Landtag (Duchy of Westphalia)
The Landtag of the Duchy of Westphalia , also known as the Westphalian Landtag assembly or Arnsberg Landtag after the venue , was the representative body in the Duchy of Westphalia from the late Middle Ages and during the early modern period until it was repealed in 1806 . It consisted of a knightly and a city curia and formed the decisive counterweight to the absolutist ambitions of the Cologne electors as sovereigns.
Origin of the estates
There were approaches for estates as early as the 14th century. So it became common to have sovereign contracts approved by the estates - consilium fidelium et subditorum , as it was called in the deed for the sale of the county of Arnsberg to Kurköln in 1368. Above all, the nobility succeeded in enforcing the thesis of a two-fold duchy in the Kurkölner lands. After that, Westphalia was connected to Kurköln in the person of the Elector in his capacity as Duke of Westphalia, but the country was not an integral part of the Electorate. This made it possible in some cases to enforce other constitutional foundations than existed in the Rhineland. They were clearly pronounced in the Hereditary Land Associations of 1437 and 1463.
During the Truchsessian War , the state parliament initially stood behind Elector Gebhard I von Waldburg , who wanted to enforce Protestantism in the Electorate of Cologne. But the members were divided among themselves. During this time, parliaments took place unusually often. Since the elector was dependent on the financial services of the estates, they tried to use the opportunity to expand their rights. After the conquest of the duchy by the troops commanded by Duke Ferdinand of Bavaria, the estates recognized the new Catholic Elector Ernst of Bavaria in the Geseke state parliament in 1584.
Under this, the rights of sovereigns and estates until the end of the Holy Roman Empire were finally defined in 1590 . Since then, the sovereign was no longer allowed to intervene in the rights of the subjects, set taxes or change national borders without the consent of the estates. Against this background, absolutist tendencies had no way of enforcing them.
composition
There are few sources for the early days of the estates and their assemblies. Protocols are only available for the period after 1583. The estates consisted of the knightly curia and the city curia. At first, the composition of the state parliaments seems to have been somewhat broader. In the renewed Hereditary Land Association of 1590, there is also talk of a “common landscape”, and people “to whom it is due” could be invited to the Landtag in the first centuries. But from the beginning the focus was on the knights and cities. This was already shown by the first union of the estates of the old county of Arnsberg and the original Westphalian region of the Electorate of Cologne, the “ Marshal's Office for Westphalia ”, the “ Prima unio seu Pactum mutuae defensionis inter status Westfaliae erectum ” from 1492. The lack of a neighboring country of a spiritual state is remarkable of a clergy entitled to state parliament. There were also quite a few important monasteries and other religious institutions in the country itself. (See list of spiritual institutes in the Duchy of Westphalia ) The reasons for this are not entirely clear. Meister suspects that their privileges and the protection of the elector meant that the religious institutions did not develop strong needs for a union. Even later, the clergy and the rural population were excluded from participating in the state parliaments.
Elector
The state parliament was convened by the Elector of Cologne. There was no right of self-assembly. Only the state parliament of 1795 was not convened by the elector because of the war events, but the elector later approved its resolutions. The electors were also responsible for the financing. Otherwise their rights were limited. In principle, the sovereign was chairman, but he was not obliged to participate. Overall, the electors attended the meetings about twenty-seven times between 1587 and 1767. In the period that followed, until the end of the meeting, no elector took part in the deliberations. As a rule, the sovereign was represented by two commissioners. The elector was free to choose the commissioners. As a rule, these were Westphalian lawyers. But court councilors and electoral councilors from the Bonn residence were also represented.
Cathedral chapter
The Cologne cathedral chapter had tried several times to be recognized as a state alongside the elector. Since this was not provided for in any of the late medieval or early modern constitutional foundations of the state, such as the Hereditary Lands Association , it was only imperfectly possible to achieve this goal. The chapter was ultimately an intermediary instance between the state parliament and the elector. The chapter had to confirm the calling of the estates. It sent two delegates to the negotiations. However, their rights were limited. They were present at the “court table” at the opening of the session and at the end had to countersign the state parliament farewell. Their task was to mediate in conflicts between the sovereign and the estates. In practice, the envoys rarely performed this task. Since the deputies of the chapter were not admitted to the negotiations of the state parliament, they could hardly act as mediator.
Knight Curia
The knight's curia ( corpus equestrum ) consisted of the owners of the goods eligible for the state parliament . The invitations to the diets were addressed to the estate, not to the knight. In addition to this material basis, evidence of nobility was also of considerable importance. The members of the curia had to show at least sixteen noble ancestors who had been sworn up in the usual way . These requirements led to the fact that the number of aristocrats eligible for parliament decreased over time. The Hereditary Land Association of 1463 was still signed by 130 knights. Towards the end of the 18th century, the number of sworn knights named in the Electoral Cologne court calendar fluctuated between 49 in 1779 and 63 in 1798. 35 knights were still present at each of the state parliaments of 1801 and 1802. Because of the property conflict, foreign members were also members of the corporation. In some cases, foreign nobles were sworn up for political reasons. The actually strict admission requirements were not infrequently circumvented, for example by designating a manor that was not actually there. It therefore happened that a nobleman was not only represented in the Duchy of Westphalia, but also in the assemblies of the prince-bishopric of Paderborn or the bishopric of Münster . There were also cases in which outsiders were refused to revolt. This happened, for example, to the conference minister of the Electorate of Cologne, Johann Christian von Waldenfels , although he owned the Scheidingen estate, which was suitable for the state assembly. In 1788 he even called the Reichshofrat .
Even if a knight owned several goods suitable for the state parliament, he only had one vote. In addition, the vote only counted when present in the respective state parliament. The composition of the staff was relatively constant and the policy of the Curia was conservative. She was fundamentally skeptical of innovations.
In the 18th century, the chivalrous deputies wore a special uniform. The noble deputies were expected to keep the negotiations confidential. For this purpose, a specific oath was introduced in the 17th century. One background was that the members of the knighthood also used the negotiations in the knightly curia to decide matters of the knighthood itself, such as questions of ancestral testing or revolt.
The day-to-day business of the Curia was also conducted between sessions by a directory, led by the Landdrosten and, if he was unable to do so, the oldest noble council of the government of the duchy. The Landdrost did not act here in his capacity as an electoral official, but as a respected representative of the knighthood. In the one case in which a stranger became Landdrost, the usual personal union of chairman of the directorate and Drostenamt was lifted. The dual function as the highest official and spokesman for the local nobility could lead to a conflict of duties and interests. The same applies to the land clerk, who was on the one hand the highest secretary of the government of the duchy and on the other hand was responsible for keeping the minutes of the knight's curia.
City Curia
In contrast to other assemblies of the estates, in which the right to representation was limited to a few main locations in the course of development, the city curia in Westphalia consisted of representatives from all cities and freedoms of the duchy. For its part, the Curia was divided into the four capitals of the four quarters of which it was composed, the other 21 cities and the nine freedoms. The capitals were Brilon , Rüthen, Geseke and Werl. They each sent two mayors, the treasurer and another member of the council to the state parliaments. In this respect, they were somewhat preferred over the other cities. The other cities and freedoms sent a mayor and the eunuch. The number of places eligible for parliament fluctuated only slightly. Only Bilstein lost his vocal ability over time. Regardless of whether all delegates were present, each municipality eligible for a state parliament had a virile vote, so that the number of votes in the city curia was constant with the exception of the above. The board of directors, that is, the presidency of the curia, was held in Brilon, which was considered the first capital. The Brilon town clerk was therefore also the recorder of the curia. The minutes of the committee were consequently kept in the archives of the city of Bilon.
Each stand elected four permanent deputies who brought their own decisions to the other stand. They also had the task of trying to find a compromise in the event of a conflict in order to ultimately present joint proposals to the elector. In the case of the city curia, the practice developed in the course of the 18th century that the deputies were not elected from the actual city representatives. Rather, they were chosen from the learned councilors of the government of the duchy, so they themselves had no voting rights, but only an advisory function.
Venue, duration and compensation
There was no set meeting place. Up until the Soest feud in the middle of the 15th century, state parliaments were also held in Soest . Other conference locations over the centuries have been Rüthen , Geseke , Meschede , Menden , Attendorn , Werl and Erwitte . Because of the residence function of the city, Arnsberg prevailed as a conference venue. In the 18th century, the state parliament only took place there. Until it was destroyed in 1762, the Arnsberg Castle was the scene of the ceremonial opening. This then took place at different locations such as the Wedinghausen Monastery or the Landsberger Hof . The actual negotiations were held in the Arnsberg town hall .
There was no documented right to an annual state parliament. But since the taxes were approved for one year at a time, the electors themselves had interests in regular meetings. Only in times of war and other times of crisis were there no state parliaments. This is true for some periods during the Thirty Years War. For example, between 1629 and 1638, the estates did not come together. There were also no meetings between 1795 and 1800. In addition to the ordinary meetings, extraordinary state parliaments could also be convened. The state parliament lasted about twenty days and usually took place from mid-August before the start of the new financial year.
The deputies received since the 17th century as diets four per day Reichstaler for aristocrats and three Reichstaler for representatives of the cities. Compensation for the entire session was due as soon as a deputy was present for one day. One critic noted that it seems very strange that a member of parliament claims diets while at the same time staying in Leipzig at the fair. Last but not least, the elector had to pay the diet board every day. As a result, the costs for a session of the Landtag amounted to around 10,000 Reichstaler. The result was that there was hardly anything left for the sovereign in the first quarter of the tax payment.
Tasks and competencies
The main task of the stands was to approve taxes and duties. In addition, the sovereign could put any questions on the agenda in the form of so-called state parliament proposals. On the other hand, the stands were able to submit complaints and suggestions. The estates used the sovereign's monetary claims to attach conditions to the permit. Since the elector was usually not in a position to reduce the national debt, the repayment of debts became the responsibility of the estates. These ultimately exercised control over the finances of the duchy.
The tax permit law was decisive for the influence of the estates and the state parliament. Basically it was not questioned by the electors. When Joseph Clemens von Bayern tried to write out taxes on his own initiative in 1696, he was reprimanded for this by the Reichshofrat in Vienna in 1702. The estates successfully emphasized that this is a voluntium charitativum . This gave them the de facto right to refuse taxes and thus had the toughest pressure on parliamentary assemblies. The amount of the granted subsidies was mostly between 40,000 and 60,000 Reichstalers. Only once it was 70,000 thalers.
The participation of the stands in general state legislation was not conclusively regulated. But already from the state parliament approval of 1584 it emerges that the sovereign considered the participation of the class in the legislation to be necessary. But the participation was not based on princely grace, but on “good habits, freedoms and privileges.” In practice, however, many important laws were discussed in the state parliament and decided on them. Landtag conclusions had legal force. The laws passed with the approval of the Estates included the Jewish Code of 1599, the Council Code of 1667 and the Road Code of 1704. In 1720 the Estates asked for a revision of the Police Code of 1596. After the elector had accepted this demand, the deputies came the knighthood and the cities met and deliberated on the matter. In 1723 the revision was completed with a new police order . In a way, even the state parliament had the right to initiate legislation. So the tax regulations for the lower courts of 1726 went back to the request of the estates. The same applies to the chancellery regulations of 1728, the ordinance concerning the Westphalian forestry office of 1753, the fire association (1778) and fire extinguishing regulations of 1782. After the elector had reached an agreement with the estates, the imperial confirmation of the determination that for All electoral parts of the country a higher appeal court could be established in Bonn.
Other laws and ordinances were passed without the consent of the estates. On the other hand, they had a right to protest that they also used. When Elector Maximilian Heinrich von Bayern tried in 1653 to extend his Privilegium de non appellando with a Privilegium illimitatum in order to prevent the appeal to the Imperial Court of Justice or the Imperial Court of Justice, the estates protested. An agreement was only reached in 1786, i.e. after 130 years, when Joseph II approved the introduction of the Privilegium illimitatum to the Duchy of Westphalia. The resistance of the estates was not about enforcing participation in legislative law, but about preventing separation from the imperial courts. Even without express legislative law, the estates actually contributed to the creation of laws. Motions from the estates formed the basis for new laws. One reason for their very strong position in this area too was that the Rhenish sovereign had little knowledge of the conditions in his neighboring country and the electors therefore held back with their own legislative initiative.
Another task of the state parliaments was the election and appointment of the estate officials. This included a syndic for each class . As lawyers, they represented the interests of their respective curia vis-à-vis the other curia in the event of a conflict. In addition, the advocati patriae acted as legal advisers to the general assembly. Added to this was an archivist of the estates, a noble Governor, little is known about its military tasks, a country trumpeter who land penny champion So the chief tax collector, treasurer receptors for the collection of taxes on the land, a messenger master and subordinate messenger. The archive of the estates was located in the Arnsberg town hall.
Course of negotiations
The meeting was opened by the first Landtag commissioner . This took place in a solemn act. The Landtag commissioner sat under a canopy in front of an empty throne chair for the absent Elector in the absence of the sovereign. The commissioners sat or stood together with the representatives of the cathedral chapter on a precious carpet. The place for the Landdrosten, the councilors of the government and the deputies of the estates was not on the carpet.
The second commissioner had the task of formulating the purpose of the meeting. This was followed by the reading out of the written state parliament proposal by the land clerk . This was followed by the reaction of the estates through the answer of the Landdrosten.
Until 1787, opinions were exchanged primarily orally. Later, the written form played an important role in important questions.
The negotiation in the two Curia always began with the reading of the Hereditary Land Association and the older resolutions. Then came the reading of last year's minutes. The unresolved complaints were renewed and the state parliament discussed the implementation of the previous year's resolutions. Getting the tax permit and clarifying other issues in a state parliament vote was a lengthy process. The curiae met separately. Since of both curia only the cities were taxpayers, they had the right to a first vote on the question of subsidies. If the estates could not agree, the lowest rate was offered to the elector. The latter regularly rejected the first offers as inadequate before a compromise was agreed. Even after the elector's approval, the subsidy was not at the free disposal of the state as a whole, but was only allowed to be used for the needs of the duchy. The taxes levied on this were called an estimate. The Landpfennigmeister was responsible for the implementation. The booths had the right to vote for him and his officials, called receptors.
In addition to the approval of the state-required financial resources, the estates dealt with matters of the “state welfare.” The knight's curia first gave its opinion on all questions that did not concern the approval of funds. The first week of the state parliament was mostly devoted to the complaints ("Gravamina"). This provided an opportunity to express wishes and complaints. It was also about the violation of class or other rights by the elector. The Landtag commissioners had the task of answering these requests.
In order to balance the often diverging positions of the two estates, negotiations between the two sides were necessary, which resulted in compromises. Unanimity was necessary, particularly on issues relating to the approval of funds. If there was no agreement, the lowest tax proposal was used. In the end, no unanimous vote was necessary on all other questions. Therefore, there could be two different votes from the stands. In this case, the sovereign claimed the decision for himself. This right was denied by the estates, but since it was the only way to reach a result, it was accepted. In practice, however, this hardly played a role.
In order to enforce their wishes and goals, which also included the prevention of innovations that could diminish their own influence, the tax approval was delayed further and further. This put the electoral negotiators under pressure. In practice, it turned out that the more readily the commissioners followed the positions of the estates, the more willing the estates showed themselves to meet the financial demands.
The proposals of the estates were handed over to the electoral state parliament commission. When they were passed on to the sovereigns, the text of the stands was usually accompanied by an expert opinion from the commission. This was also the draft of a response to the stands. If this was the case, the electoral decision corresponded to this draft. In this respect, the first commissioner held a key position.
Submitted applications were rarely decided immediately after submission. Rather, this was preceded by a lengthy review process by the responsible authorities, first in Westphalia and then by the councils of the electoral government in Bonn .
Extension of land rights
In addition to the original rights of the Hereditary Lands Association, the estates managed to expand their indigenous law. Initially, the stipulation was that the members of the court council had to come from the rulership of Kurköln. In 1662 the Westphalian estates enforced against Elector Max Heinrich that all offices in the Duchy of Westphalia should only be open to residents of the country and followers of the Catholic religion. A resolution by the estates was required for exceptions. In addition, the estates managed to collect state taxes themselves only with the participation of the sovereign.
The state parliament also pushed through the establishment of standing committees. Between the annual state parliaments, there was a committee of the estates, the so-called quarterly convention, which met on January 7th, April 7th, July 7th and October 7th. At the beginning of the 19th century this was tightened by introducing semi-annual semester conventions. The main task of the meetings was to control the accounts. The quarterly stands consisted of four representatives each from the knighthood and the city curia. In addition to monitoring the regular tax collection, the committee also had the right to review the implementation of the decisions of the state parliament and, in the event of failure, to make the state rulers aware of the will of the state representation by means of renewed applications. However, the quarterly meetings' review of tax payments was ineffective.
Abolition of the Land estates meeting
.jpg)
At the end of the old empire, against the background of the general European constitutional discussion, the estates claimed to be a representation of the entire people. However, there was no further development into a modern parliament. The estates initially remained in existence even after the Duchy of Westphalia passed to Hessen-Darmstadt in 1803. The new sovereign called them together again on August 17, 1803 for a last ordinary meeting, but no longer guaranteed them the previous privileges. With the implementation of the absolutist system of rule in this state, the estates in Westphalia and the entire state of Hesse-Darmstadt were also dissolved. On February 14, 1805, the estates submitted a complaint to the Reichshofrat against the "steps taken to undermine the state constitution". With the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, this complaint lost its function.
On October 1, 1806, they were abolished and dissolved by Ludwig X. "out of absolute power." This was justified by the high costs and the fact that the state constitution was no longer up to date. It was not until 1820 that the estates of the Grand Duchy of Hesse came together again. At this point in time, Westphalia was no longer part of Hessen-Darmstadt.
The Duchy of Westphalia had belonged to Prussia since 1816. Johann Friedrich Joseph Sommer and other representatives of the regional bourgeoisie pleaded in vain for a renewal of the state constitution. His work "On the German Constitution in Germanic Prussia and in the Duchy of Westphalia" is an expression of this hope. At the same time, it is a first academic examination of the rural constitution of the duchy, emphasizing its positive aspects, but neglecting its weaknesses. The vivid memory of the right to have a say in the state parliaments after the end of the constitutional discussions in Prussia after the Karlovy Vary resolutions enabled liberal and democratic ideas to spread among the bourgeoisie. With the provincial parliament of the province of Westphalia in 1826 a representative office of the province was created again, which, however, did not tie in with the traditions of the estates of the Duchy of Westphalia in terms of organization and competencies.
Individual evidence
- ↑ cf. Horst Conrad: The Cologne War and the Estates in the Duchy of Westphalia . In: Südwestfalenarchiv 14/2014 pp. 51–93
- ↑ Conrad, p. 29
- ↑ Master p. 12
- ↑ Meister, p. 12f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 15
- ↑ Meister, p. 16
- ↑ Meister, p. 17
- ↑ cf. in detail on the nobility of the duchy: Andreas Müller: Between continuity and change. The nobility in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia. Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster, 2009 ISBN 978-3-402-12827-5 , pp. 419–442
- ↑ Elisabeth Schumacher: The Cologne Westphalia in the Age of Enlightenment, Olpe 1967, p. 41, note 48
- ↑ Conrad, p. 30, Meister, p. 13
- ↑ Tobias Schenk: Imperial history as regional history. An introduction to the files of the Imperial Councilor. In: Westfalen 90/2012 p. 131
- ↑ Müller, Adel im Duchy of Westphalia, p. 429f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 13f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 14f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 16f.
- ↑ Conrad p. 34, Meister, p. 21f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 17
- ↑ Conrad p. 33
- ↑ Meister, p. 18
- ↑ Rathje, Organization of Authorities, p. 70
- ↑ Rathje, Organization of Authorities, p. 71
- ↑ Meister, p. 19f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 21
- ↑ Conrad p. 33
- ↑ Meister, p. 19
- ↑ Conrad p. 33
- ↑ Meister, p.
- ↑ Meister, p. 22f.
- ↑ Meister, p. 24
- ↑ Conrad p. 34
- ↑ Friedrich Keinemann: From the crook of the Republic - Westphalian nobility under Prussian rule 1802 - 1945, 1997, ISBN 3-8196-0541-X , p 65th
- ^ From the German constitution in Germanic Prussia and in the Duchy of Westphalia: with documents. Munster, 1819.
literature
Older representations
- Friedrich Wilhelm Werner von Schorlemer-Heringhausen: On the constitution, especially for the rural nobility of the Duchy of Westphalia. Lippstadt, 1818 digitized
- Johann Friedrich Joseph Sommer: From the German constitution in Germanic Prussia and in the Duchy of Westphalia: with documents . Munster, 1819.
Research literature
- Horst Conrad: The nobility in the Duchy of Westphalia . In: Ingrid Reissland (Hrsg.): From the electoral Cologne crook to the Hessian lion to the Prussian eagle. Secularization and its consequences in the Duchy of Westphalia. 1803-2003. Arnsberg, 2003 ISBN 3-930264-46-3 , pp. 27-41.
- C. Liedhegener: The estates in the Duchy of Westphalia towards the end of the 18th century . In: Sauerlandruf 1/1964 p. 11ff.
- Aloys Meister: The Duchy of Westphalia in the last period of the Electoral Cologne rule . Münster, 1908. p. 12ff.
- Johannes Rathje: The official organization in the former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia . Diss. Kiel, 1905
- Elisabeth Schumacher: Cologne's Westphalia in the Age of Enlightenment , Olpe 1967
- Kathrin Ueberholz: From the crosier in Cologne to the Hessian lion. Administrative structures in the Duchy of Westphalia under Electoral Cologne and Hessian rule . In: Becoming, growing, working. The changing times - district administrations in the Hochsauerlandkreis from 1817 to 2007. Arnsberg, 2007. pp. 24–44.
- Vera Wiesenthal: The estates in the Duchy of Westphalia and the last Landtag from 1803 In: Südwestfalen Archive 6th year 2006 pp. 193–216
- Andreas Müller: The knighthood in the Duchy of Westphalia 1651-1803. Revolt, internal structure and prosopography. Münster, 2017