s brother «s death in 1685. The Tories and Anglican were delighted, but not for long. James had already shown his dislike of Protestants while he had been Charles »s governor in Scotland. This period is still remembered in some parts of Scotland as the «killing times». James then tried to remove the laws which stopped Catholics from taking positions in government and Parliament. He also tried to bring back the Catholic Church, and allow it to exist beside the Anglican Church. But Parliament was very angry, particularly the Tories and Anglicans who had supported him against the Whigs.spite of their anger, Tories, Whigs and Anglicans did nothing because they could look forward to the succession of James «s daughter, Mary. Mary was Protestant and married to the Protestant ruler of Holland, William of Orange. But this hope was destroyed with the news in June 1688 that James »s son had been born. The Tories and Anglicans now joined the Whigs in looking for a Protestant rescue. In June 1688 an invitation was sent by the whig-and-tory alliance to William of Orange to invade Britain.was a dangerous thing for him to do, but he was already at war with France and he needed the help of Britain «s wealth and armed forces. At this important moment James »s determination failed him. It seemed he actually had some kind of mental breakdown. His adherents deserted to the side of William. James was left without the army support and in December 1688 he left for France. William entered London, but the crown was offered only to Mary. William said he would leave Britain unless he also became king. Parliament had no choice but to offer the crown to both William and Mary., While William had obtained the crown, Parliament had also won an important point. After he had fled from England, Parliament had decided that James II had lost his right to the crown. It gave as its reason that he had tried to undermine «the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between King and People». [4, pp.94-95] fact that Parliament made William king, not by inheritance but by their choice, was revolutionary. The easy and comparatively bloodless change was called «The Glorious Revolution» by bourgeois historians. It was naturally not a revolution but a change of government. Now the supreme power belonged to Parliament where the House of Lords was important again; the democratic movement was suppressed and the king was obedient. A special Convention that assumed the rank of Parliament met to draw up a Declaration of Rights where the principles of the Great Charter were repeated in a modernized form. Though the king «s power was unchallenged in every other respect, he was practically deprived of any power over the army and court of law. He was not supposed to repeal laws or break them, neither was he entitled to any financial liberty. The Parliament was to meet regularly every three years.so called «Glorious Revolution» was actually a culmination of the compromise between the top layers of the bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy. The old seemingly preserved institutions of monarchy, the royal court, the House of Lords and other feudal-born and feudal-shaped affairs had a new substance in them. It was no longer feudal monarchy, it was bourgeois monarchy. Though it was the aristocracy that retained the titles, honours and posts, the country was to be run in the interests of both «upper-dog» classes. The «Bill of Rights» of 1689 ...
