54 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 1802-1812
through bureaucratic, paternalistic legislation. In so doing Speransky
was at one with the bureaucratic prejudices of Alexander I and the
Unofficial Committee. How individual initiative and free economic
activity were to develop under the shadow of an omnipotent bureau-
cratic state, Speransky did not make clear in his report. Perhaps the
young official was not aware of the inherent contradiction or, to say
the least, lack of clarity in his position. We shall again meet this
fundamental conflict between political means and economic ends in
Speransky's thought and acts. An inconsistency which persisted in the
thinking of most Russian political leaders throughout the 19th century
and found its reflection in the legislation of the Imperial government.
As energetic and able an official as Speransky could not be contented
with mere routine work. And the times, too, were such as to excite
and spur on political talent; administrative reform was on everybody's
lips and the ever-present preoccupation of all officials. Projects were
drafted, and reform plans proposed not only by those whose official
business it was, but also by many private individuals who thought they
had something to contribute. Speransky could not remain a passive
bystander; he was too close to this ferment of minds and too ambitious
and eager to playa more significant role. Nor were his superiors averse
to using his facile and elegant pen; they commissioned him to write
projects which they later submitted to the Emperor. Speransky was
always willing and ready to oblige. In 1802 he wrote an analysis and
critique of conditions in the administration; in 1803, at the behest of
a member of the Unofficial Committee (probably Count Kochubei),
he formulated his own considerations on the state of Russia and his
suggestions for reform. As far as we know, neither of these papers
found any practical application, but they gave their author a chance
to make a systematic exposition of his ideas on government and
administration. As their interest and significance are mainly theoretical,
we shall reserve their discussion for a later chapter.
The outstanding qualities of the young department chief at the
Ministry of th(l Interior did not remain hidden from the Emperor. In
1807, Alexander had the opportunity of appreciating Speransky's talents
in person, when Count Kochubei - confined to his home by illness -
delegated Speransky to make the weekly oral report on the affairs of
the Ministry. The Emperor was much impressed by Speransky's clear
and elegant verbal exposition of intricate and dry matters and by the
speed and efficiency of his paper work. He decided to keep the young
official near his person, as his chief administrative secretary and assistant.
In this new capacity, Speransky accompanied the Emperor to the