Key Arguments

• Weber argues that 'The abolition of imperative mandates was very much influenced by the position adopted by the prince.', underscoring monarchical agency.
• He notes that 'French kings consistently required that the conditions on which delegates to the Estates General were elected left these delegates free to vote for the king’s motions, since an imperative mandate would have made this impossible.', directly connecting crown policy to the weakening of local mandates.
• He adds that 'In the British Parliament, the way it was composed and business conducted (to be addressed below)65 led to the same result.', indicating parallel institutional evolution.
• He remarks that MPs 'right up until the 1867 reform, ... saw themselves ... as a privileged social estate', and he illustrates this estate character by 'the strict exclusion of the public from parliamentary proceedings (there were heavy fines for newspapers that reported on proceedings right up to the later eighteenth century).', showing how secrecy buttressed autonomous status.
• He summarises the justificatory theory: 'The theory was that members of parliament were “representatives of the whole people,” which meant that they were not bound by mandate (that they were not servants, but masters—although this was not a sentiment that was ever uttered); this formulation was already part of the literature before the French Revolution lent it classical form.', pointing to a legitimating doctrine that converted absence of mandate into a claim to general representation.

Source Quotes

It also can be found in antiquity, but is otherwise only present in part (assemblies of delegates in confederations of city-states, but in principle only with precommitted mandates). 2. The abolition of imperative mandates was very much influenced by the position adopted by the prince. French kings consistently required that the conditions on which delegates to the Estates General were elected left these delegates free to vote for the king’s motions, since an imperative mandate would have made this impossible.

The abolition of imperative mandates was very much influenced by the position adopted by the prince. French kings consistently required that the conditions on which delegates to the Estates General were elected left these delegates free to vote for the king’s motions, since an imperative mandate would have made this impossible. In the British Parliament, the way it was composed and business conducted (to be addressed below)65 led to the same result.

French kings consistently required that the conditions on which delegates to the Estates General were elected left these delegates free to vote for the king’s motions, since an imperative mandate would have made this impossible. In the British Parliament, the way it was composed and business conducted (to be addressed below)65 led to the same result. The degree to which, as a result, members of parliament saw themselves, right up until the 1867 reform, as a privileged social estate is no more evident than in the strict exclusion of the public from parliamentary proceedings (there were heavy fines for newspapers that reported on proceedings right up to the later eighteenth century).

In the British Parliament, the way it was composed and business conducted (to be addressed below)65 led to the same result. The degree to which, as a result, members of parliament saw themselves, right up until the 1867 reform, as a privileged social estate is no more evident than in the strict exclusion of the public from parliamentary proceedings (there were heavy fines for newspapers that reported on proceedings right up to the later eighteenth century). The theory was that members of parliament were “representatives of the whole people,” which meant that they were not bound by mandate (that they were not servants, but masters—although this was not a sentiment that was ever uttered); this formulation was already part of the literature before the French Revolution lent it classical form.

The degree to which, as a result, members of parliament saw themselves, right up until the 1867 reform, as a privileged social estate is no more evident than in the strict exclusion of the public from parliamentary proceedings (there were heavy fines for newspapers that reported on proceedings right up to the later eighteenth century). The theory was that members of parliament were “representatives of the whole people,” which meant that they were not bound by mandate (that they were not servants, but masters—although this was not a sentiment that was ever uttered); this formulation was already part of the literature before the French Revolution lent it classical form. 3.

Key Concepts

• 2. The abolition of imperative mandates was very much influenced by the position adopted by the prince.
• French kings consistently required that the conditions on which delegates to the Estates General were elected left these delegates free to vote for the king’s motions, since an imperative mandate would have made this impossible.
• In the British Parliament, the way it was composed and business conducted (to be addressed below)65 led to the same result.
• right up until the 1867 reform, as a privileged social estate is no more evident than in the strict exclusion of the public from parliamentary proceedings (there were heavy fines for newspapers that reported on proceedings right up to the later eighteenth century).
• The theory was that members of parliament were “representatives of the whole people,” which meant that they were not bound by mandate (that they were not servants, but masters—although this was not a sentiment that was ever uttered); this formulation was already part of the literature before the French Revolution lent it classical form.

Context

Second numbered historical remark in §21, where Weber explains socio‑political forces behind the shift from imperative mandates to free parliamentary representation in France and Britain.