I. The Central Level
The sovereign
In the Austrian Low Countries, monarchs did not bear the title of "Emperor or Empress of the Netherlands", but rather that of Duke of Brabant, Count of Flanders, Count of Namur, Count of Hainaut, Lord of Malines... and so on. This was so because the sovereign of the Netherlands ruled over a personal union composed of counties and duchies located in the Southern Netherlands. Their independence and individual constitutional incorporation were in theory guaranteed in this way, however, by having a common sovereign, similarities between those united in a personal union show.
Map of the Austrian Low Countries
(source: KBR)
Emperor Charles VI (1685-1740), who ruled (de facto) from 1716 on, had no male heirs to inherit the Habsburg hereditary lands, to protect the rights of his daughters, he enacted the Pragmatic Sanction in 1713 and had it recognized by the Estates of the Habsburg lands. This allowed his eldest daughter, archduchess Maria Theresa (1717-1780) to become his successor as ruler of the Habsburg lands in 1740 (not as Emperor, as this was reserved for men). However, the Pragmatic Sanction was not accepted by France, Bavaria and Prussia. This led to the War of the Austrian Succession, which ended in 1748 with the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. In the Austrian Low Countries, on the other hand, Maria Theresa was welcomed as the new sovereign. Not only because deputies of the provincial Estates agreed to the Pragmatic Sanction (1725; see for the representative organs the works of legal historian John Gilissen and historian Wim Blockmans), but also because they previously had had women in power. Indeed, the sovereign of the Netherlands was determined hereditarily and this based on the right of first birth. Lacking male successors, women could rule (as e.g. Mary of Burgundy in 1477).
Karlskirche in Vienna, built on the orders of Emperor Charles VI
Photo made by Cheyenne Larivière on the 18th of July 2023
Given the size of the Habsburg Empire and the many obligations of the sovereign, it was almost impossible to find the sovereign on the territory of the Southern Netherlands, the only exception being the visit of Emperor Joseph II (1741-1790) in 1781. The absence of the sovereign was compensated by establishing a governor-general. The governor was a person of blue blood, high in rank and very close to the sovereign. The local Estates insisted on this, as the tenure of the Duke of Alba (1567-1573) during the revolt against Philip II had alienated the sovereign from the local elites, who cherished a domestic, republican tradition. For over sixteen years, Maria Theresia's aunt, Archduchess Maria Elisabeth (1680-1741), ruled from Brussels or the princely residences of Mariemont or Tervueren. During Maria Theresia's reign, the Empress's brother-in-law Charles of Lorraine (1712-1780) occupied this function for several decades.
The governor can be seen as the permanent and full deputy of the sovereign who regularly exchanged contacts with the latter. In the exercise of his or her powers, she or he was assisted but also controlled by the Collateral Councils, established in 1531 by Charles V. The intervention of the institutions in Brussels can be seen in the published ordinances and edicts of the Austrian Low Countries, which have been published by the Royal Commission for the Publication of Old Laws and Ordinances of Belgium (an organ established in 1846, e.g. vol. IV for Maria Elisabeth; vol. VI-XI for Charles of Lorraine).
The Collateral Councils were far from the only institutions at the central level for the Austrian Low Countries, as can be seen in the work of reference, published in 1994 (vol. 1 and vol. 2, digitised at Ghent University). The description of the central institutions in this blogpost is for the most part inspired by the corresponding chapters by historians Michel Baelde and René Vermeir (Council of State), Hugo De Schepper (Privy Council) and Herman Coppens and Michel Baelde (Council of Finance), as well as the legal historian Alain Wijffels (Great Council of Malines).
In practice, the governor’s influence could be reduced, when a minister plenipotentiary was in place. From 1716 to 1724, governor-general Eugene of Savoy (1666-1736) resided in Vienna. He was replaced by top diplomat and field marshal Joseph Lothar von Königsegg-Rothenfels (1673-1751), and Hercule-Louis Turinetti, marquis of Prié (1658-1726). Likewise, the Secretary of State and War, an institution inherited from the Spanish era, could also weigh heavily on policy. A well-known example is Johann Karl Philipp Graf Cobenzl (1712-1770), who occupied this position from 1753 to 1770, and had a copious, almost daily, correspondence with Vienna. Cobenzl was born in Laibach (Ljubljana) in Carniola (a forerunner of the territories that currently compose Slovenia, where our EUTopia-partners from Ljubljana reside).
The choice of these figures was the Emperor’s, and this implied that they could come from other parts of Europe. As the example of the Anneessens rising illustrates (see Dribardh Rexha's part, below), the minister could face heavy opposition when the provincial and local customs were instrumentalised against centralising policies.
The Collateral Councils
In 1531, Emperor Charles V enacted the Collateral Councils -consisting of the Privy Council, the Council of Finance and the Council of State- with the aim of restructuring the central administration. However, only the Council of State can be said to have been created; the creation of the Privy Council and the Council of Finance was a confirmation of what had already developed in practice.
The Dukes of Burgundy counted on advice and assistance of the Court Council, also called the Grand Council. This initially consisted of 12 councillors and a chancellor, however, the composition changed with the evolution of the Court Council. Throughout the existence of the Court Council, specialized subdivisions developed, the core of the Court Council -also called Conseil du prince-, which was responsible for governance in the absence of a prince will blossom into the Privy Council. The Council of Finance is in turn a product of a division in the Court Council that specialized in financial matters (see here for more laborate explanation).
Wynants' handwritten manuscript provides an overview of all central and provincial institutions of the Austrian Low Countries (see the digitized version of the Conscience Heritage Library here)
Under the reign of Emperor Joseph II, the Collateral Councils came to an end (this was equally experimented before the arrival of Maria Elisabeth; for details, see here). He created an entirely new administration in which the jointes, committees and offices better known as the Central Councils were merged into a General Council of Government. During the War of the Spanish Succession, count Bergeyck (1644-1725), principal minister of the Bavarian governor-general Max II Emanuel of Bavaria, had already tried a similar operation, which reminded contemporaries of the French, centralised, style of governance. The Collateral Councils, conversely, were more reminiscent of the Habsburg "gouvernement par conseils", with which France briefly experimented after the decease of Louis XIV.
1- The Council of State
The Council of State is the only institution that does not derive in a way from the Court Council. It was created for the purpose of supporting the governess Mary of Hungary but grew to become the main governing body, or at least in certain periods.
The original competence of the Council of State was providing political advice to the governor on various aspects of the administration of the Low Countries. More specifically, the Council of State had an influence on defence policy as well as domestic and foreign policy. In addition, it was also the case that the governor could appeal to the advisory body if he or she wished. This leads to the conclusion that the Council of State should not be regarded as a body with limited powers but as a general political advisory council, it assisted the governor according to his wishes. The latter is noteworthy, the governor could choose whether or not to appeal to the Council of State, this allowed him or her to discreetly handle matters of which she or he suspected disapproval (or controversy) - without interference from the Council of State. In this way, the theoretically broad power is greatly relativized.
Besides its general advisory function, the Council of State also had a very special function in case the governor died or was absent for a long time. Then the Council of State assumed the daily administration and had not merely advisory powers but also normative ones. However, it should be mentioned that during such a period only current affairs were handled, new important decisions were temporarily put aside to be taken up again later.
Temporarily, from 1702 to 1706, the Council of State was abolished and replaced by the Royal Council of Count Bergeyck, as mentioned earlier. During the joint Dutch and British occupation of the Southern Low Countries, the Council was reinstated, with large competences, allbeit under the supervision of the allied forces's deputies (see more here). After that, the Council of State was restored only to meet its end again at the Habsburg rule.
The manyfold experiments with the institutional organiation of the Austrian Low Countries brought many complex evolutions (see the dissertation of historian Klaas Van Gelder here). In 1716, the powers of the former Council of State were granted to the Jointe d'Etat. The year 1718 was a turning point for the Council of State. It was re-established in full glory, with more powers than before, because the Council of State now also assumed the powers of the Council of Finance and the Privy Council.
In 1725, however, this would be changed by governor-general Maria Elisabeth (daughter of Emperor Leopold I and Charles VI's sister). She restored the Collateral Councils according to their original hierarchy. According to this hierarchy, the Council of State would be the most important Council in the Collateral Councils, however, the practice would lead to the importance of the Council of State decreasing more and more, in favour of the Privy Council, which contained more lawyers.
2- The Privy Council
The Privy Council was closest to the governor, by assisting him or her in day-to-day administration and policy. In addition, the sovereign could also count on the advice of the Privy Council, when he or she resided in the Austrian Low Countries.
Initially, most of the advice was given orally by the Chairman to the Governor or the sovereign; in exceptional cases, the advice was given in writing. Due to the undeniable bureaucratisation of society in the 17th century, this situation was reversed and from then on advice was requested and given in writing.
The Privy Council not only had advisory power but also decision-making power in practice, this institution was close to the governor or sovereign and could therefore make decisions in his or her name. The Privy Council was the interpreter of the sovereign's will, translated to the reality of the various principalities in the Low Countries. The matters in which the Privy Council had decision-making authority were mainly mercy, justice and police. In consultation of the Council of Finance, its authority could be extended to financial matters.
History shows that the Privy Council's decision-making power became very broad if the governor or sovereign had a lot of power. This is logical, since the Habsburg sovereign already had his hands full and he did not always have such great interest in the Austrian Netherlands.
In 1733 (on the eve of the War of the Polish Succession, during which the Austrian Low Countries escaped occupation, but had to contribute financially to the war effort), the Privy Council obtained general residuary powers. As a consequence, the Council of Finance had limited powers and had to transmit its preparations to the Privy Council. In 1744 (on the eve of the War of the Austrian Succession, during which large parts of the Austrian Low Countries were occupied by France) the Privy Council gained greater power because the Council of State had lost its importance.
3- The Council of Finance
The powers of the Bureau des Finances were taken over by the Council of Finance upon the establishment of the Collateral Councils. In addition, the Council of Finance could be seen as the bookkeeper of the Austrian Low Countries, as it was the Council's job to keep track of the state's income and expenses, including grants. Logically, therefore, the Council of Finance drafted a budget, as economic prosperity was the core task of the Council of Finance. The international context weighed heavily on economic development until 1748: Britain and the Dutch Republic had imposed unfavourable tarriffs on exports from the Austrian Low Countries, and the latter also had managed to impose the reimbursement of their wartime expenses made during the War of the Spanish Succession.
Coin of Maria Theresa that was used in the Austrian Low Countries (source: Baldwin's)
Despite the joint competence of the Chambers of Audit, which were responsible for the actual control, it was within the Council of Finance's exclusive perimeter to manage the financial picture of the crown domains. The organ concretely determined the broad outlines of the financial and personnel policy. The Council could also use the revenues of the crown estates in times of financial crisis, as it had to balance the state finances (see here).
The collection of taxes at the provincal, urban and local level caused headaches to the Austrian authorities. It was the Council of Finance's role to supervise state finances at all levels from Brussels on. It kept an eye on accounting officers, receivers general and subordinate administrations who were obliged to pay grants. It also advised the government on financial matters.
In the 18th century, the Council of Finance had some special competences. It was responsible for the administration of the goods and funds of the abolished Jesuit Order and Religious Fund. In addition, one councillor was authorised to furnish and maintain state, regal and military buildings. This so-called function of Minister of Public Works remained limited since the provincial States were competent for waterways and traffic routes, and retained this.
The Great Council of Malines
In 1445 a judicial commission developed in the Court Council, the Council of Justice, as a result of the rapidly growing royal jurisprudence. This commission gave rise to the creation of the Parliament of Malines in 1473, later known as the Great Council of Malines. The institution was temporarily abolished before being re-established by Philip the Fair by ordinance in 1504. Joseph II abolished the institution in 1787, but this failed (see here) and the Council was reinstated. The institution was finally ended by the Treaty of Campo-Formio between Emperor Francis II and the French Republic in 1797.
This video was made in the former Great Council of Malines.
Today, the company court, the labor court, the court of first instance and the justice of the peace of Malines have their seats in the former Great Council of Malines
.
'Le voyageur dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens, ou: Lettres sur l'état actuel de ces pays' provides information on the Great Council of Malines (source: Google Books)
The Privy Council
The Privy Council, whose history has already been discussed, guarded public order and supervised the observance of the law -both the laws enacted in the name of the sovereign and those deriving from common law- by judicial institutions.
It should be noted that the Privy Council was intentionally a court of exception, just as the Grand Council of Malines originally was. The limited jurisdiction of the Privy Council was confirmed in the 16th century in articles VII and VIII of the instructions to the Privy Council, which stipulated that the Privy Council had to refer cases to either the competent Great Council of Malines or other competent courts. Its competence was limited to that which could not be dealt with by another judicial institution, for example, the Privy Council was competent to hear appeals against judgments delivered at the last instance by certain institutions.
However, the Privy Council could autonomously take up cases with a view to dealing with them in whole or in part; it could do this through the evocation procedure. In addition, cases could also be handled by the Privy Council at the request of the parties. In the latter two cases, the Privy Council thus ruled at first instance, this in both civil and criminal cases.
In addition to actually administering justice, the Privy Council also had some other powers, such as ratifying all kinds of agreements, granting its consent to requests from citizens and appointing officers, counsellors and prosecutors. Also, different types of letters were obtained by the Privy Council. Letters of appellation or reformation resulted in the possibility of appeal. If a verdict was charged with a formal error then a letter of revision gave rise to a review. There were also the letters of proviso, this type of letter accumulates all kinds of legal claims.
Interim conclusion
All the above concerns the central level, the central institutions that existed during Austrian rule. Their operation, organisation, powers and relationship to Vienna provide insight into how it was possible to govern the Austrian Low Countries from Vienna. However, the central level only provides a partial answer to our research question. The provincial level with its own, fairly autonomous, provincial institutions and associated privileges cannot be removed from the equation, Dribardh Rexha will therefore delve deeper into the organization, powers and sometimes troubles of the provincial institutions of the Austrian Low Countries.
Schloss Belvedere in Vienna, the summer residence of Eugenius of Savoye
Photo made by Cheyenne Larivière on the 18th of July 2023
by Cheyenne Larivière
Inspiration & intentions of the project
In the summer of 2023, I visited the magnificent city of Vienna for the first time. Its rich history, beautiful architecture and interesting museums have left a great emphasis and created a certain love for the city and all that is connected to it. A few months later we sat down with Professor Dhondt to brainstorm about our topics for the EUTopia project. I didn't have to think too long about which topic I would like to cover for EUTopia, I was determined to convert my fascination for Vienna into my project. The connection between Brussels and Vienna was not far to seek, from 1713 to 1790 our territory was governed by the Habsburgs, more precisely: Emperor Charles VI, Maria Theresa and Emperor Joseph II. This led to the research question of this project: "How was it possible to effectively govern the Austrian Low Countries from Vienna, which is thousands of kilometres away from Brussels and without aid of the modern means of communication?" This project therefore explains the central executive and judicial institutions of the Austrian Low Countries in order to understand how our territories were governed from Vienna and to profoundly understand our connectedness to Vienna.
Maria-Theresien-Platz & Maria-Theresien-Denkmal in Vienna
Photo taken by Cheyenne Larivière on the 18th of July 2023
II. The Provincial Level
Die Blyde Incomste 1356
In the early modern period, the Low Countries were governed by the Habsburg dynasty. The marriage between Charles the Bold (1433-1477)'s daughter Mary of Burgundy (1457-82, Duchess of Brabant, Countess of Flanders, Countess of Namur...) and Maximilian of Austria (1459-1519, who was also the count of Carniola [one of the territories of present-day Slovenia]) was the start of the link between Habsburg and our regions.
After the death of Duke John III of Brabant (1300-1355), Joan (1322-1406) and her husband Wenceslaus I, Duke of Luxembourg (1337-1383) succeeded him (for more details, we refer to the historian Henri Pirenne's Histoire de Belgique, digitised by the ULB Library). In order to avoid a split of the Duchy between her family members, Johanna received support from the populace by accepting the Joyous Entry of 1356 in exchange for respecting the privileges and rights of the estates.
The Joyous Entry of 1356 is the main constitutional charter of the Duchy of Brabant. In the nineteenth century (e.g. in magistrate Charles Faider's work), it was depicted are as a forerunner of "Belgian" (and thus not French, imported) constitutional traditions. Every new Duke (or Duchess) had to pledge allegiance and renew the charter. Recent research by historian Klaas Van Gelder has shown that similar mechanisms also existed at the level of lordships (seigneuries).
The text limits the powers of Duke Wenceslas at that time. The Joyous Entry of 1356 went further into how justice should be governed through safeguarding and promising the liberties, freedoms, statutes and privileges were central elements to govern the urban environment of the Brabantians. The text guaranteed subjects' freedoms, privileges and charters. The duke was forced by the three estates to respect the autonomy of the Council of Brabant, the main court of law in the Duchy. Furthermore, the duke could not demand any kind of tax without the estates consent. The Joyous entry of 1356 had to be renewed on every occasion when a new duke or duchess were inaugurated (see the study by historian Valerie Vrancken on the multiple 15h century Blijde Inkomsten). Hence, the Duke could rule, but only by respecting the restrictions on his power.
Composite monarchies and territorial constitutions
Austrian legal historian Martin Schennach recently published an important work on the "birth" of Austrian constitutional law, which had remained somewhat under the radar compared to the study of the public law of the Holy Roman Empire (which governs the relationship between the Emperor and the Imperial institutions, on the one hand, and the immediate members of the Empire, on the other). If we consider the generic natural law-basis of public law as ius publicum generale (general public law), the constitutional structure of a composite polity can be seen as ius publicum speciale (specific public law).
However, both for the Austrian Low Countries (whose belonging to the Holy Roman Empire was a topic of heated debate) and the Austrian hereditary lands, the question of the constitutional limitations to the competence of the sovereign ruler was treated by lawyers as well. Constitutional restrictions on the ruler's power illustrate that not the dynasty, but the norms governing the exercise of power for a given territory (ius publicum specialissimum) predominate. The ruler is sovereign, but has to take the Estates into account. In both cases, charters and treaties, granted by the monarch or agreed to between either the monarch and the estates, or the monarch and other rulers, were interpreted by lawyers trained in the classical cursus of roman law and canon law. The intellectual tools developed for legal reasoning in ordinary court cases could be used to interpret and apply norms.
King John II signing the Magna Carta in Runnymede (image source: Wikimedia Commons)
The Joyous Entry can further be compared to the Magna Carta of 1215, especially because the succesive variants of the Joyous Entry, as well as the Magna Carta, were subject to interpretation by relevant legal actors over time (see here and here). Every individual, corporation, nobleman or town could appeal to the Council of Brabant to contest the legality of measures taken by the Duke. The Court could only have inhabitants of Brabant on its bench, which implied that "strangers" (e.g. inhabitants of other territories ruled by the same Duke or Duchess, but in his or her capacity as Count or Countess of Carniola, Flanders...) needed a full naturalisation as inhabitant of Brabant. Appeals against its decisions were not possible, hence it was dubbed sovereign.
Provincial governance and taxation
The sovereign’s legislative acts (ordinances) were published individually by privileged printers and collated by in private individuals and published in collections of normative documents, which were referred to by jurists in both print publications and manuscripts. These existed for Brabant as well as for Flanders. These ordinances could introduce new norms, or collect existing customary law (see for this topic the foundational work of legal historian John Gilissen and, for legislation in the early modern low countries, the study of historian Jean-Marie Cauchies).
In many cases, local authorities or corporations asked for the sovereign's confirmation of their own rules. If the form of these acts suggests they are the monarch's legislation, their perimeter ratione materiae and ratione loci is far more restricted: in reality, several levels of normativity appear under the cloak of a ruler's legislation. Certain ordinances are general, others concern a specific province, city or corporation. Not unlike today, many legislative acts were of a fiscal nature (knowing that the most important source of revenue was indirect taxation, e.g. on beer and wine), whereby the Estates' consent was necessary. The Duke of Alba's decision to create taxes without taking the local elites' wishes into consideration, was seen as brutal. Philip II of Spain and Alva's treatment of the constitutional tradition of the Low Countries found its echo in the 1581 Plakkaet van Verlatinghe, which inspired the later American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the deposition of Joseph II in the Brabant Revolution (see Maxime Desmet's post).
Together, legislation and collated customary law constituted the core of the norms applicable in Brabant. Legislation could in principle trump customary law, but it was up to the courts to interpret it, in conjunction with Roman and canon law. The crafts and guilds had their own voice within the municipal administration and the Estates (when the cities were represented in the assembly at provincial level).
A difficult start: Brussels riots from 1717 to 1719
“Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.” – Oscar Wilde
The Treaties of Utrecht (11 April 1713), Rastatt (6 March 1714) and Baden (6 September 1714), which ended the War of the Spanish Succession, transferred sovereignty over the Spanish Low Countries to the Austrian Habsburgs. Consequently, the Austrian Low Countries were governed from Vienna, but with respect for their local autonomy. Indeed, it was customary for territories united in a personal union to retain their already existing state structures, customs and privileges, insofar as this was, of course, compatible with the monarch's policy.
From 1717-1719, a riot broke out in the heart of Brussels. Contrary to what one might logically suspect, this riot was not the result of the Southern Netherlands being placed under the rule of the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs, but rather of a lingering problem and a misguided approach on the part of Marquis de Prié, who had been a minister plenipotentiary since 1716. The following description of Anneessens's case leans heavily on the work of historian Klaas Van Gelder, whose article on the revolt and its repression can be consulted here.
The concrete starting point of the Brussels uproar can be found in the refusal to agree to taxation requested by the Emperor as Duke of Brabant. Both the Grand Council and the Nine Nations, which represented the Brussels crafts as second and third members in the Brussels city council (which, in its turn, had representatives in the Estates of the Duchy), refused to agree to the royal grant. Marquis de Prié, as minister plenipotentiary put a stop to it by replacing the deans of the Nine Nations. However, his plan did not go as smoothly as he himself had hoped. The newly appointed deans of the Nine Nations protested. They let it be known that they did not agree with this cunning substitution by refusing to take the oath, for in this way the princely grant could not be legitimately voted on. By this move, the deans of the Nine Nations were in it to paralyze the city government.
Plenipotentiary Minister Prié tried to restore peace by negotiating and mediating with the Nine Nations deans, however, they were steadfast in their opposition. Thus, the soft approach clearly had no solution, with the result that Plenipotentiary Minister Prié proceeded to exclude the Nine Nations deans. He argued that they themselves, through the oath refusal, had caused this. Nevertheless, he sought confirmation for the exclusion, which the Council of Brabant also provided him with.
The summer of 1718 was a turning point for resistance. The craftsmen, who had long been at odds with Plenipotentiary Minister Prié and his entourage, turned to violence in the streets of Brussels and plundered the homes of those who opposed them. Vienna, including Governor-General Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736), adopted an overall mild approach, much to the chagrin of the Plenipotentiary Minister Prié, who wanted to crush the resistance but often did not even have the manpower necessary to effectively crush the insurgents.
The case of Frans Anneesens, a guild dean from Brussels
Government action against the Brussels riots can therefore be described as at least two-sided: on the one hand, the army was deployed to crack down on the rebellion and certain insurgents, including Frans Anneessens, were prosecuted and prejudiced on the other hand, concessions were made and compromises were made with the trades. The legally recognized inhabitants of cities in Brabant (which lived under their own charter from the sovereign, ensuring them privileges or freedoms) were known as “poorters” or “citizens”. They further enjoyed particular fruits of their privileges, one of these in question are that they are only to be further tried by their peers. The centralization of sovereign power in the early modern period was at odds with the tradition of urban autonomy. The rise of the monarchical power created dynamics whereby privileges were being taken away.
Anneesens revolted vocally and went against the new imposition of taxation rules by Emperor Charles VI against the 1356 Joyous Entry (the same document invoked in the "Brabant Revolution" against Joseph II in 1787 and 1789, see Maxime Desmet's post). On 14 March, the Council of Brabant issued an arrest warrant against Anneesens and 10 other main suspects.
By their actions, the persons whose prosecution the Council called for, had shown a lack of respect for the sovereign's orders, insulted government, ill-treated the Council of Brabant and mistreated, violated the States of Brabant, disrupted the magistrate and put the whole city in danger. They had dishonoured the sacred place of justice, by which the looting of the chancellery was meant.
The insurgents were also depicted as a senseless gang, which was common with groups that wanted to overthrow the existing order. Anneesens was interrogated on 28, 29 and 30th of March and finally on the 25th of May. This lasted over 20 hours. His request to be assisted during the trial by a lawyer was rejected by the court. The trial was conducted in an extraordinary criminal procedure, which did not involve lawyers in the Council of Brabant. Anneesens further claimed that his arrest has not gone by the book since the arrest warrant was not issued at the time of his arrest and complained on the inadequacy to show the orders at the time of his arrest. This also went against article 1 of the Joyous Entry of 1356. The minister plenipotentiary (representing the sovereign by the governor-general's side) Marquis of Prié could not execute Frans Anneesens. The Council of Brabant was competent to repress his behaviour and sentenced Anneesens to death on 9 september 1717.
Dribard Rexha
My fascination with the Holy Roman Empire of the Habsburgs started when I read Professor Dhondt's book "Gestolde Macht" which explained to me how different constitutions work and the history behind the creation of these constitutions by country, including the legal history which garnered paradigms of constitutional thought. This fascination also applied to the Habsburgs and their system of constitutional government between the Reichskammergericht (used to resolve legal disputes within the decentralized empire, created after the Reichsreform at Worms, 1495) and the Reichshofrat (the Emperor’s personal advisory court in Vienna), where it is evident that while the Emperor is portrayed as having absolute power from his high throne, there is another structure in place that attempts to restrain the Emperor’s absolute authority (the absolute authority gradually decreased, Peace of Westphalia 1648). My section delved deeper into the local government level and the Anneesens case, which demonstrates the opposition between guilds and the provincial government. Also, being born in Antwerp further brought an impact on interest on the subject at hand with the Habsburgs. Antwerp was seen as one of the most important cities in the Duchy of Brabant because of the trade industry that the city had to offer. In addition, the townhall was also the seat of the dukes of Brabant. The many elements of Brabant Baroque can still be seen in the Antwerp City Hall which made it clear to delve deeper into the local structures of governance in the Duchy of Brabant.
-------------
For more information on the very rich archives of the Council of Brabant, see the Instagram-account @raadvanbrabant
Bibliography and further reading
Manuscript sources
de Wynants G.A, Mémoires contenant des notions générales de tout ce qui concerne le gouvernement des Pays-Bas (s.l., 1730) [manuscript]
Published sources
de Gomicourt A-P.D, Le voyageur dans les Pays-Bas autrichiens, ou: Lettres sur l'état actuel de ces pays (s.l.: s.n., 1782)
de le Court, J-V, Gachard M & Verhaegen P, Recueil des ordonnances des Pays-bas autrichiens (Brussels: Goemaere, 1860-1942), vol. III-XIII
Lameere J (eds.), Ordonnances de Charles-Quint, t. III (Brussel: Commission royale pour la publication des anciennes lois et ordonnances de Belgique, 1902)
Literature
Baelde M and Vermeir R, 'Raad van State', p.265-282 in Aerts E, Baelde M, Coppens H, De Schepper H, Soly H, Thijs A.K.L and Van Honacker K (eds), De centrale overheidsinstellingen van de Habsburgse Nederlanden (1482-1795) (Brussel: Algemeen Rijksarchief, 1994).
Blockmans W., Mede-zeggenschap: politieke participatie in Europa vóór 1800 (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2020)
Braubach M, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen: eine Biographie (München: Oldenbourg, 1963-1965), 5 vol.
Cauchies J-M, "Es plantar un mundo nuevo": légiférer aux anciens Pays-Bas (XIIe-XVIIIe siècle) (Bruxelles: Palais des Académies, 2019)
Coppens H and Baelde M, 'Raad van Financiën', p.497-522 in Aerts E et al. (eds), De centrale overheidsinstellingen
De Schepper H, 'Geheime Raad', p.295-324 in Aerts E et al. (eds), De centrale overheidsinstellingen
Dhondt F, Op zoek naar glorie in Vlaanderen. De zonnekoning en de Spaanse Successie, 1707-1708 (Kortrijk: UGA/INNI, 2011)
Id., "The Peace of Utrecht (1713)", in: Michael Kocsis (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights (Cham: Springer, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6_611-1
Id. and Cahen R, Syllabus Rechtsgeschiedenis (Brussels: VUB, 2023-2024) [Academia.edu]
Dhondt L., Ancien Régime, Verlichte Monarchie en Revolutie. Een institutionele en historische procesanalyse van politiek, instellingen en ideologie in de Habsburgse, de Nederlandse en Vlaamse Politieke ruimte (Brussel: Algemeen Rijksarchief, 2002-2007), 7 vol., https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3PVKW
Faider C, Études sur les constitutions nationales (Pays-Bas autrichiens et Pays de Liége) (Bruxelles: Grégoir/Wouters, 1842)
Galand M, Charles de Lorraine, gouverneur général des Pays-Bas autrichiens (1744-1780) (Bruxelles: Éditions de l’ULB, 1993)
Gilissen J, "Les phases de la codification et de l'homologation des coutumes dans les XVII Provinces des Pays-Bas", Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review XVIII (1937), nr. 1-2, 36-67, 239-290, https://doi.org/10.1163/157181950X00058
Hasquin H, Joseph II, 1741-1790 : catholique anticlérical et réformateur impatient (Bruxelles: Racine, 2007)
Id (ed.), Oostenrijks België, 1713-1794 : de Zuidelijke Nederlanden onder de Oostenrijkse Habsburgers (Brussel: Gemeentekrediet van België, 1987)
Hertel S., Maria Elisabeth : österreichische Erzherzogin und Statthalterin in Brüssel (1725-1741) [Schriftenreihe der Österreichischen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. W Schmale; 16] (Köln: Böhlau, 2014)
Lenders P, 'Vorst', p.43-64 in Aerts E et al. (eds), De centrale overheidsinstellingen
Schennach M., Austria inventa?: zu den Anfängen der österreichischen Staatsrechtslehre (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 2020)
Stollberg-Rilinger B, Maria Theresia: Die Kaiserin in ihrer Zeit (München: C.H.Beck, 2017)
Strubbe I. & Voet L., De chronologie van de middeleeuwen en de moderne tijden in de Nederlanden (Antwerpen/Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V. Standaard-Boekhandel, 1960)Wijffels A, 'Grote Raad voor de Nederlanden te Mechelen', p.448-461 in Aerts E et al. (eds), De centrale overheidsinstellingen
Van Gelder K, ‘Frans Anneessens en de Brusselse opstand van 1717-1718’, Brusselse Cahiers vol.1 (2018), p.143-173, https://doi.org/10.3917/brux.050.0143
Id, 'Local Lordship and Joyous Entries in the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands', BMGN CXXXVIII (2023), nr. 1, 31-70, https://doi.org/10.51769/bmgn-lchr.9921
Van Gelder K, ‘Markies van Prié en het Brusselse oproer in 1717-1719: Over de repressie en de slagkracht van het centrale gouvernement in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden’ Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis vol.127, issue 3 (2014), p.367-389,
Van Gelder K, Regime Change at a Distance: Austria and the Southern Netherlands Following the War of the Spanish Succession (1716-1725) (Leuven, Peeters 2016)
Comments
Post a Comment