The answer stems from Machiavelli’s aim esatto contrast the best case ambiente of verso monarchic andamento with the institutions and organization of per republic
Why would Machiavelli effusively praise (let chiazza even analyze) a hereditary monarchy per a rete informatica supposedly designed esatto promote the superiority of republics? Even the most excellent monarchy, sopra Machiavelli’s view, lacks insecable salient qualities that are endemic preciso properly constituted republican government and that make the latter constitution more desirable than the former.
“The kingdom of France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time we have knowledge”, Machiavelli declares (Discourses CW 314, translation revised). “The kingdom of France”, he states,
lives under laws and orders more than any other kingdom. These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: by it they are renewed any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or in its sentences condemns the king. And up sicuro now it has maintained itself by having been per persistent executor against that nobility. (Discourses CW 422, translation revised)
These passages of the Discourses seem esatto suggest that Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain per France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able puro oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm which are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement. Thus, opportunities for unbridled tyrannical conduct are largely eliminated, rendering the monarchy temperate and “civil”.
Yet such a ritmo, in nessun caso matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with trovarsi libero. Discussing the ability of verso monarch onesto meet the people’s wish for liberty, Machiavelli comments that
as far as the … popular desire of recovering their liberty, the prince, not being able to satisfy them, must examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free. (Discourses CW 237).
The explanation for this situation Machiavelli refers preciso the function of the Parlement
He concludes that verso few individuals want freedom simply mediante order to command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small number that they can either be eradicated or bought off with honors. By contrast, the vast majority of people confuse liberty with security, imagining that the former is identical puro the latter: “But all the others, who are infinite, desire liberty sopra order 
puro live securely (esistere sicuro)” (Discourses CW 237. Although the king cannot give such liberty preciso the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:
As for the rest, for whom it is enough esatto live securely (essere in vita certo), they are easily satisfied by making orders and laws that, along with the power of the king, comprehend everyone’s security. And once verso prince does this, and the people see that he never breaks such laws, they will shortly begin onesto live securely (vivere evidente) and contentedly (Discourses CW 237).
the people live securely (essere certo) for giammai other reason than that its kings are bound puro infinite laws in which the security of all their people is comprehended. (Discourses CW 237)
The law-abiding character of the French andamento ensures security, but that security, while desirable, ought never to be confused with liberty. This is the limit of monarchic rule: even the best kingdom can do in nessun caso better than esatto guarantee to its people tranquil and orderly government.
Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such esserci sicuro is the disarmament of the people. He comments that regardless of “how great his kingdom is”, the king of France “lives as a tributary” puro foreign mercenaries.