History of the First Chamber of the States General

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of the First Chamber of the States General goes back to the years 1814 and 1815. At that time the present-day Netherlands emerged as a constitutional monarchy with a two-chamber system as representative of the people. The first chamber is called the Senate; their consent is just as important for laws as that of the Second Chamber . However, the actual political debate takes place in the Second Chamber.

This is partly because the Second Chamber was elected from the start. The members of the first chamber, however, were appointed by the king. The First Chamber was seen as a bulwark of the monarchy. After 1849 the First Chamber was elected indirectly, on the basis of a very strict census voting system . "Electors" have been the members of the provincial parliaments since then . Between 1917 and 1922, fundamental reforms democratized the Dutch parliament. Since then, both chambers have been elected according to universal suffrage for men and women, but the first chamber is still indirectly through the provincial parliaments.

prehistory

In the Burgundian (Habsburg) Netherlands, the Staten-Generaal , the general estates , first met in 1464 . These were delegates from the estates in the individual provinces. It was about being able to enforce tax levies more quickly. After the division into Northern Netherlands (today's Netherlands) and Southern Netherlands (today's Belgium ) after 1568, only the States General of the north were of importance. Community affairs in the Seven United Provinces were discussed by the Provincial MPs, always in consultation with their own Province.

In the south, during the French occupation at the end of the 18th century, there was a two-chamber system in the form of the Conseil des Cinq Cents and the Conseil des Anciens . In 1798 a "Batavian constitution" was drawn up in the north. The Vertegenwoordigend Lichaam (representative body) should have two chambers, a first with 64 members to introduce laws and a second with 30 members to enforce them. The second was elected from among the first, i.e. from the entire parliament. In October 1801 the Wetgevend Lichaam (Legislative Body) became a unicameral parliament. It had 35 members and little power.

Introduction of the two-chamber system in 1815

Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp from Rotterdam is considered a spring liberal

After William of Orange returned to the Netherlands in 1813, the lawyer Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp drafted a new constitution . The main question was how to include the nobility in the political system. A constitutional commission advocated the establishment of a single chamber; a maximum of a quarter of the deputies should be nobles from the provinces and regions. The appointment of noble members for life or even heredity met with resistance. The constitution of March 1814 saw the parliament, the Staten-Generaal , as a majority of aristocratic representatives of the estates facing a powerful king. The addition of the southern Netherlands in 1814 made new consultations necessary. In May 1815 a commission from eleven northern Dutch and eleven southern Dutch came together.

Not only, but especially the southern Dutch (in the sense of what would later become Belgium) wanted a house of lords for the nobility. Especially in the south there were still old nobility. The models England and France with their two chambers were also important. From the king's point of view, the House of Lords meant that his power was not unilaterally threatened by the people, the southern Dutch nobility, or the former rulers of the north.

The sub-commission, which dealt with a second chamber on May 22, 1815, advocated this, based on the foreign model, as a bulwark around the throne and against "any arbitrary expansion of power". Envoys from the Provinciale Staten , the provincial parliaments, sat in the Second Chamber . These in turn were arranged indirectly according to class: nobility, cities, rural areas. While the Second Chamber could propose laws, laws were limited in government administration. The king ruled primarily by ordinances.

Chamber of nobility of the king 1815–1849

King Wilhelm I of the Netherlands had late absolutist tendencies

In that first period when the king appointed the senators, the total was not yet fixed. In 1815 twenty senators came from the south, almost exceptionally they came from noble families. In the Austrian Netherlands, their fathers mostly held civil or military posts. In the case of the northern Dutch, eighteen in number, only a few were from the old nobility, most came from the class of the old urban or rural rulers. Some had held offices in Batavian and French times. The mix of old elites was similar in the Cabinet, the Council of State and the Second Chamber.

The Senate did not meet very often, for example only nine times in 1820/1821. The meetings were not open to the public, and membership was one of the many positions to reward “deserving” Dutch people. The king expected the members to support him, and whoever voted differently was ignored at court. The "monkey house of the king", as scoffers called it, did not fulfill its purpose as the king's bulwark. Quarrel between the autocratic king and the weak Staten-Generaal hardly arose .

But the First Chamber had some influence, especially by blocking legislative initiatives. Until 1830 there was an oppositional minority, primarily from the south. So in 1815 a draft wanted to regulate how the Staten-Generaal had to offer the king congratulations and petitions. The Second Chamber adopted the draft by 70 votes to 13, and the Senate, loyal to the King, vetoed it.

For years, parliament's propensity to reform the constitution was low. When King Wilhelm II heard of the revolution in Germany in the spring of 1848, he convened a commission for fear of a popular uprising. Under the chairmanship of the liberal Johan Rudolf Thorbecke, she presented radical changes. Both chambers should be elected directly, a third every three years. Only those citizens who pay the most taxes are eligible for the First Chamber. The proposals met with resistance in the chambers, but a word of power from the king led to constitutional reform. As a compromise between reformers and conservatives, the first chamber was elected indirectly by the provincial parliaments .

Chamber of the Rich 1849–1917

Part of the Binnenhof building where the First Chamber meets; Outside seen from Hofvijver (Hofweiher)

After 1848, the state organs had to find their new role, and unwritten rules for dealing with one another emerged. The king was now officially "inviolable" and the ministers took political responsibility for his actions. The Second Chamber was able to add an amendment to a bill and thereby gained greater influence on the legislation.

Even after 1848, the first chamber remained the king's remedy against the second chamber. For example, in the Railway Act of 1860, the king was on one side and the ministers, along with the majority of the Second Chamber, on the other. The king wanted to prevent the law; thanks to the intervention of the First Chamber, he did not have to refuse to sign the draft. This is how you avoided a royal crisis. In this way, de Vries judges, the Senate received its position of a bulwark for the now inviolable king. An obedient college became a thoroughly political organ.

The Senate with its 39 members met only rarely a year, and since 1848 publicly. The first political groups formed, mostly around a person like Thorbecke. Both in the elections to the Second Chamber and in the provincial elections, the population's interest was low, especially since the majority voting system of the time was often limited. The history of the Dutch party did not begin until 1879, when the Calvinist pastor Abraham Kuyper founded the anti-revolutionary party .

The 1887 constitutional reform of the Senate was primarily about elections. The provincial parliaments are more of an administrative than political nature, was the criticism, so that they are unsuitable for the election of the Senate. A majority ultimately supported maintaining the situation at that time and rejected direct elections.

Only those who paid a certain high tax burden could run for the First Chamber. Above all, the liberals wanted to abolish this so that that chamber would not be reserved for a money aristocracy. The confessionals were in favor of both chambers continuing to differ on this point. After parliamentary back-and-forth, the Liberals decided to maintain the requirement to avoid a state crisis. In addition, it should also be possible to elect men who hold or have held high public offices.

At that time, the First Chamber held the election of a member for nine years, with a third of the members being re-elected every three years. The total number of senators since 1888 has been fifty. In contrast, the legislature of the Second Chamber was shortened to four years, and active suffrage for wealthy men was significantly expanded in the 1880s. While the denominational sometimes had a majority in the Second Chamber, the Liberals dominated in the Senate.

Abraham Kuyper (1900) from the Anti-Revolutionaire Partij

After there had already been tensions between liberals and confessionals, after a longer liberal period the confessionals came back to power and formed the government. The anti-revolutionary Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper wanted to pass a teaching law, which was rejected by the liberal First Chamber in July 1904. Kuyper therefore dissolved the First Chamber, with a view to the favorable balance of power in the provincial parliaments. So the law finally got easily through both chambers. The Liberals complained in vain that the dissolution of the Senate was not in keeping with the spirit of the constitution or the bicameral system .

Constitutional reforms 1917–1922

In the run-up to the great constitutional reform of 1917, the pacificatie , Freinn and Social Democracy proposed the abolition of the First Chamber. Finally, in the debate, the candidate requirements, the dissolution (and a possibly compulsory dissolution of the provincial parliaments), and the area of ​​responsibility were up for discussion. The First Chamber could only reject a law that it did not want to adopt as a whole. That appeared to be a radical step that led to political crises. Therefore, the Senate should possibly be given the right to send a draft law back to the Second Chamber, or to make additions itself.

At the pacificatie in 1917, the passive right to vote for the first chamber was aligned with that for the second. Both chambers were to be elected on the principle of proportional representation. Otherwise the legislature should regulate the election of the Senate again. Through the democratization of the passive right to vote for the Senate, he received a new task as representative of the people. Its members had no other social background than those of the Second Chamber. The Senate's worth now lay in re-examining bills.

After 1918, when revolutions broke out abroad, a new constitutional reform was planned and the First Chamber was dealt with all the more extensively. Finally, in 1922, the Senate's term was shortened to six years, with half of the members being elected after three years. This made it much less likely that different majorities would come about in the chambers. From 1904 to 1971, the three major denominational parties that merged to form the Christian Democratisch Appèl in 1980 had an absolute majority.

Functioning and reforms after 1922

The reforms did not change the social composition of the 50-member Senate suddenly, and it continued to reject a law only rarely: six times in the 1920s and five times in the 1930s. De Vries explains the reluctance of the Senate by saying that the balance of power in both chambers has been almost the same since 1923 and that the Senate wanted to stay out of the then sharp political tensions.

In 1923 a new hunting law was discussed in the Senate. The privileges of the nobility were to fall, among other things, farmers were allowed to hunt pests. The bill counted the pheasant as a pest. Despite protests from noble senators, the law was passed with 19 to 15 votes, supported by Social Democrats, liberals and denominational workers' representatives. Bert van den Braak sees the Hunting Act as an illustration that the atmosphere in the First Chamber has not changed much, but the political balance of power has. Gradually, since 1888, the weight shifted from the aristocrats to the democrats. The noble character of the Senate as an army society , as a society of gentlemen, disappeared.

On June 21, 1940, about a month after the invasion, the German occupiers stopped the work of both chambers. In 1945, 74 of the 100 members of the Second Chamber were still available, 34 of the 50 senators. The provisional States General filled their thinned ranks according to suggestions from the National Advies Commissie . On November 20, the States General came together again, on May 17, 1946 the Second Chamber was elected, on the 30th the provincial parliaments.

Renovation in the Senate hall, 1956. At that time the number of seats was increased from 50 to 75.

After approaches in the first post-war decades, there was a broad discussion in the 1970s, which in 1983 led to a constitutional reform. The Senate's position was discussed in committee reports and in the government draft, but its very existence was not in question. The Senate should be in office for six years, but no longer be elected in half, but all at once and directly. In the event of a dissolution, the Senate was no longer regularly elected, but in a single election. There were no significant proposals for the legislative role of the Senate; the second reading should only take place in the second chamber and the senate should no longer be involved in the budget.

In the Second Chamber, the moderate proposals in the last report in 1974/1975 met with suspicion on the right that the Senate should lose power. The right-wing liberals suspected this was a preliminary step towards abolition. The majority of the left, however ( PvdA , PPR , PSP , D66 ) directly requested this abolition, because the indirect election of the Senate is not democratically desired, but a direct election would make it “an undesirable double of the Second Chamber”. Finally, a majority of the chambers accepted a motion not to change the powers of the Senate and to have it elected by the provincial parliaments for four years.

In the 1983 reform, the only change that came about in relation to the Senate was that from then on both the Second and First Chamber were to be elected for four years. Later there were several discussions and constitutional reforms, but only one small change for the First Chamber is worth mentioning: Since 1995, the Senate no longer has to be dissolved to amend the Basic Law, only the Second Chamber.

History of choice

19th century

Hager Binnenhof with part of the Senate building, around 1900

After the constitutional reform of 1848, the Senate members were still appointed by the king in February 1849, as the time for electoral regulations was too short. The first elections to the Senate took place in 1850. Even if only a few of the old, appointed members returned, most of them were already established in political circles, and there were hardly any real newcomers. Both the second chamber and the provincial parliaments were determined according to the census suffrage, which means that only men could vote who bore a certain tax burden.

First of all, since the constitutional reform, the residents of the provinces entitled to vote have elected their provincial parliament, the Provinciale Staten . The members of the provincial parliaments were elected for six years each, a third was renewed every two years. If necessary, the provincial parliaments elected the senators with an absolute majority. Since a senator was elected for nine years, a third of the senators resigned every three years, at that time 13. How many senators a provincial parliament was allowed to elect depended on the population of the province: Zuid-Holland elected seven senators, the sparsely populated Drenthe only one. If the chamber was dissolved and all senators had to be re-elected, the lot decided who was to become a senator for the full time and who was only for part of the time.

Of great importance for the composition were the high demands on the right to stand for election to the Senate. The age for eligibility had been reduced from forty to thirty, but only those who were subject to taxation (highest taxable persons ) were allowed to run. There was one highest taxable person for every 3000 inhabitants of a province. At that time there were 619,000 inhabitants in the province of Zuid-Holland, 206 of them highly taxed. In a rich province one had to have a higher income for this status than in a poor one, so it could be that someone lost his eligibility when moving from one province to the other. In general, at that time the choice was still more of a personality choice and was not geared towards political differences.

During the reform of 1887, the proportion of those eligible to vote in the provincial parliaments increased, from twelve to 25 percent of men. However, due to the electoral system, this only had slow consequences for the composition. In 1896 the right to vote was expanded even further. The denominational parties in particular benefited from this.

Democratization and reforms 1917–1923

Map with the Dutch provinces. The province of Flevoland has only existed since 1986.

In the democratization process of 1917–1920, all men were given the right to vote first, and shortly afterwards all women. At the same time, proportional representation was introduced for the second chamber and the provincial parliaments. That had major consequences for the Senate. In 1922, the entire Senate was re-elected after all men were allowed to vote for the provincial parliament for the first time in 1919. The non-denominational parties (Liberals, Social Democrats and the Liberals, which had fallen from 14 to 1 seat) provided eight senators, while the denominational parties gained significantly to 42.

With regard to the Senate itself, the proportional representation system was worked out in 1923. The senators were only elected for six years instead of nine. The votes of the provincial parliamentarians received a voting value depending on the population of the province. In addition, the provinces no longer voted individually with an absolute majority, but in groups of provinces:

  • Group I: Noord-Brabant, Limburg, Utrecht, Zeeland (13 seats, from 1956: 21 seats)
  • Group II: Gelderland, Overijssel, Groningen, Drenthe (13 seats, from 1956: 19 seats)
  • Group III: Noord-Holland, Friesland (12 seats, from 1956: 17 seats)
  • Group IV: Zuid-Holland (12 seats, from 1956: 18 seats)

A partial renewal took place every three years, whereby the senators of groups I and III were always elected simultaneously, as well as the senators of groups II and IV. The senators were elected within the groups with party lists. This made the elections predictable and invited the provincial parliamentarians to vote tactically. A party could calculate how many senators it came up with and how many of its votes as “remaining votes” did not result in any further senators. The remaining votes of several parties could make a senator. In 1946, for example, some North Holland Catholic provincial parliamentarians voted for the anti-revolutionaries and thus prevented a senator for the communists . In 1981 some Social Democrats in Group I elected the Christian Democrats , in this way a different regulation of the remaining votes came into play, so that the Democrats got an additional Senator.

See also

literature

  • Gerhard AM Beekelaar, Hugo de Schepper: The First Chamber in the Netherlands 1815-1848. In: HW Blom, WP Blockmans, H. de Schepper (eds.): Bicameralisme. Tweekamerstelsel vroeger en nu. Handelingen van de Internationale Conferentie ter situated heid van het 175-year bestaan ​​van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal in de Nederlanden. Sdu Uitgeverij, Den Haag 1992, pp. 279-289
  • Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, ISBN 90-12-08689-2 .

Web links

Commons : Eerste Kamer  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

supporting documents

  1. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 25/26.
  2. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, p. 26.
  3. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, pp. 13, 29.
  4. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 30-33, 35.
  5. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, p. 13, p. 34.
  6. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 34-36.
  7. ^ After: Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 34-36.
  8. ^ Horst Lademacher : Geschiedenis van Nederland . Het Spectrum. Utrecht 1993, p. 269.
  9. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, pp. 55/56.
  10. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 43.
  11. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 22/23.
  12. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 46.
  13. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 24-27.
  14. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 28/29.
  15. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 29-31.
  16. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 96-98.
  17. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 32.
  18. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 33/34.
  19. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 36.
  20. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 38/39.
  21. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 41.
  22. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 42/43.
  23. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 45, 48/49.
  24. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 48.
  25. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 57/58.
  26. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 141-142.
  27. ^ Horst Lademacher: Geschiedenis van Nederland . Het Spectrum. Utrecht 1993, pp. 479, 549.
  28. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 61-64, 68/69.
  29. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 71-73.
  30. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 81.
  31. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 93-95.
  32. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, pp. 95/96.
  33. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 95.
  34. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 143.
  35. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 143.
  36. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 167.
  37. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815-1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 413.