Who is Count Speransky? Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky

Speransky, Mikhail Mikhailovich, later a count, a famous Russian statesman, was born on January 1, 1772 in the village of Cherkutin, Vladimir province, into a poor family of clergy. For seven years he was sent to the Vladimir seminary, and when, in 1790, the best students from provincial theological educational institutions were called to the newly founded main seminary in St. Petersburg (later the Theological Academy), Mikhail Speransky was among those sent to St. -Petersburg. His extraordinary talent soon brought him here, and, at the end of the course, he was left as a teacher of mathematics and philosophy. Soon Speransky took the place of Prince Kurakin's household secretary, whom Speransky amazed with the speed and efficiency of his work, and from here his rapid rise began. When, after the accession of Emperor Paul, Prince Kurakin was made prosecutor general of the Senate, thanks to him Speransky received the post of forwarder, or ruler of affairs in the Senate. In 1801, upon the accession of Alexander I to the throne, the dignitary Troshchinsky placed Speransky in the office of the newly established State Council with the rank of Secretary of State.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Portrait by A. Warnek, 1824

In 1803, Speransky, leaving his service in the State Council, moved to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which at that time, in view of the broad reforms proposed by the government, received primary importance. Here Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky soon became the main figure and declared himself a supporter of radical reforms. In 1806, during illness Kochubey, who was at the head of the ministry, Speransky appeared several times with reports to the emperor, and these personal relations soon became very close. Around the time of the Peace of Tilsit (1807), Emperor Alexander parted ways with the former members of his “secret committee” and brought Speransky even closer to himself, entrusting to him the mass of affairs that had previously been in his hands Novosiltseva. Speransky left the Ministry of Internal Affairs and, as Secretary of State, worked exclusively on instructions from the sovereign himself. Before going to the Erfurt Congress, Emperor Alexander appointed Speransky to the Law Commission (1808), and soon after his return he made him a colleague of the Minister of Justice in order to confirm his role in the commission. Speransky, by the way, was in the retinue of the sovereign in Erfurt, and Napoleon, who had long been the subject of Speransky’s enthusiastic worship, made a strong impression on him, as well as on Alexander I himself, with his personality and further strengthened his zealous veneration of the French administrative devices and Napoleonic Code.

Now, when Emperor Alexander began to think again about broad political reform, he could not find a better collaborator than Mikhail Speransky. Working in the commission of laws on the draft of the new Code, Speransky at the same time, on behalf of the sovereign, developed a grandiose “plan for state transformation”, which brought into a coherent system the ideas that had occupied Alexander and his employees since 1801, and had the goal of “through laws to establish the power of the government on a permanent basis and thereby impart more dignity and true strength to the action of this power.” The Emperor himself made some amendments and additions to the plan, and it was decided to gradually put it into effect. On January 1, 1810, the reformed State Council was inaugurated with a speech by the sovereign himself, edited by Speransky; it, among other things, said that “the transformation was intended to give the State Council “public forms.” This was followed by a reorganization of ministries; Next in line was the transformation of the Senate, to which even the first advisers of Emperor Alexander wanted to give the significance of only the highest judicial authority. Speransky also wanted to destroy the mixture of judicial and administrative powers in the Senate and proposed dividing it into a Senate government, one for the entire empire, consisting of ministers, their comrades and the main heads of individual departments, and the senate judicial- from senators from the crown and optionally from the nobility, located in four districts: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan and Kyiv. The projects of both institutions, despite strong opposition, were adopted by the State Council and approved by the emperor, but, due to the need for preparatory measures and significant costs, as well as due to foreign policy circumstances, they were not implemented. Finally, Speransky also developed a draft civil Code and a plan for streamlining finances.

Portrait of Speransky. Artist V. Tropinin

But of all Speransky’s assumptions, only a few individual details were realized: his general plan contained the basic laws defining the rights, duties and mutual relations of classes (here, by the way, the paths to the gradual liberation of the peasants were indicated, but without land), as well as the complete reorganization of public administration on the basis of representation and ministerial responsibility. According to Speransky’s draft, legislation is entrusted to the “State Duma,” the court to the Senate, and the administration to the ministries; the action of these three institutions is united in the State Council and through it ascends to the Throne. State Duma(legislative assembly), according to Speransky's plan, should discuss laws proposed by the government and approved by the Supreme Power. It is composed of deputies from all free classes, elected provincial dumas;the latter are composed in the same order from deputies from district councils; these, in turn, from the deputies from volost councils, composed of all land owners of the volost and deputies from state-owned peasants. These legislative bodies correspond to administrative and judicial institutions, also divided into four levels: board volost, district and provincial and at the head of them all is the ministry; courts volost, district, provincial and headed by the Senate.

The lively activity of Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was interrupted by an unexpected, although long-prepared, denouement. He made many enemies for himself in the highest court and bureaucratic spheres, with whom he had neither the desire nor the time to get close, and in which they looked at him as an upstart. Speransky’s ideas themselves, as far as they were known and put into practice, met with hostility from conservative elements of society, which found expression in Karamzin’s famous “Note on Ancient and New Russia” in 1811 and in two anonymous letters in 1812 to Emperor Alexander. Particular anger against Speransky was caused by two decrees he carried out in 1809 - on court ranks and on examinations for civil ranks: the first - the ranks of chamberlains and chamber cadets were recognized as distinctions with which no ranks were associated (previously they gave the ranks of the 4th and 5th grade according to the Table of Ranks); the second - it was ordered not to promote to the ranks of collegiate assessor and state councilor persons who had not completed a university course or had not passed the established test (the measure was aimed at attracting young people to newly opened universities, as well as raising the educational level of officials, but was, of course, extremely burdensome for the old employees and subsequently cancelled).

Childhood and youth

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born on January 1, 1772 in the village of Cherkutino, Vladimir province (now in the Sobinsky district of the Vladimir region). Father, Mikhail Vasilyevich Tretyakov (1739-1801), was a priest of the church on the estate of the Catherine nobleman Saltykov. All household concerns fell entirely on the mother, Praskovya Fedorova, the daughter of a local deacon.

Of all the children, only 2 sons and 2 daughters grew to adulthood. Mikhail was the eldest child. He was a boy of poor health, prone to thoughtfulness, and learned to read early. Mikhail spent almost all his time alone or in communication with his grandfather Vasily, who retained a wonderful memory for various everyday stories. It was from him that the future statesman received the first information about the structure of the world and man’s place in it. The boy regularly went to church with his blind grandfather and read the Apostle and Book of Hours there instead of the sexton.

Speransky subsequently never forgot about his origin and was proud of it. His biographer M.A. Korf told the story of how one evening he dropped in to see Speransky, then already a prominent official. Mikhail Mikhailovich himself made his bed on the bench: he put a sheepskin coat and a dirty pillow.

The boy was six years old when an event occurred in his life that had a huge impact on his future life: in the summer, the owner of the estate Nikolai Ivanovich and Archpriest Andrei Afanasyevich Samborsky, who was then chamberlain of the court of the heir to the throne Pavel Petrovich, came to Cherkutino, and later (from 1784) became the confessor of the Grand Dukes Alexander and Konstantin Pavlovich. Samborsky fell in love with the boy very much, he met his parents, played with him, carried him in his arms, and jokingly invited him to St. Petersburg.

Vladimir Seminary

Opala (1812-1816)

The reforms carried out by Speransky affected almost all layers of Russian society. This caused a storm of dissatisfied exclamations from the nobility and officials, whose interests were most affected. All this had a negative impact on the position of the State Councilor himself. Alexander I did not satisfy his request for resignation in February 1811, and Speransky continued his work. But the further course of affairs and time brought him more and more ill-wishers. In the latter case, Mikhail Mikhailovich was reminded of Erfurt and his meetings with Napoleon. This reproach was especially difficult in the context of strained Russian-French relations. Intrigue always plays a big role where there is a regime of personal power. Added to Alexander’s pride was an extreme fear of ridicule of himself. If anyone laughed in his presence, looking at him, Alexander immediately began to think that they were laughing at him. In the case of Speransky, opponents of reforms accomplished this task brilliantly. Having agreed among themselves, the participants in the intrigue began to regularly report to the sovereign various impudent comments coming from the lips of his Secretary of State. But Alexander did not try to listen, since there were problems in relations with France, and Speransky’s warnings about the inevitability of war, his persistent calls to prepare for it, specific and reasonable advice did not give reason to doubt his devotion to Russia. On the day of his 40th birthday, Speransky was awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky. However, the ceremony of presentation was unusually strict, and it became clear that the “star” of the reformer was beginning to fade. Speransky's ill-wishers (among whom were the Swedish Baron Gustav Armfeld, chairman of the Committee on Finnish Affairs, and A.D. Balashov, head of the Ministry of Police) became even more active. They conveyed to Alexander all the gossip and rumors about the Secretary of State. But, perhaps, these desperate denunciations ultimately would not have had a strong effect on the emperor if, in the spring of 1811, the camp of opponents of reforms had not suddenly received ideological and theoretical reinforcement. In Tver, a circle of people dissatisfied with the liberalism of the sovereign and, in particular, with the activities of Speransky, formed around Alexander’s sister Ekaterina Pavlovna. In their eyes, Speransky was a “criminal.” During the visit of Alexander I, the Grand Duchess introduced Karamzin to the sovereign, and the writer gave him “A Note on Ancient and New Russia” - a kind of manifesto of opponents of change, a generalized expression of the views of the conservative direction of Russian social thought. When asked whether it is possible to limit autocracy in any way without weakening the saving power of the tsar, he answered in the negative. Any change, “any news in the state order is an evil that should be resorted to only when necessary.” Karamzin saw salvation in the traditions and customs of Russia, its people, who do not at all need to follow the example of Western Europe. Karamzin asked: “And will the farmers be happy, freed from the power of the master, but betrayed as a sacrifice to their own vices? There is no doubt that […] the peasants are happier […] having a watchful guardian and supporter.” This argument expressed the opinion of the majority of landowners, who, according to D.P. Runich, “lost their heads only at the thought that the constitution would abolish serfdom and that the nobility would have to give way to the plebeians.” Apparently, the sovereign also heard them many times. However, the views were concentrated in one document, written vividly, vividly, convincingly, based on historical facts and by a person not close to the court, not vested with power that he would be afraid of losing. This note from Karamzin played a decisive role in his attitude towards Speransky. At the same time, the self-confidence of Speransky himself, his careless reproaches against Alexander I for inconsistency in state affairs, ultimately overflowed the cup of patience and irritated the emperor. From the diary of Baron M. A. Korf. Entry dated October 28, 1838: “Giving complete high justice to his mind, I cannot say the same about his heart. I mean here not his private life, in which he can be called a truly kind person, nor even his judgments on matters in which he was also always inclined towards goodness and philanthropy, but what I call the heart in a state or political sense - character, straightforwardness, rightness, steadfastness in the rules once chosen. Speransky had... neither character, nor political, nor even private rightness.” To many of his contemporaries, Speransky seemed exactly as he was described by his main biographer in the words just quoted.

The denouement came in March 1812, when Alexander I announced to Speransky the termination of his official duties. At 8 pm on March 17, a fateful conversation took place in the Winter Palace between the emperor and the secretary of state, the content of which historians can only speculate on. Speransky came out “almost unconscious, began putting his hat in his briefcase instead of papers and finally fell onto a chair, so Kutuzov ran for water. A few seconds later, the door from the sovereign’s office opened, and the sovereign appeared on the threshold, apparently upset: “Farewell again, Mikhail Mikhailovich,” he said and then disappeared...” On the same day, the Minister of Police Balashov was already waiting for Speransky at home with an order to leave the capital . Mikhail Mikhailovich silently listened to the emperor’s command, only looked at the door of the room where his twelve-year-old daughter was sleeping, collected some of the business papers at home for Alexander I and, having written a farewell note, left. He could not even imagine that he would return to the capital only nine years later, in March 1821.

Contemporaries would call this resignation “the fall of Speransky.” In reality, what happened was not a simple fall of a high dignitary, but the fall of a reformer with all the ensuing consequences. Going into exile, he did not know what sentence was passed on him in the Winter Palace. The attitude of the common people towards Speransky was contradictory, as M. A. Korf notes: “... in places there was quite a loud talk that the sovereign’s favorite had been slandered, and many landowner peasants even sent health prayers for him and lit candles. Having risen, they said, from rags to high ranks and positions and being mentally superior to all among the king's advisers, he became a serf..., revolting against himself all the masters who, for this, and not for any betrayal, decided to destroy him " From September 23, 1812 to September 19, 1814, Speransky served exile in the city of Perm. From September to October 1812, M. M. Speransky lived in the house of the merchant I. N. Popov. However, the accusation of treason was not written off. In 1814, Speransky was allowed to live under police supervision on his small estate Velikopolye, Novgorod province. Here he met with A. A. Arakcheev and through him petitioned Alexander I for his complete “forgiveness.” M. M. Speransky repeatedly appealed to the emperor and the minister of police with a request to clarify his position and protect him from insults. These appeals had consequences: Alexander ordered that Speransky be paid 6 thousand rubles a year from the moment of deportation. This document began with the words: “To the Privy Councilor Speransky, who is in Perm...”. In addition, the order was evidence that the emperor does not forget and appreciates Speransky.

Return to duty. (1816-1839)

Penza civil governor

On August 30 (September 11), 1816, by decree of the emperor, M. M. Speransky was returned to public service and appointed Penza civil governor. Mikhail Mikhailovich took energetic measures to establish proper order in the province and soon, according to M.A. Korf, “the entire Penza population fell in love with their governor and glorified him as a benefactor of the region.” Speransky himself, in turn, assessed this region in a letter to his daughter: “the people here, generally speaking, are kind, the climate is wonderful, the land is blessed... I will say in general: if the Lord brings you and me to live here, then we will live here more peacefully and pleasantly, than anywhere else we have ever lived before...”

Siberian Governor General

However, in March 1819, Speransky unexpectedly received a new appointment - Governor-General of Siberia. Speransky extremely quickly delved into local problems and circumstances with the help of the “glasnost” he proclaimed. Direct appeal to the highest authorities no longer “constitutes a crime.” In order to somehow improve the situation, Speransky begins to carry out reforms in the administration of the region. The “first collaborator” in carrying out the Siberian reforms was the future Decembrist G. S. Batenkov. He, together with Speransky, energetically worked on the development of the “Siberian Code” - an extensive set of reforms of the administrative apparatus of Siberia. Of particular importance among them were two projects approved by the emperor: “Institutions for the management of the Siberian provinces” and “Charter on the management of foreigners.” A special feature was the new division proposed by Speransky of the indigenous population of Siberia according to their way of life into sedentary, nomadic and wandering.

During the period of his work, Batenkov sincerely believed that Speransky, “a good and strong nobleman,” would truly transform Siberia. Subsequently, it became clear to him that Speransky was not given “any means to carry out the assigned assignment.” However, Batenkov believed that “Speransky cannot be personally blamed for failure.” At the end of January 1820, Speransky sent a brief report on his activities to Emperor Alexander, where he stated that he would be able to finish all his work by May, after which his stay in Siberia “would have no purpose.” The Emperor ordered his former Secretary of State to arrange the route from Siberia in such a way as to arrive in the capital by the end of March next year. This delay greatly affected Speransky. A feeling of the meaninglessness of his own activities began to prevail in his soul. However, Speransky did not remain in despair for long and in March 1821 he returned to the capital.

Back in the capital

He returned to St. Petersburg on March 22, the emperor was in Laibach at that time. Returning on May 26, he received the former Secretary of State only weeks later - on June 23. When Mikhail entered the office, Alexander exclaimed: “Ugh, how hot it is here,” and took him with him to the balcony, into the garden. Any passer-by was able not only to see them, but also to completely hear their conversation, but this was visible and the sovereign wanted, so as to have a reason not to be frank. Speransky realized that he had ceased to enjoy his former influence at court.

Under Nicholas I

“Emperor Nicholas I rewards Speransky for drawing up a code of laws.” Painting by A. Kivshenko

Political views and reforms

A supporter of the constitutional system, Speransky was convinced that the government must grant new rights to society. A society divided into classes, the rights and obligations of which are established by law, needs civil and criminal law, public conduct of court cases, and freedom of the press. Speransky attached great importance to the education of public opinion.

At the same time, he believed that Russia was not ready for a constitutional system, and that transformations needed to begin with the reorganization of the state apparatus.

The period 1808-1811 was the era of the highest importance and influence of Speransky, about whom it was at this time that Joseph de Maistre wrote that he was the “first and even only minister” of the empire: reform of the State Council (1810), reform of ministers (1810-1811), reform Senate (1811-1812). The young reformer, with his characteristic ardor, set about drawing up a complete plan for the new formation of public administration in all its parts: from the sovereign’s office to the volost government. Already on December 11, 1808, he read to Alexander I his note “On the improvement of general public education.” No later than October 1809, the entire plan was already on the emperor’s desk. October and November were spent in almost daily examination of its various parts, in which Alexander I made his amendments and additions.

The views of the new reformer M. M. Speransky are most fully reflected in the note of 1809 - “Introduction to the Code of State Laws.” Speransky’s “Code” opens with a serious theoretical study of “the properties and objects of state, indigenous and organic laws.” He further explained and substantiated his thoughts on the basis of legal theory or, rather, legal philosophy. The reformer attached great importance to the regulatory role of the state in the development of domestic industry and, through his political reforms, strengthened the autocracy in every possible way. Speransky writes: “If the rights of state power were unlimited, if state forces were united in sovereign power and they did not leave any rights to their subjects, then the state would be in slavery and the government would be despotic.”

According to Speransky, such slavery can take two forms. The first form not only excludes subjects from all participation in the use of state power, but also deprives them of the freedom to dispose of their own person and their property. The second, softer one, also excludes subjects from participation in government, but leaves them freedom in relation to their own personality and property. Consequently, subjects do not have political rights, but they retain civil rights. And their presence means that there is freedom to some extent in the state. But it is not sufficiently guaranteed, therefore, Speransky explains, it is necessary to protect it through the creation and strengthening of the basic law, that is, the Political Constitution.

Civil rights should be enumerated in it "in the form of the original civil consequences arising from political rights," and citizens should be given political rights with the help of which they will be able to defend their rights and their civil freedom. So, according to Speransky, civil rights and freedoms are not sufficiently ensured by laws and law. Without constitutional guarantees, they are powerless in themselves, therefore it was the requirement to strengthen the civil system that formed the basis of Speransky’s entire plan of state reforms and determined their main idea - “the government, hitherto autocratic, should be established and established by law.” The idea is that state power must be built on a permanent basis, and the government must stand on a solid constitutional and legal basis. This idea stems from the tendency to find in the fundamental laws of the state a solid foundation for civil rights and liberties. It carries the desire to ensure the connection of the civil system with basic laws and to firmly establish it, precisely based on these laws. The transformation plan assumed a change in the social structure and a change in the state order. Speransky divides society on the basis of differences in rights. “From a review of civil and political rights, it is revealed that all of them can be divided into three classes: General civil rights, for all subjects of the Nobility; People of average wealth; Working people." The entire population was presented as civilly free, and serfdom abolished, although, while establishing “civil freedom for landowner peasants,” Speransky at the same time continued to call them “serfs.” The nobles retained the right to own inhabited lands and freedom from compulsory service. The working people consisted of peasants, artisans and servants. Speransky's grandiose plans began to be implemented. Back in the spring of 1809, the emperor approved the “Regulations on the composition and management of the commission for drafting laws” developed by Speransky, where for many years (until the new reign) the main directions of its activities were determined: “The proceedings of the Commission have the following main subjects:

1. Civil Code. 2. Criminal Code. 3. Commercial Code. 4. Various parts belonging to State Economy and public law. 5. Code of provincial laws for the Baltic provinces. 6. Code of laws for the annexed Little Russian and Polish provinces.

Speransky speaks of the need to create a rule of law state, which ultimately must be a constitutional state. He explains that the security of person and property is the first inalienable property of any society, since inviolability is the essence of civil rights and freedoms, which have two types: personal freedoms and material freedoms. Contents of personal freedoms:

1. No one can be punished without trial; 2. No one is obliged to provide personal service except by law. Contents of material freedoms: 1. Anyone can dispose of their property at will, in accordance with the general law; 2. No one is obliged to pay taxes and duties except by law, and not by arbitrariness. Thus, we see that Speransky everywhere perceives the law as a method of protecting security and freedom. However, he sees that guarantees are also needed against the arbitrariness of the legislator. The reformer approaches the requirement of constitutional legal limitation of power so that it takes into account existing law. This would give her more stability.

Speransky considers it necessary to have a system of separation of powers. Here he fully accepts the ideas that were then dominant in Western Europe, and writes in his work that: “It is impossible to base government on the law if one sovereign power draws up the law and executes it.” Therefore, Speransky sees a reasonable structure of state power in its division into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial while maintaining the autocratic form. Since the discussion of bills involves the participation of a large number of people, it is necessary to create special bodies representing the legislative branch - the Duma.

Speransky proposes to attract the population (personally free, including state peasants, subject to property qualifications) to direct participation in legislative, executive and judicial power on the basis of a system of four-stage elections (volost - district - provincial - State Duma). If this plan had been realized in reality, the fate of Russia would have turned out differently; alas, history does not know the subjunctive mood. The right to elect them cannot belong equally to everyone. Speransky stipulates that the more property a person has, the more interested he is in protecting property rights. And those who have neither real estate nor capital are excluded from the election process. Thus, we see that the democratic principle of general and secret elections is alien to Speransky, and in contrast to this, he puts forward and attaches greater importance to the liberal principle of division of power. At the same time, Speransky recommends broad decentralization, that is, along with the central State Duma, local dumas should also be created: volost, district and provincial. The Duma is called upon to resolve issues of a local nature. Without the consent of the State Duma, the autocrat did not have the right to issue laws, except in cases when it came to saving the fatherland. However, as a counterbalance, the emperor could always dissolve the deputies and call new elections. Consequently, the State Duma, by its existence, was supposed to give only an idea of ​​the needs of the people and exercise control over the executive power. The executive power is represented by boards, and at the highest level by ministries, which were formed by the emperor himself. Moreover, ministers had to be responsible to the State Duma, which was given the right to ask for the repeal of illegal acts. This is the fundamentally new approach of Speransky, expressed in the desire to put officials, both in the center and locally, under the control of public opinion. The judicial branch of government was represented by regional, district and provincial courts, consisting of elected judges and acting with the participation of juries. The highest court was the Senate, whose members were elected for life by the State Duma and approved personally by the emperor.

The unity of state power, according to Speransky’s project, would be embodied only in the personality of the monarch. This decentralization of legislation, court and administration was supposed to give the central government itself the opportunity to solve with due attention those most important state affairs that would be concentrated in its bodies and which would not be obscured by the mass of current small matters of local interest. This idea of ​​decentralization was all the more remarkable because it was not at all on the agenda of Western European political thinkers, who were more engaged in developing questions about central government.

The monarch remained the only representative of all branches of government, heading them. Therefore, Speransky believed that it was necessary to create an institution that would take care of planned cooperation between individual authorities and would be, as it were, a concrete expression of the fundamental embodiment of state unity in the personality of the monarch. According to his plan, the State Council was to become such an institution. At the same time, this body was supposed to act as a guardian of the implementation of legislation.

On January 1, 1810, a manifesto was announced on the creation of the State Council, replacing the Permanent Council. M. M. Speransky received the position of Secretary of State in this body. He was in charge of all the documentation passing through the State Council. Speransky initially envisaged in his reform plan the State Council as an institution that should not be particularly involved in the preparation and development of bills. But since the creation of the State Council was considered as the first stage of reforms and it was he who was supposed to establish plans for further reforms, at first this body was given broad powers. From now on, all bills had to pass through the State Council. The general meeting was composed of members of four departments: 1) legislative, 2) military affairs (until 1854), 3) civil and spiritual affairs, 4) state economics; and from ministers. The sovereign himself presided over it. At the same time, it is stipulated that the tsar 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 Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1751_1826). The Secretary of State (new position) became the head of the State Chancellery.

Speransky not only developed, but also laid down a certain system of checks and balances in the activities of the highest state bodies under the supremacy of the emperor’s power. He argued that on the basis of this the very direction of reform is set. So, Speransky considered Russia to be mature enough to begin reforms and obtain a constitution that would provide not only civil but also political freedom. In a memo to Alexander I, he hopes that “if God blesses all undertakings, then by 1811... Russia will take on a new existence and be completely transformed in all parts.” Speransky argues that there are no examples in history of an enlightened commercial people remaining in a state of slavery for a long time and that upheavals cannot be avoided if the state structure does not correspond to the spirit of the times. Therefore, heads of state must carefully monitor the development of public spirit and adapt political systems to it. From this, Speransky concluded that it would be a great advantage for a constitution to emerge in Russia thanks to the “beneficent inspiration of the supreme power.” But the supreme power in the person of the emperor did not share all points of Speransky’s program. Alexander I was quite satisfied with only partial transformations of feudal Russia, flavored with liberal promises and abstract discussions about law and freedom. Alexander I was ready to accept all this. But at the same time, he also experienced strong pressure from the court environment, including members of his family, who sought to prevent radical changes in Russia.

Also one of the ideas was to improve the “bureaucratic army” for future reforms. On April 3, 1809, a decree on court ranks was issued. He changed the procedure for obtaining titles and certain privileges. From now on, these ranks were to be considered as simple insignia. Only those who performed public service received privileges. The decree reforming the procedure for obtaining court ranks was signed by the emperor, but it was no secret to anyone who its actual author was. For many decades, the offspring of the most noble families (literally from the cradle) received the court ranks of chamber cadet (accordingly, 5th class), and after some time - chamberlain (4th class). When they entered civil or military service upon reaching a certain age, they, having never served anywhere, automatically occupied the “highest places.” By Speransky's decree, chamber cadets and chamberlains not in active service were ordered to find a type of activity within two months (otherwise - resignation).

The second measure was a decree published on August 6, 1809 on new rules for promotion to civil service ranks, secretly prepared by Speransky. The note to the sovereign, under a very unassuming title, contained a revolutionary plan for a radical change in the procedure for promotion to ranks, establishing a direct connection between obtaining a rank and the educational qualifications. This was a bold attempt on the system of rank production, which had been in force since the era of Peter I. One can only imagine how many ill-wishers and enemies Mikhail Mikhailovich acquired thanks to this one decree. Speransky protests against the monstrous injustice when a graduate of the law faculty receives ranks later than a colleague who has never really studied anywhere. From now on, the rank of collegiate assessor, which previously could be obtained based on length of service, was given only to those officials who had a certificate of successful completion of a course of study at one of the Russian universities or who had passed exams under a special program. At the end of the note, Speransky directly speaks about the harmfulness of the existing system of ranks according to Peter’s “Table of Ranks,” proposing either to abolish them or to regulate the receipt of ranks, starting from the 6th grade, by having a university diploma. This 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 onwards, officials had great privileges and high salaries. It’s easy to guess that there were many people who wanted to get it, and most of the applicants, usually middle-aged ones, were simply not able to pass the exams. Hatred towards the new reformer began to increase. The emperor, having protected his faithful comrade with his aegis, raised him up the career ladder.

Elements of market relations in the Russian economy were also covered in the projects of M. M. Speransky. He shared the ideas of economist Adam Smith. Speransky linked the future of economic development with the development of commerce, the transformation of the financial system and monetary circulation. In the first months of 1810, a discussion took place on the problem of regulating public finances. Speransky drew up the “Financial Plan,” which formed the basis of the Tsar’s manifesto of February 2. The main goal of this document was to eliminate the budget deficit. According to its contents, the issue of paper money was stopped, the volume of financial resources was reduced, and the financial activities of ministers were brought under control. In order to replenish the state treasury, the per capita tax was increased from 1 ruble to 3, and a new, unprecedented tax was also introduced - “progressive income tax”. These measures gave a positive result and, as Speransky himself later noted, “by changing the financial system... we saved the state from bankruptcy.” The budget deficit has decreased, and treasury revenues have increased by 175 million rubles over two years.

In the summer of 1810, on the initiative of Speransky, the reorganization of ministries began, which was completed by June 1811. During this time, the Ministry of Commerce was liquidated, matters of internal security were separated, for which a special Ministry of Police was formed. The ministries themselves were divided into departments (headed by a director), and departments into branches. A council of ministers was formed from the highest officials of the ministry, and a committee of ministers from all ministers to discuss matters of an administrative and executive nature.

Clouds begin to gather over the reformer's head. Speransky, despite the instinct of self-preservation, continues to work selflessly. In a report presented to the emperor on February 11, 1811, Speransky reports: “/…/ the following main items have been completed: I. The State Council has been established. II. Two parts of the civil code have been completed. III. A new division of ministries was made, a general charter was drawn up for them, and draft charters for private ones were drawn up. IV. A permanent system for the payment of public debts was drawn up and adopted: 1) termination of the issue of banknotes; 2) sale of property; 3) establishing a repayment commission. V. A coin system has been compiled. VI. A commercial code for 1811 was drawn up.

Never, perhaps, have so many general state regulations been made in Russia in one year as in the past. /…/ From this it follows that in order to successfully complete the plan that Your Majesty deigns to delineate for yourself, it is necessary to strengthen the methods of its implementation. /…/ the following items in terms of this seem absolutely necessary: ​​I. Complete the civil code. II. Draw up two very necessary codes: 1) judicial, 2) criminal. III. Complete the structure of the judicial senate. IV. Draw up a structure for the governing Senate. V. Administration of provinces in judicial and executive order. VI. Consider and strengthen ways to pay off debts. VII. To establish state annual revenues: 1) By introducing a new census of people. 2) Formation of land tax. 3) A new device for wine income. 4) The best way to generate income from government property. /…/ It can be said with certainty that /…/ by completing them /…/ the empire will be placed in a position so solid and reliable that Your Majesty’s century will always be called a blessed century.” Alas, the grandiose plans for the future outlined in the second part of the report remained unfulfilled (primarily Senate reform).

By the beginning of 1811, Speransky proposed a new project for transforming the Senate. The essence of the project was significantly different from the original one. It was supposed to divide the Senate into government and judicial. The composition of the latter provided for the appointment of its members as follows: one part was from the crown, the other was chosen by the nobility. Due to various internal and external reasons, the Senate remained in its previous state, and Speransky himself ultimately came to the conclusion that the project should be postponed. Let us also note that in 1810, according to Speransky’s plan, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum was established.

This was, in general terms, the political reform. Serfdom, the court, administration, legislation - everything found a place and resolution in this grandiose work, which remained a monument to political talents far beyond the level of even highly talented people. Some blame Speransky for paying little attention to peasant reform. In Speransky we read: “The relationships in which both of these classes (peasants and landowners) are placed finally 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 should also be subordinate to the crown... The throne is always serfdom as the only counterbalance to the property of their masters,” that is, serfdom was incompatible with political freedom. “Thus, Russia, divided into various classes, exhausts its strength in the struggle that these classes wage among themselves, and leaves the government with the entire volume of unlimited power. A state structured in this way - that is, on the division of hostile classes - even if it has one or another external structure - these and other letters to the nobility, letters to cities, two senates and the same number of parliaments - is a despotic state, and as long as it remains consist of the same elements (warring classes), it will be impossible for it to be a monarchical state.” The awareness of the need, in the interests of the political reform itself, to abolish serfdom, as well as the awareness of the need for the redistribution of power to correspond to the redistribution of political power, is clear from the reasoning.

Code of Laws

Emperor Nicholas I first decided to create a strong legislative system. The architect of this system was Speransky. It was his experience and talent that the new emperor wanted to use, entrusting him with the compilation of the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire”. Speransky headed the 2nd department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. Under the leadership of Mikhail Mikhailovich, by 1830, the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” was compiled in 45 volumes, which included laws starting from the “Code” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1649) until the end of the reign of Alexander I. Back in 1832, the 15-volume “Code of Laws” was produced. As a reward for this, Speransky received the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. At a special meeting of the State Council in January 1833, dedicated to the publication of the first edition of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, Emperor Nicholas I, taking off the St. Andrew's Star, put it on Speransky.

Popova Katya. Usinsk, Komi River (9th grade)

One of the most famous statesmen of Russia of the 19th century was Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839). Speransky was born into the family of a priest in the village of Cherkutino, Vladimir province. From the age of seven he studied at the Vladimir Seminary, and from 1790 - at the newly opened main seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg. His extraordinary abilities pushed him out of the circle of students, and at the end of the course he was left as a teacher of mathematics, physics, eloquence and philosophy. Having independently studied political and philosophical literature in German, French and English, he acquired very broad knowledge and became acquainted with the views of Voltaire and the French encyclopedists. Later he became the home secretary of Prince A.B. Kurakin, a famous diplomat and statesman.

In 1797, he entered service in the office of Kurakin, who took the place of prosecutor general upon Paul's accession to the throne. During the accession of Alexander, Speransky received the title of Secretary of State and in 1802 he joined the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Here he soon attracted attention, and the next year Minister V. Kochubey instructed him to draw up a plan for judicial and government places in the empire.

In 1806, Speransky made a personal acquaintance with Alexander - during his illness, Kochubey began to send him with a report to the sovereign, the latter appreciated the outstanding ability of the official and brought him closer to himself; he was unlike both Catherine’s nobles and his young friends. Alexander showed interest in this man, which in itself was already a phenomenon. In 1808, he included him in his retinue during his meeting with Napoleon. Having become the main adviser to the emperor, Speransky was given the task of preparing a general project for government reforms in Russia.

“Introduction to the Code of State Laws” was prepared by Speransky by the end of 1809. In it, the author warned the government that the existing social structure was “no longer characteristic of the state of the public spirit.” In order to prevent the revolution, he proposed that Alexander I give the country a constitution, which would only have to “clothe autocratic rule with all, so to speak, external forms of law, leaving in essence the same power and the same space of autocracy.” These external forms, according to Speransky , there must be: elementary legality, election of some officials and their responsibility, new bourgeois principles of the organization of court and control, separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers with the admission of elected representatives from the people to legislative activities, i.e. expansion of political rights of the “middle class”.

According to the project, the head of the state should be a monarch vested with full power. It must have a State Council, which is an advisory body of dignitaries appointed by the monarch.

All major government events are discussed in the council; through him, all matters from lower authorities are received by the sovereign, and in this way the unity of all government activities is achieved.

In addition, there must be elected State and local dumas. The volost duma is composed of all those who have the right to vote and the elders of the state peasants (one per 500 people). It decides all local issues and elects deputies to the district duma for three years. The latter deals with the affairs of its district and elects deputies to the provincial Duma. Deputies to the State Duma - the highest representative body - are elected by the provincial duma from among its members. The State Duma discusses bills proposed to it from above, which are then submitted to the State Council and for approval by the sovereign.

Speransky proposed the principle of election when creating the judiciary. In his opinion, volost, district and provincial courts should be elected. However, the highest judicial authority - the judicial Senate (which at the same time remained an administrative institution) must be appointed by the sovereign for life from among the representatives elected in the provincial dumas.

Speransky's electoral system was based not on the class (feudal) principle, but on the property qualification (ownership of movable and immovable property), which indicated the persistence of inequality between classes. The entire population of Russia was divided into the following three categories: the nobility, which had all civil and political rights; people of “middle status” (merchants, townspeople, state peasants), who had only civil rights - property, freedom of occupation and movement, the right to speak on their own behalf in court, and “working people” - landowner peasants, servants, workers and households, having no rights. Only representatives of the first two categories could enjoy the right to vote. Thus, only two classes received basic political rights.

For the third estate - the “working people” - the reformer’s project provided some civil rights while maintaining the serfdom. Speransky believed that serfdom would be abolished gradually, through the development of industry, trade and education, since “there is no example in history that an enlightened and commercial people could remain in slavery for a long time.” While preserving the existence of classes, Speransky's project weakened class barriers, providing for a wider possibility of transition from the “middle state” to the nobility through seniority, and from the “working people” to the “middle state” through the acquisition of property. Objectively, the reformer’s plans were aimed at some limitation of autocracy by expanding the rights of the nobles and bourgeoisie, at a more rapid evolution of the absolute monarchy towards the bourgeois monarchy. At the same time, the plan was abstract, “but neither the sovereign nor the minister could in any way adapt it to the level of the actual needs and available resources of Russia,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky. Speransky overestimated the possibilities of autocracy and underestimated the dominant power of the nobility, which could not voluntarily limit its power. Therefore, radical social reforms could not be implemented in the conditions of feudal Russia.

Alexander I himself was quite satisfied with only partial transformations of feudal Russia, flavored with liberal promises and abstract discussions about law and freedom. A. Czartoryski, who knew him well, wrote: “The Emperor loved external forms of freedom, just as people are carried away by spectacles. He liked and boasted of the specter of free government; but he sought only forms and appearance, not allowing them to turn into reality; in a word, he would willingly grant freedom to the whole world on the condition that everyone voluntarily submits exclusively to his will.”

Two particular measures, which had an internal connection with the reforms being prepared, indicated what kind of people were required for the new government institutions. The decree of April 3, 1809 on court ranks determined that ranks are not a distinction and do not give the right to a rank. Courtiers were deprived of their rank if they were not in public service. Another decree, dated August 6, established the rules for promotion to civil service ranks. Now, in order to obtain the appropriate rank, it was necessary to go through the entire hierarchy of service: an official, starting from class VIII and above, needed a university diploma; in the absence of the latter, he had to pass an exam according to the program attached to the decree. Both decrees caused discontent and commotion in court society and among officials, as they were prepared secretly and were issued completely unexpectedly.

Essential parts of Speransky's reform plan related to central administration and gave it a more harmonious appearance.

On January 1, 1810, the manifesto of Alexander I was announced on the abolition of the Permanent Council and the establishment of the State Council. The latter included 35 senior dignitaries appointed by the sovereign. The State Council had to discuss all the details of the state structure, as far as they required new laws, and submit their considerations to the discretion of the emperor.

Being very close to the sovereign, Speransky concentrated in his hands all the current affairs of government: he dealt with finances, which were in great disarray, and diplomatic affairs, to which the sovereign himself initiated him, and the organization of Finland, then conquered by Russian troops. In 1811 On Speransky's initiative, the ministries were reorganized. The Ministry of Commerce was abolished, the affairs of which were distributed between the Ministries of Finance and Internal Affairs. The Ministry of Police was formed to deal with internal security matters. New special departments were established - state control, spiritual affairs of foreign faiths and communications - began to exist with the significance of ministries. The composition and office work of the latter, the limits of the power of ministers, and their responsibilities were determined.

This is where the reforms ended. The State Council itself became an opponent of further reforms. The Senate reform was never implemented, although it was discussed for quite some time. It was based on the separation of administrative and judicial cases. It was proposed to divide the Senate into a government one, consisting of ministers, and a judicial one. The composition of the latter provided for the appointment of its members as follows: one part was from the crown, the other was chosen by the nobility. Members of the State Council saw the right to elect members of the Senate by the nobility as a limitation of autocratic power. They did not even bother to transform the provincial government.

The most important event of that time was the financial reform carried out by Speransky through the State Council, which never became a sufficiently authoritative body, as the reformer had hoped.

As a result of a series of wars, Russia's finances were in a very disorganized state. The state budget deficit reached a huge figure. Back in 1809 Speransky was tasked with developing a plan to improve the country's financial situation. At his suggestion, the government stopped issuing new banknotes, sharply reduced government spending, sold part of state-owned estates into private hands, and finally introduced new taxes that affected all segments of the population. the implementation of these activities has yielded positive results. So, in 1812 government revenues increased from 125 million to 300 million rubles. But at the same time, these measures, and above all general taxes, caused discontent among the population. At the same time, general irritation was directed against Speransky. In noble circles he was contemptuously called “the malicious priest.”

Speransky already in 1811 began to understand the impracticability of his far-reaching plans.

In October, he even asked the emperor to release him from all matters and give him the opportunity to continue working on a code of laws. But Alexander I refused him this. However, Speransky's fall was not only inevitable, but also close.

Active opponents of Speransky, who openly opposed his reforms and expressed the views of the most reactionary noble circles, were the well-known writer and historian N.M. Karamzin and the sister of Alexander I, Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna. The fourth daughter of Paul I and Maria Fedorovna, Ekaterina Pavlovna, showed a keen interest in public life. In 1809 she married Prince Georg of Oldenburg and lived with him in Tver. Here a close circle of a decidedly conservative trend formed around her. Karamzin was a welcome guest.

The Grand Duchess considered the constitution

“complete nonsense”, and autocracy is useful not only for Russia, but also for Western European states. In her eyes, Speransky was a “criminal” who had mastered the will of a weak-willed monarch. It can be assumed that, in addition to ideological antagonism, the princess’s hostility to the reformer was also explained by her personal dislike for the man who shielded her from the emperor and more than once stood in her way. Speransky, in particular, had the courage to oppose Karamzin’s candidacy for the post of Minister of Public Education, nominated by Ekaterina Pavlovna after Zavadovsky’s death. He also refused to support the Swedish political party that expected the Grand Duchess's husband, the Prince of Oldenburg, to take the Swedish throne.

N.M. Karamzin tried to play an active role at the court of Alexander I. On March 15, 1811, the emperor visited his beloved sister in Tver. The latter handed him a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations.” In it, the writer sharply criticized all the activities carried out by the government, considering them untimely and contrary to the “spirit of the people” and historical tradition. While advocating enlightenment, he at the same time defended autocracy, proving that Russia “was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by a wise autocracy.” He argued that giving freedom to the peasants meant harming the state: “It seems to me that for the strength of the state’s existence it is safer to enslave people than to give them freedom at the wrong time.”

Karamzin’s general idea was that the country does not need reforms, but “patriarchal power.” In his opinion, “things will go as they should in Russia if you find 50 smart, conscientious people in Russia” who will zealously guard the “good entrusted to each of them” of the Russians. The historian-publicist called, contrary to Speransky, to be “more careful in new state creations, trying most of all to establish existing ones and thinking more about people than about forms.”

The attacks and numerous denunciations against Speransky, as well as the dissatisfaction of the conservative part of the nobles with the latest transformations, had their effect on the weak-willed and indecisive Alexander. On the eve of the war, he decided to put an end to all kinds of reforms and remove their main director from the government scene. If at the beginning of their joint journey to reorganize the country, Alexander respected and trusted Speransky, was interested in the reformer’s plans and even imbued with them, “at the time of this insight they created their constitution,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky, then later “they got the same subject for this unusual and backbreaking work assigned to the mind and heart of his sovereign! At the first mistake, as soon as the opportunity presented itself to pull him down from his painful heights and place him on the level of a subject, with what smug and vindictive generosity he read his royal lesson to Speransky and, tenderly bidding him farewell, ordered his enemy, the Minister of Police Balashov, to exile him as guilty official in Nizhny. After that, Alexander no longer respected anyone, but only continued to be afraid, hated and despised.”

1812, when Napoleon's army was approaching Moscow, he was sent to Perm under stricter supervision. In January 1813 Speransky sent Alexander a letter of justification to Moscow from Perm, to which the emperor did not want, and perhaps could not, respond. Only in the autumn of 1814. The disgraced minister was allowed to live on his daughter’s estate in Velikopolye, near Nizhny Novgorod.

By decree of Alexander I of August 30, 1816. Speransky was completely acquitted, after which he was appointed governor of Penza. Later, from 1819 to 1822, he was Governor-General of Siberia.

The new Siberian governor-general decided to conduct an audit of Siberia. Speransky's audit revealed blatant abuses, arbitrariness of local authorities and complete lack of rights of the population. In order to somehow improve the situation, he decided to carry out reforms in Siberia.

The “first collaborator” in carrying out the Siberian reforms was the future Decembrist S.G. Batenkov. He energetically worked on the development of the “Siberian Code” - an extensive set of reforms of the administrative apparatus of Siberia, which determined government policy towards the indigenous Siberian peoples. Most of the projects were written (statutes on exiles, stages, etc.). Particularly important was the creation of the “Charter on the Management of Foreigners,” which was in force until the beginning of the 20th century.

During the period of work on the Siberian Code,” Batenkov sincerely believed that Speransky, “a kind nobleman, strong, and strong only for good,” would truly transform Siberia. Subsequently, it became clear to him that Speransky was not given “any means to fulfill the assigned assignment” and the results of his activities in Siberia did not meet his hopes. However, Batenkov believed that “Speransky cannot be personally blamed for failure.” He wrote about the latter: “The memory of him was preserved throughout Siberia, despite the change of persons, statutes and deeds, for many monuments and the outline of the institution survived among all this. His personality was not easily erased from memory, and many families remembered him kindly.”

In 1812 Speransky returned to St. Petersburg and was received by Alexander I. The history of the rise, state activity and exile of this man in the context of the intensification of the political life of Russia consisted of a series of events that awakened thought and forced one to reflect on the real reasons for what was happening.

The Decembrists were well aware of Speransky’s unspoken political projects: “Introduction to the Code of State Laws”, “Excerpt on the Commission of the Code”, “On the Form of Government”, etc. Therefore, when the idea of ​​​​creating a provisional revolutionary government arose, M.M. was named the first candidate for it. .Speransky. “A comparative analysis of Speransky’s projects and the Decembrist program on the peasant question shows that, reflecting on the need to eliminate serfdom, the ideology of Decembrism and Speransky proceeded from the general principles of the advanced philosophy of their time - the creation of a natural human right to freedom... However, in the area of ​​specific proposals, clearly a sharp demarcation emerged between the programmatic attitudes of the noble revolutionaries and Speransky.”

Speransky secretly supported the Decembrists, or rather, played a “subtle game,” and after the defeat of the uprising his fate hung in the balance. The Tsar found an opportunity to “punish” Speransky for his connections with the Decembrists and appointed him in 1826. member of the Supreme Criminal Court, which was a “great personal tragedy” for Speransky. The daughter often saw her father “in torment and with tears in his eyes.”

Speransky’s active participation in the trial of the Decembrists did not completely “redeem” his guilt in the eyes of Nicholas I. Until the last years of Speransky’s life, the tsar, despite external signs of attention (his own awarding of the St. Andrew’s Star in 1833 in connection with the completion of work on a code of laws, the granting of the count’s title, appointment as a teacher to the heir to the throne, etc.), did not forget about the direction of his activities until 1812. and about his undisclosed connections with members of secret societies.

Pushkin in 1834 said to Speransky: “You and Arakcheev, you stand at the opposite door of this reign (under Alexander I), as geniuses of Evil and Good.”

M.M. Speransky died in February 1839. at the age of 67 years.

“Speransky is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable people in Russia. The great merit belongs to him that he wanted to give his country a constitution, free people, free peasants, a complete system of elected institutions and courts, a magistrate’s court, a code of laws, orderly finances, thus anticipating for more than half a century the great reforms of Alexander II and dreaming for Russia about the successes that it could not achieve for a long time.”

There is a great deal of truth in this assessment of Speransky. Indeed, the full implementation of his projects would undoubtedly accelerate Russia's evolution towards a landowner-bourgeois monarchy. The collapse of feudal-serf relations and the foreign policy situation after the Tilsit Peace Treaty forced the nobility to a certain extent to put up with Speransky.

Biography, life story of Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky

Childhood and early years

Mikhail Mikhailovich was born in the Vladimir province in the village of Cherkutino on January 12, 1772. His father, Mikhail Vasilyevich Tretyakov, was a clergyman on the estate of the Catherine nobleman Saltykov. Mother - Praskovya Fedorovna - was a housewife. Mikhail was the eldest child in the family. He had health problems from early childhood, but this did not stop him from learning to read long before his peers did. Speransky was a quiet and thoughtful child, with almost no contact with anyone except his grandfather Vasily. He loved to tell his grandson interesting stories from his life. It was thanks to these stories that Mikhail Speransky received his first knowledge about the structure of the world, about the purpose of man.

At the age of six, Mikhail experienced an event that had a very great influence on his future life. The fact is that the owner of the estate, Nikolai Ivanovich, and Archpriest Andrey Afanasyevich Sambirsky came to his native village of Cherkutino. Samborsky really liked the smart boy, he often played with him, talked, and invited him to St. Petersburg.

In 1780, Mikhail was accepted into the Vladimir Diocesan Seminary. He was recorded under the name Speransky, which translated means “promising.” During his studies, Speransky discovered many talents and positive qualities - interest in reading, independence, philanthropy, modesty. In 1787, Mikhail became a “student of philosophy” and had the opportunity to become a servant of the rector of the seminary, Evgeniy Romanov. At the same time, Speransky visited Moscow, where he met with Samborsky. A year later, Speransky turned to him with a request to help him enter Moscow University. How Andrei Afanasyevich reacted is unknown to historians.

CONTINUED BELOW

In 1797, Mikhail Speransky entered the public service. In the process, he drew up several projects for positive changes. In 1807, Speransky became Alexander the First's secretary of state, and a year later he became a member of the Law Drafting Commission. In 1809, Mikhail Mikhailovich wrote a plan for government reforms, providing for the creation of a constitutional monarchy and the step-by-step abolition of serfdom. Of course, not all of Speransky’s ideas came true.

By 1810, Mikhail took over the post of Secretary of State of the State Council. A couple of years later, he was accused of secret connections with, because of which Speransky was forced to go to Nizhny Novgorod, and a little later to Perm. In 1816, Mikhail became civil governor (Penza), and in 1819 - governor general (Siberia).

Speransky returned to St. Petersburg in 1821. There he was appointed a member of the State Council and manager of the Law Drafting Commission. Five years after his return, Mikhail Mikhailovich became a member of the Supreme Criminal Court over the Decembrists, and also took a leading position in the management of the second department of the Emperor's office. From 1830 to 1832, Speransky created the Complete Collection of Laws and the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. In 1839, Mikhail Speransky was given the title of count. In the same year, on February 23, Mikhail Mikhailovich died.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772-1839) - Russian political and public figure, author of numerous works on law and jurisprudence, author of major bills and reforms.

Speransky lived and worked during the reigns of Alexander 1st and Nicholas 1st, was an active member of the Academy of Sciences, was engaged in social activities and reforming the legal system of the Russian Empire. Under Nicholas I, he was the tutor of the heir to the throne, Alexander Nikolaevich. Speransky wrote many theoretical works on jurisprudence and is considered one of the founders of modern law. In addition, he drafted a constitution.

Brief biography of Speransky

Born in the Vladimir province in the family of a church clergyman. From early childhood he learned to read and write and read sacred books. In 1780, Speransky entered the Vladimir Seminary, where, thanks to his sharp mind and unusually strong abilities for analytical thinking, he soon became the best student. After graduating from the seminary, Speransky continued his education there, but as a student. For his academic success, he received the opportunity to transfer to the Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg, after which he remained to teach there.

Speransky's teaching activity at the seminary did not last long. In 1795, he received an offer to become the secretary of Prince Kurakin. This is how Speransky’s political career began.

Speransky quickly moved up the career ladder. In 1801, he became a full state councilor, which allowed him to more actively participate in the socio-political life of the country. In 1806, Speransky met Emperor Alexander 1st and impressed him so much with his talents and intelligence that he received an offer to develop a project of reforms that could improve the condition of the country. In 1810, Speransky became Secretary of State (the second person in the country after the sovereign), and his active reform activities began.

The reforms proposed by Speransky affected the interests of too many sectors of society and were so extensive that the nobility feared them. As a result, in 1812 Speransky fell into disgrace and remained in such a pitiful position until 1816.

In 1819, he unexpectedly received the post of Governor-General of Siberia, and already in 1821 he returned to St. Petersburg.

The emperor died, and his brother ascended the throne. Speransky met Nikolai and also charmed him with his intelligence, which allowed him to regain his former political influence and respect. At this time, Speransky received the position of tutor to the heir to the throne. The Higher School of Law opened, in which he actively worked.

Speransky died in 1839 from a cold.

Speransky's political reforms

Speransky became widely known thanks to his numerous reforms, which were comprehensive in nature. Speransky was not a supporter of the monarchical system, he believed that the state should give all citizens the same rights, and power should be divided, but at the same time he was sure that Russia was not yet ready for such radical changes, so he proposed, as it seemed to him , a more suitable option. By order of Alexander 1st, Speransky developed a reform program that was supposed to help Russia get out of the crisis.

Speransky proposed the following ideas:

• citizens, regardless of class, receive equal civil rights;
• a significant reduction in all expenses for the activities of government bodies and officials, as well as the establishment of strict control over the budget;
• division of power into legislative, executive and judicial, restructuring of the system of ministries and changing their functions;
• the creation of more modern judicial bodies, as well as the writing of new legislation that would take into account the needs of the new system of governance;
• extensive transformations in the domestic economy, the introduction of taxes.

The main idea of ​​Speransky's reforms was to create a democratic model of governance headed by a monarch, who, however, would not have power individually, and society would be equalized before the law. According to the project, Russia was supposed to become a full-fledged legal state.

Speransky's reforms were not accepted by the nobility, who were afraid of losing their privileges. The project was not fully completed; only some of its points were implemented.

Results of Speransky’s activities

Results of Speransky’s activities:

• significant growth in foreign trade by increasing the economic attractiveness of Russia in the eyes of foreign investors;
• modernization of the state management system; reforming the army of officials and reducing the cost of their maintenance;
• the emergence of a powerful economic infrastructure that allowed the economy to self-regulate and develop faster;
• creation of a modern legal system; Speransky became the author and compiler of the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire”;
• creation of a theoretical basis for modern legislation and law.