miniſters, deſpotic power is in it's meridian, and wears a more dreadful aſpect.
A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majeſty, in the eye of the law, is always preſent in all his courts, though he cannot perſonally diſtribute juſtice[1]. His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. It is the regal office, and not the royal perſon, that is always preſent in court, always ready to undertake proſecutions, or pronounce judgment, for the benefit and protection of the ſubject. And from this ubiquity it follows, that the king can never be nonſuit[2]; for a nonſuit is the deſertion of the ſuit or action by the non-appearance of the plaintiff in court. For the ſame reaſon alſo, in the forms of legal proceedings, the king is not ſaid to appear by his attorney, as other men do; for he always appears in contemplation of law in his own proper perſon[3].
From the ſame original, of the king's being the fountain of juſtice, we may alſo deduce the prerogative of iſſuing proclamations, which is veſted in the king alone. Theſe proclamations have then a binding force, when (as ſir Edward Coke obſerves[4]) they are grounded upon and enforce the laws of the realm. For, though the making of laws is intirely the work of a diſtinct part, the legiſlative branch, of the ſovereign power, yet the manner, time, and circumſtances of putting thoſe laws in execution muſt frequently be left to the diſcretion of the executive magiſtrate. And therefore his conſtitutions or edicts, concerning theſe points, which we call proclamations, are binding upon the ſubject, where they do not either contradict the old laws, or tend to eſtabliſh new ones; but only enforce the execution of ſuch laws as are already in being, in ſuch manner as the king ſhall judge neceſſary. Thus the eſtabliſhed law is, that the king may prohibit any of his ſubjects from leaving the realm: a proclamation therefore forbidding this in general for three weeks, by laying an embargo
