count. For prerogative conſiſting (as Mr Locke[1] has well defined it) in the diſcretionary power of acting for the public good, where the poſitive laws are ſilent, if that diſcretionary power be abuſed to the public detriment, ſuch prerogative is exerted in an unconſtitutional manner. Thus the king may make a treaty with a foreign ſtate, which ſhall irrevocably bind the nation; and yet, when ſuch treaties have been judged pernicious, impeachments have purſued thoſe miniſters, by whoſe agency or advice they were concluded.
The prerogatives of the crown (in the ſenſe under which we are now conſidering them) reſpect either this nation’s intercourſe with foreign nations, or it’s own domeſtic government and civil polity.
With regard to foreign concerns, the king is the delegate or repreſentative of his people. It is impoſſible that the individuals of a ſtate, in their collective capacity, can tranſact the affairs of that ſtate with another community equally numerous as themſelves. Unanimity muſt be wanting to their meaſures, and ſtrength to the execution of their counſels. In the king therefore, as in a center, all the rays of his people are united, and form by that union a conſiſtency, ſplendor, and power, that make him feared and reſpected by foreign potentates; who would ſcruple to enter into any engagement, that muſt afterwards be reviſed and ratified by a popular aſſembly. What is done by the royal authority, with regard to foreign powers, is the act of the whole nation: what is done without the king’s concurrence is the act only of private men. And ſo far is this point carried by our law, that it hath been held[2], that ſhould all the ſubjects of England make war with a king in league with the king of England, without the royal aſſent, ſuch war is no breach of the league. And, by the ſtatute 2 Hen. V. c. 6. any ſubject committing acts of hoſtility upon any nation in league with the king, was declared to be guilty of high treaſon: and, though that act was repealed by the
- ↑ on Gov. 2. §. 166.
- ↑ 4 Inſt. 152.
