First of all then it deserves to be noticed how difficult, one might
almost say impossible, it was found to maintain in practice the
elective principle. In point of law, the imperial throne was from the
tenth century to the nineteenth absolutely open to any orthodox
Christian candidate. But as a matter of fact, the competition was
confined to a few very powerful families, and there was always a
strong tendency for the crown to become hereditary in some one of
these. Thus the Franconian Emperors held it from A.D. 1024 till 1125,
the Hohenstaufen, themselves the heirs of the Franconians, for a
century or more; the house of Luxemburg (kings of Bohemia) enjoyed it
through three successive reigns, and when in the fifteenth century it
fell into the tenacious grasp of the Hapsburgs, they managed to retain
it thenceforth (with but one trifling interruption) till it vanished
out of nature altogether. Therefore the chief benefit which the scheme
of elective sovereignty seems to promise, that of putting the fittest
man in the highest place, was but seldom attained, and attained even
then rather by good fortune than design.
[Sidenote: Restraint of the sovereign.]
No such objection can be brought against the second ground on which an
elective system has sometimes been advocated, its operation in
moderating the power of the crown, for this was attained in the
fullest and most ruinous measure. We are reminded of the man in the
fable, who opened a sluice to water his garden, and saw his house
swept away by the furious torrent. The power of the crown was not
moderated but destroyed. Each successful candidate was forced to
purchase his title by the sacrifice of rights which had belonged to
his predecessors, and must repeat the same shameful policy later in
his reign to procure the election of his son. Feeling at the same time
that his family could not make sure of keeping the throne, he treated
it as a life-tenant is apt to treat his estate, seeking only to make
out of it the largest present profit. And the electors, aware of the
strength of their position, presumed upon it and abused it to assert
an independence such as the nobles of other countries could never have
aspired to.
[Sidenote: Recognition of the popular will.]
[Sidenote: Conception of the electoral function.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account