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, social, political and social activities Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich, who becomes 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:

1. 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.
2. In the domestic economy, he established a good infrastructure, which enabled the country to rapidly develop and prosper.
3. The army of civil servants began to function more efficiently with a minimum amount of municipal resources spent.
4. A stronger legal system was created.
5. 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 the famous “Note on Ancient and new Russia" Karamzin and (1812) in his two secret messages to Emperor Alexander.

Particular bitterness against Speransky was due to By 2 decrees he carried out (1809):

1. 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).
2. 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.

The accession to the throne of the young Emperor Alexander I coincided with the need for radical changes in many areas Russian life. The young emperor, who received an excellent European education, set out to reform and Russian system training. The development of basic changes in the field of education was entrusted to M. M. Speransky, who showed himself worthily in transforming the country. The reform activities 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 they 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 position of personal secretary of Prince Kurakin, who was one of the closest friends of Paul I. Soon after Alexander I ascended the throne, Kurakin received the post of Prosecutor General under the Senate. The prince did not forget about his secretary - Speransky received the position of a government official there.

His extraordinary intelligence and excellent organizational skills made the former teacher an almost indispensable person in the Senate. This is how the reform activities of M. M. Speransky began.

Political reform

Work in prepared M. M. Speransky for work on introducing political and social reforms in the country. In 1803, Mikhail Mikhailovich outlined his vision of the judicial system in a separate document. The “Note on the structure of government and judicial institutions in Russia” boiled down to the gradual limitation of autocracy, the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy, and the strengthening of the role of the middle class. Thus, the official suggested taking into account the danger of a repetition of “French madness” in Russia - that is, the French Revolution. To prevent the repetition of power scenarios in Russia and to soften the autocracy in the country - this was the reform activity of M. M. Speransky.

Briefly about the main thing

In political transformations, the reform activities of M. M. Speransky boiled down to several points that would allow the country to become a rule-of-law state.

In general, I approved of the “Note...”. The commission he created began to develop a detailed plan for new transformations, which were 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 and should be in the hands of a newly created elected institution; The levers of executive power belong to the relevant ministries, and the judicial power is in the hands of the Senate.

2. The reform activities of M. M. Speransky laid the foundation for the existence of another government body. It was to be called the Advisory Council. The new institution was supposed to be outside the branches of government. Officials of this institution must consider various bills, consider their reasonableness and expediency. If the Advisory Council is in favor - final decision will be adopted in the Duma.

3. The reform activities of M. M. Speransky had the goal of dividing all residents Russian Empire into three large classes - the nobility, the so-called middle class and the working people.

4. Only representatives of the upper and middle classes could rule the country. Property classes were given the right to vote, elect various organs authorities. The working people were provided with only general civil rights. But, as personal property accumulated, it was possible for peasants and workers to move into property classes - first into the merchant class, and then, possibly, into the nobility.

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

These brief theses show the main results of the painstaking work that the reformist activities of M. M. Speransky brought to life. Summary his notes grew into a multi-year, step-by-step 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 cause strong cataclysms in Russian society. It was proposed to carry out work to improve the state machine over several decades. The end result was to be the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy.

The publication of the Manifesto on the creation of a new government body, the State Council, was the first step along the road of transformation, which was paved by the reform activities of M. M. Speransky. The summary of the Manifesto was as follows:

• all projects aimed at adopting 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 relevant ministries and make proposals for rational use Money.

Rolling back reforms

In 1811, the reform activities of M. M. Speransky led to the emergence of a draft Code. This package of documents was supposed to become the next stage of political transformations in the country. The division of branches of power assumed that the entire Senate would be divided into the Government and Judicial branches. But this transformation was not allowed to take place. The desire to provide peasants with the same civil rights as 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 settle in Perm and lived there for the rest of his life on the modest pension of a former official.

Results

On behalf of the Tsar, M. M. Speransky developed projects for financial and economic reforms. They provided for limiting treasury expenditures and increasing taxes for the nobility. Such projects caused sharp criticism in society; many famous thinkers of that time spoke out against Speransky. Speransky was even suspected of anti-Russian activities, and given the rise of Napoleon in France, such suspicions could have very deep consequences.

Fearing open indignation, Alexander dismisses Speransky.

Significance of reforms

It is impossible to deny the significance of the projects that were given rise to by 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.

In 1805, the process of reforming public administration was interrupted due to Russia's entry into a series of wars with Napoleonic France (1805-1807), which ended for the Russian autocracy with the forced Peace of Tilsit, which undermined the prestige of the emperor in the eyes of the nobility. In an effort to restore his authority as a far-sighted politician, Alexander I decided to continue reforms aimed primarily at improving government structure.

The development of new bills was entrusted to the Secretary of State, Deputy Minister of Justice M. M. Speransky, who came from the family of a provincial priest. Thanks to your hard work and outstanding abilities Speransky was able to break into the upper layers of the Russian bureaucracy and become outstanding statesman. In 1809, on behalf of Alexander I, he developed a project for radical state reforms - “Introduction to the Code of State Laws.” The goal of the reforms proposed by M. M. Speransky was the gradual replacement of autocratic rule with constitutional rule and the elimination of serfdom. The project implemented bourgeois-liberal principles of public administration: separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, popular representation, and elective principles. The highest legislative body was to be the State Duma, the judicial body - the Senate, and the executive body - the Committee of Ministers. Legislative initiative remained in the hands of the tsar and the highest bureaucracy, but the judgments of the Duma were supposed to express the “opinion of the people.”

The emperor retained broad political and administrative powers, the right to pardon, etc. Voting rights should have been granted to nobles and people of average wealth (merchants, burghers, state peasants) who owned real estate. Civil rights were introduced: “no one could be punished without a judicial verdict.” For preliminary consideration of laws and coordination of activities of higher government agencies it was planned to create a State Council, whose members were appointed by the emperor.

The project of government reforms drawn up by Speransky was recognized by the emperor as “satisfactory and useful.” However, conservative circles saw in this plan an encroachment on the “sacred foundations” of Russian statehood and opposed it. The project could not be fully implemented. Of Speransky's proposals, only those related to the creation of the State Council and the completion of ministerial reform were implemented. In 1810, the State Council was created - the highest legislative body under the Tsar. Its main task was defined as bringing the entire legal system of the country to uniformity. All current paperwork was concentrated in the office of the State Council, which was headed by the Secretary of State. M. M. Speransky became the first Secretary of State. Since 1811, an important legislative act came into force - the “General Establishment of Ministries”. The adoption of this document completed the ministerial reform: the number of ministers increased to 12, their structure, limits of power and responsibility were clearly defined.

In 1809, a Decree on Court Ranks was issued, according to which service at court did not provide any privileges, and persons with court ranks were required to enter civil or military service. All officials had to have the appropriate education - know law, history, geography, foreign language, statistics, mathematics and even physics.

Opponents of M. M. Speransky saw “crimes” in his transformations. The historian N.M. Karamzin, in his “Note on Ancient and New Russia” addressed to Alexander I, which became a kind of manifesto of all conservative forces, called any attempts to limit the “saving tsarist power” evil.

Sharp attacks by conservatives against Speransky led to his resignation in March 1812 and his removal from government affairs for long years. First he was exiled to Perm, then he lived on his estate in the Novgorod province. In 1816 it was returned to public service, appointing him civil governor of Penza, and in 1819 - governor general of Siberia. M. M. Speransky was allowed to return to St. Petersburg only in 1821. The Emperor called the resignation of the talented official “a forced sacrifice” that he had to make in order to reduce the growth of discontent among the majority of nobles who were opposed to any changes.

In subsequent years, the reform aspirations of Alexander I were reflected in the introduction of a constitution in the Kingdom of Poland (1815), the preservation of the Sejm and the constitutional structure in Finland, annexed to Russia in 1809, as well as in the creation by N. N. Novosiltsev, on behalf of the tsar, of the “Russian Charter” empire" (1819-1820). This project provided for the separation of branches of government, the introduction of representative bodies, the equality of all citizens before the law and the federal principle of government, but all these proposals remained on paper.

The reforms in the army carried out in 1808-1810 turned out to be more successful. Minister of War A. A. Arakcheev, who came into the confidence of Alexander I during the reign of Paul I, and then became a friend of the emperor. He was distinguished by impeccable honesty, devotion to the king, ruthlessness and inhumanity in his performing activities. “Betrayed without flattery” - this was the motto on the coat of arms of Count A. A. Arakcheev.

In preparation for the inevitable military clash with Napoleon, Arakcheev completely reformed the artillery, sought to restore order in the army economy, and made the armed forces more mobile. After the War of 1812, Arakcheev's influence on Alexander I increased. By 1815, Arakcheev concentrated enormous power in his hands: he led the State Council, the Committee of Ministers, and His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery.

A number of serious transformations are associated with Arakcheev’s activities. So, in 1816-1819. Was held peasant reform in the Baltics. According to the “Regulations on the Estonian Peasants” and the “Regulations on the Livonian Peasants”, the serf population received personal freedom, but without land, which was recognized as the property of the landowners. At the same time, peasants were given the right to own land on a lease basis with the subsequent possibility of purchasing it from the landowner. Making a project agrarian reform, Arakcheev remembered the tsar’s instructions “not to embarrass the landowners, not to use violent measures against them.”

Reform projects of M.M. Speransky (1808-18012)

Transformations of the highest authorities

Alexander I, having ascended the throne, wanted to introduce a series of reforms in Russia. To do this, he united his liberal friends into the “Unspoken Committee”. The creation and implementation of reforms progressed very slowly; the reformers had no idea about real government. They needed a person who could turn their ideas into real projects.

And this person was M.M. Speransky.

In 1808, the tsar instructed M.M. Speransky to create a master plan for reforms. Mikhail Speransky was engaged in this work for almost a year. The reform plan was presented in the form of an extensive document: “Introduction to the Code of State Laws.” In it he expressed his personal opinion on specific problems state development and law and order, and also explained and substantiated his thoughts. In 1809, M.M. Speransky wrote: “If God bless all these undertakings, then by 1811, by the end of the decade of the present reign, Russia will take on a new existence and will be completely transformed in all parts.” In M.M. Speransky’s plan, the basis of the state structure was the principle of separation of powers, with the supremacy of the power of an autocratic monarch. All power in the state was to be divided into: legislative, judicial and executive. Before this, there was no strict separation of powers. M.M. Speransky also proposed introducing a system of ministries. He proposed creating an elected State Duma and a State Council appointed by the Tsar. Civil and political rights were introduced, that is, we were talking about a constitutional monarchy. The State Duma is entrusted with the law. The Senate is the court. To the ministry - management.

Reform of the State Council (1810)

The transformation of the State Council became the most important of the reforms carried out by M.M. Speransky. On January 1, 1810, the “Manifesto on the establishment of the State Council” and “Education of the State Council” were published, regulating the activities of this body. Both documents were written by M.M. Speransky himself. The change in the functions of the Council pursued the same goal as the reorganization of all branches of government: to protect all classes from despotism and favoritism. Objectively, this meant some limitation of autocracy, since relative independence of all branches of government was created and they became accountable to the estates. Preparations for the reform were carried out in secrecy and came as a complete surprise to many.

Its significance in the management system is expressed in the manifesto of January 1 by the definition that in it “all parts of management in their main relation to legislation are consistent and through it ascend to the supreme power.” This means that the State Council discusses all the details of the state structure, as far as they require new laws, and submits its considerations to the discretion of the supreme power. Thus, a firm legislative order was established. In this sense, M.M. Speransky defines the significance of the Council in his response to the sovereign about the activities of the institution in 1810, saying that the Council “was established in order to give the legislative power, hitherto scattered and scattered, a new outline of constancy and uniformity.” This outline, conveyed to the legislation, characterizes the new institution with three features outlined in the law:

“...I. In the order of state institutions, the council represents an estate in which all the actions of the legislative, judicial and executive order in their main relations are connected and through it ascend to the sovereign power and flow from it.

II. Therefore, all laws, charters and institutions in their first outlines are proposed and considered in the State Council and then, through the action of the sovereign power, they are carried out for their intended implementation in the legislative, judicial and executive order.

III. No law, charter or institution comes from the council and cannot be implemented without the approval of the sovereign power. ..." .

The terms of reference of the State Council are very wide. Its competence included: all subjects requiring a new law, charter or institution; internal management items requiring cancellation, limitation or addition of previous provisions; cases that require laws, statutes and institutions to explain their true meaning; general measures and orders acceptable for successful execution existing laws, statutes and institutions; general internal measures, acceptable in emergency cases; declaration of war, conclusion of peace and other important external measures; annual estimates of general government revenues and expenditures and emergency financial measures; all cases in which any part of state revenues or property is alienated into private ownership; reports of all the offices of ministerial departments administered by secretaries of state, who reported to the secretary of state. This title was assigned to M.M. Speransky himself. To conduct business in the Council, a state office was established under the control of the Secretary of State, who reports issues at the general meeting and heads the entire executive department. At the Council there was a commission for drafting laws and a commission for petitions.

However, an analysis of the manifesto shows that the establishment of the State Council ignored the basic principles government reform, reflected in the "Introduction to the Code of State Laws". The council was planned as an advisory body to the emperor. However, in the manifesto he wrote, the State Council appears as an exclusively legislative and advisory body. All activity on creating laws was in the hands of the emperor, since he appointed all members of the State Council himself. In total, 35 people were appointed to the Council, together with the chairmen and ministers.

Council decisions were made by majority vote. Those members of the Council who did not agree with the majority could write down their dissenting opinion in the journal, but this had no influence. All laws and statutes had to be approved by the monarch and published in the form of a royal manifesto, beginning with the words: “Having heeded the opinion of the State Council.” Alexander I often ignored the opinion of the majority of the Council and often supported the minority. The State Council was overwhelmed with various questions unusual for it. The Council considers either estimates of expenses and income of Moscow and St. Petersburg, or criminal and civil cases. The Emperor began to issue laws without considering them in the Council.

Thus, the reform of the State Council was carried out; according to the reform, the Council had to discuss all the details of the state structure and decide to what extent they require new laws, and then submit its proposals to the court of the supreme power, but in practice everything was different. Alexander I neglected this.

Reform of ministries (1810-1811)

Ministerial reform began even before the transformation of the State Council. The Manifesto of July 25, 1810 announced a “new division of state affairs in an executive manner” with a detailed definition of the limits of their activities and the degree of their responsibility. The manifesto repeated all the main thoughts and proposals of M.M. Speransky. The next manifesto, the “General Establishment of Ministries” dated June 25, 1811, announced the formation of ministries, determined their staff, the procedure for appointment, dismissal, promotion to ranks, and the procedure for conducting affairs. The degree and limits of the power of ministers, their relationship with the legislative branch and, finally, the responsibility of both ministers and various types of officials belonging to ministerial offices and departments are determined.

Each ministry received a uniform structural design. According to the "General Order", the ministry was headed by a minister appointed by the emperor and actually responsible to him. The apparatus of the ministries consisted of several departments headed by a director, and they, in turn, were divided into departments headed by a chief. The departments were divided into tables headed by a chief. All work of the ministries was based on the principle of unity of command. The “General Order” categorically stipulated that ministers possess only executive power and their competence does not include “any new institution or the abolition of the previous one.” Ministers appointed and dismissed officials and supervised institutions subordinate to the ministry. The Manifesto of 1811 essentially gave ministers unlimited power over their industry.

On March 20, 1812, the “Establishment of the Committee of Ministers” was promulgated. This document defined it as the highest administrative body. The committee consisted of 15 members: 8 ministers, 4 chairmen of departments of the State Council, the Commander-in-Chief of St. Petersburg, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Naval Staff. The Chairman of the Committee was Prince N.I. Saltykov, but the cases considered by the Committee were reported to Alexander I by A.A. Arakcheev. The Committee was entrusted with considering cases in which “general consideration and assistance are necessary.” The creation of such a body was nothing more than a complete disregard for the principle of separation of powers, subordination of the legislative power to the highest administration. Quite often, the Committee, on the initiative of one or another minister, began to consider bills, which were then approved by Alexander I. Instead of a body uniting and directing the activities of ministries, the Committee of Ministers in its activities either replaced ministries, or dealt with matters that were not characteristic of the executive branch. He could overturn the decision of the Senate and at the same time consider a minor criminal case at first instance.

It should be noted that M.M. Speransky was the first to introduce such a system of ministries, which we can see now.

Senate Reform (1811)

This reform was discussed for quite some time in the State Council, but was never implemented. M.M. Speransky considered it necessary to urgently reform since it was difficult to understand the main purpose of the Senate in the system of public administration. M.M. Speransky proposed separating government functions from judicial ones and creating two senates, calling the first Government and the second Judicial. The first, according to his proposal, was to consist of state ministers, their comrades (deputies) and should be uniform for the entire empire. The second, called the Judicial Senate, was divided into four local branches, which were located in the four main judicial districts of the empire: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan.

The Senate reform project was considered first by a committee of department chairmen of the State Council in 1811, and then at a general meeting of the council. Council members largely opposed Senate reform. All objections boiled down to the fact that changing an institution that had existed for centuries would “make a sad impression on the minds,” the division of the Senate would reduce its importance, entail great costs and create “great difficulties in finding capable people both in clerical positions and as senators themselves." Some members of the Council of State believed that the selection of some senators was contrary to the principle of autocracy and "will more likely turn into harm than benefit." Others opposed the idea that the Judicial Senate should be the highest court and his decision was final, considering that this act would reduce the importance of autocratic power. The expression “sovereign power” in relation to the Senate seemed impermissible to many, since in Russia they only know autocratic power. The most significant comments belonged to Count A.N. Saltykov and the prince A. N. Golitsyn They believed that this project, first of all, was not “in time”, they considered it untimely to introduce a new institution during the war, financial disorder and a general shortage of educated people.

M.M. Speransky compiled a summary of the comments made. He attached a note to it, in which he defended his project with various arguments, conceding to his opponents in detail. In Perm exile, M.M. Speransky explained the reasons for such a negative reaction as follows: “These objections for the most part arose from the fact that the elements of our government are still unsatisfied and the minds of the people who make it up are still unsatisfied with the inconsistencies of the present state of things in order to recognize beneficial changes as necessary. And therefore, more time was needed... so that they would finally be felt and then they themselves would wish to carry them out." M.M. Speransky believed that the opinions of the members of the State Council boil down to the opinion: "okay, but it’s not the time.” His opponents, not having strong arguments against the proposed project, spoke only about its untimeliness. The majority of ministers were also against the reform (only three spoke in favor of the presented project). Otherwise, M.M. Speransky reasoned, it could not be, since the project deprives ministers have the right to report personally to the sovereign and, based on these reports, announce the highest decrees, thereby abdicating all responsibility.Thus, the structure of the Judicial Senate was met with hostility by the entire existing composition of the Senate.

So, despite all the objections, the Senate reform project was approved by a majority vote, and Alexander I approved the decision of the State Council. However, the approved project for reorganizing the Senate was not destined to be implemented. The war with Napoleon was approaching, and the treasury was empty. The Emperor decided not to begin reforming the Senate until more favorable times. “God grant,” wrote M.M. Speransky, “that this time has come! The project can be changed, corrected or completely redone by people who are more knowledgeable than me, but I am firmly convinced that without the structure of the Senate, consistent with the structure of the ministries, without concentration and the firm connection of the affairs of the ministry will always cause more harm and concern than benefit and dignity." Thus, the Senate remained in its original form.

M.M. Speransky, being the second person in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century, submitted many proposals for the transformation of the Russian structure to the highest consideration. This activity gave him the image of a very effective reformer. But this is not so, since most of Speransky’s proposals were never tried to be implemented, and those implemented often gave meager results.

Liberal talk

Since 1802, he officially turned out to be “special, close to the sovereign” - he became the secretary of the Minister of Internal Affairs Kochubey. But Mikhail Mikhailovich was familiar with the Tsar (still the Tsarevich) before, and this allowed him to often contact Alexander 1 directly. However, in 1803 the tsar took him from Kochubey to his person, and from that moment until 1812 the rapid rise of the “artistic” tsar’s adviser began.

Speransky knew French and English enlightenment well and adopted some of their ideas. The proposals he made to the Tsar were based mainly on the more restrained ideas of the Enlightenment.

In 1803, a Decree on free cultivators was issued, fully prepared by Speransky. He allowed peasants, by agreement, to buy land from landowners. In 1809, changes were made to the procedure for assigning court ranks and mandatory examinations for the assignment of ranks above a certain level (we were talking about those levels that gave the right to nobility). Also, from 1807 until his disgrace in 1812, Speransky worked on a plan for government reforms to turn Russia into a constitutional monarchy. This plan included the introduction of the principle of separation of powers, the creation of an elected legislature and elected local governments, and the establishment of basic human rights.

But the real result of these global plans was almost no. The decree on free cultivators freed... as many as 37 thousand peasants during the entire reign of Alexander I (provided that peasants made up more than 80% of the population of the huge empire, and 55% of them were serfs!). The officials categorically did not want to take a university course and strongly opposed the exams, and they did not even try to begin the transition to a constitutional system.

Successful bureaucracy

Much greater results were achieved by Speransky’s reforms that had a narrowly practical, managerial purpose. Thus, his decision regulated the educational activities of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, and educational institution prepared a lot of valuable personnel for Russia (only classmates Pushkin and Gorchakov are worth it!). The “Charter of Theological Schools” was applied until 1917, and led to the fact that seminaries in Russia produced more revolutionaries than priests (since, unlike gymnasiums, one could study for free in them, but at the same time gain the right to enter the university). The ministerial reform of 1810 contributed to improved work central authorities management and was also used (with minor changes) until the fall of tsarism. The tax reform of 1810 and the introduction of progressive income taxation helped significantly reduce the budget deficit.

Together with Arakcheev, Speransky (after returning from disgrace) worked on the organization (that’s what liberalism is all about!), and although they did not give the desired results, they still existed for more than a dozen years.

Occupying the posts of governor of Penza and governor-general of Siberia, Speransky did a lot for the development of these regions, successfully implementing what today would be called anti-corruption efforts there. The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (starting with the Council Code of 1649) created by him in 1832 is an excellent work in the field of theoretical jurisprudence.

Excessive theorizing (reasons for the failure of Speransky’s reforms)

Why were the practical results of the activities of a person endowed with a powerful statesman mind so insignificant? Common reasons two.

1. Speransky, for all his intelligence, was a theorist with relative ideas about the real expectations and behavioral reactions of the average person. He was bad at relating correct theories to harsh reality.
2. Alexander 1 was a liberal only in words. Not a single significant reform decision was made by this tsar - with or without Speransky.

There are many less global reasons why Speransky’s constitutional plans simply could not be implemented in real Russia that time.

1. Speransky himself was confident that the country was not yet ready to implement his proposals, and for now it was necessary to deal with management reforms. How long this “for now” should last is not specified.
2. Speransky acted in a “revolutionary situation in reverse”: the elite elite were still quite capable of leading in the old way, and the backward “lower classes” simply did not want and could not take on any part of the civic responsibility.
3. Speransky tried to plan his reforms in the spirit of one movie character: “change everything without touching the basics.” He did not even think of doubting the right of the nobles to special position, but considered only in a very distant future.

But a slave cannot be a citizen in any way equal to the slave owner. Accordingly, no constitution and no elected legislative bodies with representatives of the estates could appear in feudal Russia.