So much so that they wouldn’t proceed without it. I’m reading a book about the French Revolution and the author doesn’t say what that is or entails, just that the nobility and the majority of the clergy did not want it.
Thanks.
It seems to have been one of those proxy issues that stand in for a wider dispute.
The Third Estate was only one part of the Estates-General (the First and Second Estates being the clergy and the nobles), but the Third was twice the size of the other two.
The leaders of the Third Estate wanted “common” voting (i.e. one-deputy one-vote, in which the Third’s extra numbers would dominate) while their opponents wanted the Estates to vote separately (which would allow majorities in the First and Second Estates to override the Third).
The Third Estate insisted on common verification (of the deputies’ credentials) because they believed that separate verification would lead to separate voting. Their opponents stood on their privileges and refused to take orders from the Third. Ultimately the Third walked out and the full Estates never voted on anything.
Does common verification = voting by head?
Yes. The dispute was whether the Estates General would function as one house or three. The first collision point arose over how the house(s) should verify the credentials of its/their members, because this is the first thing that a legislative body does when it organizes. A unicameral Estates General would examine credentials as a body, with every member entitled to a voice and a vote on the credentials of all three orders. A tricameral Estates General would separate and each house would examine its own credentials.
The verification itself was insignificant; I’m not aware that there were any serious disputes over anybody’s credentials. But how verification was handled would determine whether there was one house or three, and that was hugely significant, because with double representation the Third Estate would dominate a unicameral body, whereas in a tricameral body every order would have equal power and presumably veto power.
Makes sense. Thank you.