Thanks for the answer about the law of 1998, it was something I have never fully studied and it always boring to only know half the truth.

So, the struggles at ther beginning of the XX century was just a form of " setting the things legally as they are already formally " ?
It's not ironic, it's a true question.

This right of veto wasn't restrained after long years of tentatives of stopping the social evolution of the country ? I mean all this opposition against the suppression of the censitary system, against social protections for the workers and all this liberals laws.

Perhaps the high level of conservative feelings in the HC of the XVIII and XIX make me somewhat misjuge the situation.
I have some problems in considering the Victorian Great Britain as a democratic system...for what I seen, it was as " democratic " as the French Second Empire, with officially powerful parliaments, but in fact, parliaments all at the will of the ruler.

For the XVIII it was clearly not democratic, because of the ultra-high level of censitary barrier, no ? With such high cense needed, we could speak of oligarchy, no doubt, but democracy ?

The single fact of a powerful House of Commons absolutly doesn't mean a democratic system, not alone.
We never speak of the Second Empire as a democratic system, even if technically, the parliaments controled all the legal powers and were elected by the whole population.