Polysynody

Polysynody (from Greek πολυς numerous, several, and Greek συνοδος meeting, assembly) was the system of government in use in France between 1715 and 1718 and in which each minister (secretary of state) was replaced by a council. It was introduced early into the Regency of Philippe d'Orléans following the death of Louis XIV.

The system saw mixed successes but didn't effectively alter either daily life nor the political culture of the Ancien régime.

At the end of the reign of King Louis XIV of France, the aristocracy reacted against the concentration of powers in the person of the king, and against the takeover of the administration by commoners from the bourgeoisie (whom the king had empowered in order to weaken the unpredictable aristocracy). An aristocratic ideal of government emerged around the personalities of Fénelon (the famous archbishop of Cambrai and tutor of the Duke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV and heir to the throne), the duc de Beauvilliers (governor of the duke of Burgundy), the duc de Chevreuse (son-in-law of Colbert), and the duc de Saint-Simon (reformist in the circle of the duke of Burgundy and author of famous historical memoirs). They advocated the creation of councils made up of aristocrats which would assist the king in the exercise of government power.

At the death of Louis XIV, the regent Philippe d'Orléans, in search of political support, satisfied the aristocracy by replacing the ministers and secretaries of state with eight councils (declarations of September 15 and December 14, 1715) which were dominated by the ancient aristocracy (descending from medieval knights, as opposed to the newer aristocracy of recently ennobled lawyers and civil servants). The Council of the Regency, chaired by the regent, had no real power. The other councils shared government power. They were:

• Council of Matters within the Kingdom (Conseil des affaires du dedans du royaume),
• Council of Conscience (Conseil de conscience) for religious matters
• Council of War (Conseil de guerre),
• Council of the Navy (Conseil de marine)
• Council of Finance (Conseil de finance)
• Council of Foreign Affairs (Conseil des affaires étrangères)
• Council of Commerce (Conseil de commerce) for internal and foreign trade as well as for royal factories (manufactures).

Each council had ten members and elected one president. From the creation of these councils, many careered statesmen of Louis XIV were now equal to inexperienced nobles.¹

Although the regent Philippe d'Orléans was cautious enough to admit all the ministers of the last government of Louis XIV (except for Nicolas Desmarets, controller-general, i.e. minister of finance, dismissed by the regent), as well as many of the high officers and civil servants of Louis XIV, to sit in the councils alongside the aristocrats, this system of government worked poorly due to the absenteeism and ineptitude of the aristocrats, as well as to conflicts of personalities. The Polysynody also failed to permit powersharing in the provinces where the intendants under Louis XIV went about business unimpeded much to the disappointment of various parties²

d'Orléans Own actions also served to weaken the executive power of the councils, made clear an atmosphere whereby any actions which could threaten or weaken the centralism of the state would not be permitted. The councils main effect in essence was just allowing more room for those appointed in government positions to engage in their own agendas rather than allowing any sections of the government to democratically decide on their own objectives.³

As a result, between 1718 and 1723 the regent gradually abolished the councils despite the passionate defense of the abbot de Saint-Pierre (Discours sur la polysynodie, 1718), and he reestablished the offices of minister and secretary of state, reverting to the "ministerial despotism" of Louis XIV.

Various French intellectuals and notable persons had various often conflicting views on what the Polysynody and the more radical changes of the Regency meant or what they should accomplish. Abbot de Saint-Pierre defended the Polysynody where as Henri de Boulainvilliers called for it to be a step towards re-empowering the feudal nobility which suffered under Louis XIV's absolutism²

Colin Jones proposes that the Polysynody was fundamentally limited in nature regardless of d'Orléans or any in the government or civil societies wish for it, given the regency itself was an inherently limited affair and that if the often sick Louis XV were die young (an ever present possibility), meaning d'Orléans would assume the throne. in this scenario, it's better for d'Orléans to keep his options open to assume an absolutist rule akin to Louis XIV instead of forclosing himself to the option if the Polysynody were to become entrenched and more radical.³. Jones also states that the Polysynody was mainly to sure up goodwill among the nobility and buy time for his rule to become more entrenched which by 1718 had been made thorough and now the diversion risked becoming real and used to attack him, namely on foreign policy⁴