Room of the pars

In France, it was the Upper House during the Restauration and under the Monarchie of July until in 1848. Its members are hereditary until the revolution of 1830.

Introduction

The Room of the Pars of the Constitutional monarchy was established by the Charte of 1814. One knows following which events this one had been promulgated. The May 31st 1814, the victorious Alliés entered Paris. The Tsar brought together at Talleyrand the sovereigns and the diplomats and exposed the three parties to them to be taken: to make peace with Napoleon, to establish the regency of Marie-Louise or to point out the Bourbons. Talleyrand which had persuaded without sorrow the assembly, had concludes that the recall of the Bourbons was the best solution: “the République is an imposture, all the remainder is an intrigue, the Bourbons alone are a principle”. Thus a proclamation was written carrying that the sovereigns would not treat any more with Napoleon nor with any member of his family and inviting the Sénat to indicate a Provisional government which could prepare a new constitution. The Senate voted the forfeiture of Napoleon and proclaimed Louis XVIII king. The House of Commons ratified these decisions. Louis XVIII, made at Paris in early May, did not want a project of Constitution worked out by the members of the provisional government and adoptee by the Senate the April 6th. Although deeply liberal, it remained intractable as for the base of the constitution. Representing a principle, that which had planed on all the Ancien Mode, Louis XVIII wanted to hold his title only of God and of its predecessor and it was reserved to grant a charter its people. But the Charter of 1814, although pure concession of the royal authority devoted however a state of affairs extremely different from that which the Old Mode had constituted. It took account of the way traversed since 1789 and, by establishing in France the representative government, it answered the aspirations that the Révolution had given birth to. Louis XVIII had known to make profitable the lessons of the exile. He had seen functioning the constitution which, the first, had organized political freedom, i.e. the British Constitution and he wanted to equip France with similar institutions. This is why the Charter contains the two principles of the free governments: the ministerial responsibility and duality of the Rooms.

Undoubtedly the preamble to the Charter does not make any allusion to the true model. One does nothing but claim “to join again with the olden days” and to restore by adapting them to the circumstances, the institutions of old the French Monarchie: “We sought, said one, the principles of the constitutional charter in the French character and the worthy monuments of the last centuries. Thus we saw in the renewal of the Pairie a really national institution and which must bind all the memories to all the hopes, by joining together old times and modern times”. The Room of the Pars that Louis XVIII instituted was obviously to be in harmony with restored monarchy. Monarchy was legitimate and absolute; the Room of the Pars was aristocratic. It represented a social class, the Noblesse: the king was indeed to choose the members in the nobility or to confer a title of them on those which it made enter. This Room was to be consequently the natural body of the interests of the Aristocratie. It was to as constitute a solid support for the royalty, since as it was of it that the members drew their title. The principles of Absolutisme contained in the Charter led Charles X to return the Ordonnance S of 1830 which involved the replacement of legitimate monarchy by national monarchy. The Room of the Pars was to necessarily feel the consequence of these events. The Upper House of the Monarchie of July preserves the same name as under the Restauration but the aspect changed some: it must receive a reflection of the character Bourgeois of the royalty. The suppression of heredity, the possibility of creating Pars without their conferring titles of nobility, the establishment of categories in which they were to be selected, the publicity of the meetings made peerage of Louis-Philippe a body quite different from the peerage of Louis XVIII and Charles X.
The composition of the Upper Houses generally influences their attributions and especially their role in legislative and political matters. We will see whether this idea checks in the evolution that the Room of the Pars of 1814 with 1848 underwent by studying in a first part its composition, in one second part its attributions.

Composition of the Room of the Pars

Under the charter of 1814

We announced the influence of the English constitution in the adoption by the Charter of 1814 of the principle of the duality of the Rooms: we find it in the way in which the Room of Pairs.
is made up The Pars are named by the king. This one must confer on the Pars which it names a title of nobility of which it can vary dignity. Lastly, it can name them with life or make them hereditary, according to its will. The combination of the nomination with life with heredity has advantages and disadvantages. Indeed it makes it possible to insufflate a new strength with a body renewed before by heredity. It is a means for the government of making sure the contribution of new talents which are not necessarily transmitted by generation. The king can thus influence the Upper House without that necessarily not sclerosing it for always, by leaving the possibility to his successors of making batches of Pars. Lastly, beside the members to which heredity gives independence, the king will be able to count on those which it has appointed for lives and which will not be able to forget that it is with him that they owe them dignité.
But these advantages are counterbalanced by of the same disadvantages importance: the hereditary Pars will want to never regard as the their equal Pars to life, and consequently those will not have any influence. In addition, the Pars with life will not have any recognition towards the king for a dignity lower than that of heredity. Thus instead of supporting it, one will immediately see them taking a critical attitude and going to sit down on the benches of the opposition. These considerations led Louis XVIII to give up by an ordinance of the August 13rd 1815 to the nomination of the Pars life. The article first said: “the dignity of par is and remains hereditary, of male in male, by order of primogeniture”. The combination of the mandate with life and heredity was a manner of giving a new force to a hereditary Room by ensuring the contribution of talents to him. Louis XVIII having given up must to with it resort to others procédés.
Certain constitutions double the force which heredity by the influence gives that fortune gives. Thus the ordinance of the August 25th 1817 decided that no one could not be called with the Room of the Pars, excluded the ecclesiastics, if it had not before obtained its nomination by the king, the authorization to form a majorat and if it had not constituted this one. This condition corresponded to that of the Cens required of the deputies and supplemented the advent of the land and buildings to the capacity politique.
Concurrently to these hereditary members, the Charte of 1814 mentioned Pars of right, the princes of blood. But those could take meeting only on the order of the king expressed by a message for each meeting. This limitation with the exercise of the right of the princes of blood was inspired by fear to see some new Duc of Orleans creating in the Room of the Pars a hearth of opposition to the royal authority.

After the Revolution of 1830

The revolution of 1830 did not have an immediate effect on the organization of the Room of the Pars. Article 23 of the charter of the August 14th 1830 was the integral reproduction of article 27 of the charter of 1814. One well quickly realized however that the institution of an aristocratic Room, exclusively hereditary, was in contradiction with a Monarchy based on the will nationale.
The shift between the organization of the Room of the Pars and the news assist Monarchy gave by repercussion a new force with the House of Commons (in particular near the people) which corresponded better to the new idea of Monarchy. It was necessary to restore balance between the two Rooms. The purpose of the law of the December 23rd was to put peerage harmonizes some with the new institutions. A few months before in the discussion of the Belgian Constitution of the February 7th 1831, a deputy with the Belgian National congress had affirmed that so that the Upper House has influence, it was necessary that she was elected by the same voters as the House of Commons. The French legislators were satisfied to remove heredity and to outwards limit the royal nomination in determinants of the categories of which it could not exercer.
The suppression of heredity gave place in the two Rooms to parliamentary long discussions. With the House of Commons, they were representatives of the middle-class like Berryer, Guizot, Thiers, Royer-Collard, which was made the burning champions of heredity. They were highly tackled by an important party of number with the head of which Lafayette was. Thiers declared that to safeguard the interests of progress, it was necessary to defend those of stability. This defense, passing by an independent capacity because hereditary, can only take care some. He thus called upon the hereditary aristocracy. The nobility if one removed the Upper House to him would precipitate in the popular Room. The speaker finished by saying that the Republic and the Démocratie left irresolute questions. Thanks to heredity, representative monarchy did not leave any of it. It concentrated at the same time the unit of the royalty, the spirit of continuation of the aristocracy, the life and the energy of the democracy. In its Royer-Collard turn endeavoured to show that heredity was essential to safeguard the superiority of the Upper House. For him, one did not have to confuse one moment the noisy agitation with the considered opinion of the nation. An institution was to be judged only on its action.

After him Guizot exposed the question admirably. Peerage, says it in substance, lies under three elements, three conditions: by the royal nomination it is monarchical and strengthens the government; by the unlimited number of its members, it adapts well to the constitutional monarchy and holds well its place in the three power play. By heredity, it is monarchical and liberal, at the same time as political. If you destroy one of these three elements, you undermine the constitutional monarchy, with its free and complete play. With regard to heredity, one fights it only for prejudicial reasons. Its adversaries say: one does not want, one does not have, one cannot create it. As for saying that the country does not want right of birth, it is true. But can't the country be mistaken? Lastly, Berryer supported, him also, the need for an aristocracy in the nation and he beseeched the Room to push back the bill removing the hérédité.
Among the adversaries of heredity, the ones, like Emmanuel of Tired Cazes, disputed the existence of an aristocracy worthy of this name. The others wanted to make penetrate, in the composition of the first Room, the national intervention. They were the partisans of the system of the candidatures. Among them Odile Barrot recommended an interesting process: member nomination of the Upper House by the general advices. Unfortunately, at that time, these assemblies were not yet definitively made up and could not be used as serious bases with a recruitment of the pairie.
After a long discussion which had exhausted the arguments in the two camps, the speech of the President of the Council was impatiently awaited. Casimir-Périer paid to heredity an eloquent homage: it had been an institution of most useful for the national good, but its maintenance was incompatible with the age incipient from the democracy. Its speech carried the votes. The suppression of heredity was voted by the Room of the députés.
Remained to obtain the adhesion of the interested Room. It was the most difficult work. The old duke of Fitz-James defended in pathetic terms the institution: he tried to show that well far from being against the democracy, it was the highest reward of the personal value. However, the Room of the Pars also finishes it by voting the suppression of heredity. One thus removed thus with Peerage the force which comes from heredity. One removed as another kind to him of prestige by deciding as the king would not be obliged any more to confer on the Pars a title of nobility. It was wanted that only the talent and fortune can influence it. This is why one obliged the king to choose the Pars in twenty-two categories which can be easily brought back to five. The first category includes/understands those which occupied or occupy the elective high positions. The second those which occupied or occupy the highest administrative offices. The third those which occupied or occupy the legal high positions. In the fourth category the citizens return who present high guarantees of intellectual abilities. The fifth finally includes/understands those which pay at least 3000 Franc S of direct taxes: the purpose of she is to ensure the representation the Upper House of the great property and large the Industrie.
The system of the categories presents disadvantages and few advantages. It does not ensure necessarily a good recruitment of the Upper House: or these categories are too narrow and the choice of the monarch is limited too much, or they are too broad and then they are useless. In all the cases they constitute an embarrassment for the sovereign without constituting an unquestionable advantage for the country. Certain civils servant can offer guarantees of administrative capacities without to present political aptitudes: the general practice of the details of the administration always does not give a vision sufficiently broad, necessary in the head office of the businesses of a country. Admittedly, few Upper Houses joined together as many “lights” that under the Monarchie of July, but little had such a weak influence out of governmental matter. It missed a virtue which the categories did not have, an essential virtue in policy: independence.

Attributions

The charter of 1830 which had modified the pace of the Room of the Pars did not touch with its attributions. In theory, this one were the same one as those of the House of Commons. The two Charters carry that the Room of the Pars is an essential portion of the legislative power (article 24 Ch .1814 - article 20 Ch. 1830). The Room of the Pars thus could, like the House of Commons, to initially receive the projects coming from the royal initiative and, like the House of Commons, it could “beg the king” to exert this initiative in a well defined field. And, when the king, after 1830, renonça with the exclusive use of the initiative, this one also belonged to the Room of the Pars and the House of Commons. This equality between the two Rooms however comprises an exception for the finance laws with the detriment of the Room of the Pars. The two Charters sanction only the “right of priority” of the Lower House to the point of view of the “law of the Impôt”. But they do it with terms of unequal strength: the Charter of 1814 (art.17) declares that the law of the tax must initially be “addressed” to the House of Commons. This term ensured only the Lower House a priority of pure form. The constitution of 1830 (art.15) is more energetic: it requires that the law of the tax “be initially voted” by the Room of the députés.
How, in fact, the Room of the Pars it used of its political powers in financial matters? It is necessary for that to distinguish four kind of financial laws: laws of expenditure which devotes a credit to a given goal; the laws of taxes which fix the incomes with which the expenditure will be covered; the laws of financial organization which regulate the methods of payment of the expenditure and the incomes; finally, the laws of accountancy which intervene when the incomes were perceived and the expenditure carried out to control the regularity of these operations. The influence of the Room of the Pars was quasi null on the laws of tax: the constitutional texts allotted the priority in these matters to the House of Commons. The Room of the Pars renonça itself to the right of amendment. She recognized simply a right of remonstrance. When she exerted it and that the House of Commons persisted in his opinion first, it was the latter which was to have the last mot. The Room of the Pars was proof of the same timidity as regards laws of expenditure. Under the Monarchy of July, the House of Commons, which represented the Bourgeoisie skeptic, voltairienne, Anticlérical E, removed several appropriations relating to the budget of the Culte S, in particular those relative to purses with the Séminaire S and the évêché S which were not envisaged by the Concordat. The Room of the Pars restores the appropriations; the House of Commons rejected them again. The conflict ceased by a transaction in which the House of Commons had the dessus.
The Room of the Pars could only play one part in the laws of financial organization and the laws of accountancy. Unfortunately this role was not always satisfactory. For example, the Baron Louis, appointed with the Lower House, which could give of the order in French finances, had wanted to modify the date of the opening of the financial year. He wanted to carry it from January 1st to July 1st. Everyone approved on the bottom this decision which simplified accountancy, but still which gave to the Room Pars time to carry out a more serious control on the law of the budget. But the Room of the Pars disallowed this proposal because the author displeased to him: thus it risked the future of the country to satisfy the resentments of a moment.
The intervention of the Room of the Pars in the laws of accountancy was not always advantageous with the good of the country: when one proposed the law of the accounts to him which approved the payment of the appropriations illegally engaged by Mr. De Peyronnet for the construction of the dining room with the ministry for justice, it deleted by way of amendment the article which ordered the continuations. But the House of Commons restores it. It thus comes out from it that in financial matters the Room of the Pars had a role very discret.
It is by imitation of the English constitution that the two Charters had admitted the inferiority of the Room of the Pars in this field. It is under this same influence that they decided that the Room of the Pars would be High Court of justice. It was qualified to know the crimes of the Ministre S and the Pars and also to know the crimes of high treason or the Crimes against the state security. The principal businesses whose Room of the Pars had to treat as High Court of justice concerned for example: Ney, of the ministers of Charles X, risen of 1835, the authors of the Attack S against Louis-Philippe… There still exists of many disadvantages for a similar attribution. These disadvantages are still worsened when this assembly applies sorrows nongiven by the law for crimes not envisaged by it; what, once more, leads us to reflect on the distinction between justice and the policy.

The Room of the Pars had sometimes a big role to play at the time of the first part of the Restoration: it rejected a bill of harmful Mr. Peyronnet to the Freedom of the press, it pushed back the re-establishment of the Droit of seniority: this day there one illuminated Paris in his honor and it had one moment of popularity. In 1830, she addressed to the king a letter which, in terms similar to that of the House of Commons, certainly more respectful, recalled the king to the respect of the Charter. Like the House of Commons, she voted the forfeiture of Charles X. Under the Monarchy of July, she held a more modest place in the concerns of the country. It is with the House of Commons that the vital questions of the country struggled and where the political great men of the moment went.

Thus we saw how the Room of the Pars was formed under the Restoration: nominations by the king, titrates of hereditary Par of France or with life, constitution of a majorat, then, in 1830 suppression of heredity with the installation of the categories. The Room of the Pars as the House of Commons was regarded as an essential part of the legislative power: participation in the clothes industry and the vote of the laws, assent of the tax, controls on the Gouvernement. We also observed which was High Court of justice. It should be recognized that it is with the Charter of 1814 that returns the merit to have established in France on the model of the English House of Lords, a hereditary Room of the Pars, devoting at the same time the theory of Montesquieu on the need for giving to the aristocracy a particular representation and the system that an long experience practiced in England and somewhat in France had made appreciate: duality of the legislative Rooms. Unfortunately this Room of the Pars of the Restoration did not render all the services which one awaited from it. The defects related to its constitution, which was not any more harmonizes some with good progresses, attracted popular discredit. It was unable to fulfill the role which was assigned to him and to defend the institutions which one had entrusted the guard to him.

Famous members

Victor Hugo

Random links: