II. Besides the attribute of ſovereignty, the law alſo aſcribes to the king, in his political capacity, abſolute perfection. The king can do no wrong. Which antient and fundamental maxim is not to be underſtood, as if every thing tranſacted by the government was of courſe juſt and lawful, but means only two things. Firſt, that whatever is exceptionable in the conduct of public affairs is not to be imputed to the king, nor is he anſwerable for it perſonally to his people: for this doctrine would totally deſtroy that conſtitutional independence of the crown, which is neceſſary for the balance of power, in our free and active, and therefore compounded, conſtitution. And, ſecondly, it means that the prerogative of the crown extends not to do any injury: it is created for the benefit of the people, and therefore cannot be exerted to their prejudice[1].
The king, moreover, is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: he can never mean to do an improper thing: in him is no folly or weakneſs. And therefore, if the crown ſhould be induced to grant any franchiſe or privilege to a ſubject contrary to reaſon, or in any wiſe prejudicial to the commonwealth, or a private perſon, the law will not ſuppoſe the king to have meant either an unwiſe or an injurious action, but declares that the king was deceived in his grant; and thereupon ſuch grant is rendered void, merely upon the foundation of fraud and deception, either by or upon thoſe agents, whom the crown has thought proper to employ. For the law will not caſt an imputation on that magiſtrate whom it entruſts with the executive power, as if he was capable of intentionally diſregarding his truſt: but attributes to mere impoſition (to which the moſt perfect of ſublunary beings muſt ſtill continue liable) thoſe little inadvertencies, which, if charged on the will of the prince, might leſſen him in the eyes of his ſubjects.
- ↑ Plowd. 487.
