The Governments of France, Italy, and Germany [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674600041, 9780674599345

Citation preview

THE GOVERNMENTS OF FRANCE, ITALY, AND GERMANY BY

A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, LL.D., PH.D. President

of Harvard

University

CAMBRIDGE HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFOBD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1914

COPYRIGHT, 189Ö, I 9 1 4 , B Y A . L A W R E N C E L O W E L L

PREFACE THIS

volume is an abridgment of the author's

Governments and Parties in Continental published in 1897.

Europe,

It has been prepared in order

that certain portions of the latter, particularly those dealing with the framework of government in France, Italy and Germany, may be more easily used in college classes. Some changes have been made in the text, but only where the legislation of the last seventeen years has changed the actual machinery of government.

Matters

of opinion are left as they were in the original edition.

CONTENTS CHAPTER

I

FRANCE : INSTITUTIONS

Origin and nature of parliamentary government in England . . The system imperfectly copied on the Continent . . . The French constitutional laws History of their creation The method of amendment Their legal and moral effect The Chamber of Deputies The method of election, scrutin de liste and scrutin d'arrondissement . . . . . . . . . . . The Chamber a tumultuous body The Senate Its functions and actual influence The ministers as a rule not responsible to it . . . . The National Assembly The President of the Republic His functions His powers really exercised by responsible ministers . . The Council of State The ministers Their responsibility to the Chamber of Deputies . . . Their enormous power (which is due to the four following matters) The paternal nature of the government The centralization of local government . . . . . . The department, with its prefect and general council . . The arrondissement and the canton The commune, with its mayor and communal council . . Paris and Lyons The legislative powers of the executive Ordinances and appropriations . . . 0 . «

PAGE

2 6 7 8 12 13 14

15 18 Id 21 22 26 26 27 28 30 32 33 33 34 36 36 40 40 42 43 44

CONTENTS The judicial powers of the executive Difference between English and French history . . . In England the royal power grew early and took a judicial form . . . . . . . . . . In France it developed late and took an administrative form Effect of the doctrine of the separation of powers . . . Questions of the legality of official acts withdrawn from the ordinary courts . . • . . . . . The administrative courts and the court of conflicts . The state of siege . . . . . . . . . Effect of the French system on the position of the ministers . Note on Gneist's views on English and French history . . . CHAPTER

v 47 47 48 51 54 55 57 63 64 65

II

FRANCE : PARTIES

The influence of parties in popular government . . . . 69 The parliamentary system normally produces two parties . . 70 It cannot work well otherwise 72 In France there are many parties or groups . . . . . 74 Causes of the subdivision of parties . . . . . . 76 Lack of a political consensus 76 Theoretical character of French political opinions . . . 81 Lack of the habit of political organization . . . . ,82 The election of the deputies by majority vote . . . 84 The system of committees in the Chambers . . . .87 This undermines the authority of the cabinet and its ability to hold the majority together . . . . . 90 The use of interpellations 93 This has a similar effect 94 I t is due to jealousy of the ministers . . . . . 100 Results of the subdivision of parties 103 A change of ministry does not mean change of party . . 103 The cabinets short-lived 104 As a rule they are coalitions and therefore weak . . . 105 They must confer favors on the deputies to win votes . . 106 The deputies in turn must curry favor with the local nominating committees and the constituents 108 Prospects of the Republic 113 Since the Revolution there has been no change of the party in power without a revolution 114 Possible organic changes .117

vi

CONTENTS CHAPTER

III

I T A L Y : INSTITUTIONS

The The The The The The

formation of the kingdom 120 Statuto 122 King 126 ministers 127 Senate 128 Chamber of Deputies 130 The franchise, the method of election, etc. . . . . 131 The administrative system 135 The ordinance power 139 The civil service 140 Local government . . . . . . . . . . 142 The judicial system . . . . . . . . . 144 The courts and the officials 145 Administrative law and the administrative courts . . . 147 Weakness of the judicial system . . . . . . 150 The church 152 The doctrine of a free church in a free state . . . . 153 The monastic orders 155 The Pope, and the law of the Papal Guarantees . , . 157 Embarrassing situation of the Vatican 159 CHAPTER

IV

GERMANY : T H E STRUCTURE OF T H E E M P I R E

The Holy Roman Empire . . . . . . . 164 The growth of Prussia 165 The Germanic Confederation and the Diet 166 The failure of the Liberal attempt at union in 1848-49 . . 168 Bismarck and the war of 1866 . . . . . . . . 171 The North German Confederation and the Empire . . . 172 The constitution . 174 Nature of the federal union 175 Legislative centralization and executive decentralization . . 175 Inequality of rights among the members . . . . 178 The privileges of Prussia 178 The privileges of the other states 181 The Reichstag : its composition 184 Its powers 188

CONTENTS

vii

The Bundesrath : its composition 191 Its character and the position of the members . . . 194 Its internal organization 197 Its powers and privileges 199 Its actual influence 204 The Emperor 205 Interlacing of his powers as Emperor and as King of Prussia . 207 The Chancellor 208 He is not responsible to the Reichstag . . . . . 210 His functions and substitutes . . . . • . . 211 The judicial system : The Reichsgericht 213 Power of the courts to hold statutes unconstitutional . . 214 General character of the federal system 216

THE GOVERNMENTS OF FRANCE, ITALY, AND GERMANY S FRANCE

THE GOVERNMENTS FRANCE, ITALY, AND

OF

GERMANY

CHAPTER I. FRANCE: INSTITUTIONS. IN order to understand the government of a country it is not enough to know the bare structure of its institutions. It is necessary to follow the course of politics ; to inquire how far the various public bodies exercise the authority legally vested in them; and to try to discover the real sources of power. It is necessary, in short, to study the actual working of the system ; and although this depends chiefly upon the character, the habits, and the traditions of the people, it is also influenced in no small measure by details, like the method of voting, the procedure in the legislative chambers, and other matters, that are too often overlooked on account of their apparent insignificance. Now in several of the states on the Continent of Europe the main features of representative government have been copied directly or indirectly from English models, while the details have grown up of themselves, or are a survival from earlier tradition. It is not surprising, therefore, that the two are

2

FRANCE.

more or less inconsistent with each other, and that this want of harmony has had a pronounced effect on public life. Although most people to-day are familiar with the Parliament- parliamentary system of government as it has rantto6™" developed in England, it may not be out of England. p i a c e to give a brief description of it here on account of the profound influence it has had in other countries. The Middle Ages gave birth to two political ideas. The first of these was a division of the people into separate classes or estates, each of which had independent political functions of its own. The second was representative government, or the election — by those estates whose members were too numerous to assemble in a body — of deputies authorized to meet together and act for the whole estate. The number of these estates, and the number of separate chambers in which their representatives sat, varied in the different countries of Europe; 1 but it so happened that in England all the political power of the estates became in time vested in two chambers.2 One of them, the House of Lords, contained the whole body of peers, who were the 1

Thus in France, and in most continental countries, there were three, while in Sweden there were four : the clergy, the nobles, the cities, and the peasants. The existence of only two Houses in England might almost be called an accident. (Cf. Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, p. 93.) 2 In 1664 Convocation, which was the ecclesiastical chamber, discontinued the practice of voting separate taxes on the clergy, and thus th» clergy definitely ceased to be an estate of the realm. (See Hallani, Const. Hist, of England, chap, xvi.)

ORIGIN OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.

3

successors of the great feudal vassals of tlie Crown; while the other, the House of Commons, was composed of the deputies from the towns and counties, who had gradually consolidated into a single house, and might be said to represent all the people who were not peers. By degrees the House of Commons acquired the right of originating all bills for raising or spending money, and hence its support became essential to the Crown. But its members were independent, and on the whole less open to court influence thau the peers. They felt under no obligation to support the policy of the government, or to vote an appropriation unless they understood and approved the purpose for which it was to be used; and King William III., during his wars with France, found them by no means as easy to manage as he could wish. Hitherto his ministers had been selected from both political parties, and hence were not in harmony with each other, and were unable to exert an effective influence in Parliament; but between 1693 and 1696 he dismissed the Tories, and confided all the great offices of state to the Whigs, who had a majority in the Commons. The result was that the House which had been turbulent became docile; and the ministers by winning its confidence were able to guide it, and obtain the appropriations that were required. This was the origin of the practice of selecting the ministers from the leaders of the majority in Parliament, — a practice which at a later time crystallized into a principle of the British Constitution.1 But of course men who held the most important offices, and at the same time led the 1

Macaulay, History of England, chap. xx.

4

PRANCE.

House of Commons, were certain not to be mere tools in the hands of the King. They were sure to try to carry out their own policy, and when the sceptre of William had passed into the hands of the first two Georges, who were foreigners and took little interest in English politics, the ministers exercised the royal power as they pleased, and became in fact the custodians of the prerogatives of the Crown. The subordination of the King to his ministers is, indeed, the inevitable result of the system; for so long as the latter retain their influence over the House, and can direct its votes, they can hold their offices and administer them according to their own views. If the King attempts to dismiss them they can block the wheels of government, by inducing Parliament to withhold supplies; and if, on the other hand, they cease to be the leaders of the House, and a different party with new leaders gets a majority, the King finds himself obliged to send for these and intrust the government to them. The system which had been devised in order that the King might control the House of Commons became, therefore, the means by which the House of Commons, through its leaders, controlled the King, and thus all the power of the House of Commons and of the Crown became vested in the same men, who guided legislation and took charge of the administration at the same time. The House of Lords, meanwhile, was losing ground. It had no right to initiate or amend money bills, and, what was far more important, it had no influence on the formation or the policy of the cabinet. The ministers were, indeed, often peers, but they were not selected

N A T U R E OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.

5

/

because they belonged to the majority in the House of Lords, nor did they resign when that body voted against them. Like their colleagues from the other House, they represented the majority in the Commons, and were solidly in accord with it. The House of Lords, therefore, found itself confronted by the combined power of the Crown and the House of Commons, and this it was unable to resist. In fact the power to create new peers furnished the Crown, or rather the ministers acting in its name, with a weapon always ready to break an obstinate resistance, and at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 a threat of this kind was enough to compel submission. The Upper House has thus gradually lost authority, until now it does not venture to reject any measure on which the cabinet is really in earnest,— unless perchance, as in the case of the recent Home Rule bill, it is convinced that the House of Commons does not fairly represent the people, and that a new election would result in a victory for the party in opposition. In such a case the refusal to pass the measure is tantamount to a demand for a Referendum.1 The ministers remain in office only so long as they continue to be the leaders of the Lower House and are able to control the majority. When this condition has changed, a vote is sometimes passed to the effect that the ministers have ceased to possess the confidence of the House; but such an express declaration is rarely used 1

It is a curious fact that the Premier of New South Wales has recentlyproposed to prevent deadlocks between the Houses by providing that after a bill has been rejected once by the Legislative Council and again passed by the Assembly, the Council shall not have power to reject it a second time, but may require it to be submitted to popular vote. A similar proposal has been discussed in Belgium.

6

FRANCE.

at the present day, and a hostile vote on any matter of considerable importance is treated as a proof that the government has no longer the support of a majority. After such a vote, therefore, the ministers resign, and if there is a normal division into two parties the Crown sends for the leader of the opposition, and intrusts him with the formation of a cabinet. The defeated ministers have, however, one other alternative. If they think that the House of Commons has ceased to be in harmony with the opinion of the nation, they can dissolve Parliament in the name of the Crown, and try the chance of a new election. Thus in the English parliamentary system the direction of the legislature, and the control of the executive, is in the hands of the leaders of the majority in the House of Commons. For their exercise of power these leaders are directly responsible to the House of Commons, which can call them to account at any time; while the House itself is responsible to the people, which gives its verdict whenever the end of the term of Parliament or a dissolution brings about a general election. Turning now from the consideration of English forms Parliamentgovernment to those in use on the Conment°