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