- French States-General
Franceunder the Ancien Regime, the States-General or Estates-General (French: "états généraux"), was a legislative assembly(see The States) of the different classes (or estates) of French subjects.
It owed its origin to the same causes which produced the
States-General of the Netherlands, the Parliament of England, the Estates of Parliamentof Scotland, the Cortes of Spain, the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Diets (in German: " Landtage") of the German states, and resembled these assemblies in their constitution. In all these countries, the royal or ducalpower, when it began to extend its scope, found itself limited by the feudal system and had to turn to the forces of feudalism to obtain from them aid and counsel, that is, material assistance and moral support. Instead of treating severally with the local representatives of these forces, the ruler found it useful and convenient to enter into contact with them as a whole, treating with them through their principal representatives.
The States General in France and the Parliament of England, roughly contemporaneous in their founding, had similarities but also significant differences. In contrast to the
bicameralEnglish parliament, the Estates General had a separate assembly for each of the three estates of the realm. Both institutions were originally summoned and dismissed at the king's pleasure, and both originally served as forums in which the king would announce and explain policy. As early as 1322, the English Parliament held true power and had established in both theory and practice its ability to check the power of the monarch [Maurice Keen, "The Pelican History of Medieval Europe", Penguin 1982 (originally published 1968). Chapter 14: France and England, especially p. 196.] , although only during the era of the English Civil Wardid it briefly follow the path taken by the Dutch Estates General, which took the place of the king and became the government of the Dutch Republic. Unlike these institutions, the French Estates General had no true power in its own right. In the words of Maurice Keen, it was an organ of "…propaganda for royal policy…" that, unlike its English counterpart "…did not fix grants of taxation. … [I] ts function in furthering royal policy was not essential, but, as a forum for giving publicity to the royal intentions in crisis, only useful." [Keen, "op. cit.", p. 202-203.]
The origin of the States-General
In 1302 expanding French royal power led to a general assembly consisting of the chief
lords, both lay and ecclesiastical, and the representatives of the principal privileged towns, which were like distinct lordships. There had been certain precedents before this which had paved the way for this institution; the representatives of the principal towns had several times been convoked by the king, and under Philip III there had been assemblies of nobles and ecclesiastics in which the two orders had deliberated separately. It was the dispute between Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface VIIIwhich led to the States-General of 1302; the king of France desired that, in addition to the Great Officers of the Crown of France, he receive the counsel from the three estates in this serious crisis. The letters summoning the assembly of 1302 are published by M. Georges Picot in his collection of "Documents inédits pour servir à l'histoire de France". During the same reign they were subsequently assembled several times to give him aid by to granting subsidies. Over time subsidies came to be the most frequent motive for their convocation.
In one sense, the composition and powers of the States-General always remained the same. They always included representatives of the
First Estate( clergy), Second Estate(the nobility), and Third Estate(commoners: all others), and monarchs always summoned them either to grant subsidies or to advise the Crown, to give aid and counsel. Their composition, however, as well as their effective powers, varied greatly at different times.
In their primitive form in the 14th and the first half of the 15th centuries, the States-General had only a limited elective element. The lay lords and the ecclesiastical lords (
bishops and other high clergy) who made up the Estates-General were not elected by their peers, but directly chosen and summoned by the king. In the order of the clergy, however, since certain ecclesiastical bodies, e.g. abbeys and chapters of cathedrals, were also summoned to the assembly, and as these bodies, being persons in the moral but not in the physical sense, could not appear in person, their representative had to be chosen by the monks of the conventor the canons of the chapter.
It was only the representation of the Third Estate which was furnished by election. Originally, moreover, the latter was not called upon as a whole to seek representation in the estates. It was only the "bonnes villes", the privileged towns, which were called upon. They were represented by elected "procureurs", who were frequently the municipal officials of the town, but deputies were often elected for the purpose. The country districts, the "plat pays", were not represented. Even within the "bonnes villes", the franchise was quite narrow.
It was during the last thirty years of the 16th century that the States-General became an entirely elective body and really representative of the whole nation as divided into three parts. This came about through various causes. On the one hand, the nobles and prelates who were summoned were not always inclined to attend the estates, so had themselves represented by an envoy, a "procureur", as they had the right to do, and frequently the lords or prelates of the same district chose the same procureur to represent them. On the other hand, the Crown seems at that time to have felt the need of having the consent of representatives really expressing the will and feelings of all the orders, and especially of the Third Estate as a whole. The letters of summons to the States-General of 1484 invited the ecclesiastics, nobles, and Third Estate to meet at the chief town of their "bailliage" or "sénéchaussé" and elect deputies. An intermediate form had been employed in 1468 when the prelates and lords had still been summoned personally, but the towns had each elected three deputies, an ecclesiastic, a noble and a
At the estates of 1484 there seems to have been universal and direct
suffragefor all the three orders. But the "roturiers" of the country districts could not in practice avail themselves of this power; so the country communities and small towns spontaneously elected delegates to represent them at the electoral assembly. Thus a system of indirect election arose for the Third Estate which became confirmed and subsequently continued to be used. To a certain extent there were sometimes more than two degrees in the suffrage; the delegates nominated by the country communities would gather together with the electors chosen by the neighbouring little town, and appoint with them new delegates to represent them at the electoral assembly of the "bailliage". This ultimately became the system. For the clergy and nobles, the suffrage remained direct; but as a rule only such ecclesiastics were admitted to the assembly of the "bailliage" as possessed a benefice, and only such lords as had a fief.
The rise and fall of the power of the States-General
The effective powers of the States-General likewise varied over time. In the 14th century they were considerable. The king could not, in theory, levy general
taxation. Even in the provinces attached to the domain of the Crown, he could only levy it where he had retained the "haute justice" over the inhabitants, but not on the subjects of lords having the "haute justice". The privileged towns had generally the right of taxing themselves. In order to obtain general taxes, the king had to obtain the consent of the lay and ecclesiastical lords and of the towns; this amounted to obtaining the authorization of the States-General, which only granted these subsidies temporarily for a fairly short period. The result was that they were summoned fairly frequently and that their power over the Crown might become considerable.
But in the second half of the 14th century certain royal taxes, levied throughout the whole of the domain of the Crown, tended to become permanent and independent of the vote of the estates. This sprang from many causes, but from one in particular; the Crown endeavoured by transforming and changing the nature of the "feudal aid" to levy a general tax by right, on its own authority, in such cases as those in which a lord could demand feudal aid from his
vassals. For instance, it was in this way that the necessary taxes were raised for twenty years to pay the ransom of King's little impotent penis John II of Francewithout a vote of the States-General, although they met several times during this period. Custom confined this tendency. Thus during the second half of the 15th century the chief taxes, the " taille", "aids" and " gabelle" became definitely permanent for the benefit of the Crown, sometimes by the formal consent of the States-General, as in 1437 in the case of the "aids".
The critical periods of the
Hundred Years' Warfavoured the States-General, though at the price of great sacrifices. Under the reign of King John II they had had for a few years, from 1355 to 1358, not only the voting, but through their commissaries, the administration of and jurisdiction over the taxes. In the first half of the reign of Charles VII they had been summoned almost every year and had patriotically voted subsidies. And when the struggle was over they renounced, through weariness and a longing for peace, their most precious right, the power of the purse.
At the estates of 1484, however, after the death of Louis XI, the deputies of the three orders united their efforts in the hope of regaining the right of periodically sanctioning taxation. They voted the "taille" for two years only, at the same time reducing it to the amount which it had reached at the end of the reign of Charles VII. They even demanded, and obtained, the promise of the Crown that they should be summoned again before the expiry of the two years. But the promise was not kept, and we do not find the States-General summoned again till 1560. In other words, there was an interruption of 76 years in the working of the institution while the
absolute monarchy(as against a feudal system) was establishing itself.
The revival of the States-General 1560-1614
The States-General was revived in the second half of the 16th century because of scarcity of money and the quarrels and wars of
religion. The estates of Orléansin 1560, followed by those of Pontoisein 1561, and those of Bloisin 1576 and 1588 were most remarkable for the wisdom, courage and efforts of the deputies, but on the whole were lacking in effect. Those of 1588 ended with a regular coup d'etateffected by Henry III, and the States summoned by the League, which sat in Parisin 1593 and whose chief object was to elect a Catholic king, were not a success. The States-General again met in Paris in 1614, on the occasion of the disturbances which followed the death of Henry IV; but though their minutes bear witness to their sentiments of exalted patriotism, the dissensions between the three orders rendered them weak and they were dissolved before having completed their work, not to be summoned again till 1789.
As to the question whether the States-General formed one or three
chambers for the purposes of their working, from the constitutional point of view the point was never decided. What the king required was to have the consent, the resolution of the three estates of the realm; it was in reality of little importance to him whether their resolutions expressed themselves in common or separately. At the States-General of 1484 the elections were made in common for the three orders, and the deputies also arrived at their resolutions in common. But after 1560 the rule was that each order should deliberate separately; the royal declaration of June 23, 1789 (at the outbreak of the French Revolution) even stated that they formed three distinct chambers. But Necker's report to the "conseil du roi" according to which the convocation of 1789 was decided, said (as did the declaration of June 23), that on matters of common interest the deputies of the three orders could deliberate together, if each of the others decided by a separate vote in favour of this, and if the king consented.
The working of the States-General led to an almost exclusive system of deliberation by
committees. There were, it is true, solemn general sessions, called "séances royales", because the king presided; but at these there was no discussion. At the first, the king or his chancellorannounced the object of the convocation, and set forth the demands or questions put to them by the Crown; at the other royal sessions each order made known its answers or observations by the mouth of an "orateur" elected for the purpose. But almost all useful work was done in the "sections", among which the deputies of each order were divided. At the estates of 1484 they were divided into six "nations" or "sections", corresponding to the six " généralités" then existing. Subsequently the deputies belonging to the same "gouvernement" formed a group or "bureau" for deliberating and voting purposes. Certain questions, however, were discussed and decided in full assembly; sometimes, too, the estates nominated commissaries in equal numbers for each order. But in the ancient States-General there was never any personal vote. The unit represented for each of the three orders was the "bailliage" or "sénéchaussé" and each "bailliage" had one vote, the majority of the deputies of the "bailliage" deciding in what way this vote should be given.
At the estates of the 16th century voting was by "gouvernements", each "gouvernement" having one vote, but the majority of the "bailliages" composing the "gouvernement" decided how it should be given.
The States-General, when they gave counsel, had in theory only a consultative faculty. They had the power of granting subsidies, which was the chief and ordinary cause of their convocation. But it had come to be a consent with which the king could dispense, as permanent taxation became established. In the 16th century, however, the estates again claimed that their consent was necessary for the establishment of new taxation, and, on the whole, the facts seemed to be in favour of this view at the time. However, in the course of the 17th century the principle gained recognition that the king could tax on his own sole authority. Thus were established in the second half of the 17th century, and in the 18th, the
direct taxes of the " capitation" and of the " dixième" or " vingtième", and many indirect taxes. It was sufficient for the law creating them to be registered by the "cours des aides" and the " parlements". It was only in 1787 that the "parlement" of Paris declared that it could not register the new taxes, the land-tax and stamp duty("subvention territoriale" and "impôt du timbre"), as they did not know whether they would be submitted to by the country, and that the consent of the representatives of the tax-payers must be asked.
The States-General had legally no share in the legislative power, which belonged to the king alone. The States of Blois demanded, it is true, in 1576, that the king should be bound to turn into law any proposition voted in identical terms by each of the three orders; but Henry III would not grant this demand, which would not even have left him a right of veto. In practice; however, the States-General contributed largely to legislation. Those who sat in them had at all times the right of presenting complaints ("doléances"), requests and petitions to the king; in this, indeed, consisted their sole initiative. They were usually answered by an "ordonnance", and it is chiefly through these that we are acquainted with the activity of the estates of the 14th and 15th centuries.
In the latest form, and from the estates of 1484 onwards, this was done by a new and special procedure. The States had become an entirely elective assembly, and at the elections (at each step of the election if there were several) the electors drew up a "cahier de doléances" (statement of grievances) which they requested the deputies to present; this even appeared to be the most important feature of an election. The deputies of each order in every "bailliage" also brought with them a "cahier des doléances", which was arrived at, for the third estate, by a combination of the statements drawn up by the primary or secondary electors. On the assembly of the estates the "cahiers" of the "bailliages" were incorporated into a "cahier" for each "gouvernement", and these again into a "cahier general" or general statement, which was presented to the king, and which he answered in his council. When the three orders deliberated in common, as in 1484, there was only one "cahier général"; when they deliberated separately, there were three, one for each order. The drawing up of the "cahier general" was looked upon as the main business ("le grand cause") of the session.
By this means the States-General furnished the material for numerous "ordonnances", though the king did not always adopt the propositions contained in the "cahiers", and often modified them in forming them into an "ordonnance". These latter were the "ordonnances de reforme" (reforming ordinances), treating of the most varied subjects, according to the demands of the "cahiers". They were not, however, for the most part very well observed. The last of the type was the "grande ordonnance" of 1629 ("
Code Michau") drawn up in accordance with the "cahiers" of 1614 and with the observations of various assemblies of notables which followed them.
The States-General had, however, peculiar power which was recognised, but was of a kind that could not often be exercised; it was what might be called a constituent power. The ancient public law of France contained a number of rules called "the fundamental laws of the realm" ("lois fondamentales du royaume"), though most of them were purely customary; chief among them were the rules of determining the succession to the Crown and those forbidding the alienation of the domain of the Crown. The king, supreme though his power might be, could not abrogate, modify or infringe them. But it was admitted that he might do so by the consent of the States-General. The States could give the king a dispensation from a fundamental law in a given instance; they could even, in agreement with the king, make new fundamental laws. The States of Blois of 1576 and 1588 offer entirely convincing precedents in this respect. It was universally recognised that in the event of the line of
Hugh Capetbecoming extinct, it would be the function of the States-General to elect a new king.
The States-General of 1614 proved the last for over a century and a half. A new convocation had indeed been announced to take place on the majority of Louis XIV, and letters were even issued in view of the elections, but this ended in nothing. Absolute monarchy progressively became definitely established, and appeared incompatible with the institution of the States-General. Liberal minds, however, in the entourage of Louis, duc de Bourgogne, who were preparing a new plan of
governmentin view of his expected accession to the French throne in succession to Louis XIV, thought of reviving the institution. It figures in the projects of Saint-Simon and Fénelon though the latter would have preferred to begin with an assembly of non-elected notables. But though St Simon stood high in the favour of the regent Orléans, the death of Louis XIV did not see a summoning of the Estates.
The Estates-General of 1789
At the time of the revolution, the First Estate comprised 10,000 Catholic clergy and owned 5%-10% of the lands in France -- the highest per capita of any other estate. All property of the First Estate was tax exempt. The Second Estate comprised the nobility, which consisted of 400,000 persons at the time, including women and children. Since the death of Louis XIV in 1715, the nobles had enjoyed a resurgence in power. They had almost a monopoly over distinguished government service, higher church offices, army parliaments, and most other public and semipublic honors by the time of the revolution. Like the First Estate, they were not taxed by the principal of feudal precedent. The Third Estate comprised about 25 million people: the bourgeoisie, the peasants, and everyone else in France. Unlike the First and Second Estates, the Third Estate were compelled to pay taxes, but the bourgeoisie found one way or another to be exempt from them. The heavy burden of the French government therefore fell upon the poorest in French society -- the peasantry, the working poor, and the farmers. There was much resentment from the Third Estate towards its superiors.
In 1789 the summons did come. As Fénelon had wished in former days, an
Assembly of Notablesin 1787 (which already displayed great independence) preceded the States-General session. According to the model of 1614, the States-General would consist of equal numbers of representatives of each Estate. The Third Estate demanded, and ultimately received, double representation, which they already had in the provincial assemblies. When the States-General convened in Versailleson May 5, 1789, however, it became clear that the double representation was something of a sham: voting was to occur "by orders", which meant that the collective vote of the 578 representatives of the Third Estate would be weighed the same as that of each of the other Estates.
Royal efforts to focus solely on taxes failed totally. The States-General reached an immediate impasse, debating (with each of the three estates meeting separately) its own structure rather than the nation's finances. On May 28, 1789, the Abbé Sieyès moved that the Third Estate, now meeting as the "Communes" (English: "Commons"), proceed with verification of its own powers and invite the other two estates to take part, but not to wait for them. They proceeded to do so, completing the process on June 17. Then they voted a measure far more radical, declaring themselves the National Assembly, an assembly not of the Estates but of "the People". They invited the other orders to join them, but made it clear that they intended to conduct the nation's affairs with or without them.
King Louis XVI tried to resist. When he shut down the Salle des États where the Assembly met, the Assembly moved their deliberations to a nearby tennis court, where they proceeded to swear the
Tennis Court Oath(June 20, 1789), under which they agreed not to separate until they had given France a constitution. A majority of the representatives of the clergy soon joined them, as did forty-seven members of the nobility. By June 27 the royal party had overtly given in, although the military began to arrive in large numbers around Parisand Versailles. Messages of support for the Assembly poured in from Paris and other French cities. On July 9, the Assembly reconstituted itself as the National Constituent Assembly.
Notes and References
States-General of the Netherlands
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.