8i6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Portuguese, but where in each case the marriage occurred in England.^^ To say that the residence of the defendant gives Jurisdiction for annuhnent is opposed to the reasoning above and seems hard to explain. Dicey takes the statement from Westlake. In the cases which Westlake dtes,^^ the judges are trying to establish that resi- dence as something less than domicile is sufficient to found the suit. In Roberts v. Brennan a decree of nullity was pronounced when the marriage had taken place in the Isle of Man, and respond- ent was domiciled, and served iu Ireland. This case (which was undefended) does'not seem to carry out the part of the rule requiring residence of the respondent, nor was the petitioner resident in England so far as the facts reported show. It will be remembered that the English Matrimonial Causes Act^^ vested in the royal courts all jurisdiction then vested in the ecclesiastical courts in respect to suits of nullity and other matters matrimonial. As pointed out by James, L. J., in the Niboyet case, the jurisdiction of the courts Christian was one over persons who by baptism became members of the church. Residence in the diocese, as dis- tinguished (from mere temporary presence was required to make one amenable to the orders of the spiritual authorities there, but nationality and domicile were not concerned. Furthermore, the diocese and the state were not necessarily coterminous. The Channel Islands, which are no part of England, the learned judge observes, are in the diocese of Winchester, and the Isle of Man is in the province of York; and many similar cases might be found on the Continent. Jurisdiction for divorce in England is based on domicile.^" This was not expressly required by the statute giving the court power to decree divorce, but with no precedents in ecclesiastical law to affect the question, the matter was decided on general principles. In the question of aimulment, as in case of judicial separation,^^ ecclesiastical rules obtrude. Requirement of residence of a defend- ant might conceivably be treated as an additional municipal require- " Accord Brett, L. J., in Niboyet v. Niboyet, 4 P. D. i, 18 (1878), and Sproule v. Hopkins, [1903] 2 Ir. 133. See also Bater v. Bater, [1906] P. 209, 220. « Niboyet v. Niboyet, 4 P. D. i, 9 (1878); Roberts v. Brennan, [1902] P. 143. " 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, § 6. " Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, [1895] A. C. 517. » See Armytage v. Armytage, [1898] P. 178.
