The political views of Mikhail Speransky were outlined by him in 1809 in an extensive note, which occupies the volume of the book, "Introduction to the Code of State Laws", where he presented a program of broad reforms.

Developing reform projects in Russia, Speransky turned to the political experience of European states, which showed that Europe was characterized by a transition from feudal to republican rule. Russia, according to Speransky, followed the same path as Western Europe.

At the head of the reform was put a strict division of power into legislative, administrative and judicial, as well as the division of powers into local and central. The vertical and horizontal division of the entire state political mechanism created a consistent system, starting in the volost institutions and ending with the highest government institutions of the empire. The lowest unit of government and self-government was the volost. The volost administration was divided into legislative, judicial and administrative bodies, as well as county, provincial and state administrations.

According to Speransky, the central state administration consisted of three independent institutions: the State Duma (legislative power), the Senate (judicial power) and ministries (administrative power). The activities of these three institutions were united in the Council of State and through it ascended to the throne.

The highest judicial institution of the empire was the Senate, which was divided into criminal and civil departments and was located in St. Petersburg and Moscow (two departments each). In the later edition, even four locations were assumed - St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan. Senators were supposed to hold their positions for life, the sessions of the Senate were planned to be public. All court cases must be subject to revision by the senate.

In 1809 Speransky judicial reform V in general terms outlined what was partially implemented in the Russian Empire in the judicial charters of 1864 - the separation of the world mediation proceedings (volost judges) from the general formal one, three judicial instances of the general judicial system; jury for the first instance and part for the magistrate's court; independence of the judiciary (either elected or for life); publicity.

According to Speransky, the judicial hierarchy was supplemented by the Supreme Criminal Court, which was attached to the Senate and convened to judge state crimes, as well as crimes committed by ministers, members of the State Council, senators, and governors-general. The Supreme Criminal Court was composed of members of the State Council, the State Duma and the Senate.

The State Council, according to the reforms of Speransky, limited the decisions of the emperor. The emperor could not approve the opinions and decisions of the council, but their very wording "having heeded the opinion of the State Council" showed that replacing these opinions and decisions would be inconsistent with the situation.

The State Council was given wide powers - consideration and approval of general internal measures (by executive order), control over foreign policy, state budgets and reports of all ministries, emergency powers. Members of the Council of State could attend the Supreme Criminal Court. The most important positions in the administrative and judicial hierarchy, if they are not elected, were replaced by ministers with the approval of the Council of State.

The proposals set forth by Mikhail Speransky looked very radical for that time, they reflected Masonic ideas (Speransky, like many prominent personalities of the Russian Empire, was a member of the Masonic lodge).

At the beginning of 1810, the State Council was established, where Mikhail Speransky became Secretary of State. The council, as suggested by Speransky, was divided into four departments: 1) laws, 2) military affairs, 3) civil and spiritual affairs, and 4) state economy. Each department was represented by its own chairman. In the general meeting, the chairmanship belonged to the emperor or a person appointed by him annually. To carry out the affairs of the council, a state chancellery was established consisting of secretaries of state under the head office of the secretary of state, who reported at the general meeting, presented the journals of the council at the highest discretion, and was in charge of the entire executive part. The position of Secretary of State held by Speransky at that time actually gave the powers of the second public official after the emperor.

Being himself one of the most important officials of the state, Speransky understood the importance of the bureaucratic army for future reforms and therefore sought to make it highly organized and efficient. In August 1809, a Decree prepared by Speransky was published on new rules for the production of ranks according to civil service. From now on, the rank of collegiate assessor, which previously could be obtained by seniority, was given only to those officials who had in their hands a certificate of successful completion of a training course in one of Russian universities or passed exams in a special program. It provided for a test of knowledge of the Russian language, one of the foreign languages, natural, Roman, state and criminal law, general and Russian history, state economy, physics, geography and statistics of Russia. The rank of collegiate assessor corresponded to the eighth grade of the "Table of Ranks". Starting from this class and above, officials had great privileges, high salaries and the right of hereditary nobility.

In April 1809, a decree was issued that changed the order introduced during the reign of Catherine II, according to which the nobles, who were not even in the public service, received the title of chamber junker or chamberlain and certain privileges. From now on, these titles were to be regarded as mere distinctions, not conferring any privileges. Privileges were given only to those who public service. The decree was signed by the emperor, authorship is attributed to Speransky.

On the initiative of Mikhail Speransky, in order to educate an enlightened elite of society, in 1811, the Imperial Lyceum was created near St. Petersburg. Among the first lyceum students were Alexander Pushkin, Konstantin Danzas, Anton Delvig.

The upper strata of Russian society perceived Speransky's projects as too radical, and, in the end, the reforms he proposed were not fully implemented.

Under the influence of personal circumstances, at the very beginning of the 1800s, Speransky became interested in mysticism, which corresponded to the public mood. For ten years he studied the works of theosophists and church fathers. Denying Orthodox Church and preaching the inner church, he connected the reform of the church with Christianization public life on the basis of universal Christianity, which he partially tried to embody when creating " Holy Union"Alexander I.

(Additional

Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born on January 1 (12), 1772 in the Vladimir province. His father was a spiritual clerk. From a young age, Misha constantly visited the temple and sorted out holy books together with grandfather Vasily.

In 1780 the boy was enrolled in the Vladimir Seminary. There, due to 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 Nevsky, Mikhail begins his teaching career there.

Already in 1995, a public, political and social activity Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich, who becomes personal secretary high-ranking Prince Kurakin. Mikhail is rapidly moving up the career ladder and quickly receives the title - a real state adviser.

In 1806, Speransky had the honor to meet Alexander I himself. Due to the fact that Mikhail was wise and worked well, he soon became the municipal secretary. Thus, his intensive reform and socio-political work begins.

Activities of Speransky

Not all the plans and ideas of this progressive figure were put into practice, but he succeeded in achieving the following:

The growth of the economy of the Russian Empire and the economic attractiveness of the state in the eyes of foreign investors helped to form a strong foreign trade.
In the domestic economy, he established a good infrastructure, which enabled the country to rapidly develop and prosper.
The army of civil servants began to function more effectively with minimum quantity spent municipal resources.
A stronger legislative system was created.
Under the direction of Mikhail Mikhailovich, it was released " complete collection Laws of the Russian Empire" in 45 volumes. This act includes the laws and acts of the state.

Speransky had great amount opponents among the top officials. He was treated like an upstart. His ideas often met with aggressive attitudes from the conservative rulers of society. This was reflected (1811) in the famous “Note on the ancient and new Russia» Karamzin and (1812) in his two secret letters to Emperor Alexander.

Particular bitterness against Speransky was due 2 decrees carried out by him (1809):

About court ranks - the ranks of chamberlains and chamber junkers were recognized as differences, with which practically no ranks were associated (first of all, they provided the ranks of the 4th and 5th class according to the Table of Ranks).
On examinations for civil ranks - it was ordered not to promote to the ranks of a collegiate assessor and civil adviser those 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, a revolutionary. There were absurd talks in the world about his hidden relationships with Napoleon, the proximity of the war increased anxiety.

Starting from 1812 and until 1816, Mikhail Mikhailovich was in disfavor with the tsar because of his reformist activities, as a circle of a significant number of high-ranking people was affected. But starting from the 19th year, Speransky became the governor-general of the entire region in Siberia, and in the 21st year he returned to St. Petersburg again.

After the coronation of Nicholas I, Mikhail takes on the post of teacher of the future sovereign Alexander II. In addition, during this period Speransky works in " high school jurisprudence".

Unexpectedly, on February 11 (23) 1839, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky died of a cold, without completing many of his progressive reforms.

Speransky's political reforms

Speransky was a state reformer. He believed that Russian empire not ready to say goodbye to the monarchy, but was an adherent of the constitutional order. Mikhail believed that it was necessary to change the organization of management, introducing the latest legislative acts and norms. According to the decree of Tsar Alexander I, Mikhail Speransky created a broad program of reforms that could change the government and bring Russia out of the crisis.

In his reform program he suggested:

equalization before the law of absolutely all classes;
reducing the costs of all municipal departments;
transformations in the domestic economy and trade;
introduction of the newest tax order;
the creation of the latest legislative law and the formation of the most accomplished 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 state structures, a system where any citizen, regardless of his origin, would have ability to rely on protection a state of its own rights.

Not all of Michael's reforms were carried out because of Alexander I's fear of such cardinal changes. But even those changes that have been made have significantly raised the country's economy.

Alexander I wished Russia liberal reforms. For this purpose, a "secret committee" was created, and Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky became the emperor's main assistant.

M. M. Speransky- the son of a village priest, who became the secretary of the emperor without patronage, had many talents. He read a lot and knew foreign languages.

On behalf of the emperor, Speransky worked out a draft of reforms designed to change the system of government in Russia.

Speransky's reform project.

M. Speransky suggested the following changes:

introduce the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial;
introduce local self-government of three levels: volost, district (county) and provincial
allow all land owners, including state peasants (45% of the total) to participate in the elections

The electivity of the State Duma was for the first time supposed to be based on suffrage - multi-stage, unequal for nobles and peasants, but broad. The reform of M. Speransky did not endow the State Duma with broad powers: all projects were discussed, approved by the Duma, they would come into force only after the royal permission.

The tsar and the government, as executive power, were deprived of the right to legislate at their own will.

Evaluation of M. Speransky's reforms.

If the project state reform Russia M. Speransky was embodied in action, it would have made our country a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.

Draft of a new Russian Civil Code.

M. Speransky dealt with this project in the same way as the first: without taking into account the real situation in the state.

The activist drew up new laws based on the philosophical works of the West, but in practice, many of these principles simply did not work.

Many articles of this project are a copy of the Napoleonic Code, which caused outrage in Russian society.

M. Speransky issued a decree on changing the rules for assigning ranks, tried to deal with the budget deficit, which was devastated by wars, and participated in the development of a customs tariff in 1810.

End of reforms.

Opposition to the reformer both at the top and at the bottom dictated to Alexander I the decision to remove M. Speransky from all his posts and exile him to Perm. So in March 1812 he political activity interrupted.

In 1819, M. Speransky was appointed governor-general of Siberia, and in 1821 he returned to St. Petersburg and became a member of the established State Council. After the forced exile, M. Speransky revised his views, began to express thoughts that were opposite to the previous ones.

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

Transformations of the supreme authorities

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

And this person was M.M. Speransky.

In 1808, the tsar instructed M.M. Speransky to create general plan 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 issues state development and law and order, and also explained and substantiated his thoughts. In 1809, M.M. Speransky wrote: "If God blesses all these undertakings, then by 1811, by the end of the decade of this reign, Russia will perceive a new being and be completely transformed in all parts." In the plan of M.M. Speransky, the principle of separation of powers was put at the basis of the state structure, with the supremacy of the power of an autocratic monarch. All power in the state was to be divided into: legislative, judicial and executive. Prior to this, there was no strict separation of powers. M. M. Speransky also proposed to introduce a system of ministries. He proposed to make an elected State Duma and the State Council, appointed by the king. Civil and political rights were introduced, that is, it was about constitutional monarchy. The State Duma is entrusted with the law. The Senate is the court. Ministry - management.

Reform of the Council of State (1810)

The transformation of the State Council was the most important of the reforms carried out by M.M. Speransky. On January 1, 1810, the Manifesto on the Establishment of the Council of State and the Formation of the Council of State were published, which regulates 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 power: to protect all estates from despotism and favoritism. Objectively, this meant some limitation of the autocracy, since the relative independence of all branches of government was created and they became accountable to the estates. The preparation of the reform was carried out in an atmosphere of 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 the administration 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, insofar as they require new laws, and submits its considerations to the discretion of the supreme authority. Thus, a firm order of legislation was established. In this sense, M.M. Speransky defines the significance of the Council in his response to the sovereign on the activities of the institution for 1810, saying that the Council "was established in order to give the legislative power, hitherto scattered and scattered, to give a new outline of constancy and uniformity." Such a mark, communicated to the legislation, characterizes the new institution with three features indicated in the law:

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

II. Therefore, all laws, statutes and institutions in their first drafts are proposed and considered in the state council and then, by the action of the sovereign power, they come to the fulfillment intended for them in the legislative, judicial and executive order.

III. No law, statute or institution proceeds from the council and cannot be made without the approval of the sovereign power. ... ".

The terms of reference of the State Council are very broad. Its competence included: all subjects requiring a new law, statute or institution; items of internal control requiring abolition, restriction or addition former provisions; cases requiring an explanation of their true meaning in laws, charters and institutions; measures and orders are general, acceptable to the successful implementation of existing laws, statutes and institutions; general domestic 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 possession; the reports of all the offices of the ministerial departments administered by the secretaries of state, who reported to the secretary of state. This title was conferred on M.M. Speransky himself. For the conduct of affairs in the Council, a State Chancellery was established under the control of the Secretary of State, who reports on issues at the general meeting and is in charge of the entire executive part. Under 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 of state reform, reflected in the Introduction to the Code of State Laws. The council was planned as an advisory body under the emperor. However, in the manifesto written by him, the State Council appears as an exclusively legislative body. All activities for the creation of laws were in the hands of the emperor, since he appointed all members of the State Council himself. In total, together with the chairmen and ministers, 35 people were appointed to the Council.

Council decisions were taken by majority vote. Those members of the Council who did not agree with the majority could record their dissenting opinion in a journal, but this had no effect. All laws and charters were to be approved by the monarch and issued in the form of a tsar's 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 Council of State was bombarded with various uncharacteristic questions. The Council considers either the estimate of expenses and incomes of Moscow and St. Petersburg, or criminal 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 how much they require new laws, and then submit their proposals to the court of the supreme power, but in practice everything was different. Alexander I neglected this.

Reform of the ministries (1810-1811)

Ministerial reform began even before the transformation of the State Council. The Manifesto of July 25, 1810 promulgated "a new division of state affairs in the executive order" 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 staffs, the procedure for appointment, dismissal, promotion to ranks, and the procedure for doing business. The degree and limits of the power of ministers, their relationship with the legislature and, finally, the responsibility of both ministers and various officials who belonged to the composition of 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 the clerk. All work of the ministries was based on the principle of unity of command. The "General Order" categorically stipulated that the ministers had only executive power and their competence did not include "any new institution or the abolition of the former." Ministers appointed and dismissed officials, supervised institutions subordinate to the ministry. The Manifesto of 1811 essentially gave ministers unlimited power in 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, commander-in-chief of St. Petersburg, chief of the General Staff and 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 the consideration of cases in which "general consideration and assistance is needed" . The creation of such a body was nothing more than a complete disregard for the principle of separation of powers, subordinating 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 that unites and directs the activities of the ministries, the Committee of Ministers in its activities either replaced the ministries, or dealt with cases that were not characteristic of the executive branch. He could cancel the decision of the Senate and at the same time consider an insignificant criminal case at first instance.

It should be noted that, M.M. Speransky for the first time introduced such a system of ministries, which we can see now.

Reform of the Senate (1811)

This reform was discussed for a long time in the State Council, but was never implemented. MM Speransky considered it necessary to reform without delay, since it was difficult to understand the main purpose of the Senate in the system of public administration. M.M. Speransky suggested separating government functions from judicial ones and creating two senates, calling the first Governing and the second Judicial. The first, according to his proposal, was to consist of state ministers, their comrades (deputies) and should be the same for the entire empire. The second, called the Judicial Senate, was divided into four local branches, which are located in the four main judicial districts of the empire: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan.

The draft reform of the Senate was considered first in the committee of chairmen of the departments of the Council of State in 1811, and then at the general meeting of the council. The members of the Council were in the majority opposed to the reform of the Senate. All objections boiled down to the fact that a change in 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 in the senators themselves" . Some members of the State Council considered that the choice of a part of the senators contradicts the principle of autocracy and "will rather turn to harm than to benefit." Others were opposed to the Judicial Senate being the highest judicial authority and its decision being final, believing that this act would diminish the importance of autocratic power. It seemed to many that the expression "sovereign power" in relation to the Senate was inadmissible, since in Russia only autocratic power is known. The most significant remarks belonged to Count A.N. Saltykov and Prince A.N. Golitsyn. They believed that, first of all, this project was not "in time", they considered it untimely to introduce a new institution into life during the war, financial breakdown with a general lack of educated people.

MM Speransky compiled a set of comments. He attached a note to it, in which he defended his project with various arguments, yielding to his opponents in small things. In the Perm exile, M.M. Speransky explained the reasons for such a negative reaction as follows: “These objections mostly came from the fact that the elements of our government are still dissatisfied with education and the minds of the people who make it up are still dissatisfied with the inconsistencies of the present things of order, in order to recognize beneficial changes And consequently, more time was needed ... so that, finally, they were felt, and then they themselves would have wished for their fulfillment. MM Speransky believed that the opinions of the members of the State Council boil down to the opinion: "well, but not the time." His opponents, having no strong arguments against the proposed project, spoke only about its untimeliness. Most of the ministers were also against the reform (only three were in favor of the submitted draft). It could not be otherwise, argued M.M. Speransky, since the project deprives the ministers of the right to report personally to the sovereign and, based on these reports, announce the highest decrees, thereby removing all responsibility from themselves. Thus, the structure of the Judicial Senate was met with hostility by the entire staff of the Senate.

So, despite all the objections, the Senate reform project was approved by a majority of votes, and Alexander I approved the decision of the State Council. However, the approved project for the reorganization of the Senate was not destined to be implemented. The war with Napoleon was approaching, in addition, the treasury was empty. The emperor decided not to start reforming the Senate until more favorable times. "God forbid," wrote M.M. the firm connection of the affairs of the ministry will always cause more harm and trouble than benefit and dignity. Thus, the Senate was preserved in its former form.

Abstract on history was completed by: Myasnikova I.V.

Faculty of Law

Perm State University

Perm 2003

Introduction

The name of Count Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky is known to everyone who is at least a little familiar with Russian history. However - as is often the case - as a rule, in addition to the general definition a "progressive" who says less than nothing, most people have no association with him. Until recently, I was one of those people. It is difficult to say what exactly interested me in this topic, perhaps rather bold reforms or Speransky's personality as statesman. Most likely, the totality of these issues is undoubtedly worthy of consideration.

It is worth mentioning that this topic, these reforms are not as well and widely studied by science as, for example, the reforms of Stolypin or Peter 1. There are reasons for this: the widely conceived reforms of the state secretary and the closest employee of Emperor Alexander I in last years before Patriotic War basically did not come true The State Duma was elected almost a century after he proposed it, and unrealized reforms - whatever their design - seldom come under close public scrutiny.

It is necessary to focus on the composition of the abstract. In its first part, I dwelled on the personality of Alexander 1, his reforms, the political situation in general, because. it was the problems of Russia that were the impetus for further transformations of M.M. Speransky. The second part of the essay talks about direct activity Speransky, about his plans and some of the implemented reforms. The third one tells about the exile of M.M. Speransky and about his future activities.

1. Russia in the first half of the XIX century.

Political situation in Russia.

In my own way political structure Russia was an autocratic monarchy. The emperor was at the head of the state, legislative and administrative power was concentrated in his hands. The emperor ruled the country with the help of a huge army of officials. According to the law, they were the executors of the will of the king, but in reality the bureaucracy played a more significant role. In his hands was the development of laws, it also put them into practice. The state system of Russia in its form was autocratic-bureaucratic. All segments of the population suffered from the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, from its bribery. The situation began to change gradually with the coming to power of a new ruler.

March 12, 1801 as a result palace coup Alexander 1 (1801-1825) ascended the Russian throne. The first steps of the new emperor justified the hopes of the Russian nobility and testified to a break with the policy of the previous reign. Alexander, the successor of Emperor Paul, came to the throne with a broad program of reforms in Russia and carried it out more deliberately and more consistently than his predecessor. There were two main aspirations that made up the content domestic policy Russia since early XIX century: this is the equation of estates before the law and their introduction into a joint friendly state activity. These were the main tasks of the era, but they were complicated by other aspirations that were necessary training to their permission, or inevitably followed from their permission. The equalization of estates before the law changed the very foundations of legislation. Thus, there was a need for codification in order to harmonize various laws, old and new. Further, the restructuring of the state order on a legal leveling basis required a rise in the educational level of the people, and meanwhile, the careful, partial conduct of this restructuring caused double discontent in society: some were dissatisfied with the fact that the old was being destroyed; others were unhappy that new things were being introduced too slowly. Hence, it seemed to the government that it was necessary to lead public opinion, to restrain it from the right and left, to direct and educate minds. Never censor and public education were not included as closely in the general reform plans of the government as in the past century. Finally, a series of wars and internal reforms, changing along with the external, international position states and the internal, social structure of society, fluctuated state economy, upset finances, forced to strain the payment forces of the people and raise public amenities, lowered the people's well-being. Here are a number of phenomena that are intertwined with the basic facts of life in the first half of the 19th century.

The main issues of that time were: socio-political, which consisted in establishing new relations between social classes, in the organization of society and management with the participation of society; the codification question, which consisted in streamlining the new legislation, the pedagogical question, which consisted in the guidance, direction and education of minds, and, finally, the financial question, which consisted in the new structure of the state economy.

1.2. Alexander 1. The transformative experience of the first years.

His accession to the throne aroused the most noisy enthusiasm in Russian, mainly noble, society; the previous reign for this society was a strict Great Lent. Karamzin says that the rumor about the accession of a new emperor was accepted as a message of redemption. The prolonged tension of the nerves from fear was resolved by copious tears of tenderness: people in the streets and in the houses wept for joy; at a meeting, acquaintances and strangers congratulated each other and hugged, as if on the day of bright resurrection. But soon the new, 24-year-old emperor became the subject of enthusiastic attention and adoration. His very appearance, his manner, his appearance on the street, like the surroundings, produced a charming effect. For the first time they saw the sovereign walking in the capital on foot, without any retinue and without any decorations, even without a watch, and affably responding to the bows of those he met. The new government hastened to state directly the direction in which it intended to act. In the manifesto of March 12, 1801, the emperor assumed the obligation to govern the people "according to the laws and according to the heart of his wise grandmother." In decrees, as well as in private conversations, the emperor expressed the basic rule that he would be guided by: in place of personal arbitrariness, actively establish strict legality. The emperor repeatedly pointed out the main shortcoming that the Russian state order suffered from; this shortcoming he called "the arbitrariness of our government." To eliminate this shortcoming, he pointed out the need for fundamental, i.e. fundamental, laws, which almost did not exist in Russia. In this direction, transformative experiments were carried out in the first years.

Alexander started with central control. Catherine left the building of the central administration unfinished. Having created a complex and harmonious order of local administration and court, she did not create the correct central institutions with precisely distributed departments, with a clear designation of "hard limits", which was promised in the July manifesto of 1762. The grandson continued the work of the grandmother, but the top of the government building he brought out in spirit and order it came out unlike the body, did not correspond to its foundation.

The State Council, which met at the personal discretion of Empress Catherine on March 30, 1801, was replaced by a permanent institution, called the "Indispensable Council" - a legislative body. It was created mainly for the consideration and discussion of state affairs and decrees. Initially, the Council consisted of 12 people, among whom were the heads of the most important state institutions, representatives of the highest aristocracy and bureaucracy. Members of the Council received the right to submit submissions to imperial decrees and discuss bills. However, the “Instruction to the Indispensable Council”, approved on April 3, 1801, determined that this body “has no external action and power, except for the power of consideration.” The practical significance of the Indispensable Council was extremely small. All the main work on the preparation of the reforms conceived by Alexander 1 was concentrated in the Secret (or Intimate) Committee, which existed from May 1801 to November 1803. It consisted of the so-called young friends of Alexander: P.A. Strogonov, A.A. Czartoryski, V.P. Kochubey and N.N. Novosiltsev. F. Laharpe, who returned to Russia in August 1801, became the fifth member of the Private Committee, who did not formally participate in the meetings. These were the people whom he called to help him in his reforming work. All of them were brought up in the most advanced ideas of the 18th century. and are well acquainted with state orders West. They belonged to the generation that directly followed the businessmen of Catherine's time; were adherents of liberal ideas and considered it necessary to reform state structure Russia.

The secret committee was not official government agency. Its meetings were held after dinner coffee in the emperor's private rooms in winter palace where the change plan was developed. Due to the fact that one of the members of this commission, Count P. A. Stroganov, kept records of his secret meetings on French(June 24, 1801 - November 9, 1803), the activities of this committee can now be traced. The task of this committee was to help the emperor "in the systematic work on the reform of the shapeless building of the administration of the empire" - this task was expressed in one entry. It was necessary to first study the current state of the empire, then to transform individual parts of the administration and to complete these individual reforms "with a constitution established on the basis of the true national spirit." The main issues discussed at the meetings were the strengthening of the state apparatus, the peasant question and the education system. The members of the committee were unanimous in that unlimited autocracy should become an instrument of gradual and non-violent transformations, which should be carried out with extreme caution because of the society's unpreparedness for reforms.