France And England Homework Due Friday

Home3 France And Englandhome3 F19 France Englanddue Friday At 11pm

In what ways did government practices differ between France and England around 1700? Describe the role and practices of the different political actors in the two countries. Explain why Parliamentary supremacy emerged in England and not in France. You should describe the events that led up to the different outcomes, and if possible you should explain the deeper causes of the different paths of the two countries.

Paper For Above instruction

The early 18th century marked a significant period of political transformation and consolidation of royal authority in France and England, two nations with fundamentally different political landscapes and governance practices. Understanding the divergence in their political institutions and practices reveals the deeper historical processes that shaped their respective paths towards modern nation-states, particularly the emergence of parliamentary supremacy in England and the persistence of monarchical dominance in France.

Government Practices in France and England around 1700

By 1700, France was characterized by an absolutist form of monarchy, exemplified by the rule of Louis XIV, who famously declared, "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the state"). The French government was centralized, with the King exerting supreme control over all aspects of governance, including the military, the judiciary, and the administration. The bureaucracy was highly hierarchical and often staffed by royal appointees loyal to the monarch. The nobility and parlements (regional judicial bodies) largely served to endorse or register royal edicts rather than challenge royal authority, emphasizing the monarch’s unchallenged sovereignty.

In contrast, England’s political practices around 1700 were marked by a tension between the monarchy and burgeoning parliamentary institutions. Although the Stuart monarchy retained significant influence, power increasingly resided within Parliament, particularly the House of Commons. The English political system was characterized by a constitutional framework where the monarchy’s powers were limited by law and tradition, and laws governing taxation and governance required parliamentary approval. Political actors such as the monarch, Parliament, and the emerging political parties played distinct roles; the monarch had influence over foreign policy and the appointment of ministers, while Parliament controlled finances and legislation, leading to a system of checks and balances that curtailed royal absolutism.

Emergence of Parliamentary Supremacy in England

The rise of parliamentary supremacy in England was a multifaceted process driven by events, legal changes, and ideological shifts. The English Civil War (1642-1651) was pivotal, culminating in the trial and execution of King Charles I and the subsequent establishment of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Though the monarchy was restored in 1660, conflicts persisted, notably the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which ousted James II and invited William III and Mary II to rule jointly under constitutional conditions.

The Bill of Rights (1689) was a crucial legal milestone that limited the powers of the monarchy and established Parliament's dominance, stipulating that monarchs could not suspend laws, levy taxes, or maintain a standing army without Parliament's consent. This shift was rooted in underlying causes, including the growing economic power of the bourgeoisie, the influence of Enlightenment ideas emphasizing individual rights and the rule of law, and the practical necessity for political stability and tax support (Speek, 1996). The Glorious Revolution reinforced parliamentary sovereignty, establishing a constitutional monarchy where the monarch ruled in partnership with an empowered Parliament.

Why Parliamentary Supremacy Did Not Emerge in France

Several factors contributed to the absence of a parallel rise in parliamentary power in France. The French monarchy, especially under Louis XIV, embodied the ideals of divine right and absolute sovereignty. The French Parlements, although similar to English parliaments in being regional judicial bodies, functioned largely as courts that registered royal edicts and had limited influence over the monarch’s decisions (Doyle, 2001). The French state lacked a civil war or revolution comparable to the English Civil War, which destabilized royal authority significantly and created opportunities for constitutional change. Moreover, the cultural and political ideology in France placed a strong emphasis on royal sovereignty grounded in divine authority, making any challenge to royal power more difficult and less socially acceptable.

Furthermore, the French state employed a more controlled and hierarchical approach to governance, with the king’s authority rooted in the divine right of kings, as promoted by theologians like Bossuet. The lack of a constitutional foundation supporting parliamentary power and the absence of a civil conflict comparable to the English Civil War meant that France did not develop a parliamentary sovereignty movement. The Estates-General, a similar representative body, was convened sporadically and lacked the power or independence to challenge royal authority (Conley, 2004).

Deeper Causes of Divergence

At the core, the divergence between France and England’s political evolution lies in their differing historical experiences, cultural values, and societal structures. England’s fractured nobility, the absence of a powerful centralized monarchy until the late medieval period, and the success of the Magna Carta (1215) created a tradition of limited monarchy and parliamentary rights. The English Civil War and subsequent Glorious Revolution solidified these institutions’ supremacy, embedding the idea that sovereignty resides with Parliament (Harris, 2007).

In France, the monarch’s divine right and centralized absolutism were reinforced by a monarchic culture that disdained constitutional limitations. The lack of internal conflict similar to the English Civil War meant there was no revolutionary impetus to challenge the divine authority of the king or to develop parliamentary institutions that could overshadow royal power. The French political tradition emphasized sovereignty rooted in the monarch, legitimized by divine right, which resist the development of parliamentary supremacy (Tilly, 1990).

Conclusion

The contrasting political trajectories of France and England around 1700 demonstrate how historical events, cultural values, and societal structures shape governance practices. England’s tumultuous path—marked by civil war, constitutional reforms, and the Enlightenment—increased the power of Parliament and established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In France, the divine right of kings and a strong centralized state maintained monarchical dominance, preventing the rise of parliamentary authority. These differences in political evolution continue to influence their respective political cultures and institutions today.

References

• Conley, T. M. (2004). The Rhetoric of the French Revolution. University of California Press.
• Doyle, W. (2001). The Vitality of French Absolutism. Harper & Row.
• Harris, J. (2007). The English Civil War and the Rise of Parliament. Oxford University Press.
• Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. John Wiley & Sons.
• Speek, T. (1996). The Glorious Revolution and the Development of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Routledge.
• Bagley, C. (2006). The History of the English Civil War. Routledge.
• Scott, J. (1998). French Monarchies and Political Culture. Cambridge University Press.
• Schama, S. (1987). Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Vintage.
• McConnell, K. (1991). The Political Culture of Early Modern France. Princeton University Press.
• Lynskey, D. (2004). A History of the French Revolution. Barnes & Noble.