Analysis of the Limited Monarchy Under the French Restoration: A Study on the Imbalance of Powers and the Emergence of Parliamentarism
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Limited Monarchy, Restoration France, parliamentary regime, King, legislative power, executive power
Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract
of 8
Abstract
Unlock the intricacies of France's Limited Monarchy under Louis XVIII and Charles X through Joseph Barthélemy's seminal work. Discover how the Restoration period's institutional framework fell short of true parliamentary governance, with the monarch wielding significant control over legislative and executive powers. Explore the imbalance between royal authority and the Chamber of Peers, and understand the limitations of the bicameral system established during this era. This insightful analysis reveals the complexities of a transitional period in French constitutional history, shedding light on the evolution of parliamentary regimes. Dive into the nuances of power dynamics and institutional dependencies that characterized the Limited Monarchy, and gain a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by France's nascent democratic institutions.
Contents
A legislative power with weak legitimacy and a very limited scope for action
Of Chambers only legitimized by the census and a royal concession
A legislative power particularly limited
At the head of the executive, the King above the institutions
The King, the only authority above the ministers
The confusion of powers and the impossibility of legislating against the will of the King
A legislative power with weak legitimacy and a very limited scope for action
Of Chambers only legitimized by the census and a royal concession
A legislative power particularly limited
At the head of the executive, the King above the institutions
The King, the only authority above the ministers
The confusion of powers and the impossibility of legislating against the will of the King
Get this table of contents for free after login.
Extract
[...] A minister who can then easily incur the disagreement of a majority, to dismiss or not his minister will be a choice at the sole discretion of the King, which will have the meaning of responding positively or negatively to the expectations of the Chamber - according to his own judgment therefore, except for the specific case of taxes for which the situation can be more complex. 'Ministers of the King, not of the Chamber', thus Barthélémy justifies the dependence of the maintenance or departure of a minister on the will of the King: there is no real connection between the ministers, usual representatives of the executive, and the Chamber which should hold the executive power. [...]
[...] The Restoration is therefore a rather specific period in the constitutional history of France, during which these two realities will be confronted. In fact, such a compromise cannot be revealed to be durable. One can recognize King Louis XVIII for having conserved it until the end of his reign, having to deal with majorities that were quite diverse, sometimes liberal and sometimes 'more royalist than the King' (estimating that the Charter itself was an unjustified step forward) and choosing, if possible, the path of a certain consensus. [...]
[...] On the other hand, it is still a censitary suffrage, therefore limited to a wealthy electorate (paying at least 300 francs in direct taxes). It is useful to mention that this last point is still easily agreed upon during the elaboration of the Charter, the first experience of universal male suffrage not being due to intervene until 1848. It is obvious that the only easy nature of this electorate will bias the real representativeness of the people: it benefits mainly to the bourgeoisie able to pay this tax, not to the immense peasant majority of the time. [...]
[...] It will therefore be necessary to demonstrate through the analysis made possible by this text in what way the system of Limited Monarchy established under the Restoration does not appear as an experience of parliamentary regime by the institutions it sets up and not yet by the powers granted to them. To do this, the parliamentary institutions put in place in 1814-1815 will be presented in a first step, but their limits will be observed, in particular with regard to the new Chambers that symbolize the new parliamentary experience in France. [...]
[...] Another example shows well the limit of these Chambers, the Chamber of Deputies in particular. In the case of suspicion of bad practices by ministers (illegal enrichment, treason . the Chamber of Deputies can bring an accusation against these ministers appointed by the King. However, the judgment, and the decision that follows, must come from the Chamber of Peers, whose composition the King can determine in accordance with the Charter. Despite this apparent responsibility of the Chamber, a minister even guilty of bad practices will only be condemned or even dismissed from his functions if the King decides so. [...]
