappointed. Russia never became a country of free citizens. The enlightened monarch could not achieve the elimination of slavery in the country subject to him. This pressing problem of the political life of Russia was never resolved, and became a headache for Alexander's successor, Nicholas I.

chapter three

The accession to the throne of the young Emperor Alexander I coincided with the need for fundamental changes in many areas of Russian life. The young emperor, who received an excellent European education, set out to reform the Russian education system. The development of basic changes in the field of education was entrusted to M. M. Speransky, who worthily proved himself in the transformation of the country. The reforming activity of M. M. Speransky showed the possibility of transforming the empire into a modern state. And it's not his fault that many wonderful projects have remained on paper.

short biography

Mikhailovich was born into the family of a poor rural clergyman. Having received a good education at home, Speransky decided to continue his father's work and entered the St. Petersburg Theological School. After graduating from this educational institution, Speransky worked as a teacher for some time. Later, he was lucky enough to take the post of personal secretary to Prince Kurakin, who was one of the closest friends of Paul I. Soon after Alexander I came to the throne, Kurakin received the post of Prosecutor General under the Senate. The prince did not forget about his secretary either - Speransky received the position of a state official there.

An outstanding mind and excellent organizational skills made the former teacher an almost indispensable person in the Senate. This is how the reforming activity of M. M. Speransky began.

Political reform

Work in prepared M. M. Speransky to work on the implementation of political and social transformations in the country. In 1803, Mikhail Mikhailovich outlined his vision of the judicial system in a separate document. The “Note on the Structure of Governmental and Judicial Institutions in Russia” was reduced to the gradual limitation of autocracy, the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy, and the strengthening of the role of the middle class. So, the official suggested taking into account the danger of a repetition of the "French madness" in Russia - that is, the French revolution. To prevent the repetition of forceful scenarios in Russia and soften the autocracy in the country - this was the reform activity of M. M. Speransky.

Briefly about the main

In political transformations, the reforming activity of M. M. Speransky was reduced to several points that would allow the country to become a state of law.

In general, he approved the "Note ...". The commission he created began to develop a detailed plan for new transformations, which was initiated by the reform activities of M. M. Speransky. The intentions of the original project were repeatedly criticized and discussed.

reform plan

The general plan was drawn up in 1809, and its main theses were as follows:

1. The Russian Empire should be governed by three branches of the state should be in the hands of the newly created elective institution; the levers of executive power belong to the relevant ministries, and the judiciary is in the hands of the Senate.

2. The reforming activity of Speransky M. M. laid the foundation for the existence of another authority. It was to be called the Advisory Council. The new institution was supposed to be outside the branches of power. Officials of this institution must consider various bills, take into account their reasonableness and expediency. If the Advisory Council is in favor, the final decision will be made in the Duma.

3. The reform activities of M. M. Speransky aimed to divide all the inhabitants of the Russian Empire into three large estates - the nobility, the so-called middle class and the working people.

4. Only representatives of the upper and middle classes could govern the country. The property classes were given the right to vote, to be elected to various bodies of power. The working people were granted only general civil rights. But, with the accumulation of personal property for peasants and workers, there was an opportunity to move into the property classes - first into the merchant class, and then, possibly, into the nobility.

5. Legislative power in the country was represented by the Duma. The reforming activity of Speransky M.M. served as the basis for the emergence of a new election mechanism. Deputies were proposed to be elected in four stages: first, volost representatives were elected, then they determined the composition of district dumas. At the third stage, elections were held for the legislative council of the provinces. And only the deputies of the provincial dumas had the right to take part in the work of the State Duma. The chancellor appointed by the tsar had to supervise the work of the State Duma.

These brief theses show the main results of the painstaking work that was brought to life by the reformatory activity of M. M. Speransky. The summary of his note grew into a multi-year, phased plan to transform the country into a modern power.

Action plan

Fearing revolutionary movements, Tsar Alexander I decided to implement the announced plan in stages, so as not to bring to life strong cataclysms in Russian society. Work to improve the state machine was proposed to be carried out over several decades. The end result was to be the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy.

The promulgation of the Manifesto on the creation of a new authority, the State Council, was the first step along the road of transformation, which was paved by the reformist activity of M. M. Speransky. The summary of the Manifesto was as follows:

• all drafts aimed at the adoption of new laws must be considered by representatives of the State Council;
• the council assessed the content and reasonableness of new laws, assessed the possibility of their adoption and implementation;
• members of the State Council were supposed to take part in the work of the relevant ministries and make proposals for the rational use of funds.

Curtailment of reforms

In 1811, the reformist activity of Speransky M. M. led to the appearance of the draft Code of the Code. This package of documents was to be the next stage of political transformations in the country. The separation of the branches of power assumed that the entire Senate would be divided into the Governing and Judicial branches. But this transformation was not given to be accomplished. The desire to give the peasants equal civil rights with the rest of the people caused such a storm of indignation in the country that the tsar was forced to curtail the reform project and dismiss Speransky. He was sent to a settlement in Perm and lived there the rest of his life on the modest pension of a former official.

Results

On behalf of the king, Speransky M. M. developed projects for financial and economic transformations. They provided for limiting the expenditure of the treasury and increasing taxes for the nobility. Such projects aroused sharp criticism in society, and many well-known thinkers of that time spoke out against Speransky. Speransky was even suspected of anti-Russian activities, and against the backdrop of the rise of Napoleon in France, such suspicions could have very profound consequences.

Fearing open indignation, Alexander dismisses Speransky.

Significance of reforms

It is impossible to deny the significance of the projects, which gave rise to the reform activities of M. M. Speransky. The results of the work of this reformer became the basis for fundamental changes in the structure of Russian society in the middle of the 19th century.

MM. Speransky

In December 1808, Speransky, on behalf of Alexander I, began the development of the “Plan for the State Transformation of Russia”. He began work on the project not only with his usual energy, but also with the hope of its implementation.

The reformer was given all the accumulated materials of the "Secret Committee", notes and drafts received by the Commission for the drafting of state laws. By that time, he said, he "studied all the constitutions in the world" and daily discussed with the emperor every paragraph of the plan.

The main provisions of the "Plan"

In essence, the "Plan for the State Transformation of Russia" was a constitution with its fixed and unchanging laws. This was an indispensable condition for Speransky, and he himself spoke of this as follows: “In every well-organized state there must be positive principles of legislation, permanent, immutable, immovable, with which all other laws could be complied with.”

Speransky was a staunch supporter of the constitutional order. But at the same time, he understood that Russia was not ready for a constitutional system, and therefore transformations should begin with the reorganization of the state apparatus. In the period from 1808 to 1811, he drew up a plan for the state transformation from the emperor's office to the volost government. A lot of work was done, and in a very short time for such a scale.

According to Speransky's "Plan", the entire population was divided into classes:

• nobility as owners of immovable property
• average state (philistines, merchants, state peasants
• working people (servants, artisans, petty bourgeois, day laborers).

The division was carried out in accordance with political and civil rights: all three classes had civil rights, and only those who owned real estate had political rights. But there was a transition from one state to another. The presence of civil rights means that there is a certain degree of freedom in the state. But to guarantee it, Speransky believed, a political constitution is necessary.

Vladimir set of laws of the Russian Empire

He argues that the state must provide a person with his safety and the safety of his property, because. inviolability is the essence of civil rights and freedoms. These rights and freedoms are of two types: personal and material freedoms.

1. Without a trial, no one can be punished.
2. No one is required to send personal service except by law.

1. Everyone can dispose of his property arbitrarily, in accordance with the general law.
2. No one is obliged to pay taxes and duties otherwise than according to the law, and not according to arbitrariness.

As we can see, Speransky perceives the law as a method of protection, and this requires guarantees against the arbitrariness of the legislator. Therefore, a constitutional and legal limitation of power is necessary. Therefore, Speransky's plan of state reforms was based on the requirement to strengthen the civil order.

The idea of ​​separation of powers

The idea of ​​separation of powers was supposed to be the basis of the state structure of the country and to exist as legislative, executive and judicial powers. Speransky borrowed this idea from the West. He said: "It is impossible to base government on the law, if one sovereign power will make the law and execute it."

Senate should have been the supreme authority judiciary. ministries – executive. State Duma - legislative.

Above all these bodies, the State Council was established as an advisory body under the emperor, which finally approved or rejected the project submitted for consideration, even if it was adopted by the Duma. The essence of the constitution was as follows:

1) Separation of powers.

2) The opinions of the legislature are absolutely free and accurately reflect the aspirations of the people.

3) The judiciary is independent of the executive.

4) The executive branch is responsible to the legislative branch.

As you can see, the main ideas of the "Plan for the State Transformation of Russia" were satisfied with the radical ones, but the soil of Russian reality at that time was not yet ready to accept them. Alexander I was satisfied with only partial transformations of Russia, covered with liberal promises and general discourses about law and freedom. But he experienced the strongest pressure from the court environment, which sought to prevent radical changes in Russia.

The house in St. Petersburg, where M.M. Speransky

On January 1, 1810, the creation of the State Council was announced, and M. M. Speransky received the post of State Secretary in it. All the documentation that passed through the State Council ended up under its jurisdiction. The creation of the State Council was the first stage of transformation: it was he who had to establish plans for further reforms, all bills had to go through the State Council. The sovereign himself presided over the general meeting of the State Council. He could only approve the opinion of the majority of the general meeting. The first chairman of the State Council (until August 14, 1814) was Chancellor Count N. P. Rumyantsev. The Secretary of State (Speransky) became the head of the State Chancellery.

Other reforms

On April 3, 1809, a decree on court ranks was issued, which changed the procedure for obtaining titles and privileges. Now these ranks should be considered as simple insignia. Privileges were given only to those who performed public service. The decree on reforming the procedure for obtaining court ranks was signed by the emperor, but everyone understood that Speransky was its author. In Russia, for many decades, children of noble families from birth received the court ranks of the chamber junker (grade 5), after a while chamberlain (grade 4). Having become adults, they automatically received “higher places” without serving anywhere. And by decree of Speransky, chamber junkers and chamberlains who were not in active service were ordered to find a place of service within two months, otherwise they would be resigned.

In addition, he created a plan to change the order of production to ranks, which has been in force since the era of Peter I. Speransky speaks directly about the dangers of Peter's "Table of Ranks" and proposes to cancel or regulate the receipt of ranks, starting from the 6th grade, with a university diploma. The program included testing knowledge of the Russian language, one of the foreign languages, natural, Roman, state and criminal law, general and Russian history, state economics, physics, geography and statistics of Russia. The rank of collegiate assessor corresponded to the 8th grade of the "Table of Ranks". From this class and above, officials had significant privileges and high salaries. There were many who wanted to get it, and most of them could not take the exams. It is clear why Speransky began to be hated more and more.

In 1810-1811. Speransky reorganized the ministries: they were divided into departments, departments into departments. From the highest officials of the ministry, a council of ministers was formed, and from all ministers - a committee of ministers to discuss administrative matters.

By the beginning of 1811, Speransky proposed a project for the transformation of the Senate. He intended to divide the Senate into government and judiciary, but then this project was postponed. But according to his plan, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum was established in 1810.

MM. Speransky at the monument to the 1000th anniversary of Russia in Veliky Novgorod

All aspects of Russian reality were reflected in the Plan for the Transformations of Russia. With regard to serfdom, Speransky wrote: “The relations in which both these classes (peasants and landowners) are placed completely destroy all energy in the Russian people. The interest of the nobility requires that the peasants be completely subordinate to it; the interest of the peasantry is that the nobles were also subordinate to the crown ... The throne is always a serf as the only counterweight to the property of their masters, ie, serfdom was incompatible with political freedom. Thus, Russia, divided into various classes, exhausts its forces in the struggle which these classes wage among themselves, and leaves to the government the entire scope of unlimited power. A state organized in this way - that is, on the division of hostile classes - if it has one or another external structure - these and other letters to the nobility, letters to the cities, two senates and the same number of parliaments - is a despotic state, and as long as it consist of the same elements (warring classes), it will be impossible for it to be a monarchical state.

Speransky's idea of ​​a transition from autocracy to a constitutional monarchy remained unfulfilled.