�鶹Լ��

History Hub  permalink

Comparison between the English and French parliament.

• Message 1. 

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 6th March 2011

  Yes and for Britain later Great Britain and later the United Kingdom and for France it was the parliament as they say in France from the "Ancien Régime" (the old government) till 1789.
  
  My question is, if the English parliament was "de facto!" that different from the French parliament and the Estates General under the "Ancien Régime" concerning the absolutism of the kings in the two countries?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Some preceding considerations:
  
  Is it coincidence that the French "Fronde" (1648-1653) happened nearly at the same time as the English Civil War (1642-1651)?
  
  Perhaps that the English parliament had more influence on the monarchs than the French one, but for example the Tudors could also influence the parliament with "their!" men in the Upper and Lower Chamber?
  
  The French parliament was first of all a juridical and consulting body. Wasn't the English parliament also not "born" from a juridical body?
  
  I have some thoughts about Charles I and II versus Louis XIV, but I will wait to comment after I see that someone is interested.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 10th March 2011

  Paul
  
  Re the story of parliamentary development I posted the following a few days ago on the Fruits of Empire thread in response to "Harpo's" suggestion that "the English conquest of Ireland" stopped the successful evolution of the Irish constitution as it was just before.
  
  
  Quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Going back to your post about the elements of Irish history that might have evolved differently had Ireland not been conquered by England, I went back to the chapter on “Comparative Constitutional History” in G.N. Clark’s “The Seventeenth Century”. This brings out quite clearly that at the start of that century it was quite normal across Europe for states to have residual elements from the Middle Ages which was a period “of a grafting of the unifying principle of monarchy upon the broader groundwork of feudalism”. Thus it was almost universal that there were some kind of assembly of “estates” and “parlements” through which monarchy was able to achieve a wider coherence throughout government, much of which perforce was still heavily reliant upon local responsibility and initiative.
  
  The general trend of the Seventeenth Century, however, was almost universally for these to disappear, though the story of that century was opposition to monarchy. “This too was general. Ranke pointed to one of its most striking examples in the deposition in 1661 by its members of the head of the most strictly autocratic body in the world, the Society of Jesus".
  
  Generally this struggle was in vain. And “the general progress of the time was towards absolutism.. The general tendency consisted not merely in the triumph of monarchy, but in the rise of a particular type of monarchy. It may be called the French type of monarchy, not only because it reached its strongest and most logical expression in France, but also because it was consciously and deliberately copied elsewhere from the Bourbon model”
  
  In general terms this progress of monarchy, he says, was linked to the fact that “the supporters of monarchy” were “upon the whole and except for those countries and occasions which have already been characterised as anomalous, they included the best and most enlightened elements of society”.
  
  In this Clark was expressing the common judgement of his time and a belief in an improving and progressive view of history. This view had been given new shape and impetus by Burckhardt’s great study of Italian art of the Fifteenth century that showed it as part of a great Renaissance of Ancient Civilization and a lifting up of Europe out of the barbarity into which it had regressed during the Dark Ages.
  
  By the time I bought my paperback version in 1963 people were not quite so convinced about that, but it is quite evident that what we call “Renaissance” did bring a new confidence in the capability of Humanity, and perhaps its right and the duty, to make use of God-given intelligence and goodwill in order to “make things better”: and from at least the time of Machiavelli one of the most obvious aims for those who thought that they could “make a difference” was to attach their interests to those of a monarch, or in the absence of such- as in Renaissance Italy- to men of power like the Medici Family or one of the condottierie. This applied to both political scientists like Machiavelli and to artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.
  
  Thus the dynamic of the age was towards central power because it was often the point where the emerging power of intellectual thought- including science and technology- could be brought together with the emerging power of money, and wider forms of finance.
  
  England’s struggle against those tendencies tending towards autocracy and centralised unification was a central theme of the Seventeenth Century. It was only later, at the opening of the Age of Revolution in 1776, that Jeremy Bentham published the first of his great works showing the “Utilitarian” benefits of leaner, more efficient, centralised and cheaper administration. This became central to what I have termed “The Tory Revolution” of William Pitt the Younger, which produced a much stronger British State capable of defeating France in her greatest hour. Interestingly in his entry on Pitt for the Encyclopaedia Britannica T.B. Macaulay (a Liberal) hailed the genius of Pitt up to 1793, and castigated him for his record as a war-time Prime Minister- which of course included the Union with Ireland.
  
  Unquote____________________________________________________
  
  Perhaps I might add, in answer to your specific question, i think that everyone agrees that very quickly the English Parliament became focussed on the King's need for the practical support of the Lords and Commons, especially in the paying of taxes.. And, as I explained on the Simon de Montfort thread, the people with the money to pay taxes, fees etc were the boroughs which were represented by the borough MP's. Towns were dynamic business places always looking for new opportunities to make wealth with royal permission approval sanction, and the commons also quickly established the right to redress of grievances before they agreed to pay any more dues or levies in cash or kind to the King.
  
  Thus from very early on these "parleys" became ways of making both Crown and people better off. France went the way of autocracy and the Command Economy under Colbert during the reign of Louis XIV.. The heavy hand of the State made for a very different dynamic.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 19th March 2011

  Re: Message 2.
  
  Cass,
  
  excuses for the delay and thank you very much for your interesting reply.
  In the meantime I am a bit further in my comparison after reading some three evenings about all kind of parliament like institutions as the Bourgondian "Staten-Generaal" in comparison with the French "états-généraux". Under Mary of Burgund the Staten-Generaal forced the "Great Privilege" in Ghent to return the might of the "Staten-Generaal".
  Found an interesting comparison between the English parliament and the French "parlement (ancien régime)"/ états-généraux.
  
  Not allowed to give the Dutch website: type once in google: athene antenna sporken parlementen. It is the first window first entry.
  I essentially use this text with my comments.
  
  French:
  987-1328
  curia regis (counsel of the king)
  middle of 13 th Ct: Curia regis in parlemento, since then more might
  Louis XIV parliament no real force. Louis XV again more might for the parliament, but more negatif to preserve their specific rights...
  états-généraux (the three estates: the clergy, the nobility and the rest) advising but nevertheless some might till 1614 last assembly and then again in 1789 followed by the French Revolution.
  
  English:
  1215 Magan Carta might for the nobility and the vasals.
  1264 Simon de Monfort adds the Knights and the Commons.
  Edward I (1272-1307) fusion between the Magnum Concilium and the Conciliium regis in parlemento 1295. Model parliament. 14th century: House of Lords and House of Commons
  My comments: parallels with the French états géneraux (the three estates) and the Staten-Generaal of Burgundy?
  Under the Lancasters (1399-1471) and the Tudors (1485-1603) parliament not so important. 15th century: oligarchy period in which the prevailing faction dominate both parliament and throne.
  Execution of Charles I. Republic and later dictatorship of Cromwell.
  Restoration of Charles II 1660 again parliament and monarchy.
  1689 William III (1650-1702) Bill of Rights: parliament stronger and guarantees for the parliament.
  Under the house of Hannover (1714-1815) parliament more rights vis à vis the king.
  
  Cass, that's all for this evening.
  
  Kind regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011

  Addendum to previous message.
  
  Trying to see parallels in Europe (at least in the emerging monarchies as England, France, Spain, Burgundy).
  And yes as Cass said there was a trend to centralisation in these monarchies (yes I know Burgundy was a Duchy).
  And as I think you see parallels in the struggle between the monarch and the parliament/estates-general?
  
  France:
  In the beginning parliament judicial branch of the king's justice, but also control of legality, compatibility of the proposals of the king with hte existing laws, usages and other reglementations. But yes the king had still the last word and could legify his own proposals.
  Another consulting branch (which seems not to exist in England?): the estates-general. The consulting of the three estates of the kingdom: the higher clergy, the nobility and the burgesses. There were 36 of them: the first in 1302 summoned by Philippe le Bel. The second of last by Louis XIII in 1614-15. No estates-general under Louis XIV and XV. The 36th and last one under Louis XVI followed by the French revolution.
  
  Duchy of Burgundy:
  The first estates-general in 1464 in Bruges (example from France?). But different from France they had a permanent statute in Brussels.
  In the North of the Low Countries they became the government of the Dutch Republic.
  In the South of the Low Countries they represented the 9 or 10 provinces to the court of the king and later in 1790 declared their independence against the Austrian emperor as the Belgian United States (only for one year till the restauration).
  
  England:
  From the great councils evolution to parliament. 1230. First had a judicial as well as a legislative function (the same as In France?). Later a House of Lords with the higher clergy and the nobility and a House of Commons with the knights and burgesses. (What is the difference with the French estates-general?)
  
  No knowledgeable person to answer these questions? I have only the local library, the internet and my common sense...to dig in this complicated material...
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 14th April 2011

  Addendum to message 4.
  
  As a result of Thomas' recent message about the British parliament, I had a look to my old thread.
  And I repeat my question: if some knowledgeable person can answer my difficult questions?
  I have some thoughts about the questions but I wait till I have a "gesprekspartner" (Dutch of "partner to speak to" (the term seems not to have a translation in English. They translate it in my Dutch-English dictionary with: "person one is/was speaking to") (in French I found : "interlocuteur, interlocutrice) to proceed...
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 14th April 2011

  Paul
  
  My studies of the relevant parts of French history were way back almost 50 years ago, but surely the key difference was the success of the French Crown in establishing absolute power and creating a tradition of top-down government that seems to persist.
  
  On French TV over the week-end there was some comparative reporting on the way that the issue of Muslim full veils was being treated in "Angleterre" in the light of the new French law making the total covering of the face in public a legal offence punishable by a fine of 150 euros. The French reporter highlighted the English tradition of religious toleration and the acceptance of a Multi-Faith Society, rather than the French Secular Society imposed by the law of 1905, that may well have been in part to do with the Dreyfus affair.
  
  While I was over in France I started reading a classic volume of documents illustrating English economic and social history starting with one written c AD 1000 which gave a precise description of the rights and duties of about 20 ranks of English Society, and this idea of the rights guaranteed to the Common People by the English Crown ran through documents throughout the Middle Ages.
  
  When individuals or groups approached the King for some new right or privilege, including foreign merchants seeking to do business in English fairs, the King was happy to pocket the "fine" or "fee" and grant the right "saving the rights of any man". In other words the King was bound by oath to accept the existing rights and not over-ride them, and where people did feel that their rights were being infringed by the new grants, this just provided the King with a little more business to conduct -for a fee.
  
  
  Thus as Tas is fond of pointing out the English Constitution evolved organically with a construction of rights which certainly Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell recognised as a useful counter-weight to place against the claims of Rome to definitively settle what it considered to be Spiritual Matters- and therefore subject to final judgement and settlement by the Vatican.
  
  "Saving the rights of any man" in England remained the duty of the Sovereign. And the Tudor elevation of Parliament built up its practices and self-confidence so that Parliament could contest the Stuart attempt to rule by "Divine Right".
  
  Of course what we tend to forget these days is that the English Parliament had/has three sections that had to work in partnership- the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch. The Early Stuarts were not capable of operating in such a collaborative English way, but the Commonwealth period also showed that a mere Rump of a Westminster assembly lead to the abandonning of the principle of "Saving the rights of any man"- as Puritan extremists sought to impose a religious, social, and moral revolution upon the English people.
  
  That England came through this safely owes a great deal I believe to Edward Hyde, Lord Clarendon, who had been a hero of the Parliamentary resistance to Charles I: but as part of the moderate "think tank" that met regularly at Great Tew near Oxford, Hyde refused to side with the Parliamentarians during the Civil War. He ended up as the protector and educator of Charles II in exile and not only educated him for the challenge of the Restoration, but married his daughter to Charles' brother James.
  
  By the time that James II had alienated the English people after his three year reign, Clarendon's grandaughter Mary emerged as a safely Protestant potential Queen, married to William of Orange.. Partnership for someone with her heritage was not a problem, and she was content to rule in a dual monarchy with her husband- possible a uniquely English compromise.
  
  Mary died before William, but he was succeeded by Clarendon's other granddaughter who became Queen Anne, and by this time England was achieving the kind of security that made the political classes in Scotland generally in favour of the Act of Union making England and Scotland into a single State with one Parliament at Westminster.
  
  By then the English Parliament was one of the many things that Voltaire noted during his period in exile, and the parliamentary model of government interested people like Montesqeue, whose thoughts of checks and balances had a strong influence on the US Consitution- and it showed last week when the Federal Government was brought once more to the brink of shut-down.
  
  Of course the French Parliament too now has that crucial difference with the British Parliament, viz that the Head of State is no mere figure-head largely devoid of real executive power, but the President who is supposed to be the Nation's leader, no matter who has the majority in Parliament. The whole business of conducting a political career through a less clearly defined party system with a view to mounting a challenge for the "top job" creates a dynamic in French politics that is largely missing in the British system.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 21st April 2011

  Re: Message 6.
  
  Cass,
  
  excuses for the delay. Explained the reason in another thread.
  Thanks for the reply and see my answer yesterday on the question in Thomas' thread also about the parliaments, which is as I mentioned overthere also an answer to you.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Comparison between the English and French parliament.

  Report message7

Back to top