eja123: What differences in government led to England becoming a constitutional monarchy and and France an absolute?
Explain the differences between English government and French government that led to England becoming a Constitutional monarchy by 1700 and France becoming an absolute monarchy?
Answers and Views:
Answer by tspas1991
England: . Parliament holds a fundamental disagreement with the role of the king, believing that the justice of the government laid in the hands of the people. They wanted to uphold their right to pass tax laws and to ensure that Catholic Church did not flourish in England. Charles I threatened both of these desires, as well as fighting unsuccessful wars in Spain.
James 1 thought that the king was a “little god”, having been given this title by God himself. He had the right to decide their fates, as a father has a choice to favor certain children.Charles inherited his father’s view on the throne, as well as his debt. In order to try and raise funds he needed to go through Parliament, but they refused without gaining power of their own. So, he did his best side step them. This led to an arm wrestling match that would last until his execution.
C The strong Puritan faction in Parliament wanted a more Calvinist system of doctrine and discipline. Distrusting Charles’s policies, Parliament withheld grants of taxes. Charles resorted to forced loans to gain revenue.
So, in 1628, Parliament rose to reassert their rights, as well as those of the people. They asked for confirmation that taxes can only be levied by Parliament, writ of habeas corpus and that martial law could not be imposed except during wartime. Charles agreed to these terms, but continued to collect taxes, called Tonnage and Poundage, without Parliament’s consent. This threw the House of Commons into violent protestation.
Charles, avidly believing in his right to absolute power, avoided assembling Parliament at all costs and gained his money through other means. He ruled as an absolute monarch, and some would say as a tyrant. However, when Scotland erupted into civil war he was forced to assemble Parliament for the first time in twelve years. Realizing their new power, they made more demands on Charles , one of which requiring a meeting of Parliament every three years. Charles had no choice but to agree to these terms, but the fight was far from over.
The dispute between Charles and Parliament ended up evolving into a full blown Civil War, which ended with a victorious Parliament. They sent out the Declaration of Sovereignty, which said that, “the people, under God, are the original of all just power (West Societies, 44). Up until his death, Charles still maintained his position that “A subject and a sovereign are clean different things (West Societies, Charles I, 46).
However, after this time, the power of the monarch steadily erodes, leaving Parliament the true power in the government. The Bill of Rights, passed in 1689, solidified all of the rights that Parliament had been fighting for and established an entirely new mode of government that was very different from the absolutism of the French system.
The French had no tradition analogous to that of Parliament. The Estates General met very rarely and never after 1789. Even, under the prime of Charles I reign, Parliament exerted more power over the monarch than the French counterpart ever did. In addition to this, France had no tradition of common law, meaning they didn’t follow precedence. This left the monarch in charge to handle a situation in whatever way he felt suitable. The rule of law and precedence were sacred in England, giving citizens the guarantees of due process and the right to process by a jury. French monarchs used the theory of divine right. Because the monarch ruled all, he had to deal with the problem of ambitious nobles through patronage, tax exemptions, and positions at court. This created a powerful beaurocracy.
what are you talking about?
Leave a Reply