The Parliaments of Early Modern Europe by M.A.R. Graves

Author:M.A.R. Graves [Graves, M.A.R.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, General, Europe, Germany, Modern, 17th Century, 18th Century, 16th Century
ISBN: 9781317884323
Google: 1WjJAwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2014-06-06T16:04:16+00:00

The autocratic tendencies of early modern hereditary rulers

The institutional diversity, decentralisation and even independent jurisdictions of late medieval territories encouraged the growth of autocratic tendencies which were necessary to achieve more effective royal control. In pursuit of this end some rulers appealed to absolutist ideology. War could give a sense of urgency to the process, as it could no longer be sustained from the old royal hereditary revenues. This could enhance the bargaining position and political authority of parliaments but equally it could encourage rulers to seek alternatives. Even then, as in France when monarchs no longer called the Estates-general after 1614–15, all was not what it seems in retrospect. It was not an obstacle to royal authority which was laid to rest, but an unrewarding, timeconsuming institution which was rendered ineffective for a variety of reasons: geographical, social and cameral divisions, lack of legislative or financial powers, the absence of any working link with the more frequent provincial estates, and the hostility of other institutions, such as the Paris parlement, towards it.

The Holy Roman Empire provides more convincing evidence of estates as victims of autocratic princes. Yet even here the picture is one of contrasts. The seventeenth-century imperial diet remained an unreformed assembly which increasingly resembled a gathering of diplomats representing effectively independent principalities and cities. It met infrequently (in 1613, 1640–41, 1653–54) until 1663, when a permanent diet was established at Regensburg. This made little difference, because it was divided by religion, minority rights were protected, and it lacked the power to raise funds for effective imperial defence and administration. In any case it was the assembly of a decentralised empire in which, as a consequence of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), the princes were recognised as territorial sovereigns. As such they could ignore or reject any of the diet’s actions which impinged on that sovereignty. Weak though the diet was, neither its authority nor its existence were under threat from a powerful ruler, because the emperor’s role after the Thirty Years’ War was little more than that of a figurehead.

Among the estates of the German principalities, those of Wiirttemberg flourished after the war, in which the duchy had become a battleground. This was due, however, not to some kind of parliamentary triumph over the dynastic ambition and autocratic aspirations of the ruling prince. It was the consequence of the prince, Eberhard III (1633–74), whose traditional approach to government was based upon a co-operative relationship with the Landtag and a respect for its rights. This ducal policy was reinforced by the government’s financial dependence on the assembly. The war, which had involved heavy taxation, Habsburg military occupation, looting and the destruction of property by marauding soldiers, left a ruined economy, an empty treasury and debt which obliged Eberhard to look to the estates for assistance. So, for a variety of reasons, his reign was marked by the activity of a revitalised Landtag.29

Saxony, like Wiirttemberg, was ravaged by the Thirty Years’ War. It was spared the direct impact of military operations until 1630.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.