REFORM OF RUSSIA'S FINANCES AND CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION 107frequently life-long enemies would belong to the same Committee. At
times the Emperor purposefully appointed individuals with conflicting
outlooks, so as to keep the balance of power in his own hands. Under
no circumstance could Alexander's Committees adequately express or
imprint unity of purpose and policy to the administration of the
Empire. Speransky described this situation quite well when he wrote:
"the reports of ministers were of two kinds: individual and general.
Special days and hours were set for the individual reports. The general
report was given at a general meeting of the ministers in the presence
of the Emperor; this was called the Committee [of Ministers]. Conse-
quently, the Committee was neither a [government] body, nor a special
institution; it was only a manner of report." 1 The limited unity of
purpose of the first Committee (1802) had been due to the fact that
it was dominated by the members of the Unofficial Committee. And
even then, a solidarity of outlook could not be obtained because
adherents of the "Senatorial Party" had been appointed to several
ministries. With the withdrawal from active participation and decline
of influence of Alexander's erstwhile friends and advisers (ca 1805),
even this shred of unity of outlook disappeared from the government.
In 1809 Count Kochubei was the only member of the Unofficial
Committee to occupy a position of importance, but his influence with
the Emperor had declined a great deal.
With the passing of time, the undesirable effects of the lack of
ministerial unity of action and purpose were becoming more and more
apparent. The situation gave rise to frequent and bitter criticism,
especially by those numerous officials and dignitaries who had never
viewed the ministries with favor. A primary reason for introducing
into Russia the monocratic, ministerial form of executive administration
had been the feeling that the collegial principle of the 18th century
made for slowness and confusion. The Ministries, however, it was felt,
had not brought about unity and purposefulness either, nor had they
eliminated the older collegial features. They were an inadequate
compromise. Even in their internal organization they combined
monocratic and collegial elements, except in the Ministry of the Interior
where the monocratic principle had been carried through consistently
by Speransky. In principle, Speransky was a staunch supporter of the
ministries which he much preferred to the inchoate and abusive
"system" - if it could be called such - prevailing at the end of the
18th century. But he was also keenly aware of the deficiencies of the
1 Zhlllllal A'oll/tll'/a MlIIi,IIIOll-ISl/ullll1llfll/l(' /lillii'll/lOll/ A /1'/1,11/11 dill I, I, p. 14, also
in Arkhiv istoricheskikh i statisticheskikh svedenii, III, (1859), 39ff.