347] THE PLEBISCITE IN ANCIENT AND FEUDAL TIMES 49 



The authority of the first General States, in spite of their univer- 

 sality of convocation, was circumscribed within the hmits of the 

 solemn assemblies of the period prior to 1302. They had neither 

 the right of initiative, nor the right of deliberation and free dis- 

 cussion. Royalty demanded of them simply, as in the past, adhesion, 

 support, ratification of measures already effected or to be taken. 

 The importance of their role under Philippe le Bel and his sons lay 

 singularly in the solemnity and the gravity of the circumstances 

 which had caused its convocation and not in their effective power. 

 And so was the deputation to the £tats during that period consid- 

 ered as an onerous obligation rather than as a political right.62 



About ten years prior to the appearance of Soliere's 

 study De la Gueronniere in his he droit public et V Europe 

 moderne^^ cites two cases of treaties providing for the ces- 

 sion of French territory, the one being submitted for rati- 

 fication to the fitats Generaux in 1359; the other in 1527 to 

 the representatives of the Bourgogne, the territory to be 

 ceded. In both cases the decision was adverse to the ac- 

 ceptance of the treaty. De la Gueronniere sees in these 

 two cases the germ of the principle of the plebiscite. 

 Rouard de Card concludes his review of these same cases 

 with the following observations : " Without doubt, these 

 two historical facts present a certain interest from the po- 

 litical point of view, but they can not be considered as the 

 origin of the theory which we are studying. We must not 

 remain on the surface nor must we let ourselves be deceived 

 by appearances. Be it noted first that in these two cases we 

 find no trace of a popular vote. We stand in the presence 

 of regularly constituted assemblies composed of privileged 

 members.""* He mentions the fact that in the Treaty of 

 1359 not only the representatives of the territories to be 

 ceded to England, but those of the entire kingdom, were 

 called together and that the decision by them does not re- 

 semble our modern plebiscite but "the ratification of treaties 

 which the sovereign under a constitutional regime must 

 nowadays ask of the representatives of the nation.'"" 



"!« Ibid., pp. 503-504. 



"» See K. Koiiard dc Card, Los annexions et les plebiscites dans 

 I'histoire contcmporaine, in his Etudes de droit international, Paris, 

 ifV/), p. 4_'. 



•Mbid., pp. 44-45. 



DO |i,i,)_ 



