7/27/2019 Critical Analysi of Glorius Revolution

1/3

Critical Analysis:

Now , I will analyze Glorious Revolution in the light of views of prominent historians &intellectuals along with my personal analysis.

The common view of the Glorious Revolution is simply that it was a triumph for the purity of constitutional law over an outrageous attempt at its perversion, areaffirmation of the liberties of the English people.

However, this interpretation of the Glorious Revolution has not gone unchallenged, as itis widely claimed to be an act of recovery and conservation rather than one of innovation.

To some twentieth century historians ,for instance, in the book of LucilePinkham, William and the Respectable Revolution, it is stated as arespectable revolution involving just the ruling classes and leaving the monarchyin most respects unaltered, hardly a proper revolution at all.

Russian historian , Viktor F Semenov , regarded it as a mere coup dtat in itsconservatism, its bloodlessness and its legalism. This Marxist interpretation isgiven some weight by the fact that (for example) a point-by-point analysis of theBill of Rights does reveal that in several aspects it is indeed a conservativedocument.

It is quite tempting to see the events of 1688 as a mere codicil to theinterregnum, a period between Charles II & William III, of no major importance inthemselves. But, this is misleading. The civil wars cannot be regarded as finallysettling England's political future as a parliamentary monarchy. Neither, of course, can the Glorious Revolution of 1688. However, before 1688 it is possibleto see England as beginning to move towards absolutism on the French model.

After 1688 this is stopped.

It must be remembered that the Prince called in to save the situation had no

desire for a weakened monarchy: the agreements of 1688-89 are not, therefore,obviously radical documents.

7/27/2019 Critical Analysi of Glorius Revolution

2/3

The momentous consequences of Glorious revolution are seen with hindsight bysome historians. For instance, J Western , in his book , Monarch andRevolution states that

"Constitutional government has endured because it became a habit in the eighteenth

century, not because it was established by revolution (great or small) in seventeenth

Thomas Macaulay's, In his book, The History of England from the accessionof James the second, 1849-61 argued that because England had had apreserving revolution in the seventeenth century she had been spared adestroying revolution in the nineteenth. I second this opinion

An irony of the Glorious Revolution is that monarchs who accepted constitutionalconstraints gained more resources than their absolutist forebears as Parliament

after the Glorious Revolution generously financed wars for monarchs who abidedby the constitution.

From Economic point of view:

The fact that interest rates did not fall discontinuously after 1688 demonstratesthat secure private property rights existed in England at least as early as 1600.In fact, it can be argued that the increase in taxation after 168 8 meant that TheGlorious Revolution had an immediate negative effect on economic growth andthat none of the political events of the 17th century had any impact on total factor productivity.

Lastly, it would be an unjust analysis if we do not pay tribute to James II on hisfirm stand for his beliefs, the Catholicism, the root cause of the Gloriousrevolution. He abdicated his throne but did not changed his religious views. Sir Winston Churchill has also stated the same in his book, the history of EnglishSpeaking People.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I would say that the Revolution was not important because it led to abalance of power between the legislature and executive or because it led to stability or asmall state. Rather, the Revolution was important because the new political equilibriumfeatured parliamentary sovereignty.

7/27/2019 Critical Analysi of Glorius Revolution

3/3