126 PLANS OF REFORMcapitation (poll tax) into a land tax, proportional to the amount of
land held and tilled (again a reversion to pre-Petrine policies). We
recall that Speransky repeated this important fiscal proposal in his
Financial Plan, in 1810. The second stage in the abolition of serfdom
would be the return to the peasant of his right to move freely. But,
Speransky warned, this last step would require lengthy and careful
preparation, for otherwise it might result in the formation of a class
of vagrants or "nomads." It is interesting to note that he did not
propose to give the freed peasant a share in the land. The proposals,
as they are cited in our source, were too general and incomplete,
obviously drawn up in haste. But we definitely have the impression
that Speransky was reluctant to propose anything radically new and
to change the existing order fundamentally. 1
Besides the paper just summarized, Speransky set forth his ideas
concerning the crowning stone of statecraft, a code of laws. He did
this in a short essay entitled "A fragment on the Commission of Cod-
ification - Introduction," written also in 1801-1802. Again we must
rely on Semevskii's summary for its contents.^2 Speransky believed
that a code of laws was the concrete expression of the general principles
which underlie the social and political structure of a nation. Therefore,
no Russian code would be truly complete until the country has obtained
the fundamental laws and rules of its political existence. But the
code could also play a role in preparing the nation for such a funda-
mental organization of the country's government. In regulating the
relations between citizens, the code would set a framework and foster
the civic education of the people. In their present chaotic stage,
however, Russian laws - ignored even by the most responsible admin-
istrators and judges - only served to keep government on a low level
of arbitrariness and lawlessness.^3
Heretofore, Speransky continued, all attempts at codification have
failed, for the task was tackled wrongly. The commissions of codifica-
tion started off amidst a great deal of pomp and circumstance; high
dignitaries and ministers jotted down some general ideas. But soon their
interest in the project flagged, and the actual work was entrusted to
under-secretaries, clerks, and even assistant-clerks who did not have
the proper training or the breadth of vision necessary for such a task.
Seemingly, Catherine's Commission of 1767 was an exception to this
rule of procedure. But its labors, too, proved fruitless because the
1 ibid., pp. 80-82.
2 ibid., pp. 50-59. The title of the paper was: "Otryvok 0 komissii ulozheniia-
Vvedenie."
3 "Pervyi polilicheskii traktat," p. 54.