The Glorious Revolution
England's Revolution of 1688-89 has long been described as Glorious because it was not a Revolution. Edmund Burke set the tone for over two centuries of historiographical analysis when he proclaimed that ‘The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2003
|
| In: |
History compass
Year: 2003, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-6 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | England's Revolution of 1688-89 has long been described as Glorious because it was not a Revolution. Edmund Burke set the tone for over two centuries of historiographical analysis when he proclaimed that ‘The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty.’ The English were not creating a new regime, merely restoring the old one that had been distorted by the Catholic James II. ‘The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror,’ Burke concluded1. Thomas Babington Macaulay, writing two generations later, deployed his extensive historical learning to reach similar conclusions to his Whig precursor. The horrible ‘calamities’ of continental revolutions were averted in England because this ‘was a revolution strictly defensive, and had prescription and legitimacy on its side.’2‘To us who have lived in the year 1848,’ Macaulay argued, ‘it may seem almost an abuse of terms to call a proceeding, conducted with so much deliberation, with so much sobriety, and with such minute attention to prescriptive etiquette, by the terrible name of revolution.’3 Macaulay's great nephew George Macaulay Trevelyan reached very similar conclusions. Like Macaulay, Trevelyan insisted that in 1688-89 ‘there are no new ideas.’4 He interpreted the Revolution as ‘a victory of moderation.’5 Unsurprisingly, like both Burke and Macaulay, Trevelyan thought ‘the spirit of this strange Revolution was the opposite of revolutionary.’6 More recent scholarship has done much to refine the story. Excellent work has been done to demonstrate that James II was himself a sophisticated ruler, with an innovative but not unrealistic political agenda. While a devout catholic, James II was committed to religious toleration. James II's very modern attempt to survey the Parliamentary classes, and to pressure them into repealing the Test Act and Penal Laws, the bulwark of a coercive national church, had a real chance of success.7 Nevertheless, after surveying recent findings by historians, John Morrill has found little reason to dissent from Trevelyan's fundamental assessments, concluding that ‘the Sensible Revolution of 1688-89 was a conservative Revolution.’8 |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1478-0542 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: History compass
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/1478-0542.003 |
