Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 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, a reaffirmation of the liberties of the English people.

However, this interpretation of the Glorious Revolution has not gone unchallenged, as it is 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 Lucile Pinkham, William and the Respectable Revolution, it is stated as a respectable revolution involving just the ruling classes and leaving the monarchy in most respects unaltered, hardly a proper revolution at all. Russian historian, Viktor F Semenov, regarded it as a mere coup dtat in its conservatism, its bloodlessness and its legalism. This Marxist interpretation is given some weight by the fact that (for example) a point-by-point analysis of the Bill of Rights does reveal that in several aspects it is indeed a conservative document.

It is quite tempting to see the events of 1688 as a mere codicil to the interregnum, a period between Charles II & William III, of no major importance in themselves. But, this is misleading. The civil wars cannot be regarded as finally settling England's political future as a parliamentary monarchy. Neither, of course, can the Glorious Revolution of 1688. However, before 1688 it is possible to 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.

The momentous consequences of Glorious revolution are seen with hindsight by some historians. For instance, J Western, in his book , Monarch and Revolution 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 accession of James the second, 1849-61 argued that because England had had a preserving revolution in the seventeenth century she had been spared a destroying revolution in the nineteenth. I second this opinion An irony of the Glorious Revolution is that monarchs who accepted constitutional constraints gained more resources than their absolutist forebears as Parliament after the Glorious Revolution generously financed wars for monarchs who abided by the constitution. From Economic point of view: The fact that interest rates did not fall discontinuously after 1688 demonstrates that 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 1688 meant that The Glorious Revolution had an immediate negative effect on economic growth and that 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 his firm stand for his beliefs, the Catholicism, the root cause of the Glorious revolution. 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 English Speaking People.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I would say that the Revolution was not important because it led to a balance of power between the legislature and executive or because it led to stability or a small state. Rather, the Revolution was important because the new political equilibrium featured parliamentary sovereignty.