Must I Not Be Believed; E. C. Beisner

"Must I Not Be Believed?" by E. Calvin Beisner I t was mid-November 1688. King James II of England, heir to his father's and grand father's beliefs in royal absolutism, was des perate. Nobles and gentry of his kingdom had invited his son-in-law Prince William of Orange to intervene for the preservation of a free parliament and the Protestant religion. James was meeting with a group of bishops of the Church of England. It was his last chance to influence these clerics, and they were the last men who might possibly persuade the English people to support James against William, who with a force of 15,000 men had just landed at Torbay. All the king asked of the bishops was that they make a public statement that, contrary to William's declaration, they had not taken part in the invitation to William. (In fact, one of them had.) But the bishops refused on the grounds that the declaration alleged to be William's might be a forgery and that even if it were genuine, it was unfair to press them alone to disavow it, since that would raise sus picions that they were uniquely suspect. King James was beside himself. "Must I not be believed?" he asked in frustration. He desper ately needed his people to believe that William had no support among the country's leaders.

Calvin Beisner is associate professor ofinterdiscipli nary studies at Covenant College in Lookout Moun tain, Georgia, and is completing a Ph.D. in late seventeenth-century British history and political thought. 10 One of the bishops suggested that since they already had denied to him privately any involvement in the invitation to William, James could simply report that denial pub licly. "No!" cried the king. "If I should pub lish it, the people would not believe me!" Credibility Lost That was precisely the point. James had lost credibility with his people for two reasons. First, he had been caught in manifest lies time after time. Second, he had declared himself above the law, even packing a court to ensure that it would rule that "the laws of England are the laws of the King of England .... [T]he king of England or any sovereign prince upon urgent occasions & necessities may dispense with any penal laws of their dominion. . . .

[T]he king is sole judge of the necessities & urgency of these occasions upon which they may dispense with the laws.... [T]he king's power is in himself independent of any & not entrusted of any & not entrusted to them from the people of England." Now, with William's invasion, James more than anything else needed credibility. The sur vival of his reign depended on it. His troops' willingness to fight for his reign depended on it. Lacking it, he watched as regiment after regiment of the army, ship after ship of the navy, either simply refused to fight or actual ly changed allegiance and joined William. Within a month, and with hardly a battle fought, James-who had begun with superior forces-found himself stripped of all ability to defend himself and his kingdom, and was forced to abdicate, fleeing to France. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 was brought on, and consummated, by the simple fact that the people of Great Britain did not trust their king.

When President Bill Clinton, one day before a scheduled House vote on impeach ment, ordered air attacks on Iraq, some Republican congressional leaders, like mil lions ofAmerican citizens, broke with the tra dition of supporting the president in foreign military action and clearly spoke their own incredulity at both the policy and its timing. Nothing Clinton could say could eliminate the doubts. Why? 11 Because, like King James II, President Clin ton had lost his credibility. Repeated lies, even under oath, and his attempts to use "executive privilege" to shield himself from the normal application of the laws had combined to demonstrate that he was not-and is not-to be trusted. That is why it is tragic that the impeachment process was not permitted to end in a bona fide trial. Such a trial, unlike the sham proceedings that took place, was neces sary to either exonerate the president of the charges against him and restore his credibility or to convict him and remove him from office so that a new president can govern with credi bility. As it turned out, we are left with a pres ident crippled by his own dishonesty-and a nation potentially crippled along with him. D Annual TrusteesDinner • May 16, 1999 at the Tarrytown Hilton, Tarrytown, New York featuring WALTER E. WILLIAMS John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University Columnist, The Freeman For more information and reservations, please contact Janette Brown at FEE: (800) 452-3518.