The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 5

69 Speransky, as mentioned in the previous chapter, had already discussed the problem of codifying Russian law in his early writings. Moreover, he intended not only systematizing the old laws but also updating and improving existing law. In his opinion, it was possible to start adopting Western law or at least to take advantage of the achievements in the field of jurisprudence in Western countries. Karamzin too had already expressed a view on the problem of codification in 1802: “What a crowning achievement it would be for Alexander’s reign, if his sovereign will (monarshaia) were fulfilled, if we were to have a complete, systematic collection of clearly and wisely drafted civil laws.”1 And further: “All one needs for that is a philosophical method for categorizing the subject matter (predmetov), and then we shall envy neither Frederick the Great’s recently improved codex nor the clever draft of the French one and shall pity the English, whose courts constantly lose themselves in a labyrinth of contradictory writs.”2 It was quite natural, incidentally, for political writers of the time to take a position on the question of codification. The codification, or at any rate the systematization of law, had been on the agenda since Peter the Great. During the whole of the eighteenth century a number of commissions, up to nine in total, had worked on producing a new ulozhenie (law code). In the early years of Alexander’s reign, Senator Count Zavadovsky had already been given the task of presenting a report to sum up what had been chapter 5 The codification of the Law Speransky’s first attempts at codification— Karamzin’s criticism of Speransky’s plans for codification—Karamzin’s and Savigny’s ideas— continuation of the work of codification under alexander i—codification under nicholas i 70 • the codification of the law achieved before regarding civil legislation and to draw up a plan to continue this work. The whole matter, however, was soon passed on to the Ministry of Justice. A special commission—the Commission on Laws—was set up within the Ministry of Justice under the direction of the deputy minister of justice, Novosil’tsev. Baron Rosenkampf, a Balt who had studied for a time at the University of Leipzig, was appointed as the secretary and senior civil servant of this commission. Korf writes: “One can’t take away from Rosenkampf that he had a sharp intellect or an extensive theoretical knowledge. However, his knowledge of Russian was limited and his knowledge of Russia even more so.”3 It is not surprising, therefore, that the commission achieved nothing under his direction.4 On August 8, 1808, Speransky was appointed to the council of the commission . Up to then, this council had only consisted of the minister Lopukhin and the deputy minister Novosil’tsev. Speransky, however, only started to restructure the commission after his return from Erfurt, where he had accompanied Alexander and had an opportunity to talk with Napoleon. The commission was divided into a number of departments. Rosenkampf remained on the commission as head of the section entrusted with the completion of the civil code. However, all the work done by his department was nearly always ruthlessly revised by Speransky. A special committee or council of high dignitaries was set up to whom the drafts of the commission were presented. As Speransky himself observed, the point of this council was to familiarize the public with the work of the commission and thus increase trust in its work. After the establishment of the State Council in 1810, the Commission on Laws was incorporated into it. Consequently, the abovementioned special committee was discontinued. Its place was now taken by the State Council’s Department for Laws. Speransky was appointed director of the commission, which considerably strengthened his position. The State Council, which was opened on January 1, 1810, completed the scrutiny of the first two parts of the Civil Code (laws regarding persons, and property law) in forty-three sessions from January 18 to December 14 of the same year, with the tsar acting as chairman and Speransky as director of the commission presenting the drafts. These parts were then printed so that they could be revised a second time. Soon after that, Speransky was disgraced and exiled, first to Nizhni-Novgorod and then to Perm. Alexander, under pressure from influential circles, felt he had to sacrifice Speransky. Speransky’s fall cannot be discussed here in detail, nor can the criticism that his reform plans...