LAST YEARS - CONCLUSION 349A subject that occupied the minds of many officials was the better
organization of primary and secondary education. At stake was the
opening of the schools to children of serfs and of peasants. Oddly enough
for someone who himself had come from the village, but not too
surprising in view of his general political orientation, Speransky was
opposed to the admission of serf and peasant children to secondary
schools. He felt that primary education on the village level was
adequate enough for them; and if the children of peasants were to go
higher, they would encounter serious psychological and social problems,
for they would not be able to adjust their superior intellectual conditionto their lowly social status and legal disabilities. It was quite a reason-
able position which had something to commend it. But it was a position
that had been always argued by those who wanted to prevent the
spread of education among the people and the lifting of the peasantry
from its lowly and ignorant state. Speransky probably did not intendit in this way. He recognized that the sons of those peasants who had
acquired wealth, freedom, and some education could be admitted to
secondary schools. In other words, let the state first give primary
education to all peasants and the opportunity of bettering their economic
lot. Only then will the question of admission to secondary education
become a practical issue. By that time, perhaps, it will be possible to
grant equal admission to the peasants without risking major social or
psychological difficulties. Speransky's position on this problem provides
but another illustration of his gradualism and dilatory bureaucratic
approach.
In connection with the peasantry it might also be mentioned that
Speransky participated in the committee that eventually worked out
the basis of Count Kiselev's program for the state peasants. His partic·
ipation was to be expected, for he had probably been the first influen-
tial official to recommend that the solution of serfdom, i.e., emancipa-
tion, be tackled first with regard to the state peasants. He had suggested
that they be the first to return to their previous status of being tied
to the land and carry very strictly defined obligations only, and that
this serve as a model for the reform of the position of private serfs.
Speransky had also been the first to point out that the state peasants
in European Russia might soon be faced with a shortage of land. In
that event they must be allowed to resettle elsewhere, preferably in
Siberia where there were splendid opportunities and many more
agricultural laborers were needed. Though his ideas did not receive
legislative implementation at the time, they were not forgotten by
later officials who tackled the peasant question. They no doubt in-