1.3 Creation of the "Secret Committee"

Attempts at reform in the first years of the reign of Alexander I were associated with a circle of like-minded people, called the “Unofficial Committee”. The famous historian V.O. Klyuchevsky described the “Unofficial Committee” as the activity of the “young friends” of the emperor. By the way, the tsar, with indescribable humor, called the “Unspoken Committee” “comite du salut public,” hinting at Robespierre’s “Committee of Public Safety,” and Catherine’s nobles indignantly called the committee members “the Jacobin gang.” Indeed, the brilliant young aristocrats were admirers of advanced European political ideas. Count Pavel Aleksandrovich Stroganov in his youth, at the whim of his father, a famous philanthropist and freemason, fell into the hands of a peculiar educator - Gilbert Romm, who, accompanying him on a trip abroad, introduced young man in 1789 to the Paris Jacobin Club. Prince Adam Czartoryski, while still a sixteen-year-old boy, managed to meet outstanding people era. He knew many German philologists and writers, and Goethe himself. In 1794 he fought against Russia under the banner of T. Kosciuszko. Nikolai Nikolaevich Novosiltsov, a relative of Count Stroganov, was significantly older than Alexander and made a great impression on him with his intelligence, education, abilities and ability to elegantly and accurately express his thoughts.

Meetings of the "Secret Committee" took place two or three times a week. After coffee and general conversation, the emperor retired, and while all the guests were leaving, four people made their way, like conspirators, along the corridor to one of the inner rooms, where Alexander was waiting for them. The Tsar instructed his young friends to develop and implement reforms, in particular, “to curb the despotism of our government” (the original words of the autocrat). The “triumvirate,” as Stroganov, Novosiltsev and Czartoryski were called behind their backs, also made an attempt to resolve the pressing issue of serfdom, although the matter did not move beyond bold plans.

Of course, Speransky immediately found himself in the thick of events and changes. Already on March 19 (a week after the accession of the new monarch; this is the date given in all formal lists) he was appointed “Secretary of State”. He became right hand Dmitry Prokofievich Troshchinsky, the trusted “speaker” of Catherine II, who inherited this most important function (“speaker and editor-in-chief”) under the new emperor. His job was to prepare and edit the most important government documents. Naturally, he needed a reliable and gifted assistant. The choice of the experienced bureaucrat fell on Speransky. Troshchinsky, a Ukrainian, the son of a simple clerk, who did for for many years a long career, perhaps, when choosing a candidate for his chief assistant, he took into account his “simple” origin. One way or another, the “Decree to Our Senate” appears: “We most graciously command that Our Privy Councilor Troshchinsky be with us to rectify the affairs entrusted to him by Our power of attorney to State Councilor Speransky with the title of Our State Secretary and with a salary of two thousand rubles per year from Our Cabinet; the salary he received until now in his position as the Governor of the Office of the Commission for supplying the residence with supplies of two thousand rubles per year was converted into a pension for him on the 29th day of March 1801.”

Speransky immediately attracted the close attention of the members of the “Unofficial Committee”, in the depths of which matured the idea of ​​​​transforming into ministries (in the European style) the inert, mired in bribery, slow, clumsy, poorly managed boards established by Peter the Great. Speransky becomes, albeit an unofficial, but active participant in the Secret Committee. He becomes Kochubey's main assistant and takes a large part in developing the conceptual foundations of the future Ministry of Internal Affairs.

A serious struggle arose between Troshchinsky and Kochubey for Speransky: each of the dignitaries sought to keep him at their disposal.

Speransky's participation is visible in the preparation of a number of laws. So, in 1801, a decree was issued allowing merchants, townspeople and peasants to buy uninhabited lands. On September 8, 1802, the highest manifesto announced (the text was prepared by Speransky) the establishment - instead of 20 boards - 8 ministries: military (until 1808 - the ministry of military - ground forces), maritime (until 1815 - the Ministry of the Navy), foreign affairs, justice, internal affairs, finance, commerce, public education.

Speransky prepared annual reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which were published (this was a novelty) in the ministerial periodical "St. Petersburg Journal". Poet I.I. Dmitriev, who himself was in the civil service and at one time held the post of Minister of Justice, recalled this period of Speransky’s life: “All draft new regulations and annual reports for the ministry were written by him. The latter had not only the advantages of novelty, but also, in terms of methodological arrangement , very rare to this day in our official papers, a historical account of each part of management, of art in style, can serve as guidance and models.”

In February 1803, with the direct participation of Speransky (concept, text), the famous Decree “on free cultivators” was published, which was perceived by the inert nobility almost as the beginning of a revolution. According to this decree, landowners received the right to release serfs to freedom, giving them land. It took many years to pay for the land; if payments were late, the peasant and his family returned to serfdom. During the reign of Alexander I, only 47 thousand people were freed.

Much has been done in the field of education. Among the transformative reforms, the School Charter of 1804 should be noted, according to which children of all classes were admitted to schools at all levels - from lower to higher. There have also been serious positive changes and in the region higher education. New universities were established: Kazan, Kharkov, Vilnius, Dorpat; as well as lyceums: Nezhinsky, Yaroslavl and Tsarskoye Selo. The Main Pedagogical Institute was founded in St. Petersburg, which later became St. Petersburg University.

Press rights were significantly expanded. The censorship statute of 1804 exempted literature from preliminary censorship, the rights of which were clearly defined.

Speransky is gradually turning from a simple performer into one of the arbiters of Russia's destinies. Due to Kochubey's frequent absences due to illness, Speransky became the Tsar's main speaker. Desk reports developed into long conversations in which Alexander I and Speransky discussed pressing state problems and read Western political and legal literature together. From these conversations began the friendship between the All-Russian autocrat and the former popovich

Under Alexander I, the same role was destined for Speransky. Star years began in his career. Speransky began to play an important role in diplomatic affairs. In those years, Europe was under the heavy burden of the genius of Napoleon. Having lost the Battle of Austerlitz to his troops, the Russian Tsar was forced to strive for peace with the French Emperor. On June 13-14, in Tilsit (a peace treaty was concluded on the Neman, according to which Russia joined the continental blockade, which was disadvantageous for it. The Tilsit peace aroused the indignation of Russian patriots.

Going to new meeting with Napoleon to Erfurt (September 2 - October 16, 1808), Alexander took Speransky with him. On September 30, the emperors signed the “Erfurt Allied Convention”, which confirmed the Tilsit agreements, Napoleonic redistribution of the continent and, most importantly, Russia’s rights to Finland (Alexander’s troops fought with the Swedes), Wallachia and Moldavia.

Speransky returns to the capital in a new status: friend (as they said then, confidant), closest associate of the monarch, absolute favorite, according to V. Prigodich, with the rank of vice-emperor (A.A. Arakcheev will take this place only after the “fall” Speransky).

Thus, Speransky began to determine the domestic and foreign policy of the state, exercise supervision over administrative, judicial and financial bodies, and unconditionally influence the most important appointments.

Cleanse yourself completely through service." Here he still does not leave the thought of government reforms and proposes, having cleansed the administrative part, to move on to political freedom. To develop the necessary reforms, Speransky advises establishing a committee consisting of Finance Minister Guryev, several governors (including his himself) and 2 - 3 provincial leaders of the nobility In March 1819...

They led to tragic consequences for the government and society. The liberal intelligentsia became increasingly closer to the revolutionaries, while the influence of conservatives in the government camp increased. Representatives of Russian liberalism in the 19th century. much more often it was necessary to criticize the actions of the authorities than to actively participate in their policies. Even the most liberal-minded autocrats (such as...

Secret committee

In the first half of the 19th century, the importance of higher, imperial administration in public administration was significantly strengthened. To this end, old bodies were reorganized and new ones were created, more closely linked to local institutions.

Thus, on March 26, 1801, the Council at the Highest Court was abolished, which had lost its high position during the previous reign and ceased to function and influence the management system.

Having become emperor, in the first years of his reign, Alexander I relied on his close young associates: V.P. Kochubeya, N.N. Novosiltseva, P.A. Stroganov, A. Czartoryski, consulted with the “friends of his youth”, united them into a “secret committee”. This committee did not have the official status of a state institution, however, it was it that had a huge influence on changes in the management of the empire. Until November 1803, almost all government measures and reform projects were discussed here, many of which were proposed by the participants in this “intimate circle” Ignatov V.G. History of public administration in Russia. M.; Phoenix, 2002. P. 378."

It is worth saying that the secret committee played a fairly significant role in the internal political life of the country. The plans for its creation were extremely extensive: from a complete reorganization of public administration, to the gradual abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution in Russia. Speaking about this, it should be noted that by the constitution the members of the secret committee understood the creation of a representative institution, the proclamation of democratic freedoms, the restriction autocratic power through the creation of new laws.

According to many historians, including S., F. Platonov, almost all transformations in the system government agencies, changes in peasant legislation carried out by Alexander I in the first five years of his reign were directly or indirectly related precisely to the activities of this committee Dvornichenko A. Yu. et al. Russian history from ancient times to the present day. St. Petersburg; Lan, 2004. pp. 196-197..

In particular, it is quite obvious active participation members of the “secret committee” in the preparation and implementation of ministerial reform, the development of the system of ministries in Russia, the reform of the Senate, as well as a number of other major transformations in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century Starikov N.V. History of Russia from ancient times to the 20th century. M.; PRIOR, 2001. P. 291..

Establishment of a system of ministries

On September 8, 1802, the Committee of Ministers was established, which became a new and very important governing body. Its design is directly related to the creation of ministries. The manifesto establishing this authority provided for the opportunity for ministers to gather together at the initiative and under the chairmanship of the emperor for meetings to discuss complex interdepartmental issues. Ministerial meetings acquired the character of meetings between the absolute monarch and the heads of all central institutions. At the same time, the composition of the Committee was constantly expanding to include senior officials appointed by the emperor and responsible to him.

Already in 1810, its composition included the chairman, secretary of state, heads of departments of the State Council, as well as other influential officials.

On March 20, 1812, at the proposal of M. M. Speransky, the “establishment of a committee of ministers” formalized the limits of competence, functions, as well as the composition of the committee. According to him, no conclusion of the committee could be carried out until it was considered by the emperor and approved by him, and the ministers were introduced into the Senate. Ivanovsky V. State Law. News and scientific notes of Kazan University. According to edition No. 5 of 1895 - No. 11 of 1896. / Allpravo.ru.

Under the direct leadership of the emperor, the committee also considered cases that related to the activities of several ministries, requiring new laws, coordinated actions, as well as extremely complicated cases that could not be resolved within the framework of the activities of only one minister. In addition, under the leadership of the emperor, materials from Senate audits, appointments, dismissals, awards, reprimands to local administrators, and even individual bills were also checked and discussed.

Unlike Western governments, headed by independent chairmen (prime ministers) and representing an association, a cabinet of ministers, the Russian Committee of Ministers was not such a government, or the head of the executive vertical of management, despite the fact that these issues were repeatedly raised in the “secret committee” and other authorities . In preparation for the establishment of ministries, it was proposed to study the experience of His Royal Majesty’s English united cabinet (ministry), which included the head of the ministry and the heads of eight sectoral departments.

It is worth noting here that both Alexander I and Nicholas I were afraid of losing some of their own supreme functions, as well as the emergence of a relatively independent head of the central executive department. Thus, it was not English that was taken as a basis, but the experience of the administrative system of Napoleonic France, where ministers were not united in one council, but were directly subordinate to Emperor Bonaparte, being members of the Senate with an advisory vote. Moreover, the Senate itself had the right to judge ministers if they violated freedom of the press and personal freedom.

The French experience greatly impressed Alexander I and Nicholas I, since it fully corresponded to their desire to hold the reins of power in own hands. Thus, the right of the kings to personally govern the state was preserved, since it was they who appointed, dismissed, controlled ministers, directed and united their actions, accepted their most submissive individual reports, and exercised through the Committee of Ministers supreme supervision over the activities of the state apparatus V. G. Ignatov. History public administration in Russia. M.; Phoenix, 2002. pp. 379-380..

As mentioned above, the emergence of ministries is closely related to general administrative reform. The implementation, nature and necessity of this reform were determined by a number of reasons. First of all, among them it is worth mentioning moral qualities Emperor Alexander I and those around him, external influences, as well as the state of state and public life.

Of course, the implementation of such an important and complex reform as the reorganization of the entire higher government administration requires a very balanced and cautious approach, which means that a certain share of responsibility for its consequences lies not only with the emperor himself, but also with his associates.

Thus, the success of the transformation of the central bodies under Alexander I also largely depended on the character of the people surrounding the emperor, on their mental and moral development, on their political views. The persons closest to the emperor were members of the secret committee: Novosiltsev, Count Stroganov, Prince Kochubey, Prince Chartorizhsky and Prince Golitsyn.

Speaking about the characteristics of the character and views of Count V.P. Kochubey, it is worth emphasizing once again that he received an excellent education abroad, first in Geneva and then in London, where he successfully studied political science. Like Novosiltsev, during the reign of Paul he lived in retirement, and only under Alexander, who had sincere friendship for him, was he again called to government affairs.

Due to the characteristics of their own character, education and life path, many contemporaries were even inclined to accuse him of knowing England better than Russia, since he tried to remake many things in the English manner. In general, he was an extremely intelligent man, gifted with an excellent memory and able to recognize people and use them.

When establishing ministries, Alexander I, of course, did not do without multiple meetings with his employees. We know about the content of these meetings from the notes of its participants that have reached us. Meetings regarding the organization of ministries took place within the framework of a “secret committee”, which included persons closest to the emperor, and consisted of discussing projects presented by committee members. Similar projects were presented by Chartorizhsky, Kochubey, Novosiltsev, as well as other people close to the sovereign.

The result of the meetings of the informal committee was the previously mentioned decree of September 8, 1802, which established the ministries. This decree was a surprise even for those at the highest levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy, due to which many dissatisfied people appeared who reinterpreted the decree in a sense unfavorable for it. In reality, this decree was very far from perfect.

It does not clearly define the competence of ministries, their composition, organization and office work. The general establishment of the ministries, expressed in the indicated manifesto, is characterized by extreme uncertainty and is filled with numerous omissions. Ivanovsky V. State Law. News and scientific notes of Kazan University. According to edition No. 5 of 1895 - No. 11 of 1896. / Allpravo.ru.

At its core, this manifesto contained a number of important provisions. It emphasized the continuity of the reform with the transformations of Peter I. The introduction of the ministerial system of public administration was motivated by the need to bring all parts of government into a stable structure, in accordance with the intentions of the emperor. It also expressed the hope that the ministries would help establish peace, quiet, justice, and the improvement of the empire in the country, as well as revive industry, trade, the entire economy as a whole, spread the sciences and arts, increase the general well-being, and ensure the well-being of the peoples included in composition of the Russian Empire.

According to the establishment, state affairs were now to be managed by eight ministries: military ground forces; military naval forces; foreign affairs; Justice; internal affairs; finance; commerce; of public education: “The Department of State Affairs is divided into 8 departments, each of which, containing all the parts that essentially belong to it, constitutes a special ministry and is under the direct control of the Minister, whom we appoint now, or in the future we will appoint at our discretion. State institutions in Russia. Ed. Pishchulin N.P. Nizhny Novgorod; UNN, 1994. P. 54."

It was also assumed that with the division of state affairs, each ministry would be in charge of a certain part of them. At the same time, all ministries had to ensure natural communication and unity of management. The ministers themselves were to be appointed only by the emperor and be responsible to him, as well as directly manage all the units entrusted to them. Through the Senate, ministers were required to submit annual written reports to the emperor. They had to justify the expenditure of funds by the ministry's structures, reflect the successes in the activities of the ministry, as well as the state of current affairs and possible development prospects.

Among other things, the Senate had to consider and analyze the activities of the ministers, submit reports to the emperor with relevant conclusions, as well as an opinion on the state of management of each of the ministers. The ministers were supposed to manage the local structures entrusted to him and receive weekly memos about all their current affairs, and have constant contacts with them.

According to the manifesto, the position of “comrade minister” was also established, who was supposed to assist the minister in his activities. The positions of the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General of the Senate were also combined, and the functional directions, subjects and parameters of the activities of each of the ministers and the preserved state boards subordinate to him were determined http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/istorija_gosudarstvennogo_upravlenija_rossii/08.aspx - _ftn3 and other institutions. Thus, the continuity of management and the evolutionary nature of the transformation of its apparatus was ensured during the transition to a qualitative new level unity of command, responsibility, diligence and the formation of departmentalism Ignatov V. G. History of public administration in Russia. M.; Phoenix, 2002. P. 410..

The Secret Committee, formed informally in the middle of 1801. The Secret Committee included all four of Alexander I’s closest associates - Adam Czartoryski, Victor Kochubey, Pavel Stroganov and Nikolai Novosiltsev. Its meetings were held very often and always with the participation of Alexander - until November 1803, when the committee disbanded, although the friendship between its members remained strong. The first decrees reflecting the work of the Secret Committee began to appear in the autumn of 1801: On September 27 (October 9) a decree was issued prohibiting the use of torture during investigations, and on December 12 (24) a decree was issued according to which merchants, townspeople and state peasants received the right to purchase land, but without serfs. The initiative for such an important resolution belonged to the outstanding economist of that time, Admiral Nikolai Mordvinov.

The most important result of the activities of the Secret Committee in 1802 was fundamental changes in the activities of the executive branch. Existing since the time of Peter I the collegiums were abolished on September 8 (20), and ministries were created in their place. New organization did not limit itself only to an external change of nomenclature to a more modern one, but also transformed the office work itself in areas subordinate to individual ministers, who made decisions individually and were responsible only to the tsar. Thus, ministries were created in Russia without a cabinet of ministers and without the post of prime minister or chairman of the council of ministers. Instead there was the Committee of Ministers was created, initially under the control of the king. However, the Committee had no formal organization and although it dealt with many important matters, it was not a “government”. Over time, in the second half of the 19th century. and in 1905 it underwent various more or less significant changes. September maternity leave established eight ministries: military affairs, maritime affairs, foreign affairs, internal affairs, justice, public education, finance (state treasury) and commerce (trade). Mordvinov became the first Minister of Maritime Affairs, Count Pyotr Zavadovsky became the Minister of Public Education, and the famous Russian poet Gavrila Derzhavin became the Minister of Justice. Count Alexander Vorontsov became the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Foreign ministers generally received the highest civilian title upon appointment. Tables of ranks- Chancellor. Members of the Secret Committee also received appointments to new ministries, although only Kochubey became Minister (of Internal Affairs; before that he was at the head of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs). Czartoryski became Vorontsov's deputy, Stroganov - Kochubey, and Novosiltsev - Derzhavin. Count Nikolai Rumyantsev, son, became Minister of Commerce famous commander Peter Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky.

Simultaneously with the September Decree, on September 8 (20), 1802, a decree was published On the rights and responsibilities of the Senate. He solemnly declared the Senate to be the guardian of the laws, the supreme seat of the empire, whose decrees must be executed by all bodies and officials as properly imperial. In practice, the Senate never acquired its formal significance; its main powers were limited to the supreme judicial power.

The Secret Committee also to some extent took up the situation of the serfs, although this interest was caused by external circumstances, and the practical results turned out to be rather modest. So on February 20 (March 4), 1803, a decree was published About free cultivators, which gave landowners the right to free peasants from corvee and allocate them land plots on terms agreed upon by both parties. The decree itself did not contain detailed and understandable paragraphs, and at the same time introduced many formal restrictions. Thus the decree About free cultivators did not undermine the order of “ownership of souls” that existed in Russia, just as the decree issued later prohibiting landowners from sending their peasants to hard labor did not undermine it.

LECTURE V

Alexander's accession to the throne. – His mood and degree of preparedness. – Alexander’s first employees and the measures he took in the first three months. - Works of the secret committee. - Its composition. Work plan. Discussion political reform. - Peasant question. Formation of ministries and transformation of the Senate. Results of the work of the secret committee.

Position of Alexander I at the beginning of his reign

Having ascended the throne at the age of 23, Alexander, as we have seen, was far from being the naive dreamer that he appeared in his letters to La Harpe in 1796–1797. He did not, however, lose his desire for good, but to a large extent he lost his former trust in people and was no longer the same enthusiast.

But at the same time, despite his participation in government affairs under Paul, he continued to remain inexperienced in government and, in essence, almost as ignorant of the situation in Russia as before. However, that despondency, that visible consciousness of his helplessness, which he showed in the first days after his accession to the throne, should by no means be mistaken for a lack or weakness of will. Subsequently, he proved that his will was quite persistent, that he knew how to achieve what he wanted, but he lacked, especially at first, positive knowledge, a precisely thought-out program and experience. He himself was perfectly aware of this and that is why he hesitated, not knowing what to do immediately.

At the same time, with the exception of a few old statesmen, who poorly understood his aspirations, there was no one near him on whom he could rely and in whom he could fully trust. Were smart people like Palen and Panin, but he could not completely trust them due to their role in the conspiracy against Paul; there is even reason to think that they inspired him with direct disgust, which he, however, hid. Catherine's nobles were dispersed by Paul, the most prominent of them (for example, Bezborodko) had already died, and Alexander did not have much trust in the survivors. Alexander, however, was very happy when, on the very night of the coup, one of the “old servants,” D.P., appeared at his call. Troshchinsky, whom he knew as an honest man and an experienced businessman. He then appointed another “old servant” Bekleshev to the post of Prosecutor General instead of the dismissed Obolyaninov.

Of course, Alexander’s personal friends were immediately summoned from abroad: Czartoryski, Novosiltsev and Kochubey, but they could not arrive quickly with the means of communication at that time...

The fact that Alexander did not immediately order the arrest of the conspirators, Counts Palen and Panin, and left the first of them in the service and invited again the second, dismissed before Paul, some were inclined to explain by the weakness of the will of the young king. However, knowing now all the circumstances of the conspiracy, we can say that, in essence, he could hardly have acted differently, because both of them did not directly participate in the murder of Paul; and if Alexander had attracted them only for their very participation in the conspiracy, then he would have had to attract himself. And for state reasons, given the desolation in which he found himself, he had to value every capable statesman. Moreover, all the threads of control were concentrated in Palen’s hands at that moment, and he was the only person who knew where everything was and could in one minute decide what would have required preliminary inquiries and studies from anyone else; Meanwhile, the situation was very difficult and even risky, at least in appearance, in international relations. After all, at the end of his reign, Paul, through reckless repression and a series of provocative actions, seriously armed England against himself and forced the British to undertake a naval expedition against Russia and its ally Denmark. A week after Paul's death, Admiral Nelson had already bombarded Copenhagen and, having destroyed the entire Danish fleet, was preparing to bombard Kronstadt and St. Petersburg. Decisive measures were required to prevent this British invasion, and without damaging national pride. And Palen was the only active member of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in St. Petersburg. He coped with this task very quickly and successfully, perhaps due to the fact that the British government was to some extent initiated by the former ambassador Whitworth, who was close to the conspirators, in the sense of the coup being taking place. Be that as it may, at the very short time the British completely calmed down, and Nelson, even with an apology, sailed back from Revel.

As for Nikita Petrovich Panin, he was one of the very few experienced and gifted diplomats at that time, and therefore his return to business was also completely natural. Alexander called him to St. Petersburg from an estate near Moscow and immediately transferred all foreign affairs to his management.

The first reforms of Alexander I

From the very first days of his reign, Alexander, despite his depressed mood, showed great energy in matters that seemed clear to him.

On the very night of the coup, he did not forget to order the return of the Cossacks sent to conquer India.

That same night, Troshchinsky hastily, but very successfully, drafted a manifesto on the accession of the young emperor to the throne. In this manifesto, Alexander solemnly promised to rule the people “according to the laws and according to the heart of his grandmother, Catherine the Great.” The reference to Catherine seemed extremely successful, because in the eyes of contemporaries it signified, first of all, promises to undo everything that had been done by Paul, and the state of affairs that existed under Catherine was portrayed at that time by the majority in a rosy light.

On the same day, Alexander ordered the release of all victims of the secret expedition from prison and exile.

At the same time, he began to change the personnel of the employees, acting very carefully at first. For the first time, the following were fired: State Prosecutor Obolyaninov, who held the role of the Supreme Inquisitor under Paul; Master of Horse Kutaisov, one of the most prominent and most despised earphones of Paul, who, being at first a simple valet, then during the reign of Paul reached the highest levels of government, was adorned with orders, received enormous wealth, but enjoyed universal hatred; and the Moscow chief of police, Ertel, who, under Paul, awed the population of the capital.

Then followed a series of decrees that abolished Paul’s hated obscurantist and prohibitive measures: all officials and officers expelled without trial, the number of which ranged from 12 to 15 thousand, were returned to service; an amnesty was declared for all fugitives (except murderers); the secret expedition was destroyed, and it was announced that every criminal should be accused, tried and punished " by common strength laws"; officials were told not to dare to offend ordinary people; the ban on the import of foreign books was lifted, private printing houses were ordered to be printed, the ban on the import of goods was lifted, and free passage of Russian subjects abroad was announced; then the charters granted to the nobility and cities were restored; a freer customs tariff was restored in 1797. The soldiers were freed from the hated braids, which were ordered to be cut off - only the braids, somewhat shortened, remained even before 1806. Finally, the peasant issue was also touched upon, namely: the Academy of Sciences, which published statements and public announcements, it was forbidden to accept advertisements for the sale of peasants without land. The most important measures of the first weeks of Alexander's reign boiled down to this.

All these measures did not provide any new institutions, were not fundamental transformations of the existing system, and therefore did not require any program, any preparatory development: it was a simple and quick elimination of all the absurd tyrannical orders that were made by Paul. The need for all these measures was clear to Alexander and to everyone around him, which is why he could take them without any preparation. This is mainly what limits his activity at first; questions of organic transformations were still left open; To resolve them, it was necessary to first prepare a program. Alexander vaguely felt that without a definite plan and without preparatory work such reforms could not be carried out.

However, at first he nevertheless took several steps towards organic transformations. Troshchinsky prepared the transformation of the court council, which was founded at the end of the reign of Catherine and turned under Paul into a kind of high censorship committee, because Paul entrusted it with censorship of new books and works, Russian and foreign, until he finally banned the import of all books due to borders and have not yet stopped publishing Russian books in Russia, except for textbooks and reference books. This court council was abolished on March 26, leaving its members to the staff, and four days later, on March 30, an “permanent council” was established, which was to become an advisory institution under the sovereign on all matters. important matters. 12 persons were appointed to its composition from among the dignitaries who aroused Alexander’s distrust less than others. Among them was Troshchinsky, who was entrusted with the main management of the office of this council.

The next larger step that Alexander took in this direction was the decrees of June 5, 1801 to the Senate. In the first of them, the Senate itself was ordered to submit a report on its rights and obligations in order to approve them on an unshakable basis, as state law. Alexander’s thought at that moment, apparently, was to restore the strength of the Senate as the highest body of government power and, in particular, to ensure by law the independence of judgments and orders,

Another decree on June 5 established a “commission for the drafting of laws” “under the emperor’s own authority” and under the direct control of Count Zavadovsky. This commission was not intended to develop new legislation, but to clarify and harmonize existing old laws, i.e., to eliminate the circumstance that was one of the root causes of the unrest and abuses in governing the country that made themselves felt so strongly under Catherine. The end result of the work of this commission was to be the publication of a set of existing laws. In the rescript to Zavadovsky it was said: “Having established in a single law the beginning and source of national bliss and having been certified in the truth that all other measures can make happy times in the state, but one law can establish them forever, - in the very first days of my reign and At the first review of public administration, I recognized the need to verify the present situation in this part. I always knew that from the very publication of the code (we are talking about the code of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649) until our days, that is, over the course of one and a half centuries, laws flowed from the legislative power in various and often opposite ways and were issued more by chance, rather than by general state considerations, they could have neither connection among themselves, nor unity in their intention, nor consistency in their action. Hence the general confusion of the rights and duties of everyone, the darkness that surrounds judge and defendant alike, the powerlessness of laws in their implementation and the convenience of changing them at the first movement of whim or autocracy...”

These decrees had enormous demonstrative significance at that time. After the arbitrariness and autocracy of Pavlov’s reign, Alexander’s idea of ​​​​putting the law above all else and providing everyone with the opportunity to know this law was, undoubtedly, precisely the thought that could most of all create popularity for the young sovereign and ensure him the sympathy of the educated layer of society. His expressed desire to elevate and strengthen the position of the Senate as the independent guardian of the laws was interpreted by all thinking people as a sincere intention to abandon arbitrary actions.

These were the first steps taken by Alexander in the first three months of his accession. He didn't think about dwelling on them at all.

Secret Committee of Alexander I

Portrait of Count Pavel Stroganov. Artist George Dow

Back on April 24, 1801, Alexander began, for the first time after ascending the throne, a conversation about the need for a radical state transformation with P. A. Stroganov, one of his personal friends. Stroganov, however, expressed the idea that first it was necessary to transform the administration, and then begin to limit the autocracy. Alexander seemed to approve of this idea, but Stroganov got the general impression from this whole conversation that the views of the young sovereign at that moment were distinguished by great vagueness and ambiguity.

In May 1801, Stroganov, as a result of the above April conversation, presented Alexander with a note in which he suggested that he establish a special secret committee to discuss the plan of transformation. Alexander approved this idea of ​​Stroganov and appointed Stroganov, Novosiltsev, Czartoryski and Kochubey to the committee; but since neither Kochubey, nor Czartoryski, nor Novosiltsev had yet been in St. Petersburg, the start of the work of the new committee was delayed until their arrival. This work began only on June 24, 1801. From this it is clear that all of the above orders and cancellations of various orders of Paul were made by Alexander without any participation of the “secret committee”, contrary to the statement of many historians of this era, including P.N. Pypin.

The tasks and work plan of the secret committee were precisely formulated at its very first meeting. It was recognized as necessary, first of all, to find out the actual state of affairs, then to reform the government mechanism and, finally, to ensure the existence and independence of the renewed state institutions with a constitution created by the autocratic government and corresponding to the spirit of the Russian people. This was the task of the secret committee. This formulation was fully consistent with the views of Stroganov, but did not fully express the views of Alexander himself, who at that time was mainly occupied with the idea of ​​​​issuing some kind of demonstrative declaration like the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Stroganov believed, as already mentioned, that it was necessary to start the matter by streamlining the state organization, which was not completed by Catherine and then gave way to complete chaos during the reign of Paul.

Since the collection of information about the state of affairs in Russia, entrusted to Novosiltsev, was supposed to drag on, it was decided to allow Novosiltsev to make reports as information became available about the state of various branches of public administration, setting out in them his thoughts on what transformations should be undertaken in the near future .

Unfortunately, this study was not understood very deeply and essentially boiled down to the study of the government apparatus and the elucidation of its shortcomings, and not to the study of the situation of the people; the program that was proposed by Novosiltsev consisted of the following sections: 1) issues of protecting the country from land and sea; 2) questions about attitudes towards other states; 3) the question of the internal state of the country in terms of statistical and administrative matters. By “statistical relation,” of course, one could understand the study of the situation of the people; but according to the plan, the “statistical relation” meant only: trade, communications, agriculture and industry, and the administrative order, recognized as the clef de la voute [key issue], was supposed to include: justice, finance and legislation.

Of course, of the listed departments in our time, everyone recognizes the most important is the study of the statistical situation in Russia, if it is understood as it is understood now; but then there were no statistics; The meetings of the secret committee also took place secretly, so the committee could not undertake any inquiry on its own behalf. Of course, this questionnaire could have been carried out on behalf of one of the government agencies, but at that time the committee members themselves would hardly have been able to develop a proper research program. Moreover, with the means of communication at that time, the required information could only be collected over a relatively long period of time (this would have required, under the conditions of that time, of course, much more than a year); Meanwhile, Alexander was in a great hurry for the committee. Thus, if the members of the secret committee used statistical data, then only those that could be obtained by them through permanent advice or that accidentally ended up at their disposal, having been received through the sovereign or from individual statesmen. They could also use something from the stock of their own observations, but, unfortunately, such a stock could be any significant (in relation to the internal life of the country) only with Stroganov, who, while living in the village, became somewhat acquainted with rural life, and Kochubey and Czartoryski had it only in the field of foreign relations.

The discussion of the first point of the program, namely the issue of protecting the country from land and sea, took a little time and was transferred to a special commission of persons knowledgeable in military and naval affairs. The discussion of the second point - attitude towards other states - revealed, first of all, the complete unpreparedness and ignorance of Alexander himself in matters of foreign policy. On the contrary, Kochubey and Czartoryski, as experienced diplomats, had fairly definite knowledge and views in this regard. As for Alexander, having just signed a friendly convention with England, which quite successfully resolved the most pressing of the controversial issues of maritime law, in the committee he suddenly expressed the opinion that concern should be given to forming a coalition against England. With this opinion, Alexander led the members of the committee to great bewilderment and even embarrassment, especially since they knew the emperor’s inclination to talk personally with representatives of foreign powers and, therefore, could reasonably fear the confusion that Alexander could bring to this important matter. The committee persistently advised Alexander to ask the opinions of old, experienced diplomats on this issue, and the committee members pointed to gr. A. R. Vorontsova.

This first failure made quite a strong impression on Alexander, and he came to the next meeting more prepared. At this meeting, he asked Kochubey to present his view of Russian foreign policy. Kochubey, however, in turn, wished first to become more familiar with the views of Alexander himself. There was an exchange of opinions. At the same time, everyone finally agreed with the views of Czartoryski and Kochubey, according to which it was recognized that England is a natural friend of Russia, since all the interests of our foreign trade are connected with England, since almost all of our exports then went to England. At the same time, it was indicated that in relation to France it is necessary to set limits to the ambitious aspirations of its government, if possible, however, without compromising oneself. Thus, the first resolution of the Foreign Policy Committee was completely inconsistent with the initial opinion of Alexander, which he brought there. For Alexander, the first pancake came out lumpy; but he soon showed that it was in the sphere of diplomacy that he was gifted with outstanding talents and was able not only to fully navigate foreign politics, but also to develop a completely independent view of things in it.

Government reform projects in a secret committee

Prince Victor Kochubey. Portrait by François Gerard, 1809

In the following meetings the committee moved on to internal relations, the study of which was to be its main task. These relations were considered with great digressions to the side. Alexander himself was most occupied with two questions, which in his mind were closely connected with each other; this is the question of granting a special charter or some kind of declaration of rights - a question to which he attached special importance, wanting to quickly demonstrate and publicize his attitude to governing the country; Another question that interested him and was partly related to the first was the question of the transformation of the Senate, in which he then saw the guardian of the inviolability of civil rights. In this, Alexander was supported by old senators, both liberals and even conservatives, such as Derzhavin. And Prince P. A. Zubov (Catherine’s last favorite) even presented a project to transform the Senate into an independent legislative body. At first glance, this project seemed feasible to Alexander, and he submitted it to a secret committee for consideration. According to Zubov's project, the Senate was to consist of senior officials and representatives of the highest nobility. Derzhavin proposed that the Senate consist of persons elected among themselves by officials of the first four classes. In the secret committee it was not difficult to prove that such projects had nothing to do with popular representation.

The third project, submitted to the committee by Alexander and concerning internal reforms, was drawn up by A. R. Vorontsov. This project did not, however, concern the transformation of the Senate. Vorontsov, going towards another thought of Alexander, namely the thought of a charter, developed a draft of a “charter to the people,” which in appearance resembled Catherine’s charters to the cities and nobility, and in content applied to the entire people and represented serious guarantees of freedom for citizens, since it repeated largely the position of English Habeascorpusact.

When members of the secret committee began to consider this project, they especially paid attention to this part of it, and Novosiltsev expressed doubt whether such obligations could be given in the given state of the country, and fear that in a few years they would have to be taken back. When Alexander heard such a judgment, he immediately said that the same thought had occurred to him and that he even expressed it to Vorontsov. The secret committee recognized that the publication of such a charter, which was supposed to be timed to coincide with the coronation, could not be considered timely.

This case is quite typical: it vividly illustrates the extent to which the very members of the secret committee were cautious, whom their enemies later called, without hesitation, a Jacobin gang. It turned out that the “old servant” Vorontsov, in practice, in some cases could be more liberal than these “Jacobins” who gathered in winter palace.

The peasant question in the secret committee

Portrait of Count Nikolai Novosiltsev. Artist S. Shchukin

They held the same intellectual and conservative views on the peasant question. For the first time, the secret committee touched upon this issue regarding the same “letter” of Vorontsov, since it contained a clause on the peasants’ ownership of real estate. It seemed to Alexander himself then that this right was quite dangerous. Then, after the coronation, in November 1801, Alexander informed the committee that many people, such as La Harpe, who arrived in Russia at Alexander’s call, and Admiral Mordvinov, who was a convinced constitutionalist, but with the views of an English Tory, were declaring the need to do something in favor of the peasants. Mordvinov, for his part, also proposed a practical measure, which consisted in extending the right of ownership of real estate to merchants, townspeople and state-owned peasants.

It is perhaps not immediately clear why this measure relates to the peasant issue, but Mordvinov had his own logic. He considered it necessary to limit autocratic power and believed that the most lasting limitation of it could be ensured by the presence of an independent aristocracy; hence his desire, first of all, to create such an independent aristocracy in Russia. At the same time, he sought to ensure that a significant part of state-owned lands was sold or distributed to the nobility, meaning to strengthen the property security and independence of this class. As for the peasant question itself and the abolition of serfdom, he believed that this right cannot be violated by the arbitrariness of the supreme power, which should not interfere in this area at all, and that the liberation of peasants from serfdom can only be accomplished at the request of the nobility itself. Taking this point of view, Mordvinov sought to create an economic system in which the nobility itself would recognize the forced labor of serfs as unprofitable and would itself renounce its rights. He hoped that on the lands that commoners would be allowed to own, forms of wage labor would be formed that would compete with serfdom and would later induce landowners to abolish serfdom. Thus, Mordvinov wanted to gradually prepare the ground for the abolition of serfdom instead of any measures tending towards its legislative limitation. This is how things stood then with the peasant question, even among liberal and educated people like the Mordvins.

Zubov, who, in fact, did not have any fundamental ideas, but simply met Alexander’s liberal desires, also presented a project on the peasant issue - and even more liberal than the Mordvinian one: he proposed banning the sale of serfs without land. We saw that Alexander had already prohibited the Academy of Sciences from accepting announcements about such a sale, but Zubov went further: wanting to give serfdom the form of ownership of estates to which permanent workers were attached (glebae adscripti), he proposed banning the ownership of household servants, relegating them to guilds and guilds and giving the landowners money to compensate for the damage.

In the secret committee, Novosiltsev was the first to speak out against Zubov’s project, and in the most categorical way. He pointed out that the state, first of all, does not have the money to buy out the servants, and that, then, it is completely unknown what to do with this mass of people who are not capable of anything. Further at the same meeting, the idea was expressed that it was impossible to immediately take several measures against serfdom, since such haste could irritate the nobility. Novosiltsev’s ideas were not completely shared by anyone; but they apparently swayed Alexander. Czartoryski spoke out passionately against serfdom, pointing out that serfdom on people is such an abomination that the fight against which should not be guided by any fears. Kochubey pointed out that if one Mordvinian project is adopted, the serfs will fundamentally consider themselves bypassed, since other classes living side by side with them will be given important rights, and they alone will not be given any relief in their fate. Stroganov made a large and eloquent speech, which was mainly directed against the idea that it is dangerous to irritate the nobility; he argued that the nobility in political terms in Russia represents zero, that it is not capable of protesting, that it can only be a slave of the supreme power; as evidence, he cited the reign of Paul, when the nobility proved that it does not even know how to defend its own honor, when this honor is trampled upon by the government with the assistance of the nobles themselves. At the same time, he pointed out that the peasants still consider the sovereign their only protector, and that the people’s devotion to the sovereign depends on the people’s hopes for him, and that it is really dangerous to shake these hopes. Therefore, he found that if one is guided by fears at all, then it is these most real fears that must be taken into account first of all.

His speech was listened to with great attention and apparently made some impression, but it still did not sway either Novosiltsev or even Alexander. After that, everyone was silent for a while, and then moved on to other matters. The project proposed by Zubov was not accepted. In the end, only Mordvinov’s measure was adopted: thus, the right of persons of the non-noble classes to buy uninhabited lands was recognized. Novosiltsev asked permission to consult regarding the measure proposed by Zubov, with Lagarp and with the same Mordvinov, Lagarp and Mordvinov expressed the same doubt as Novosiltsev. It is remarkable that La Harpe, who was considered a Jacobin and a democrat, was as indecisive and timid on the peasant question as the rest. He considered education to be the main need in Russia and persistently emphasized that without education nothing could be achieved, but at the same time he pointed out the difficulty of spreading education under serfdom, while at the same time finding that seriously touching serfdom under such a state of enlightenment was also dangerous. Thus, it turned out to be a kind of vicious circle.

Members of the secret committee believed that over time they would come to the abolition of serfdom, but in a slow and gradual way, and even the direction of this path remained unclear.

As for the situation of trade, industry and agriculture, all these sectors national economy, in essence, were never explored, although just at that time they were all in such a state that they should have attracted serious attention from the government.

Establishment of ministries (1802)

Prince Adam Czartoryski, 1808

The most important work of the secret committee was to transform the central government bodies. The need for this transformation became obvious ever since Catherine transformed local institutions, not having time to transform the central ones, but abolishing most of the collegiums. We saw that even under her rule there was great confusion in the affairs of the central institutions. Therefore, for the members of the secret committee, the urgency of transforming the central government bodies was obvious. The confusion in matters reached the point that when major unrest and even disasters occurred, such as, for example, the extinction of people in Siberia from hunger, it was not even known who, in fact, could give responsible information about the state of affairs. Under the influence of just such an incident, Alexander expressed a desire for the issue of delimiting the competence of individual central institutions to move forward more quickly, and since the usual rapporteur - Novosiltsev - was not on the committee at that moment, the emperor turned to Czartoryski with instructions to draw up a report on this issue. On February 10, 1802, Czartoryski presented a report that was remarkably harmonious and clear; in it he pointed out the need for a strict division of competence of the highest bodies of management, supervision, court and legislation and precise definition the roles of each of them. According to the speaker, it was necessary, first of all, to free the Senate from its dependence on its own chancellery; for under the existing order the prosecutor general was the arbiter of all affairs in the Senate, former boss office of the Senate and had a personal report from the sovereign. Then Czartoryski spoke out for the need to accurately define the competence of the permanent council and for distinguishing the competence of the Senate and the permanent council. At the same time, he believed that the Senate should deal only with controversial cases, both administrative and judicial, and the permanent council should be an advisory institution where cases and projects of a legislative nature should be considered. The highest administration, according to Czartoryski, should be divided between separate departments, with a precisely defined range of affairs; Moreover, in his opinion, each such department should be headed not by a collegium, but by the sole authority of the responsible minister. The speaker made it clear that in colleges all personal responsibility necessarily disappears.

We see thus that it is Czartoryski who is responsible for a definite and clear formulation of the question of ministries. Previously this was attributed to La Harpe, but now, with the publication of the minutes of the secret committee, which were carefully kept by Stroganov, there can be no doubt about this. Further, Czartoryski’s report indicated another measure that concerned the transformation of the judiciary. Czartoryski advocated the desirability of adhering to the latest French judicial system introduced after the revolution, and in accordance with this system he divided the court into criminal, civil and police, i.e. a court dealing with cases of minor offenses, corresponding to the current magistrates' courts. The highest authority under the project was the Supreme Court for all court cases. court of cassation. The secret committee, however, did not have time to develop this part of Czartoryski’s plan in detail. But Czartoryski’s idea to establish ministries was adopted unanimously. Since February 1802, all the work of the secret committee has been focused on developing this idea: six months later the committee developed a project for the establishment of ministries. On September 8, 1802, according to a project developed by a secret committee, ministries were established: foreign affairs, military and naval, corresponding to the remaining collegiums at that time, and completely new ministries: internal affairs, finance, public education and justice. On the initiative of Alexander himself, the Ministry of Commerce was added to them, the establishment of which he insisted on only because he wanted to provide the title of Minister of Civil. N.P. Rumyantsev, who was in charge of waterways at that time. The establishment of ministries was, strictly speaking, the only completely independent and completed work of the secret committee.

Senate transformation

At the same time, the new establishment of the Senate was considered and then published. At the same time, the members of the committee rejected the idea of ​​​​transforming the Senate into a legislative institution, expressed by individual senators, and, in accordance with the main idea of ​​Czartoryski and with the note of the Senate itself on its rights, decided that the Senate should be mainly a body of state supervision over the administration and at the same time the highest judicial authority . The work on this issue was based on the report of the Senate itself on his rights. The following main points for the establishment of the Senate were adopted: 1) The Senate is the supreme administrative and judicial seat in the empire; 2) the power of the Senate is limited by the sole power of the emperor; 3) the sovereign presides over the Senate; 4) the decrees of the Senate are executed by everyone, as the sovereign’s own decrees, who alone can stop their execution; 5) the Senate is allowed to submit to the sovereign about such highest decrees that are associated with great inconvenience in execution, or are inconsistent with other laws, or are not clear; but when, on the proposal of the Senate, no change is made in the decree, then the protested decree remains in force; 6) ministers must submit their annual reports to the Senate for consideration; The Senate can demand from them all kinds of information and explanations and must report any irregularities and abuses detected to the sovereign; 7) if any decisions of the general meeting of the Senate disagree with the opinion of the prosecutor general or chief prosecutor, the case is reported to the sovereign; 8) in criminal cases in which it is a matter of depriving someone of nobility and ranks, all such cases must be submitted to the confirmation of the sovereign; 9) for unfair complaints against the Senate to the sovereign, those responsible are put on trial; 10) a senator convicted of a crime is subject to trial by the general meeting of the Senate.

In general, these main points of Senate competence did not contradict the main provisions of Peter’s regulations.

During the discussion in the secret committee of the question of reform of the Senate and precisely when determining the competence of the Senate, the question arose, among other things, in connection with the formation of ministries, about the attitude of the Senate to ministers, since among the articles defining the competence of the Senate, it was decided to include, among other things, and an article on the procedure for the Senate’s supervision of ministries, by virtue of which, as just said, ministers had to submit their annual reports to the Senate, and if it became clear that the actions of any ministry were incorrect, the Senate was given the right to enter the emperor with the idea of ​​​​involving the appropriate minister to responsibility. This point aroused sharp objections from Alexander, who argued that under such conditions the Senate would be a hindrance to the sovereign’s reformative activities, and for a long time did not agree to granting the Senate the right to control over ministries, even in such a situation. moderate form. The stubbornness with which Alexander objected to this point shows how dreamy his liberal views were: at the very first practical attempt to control not even his personal actions, but the activities of his employees, he immediately showed stubborn resistance to this project, seeing in it only some are annoying for him negative aspects. He feared, not without reason, that the Senate, composed of “old servants,” would slow down his reform activities, but it is remarkable that, in view of this fear, Alexander could no longer take a principled point of view and did not see the connection of this issue with his own principles.

The superficial nature of his political views at that time was expressed even more clearly in an incident that happened shortly after that, thanks to that article of the rules of the Senate, which gave the Senate the right to express its objections to new decrees if they do not comply with the laws, are unclear in their meaning or are inconvenient for one reason or another. . This right corresponded to the privilege of the old French parliaments, called droit de remontrance.

Soon after the publication of the new rules of the Senate, there was just an occasion to use this right. According to the report of the Minister of War, the emperor determined that all nobles of non-commissioned rank were required to serve in military service 12 years old. One of the senators, gr. Severin Pototsky, not without reason, saw in this a violation of the charter granted to the nobility and invited the Senate to protest against such a high order, taking advantage of the right granted to it. The Prosecutor General of the Senate, G.R. Derzhavin, was, however, so struck by this protest that he did not even dare to allow this report to be discussed in the Senate, but went first to Alexander with this matter. The Emperor was also very embarrassed by Derzhavin’s report, but ordered to act legally. The next day, Derzhavin ran to Alexander with the words: “Sovereign, the entire Senate is against you on the issue raised by Pototsky.” The Emperor, according to Derzhavin, changed his face, but only said that the Senate should send him a deputation with a reasoned report on the protest. Such a deputation soon appeared. Alexander received her very dryly, took the written report and said that he would give an order. This matter was resolved only after quite a long time: it was in March 1803 that Alexander issued a decree, which explained that the Senate had incorrectly interpreted its rights, that the right of objection supposedly applied only to old decrees, and not to new ones that the Senate should adopt strictly.

It is difficult to understand how in Alexander’s mind the idea of ​​the need to limit autocratic power was combined with such contradictions to this idea in practice. Alexander’s behavior in this case was all the more strange since the stated right of the Senate did not further limit, in essence, his autocratic power, since if the sovereign, in response to the protest of the Senate, had simply repeated his will to carry out the decree he had issued, then the Senate obliged according to the regulations to immediately accept it for execution.

Results of the work of the secret committee

The main results of the work of the secret committee were, therefore, the establishment of ministries and the publication of new regulations of the Senate.

In May 1802, meetings of the secret committee virtually ceased; Alexander went on a date with the Prussian king, and when he returned, he did not assemble a committee. From then on, all reform work was transferred to the Committee of Ministers, which met in the first years of its existence under the personal chairmanship of the emperor. Only at the end of 1803 did the secret committee meet several more times, but on private issues that did not concern fundamental changes. Thus, in fact, he participated in the transformation work for only one year.

Let us summarize his activities. Conservatives of the time, Catherine’s “old servants” and inveterate serf owners like Derzhavin called the members of this committee a “Jacobin gang.” But we saw that if they could be blamed for anything, it was rather for the timidity and inconsistency with which they followed the path to liberal reforms that they themselves had adopted. Both main issues of that time - about serfdom and about limiting autocracy - were reduced to nothing by the committee. The only important result of his work was in a technical sense, and when the establishment of ministries appeared, it aroused embittered criticism from the “old servants”, who called the reform a daring violation of the Petrine collegial principle. Critics also pointed out that the law was issued in an undeveloped form, that there were great inconsistencies in the competence of the Senate and the permanent council and in the attitude of the ministries to them; Mainly, opponents of the reform attacked the fact that the internal composition of the ministries was not developed, each ministry was not given a separate mandate, and the relationship of the ministries to provincial institutions was not clarified.

As for the reproach for an impudent attitude towards Peter's legislation, this reproach is factually incorrect, since Peter's colleges were destroyed, as we know, by Catherine, and now it was not necessary to replace the existing colleges with ministries, but to build a new building from scratch. As for the imperfections in the development of the law, there were indeed many of them. In essence, this law embraced all the ministries in one legal provision, and indeed there were no detailed orders, and the internal regulations were not developed, and the attitude of the ministries to provincial institutions was unclear. But, recognizing all this, it must be said that it was the introduction of ministries that could eliminate a significant part of these shortcomings: the institutions were completely new, and it was necessary to allow the ministries themselves to gradually, through experience, develop their own internal rules and establish mutual relations between various departments.

These were the tangible results of the work of the secret committee.

But for Alexander himself, working in the secret committee with its enlightened and talented employees was an extremely useful school, which compensated to some extent for the lack of positive knowledge that he suffered from upon his accession to the throne, in the field of both domestic and foreign policy. Having taken advantage of the lessons learned in the secret committee, and having received from it an improved tool for further development of issues of internal government in the form of ministries and a committee of ministers, Alexander undoubtedly felt more stable and more conscious of his intentions, better equipped to carry out his political plans than what he was the year before. This undoubtedly applies to the field of foreign policy, in which he soon showed himself quite independently.

Compare Alexander's letter to Ekaterina Pavlovna dated September 18, 1812 in their “correspondence”, ed. led book Nikolai Mikhailovich. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 87.

Both of these figures were people gifted with a natural mind and, in the general sense of the word, honest, but not particularly educated; They were not ideological or principled people, and in government affairs they were guided mainly by routine and “common sense.” In addition, they were at odds with each other and quarreled very often even in the presence of Alexander (Schilder, II, 30).

Alexander’s relationship with Palen and Panin is described differently in the notes of the Decembrist M.A. Fonvizin (nephew famous writer). In his “Notes” Fonvizin - from the words of gr. P. A. Tolstoy, who was the military governor of St. Petersburg after Palen, says that Alexander, at his very accession to the throne, was given a certain condition by Panin and Palen that he would make a solemn promise to grant a constitution immediately upon his accession, but that as if the general Talyzin, who commanded the guards garrison in the capital, warned Alexander about this in time, persuaded him not to agree to these conditions and promised, if necessary, the support of all the guards troops that were in St. Petersburg. Alexander, according to Fonvizin’s story, listened to Talyzin and rejected the proposal of Palen and Panin, after which Palen, enraged by Talyzin’s intervention, allegedly ordered him to be poisoned (it should be noted that Talyzin actually died suddenly at that very time). Legend claims that these circumstances were the reason for the retirement of Counts Palen and Panin. This legend enjoyed the confidence of many for a long time; but now there is no doubt about her infidelity.

Panin was not even in St. Petersburg at that time and arrived in the capital only a few weeks later. Moreover, if all this were true, then Alexander would have dismissed Palen immediately and would not have appointed Panin, meanwhile, both of them received their resignations only when the need for them had passed - several months later. The circumstances of Palen's resignation are known. He was dismissed at the request of Empress Maria Feodorovna, with whom he had a sharp clash in June 1801 over icons presented to her by the Old Believers and exhibited on her orders in the chapel, and on one of these icons there was an inscription in which Palen saw a hint at the desirability of harsh reprisals against Paul’s murderers. Palen allowed himself to order the removal of the icon, displayed by order of the empress, and, moreover, addressed a complaint about it to Alexander, and the empress, in turn, demanded his resignation, and Alexander not only fired him, taking the side of his mother, but also ordered he should leave St. Petersburg. All this happened only in June 1801.

Panin managed foreign affairs from April to September 1801. Now the circumstances why he had to leave his activities have been clearly clarified: he did not at all agree with Alexander in his views on foreign policy and tried to pursue his own line that disagreed with the views and will of Alexander , which turned out to be more definite and firmer than Panin had expected. It is not surprising that Alexander’s unusual accession to the throne, surrounded by mystery for so long, gave rise to various legends: after all, many important materials covering this event have only now been published. (Especially “Archive of Prince Vorontsov”, books 11, 14, 18,29, etc. and “Materials for the biography of rp. N. P. Panin”, ed. A. G. Brikner, vol. VI.)

In addition to censorship matters, the council was in charge under Paul of the affairs of the higher financial administration and some of the affairs of the higher police that were accidentally introduced into it by special highest orders. (See new research by Mr. Klochkov, pp. 165 et seq.)

Let's say a few words here about P. A. Stroganov himself and Alexander's other young friends, whom he called from abroad. Stroganov was the only son of the richest of Catherine’s nobles, Count A.S. Stroganov. Like Alexander, he was raised a French Republican. This Frenchman, quite famous in his time as a mathematician Romm, in his future fate was less happy than La Harpe: he was subsequently a member and even at one time chairman of the Convention of 1793, and then ended his life on the scaffold. He was a more stern and unyielding republican than La Harpe. In 1790, he traveled with the young Stroganov across Europe and, arriving in Paris at the height of the revolution, joined the Jacobin club along with his young pupil, who soon even became the librarian of this club, while meeting the famous revolutionary Théroigne de Mericourt.

When Catherine found out about this, she forbade Romm entry into Russia and, immediately demanding young Stroganov to St. Petersburg, exiled him to the village where his mother then lived.

Soon, however, young Stroganov was returned to court. Here he became friends with Alexander (through Czartoryski) and little by little became accustomed to Russian conditions. From his former radicalism and Jacobinism, however, he still had great straightforwardness in character and a tendency to implement even liberal reforms in the Jacobin way. In his views, he was a rather moderate liberal, although with a noticeable democratic tint. From his teacher Romm, he borrowed, first of all, remarkable precision of thought and the habit of formulating his moods and views with complete certainty.

Among Alexander's young advisers, Stroganov was, if not the most gifted, then the most persistent, with a definite plan of action in his head; everyone else was undoubtedly far inferior to him in this. Stroganov was five years older than Alexander and considered the emperor a man with good intentions, but weak-willed and lazy, and his first task - or, rather, not his own, but the task of the circle to which he belonged and in relation to which he thought that this circle would have to transform Russia - he considered subjugating Alexander in order to be able to systematically direct his activities are for good. Since Stroganov foresaw that a whole number of other persons of a completely different direction, and most often in personal forms would strive for the same goal, he believed that the circle needed to hurry, because then when Alexander would be subordinate to someone else , it will be more difficult to influence him. The measures by which he believed to achieve this goal were, however, completely honest, far from deception, violence against Alexander’s conscience, etc. Stroganov believed to subordinate Alexander to his circle, trying to become necessary for him in the development of all those issues that occupied himself Alexander, but for the development of which Alexander did not have enough, according to Stroganov, either the character or the ability to work hard. (For a description of Stroganov, see his biography compiled by Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich in 1903, vol. I.)

Another member of this circle, N.N. Novosiltsev, was Stroganov’s cousin. He was, or seemed to be, much more subtle in mind than him and had great ability to express his thoughts in a completely literary, brilliant style. Novosiltsev was somewhat older than Stroganov and, therefore, much older than Alexander, less ardent, more cautious, but did not have such precision of thought and consciousness of intentions as Stroganov. (Ibid.)

The third member of the circle was Prince. Adam Czartoryski, a man of outstanding intelligence and talent, an ardent patriot of his homeland, Poland, a subtle politician, a sober observer, who managed to understand the essence of Alexander’s character much more deeply than others. He, too, at one time was keen on the ideas of revolutionary France in 1789, but all his cherished thoughts were aimed at restoring Poland as a strong, independent state. Describing all the members of the circle in his memoirs, Czartoryski himself called himself the most disinterested, since he participated, in fact, in a matter that was alien to him. To Czartoryski’s credit, it must be said that he never hid his true motives and intentions from Alexander and subsequently, in 1802, before accepting the position of fellow minister of foreign affairs offered to him by the emperor, he warned Alexander that, as a Pole and a Polish patriot, he, in the event of a conflict of interests of Russians and Polish, will always take the side of these latter (“Mémoires du prince Adam Czartoryski.” P., 1887),

The fourth person, who had not previously belonged to this triumvirate and was joined to it by Alexander himself, was Count. Viktor Pavlovich Kochubey. He was an outstanding young diplomat, Bezborodko’s nephew, who brilliantly began his career under Catherine - for 24 years he was already ambassador to Constantinople and skillfully supported the prestige and interests of Russia. In his views, he was a sincere liberal, however, much more moderate than Stroganov and than Alexander himself. He was very educated person, but, brought up in England, he knew it, as his contemporaries assured, better than Russia.

However, Kochubey sought to take part precisely in the internal transformations of Russia, and willingly abandoned his brilliant diplomatic career for this (he was already vice-chancellor under Pavel).

Note presented to Alexander by gr. A. R. Vorontsov, published in book 29 of the “Archive of the book. Vorontsov."

About Mordvinov, see the historical monograph by prof. V. S. Ikonnikova"Count N. S. Mordvinov." St. Petersburg, 1873.

All of the above shortcomings of the first establishment of ministries were soon clearly realized by V.P. Kochubey, as can be seen from his note presented to Emperor Alexander on March 28, 1806. This note was printed in the volume of the CS “Collection of the Russian Historical Society” among the papers found in Alexander’s office after his death (p. 199).

Emperor Alexander I

The beginning of the reign of Alexander I was marked by a broad amnesty and the repeal of a number of laws introduced by his father, Paul I.

The secret chancellery was abolished, all political affairs were transferred to the jurisdiction of the courts, torture was prohibited, privileges were returned to the nobility, and censorship was weakened.

In the first liberal reforms of Alexander I, a major role was played by the Secret Committee (an unofficial advisory body), created in 1801, which included friends of Alexander I’s youth: P.A. Stroganov, V.P. Kochubey, A. Chartoryski, N.N. Novosiltsev. During 1801-1804. they gathered with the emperor and together with him thought through the course of transformations and reforms. The secret committee considered issues of Senate and ministerial reform, the activities of the “Permanent Council” (the former State Council, which in 1810 again became known as the State Council), the peasant question, coronation projects of 1801 and a number of foreign policy events. All members of the Secret Committee were adherents of the liberation of peasants and supporters of the constitutional system.

Composition of the Secret Committee

Prince Adam Czartoryski, a European-educated Polish tycoon, his homeland was annexed to Russia after the partition of Poland. He wanted to help Poland gain freedom and openly expressed his views.

Victor Kochubey, a former ambassador to Constantinople, a longtime friend of Alexander, with whom he corresponded and to whom he revealed his most secret thoughts, sought to introduce fair laws and establish order in the country.

Pavel Stroganov. From the family of the largest rich people in Russia, who owned a huge collection of paintings. At the height of the French Revolution, he was in Paris and walked around in a red cap as a sign of solidarity with the revolutionaries. Catherine II urgently returned him to Russia, where he lived in the village for several years. Later, Stroganov reappeared at court, marrying the smartest and most educated woman in St. Petersburg, Princess Sofya Golitsyna, and began to lead the life of an enlightened nobleman.

Nikolay Novosiltsev- a relative of Stroganov - a specialist in law, political economy and general history.

Secretly, friends drew up notes with projects for reforms that included the introduction of civil liberties, equality of all before the law and the creation of a society based on the principles of justice and fraternity.

Alexander, the youngest of them, approved of the views of his like-minded people.

Paul I was alarmed by his son's friendship with liberal-minded young people, and he dispersed the circle: Czartoryski was sent as an envoy to Sardinia, Kochubey into exile in Dresden, Novosiltsev himself went to England, Stroganov was removed from the court - the circle disintegrated. But as soon as Alexander I ascended the throne, the circle was revived, but in the form of a Secret Committee.

The permanent council and the Senate were supposed to personify the continuity of Catherine's and the new reigns, and the Secret Committee became a response to the challenges of the time - primarily to changes in Europe under the influence of the ideas of the French Revolution.

Formally, the Secret Committee was not part of the public administration system, but in regular conversations of its participants, “young friends” of the emperor, plans for transformation were discussed. However, neither the emperor nor his staff had a clear idea of ​​the sequence of necessary reforms.

The circle existed until approximately 1804. The Emperor became increasingly involved in the details of the government, and now he did not really need advisers. Members of the former Secret Committee then took high positions in the newly formed ministries.

Activities of the Secret Committee

The first laws they created were the following:

A law that allowed merchants, townspeople and state peasants to acquire uninhabited lands (1801).

The decree “on free cultivators,” which gave landowners the right to free peasants with land for a ransom (1803).

The Senate was declared the supreme body of the empire, concentrating the highest administrative, judicial and supervisory power (1802).

The Synod was headed by a civil official with the rank of chief prosecutor. From 1803 to 1824 The position of Chief Prosecutor was filled by Prince A. N. Golitsyn, who had also been the Minister of Public Education since 1816.

The ministerial reform began on September 8, 1802 with the Manifesto “On the Establishment of Ministries.” 8 ministries were approved, replacing Peter's colleges (liquidated by Catherine II and restored by Paul I):

• foreign affairs
• military ground forces
• naval forces
• internal affairs
• finance
• justice
• commerce
• public education.

Ministries were built on the principle of unity of command.

Education

In 1803, new principles of the education system were set out:

• lack of class;
• free education at lower levels;
• continuity of educational programs.

The education system consisted of levels:

• university
• gymnasium in the provincial town
• district school
• one-class parochial school.

Expansion of the Russian Empire

From the very beginning of the reign of Alexander I, Russia significantly expanded its territory: in 1801, Eastern Georgia joined it; in 1803-1804 – Mengrelia, Guria, Imereti; However, the actions of Russian troops in Transcaucasia affected the interests of Persia, which was the reason Russian-Persian war, which lasted from 1804 to 1813 and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 and the annexation of Baku, Derbent, Karabakh and other Transcaucasian khanates to Russia. According to the agreement, Russia was given the exclusive right to have its own military fleet in the Caspian Sea. The annexation of part of Transcaucasia to Russia, on the one hand, saved the peoples of Transcaucasia from the invasions of Persian and Turkish invaders and helped raise the economy of Transcaucasia to a higher level; on the other hand, between the Caucasian peoples and the Russian authorities and Russian settlers, quarrels often arose on religious and ethnic grounds, which gave rise to instability in the region.

Persia did not accept the loss of Transcaucasia. Pushed by Great Britain, it soon unleashed new war against Russia, which ended with the defeat of Persia and the signing of the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty in 1828.

Borders before and after the conclusion of the agreement

The Russian Empire also included Finland, Bessarabia, and most of Poland (which formed the Kingdom of Poland).

Peasant question

In 1818, Alexander I instructed Admiral Mordvinov, Count Arakcheev and Count Guryev to develop projects for the abolition of serfdom.

Mordvinov's project:

• peasants receive personal freedom, but without land, which remains entirely with the landowners;
• the amount of the ransom depends on the age of the peasant: 9-10 years - 100 rubles; 30-40 years old - 2 thousand; 40-50 years -...

Arakcheev's project:

• The liberation of the peasants should be carried out under the leadership of the government - gradually redeem the peasants with land (two dessiatines per capita) by agreement with the landowners at prices in the area.

Guryev's project:

• the slow purchase of peasant land from landowners in sufficient quantities; the program was designed for 60 years, that is, until 1880.

As a result, the peasant issue was not fundamentally resolved under Alexander I.

Arakcheevo military settlements

At the end of 1815, Alexander I began discussing the project of military settlements, the development of a plan for which was entrusted to Arakcheev.

The goals of the project were to ensure that the new military-agricultural class could, on its own, maintain and recruit a standing army without burdening the country’s budget; the size of the army was to be maintained at wartime levels, and the main population of the country was exempt from the obligation to maintain the army. These military settlements were also supposed to serve as cover for the western border.

In August 1816, preparations began for the transfer of troops and residents to the category of military villagers. In 1817, settlements were introduced in the Novgorod, Kherson and Sloboda-Ukrainian provinces. The growth in the number of districts of military settlements, gradually surrounding the border of the empire from the Baltic to the Black Sea, continued until the end of the reign of Alexander I. Military settlements were abolished in 1857.

J. Doe "Portrait of A.A. Arakcheev"

Oppressor of all Russia,
Governors tormentor
And he is the teacher of the Council,
And he is a friend and brother to the king.
Full of anger, full of revenge,
Without a mind, without feelings, without honor,
Who is he? Devoted without flattery
…..penny soldier.

We know this epigram by A.S. Pushkin to Arakcheev from school textbooks. And the word “Arakcheevism” for us is associated with the concept of gross arbitrariness and despotism. Meanwhile, historians of the 20th century began to evaluate his personality somewhat differently. It turns out that the initiator of the creation of military settlements was Alexander I himself, and Arakcheev was against it, but, as an honest soldier, he fulfilled his duty. All his life he fiercely hated bribery: those caught red-handed were immediately expelled from their positions. Red tape and extortion for the purpose of obtaining a bribe were pursued by him mercilessly. Arakcheev strictly monitored the implementation of the assigned work. For this, the clerical community, in which the passion for bribes was ineradicable, hated Arakcheev. Most likely, it was this that created such a negative impression of him.

Pushkin subsequently changed his attitude towards Arakcheev and wrote about the news of his death: “I am the only one in all of Russia who regrets this - I was not able to meet with him and talk to him.”

Opposition movement

It was especially strong against military settlements: in 1819, an uprising broke out in Chuguev near Kharkov, in 1820 - on the Don: 2,556 villages were engulfed in rebellion.

On October 16, 1820, the uprising of the Semenovsky regiment began, and under its influence, fermentation began in other parts of the St. Petersburg garrison.

In 1821, secret police were introduced into the army.

In 1822, a decree was issued banning secret organizations and Masonic lodges.

Wars in which Russia took part during the reign of AlexanderI

Against the Napoleonic Empire outside Russia (1805-1807).

Russian-Swedish War (1808-1809). The reason was the refusal of the King of Sweden, Gustav IV Adolf, to join the anti-English coalition. Result of the war:

• Finland and the Åland Islands passed to Russia;
• Sweden pledged to dissolve the alliance with England and make peace with France and Denmark, and join the continental blockade.

In 1806-1812 Russia waged war against Turkey. And as a result of the skillful diplomatic actions of M.I. Kutuzov, the Ottoman government was inclined to sign a peace treaty.

Lithograph "Alexander I accepts the surrender of Paris"

1804-1813 - Russian-Persian War.

1813-1814 — Foreign trips Russian army. In 1815, Alexander I was one of the leaders of the Congress of Vienna, which established a new European order.