Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

112 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [part II by Lord Kingsdown in giving the judgment of the Committee: —° What is the real character of the act done in this case ? Was it a seizure by arbitrary power on behalf of the Crown of Great Britain of the dominion and property of a neigh- bouring State, an act not affecting to justify itself on the grounds of municipal law, or was it in whole or in part a possession taken by the Crown under colour of legal title of the property of the late Rajah, in trust for those who by law might be entitled to it ? If it were the latter, the defence set up, of course, has no foundation.” This Committee, in deciding the questions thus raised, held that the seizure was of the former character, and therefore not cognizable by a municipal court. The answer of the East India Company in this case did not rest on the simple assertion that the seizure was an act of State, but set out the circumstances under which the Rajah’s property was taken. After referring to the treaties made with the Rajah, it averred that in entering into those treaties, and in treating the sovereignty and territories of Tanjore as lapsed to the East India Com- pany in trust for the Crown, the Company acted in their public political capacity, and in exercise of the powers (referring at length to them) committed to them in trust for the Crown of Great Britain, and that all the acts set forth in the answer ‘ were acts and matters of State’. In the case of Forester and others v. the Secretary of State for India, in which the judgment of this Committee was delivered on the 11th May 1872, a defence of the same nature as that in the last-mentioned case was set up; but the decision there was on this point against the Secretary of State. In this suit also the answer set out the facts which were relied on to show that the action of the Government complained of was a political act of State. As far as their Lordships are aware, it will be found that in all the suits brought against the Government of India, whether in this country or in India, the pleas and answers of the Government have shown, with more or less particu- larity, the nature and character of the acts complained of, and the grounds on which, as being political acts of the sovereign power, they were not cognizable by the courts. None of these cases help the present plea. On the con- trary, it appears from them not only that the facts were laid before the courts, but that the courts entertained jurisdiction to inquire into the nature of the acts complained of, and it was only when it was established that they bore the character of political acts of State that it was decided they could not

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation