Changes

: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 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.

Many historians have endorsed Burke's view, including Macaulay (1848) and more recently John Morrill, who captured the consensus of contemporary historiography well when he declared that "the Sensible Revolution of 1688—89 was a conservative Revolution." On the contrary, argues Pincus (2009), it was momentous, especially when looking at the alternative that James was trying to enact of a powerful centralized autocratic state.  England's role in Europe and the country's political economy in the 17th century refutes the view of many late-20th-century historians that nothing revolutionary occurred during the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Pincus says it was not a placid turn of events. In diplomacy and economics James II transformed the English state's ideology and policies. This occurred not because James II was an outsider who inflicted foreign notions on England but because foreign affairs and political economy were at the core of the English revolutionaries' agenda. The revolution of 1688-89 cannot be fathomed in isolation. It would have been inconceivable without the transformations resulting from the events of the 1640s and 1650s. Indeed, the ideas accompanying the Glorious Revolution were rooted in the mid-century upheavals. Thus, the 17th century was a century of revolution in England, deserving of the same scholarly attention that 'modern' revolutions attract.  

Many historians have endorsed Burke's view, including Macaulay (1848) and more recently John Morrill, who captured the consensus of contemporary historiography well when he declared that "the Sensible Revolution of 1688—89 was a conservative Revolution." On the contrary, argues Pincus (2009), it was momentous, especially when looking at the alternative that James was trying to enact of a powerful centralized autocratic state.  England's role in Europe and the country's political economy in the 17th century refutes the view of many late-20th century historians that nothing revolutionary occurred during the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Pincus says it was not a placid turn of events. In diplomacy and economics James II transformed the English state's ideology and policies. This occurred not because James II was an outsider who inflicted foreign notions on England but because foreign affairs and political economy were at the core of the English revolutionaries' agenda. The revolution of 1688-89 cannot be fathomed in isolation. It would have been inconceivable without the transformations resulting from the events of the 1640s and 1650s. Indeed, the ideas accompanying the Glorious Revolution were rooted in the mid-century upheavals. Thus, the 17th century was a century of revolution in England, deserving of the same scholarly attention that 'modern' revolutions attract.  

James II was building a powerful militarized state on the assumption that the world's wealth was necessarily finite, and empires were created by taking land from another state. The [[East India Company]] was thus an ideal tool to create a vast new English imperial dominion by warring with the Dutch and the Mogul Empire in India. After 1689 came an alternative understanding of economics, which saw Britain as a commercial rather than an agrarian society. The proponents of this view, most famously [[Adam Smith]] in 1776, realized that wealth was created by human endeavor and thus potentially infinite.  

James II was building a powerful militarized state on the assumption that the world's wealth was necessarily finite, and empires were created by taking land from another state. The [[East India Company]] was thus an ideal tool to create a vast new English imperial dominion by warring with the Dutch and the Mogul Empire in India. After 1689 came an alternative understanding of economics, which saw Britain as a commercial rather than an agrarian society. The proponents of this view, most famously [[Adam Smith]] in 1776, realized that wealth was created by human endeavor and thus potentially infinite.