Can someone me quick
compare relations between parliament and king james ii to parliament’s relationship to king james i.

At first, James I established quite acceptable relations with the first parliament of 1604–1610. But the Crown’s ever-increasing need for money and James I’s persistent desire to subordinate parliament to his power constituted a serious threat to this cooperation. Members of the House of Commons were particularly acutely displeased. They boycotted the plans of James I to unite England and Scotland, as well as the Great Contract. The parliamentarians defended their rights: for example, in 1604, the king objected to the election of Francis Goodwin, a very dubious person, to parliament. Members of the House of Commons forced James to accept this appointment, thereby creating an important precedent for resolving controversial issues in parliamentary elections. The second parliament was even less successful. It did not last long and did not actually adopt a single law, for which it received the name "Spoiled". After its dissolution in 1614, the king until 1621 preferred to rule without parliament.

James II was an active and powerful man, but too straightforward. He did not like parliament and clearly showed a penchant for Catholicism. After suppressing the revolt of his half-brother James Crofts in 1685, he further increased the army, mainly due to Catholic officers from Scotland and Ireland. Soon, Catholics again gained the right to hold public office and head departments in universities. In 1687 and 1688 declarations of tolerance were issued, which, however, exacerbated the situation. The bishops who opposed them were imprisoned in the Tower. Parliament, which tried in response to the king’s abuses to strip it of subsidies, was dissolved.

Explanation:

well the unjest treatment and discrimination did get faced by the idians and soldiers

explanation:

the atm that sounds like it should be the answer