Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/113

Rh volost dumas; the circle dumas were to elect the dumas of the administrative districts; these last, finally, were to elect the state duma. The state duma was to have no legislative power, but it alone could promulgate laws, the government being merely entitled to issue ordinances. The duma could take the initiative in exceptional cases only, when the fundamental law had been infringed by the government. Speranskii's scheme provided for but one chamber. It was the function of the council of state to discuss the affairs of the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive, and above all to discuss proposals emanating from these three branches of the political organism; personal report to the monarch was to be done away with.

A mere outline has been given of Sperenskii's design, but enough has been said to show that it was thought out in all its details and planned to put an end imperceptibly to absolutist despotism. Alexander approved the scheme, but it was never carried out. On the contrary, the tsar's advisers accused Speranskii of a secret understanding with foreign embassies and agents, and of direct treason. Alexander, though he did not believe the accusation, failed to protect Speranskii, who was sent to Siberia.

From time to time in his earlier works Speranskii criticised Russian despotism, but a far more eloquent criticism of this despotism was voiced by his demands for reform, for these all aimed at educating the Russian people so that it might become competent to exercise political initiative in the entire domain of public activity. He knew that there were in reality only two classes in Russia—to quote his own phraseology, the slaves of the tsar and the slaves of the landowners. Although there was a lack of definiteness about his proposals concerning the legislative organism (tsar, council of state, and duma) and its initiative, we must remember that the initiative of the volost was very definitely formulated, and that all his suggestions culminated in a restriction of the imperial initiative. Completed deliberations merely were to be laid before the tsar; the lawcourts were to be placed on an elective basis; foreign policy was to be in the hands of the executive; the aristocracy was to be independent of the crown. Speranskii made a far-reaching distinction between state and people, and he was convinced that the state is in an unhealthy condition when its development either lags behind the political sense of the people or runs unduly in advance of that sense.