Document
#1:Alexander's Letter, 1797
Document #2: Czartoryski's
Memoirs re: 1796, 1801-02
Document #3: Speranskii's
Reorganization Plan, 1809
Document #4: Novosil'tsev's
Proposed Charter for Russia, 1820
Document #5: Alexander's Secret Order on
Succession, 1823
Document #6: Memoirs of F. F. Vigel',
early 19th Century
The Decembrist Movement:
Document #7: The Writings of P.I. Pestel',
1823-25
Document #8: Murav'ev's
Constitution, 1824
Document #19: The Decembrist Manifesto, December
13, 1825
Document #10: Testimony of Decembrists, 1826
Document #11: Iakushkin's
Explanation of the Decembrists
Document 1:
ALEXANDER'S LETTER TO LA HARPE, SEPTEMBER
27, 1797
Alexander's correspondence
with his tutor and friend La Harpe sheds valuable
light on the attitudes of the future monarch. Here is a brief sample.
Reference: N. K. Shil'der,
Imperator Aleksandr Pervyi,
ego zhizn' i tsarstvovanie, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1897-98), 1:280-81.
You are acquainted with the various abuses that prevailed in the time of the
late empress; they merely increased as her health and her mental and physical
powers became enfeebled. Finally, last November, she ended her career. I shall
not give you the details of the tribulation and general grief her death brought
to everyone, a grief which, unfortunately, increases, every day. My father, on
ascending the throne, wanted to reform everything. His beginning, it is true,
was brilliant enough, but the results have not been in keeping with it.
Everything has been turned upside-down at the same
time, and this has only served to increase the confusion, even now too great,
which already prevailed in affairs.
The military wastes almost all its time,
especially in parades. Elsewhere no plan is followed. What is ordered one day
is countermanded a month later. Suggestions are permitted only when the harm
has already been done. Finally, to speak plainly, the well-being of the state
is not in the least considered in the administration of affairs; there is only
absolute power which does everything wrong and at cross purposes. It would be
impossible to enumerate to you all the follies that have been committed; add to
this a severity quite devoid of justice, much favoritism, and the greatest inexperience
in all affairs. The choice of officials is entirely a matter of favoritism;
merit counts for nothing. In sum, my poor country is in an indescribable state.
The farmer is plagued; commerce is hindered; personal liberty and well-being
are reduced to nothing. There you have the picture of Russia; judge
how my heart must suffer. As for myself, engaged in military trivialities,
wasting all my time in the duties of a subaltern, with not even a moment to
give to my studies, which were my favorite pursuit before the change, I have
become the most unhappy of men.
Document 2:
THE MEMOIRS OF PRINCE ADAM CZARTORYSKI,
CONCERNING 1796 AND 1801-1802
The memoirs of Czartoryski, written in the 1830s, shed much light on the
attitudes of Alexander I's "unofficial
committee" and on the tsar himself in the years around the turn of the
century. (See also Alexander's letter to La Harpe,
Item XIII:7, above.)
Reference: Memoirs of Prince Adam Czartoryski and His Correspondence with Alexander I,
ed. Adam Gielgud, 2d ed., 2 vols. (London,
1888), 1:109-14, 127-30, 256-58, 260-61. For translated excerpts from the
papers of another of Alexander's associates of this period, Count Paul Stroganov, see Warren B. Walsh, ed., Readings in Russian
History, 3 vols., 4th ed. (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963),
2:275-82.
Under the date 1796:
Before the break-up of the ice on Lake
Ladoga, which generally occurs towards the end of April, St. Petersburg has a
few days of fine weather, with bright sun and a moderate temperature; and the
quays are then full of gaily dressed people walking and driving. The Grand-Duke
Alexander was often there alone or with his wife; and this was an additional
incentive for high society to assemble. I used also to come with my brother,
and whenever the Grand-Duke met one of us, he stopped to talk, and showed us
particular attention.
These morning meetings were, so to say, a
continuation of the Court soirees, and our relations with the Prince daily
became more intimate. In the spring the Court moved as usual to the Tauris [Tauride] Palace, where
the Empress Catherine professed to live in greater retirement
.... The Grand-Duke still came occasionally to the quay; he told me he
was sorry to see me so seldom, and asked me to come to [visit] him to the Tauris
Palace for a walk in the
garden, which he wished to show me. Spring had already begun, and as generally
happens in this climate, nature had made up for lost time, and vegetation had
rapidly developed itself in a few days; the trees and fields were green and
covered with flowers .... As soon as I came in, the
Grand-Duke took me by the hand, and proposed that we should go into the garden,
in order, he said, that he might enable me to judge of
the skill of his English gardener. We walked about in every direction for three
hours, keeping up an animated conversation all the time ....
He added that he did not in any way share the ideas and doctrines of the
Cabinet and the Court [concerning Poland]; and that he was far from
approving the policy and conduct of his grandmother, whose principles he
condemned. He had wished for the success of Poland in her glorious struggle and
had deplored her fall. Kosciuszko, he said, was in
his eyes a man who was great by his virtues and the cause which he had
defended, which was the cause of humanity and justice. He added that he
detested despotism everywhere, no matter in what way it was exercised; that he
loved liberty, to which all men had a right; that he had taken the strongest
interest in the French Revolution, and that while condemning its terrible
excesses, he wished the French Republic success and rejoiced at its
establishment. He spoke to me with veneration of his tutor, M. de la Harpe.
This conversation was, as may be imagined,
occasionally interrupted by demonstrations of friendship on his part, and of
astonishment, gratitude, and devotion on mine. He bade me farewell, saying that
he would try to see me as often as possible, and urging on me the greatest
circumspection and secrecy ... .
I was deeply moved, and could hardly believe
my ears. That a Russian Prince, Catherine's successor, her grandson and her
favorite child, whom she would have seen reigning after her instead of her son
. . . should disavow and detest his grandmother's principles—should repel
the odious policy of Russia---should be a passionate lover of justice and
liberty- -should pity Poland and wish to see her happy—seemed
incredible...
. . . I was subjugated by a charm which it
is easy to understand: there was so much candor, innocence, resolution which
seemed unshakable, and elevation of soul in the words and countenance of this
young prince .... My attachment to him was boundless,
and the feeling with which he inspired me at that moment lasted even after the
illusions which had given birth to it successively disappeared; it resisted the
attacks which Alexander himself made upon it, and it never died in spite of the
many events and sad misunderstandings which might have destroyed it .... It should be remembered that at that time so-called
liberal opinions were much less prevalent than they are now, and had not yet
penetrated into all the classes of society and even into the Cabinets of
sovereigns . . . .
. . . Now that I look back, forty years
afterwards, upon the events which have taken place since that conversation, I
see only too well how little they have realized the picture that our youthful
imaginations had drawn. Liberal ideas were at that time in our eyes still
surrounded by an aureole which has paled since they have been tested by experience;
their realization had not yet produced the cruel deceptions which have so often
disheartened us. That period, in the years 1796 and 1797, was the most
brilliant one of the dawn of liberal ideas: the cycle of the French Empire had
not yet chilled and dispersed the warmest partisans of the Revolution.
............
It is certainly astonishing
that Catherine, who took pleasure in the thought that Alexander
would continue her reign and her glory, did not think of preparing him for this
task by familiarizing him in his early youth with the various branches of
government. Nothing of the sort was attempted. Perhaps he would not have
acquired very correct information on many things, but he would have been saved
from the want of occupation .... Alexander's education
remained incomplete at the time of his marriage, in consequence of the
departure of M. de la Harpe. He was then eighteen
years old; he had no regular occupation, he was not even advised to work, and
in the absence of any more practical task he was not given any plan of reading
which might have helped him in the difficult career for which he was destined.
I often spoke to him on this subject, both then and later. I proposed that he
should read various books on history, legislation, and politics. He saw that
they would do him good, and really wished to read
them; but a Court life makes any continued occupation impossible. While he was
Grand-Duke, Alexander did not read to the end a single serious book. I do
not think he could have done so when he became Emperor, and the whole burden of
a despotic government was cast upon him. The life of a Court is fatiguing
and yet idle .... He read by fits and starts . . . .
The passion of acquiring knowledge was not sufficiently strong in him; he was
married too young, and he did not perceive that he still knew very little .... The few years of his early youth thus passed
away, and he lost precious opportunities which he had in abundance so long as
Catherine was alive . . . .
. . . It must be concluded that nature had
endowed him with rare qualities, as notwithstanding the education he had
received he became the most amiable sovereign of his age and the cause of
Napoleon's fall. After having reigned for some years, and acquired the
experience entailed by the necessity of at once taking the management of
important affairs of State and by constant intercourse with men in office,
people were surprised to find him not only an accomplished man of the world,
but an able politician, with a penetrating and subtle mind, writing without
assistance excellent letters on complicated and difficult subjects, and always
amiable, even in the most serious conversations. What would he have become had
his education been less neglected and more adapted to the duties which were to
occupy his life? . . .
M. de la Harpe
does not seem to have directed Alexander into any serious course of study,
though he had acquired so much influence over the Grand-Duke's mind and heart
that I believe he could have made him do anything. Alexander derived from his
teaching only some superficial knowledge; his information was neither positive
nor complete. M. de la Harpe inspired him with the
love of humanity, of justice, and even of equality and liberty for all; he
prevented the prejudices of flatteries which surrounded him from stifling his
noble instincts. It was a great merit in M. de la Harpe
to have inspired and developed these generous sentiments in a Russian
Grand-Duke, but Alexander's mind was not penetrated by them; it was filled with
vague phrases, and M. de la Harpe did not
sufficiently make him reflect on the immense difficulty of realising
these ideas.
........
Under the date 1801-02:
The opinions and sentiments which had seemed
to me so admirable in Alexander when he was Grand-Duke did not change when he
became Emperor; they were somewhat modified by the possession of absolute
power, but they remained the foundation of all his principles and thoughts ....
There was no longer any question of the old
reveries of extreme liberalism; the Emperor ceased to speak to me of his plan
of giving up the throne .... But he was constantly
thinking of more practical matters, such as the administration of justice, the
emancipation of the masses, equitable reforms and liberal institutions; this
was his diversion when he was alone with me. He understood the often
insurmountable obstacles which the most elementary reforms would meet with in Russia; but he
wished to prove to those with whom he was intimate that the sentiments he had
expressed to them were still the same, notwithstanding the change in his position .... It was necessary, however, not to disclose
them, and still less to take a pride in them, in the presence of a public which
was at that time so little prepared to appreciate them, and would have regarded
them with surprise and horror. Meanwhile the government machine continued to
work according to the old routine, and the Emperor was obliged to take part in
its management . . . . In order to remedy the discrepancy between Alexander's
opinions and his acts, he established a Secret Council composed of persons whom
he regarded as his friends and believed to be animated by sentiments and
opinions in conformity with his own. The first nucleus of this Council was
formed by the young Count Paul Strogonov, M. de Novosiltsev, and myself. We had
long been in near relations with each other, and these now became more serious.
The necessity of rallying around the Emperor and not leaving him alone in his
desire of reform drew us more closely together. We were regarded for some years
as models of intimate and unshakable friendship. To be superior to every
personal interest, and not to accept either presents or distinctions, was the
principle of our alliance .... It was not always liked
by my companions, and the Emperor himself afterwards grew tired of servants who
wished to distinguish themselves by refusing to accept rewards which were so
eagerly sought by everyone else .
. . . The fourth member admitted by the Emperor
to the Secret Council was Count Kochubei ....
We were privileged to dine with the Emperor
without a previous invitation, and we used to meet two or three times a week.
After coffee and a little conversation, the Emperor used to retire, and while
the other guests left the palace, the four members of the Secret Council
entered through a corridor into a little dressing-room of their Majesties, and
there met the Emperor. Various plans of reform were debated; each member
brought his ideas, and sometimes his work, and
information which he had obtained as to what was passing [happening] in the
existing administration and the abuses which he had observed. The Emperor
freely expressed his thoughts and sentiments, and although the discussion at
these meetings for a long tune had no practical result, no useful reform was
tried or carried out during Alexander's reign which did not originate in them.
Meanwhile the Official Council, namely, the Senate and the Ministers, governed
the country in the old way. Directly the Emperor left his dressing-room he came
under the influence of the old Ministers, and could do nothing of what had been
decided upon in the Secret Council; it was like a masonic
lodge from which one entered the practical world.
This mysterious Council, which was not long
concealed from the suspicions, or ultimately from the knowledge, of the Court,
and was designated "the young men's party," grew impatient at not
obtaining any result whatever from its deliberations; it pressed the Emperor to
carry out the views he had expressed to us .... Once
or twice an attempt was made to induce him to adopt energetic resolutions, to
give orders and make himself obeyed, to dismiss certain superannuated officials
who were a constant obstacle to every reform an! to
put young men in their place. But the Emperor's character inclined him to
attain his end by compromises and concessions, and moreover he did not yet feel
sufficiently master of the position to risk measures
which he thought too violent. In our council Strogonov
was the most ardent, Novosiltsev the most prudent, Kotchubei the most time-serving, and I the most
disinterested, always striving to curb undue impatience.
Those who urged the Emperor to take immediate and severe measures did not know
him. Such a proposal always made him draw back, and was of a nature to diminish
his confidence. But as he complained of his Ministers and did not like any -of
them, an attempt was made in the Council, before inducing him to change them,
to discuss the matter in a practical spirit, apart from the abstract
considerations of reform which had previously occupied us. Strogonov
accepted the post of Procurator of the First Department of the Senate; and Novosiltsev was appointed one of the Emperor's secretaries,
a place which gave him many advantages, as every letter addressed to the
Emperor passed through his hands.
Document 3:
SPERANSKII'S PLAN FOR A GENERAL
REORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION, OCTOBER 1809
With the support of
Alexander I, Michael M. Speranskii (1772-1839)
developed a detailed plan for the reorganization of Russia's state machinery. His
suggestions provoked extreme criticism from the conservative gentry and were
instrumental (along with his pro-French sympathies) in his being sent into
exile in 1812.
Reference: Mikhail M. Speranskii,
Plan gosudarstvennogo preobrazovaniia,
vvedenie k "Ulozheniiu
Gosudarstvennykh Zakonov"
1809 g. (Moscow:
Izd. Russkoi Mysli, 1905), pp. 4, 15, 16, 19, 30, 31, 33, 54, 55, 63,
66-68, 73-79. A translation of somewhat lengthier excerpts from the same
document has been published in Marc Raeff, Plans
for Political Reform in Russia, pp. 92-120.
[In] every well-organized state there must be some positive, permanent, and
fixed legislative principles with which all the other laws may be correlated.
These positive principles are the
fundamental state laws.
Three powers move and govern the state: the
legislative, executive, and judicial.
The origin and source of these powers is in
the people, for they are nothing else but the moral and physical powers of men
in relation to social life.
In almost all states, constitutions were
established at various times, piecemeal, and most often in the midst of harsh
political transformations.
The Russian constitution will owe its
existence, not to inflamed passions and extreme situations, but to the
beneficial inspiration of the supreme authority which, in organizing the
political life of its people, can give the most correct forms and has every
means for doing so.
Earthly kingdoms have heir epochs of greatness
and of decline, and in each epoch the form of government must be consistent
with the level of civic enlightenment of the state.
Whenever the form of government lags behind
or exceeds this level it is overthrown with a more or less violent shock.
------------------
And so, time is the first
principle and source of all political renovations. No government out of harmony
with the spirit of the time can withstand its all-powerful action.
Therefore, the first and main question that
must be answered at the threshold of all political changes is that of their
timeliness.
--------------------
How many misfortunes, how
much bloodshed could have been averted if the rulers of states, observing more
closely the development of the public spirit, had conformed with it in the
principles governing their political systems and, instead of compelling the
people to adapt to the government, had adapted the government to the condition
of the people. [Speranskii's footnote: "What a
contradiction this is: to desire science, commerce, and industry and yet to
forbid their most natural consequences; to want reason to be free but the will
enchained; to want passions to move and change but their objects, the longing
for freedom, to remain static; to want the people to grow in wealth but not to
enjoy the best fruits of its enrichment-freedom. History knows of no instance
when an educated and commercially advanced people was
able to remain long in a state of slavery."]
-----------------------
The present system of
government is no longer in accord with the nature of the public spirit, and . .
. the time has come to change it and found a new order.
I. On the General Principle of the Transformation
The general object of the
transformation is that the government, which has until now been autocratic, be
founded and established on the basis of immutable law.
The government cannot be based on law if the
sovereign alone both makes the law and carries it out. Hence arises
the necessity for institutions active in formulating and executing the law.
1. The legislative body
should be so constituted that it could not promulgate its laws without the
sovereign, but its opinions should be free and should express the views of the
people.
2. The judicial body should be so formed that its existence depends on free
election, and only the supervision of judicial forms and the preservation of
general security should be in the hands of the government.
3. The executive power should all in its entirety be entrusted to the
government. But inasmuch as this power could, under the guise of executing the
laws, not only distort them but even entirely destroy them by its regulations,
it should also be made responsible to the legislative power.
Civil freedom has two main aspects: personal
freedom and material freedom. The former consists of the following two
principles:
1. No one may be punished without trial.
2. No one is obligated to render personal services except according to the law,
and not at the arbitrary will of another. [Speranskii's
footnote: "The first of these principles gives serfs the right of trial
and, taking that right away from the landowners, makes them [the serfs] equal
before the law with everyone else. The second principle abolishes the right to
send people into the army out of their proper turn. Personal freedom rests on
these two foundations."]
The nature of freedom of the second kind,
i.e. material freedom, is based on the following principles:
1. Everyone may dispose of his property as he wishes,
in accordance with the general law; no one may be deprived of property without
trial.
2. No one is obligated to render material service or to pay taxes and duties
except according to law or contract, and not at the arbitrary will of another.
From this review of civil and political
rights, it becomes clear that they may properly be divided into three classes:
1. General civil rights,
belonging to all subjects.
2. Particular civil rights, which must belong only to those who are prepared for
them by their way of life and education.
3. Political rights, belonging to those who own property.
This leads to the following division of
estates:
1. The gentry
2. Persons of the middle estate
3. Working people
The middle estate consists of merchants,
townspeople, odnodvortsy [homesteaders], and
all villagers who own a certain amount of real estate.
The Rights of the Working People
1. The working people enjoy the general
civil rights but have no political rights. [....]
3. The class of the working people consists
of all the landowners' peasants, artisans and their workmen, and domestic
servants.
Organic Laws
The organic, fundamental laws should
determine the order of institutions through which the government powers are
exercised.
These institutions are: the council, the
legislative body, the senate, and the ministries.
Each of these institutions, uniting to form
the sovereign authority and constituting the leading governmental bodies,
should extend through the entire empire and, gradually dividing,
descend to the very last villages.
The Legislative System: First Level
Every three years an assembly called the volost' duma [township assembly]
is brought together in each volost' town or principal
volost' village [i.e. in the administrative center of
each volost']; this assembly is composed of all
owners of real estate .... [NOTE: A volost' was the smallest territorial-administrative unit in
the Russian provinces; provinces were divided into "counties" (uezdy), which in turn were divided into volosts,
or "townships". SPF]
The first action of the volost'
duma is to elect a chairman and a secretary.
All votes are equal in the volost' duma. No one can delegate
his vote to another by proxy.
The functions of the volost'
duma are:
1. Election of members of
the volost' administration.
2. Accounting for the collection and the expenditure of the funds entrusted to
the volost' administration.
3. Election of deputies to the okrug duma; their number may not exceed two-thirds of the total
number of property owners.
4. Compiling a list of twenty of the most distinguished residents of the volost', including those who are not present.
5. Submitting statements to the okrug duma concerning the public needs of the volost'.
When these activities are completed the duma is
disbanded, and its place is taken by the administration elected by it.
Second Level
Every three years a body called the okrug duma, consisting of
deputies of the volost' dumas,
is brought together in the okrug city [i.e. okrug administrative center].
The okrug duma elects a chairman and a chief secretary.
All voices are equal in the okrug duma.
The functions of the okrug
duma are:
1. Election of members of
the okrug council [sovet].
2. Election of members of the okrug court.
3. Election of deputies of the guberniia duma. Their number may not exceed twothirds
of the membership of the okrug duma.
4. Making up a list of twenty of the most distinguished residents of the okrug from the lists presented by the volost'
dumas. Those who are not present are not to be
excluded from the list.
5. Accounting to the okrug authorities for the funds
collected for public expenditures.
6. Statements to the okrug [meant to say guberniia-eds. ] duma . . . concerning public needs, based on consideration
of the statements of the volost' dumas.
On completion of these tasks, the duma is disbanded.
Third Level
Every three years an assembly called the guberniia duma, consisting of
deputies of the okrug dumas,
is brought together in the guberniia capital. ,
The guberniia duma's first action is to elect a chairman and a secretary.
All the votes in the guberniia
duma are equal, and those who are absent cannot
delegate their votes to others.
The functions of the guberniia
duma are:
1. Election of members of
the guberniia council.
2. Election of members of the guberniia court. `
3. Election of members to the State Duma from both estates
possessing political rights. Their number in each guberniia
is fixed by law.
4. Compilation of a list of twenty of the most distinguished residents of the guberniia on the basis of the okrug
lists, not excluding those who are not present.
5. Accounting to the guberniia administration for the
funds collected for public expenditures.
6. Statement of public needs, in accordance with the statements of the okrug dumas.
The duma sets up
special commissions from among its members to consider the accounts and the
statements concerning public needs.
When these tasks are completed, the chairman
transmits the following, signed by all members of the assembly, to the State
Council [sovet], addressed to the Chancellor of
Justice: lists of all members elected to the volost'
administrations, okrug courts, and guberniia court; also, addressed to the Chancellor of the
State Duma: (1) lists of members elected to okrug
councils and the guberniia council; (2) lists of
members elected to the legislative body; (3) lists of the most distinguished
residents of the guberniias; (4) statements concerning
the needs of each guberniia.
This completes the activity of the guber niia duma
and its place is then taken by the guberniia council.
Fourth Level
The deputies sent by the guberniia
dumas constitute a legislative body called the State
Duma.
The State Duma has a status equal to that of
the Senate and of a Ministry.
The State Duma assembles under the
fundamental law, and without any special convocation, annually in the month of
September.
Its term is determined by the amount of
business brought before it.
The activity of the State Duma is ended in
two ways: (1) by its adjournment to the following year; (2) by the complete
dismissal of all its members.
Adjournment is accomplished by an act of the
sovereign authority in the State Council.
The dismissal is accomplished by a similar
act but includes the naming of the new members, [from among those] named in the
most recent elections of the guberniia dumas.
------------------------
The matters to be taken up
by the State Duma are brought before it in the name of the sovereign authority
by one of the ministers or members of the State Council.
Excepted from this rule are:
1. Proposals concerning
state needs
2. Proposals concerning neglect of responsibility
3. Proposals concerning measures violating fundamental state laws
In these three cases . . . the members of
the Duma may take the initiative.
Document 4:
N. N. NOVOSIL'TSEV'S PROJECT FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER FOR THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE, 1820
Drawing heavily upon the
example of Michael Speranskii's plan for the
organization of the Russian state (see above), as well as the Polish charter of
1815, Nikolai Nikolaevich Novosil'tsev
(1761-1836) undertook his project in 1818-19 at the request of Alexander I. The
draft copies were found in Warsaw
in 1830. Although the project was not carried out, it serves to illustrate the
influence of England, France, and the United
States on contemporary political thinking in Russia.
Reference: An English
translation edited by David Urquhart from the original French is in the English
journal The Portfolio, 5 (1837): 511-22, 610-39; 6 (1837): 72-83. The
excerpts included here are taken from that source, slightly modified. A few key
words have been inserted from the Russian text, which is found in Shil'der, Imperator Aleksandr Pervyi, 4:499-526.
Section I. On the Sovereign and His Power.
Article 9. The crown of the Imperial Russian throne is
hereditary, passing on according to the order of succession established by Our
late father, the emperor Paul ....
Article 12. The Sovereign is the sole source of all the civil,
political, legislative, and military power in the Empire.
He administers the executive branch with all
of its ramifications.
All. authority-executive,
administrative, and judicial-can emanate only from him.
Article 13. Nevertheless, legislative power is exercised by the
Sovereign in concurrence with the State Diet [Seim] .
. . on the basis of the Constitutional Charter and special regulations . . . .
Article 26. In order to define the legislative power of the
Sovereign, the basic scheme of jurisprudence in the Empire is divided into
three categories:
The first contains the laws.
The second contains the statutes and regulations.
The third contains the decrees, injunctions, rescripts,
and resolutions ....
Article 30. The laws are divided into general laws of
the Empire and the particular laws of the provinces. The general laws
constitute the common law of the State and are applicable in all cases in which
the particular laws do not pronounce judgement.
Article 31. The general laws are issued by the consent of the
Sovereign and of the General Diet ....
Article 32. The particular laws of the provinces are issued by
the consent of the Sovereign and the diets of the vicegerencies.
Article 33. The right of issuing ordinances, statutes,
regulations, ukases, decrees, orders, and rescripts
is exclusively vested in the Sovereign, who may delegate it in whole or in part ....
Section IL The Council of State.
Article 35. The Council of State, at which the Sovereign
presides, is composed of the Ministers, the State Councillors,
the State Reporters or State Secretaries, and any other persons whom the,
Sovereign may please to summon to it.
Article 36. The Council of State is divided into a General
Assembly and an Administrative Council, or Council of Ministers
....
Article 42. The General Assembly of the Council of State . . .
shall be composed of the members designated in Article 35.
The functions of the Council of State,
independently of those which it at present exercises according to the Regulation
of 1809, are:
1. To discuss and draw up
all projects of laws and regulations concerning the general administration of
the Empire.
2. To legislate in cases of conflicting jurisdiction.
3. To pronounce on [the basis of] the reports of the Council of Administration
or the Council of Ministers, on the prosecution of the [highest] administrative
functionaries appointed by the Sovereign or by the Council of Ministers [the
Russian text omits the phrase "or . . . Ministers"] in cases of abuses
in the exercise of their functions ....
4. To examine and verify, annually, the accounts delivered by each principal
branch of the administration.
5. To make observations on all the abuses which exist or are introduced into
the administration, as well as upon all attempts against, and all violations
of, the fundamental principles 6f the State or of the Laws, and to make a
general report on them to the Sovereign ....
Title III. GENERAL REGULATIONS GUARANTEED BY STATE AUTHORITY
Article 78. The Orthodox Greek-Russian religion shall always be
the prevailing religion of the State ....
Article 80. The Law protects equally all citizens, without any
distinction.
Article 81. The Russian Fundamental Law that "no one shall
be punished without having been judged," and the principle established by
the Regulation on the Administration of Guberniias [ 1775 ] , #401, which states that "no one shall be
imprisoned or deprived of liberty without the crime of which he is accused
being made known to him, and without his having been questioned within three
days after his arrest," apply to all inhabitants ....
Article 89. The liberty of the press is guarenteed;
the Laws shall determine the means of repressing its abuses.
Article 90. Every Russian subject is free to establish himself
in a foreign country and to carry there his personal fortune
....
Article 91. The Russian nation shall enjoy in perpetuity a
national representation. It shall consist of a Diet (in the Russian version: seim, duma] composed of the
Sovereign and of the two chambers. The first, called the Upper Chamber, shall
be formed from the Senate; the second, named the Chamber of the Nuncios [posol'skaia palata], shall be
composed of the nuncios [zemskie posiy]
and the deputies of the communes [deputaty okruzhnykh gorodskikh obshchestv] . . . .
Article 100. The Diet of the Empire is divided into the diets of
the vicegerencies [chastnye
seimy (dumy) namestnichaskikh ohlastei], which
are to assemble every three years, and a General Diet [obshchaia
gosudarstvertnaia duma ili seim],
which shall assemble every five years.
Document 5:
ALEXANDER'S SECRET ORDER CONCERNING THE
SUCCESSION TO THE RUSSIAN THRONE, AUGUST 16, 1823
Alexander I's insistence on preserving the utmost secrecy about this
arrangement helps to explain his reputation as the "Enigmatic Tsar."
Reference: PSZRl,
2d ser., 1:3, 5.
[Quoting Tsesarevich Konstantin's letter of January
14, 1822: ] Most Gracious Sire!
Encouraged by the repeated displays of Your
Imperial Majesty's boundless benevolent disposition toward me, I presume to
appeal to it once more and to lay at your feet, Most
Gracious Sire, my most humble plea.
Since I do not feel within me either those
gifts or that strength or that spirit necessary to be, at any time, elevated to
that eminence to which, by birth, I may have the right, I venture to beg Your
Imperial Majesty to transfer that right to the one who is entitled to it next
after myself, and by this act to affirm forever the unshakable position of our
empire.
[Alexander's secret order-of August 16, 1823: ]
Our beloved brother, the tsesarevich
and grand duke Konstantin Pavlovich, directed by his
own inner urge, addressed to us his plea that his right to the eminence to
which he might sometime be elevated due to his birth be transferred to the one
who is entitled to it next to him.
We have determined: First, that the
voluntary renouncement of his right to the throne of all the Russias, by our first brother, the tsesarevich
and grand duke Konstantin Pavlovich, be considered
firm and unalterable; and that the record of his abdication, for the sake of
complete authenticity, be preserved in the great Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow, and in the three highest governmental
offices of our empire: the Holy Synod, the State Council and the Governing
Senate. Second, in consequence of this, and in precise agreement with the act
concerning the succession to the throne, our second brother, the grand duke
Nikolai Pavlovich is to be our heir.
Issued at Tsarskoe Selo, on August 16 of
the year A.D. 1823, the twenty-third year of our reign.
The original signed in His Imperial
Majesty's own hand: Aleksandr
Document 6:
THE MEMOIRS OF F. F. VIGEL ' ON LIFE IN RUSSIA
IN THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY
A civil servant who worked
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Filipp Filippovich Vigel' (1786-1856)
had a wide acquaintanceship with people in high political and literary circles.
His memoirs are useful not only because he was a keen observer and mirror of
his times, but also because he represents a viewpoint quite different from
those of Speranskii (see above) or the Decembrists.
Reference: Filipp
F. Vigel', Vospominaniia
F. F. Vigelia, 7 vols. in 3 (Moscow, 1864-65),
1:73, 181; 2:26-27; 4:77. Filipp F. Vigel', Zapiski, ed. S.
Ia. Shtraikh, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1928),
1:154, 176, 289; 2:119-20, 276-77. (The first five paragraphs
are from the 1864 edition; the rest are from that of 1928.)
There were strange customs at that time [the end of the eighteenth century],
which was, albeit, a very happy one for Russia. The education of boys
usually ended at the age of fifteen. People held that they had now learned
everything and hastened to enter them into military service, so that they might
advance in rank as rapidly as possible . . . .
There was another strange thing, which might
even be termed an abuse: every Guards regiment had on its rosters hundreds of
sergeants, cavalry sergeant majors . . . quartermaster sergeants, and
corporals; all of them were minors, living at home and awaiting promotion in
rank. For each of these lower ranks in the Guards regiment, there was a
corresponding higher officer's position in the army, and therefore the children
received their rank at the time of enlistment according to their parents'
connections with the commanding officers, according to the patronage they were
able to secure, and occasionally according to their merits and deserts.
-----------
Only their services, the
largesse of sovereigns, and thrift could increase the wealth of nobles. This
venerable prejudice was followed even more carefully in the West, until the
duke of Orleans turned his dwelling into a
marketplace, and the royal palace became known as the center of Paris trade. Nowadays, in
order to get rich, our princes and counts, even the wealthiest, employ the same
means as the meshchane [townspeople]; they build
breweries and sell drinks in taverns, and yet they parade before the meshchane with their famous names. But can they be
respected? Worship of the golden calf levels all classes and conditions. It was
not so under Paul, some forty years ago.
----------------
To describe the bureaucratic
type .... As soon as a bureaucrat obtains a place of
any prominence, he begins to think of becoming a minister. He becomes proud,
cold in his demeanor, and at the same time talkative, but only with those who
are willing to listen silently for hours. He dresses elegantly, has a good
chef, a stylish wife, and a piano in his drawing room. But he does not live
very hospitably, receiving only those who need him, or those whom he needs. He
knows foreign languages and has read enough to discourse with a learned air on
topics that interest him least of all. But he says little in society about
matters relating to his official duties: these are reserved for his office and department.
The welfare of the state or the good of mankind never enters into his thoughts;
he will not humble himself even to mention them and regards those who are
concerned with such matters as childishly weakminded.
Apart from the passion for power and enrichment, he has no weaknesses or vices,
but he encourages and loves to see them in others, for to respect others is to
him unbearable, but to despise is sweet and comforting. No matter how petty his
office, he compels petitioners to wait in the anteroom, treats them with
condescension, and even takes bribes as if he were collecting tribute from the
vanquished. He has never known compassion, and there was never anything sacred
to him in the world. He is an educated robber, but not bold enough for the highway.
I have depicted here one example of bureaucratic perfection; not all can vie
with him, but all approach him more or less closely.
--------
People still talk of
"General Frost," forgetting that our autumn that year [1812] was
warmer than in France, that the first defeats near Tarutino
and Maloiaroslavets occurred in the early days of
October, and that, over the distance of almost four hundred versts
from Moscow to Smolensk, when this "general" had not yet even
ventured an appearance, entire brigades and divisions had already begun to
disappear from the enemy army.
--------
Since the time of Peter the
Great fate has commanded Russia
to submit to one or another European state or people and to worship it like an
idol. To please Peter, it was necessary to become a Dutchman; Germany dominated
us under Anna Ioannovna and Biron;
under Elisaveta Petrovna,
La Chetardie appeared on the scene, with the
temptations of France; they were increased and multiplied by the passion of
Catherine II for French literature and by her friendship with the eighteenth-century
philosophers. Peter III and Paul I wanted to turn us into Prussians; England was our
patroness during the first years of Alexander's reign. Can it be that Poland is now
becoming our idol?
---------
Under Peter the Great, Europe began to teach us; under Anna Ivanovna
[Ioannovna] it tormented us; but the reign of
Alexander is an era of our total subjugation to it. His persistent efforts over
the course of twenty five years have succeeded, if not throughout Russia then at least in Petersburg, in driving our national feeling
down to the last, the very lowest class.
----------
It would seem that there is
not a single nation in Europe or Asia whose representatives were not to be
found serving in Russia
and finally becoming Russian nobles, which is the reason why this class is so
different from our other, purely Russian classes and is becoming a mixture of
all peoples.
-------------
Why are military settlements
[voennye poseleniia]
needed inside a country, and against what internal enemies can they protect it?
Such were the questions many people asked one another. It would seem that,
observing the rebellious attitude of the Western peoples toward their
governments during his latest visit abroad, and foreseeing new troubles in the
future, our sovereign felt that in order to curb them it was necessary to
preserve the large army he needed during the general war. He considered methods
of accomplishing this without burdening the state, and the unfortunate idea of
the military settlements occurred to him. He had probably divulged this to Arakcheev, who, chosen as the instrument for the planning
and execution of this important undertaking, did not dare or-more likely did not wish to dispute it. At first, approaching the
matter slowly, the sovereign intended, apparently, to colonize the entire army,
which would thus be tripled in numbers and would become
self-supporting. The first experiment was made with state peasants
bought up from landowners for this purpose. They were established in
settlements in the Novgorod
province, in the neighborhood of Count Arakcheev's
estates. The frightful order he instituted in his henceforth memorable village of Gruzino,
transforming human beings into insensible machines, began to spread itself to
the hapless peasants in nearby areas and to the soldiers settled amongst them.
During the ensuing years, military settlements of this type were established in
Belorussia, along the Bug River,
and finally in Chuguev, in the Khar'kov
province. It seems that the future economy in the maintenance of troops,
however, proved too costly in the present and was ruinous to the treasury. And
this halted the spread of the evil which would have led to countless
unfortunate consequences.
The example of the Cossacks, who came into
being without any assistance, subsidy, or supervision, must have prompted the
initial idea of this monstrous institution . . . . The Cossacks were a special,
spontaneous element . . . . Everything about them was as free as the air of the
steppes which they breathed; the flame of courage never dimmed in their hearts
and eyes, and their movements were as rapid as the flow of the rivers along
which they settled. At the same time, just as their land obeyed the laws of
nature, so they freely obeyed the authorities placed over them. But here the
poor settlers were doomed to a lifetime of forced labor. Two conditions
entirely different from one another were harnessed under the same yoke; the
tiller of the soil was forced to take up a gun, and the soldier was compelled
to walk behind the plow. The Russian, who is both industrious and carefree,
likes to enjoy himself freely after work, instead of resting. What matter if
his house is not too clean, as long as there are cakes to grace the table, as
the folk proverb puts it. But the unfortunates were
compelled to give up everything; for all was now organized in the German, the
Prussian manner. Everything was counted, weighed, and measured. Exhausted by
the day's labor in the fields, the military settler had to stand at attention
and march; when he came home, he found no peace: he
was compelled to scrub and clean his house and sweep the street. He had to
report every egg laid by his hen.
--------
[Concerning the corps of gendarmes
established by Nicholas I in 1826:]
This entire observation corps was formed by
the end of the year, although it was difficult at first to persuade any fairly
decent men to join it. The blue uniform, different in color
from all the other military uniforms, as if it were the clothing of informers,
aroused repugnance even in those who finally decided to don it.
The organization of this new type of police
apparently had a dual purpose. The gendarmes were to uncover all evil designs
against the government and prevent the spread of any bold political ideas of
freedom, should they appear anywhere. This was somewhat difficult, for the
number of people infected with liberalism and unconnected with the affair of
December 14 [1825] was small, and, what is more, these kept quieter than ever
and were extremely circumspect in communicating their opinions. Further, every
field officer of this corps was to see to it that the courts of the province
where he was stationed were just in their decisions. He was also expected to
bring to the governor's attention all wrongs and irregularities, the extortion
of bribes by civil officials and cruel treatment by landowners, and to report
all this to his own superiors. The intention, of course, seemed to be of the
best; but where were to be found the men capable of carrying it out, men who
were conscientious, impartial, informed, and clear-sighted? Were there no
governors, city and rural police, and, finally, public prosecutors charged with
enforcing the legal conduct of affairs? Was there no order at all in Russia before
this? Had lawlessness, indeed, prevailed throughout the country? And, if so,
could everything be rectified by a handful of army officers recruited at random
and with considerable difficulty?
To invest such men with complete power meant
to withdraw this power from all the local authorities, from the highest to the
lowest. Many of the field officers who had joined the gendarme corps enjoyed
living in the provinces, entirely independent, without any definite permanent
occupation, and feared by everyone. They accepted information from the most
ill-intentioned men-men expelled from decent society-and forwarded it to Petersburg with their own
added comments. If investigation should prove their reports false, what would
it matter? They might have erred from excess of zeal and they were in no way
answerable for it. And where were the provincial authorities, let alone private
individuals, to seek protection against them when their chief, Benkendorf, was himself in a manner of speaking placed in
surveillance of the other ministers? Our entire quiet, provincial, rural life
was shaken by this development. It can well be imagined what . . .
demoralization must have set in as a result.
In September
this black cloud rose over Russia
and darkened its horizon for many years to come ....
And I would say under oath that I have not met a single man who would approve
this institution, or who would speak of it without extreme displeasure.
The
Decembrist Movement
Document 7:
WRITINGS OF P. I. PESTEL', CA. 1823-1825
Pavel Ivanovich Pestel' (1793-1826), a young army officer and leader of the
Southern Society, expressed most of his political ideas in his Russkaia Pravda (Russian law), begun around
1814 and completed in 1823-25. These excerpts are from that document and his Konstitutsiia (Constitution) which represented in
part a condensation of the longer work.
Reference: Pavel I.
Pestel', Russkaia
Pravda, ed. and intro. P. Shchegolev (St.
Petersburg, 1906), pp. 6, 14, 15-16, 21-24, 202-05 (omitting the
"Constitution"). The same excerpts plus the "Constitution"
are in I. Ia. Shchipanov, ed., Izbrannye
sotsial'no-politicheskie i filosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1951), 2:80, 88-89, 90, 91-92, and
(for the "Constitution") 161-62. For English translation, see Marc Raeff, comp., ed., and
trans., The Decembrist Movement (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1966).
From Russkaia Pravda:
It is the immutable law of civil societies
that every state consists of the people and the government. Hence, the people is not the government, and each of these has its own
specific obligations and rights. However, the government exists for the good of
the people and has no other reason for its existence and organization except
the good of the people. On the other hand, the people exists
for its own good and in order to fulfill the will of the All Highest, who has
commanded man on earth to praise his name and to be virtuous and happy. This
divine law was decreed for all men in equal measure, and consequently everyone
has an equal right to its fulfillment. Therefore the Russian people
is not the property of any one person or family. On the contrary, the
government belongs to the people and has been established for the good of the
people, and the people does not exist for the good of
the government.
These two contradictory desires, one based
on the national right of the subject peoples, and the other on the general
welfare [blagoudobstvo] of the dominant
people, are both quite natural. However, both have their limitations, and in
their mutual relations there are instances when one should yield to the other.
This shifting of the balance in favor of the national rights or of the general
welfare should be determined by a third rule, or a third consideration: namely,
that the general welfare should be invoked for the sake of security, and not
for any vainglorious expansion of the boundaries of the state. Thus, peoples
under the rule of a large state, who are incapable by reason of their weakness
of enjoying political independence and who must therefore exist only under the
rule or protection of one of the large neighboring states, cannot invoke their
national right, since this right is for them fictitious and nonexistent.
Moreover, the small peoples situated among larger ones always serve as a field
for military action, ravage, and disasters of every kind. It will therefore be
better and to their own greater benefit if they join a large state, both in
spirit and social intercourse, and merge their nationality completely with the
nationality of the dominant people, forming a single people with the latter and
abandoning vain dreams of the impossible and unattainable. And the strong
state, resting upon a great people, should always remember that its power has
been granted to it by Providence; not in order to oppress its neighbors, but in
order to act righteously and in accordance with pure justice; and that,
although it has, of course, the unassailable right to establish strong
boundaries, to join to itself, for the sake of the general welfare, peoples
that are incapable of enjoying genuine nationality, and to undertake and
arrange everything that is essential for its true security, it also has the
obligation not to expand its boundaries merely for the satisfaction of its
vanity; it must willingly admit into its own nationality the peoples it has
joined to itself, so that they will not constitute within the state mere
loosely associated appendages but will merge entirely into the general body of
the state, forgetting their former feeble nationality and entering gladly into
the new and greater nationality; finally, it must not oppose with hostile
feelings and actions the rightful separate existence of peoples that are
capable of enjoying full political independence.
Finland, Estonia, Livonia, Courland,
Belorussia, Little Russia, New Russia [Novorossiia],
Bessarabia, the Crimea, Georgia, the entire Caucasus, the lands of the Kirghiz,
all the peoples of Siberia, and various other tribes that live within the
[Russian] state have never enjoyed and never can enjoy their own independence;
they have always belonged either to Russia or else, at certain times, to
Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Turkey, Persia, or in general to some strong
state. Nor, because of their weakness, can they ever in the future constitute
separate states; and therefore they must all subject themselves to the
principle of the general welfare and in doing so must renounce the right of
separate nationhood. In consequence of this, all the above-mentioned countries,
with all the tribes inhabiting them, must submit to the general welfare for
Russia, and must declare, in conformity with this and an the basis of this,
that they shall remain component parts of the Russian state for all time to
come.
Russia is a united and indivisible state. States can be either indivisible or
federative.
The main difference . . . between
indivisible and federative states is that the right to issue laws, form social
institutions, and manage state affairs is vested in an indivisible state
exclusively in the supreme authority, while in a federative state it is divided
between the general supreme authority and the individual local powers ....
The general disadvantages of a federative
form of government are, among many others, the following ....
In a federative government, the supreme authority, in fact, does not issue laws
but only recommendations; for it can carry its laws into effect only through
the local powers, as it does not have its own compulsory means.
As for Russia in particular, in order
fully to realize to what degree a federative form of government would be fatal
to her, one need only remember how many heterogeneous parts make up this
enormous state. Its oblasti not only are governed by
different institutions and administer justice under different laws but also
speak completely different languages and confess completely different faiths;
their inhabitants are of different origins, having once belonged to different powers .... She would once again, then, experience all the
calamities and ineffable harm brought on Russia by the system of independent
principalities, which was also nothing but a kind of federative structure of
government.
There has been much discussion about this
civil distribution of land, with the arguments falling into two main bodies of
opinion. According to the first opinion, man lives on land, can live only on
land, and can obtain his sustenance only from land. The Almighty has created
the human race on earth and has given the earth into its possession, so that
the earth may feed it. Nature itself produces everything that may serve as food
for man. Consequently, the land is the common property of all mankind and not
of private individuals, and it cannot be divided among a few, with the
exclusion of the rest. As long as there is even a single person who owns no
land, the will of the Almighty and the law of nature are completely violated,
and the natural rights of man are set aside by force and evil rule .... The second opinion, on the contrary, argues that
work and labor are the sources of property and that he who has made the land
fertile and capable of producing various crops must have the sole right of its
possession. Still another consideration is added to this view, namely, that the
flourishing of agriculture requires many expenditures, and only those who hold
the land in their full possession will be willing to make these expenditures;
and that the uncertainty of possession inherent in the frequent transfer of land
from hand to hand will never permit the improvement of agriculture. Hence all
land should be the property of a few individuals, even if such a rule should
exclude the majority from possession of land. These two opinions are in
complete contradiction to one another, and yet each contains a good deal of
truth and justice ....
The [best] method consists of the division
of the land of each township [volost'] into two
halves . . . . One half will be known as public land, and the other half, as
private land. The public land will belong in common to the people of the entire
volost', as their inalienable property; it can be
neither sold nor mortgaged. It will be used to supply necessities to all
citizens without exception and will belong to each and all. The private lands
will belong to the treasury or to private individuals, who will own them
freely, with the full right to do with them as they please. These lands,
intended for the formation of private property, will serve to provide
abundance. The public land will satisfy the justifiable opinions of one segment
of the public, and the private lands, the opinions of the other.
From Pestel's Konstitutsiia [Constitution]:
8 . . . . Supreme authority shall be divided
into legislative and supreme executive. The first shall be entrusted to the
National Assembly [Veche]; the second to the Supreme
Duma. In addition a supervisory authority is also needed, so that these two
shall not exceed their limits. Supervisory authority shall be entrusted to a
Supreme Council [sobor].
9. The National Veche
shall consist of representatives of the people, elected by the people for five
years. Each year a fifth [of the representatives] shall leave
office and be replaced through new elections. Representatives may be reelected .... The National Veche
shall be a single body and shall not be divided into chambers. It shall possess
all legislative authority: It shall declare war and conclude peace
....
. . . No one shall have the right to dissolve the National Veche.
It shall embody the will of the state and the spirit of the people.
10. The Supreme Duma shall consist of five
members, elected by the people for five years. Each year one member of the Duma
shall leave office and be replaced through a new election. The chairman shall
be that member who is holding office for his last, or fifth, year. Each year
every province shall nominate a candidate. From among these candidates the
National Veche shall make the final selection. The
Supreme Duma shall have all final executive authority, shall conduct wars and
carry on negotiations, but shall not declare war or conclude peace. All
ministries and government offices in general shall be under the jurisdiction
and direction of the Supreme Duma . . .
11. The Supreme Council shall consist of 120
members, called boyars. Boyars shall be appointed for life and may not
participate in either legislative or executive functions. Candidates shall be
nominated by the provincess, and the National Veche shall then fill the vacancies among the boyars. The
chairman shall be elected for a year by the Council itself. The Council shall
have complete supervisory authority. To it the National Veche
shall transmit its laws for confirmation. The Council shall not discuss matters
as to their substance but shall merely examine their forms to see that due
legality is being observed; [only] after such confirmation shall a law go into
effect.
Document 8:
THE CONSTITUTION DRAFTED BY NIKITA M. MURAV'EV,
1824
The constitution prepared by
Nikita Mikhailovich Murav'ev
(1796-1843) for the Northern Society reveals another facet of Decembrist
thinking, significantly different from that of the Southern Society under Pestel'. Murav'ev came from a
prominent noble family; his father had tutored Alexander I in history,
literature, and moral philosophy. The first version of Murav'ev's
constitution was drafted in 1821-22. The second, from which these excerpts are
taken, was a more polished product reflecting the advice of many of Murav'ev's co-believers. It dates from about the autumn of
1824.
Reference: Shchipanov,
Izbrannye proizvedeniia
dekabristov, 1:299-305, 308, 310-11, 313, 316-17,
321. See also Raeff, Decembrist Movement, pp. 104-18.
CHAPTER I. Concerning the Russian people and the government.
1. The Russian people, free and independent, is not and cannot be the
property of any person or family.
2. The people is the source of supreme power; it
enjoys the sole right to legislate basic laws for itself.
CHAP. II. Concerning the citizens.
3. Citizenship is the right to participate,
in the manner defined in the present statute, in public government, indirectly,
i.e. by electing an official or his electors, or directly, i.e. by being
elected to some public position in the legislative, executive, or judicial
branch of government ....
CHAP. III. On the status,
personal rights, and duties of Russians.
10. All Russians are equal before the
law. ...
13. Serfdom and slavery are abolished; a
slave, having stepped on Russian soil, becomes a free man. The distinction
between the well born and the simple people is rejected as contrary to our
faith, which tells us that all men are brothers, all are born well by the will
of God, all were born for good, and all are simple people, for all are weak and
imperfect ....
23. The right to property, pertaining only
to things, is sacred and inviolable.
24. The lands of the landowners remain in
their possession. The houses and gardens of the villagers are declared to be
their property, along with all the agricultural implements and livestock
belonging to them ....
28. The military settlements are to be
immediately abolished. The settled battalions and squadrons and the relatives
of the men in the ranks are to enter the category of general [property] owners
[obshchikh vladel'tsev] . .
. .
32. Citizens have the right to form any type
of society or association without asking anyone's permission or approval,
provided their activities are not contrary to the law ....
40. The present police officials are to be
dismissed and replaced through election by the people ....
CHAP. IV. Concerning Russia.
43. With respect to legislative and
executive functions, Russia
is divided into 13 derzhavy [states], 2 oblasti [regions], and 569 uezdy
or povety [counties or districts].
The entire population is estimated at
22,630,000 persons of the male sex, and its representation is computed accordingly ....
CHAP. V. Concerning the
internal organization of the volost' and uezd or povet.
44. In each county those citizens who own
real property with a value of [at least] five hundred rubles in silver, or movable property with a value of [at least] a
thousand rubles in silver, shall assemble in the capital city of the county and
elect a tysiatskii [thousandman]
for a one-year term.
45. Those who own property in common
[referring here to the communal peasants] shall not have the right to
participate individually in the election of the tysiatskii,
national representatives, and other officials; instead, the entire commune in
assembly shall have the right to appoint one elector for every five hundred male
inhabitants, and these electors, appointed by those who own property in common,
shall have equal voting rights with the other citizens, as deputies from the
entire commune ....
CHAP. VI. Concerning the people's veche.
59. The People's Veche,
consisting of the Supreme [Verkhovnaia] Duma and the
Chamber of People's Representatives [Palata Narodnykh Predstavitelei], is
vested with all the legislative power.
CHAP. VII. Concerning the
Chamber of Representatives and the number and election of representatives.
60. The Chamber of People's Representatives
consists of members elected for two years by the citizens of the states . . . .
CHAP. VIII. Concerning the
Supreme Duma.
73. The Supreme Duma consists of three
citizens from each state, two citizens from the Moscow oblast', and one citizen from the Don
oblast'-altogether, forty-two members. These members of the Supreme Duma are
elected by the governing institutions of the states and regions, i.e. by both
the chamber of the electors and the dumas of the states,
meeting together in one place ....
75. The requisite conditions for becoming a
member of the Supreme Duma are: age thirty; nine years of citizenship in Russia
for foreigners, and residence, at the time of election, in the state to be
represented by the member; real estate worth 1,500 pounds of pure silver, or
movable property worth 3,000 pounds of pure silver ....
77. . . . The Duma acts together with the
emperor in concluding peace, in appointing judges of the higher courts,
commanders in chief of land and marine forces, corps commanders, chiefs of
squadrons, and the supreme guardian [verkhovnyi bliustitel ; apparently a procurator-general]. This
requires a two-thirds majority of the members of the Duma.
CHAP. IX. Concerning the powers and
privileges of the People's Veche and the promulgation
of laws ....
89. Every proposal ratified by the [Supreme]
Duma and the Chamber of People's Representatives must further be submitted to
the emperor before it becomes law. If the emperor approves the proposal, he
signs it; if he does not approve it, he returns it, with his comment, to that
chamber [division of the Veche] where it was first
presented. The chamber enters into its records all the emperor's remarks
against the given proposal and reopens discussion concerning it. If two-thirds
of the members remain in favor of the proposal after the second debate, it is
transmitted, with the emperor's remarks, to the other chamber, which also
reopens debate about it. Then, if the majority of the second chamber approves
it, it thereby becomes law ....
CHAP. X. Concerning supreme executive power ....
101. The emperor is the chief official of
the Russian government. His rights and privileges are:
a. His power is hereditary
in a direct line from father to son, but from the father-in-law it passes to
the son-in-law.
b. He unites in his person all executive powers.
c. He has the authority to halt the action of the legislative branch and to
compel it to reexamine legislation for a second time. ...
g. He conducts negotiations with foreign powers and
concludes peace treaties, with the advice and consent of the Supreme Duma,
contingent on the approval of two-thirds of the members present
....
j. He appoints judges to the higher courts, with the advice and consent of the
Supreme Duma . . . .
CHAP. XI. Concerning the internal
powers and the governments of the states.
115. The government of each state consists
of three separate and independent branches, cooperating toward a single
objective, namely, the administrative, the executive, and the judicial
branches.
Document 9:
THE DECEMBRIST MANIFESTO OF DECEMBER 13,
1825
This document, intended for
proclamation by the Senate after the fall of the autocracy, was hastily drafted
by Sergei Trubetskoi, "dictator" of the
Decembrists. It contains elements illustrating their views of the present and
their goals for the future.
Reference: Mikhail N. Pokrovskii,
ed., Vosstanie dekabristov,
11 vols. (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1925-54), 1:107-08. The
translation is based largely on that in Anatole G. Mazour, The First
Russian Revolution, 1825: The Decembrist Movement (Berkeley, 1937), pp. 283-84. See also Raeff, Decembrist Movement, pp. 101-03.
There will be proclaimed in the Manifesto of the Senate:
1. The abolition of the
former government.
2. The establishment of a provisional government until a permanent one is set
up by elected representatives.
3. Freedom of the press, hence abolition of censorship.
4. Religious tolerance for all faiths.
5. The abolition of rights of possession that apply to human beings.
6. Equality of all estates (sosloviia] before the law
and, therefore, the abolition of military courts and every type of judicial
commission, which shall give over all their judicial functions to the
appropriate civil courts.
7. The announcement of the right of every citizen to engage in whatever
occupation he wishes ....
8. The cancellation of the poll tax and the arrears that have accumulated on
it.
9. The abolition of the monopolies on salt, the sale of alcohol, and the like,
and, consequently, free distillation and free salt mining with payment of an
industrial tax according to the respective amounts of salt and alcohol
produced.
10. The abolition of conscription and military colonies.
11. Reduction of the term of military service for the lower ranks, the
determination of which will follow after all classes are equalized with respect
to military service.
12. The retirement without exception of all of the lower ranks who have served
fifteen years.
13. The establishment of township, county, provincial and regional
administrations, and the substitution in these administrations of elected
members for all officials appointed up to now by the civil government.
14. Public trials.
15. The introduction of a jury system in criminal and civil courts.
A board [pravlenie]
of two or three persons shall be established to which all sections of the upper
administration shall be subordinated, such as all ministries, the Council, the
committee of ministers, the army and navy: in a word, the entire supreme
executive power, but by no means the legislative or the judicial ....
The provisional government is instructed to
carry out the following:
1. The equalization of the
rights of all estates.
2. The formation of local, township, county, provincial and regional administrations.
3. The formation of a national guard.
4. The formation of a judicial branch with a jury system.
5. The equalization of military recruiting obligations among all classes.
6. The abolition of the standing army.
7. The establishment of a system for electing the
representatives to the Chamber of National Deputies which must set up, in the
future, state statutes and a permanent system of government.
Document 10:
TESTIMONY OF
DECEMBRISTS P. C. KAKHOVSKII, A. A. BESTUZHEV, V.1. SHTEINGEIL', P. I. PESTEL' AND P. I. BORISOV, 1826
The new tsar personally
supervised a commission that inquired into the revolt. More than five hundred persons
were investigated. Of them, 121 were brought to trial before a special Supreme
Criminal Court upon which Speranskii played an active
role. Much of what is known about the Decembrists comes from the records of the
investigation and trial. Here are a few excerpts.
Reference: Aleksandr
K. Borozdin, ed., Iz
pisem i pokazanii
dekabristov (St. Petersburg: M. V. Pirozhkov, 1906), pp. 3-18 [Kakhovskii's
letter], 35-40 [Bestuzhev], 69-70 [Shteingeil']; Pokrovskii, Vosstanie dekabristov, 4:86, 91,
105 [Pestel']; 5:28, 30 [Borisov].
Most of the passages are included in Mazour, First
Russian Revolution, pp. 273-80, in which cases the translation is based
largely on that of Mazour. See also Raeff, Decembrist Movement, pp. 44-57.
From a letter of Petr Grigor'evich
Kakhovskii to General Levashev,
February 24, 1826:
One must seek the origin and the roots of
the [Secret, in this case Northern] Society in the spirit of the time and in
our state of mind. I know a few belonging to the Secret Society but am inclined
to think the membership is not very large. However, among my many acquaintances
who do not adhere to any secret societies, very few are opposed to my opinions.
Frankly I can state that among thousands of young men there are hardly a
hundred who do not passionately long for freedom. These youths, inflamed with a
strong, pure passion for the welfare of their fatherland and for true
enlightenment, are growing mature.
The peoples of the world have conceived a
sacred truth-that they do not exist for governments, but that governments must
be organized for them. This is the cause of struggle in all countries; people,
after tasting the sweetness of enlightenment and freedom, strive toward them;
and governments, entrenched behind millions of bayonets, attempt to repel these
peoples back into the darkness of ignorance. But all these efforts will prove
in vain; impressions once received can never be erased. Liberty, that torch of intellect and warmth
of life, has always and everywhere been the attribute of peoples emerged from
primitive ignorance. We are unable to live like our ancestors, like barbarians
or slaves.
But even our ancestors, though less
educated, enjoyed extensive civil liberties. During the time of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, the great
assemblies, including representatives of various classes of the state, still
functioned and participated in important affairs of state .
. . .Emperor
Alexander promised us much; it could be said that, like a giant, he stirred the
minds of the people toward the sacred rights of humanity. Later he altered his
principles and intentions. The people became frightened, but the seed had
sprouted and the roots had grown deep. The latter half of the past century and
the events of our own time are so full of various revolutions that we have no
need to refer to more distant eras. We are witnesses to great events. The discovery of the New World, and the United
States of America, by virtue of its form of government,
have forced Europe into rivalry with
her. The United States
will shine as an example even to distant generations. The name of Washington,
the friend and benefactor of the people, will be passed on from generation to
generation; the memory of his devotion to the welfare of the fatherland will
stir the hearts of citizens.
From a letter from Aleksandr
Aleksandrovich Bestuzhev to
Nicholas I, undated:
Your Imperial Majesty!
Convinced that you, Sovereign, love the
truth, I dare to lay before you the historical development of free thinking in
Russia and in general of many ideas which constitute the moral and political
basis of the enterprise of December 14 . . . .
The beginning of the reign of Emperor
Alexander was marked by the brightest hopes for Russia's prosperity. The gentry had
recuperated, the merchant class did not complain about credit, military service
was not burdensome, scholars studied what they wished, all spoke what they
thought, and everyone expected still better days. Unfortunately, circumstances
did not permit it, and hopes aged without fulfillment ....
Napoleon invaded Russia and only then did the Russian people for the first time
become aware of their strength; only then awakened in all our hearts a feeling
of at first political and later national independence. That was the beginning
of free thinking in Russia.
The government itself spoke the words "liberty, emancipation." . . .
The army, from generals to privates, upon its return, did nothing but discuss
how good things were abroad. A comparison with their own
country naturally led to the question, "Why is it not so in our own
country?"
. . . The ray of hope that the emperor would
grant a constitution, as he himself had mentioned at the opening of the Diet ( Seim ] in Warsaw, and the attempt of some generals to
free their serfs [raby] also encouraged many. But
after 1817 everything changed. Those who recognized evils or who wished
improvement were forced, because of the mass of spies, to hold their
conversations secretly, and this was the beginning of the secret societies. The
oppression of deserving officers by officialdom irritated men's minds. Then the
military men began to talk: "Did we free Europe
in order to be ourselves placed in chains? Did we grant a constitution to France in order
that we dare not talk about it, and did we buy with our blood primacy among
nations in order that we might be humiliated at home?" The abolition of
normal schools and the persecution of education forced people to consider, in
utter despair, serious measures. And since the grumbling of the people, caused
by exhaustion and the abuse of local and civil powers, threatened a bloody
revolution, the societies intended to prevent a greater evil by a lesser one
and to begin their activities at the first suitable occasion.
----------
Extortions [by Russian judges]
rose to an unheard-of degree of shamelessness . . . .
. . . Lucrative positions were sold at a
fixed price and placed on obrok. The centralization
of the judicial system, bringing every trifle to the higher courts, was
conducive to appeals, inquiries, and retrials, and tens of years passed before
a decision, meaning the ruin of both parties. In a word, in the treasury, in
the courts, in the commissariats, among the governors, among the governor
generals, everywhere where self-interest was involved, he who could, plundered, while he who did not dare to do that,
pilfered. Everywhere, honest people suffered and slanderers and scoundrels
rejoiced.
From a letter of Vladimir Ivanovich Shteingeil' to Nicholas
I, January 11, 1826:
No matter how many members there may be
found of the Secret Society or persons who had only known of it, no matter how
many may be deprived of freedom through this prosecution, there will still
remain a great many more people who share those ideas and sentiments. Russia is already so educated that even
shopkeepers read newspapers and newspapers report what, is said in the Chamber
of Deputies in Paris.
Is not the first thought to occur in everyone's mind, "Why can we not
discuss our rights?" The greatest number of professors,
literary men, and journalists have to agree wholeheartedly with those
who desire a constitutional government, for freedom of the press is to their
personal advantage. So do booksellers and merchants. Finally, all those who
have been in foreign countries, and some who were educated there, and all those
who have served or who now serve in the Guards hold the same opinions. Who of
the young men, even somewhat educated, have not read and been fascinated by the
works of Pushkin, which breathe freedom? . . . Sovereign! In order to eradicate
free thinking, there is no other means than to destroy an entire generation,
born and educated in the last reign. But if this is impossible there remains
one thing-to win hearts by kindness and attract minds by decisive and evident action
toward the future prosperity of the state.
Extracts from the testimony of Pestel' before Nicholas I, January 1826:
A large part of the members did not like
Nikita Murav'ev's constitution at all, since its two
chief underlying elements seemed utterly ruinous. He proposed a federative
system of government, such as in the United States of America. This
resembled the old appanage system and thus seemed
pernicious. The second element was that the right to hold administrative office
and participate in public and state affairs was based on wealth, so that to
hold office even in the uezd administration some
wealth was necessary, and increasingly so the higher the office. This terrible
aristocracy of wealth compelled many people, myself
among them, to argue strongly against this constitution.
From my original idea of a constitutional
monarchy I turned to think in terms of a republic, chiefly because of the
following subjects and considerations. The works of Destutt
de Tracy in French had a very strong effect upon me. He demonstrates that any
government where the head of state is a single person, particularly when this
dignity is hereditary, inevitably ends in despotism. All the newspapers and
political works so strongly extolled the growth of prosperity in the United
States of North America, ascribing this to their system of government, that
this seemed to me a clear proof of the superiority of republican government .... It seemed to me that the chief tendency of
the present age is the struggle between the masses of the people and
aristocracies of every kind, founded both on wealth and on hereditary right. I
judged that the aristocracies would in the end become stronger than the monarch
himself, as in England,
and that they present the greatest obstacle to national prosperity and moreover
that they may be eliminated only under a republican form of government. The
events in Naples, Spain,
and Portugal
also had a great effect upon me at the time. In them I found what seemed to me indubitable proof of the instability of constitutional
monarchies and full and sufficient reason to mistrust the sincerity of
the consent of monarchs to constitutions they have accepted. These latter
considerations greatly strengthened my republican and revolutionary train of
thought . . . . What this did was to make me a republican in spirit, one who
could visualize no greater prosperity and no greater blessings for Russia than in
a republican form of government.
--------
[Question 6: How did the
revolutionary ideas and principles grow and become implanted in men's minds?
Who first conceived these ideas and continued to preach and spread them
throughout the state?]
[Answer 6:] . . . A survey of the events of
1812, 1813, 1814, and 1815, as well as of the preceding and following periods,
reveals how many thrones have been toppled, how many others set up, how many
kingdoms have been destroyed, and how many new ones created; how many
sovereigns have been expelled, how many returned or invited to return and then
again driven out; how many revolutions have been accomplished; how many coups d'etat carried out. All these events have familiarized the
minds of men with the idea of revolutions, of their possibilities and the
favorable conditions under which to execute them. Besides that, every century has
its peculiar characteristic. Ours is marked by revolutionary ideas. From one
end of Europe to the other one finds the same thing-from Portugal to Russia,
without excepting a single state, not even those two
opposites, England and Turkey. The
whole of America
presents the same spectacle. The spirit of reform causes minds everywhere to
seethe (/'afire bouillir les
esprits). Here, I maintain, are the causes that gave
rise to revolutionary ideas and principles and implanted them in the peoples'
minds.
As to the cause of the spread of this spirit
of reform throughout the [Russian] state, this cannot be ascribed to the
society, for the organization was still too small to have any popular influence
of this sort; but, if, indeed, there occurred a dissemination of these ideas,
then, I maintain, it must be attributed to the above-mentioned factors which
influenced the minds of the ordinary populace as well as those of the members
of the society.
From the testimony of Petr
Ivanovich Borisov, spring
1826:
Inflamed by such dreams [of serving mankind]
and having met, in 1823, the Pole Liublinskii, who
seemed to me at the beginning an experienced man, I proposed to my brother
[Andrei] that we form a secret society whose goal would be the overthrow of the
government-in the distant future and without serious upset-and that we invite
the above-mentioned Pole, as a man with valuable knowledge, to join. After some
thought, we revealed this to Liublinskii, who gave me
his word, in response to my urging, to assist in the organization of such a
society. To unite all the Slavic peoples and to make them free appeared to me a
magnificent undertaking, for I thought thereby to bring happiness not only to
my compatriots but even to other peoples as well. The principles and the solemn
oath I had drawn up were translated into Polish by Liublinskii,
which was his only action in assisting the establishment of a Slavic Union.
The objective of the United Slavs [founded
by Borisov] was to-unite-the Slavic peoples in a
federative union and to build a city in the center of the union to which the
Slavic peoples would send their deputies and which would be the seat of the
chief administration of the federative union. On the coasts of the seas
adjoining Slavic lands, we hoped to found commercial ports. We had no reliable
means toward the achievement of this objective. Our sole activities were to
increase our members and educate ourselves in the sciences and arts. I could do
nothing more than draw up an outline of the goals of this society. It was left
to time and fate to bring it into realization.
Document 11:
EXPLAINING THE DECEMBRISTS: IAKUSHKIN ON
THE MILITARY SETTLEMENTS
Another valuable source on
the ideas and activities of the Decembrists is the "Notes" of Ivan Dmitrievich Iakushkin
(1793-1857), one of the founders of the Union of Salvation and a member of the
Northern Society. Iakushkin's "Notes" were
dictated by him to his sons in Siberia in
1853-55. In this brief excerpt he deals with one policy that influenced the
attitudes of many of the Decembrists.
Reference: Shchipanov,
Izbrannye proizvedeniia
dekabristov, 1:105.
A new evil was added to all that already plagued Russia: Emperor Alexander, who had
long planned to establish military settlements, began now [ca. 1818] to carry
out his plans. Count Arakcheev was entrusted with the
execution of the projects for the military settlements, which had been drawn up
by the tsar himself. Always proud of being merely the faithful tool of the
autocracy, Count Arakcheev did not fail himself on
this occasion. In the Novgorod
guberniia, the state peasants of those volosti destined for the first military settlements sensed
trouble for themselves and, warned by the quick instinct of the Russian people,
broke out in rebellion. Count Arakcheev sent out the
cavalry and artillery against them. The peasants were shot at and cut down by
swords; many were forced to run the gauntlet; and in the end the poor people
had to submit .... The news of the events in Novgorod horrified
everybody.
The emperor Alexander, in Europe the patron
and practically the leader of the liberals, was in Russia not only a cruel, but
still worse a senseless, despot.
Changings of the guard, parades, and military reviews were
almost his only occupations; he concerned himself solely with the military
settlements and the construction of great highways throughout Russia, sparing
in the process neither the money, nor the sweat, nor the blood of his subjects.