1805. The KING JOHNSON. laws of Ireland before the union; and if not, the converse cannot hold good. There are some general rights common to both countries, such as that the people of either country may hold lands in the other, and have all the privileges of natural-born subjects; but these arise out of the allegiance due from both to the same king and crown; which is very different from owing obedience to the same laws,-a distinction which runs throughout Calvin's case; and as there is no pretence for saying that a Scotchman residing in Scotland is bound by the law of England, so neither is an Irishman residing in Ireland. The cases of Rer v. Bowes and Others, and Rer v. Brisac, were mere questions of venue; there was no dispute there but that the defendants were bound by the Jaw of England, but only whether the acts done by them. were sufficient to found a venue in Middlesex. Neither is this question affected by the precedents for trials of foreign treasons, committed by subjects of the king out of the realm. of England, which are regulated by statute. The objection, that every plea to the jurisdiction must point out some other court in which the trial may be had, can only apply to cases where the question of jurisdiction arises between one of other of the courts of England,-not where the objection is personal, and goes to all our courts. If a foreigner were upon his arrival in this country indicted for having, while residing abroad, directed the exportation of wool from hence, it would be sufficient for him to plead to the jurisdiction, [596 without shewing any court competent to try him in his own. country; which would be impossible, as the act charged would be no offence elsewhere than in England. Then, with respect to this being properly a defence under the general issue, it was resolved in the case of the Kinlochs (a), that the question of jurisdiction could not be raised upon the general issue. If, however, the law be only doubtful, the argument ab inconvenienti is very strong in this case; for as the law now stands, there is no process by which the defendant could compel his witnesses to attend here from Ireland; and even if a law were passed for that purpose, the expence would be ruinous. 1805. The KING against The Hon. ROBT. JOHNSON. 597] Abbott, in reply said, that the argument ab inconvenienti could not be admitted where the law was clear. That the principal arguments resolved themselves into an objec tion, that an Irishman was to be considered as an alien with respect to the laws of England, for which no authority had been or could be cited; for there was no character or privilege belonging to a subject of this country which did not belong to an Irishman, both at home and abroad. Then, if protection and obedience are co-relative, as the defendant has every protection and benefit which the law of England can bestow, he must owe obedience to that law. If an Irishman were libelled by a subject of this country, he would have his redress; but the law of Bugland would not punish an Englishman for libelling a foreigner residing abroad, except so far as it might be considered to be a stateoffence in interrupting the harmony between the two coun tries, if in amity with each other. And this is also a charge of a libel upon the king's administration of government.in Ireland. And in answer to the case of the Kinlochs, he observed, that Mr. Justice Foster (a) was finally of opinion that the prisoners might, if it had been well founded, have availed themselves of the objection to the jurisdiction, on the general plea of not guilty. Cur, adv. vult. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. This is an indictment charging the defendant with the publication of a libel at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex; to which the defendant has pleaded, that before and since the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland had been and yet is governed by its proper statutes and laws, and not by the statutes and laws of England; and that in Ireland there are courts competent for the trial of all offences committed by the natives of Ireland during their residence there. The plea then proceeds to state, that the defendant was born in Ireland, and that the writings in the indictment, called Libels, are concerning things which took place in Ireland after the 1st of November, 1802, whilst he the defend (a) Fost. Cr. L. 23. ant 1805. The KING against The Hon. ROBT. JOHNION. ant was the resident in Ireland; and concludes to the jurisdiction of the court. To this plea there is a demurrer, and a joinder in demurrer. And in support of the demurrer it is objected that the plea is bad, inasmuch as it does not shew any other court where the defendant may be tried for this offence and that it amounts but to an argumentative plea of not guilty. And in support of the objection to the manner in which this plea is framed, the Doctrina Placitanda, p. 234, a book of considerable authority on questions of pleading, and also what was said by Lord Mansfield in his judgment of the case of Fabrigas v. Moysten, in Cowper's Reports, 172, have been relied on, "that in every case to repel [598] the jurisdiction of the king's courts, you must shew a more prope and sufficient jurisdiction; for if there be no other mode of trial, that alone will give the king's courts a jurisdiction." And as to this, there can be no question but that such is the general form of pleading in civil suits. And in the pleas to the jurisdiction of this court, in the cases of Eliot, Holles, and Valentine, against whom an information was exhibited by the Attorney-General in K. B. in the reign of Car. 1, for words alleged to have been seditiously spoken in the House of Commons, there is an averment that the offences, if any, were committed in parliament, and ought to be there tried and determined. Vide Tremain, 298. So in the case of Kinlochs, Foster, 17, which was referred to in the argument, where it was charged in the indictment that the offence was committed at Fochabers, in Scotland, the prisoners in their plea to the jurisdiction of the court of oyer and terminer stated, that the offence with which they were charged was triable in the Court of Justiciary, or in some courts, or before other justices in Scotland. The necessity of thus pleading in general was not controverted by the defendant's counsel; he, however, endeavoured to support the plea by saying, that the objection to the indictment being the total want of any jurisdiction in. this part of the united kingdom to try the defendant at all, it was impossible and unnecessary to state such other court or place of trial. This admission, in our opinion, clearly goes to shew that this plea is bad; for if that cannot be done in this case, which is required to be done in all pleas to the jurisdiction, the consequence will be, that the matter Hh4 of of this plea is not proper to oust this court of its jurisdiction to try an offence committed in the county where it sits, but is matter to be taken advantage of either by * plea in bar, or by evidence on the plea of not guilty. It will be recollected that the plea in question admits the commission of that crime which is charged in the indictment to have been committed in the city of Westminster; and the proposition which the defendant's counsel has contended for is in effect this--Admitting the defendant to have committed a crime as to the laws of England in the county of Middlesex, I still insist that he is not punishable for it by any court of this part of the united kingdom; though I cannot shew that he is punishable by any other. The stating of such a proposition carries almost on the face of it its own refutation, even without the conclusive authority of Lord Mansfield on that point, as already stated from Cowp. 172: to which may be added Lord Hardwicke's very decisive and peremptory opinion on the general subject in 1 Vesey, 202, and 2 Vesey, 357. In the first of these cases, which was that of The Earl of Derby v. The Duke of Athol, in 1748, a bill was filed for a discovery concerning the general title of the Isle of Man, and for relief relating to the rectories and tithes within that island. "The defendant pleaded in general to the jurisdiction of the Court, that the Isle of Man was an ancient kingdom not part of the realm, though belong, ing to the crown of Great Britain, and that no lands, &c. there ought to be tried or examined into here; and demanding judgment whether he should be put to further answer. Lord Chancellor. This comes to be of great consequence to all the courts in England. There are two general questions on this plea; first, Whether the plea be good in point of form; not a trifling form; for if the objection thereto on the part of the plaintiff be right, it is material to the nature of such a plea. Secondly, Whether good in substance? As to the first, it is objected for the plaintiff, that although it be shewn in the negative, and alleged that this court has no jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, and that it is not to be tried here, yet it is not shewn in the affirmative, what other court has jurisdiction, or that there are any courts in the Isle of Man holding plea thereof: and the rule is insisted on, that whoever pleads to the jurisdiction of one of the king's supe 1805. The KING against ROBT. rior courts of general jurisdiction, must shew what other court has jurisdiction. I am of that opinion; and that for the want thereof the plea'is bad, and ought not be to allowed, if nothing more be in the case; as it is expressly laid down in The Hon. 2 H. 7, 17, a, and Doctrina Placitanda, 234, and is agreeable to the general rule of pleas of this sort; as in the pleas of abatement, wherein it must be shewn that theplaintiff may have a better writ. The reason of this is, that in suing for his right a person is not to be sent everywhere to look for a jurisdiction, but must be told what other court has jurisdiction, or what other writ is proper for him: and this is a matter of which the court where the action is brought is to judge. There are not many authorities on this head; but in the old books of entries the form of pleading is so; and the opinion of Popham, C J. in Yel. 15, and Fitz. Ab. tit. Jurisdiction concerning Wales: and although Lord Vaughan may have denied that to be law, he was a very strong Welchman, as appears through his argument; in which there is a great deal of good and useful learning; yet it never was delivered, though intended to be so. It it said to this, that the Court ought in this case to take notice of what is the jurisdiction; that the matter of fact is shewn: and it is likened to the case of inferior courts, wherein it is sufficient for the defendant to plead that the cause of action arose out of the jurisdiction of that court. But I cannot put this (which is a superior court of general jurisdiction, in whose favour the presumption will be, that nothing shall be intended to be out of its jurisdiction which is not alleged and shewn to be so) upon a level with an inferior court of a limited local jurisdiction, within whose jurisdiction nothing shall be intended to be which is not alleged to be so. 1 Saund. 74. I was desirous to be informed how the pleas were in this court, which are looser than at law; and no case has been cited in which the plea to the jurisdiction of this court has not given jurisdiction to another, as to a visitor," &c. And afterwards, in The Bishop of Sodor and Man v. The Earl of Derby, 2 Ves. 357, Lord Hardwicke, speaking of the plea to the jurisdiction in the former case, and of the grounds on which he had over-ruled it, says, "I would not be understood when I over-ruled the plea of the Duke [ 601 ] of t |