150 PLANS OF REFORM
courts in equity set up by Catherine II for the nobility. Nor did the
very restricted composition of the various Dumas augur well for an
early triumph of a new social class with a fresh outlook and better
training in these matters. As long as the serfowning nobility kept its
preponderance, Speransky's improvements were more than likely to
share the fate of Catherine's institutions. It was but another illustration
of Speransky's undue partiality for "bureaucratic;' legislative solutions
which did not adequately allow for the opposition from traditional
social and institutional patterns and forces.
In last place, the Plan of 1809 takes up the organization of the
executive functions of government. As Speransky had occasion to stress
in his previous projects and in the reforms he had succeeded in
implementing, the executive must possess unity, coherence, and
responsibility. The executive function is the exclusive prerogative of
absolute power, i.e., of the autocratic Emperor. There can be no
qualification to this principle. Unity and coherence of action in the
executive are to be achieved by a proper and rational distribution of
its tasks among the five functions of government (police, finance,
external security, justice, economy). We need not expound the Plan's
proposals in this field, for they are almost verbatim repetitions of the
arguments in defense of the reform of the ministries summarized and
discussed in the preceding chapter. As to the principle of responsibility,
the ministers and agents of the sovereign power are not responsible
politically, for they are only the executors of the Emperor's will. But
they are accountable administratively. True enough, "the king can do
no wrong," but should the Emperor issue orders contrary to the
fundamental laws of the realm, it is the duty of the ministers to advise
him against it. The Plan does not state whether the minister has to
take the full responsibility and blame for the execution of the imperial
will. This was a most regrettable omission. As we had occasion to note,
the same idea was followed through in the ministry: the Council of
the Ministry is an advisory body, each chief of a department is respon-
sible to both the minister and the council for the actions he takes within
the limits of his competence. The activities of the central executive
agencies are reported yearly to the State Duma which can bring to
account the individual minister. A minister who has acted in violation
of the laws is tried before the Senate.^1 The modern reader will easily
detect many gaps and inadequacies in the position of the minister, in
particular in regard to his liability for an imperial order he has not
advised but which he had to sign. Speransky's Plan provides no help
1 Plan 1809, pp. 87-98 passim.