114 REFORM OF RUSSIA'S FINANCES AND CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION
from its very inception the Senate has been the highest judiciary
and executive and, therefore, cannot at the same time be the
place for general deliberation on all government affairs. Themost ~portant acts of the reign of Catherine II... were never
transmitted to the Senate for deliberation, but only for execution
and enforcement in specific cases.
The Ministry was established to give the various parts of govern-ment more unity and strength. If the Senate, even in its renovated
form [decree of 1802] did not become the body for legislative delib-
eration, then with the establishment of the ministries and the remov-
al [from the Senate] of all executive matters, it became even less
suitable for the fulfillment of this function [of legislative delib-
eration]. The Council had been instituted at first to take care
of temporary needs arising from conditions of war [Speransky is
referring to Catherine's Council of 1768]. The Committee o~
Ministers is also an institution without any public [legal] status.
In its very rationale, it was designed for dealing with executive
matters only.
And thus the most important part of government, the planning
of laws, statutes, and institutions has no permanent organization
with us, and there is no place where government matters would
be considered at all times and in uniform manner. How can
there be harmony and direction when each [part] moves in its
own direction and when these various directions are nowhere
unified?... all laws ... with us seem based on arbitrariness and personal
confidence, changing from case to case and from circumstance
to circumstance. All [laws] possess as many different aspects as
there have been persons who drew them up in turn.
Laws cannot have weight when they have been drafted on the
basis of personal confidence, have been deliberated upon in secret
and have been issued without any regard to publicity and
uniformity."
No wonder, Speransky continued his observations, that the impression
was created that any law could be replaced; that there were no per-
manent laws in Russia, as all or anyone could be changed for individual
needs in particular instances. Consequently, their execution was bound
to leave much to be desired, for it was easier to replace 'a law by
another, than to implement an existing statute in the face of diffi-
culties."From all this," Speransky went on to say, "the following truths
can be derived: 1. that in the present system of government there
is no institution for the general deliberation of governmental
affairs from the point of view of their legislative aspect; 2. the
absence of such an institution leads to major disorders and
confusion in all parts of the administration; 3. such an institution