694 



STATKS-OENERAL 



STATES' RIGHTS 



other communions may crystallise, or at least as a 

 security against Atticism, Ultraiuontanism, ami 

 other clangers which the future may have in store 

 for democratic states. 



The special relation of the church and state in the 

 Jewish theocracy will be gathered from the articles 

 BIBLE (Vol. II. p. 118), JEWS. The growth of non- 

 conformity in England led to keen controversy between 

 the defenders and the opponents of church establish- 

 ment*; and, especially since the foundation of the 

 ' Society for ' the Liberation of Religion from State 

 Patronage and Control' in 1844, there has buen an 

 increasingly outspoken demand for the disestablishment, 

 with or without the disendowment of the Church of 

 England, especially in Wales. For the ' Erastian Con- 

 troversy," see ERASTUS ; for the ' Bangorian Contro- 

 versy,' see HOADLT ; for the rivalry between the church 

 and dissent in the schools, see EDUCATION. The great 

 Scottish 'Voluntary Controversy' (see UNITED PRESBY- 

 TERIAN CHURCH) between the defenders of the church 

 and dissenters was at its height in 1829-34 ; the Free 

 Church (<|.v. ) long insisted on the establishment doctrine 

 in a modified form. The disestablishment of the Irish 

 Church (1869) rendered the controversies as to the 

 established churches in the other parts of the United 

 Kingdom more acute. For other controversies bearing 

 more or less directly on the question, see CATHOLIC 

 EMANCIPATION, JEWS (for the removal of Jewish dis- 

 abilities), CHURCHYARDS, HOOKBB, NEWMAN, OATH, 

 PERSECUTION, TEST ACTS, TITHES, TOLERATION ; and the 

 articles on Independents, Friends, and other Noncon- 

 formists, as well as that on the Church of England. Of 

 the British colonies, it may be generally said that those 

 which have representative government have no state 

 church, though provision has long been guaranteed for 

 Catholic education in Quebec province. And in most 

 of the Crown colonies also the disestablishment of the 

 Church of England, and the withdrawal of state aid 

 where there was concurrent endowment, has been carried 

 out, especially since 1868. In India there is a small 

 Anglican establishment for the army and other English 

 residents. In the articles on the several countries notes 

 will usually be found as to whether {here is an estab- 

 lished church or not And for the view that the church 

 should finally be merged in the regenerated state, see 

 ROTHI (RICHARD). Of the copious literature, see, of 

 works favourable to establishments, Selden, On Tithe* 

 (1618); Coleridge, Church and State (1830); Stanley, 

 Church and State (1870); the present writer's Distent 

 in relation to the Ckurch of England ( 1871 ) ; Warburton, 

 Alliance of Ckurch and State ; Maitland, The Voluntary 

 Syttem (1837); Moore, Englishman' t Brief for hi* 

 national Church ( 1880 ) ; Selborne, Defence againtt Dit- 

 atablithment (1886); Hughes, The Old Church and the 

 Ifew (1891); Stoiy, The Church of Scotland, Pott and 

 Prnent ( 1891 ). Unfavourable : Locke, Letter! on Tolera- 

 tion ( 1689 ) ; Wardlaw, National Ettabtuhmentt ( 1839 ) ; 

 Baptist Noel, Church and State (1849); Vaughan, 

 Ktvjlitk Nonconformity (1862); Miall, The Voluntary 

 Principle ( 2d ed. 1880 ) ; Skeats, Free Churchet (1860); 

 Rtligiou* Republic* (1869); The Cote for Durttablitk- 

 ment (1884). Of books on the general subject of church 

 and state, the fallowing may be consulted : De Marca, 

 De Conconlantia Sacerdotii ft Imperil (foL 1641 ) ; Franck, 

 Philoiophie du Drnit Ecclenattique ( 1864 ) ; Zeller, 

 viiii Kirehe ( 1873 ) ; Geffbken, Church and State ( Eng. 

 trans. 2 Tola. 1877) ; A, Taylor Innes, Church ami .v.if, 

 ( 1890). On details : Tiele, History of Ancient Religion* 

 < Eng. trans. 1877 ) ; Speir, Life in Ancient India ( 1856 ) ; 

 Keville, Religion* da Pcuplct non-ririluf* ( 1883) ; Sayoe, 

 Ancient Babylonian Religion (1887); Maspcro, Life in 

 Ancient Egypt (trans. 1892). 



States-general ( Fr. flals gfnfranx), the name 

 given to the representative body of the three orders 

 (nobility, clergy, burghers) of the French kingdom. 

 In the time of Charlemagne and for seventy years 

 after his death there were assemblies of clergy 

 and nobles held twice a year to deliberate on 

 matters of public importance. There is no trace 

 of any national assembly in France properly so 

 called earlier than 1302, when the States-general 

 or representatives of the three order* were con- 

 vened by I'liilip the Handsome in bin quarrel with 

 Pope lionifacc VIII. The States-general, how- 



ever, though their consent seems in strictness to 

 have been considered ic^uisitc for any measure 

 imposing a general taxation, had no right of re- 

 dressing abii.-c- except by petition, mid no legis- 

 lative power. I'nder Charles VI. and Charles VII. 

 they were rarely convened. Louis XI If. convoked 

 tin in, after a long interval, in 1614, but diMni -eit 

 them for looking too closely into the liniinccs ; and 

 from that time down to the Revolution (1789) they 

 were never once summoned to meet. As soon as 1 1 y 

 did assemble the clergy, 291 ; noblesse, 270 ; tier* 

 Hat, 557 (nearly half lawyers) the Third Estate. 

 after inviting the noblesse and clergy to sit with 

 tin 'in. ou the advice of Sieves, constituted themselves 

 a National Assembly ( 17th June). About 150 of the 

 clergy joined them (22d June), and nearly 50 of the 

 nobles, with Philip of Orleans, on 25th June ; the rest 

 followed by the king's command two days later. 



The title States-general 'was likewise liume by 

 the representatives chosen by the provinces of the 

 old republic of the Netherlands to exercise sove- 

 reign power. They met at the Hague ( 1593-1795), 

 and voted by provinces. The name is retained for 

 the existing legislative body or parliament of the 

 kingdom of the Netherlands. See also ESTATES. 



States of the Church. See CHURCH 



(STATES OF THE). 



States' Rights, in the history of the United 

 States, refers to a construction of the Constitution 

 and to a doctrine based on that construct ion, to the 

 effect that the several states of the Union were and 

 are independent sovereigns, federate to attain 

 and maintain certain common interests by means 

 definite and limited, and that to them alone 

 allegiance is due by their citizens ; that the general 

 government is not raised by the Constitution to the 

 position of a national sovereign, but is merely a 

 diplomatic agency whose acts must be ratified by 

 the independent states from whom its authority is 

 derived ; and that these are each entitled to judge 

 of any infractions of the Constitution, and to 

 nullify any acts of congress which they may hold 

 to be in excess of its authority, or even to secede 

 from the Union. It will )>e evident that this 

 position rests on a false assumption, for not one of 

 the thirteen colonies which first formed the United 

 States ever possessed an independent sovereignty, 

 nor could sovereignty have been attained by them 

 otherwise than by united action ; so that in 1776 it 

 was a single possessor of the entire sum of sovereign 

 powers that came into being in the person of thir- 

 teen states manifesting the will ana force to hold 

 such power as one national state within all the 

 territory known as the United States ; nav, each 

 several state jurisdiction is actually dependent on 

 that federal will and force, and the sovereign powers 

 exercised in the government of each state, as well 

 as those exercised in and for the whole country bv 

 congress, are derived from the will and force of all 

 tlir stat es. exist ing as one integral sovereignty. See 

 I)r J. C. Hurd's Union-Male. (Xew York, 1890). 



Invalid as the doctrine appears, however, it has 

 played a prominent part in the country's history, 

 ami brought on finally the war of secession. I:- 

 earliest appearance was during the troublous years 

 that followed the French Revolution, when the un- 

 settled condition of affairs in that country alarmed 

 congress and led it to pass certain Alien and 

 Sedition laws, authorising the president to remove 

 from the United States aliens whose presence 

 might seem to him of public danger, and to punish 

 .-'.lit ion and seditious publications. This action of 

 congress appeared to some to overstep its powei-, 

 and in 1798 the legislatures of Kentucky and Vir- 

 ginia protested vigorously on States'-Kight grounds; 

 but the oilier states dissented from the position 

 thus for the lirst time formally assumed. In 1811. 



