the safety and excellence of which consists in each constituent part retaining its own nature, and place.

P. Have you not observed two or three vulgar errors in general conversation concerning the British constitution?

G. I am not aware of them at present.

P. You have heard people talk in the highest strains of our excellent constitution, our perfect constitution.

G. I have.

P. Ought we not to distinguish between absolute and comparative perfection. The British constitution has a comparative perfection, for compared with other governments it is the best: but as some things are incorporated in it, which are not congenial to its nature, it has not absolute perfection, for it is capable of improvement. I could mention a few instances.

G. I believe so.

P. Have you not also heard people talk at large about framing our excellent constitution, as if all our ancestors met in one large plain at one time, and all cool, deliberate and disinterested, formed the present system of government? Others again talk as if all our immunities proceeded from the condescension and benevolence of our princes. Both sorts discover gross ignorance. Our constitution, like our language, is a fineness produced by the friction of contending interests, and we bught to ascribe the delicacy and elegance of it to providence working by time, and a course of events.

T

G. So I think indeed.

P. Have not you seen enthusiasts to the wis dom of our ancestors? The wisdom of our ancestors renounced paganism: but it was their folly, that established popery. The wisdom of our ancestors built houses: but it was the folly of the lords of castles, that made dens and dungeons in them. The wisdom of our ancestors induced them to travel but it was the wisdom of the moderns, that made good roads.

G. We are then to suppose that our ancestors, like other peoples ancestors, had some wisdom, and some folly, or some weakness, that could not give their wisdom effect,

P, You say right. It would not be fair in our successors to judge of our political wisdom by our actions, for we know many good things which we have no power to bring to pass: but which future and happier ages will congratulate themselves for discovering, only because they can reduce their knowledge to practice.

G. I heard a gentleman say, one day, that he considered the whole duration of the world as seventy, the usual duration of the life of man.

P. And what age did he say the world had now attained?

G. About sixteen.

P. I hardly think so much, for, like little boys, we have not left off fighting yet. However, it will soon be over with us, let us live happy while we are in it.

WEDNESDAY.

ADMINISTRATION.

P. HITHERTO, George, we have endeayoured to select our words, and to affix precise ideas to them, that we might know what we were talking about. Will you not smile when I tell you to day we are going to speak of one thing under a term that stands for another? We are going to examine the king's prerogative, and we examine it under the word. Administration, which means the substitutes of the king, or, more strictly, the under servants of the people.

G. I shall suspend my observation, Sir, till you explain yourself.

P. I think it necessary, even in a rude sketch of our government, to examine the prerogatives of that one royal person, with whom the wisdom and virtue of our constitution have lodged that immense trust, the sole executive power. And I think it constitutional to examine these in the light of Administration, because, by a supposition of law, for the prudent prevention of many inconveniences, and for the actual production of many

noble effects, the king, in his political capacity, is always supposed a perfect being who can do no wrong, and his ministers are supposed to advise and be answerable for every act of royalty, subject to remonstrance and complaint.

G. I see the reason of all this; and I suppose you will enlarge on this under the article of Responsibility.

P. I intend to do so. At present let us confine ourselves to prerogative.

G. What is prerogative in general, Sir?

P. Pre-eminence, and regal prerogative in particular, is the pre-eminence of the king over and above all other persons.

G. Wherein does it consist?

P. Constitutionally in three articles, dignity, power, and revenue; to which I add a fourth, greater than all the three, which comes to pass eventually, and that is influence.

G. What is royal dignity, Sir, which you call the first prerogative?

P. It is the possession of certain attributes or perfections, essential to that respect, which ought to be paid to the supreme executive power. More explicitly, the law ascribes to the king sovereignty, perfection of action and thought-immortality and ubiquity.

G. It is impossible the most exalted of human beings should possess these attributes.

P. All the world allow this: but these are suppositions of law, and are incorporated into our

constitution for several noble purposes, all beneficial to society.

G. This is then the dignity, or the majesty of our kings. What is the second prerogative, power? P. This, strictly speaking, is the executive part of our constitution, and it consists in a great variety of exertions, of which a slight arrangement will enable you to form some idea. You know this kingdom hath some connections with other

states.

G. And I suppose the king has the power of receiving and sending ambassadors, residents, and consuls ?

P. He has.

G. Has his majesty also the power of making treaties, leagues, and alliances ?

P. He has, both with princes and states.
G. May he also make war and peace?

P. Both; and in these are included the power of granting letters of marque to individuals to distress the enemy, and of safe-conducts and passports.

G. This is a great trust.

P. A greater than it may at first is executed by ministers of state. to domestic affairs.

appear; but it

Let us go on

G. That is to exertions of power at home. What are they, Sir?

P. The king, you know, is one constituent part of legislative power.

G. Yes.