France And England A Comparison Of Governments

France And England: A Comparison Of Governments Essay, Research Paper

In Early Modern Europe, countries were

discovering and changing the ways in which they operated. While some, for

a period of time stuck to their old traditional ways, others were embarking

on a journey that would change the course of their country. This paper,

will explore and evaluate the two different government styles of France

and England ? one keeping with the traditional ways of their ancestors

while the other attempted and succeeded in changing their system of government


The French government was ruled by King

Louis XIV from 1643-1715 and was considered to be an Absolutist Monarchy.

It was believed that the King had all the power and answered only to God,

not the people of his country. It was believed that God ordained the King

to be in charge and so if any were to go against the King, they were going

against God. ??. Those who are its subjects must be submissive and obedient?otherwise

they would resist God.? This was very evident in the writings of

Jean Domat and Jacques Benique Bossuet.

Jean Domat and Jacques Benique Bossuet

were adamant supporters of the idea of an absolutist government. Both men

felt that in order for a country to survive one person must rule it and

that person was in charge of all. Anyone who resided in that country was

to follow the laws set forth by the king and not question his authority.

??It is the universal obligation of all subjects in all cases to obey the

ruler?s orders without assuming the liberty of judging them.? By

remaining under one ruler, the country would have the best known defense

against division among the people and would ensure the survival of the


Absolutist Monarchy, according to Bossuet,

was ?the most natural.most enduring?strongest form of government.?

Bossuet argues that the people should not change what God has created and

furthermore, since the government, which has been in place for hundreds

of years, needed no adjustments, there was no reason to change or alter

the political structure.

Domat and Bossuet?s ideas and theories

held strong, as France remained an Absolutist monarchy, for the time. The

English Monarchy was not as successful for the will of the people triumphed

over tradition and a new style of government was born.

England?s Monarchy was being threatened

by the development of new institutions (common law, Magna Carta, and the

Parliament). The Monarchy?s reaction to the new institutions and the cruel

treatment of its subjects resulted in Parliament?s creation of the Petition

of Rights. The king, unwilling to consent, dissolved the Parliament (which

would not meet again until 1640), gaining complete control over England.

When Parliament did reconvene, a civil war ensued between those who wanted

to reduce the royal authority and those who supported it. The end result

was the beheading of Charles I allowing Oliver Cromwell and the Parliament

to rule over England.

After Cromwell?s death, the Parliament

realized that England needed a new leader and invited Charles II back from

exile to rule over England. Charles II never reinstated the Absolutist

Monarchy that his father had tried to keep, yet worked with Parliament

to run the country. After his death, James II became the new King and when

he tried to reinstate the absolutist Monarchy; Parliament removed him as

King of England. From then on, Parliament would rule over England, deciding

on its laws and creating the Bill of Rights, reducing the Monarchy to a

symbol of what had been, giving them no power over the English subjects.

John Locke?s writing, Second Treatise on

Government, is one of the western world?s foundational expressions of liberalism.

Locke supports the idea of abolishing the Absolutist government and making

way for a government that would consist of several men creating laws for

the common good of the countries subjects. ?Political Power is that power,

which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands

of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set

over itself, with this express tacit trust, that it shall be employed for

their good.?

In Early Modern Europe, France and England

started out with the same system of government: an Absolutist Monarchy.

As tensions grew with the people and the monarchy in England, the Monarchy

would give way to the Parliament, establishing, in theory, that all of

England?s subjects were created equally and were to be treated equally.

The French government would remain with their form of government, for awhile

longer believing that they would only remain a united country if one person

governed them.

France and England both strived to keep

their countries united each taking a different approach. France was unable

to unite the lower classes as its government catered to the aristocracy

and shunned those of a lower class. England, however, was able to break

away from the class distinctions with the creation of the Parliament and

create laws that were somewhat more equal to all English subjects, regardless

of their class distinctions.

In the end, England?s reformation from

a Monarchy to a Parliament would pave the way for other countries to follow

in their footsteps. While France tried hard to remain with its traditional

ways of an Absolutist government, England?s success in a collective governing

board would eventually lead the French to believe that they could be a

successful government without having the Monarchy rule.



ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ  [можно без регистрации]
перед публикацией все комментарии рассматриваются модератором сайта - спам опубликован не будет

Ваше имя:


Хотите опубликовать свою статью или создать цикл из статей и лекций?
Это очень просто – нужна только регистрация на сайте.

opyright © 2015-2018. All rigths reserved.