82 
HISTORY OF THE [book iii. 
ed in him ; but it is vested in him like every other power 
■with which he is intrusted by the British constitution, to be 
exercised according to the usage which has prevailed in like 
cases. If that power should be abused, his officers and 
ministers must answer to the public for their misconduct. 
/ 
For the same reason I deny, that “ the king can put the 
inhabitants of a conquered country to the sword, or other¬ 
wise exterminate them,” unless such severity be fully justi¬ 
fied by the laws of war, as they are understood amongst 
civilized nations. 
But, supposing that a case should happen wherein such 
severity would be justifiable, I deny that, upon the exter¬ 
mination of the enemy, the lands would belong to the king 
himself: 1 say thev would belong to the state; and that 
they would be subjec', not merely to the king, but to the 
sovereign power which governs the British dominions. If 
the king receives the inhabitants under his protection, and 
grants them their property, I deny that he has powmr to fix 
such terms and conditions as he thinks proper; for he can¬ 
not reserve to himself in his individual capacity, legislative 
power over them: that wmuld be to exc ude the authority 
of the British legislature from the government of a country 
subdued by British forces, and would be an attempt to erect 
imperium in imperio. One consequence of this would 
be, that such conquered territory might descend to an 
heir of the king not qualified, according to the act of settle¬ 
ment, to succeed to the crown of Great Britain. The king 
might give it to a younger son, or bestow it on a stranger. 
A thousand other absurd consequences might be pointed 
out, as resulting from such incongruity. 
I admit that the king (subject to the responsibility of his 
ministers) may yield up a conquest, or retain it, as he sees 
best: but I deny, for the reasons above hinted at, that he 
