108 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [part It 
from being sued, and would afford an answer to the action, 
not only in the courts of the Colony, but in all courts: 
and therefore it would seem to be a consequence of the 
decision in Hill v. Bigge that the question of personal 
privilege cannot practically arise, being merged in the 
larger one, whether the facts pleaded show that the acts com- 
plained of were really such acts of State as are not cognizable 
by any municipal court. 
In the case of the Nabob of the Carnatic v. the East India 
Company,! Lord Thurlow said, that a plea pleaded in form 
to the jurisdiction of the court, but which denied the juris- 
diction of all courts over the matter, was absurd ; and that 
such a plea, if it meant anything, was a plea in bar. 
In their Lordships’ view, therefore, this plea, if it can 
be supported, must be sustained on the ground mainly relied 
upon by the Attorney-General, viz., that it discloses in 
substance a defence to the action. 
Before adverting to the sufficiency of the averments in 
this plea, it will be convenient to refer to some decisions 
in which the position of governors of colonies has been 
considered. In the leading case of Fabrigas v. Mostyn, the 
action was brought against Mr. Mostyn, the Governor of 
Minorca, for imprisoning the plaintiff, and removing him by 
force from that island. The Governor's special plea of 
justification alleged that he was invested with all the powers, 
civil and military, belonging to the government of the 
island, that the plaintiff was guilty of a riot, and was endea- 
vouring to raise a mutiny among the inhabitants, in breach 
of the peace, and that in order to preserve the peace and 
government of the island he was forced to banish the 
plaintiff from it. It then averred that the acts complained 
of were necessary for this object, and were done without 
andue violence. Upon the trial the Governor failed to prove 
this plea, and the plaintiff had a verdict. When the case 
came before the Court of Queen’s Bench, upon a bill of 
exceptions to the ruling of the judge, Lord Mansfield said 
his great difficulty had been, after two arguments, to be 
able clearly to comprehend what the question was that was 
meant seriously to be argued. It seems, however, that the 
liability of the Governor to be sued was raised, and very 
fully discussed, one ground of objection being that he could 
not be sued in England for an act done in a country beyond 
the seas, and upon this question Lord Mansfield declared 
that the action would, to use his own phrase, ‘ most em- 
1 Ves. Jr. 388.